Land Protection Plan

Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

North Dakota, South Dakota

September 2011

Prepared by

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

North Dakota Wetland Management Districts

South Dakota Wetland Management Districts

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region

Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

303 /236 8145

CITATION: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area. Lakewood, Colorado: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region. 169 p.

Contents

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

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

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

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

Project Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Public Review of and Comments on the Draft EA and LPP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Related Actions and Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Habitat Protection and the Easement Acquisition Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Conservation Easements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources ....................................................... 11

Physical Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Biological Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Socioeconomic Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Chapter 3—Threats to and Status of Resources ..................................................... 27

Threats to the Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Effects on the Physical Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Effects on the Biological Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Effects on Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Short-Term Use versus Long-Term Productivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Cumulative Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Chapter 4—Project Implementation ............................................................... 35

Land Protection Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Project Objectives and Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Protection Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Ecosystem Management and Landscape Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Sociocultural Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Public Involvement and Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

LPP Distribution and Availability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
IV Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Appendixes

A–List of Preparers and Reviewers ................................................................... 47

B–Species Lists ................................................................................... 49

C–Environmental Assessment ....................................................................... 65

D–Public Involvement .............................................................................. 109

E–Finding of No Significant Impact ................................................................... 143

F –Environmental Action Statement ................................................................... 147

G–Environmental Compliance Certificate ............................................................... 149

H–U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director’s Approval ..................................................... 153

I –Section 7 Biological Evaluation .................................................................... 157

Bibliography .................................................................................... 165

Figures

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

2. Map of the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area ...................................................... 4

3. Map of ecoregions in the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area ........................................... 12

4. Map of the North American breeding ranges of 27 grassland birds ........................................ 22

5. Chart of evaluation criteria for acquiring grassland conservation easements ................................ 40

6. Chart of evaluation criteria for acquiring wetland conservation easements .................................. 41

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

A. Map of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America [same as figure 1] .................................... 66

B. Map of the proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area [same as figure 2] ............................... 67

C. Map of ecoregions in the proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area [same as figure 3] .................... 79

D. Map of the North American breeding ranges of 27 grassland birds [same as figure 4] ......................... 89

E. Graphic of the elements of strategic habitat conservation [same as figure 7] ................................ 104

F. Chart of evaluation criteria for acquiring wetland conservation easements [same as figure 6] ................... 105

G. Chart of evaluation criteria for acquiring grassland conservation easements [same as figure 5] ................. 106

H. Graph of percentage of public scoping comments, by category, about the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area .... 139

Tables

1. Priority bird species of the Prairie Pothole Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2. Acquisition authorities of the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area (DGCA) and approval components. . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

A. Acquisition authorities of the proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area (DGCA) and approval components 

[same as table 2]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

B. Priority bird species of the Prairie Pothole Region [same as table 1]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Summary

The uniqueness of the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area lies in the millions of depressional wetlands that constitute one of the richest wetland 

systems on Earth—the Prairie Pothole Region. The 

prairie potholes and surrounding grasslands in this 

area of North Dakota and South Dakota are highly 

productive and support a myriad of wetland and 

grassland birds along with large numbers of spring 

and fall migrants. 

The “Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland 

Conservation Area” describes the management 

approach that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

will take in carrying out this easement program to 

protect prairie habitats. The plan is based on an 

environmental assessment, developed with public 

involvement, that documents the purpose, issues, 

alternatives, and analysis for the project. Now finalized, the plan contains goals, objectives, and operational considerations for the following management 

aspects: wildlife and associated habitats, easement 

priorities, public uses, interagency coordination, 

public outreach, and other operations.

The Prairie Pothole Region

Once vast grassland, the Prairie Pothole Region is 

now largely an agricultural system dominated by 

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

increasing the rate of habitat transformation—from 

an expansive mosaic of native prairie and wetland 

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

Although one of the most altered, the Prairie 

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

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

use is rapidly expanding into the remaining quality 

habitat for breeding birds. At the current rate of 

grassland conversion, an estimated one-half of the 

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

Dakota Grassland 

Conservation Area

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is establishing 

the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area in the 

eastern parts of North Dakota and South Dakota, 

which cover all counties north and east of the Missouri River except those in the existing Dakota 

Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area. The 

Service will conserve wetland and grassland resources in the project area primarily through the 

purchase of perpetual easements from willing sellThe prairie potholes and surrounding grasslands are highly productive and support wetland and grassland birds along 

with many other animals.

Fowler Photography / USFWS
VI Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

ers. These wetland and grassland easements will 

connect and expand existing lands under conservation protection.

The area’s strong and vibrant rural lifestyle, of 

which agriculture is the dominant land use, is one 

of the key components to ensuring habitat integrity 

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

for the conservation area are to protect 240,000 

acres of wetland and 1.7 million acres of critical 

grassland habitat, within an overall boundary area of 

29.6 million acres.

Priorities

The Prairie Pothole Joint Venture, Partners in 

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

waterbirds, and 20 species of grassland birds.

The Service will set priorities for potential easements based on landscape evaluation models that 

identify the extent and location of grassland and 

wetland along with nesting areas of concentration 

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

be able to protect the most productive, remaining 

wetland and grassland habitats to help to conserve 

populations of priority species. Concurrently, the 

Service will engage the Plains and Prairie Potholes 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative (a recent initiative that reaches across broad landscapes and 

involves many partners).

Acquisition

To better protect wetland and grassland resources, 

the Service needs authority additional to the Small 

Wetlands Acquisition Program, which is authorized 

by the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Act (Federal Duck Stamps) to acquire perpetual easements in the project area.

With well over 800 landowners interested in selling wetland and grassland easements, the only thing 

restricting the Service from protecting more than 

300,000 acres on the waiting list is limited money. 

This project allows the purchase of critical wetland 

and grassland easements using Land and Water 

Conservation Fund money as an alternate funding 

source. In addition, the Service will use the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 

to purchase easements, as appropriate and available. 

The estimated cost for acquisition of the easements 

is about $588 million.

E

All land under wetland or grassland easement remains in private ownership. Property tax and land 

management, including control of noxious weeds and 

other invasive plants and trees, remain the responsibility of the landowner.

The easement contract will specify perpetual 

protection of habitat by restricting the conversion 

of wetland and grassland to other uses. Alteration 

of the natural topography, conversion of grassland 

to cropland or other uses, and draining, burning, 

filling, and leveling of protected wetlands will be 

prohibited. However, perpetual protection will not 

prohibit all activities. Protected wetland basins may 

be hayed or grazed without restriction and farmed 

when dry from natural conditions. Grassland easements will not restrict grazing in any way, and haying will be permitted after July 15 each year.

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

manual of “Administrative and Enforcement Procedures of Easements within the Prairie Pothole 

States.”

Green-winged teal is a migratory species that depends on 

wetlands in the Dakotas.

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS
Abbreviations

AFWA Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DGCA Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

EA Environmental assessment

Easement Manual “Administrative and Enforcement Procedures of 

 Easements within the Prairie Pothole States”

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

GAO Government Accountability Office

HAPET Habitat and Population Evaluation Team

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LCC Landscape conservation cooperative

LPP Land protection plan 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

MBCC Migratory Bird Conservation Commission

MBCF Migratory Bird Conservation Fund

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

NAWCA North American Wetland Conservation Act

NDGF North Dakota Game and Fish Department

NDGS North Dakota Geological Survey

NDOGC North Dakota Oil and Gas Commission

NDSHPO North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFHB National Fish Habitat Board

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

PPJV Prairie Pothole Joint Venture

PPR Prairie Pothole Region 

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

SDARC South Dakota State Historical Society Archeological 

 Research Center

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SHC Strategic habitat conservation

SWAP Small Wetlands Acquisition Program

U.S. United States

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Chapter 1–Introduction and 

Project Description

Prairie pothole habitat supports migratory birds like these mallards by providing the food and cover necessary to raise 

successful broods.

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS

A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) team (appendix A) conducted a planning process to establish 

an easement program for protecting prairie habitats in North Dakota and South Dakota. The team 

started with an analysis of the area’s habitats, species (appendix B), and issues. The analysis, including the sociocultural aspects, are documented in an 

environmental assessment (EA) (appendix C). 

Public involvement has been an integral part of 

the planning process (appendix D). After preparation and public review of the EA, the Service’s Region 6 Director selected alternative B of the EA to 

establish the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area 

(DGCA).

Appendix E contains the finding of no significant 

impact for the project. Other environmental compliance and approval documentation is included in this 

volume (appendixes F, G, H, and I). 

The purpose of the resulting “Land Protection 

Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area” is to 

describe the management approach that the Service 

will take in carrying out this easement program to 

protect prairie habitats. The land protection plan 

(LPP) contains goals, objectives, and operational 

considerations for the following management aspects: wildlife and associated habitats, easement 

priorities, public uses, interagency coordination, 

public outreach, and other operations.

Introduction

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

living organisms that interact with the environment) 

for its ability to produce and sustain tremendous 

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

of one of the largest wetland–grassland ecosystems 

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

acres of wetland existed in the Dakotas alone within 

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

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

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

drought for wildlife. Consequently, the abundance of 

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

Waterfowl Management Plan” identified the PPR as 

the continent’s top priority for waterfowl conservation (USFWS 1986).
2 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

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

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

to a recent audit by the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO 2007a). More specifically, in 2006, the 

States of North Dakota and South Dakota reported 

the conversion of approximately 68,000 acres of native prairie to cropland (GAO 2007a). Despite these 

reductions in wetland and grassland resources, millions of wetlands and large tracts of native prairie 

remain within the region.

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

the most important, migratory bird habitats in the 

Western Hemisphere. It is the backbone of North 

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

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

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

grassland birds (Peterjohn and Sauer 1999). The 

PPR was recognized as an important area in 1987 

with the establishment of the Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture (PPJV) to protect wetlands, waterfowl, and 

other wildlife. The PPJV committed to efforts to 

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

grassland habitats. The 2005 PPJV implementation 

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

acres of grassland—to meet the goals for waterfowl 

population size (Ringelman 2005).

The Service protects these resources under the 

authority of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Small Wetlands Acquisition 

Program), using monies from the sale of Federal 

Duck Stamps, through the North American Wetland 

Conservation Act (NAWCA), and from donations 
Chapter 1–Introduction and Project Description 3

from conservation groups. Over the past 48 years, 

the Service has purchased 95 percent of easements 

using Federal Duck Stamp dollars. At current budget levels, it would take the Service 150 years to 

protect the nearly 12 million acres identified in the 

“2005 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan” as critical for sustaining migratory bird 

populations (GAO 2007b). However, at the current 

rate of grassland conversion, an estimated one-half 

of the remaining native prairie in the PPR will be 

converted to other uses in only 34 years.

Project Description

The Service created the DGCA to accelerate the 

conservation of wetland and grassland habitat in 

the area (figure 2). The project area was selected 

using models developed by the Service’s Habitat 

and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET), located 

in Bismarck, North Dakota. The models identify 

the extent and location of wetlands and grasslands 

required to help meet the PPJV goals for migratory 

bird populations and the Small Wetland Acquisition Program (SWAP) objectives for habitat protection. HAPET developed the Service’s “Conservation 

Strategy” using models combined with decades of 

biological information from scientific studies of the 

spatial and temporal needs of nesting ducks in the 

PPR. The analysis was the basis for the resulting 

Conservation Strategy goal to protect an additional 

1.4 million acres of wetlands and 10 million acres 

of grassland in the PPJV boundary to support the 

current levels of breeding ducks. Specifically, these 

models show that protection of all wetland and 

grassland in areas that support more than 25 duck 

pairs per square mile plus a 1-mile buffer, referred 

to as the “priority zone,” meets the PPJV conservation goal of protecting adequate habitat to support 

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

Conservation Strategy.

The project area for the DGCA includes parts 

of North Dakota and South Dakota lying north and 

east of the Missouri River, except those parts of 

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

Wildlife Management Area, a grassland easement 

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

within the DGCA boundary is 29.6 million acres or 

46,267 square miles; the priority zone in this area 

covers 8.5 million acres.

The objectives for the DGCA are to conserve 

240,000 acres of wetland and 1.7 million acres of 

grassland. The wetland and grassland resources in 

the DGCA will be conserved primarily through the 

purchase of perpetual wetland and grassland conservation easements from willing sellers. All land under 

easement will remain in private ownership. Protected wetland basins may be hayed or grazed without restriction and farmed when dry from natural 

causes. However, wetland easements will prohibit 

the draining, burning, filling, or leveling of protected 

wetland. Grassland easements will not restrict grazing in any way, and haying will be permitted after 

July 15 each year. Conversion of these grasslands to 

crop production or other uses that destroy vegetation will be prohibited.

The cost for acquisition of easements in the 

DGCA is approximately $588 million. This project 

allows the purchase of critical wetland and grassland 

easements using money from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF) as an alternate funding 

source and the purchase authority of the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. In addition, the Service will 

continue to use Federal Duck Stamp and NAWCA 

monies as appropriate and available. At current 

acquisition rates, the goal for the project will be 

achieved within 30 years.

The Service has an established review process 

for evaluating requested uses on all current and 

future wetland and grassland easements in the prairie pothole States of Region 6 of the Service. This 

review process applies not only to easements bought 

under the DGCA project but also to those easements 

the Service had acquired earlier. The Service will 

fully describe and analyze easement evaluations and 

procedures for requested uses at a later date.

PurPose

The DGCA is part of a landscape-scale, strategic 

habitat conservation effort to protect a unique, 

highly diverse, and endangered ecosystem. This 

project will accelerate the protection of wetland 

and grassland habitats through the acquisition of 

wetland and grassland conservation easements on 

private land. It is widely recognized that the most 

effective technique for conserving the remaining 

wetland and grassland character of the project area 

is to work with private landowners on conservation 

matters of mutual concern (Higgins et al. 2002).

Historically, virtually no ecosystem in North 

America offered a landscape more conducive to 

rapid and widespread agricultural settlement than 

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

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

and grassland habitat for breeding birds. To better 

protect these resources, the Service needs money in 

addition to those sources currently available for acquiring perpetual wetland and grassland easements 
4 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Figure 2. Map of the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area.

State Boundary

County Boundary

Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area

Priority Grassland

>25 Duck Pairs Priority Zone
Chapter 1–Introduction and Project Description 5

in North Dakota and South Dakota. Given the diversity of plants and animals that rely on these habitat 

types, the ability of the project to protect wetland 

and grassland habitats in perpetuity is critical.

The purpose of the DGCA project is to provide 

for the long-term viability of the breeding waterfowl 

populations through the conservation of existing 

habitats while considering the needs of other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and 

other wildlife. To accomplish this purpose, the goals 

for the DGCA follow:

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

maintaining and enhancing the historical native 

plant, migratory bird, and other wildlife species.

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

fragmentation.

■ Conserve working landscapes based on ranching 

and livestock operations that support a viable 

livestock industry.

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

likelihood of future listings under the Endangered Species Act.

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

and associated prairie pothole wetlands through 

landscape-scale conservation.

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

■ Preserve the ecological function of these habitats 

by providing for floodwater retention, ground 

water recharge, carbon sequestration, improved 

water quality, and reduced soil and water erosion.

The DGCA project will follow the “road map”—

goals and objectives—in the PPJV for integrating 

the conservation of all migratory birds. The process 

involves “stepping down” the objectives of four international bird plans for waterfowl, shorebirds, 

waterbirds, and landbirds as they apply to the PPJV.

Monies from the Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act (Federal Duck Stamp) 

and the North American Wetlands Conservation 

Act have funded habitat protection under SWAP. 

The use of Federal Duck Stamp dollars requires 

approval by the State Governor, and the Service will 

continue to use this money for wetland and grassland easements in the State of South Dakota. In 

North Dakota, the State has established limits on 

the number of wetland acres in each county that 

can be protected with perpetual Service easements. 

Federal Duck Stamp dollars are not currently available in North Dakota to buy easements in several 

counties, because the acreage limits have been 

reached. 

Issues Identified and Selected 

for Analysis

The Service solicited comments about the DGCA 

from the public through direct mailings, news releases, public meetings, and direct contacts:

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

Dakota, and South Dakota and several major, 

daily newspapers in Minnesota and Iowa (refer to 

“Appendix D—Public Involvement”). This information was also posted to www.fws.gov/audubon/

dakotagrasslands.html, as well as the Service’s 

Facebook and Twitter profiles. Due to the holiday 

season, the Service extended the public scoping 

period by 2 weeks, until January 14, 2011 (appendix D); with this extension, there was a total of 45 

days for the public comment period.

■ The Service mailed a four-page fact sheet to 32 

Native American tribes and 1,275 individuals 

and organizations. In addition, 1,737 postcards 

were mailed out to individuals informing them of 

the project. Names on the mailing list came from 

prior Service projects where groups or individuals had expressed interest in the general area or 

in easement programs.

■ The Service conducted three scoping meetings on 

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

Dakota; Jamestown, North Dakota; and Huron, 

South Dakota; respectively. Public attendees at 

the three scoping meetings totaled 93 individuals.

■ A project Web site provided interested parties 

with updates and information about the project.

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

reflected concern about the loss of wetland and 

grassland and stated general support for the project, 

while comments against the project emphasized the 

need for easements of shorter duration, that is, not 

perpetual.
6 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

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

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

alternatives (appendix C, section 2), the planning 

team considered the following issues.

BiologicAl issues

■ Why is grassland protection an important issue?

■ Why is wetland protection an important issue?

■ How does the Service determine the goals for 

habitat protection?

S

■ How will these easements affect the local tax 

base?

■ How will these easements affect other property 

rights?

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

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

AdministrAtive And enforcement issues

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

■ How does the Service address requested uses on 

easement lands?

Public Review of and Comments 

on the Draft EA and LPP

The Service released the draft EA and LPP on June 

20, 2011, for a 30-day public review period. The draft 

documents were made available to Federal elected 

officials and agencies, State elected officials and 

agencies, 32 Native American tribes with aboriginal 

or tribal interests, and other members of the public 

that had been identified during the scoping process. 

In addition, two public meetings were held in Bismarck, North Dakota, and in Miller, South Dakota, 

on June 28 and 29, 2011, respectively. Approximately 

50 landowners, citizens, and elected representatives 

attended the meetings.

The Service received 10 letters from agencies, 

organizations, and other entities and received 347 

other comments from the public. After all comments 

were received, each was reviewed and incorporated into the administrative record; the Service 

responded to substantive comments and those comments requiring clarification (refer to appendix D).

Most comments received during the release of 

the draft EA and LPP were supportive in nature 

(more than 92 percent) and highlighted the following:

■ The importance of the PPR to a diverse wildlife 

population of primarily migratory waterfowl and 

grassland birds.

■ The need to protect important habitats in perpetuity for future generations.

■ The immediate threat of losing grassland and 

wetlands, both native and restored.

■ The fact that hundreds of landowners are currently waiting to sign easements in the Dakotas.

■ The secondary benefits of grasslands and wetlands such as clean water, flood control, carbon 

sequestration, and reduced impacts from climate 

change.

■ The strong support and matching funds (up to 

$50 million) from nongovernmental agencies.

■ The voluntary nature of conservation easements, 

and the benefits to the maintenance of working 

farms and ranches.

Comments of opposition (less than 7 percent) focused primarily on the following:

■ The perpetual nature of conservation easements 

and that future generations should not have decisions made for them.

■ The estimated project cost of $588 million during 

times of economic hardship.

■ The impacts to energy development and associated projects such as power lines.

■ That easements devalue the land and the surrounding properties.
Chapter 1–Introduction and Project Description 7

The marbled godwit is a priority shorebird that depends 

on grassland habitat.

USFWS

National Wildlife Refuge System 

and Authorities

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is to preserve a national network of 

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

their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans.

The DGCA project will be monitored as part of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) 

in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997, as well as other relevant legislation, Executive orders, regulations, and policies. Conservation 

of more wildlife habitat within the PPR of North Dakota and South Dakota will continue to be consistent 

with the following:

■ Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1956)

■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)

■ Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act (1934)

■ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)

■ North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

(1968)

■ Endangered Species Act (1973)

■ Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940)

■ Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)

■ “North American Waterfowl Management Plan” 

(2004)

■ “Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation 

Plan” (2005)

The basic considerations in acquiring an easement 

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

wildlife species of management concern, existing 

and anticipated threats to wildlife resources, and 

landowner interest in the program. It is the longestablished policy of the Service to acquire minimum 

interest in land from willing sellers to achieve habitat protection goals.

The acquisition authority for the DGCA project is the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 

742a–j). In response to comments received during 

the public review of the draft EA and LPP (appendix C), the Service has included the authority of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 

715–715d, 715e, 715f–r). The Federal money used to 

acquire conservation easements is from the LWCF 

(derived primarily from oil and gas leases on the 

Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel taxes, and 

the sale of surplus Federal property) and Federal 

Duck Stamps. There could be more money to acquire 

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

conservation easements from willing sellers will be 

subject to available money.

Related Actions and Activities

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

habitats in the general area of the DGCA.

D

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

acres of the remaining, native, tallgrass prairie 

within 32 counties in eastern South Dakota and 

southeastern North Dakota through the acquisition 
8 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

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

South Dakota. To date, this project has protected 

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

boundary and is also an element of the Conservation 

Strategy.

N

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

acquisition of perpetual grassland easements. This 

management area has goals similar to those for the 

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

does not afford conservation for critical wetlands 

and grasslands in North Dakota and South Dakota. 

The DGCA will absorb the North Dakota Wildlife 

Management Area.

N

Enacted in 1986, this international plan addresses 

declining waterfowl populations. The plan created 

the PPJV to coordinate conservation efforts in 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and 

Montana. Many PPJV projects are active within the 

DGCA project area and use funding partnerships 

with many entities including the following: private 

landowners; the Service; Ducks Unlimited; The 

A gadwall hen rests in a wetland.

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS

Nature Conservancy; Pheasants Forever; North 

Dakota Game and Fish Department; South Dakota 

Game, Fish and Parks; and several others.

M

This act approved in 1929 established the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC), 

which oversees the purchase of properties benefitting migratory birds. These land acquisitions are 

funded primarily through money generated by the 

purchase of stamps—commonly known as “Federal 

Duck Stamps”—as authorized by the Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (see below). 

The lands acquired under this act are used primarily 

for national wildlife refuges and other easements or 

limited-interest lands.

M

The act was approved in 1934 to fund the acquisition 

of migratory bird habitat provided for in the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. The act provides that anyone over age 16 who hunts migratory 

birds is required to purchase a hunting stamp. The 

revenue generated from the sale of these stamps 

is placed in a special fund known as the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Fund (MBCF), which is used to 

acquire migratory bird habitat.

The act was amended in 1958 to increase the 

acquisition of suitable habitat for waterfowl. This 

amendment authorized the Secretary of the Interior 

to expend money from the MBCF for small wetland 

and pothole areas in fee title (waterfowl production areas) or as easements—a program known as 

SWAP. With this money, the Service has acquired 

wetland and grassland easements within the PPR 

in South Dakota and wetland easements in North 

Dakota through SWAP. To date, the Service has 

protected approximately 1,386,279 acres of wetland 

and 1,128,513 acres of grassland.

USD

The Farm Service Agency offers several programs 

throughout the PPR in the United States, which 

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

prairie ecosystem in the project area. The Conservation Reserve Program is a voluntary program 

available to agricultural producers to help them 

safeguard environmentally sensitive land. Producers that enroll their property in the program will 
Chapter 1–Introduction and Project Description 9

plant perennial vegetation to improve the quality 

of water, control soil erosion, and enhance wildlife 

habitat. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

Program is a version of the Conservation Reserve 

Program that has been tailored to meet the needs of 

the State. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

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

related to agriculture.

USD

Working jointly with the Farm Service Agency, the 

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

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

Grassland Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, Wetland Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the 

Conservation Stewardship Program.

■ The Grassland Reserve Program emphasizes 

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

conversion to other uses. Participants voluntarily 

limit future development and cropping uses of 

the land. At the same time, participants retain 

the right to conduct common livestock-grazing 

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

that are in significant decline or are protected 

under Federal or State law.

■ The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program helps 

develop or improve quality habitat that supports 

fish and wildlife populations of national, State, 

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

financial help to private and tribal landowners for 

the development of upland, wetland, aquatic, and 

other types of wildlife habitat.

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

long-term conservation and wildlife practices and 

protection.

■ The Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

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

air, and related natural resources on their land. 

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

conduct conservation practices that address environmental natural resource problems.

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

undertaking more conservation activities and 

improving and maintaining existing conservation 

systems.

S

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

State, and Federal entities—that are represented 

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

Coalition is to build a partnership of people working 

to voluntarily improve grasslands for the long-term 

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

effort and to provide information and technical help 

to grassland managers.

Habitat Protection and the 

Easement Acquisition Process

Habitat protection will occur through the purchase 

of conservation easements. It is the Service’s longestablished policy to acquire minimum interest in 

land from willing sellers to achieve habitat acquisition goals.

The acquisition authority for the DGCA is the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a–j). 

In response to comments received during the public 

review of the draft EA and LPP (appendix C), the 

Service has included the authority of the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715–715d, 

715e, 715f–r). The Federal money used to acquire 

conservation easements is received from the LWCF, 

which is derived primarily from oil and gas leases 

on the Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel tax 

revenues, and the sale of surplus Federal property. 

There could be additional funds to acquire lands, 

waters, or interests through possible sources such 

as congressional appropriations and donations from 

nonprofit organizations.

Conservation Easements

The easement program is a conservation tool that 

will complement other efforts in North Dakota and 
10 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

South Dakota. Conservation easements are the most 

cost-effective and socially acceptable means to ensure protection of important habitats in the project 

area.

Fee-title acquisition is not required for, nor is it 

preferable to, conservation easements to achieve 

habitat protection. Fee-title acquisition would triple or quadruple the cost of land acquisition, would 

add significant increases in management costs, and 

would not be accepted by landowners.

A strong and vibrant rural lifestyle—with ranching as the dominant land use—is one of the key components for ensuring habitat integrity and wildlife 

resource protection. Conservation easements are 

the only viable means to protect wildlife values on a 

landscape scale.
Chapter 2–Area Description 

and Resources

This chapter describes the physical, biological, and 

socioeconomic environments and cultural resources 

of the project area.

Physical Environment

The physical features of the DGCA project area are 

the landforms, soils, and climate of the area including climate change.

PhysiogrAPhic feAtures

A physiographic region is an area with a pattern of 

relief features or landforms that are significantly 

different from that of adjacent regions. There are 

many descriptions, some more detailed than others, 

of the physiographic regions in the prairie pothole 

landscape. However, in the simplest terms, North 

Dakota has at least four physiographic regions in the 

DGCA: the Red River Valley, the Drift Prairie, the 

Missouri Coteau, and the Missouri Slope. Within the 

South Dakota part of the DGCA project area, there 

are three physiographic regions: the Drift Prairie, 

the Dissected-till Plains, and the Great Plains.

An ecoregion is a major ecosystem (a biological 

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

in the project area for the DGCA (Bryce et al. 1998).

Landscape variability patterns in the ecoregions 

are more numerous and distinctive east to west, 

even though some variability exists from north to 

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

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

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

ice. When the glaciers melted between 10,000 and 

12,000 years ago, the ice on top melted more quickly 

than ice that was trapped beneath the sediment. The 

uneven melting resulted in the hilly to gently rolling 

Fowler Photography / USFWS
12 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Figure 3. Map of ecoregions in the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area.

Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area

State Boundary
Chapter 2–Area Description and Resources 13

topography characteristic of large parts of the project area. Similarly, other ecoregions resulted from 

the advance of parts of the glaciers with differing 

levels of resistance, ranging from low to extreme, 

and melting or running off the landscape in differing sequences. The subsequent landforms resulted 

from movement and melt-timing differentials. The 

sedimentary deposition is up to 600 feet thick and 

is characterized as an unsorted mixture of clay, silt, 

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

The depressions between hills in the glaciated 

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

area is punctuated with areas created by runoff from 

melting glaciers, resulting in gravel and sand depositions (Bluemle 1977). The grinding of rock by the 

glaciers created a nutrient-rich soil on which grasslands were established.

In general, soils in the project area are described 

as Mollisoils, which are dark in color due to high content of organic matter. The soil suborder is Borolls, 

which are moist–wet and cool (Barker and Whitman 

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

River Valley in the eastern and northeastern parts 

of North Dakota developed under long-term inundation in the glacial bed of historic Lake Agassiz. 

Also within the project area, there are other similar 

fertile soils, primarily the result of lacustrine (lakeassociated) deposits characteristic to lakebed and 

river valley areas.

C

The climate of the DGCA project area is continental, with very hot summers coupled with very cold 

winters. Due to the span of the project area from 

north to south and east to west, it is difficult to capture meaningful temperature and precipitation averages, because ranges are highly variable. However, 

temperatures can range from −60 to 121 degrees 

Fahrenheit, and precipitation averages generally 

range from 13 to 22 inches. Temperatures can vary 

as much as 70 degrees within a 24-hour period. Precipitation as well as temperatures within a specific 

locale are highly variable and can range from less 

than 10 inches in one year to more than 30 inches 

in another. The western edge on average receives 

the lowest average annual precipitation and eastern 

parts receive the highest average annual precipitation.

Climate in the project area often changes from 

extreme drought to flood in relatively short periods. Similarly, abrupt changes in temperature occur 

seasonally as well as daily. This climate variability 

is responsible for the productivity and diversity of 

wetland and grassland habitats found in the DGCA.

C

The Service identified climate change resulting from 

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

PPR. Effects could be direct, such as changes in 

temperature and precipitation influencing species 

and their habitats, or indirect, such as habitat loss 

caused by conversion of habitat for biofuels. While 

planning needs to consider both direct and indirect 

effects, there are considerable uncertainties about 

climate change and future land use that greatly complicates any analysis.

Many species in the PPR are adapted to highly 

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

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

nest site selection and reproductive output) and, 

therefore, should respond well to habitat conservation efforts.

Due to the uncertainties associated with climate 

change and the dynamic wet–dry hydrologic cycles 

of the project area, the Service sees that landscapescale protection of existing habitats as a sound 

approach to increase resiliency of the PPR and to 

buffer against unpredictable climate variables.

The Service is working with U.S. Geological 

Survey scientists to model climatic changes in the 

PPR and to develop adaptive management strategies that accommodate these changes. Protection of 

grassland in the project area is estimated to bank 

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

carbon dioxide equivalent. These estimates—based 

on the difference between the organic carbon in soil 

of native prairie and that of traditional cropland—

were derived using methods described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

(Eggleston et al. 2006).

Adaptation, Mitigation, and Engagement

The Service’s strategic response to climate change 

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

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

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

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

belowground. It is equally as important to protect existing carbon stores, as it is to sequester 

atmospheric carbon.
14 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

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

(USFWS 2010).

Biological Environment

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

project area. Appendix B contains a list of plant and 

animal species that occur over the project area.

The uniqueness of the DGCA lies in the millions 

of depressional wetlands that constitute one of the 

richest wetland systems in the world. These wetlands—or prairie potholes—and surrounding grasslands support an entire suite of plants and animals. 

In addition, the grasslands support yet another suite 

of plants and animals. In many cases, the biodiversity of this highly productive area relies on a combination of resources from the potholes and the native 

prairie grasslands. The PPR is breeding habitat for 

a myriad of wetland and grassland birds and supports high numbers of spring and fall migrants.

Once vast grassland, the PPR is now largely an 

agricultural system dominated by cropland. Despite 

these changes, millions of wetlands and large tracts 

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

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

U

The project area lies in the native mixed-grass 

prairie of the northern plains and includes small 

elements of native tallgrass prairie to the east and 

native shortgrass prairie to the west (Whitman and 

Wali 1975). The vegetation is largely a wheatgrass–

needlegrass type (Bryce et al. 1998, Martin et al. 

1998). The area has six primary species of grass: 

prairie Junegrass, green needlegrass, needle and 

thread, blue grama, little bluestem, and yellow 

sedge. There are 11 secondary grass species: western wheatgrass, Canada wildrye, spike oats, big 

sandgrass, ticklegrass, porcupinegrass, mat muhly, 

sideoats grama, Leiberg’s panicum, needleleaf sedge, 

and threadleaf sedge. In areas of glacial outwash, 

plains muhly and saltgrass may be found (Bryce et 

al. 1998).

Many wildflowers and other forbs make up 5–15 

percent of the vegetative cover. The native prairie 

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

Missouri milkvetch, lead plant, Indian breadroot, 

purple prairie clover, gaura, harebell, narrowleaf 

blazing star, purple coneflower, and western yarrow. 

John and Karen Hollingsworth / USFWS

Tallgrass Prairie

Other common forbs are sunflowers, goldenrods, 

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

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

occur on slopes and in ravines (Niemuth et al. 2008, 

Whitman and Wali 1975). Wooded areas often comprise aspen and green ash, especially in the northwestern section of the Missouri Coteau. Pockets of 

western snowberry shrubs can be found throughout 

the project area (Barker and Whitman 1989, Martin 

et al. 1998).

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

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

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

is endangered in North Dakota, and another seven 

grassland species are threatened. Rare plants in the 

project area are prairie mimosa, Rocky Mountain 

iris, bottle gentian, small-flowered penstemon, and 

western prairie fringed-orchid.

WetlAnds

About 10 percent of the project area is primarily 

palustrine (marsh) emergent wetland (Cowardin et 

al. 1979). These wetland habitats have temporary, 

seasonal, semipermanent, and permanent water 

regimes; the variation in the length of time water 

persists in these wetlands results in different types 

of vegetation.
Chapter 2–Area Description and Resources 15

■ Ephemeral, temporary, and seasonal wetlands 

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

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

snowberry, prairie cordgrass, and wild lily. Other 

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

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

wetlands may have any of the vegetation zones 

already mentioned, as well as deep marsh zones 

with pondweed and milfoil, shallow marsh zones 

with bulrush and cattail, and open-water areas 

with no vegetation.

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

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

Fens are alkali bogs that support a diversity of flora 

including some of the rarest plants in North Dakota 

(Duxbury 1986).

The wetlands in the project area also support 

several species of plants that have small or declining populations in North Dakota. Fifteen species of 

wetland plants are considered threatened, and pullup muhly and elk sedge are endangered at the State 

level in North Dakota. In wetter native prairie areas 

within the project area, rare or imperiled species 

occur such as the joint-spike sedge, fringed gentian, 

and sedge mousetail (Hagen et al. 2005, USFWS 

2011b).

F

Under classification of the Endangered Species Act, 

there are eight endangered and threatened species 

(scaleshell mussel, Topeka shiner, pallid sturgeon, 

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

that occur in the project area or nearby.

Endangered Species

SCALESHELL MUSSEL. The scaleshell is a relatively 

small freshwater mussel with a thin, fragile shell 

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

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

light purple and highly iridescent. The scaleshell 

gets its name from the scaly appearance of the shell, 

which is only seen in females.

Scaleshell historically occurred across most of 

the eastern United States. Scaleshell mussels live in 

medium-sized and large rivers with stable channels 

and good water quality. They bury themselves in 

sand and gravel on the river bottom with only the 

edge of their partially opened shells exposed. As 

river currents flow over them, they siphon particles 

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

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

develop into microscopic larvae (glochidia) within 

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

or fins of a fish to continue developing. Each mussel 

species has specific fish species (host fish) that the 

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

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

and continue maturing into adults.

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

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

increasingly rare within its reduced range. Of the 

55 historical populations, 14 remain scattered within 

the Mississippi River basin in Arkansas, Missouri, 

and Oklahoma. Toxins and declines in water quality 

from pollution easily harm adult mussels because 

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

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

cultivated fields, pastures, cattle feedlots, poultry 

farms, mines, construction sites, private wastewater 

discharges, and road drainage. Contaminants reduce 

water quality and may directly kill mussels, reduce 

the ability of surviving mussels to have young, or 

result in poor health or disappearance of host fish.

Sedimentation is material suspended in water 

that usually moves as the result of erosion. Although 

sedimentation is a natural process, poor land use 

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

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

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

from the threat. Increased sediment levels may also 

make it difficult for scaleshell to feed, which can lead 

to decreased growth, reproduction, and survival.

Dams affect both upstream and downstream 

mussel populations by disrupting natural flow patterns, scouring river bottoms, changing water temperatures, and eliminating habitat. The scaleshell 

and many other river mussels and fish cannot 

survive in the still water impounded behind dams. 

Scaleshell and other mussels depend on their host 

fish for dispersal. Because dams are barriers to fish 

movement and migration, this, in turn, prevents the 

dispersal of mussels upstream. Upstream mussel 
16 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

populations then become isolated from downstream 

populations, leading to small unstable populations 

that are more likely to die out.

The recent invasion of the exotic zebra mussel 

into the United States poses a substantial threat 

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

large numbers.

TOPEKA SHINER. Topeka shiners are small (less 

than 3 inches in length) minnows that have dark 

lateral and back stripes. Scales above the lateral 

stripe are edged in pigment, while below the stripe 

the scales appear silvery-white. During the breeding 

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

the caudal fin; breeding males have orange fins.

Topeka shiner habitat is small streams and 

creeks that exhibit perennial or nearly perennial 

flow. Substrate usually is clean gravel, cobble, or 

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

The Topeka shiner may require open pools with cool, 

clean water.

Historically, Topeka shiners were abundant 

throughout the native prairie of South Dakota, 

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

populations. The number of known occurrences has 

declined by 80 percent, and Topeka shiners have 

been eliminated from many watersheds. Topeka 

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

channelization, dewatering of streams, and water 

impoundment.

Activities that increase sedimentation and reduce 

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

impoundments provide a refuge during droughts, 

impoundments prevent upstream movement, and 

shiners that use these impoundments are subject 

to predation by larger fish. Streams with watering 

ponds and other impoundments have eliminated 

this endangered shiner from the associated stream 

reaches. Spawning behavior is poorly understood for 

this species; it is thought that Topeka shiners spawn 

on silt-free substrates found in the quieter waters of 

stream pools. As a native prairie species, the Topeka 

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

and reduce ground and stream water create artificial 

drought conditions that result in death of Topeka 

shiners from anoxia or exposure. Population declines 

also are attributed to introduced predaceous fishes.

PALLID STURGEON. The pallid sturgeon was placed 

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

rows of bony plates that stretch from head to tail. 

It prefers the bottoms of large, shallow rivers with 

sand and gravel bars, but construction of dams and 

bank stabilization has damaged or destroyed much 

of that habitat.

The pallid sturgeon was fairly common in the 

Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers in North Dakota as 

late as the 1950s, but biologists believe fewer than 

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

1997, the Service, in cooperation with State fish and 

wildlife agencies in Montana and North Dakota, has 

stocked pallid sturgeon in compliance with the “1993 

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

priority area 2 (the Missouri River from Fort Peck 

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

the Tongue River). Releases into recovery priority 

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

The Service estimates that an isolated remnant 

population of less than 50 individuals remains in the 

Garrison Reach of the Missouri River (North Dakota 

part of the project area); there are no recent records 

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

is outside of the recovery priority areas identified 

in the recovery plan. Although not excluded from 

implementation of recovery actions, river reaches 

outside the recovery priority areas are lower priority, because these areas have been altered to the 

extent that major modifications would be needed to 

restore their natural physical and hydrologic characteristics.

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

member of the gull and tern family. About 100 of 

the remaining 2,500 pairs of the interior population 

of least tern come to North Dakota each year. The 

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

systems in North Dakota and South Dakota. This 

tern was listed as an endangered species in 1985. 

Its decline is due to the loss of habitat from dam 

construction and subsequent operation of the river 

system.

WHOOPING CRANE. At a height of 5 feet, the 

whooping crane is the tallest bird in North America. 

Equally impressive is its 7-foot wingspan. Most 

whooping cranes migrate through North Dakota 

each spring and fall, frequently in the company of 

sandhill cranes. Whooping cranes pass through 

North Dakota and South Dakota when migrating 

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

Declared an endangered species in 1970, the decline 

of the whooping crane is blamed on loss of habitat 

and excessive shooting. This crane is making a slow, 

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

1940s, the current wild and captive whooping crane 

population is about 468.
Chapter 2–Area Description and Resources 17

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

border from neighboring Minnesota or the province 

of Manitoba, Canada. Once abundant in the State, 

the gray wolf was killed to near extinction by 1940 at 

the urging of western settlers who believed wolves 

caused widespread livestock losses. In 1978, the 

Service published a rule listing the gray wolf as an 

endangered species throughout the lower 48 States 

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

wolf’s listing status was downgraded to threatened. 

On February 1, 2005, a United States district court 

in Oregon overturned the April 2003 decision and 

ordered the Service to rescind the rule downgrading 

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

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

rest of its range including North Dakota.

Threatened Species

WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED-ORCHID. The plant, which 

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

large, white flowers on a single stem. The western 

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

most often on unplowed, calcareous native prairies 

and sedge meadows. In North Dakota, the orchid 

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

moist, native, tallgrass prairie.

The western prairie fringed-orchid is restricted 

to west of the Mississippi River and is known from 

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

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

and adjacent native prairie in southeastern North 

Dakota contain one of three large populations of the 

orchid, two in the United States—Sheyenne Delta 

in North Dakota and Pembina Trail prairie complex 

in Minnesota—and one in Vita Prairies, Manitoba, 

Canada. On the Sheyenne Delta, about 95 percent of 

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

and 5 percent occur on private land.

The only North Dakota plant on the Endangered 

Species List, the western prairie fringed-orchid is 

classified as a threatened species, which means it is 

likely to become endangered. The major cause of the 

species’ decline is the conversion of native prairie to 

cropland.

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

rivers and lakes; the plovers are attracted to the 

rare combination of windswept islands or peninsulas 

with a lack of adjacent tree cover. North Dakota is 

the most important State in the Great Plains for 

nesting piping plovers, with more than three-fourths 

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

Lake Sakakawea and Lake Audubon are significant 

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

from 1998 through 2000 was 79 birds or 16.2 percent 

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

Missouri River segments supporting plovers. While 

piping plovers are widely distributed over much of 

the Lake Sakakawea reservoir, important nesting 

areas include Steinke Bay, Douglas Creek Bay, the 

Van Hook Arm, Little Egypt, and Tobacco Garden 

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

Army Corps of Engineers recorded an average of 

56 piping plover nests within 10 miles of the Snake 

Creek Embankment between Lake Sakakawea and 

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

area (unpublished Corps data). Piping plover nest 

initiation is similar to that observed on wetlands in 

the adjacent native prairie coteau, with the birds 

initiating nests in early to mid-May.

The piping plover is federally listed as a threatened species.

Mike Morel / USFWS
18 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

The piping plover was listed as a threatened species in 1985. Habitat loss and poor breeding success 

are major reasons for its population decline. In North 

Dakota, critical habitat for piping plover has been 

designated on the Missouri River, Lake Sakakawea, 

Lake Oahe, and selected alkali lakes and wetlands. On 

the Missouri River, critical habitat includes sparsely 

vegetated channel sandbars, sand and gravel beaches 

on islands, temporary pools on sandbars and islands, 

and the interface with the river. Critical habitat on 

Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe includes sparsely 

vegetated shoreline beaches; peninsulas; and islands 

formed of sand, gravel, or shale; and their interface 

with the water bodies. For alkali lakes and wetlands, 

critical habitat includes the following: (1) shallow, 

seasonally to permanently flooded, mixosaline to hypersaline wetlands with sandy to gravelly, sparsely 

vegetated beaches, salt-encrusted mudflats, or gravelly salt flats; and (2) springs and fens along edges 

of alkali lakes and wetlands and the adjacent upland 

grasslands that are 200 feet above the high-water 

mark of the alkali lake or wetland.

Candidate Species

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

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

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

by bluestem grasses, wood lily, harebell, and smooth 

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

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

and blanketflower. The skipper’s current distribution 

straddles the border between the native, tallgrass 

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

occur in western Minnesota, northeastern South 

Dakota, north-central North Dakota, and southern 

Manitoba. Dakota skipper populations have declined 

historically due to widespread conversion of native 

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

threats.

SPRAGUE’S PIPIT. Sprague’s pipits require large 

patches of grassland habitat for breeding, with the 

preferred grass height between 4 and 12 inches. The 

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

Sprague’s pipits can be found in lightly to heavily 

grazed areas. Pipits avoid intrusive human features 

on the landscape, so the effect of a development can 

be much greater than the actual “footprint” of the 

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

candidate species list. Migratory bird species that are 

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

protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

I

The number of insect species and other invertebrate 

species in the project area is not currently known; 

however, the available information suggests a wide 

diversity. The Missouri Coteau is in an area that represents 15–19 percent of all insect species found in 

North America (Arenz and Joern 1996). A survey of 

just five wetlands found more than 50 species of insects. In addition, snails, shrimp, and amphipods are 

common invertebrates in prairie wetlands (Kantrud 

et al. 1989).

The regal fritillary and tawny crescent butterfly 

are two butterflies (other than the Dakota skipper 

described under candidate species) that occur in the 

project area and that are considered likely to become candidates under the Endangered Species Act 

without more conservation action (USFWS 2011b).

Mixed-vegetation stands such as native prairie 

are thought to be less prone to insect pest outbreaks 

than monocultures such as cropland (Curry 1994).

AmPhiBiAns And rePtiles

Turtles, snakes, toads, frogs, and salamanders all 

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

The western hognose snake and the Great Plains 

toad are typical of grassland, whereas the northern 

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

Tiger salamander larva and adults are particularly 

important food items for some species of wetland 

birds (Kantrud et al. 1989).

AquAtic sPecies

Rivers and streams are some of the aquatic habitats 

of the Dakota Grasslands that are most affected 

by the conversion of native prairie to agricultural 

or urban purposes. There are literally thousands 

of miles of these riparian corridors throughout the 

grasslands that provide pathways for much more 

than just the fish that swim in the waters. Mussel 

species that rely on fish to distribute their larval 

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

systems. The effects of erosion on the watersheds 

can cause decreases in water quality and degraded 

habitat that affect the sustainability of many species 

found in this region.

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

aquatic habitat quality continues to decline across 

the Nation. Under the National Fish Habitat Action 

Plan, a strategy to focus and work with partners 

is beginning to develop across the nation (AFWA 

2006). For the Dakota Grasslands region, several 
Chapter 2–Area Description and Resources 19

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

reservoirs to rivers and streams. All of these aquatic 

habitats are affected by the land uses upstream, and 

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

Birds

The project area is in one of the areas of highest species richness for wetland and grassland birds in the 

United States and Canada, providing breeding habitat for at least 130 species of birds (Sauer et al. 1997, 

Stewart 1975). In addition to birds that breed in the 

project area, many species of birds migrate through 

or use the area as wintering ground (Ringelman 

2005). Migrating geese, ducks, gulls, and shorebirds 

rest and feed on these wetlands. Warblers use the 

wooded and shrubby areas and raptors such as bald 

eagles and peregrine falcons use a variety of habitats.

The project area supports 27 of the Service’s 

species of conservation concern (table 1) including 

ferruginous hawk, willet, short-eared owl, and loggerhead shrike (Berkey et al. 1993, USFWS 1995).

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

Species Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture Priority Species1

Partners in Flight

Priority Species 2

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Birds of Conservation Concern3

LANDBIRDSBaird’s sparrow ✓ ✓ ✓

Sprague’s pipit (candidate) ✓ ✓ ✓

Chestnut-collared longspur ✓ — ✓

Smith’s longspur — — ✓

Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow ✓ ✓ ✓

Bell’s vireo — ✓■ —

Le Conte’s sparrow — ✓■ —

Grasshopper sparrow — — ✓

Sharp-tailed grouse ✓ — —

McCown’s longspur ✓ ✓■ ✓

Swainson’s hawk ✓■ — ✓

Greater prairie-chicken ✓■ — —

Short-eared owl ✓■ — ✓

Red-headed woodpecker ✓■ — —

Sedge wren — ✓■ ✓

Bobolink — ✓■ —

Black-billed cuckoo — ✓■ ✓

Bald eagle — — ✓

Peregrine falcon — — ✓

Dickcissel — — ✓

WATERBIRDSHorned grebe ✓ ✓ ✓

Western grebe ✓ ✓ —

American bittern ✓ ✓ ✓

Yellow rail ✓ ✓ ✓

King rail ✓ ✓ —

Franklin’s gull ✓ ✓ —

Black tern ✓ ✓ ✓

Least tern (endangered) ✓ ✓ —

Whooping crane (endangered) ✓ ✓ —

Least bittern — ✓ ✓
20 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Waterfowl

The duck population boom that began in 1994 is evidence of the potential capacity of the project area to 

recruit ducks when habitat conditions are suitable. 

The PPR of the Dakotas accounts for only 7 percent 

of the traditional waterfowl survey area of North 

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

Species Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture Priority Species1

Partners in Flight

Priority Species 2

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Birds of Conservation Concern3

SHOREBIRDSPiping plover (threatened) ✓ ✓ —

Mountain plover ✓ ✓ ✓

American golden-plover ✓ ✓ —

Semipalmated plover ✓ ✓ —

American avocet ✓ ✓ —

Upland sandpiper ✓ ✓ ✓

White-rumped sandpiper ✓ ✓ —

Baird’s sandpiper ✓ ✓ —

Pectoral sandpiper ✓ ✓ —

Buff-breasted sandpiper — — ✓

Semipalmated sandpiper ✓ ✓ —

Solitary sandpiper — — ✓

Stilt sandpiper ✓ ✓ —

Dunlin ✓ ✓ —

Marbled godwit ✓ ✓ ✓

American woodcock ✓ ✓ —

Wilson’s phalarope ✓ ✓ —

Hudsonian godwit ✓ ✓ ✓

Long-billed curlew — ✓ ✓

Lesser yellowlegs ✓ ✓ —

Long-billed dowitcher ✓ ✓ —

Short-billed dowitcher — — ✓

WATERFOWLMallard ✓ — —

Northern pintail ✓ — —

Gadwall ✓ — —

Northern shoveler ✓ — —

Blue-winged teal ✓ — —

Lesser scaup ✓ — —

Canvasback ✓ — —

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

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

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

area, a species of concern in the “Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan,” or a species of high concern in the “Northern Prairie and Parkland Waterbird Conservation Plan” (Beyersbergen et al. 2004, 

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

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

Service (USFWS 2008).

America, yet carried far more than 20 percent of 

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

implementation plan is to “keep the table set” for 

periodic booms in duck populations by making sure 

that important wetland and grassland habitats are 
Chapter 2–Area Description and Resources 21

intact. This would require conserving an additional 

1.4 million acres of wetland and an additional 10.4 

million acres of grassland in the United States part 

of the PPR.

At least 12 species of waterfowl breed in the 

project area and most depend on upland grasslands 

for nesting, as well as wetlands for feeding and 

brood rearing. (Stewart 1975). Mallard, northern 

pintail, northern shoveler, gadwall, and blue-winged 

teal are the priority species of waterfowl in this 

project (table 1). In fact, parts of the project area 

support, on average, more than 100 pairs of breeding 

ducks per square mile—some of the highest densities recorded in North Dakota and South Dakota 

(Reynolds et al. 2006). The “North American Waterfowl Management Plan” identified the PPR as the 

continent’s top priority for waterfowl conservation 

and has a goal of restoring wetland to accommodate 

an additional 492,000 pairs of breeding ducks and 

393,000 acres more of restored grassland associated 

with high-density wetland communities (USFWS 

1986).

Other Waterbirds

Waterbirds constitute an important group of species 

in the project area. The PPR contains two-thirds of 

the continental breeding population of Franklin’s 

gull; one-half of the continental population of piedbilled grebe, American bittern, sora, American coot, 

and black tern; and approximately one-third of the 

American white pelican and California gull populations (Beyersbergen et al. 2004).

The DGCA will benefit 13 species of breeding 

shorebirds, as well as many other shorebird species 

that use the area as stopover habitat during migraThe gadwall is one of the priority waterfowl species.

USFWS

tion, such as 30 species that breed in the Arctic. As 

shown in table 1, priority waterbird species include 

marbled godwit, willet, Wilson’s phalarope, American avocet, and piping plover (Ringelman 2005, Skagen and Thompson 2007).

Grassland Birds

Native prairie and untilled pastureland in the project area are habitat for many bird species including 

northern harrier, sharp-tailed grouse, willet, upland 

sandpiper, marbled godwit, common snipe, Wilson’s 

phalarope, mourning dove, short-eared owl, burrowing owl, and common nighthawk.

Parts of the area provide habitat for a suite of 

grassland birds—the only group of bird species to 

experience consistent declines nationwide over the 

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

group have ranges limited to the grassland habitat 

represented in the project area, including Baird’s 

sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, lark 

bunting, and chestnut-collared longspur (Knopf 

1996, Johnson et al. 1994, USFWS 1995). Destruction of habitat and mowing for hay production are 

two of the main reasons for the decline in grassland 

birds (Sauer et al. 1995).

Figure 4 shows the extent of the breeding range 

for 27 grassland birds throughout the United States, 

with the highest concentrations in the Midwest and 

the PPR. The 27 bird species represented follow:

Upland sandpiper

Long-billed curlew

Mountain plover

Greater prairie-chicken

Sharp-tailed grouse

Ring-necked pheasant

Northern harrier

Ferruginous hawk

Common barn-owl

Short-eared owl

Horned lark

Bobolink

Eastern meadowlark

Western meadowlark

Chestnut-collared longspur

McCown’s longspur

Vesper sparrow

Savannah sparrow

Baird’s sparrow

Grasshopper sparrow

Henslow’s sparrow

Le Conte’s sparrow

Cassin’s sparrow

Dickcissel

Lark bunting

Sprague’s pipit

Sedge wren

In many cases, the project area represents a refuge for birds that are suffering population declines 

elsewhere. For example, over the last 30 years, 21 

species of birds have experienced major declines 

nationwide, while populations in the DGCA have 

remained stable (Sauer et al. 1997). Included in this 

group are several grassland species such as Wilson’s phalarope, bobolink, western meadowlark, and 

clay-colored sparrow. However, populations of the 

loggerhead shrike, vesper sparrow, and American 

goldfinch actually have increased over the last 30 

years in the project area, while decreases occurred 

nationwide.
22 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

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

M

The project area includes the ranges of approximately 50 mammal species (Burt and Grossenheider 

1964, Grondahl 2011).

Native prairie uplands are habitat for many small 

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

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

provide critical food sources, and their burrows provide nesting habitat, for raptors such as ferruginous 

hawks and short-eared owls (Berkey et al. 1993). Big 

game animals including white-tailed deer and pronghorn also use the upland habitat.

Wetlands provide cover or food, or both, for at 

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

al. 1989).

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

examples of furbearing animals that are widespread 

throughout the area.

Cultural Resources

Archeologically, all of the DGCA is within the 

Northeastern Plains subarea of the Northern Plains 

area (Wood 1998). There have been five cultural traditions or lifeways recognized by archeologists for 

the American Indians in the Northeastern Plains: 

from earliest to latest these are paleo-Indian, Plains 

Archaic, Plains Woodland, Plains Village, and 

Equestrian Nomadic. During any time in history, 

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

(Gregg et al. 2008).

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

project area are contained in the 1790s’ journals of 

explorers and traders.

PAleo-indiAn trAdition

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

based on big game hunting during a time of a relatively warm and comfortable climate. As the ice 
Chapter 2–Area Description and Resources 23

age ended, these peoples within the project area 

could be identified by the distinctive Clovis points 

attached to their lances or spears. Clovis peoples 

hunted now-extinct animals including mammoths, 

mastodons, horses, and American camels. By 11,000 

years ago, these animals were gone, and then the 

paleo-Indian hunters relied on hunting giant bison 

(Bison antiques) with beautifully crafted Folsom 

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

of spear or dart points with names such as the Agate 

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

2011).

As the paleo-Indian tradition ended, there was 

increased evidence of plant collection and food 

storage. Sites of the paleo-Indian tradition include 

camps, Knife River flint quarry sites, other stone 

procurement areas, stone workshops, and isolated 

artifact finds (NDSHPO 2009).

PlAins ArchAic trAdition

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

were based around gathering plants and hunting 

bison during a drier climate period that had many 

long and frequent droughts. Reliance predominantly 

on the hunting of big game seems to have shifted to 

Blending in with shortgrasses, a sharp-tailed grouse 

performs a mating display for a hen.

G.R. Zahm / USFWS

western meadowlark is a common grassland bird.

John and Karen Hollingsworth / USFWS

the opportunistic hunting of bison when available 

and small game, even rodents, when necessary. The 

Archaic peoples used the atlatl with dart points for 

hunting.

The dry climate slowly changed until about 1000 

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

today (SDARC 2011). Plant gathering was a very 

important component of the Archaic peoples’ daily 

activities and diet. Sites include animal kill sites, 

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

PlAins WoodlAnd trAdition

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

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

gathering of modern plants and animals. During 

this tradition, the bow and arrow came into use 

(NDSHPO 2009). In addition, the Plains Woodland 

peoples began to garden and use ceramic pots as a 

result of contacts with eastern peoples. Trade goods 

from other regions of North America were common 

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

corn, beans, squash, and sunflowers in gardens along 

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

The farmers lived in earthlodge villages fortified 

by ditches and log palisades. Sites include burial 

mounds and other burial sites, occupations, camps, 

quarries, stone procurement areas, and bison kill 

sites (NDSHPO 2009). Great social and religious 

changes became part of these peoples’ lifeways as 

observed in the archeological record—hundreds and 

maybe thousands of burial mounds were constructed 

as a new and more elaborate way of burying their 

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

PlAins villAge trAdition

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

adapted to hunting and gathering with full-scale 

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

of stored food, primarily dried corn, which made 

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

were living all along the Missouri River Valley and 

its uplands, and their seasonal hunting camps occur 

throughout the project area. After A.D. 1700, European contacts and trade items became part of the 

lifeway, as did the introduction of the horse from the 

Southwest.

The Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, and Cheyenne 

may be the most recognized of these Plains Village 

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

The villages, hunting camps, flint quarries, eagle-trap-
24 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Pasqueflower is a native prairie plant.

Jackie Jacobson / USFWS

ping sites, conical timber lodges, burial sites, lithic 

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

(NDSHPO 2009).

This tradition ended when the 1780 epidemics 

decimated the villages, after which the nomadic 

Sioux became the dominant cultural force in the 

Northern Plains (Gregg et al. 2008).

E

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

was dependent on the horse to focus narrowly on 

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

Cheyenne, Dakota, Nakota, Lakota, Assiniboine, and 

Plains Cree took up the Equestrian Nomadic lifeway 

(DeMallie 2001). This horse culture lifeway greatly 

increased the capacity to hunt bison and to transport 

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

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

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

that this lifeway terminated with the surrender of 

Sitting Bull at Fort Buford, North Dakota.

M

As they explored the Louisiana Purchase, the Lewis 

and Clark expedition traveled through or wintered 

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

1800s were a period of cultural turmoil. Based on 

the United States’ Indian policy, the Government 

made acts and treaties with American Indian tribes 

in response to the immigration of Europeans into 

the Northwestern Plains subarea. In the late 1870s, 

these policies led to settlement of the American Indians on reservations. Today there are eight reservations in the project area (Schneider 2002).

The Dakota Boom began in the late 1870s. During 

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

the wheat from farms within the project area. The 

Territory of Dakota was an organized, incorporated 

territory of the United States from 1861 until 1889, 

when the territory was divided into the present 

States of North Dakota and South Dakota as they 

were admitted into the Union (Schell 1975).

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

vast majority of land within the project area. The 

Service’s Refuge System grew out of the attention 

given to conservation by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration during this Depression 

Era. Today, the project area includes 62 national 

wildlife refuges and 16 wetland management districts.

Socioeconomic Environment

The project area includes parts of 52 counties within 

North Dakota and South Dakota:

North Dakota Counties

Barnes

Benson

Bottineau

Burke

Burleigh

Cass

Cavalier

Dickey

Divide

Eddy

Emmons

Foster

Grand Forks

Griggs

Kidder

LaMoure

Logan

McHenry

McIntosh

McLean

Mountrail

Nelson

Pembina

Pierce

Ramsey

Renville

Rolette

Sheridan

Steele

Stutsman

Towner

Trail

Walsh

Ward

Wells

Williams

South Dakota Counties

Aurora

Brule

Buffalo

Campbell

Charles Mix

Douglas

Edmunds

Faulk

Hand

Hughes

Hyde

Jerauld

McPherson

Potter

Sully

Walworth

The North Dakota cities of Bismarck, Fargo, Grand 

Forks, Jamestown, and Minot and the South Dakota 

cities of Aberdeen, Huron, Mitchell, and Pierre are 

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

These larger cities are considered travel designa-
Chapter 2–Area Description and Resources 25

tions from the surrounding rural communities for 

their shopping and entertainment. A limited amount 

of industrial activity is associated with the larger 

communities.

The project area is rural in nature. Many small, 

rural communities with a population of less than 

10,000 people lie within the project area and are generally supported by the local agricultural and ranching industries. With the exception of the areas near 

cities and towns, the rural lands are mostly zoned 

for agriculture. Medium to large farming operations 

emphasize (1) high-value cropland mainly consisting of corn, wheat and beans, and (2) livestock beef 

agriculture. Because of the highly desirable soils, the 

high precipitation, and the topography, the project 

area has a higher percentage of cropland operations 

as compared with livestock operations. The USDA’s 

National Agricultural Statistics Service reports that 

land values within the project area range from more 

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

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

These mostly family-owned operations range from a 

few hundred acres to several thousand acres in size.

Oil development in the northwestern part of 

North Dakota has seen tremendous growth over 

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

174 active drilling rigs, in North Dakota, and most 

of them are within the project area. Oil production 

for September 2010 was more than 10 million barrels. The local media reported that 2010’s revenue to 

the State from oil extraction taxes will exceed $530 

million and will likely exceed $1 billion in 2011. The 

discovery of new oil reserves and the advancement 

of drilling technology have resulted in a significant 

interest in drilling new wells for oil. Furthermore, 

a recently released survey conducted by the North 

Dakota Geological Survey showed that 52 of the 53 

counties in North Dakota have shallow natural gas 

reserves, which will likely result in added interest in 

natural gas exploration (NDGS 2010).

L

Most land in the project area is in private ownership. 

An unpublished report entitled “Summary of Lands, 

North Dakota Counties,” shows that approximately 

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

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

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

The ratio of private ownership is assumed similar 

within the project area. Less than 7 percent of the 

land in the project area was purchased primarily for 

wildlife production.

ProPerty tAx

Currently, landowners pay property tax on their 

private lands to the counties. Since the project is a 

conservation easement program, the land remains 

in private ownership. Easement properties remain 

on the tax rolls, and landowners will continue to pay 

property taxes to the counties. Since lands in both 

North Dakota and South Dakota are assessed based 

on soils, which the conservation easements will not 

affect, no changes to the tax base are anticipated.

PuBlic use And Wildlife-dePendent 

recreAtionAl Activities

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

the project area. Because the project area encompasses part of the PPR, waterfowl hunting is a major attraction. Grassland species such as ring-necked 

pheasant and sharp-tailed grouse are abundant and 

are highly sought after by hunters.

The 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, 

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation found that $539 

million were spent on equipment and various trip 

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

In 2010, the sale of hunting and fishing licenses in 

North Dakota and South Dakota generated nearly 

$42 million in revenue. An additional $206 million 

were spent on wildlife observation activities in both 

States.

There is increasing interest in developing 

wildlife-related tourism opportunities in the project area. Several communities have developed selfguided, wildlife-viewing routes in conjunction with 

local landowners. Control of public access to easement 

lands remain under the control of the landowners.

Chapter 3–Threats to and 

Status of Resources

This chapter describes the threats to resources in 

the DGCA and expected effects of the easement 

program.

Threats to the Resources

The uniqueness of the DGCA lies in the millions 

of depressional wetlands that constitute one of the 

richest wetland systems in the world. These prairie 

potholes and their surrounding grasslands are highly 

productive and support an incredible diversity of 

birdlife—breeding habitat for a myriad of wetland 

and grassland birds along with large numbers of 

spring and fall migrants. However, the PPR is one of 

the most altered, yet also one of the most important, 

migratory bird habitats in the Western Hemisphere. 

It is the backbone of North America’s “Duck Factory” and is critical habitat for many wetland- and 

grassland-dependent migratory birds (Beyersbergen et al. 2004, Peterjohn and Sauer 1999).

The project area is within one of the most threatened landscapes in North America. Once vast grassland, the PPR is now largely an agricultural system 

dominated by cropland. Recent changes in agricultural economics and advances in crop genetics are 

increasing the rate of habitat transformation—from 

an expansive mosaic of native prairie and wetland 

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

et al. (2008), more than 280,000 acres of native prairie were converted to cropland in the project area 

during 2005–2007. Drainage history in the PPR, as 

well as many past efforts to change or remove the 

swampbuster provision of the Farm Bill, show that 

the risk of wetland drainage is highest and more 

immediate for the smaller, less permanent wetlands 

embedded in cropland.

Under the Food Security Act, conversion of native prairie to cropland is possible even if the soils 

are marginal for crop production. The producer simply must implement an approved conservation plan 

such as strip cropping or leaving strips of stubble. 

Furthermore, the technological advances in agricultural machinery and farming techniques increase 

the likelihood of conversion of native prairie to cropland each year. Another factor is the development 

of genetically modified crops that enables grassland 

This yellow-headed blackbird is on the lookout from his 

bulrush perch.

James C. Leupold / USFWS

conversion in areas farther north and west, which 

before would have been too cold to support crop 

growth. The detrimental effects on most wildlife 

species of converting native prairie to cropland, such 

as growing corn for ethanol production, are well 

known. Additionally, the PPR is being targeted for 

the production of biofuels and wind energy, which 

have unknown effects.

The conversion of native prairie, with interspersed areas of intensive agriculture and tame 

grassland, has resulted in altered plant communities 

as follows:

■ Invasion of exotic grass species such as Kentucky 

bluegrass and smooth brome, along with noxious 

weeds such as leafy spurge.
28 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

■ Contamination of wetlands and watersheds with 

pesticides and fertilizers.

■ Siltation of wetlands and watersheds through 

wind and water erosion.

■ Loss of the plant, animal, and insect biodiversity 

of native prairie habitats.

The suppression of native plants by invasive plants 

causes a ripple effect in the native prairie ecosystem by affecting insects, birds, and mammals that 

depend on the native community for survival. For 

growth and reproduction, many species of butterflies 

need the specific and essential food that only native 

prairie forbs can provide. As a result, species that 

rely on native prairie are pushed into smaller and 

smaller tracts of habitat.

The PPR is an extraordinary biome (a defined 

geographical area and its living organisms that interact with the environment) for its ability to produce and sustain tremendous numbers of waterfowl. 

However, virtually no other biome in North America 

historically has offered a landscape more conducive 

to rapid and widespread agricultural development. 

About 70 percent of the grassland in the PPR of the 

Dakotas has been converted to other uses, mostly to 

cropland (USFWS unpublished data). South Dakota 

has lost 35 percent of the wetland in the PPR, and 

North Dakota has lost 49 percent of its PPR wetland 

(Dahl 1990). Large-scale, land use changes continue 

to expand into the remaining grassland tracts and 

wetlands that represent the best remaining breeding bird habitat.

The DGCA project will 

conserve priority species’ 

populations by protecting the most productive 

remaining wetland and 

grassland habitats. Given 

the importance of the PPR 

to continental populations of 

waterfowl and other migratory birds, the need to protect grassland and wetland 

in the project area is critical. 

At current budget levels, it 

would take the Service 150 

years to acquire wetland 

and grassland easements 

that protect the remaining 

native prairie tracts in the 

DGCA. At current grassland 

conversion rates, one-half of 

the remaining native prairie 

would be destroyed in only 

34 years.

Effects on the Physical 

Environment

The DGCA provides the Service with a strong 

strategy for conservation action in anticipation of 

changes in climate. Implementing the project will 

help secure the carbon already stored within native 

prairie soils. As preserving migratory bird corridors 

becomes increasingly important, the DGCA will 

provide a contiguous north–south stand of native 

mixed-grass and tallgrass prairie within the central 

flyway. Conservation actions will help maintain intact the character of this native prairie in the PPR.

In addition, the DGCA will serve as a model for 

engagement on the issue of climate change by working with producers, nongovernmental organizations 

(The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, Delta 

Waterfowl, Pheasants Forever, and many local wildlife organizations scattered throughout the DGCA), 

State and local agencies (South Dakota Game, Fish 

and Parks; and North Dakota Game and Fish Department), and Federal agencies including the NRCS.

Effects on the Biological 

Environment

This section describes the estimated effects of the 

project on uplands, wetlands, and federally listed 

species.

Emergent vegetation in this wetland easement is excellent cover for nesting 

waterbirds.

USFWS
Chapter 3–Threats to and Status of Resources 29

U

Establishing the DGCA project enables the Service 

to protect in perpetuity up to 240,000 acres of wetland and 1.7 million acres of grassland. In addition 

to the other funding sources available, the Service 

will also use money from the LWCF to buy wetland 

and grassland conservation easements. The increase 

in available money will result in increased acreage 

to complement the Service’s current conservation 

easement program and the existing public grasslands (such as waterfowl production areas and State 

wildlife management areas)—allowing for the preservation of a network of grasslands throughout the 

project area. At current easement acquisition rates, 

the Service will achieve the acreage objectives for the 

project within 30 years. Importantly, these protected 

areas will exist regardless of changes in agricultural 

policy or economy, which are known to affect the rate 

of grassland conversion (Gerard 1995).

Protection of native prairie watersheds using 

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

and prairie wetlands and the aquatic resources that 

depend on them. In addition, conservation easements in the DGCA will help maintain the uniqueness of the relatively intact grasslands that harbor 

a wide variety of wildlife species. Buying grassland 

easements within the project boundary will prevent 

the conversion of grassland, where nest success for 

waterfowl is higher, to cropland where nest success 

is lower (Klett et al. 1988). Other species of uplandnesting birds also have higher nest success rates in 

grassland than in cropland (Kantrud and Higgins 

1992). Furthermore, nest success increases when 

the percentage of the landscape in grass increases 

(Ball et al. 1995, Greenwood et al. 1995, Reynolds 

et al. 2001). Thus, protecting the relatively intact 

grasslands in the project area represents a strategic 

opportunity for maintaining waterfowl populations 

throughout the PPR.

Protecting grasslands in the DGCA will help 

buffer the population declines grassland birds are 

experiencing in other parts of their ranges. Grassland bird populations are steady or increasing in 

the project area while decreasing throughout many 

other parts of their ranges (Sauer et al. 1997). Longterm prospects for grassland birds are considered 

poor (Sauer et al. 1995), and preserving grasslands 

in this part of the birds’ ranges may prevent some 

of these species from needing protection under the 

Endangered Species Act. The agricultural economy, 

and in particular the livestock industry, is cyclical. 

In general, high prices of cereal crops generate accelerated conversion of grassland to cropland and 

lower the number of cattle due to high costs and 

small profit margins related to feeding and finishing 

beef cattle. Conversely, low crop prices generate 

gradual buildup of cattle herds to take advantage of 

low feed costs. This contributes to the cyclical nature of the beef production industry, which does not 

benefit from protections provided by farm policy and 

programs to agricultural crop producers. Grassland 

easement protection through the DGCA project has 

the potential to augment and moderate the cyclical 

nature of the livestock industry, helping keep viable 

cattle production and ranching industries.

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

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

all cropland in North Dakota receives at least one 

application of herbicide each year (Zollinger et al. 

1996). Protected grasslands will also act as buffers 

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

and Hall 1980). This may reduce the negative effects 

on wildlife, such as nesting ducks, from ingesting 

contaminated invertebrates or from the loss of the 

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

an increase in the number of acres of upland buffers 

will provide an even greater benefit to aquatic resources.

Wetland and grassland easements are the most 

cost-effective, socially and politically acceptable 

means to ensure protection of critical habitats in the 

project area. Although habitat protection through 

fee title remains an option in some locations, the 

Service sees easements as the most viable way to 

conserve lands at the landscape scale necessary to 

protect wildlife values in the DGCA. The cost for 

acquisition of easements in the project area is approximately $588 million. Fee-title acquisition would 

triple or quadruple the cost of land conservation in 

addition to requiring increases in long-term management and operational costs for the Service.

The Service views a strong and vibrant rural 

lifestyle, of which ranching is the dominant land use, 

as one of the key components to ensuring habitat integrity and wildlife resource protection. The conservation easement program will augment the efforts of 

other conservation agencies and groups.

F

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

benefit from the extensive habitat protection under 

the DGCA. Although management of lands with 

easements remains primarily with the private land-
30 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

owner, maintaining wetland and grassland habitats 

directly and indirectly benefits federally listed species. Direct improvement is expected in habitats for 

listed species such as western prairie fringed-orchid 

and indirect habitat improvement for other listed 

species such as pallid sturgeon.

The Service’s Ecological Services Field Offices 

in North Dakota and South Dakota have concurred 

with the determination of a “May Affect, Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect” for federally listed species in 

the DGCA project area (appendix I).

Effects on Cultural Resources

There will be potential for more protection of cultural resources due to the accelerated purchase of 

wetland and grassland easements.

Effects on the Socioeconomic 

Environment

This section describes the estimated effects of the 

project on landownership, land use, subsurface resource (oil and gas) development, and wind energy 

development.

L

Landownership will not be affected. The additional 

funding source for the acquisition of wetland and 

grassland easements from willing sellers improves 

the Service’s ability to protect wetland and grassland resources. In addition, the economic incentive 

of easement purchases may provide opportunities 

for farming and ranching operations to remain viable.

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

current operations on the properties. Protected wetlands may be hayed and grazed without restriction 

and may be farmed when dry of natural causes. The 

wetland easements will prohibit the draining, burning, filling, or leveling of protected wetland basins. 

The grassland easements will not restrict grazing, 

will prohibit the conversion of the grasslands, and 

will restrict haying until after July 15.

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

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

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

of 5 years. Therefore, maintaining the local ranching 

communities will provide a much more stable income 

and will not increase overall farm subsidy payments.

Conservation easements secure a limited interest in private lands, and landowners will continue 

to pay property taxes. While there is the potential 

that grassland that could be converted to cropland 

could generate higher tax revenue than grassland, 

this Service’s conservation easement program will 

have no direct effect on the existing value of the 

land. Although the Service acquires a limited interest in an easement property, there is no transfer of 

ownership. The landowner keeps all access control; 

except the Service may enter the property to ensure 

compliance with the terms of the easement.

S

The Service will follow policies and procedures in 

the Easement Manual (USFWS 2011a), which are 

summarized below.

Wetland Easements

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

over all subsurface resources such as sand, gravel, 

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

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

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

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

without affecting protected wetlands either directly 

or indirectly (watershed interference), there is no 

easement jurisdiction and the activities may occur.

Grassland Easements

Region 6 policy for grassland easements specifies 

the Service’s jurisdiction over limited subsurface 

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

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

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

existing grassland easement program administrative 

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

vendors to landowners in the past.

Surface Protection

When it is stated that Region 6 will not exercise 

jurisdiction over certain subsurface exploration or 

extraction practices—as described above for sand 

and gravel on grassland easements—the intent is 

that no jurisdiction is expressed nor implied. Manag-
Chapter 3–Threats to and Status of Resources 31

A variety of reptiles, including the western painted turtle, 

use habitat in the project area.

© Michael Mauro

ers may, however, suggest reclamation procedures 

or work with the extraction entity or the landowner 

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

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

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

disturbance is needed to protect resources and to 

avoid negative effects on easement interests. In 

most cases, disturbance to a tame grass site is less 

detrimental than on a native prairie site.

The mineral estate owner has a legal obligation 

to take reasonable measures to protect the surface 

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

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

mineral company, and the landowner to discuss the 

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

limited to those aspects that affect Service easement 

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

company and the landowner; if agreed to, all three 

parties sign the recommendations. The approved 

recommendations are retained and passed on to 

various entities within the mineral company and 

will protect the surface interests of the Service and 

future landowners in case the land or the company 

is sold.

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

authority to permit or deny the use and where the 

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

crossing of easement lands with pipelines or roads 

to access oil and gas production on lands not within a 

Service easement.

Wind energy develoPment effects

The Service will address requested uses such as 

wind energy development under the policy of reasonable accommodation as described in the Easement Manual (USFWS 2011a). The Service will 

evaluate wind energy development that could affect 

an easement’s provisions and will authorize the use 

only if appropriate. The policy includes an evaluation 

process that could allow wind energy development 

to occur on an easement by exchanging that easement for another easement property, with a reversionary clause to reinstate the original easement 

after development activities cease. The project will 

increase the number of reviews of easement modifications for wind-energy-related requests.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Any adverse effects that may be unavoidable while 

carrying out the easement program described below.

The increased protection of wetland and grassland habitats will reduce fragmentation, increase 

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

diversity. Management of lands for wetlands and 

grasslands will benefit ranching operations but may 

reduce the potential production of agricultural crops 

in the area, although most areas to be protected are 

not well suited for crop production. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitments of Resources

There will not be any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources associated with the establishment of the DGCA project. If funded through the 

LWCF, easements will require an irretrievable and 
32 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

irreversible commitment of resources for the longterm administration of the easement provisions. 

The administration costs are shared among the 16 

wetland management districts that cover the project area; the costs represent only a minor increase 

in overall Service costs to the existing easementmonitoring program.

Short-Term Use versus Long-Term 

Productivity

The increased ability to acquire perpetual wetland 

and grassland easements provides an immediate economic benefit to participating landowners, allowing 

many operations to expand or simply stay in operation—having positive economic short- and long-term 

effects. The conservation of remaining wetland and 

grassland tracts will (1) reduce long-term fragmentation of these vital habitats of many dependent 

species, (2) maintain current carbon sequestration 

capabilities, (3) keep the area’s rich biological diversity, and (4) protect endangered, threatened, 

and rare species currently using wetland and grassland habitats. Lands added to the Refuge System 

through the DGCA will increase the costs associated 

with monitoring and management of the Refuge 

System; however, staff at several existing management units will share this work, which will require 

no additional Federal resources.

Cumulative Impacts

As defined by policy for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), cumulative impacts on the 

environment are those that result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) 

or person undertakes the other actions (40 Code of 

Federal Regulations [CFR] § 1508.7).

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

The following discussion documents the analysis of 

the cumulative impacts of these actions in combination with the actions of the easement program.

PAst Actions

The Service’s past, land protection efforts within 

the PPR have included establishment of the Dakota 

Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area and 

the North Dakota Wildlife Management Area, both 

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

used Federal Duck Stamp money to buy wetland 

and grassland easements. In total, the Service has 

protected in perpetuity approximately 2,420,414 

acres. The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program has worked with many private landowners 

on site-specific conservation efforts.

The USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program has 

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

administers approximately 45,000 in the Wetland 

Reserve Program. Nongovernmental organizations 

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

Present Actions

The Service’s establishment of the DGCA conservation easement program—up to 240,000 acres of 

wetland and 1.7 million acres of grassland—is one 

of the largest known actions for land protection in 

the PPR of North Dakota and South Dakota. If approved, the Service will use money from the LWCF 

in addition to money from the Migratory Bird Stamp 

and NAWCA. If money can be secured, there will 

likely be an increase in the number of wetland and 

grassland easements purchased.

R

Reasonably foreseeable actions are activities independent of the DGCA and are anticipated to occur regardless; however, the foreseeable actions 

could result in cumulative or additive effects when 

combined with the project actions. The primary, 

reasonably foreseeable actions in the PPR are the 

development of energy (oil, gas, and wind), agriculture, and prairie conservation efforts by a variety of 

organizations.

Oil and Gas Development

Northwestern North Dakota has recently seen a 

dramatic increase in oil and gas activity in what is 

commonly known as the Bakken formation. Recent 

advances in rock fracturing techniques have made 

oil production more economically viable, and there 

is an estimated 3.65 billion barrels of recoverable oil 

in the Bakken formation within North Dakota and 

Montana (Pollastro et al 2008). North Dakota has 

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

Wind Energy Development

North Dakota and South Dakota have remarkable 

wind energy potential. More than 127,000 square 

miles or about 85 percent of both States are suitable 

for commercial wind energy production, with an 

estimated energy capacity of 1.65 million megawatts 

(NREL 2011). The DGCA has less than 2.4 percent 
Chapter 3–Threats to and Status of Resources 33

of North Dakota and South Dakota’s wind development area (some priority wetland and grassland 

resources are not in commercially viable areas).

In coordination with the Western Area Power 

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

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

of the Western Area Power Administration, which 

covers all or parts of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota; and 

(2) the Service’s wetland and grassland easements 

in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana. The 

environmental impact statement will identify typical 

environmental effects of wind energy development; 

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

establish a comprehensive environmental program 

for evaluating future projects. The final analysis is 

expected to be completed in 2 years.

Agricultural Development

North Dakota and South Dakota predominantly 

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

main factors leading to the conversion of grassland 

to cropland. Although farm program subsidies are 

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

estimate and change on a daily basis but tend to be 

cyclic over time.

Other Conservation

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

Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited are expected to 

continue offering multiple programs to landowners. 

The project augments these efforts by collaborating with landowners to provide benefits to wildlife 

and fisheries resources along with the farming and 

ranching communities. If the goals of the project are 

achieved, it is expected the Service will continue to 

implement the remaining elements of the Conservation Strategy. That process will be analyzed at such 

time.

D

The project is a voluntary program where individual landowners determine if wetland or grassland 

easements are appropriate for their operations. 

Although the extent of energy development is dynamic, the Service will evaluate energy development 

on a case-by-case basis and authorize it if appropriate; the project could influence where energy 

development companies select production sites. In 

addition, the perpetual conservation program may 

reduce the potential production of agricultural crops 

in the area, although most areas to be protected are 

not well suited for crop production.

O

The accelerated acquisition of conservation easements up to 240,000 acres of wetland and 1.7 million 

acres of grassland will conserve a large part of the 

remaining wetland and grassland resources within 

the PPR, with an emphasis on conserving native 

prairie. This conservation effort will do the following:

■ Reduce the loss of vegetative species diversity

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

■ Conserve carbon sequestration capabilities

■ Protect the area’s water resources

C

Development of lands for either agriculture or 

energy development is largely determined by the 

private landowner. Similarly, private landowners 

determine if protection of lands via wetland and 

grassland easements is in their best interest. This 

voluntary program is not expected to have an adverse impact.

Chapter 4–Project Implementation

Canvasback drakes rest in a prairie wetland.

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS

After a summary of the land protection options that 

the Service considered during the planning process, 

the remainder of the chapter outlines the implementation procedures for the DGCA and provides 

Service staff with guidance and direction for purchasing wetland and grassland easements in the 

project area. 

Land Protection Options

During development of alternatives for this project, 

the Service considered the following options:

■ Voluntary landowner zoning

■ County zoning

■ Acquisition or management by others

■ Short-term easements

■ Expansion of the project

■ Fee-title acquisition

The Service determined that none of the above options met the purpose, need, or objectives for the 

DGCA, and these options were not analyzed in the 

EA. A full description of the options is in the EA 

(appendix C, section 2).

Two alternatives were chosen for analysis in 

the EA: (1) no action; and (2) establishment of an 

easement program. The Service selected the second alternative—establishing the DGCA easement 

program—after finding the consequences of inaction 

unacceptable, as summarized below.

N

Habitat protection will continue at current levels 

under SWAP, using the authorities of the Migratory 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Federal 

Duck Stamps) and the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act. Without more money, half of the 

remaining habitat within the designated project 

area may be converted to other uses over the next 

34 years. At current budget levels and using only 

SWAP, it would take the Service 150 years to protect the remaining wetland and grassland habitat 

in the proposed DGCA.

The use of Federal Duck Stamp dollars requires 

approval by the State Governor, and the Service 
36 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

will continue to use this money for conservation 

easements in the State of South Dakota. In North 

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

Duck Stamp dollars are not currently available in 

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

Therefore, the Service has limited means to acquire 

more wetland and grassland easements in North 

Dakota.

E

Wetland and grassland easements are the most costeffective, socially and politically acceptable means to 

ensure protection of critical habitats in the project 

area. Although habitat protection through fee title 

remains an option in some locations, the Service sees 

easements as the most viable way to conserve lands 

at the landscape scale necessary to protect wildlife 

values in the DGCA. The Service views a strong 

and vibrant rural lifestyle, of which ranching is the 

dominant land use, as one of the key components 

to ensuring habitat integrity and wildlife resource 

protection.

This project allows the purchase of critical 

wetland and grassland easements using primarily 

LWCF as a funding source. North Dakota and South 

Dakota has a waiting list of well over 800 landowners interested in selling wetland and grassland 

easements. The only thing restricting the Service 

from protecting the more than 300,000 acres on the 

Canada geese find food, cover, and nesting habitat in 

DGCA wetlands.

Duane C. Anderson / USFWS

waiting list is limited money. The DGCA project 

objective to conserve up to 240,000 acres of wetlands 

and 1.7 million acres of grassland will augment the 

efforts of other conservation agencies and groups.

Project Objectives and Actions

The Service has established the DGCA in the eastern parts of North Dakota and South Dakota, which 

cover all counties north and east of the Missouri 

River except those within the existing Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area (refer to 

chapter 1, figure 2). Within the project boundary, the 

Service will strategically identify and acquire from 

willing sellers the identified wetland and grassland 

conservation easements on privately owned lands.

The Service bases identification of areas considered for wetland and grassland easements on models 

developed by the Bismarck HAPET office, which 

identify the extent and location of grasslands and 

wetlands required to help meet the PPJV goals for 

migratory bird populations and habitat protection 

objectives of the SWAP.

The Service plans to buy or receive donated wetland and grassland easements on these identified 

areas within the project boundaries. These wetland 

and grassland conservation easements will connect 

and expand existing lands under conservation protection.

DGC

Based on anticipated levels of landowner participation, the objectives of the DGCA project are to 

protect 240,000 acres of wetland and 1.7 million acres 

of critical grassland habitat.

E

Easements bought under the authority of the 

DGCA, as well as those acquired to date, will be 

administered according to policy and procedures in 

the Easement Manual (USFWS 2011a). Following 

the policy and procedures in the manual, the Service 

evaluates and administers all requests for uses or 

activities restricted by an easement (for example, 

agricultural, utility, commercial, or industrial uses). 

This review process applies not only to easements 

bought under the DGCA project but also to those 

easements the Service had acquired earlier.

All land under easement remains in private 

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

plants and trees, remains the responsibility of the 

landowner. Control of public access to the land remains under the control of the landowner.
Chapter 4–Project Implementation 37

The easement contract will specify perpetual protection of habitat for trust species by restricting the 

conversion of wetland and grassland to other uses. 

Alteration of the natural topography, conversion of 

native prairie to cropland, and drainage of wetland 

will be prohibited. Wetland easements will prohibit 

the draining, burning, filling, or leveling of protected 

wetland. Furthermore, conversion of grassland to 

crop production or other uses that destroy vegetation will be prohibited.

While the easement contract specifies perpetual 

protection, it does not eliminate all activities. Protected wetland basins may be hayed or grazed without restriction and farmed when dry from natural 

causes. Grassland easements do not restrict grazing 

in any way, and haying is be permitted after July 15 

each year.

Service staff at the following wetland management districts in the DGCA area administer and 

monitor the easement program:

■ North Dakota wetland management districts—

Arrowwood, Audubon, Chase Lake, Crosby, 

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

Lostwood, Tewaukon, and Valley City

■ South Dakota wetland management districts—

Huron, Lake Andes, Madison, Sand Lake, and 

Waubay

Monitoring will include a periodical review of land 

status through correspondence or meetings with the 

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

met. The Service will use photo documentation at 

the time of easement establishment to document 

baseline conditions.

C

Level 1 pre-acquisition site assessments will be conducted on individual tracts before purchase of any 

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

in North Dakota and South Dakota will be contacted 

to make sure policies and guidelines are followed 

before acquisition of conservation easements.

Project costs

The per-acre cost for the wetland and grassland 

easements in the DGCA will vary considerably 

according to geographic location. Wetland and 

grassland easements are valued using the adjusted 

assessed land value (Service policy 341 FW 6). To 

figure out the market value of land, a multiplier is 

calculated to adjust the land value assessed by the 

local tax authority. The multiplier is determined by 

analyzing and comparing land sales to assessed land 

values in a defined market area. Once the multiplier 

is established, the multiplier adjusts the assessed 

land value of the parcel; a percentage is applied to 

this “adjusted assessed land value” to calculate the 

per-acre value of the easement. The 2010 estimated 

values for wetland and grassland easements are as 

follows:

■ Grassland easements in northwestern North 

Dakota—$250 per acre

■ Wetland easements in northwestern North 

Dakota—$300 per acre

■ Wetland and grassland easements in southeastern South Dakota—$900 per acre

The one-time, initial cost for the purchase of wetland 

and grassland conservation easements is about $588 

million. The entire project area is within an active 

SWAP area already approved to use Federal Duck 

Stamp money. Costs for annual compliance flights, 

landowner contacts, and staff time will be divided 

among existing resources and will have very little 

effect on the amount of staff and overhead already 

needed for other easement management. In 2009, 

the annual cost for administration, enforcement, 

operations, and maintenance of existing easements 

was estimated to be $0.30 per acre; additional management costs for the project are expected to be 

minimal because enforcement procedures are similar 

and will be performed in concert with other administrative efforts.

Acquisition funding

The Service will acquire wetland and grassland 

easements in the DGCA principally with LWCF 

money, although money from several sources and 

authorities could be used for the acquisition and 

management of wetland and grassland easements 

(table 2).

LWCF

These funds are is derived primarily from oil and gas 

leases on the Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat 

fuel taxes, and the sale of surplus Federal property. 

This money is not derived from general taxes. While 

LWCF money is intended for land and water conservation projects, funding is subject to annual appropriations by Congress for specific acquisition 

projects. When evaluating and acquiring wetland 

and grassland easements with LWCF money, the 

Service will use the process in place for acquiring 

easements under the SWAP.
38 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

SWAP

The Service will continue SWAP acquisitions and 

use Federal Duck Stamp and NAWCA monies as appropriate and available. However, interest in easements within the project area far exceeds the money 

available. There is an urgent need for the DGCA due 

to the imminent and ongoing threats to the habitat; 

therefore, the Service needs a substantial increase 

in funding to protect the remaining wetland and 

grassland.

Other Sources

Money from other sources may also be used in the 

project area. Management activities associated with 

easements may be funded through sources such as 

The Nature Conservancy, Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife, and other private and public partners. Additionally, the Service will consider accepting voluntary donations of easements.

Protection Priorities

In addition to identifying the habitat necessary to 

maintain current population levels of nesting ducks, 

the HAPET computer models generated maps 

of breeding pair concentrations (“thunderstorm” 

maps). As shown in figure 2 (chapter 1), the concentration of nesting ducks is an important factor in 

separating the highest priority tracts of land for protection from the lowest priority tracts. The priority 

zone in the DGCA is habitat accessible to more than 

25 duck pairs per square mile plus a 1-mile buffer of 

grassland; the priority zone encompasses 8.5 million 

acres in the DGCA. Consequently, biologists and 

realtors use these models daily as tools for evaluating each tract offered for purchase to decide where 

it ranks in priority against other available tracts.

Information from the models also helps the Service to use valuable staff time most efficiently by 

targeting outreach materials for landowners who 

own lands with the greatest resource value and giving them information about the conservation easement program.

Priority AreAs

The Service and its partners recognize a tremendous opportunity exists to expand current blocks of 

conservation lands in the project area. This includes 

landownership and other rights of State and Federal 

agencies (fee-title ownership and easements), other 

conservation agencies, and nongovernmental organizations: North Dakota Game and Fish Department; 

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks; Ducks Unlimited; The Nature Conservancy; and the National 

Audubon Society. These existing conservation lands 

serve as good anchors for building and expanding 

the easement program to increase habitat connectivity and reduce fragmentation.

Table 2. Acquisition authorities of the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area (DGCA) and approval components.

Acquisition authority 

(standard program1)

Alternative in 

the EA2

State approval 

component

MBCC 3 approval 

component

Acres counted in the 

DGCA acquisition goal

Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act of 1934 

(SWAP)

No action Yes No No

North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act of 1968

No action No Yes No

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

(LWCF)

Proposed action No No Yes

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of 1929 (NWRS)

Proposed action Yes Yes Yes

Donation 

(multiple authorities4

)

Proposed action Dependent 

on authority 

requirements

Dependent 

on authority 

requirements

Dependent 

on authority

1

SWAP=Small Wetland Acquisition Program; LWCF=Land and Water Conservation Fund; NWRS=National Wildlife 

Refuge System.

2

EA=environmental assessment.

3

MBCC=Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

4

Acquisition authority for each donation will be determined at the time of acceptance, but will primarily be one of the 

authorities listed above.
Chapter 4–Project Implementation 39

Less than 7 percent of the land in the DGCA has 

been bought primarily for wildlife purposes. There 

are three categories of wildlife land protection—

Federal, State, and private landownership. The following approximate acreages are for areas already 

under protection within the project area:

Federal Landownership (2,420,414 acres)

The Service is the primary Federal wildlife landowner.

■ Waterfowl production areas and national wildlife 

refuges—608,000 acres

■ Grassland easements—713,000 acres

■ Wetland easements—1,088,000 acres

■ FHA easements managed by the Service—11,414 

acres

State Landownership (238,706 acres)

The South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks and the 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department are the 

primary State landowners.

■ South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks—81,873 

acres

■ North Dakota Game and Fish Department—

156,833 acres

Private Landownership (38,550 acres)

■ Ducks Unlimited—9,300 acres

■ National Audubon Society—2,250 acres

■ Nature Conservancy—17,000 acres

E

Acquisition of wetland and grassland easements 

within the DGCA is not a new tool for effecting conservation. The Service has more than 50 years of experience acquiring wetland easements and 20 years 

of experience acquiring grassland easements within 

the project area.

Landscape modeling efforts completed by the 

Service’s HAPET office have generated “thunderstorm” (nesting bird concentration) maps that 

show areas of greatest importance to nesting ducks, 

shorebirds, other waterbirds, and grassland birds. 

Biologists and realty specialists use these tools to 

accurately rank and identify an individual tract’s 

importance and value for conserving the “best of the 

best” habitat to affect the widest array of trust resources. The model criteria have been incorporated 

into the tract evaluation form, which the Service 

completes as part of the evaluation of each tract of 

land offered by a private landowner for easement 

acquisition. Figures 5 and 6 display the evaluation 

criteria for wetland and grassland conservation 

easements. This detailed evaluation process makes 

sure that easement acquisitions target the highest 

priority habitat available.

The Service ranks tracts offered by private landowners for easement purchase using the evaluation 

forms for wetland and grassland easement acquisition that are contained in the Easement Manual 

(USFWS 2011a). Using the criteria and priorities 

in these forms to separate tracts that are “the best 

of the best” for land conservation, the Service’s acquisition biologists and realty specialists are able 

to choose from among the tracts offered, when the 

costs for protecting those tracts exceed the money 

available.

In general, wetland evaluation values tracts that 

occur in areas with potential to attract more than 25 

breeding duck pairs:

■ Threat Priority—Priority 1 is wetland embedded 

in cropland. Priority 2 is wetland associated with 

a grassland easement.

■ Wetland Size Priority—Priority 1 is temporary, 

seasonal, or semipermanent wetland larger than 

1 acre. Priority 2 is other wetland larger than 25 

acres.

■ Threatened and Endangered Species Priority—

Yes or No.

■ Wetland-dependent Migratory Bird Priority—

Yes or No.

Grassland evaluation values the following:

■ An individual tract’s attractiveness to duck 

breeding pairs—Priority 1 has more than 60 pairs 

of breeding ducks. Priority 2 has 40–60 pairs of 

breeding ducks. Priority 3 has 25–40 pairs of 

breeding ducks. Priority 4 has less than 25 pairs 

of breeding ducks.

■ A tract’s importance to threatened and endangered species—Yes or No.

■ A tract’s designation as a grassland bird conservation area—Yes or No.

Ecosystem Management and 

Landscape Conservation

To carry out the project, the Service will engage the 

Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC (landscape conservation cooperative)—a recent developing initiative 

that reaches across broad landscapes and involves 

many partners, functioning at a scale necessary to 

address wildlife adaptation in response to climate 

change. The Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC is 

dedicated to the conservation of a landscape unparalleled in importance to breeding waterfowl and 

many species of wetland and grassland birds. In addition, the area is habitat for resident and nongame 
40 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Figure 5. Chart of evaluation criteria for acquiring grassland conservation easements.
Chapter 4–Project Implementation 41Figure 6. Chart of evaluation criteria for acquiring wetland conservation easements.
42 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

wildlife, and its waters are home to many unique 

aquatic species such as the Topeka shiner. Efforts 

by the LCC will be integral to the long-term success 

of landscape-scale conservation through the DGCA 

project.

The Service is working to involve a diverse array of partners in the LCC including the State fish 

and wildlife agencies as well as Native American 

tribes. The LCC may expand to include Canadian 

Federal and provincial organizations as partners. 

Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, The Nature 

Conservancy, Delta Waterfowl, and many other 

nongovernmental organizations are long-standing 

partners in this landscape, and the Service envisions 

these organizations taking part in the LCC. The 

Missouri River recovery efforts include partnerships 

with Federal agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, five States, many tribes, and many 

nongovernmental organizations. The Service’s existing focus on wetland and grassland includes partnerships with The Nature Conservancy and the World 

Wildlife Fund.

The Service’s capacity for science and strategic 

conservation planning includes the following:

■ HAPET office in Bismarck, North Dakota

■ U.S. Geological Survey, which runs the Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center and the South 

Dakota State University Cooperative Research 

Unit and is planning to establish the Intermountain West Regional Climate Change Hub

■ Other public and private partners with potentially important science resources

The Service will work with the LCC partners to develop the scientific tools necessary to figure out how 

climate change, coupled with existing stressors such 

as conversion of native prairie for agriculture, may 

affect the health and productivity of populations of 

Federal trust species in the landscape.

S

The DGCA project is a landscape-scale effort to 

conserve populations of priority species in a highly 

diverse and endangered ecosystem over an area of 

approximately 29.6 million acres. Therefore, it is 

important to incorporate the elements of strategic 

habitat conservation (SHC) to ensure effective conservation. SHC entails strategic biological planning 

and conservation design, integrated conservation 

delivery, monitoring, and research at ecoregional 

scales (figure 7). Some elements of SHC have been 

addressed in migratory bird management plans in 

the PPR.

Figure 7. Graphic of the elements of strategic habitat conservation.
Chapter 4–Project Implementation 43

Strategic Biological Planning

The PPJV, Partners in Flight, and The Nature Conservancy have identified priority species for the 

PPR (table 1 in chapter 2): 8 species of waterfowl, 22 

species of shorebirds, 10 species of other waterbirds, 

and 20 species of grassland birds (landbirds). Five 

of the priority waterfowl species are upland-nesting 

duck species—mallard, northern pintail, gadwall, 

northern shoveler, and blue-winged teal.

Habitat loss due to conversion of wetland and 

grassland to cropland is the primary limiting factor 

for all priority species in the DGCA. Loss of these 

habitats reduces carrying capacity and nest success 

(Herkert et al. 2003, Reynolds et al. 2001).

Conservation Design

Grassland accessible to the greatest number of pairs 

of breeding ducks is the primary determinant for 

acquiring grassland conservation easements. Longterm protection objectives include all grasslands 

accessible to more than 25 duck pairs, plus a 1-mile 

buffer of grassland that affects nest success. These 

objectives were set to rank grasslands accessible to 

moderate to high numbers of breeding ducks. The 

Service identified three grassland categories:

■ Grassland accessible to more than 60 duck pairs

■ Grassland accessible to 40–60 duck pairs

■ Grassland accessible to 25–40 duck pairs

The Service will use the grassland flowchart (figure 

6), along with the wetland flowchart (figure 7) from 

the Easement Manual (USFWS 2011a). The criteria 

in these flowcharts helps Service staff prioritize areas for protection based on spatial models for waterfowl, threatened and endangered species, grassland 

birds, shorebirds, and other waterbirds (USFWS 

2011a).

Integrated Conservation Delivery

Wetland and grassland easements represent a 

means to conserve habitat. The habitat conservation 

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

bird initiatives) will not differ substantially from 

those strategies carried out to meet the needs of 

waterfowl (Ringleman 2005). As understanding of 

the functional relationships between priority species 

and habitats increases, the Service will adapt the 

strategies to target the most influential parcels for 

meeting the population objectives of the priority 

species listed in table 1 (chapter 2).

Over time, SWAP has used different criteria 

to guide the acquisition process; however, habitat 

quality has always been the major criterion. The 

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

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

percentage of perennial grassland cover exhibit 

higher nest success. This combination of wetland 

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

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

elements—large numbers of wetlands in association 

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

This LPP provides the information necessary to 

carry out the conservation action of acquiring the 

“best of the best” habitat for priority species. The 

Service’s Division of Realty will continue to refer to 

the LPP in assessing opportunities to acquire the 

highest priority habitat.

Monitoring and Research

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

there is great potential for providing benefits for 

multiple species. HAPET has developed standalone, 

single-species models to provide the ability to target 

different priority species, a combination of species, 

the treatment types, various locations, or specific 

funding requirements. Furthermore, this approach 

gives the Service a rapid response tool for specific 

decision support and for adaptive changes in models 

as new information became available.

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

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

comprehensive marshbird-monitoring program.

HAPET has provided valuable information 

through current monitoring programs that has been 

used to develop models of population–habitat relationships for priority waterfowl, shorebirds, grassland 

birds, and some raptors (Niemuth et al. 2005, Niemuth et al. 2008a, Reynolds et al. 2001, Reynolds et al. 

2006). These efforts will be expanded to include other 

species as resources and methods are developed.

Sociocultural Considerations

The human population is generally sparse and towns 

are widely scattered in the project area. The farm 

and ranch ownerships vary widely in size, ranging 

from 160- to 30,000-acre blocks that help maintain 

an intact landscape. The ranchers’ livelihoods depend on natural resources—grass, water, and open 

space—and the key to protecting the DGCA lies 

primarily in sustaining the current pattern of ranching and low-density use.
44 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Residents and county governments have expressed concerns about the amount of taxes paid 

to the counties when land is acquired in fee title. 

Because the project is an easement program, the 

land remains in private ownership; therefore, taxes 

paid to a county by the landowner are not affected. 

Over the short-term, money paid by the Service for 

the wetland or grassland easement becomes another 

source of income for the landowner and, logically, a 

part of those dollars likely will be spent locally in the 

local area. Proximity to protected easement lands 

may enhance the property value of adjoining lands.

The easement program is not expected to cause 

any adverse changes to the sociocultural climate in 

the project area but, rather, will help sustain the 

current condition. Unlike many other areas in the 

country, the key to protecting native prairie lies primarily in sustaining the current land use of livestock 

ranching.

Public Involvement 

and Coordination

The Service has involved the public, agencies, partners, and legislators throughout the planning process for the easement program.

S

At the beginning of the planning process, the Service initiated public involvement for the DGCA 

proposal to protect habitats primarily through 

acquisition of wetland and grassland conservation 

easements for management as part of the Refuge 

System. The Service spent time discussing the proposed DGCA project with landowners; conservation 

organizations; Federal, State and county governments; tribes and other interested groups and individuals. 

The Service held three open-house meetings on 

December 14, 15, and 16, 2010—at Minot, North Dakota; Jamestown, North Dakota; and Huron, South 

Dakota; respectively. The objective of this scoping 

process was to gather the full range of comments, 

questions, and concerns that the public has about the 

proposed action. This information helped the Service 

identify issues to analyze for the proposed project. 

There were 93 landowners, citizens, and elected representatives that attended the meetings and most 

expressed positive support for the project.

Additionally, individuals and groups submitted 

by mail or through the project Web page 24 letters 

and 1,469 emails about the proposed project. The 

Service field staff contacted local government officials, other public agencies, sportsmen and women’s 

groups, and conservation groups. The public scoping 

report is in appendix D.

PuBlic revieW of the drAft eA And lPP

The Service released the draft EA and LPP on June 

20, 2011, for a 30-day public review period. The draft 

documents were made available to Federal elected 

officials and agencies, State elected officials and 

agencies, 32 Native American tribes with aboriginal 

or tribal interests, and other members of the public 

that were identified during the scoping process.

In addition, two public meetings were held in Bismarck, North Dakota, and in Miller, South Dakota, 

on June 28 and 29, 2011, respectively. Approximately 

50 landowners, citizens, and elected representatives attended the meetings. The Service received 

10 letters from agencies, organizations, and other 

entities, and 347 general public comments. After 

all comments were received, each was reviewed 

and incorporated into the administrative record. 

Detailed comments and the Service’s responses are 

in appendix D.

LPP Distribution and Availability

The Service sent copies of the LPP to sent to 

Federal and State delegations, tribes, agencies, 

landowners, private groups, and other interested 

individuals.

Additional copies of the document are available 

from the following Web site and office:

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

planning/lpp/nd/dkg/dkg.html

■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

fw6_planning@fws.gov

303/236 8145
Glossary

AFWA—Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

candidate species—A plant or animal species that 

has been identified as possibly warranting future 

protection under the Endangered Species Act.

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations.

Conservation Strategy—An adaptive approach for 

integrating biological priorities with current 

socioeconomic threats to habitat to target the 

acquisition of wetland and grassland easements 

in the Prairie Pothole Region States of Region 6. 

The strategy focuses on the five, primary, uplandnesting duck species, which also provide for other 

trust species’ benefits. To meet the goal of this 

strategy, there is an estimated need of an additional 1.4 million acres of high-priority wetland 

and 10.4 million acres of high-priority grassland.

DGCA—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area. 

EA—See environmental assessment.

Easement Manual—Abbreviated name for the “Administrative and Enforcement Procedures of 

Easements within the Prairie Pothole States” 

(USFWS 2011a).

endangered species—A species of plant or animal 

that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant part of its range.

Endangered Species Act—A law passed by Congress 

in 1973 with the purpose of protecting and recovering imperiled species and the ecosystems on 

which they depend.

environmental assessment (EA)—A public document 

for which a Federal agency is responsible. An 

EA provides evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental 

impact statement or a finding of no significant 

impact, aids an agency’s compliance with NEPA 

(National Environmental Policy Act) when no 

environmental impact statement is necessary, 

and facilitates preparation of a statement when 

one is necessary.

EPA—U.S. Environmental Protction Agency.

GAO—Government Accountability Office. 

grassland—A vegetative community in which 

grasses are the most conspicuous members. 

Grass species may be native or introduced.

grassland easement—A perpetual, legal agreement 

between a landowner and the Service (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service) that pays the landowner 

to permanently keep the land in grass. Land 

covered by a grassland easement may not be 

cultivated. Mowing, haying, and grass seed harvesting must be delayed until after July 15 each 

year. Grazing is not restricted in any way.

grassland, tame—Grassland that was farmed at one 

point and has reverted to grass, such as Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands.

HAPET—Habitat and Population Evaluation Team. 

“interseed”—Mechanical seeding of one or several 

plant species into existing stands of established 

vegetation.

IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

LCC—Landscape conservation cooperative. 

LPP—Land protection plan. 

LWCF—Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

MBCC—Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

MBCF—Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.

NASS—National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

native prairie—a grassland community that is in 

its original state—it has never been plowed or 

cultivated.

NAWCA—North American Water Conservation Act. 

NDGF—North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 

NDGS—North Dakota Geological Survey. 

NDOGC—North Dakota Oil and Gas Commission. 

NDSHPO—North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office. 

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act. 

NFHB—National Fish Habitat Board. 

NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

NREL—National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

PPJV—Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. 

PPR—See Prairie Pothole Region. 

prairie pothole—a wetland located in the Prairie 

Pothole Region.

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan—A 

plan that provides direction for integrating the 

conservation of all migratory birds under one 

framework. The process involves stepping down 

the objectives of the four plans for the international species groups of waterfowl, shorebirds, 

other waterbirds, and landbirds. Population and 

habitat trends, coupled with knowledge of how 

species respond to landscape change, will be used 

to build a biological foundation and set quantifiable goals.

Prairie Pothole Region—An area of the northern 

Great Plains that contains thousands of shallow 
46 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

wetlands known as potholes. These potholes are 

the result of glacier activity in the Wisconsin glaciation, which ended approximately 10,000 years 

ago. The decaying ice sheet left behind depressions formed by the uneven deposition of till in 

ground moraines and melting ice blocks, which 

created kettle lakes. These depressions fill with 

water, creating the seasonal wetlands known as 

potholes.

priority zone—Grasslands accessible to more than 25 

duck pairs per square mile, plus a 1-mile buffer of 

grassland, that affect nest success.

Refuge System—National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Region 6—An administrative unit of the Service 

known as the Mountain–Prairie Region, which 

covers eight States: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, 

and Wyoming.

requested use—An activity that has been requested 

to occur on lands with easement agreements. 

These activities—such as pipelines, road construction, and wind development, which could 

affect easement wetlands or grasslands—need to 

be applied to a review process before they could 

be authorized.

SDARC—South Dakota State Historical Society Archeological Research Center. 

Service—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

SHC—Strategic habitat conservation. 

SWAP—Small Wetlands Acquisition Program. 

threatened species—A species of plant or animal 

that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.

trust species—Federal trust species, which include 

threatened and endangered species, as well as 

migratory birds such as waterfowl, wading birds, 

shorebirds, and neotropical migratory songbirds.

U.S.—United States. 

USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

USEPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

USFWS—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

wetland easement—A perpetual, legal agreement 

between a landowner and the Service that pays 

the landowner to permanently protect wetlands. 

Wetlands covered by an easement cannot be 

drained, filled, leveled, or burned. When these 

wetlands dry up naturally, they can be farmed, 

grazed, or hayed.
Appendix A

List of Preparers and Reviewers

Preparer Position Work Unit

Dave Azure Easement coordinator USFWS, Region 6, law enforcement, Jamestown, North 

Dakota

Chuck Bosch Realty specialist USFWS, North Dakota Wetlands Acquisition Office, 

Bismarck, North Dakota

Clarke Dirks Project leader USFWS, Huron Wetland Management District, Huron, 

South Dakota

Jackie Jacobson Visitor services manager USFWS, Audubon National Wildlife Refuge, Coleharbor, 

North Dakota

Lloyd Jones Project leader USFWS, Audubon National Wildlife Refuge, Coleharbor, 

North Dakota

Nick Kaczor Planning team leader, 

wildlife refuge specialist

USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, 

Colorado

Chuck Loesch Wildlife biologist USFWS, HAPET, Bismarck, North Dakota

David C. Lucas Division chief USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, 

Colorado

Noel Matson Realty specialist USFWS, Huron Wetlands Acquisition Office, Huron, South 

Dakota

Neal Niemuth Wildlife biologist USFWS, HAPET, Bismarck, North Dakota

Deb Parker Writer-editor USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, 

Colorado

Casey Stemler Wildlife biologist USFWS, Region, Migratory Birds, Lakewood, Colorado

Paul Van Ningen Project leader USFWS, Long Lake Wetland Management District, Moffit, 

North Dakota

Barry Williams Archeologist USFWS, Region 6, National Wildlife Refuge System, 

Bismarck, North Dakota
48 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Reviewer Position Work Unit

Paul Cornes Refuge supervisor for North 

Dakota and South Dakota

USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado

Bud Oliveira Deputy assistant regional director USFWS, Region 6, National Wildlife Refuge System, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Sue Oliveira Division chief USFWS, Region 6, Division of Realty, Lakewood, Colorado

Noreen Walsh Deputy regional director USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado
Appendix B

Species Lists

Plants

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Boxelder shrub Acer negundo

Yarrow Achillea lanulosa

Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens

Baneberry Actaea rubra

Rough gerardia Agalinis aspera

Slender gerardia Agalinis tenuifolia

Lavender hyssop Agastache foeniculum

False dandelion Agoseris glauca

Agrimony Agrimonia striata

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron desertorum

Ticklegrass Agrostis hyemalis

Autumn bent Agrostis perennans

Redtop Agrostis stolonifera

Nodding onion Allium cernuum

Pink wild onion Allium stellatum

White wild onion Allium textile

Few-flowered aster Almutaster pauciflorus

Shortawn foxtail Alopecurus aequalis

Carolina foxtail Alopecurus carolinianus

Marsh foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus

Tumbleweed Amaranthus albus

Tumbleweed Amaranthus graecizans

Rough pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus

Common ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia

Western ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya

Giant ragweed Ambrosia trifida

Juneberry Amelanchier alnifolia

Leadplant Amorpha canescens

Dwarf wild indigo Amorpha nana

Big bluestem Andropogon gerardi

Western rock jasmine Androsace occidentalis

Pygmy flower Androsace septentrionalis

Meadow anemone Anemone canadensis

Candle anemone Anemone cylindrica

Anemone multi Anemone multifida

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Pasqueflower Anemone patens

Wood anemone Anemone quinquefolia

Tall anemone Anemone virginiana

Dill Anethum graveolens

Field pussytoes Antennaria neglecta

Pussytoes Antennaria parvifolia

Plainleaf pussytoes Antennaria plantaginifolia

Rose pussytoes Antennaria rosea

Spreading dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium

Hemp dogbane Apocynum cannabinum

Prairie dogbane Apocynum sibiricum

Rockcress Arabis divaricarpa

Tower mustard Arabis glabra

Rockcress Arabis hirsuta

Rockcress Arabis holboellii

Wild sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis

Common burdock Arctium minus

Bearberry Arctostaphylos uva-ursi

Silverweed Argentina anserina

Red threeawn Aristida purpurea

Arnica Arnica fulgens

Wormwood Artemisia absinthium

Biennial wormwood Artemisia biennis

Dwarf sagebrush Artemisia cana

Western sagebrush Artemisia caudata

Silky wormwood Artemisia dracunculus

Silver wormwood Artemisia filifolia

Fringed sagewort Artemisia frigida

Longleaf wormwood Artemisia longifolia

White sage Artemisia ludoviciana

Green milkweed Asclepias hirtella

Oval-leaf milkweed Asclepias ovalifolia

Showy milkweed Asclepias speciosa

Common milkweed Asclepias syriaca

Whorled milkweed Asclepias verticillata

Asparagus Asparagus officinalis
50 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Slimstem reedgrass Calamagrostis stricta

Prairie sandreed Calamovilfa longifolia

Yellow evening primrose Calylophus serrulatus

Hedge bindweed Calystegia sepium

Littlepod false flax Camelina microcarpa

Gold-of-pleasure Camelina sativa

Creeping bellflower Campanula rapunculoides

Harebell Campanula rotundifolia

Shepherd’s purse Capsella bursa-pastoris

Caragana Caragana arborescens

Hoary cress Cardaria draba

Musk thistle Carduus nutans

Sedge Carex aenea

Assiniboia sedge Carex assiniboinensis

Wheat sedge Carex atherodes

Golden sedge Carex aurea

Bebb’s sedge Carex bebbii

Bicknell’s sedge Carex bicknellii

Shortbeak sedge Carex brevior

Douglas’ sedge Carex douglasii

Needleleaf sedge Carex duriuscula

Threadleaf sedge Carex filifolia

Heavy sedge Carex gravida

Deer sedge Carex hallii

Sun sedge Carex inops

Inland sedge Carex interior

Smoothcone sedge Carex laeviconica

Woolly sedge Carex lanuginosa

Mead’s sedge Carex meadii

Troublesome sedge Carex molesta

Peck’s sedge Carex peckii

Pennsylvania sedge Carex pensylvanica

Clustered field sedge Carex praegracilis

Knotsheath Carex retrorsa

Beaked sedge Carex rostrata

Rocky Mountain sedge Carex saximontana

Sprengel’s sedge Carex sprengelii

Manyhead sedge Carex sychnocephala

Rigid sedge Carex tetanica

Fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea

Caraway Carum carvi

Downy paintbrush Castilleja sessiliflora

Brookgrass Catabrosa aquatica

Climbing bittersweet Celastrus scandens

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

White aster Aster ericoides

Smallflower aster Aster falcatus

Smooth blue aster Aster laevis

Aromatic aster Aster oblongifolius

Simple aster Aster simplex

Purple milkvetch Astragalus agrestis

Two-grooved milkvetch Astragalus bisulcatus

Canada milkvetch Astragalus canadensis

Ground plum milkvetch Astragalus crassicarpus

Slender milkvetch Astragalus flexuosus

Tufted milkvetch Astragalus gilviflorus

Vetch adsug Astragalus laxmannii

Lotus milkvetch Astragalus lotiflorus

Missouri milkvetch Astragalus missouriensis

Narrowleaf poisonvetch Astragalus pectinatus

Creamy poisonvetch Astragalus racemosus

Looseflower milkvetch Astragalus tenellus

Silverscale saltbush Atriplex argentea

Rillscale Atriplex dioica

Garden orach Atriplex hortensis

Salt sage Atriplex nuttallii

Spearscale Atriplex patula

Redscale Atriplex rosea

Russian pigweed Axyris amaranthoides

Kochia Bassia scoparia

American sloughgrass Beckmannia syzigachne

Hoary false alyssum Berteroa incana

Paper birch Betula papyrifera

Nodding beggarticks Bidens cernua

Beggarticks Bidens frondosa

Beggarticks Bidens vulgata

Violet boltonia Boltonia asteroides

Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula

Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis

False boneset Brickellia eupatorioides

Fringed brome Bromus ciliatus

Smooth brome Bromus inermis

Japanese brome Bromus japonicus

Brome lati Bromus latiglumis

Nodding brome Bromus porteri

Downy brome Bromus tectorum

Buffalograss Buchloe dactyloides

Blue joint Calamagrostis canadensis

Plains reedgrass Calamagrostis montanensis
Appendix B–Species Lists 51

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Hackberry Celtis occidentalis

Common pimpernel Centunculus minimus

Prairie chickweed Cerastium arvense

Nodding chickweed Cerastium brachypodum

Powderhorn cerastium Cerastium nutans

Winterfat Ceratoides lanata

Hornwort Ceratophyllum demersum

Little rose Chamaerhodos erecta

Ridge-seeded spurge Chamaesyce glyptosperma

Thyme-leaved spurge Chamaesyce serpyllifolia

Lambsquarters Chenopodium album

Pitseed goosefoot Chenopodium berlandieri

Aridland goosefoot Chenopodium disiccatum

Fremont’s goosefoot Chenopodium fremontii

Oakleaf goosefoot Chenopodium glaucum

Narrowleaf goosefoot Chenopodium leptophyllum

Akali blite Chenopodium rubrum

Maple-leaved goosefoot Chenopodium simplex

Chenopodium Chenopodium strictum

Woodreed Cinna arundinacea

Drooping woodreed Cinna latifolia

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense

Prairie thistle Cirsium canescens

Wavyleaf thistle Cirsium undulatum

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare

Rocky Mountain beeplant Cleome serrulata

Collomia Collomia linearis

Bastard toadflax Comandra umbellata

Dayflower Commelina communis

Hare’s ear mustard Conringia orientalis

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis

Horseweed Conyza canadensis

Redosier dogwood Cornus sericea

Golden corydalis Corydalis aurea

American hazelnut Corylus americana

Roundleaf hawthorn Crataegus chrysocarpa

Northern hawthorn Crataegus rotundifolia

Fleshy hawthorn Crataegus succulenta

Hawksbeard Crepis occidentalis

Hawksbeard Crepis runcinata

Buttecandle Cryptantha celosioides

Buttonbush dodder Cuscuta cephalanthi

Scaldweed Cuscuta gronovii

Bigseed alfalfa dodder Cuscuta indecora

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Wild parsley Cymopterus acaulis

Brook flatsedge Cyperus bipartitus

Redroot cyperus Cyperus erythrorhizos

Slender flatsedge Cyperus odoratus

Bearded flatsedge Cyperus squarrosus

Common bladder fern Cystopteris fragilis

Longbract frog orchid Dactylorhiza viridis

Western prairie clover Dalea candida

Purple prairie clover Dalea purpurea

Poverty oatgrass Danthonia spicata

Little larkspur Delphinium bicolor

Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia caespitosa

Tansy mustard Descurainia pinnata

Flixweed Descurainia sophia

Canada tickclover Desmodium canadense

Leiberg’s panicum Dichanthelium leibergii

Wilcox’s panicum Dichanthelium wilcoxianum

Saltgrass Distichlis stricta

Shooting star Dodecatheon pulchellum

Woodland draba Draba nemorosa

Dragonhead Dracocephalum parviflorum

Purple coneflower Echinacea angustifolia

Blacksamson echinacea Echinacea angustifolia

Barnyard grass Echinochloa crusgalli

Wild cucumber Echinocystis lobata

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia

Silverberry Elaeagnus commutata

Needle spikesedge Eleocharis acicularis

Flatstem spikesedge Eleocharis compressa

Spikerush Eleocharis erythropoda

Spikerush Eleocharis macrostachya

Blunt spikesedge Eleocharis obtusa

Common spikerush Eleocharis palustris

Waterpod Ellisia nyctelea

Canada wildrye Elymus canadensis

Thickspike wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus

Quackgrass Elymus repens

Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus

Virginia wildrye Elymus virginicus

Fireweed Epilobium angustifolium

Tall annual willowherb Epilobium brachycarpum

Willowherb Epilobium ciliatum

Bog willowherb Epilobium leptophyllum

Field horsetail Equisetum arvense
52 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Water horsetail Equisetum fluviatile

Smooth horsetail Equisetum laevigatum

Teal lovegrass Eragrostis hypnoides

Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa

Tufted fleabane Erigeron caespitosus

Fernleaf fleabane Erigeron compositus

Smooth fleabane Erigeron glabellus

Spearleaf fleabane Erigeron lonchophyllus

Philadelphia fleabane Erigeron philadelphicus

Low fleabane Erigeron pumilus

Daisy fleabane Erigeron strigosus

Yellow buckwheat Eriogonum flavum

Erigonum Eriogonum pauciflorum

Cottongrass Eriophorum viridicarinatum

Dog mustard Erucastrum gallicum

Western wallflower Erysimum asperum

Wormseed wallflower Erysimum cheiranthoides

Smallflower wallflower Erysimum inconspicum

Pincushion cactus Escobaria vivipara

Spotted joepyeweed Eupatorium maculatum

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula

Narrowleaf goldenrod Euthamia graminifolia

Rough fescue Festuca campestris

Bluebunch fescue Festuca idahoensis

Sheep’s fescue Festuca ovina

Wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana

Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Spotted fritillary Fritillaria atropurpurea

Blanketflower Gaillardia aristata

Catchweed bedstraw Galium aparine

Northern bedstraw Galium boreale

Small bedstraw Galium trifidum

Sweet-scented bedstraw Galium triflorum

Scarlet gaura Gaura coccinea

Northern gentian Gentiana affinis

Annual gentian Gentianella amarella

Gentian Gentianopsis crinita

Yellow avens Geum aleppicum

Purple avens Geum triflorum

Sea milkwort Glaux maritima

Northern mannagrass Glyceria borealis

Tall mannagrass Glyceria grandis

Fowl mannagrass Glyceria striata

Wild licorice Glycyrrhiza lepidota

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Everlasting Gnaphalium palustre

Hedge hyssop Gratiola neglecta

Curlycup gumweed Grindelia squarrosa

Broom snakeweed Gutierrezia sarathrae

Perennial baby’s breath Gypsophila paniculata

Wood stickseed Hackelia deflexa

Stickseed Hackelia floribunda

Lanceleaf goldenweed Haplopappus lanceolatus

Spring ironplant Haplopappus spinulosus

Rough pennyroyal Hedeoma hispida

Sweet vetch Hedysarum boreale

Sneezeweed Helenium autumnale

Common sunflower Helianthus annuus

Maximilian sunflower Helianthus maximiliani

Nuttall’s sunflower Helianthus nuttallii

Plains sunflower Helianthus petiolaris

Stiff sunflower Helianthus rigidus

Jerusalem artichoke Helianthus tuberosus

Spikeoat Helictotrichon hookeri

Seaside heliotrope Heliotropium curassavicum

Cowparsnip Heracleum sphondylium

Dames rocket Hesperis matronalis

Intermediate needle and Hesperostipa comata

thread

Shortbristle needle and Hesperostipa spartea

thread

Golden aster Heterotheca villosa

Alum root Heuchera richardsonii

Flower of an hour Hibiscus trionum

Hawkweed Hieracium umbellatum

Sweetgrass Hierochloe odorata

Mare’s-tail Hippuris vulgaris

Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum

Barley Hordeum vulgare

Common hop Humulus lupulus

Fineleaf hymenopappus Hymenopappus filifolius

Slimleaf hymenopappus Hymenopappus tenuifolius

Henbane Hyoscyamus niger

Yellow stargrass Hypoxis hirsuta

Povertyweed Iva axillaris

Marsh elder Iva xanthifolia

Alpine rush Juncus alpinoarticulatus

Baltic rush Juncus arcticus

Toad rush Juncus bufonius
Appendix B–Species Lists 53

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Dudley’s rush Juncus dudleyi

Inland rush Juncus interior

Longstyle rush Juncus longistylis

Knotted rush Juncus nodosus

Torrey’s rush Juncus torreyi

Dwarf juniper Juniperus communis

Creeping juniper Juniperus horizontalis

Rocky Mountain red cedar Juniperus scopulorum

Junegrass Koeleria macrantha

Western wild lettuce Lactuca ludoviciana

Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola

Blue lettuce Lactuca tatarica

Low stickseed Lappula occidentalis

Blue stickseed Lappula squarrosa

Yellow vetchling Lathyrus ochroleucus

Marsh vetchling Lathyrus palustris

Duckweed Lemna spp.

Common motherwort Leonurus cardiaca

Peppergrass Lepidium densiflorum

Bushy peppergrass Lepidium ramosissimum

Bearded sprangletop Leptochloa fusca

Alpine bladderpod Lesquerella alpina

Silver bladderpod Lesquerella ludoviciana

Rocky Mountain blazing Liatris ligulistylis

star

Dotted blazing star Liatris punctata

Wood lily Lilium philadelphicum

Mudwort Limosella aquatica

Butter and eggs Linaria vulgaris

Blue flax Linum perenne

Stiffstem flax Linum rigidum

Grooved flax Linum sulcatum

Common flax Linum usitatissimum

Drummond’s halfchaff Lipocarpha drummondii

sedge

Hoary puccoon Lithospermum canescens

Narrowleaf stoneseed Lithospermum incisum

Kalm’s lobelia Lobelia kalmii

Palespike lobelia Lobelia spicata

Perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne

Persian ryegrass Lolium persicum

Desert biscuitroot Lomatium foeniculaceum

Bigseed biscuitroot Lomatium macrocarpum

Northern Idaho biscuit- Lomatium orientale

root

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Wild honeysuckle

Tatarian honeysuckle

Prairie bird’s-foot trefoil

Matrimony vine

Clubmoss 

Lichens 

American bugleweed

Rough bugleweed

Rush skeletonplant

Fringed loosestrife

Loosestrife

Tufted loosestrife

Purple Loosestrife 

Canescent aster

Goldenweed

Starry false lily of the 

valley

Common mallow

Pepperwort

Mayweed

Wild chamomile

Black medick

Alfalfa

White sweetclover

White sweetclover

Yellow sweetclover

Field mint

Tenpetal blazingstar

Prairie bluebells

Oblongleaf bluebells

Hairy four o’clock

Narrowleaf four o’clock

Heartleaf four o’clock

Wild bergamot

Povertyweed

Scratchgrass

Plains muhly

Marsh muhly

Mat muhly

Leafy musineon

Mousetail

Eurasian watermilfoil 

Green needlegrass

Woolly gilia

Lonicera dioica

Lonicera tatarica

Lotus unifoliolatus

Lycium barbarum

Lycopodium spp.

Lycopodium spp.

Lycopus americanus

Lycopus asper

Lygodesmia juncea

Lysimachia ciliata

Lysimachia hybrida

Lysimachia thrysiflora

Lythrum salicaria

Machaeranthera canascens

Machaeranthera grindeliode

Maianthemum stellatum

Malva neglecta

Marsilea vestita

Matricaria discoides

Matricaria maritima

Medicago lupulina

Medicago sativa

Melilotus alba

Melilotus albus

Melilotus officinalis

Mentha arvensis

Mentzelia decapetala

Mertensia lanceolata

Mertensia oblongifolia

Mirabilis hirsuta

Mirabilis linearis

Mirabilis nyctaginea

Monarda fistulosa

Monolepis nuttalliana

Muhlenbergia asperfolia

Muhlenbergia cuspidata

Muhlenbergia racemosa

Muhlenbergia richardsonis

Musineon divaricatum

Myosurus minimus

Myriophyllum spicatum

Nassella viridula

Navarretia intertexta
54 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Catnip Nepeta cataria

False dandelion Nothocalais cuspidata

Gumbo lily Oenothera caespitosa

Yellow lavauxia Oenothera flava

Nuttall’s evening- Oenothera nuttallii

primrose

Common evening- Oenothera villosa

primrose

Sneezewort aster Oligoneuron album

Stiff goldenrod Oligoneuron rigidum

False gromwell Onosmodium molle

Brittle pricklypear Opuntia fragilis

Plains pricklypear Opuntia polyacantha

Clustered broomrape Orobanche fasciculata

Broomrape Orobanche ludoviciana

Yellow owl’s-clover Orthocarpus luteus

Longstyle sweetroot Osmorhiza longistylis

Common yellow oxalis Oxalis stricta

Late yellow locoweed Oxytropis campestris

Purple locoweed Oxytropis lambertii

Showy locoweed Oxytropis splendens

Gray ragwort Packera cana

Witchgrass Panicum capillare

Witchgrass Panicum virgatum

Pennsylvania pellitory Parietaria pensylvanica

Northern grass of Parnassia palustris

Parnassus

Whitlowwort Paronychia sessiliflora

Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithiii

Wild parsnip Pastinaca sativa

Silver-leaf scurfpea Pediomelum argophyllum

Breadroot Pediomelum esculentum

White beardtongue Penstemon albidus

Narrow beardtongue Penstemon angustifolius

Crested beardtongue Penstemon eriantherus

Slender beardtongue Penstemon gracilis

Smooth blue beardtongue Penstemon nitidus

Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea

Timothy Phleum pratense

Hood’s phlox Phlox hoodii

Common reed Phragmites australis

Clammy groundcherry Physalis heterophylla

Virginia groundcherry Physalis virginiana

Obedient plant Physostegia parviflora

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Littleseed ricegrass Piptatherum micranthum

Scouler’s popcornflower Plagiobothrys scouleri

Prairie plantain Plantago elongata

Alkali plantain Plantago eriopoda

Common plantain Plantago major

Buckhorn Plantago patagonica

Northern green orchid Plantanthera aquilonis

Western prairie fringed- Plantanthera praeclara

orchid (threatened)

Plains bluegrass Poa arida

Canada bluegrass Poa compressa

Early bluegrass Poa cusickii

Inland bluegrass Poa nemoralis

Foul bluegrass Poa palustris

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis

Canby’s bluegrass Poa secunda

Clammyweed Polanisia dodecandra

White milkwort Polygala alba

Seneca snakeroot Polygala senega

Whorled milkwort Polygala verticillata

Smooth Solomon’s seal Polygonatum biflorum

Erect knotweed Polygonum achoreum

Swamp smartweed Polygonum amphibium

Common knotweed Polygonum arenastrum

Wild buckwheat Polygonum convolvulus

Pale smartweed Polygonum lapathifolium

Pennsylvania smartweed Polygonum pensylvanicum

Lady’s-thumb Polygonum persicaria

Bushy knotweed Polygonum ramosissimum

Balsam poplar Populus balsamifera

Cottonwood Populus deltoides

Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides

Common purslane Portulaca oleracea

Curlyleaf pondweed Potamogeton crispus

Tall cinquefoil Potentilla arguta

Early cinquefoil Potentilla concinna

Graceful cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis

Woolly cinquefoil Potentilla hippiana

Norwegian cinquefoil Potentilla norvegica

Bushy cinquefoil Potentilla paradoxa

Prairie cinquefoil Potentilla pensylvanica

Brook cinquefoil Potentilla rivalis

Prairie rattlesnakeroot Prenanthes racemosa

Fairybells Prosartes trachycarpa
Appendix B–Species Lists 55

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Selfheal Prunella vulgaris

American plum Prunus americana

Pin cherry Prunus pensylvanica

Sandcherry Prunus pumila

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana

Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicatum

Silverleaf scurfpea Psoralea argophylla

Breadroot scurfpea Psoralea esculenta

Lemon scurfpea Psoralidium lanceolatum

Alkaligrass Puccinellia nuttalliana

Bur oak Quercus macrocarpa

Early wood buttercup Ranunculus abortivis

Shiny-leaved buttercup Ranunculus glaberrimus

Macoun’s buttercup Ranunculus macounii

Labrador buttercup Ranunculus rhomboideus

Prairie coneflower Ratibida columnifera

Common buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica

Aromatic sumac Rhus aromatica

Wild black currant Ribes americanum

Buffalo currant Ribes aureum

Low wild gooseberry Ribes hirtellum

Bristly gooseberry Ribes oxyacanthoides

Bog yellow cress Rorippa palustris

Prairie rose Rosa arkansana

Smooth rose Rosa blanda

Prairie wild rose Rosa setigera

Woods’ rose Rosa woodsii

Red raspberry Rubus idaeus

Black-eyed susan Rudbeckia hirta

Western dock Rumex aquaticus

Curly dock Rumex crispus

Field dock Rumex longifolius

Golden dock Rumex maritimus

Mexican dock Rumex salicifolius

Narrowleaf dock Rumex stenophyllus

Ditchgrass Ruppia maritima

Saltwort Salicornia rubra

Peachleaf willow Salix amygdaloides

Bebb willow Salix bebbiana

Sageleaf willow Salix candida

Pussy willow Salix discolor

Diamond willow Salix eriocephala

Narrowleaf willow Salix exigua

Shining willow Salix lucida

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Laurel willow Salix pentandra

Meadow willow Salix petiolaris

Russian thistle Salsola tragus

Black snakeroot Sanicula marilandica

Bouncing bet Saponaria officinalis

Tumblegrass Schedonnardus paniculatus

False melic Schizachne purpurascens

Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium

Three-square bulrush Schoenoplectus americanus

Tule bulrush Schoenoplectus lacustris

Cosmopolitan bulrush Schoenoplectus maritimus

Softstem bulrush Schoenoplectus 

tabernaemontani

Sprangletop Scolochloa festucacea

Figwort Scrophularia lanceolata

Blue skullcap Scutellaria lateriflora

Small clubmoss Selaginella densa

Swamp ragwort Senecio congestus

Lambstongue ragwort Senecio integerrimus

Prairie ragwort Senecio plattensis

Yellow foxtail Setaria glauca

Green foxtail Setaria viridus

Buffaloberry Shepherdia argentea

Little bluestem Shizachyrium scoparius

Sleepy catchfly Silene antirrhina

Smooth catchfly Silene cserei

Drummond’s cockle Silene drummondii

White cockle Silene latifolia

Bladder campion Silene vulgaris

Charlock Sinapis arvensis

Tumbling mustard Sisymbrium altissimum

Narrowleaf blue-eyed Sisyrinchium angustfolium

grass

Smooth carrionflower Smilax herbacea

Bittersweet Solanum dulcamara

Cutleaf nightshade Solanum triflorum

Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis

Late goldenrod Solidago gigantea

Prairie goldenrod Solidago missouriensis

Soft goldenrod Solidago mollis

Gray goldenrod Solidago nemoralis

Showy goldenrod Solidago speciosa

Field sowthistle Sonchus arvensis

Spiny sowthistle Sonchus asper
56 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Common sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus

Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans

Burreed Sparganium spp.

Alkali cordgrass Spartina gracilis

Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata

Scarlet globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea

Prairie wedgegrass Sphenopholis obtusata

Meadowsweet Spiraea alba

Nodding lady’s tresses Spiranthes cernua

Hooded lady’s tresses Spiranthes romanzoffiana

Rough dropseed Sporobolus compositus

Sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus

Prairie dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis

Hedge nettle Stachys palustris

Longleaf starwort Stellaria longifolia

Longstalk starwort Stellaria longipes

Fleshy stitchwort Stellaria scarassifolia

Needle and thread Stipa comata

Porcupine grass Stipa spartea

Sago pondweed Stuckenia pectinata

Sea blite Suaeda calceoliformis

Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus

Western snowberry Symphoricarpos occidentalis

Rush aster Symphyotrichum boreale

Rayless aster Symphyotrichum ciliatum

White aster Symphyotrichum ericoides

Smallflower aster Symphyotrichum falcatum

Smooth blue aster Symphyotrichum laeve

Panicled aster Symphyotrichum 

lanceolatum

Aromatic aster Symphyotrichum 

oblongifolium

Salt cedar Tamarix ramosissima

Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare

Rock dandelion Taraxacum laevigatum

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale

American germander Teucrium canadense

Purple meadowrue Thalictrum dasycarpum

Early meadowrue Thalictrum venulosum

Golden pea Thermopsis rhombifolia

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Intermediate wheatgrass Thinopyrum intermedium

Tall wheatgrass Thinopyrum ponticum

Penny cress Thlaspi arvense

Stemless Townsend daisy Townsendia exscapa

Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans

Spiderwort Tradescantia bracteata

Goatsbeard Tragopogon dubius

Alsike clover Trifolium hybridum

Red clover Trifolium pratense

White clover Trifolium repens

Seaside arrowgrass Triglochin maritima

Durum wheat Triticum durum

Cattails Typha spp.

American elm Ulmus americana

Siberian elm Ulmus pumila

Stinging nettle Urtica dioica

Common bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris

Cowherb Vaccaria hispanica

Bracted vervain Verbena bracteata

Blue vervain Verbena hastata

Hoary vervain Verbena stricta

White vervain Verbena urticifolia

Water speedwell Veronica anagallis-aquatic

Ironweed Veronica fasciculata

Purslane speedwell Veronica peregrina

Marsh speedwell Veronica scutellata

Nannyberry Viburnum lentago

American vetch Vicia americana

Hairy vetch Vicia villosa

Small blue violet Viola adunca

Canada violet Viola canadensis

Meadow violet Viola nephrophylla

Nuttall’s violet Viola nuttallii

Prairie violet Viola pedatifida

Wild grape Vitis vulpina

Sixweeks fescue Vulpia octoflora

Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium

Corn Zea mays

White camas Zigadenus elegans

Death camas Zigadenus venenosus

Meadow parsnip Zizia aptera
Appendix B–Species Lists 57

Insects

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

HESPERIIDAE (PYRGINAE)

Silver-spotted skipper Epargyreus clarus

Common checkered skipper Pyrgus communis

Common sooty wing Pholisora catullus

HESPERIIDAE (HESPERIINAE)

Roadside skipper Amblyscirtes vialis

Delaware skipper Anatrytone logan

Least skipper Ancyloxypha numitor

Arogos skipper Atrytone arogos

Dusted skipper Atrytonopsis hianna

Dunn skipper Euphyes vestris

Common branded skipper Hesperia comma

Dakota skipper Hesperia dacotae

Pawnee skipper Hesperia leonardus pawnee

Ottoe skipper Hesperia ottoe

Uncas skipper Hesperia uncas

Garita skipperling Oarisma garita

Hobomok skipper Poanes hobomok

Long dash Polites mystic

Peck’s skipper Polites peckius

Tawny-edge skipper Polites themistocles

PAPILIONIDAE 

Black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes

Canadian tiger swallowtail Papilio (Pterourus) canadensis

Eastern tiger swallowtail Papilio (Pterourus) glaucus

PIERIDAE 

European cabbage 

butterfly

Alfalfa butterfly

Clouded sulphur

Olympia marble

Checkered white

Artogeia rapae

Colias eurytheme

Colias philodice

Euchloe olympia

Pontia protodice

LYCAENIDAE (LYCAENINAE) 

Great copper

Bronze copper

Purplish copper

Lycaena (Gaeides) xanthoides

Lycaena (Hyllolycaena) hyllus

Lycaena (Epidemia) helloides

LYCAENIDAE (THECLINAE) 

Coral hairstreak

Acadian hairstreak

Striped hairstreak

Gray hairstreak

Satyrium (Harkenclenus) titus

Satyrium acadicum

Satyrium liparops

Strymon melinus

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

LYCAENIDAE (POLYOMMATINAE) 

Spring azure

Summer azure

Eastern tailed blue

Silvery blue

Melissa blue

Celastrina ladon 

Celastrina neglecta 

Everes comyntas

Glaucopsyche lygdamus

Lycaeides melissa

NYMPHALIDAE (HELICONIINAE) 

Meadow fritillary

Silver-bordered fritillary

Variegated fritillary

Aphrodite fritillary

Callippe fritillary

Great spangled fritillary

Regal fritillary

Clossiana bellona 

Clossiana selene

Euptoieta claudia

Speyeria aphrodite

Speyeria callippe

Speyeria cybele

Speyeria idalia

NYMPHALIDAE (NYMPHALINAE) 

Milbert’s tortoise shell

Gorgone checkerspot

Silvery checkerspot

Mourning cloak

Northern pearl crescent

Pearl crescent

Hop merchant

Question mark

Gray comma

Red admiral

Painted lady

American painted lady

Aglais milberti

Charidryas gorgone

Charidryas nycteis

Nymphalis antiopa

Phyciodes cocyta 

Phyciodes tharos

Polygonia comma

Polygonia interrogationis

Polygonia progne

Vanessa atalanta

Vanessa cardui

Vanessa virginiensis

NYMPHALIDAE (LIMENITIDINAE) 

White admiral

Red-spotted purple

Viceroy

Basilarchia a. arthemis

Basilarchia a. astyanax

Basilarchia archippus

NYMPHALIDAE (APATURINAE) 

Hackberry butterfly Asterocampa celtis

NYMPHALIDAE (SATYRINAE) 

Common wood nymph

Inornate ringlet

Northern pearly eye

Little wood satyr

Varuna Arctic

Eyed brown

Cercyonis pegala

Coenonympha inornata

Enodia anthedon

Megisto cymela

Oeneis uhleri varuna

Satyrodes eurydice

DANAIDAE 

Monarch Danaus plexippus
58 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Amphibians

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Plains spadefoot toad Scaphiopus bombifrons Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens

Woodhouse’s toad Bufo woodhousei woodhousei Wood frog Rana sylvatica

Great Plains toad Bufo cognatus Boreal chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata maculata

American toad Bufo americanus Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum

Canadian toad Bufo hemiophrys Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus

Gray tree frog Hyla versicolor

Reptiles

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Northern prairie skink Eumeces septentrionalis Northern redbelly snake Storeria occipitomaculata 

Western painted turtle Chrysemys picata bellii (Gray) occipitomaculata

Common snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina serpentina Smooth green snake Opheodrys vernalis

Red-sided garter snake Thamnophis sirtailis parietalis Western hognose snake Heterodon nasicus

Plains garter snake Thamnophis radix Bull snake Pituophis catenifer

Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis

Fishes (NDGF 1994)

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

LAMPREYS Lake chub Couesius plumbeus

Chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon castaneus Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella

Silver lamprey Ichthyomyron unicuspis Red shiner Cyprinella lutrensis

STURGEONS Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera

Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens Common carp Cyprinus carpio

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Western silvery minnow Hybognathus argyritis

Shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni

PADDLEFISHES Mississippi silvery minnow Hybognathus nuchalis

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula Plains minnow Hybognathus placitus

GARS Common shiner Luxilus cornutus

Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus Sturgeon chub Macrhybopsis gelida

Shortnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus Sicklefin chub Macrhybopsis meeki

BOWFINS Silver chub Macrhybopsis storeriana

Bowfin Amia calva Pearl dace Margariscus margarita

MOONEYES Hornyhead chub Nocomis biguttatus

Goldeye Hiodon alosoides Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

Mooneye Hiodon tergisus Pugnose shiner Notropis anogenus

EELS Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides

American eel Anguilla rostrata River shiner Notropis blennius

HERRINGS Bigmouth shiner Notropis doralis

Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris Blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis

MINNOWS Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius

Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Rosyface shiner Notropis rubellus

Largescale stoneroller Compostoma oligolepis Silverband shiner Notropis shumardi

Goldfish Carassius auratus Sand shiner Notropis stramineus
Appendix B–Species Lists 59

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Topeka shiner Notropis topeka

Suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis

Northern redbelly Phoxinus eos

Finescale dace Phoxinus neogaeus

Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas

Flathead chub Platygobio gracilis

Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus

Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae

Rudd Scardinius erythrophthalmus

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus

SUCKERS

River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio

Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus

Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus

White sucker Catostomus commersoni

Mountain sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus

Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus

Lake chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta

Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans

Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus

Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus

Black buffalo Ictiobus niger

Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum

Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum

Shorthead redhorse Morostoma macrolepidotum

Greater redhorse Moxostoma valenciennesi

CATFISH

Black bullhead Ameiurus melas

Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis

Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus

Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Slender madtom Noturus exilis

Stonecat Noturus flavus

Tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus

Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris

PIKE

Northern pike Esox lucius

Muskellunge Esox masquinongy

Tiger muskie Esox lucius × Esox 

masquinongy 

MUDMINNOWS

Central mudminnow Umbra limi

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

TROUT-PERCH 

Trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus

COD

Burbot Lota lota

KILLFISH

Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus

Plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus

Plains killifish Fundulus zebrinus

STICKLEBACKS

Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans

TEMPERATE BASS

White bass Morone chrysops

Striped bass Morone saxatilis

Wiper Morone chrysops × Morone 

saxatilis 

SUNFISHES

Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris

Sacramento perch Archoplites interruptus

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus

Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis

Orangespotted/ Lepomis humilis × Lepomis 

pumpkinseed hybrid gibbosus 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Bluegill/green sunfish Lepomis macrochirus ×

hybrid Lepomis cyanellus 

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides

White crappie Pomoxis annularis

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

PERCH

Iowa darter Etheostoma exile

Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum

Yellow perch Perca flavescens

Logperch Percina caprodes

Blackside darter Percina maculata

Slenderhead darter Percina phoxocephala

River darter Percina shumardi

Sauger Stizostedion canadense

Zander Stizostedion lucioperca

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum

Saugeye Stizostedion canadense ×

Stizostedion vitreum 

DRUMS

freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens
60 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Birds

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

LOONS 

Common loon Gavia immer 

GREBES 

Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps 

Horned grebe Podiceps auritus 

Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena 

Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis 

Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis 

Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii

PELICANS 

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

CORMORANTS 

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

HERONS, EGRETS, and BITTERNS 

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 

Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis 

Great blue heron Ardea herodias 

Great egret Ardea alba 

Snowy egret Egretta thula 

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea 

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis 

Green heron Butorides virescens 

Black-crowned nightheron Nycticorax nycticorax 

Yellow-crowned nightheron Nyctanassa violacea 

IBISES 

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi 

VULTURES 

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura 

SWANS, GEESE, and DUCKS 

Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus 

Greater white-fronted Anser albifrons 

goose

Snow goose Chen caerulescens 

Ross’s goose Chen rossii 

Brant Branta bernicla 

Canada goose Branta canadensis 

Wood duck Aix sponsa 

Gadwall Anas strepera 

American wigeon Anas americana 

American black duck Anas rubripes 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Blue-winged teal Anas discors 

Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera 

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata 

Northern pintail Anas acuta

Green-winged teal Anas crecca 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria

Redhead Aythya americana 

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris 

Greater scaup Aythya marila 

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis 

White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 

Common merganser Mergus merganser 

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator 

Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

HAWKS and EAGLES 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus 

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus 

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis 

Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus 

Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni 

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis 

Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos 

FALCONS 

American kestrel Falco sparverius 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 

Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus 

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus 

UPLAND GAME BIRDS 

Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus 

Gray partridge Perdix perdix 

Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus 

Sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus 

Greater prairie-chicken Tympanuchus cupido 
Appendix B–Species Lists 61

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo 

RAILS and COOTS 

King rail Rallus elegans 

Virginia rail Rallus limicola 

Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis 

Sora Porzana carolina 

American coot Fulica americana 

Common moorhen Gallinula chloropus 

CRANES 

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis 

Whooping crane 

(endangered)

Grus americana

SHOREBIRDS 

Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola

American golden-plover Pluvialis dominica

Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus

Piping plover (threatened) Charadrius melodus

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus

American avocet Recurvirostra americana

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria

Willet Tringa semipalmata

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularius

Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda

Hudsonian godwit Limosa haemastica

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa

Sanderling Calidris alba

Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla

Western sandpiper Calidris mauri

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla

White-rumped sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis

Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii

Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos

Dunlin Calidris alpina

Stilt sandpiper Calidris himantopus

Buff-breasted sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus

Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

Common snipe Gallinago gallinago

American woodcock Scolopax minor

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor

Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

GULLS and TERNS 

Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan

Bonaparte’s gull

Ring-billed gull

California gull

Herring gull

Caspian tern

Least tern (endangered)

Chroicocephalus philadelphia

Larus delawarensis

Larus californicus

Larus argentatus

Hydroprogne caspia

Sterna antillarum

Common tern Sterna hirundo

Forster’s tern 

Black tern 

Sterna forsteri

Chlidonias niger

DOVES 

Rock dove Columba livia

Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto 

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 

CUCKOOS and ROADRUNNERS 

Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus

OWLS 

Barn owl Tyto alba

Eastern screech-owl Megascops asio

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus

Snowy owl Bubo scandiacus

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia

Barred owl Strix varia

Long-eared owl Asio otus

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus

Boreal owl Aegolius funereus

Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus

NIGHTHAWKS and NIGHTJARS 

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus

SWIFTS 

Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica

HUMMINGBIRDS 

Ruby-throated Archilochus colubris 

hummingbird

KINGFISHERS 

Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon

WOODPECKERS 

Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus

Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens
62 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus 

FLYCATCHERS 

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi

Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus

Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens

Yellow-bellied flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris

Alder flycatcher Empidonax alnorum

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus 

Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe

Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya

Great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus

Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

SHRIKES 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Northern shrike Lanius excubitor

VIREOS 

Blue-headed vireo Vireo solitarius

Yellow-throated vireo Vireo flavifrons

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus

Philadelphia vireo Vireo philadelphicus

Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus

JAYS, MAGPIES, and CROWS 

Gray jay Perisoreus canadensis

Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata

Black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

LARKS 

Horned lark Eremophila alpestris

SWALLOWS 

Purple martin Progne subis 

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor

Northern rough-winged 

swallow 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis

Bank swallow Riparia riparia

Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica

CHICKADEES and TITMICE 

Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus

NUTHATCHES 

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

CREEPERS 

Brown creeper Certhia americana 

WRENS 

House wren Troglodytes aedon

Winter wren Troglodytes hiemalis

Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris

Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus

KINGLETS, BLUEBIRDS, and THRUSHES 

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula

Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis

Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides

Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina

Veery Catharus fuscescens

Gray-cheeked thrush Catharus minimus

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus

American robin Turdus migratorius

MIMICS 

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis

Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum

STARLINGS 

European starling Sturnus vulgaris

PIPITS 

American (water) pipit Anthus rubescens

Sprague’s pipit (candidate) Anthus spragueii

WAXWINGS 

Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum

WARBLERS 

Northern parula Parula americana

Golden-winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera

Tennessee warbler Oreothlypis peregrina 

Orange-crowned warbler Oreothlypis celata 

Nashville warbler Oreothlypis ruficapilla

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia

Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica

Magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia

Cape May warbler Dendroica tigrina

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata

Black-throated green Dendroica virens

warbler
Appendix B–Species Lists 63

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Blackburnian warbler Dendroica fusca

Pine warbler

Palm warbler

Bay-breasted warbler

Blackpoll warbler

Black-and-white warbler

Dendroica pinus

Dendroica palmarum

Dendroica castanea

Dendroica striata

Mniotilta varia

American redstart

Ovenbird

Northern waterthrush

Setophaga ruticilla

Seiurus aurocapilla

Parkesia noveboracensis

Connecticut warbler

Mourning warbler

Common yellowthroat 

Wilson’s warbler

Canada warbler

Oporornis agilis

Oporornis philadelphia 

Geothlypis trichas

Wilsonia pusilla

Wilsonia canadensis

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens

TANAGERS and CARDINALS 

Scarlet tanager

Western tanager

Northern cardinal

Piranga olivacea

Piranga ludoviciana

Cardinalis cardinalis

SPARROWS, BUNTINGS, and GROSBEAKS 

Eastern towhee

Spotted towhee

American tree sparrow

Chipping sparrow 

Clay-colored sparrow 

Field sparrow

Vesper sparrow

Lark sparrow 

Lark bunting 

Savannah sparrow 

Grasshopper sparrow 

Baird’s sparrow 

Le Conte’s sparrow 

Nelson’s sharp-tailed 

sparrow 

Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Pipilo maculatus

Spizella arborea

Spizella passerina

Spizella pallida

Spizella pusilla

Pooecetes gramineus

Chondestes grammacus

Calamospiza melanocorys

Passerculus sandwichensis 

Ammodramus savannarum

Ammodramus bairdii

Ammodramus leconteii

Ammodramus nelsoni

Fox sparrow

Song sparrow 

Swamp sparrow

Lincoln’s sparrow

Passerella iliaca

Melospiza melodia

Melospiza georgiana

Melospiza lincolnii

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis

Harris’ sparrow Zonotrichia querula

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis

Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus

Smith’s longspur Calcarius pictus

Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus

McCown’s longspur Rhynchophanes mccownii

Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis

Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus

Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus

Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena

Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea

Dickcissel Spiza americana

BLACKBIRDS and ORIOLES 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Red-winged blackbird 

Western meadowlark 

Yellow-headed blackbird 

Agelaius phoeniceus

Sturnella neglecta

Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus

Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater

Orchard oriole Icterus spurius

Baltimore oriole Icterus galbula

FINCHES 

Pine grosbeak Pinicola enucleator

Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus

Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra

White-winged crossbill Loxia leucoptera

Common redpoll Acanthis flammea

Hoary redpoll Acanthis hornemanni 

Pine siskin Spinus pinus

American goldfinch Spinus tristis

Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

OLD WORLD SPARROWS 

House sparrow Passer domesticus
64 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Mammals

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Arctic shrew Sorex arcticus

Pygmy shrew Microsorex hoyi

Northern short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

Nuttall’s cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus

White-tailed jackrabbit Lepus townsendii

Woodchuck Marmota monax

Franklin’s ground squirrel Spermophilus franklinii

Richardson’s ground Spermophilus richardsonii

squirrel

Thirteen-lined ground Spermophilus 

squirrel tridecemlineatus

Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger

Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides

Olive-backed pocket mouse Perognathus fasciatus

Plains pocket mouse Perognathus flavescens

American beaver Castor canadensis

Northern grasshopper Onychomys leucogaster

mouse

Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis

White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Southern red-backed vole Clethrionomys gapperi

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Norway rat Rattus norvegicus

House mouse Mus musculus

Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

Red fox Vulpes vulpes

Common gray fox Urocyon cineroargenteus

Coyote Canis latrans

Gray wolf (endangered) Canis lupus

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Ermine Mustela erminea

Least weasel Mustela nivalis

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata

Mink Mustela vison

American badger Taxidea taxus

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis

Bobcat Felis rufus

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

Moose Alces alces

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana
Appendix C

Environmental Assessment

1. PURPOSE and NEED for ACTION

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

USFWS

This EA documents the purpose, issues, alternatives, and analysis for the proposed DGCA in North 

Dakota and South Dakota. Section 1 details the 

background information and conditions that led to 

the Service’s proposal to create the DGCA project 

for protection of important wetland and grassland 

habitat through conservation easements with willing 

landowners.

Introduction

The PPR is an extraordinary biome (a defined geographical area and its living organisms that interact 

with the environment) for its ability to produce and 

sustain tremendous numbers of waterfowl (figure 

A). The region is part of one of the largest wetland–

grassland ecosystems on Earth. In the late 1700s, 

between 7 and 8 million acres of wetland existed 

in the Dakotas alone within the United States part 

of the PPR. By the 1980s, North Dakota had lost 

nearly 50 percent of its original wetland acreage and 

South Dakota had lost an estimated 35 percent (Dahl 

1990). Drainage of wetland in the PPR imposes a 

condition of permanent drought for wildlife. Consequently, the abundance of most species of wetland 

wildlife has declined drastically (Johnson et al. 2008), 

and the “North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan” identified the PPR as the continent’s top priority for waterfowl conservation (USFWS 1986).

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

to a recent audit by the GAO (GAO 2007a). More 

specifically, in 2006, the States of North Dakota and 

South Dakota reported the conversion of approximately 68,000 acres of native prairie to cropland 

(GAO 2007a). Despite these reductions in wetland 

and grassland resources, millions of wetlands and 

large tracts of native prairie remain within the region.

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

the most important, migratory bird habitats in the 

Western Hemisphere. It is the backbone of North 

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

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

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

grassland birds (Peterjohn and Sauer 1999). The 

PPR was recognized as an important area in 1987 

with the establishment of the PPJV to protect wetlands, waterfowl, and other wildlife. The PPJV committed to efforts to revive declining North American 

waterfowl populations through the protection of 
66 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Figure A. Map of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America. [Same as figure 1 in chapter 1.]

crucial wetland and grassland habitats. The 2005 

PPJV implementation plan shows a need to protect 

more habitat—an additional 1.4 million acres of wetland and 10.4 million acres of grassland—to meet 

the goals for waterfowl population size (Ringelman 

2005).

The Service protects these resources under the 

authority of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (SWAP), using monies from the 

sale of Federal Duck Stamps, NAWCA, and donations from conservation groups. Over the past 48 

years, the Service has purchased 95 percent of easements using Federal Duck Stamp dollars. At current 

budget levels, it would take the Service 150 years to 

protect the nearly 12 million acres identified in the 

“2005 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan” as critical for sustaining migratory bird 

populations (GAO 2007b). However, at the current 

rate of grassland conversion, an estimated one-half 

of the remaining native prairie in the PPR would be 

converted to other uses in only 34 years.

Proposed Project Area

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

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

area was selected using models developed by the 

Service’s HAPET, located in Bismarck, North Dakota. The models identify the extent and location of 

wetlands and grasslands required to help meet the 

PPJV goals for migratory bird populations and the 

SWAP objectives for habitat protection. HAPET 

developed the Service’s “Conservation Strategy” 

using models combined with decades of biological 

information from scientific studies of the spatial and 

temporal needs of nesting ducks in the PPR. The 
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 67

Figure B. Map of the proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area. [Same as figure 2 in chapter 2.]

State Boundary

County Boundary

Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area

Priority Grassland

>25 Duck Pairs Priority Zone
68 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

analysis was the basis for the resulting Conservation 

Strategy goal to protect an additional 1.4 million 

acres of wetlands and 10 million acres of grassland 

in the PPJV boundary to support the current levels 

of breeding ducks. Specifically, these models show 

that protection of all wetland and grassland in areas 

that support more than 25 duck pairs per square 

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

zone,” would meet the PPJV conservation goal of 

protecting adequate habitat to support more than 

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

Conservation Strategy.

The proposed project area for the DGCA includes 

parts of North Dakota and South Dakota lying north 

and east of the Missouri River, except those parts of 

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

Wildlife Management Area, a grassland easement 

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

within the proposed DGCA boundary is 29.6 million 

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

area covers 8.5 million acres.

Proposed Action

The objectives for the proposed DGCA would be to 

conserve 240,000 acres of wetland and 1.7 million 

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

primarily through the purchase of perpetual wetland 

and grassland conservation easements from willing 

sellers. All land under easement would remain in 

private ownership. Protected wetland basins may 

be hayed or grazed without restriction and farmed 

when dry from natural causes. However, wetland 

easements would prohibit the draining, burning, 

filling, or leveling of protected wetland. Grassland 

easements would not restrict grazing in any way, 

and haying would be permitted after July 15 each 

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

prohibited.

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

This proposal would allow the purchase of critical 

wetland and grassland easements using money from 

the LWCF as an alternate funding source and the 

purchase authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. In addition, the Service would continue to 

use Federal Duck Stamp and NAWCA monies as appropriate and available. At current acquisition rates, 

the goal for the proposed project would be achieved 

within 30 years.

The Service has an established review process 

for evaluating requested uses on all current and 

future wetland and grassland easements in the prairie pothole States of Region 6 of the Service. This 

review process applies not only to easements bought 

under the DGCA project but also to those easements 

the Service had acquired earlier. The Service will 

fully describe and analyze easement evaluations and 

procedures for requested uses at a later date.

Purpose and Need for 

Proposed Action

The proposed DGCA is part of a landscape-scale, 

strategic habitat conservation effort to protect a 

unique, highly diverse, and endangered ecosystem. 

This proposal would accelerate the protection of 

wetland and grassland habitats through the acquisiA canvasback hen leads her young brood to cover in a prairie wetland.

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 69

tion of wetland and grassland conservation easements on private land. It is widely recognized that 

the most effective technique for conserving the 

remaining wetland and grassland character of the 

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

(Higgins et al. 2002).

Historically, virtually no ecosystem in North 

America offered a landscape more conducive to 

rapid and widespread agricultural settlement than 

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

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

and grassland habitat for breeding birds. To better 

protect these resources, the Service needs money 

in addition to those sources currently available for 

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

diversity of plants and animals that rely on these 

habitat types, the ability of the proposed project to 

protect wetland and grassland habitats in perpetuity 

is critical.

The purpose of the proposed DGCA project is to 

provide for the long-term viability of the breeding 

waterfowl populations through the conservation 

of existing habitats while considering the needs of 

other migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

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

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

maintaining and enhancing the historical native 

plant, migratory bird, and other wildlife species.

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

fragmentation.

■ Conserve working landscapes based on ranching 

and livestock operations that support a viable 

livestock industry.

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

likelihood of future listings under the Endangered Species Act.

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

and associated prairie pothole wetlands through 

landscape-scale conservation.

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

■ Preserve the ecological function of these habitats 

by providing for floodwater retention, ground 

water recharge, carbon sequestration, improved 

water quality, and reduced soil and water erosion.

The proposed DGCA project would follow the “road 

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

process involves “stepping down” the objectives of 

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

PPJV.

Monies from the Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act (Federal Duck Stamp) 

and the North American Wetlands Conservation 

Act have funded habitat protection under SWAP. 

The use of Federal Duck Stamp dollars requires 

approval by the State Governor, and the Service 

would continue to use this money for wetland and 

grassland easements in the State of South Dakota. 

In North Dakota, the State has established limits 

on the number of wetland acres in each county that 

can be protected with perpetual Service easements. 

Federal Duck Stamp dollars are not available in 

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

Therefore, the Service would have limited means to 

acquire more wetland and grassland easements in 

North Dakota.

Decisions to be Made

Based on the analysis provided in this EA, the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 (Mountain–Prairie Region), will make 

three decisions:

1. Determine whether the Service should establish 

the DGCA and approve the associated LPP.

2. If yes, select for approval the conservation area 

boundary that best fulfills the habitat protection 

purpose.

3. Determine whether the selected alternative will 

have a significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. This decision is required by 

NEPA. If the quality of the human environment 

is not affected, a “finding of no significant impact” 

will be signed and will be made available to the 

public. If the preferred alternative would have 

a significant impact, an environmental impact 

statement will be prepared to further address 

those impacts.
70 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Monarch butterfly clinging to switchgrass.

Gary Eslinger / USFWS

Issues Identified and Selected 

for Analysis

The Service solicited comments about the proposed 

DGCA from the public through direct mailings, news 

releases, public meetings, and direct contacts:

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

Dakota, and South Dakota and several major, 

daily newspapers in Minnesota and Iowa (refer to 

“Appendix D—Public Involvement”). This information was also posted to www.fws.gov/audubon/

dakotagrasslands.html, as well as the Service’s 

Facebook and Twitter profiles. Due to the holiday 

season, the Service extended the public scoping 

period by 2 weeks, until January 14, 2011 (appendix D); with this extension, there was a total of 45 

days for the public comment period.

■ The Service mailed a four-page fact sheet to 32 

Native American tribes and 1,275 individuals 

and organizations. In addition, 1,737 postcards 

were mailed out to individuals informing them of 

the project. Names on the mailing list came from 

prior Service projects where groups or individuals had expressed interest in the general area or 

in easement programs.

■ The Service conducted three scoping meetings on 

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

Dakota; Jamestown, North Dakota; and Huron, 

South Dakota; respectively. Public attendees at 

the three scoping meetings totaled 93 individuals.

■ A project Web site provided interested parties 

with updates and information about the proposal.

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

reflected concern about the loss of wetland and 

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

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

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

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

alternatives, the planning team considered the following issues.

BiologicAl issues

■ Why is grassland protection an important issue?

■ Why is wetland protection an important issue?

■ How does the Service determine the goals for 

habitat protection?

S

■ How will these easements affect the local tax 

base?

■ How will these easements affect other property 

rights?

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

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

AdministrAtive And enforcement issues

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

■ How does the Service address requested uses on 

easement lands?

Related Actions and Activities

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

habitats in the general area of the proposed DGCA.
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 71

D

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

acres of the remaining, native, tallgrass prairie 

within 32 counties in eastern South Dakota and 

southeastern North Dakota through the acquisition 

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

South Dakota. To date, this project has protected 

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

boundary and is also an element of the Conservation 

Strategy.

N

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

acquisition of perpetual grassland easements. The 

project has goals similar to those for the proposed 

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

does not afford conservation for critical wetlands 

and grasslands in North Dakota and South Dakota. 

If the Service approves the proposed DGCA project, 

the DGCA would absorb the North Dakota Wildlife 

Management Area.

N

Enacted in 1986, this international plan addresses 

declining waterfowl populations. The plan created 

the PPJV to coordinate conservation efforts in 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and 

Montana. Many PPJV projects are active within 

the proposed DGCA project area and use funding 

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

Unlimited; The Nature Conservancy; Pheasants 

Forever; North Dakota Game and Fish Department; 

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks; and several 

others.

M

This act approved in 1929 established the MBCC, 

which oversees the purchase of properties benefitting migratory birds. These land acquisitions are 

funded primarily through money generated by the 

purchase of stamps—commonly known as “Federal 

Duck Stamps”—as authorized by the Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (see below). 

The lands acquired under this act are used primarily 

for national wildlife refuges and other easements or 

limited-interest lands.

M

The act was approved in 1934 to fund the acquisition 

of migratory bird habitat provided for in the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. The act provides that anyone over age 16 who hunts migratory 

birds is required to purchase a hunting stamp. The 

revenue generated from the sale of these stamps is 

placed in a special fund known as the MBCF, which 

is used to acquire migratory bird habitat.

The act was amended in 1958 to in–crease the 

acquisition of suitable habitat for waterfowl. This 

amendment authorized the Secretary of the Interior 

to expend money from the MBCF for small wetland 

and pothole areas in fee title (waterfowl production areas) or as easements—a program known as 

the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program (SWAP). 

With this money, the Service has acquired wetland 

and grassland easements within the PPR in South 

Dakota and wetland easements in North Dakota 

through SWAP. To date, the Service has protected 

approximately 1,386,279 acres of wetland and 

1,128,513 acres of grassland.

USD

The Farm Service Agency offers several programs 

throughout the PPR in the United States, which 

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

prairie ecosystem in the proposed project area. 

The Conservation Reserve Program is a voluntary 

program available to agricultural producers to help 

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

plant perennial vegetation to improve the quality 

of water, control soil erosion, and enhance wildlife 

habitat. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

Program is a version of the Conservation Reserve 

Program that has been tailored to meet the needs of 

the State. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

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

related to agriculture.

USD

Working jointly with the Farm Service Agency, the 

NRCS provides technical aid and financial incen-
72 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

tives through voluntary programs, based on sound 

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

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

Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the 

Conservation Stewardship Program.

■ The Grassland Reserve Program emphasizes 

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

conversion to other uses. Participants voluntarily 

limit future development and cropping uses of 

the land. At the same time, participants retain 

the right to conduct common livestock-grazing 

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

that are in significant decline or are protected 

under Federal or State law.

■ The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program helps 

develop or improve quality habitat that supports 

fish and wildlife populations of national, State, 

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

financial help to private and tribal landowners for 

the development of upland, wetland, aquatic, and 

other types of wildlife habitat.

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

long-term conservation and wildlife practices and 

protection.

■ The Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

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

air, and related natural resources on their land. 

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

conduct conservation practices that address environmental natural resource problems.

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

undertaking more conservation activities and 

improving and maintaining existing conservation 

systems.

S

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

State, and Federal entities—that are represented 

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

Coalition is to build a partnership of people working 

to voluntarily improve grasslands for the long-term 

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

effort and to provide information and technical help 

to grassland managers.

National Wildlife Refuge System 

and Authorities

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is to preserve a national network of 

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

their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans.

The proposed DGCA project would be monitored as 

part of the Refuge System in accordance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, as well as 

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

habitat within the PPR of North Dakota and South 

Dakota would continue to be consistent with the 

following:

■ Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1956)

■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)

■ Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act (1934)

■ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)

■ North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

(1968)

■ Endangered Species Act (1973)
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 73

■ Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940)

■ Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)

■ “North American Waterfowl Management Plan” 

(2004)

■ “Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation 

Plan” (2005)

The basic considerations in acquiring an easement 

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

wildlife species of management concern, existing 

and anticipated threats to wildlife resources, and 

landowner interest in the program. On approval of 

a project boundary, habitat protection would occur 

through the purchase of conservation easements. It 

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

to achieve habitat protection goals.

The acquisition authority for the DGCA project is the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 

742a–j) (table A). In response to comments received 

during the public review of the draft EA and LPP 

(appendix C), the Service has included the authority 

of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 

U.S.C. 715–715d, 715e, 715f–r). The Federal money 

used to acquire conservation easements is from the 

LWCF (derived primarily from oil and gas leases on 

the Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel taxes, 

and the sale of surplus Federal property) and Federal Duck Stamps. There could be more money to 

acquire lands, water, or interests for fish and wildlife 

conservation purposes as identified by Congress or 

donations from nonprofit organizations. The purchase of conservation easements from willing sellers 

will be subject to available money.

Table A. Acquisition authorities of the proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area (DGCA) and approval 

components.

Acquisition authority 

(standard program1)

Alternative in 

the EA2

State approval 

component

MBCC 3 approval 

component

Acres counted in the 

DGCA acquisition goal

Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act of 1934 

(SWAP)

No action Yes No No

North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act of 1968

No action No Yes No

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

(LWCF)

Proposed action No No Yes

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of 1929 (NWRS)

Proposed action Yes Yes Yes

Donation 

(multiple authorities4

)

Proposed action Dependent 

on authority 

requirements

Dependent 

on authority 

requirements

Dependent 

on authority

1

SWAP=Small Wetland Acquisition Program; LWCF=Land and Water Conservation Fund; NWRS=National Wildlife 

Refuge System.

2

EA=environmental assessment.

3

MBCC=Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

4

Acquisition authority for each donation will be determined at the time of acceptance, but will primarily be one of the 

authorities listed above.
74 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

2. ALTERNATIVES

Northern pintails, American wigeons, and northern 

shovelers fly off a wetland in the Prairie Pothole Region.

USFWS

Section 2 describes the alternatives considered for 

the proposed project, including the two alternatives 

that were developed and evaluated:

■ No-action alternative.

■ Proposed action, giving the Service the authority 

to create the DGCA. This alternative considers 

the effects of a wetland and grassland easement 

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

Alternative A (No Action)

Habitat protection under SWAP would continue at 

current levels, using the authorities of the Migratory 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Federal 

Duck Stamps) and the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act.

The use of Federal Duck Stamp dollars requires 

approval by the State Governor, and the Service 

would continue to use this money for conservation 

easements in the State of South Dakota. In North 

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

Duck Stamp dollars are not currently available in 

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

Therefore, the Service would have limited means to 

acquire more wetland and grassland easements in 

North Dakota.

E

Easements bought under the authorities listed 

above are administered according to policy and procedures in the Easement Manual (USFWS 2011a). 

Following the policy and procedures in the manual, 

the Service evaluates and administers all requests 

for uses or activities restricted by an easement (for 

example, agricultural, utility, commercial, or industrial uses). This review process applies not only to 

easements the Service has acquired earlier, but also 

to future easements bought under SWAP.

All land under easement would remain in private 

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

plants and trees, would remain the responsibility of 

the landowner. Control of public access to the land 

would remain under the control of the landowner.

The easement contract would specify perpetual 

protection of habitat for trust species by restricting 

the conversion of wetland and grassland to other 

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

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

be prohibited. While the easement contract would 

specify perpetual protection, it would not eliminate 

all activities. Protected wetland basins may be hayed 

or grazed without restriction and farmed when dry 

from natural causes. Grassland easements would not 

restrict grazing or seed harvesting in any way, and 

haying would be permitted after July 15 each year.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

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

to figure B in section 1), with objectives to conserve 

240,000 acres of wetland and 1.7 million acres of 

grassland.

The Service will acquire wetland and grassland 

easements in the DGCA principally with LWCF 
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 75

money, although money from several sources and 

authorities (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

could be used for the acquisition and management 

of wetland and grassland easements. LWCF monies 

are derived primarily from oil and gas leases on the 

Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel taxes, and 

the sale of surplus Federal property. In addition, the 

Service would continue to use Federal Duck Stamp 

and NAWCA monies as appropriate and available.

The Service would base prioritization of areas 

considered for wetland and grassland easements on 

models developed by the Bismarck HAPET office, 

which identify the extent and location of grasslands 

and wetlands required to help meet the PPJV goals 

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

part of this volume describes these priorities in detail.

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

administer and monitor the easement program:

■ North Dakota wetland management districts—

Arrowwood, Audubon, Chase Lake, Crosby, 

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

Lostwood, Tewaukon, and Valley City

■ South Dakota wetland management districts—

Huron, Lake Andes, Madison, Sand Lake, and 

Waubay

Monitoring would include a periodical review of land 

status through correspondence or meetings with the 

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

met. The Service would use photo documentation 

at the time of easement establishment to document 

baseline conditions.

The terms, requirements, and review process for 

easements acquired under this alternative would be 

identical to those described under alternative A.

Alternatives Considered 

but Not Studied

The Service did no further analysis for the following 

alternatives.

V

Landowners would voluntarily petition their county 

commissioners to create a zoning district to direct 

the types of development that can occur in an area. 

An example of citizen-initiated zoning is where 

landowners would petition the county government 

to zone an area as agricultural, precluding certain 

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

used, and the Service did no further study of this 

alternative.

C

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

occur in an area. While laws in North Dakota and 

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

zoning activities is optional. Many counties in these 

States have opted to have no planning or zoning 

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

long-term prevention of residential or commercial 

development in the proposed conservation area. 

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

action) as a means of maintaining rural area values 

and potentially reducing the need for future zoning.

Acquisition or mAnAgement By others

Ranching practices characteristic to grassland in 

the proposed project area have focused primarily 

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

of season-long grazing has experienced decreased 

plant diversity; subsequently, a high percentage 

of the remaining native prairie comprises woody 

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

in grazing practices, including rotational grazing and 

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

diversity to grassland where these practices have 

been used.

The ranching heritage and efforts by a variety 

of agencies and organizations have been essential to 

maintaining the diversity of grasslands. Economic 

pressures, including generous farm programs that 

target a cheap food supply, have accelerated the 

conversion rates of grassland into cereal production 

agriculture. Without a landscape-scale conservation 

effort such as the proposed DGCA, pressures such 

as the following make the future of the PPR wetland 

and grassland uncertain:

■ Development pressures for roads, cities, utilities, 

energy, and development materials (sand, gravel, 

and clay)
76 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Wetlands under easement may be grazed without 

restriction.

USFWS

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

prairie landscape

While other conservation agencies and groups play 

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

mandated to manage migratory birds populations (in 

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

protection and conservation of the habitat on which 

these resources depend.

S

Short-term easements have an important role to 

play in the conservation arena, since they provide 

a valuable tool in broadening conservation efforts 

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

State programs are authorized to use only shortterm easements.

By comparison, short-term easements could 

be considered conservation rental, whereas perpetual easement conservation would be considered 

conservation ownership. Both types of easements 

are necessary to effect and provide conservation 

of high-priority habitats that target the conservation of migratory birds. Consequently, easement 

purchases should be considered valuable investments. However, as land values increase and the 

cost of purchasing easements increases, the value 

of previously acquired easements that are already 

affecting priority conservation continues to increase 

over time. This makes long-term easements a more 

cost-effective means of accomplishing conservation 

on the landscape.

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

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

easement contracts in North Dakota and thirty-five 

contracts in South Dakota; these easements have 

long since expired. Another study concluded that 

20-year contracts only delayed drainage and that 

short-term easements have short-term benefits 

(Higgins and Woodward 1986).

From 1970 to 1972, the Service bought twenty 

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

prohibited the Service from purchasing perpetual 

easements with Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp 

Act money. Conservation purchases (fee-title and 

easement purchases) from this fund require the 

Governor’s approval, which came into question due 

to the newly imposed prohibition. A subsequent 

U.S. Supreme Court decision overturned the prohibition, referring to earlier Governor approval of 

stated acquisition goals, and allowed the program 

to continue until those goals are reached.

In 1987, in response to “Thirteen Agreements 

between the Governor of North Dakota and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service,” the SWAP again looked at 

50-year easements as a potential conservation option. However, neither landowner support nor statutory approval of this alternative was achieved due in 

large part to significant differences in the compensation offered.

The purpose and need for action described in 

section 1 is landscape-scale protection in perpetuity. Repeatedly paying for the same conservation 

through short-term easements would not allow the 

Service to achieve the habitat goals and objectives 

needed to sustain migratory bird populations in this 

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

and State programs and conservation partners, it 

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

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

by SWAP. A backlog of 800 landowners interested in 

the program presently awaits money for prolonged 

periods, which supports the use of perpetual rather 

than short-term easements.

E

Based on the assumption that the initial phases of 

the proposed DGCA project were well underway, 

the Region 6 planning team evaluated the possibility 

of expanding the project area into other parts of the 

PPR—in particular Minnesota, Iowa, and Montana.

Minnesota and Iowa are in another Service 

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

staffs administer conservation easements under a 

separate administrative and enforcement manual, 

which has policies different from Region 6 guidance 
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 77

for enforcement and administration of easements. 

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

LPP designed and carried out by administrators 

and managers in Region 3. However, Region 6 staff 

will assist Region 3, as requested, with any future 

conservation planning and implementation efforts 

targeting the PPR in Minnesota and Iowa.

The Service decided that many opportunities 

exist to effect the needed conservation in the PPR of 

Montana using current allocations of migratory bird 

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

Duck Stamps, the Service would prepare a separate 

environmental analysis and LPP for the area.

F

Over the past 50 years, the Service, other Federal 

and State agencies, and conservation groups have 

acquired many fee-title tracts within the proposed 

project area. While fee-title acquisition offers the 

greatest security and protection for wetland and 

grassland tracts, the initial costs for acquisition and 

the recurring costs for annual management of these 

areas use more resources, compared with other 

available alternatives that are more cost effective 

and more socially and politically acceptable. The 

Service conducted no further analysis of this alternative.
78 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Section 3 describes the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments and cultural resources 

that alternatives A and B could affect.

Physical Environment

The following describes the physical features of the 

proposed DGCA project area, climate of the area, 

and climate change.

PhysiogrAPhic feAtures

A physiographic region is an area with a pattern of 

relief features or landforms that are significantly 

different from that of adjacent regions. There are 

many descriptions, some more detailed than others, 

of the physiographic regions in the prairie pothole 

landscape. However, in the simplest terms, North 

Dakota has at least four physiographic regions in 

the proposed DGCA: the Red River Valley, the 

Drift Prairie, the Missouri Coteau, and the Missouri 

Slope. Within the South Dakota part of the proposed 

DGCA project area, there are three physiographic 

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

and the Great Plains.

An ecoregion is a major ecosystem (a biological 

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

in the project area for the proposed DGCA (Bryce et 

al. 1998).

Landscape variability patterns in the ecoregions 

are more numerous and distinctive east to west, 

even though some variability exists from north to 

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

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

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

ice. When the glaciers melted between 10,000 and 

12,000 years ago, the ice on top melted more quickly 

than ice that was trapped beneath the sediment. The 

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

proposed project area. Similarly, other ecoregions 

resulted from the advance of parts of the glaciers 

with differing levels of resistance, ranging from low 

to extreme, and melting or running off the landscape 

in differing sequences. The subsequent landforms 

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

thick and is characterized as an unsorted mixture of 

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

The depressions between hills in the glaciated 

landscape are described as “potholes,” which fill seaFowler Photography / USFWS
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 79

Figure C. Map of ecoregions in the proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area. [Same as figure 3 in chapter 2.]

Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area

State Boundary
80 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

sonally with water to form wetlands. The proposed 

project area is punctuated with areas created by 

runoff from melting glaciers, resulting in gravel and 

sand depositions (Bluemle 1977). The grinding of 

rock by the glaciers created a nutrient-rich soil on 

which grasslands were established.

In general, soils in the proposed project area are 

described as Mollisoils, which are dark in color due 

to high content of organic matter. The soil suborder 

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

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

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

Agassiz. Also within the proposed project area, 

there are other similar fertile soils, primarily the 

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

C

The climate of the proposed DGCA project area is 

continental, with very hot summers coupled with 

very cold winters. Due to the span of the proposed 

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

is difficult to capture meaningful temperature and 

precipitation averages, because ranges are highly 

variable. However, temperatures can range from 

−60 to 121 degrees Fahrenheit, and precipitation 

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

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

can range from less than 10 inches in one year to 

more than 30 inches in another. The western edge on 

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

annual precipitation.

Climate in the proposed project area often 

changes from extreme drought to flood in relatively 

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

variability is responsible for the productivity and 

diversity of wetland and grassland habitats found in 

the proposed DGCA.

C

The Service identified climate change resulting from 

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

PPR. Effects could be direct, such as changes in 

temperature and precipitation influencing species 

and their habitats, or indirect, such as habitat loss 

caused by conversion of habitat for biofuels. While 

planning needs to consider both direct and indirect 

effects, there are considerable uncertainties related 

to climate change and future land use that would 

greatly complicate any analysis.

Many species in the PPR are adapted to highly 

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

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

nest site selection and reproductive output) and, 

therefore, should respond well to habitat conservation efforts.

Due to the uncertainties associated with climate 

change and the dynamic wet–dry hydrologic cycles 

of the proposed project area, the Service sees that 

landscape-scale protection of existing habitats as a 

sound approach to increase resiliency of the PPR 

and to buffer against unpredictable climate variables.

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

and to develop adaptive management strategies that 

accommodate these changes. Protection of grassland 

in the proposed project area is estimated to bank 

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

carbon dioxide equivalent. These estimates—based 

on the difference between the organic carbon in soil 

of native prairie and that of traditional cropland—

were derived using methods described by the IPCC 

(Eggleston et al. 2006).

Adaptation, Mitigation, and Engagement

The Service’s strategic response to climate change 

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

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

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

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

belowground. It is equally as important to protect existing carbon stores, as it is to sequester 

atmospheric carbon.

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

(USFWS 2010).

Biological Environment

The biological environment comprises the habitat 

and associated wildlife in the proposed project area. 

Appendix B contains a list of plant and animal species that occur over the proposed project area.
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 81

The uniqueness of the proposed DGCA lies in 

the millions of depressional wetlands that constitute 

one of the richest wetland systems in the world. 

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

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

biodiversity of this highly productive area relies on a 

combination of resources from the potholes and the 

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

supports high numbers of spring and fall migrants.

Once vast grassland, the PPR is now largely an 

agricultural system dominated by cropland. Despite 

these changes, millions of wetlands and large tracts 

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

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

U

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

small elements of native tallgrass prairie to the east 

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

wheatgrass–needlegrass type (Bryce et al. 1998, 

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

needle and thread, blue grama, little bluestem, and 

yellow sedge. There are 11 secondary grass species: 

western wheatgrass, Canada wildrye, spike oats, big 

sandgrass, ticklegrass, porcupinegrass, mat muhly, 

sideoats grama, Leiberg’s panicum, needleleaf sedge, 

and threadleaf sedge. In areas of glacial outwash, 

plains muhly and saltgrass may be found (Bryce et 

al. 1998).

Many wildflowers and other forbs make up 5–15 

percent of the vegetative cover. The native prairie 

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

Missouri milkvetch, lead plant, Indian breadroot, 

purple prairie clover, gaura, harebell, narrowleaf 

blazing star, purple coneflower, and western yarrow. 

Other common forbs are sunflowers, goldenrods, 

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

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

primarily occur on slopes and in ravines (Niemuth 

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

often comprise aspen and green ash, especially in 

the northwestern section of the Missouri Coteau. 

Pockets of western snowberry shrubs can be found 

throughout the proposed project area (Barker and 

Whitman 1989, Martin et al. 1998).

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

Tallgrass Prairie

John and Karen Hollingsworth / USFWS

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

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

is endangered in North Dakota, and another seven 

grassland species are threatened. Rare plants in the 

proposed project area are prairie mimosa, Rocky 

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

WetlAnds

About 10 percent of the proposed project area is 

primarily palustrine (marsh) emergent wetland 

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

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

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

■ Ephemeral, temporary, and seasonal wetlands 

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

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

snowberry, prairie cordgrass, and wild lily. Other 

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

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

wetlands may have any of the vegetation zones 

already mentioned, as well as deep marsh zones 
82 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

with pondweed and milfoil, shallow marsh zones 

with bulrush and cattail, and open-water areas 

with no vegetation.

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

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

Fens are alkali bogs that support a diversity of flora 

including some of the rarest plants in North Dakota 

(Duxbury 1986).

The wetlands in the proposed project area also 

support several species of plants that have small 

or declining populations in North Dakota. Fifteen 

species of wetland plants are considered threatened, 

and pullup muhly and elk sedge are endangered at 

the State level in North Dakota. In wetter native 

prairie areas within the proposed project area, rare 

or imperiled species occur such as the joint-spike 

sedge, fringed gentian, and sedge mousetail (Hagen 

et al. 2005, USFWS 2011b).

F

Under classification of the Endangered Species Act, 

there are eight endangered and threatened species 

(scaleshell mussel, Topeka shiner, pallid sturgeon, 

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

that occur in the proposed project area or nearby.

Endangered Species

Scaleshell Mussel. The scaleshell is a relatively small 

freshwater mussel with a thin, fragile shell and faint 

green rays. It grows to about 1–4 inches in length. 

The inside of the shell is pinkish white or light 

purple and highly iridescent. The scaleshell gets its 

name from the scaly appearance of the shell, which is 

only seen in females.

Scaleshell historically occurred across most of 

the eastern United States. Scaleshell mussels live in 

medium-sized and large rivers with stable channels 

and good water quality. They bury themselves in 

sand and gravel on the river bottom with only the 

edge of their partially opened shells exposed. As 

river currents flow over them, they siphon particles 

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

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

develop into microscopic larvae (glochidia) within 

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

or fins of a fish to continue developing. Each mussel 

species has specific fish species (host fish) that the 

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

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

and continue maturing into adults.

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

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

increasingly rare within its reduced range. Of the 

55 historical populations, 14 remain scattered within 

the Mississippi River basin in Arkansas, Missouri, 

and Oklahoma. Toxins and declines in water quality 

from pollution easily harm adult mussels because 

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

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

cultivated fields, pastures, cattle feedlots, poultry 

farms, mines, construction sites, private wastewater 

discharges, and road drainage. Contaminants reduce 

water quality and may directly kill mussels, reduce 

the ability of surviving mussels to have young, or 

result in poor health or disappearance of host fish.

Sedimentation is material suspended in water 

that usually moves as the result of erosion. Although 

sedimentation is a natural process, poor land use 

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

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

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

from the threat. Increased sediment levels may also 

make it difficult for scaleshell to feed, which can lead 

to decreased growth, reproduction, and survival.

Dams affect both upstream and downstream 

mussel populations by disrupting natural flow patterns, scouring river bottoms, changing water temperatures, and eliminating habitat. The scaleshell 

and many other river mussels and fish cannot 

survive in the still water impounded behind dams. 

Scaleshell and other mussels depend on their host 

fish for dispersal. Because dams are barriers to fish 

movement and migration, this, in turn, prevents the 

dispersal of mussels upstream. Upstream mussel 

populations then become isolated from downstream 

populations, leading to small unstable populations 

that are more likely to die out.

The recent invasion of the exotic zebra mussel 

into the United States poses a substantial threat 

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

large numbers.

Topeka Shiner. Topeka shiners are small (less than 

3 inches in length) minnows that have dark lateral 

and back stripes. Scales above the lateral stripe are 

edged in pigment, while below the stripe the scales 

appear silvery-white. During the breeding season, 
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 83

the shiner has a dark chevron at the base of the caudal fin; breeding males have orange fins.

Topeka shiner habitat is small streams and 

creeks that exhibit perennial or nearly perennial 

flow. Substrate usually is clean gravel, cobble, or 

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

The Topeka shiner may require open pools with cool, 

clean water.

Historically, Topeka shiners were abundant 

throughout the native prairie of South Dakota, 

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

populations. The number of known occurrences has 

declined by 80 percent, and Topeka shiners have 

been eliminated from many watersheds. Topeka 

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

channelization, dewatering of streams, and water 

impoundment.

Activities that increase sedimentation and reduce 

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

impoundments provide a refuge during droughts, 

impoundments prevent upstream movement, and 

shiners that use these impoundments are subject 

to predation by larger fish. Streams with watering 

ponds and other impoundments have eliminated 

this endangered shiner from the associated stream 

reaches. Spawning behavior is poorly understood for 

this species; it is thought that Topeka shiners spawn 

on silt-free substrates found in the quieter waters of 

stream pools. As a native prairie species, the Topeka 

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

and reduce ground and stream water create artificial 

drought conditions that result in death of Topeka 

shiners from anoxia or exposure. Population declines 

also are attributed to introduced predaceous fishes.

Pallid Sturgeon. The pallid sturgeon was placed 

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

rows of bony plates that stretch from head to tail. 

It prefers the bottoms of large, shallow rivers with 

sand and gravel bars, but construction of dams and 

bank stabilization has damaged or destroyed much 

of that habitat.

The pallid sturgeon was fairly common in the 

Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers in North Dakota as 

late as the 1950s, but biologists believe fewer than 

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

1997, the Service, in cooperation with State fish and 

wildlife agencies in Montana and North Dakota, has 

stocked pallid sturgeon in compliance with the “1993 

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

priority area 2 (the Missouri River from Fort Peck 

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

the Tongue River). Releases into recovery priority 

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

The Service estimates that an isolated remnant 

population of less than 50 individuals remains in the 

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

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

Garrison Reach is outside of the recovery priority 

areas identified in the recovery plan. Although not 

excluded from implementation of recovery actions, 

river reaches outside the recovery priority areas 

are lower priority, because these areas have been 

altered to the extent that major modifications would 

be needed to restore their natural physical and hydrologic characteristics.

Least Tern. This 9-inch long bird is the smallest 

member of the gull and tern family. About 100 of 

the remaining 2,500 pairs of the interior population 

of least tern come to North Dakota each year. The 

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

systems in North Dakota and South Dakota. This 

tern was listed as an endangered species in 1985. 

Its decline is due to the loss of habitat from dam 

construction and subsequent operation of the river 

system.

Whooping Crane. At a height of 5 feet, the whooping crane is the tallest bird in North America. 

Equally impressive is its 7-foot wingspan. Most 

whooping cranes migrate through North Dakota 

each spring and fall, frequently in the company of 

sandhill cranes. Whooping cranes pass through 

North Dakota and South Dakota when migrating 

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

Declared an endangered species in 1970, the decline 

of the whooping crane is blamed on loss of habitat 

and excessive shooting. This crane is making a slow, 

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

1940s, the current wild and captive whooping crane 

population is about 468.

Gray Wolf. An infrequent visitor to North Dakota, 

the gray wolf occasionally comes across the border from neighboring Minnesota or the province of 

Manitoba, Canada. Once abundant in the State, the 

gray wolf was killed to near extinction by 1940 at 

the urging of western settlers who believed wolves 

caused widespread livestock losses. In 1978, the 

Service published a rule listing the gray wolf as an 

endangered species throughout the lower 48 States 

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

wolf’s listing status was downgraded to threatened. 

On February 1, 2005, a United States district court 
84 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

in Oregon overturned the April 2003 decision and 

ordered the Service to rescind the rule downgrading 

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

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

rest of its range including North Dakota.

Threatened Species

Western Prairie Fringed-Orchid. The plant, which may 

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

white flowers on a single stem. The western prairie 

fringed-orchid is a perennial orchid of the native, 

North American, tallgrass prairie and is found most 

often on unplowed, calcareous native prairies and 

sedge meadows. In North Dakota, the orchid most 

frequently occurs in the sedge meadow community 

on the glacial Sheyenne Delta and in the moist, native, tallgrass prairie.

The western prairie fringed-orchid is restricted 

to west of the Mississippi River and is known from 

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

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

and adjacent native prairie in southeastern North 

Dakota contain one of three large populations of the 

orchid, two in the United States—Sheyenne Delta 

in North Dakota and Pembina Trail prairie complex 

in Minnesota—and one in Vita Prairies, Manitoba, 

Canada. On the Sheyenne Delta, about 95 percent of 

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

and 5 percent occur on private land.

The only North Dakota plant on the Endangered 

Species List, the western prairie fringed-orchid is 

classified as a threatened species, which means it is 

likely to become endangered. The major cause of the 

species’ decline is the conversion of native prairie to 

cropland.

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

rivers and lakes; the plovers are attracted to the 

rare combination of windswept islands or peninsulas 

with a lack of adjacent tree cover. North Dakota is 

the most important State in the Great Plains for 

nesting piping plovers, with more than three-fourths 

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

Lake Sakakawea and Lake Audubon are significant 

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

from 1998 through 2000 was 79 birds or 16.2 percent 

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

Missouri River segments supporting plovers. While 

piping plovers are widely distributed over much of 

the Lake Sakakawea reservoir, important nesting 

areas include Steinke Bay, Douglas Creek Bay, the 

Van Hook Arm, Little Egypt, and Tobacco Garden 

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

Army Corps of Engineers recorded an average of 

56 piping plover nests within 10 miles of the Snake 

Creek Embankment between Lake Sakakawea and 

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

area (unpublished Corps data). Piping plover nest 

initiation is similar to that observed on wetlands in 

the adjacent native prairie coteau, with the birds 

initiating nests in early to mid-May.

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

In North Dakota, critical habitat for piping plover 

has been designated on the Missouri River, Lake 

Sakakawea, Lake Oahe, and selected alkali lakes 

and wetlands. On the Missouri River, critical habitat 

includes sparsely vegetated channel sandbars, sand 

and gravel beaches on islands, temporary pools on 

sandbars and islands, and the interface with the 

The piping plover is federally listed as a threatened species.

Mike Morel / USFWS
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 85

river. Critical habitat on Lake Sakakawea and Lake 

Oahe includes sparsely vegetated shoreline beaches; 

peninsulas; and islands formed of sand, gravel, or 

shale; and their interface with the water bodies. For 

alkali lakes and wetlands, critical habitat includes 

the following: (1) shallow, seasonally to permanently 

flooded, mixosaline to hypersaline wetlands with 

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

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

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

or wetland.

Candidate Species

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

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

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

by bluestem grasses, wood lily, harebell, and smooth 

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

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

and blanketflower. The skipper’s current distribution 

straddles the border between the native, tallgrass 

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

occur in western Minnesota, northeastern South 

Dakota, north-central North Dakota, and southern 

Manitoba. Dakota skipper populations have declined 

historically due to widespread conversion of native 

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

threats.

Sprague’s Pipit. Sprague’s pipits require large 

patches of grassland habitat for breeding, with the 

preferred grass height between 4 and 12 inches. The 

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

Sprague’s pipits can be found in lightly to heavily 

grazed areas. Pipits avoid intrusive human features 

on the landscape, so the effect of a development can 

be much greater than the actual “footprint” of the 

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

the candidate species list. Migratory bird species 

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

are still protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act.

I

The number of insect species and other invertebrate 

species in the proposed project area is not currently 

known; however, the available information suggests 

a wide diversity. The Missouri Coteau is in an area 

that represents 15–19 percent of all insect species 

found in North America (Arenz and Joern 1996). 

A survey of just five wetlands found more than 50 

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

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

The regal fritillary and tawny crescent butterfly 

are two butterflies (other than the Dakota skipper 

described under candidate species) that occur in the 

proposed project area and that are considered likely 

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

2011b).

Mixed-vegetation stands such as native prairie 

are thought to be less prone to insect pest outbreaks 

than monocultures such as cropland (Curry 1994).

AmPhiBiAns And rePtiles

Turtles, snakes, toads, frogs, and salamanders all 

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

The western hognose snake and the Great Plains 

toad are typical of grassland, whereas the northern 

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

Tiger salamander larva and adults are particularly 

important food items for some species of wetland 

birds (Kantrud et al. 1989).

AquAtic sPecies

Rivers and streams are some of the aquatic habitats 

of the Dakota Grasslands that are most affected 

by the conversion of native prairie to agricultural 

or urban purposes. There are literally thousands 

of miles of these riparian corridors throughout the 

grasslands that provide pathways for much more 

than just the fish that swim in the waters. Mussel 

species that rely on fish to distribute their larval 

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

systems. The effects of erosion on the watersheds 

can cause decreases in water quality and degraded 

habitat that affect the sustainability of many species 

found in this region.

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

aquatic habitat quality continues to decline across 

the Nation. Under the National Fish Habitat Action 

Plan, a strategy to focus and work with partners 

is beginning to develop across the nation (AFWA 

2006). For the Dakota Grasslands region, several 

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

reservoirs to rivers and streams. All of these aquatic 

habitats are affected by the land uses upstream, and 

aquatic habitat conservation would significantly improve through grassland easements (NFHB 2010).
86 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Birds

The proposed project area is in one of the areas of 

highest species richness for wetland and grassland 

birds in the United States and Canada, providing 

breeding habitat for at least 130 species of birds 

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

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

ducks, gulls, and shorebirds rest and feed on these 

wetlands. Warblers use the wooded and shrubby 

areas and raptors such as bald eagles and peregrine 

falcons use a variety of habitats.

The proposed project area supports 27 of the Service’s species of conservation concern (table B) including ferruginous hawk, willet, short-eared owl, and 

loggerhead shrike (Berkey et al. 1993, USFWS 1995).

Waterfowl

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

suitable. The PPR of the Dakotas accounts for only 

7 percent of the traditional waterfowl survey area 

of North America, yet carried far more than 20 percent of breeding ducks during the period 1994–2009 

(USFWS 2009). Accordingly, the foundation of the 

Table B. Priority bird species of the Prairie Pothole Region. [Same as table 1 in chapter 2.]

Species Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture Priority Species1

Partners in Flight

Priority Species 2

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Birds of Conservation Concern3

LANDBIRDSBaird’s sparrow ✓ ✓ ✓

Sprague’s pipit (candidate) ✓ ✓ ✓

Chestnut-collared longspur ✓ — ✓

Smith’s longspur — — ✓

Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow ✓ ✓ ✓

Bell’s vireo — ✓■ —

Le Conte’s sparrow — ✓■ —

Grasshopper sparrow — — ✓

Sharp-tailed grouse ✓ — —

McCown’s longspur ✓ ✓■ ✓

Swainson’s hawk ✓■ — ✓

Greater prairie-chicken ✓■ — —

Short-eared owl ✓■ — ✓

Red-headed woodpecker ✓■ — —

Sedge wren — ✓■ ✓

Bobolink — ✓■ —

Black-billed cuckoo — ✓■ ✓

Bald eagle — — ✓

Peregrine falcon — — ✓

Dickcissel — — ✓

WATERBIRDSHorned grebe ✓ ✓ ✓

Western grebe ✓ ✓ —

American bittern ✓ ✓ ✓

Yellow rail ✓ ✓ ✓

King rail ✓ ✓ —

Franklin’s gull ✓ ✓ —

Black tern ✓ ✓ ✓

Least tern (endangered) ✓ ✓ —

Whooping crane (endangered) ✓ ✓ —

Least bittern — ✓ ✓
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 87

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

Species Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture Priority Species1

Partners in Flight

Priority Species 2

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Birds of Conservation Concern3

SHOREBIRDSPiping plover (threatened) ✓ ✓ —

Mountain plover ✓ ✓ ✓

American golden-plover ✓ ✓ —

Semipalmated plover ✓ ✓ —

American avocet ✓ ✓ —

Upland sandpiper ✓ ✓ ✓

White-rumped sandpiper ✓ ✓ —

Baird’s sandpiper ✓ ✓ —

Pectoral sandpiper ✓ ✓ —

Buff-breasted sandpiper — — ✓

Semipalmated sandpiper ✓ ✓ —

Solitary sandpiper — — ✓

Stilt sandpiper ✓ ✓ —

Dunlin ✓ ✓ —

Marbled godwit ✓ ✓ ✓

American woodcock ✓ ✓ —

Wilson’s phalarope ✓ ✓ —

Hudsonian godwit ✓ ✓ ✓

Long-billed curlew — ✓ ✓

Lesser yellowlegs ✓ ✓ —

Long-billed dowitcher ✓ ✓ —

Short-billed dowitcher — — ✓

WATERFOWLMallard ✓ — —

Northern pintail ✓ — —

Gadwall ✓ — —

Northern shoveler ✓ — —

Blue-winged teal ✓ — —

Lesser scaup ✓ — —

Canvasback ✓ — —

Redhead ✓ — —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Service (USFWS 2008).

PPJV implementation plan is to “keep the table set” 

for periodic booms in duck populations by making 

sure that important wetland and grassland habitats 

are intact. This would require conserving an additional 1.4 million acres of wetland and an additional 

10.4 million acres of grassland in the United States 

part of the PPR.

At least 12 species of waterfowl breed in the 

proposed project area and most depend on upland 

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

northern pintail, northern shoveler, gadwall, and 

blue-winged teal are the priority species of waterfowl in this proposal (table B). In fact, parts of the 
88 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

proposed project area support, on average, more 

than 100 pairs of breeding ducks per square mile—

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

“North American Waterfowl Management Plan” 

identified the PPR as the continent’s top priority 

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

pairs of breeding ducks and 393,000 acres more of 

restored grassland associated with high-density 

wetland communities (USFWS 1986).

Other Waterbirds

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

two-thirds of the continental breeding population of 

Franklin’s gull; one-half of the continental population 

of pied-billed grebe, American bittern, sora, American coot, and black tern; and approximately onethird of the American white pelican and California 

gull populations (Beyersbergen et al. 2004).

The proposed DGCA would benefit 13 species of 

breeding shorebirds, as well as many other shorebird species that use the area as stopover habitat 

during migration, such as 30 species that breed in 

the Arctic. As shown in table B, priority waterbird 

species include marbled godwit, willet, Wilson’s 

phalarope, American avocet, and piping plover (Ringelman 2005, Skagen and Thompson 2007).

Grassland Birds

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

The gadwall is one of the priority waterfowl species.

USFWS

willet, upland sandpiper, marbled godwit, common 

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

Parts of the area provide habitat for a suite 

of grassland birds—the only group of bird species to experience consistent declines nationwide 

over the last 30 years (Sauer et al. 1995). Many 

species in this group have ranges limited to 

the grassland habitat represented in the proposed 

project area, including Baird’s sparrow, grasshopper 

sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, lark bunting, and chestnutcollared longspur (Knopf 1996, Johnson et al. 1994, 

USFWS 1995). Destruction of habitat and mowing 

for hay production are two of the main reasons for 

the decline in grassland birds (Sauer et al. 1995).

Figure D shows the extent of the breeding range 

for 27 grassland birds throughout the United States, 

with the highest concentrations in the Midwest and 

the PPR. The 27 bird species represented follow:

Upland sandpiper

Long-billed curlew

Mountain plover

Greater prairie-chicken

Sharp-tailed grouse

Ring-necked pheasant

Northern harrier

Ferruginous hawk

Common barn-owl

Short-eared owl

Horned lark

Bobolink

Eastern meadowlark

Western meadowlark

Chestnut-collared longspur

McCown’s longspur

Vesper sparrow

Savannah sparrow

Baird’s sparrow

Grasshopper sparrow

Henslow’s sparrow

Le Conte’s sparrow

Cassin’s sparrow

Dickcissel

Lark bunting

Sprague’s pipit

Sedge wren

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

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

proposed DGCA have remained stable (Sauer et al. 

1997). Included in this group are several grassland 

species such as Wilson’s phalarope, bobolink, western meadowlark, and clay-colored sparrow. However, populations of the loggerhead shrike, vesper 

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

M

The proposed project area includes the ranges of 

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

Native prairie uplands are habitat for many small 

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

Franklin’s and thirteen-lined) rely on grassland habitat found in the proposed project area. These ground 
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 89

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

[Same as figure 4 in chapter 2.]

squirrels provide critical food sources, and their 

burrows provide nesting habitat, for raptors such 

as ferruginous hawks and short-eared owls (Berkey 

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

deer and pronghorn also use the upland habitat.

Wetlands provide cover or food, or both, for at least 

17 species of terrestrial or semiaquatic mammals such 

as muskrat, beaver, and mink (Kantrud et al. 1989).

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

examples of furbearing animals that are widespread 

throughout the area.

Cultural Resources

Archeologically, all of the proposed DGCA is within 

the Northeastern Plains subarea of the Northern 

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

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

Plains Archaic, Plains Woodland, Plains Village, and 

Equestrian Nomadic. During any time in history, 

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

project area (Gregg et al. 2008).

The more recent history of the area is summarized based on modern historical records for the proposed project area that are contained in the 1790s’ 

journals of explorers and traders.

PAleo-indiAn trAdition

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

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

ended, these peoples within the proposed project area 

could be identified by the distinctive Clovis points 

attached to their lances or spears. Clovis peoples 

hunted now-extinct animals including mammoths, 

mastodons, horses, and American camels. By 11,000 

years ago, these animals were gone, and then the paleo-Indian hunters relied on hunting giant bison (Bison antiques) with beautifully crafted Folsom points. 

For a thousand years, these peoples continued to 

hunt the giant bison using regional variations of spear 

or dart points with names such as the Agate Basin, 

Hell Gap, Eden, and Cody points (SDARC 2011).
90 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Blending in with shortgrasses, a sharp-tailed grouse 

performs a mating display for a hen.

G.R. Zahm / USFWS

The western meadowlark is a common grassland bird.

John and Karen Hollingsworth / USFWS

As the paleo-Indian tradition ended, there was 

increased evidence of plant collection and food 

storage. Sites of the paleo-Indian tradition include 

camps, Knife River flint quarry sites, other stone 

procurement areas, stone workshops, and isolated 

artifact finds (NDSHPO 2009).

PlAins ArchAic trAdition

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

were based around gathering plants and hunting 

bison during a drier climate period that had many 

long and frequent droughts. Reliance predominantly 

on the hunting of big game seems to have shifted to 

the opportunistic hunting of bison when available 

and small game, even rodents, when necessary. The 

Archaic peoples used the atlatl with dart points for 

hunting.

The dry climate slowly changed until about 1000 

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

today (SDARC 2011). Plant gathering was a very 

important component of the Archaic peoples’ daily 

activities and diet. Sites include animal kill sites, 

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

PlAins WoodlAnd trAdition

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

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

gathering of modern plants and animals. During 

this tradition, the bow and arrow came into use 

(NDSHPO 2009). In addition, the Plains Woodland 

peoples began to garden and use ceramic pots as a 

result of contacts with eastern peoples. Trade goods 

from other regions of North America were common 

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

corn, beans, squash, and sunflowers in gardens along 

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

The farmers lived in earthlodge villages fortified 

by ditches and log palisades. Sites include burial 

mounds and other burial sites, occupations, camps, 

quarries, stone procurement areas, and bison kill 

sites (NDSHPO 2009). Great social and religious 

changes became part of these peoples’ lifeways as 

observed in the archeological record—hundreds and 

maybe thousands of burial mounds were constructed 

as a new and more elaborate way of burying their 

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

PlAins villAge trAdition

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

adapted to hunting and gathering with full-scale 

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

of stored food, primarily dried corn, which made 

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

were living all along the Missouri River Valley and 

its uplands, and their seasonal hunting camps occur 

throughout the proposed project area. After A.D. 

1700, European contacts and trade items became 

part of the lifeway, as did the introduction of the 

horse from the Southwest.

The Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, and Cheyenne 

may be the most recognized of these Plains Village 

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

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

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

(NDSHPO 2009).

This tradition ended when the 1780 epidemics 

decimated the villages, after which the nomadic 

Sioux became the dominant cultural force in the 

Northern Plains (Gregg et al. 2008).

E

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

was dependent on the horse to focus narrowly on 
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 91

Pasqueflower is a native prairie plant.

Jackie Jacobson / USFWS

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

Cheyenne, Dakota, Nakota, Lakota, Assiniboine, and 

Plains Cree took up the Equestrian Nomadic lifeway 

(DeMallie 2001). This horse culture lifeway greatly 

increased the capacity to hunt bison and to transport 

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

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

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

that this lifeway terminated with the surrender of 

Sitting Bull at Fort Buford, North Dakota.

M

As they explored the Louisiana Purchase, the Lewis 

and Clark expedition traveled through or wintered 

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

The 1800s were a period of cultural turmoil. Based 

on the United States’ Indian policy, the Government made acts and treaties with American Indian 

tribes in response to the immigration of Europeans 

into the Northwestern Plains subarea. In the late 

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

reservations in the proposed project area (Schneider 

2002).

The Dakota Boom began in the late 1870s. During 

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

the wheat from farms within the proposed project 

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

until 1889, when the territory was divided into the 

present States of North Dakota and South Dakota as 

they were admitted into the Union (Schell 1975).

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

vast majority of land within the proposed project 

area. The Service’s Refuge System grew out of the 

attention given to conservation by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration during this 

Depression Era. Today, the proposed project area 

includes 62 national wildlife refuges and 16 wetland 

management districts.

Socioeconomic Environment

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

North Dakota Counties

Barnes

Benson

Bottineau

Burke

Burleigh

Cass

Cavalier

Dickey

Divide

Eddy

Emmons

Foster

Grand Forks

Griggs

Kidder

LaMoure

Logan

McHenry

McIntosh

McLean

Mountrail

Nelson

Pembina

Pierce

Ramsey

Renville

Rolette

Sheridan

Steele

Stutsman

Towner

Trail

Walsh

Ward

Wells

Williams

South Dakota Counties

Aurora

Brule

Buffalo

Campbell

Charles Mix

Douglas

Edmunds

Faulk

Hand

Hughes

Hyde

Jerauld

McPherson

Potter

Sully

Walworth

The North Dakota cities of Bismarck, Fargo, Grand 

Forks, Jamestown, and Minot and the South Dakota 

cities of Aberdeen, Huron, Mitchell, and Pierre are 

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

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

their shopping and entertainment. A limited amount 

of industrial activity is associated with the larger 

communities.

The proposed project area is rural in nature. 

Many small, rural communities with a population 

of less than 10,000 people lie within the proposed 
92 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

project area and are generally supported by the 

local agricultural and ranching industries. With the 

exception of the areas near cities and towns, the 

rural lands are mostly zoned for agriculture. Medium 

to large farming operations emphasize (1) high-value 

cropland mainly consisting of corn, wheat and beans, 

and (2) livestock beef agriculture. Because of the 

highly desirable soils, the high precipitation, and the 

topography, the proposed project area has a higher 

percentage of cropland operations as compared with 

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

within the proposed project area range from more 

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

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

These mostly family-owned operations range from a 

few hundred acres to several thousand acres in size.

Oil development in the northwestern part of 

North Dakota has seen tremendous growth over 

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

174 active drilling rigs, in North Dakota, and most 

of them are within the proposed project area. Oil 

production for September 2010 was more than 10 

million barrels. The local media reported that 2010’s 

revenue to the State from oil extraction taxes will 

exceed $530 million and will likely exceed $1 billion 

in 2011. The discovery of new oil reserves and the 

advancement of drilling technology have resulted 

in a significant interest in drilling new wells for oil. 

Furthermore, a recently released survey conducted 

by the North Dakota Geological Survey showed that 

52 of the 53 counties in North Dakota have shallow 

natural gas reserves, which will likely result in added 

interest in natural gas exploration (NDGS 2010).

L

Most land in the project area is in private ownership. An unpublished report entitled “Summary of 

Lands, North Dakota Counties,” shows that approximately 88 percent of North Dakota landownership is 

in private agricultural ownership, with the balance in 

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

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

The ratio of private ownership is assumed similar 

within the proposed project area. Less than 7 percent of the land in the proposed project area was 

purchased primarily for wildlife production.

ProPerty tAx

Currently, landowners pay property tax on their 

private lands to the counties. Since the proposed 

project is a conservation easement program, the 

land would remain in private ownership. Easement 

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

the counties. Since lands in both North Dakota and 

South Dakota are assessed based on soils, which the 

conservation easements will not affect, no changes to 

the tax base are anticipated.

PuBlic use And Wildlife-dePendent 

recreAtionAl Activities

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

the project area. Because the proposed project area 

encompasses part of the PPR, waterfowl hunting is 

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

The 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, 

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation found that $539 

million were spent on equipment and various trip 

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

2010, the sale of hunting and fishing licenses in North 

Dakota and South Dakota generated nearly $42 million in revenue. An additional $206 million were spent 

on wildlife observation activities in both States.

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

project area. Several communities have developed 

self-guided, wildlife-viewing routes in conjunction 

with local landowners. Control of public access to 

easement lands remain under the control of the landowners.
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 93

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Wilson’s phalarope is a shorebird that uses both wetland and grassland habitats.

© Harold C. Hultberg

For alternatives A and B described in section 2, this 

narrative documents the analysis of environmental 

effects expected to occur from implementing the 

alternatives.

Effects on the Physical 

Environment

The estimated effects of each alternative on the Service’s ability to address climate change are described 

below.

AlternAtive A (no Action)

With current rates of conversion of native grasslands to agricultural production in the PPR, there 

is a continually decreasing capacity to sequester 

carbon in this region. These conversion rates, as 

well as a loss of existing sequestered carbon within 

agricultural lands, adds to the uncertainty of climate 

change. The Service would be limited to existing 

programs and funding to protect wetland and grassland habitats in proposed project area.

AlternAtive B (ProPosed Action)

The proposed DGCA would provide the Service with 

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

stored within native prairie soils. As preserving 

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

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

of this native prairie in the PPR.

In addition, the proposed DGCA would serve as a 

model for engagement on the issue of climate change 

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

local wildlife organizations scattered throughout the 

proposed DGCA), State and local agencies (South 

Dakota Game, Fish and Parks; and North Dakota 

Game and Fish Department), and Federal agencies 

including the NRCS.

Effects on the Biological 

Environment

The estimated effects of the alternatives on uplands, 

wetlands, and federally listed species are described 

below.

U

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

easements bought with funding sources such as 

NAWCA and Federal Duck Stamps. Other mea-
94 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

sures for protection of wetland and grassland habitat would continue through fee-title acquisitions and 

restoration projects such as seeding native grasses; 

however, the cost per acre for these measures is 

two to four times the cost per acre for wetland and 

grassland easements. Based on current budgets and 

no additional money, there would be a projected 

loss of half of the remaining native prairie within 

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

years. Furthermore, without perpetual protection 

in the form of conservation easements, the future of 

wetland and grassland in the proposed project area 

would be uncertain.

A survey of landowners in the PPR conducted 

more than 10 years ago showed that, although most 

landowners would keep the amount of grassland 

and cropland on their property the same, 24 percent 

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

would like to increase their cropland, the topography 

of the land, the laws, and the costs are perceived as 

factors preventing them from doing this. While topography is not changeable, changes in policy and 

the agricultural economy have historically resulted in 

changes in tilled acres (Gerard 1995). Several factors 

have accelerated the conversion of grassland into 

cropland production: (1) recent development of genetically modified cereal crops; (2) agricultural policy providing increased crop and income protection; and (3) 

increasing commodity prices (Stephens et al. 2008).

Current and projected grassland conversion 

rates will undoubtedly accelerate with increasing 

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

remain within the proposed DGCA.

■ Recent crop prices have increased: (1) sunflowers 

at $29.19 per CWT (hundred weight) NuSunTM 

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

Association 2011); (2) March hard red spring 

wheat at $9.82 per bushel (Sun Prairie Grain 

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

(Sun Prairie Grain 2011a)

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

beef cowherd in the United States decreased 12 

of the past 14 years. The beef cowherd dropped 

from a cyclical peak of 35.3 million head in 1996 

to 31.3 million head in January 2010, which is 

the lowest level since 1963. Furthermore, the 

combined beef and dairy calf crop in 2010 was 

expected to be 35.4 million head—the smallest 

United States calf crop since 1950 (Oklahoma 

State University 2011).

Additional loss of wetland and grassland would 

contribute to the long-term decline in nest success 

for upland-nesting waterfowl. Several duck species 

avoid nesting in cropland, and overall nest success 

in croplands is below levels considered sufficient to 

sustain populations (Cowardin et al. 1985, Klett et 

al. 1988). It is likely that predation would continue 

to be a major reason for nest loss in waterfowl and 

other upland-nesting birds, since each additional 

conversion of grassland to cropland would create an 

island of grass more easily searched by predators 

(Cowardin et al. 1985, Sovada et al. 1995). If grassland was converted to cropland, quality duck-nesting 

habitat could be restored by planting cover (coolseason grasses and forbs). Other intensive management techniques such as predator control, fence 

exclosures, and artificial nesting islands could also be 

used (Beauchamp et al. 1996, Reynolds 1999). While 

these measures might be beneficial to overall nest 

success, they would be more expensive than protection through conservation easements.

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

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

nesting habitat for these species (Owens and Myres 

1972). A reduction in nesting habitat may mean that 

the proposed DGCA would no longer be an area 

with a relatively high density of grassland birds, and 

populations in the proposed project area may begin 

The horned grebe is a wetland-dependent bird in the 

Prairie Pothole Region.

John and Karen Hollingsworth / USFWS
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 95

to decline as they have in other parts of their ranges 

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

to receive protection under the Endangered Species 

Act, if their populations continued to decline.

Conversion of grassland to cropland would increase the pesticide load on the environment. 

Pesticide use is almost entirely associated with 

croplands, and 90 percent of all cropland in North 

Dakota receives at least one application of herbicide 

per year (Zollinger et al. 1996). The effects of pesticides on wildlife are variable and include reduction 

of nesting cover for birds, direct contamination of 

egg embryos, and losses in the aquatic invertebrate 

food base that is critical for many nesting birds, particularly waterfowl (Dwernychuk and Boag 1973, 

USEPA 2011, Messmer and Dahl 1991, Pimentel 

et al. 1992). The correct application of pesticides 

reduces impacts to the environment; however, spills 

and other nonlabeled use unfortunately can occur 

with resultant impacts to the environment.

Conversion of grassland to crops has negative 

effects on freshwater ecosystems. Intact grassland 

retains soil and nitrogen. Soil erosion from cropland 

increases sediment in fresh water systems, raising temperatures and degrading the habitat for 

fish. Land planted continuously to crops or close to 

aquatic systems releases high amounts of nitrates to 

freshwater systems. When these nitrogen-laden waters reach the larger bodies of water, they contribute 

to increased algal blooms, which increase biological 

oxygen demand, lower low oxygen levels, and change 

the vegetative habitats to a point that make it difficult for fish and other aquatic wildlife to survive.

Even in light of the real pressure for grassland 

conversion, North Dakota and South Dakota have 

waiting lists of well over 800 landowners interested 

in selling wetland and grassland easements on 

more than 300,000 acres. The only thing restricting 

the Service from protecting these areas is limited 

money.

U

Establishing the proposed DGCA project would 

enable the Service to protect in perpetuity up to 

240,000 acres of wetland and 1.7 million acres of 

grassland. In addition to the funding sources available in alternative A, under this alternative the Service could also use money from the LWCF to buy 

wetland and grassland conservation easements. The 

increase in available money would result in increased 

acreage to complement the Service’s current conservation easement program and the existing public 

grasslands (such as waterfowl production areas and 

State wildlife management areas)—allowing for the 

preservation of a network of grasslands throughout the proposed project area. At current easement 

acquisition rates, the Service would achieve the 

acreage objectives for the proposed project within 

30 years. Importantly, these protected areas would 

exist regardless of changes in agricultural policy or 

economy, which are known to affect the rate of grassland conversion (Gerard 1995).

Protection of native prairie watersheds using 

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

and prairie wetlands and the aquatic resources that 

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

the uniqueness of the relatively intact grasslands 

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

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

cropland where nest success is lower (Klett et al. 

1988). Other species of upland-nesting birds also 

have higher nest success rates in grassland than 

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

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

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

protecting the relatively intact grasslands in the 

proposed project area represents a strategic opportunity for maintaining waterfowl populations 

throughout the PPR.

Protecting grasslands in the proposed DGCA 

would help buffer the population declines grassland 

birds are experiencing in other parts of their ranges. 

Grassland bird populations are steady or increasing in the proposed project area while decreasing 

throughout many other parts of their ranges (Sauer 

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

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

may prevent some of these species from needing 

protection under the Endangered Species Act. The 

agricultural economy, and in particular the livestock 

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

crops generate accelerated conversion of grassland 

to cropland and lower the number of cattle due to 

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

prices generate gradual buildup of cattle herds to 

take advantage of low feed costs. This contributes to 

the cyclical nature of the beef production industry, 

which does not benefit from protections provided 

by farm policy and programs to agricultural crop 

producers. Grassland easement protection through 

the proposed DGCA project has the potential to 

augment and moderate the cyclical nature of the 

livestock industry, helping keep viable cattle production and ranching industries.
96 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

An area restored by planting native vegetation.

USFWS

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

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

all cropland in North Dakota receives at least one 

application of herbicide each year (Zollinger et al. 

1996). Protected grasslands would also act as buffers 

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

and Hall 1980). This may reduce the negative effects 

on wildlife, such as nesting ducks, from ingesting 

contaminated invertebrates or from the loss of the 

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

an increase in the number of acres of upland buffers 

would provide an even greater benefit to aquatic 

resources.

Wetland and grassland easements are the most 

cost-effective, socially and politically acceptable 

means to ensure protection of critical habitats in the 

proposed project area. Although habitat protection 

through fee title remains an option in some locations, 

the Service sees easements as the most viable way 

to conserve lands at the landscape scale necessary 

to protect wildlife values in the proposed DGCA. 

The cost for acquisition of easements in the proposed 

project area would be approximately $588 million. 

Fee-title acquisition would triple or quadruple the 

cost of land conservation in addition to requiring 

increases in long-term management and operational 

costs for the Service.

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

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

conservation easement program would augment the 

efforts of other conservation agencies and groups.

F

Through the continued use of wetland and grassland 

easements acquired with approved money, there 

would be direct improvement in habitats for listed 

species such as western prairie fringed-orchid and 

indirect habitat improvement for other listed species 

such as pallid sturgeon. However, the pace of habitat 

protection would be at a slower rate than that for 

the proposed action.

F

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

benefit from the extensive habitat protection under 

the proposed DGCA. Although management of lands 

with easements would remain primarily with the 

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

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

species such as western prairie fringed-orchid and 

indirect habitat improvement for other listed species 

such as pallid sturgeon.

The Service’s Ecological Service Field Offices 

in North Dakota and South Dakota have concurred 

with the determination of a “May Affect, Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect” for federally listed species in 

the DGCA project area (appendix I).

Effects on Cultural Resources

The estimated effects of each alternative on cultural 

resources are described below.
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 97

AlternAtive A (no Action)

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

easement, the cultural resources would be protected 

from surface-disturbing activities.

AlternAtive B (ProPosed Action)

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

the accelerated purchase of wetland and grassland 

easements.

Effects on the Socioeconomic 

Environment

The estimated effects of the alternatives on landownership, land use, oil and gas development, and 

wind energy development are described below.

L

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

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

reducing wetland and grassland resources over time.

L

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

and grassland easements from willing sellers would 

improve the Service’s ability to protect wetland and 

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

viable.

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

current operations on the properties. Protected 

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

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

basins. The grassland easements would not restrict 

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

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

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

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

of 5 years. Therefore, maintaining the local ranching 

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

payments.

Conservation easements secure a limited interest 

in private lands, and landowners would continue 

to pay property taxes. While there is the potential 

that grassland that could be converted to cropland 

would generate higher tax revenue than grassland, 

this Service’s conservation easement program would 

have no direct effect on the existing value of the 

land. Although the Service would acquire a limited 

interest in an easement property, there would be no 

transfer of ownership. The landowner would keep 

all access control, except the Service may enter the 

property to ensure compliance with the terms of the 

easement.

S

The development of subsurface resources would not 

be affected. Region 6 (Mountain–Prairie Region) 

requires that subsurface resources in wetland and 

grassland easements be handled differently from 

other Service regions, because the Region 6 agreements have rights different from those in other 

regions. The Service would continue to administer subsurface resources on wetland and grassland 

conservation easements according to the policies 

and procedures in the Easement Manual (USFWS 

2011a), as described under alternative B.

S

The subsurface resource effects would be the same 

as for alternative A. The Service would follow 

policies and procedures in the Easement Manual 

(USFWS 2011a), which are summarized below.

Wetland Easements

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

over all subsurface resources such as sand, gravel, 

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

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

rights to these resources are not included in ease-
98 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

ments. It needs to be emphasized that this jurisdiction relates only to the wetland protected under 

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

without affecting protected wetlands either directly 

or indirectly (watershed interference), there is no 

easement jurisdiction and the activities may occur.

Grassland Easements

Region 6 policy for grassland easements specifies 

the Service’s jurisdiction over limited subsurface 

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

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

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

existing grassland easement program administrative 

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

vendors to landowners in the past.

Surface Protection

When it is stated that Region 6 will not exercise 

jurisdiction over certain subsurface exploration or 

extraction practices—as described above for sand 

and gravel on grassland easements—the intent is 

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

or work with the extraction entity or the landowner 

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

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

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

disturbance is needed to protect resources and to 

avoid negative effects on easement interests. In 

most cases, disturbance to a tame grass site would 

be less detrimental than on a native prairie site.

The mineral estate owner has a legal obligation 

to take reasonable measures to protect the surface 

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

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

mineral company, and the landowner to discuss the 

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

limited to those aspects that affect Service easement 

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

company and the landowner; if agreed to, all three 

parties sign the recommendations. The approved recommendations are retained and passed on to various 

entities within the mineral company and will protect 

the surface interests of the Service and future landowners in case the land or the company is sold.

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

authority to permit or deny the use and where the 

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

crossing of easement lands with pipelines or roads 

to access oil and gas production on lands not within a 

Service easement.

Wind energy develoPment effects— 

AlternAtive A (no Action)

On easements acquired under existing funding and 

authorities, the Service would address requested 

uses such as wind energy development under the 

policy of reasonable accommodation as described in 

the Easement Manual (USFWS 2011a). No changes 

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

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

that could allow wind energy development to occur 

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

to reinstate the original easement after development 

activities cease.

Wind energy develoPment effects— 

AlternAtive B (ProPosed Action)

For easements acquired under the new authority of 

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

same as for alternative A, with an expected increase 

in reviews due to more land protected by easements

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Any adverse effects that may be unavoidable while 

carrying out alternatives A and B are described 

below.

AlternAtive A (no Action)

The loss of wetland and grassland habitats through 

conversion to agriculture and development would 

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

authorities and funding.

AlternAtive B (ProPosed Action)

The increased protection of wetland and grassland 

habitats would reduce fragmentation, increase water 
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 99

Native prairie in bloom.

USFWS

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

Management of lands for wetlands and grasslands 

would benefit ranching operations but may reduce 

the potential production of agricultural crops in the 

area, although most areas to be protected are not 

well suited for crop production. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitments of Resources

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

alternatives A or B are described below.

AlternAtive A (no Action)

There would be no commitment of resources by the 

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

easement interests within the proposed project area, 

although they would be limited to current money 

constraints.

AlternAtive B (ProPosed Action)

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

establishment of the proposed DGCA project. If 

funded through the LWCF, easements would require 

an irretrievable and irreversible commitment of 

resources for the long-term administration of the 

easement provisions. The administration costs would 

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

would represent only a minor increase in overall 

Service costs to the existing easement-monitoring 

program.

Short-Term Use versus Long-Term 

Productivity

Following is a discussion of short- and long-term 

effects.

AlternAtive A (no Action)

Wetlands and grasslands are expected to continue 

to be lost at current rates of conversion, which 

would create long-term negative implications to the 

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

to conserve these habitats would be ongoing through 

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

grassland would be diminished; fragmentation of 

these habitats would continue.

AlternAtive B (ProPosed Action)

The increased ability to acquire perpetual wetland 

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

allowing many operations to expand or simply stay 

in operation—having positive economic short- and 

long-term effects. The conservation of remaining 

wetland and grassland tracts would (1) reduce 

long-term fragmentation of these vital habitats of 

many dependent species, (2) maintain current carbon sequestration capabilities, (3) keep the area’s 
100 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

rich biological diversity, and (4) protect endangered, 

threatened, and rare species currently using wetland and grassland habitats. Lands added to the 

Refuge System through the proposed DGCA would 

increase the costs associated with monitoring and 

management of the Refuge System; however, staff 

at several existing management units would share 

this work, which would require no additional Federal resources.

Cumulative Impacts

As defined by NEPA policy, cumulative impacts 

on the environment are those that result from the 

incremental impact of an action when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

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

CFR § 1508.7).

The following describes the past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions related to the proposed DGCA. The discussion documents the analysis 

of the cumulative impacts of these actions in combination with the actions of alternatives A and B.

PAst Actions

The Service’s past, land protection efforts within 

the PPR have included establishment of the Dakota 

Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area and 

the North Dakota Wildlife Management Area, both 

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

used Federal Duck Stamp money to buy wetland 

and grassland easements. In total, the Service has 

protected in perpetuity approximately 2,420,414 

acres. The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program has worked with many private landowners 

on site-specific conservation efforts.

The USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program has 

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

administers approximately 45,000 in the Wetland 

Reserve Program. Nongovernmental organizations 

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

Present Actions

The Service’s proposed action to establish the 

DGCA conservation easement program—up to 

240,000 acres of wetland and 1.7 million acres of 

grassland—is one of the largest known actions for 

land protection in the PPR of North Dakota and 

South Dakota. If approved, the Service would be 

able to use money from the LWCF in addition 

to money from the Migratory Bird Stamp and 

NAWCA. If money can be secured, there would 

likely be an increase in the number of wetland and 

grassland easements purchased.

R

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

to occur regardless of which alternative is selected; 

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

alternatives. The primary, reasonably foreseeable 

actions in the PPR are the development of energy 

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

Oil and Gas Development

Northwestern North Dakota has recently seen a 

dramatic increase in oil and gas activity in what is 

commonly known as the Bakken formation. Recent 

advances in rock fracturing techniques have made 

oil production more economically viable, and there 

is an estimated 3.65 billion barrels of recoverable oil 

One of the must abundant large mammals in the proposed

project area is the white-tailed deer.

© Craig Bihrle
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 101

in the Bakken formation within North Dakota and 

Montana (Pollastro et al 2008). North Dakota has 

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

Wind Energy Development

North Dakota and South Dakota have remarkable 

wind energy potential. More than 127,000 square 

miles or about 85 percent of both States are suitable 

for commercial wind energy production, with an 

estimated energy capacity of 1.65 million megawatts 

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

percent of North Dakota and South Dakota’s wind 

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

In coordination with the Western Area Power 

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

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

of the Western Area Power Administration, which 

covers all or parts of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota; and 

(2) the Service’s wetland and grassland easements 

in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana. The 

environmental impact statement will identify typical 

environmental effects of wind energy development; 

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

establish a comprehensive environmental program 

for evaluating future projects. The final analysis is 

expected to be completed in 2 years.

Agricultural Development

North Dakota and South Dakota predominantly comprise farming and ranching operations. Commodity 

prices and farm program subsidies are the main factors leading to the conversion of grassland to cropland. Although farm program subsidies are reviewed 

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

change on a daily basis but tend to be cyclic over time.

Other Conservation

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

Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited are expected to 

continue offering multiple programs to landowners. 

The proposed action would augment these efforts by 

collaborating with landowners to provide benefits 

to wildlife and fisheries resources along with the 

farming and ranching communities. If the goals of 

the proposed action were achieved, it is expected 

the Service would continue to implement remaining 

elements of the Conservation Strategy. That process 

would be analyzed at such time.

D

Incremental increases in infrastructure construction 

from oil, gas, and wind energy development activities 

or agriculture production would likely result in more 

fragmentation and removal of wildlife habitat. Grassland to cropland conversion rates would be expected 

to remain at current levels, because conversion rates 

are closely correlated with commodity prices.

D

The proposed action is a voluntary program where 

individual landowners would determine if wetland or 

grassland easements would be appropriate for their 

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

development on a case-by-case basis and authorize 

it if appropriate; the proposed action could influence 

where energy development companies select production sites. In addition, the proposed perpetual conservation program may reduce the potential production 

of agricultural crops in the area, although most areas 

to be protected are not well suited for crop production.

O

Conservation of wetland and grassland habitats 

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

rates of wetland and grassland loss, and the Service 

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

■ Permanent loss of vegetative species diversity

■ Increased fragmentation of habitats critical to 

the survival of many plant and wildlife species

■ Decreased carbon sequestration capabilities

■ Decreased water retention and water purifying 

capabilities in wetland and grassland communities

O

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

and 1.7 million acres of grassland would conserve 
102 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

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

conserving native prairie. This conservation effort 

would do the following:

■ Reduce the loss of vegetative species diversity

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

■ Conserve carbon sequestration capabilities

■ Protect the area’s water resources

C

Development of lands for either agriculture or 

energy development is largely determined by the 

private landowner. Similarly, private landowners 

determine if protection of lands via wetland and 

grassland easements is in their best interest. This 

voluntary program is not expected to have an adverse impact.
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 103

5. COORDINATION and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Section 5 describes how the Service coordinated 

with others and conducted environmental reviews of 

various aspects of the project proposal and analysis. 

Additional coordination and review would be needed 

to carry out the proposed action.

Agency Coordination

The Service has discussed the proposal to establish 

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

local governments; and other interested groups and 

individuals.

The Service coordinated within the agency as 

well as with State wildlife agencies in developing 

this EA. Field and regional Service staffs conducted 

the analysis and prepared the documentation (refer 

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

Contaminants and Hazardous 

Materials

Level 1 pre-acquisition site assessments would be 

conducted on individual tracts before purchase of any 

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

in North Dakota and South Dakota would be conNorthern shoveler is a priority bird species in the Prairie 

Pothole Region.

John and Karen Hollingsworth / USFWS

tacted to make sure policies and guidelines are followed before acquisition of conservation easements.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

NEPA, which requires an evaluation of reasonable 

alternatives that will meet stated objectives and 

an assessment of the possible effects on the human 

environment.

E

This EA will be the basis for determining whether 

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

planning for this EA involved other government 

agencies and the public in the identification of issues 

and alternatives for the proposed project (refer to 

“Appendix D, Public Involvement”).

D

The Service distributed on June 20, 2011, the draft 

EA (with the associated draft LPP in the same 

volume) to the project mailing list, which included 

Federal and State legislative delegations, tribes, 

agencies, landowners, private groups, and other 

interested individuals.

After the draft EA was released for a 30-day 

public review, the Service held two public meetings 

to gather input and comments about the draft EA 

and draft LPP in Bismarck, North Dakota, and in 

Miller, South Dakota, on June 28 and 29, 2011, respectively.

Copies of the draft EA and information about the 

public meetings were available via the project Web 

site and through contact with the Service by email, 

postal mail, phone, or in person.

Additional copies of the final document will be 

available from the following Web site and office:

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

planning/lpp/nd/dkg/dkg.html

■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

fw6_planning@fws.gov

303/236 8145
104 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Strategic Habitat Conservation

The proposed DGCA project is a landscape-scale 

effort to conserve populations of priority species in 

a highly diverse and endangered ecosystem over an 

area of approximately 29.6 million acres. Therefore, 

it is important to incorporate the elements of SHC 

to ensure effective conservation. SHC entails strategic biological planning and conservation design, 

integrated conservation delivery, monitoring, and 

research at ecoregional scales (figure E). Some elements of SHC have been addressed in migratory 

bird management plans in the PPR.

S

Habitat loss due to conversion of wetland and grassland to cropland is the primary limiting factor for 

all of the priority species in the proposed DGCA. 

The loss of wetland reduces the carrying capacity 

for waterfowl and other waterbirds, and the loss 

of grassland reduces the nest success of waterfowl 

and other grassland-nesting species (Greenwood et 

al. 1995, Herkert et al. 2003, Reynolds et al. 2001, 

Stephens et al. 2005).

Grassland accessible to the greatest number of 

pairs of breeding ducks would be the primary determinant for acquiring grassland conservation easements. Long-term protection objectives include all 

grasslands accessible to more than 25 duck pairs, 

plus a 1-mile buffer of grassland that affects nest 

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

breeding ducks. The Service identified three grassland categories:

■ Grassland accessible to more than 60 duck pairs

■ Grassland accessible to 40–60 duck pairs

■ Grassland accessible to 25–40 duck pairs

Figures F and G are the wetland and grassland flowcharts from the Easement Manual that the Service 

would use to prioritize areas based on spatial models 

for waterfowl, threatened and endangered species, 

grassland birds, shorebirds, and other waterbirds 

(USFWS 2011a). Priority grasslands and wetlands 

for waterfowl and nonwaterfowl species overlap 

substantially, providing benefits for multiple groups 

of species (Niemuth et al. 2008).

Figure E. Graphic of the elements of strategic habitat conservation. 

[Same as figure 7 in chapter 4.]
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 105Figure F. Chart of evaluation criteria for acquiring wetland conservation easements. [Same as figure 6 in chapter 4.]
106 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Figure G. Chart of evaluation criteria for acquiring grassland conservation easements. [Same as figure 5 in chapter 4.]
Appendix C–Environmental Assessment 107

I

Wetland and grassland easements represent a 

means to conserve habitat. The habitat conservation 

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

bird initiatives) would not differ substantially from 

those strategies carried out to meet the needs of 

waterfowl (Ringleman 2005). As understanding of 

the functional relationships between priority species 

and habitats increases, the Service will adapt the 

strategies to target the most influential parcels for 

meeting the population objectives of the priority 

species listed in table A (in previous section 1).

Over time, SWAP has used different criteria 

to guide the acquisition process; however, habitat 

quality has always been the major criterion. The 

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

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

percentage of perennial grassland cover exhibit 

higher nest success. This combination of wetland 

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

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

elements—large numbers of wetlands in association 

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

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

obtaining the highest priority habitat for acquisition. 

The detailed LPP provides the information necessary to carry out the conservation action of acquiring the “best of the best” habitat for priority species. 

The Service’s Division of Realty would continue to 

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

M

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

there is great potential for providing benefits for 

multiple species. HAPET has developed standalone, 

single-species models to provide the ability to target 

different priority species, a combination of species, 

the treatment types, various locations, or specific 

funding requirements. Furthermore, this approach 

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

models as new information became available.

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

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

a more comprehensive marshbird-monitoring program.

HAPET has provided valuable information 

through current monitoring programs that has been 

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

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

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

developed.

Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives

The Service will use LCCs, part of a recent developing initiative, as a means of conducting SHC. The 

proposed DGCA lies entirely within the Plains and 

Prairie Potholes LCC. The Secretary of the Interior 

recently outlined the importance of LCCs as a response to climate change (USFWS 2010). Reaching 

across broad landscapes, these conservation cooperatives involve many partners and function at a scale 

necessary to address wildlife adaptation in response 

to climate change. In carrying out conservation 

actions through the proposed DGCA, the Service 

would use the efforts of the LCC in refining priority 

acquisitions as the Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC 

develops.

Appendix D

Public Involvement

This appendix describes the public scoping process for the proposed DGCA project, which entailed 

comment collection, analysis, and summarization by 

topic.

All comments received on the Service’s NEPA 

documents become part of the official public record. 

Requests for information contained in comments are 

handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, NEPA (40 CFR § 1506.6(f)), and other 

Department of the Interior and Service policies and 

procedures. In compliance with Service policy about 

disclosure of personal information, the Service will 

not publish in this document the name, address, 

or other personal information of an individual who 

commented unless that information was spoken in 

a public meeting; this does not apply to agencies or 

organizations.

This appendix is designed as two parts: (1) comments received during the release of the draft EA 

and LPP, with corresponding responses from the 

Service; and (2) the public scoping report that was 

developed during the scoping period.

Summary of Comments 

on the Draft EA and LPP

The Service released the draft EA and LPP on June 

20, 2011, for a 30-day public review period. The draft 

documents were made available to Federal elected 

officials and agencies, State elected officials and 

agencies, 32 Native American tribes with aboriginal 

or tribal interests, and other members of the public 

identified during the scoping process. In addition, 

two public meetings were held in Bismarck, North 

Dakota, and in Miller, South Dakota, on June 28 and 

29, 2011, respectively. Approximately 50 landowners, citizens, and elected representatives attended 

the meetings. The Service received 10 letters from 

agencies, organizations, and other entities and 347 

general public comments. After all comments were 

received, each was reviewed and incorporated into 

the administrative record. A large majority of comments received was supportive in nature (more than 

92 percent) and highlighted the following:

■ The importance of the PPR to a diverse wildlife 

population, primarily migratory waterfowl and 

grassland birds.

■ The need to protect important habitats in perpetuity for future generations.

■ The immediate threat of losing grassland and 

wetlands, both native and restored.

■ The fact that hundreds of landowners are currently waiting to sign easements in North Dakota 

and South Dakota.

■ The secondary benefits of grasslands and wetlands such as clean water, flood control, carbon 

sequestration, and reduced impacts from climate 

change.

■ The strong support and matching funds (up to 

$50 million) from nongovernmental agencies.

■ The voluntary nature of conservation easements 

and the benefits to maintaining working farms 

and ranches.

Comments of opposition (less than 7 percent) focused primarily on the following items:

■ The perpetual nature of conservation easements 

and that future generations should not have decisions made for them.

■ The estimated project cost of $588 million during 

times of economic hardship.

■ Impacts to energy development and associated 

projects such as power lines.

■ That easements devalue the land and surrounding properties.

R

All comments were reviewed for substantive information that should be incorporated into the analysis. 

Comments were considered substantive if they met 

one of the following criteria:
110 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

1. Questions, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of 

information in the EA.

2. Questions, with reasonable basis or facts, the adequacy of, methodology of, or assumptions used 

for the environmental analysis.

3. Presents reasonable alternatives other than 

those presented in the EA.

4. Prompts the Service to consider changes or revisions in one or more of the alternatives.

The following comments from the public were considered substantive comments or were comments 

that the Service planning team determined needed 

clarification. Letters from agencies or organizations 

containing comments follow these public comments.

Public Comments and 

Service Responses

Comment 1. “Wetlands are equally as important as grasslands, if not 

more so. Wetlands are not as common as grasslands but have a larger 

role to play supporting wildlife and fish populations. Wetlands provide 

habitat and water for many species which in turn provide food for 

predators. Besides providing habitat and supporting the food web, 

wetlands are an important niche for species with suffering population 

numbers as well as migratory birds. According to Techniques for 

Wildlife Investigations and Management (p. 803) ‘up to 43% of federally threatened and endangered species require wetland habitats 

during some part of their annual cycle’ (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2000) and more than 50% of protected migratory birds 

rely on wetlands (Wharton et al. 1982, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 2000a).”

Response 1. Thank you for your comments. Because the Service realizes that wetlands play a significant role in maintaining a host of wildlife species 

throughout the United States, we have been actively 

securing protection of those wetland resources for 

more than 50 years through our Small Wetlands 

Acquisition Program. This project will complement 

our ongoing wetland protection efforts by protecting 

240,000 acres of wetland in addition to 1.7 million 

acres of grassland. 

Comment 2. “The Prairie Pothole Region has supported nearly 30% of ALL breeding ducks in North 

America. It provides critical migration and breeding 

habitat for threatened and endangered species and 

is credited by several scientific research and engineering organizations for its capacity to decrease 

flooding events and provide purified water to underground aquifers which supply municipal and irrigation water to thousands of people living in the 

mid-west. In addition, these grassland and wetlands 

soils also contain a rich bank of carbon, which would 

be depleted if these grassland and wetland complexes would be plowed and converted to cropland.”

Response 2. Thank you for your comments. The 

Service realizes that the ecological benefits of maintaining healthy wetland and grassland ecosystems 

extend well beyond the boundaries of the DGCA. 

The carbon sequestration potential of native grasslands is documented in section 3 of the EA.

Comment 3. “The Prairie pothole and grasslands of 

the Dakotas are a truly unique place in North America. As a hunter, I see the value in their preservation. That preservation is only of value if it will allow 

for public access. I support the preservation of this 

unique area and also an increase in public access.”

Response 3. Thank you for your comments. This 

project will encumber private property with only 

limited interests that are designed to maintain and 

enhance migratory bird populations. Public access 

is not a right that will be encumbered through this 

easement program. The Service will continue with 

other acquisition programs designed to provide public access opportunities, and this program in no way 

prevents private landowners from providing public 

access at their discretion.

Comment 4. “The federal government has no Constitutional duty or obligation to protect wildlife.”

Response 4. Thank you for your comment. The Service carries out programs that have been authorized 

and funded by Congress and does so in accordance 

with the direction provided within the corresponding 

legislation. Some programs are national and international in significance such as the protection of migratory bird habitat. For example, in the “United States 

Treaty with Canada, August 16, 1916,” the participating countries committed to addressing the issues of 

migratory birds. On November 19, 1976, this treaty 

was amended to include the Soviet Union and added 

more specific language that stated, “Article IV, number 1: To the extent possible, the Contracting Parties 

shall undertake measures necessary to protect and 

enhance the environment of migratory birds and to 

prevent and abate the pollution or detrimental alteration of that environment.” Congress is providing 

direction, through various programs, for the Service 

to meet this treaty obligation. In addition, section 

1 of the EA describes the Federal mandates, which 

outline the authorities and responsibilities of the 

Service and the Refuge System to protect wildlife.

Comment 5. “Hunting and Fishing in North Dakota is 

big business. Part of the reason for the popularity of 

North Dakota as hunting and fishing destination is 
Appendix D–Public Involvement 111

the large expanses of wetland and grassland habitats. These areas serve not only as the production 

areas for the game pursued, but also hold sentimental value to the hunters that flock to North Dakota 

each year. Hunters and anglers in the United States 

spend about $76 billion a year. That’s an amazing 

$208 million per day pursuing their outdoor passions. That heritage has been passed down through 

generations of Americans since the founding of our 

country. For generations, hunters and anglers have 

placed high priority on taking care of the land and 

water so that in return they can support abundant 

fish and wildlife populations. It makes sense. Overall, hunting and fishing support more than 1.6 million 

jobs and generate more than $25 billion a year in 

federal, state, and local taxes.”

Response 5. Thank you for your comments. This is 

addressed in the socioeconomic discussion in section 

3 of the EA. 

 Comment 6. “As a result of three studies released by 

the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network, they are predicting the virtual vanishing of sunspots for the next several decades and the possibility of a solar minimum 

similar to the Maunder Minimum. During the Maunder 

Minimum temperatures dropped 7 degrees F. within 

20 years. Our climate has changed from semi-arid to 

cool and wet as we enter a mini-ice age. Flood waters 

have covered thousands of acres of the most productive farm land in the world. Our farmers and ranchers 

will need the income provided by these easements.”

Response 6. Thank you for your comments. Section 3 

of the EA addresses climate change.

Comment 7. “I have heard of the unprecedented 

flooding which has occurred in the great state of 

ND this year in areas other than the norm. Areas 

like Bismarck and presently Minot at this very moment! It is critical that we do what we can as a nation to preserve wetlands for wildlife, as well as to 

do what nature intended as a purifier for our water 

supply and to prevent flooding. Had we as humans 

not filled numerous wetlands over many decades 

along the Mississippi river, we would not have had 

all of the historical flooding that has been occurring. 

This flooding causes an extreme amount of hardship to the residents whose homes and business’ are 

directly affected, both emotionally and financially. I 

strongly encourage support of the Dakota Grassland 

Conservation Area.”

Response 7. Thank you for your comments. The 

Service realizes that the continued loss of wetland 

habitats throughout the PPR contributes to flooding 

throughout the region. While this project may not 

significantly reduce the current flooding situations 

across the region, we recognize the potential for 

wetlands to reduce the severity of flood events. 

Comment 8. “I would just like to comment that I favor 

allowing people the opportunity to trap furbearers such as muskrats or beaver or trapping in general should be allowed and regulated by the state of 

North Dakota. If indeed the land in question is multiuse, then trapping should be included as a multiuse 

activity along with hunting, fishing, bird watching, 

camping, etc. Regulating these activities is a must, 

but not including trapping would take away from 

recreational value from this project.”

Response 8. Thank you for your comments. Conservation easements are designed to conserve 

valuable wetland and grassland habitats while maintaining land in private ownership. Landowners retain the right to control access to their property.

Comment 9. “You claim to have large scale support for 

this proposal. I would like to know how much of this 

support actually comes from landowners who would 

be affected. Or is most of your support coming from 

wildlife enthusiasts and their organizations.”

Response 9. Thank you for your comments. This 

is a voluntary program; the Service will buy conservation easements from willing sellers only. With 

hundreds of interested landowners currently awaiting easement offers, there is significant landowner 

support for this project. 

Comment 10. “Many people in my area made the mistake of signing easement with Federal Wildlife many 

years ago and each one who I have talked to now 

regrets that decision. As their slough areas have become larger due to our excessive rainfall in the past 

several years Federal Wildlife now claims authority 

over the additional areas which are now wet. This 

is not right as the original easement covered only a 

certain amount of acreage.”

Response 10. Thank you for your comments. Water 

levels in wetlands naturally fluctuate in size, ranging 

from completely dry to above-average condition. 

Wetland easements protect wetland basins under all 

conditions; however, the Service has administrative 

procedures that address hardship created by flooded 

protected wetlands.

Comment 11. “As a potential buyer of agricultural 

land, I am limited in land availability, because I don’t 

want to purchase land with attached easements. 

With easements in place, I could not use the land 

as I preferred, but would have to maintain the use 

described in the easement. This land is a poor investment with limited use, lower resale value and 

restricted marketability to a wide range of buyers.”

Response 11. Thank you for your comments. As 

indicated in your comment, lands encumbered by 

easements are not suitable for all landowners and the 

decision to buy a property with an easement on it is 
112 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

a management decision that the buyer must make at 

the time of the potential purchase. Severing interests 

from a property such as an easement by the current 

owner can affect the overall value of the property. 

The theory of substitution states that a buyer would 

not pay more for one property than for another that 

is equally desirable. Conversely, a buyer would likely 

pay less for a property that is less desirable. Furthermore, Shultz and Pool (2005) documented that 95 

percent of the sellers of easements were more than 

sufficiently compensated for any negative impact to 

the property caused by the easement. 

Comment 12. “We would like to show our support for 

the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area Project. 

As ranchers we feel that easements can be a good 

tool if landowners decided they would like to permanently protect their prairie. Permanent protection 

of the prairie is not only beneficial to wildlife but to 

the future of ranching in the Dakotas. The prairie is 

very fragmented and once a plow it put to the land 

the plant diversity and soil health is nearly impossible to restore. It is much more economical for ranchers to run cattle on large areas of prairie rather than 

having to haul their cows all over the countryside 

to small pastures. Please make funds available so 

ranchers can protect the prairie and their future.”

Response 12. Thank you for your comments. One 

of the goals for this project is to conserve working 

landscapes based on livestock and ranching operations. The detrimental effects of habitat fragmentation are well documented. Conservation of large 

expanses of grassland can provide mutual benefits to 

migratory birds and ranching operations alike.

Comment 13. “South Dakota Farm Bureau’s major 

concern with the Dakota Grasslands Conservation 

Area proposal and the draft EA and LPP is the term 

of the easement. Specifically, we oppose easements 

that are perpetual. Our members describe perpetuity as ‘one year longer than forever.’ Perpetuity allows property decisions to be made from the grave, 

a concept that is contradictory to property rights. 

To assume that US F&WS can make property and 

management decisions that last longer than forever is a concept property owners have a hard time 

understanding. SDFB would instead suggest that 

easements of a set number of years be offered to 

landowners as an option or alternative. Allow the 

discussion to take place, so landowners can choose 

which term to select. Consider making this 30 years, 

one generation, or 50 years, so that if in the future 

an alternative is desired, the possibility exists to renew again for a term certain easement. In summary, 

mandated easements in perpetual length as the only 

choice is not a choice at all and is not friendly to 

landowner property rights.”

Response 13. Thank you for your comments. The 

Service has considered less-than-perpetual easements 

in the past. A more thorough description of these 

efforts is in section 2 of the EA (appendix C). The 

summary of these efforts basically concluded the following: (1) landowners preferred the longer term 

easements because they offered more compensation 

or better fit their management plans; (2) short-term 

easements resulted in short-term conservation and 

did not provide for meeting the goals that have been 

established to provide habitat for migratory birds, 

which is an obligation for the United States under 

an international treaty (fee acquisition of habitat areas would be another tool to meet these long-term 

objectives, but that has been determined to be prohibitively more costly and less publicly and politically 

acceptable); (3) the economics of repeating payment 

for the same conservation with short-term agreements did not meet the fiscal responsibility of a public 

agency; and (4) the perpetual nature of this conservation tool has been successfully used since 1958 when 

Congress authorized the program. Currently, there 

are hundreds of landowners on a waiting list who 

have expressed interest in participating in this 

program. Additionally, in a 2010 survey (Metz and 

Weigel 2010), 60 percent of North Dakota residents 

supported voluntary perpetual easements as a means 

to conserve natural areas, water, and wildlife habitat. 

The DGCA project is based on a strictly voluntary 

and willing-seller basis, and only those landowners 

who determine these conservation easements are in 

the best interest of the land they are managing participate. Another aspect of a perpetual easement is that 

is it a conservation tool that offers an alternative to 

another perpetual decision—converting native prairie 

to other uses. The conversion of native prairie is an 

irreversible decision that binds future generations to 

address the potential impact, for example, associated 

with tillage of potentially erodible lands. 

Comment 14. “Why are ducks now getting priority 

over people who live on and farm the land? Why are 

ducks getting priority over private property and 

ownership? With the increased flooding of the states 

and middle of the nation, habitat is forming naturally. None needs to be set aside for them.”

Response 14. Thank you for your comments. This 

project is not intended to create new habitats for 

waterfowl; it is merely an economic incentive for 

landowners to protect the habitats that currently 

exist. This is a voluntary program and easements 

will only be purchased from willing sellers. Also, see 

response 7.

Comment 15. “Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., a division 

of MDU Resources Group, Inc. (Montana-Dakota), 

is an investor owned electric and natural gas utility 
Appendix D–Public Involvement 113

company that operates throughout the proposed 

Dakota Grassland Conservation Area (DGCA). A 

part of the company’s operation includes 2,400 miles 

of electric transmission lines and associated electric 

substations within North and South Dakota, much 

of that lying within the proposed DGCA. MontanaDakota appreciates the opportunity to comment on 

the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Environmental Assessment proposed for the DGCA as it 

is expected to have impacts on Montana-Dakota’s 

operations. We agree with conserving wildlife and 

wildlife habitat in a manner that is sustainable and 

balances the needs of all stakeholders. The EA prepared by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

for the agency’s proposed DGCA is meant to document the DGCA’s purpose, issues, alternatives and 

analysis for North Dakota and South Dakota. Although brief mention is made in the Environmental 

Assessment and Draft Land Protection Plan for the 

proposed DGCA of possible impacts to wind energy 

and oil and gas development, there is no discussion 

of potential impacts to the development and maintenance of electric facilities necessary to support 

development of energy generation facilities, as well 

as to maintain reliable electric service to retail customers. Montana-Dakota believes this subject to be 

a vital component to the EA since power lines are 

critical infrastructure used to meet the electricity 

needs of customers, regional reliability and energy 

projects, and the proposed DGCA would restrict 

a utility’s ability to plan, construct and maintain 

these facilities. Montana-Dakota believes a serious 

look at these impacts is necessary to develop a balanced view of the impacts of the proposed DGCA.... 

Also, at the end of Section B.5.C in Chapter 12 of 

the Easement Manual in Appendix A, there is language stating, ‘At this point, if the request is related 

to Wind Energy Development, go to Chapter XIV 

for further guidance.’ The USFWS did not include 

a copy of Chapter XIV in the EA appendices and 

Montana-Dakota could not locate a copy of USFWS 

Easement Manual on the USFWS to review prior to 

commenting. That Chapter needs to be included in 

the EA for utilities to review since a power line project may be ‘related’ to wind energy development. 

It would be beneficial for the USFWS to provide 

discussion on the subject of whether power lines 

constructed for a wind energy project would indeed 

be ‘related’.”

Response 15. Thank you for your comments. The 

primary purpose of conservation easements is to 

conserve habitat by restricting the rights to convert 

wetlands and grasslands. These habitats not only 

provide for migratory birds and other wildlife, they 

provide important ecological services to society by 

improving water quality, reducing soil erosion, lessening the severity of flood events, and sequestering 

carbon. It is not a program intended to stymie all 

development, but one that strives to conserve habitats in a working landscape that meets the needs of 

people as well as wildlife. With respect to your comments on wind energy development, the Service is 

currently cooperating with the Western Area Power 

Administration and the Rural Utility Service on 

a programmatic environmental impact statement 

where this issue is analyzed in detail. Information on 

this process can be found on the project’s Web site 

<http://plainswindeis.anl.gov>. Concerning power 

lines constructed for a wind energy project, we work 

with the wind energy developer to implement best 

management practices to minimize the potential 

for harmful effects. Most commonly, this involves 

burying collector lines from individual turbines to 

sub-stations. Transmission lines away from the wind 

development are generally evaluated independent of 

the wind farm itself, in accordance with procedures 

outlined in the Easement Manual. The Service will 

address these issues and the policy and requirements of the Easement Manual at a later date. 

Comment 16. “With additional land placed in perpetual 

conservation easements, as planned through the 

proposed DGCA, the power line siting process is 

expected to be extremely challenging. Already, it 

has been demonstrated to Montana-Dakota that securing the necessary permits or approvals to occupy 

land under current USFWS easements is a costly 

and protracted process that hampers a utility’s ability to construct new facilities in a timely manner. 

Recent efforts to site a 230kV transmission line required to connect a planned wind farm in southeastern North Dakota demonstrated the difficulty in 

routing a line to avoid land currently under USFWS 

easements. The easement approval process in Chapter 12 of the Easement Manual, attached in Appendix A of the EA, contains very subjective approval 

language. Even though corridors for electric transmission lines are addressed in this section, there is 

uncertainty in how approvals would be obtained and 

at what reroute cost would an easement crossing 

be approved, as well as having no expected timeframe for receiving an approval. Normally, there 

are contractual deadlines or regional reliability time 

constraints in place for a utility to study, site and 

construct required electric transmission projects. If 

the justified right-of-way access cannot be obtained 

by a utility in a reasonable timeframe, monetary 

penalties may be incurred by a utility and rerouting 

would be required .... Furthermore, maintenance of 

existing and future line is expected to become much 

more complicated, requiring special right-of-way 

access permits in order to inspect, maintain and repair power lines, especially since more conservation 

easements are expected to in place per the proposed 
114 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

DGCA and the easements would likely correspond 

with locations of existing power lines.”

Response 16. Thank you for your comments. The 

Service recognizes that, due to the current footprint of the easement program in the Dakotas, it is 

not uncommon for developments such as pipelines, 

roads, utility lines, and wind energy developments 

to overlap with protected areas. As this footprint 

continues to grow, we expect the occurrence of these 

overlaps to increase. All Service easements are acquired subject to existing rights-of-way, including 

those for electrical transmission lines. Therefore, 

assuming a utility has a right-of-way to maintain 

its facilities, easements would have no effect on 

that utility’s ability to provide reliable service to its 

customers. When a new right-of-way is requested 

across an area protected by easement, we would 

work with the utility and the landowner to explore 

options to avoid and then minimize impacts to protected habitats. Rerouting of infrastructure around 

sensitive areas is a legitimate option and one that 

we are obligated to pursue when it is reasonable to 

do so. Once avoidance and minimization options have 

been considered, we would accommodate reasonable 

needs to develop protected lands either by issuing a 

rights-of-way, by issuing a permit, or by executing 

an exchange of interests whereby the impacted habitats are replaced elsewhere. Similar to response 15, 

the Service will address these issues and the policy 

and requirements of the Easement Manual at a later 

date.

Comment 17. “In addition, much of the most ideal construction period is unavailable in these areas due 

to the avoidance of impacts during the ground bird 

nesting period. This creates further constraints on a 

utility’s ability to manage its power line infrastructure and could impact how a utility staffs operations.”

Response 17. Thank you for your comments. The 

easements in this project and others in the Dakotas 

have no provisions restricting the time of year that 

construction activities might occur. All entities on 

all lands, whether protected by easement or not, 

are still required to comply with the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act, which restricts the “take” of migratory 

birds and their nests. 

Comment 18. “In conclusion, Montana-Dakota recommends USFWS to provide the additional analysis 

requested above to properly address power line and 

utility impacts in the EA for the proposed DGCA. 

Montana-Dakota appreciates the opportunity to 

comment.”

Response 18. Thank you for your comment. The 

Service shares your perspective and strives to conserve wildlife and wildlife habitat in a manner that is 

sustainable and balances the needs of all stakeholders. Also, see responses 15 through 17 for further 

discussion about the effects of power lines and utilities.

Agency and Organization Letters 

and Service Responses

The Service received letters about the draft EA and 

LPP from the following agencies and organizations:

1. Central Flyway Council

2. Ducks Unlimited

3. The Nature Conservancy in Minnesota, North 

Dakota, and South Dakota

4. North Dakota Farm Bureau

5. North Dakota Stockmen’s Association

6. Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever

7. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and 

Parks

8. State of North Dakota Governor

9. State of North Dakota Department of Agriculture

10.The Wildlife Society, North Dakota Chapter

11.The Wildlife Society, South Dakota Chapter

Each of these letters follow, along with the Service’s 

response to points raised by these groups.
Appendix D–Public Involvement 115

Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy (continued) Letter #1—Central Flyway Council (page 1 of 2)

-

Service Response to Letter #1

Thank you for your comments that recognize the pressures to convert grassland and drain wetlands, which are consistent with our findings and support the urgency for conservapurpose the described in as habitats these protection of tion and need (section 1) of the EA (appendix C).
116 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy Letter #1—Central Flyway Council (page 2 of 2)
Appendix D–Public Involvement 117

Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy (continued) Letter #2—Ducks Unlimited (page 1 of 2)

converthe contributing and 

Service Response to Letter #2

Thank you for your comments that recognize the multitude 

- to affecting adversely forces of 

sion of grassland and wetland habitats within the project area. Your letter recognizes the value of conserving working landscapes based on healthy ranching and livestock operations. Your pledge will go a long way in helping the Service accomplish the goals set forth by the DGCA.
118 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy Letter #2—Ducks Unlimited (page 2 of 2)
Appendix D–Public Involvement 119

Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy (continued) Letter #3—The Nature Conservancy in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota

-

Service Response to Letter #3

Thank you for your comments that highlight the multitude of wildlife species other than waterfowl that benefit from grass

e have acknowledged this in section 3 of land conservation. W

the EA (appendix C).
120 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy Letter #4—North Dakota Farm Bureau (page 1 of 2)

4.14.2

4.2

4.3

Pool 2005) and Dakota (Shultz 

Service Response to Letter #4

Thank you for your comments. Please see response 8.2.

In response to the statement that easements devalue land, 

stated, “60 percent of properties had reduced sale prices 

, almost 95 percent of 

of land sales in South 

attributed to easements. Howeversellers were more than sufficiently compensated for reduced sale prices ... and average net impacts to sellers of easement encumbered land was a positive 30 percent.” This study indicated that the income from the sale of an easement more than compensated the seller for any reduction in the selling 

Please see response 8.3. The commenter referenced the 

saving of taxpayer dollars if the project were not funded. 

Land 

is 

of 

the 

money 

sale 

money from 

the 

This 

from 

1956. of 

DGCA project proposes to use 

primarily 

Fund Act 

derived 

Conservation 

is it dollars; 

ater 

taxpayer 

4.1 

4.2 

a study price. 

4.3 

W

The and not government offshore oil and gas leases and is dedicated to conservation uses by legislation.
Appendix D–Public Involvement 121

Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy (continued) Letter #4—North Dakota Farm Bureau (page 2 of 2)

4.4

amount by the determined conditions, 

4.4 aterfowl and other wildlife populations do fluctuate 

- , without ad

to 

W

due to varying weather conditions. Howeverequate habitat in place and available, the opportunity for 

decline not conditions, favorable 

is 

during 

etland drainage, for example, functions 

conditions, wetter under even that, 

build 

unfavorable 

populations during of available habitat. W

a permanent drought as 

will not provide waterfowl habitat or provide any of the 

-

-

other benefits such as with flood control. 

4.5 NEPA procedures direct that the Federal agency under

taking the action, in this case the Service, make the deter

is impact” 

Furthermore, 

significant 

needed. 

no 

is 

of 

action 

whether a “finding 

A NEPother if 

of mination 

appropriate or Department of the Interior policy (516 DM 8) considers the establishment of most new units of the Refuge System to be an action normally requiring an EA.

4.5

4.5
122 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy Letter #5—North Dakota Stockmen’s Association (page 1 of 2) 407 S. Second St. Bismarck, ND 58504 701-223-2522 • www.ndstockmen.org July 24, 2011 Lloyd Jones U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Audubon Wetland Management District 3275 11th Street NW Coleharbor, ND 58531 RE: Dakota Grassland Conservation Area Comments Dear Mr. Jones:

The North Dakota Stockmen’s Association is an 82-year-old beef cattle trade organization. On behalf of our nearly 3,000 members, many of whom farm and ranch in the Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota, I write to oppose the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area as currently proposed. As you know, livestock producers take great pride in being stewards of their resources. Pro-conservation, we regularly employ many conservation practices on our operations, whether it be rotational grazing, weed control, tree planting or wildlife habitat and water development, to enhance our own businesses and to leave our operations in better shape for those who come after us. It’s part of our livelihood and our legacy.The Dakota Grassland Conservation Area’s Alternative B, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s preferred alternative, would include the establishment of perpetual conservation easements to accelerate the acquisition of wetland and grassland habitat. Our members have and continue to be adamantly opposed to perpetual easements, and for good reason. Perpetual easements can negatively impact the ability of future generations to best manage the land for that point in time and infringe on their private property rights. We also believe that perpetual easements devalue property, as potential buyers are less apt to be interested in parcels if they come with restrictions that last forever. In a public hearing held earlier this summer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials assured the crowd that modifications to the terms of the perpetual easements could be requested and considered. The complicated flow chart outlining the steps that would need to be taken in order to make a change, though, are indicative of the unlikelihood that these modifications would ever be granted. Shorter-term easements would be much more palatable. If arrangements are mutually beneficial for both the individual landowner and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, achieving renewal of a shorterterm easement should not be difficult. We noted, though, that the shorter-term easement alternative 

5.15.2

utilities, buried and other Pipelines 

Service Response to Letter #5

5.1 Thank you for your comments. Please see response 8.2.

5.2 The Service has a long history of accommodating reasonable 

on easement lands. uses 

transmission lines, and wind energy projects have all been authorized on easement lands.

5.3 Please see response 8.2. As noted, with hundreds of landowners on a waiting list interested in participating in the 

program, it is evident the program is considered favorable.

5.25.3
Appendix D–Public Involvement 123

Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy (continued) Letter #5—North Dakota Stockmen’s Association (page 2 of 2)

wasn’t even studied. The rationale given in the report was that shorter-term easements would merely be conservation rental, whereas perpetual easements would be conservation ownership. If conservation is at the core of this discussion, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s goal should be achieving the conservation objectives, not controlling the land. Besides, shouldn’t each generation be given the same opportunity as the one that came before it to implement decisions in the management and stewardship of their lands?We cannot listen to the television or radio news or read a newspaper without hearing about the federal deficit and extreme steps being taken to cut that debt. Considering our overall federal economic condition, it seems misplaced for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be pursuing easements at a cost of more than $580 million over the next 25 years, particularly when the agency will have to seek alternative funding in order to pay for the project. Additionally, the scope of this proposal is massive, encompassing more than half of our state, for a total of 1.7 million acres of grasslands and 240,000 acres of wetlands initially. Yet, there are already plans to grow the size to 1.8 million acres of wetlands and 10 million acres of grasslands. It would seem only reasonable that, if it moves forward, such a project be conducted with a take-it-slow approach, with shorter-term easements and on a pilot-project basis first.I’d also point out, that, just as migratory birds have seen a decline in the last quarter century, so have beef cattle. In fact, cow numbers are the lowest they’ve been since the 1950s and, just as with the migratory birds, that’s due to a multitude of reasons. Protecting livestock grazing and the livelihood of livestock producers are important too. Because we have seen a shift away from livestock grazing as a priority or equally weighted use in other federal government agency actions, we are very concerned that that same shift away from a multi-use concept that includes livestock grazing will result with this plan, and that the consequences of that action will last in perpetuity.Therefore, we urge you to abandon Alternative B and, instead, explore with all stakeholders a shorterterm easement option that recognizes the environmental and wildlife benefits of livestock grazing. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is unwilling to do that, we urge you to choose Alternative A and simply abandon the plan. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue. If you have any questions, feel free to contact our office at (701) 223-2522.Regards,Jason Schmidt, PresidentNorth Dakota Stockmen’s AssociationCC: Sen. Kent Conrad Sen. John Hoeven Rep. Rick Berg

5.45.5

ease-term longer found that -term easements and 

ecologically

5.4 Please see response 8.3. 

5.5 The DGCA project has identified the threat that currently 

exists with the loss of native prairie. A “go slow” approach would greatly reduce the ability of the program to curb the loss of native prairie that, once lost, can never be replaced 

. The Service has already tested the viability of 

- shorter

ments are more effective in meeting habitat goals and more fiscally appropriate. See response 8.2 and section 2 of the EA (appendix C). In addition, we are addressing the high level of landowner interest—one benefit of the program is to provide compensation to landowners for conservation, and that need is apparently very high at this time. 

5.6 The DGCA project has a stated purpose of supporting 

livestock operations; the purpose stated as, “Conserve working landscapes based on ranching and livestock operations 

.” The DGCA project 

-

that support a viable livestock industrydirectly and specifically addresses this concern by perpetually preserving grasslands that would be used for livestock grazing for generations to come.

5.7 The analysis of the no-action alternative indicated that it 

Further- of the project. purposes stated the not meet would 

more, more than 92 percent of the commenting public supported the proposed action (alternative B).

5.65.75.65.7
124 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy Letter #6—Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever (page 1 of 2)

-

Service Response to Letter #6

Thank you for your comment about the intrinsic value of the wildlife found in the project area, as well as the economic value of wildlife resources that we address in the socioeconomic portion of the EA (appendix C).
Appendix D–Public Involvement 125

Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy (continued) Letter #6—Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever (page 2 of 2)
126 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy Letter #7—South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks

-

with the stake

component as an 

-

our assessment of the easements involved in 

-

our letter highour 

the use, for 

Partnerships 

a strong ranching-based 

necessary resources 

Service Response to Letter #7

comments. for your Thank you 

holders you mention, as well as others, are essential in order to meet the goals stated in the environmental assessment. 

our comments recognize that the success of this project re

lies heavily on its acceptance by landowners, their decisions, and the concept of locally led conservation. Y

of the value lights 

essential part of conserving those remaining tracts of native grass prairies. Ythis project is that they are a cost-effective and publicly supported means of protecting wetland and grassland habitats, which we address in section 2 of the EA (appendix C). Yletter confirms that, together with our State partners, we 

those protect working to 

Yare benefit, and enjoyment of the people within these States and to those well beyond our borders.
Appendix D–Public Involvement 127

Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy (continued) Letter #8—State of North Dakota Governor (page 1 of 2)

8.1 Thank you for your comments. The Service would administer 

-

Service Response to Letter #8

conservation easements under the DGCA project under established procedures that are based on the premise of reathese activities allows process This accommodation. to be conducted on lands with conservation easements. For example, since 1975 the Service has had a memorandum of understanding in place with the North Dakota Department 

ransportation that allows a quick replacement of ease

ment areas affected by road projects. Accommodation is also made for projects such as buried pipelines where disturbance may be temporary and technology allows for actions that 

addition, an exchange with re-

-

eliminate surface impacts. In versionary clause has been developed and used to accommoe have a stated goal date wind projects on easement lands. Wof continuing a cooperative relationship with landowners to accomplish conservation objectives and, to do so, the Service recognizes that administering an easement program and addressing requested uses in a reasonable manner is required.

The Service has considered less-than-perpetual easements in the past. A more thorough description of these ef

forts is in section 2 of the EA (appendix C). Short-term easements as discussed are good tools for conservation efforts. 

, the summary of these efforts basically concluded However

-

8.1 

sonable of T

8.2 

the following: (1) landowners preferred the longer term ease

offered more compensation or better fit because they ments 

their management plans; (2) short-term easements resulted in short-term conservation and did not provide for meeting the goals that have been established to provide habitat for migratory birds, which is an obligation for the United States 

of habitat areas (fee acquisition international treaty under an 

would be another tool to meet these long-term objectives, but that has been determined to be prohibitively more costly 

- and less publicly and politically acceptable); (3) the econom

ics of repeating payment for the same conservation with short-term agreements did not meet the fiscal responsibility of a public agency; and (4) the perpetual nature of this conservation tool has been successfully used since 1958 when 

, there are hun- Congress authorized the program. Currently

8.2 8.18.2
128 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy Letter #8—State of North Dakota Governor (page 1 of 2) 8.3 8.3 dreds of landowners on a waiting list who have expressed interest in participating in this program. Additionally, in a eigel 2010), 60 percent of North Da- kota residents supported voluntary perpetual easements as a , and wildlife habitat. 

- and will

the 

-

an 

have demonstrated that they 

of the 

, when the associated benefits of 

interest of 

value added to 

offers 

voluntary 

that tool 

in excess 

2010 survey (Metz and Wmeans to conserve natural areas, water

the best 

is based on a strictly 

in 

a conservation 

far activity, 

easements are 

it is 

economic 

that 

programs 

in conservation are 

project DGCA 

conservation 

easement is 

considerable 

The ing-seller basis, and only those landowners who determine these land they are managing participate. Another aspect of a perpetual alternative to another perpetual decision—converting native prairie to other uses. The conversion of native prairie is an irreversible decision that binds future generations to address the potential impact, for example, associated with tillage of potentially erodible lands. 

8.3 Conservation 

generate expenditures. Additionallywetland and grassland conservation are considered—such as with reducing runoff and flooding, contributing to ground water recharge, and improving downstream water quality—the benefits of investment the habitat value provided. A very important justification for investing in conservation is that restoration of lost wetland and grassland areas is extremely difficult to accomplish and very expensive. And with native prairie, full restoration to historical conditions is not possible. 
Appendix D–Public Involvement 129

Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy (continued) Letter #9—State of North Dakota Department of Agriculture (page 1 of 2)

9.1 Thank you for your comments. The purpose of the draft 

EA and LPP was to describe a proposed project of wetland and grassland conservation. The contribution of agriculture 

of land 

s major 

loss in the

per

limited amount 

were lost acres) 

and, with the is significant 

that is fully dedicated to wildlife habitat, agriculture’contribution to wildlife will always exist. The DGCA project recognizes this reality and specifically identified a goal of 

The amount of ecosystem 

Service Response to Letter #9

supporting a viable livestock industry in a cooperative and 

, temperate grasslands are the most human altered biome and have the highest risk of biome extinction

(90,292 grasslands 

collaborative manner.

al. 2005). 

eastern prairie region ranks amongst the highest levels forany biome in the world (see figure 4 in Hoekstra et al. 2005).This figure shows that historical grassland conversion wasevident even before the modern rates of conversion in the lastfew decades. Conversion of grasslands for crop productioncontinues today (Rashford et al. 2010, Stephens et al. 2008).In the Missouri Coteau region of North Dakota and South

of percent 

to wildlife (Hoekstra et 

0.4 

9.1 

9.2 Globally

Dakota, year during 1989–2003 (Stephens et al. 2008). From 1979–1997,1.33 percent of grasslands were lost per year during across theentire United States PPR (Rashford et al. 2010). This same

well

-

and is not unique to the United States (Rashford et al. 2011).

attract 

ground-nesting birds because of the residue. Shorter residue such as grain stubble is minimally attractive to northern pin

, the disturbance of seeding small

into

nests.

In

-

as 

will 

spacing 

erosion. 

Whatever

Canada 

till 

row 

existing 

in found 

, and wind 

potential. 

was 

minimum 

narrow 

destroys 

with 

soil, water

this 

conversion 

or till 

nesting 

research 

no of 

tail as an example. However

equipment 

of time 

use 

at the 

of increasing 

modern 

9.3 The 

There is limited value of higher residue serving as nestinghabitat for ground-nesting birds, but there are secondarybenefits to wetland-associated birds in the form of reduced

on wetlands from 

pattern this impacts terms of winter cereal grains providing nesting habitat, stud

conducted to 

increased 

using 

residue 

being 

grains 

are ies 

9.29.19.29.39.3
130 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy Letter #9—State of North Dakota Department of Agriculture (page 2 of 2) results are found, the acreage of crops such as winter wheat is minimal in the context of other crop acreages (USDA– NASS 2011). For example, the 2010 acreage of winter wheat in North Dakota was less than 4 percent of the total crop area The Service recognizes that the U.S. Environmental Protec- A) has removed the pesticide carbofuran for , the citation in reference (Pimental et al. and

A

-

e also

-

WCF 

-

to 

-

-

for winter wheat, corn, and spring wheat combined.

pesticides about information valuable 

food use. However

presents 

9.4 

tion Agency (EP

still 1992) 

their potential effects on migratory birds. For example, thestudy discusses the effects of phorate, which is currently anapproved pesticide in agricultural production to control cornrootworm and European corn borers as examples. The EPconsiders phorate to pose acute and chronic risks to birdsand this chemical has also been involved in several bird kills,

A 2011). The correct ap

plication of pesticides does reduce effects on the environment;

, spills and other nonlabeled use unfortunately does however

, with the resultant impact to the environment. W

-changing development and use of various

some involving large numbers (USEPrecognize the everpesticides, each with their own effect on the environment.This dynamic situation emphasizes the need for conducting ongoing research on the effects of pesticides to the environment.

approval component. 

9.5 Please see response 4.4.

does not contain a State review or Act 

We also recognize that the Service must comply fully with directives established by Congress and not circumvent necessary approvals and requirements. Based on the comment 

decided have we process, planning the during 

occur

9.6 The Service recognizes that the language in the L

received diversify the funding sources available for the DGCA. The project now includes the ability to use money from the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934) under the acquisition authority provided by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929). The use of this money requires approval from the State in which lands are purchased and requires approval by the MBCC (see table 2 in chapter 4).

9.7 Please see response 8.2.

9.4

9.49.5

9.6

9.7

9.59.69.7
Appendix D–Public Involvement 131

Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy (continued) Letter #10—The Wildlife Society, North Dakota Chapter (page 1 of 2)

-

Service Response to Letter #10

Thank you for your comments that recognize the value of native grasslands to viable ranching and tourism industries in the State of North Dakota. The Service has identified these values in our proposed action.
132 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy Letter #10—The Wildlife Society, North Dakota Chapter (page 2 of 2)
Appendix D–Public Involvement 133

Letter #1—The Nature Conservancy (continued) Letter #11—The Wildlife Society, South Dakota Chapter

Service Response to Letter #11

Thank you for your comments that emphasize the value that native grasslands and prairie wetland habitats provide to numerous wildlife species while sustaining a viable ranching community as outlined in alternative B of the EA (appendix C).
134 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Scoping Report

The objective of the scoping process was to gather 

the full range of comments, questions, and concerns 

that the public has about the proposed action. The 

Service issued a scoping notice on December 1, 2010 

(refer to the news release on the next two pages) 

to all media outlets in Montana, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota and to several major, daily papers 

in Minnesota and Iowa. This information was also 

posted to the Service’s Web pages and Facebook and 

Twitter profiles. Due to the holiday season, the Service extended the public scoping period by 2 weeks, 

until January 14, 2011 (refer to this news release following the first release); with this extension, there 

was a total of 45 days for the public comment period.

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

individuals and organizations; in addition, 1,737 postcards were mailed out to individuals informing them 

of the project. Names on the mailing list came from 

previous Service projects where groups or individuals had expressed interest in the general area or in 

easement programs.

For face-to-face interaction with the public, the 

Service conducted three scoping meetings on December 14, 15, and 16, 2010—at Minot, North Dakota; Jamestown, North Dakota; and Huron, South 

Dakota; respectively. Public attendees at the three 

scoping meetings totaled 93 individuals.

S

The public offered comments and asked questions 

at the public meetings held December 14–16, 2010. 

In addition, individuals and organizations submitted 

comments in writing during the 45-day public scoping period that ended January 14, 2011. In summary, 

the Service received 1,469 emails, 24 written letters, 

and 60 phone calls.

The planning team made every effort to document and review all of the comments, questions, 

and issues—whether from written submissions or 

recorded at public meetings—and then organize the 

information by topic in a spreadsheet. Regardless 

of whether comments and questions were general in 

nature or about specific points of concern, they were 

added to the spreadsheet one time for each comment or question. Comments are considered to be 

of equal importance; however, public scoping is not 

a voting process. Figure H shows the proportion of 

comments by each topic.

Most of the comments reflected concern about 

the loss of wetland and grassland and stated general 

support for the proposed project, while comments 

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

Below is a summary of the comments and questions 

raised during public scoping.

PurPose And need

Comments

■ Government assistance is not needed because 

farmers and ranchers already do a good job.

■ The Service should educate farmers to conserve 

wildlife and habitat.

■ The project would enhance beef production and 

ranching operations.

■ The swampbuster provision does not work.

■ The project would increase water quality.

■ The project would reduce flooding issues.

■ There needs to be more grassland focus.

■ More than 800 landowners are currently on a 

waiting list.

■ Landowners should manage their own land.

■ This is the same situation as in 1960.

■ This project is in line with the vision for Refuge 

System growth and America’s Great Outdoors.

■ The project is important for outdoor recreation.

■ The project size and scope need to be increased.

■ The project should be expanded to all of North 

Dakota and South Dakota.

■ More of Montana, Minnesota, Nebraska, 

Wyoming, and Iowa should be included.

Questions

■ Why is there a need for this project if there is 

such a long waiting list of landowners?

■ Why is more Federal ownership needed?

■ Can Congress deauthorize easements?

■ No ducks or geese are threatened or endangered, 

so why is there a need?

■ Why should North Dakota be concerned about 

producing migratory birds that leave?

■ Why is there an urgency?

■ Why does this project identify two sets of goals?

PerPetuAl nAture of eAsements

Comments

■ The Service needs to consider term easements 

(e.g., 20-, 30-, or 40-year easements).

■ Perpetual easements punish future generations.

■ There is opposition to perpetual easements.

■ Future generations would have their property 

rights removed.

■ Converting native prairie to agriculture is 

perpetual.

■ Perpetual easements protect valuable habitats.

■ All easements should be perpetual.

■ Even though easements are perpetual, the easement program is still voluntary.
Appendix D–Public Involvement 135
136 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area
Appendix D–Public Involvement 137
138 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area
Appendix D–Public Involvement 139

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

Conservation Area.

■■ Most landowners on the waiting list are absentee 

landowners.

Questions

■■ Will future generations be able to produce 

enough food?

■■ Would there be an option to buy out 10 percent of 

an easement?

I

Comments

■ The Service would need to compensate the tax 

base.

■ Other land to farm is getting increasingly harder 

to buy.

■ Easements are detrimental to efficiency and 

profitability.

■ This project would take land away from private 

ownership.

■ This project would keep lands in families and 

private ownership.

■■ It is important to maintain some agriculture on 

the landscape.

■■ Lands with easements are valued lower.

Questions

■■ Do easements take land off the local tax rolls?

■■ How would this affect the local tax base?

■■ Would an easement payment be subject to taxes?

■■ Is property assessed at one fee and an easement 

at another fee?

■■ How would this affect the new agricultural 

assessment law in South Dakota?

I

Comments

■ The project would impact agricultural service 

providers.

■ Easements are a cost to small farming operations 

due to flooding.

■ The NRCS will not process a 1026 until the Service approves; the process needs to speed up.
140 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

■ More wildlife would lead to increased tourism.

■ Native grasslands are truly a national treasure.

■ Easements should not have an effect on others 

(townships and counties), particularly for road 

projects.

Question

■ Will a socioeconomic analysis be conducted?

T

Comments

■ The Service needs to consider annual payments.

■ The Service should consider term easements to 

also pay future generations.

Question

■ Is it a one-time payment for an easement or 

would there be another signup in 20 years?

E

Comments

■ Easements should be purchased on all lands 

within a drainage system.

■ Farming in wetlands should not be allowed.

■ Easements prevent orderly water management.

■ Wind energy should be considered compatible 

with easements and conservation.

■ The Service needs to consider the recent FACA 

wind energy guidelines.

■ The LPP should address prairie dog management.

■ The Service should change the term “requested 

uses” to “habitat allowances.”

■ The Service needs to resolve easement conflicts.

■ Public access should be allowed.

Questions

■ Who has jurisdiction of easements that border 

lands without easements?

■ What are limited circumstances?

■ Can Congress change easement terms?

■ What uses can be conducted on grassland easements?

■ Can the landowner burn in a grassland easement?

■ Why does the Service limit haying and seed 

harvest?

■ Can “interseeding” be conducted?

■ Can trees be planted on easements?

■ Can wind energy development occur on easements?

■ Why does the Service have jurisdiction over 

placement of wind turbines?

■ What are the Service setbacks on wind farms?

■ What would be allowed for access roads to wind 

farms on both wetland and grassland areas considered for easement?

■ How would ground-water usage next to wetland 

easements be affected?

■ Who has jurisdiction of wetland easements, for 

example, tiling around a wetland?

■ Would tiling be allowed in a wetland basin?

■ How does this project compare to how NRCS 

determines a wetland?

■ Does the Service wetland determination compare 

with the NRCS determination and does it matter?

F

Comments

■ The Federal budget cannot afford this.

■ LWCF money should be used to pay down the 

Federal deficit.

■ The Service should also consider other funds.

Questions

■ How many employees would be needed?

■ Where would the money come from?

■ How much funding is estimated for this project?

■ Are there surplus dollars in LWCF today?

WetlAnd And grAsslAnd loss

Comments

■ There is a small amount of native prairie left.

■ The Service needs to focus on grassland easements, because the wetlands would also be 

incorporated.

■ The Prairie Pothole Region is important to many 

populations of wildlife.

■ This project is necessary to decrease wetland and 

grassland loss.

■ Wetland and grassland habitats are vanishing 

rapidly.

■ Sufficient habitat is already in place.

Questions

■ How many wetlands have been lost in last 10 

years?

■ How is wetland loss determined?

■ Have wetland definitions changed since 1960?

■ What is native prairie?

■ Why does the Service buy easements on more 

land than just native prairie?

■ How does the Service know land has not been 

previously disturbed?
Appendix D–Public Involvement 141

■ What is the situation with urban sprawl and its 

effects?

R

Comment

■ The Service needs to clarify easement appraisals 

and valuation.

Questions

■ Does this process require Governor approval?

■ How are properties evaluated?

■ Would the Service be interested in “go-back” 

grass or restored grasslands?

■ Is there a minimum tract size?

■ How many acres are proposed in South Dakota?

M

Comments

■ The Service should work more with agricultural 

groups.

■ The Service should not support North Dakota 

and South Dakota, because they restrict out-ofstate hunters.

■ The Service should work more with USDA and 

encourage conservation through farm program 

incentives.

■ Easements can be purchased to offset depredation, and the Service should investigate that.

■ Landowners with threatened and endangered 

species should be compensated.

■ The project would increase public education 

about wetland and grasslands.

■ The Service needs to allow ample time for the 

public to comment.

■ The Service needs to conduct an EIS.

■ The Service needs to use the Endangered Species 

Act as leverage.

■ The Service should resolve easement conflicts.

■ The project name should be changed.

Questions

■ How many wetland acres are needed in a quarter 

section of land?

■ Does the goal for 240,000 acres of wetland include 

upland buffers?

■ Are perpetual easements possible in North 

Dakota?

■ What repercussions would there be for easement 

violations?

■ What is the situation with the recent sale of land 

in Kidder County?

■ Is this project for Louisiana hunters?

List of Agencies and Organizations 

that Submitted Comments

Archery Trade Association

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Badlands Conservation Alliance

Bear Trust International

Boone and Crockett Club

Bowhunting Preservation Alliance

BP Wind Energy

Campfire Club of America

Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation

Congressman Denny Rehberg

Conservation Force

Dallas Safari Club

Delta Waterfowl

Ducks Unlimited

International Hunter Education Association

Izaak Walton League of America

Maryland Ornithological Society

Masters of Foxhounds Association

Mule Deer Foundation

National Shooting Sports Foundation

National Trappers Association

National Wild Turkey Federation

National Wildlife Federation

National Wildlife Refuge Association

North American Bear Foundation

North American Grouse Partnership

North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society

North Dakota Grain Growers Association

Orion–the Hunters’ Institute

Pheasants Forever

Quail Forever

Quality Deer Management Association

Sand County Foundation

South Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society

South Dakota Farm Bureau Federation

South Dakota Wildlife Federation

Texas Wildlife Association

The Nature Conservancy

The Wildlife Society

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Tread Lightly

Whitetails Unlimited

Wild Sheep Foundation

Wildlife Forever

Wildlife Management Institute

Appendix E

Finding of No Significant Impact

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

All counties north and east of the Missouri River in North and South Dakota (not including counties in the 

Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area).

North Dakota Counties South Dakota Counties

Barnes Cavalier Grand Forks McIntosh Ramsey Towner Aurora Edmunds McPherson

Benson Dickey Griggs McLean Renville Trail Brule Faulk Potter

Bottineau Divide Kidder Mountrail Rolette Walsh Buffalo Hand Sully

Burke Eddy LaMoure Nelson Sheridan Ward Campbell Hughes Walworth

Burleigh Emmons Logan Pembina Steele Wells Charles Mix Hyde

Cass Foster McHenry Pierce Stutsman Williams Douglas Jerauld

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has completed 

the “Environmental Assessment, Proposed Dakota 

Grassland Conservation Area.” The environmental 

assessment evaluates two alternatives, including 

a no-action alternative, and the subsequent environmental consequences of establishing the Dakota 

Grassland Conservation Area.

Alternative B, the preferred alternative, was 

selected for implementation because it best meets 

the Service’s objective to protect wetland and grassland resources in the Prairie Pothole Region for the 

benefit of migratory birds and other wildlife. The 

Dakota Grassland Conservation Area was proposed 

to help conserve these habitats in a working agricultural landscape by complementing farming and 

ranching practices while preventing the destruction 

of wetlands and conversion of grasslands to other 

uses. This project would also benefit the American 

public by protecting wildlife, water quality, and the 

carbon sequestering potential of the landscape.

Environmental Effects

The following is a summary of environmental effects 

from implementation of the proposed action.

1. Establishing the Dakota Grassland Conservation 

Area would provide for the conservation of wetlands and grasslands on private land in the Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota and South 

Dakota. This project would help maintain the 

value of the area to grassland- and wetland-dependant migratory birds and would complement 

the Service’s Small Wetland Acquisition Program. It would also supplement the conservation 

efforts of private landowners; Ducks Unlimited; 

The Nature Conservancy; Pheasants Forever; 

the North Dakota Game and Fish Department; 

the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks; and 

several other partners initiated through the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan.

2. Conservation easements within the Dakota 

Grassland Conservation Area would help prevent habitat fragmentation. Maintaining the 

landscape-scale ecological integrity of wetland 

and associated grasslands would provide breeding and migrating habitat for at least 130 species 

of birds, including the endangered piping plover 

and whooping crane. Additionally, several aquatic 

species, amphibians and reptiles, and mammals 

would benefit from the conservation of prairie 

habitats and associated riparian corridors.

3. Compatible agricultural practices such as livestock grazing or haying (after July 15 of each 

year) would continue on grassland easements, 

and farming and haying of naturally dry wetlands would continue on wetland easements. 

The destruction of wetlands and conversion of 

grasslands to other uses would be prohibited. 

Easements would maximize the connectivity 
144 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

with other protected wetlands and grasslands 

and would decrease the negative effects of habitat fragmentation on wildlife species.

4. The Dakota Grassland Conservation Area would 

affect the location and distribution, but not the 

rate or density, of human population growth. 

Positive effects may occur from increased public 

opportunities for wildlife viewing and hunting. 

Open space consisting of native prairie may enhance property values on adjoining lands as people begin to seek undeveloped lands in the future.

5. The Service, within the approved project boundary, would create no additional land-use regulations. The purchase of an easement would not 

result in the transfer of land title, and private 

landowners would continue to pay property 

taxes. Preventing some types of development 

could decrease tax revenues in certain market areas. However, open space could actually provide a 

net savings to local governments when compared 

to the revenues generated and the costs of services associated with residential development.

6. The Dakota Grassland Conservation Area would 

not necessarily preclude wind development on 

private lands protected by easement. Where a 

pre-existing wind lease occurs, the Service would 

work with the landowner and developer to minimize any negative effects of development activities. When development is proposed on easement 

lands where no pre-existing wind lease occurs, the 

Service would work with the landowner and developer to first avoid impacts if possible and then 

minimize the impacts to the extent practicable. 

The Service would release and relinquish its easement rights on any directly affected acreage in 

exchange for replacement habitat of similar quantity, quality, and protection. The easement interest 

relinquished would be restored and revert to the 

Service when the development is decommissioned. 

7. Conservation easements purchased on private land 

would not change the landowners’ rights to manage 

public access to their properties. Private landowners would retain full control over their property 

access rights, including allowing or restricting hunting and fishing on their lands, under the Dakota 

Grassland Conservation Area easement program.

8. Through the Dakota Grassland Conservation 

Area easement program, up to 240,000 acres 

of wetlands and 1.7 million acres of grasslands 

would be added to the more than 2.5 million acres 

of privately owned lands within North Dakota 

and South Dakota that are already protected by 

Service easements. Combined with Federal- and 

State-protected lands, this would result in the 

long-term conservation of migratory birds, particularly waterfowl; threatened and endangered 

species; native plants; and the overall biological 

diversity and ecological integrity of the Prairie 

Pothole Region in the Dakotas.

Public Involvement

As part of the public scoping process associated with 

this action, comments were solicited from the public 

through direct mailings, news releases, public meetings, and direct contacts.

■ The Service issued a scoping notice to all media 

outlets in Montana, North Dakota, and South 

Dakota and to several major daily newspapers in 

Minnesota and Iowa.

■ Project information was posted on the project 

Web site as well as on the Service’s Facebook and 

Twitter profiles.

■ The Service mailed a four-page fact sheet to 32 

Native American tribes and 1,275 individuals and 

organizations; in addition, 1,737 postcards were 

mailed. 

■ Three public scoping meetings were held in Minot, North Dakota; Jamestown, North Dakota; 

and Huron, South Dakota. Approximately 98 

landowners, citizens, and elected representatives 

attended the meetings.

Most scoping comments received—whether by 

email, written letters, and phone calls, or during 

scoping meetings—reflected a concern over the loss 

of wetland and grassland habitats and stated general 

support for the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area.

The Service released the draft environmental 

assessment and land protection plan on June 20, 

2011, for a 30-day public review period. The draft 

documents were made available to Federal elected 

officials and agencies, State elected officials and 

agencies, 32 tribes, and other members of the public 

that were identified during the scoping process.

■ Two public meetings were held in Bismarck 

North Dakota, and in Miller, South Dakota, on 

June 28 and 29, 2011, respectively. Approximately 50 landowners, citizens, and elected representatives attended the meetings.

■ The Service received 10 letters from agencies, 

organizations, and other entities, and 347 other 

public comments.
Appendix E–Finding of No Significant Impact 145

After all comments were received, each was reviewed and incorporated into the administrative 

record. A large majority (more than 92 percent) of 

comments received were supportive of the project.

Evaluation

The environmental assessment has taken a thorough 

look at the environmental impacts to inform the public and the Service about the consequences of the 

Dakota Grassland Conservation Area.

■ Environmental consequences will be beneficial 

to wildlife habitat; migratory birds, particularly 

waterfowl; endangered and threatened species; 

and water and air quality.

■ While the proposal to establish the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area will largely preserve the 

current state of the natural environment and prevent degradation, there may be some reduction 

in energy development requiring the destruction 

of grasslands or wetlands that would otherwise 

occur, but for the easements proposed by the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. However, substantive 

conflict is not apparent over this land use issue; 

more than 90 percent of comments received during scoping meetings and on the environmental 

assessment were in favor of the establishment of 

the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area and its 

use of voluntary conservation easements.

In determining whether this project is a major action significantly1

 affecting the quality of the human 

environment, the Service looked at both the context 

and intensity of the action (40 CFR § 1508.27, 40 

CFR § 1508.14) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The project will be implemented over time, dependent on the Service’s ability 

to obtain the funding needed for easement acquisitions. Of the 29.6 million acres within the overall 

boundary area, easements may be purchased by 

the Service only from willing sellers on a strictly 

voluntary basis on up to 1.94 million acres through 

this project.

Because the human environment2 is interpreted 

by the National Environmental Policy Act to mean 

the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with the environment (40 CFR 

§ 1508.14), in addition to the Service’s thorough 

analysis of physical environmental effects, the manner in which the local people relate to the environment in the Prairie Pothole Region was carefully 

assessed. Economic or social effects are not intended 

by themselves to require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (40 CFR § 1508.14). 

The location of the project is largely rural and dominated by agricultural industries, mainly farming and 

ranching. The vast majority of commenters on the 

Dakota Grassland Conservation Area supported the 

proposed action and indicated in various comments 

that it would help them relate to their natural and 

physical environment in much the same way they do 

now, whether through a farming or ranching economy or through other outdoor recreational pursuits. 

Those interested in other economic development opportunities, such as wind energy, will not necessarily 

be precluded from doing so because (1) the preferred 

alternative involves voluntary easements acquired 

from willing sellers only, and (2) the Service has 

procedures to provide reasonable accommodations 

for requests under certain circumstances.

Finding 

Therefore, in consideration of the fact that the Service’s conservation easement approach has a proven 

track record of effectiveness and minimal controversy due to its fundamental basis of voluntary participation to accomplish mutual goals of the Service 

and landowners, the compelling science in support 

of the project, and my review and evaluation of the 

information contained in the supporting reference, 

I have determined that establishing the Dakota 

Grassland Conservation Area is not a major Federal 

action that would significantly affect the quality of 

1

40 CFR § 1508.27 “Significantly” as used in the National Environmental Policy Act requires consideration of both context and intensity: 

(a) Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a 

whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interest, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of 

the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend on the effects in 

the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant.

(b) Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one agency 

may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action.

2

40 CFR § 1508.14 “Human environment” shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical 

environment and the relationship of people with that environment. (See definition of “effects” in 40 CFR 1508.8.) This 

means that economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact 

statement. When an environmental impact statement is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical 

environmental effects are interrelated, then the environmental impact statement will discuss all of these effects on the 

human environment.
146 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

the human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969.

The finding of no significant impact and supporting environmental assessment are available to all 

affected landowners, agencies, private groups, interested parties, and the public. The finding of no significant impact, the environmental assessment, and 

other supporting documents are on file at the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuge Planning, P.O. Box 24586–DFC, Denver, Colorado 80225. 

They are available for public inspection on request.

Supporting Reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Environmental Assessment, Proposed 

Dakota Grassland Conservation Area, Lakewood, 

Colorado.

Stephen D. Guertin Date

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 6, Mountain–Prairie Region

Lakewood, Colorado
Appendix F

Environmental Action Statement

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

Environmental Action Statement

Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife 

resources, I have established the following administrative record and have determined that the action of 

establishing an executive boundary for the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area:

____ is a categorical exclusion as provided by 516 DM 2, appendices 1 and 2, and 516 DM 6, appendix 1. 

No further documentation will be made.

____ is found not to have significant environmental effects as determined by the attached finding of 

no significant impact and environmental assessment.

____ is found to have special environmental conditions as described in the attached environmental 

assessment. The attached finding of no significant impact will not be final nor any actions taken 

pending a 30-day period for public review [40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2)].

____ is found to have significant effects and, therefore, a notice of intent will be published in the 

Federal Register to prepare an environmental impact statement before the project is considered 

further.

____ is denied because of environmental damage, Service policy, or mandate.

____ is an emergency situation. Only those actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the 

emergency will be taken. Other related actions remain subject to National Environmental Policy 

Act review.

Other supporting document: “Land Protection Plan and Environmental Assessment, Dakota Grassland Conservation Area.”

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date

Assistant Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 6, Mountain–Prairie Region

National Wildlife Refuge System

Lakewood, Colorado

Stephen D. Guertin Date

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 6, Mountain–Prairie Region

Lakewood, Colorado

×

Appendix G

Environmental Compliance Certificate

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

Environmental Compliance Certificate

Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Project: Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

State: North Dakota and South Dakota

ACTION (indicate if not applicable) DATE

National Environmental Policy Act (indicate one)

Categorical Exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8/29/2011

Environmental Impact Statement/Record of Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

Executive Order 11593, Protection of Historical, Archaeological, and Scientific Properties . . . . . . . . . 8/5/2011

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8/5/2011

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8/5/2011

Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8/5/2011

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and

Low-Income Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8/5/2011

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System . . . 8/5/2011

Endangered Species Act, Section 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/8/2011

Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 307 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

Level I Contaminants and Hazardous Waste (Secretarial Order 3127: 602DM2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8/5/2011

I hereby certify that all requirements of the law, rules, and Service regulations or policies applicable to planning for the above project have met with compliance . I approve the establishment of an executive boundary 

for the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area to be administered and managed as part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System .

Stephen D. Guertin Date

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 6, Mountain–Prairie Region

Lakewood, Colorado 
150 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Statement of Compliance

The following Executive orders and legislative acts have been reviewed as they apply to the establishment of 

an executive boundary for the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area:

1 . Executive Order 11593, Protection of Historical, 

Archaeological, and Scientific Properties. The 

regional archaeologist determined that the acquisition of easements within the Dakota Grassland 

Conservation Area is not an undertaking under 

section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act . In fact, the project has the potential 

to protect cultural resources . If, in the future, 

the Service grants a special permit for the landowner under the easement, section 106 may be 

relevant at that time . If so, the Service will take 

the necessary steps to address any historical or 

archaeological issues . 

2 . Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. 

No structures that could be damaged by, or that 

would significantly influence the movement of 

floodwater, are planned for construction by the 

Service on easements acquired as part of this 

project .

3 . Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. 

This action is consistent with protection of existing wetland resources from incompatible activities and thereby complies with this Executive 

order .

4 . Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review. 

The Service has discussed the proposal to establish the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area 

with landowners; conservation organizations; 

other Federal agencies; tribal, State, and county 

commissioners; and other interested groups and 

individuals . At the Federal level, the Service 

staff has coordinated with the U .S . Department 

of Agriculture (the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Farm Service Agency), 

U .S . Department of the Interior (National Park 

Service, Bureau of Reclamation, U .S . Geological 

Service, and Bureau of Land Management), and 

the U .S . Army Corps of Engineers . At the State 

level, all Governors’ offices, U .S . senators and 

representatives, and State wildlife management 

agencies in both States have been notified of this 

proposed action and given the opportunity to review the environmental assessment . In addition, 

the Service has provided information to 32 tribes 

with potential interest in this project . 

5 . Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and 

Low-Income Populations. Establishing the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area will not have a 

disproportionately high or adverse human health 

or environmental effect on minority or low-income populations . Therefore, this action complies 

with this Executive order .

6 . Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The public has been invited to participate in the planning process and has been very 

engaged . The Service held five public meetings—

three scoping and two meetings to get input on 

the draft EA and LPP in the project area . Over 

1,800 comments have been received from the 

public . The public’s issues and comments have 

been incorporated into the environmental assessment and a copy of the final document will be 

sent to all interested landowners, agencies, private groups, and other parties . Since this project 

will strictly be easement acquisition, the Service 

will not manage or have control over public access to the protected lands . This right will remain 

with the private landowner and, therefore, a compatibility determination is not needed for this 

project .

7 . Endangered Species Act, Section 7. An internal 

section 7 consultation concluded that the proposed action would have a “May affect, but is not 

likely to adversely affect species/modify critical 

habitat” on listed species within the acquisition 

project area .

8 . Coastal Zone Management Act. Due to the location of the project area, compliance with this act 

was determined not to be needed . 

9 . Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. Since the Service 

will not be acquiring any land within the project 

area in fee title, no relocation assistance will be 

needed and no real property acquisition will occur .

10 . Secretarial Order 3127, Contaminants and Hazardous Waste. A Level 1 pre-acquisition contaminant survey will be completed before the 

purchase of any easement . 
Appendix G–Environmental Compliance Certificate 151

I hereby certify that the Service has complied with all requirements of law, rules, or regulations applicable to 

pre-acquisition planning for the above project . I approve the establishment of an executive boundary for the 

Dakota Grassland Conservation Area and the subsequent acquisition of up to 240,000 acres of wetland easements and up to 1,700,000 acres of grassland easements from willing sellers .

Stephen D. Guertin Date

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 6, Mountain–Prairie Region

Lakewood, Colorado 

Appendix H

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director’s Approval
154 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area
Appendix H–U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director’s Approval 155

Appendix I

Section 7 Biological Evaluation
158 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area
Appendix I–Section 7 Biological Evaluation 159
160 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area
Appendix I–Section 7 Biological Evaluation 161
162 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

State Boundary

County Boundary

Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area

Priority Grassland

>25 Duck Pairs Priority Zone

Figure 1. Proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area.
Appendix I–Section 7 Biological Evaluation 163

Figure 2. Piping plover critical habitat.

Bibliography

Arenz, C.L.; Joern, A. 1996. Prairie legacies—invertebrates. In: Samson, F.B.; Knopf, F.L.; editors. 

Prairie Conservation: Preserving North America’s Most Endangered Ecosystem. Washington, 

DC: Island Press. 339 p.

(AFWA) Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

2006. National Fish Habitat Action Plan. Washington, DC. 28 p. [Internet] <www.fishhabitat

.org> accessed May 13, 2011.

Ball, I.J.; Eng, R.L.; Ball, S.K. 1995. Population density and productivity of ducks on large grassland 

tracts in north central Montana. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 23(4):767–73.

Barker, W.T.; Whitman, W.C. 1989. Vegetation of 

the northern Great Plains. Research Report #111 

EXP. Fargo, ND: North Dakota Agricultural 

Experiment Station. 111 p.

Beauchamp, W.D.; Koford, R.R.; Nudds, T.D.; Clark, 

R.G.; Johnson, D.H. 1996. Long-term declines in 

nest success of prairie ducks. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 60(2):247–57.

Berkey, G.; Crawford, R.; Galipeau, S.; Johnson, D.; 

Lambeth, D.; Kreil, R. 1993. A review of wildlife 

management practices in North Dakota: effects 

on nongame bird populations and habitats. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service report. Jamestown, 

ND. 51 p.

Beyersbergen, G.W.; Niemuth, N.D.; Norton, M.R.; 

coordinators. 2004. Northern prairie and parkland waterbird conservation plan—a plan associated with the waterbird conservation for the 

Americas initiative. Denver, CO: Prairie Pothole 

Joint Venture. 183 p.

Bluemle, J.P. 1977. The face of North Dakota: the 

geologic story. Educational Series 1, North Dakota Geologic Survey 11. [City of publication unknown]: North Dakota Geologic Survey. 73 p.

Bragg, T.B. 1995. The physical environment of 

Great Plains grasslands. In: Joern, A.; Keeler, 

K.H.; editors. The Changing Prairie: North 

American Grasslands. New York: Oxford University Press. 49–81.

Brown, S.; Hickey, C.; Harrington, B.; editors. 2001. 

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2nd 

ed. Manomet, MA: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 70 p.

Bryce, S.; Omernik, J.M.; Pater, D.E.; [and others]. 

1998. Ecoregions of North and South Dakota. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Online. [Internet] <www.npwrc

.usgs.gov/resource/1998/ndsdeco/ndsdeco.htm> 

accessed April 21, 2011.

Burt, W.H.; Grossenheider, R.P. 1964. A field guide 

to the mammals. 2nd edition. The Peterson Field 

Guide Series. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin 

Company.

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 Biological Service Program 

FWS/OBS–79/31. Washington, DC. 131 p.

Cowardin, L.M.; Sargeant, A.B.; Duebbert, H.F. 

1985. Low waterfowl recruitment in the prairies: the problem, the reasons and the challenge 

to management. In: Boyd, H.; editor. Proceedings, First Western Hemisphere Waterfowl and 

Waterbirds Symposium; May 1982; Ottawa, 

Canada. Edmonton, Canada: Canadian Wildlife 

Services. 16–18.

Curry, J.P. 1994. Grassland invertebrates: ecology, 

influence on soil fertility and effects on plant 

growth. London: Chapman and Hall. 437 p.

DeMallie, Raymond J.; editor. 2001. Handbook of 

North American Indians, Plains. Volume 13. 

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. 1392 p.

Duxbury, A.J.; Heidel, B.L.; Malterer, T.J. 1986. 

Rare flora of North Dakota’s calcareous fens. In: 

Proceedings of the North Dakota Academy of 

Science. Volume 40. April 1986; [Place of symposium unknown]. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 50 p.

Dwernychuk, L.W.; Boag, D.A. 1973. Effect of herbicide-induced changes in vegetation on nesting 

ducks. Canadian Field Naturalist 87:155–65.

Fitzgerald, J.A.; Pashley, D.N.; Lewis, S.J.; Pardo, 

B. 1998. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation 

Plan for the Northern Tallgrass Prairie, Physiographic Area 40. Jefferson City, MO: American 

Bird Conservancy. 52 p.

Fitzgerald, J.A.; Pashley, D.N.; Pardo, B. 1999. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation plan for the 

Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie, Physiographic 

Area 37. Jefferson City, MO: American Bird Conservancy. 69 p.

Gerard, P.W. 1995. Agricultural practices, farm 

policy and the conservation of biological diver-
166 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

sity. National Biological Service Technical Report 

Series, Biological Science Report 4. Washington, 

DC: National Biological Service. 28 p.

(GAO) Government Accountability Office. 2007a. 

Agricultural conservation: farm program payments are an important factor in landowners’ 

decision to convert grassland to cropland. GAO–

07–1054. Washington, DC. 70 p.

———. 2007b. Prairie Pothole Region: at the pace 

of current acquisitions, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is unlikely to achieve its habitat goals for 

migratory birds. GAO–07–1093. Washington, DC. 

54 p.

Greenwood, Raymond J.; Sargeant, Alan B.; Johnson, Douglas H.; Cowardin, Lewis M.; Shaffer, 

T.L. 1995. Factors associated with duck nest success in the Prairie Pothole Region of Canada. 

Wildlife Monographs. 128:1–57.

Gregg, Michael L.; Picha, Paul R.; Swenson, Fern 

E.; Bleier, Amy. 2008. Archeological component 

of the North Dakota Comprehensive Plan for 

Historic Preservation. On file: State Historical 

Society of North Dakota, Bismarck.

Grondahl, C. 2011. Small mammals of North Dakota. 

Bismarck, ND: North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department. 17 p. [Internet] <http://www.npwrc

.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/mammals/index

.htm> accessed May 10, 2011.

Grue, C.E.; Tome, M.W.; Swanson, G.A.; Borthwick, 

S.M.; DeWeese, L.R. 1988. Agricultural chemicals and the quality of prairie-pothole wetlands 

for adult and juvenile waterfowl—what are the 

concerns. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Biological Report 88(16). Proceedings, National 

Symposium on Protection of Wetlands from 

Agricultural Impacts; April 25–29, 1988; Colorado 

State University, Fort Collins, CO. Washington, 

DC. 221 p.

Hagen, Sandra K.; Isakson, Patrick T.; Dyke, Steve 

R. 2005. North Dakota Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy. Bismarck, ND: North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 454 p. <http://

gf.nd.gov/conservation/cwcs.html> [access date 

unknown].

Hartwig, N.L.; Hall, J.K. 1980. Influencing the action of herbicides: runoff losses. Crops and Soil 

Magazine. October:14–16.

Herkert, J.R.; Reinking, D.L.; Wiedenfeld, D.A.; 

[and others]. 2003. Effects of prairie fragmentation on the nest success of breeding birds in the 

midcontinental United States. Conservation Biology 17:587–94.

Higgins, K.F.; Naugle, D.E.; Forman, K.J. 2002. 

A case study of changing land use practices in 

the northern Great Plains, U.S.A.—an uncertain 

future for waterbird conservation. Waterbirds 

25:42:50.

Higgins, K.F.; Woodward, R.O. 1986. Comparison of 

wetland drainage during and after protection by 

20-year easements. Prairie Naturalist 18(4):229–

33.

Hoburg, T.; Gause, C. 1992. Reptiles and amphibians of North Dakota. North Dakota Outdoors 

55(1):7–19.

Hoekstra, J.M.; Boucher, T.M.; [and others]. 2005. 

Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities 

of habitat loss and protection. Ecology Letters 

8(1):23–9.

Eggleston, H.S.; Buendia L.; Miwa, K.; Ngara, T.; 

Tanabe, K.; editors. 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines 

for national greenhouse gas inventories. Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Kanagawa, 

Japan: IGES. 1988 p.

Johnson, D.H.; Kreil, R.L.; Berkey, G.B.; Crawford, 

R.D.; Lambeth, D.O.; Galipeau, S.F. 1994. Influences of waterfowl management on nongame 

birds: the North Dakota experience. In: Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference; March 18–23, 1994; Anchorage, AK. Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute. 59:293–3–2.

Johnson, Rex R.; Oslund, F.T.; Hertal, D.R. 2008. 

The past, present, and future of the prairie potholes in the United States. Journal of Soil and 

Water Conservation 63(3): 84a–87a.

Kantrud, H.A.; Higgins, K.F. 1992. Nest and nest 

site characteristics of some ground-nesting, nonpasserine birds of northern grasslands. Prairie 

Naturalist 24(2):67–84.

Kantrud, H.A.; Krapu, G.L.; Swanson, G.A. 1989. 

Prairie basin wetlands of the Dakotas: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.28). Washington, DC. 116 p.

Klett, A.T.; Shaffer, T.L.; Johnson, D.H. 1988. Duck 

nest success in the prairie pothole region. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 52:431–40.

Knopf, F.L. 1996. Prairie legacies—birds. In: 

Samson, F.B.; Knopf, F.L.; editors. Prairie Conservation—Preserving North America’s Most 

Endangered Ecosystem. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. 339 p.

Martin, B.; Cooper, S.; Heidel, B.; Hildebrand, T.; 

Jones, G.; Lenz, D.; Lesica, P. 1998. Natural community inventory within landscapes of the northern Great Plains steppe ecoregion of the United 

States. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy. 

222 p.

Messmer, Terry; Dahl, Greg. 1991. Wildlife and pesticides: a practical guide to reducing the risk. 

North Dakota State University Extension Service, WL–1017. [Internet] <http://www.ag.ndsu

.edu/pubs/ansci/wildlife/wl1017-1.htm> accessed 

April 22, 2011.
Bibliography 167

Metz, David; Weigel, Lori. 2010. Key findings from a 

recent survey of North Dakota voters regarding 

conservation issues. [Memorandum] [City and 

state unknown]: Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz 

& Associates. [City and state unknown]: Public 

Opinion Strategies. 7 p.

(NFHB) National Fish Habitat Board. 2010. 

Through a fish’s eye: the status of fish habitats 

in the United States 2010. Washington, DC: Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 68 p.

(NREL) National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2011. New wind resource maps and wind 

potential estimates for the United States. [Internet] <http://www.windpoweramerica.gov> 

accessed April 14, 2011.

National Sunflower Association. 2011. Daily oilseed sunflower price averages. [Internet] <www

.sunflowernsa.com/growers/marketing/daily-oilseed

-sunflower-price/> accessed March 29, 2011.

Niemuth, N.D.; Estey, M.E.; Loesch, C.R. 2005. 

Developing spatially explicit habitat models for 

grassland bird conservation planning in the Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota. In: Ralph, 

C.J.; Rich, T.D.; editors. Bird conservation implementation and integration in the Americas. 

Proceedings of the 3rd International Partners in 

Flight Conference; March 20–24, 2002; Asilomer, 

CA. Albany, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 469–77.

Niemuth, N.D.; Reynolds, R.E.; Granfors, D.A.; 

Johnson, R.R.; Wangler, B.; Estey, M.E. 2008. 

Landscape-level planning for conservation of 

wetland birds in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. 

In: Millspaugh, Joshua J.; Thompson, Frank R., 

III; editors. Models for Planning Wildlife Conservation in Large Landscapes. Burlington, MA: 

Elsevier Science. 533–60.

Niemuth, N.D.; Solbert, J.W.; Shaffer, T.L. 2008. 

Influence of moisture on density and distribution 

of grassland birds in North Dakota. The Condor 

110(2):211–22.

(NDGF) North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 1994. Fishes of the Dakotas. Bismarck, ND. 

[Internet] <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/

fish/dakfish/index.htm> (Version  16JUL97) 

accessed May 10, 2011. 

(NDGS) North Dakota Geological Survey. 2010. 

Shallow gas field screening in North Dakota: field 

data report (2009 and 2010) for selected counties. 

Geologic Investigations No. 131. Bismarck, ND: 

North Dakota Geological Survey. 109 p.

(NDOGC) North Dakota Oil and Gas Commission. 

2011. Active drilling rigs. [Internet] <https://

www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/riglist.asp> accessed 

April 14, 2011.

 (NDSHPO) North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office. 2009. Historic Preservation in North 

Dakota, 2010–2015: A Statewide Comprehensive 

Plan. On file: State Historical Society of North 

Dakota, Bismarck.

Oklahoma State University. 2011. Beef cattle numbers causing concern. [Internet] Stillwater, OK: 

Oklahoma State University, Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. <www

.oces.okstate.edu/Members/donald.stotts-40okstate.edu/beef-cattle-numbers-causing-concern> 

accessed March 29, 2011.

Owens, R.; Myres, M.T. 1972. Effects of agriculture 

upon populations of native passerine birds of an 

Alberta fescue grassland. Canadian Field-Naturalist 51:697–713.

Peterjohn, B.G.; Sauer, J.R. 1999. Population status of North American grassland birds from the 

North American breeding bird Survey, 1966–

1996. In: Vickery, P.D.; Herkert, J.R.; editors. 

Ecology and Conservation of Grassland Birds of 

the Western Hemisphere. Studies in Avian Biology 19:27–44.

Pimentel, D.; Acquay, H.; Biltonen, M.; [and others]. 

1992. Environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. BioScience 42(10):33–43.

Pollastro, R.M.; Cook, T.A.; Roberts, L.N.R.; [and 

others]. 2008. Assessment of undiscovered oil 

resources in the Devonian-Mississippian Bakken 

Formation, Williston Basin Province, Montana 

and North Dakota, 2008. U.S. Geological Survey 

Fact Sheet 2008–3021. 2 p. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/

fs/2008/3021/> [access date unknown].

Rashford, B.S.; Bastian, C.T.; [and others]. 2011. Agricultural land-use change. In: Prairie Canada— 

Implications for Wetland and Waterfowl Habitat 

Conservation. Canadian Journal of Agricultural 

Economics/Revue Canadienne d’Agroeconomie 

59(2):185–205.

Rashford, B.S.; Walker, J.A.; [and others]. 2010. 

Economics of grassland conversion to cropland in 

the Prairie Pothole Region. Conservation Biology 

25(2):276–84.

Responsive ManagementTM. 1998. Attitudes of landowners towards conservation practices in the 

prairie pothole region. Harrisonburg, VA. [Pages 

unknown].

Reynolds, R. 1999. Interview. Project leader, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat and Population 

Evaluation Team, Bismarck, North Dakota. May 

1999.

Reynolds, R.E.; Shaffer, T.L.; Loesch, C.R.; Cox, 

R.R., Jr. 2006. The farm bill and duck production 

in the Prairie Pothole Region: increasing the benefits. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(4):963–74.

Reynolds, R.E.; Shaffer, T L.; Renner, R.W.; Newton, W.E.; Batt, B.D.J. 2001. Impact of the Conservation Reserve Program on duck recruitment 
168 Land Protection Plan—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area

in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 65:765–80.

Ringelman, J.K.; editor. 2005. Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture 2005 Implementation Plan, Section I—

Plan Foundation. [Internet] <www.ppjv.org/pdf/

Part1_Foundation.pdf> accessed April 22, 2011.

Ryan, M.R.; Renken, R.B.; Dinsmore, J.J. 1984. 

Marbled godwit habitat selection in the northern 

prairie region. Journal of Wildlife Management 

48(4):1206–18.

Sauer, J.R.; Hines, J.E.; Gough, G.; Thomas, I.; Peterjohn, B.G. 1997. The North American breeding 

bird survey results and analysis. Version 96.3. 

Laurel, MD: Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 

[Internet] <http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/

bbs96.html> accessed March 2011.

Sauer, J.R.; Peterjohn, B.G.; Schwartz, S.; Hines, 

J.E. 1995. The grassland bird homepage. Version 

95.0. Laurel, MD: Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center. [Internet] <http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs

.gov/bbs/grass/grass.htm> accessed March 2011.

Schell, Herbert S. 1975 History of South Dakota. 

4th edition, revised. Pierre, SD: South Dakota 

State Historical Society Press. 443 p.

Schneider, Mary Jane. 2002. Cultural affiliations of 

Native American groups with North and South 

Dakota: an ethnological overview. On file:U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation, Dakotas Area Office, 

Bismarck, ND. 277 p.

Shultz, Steven D.; Pool, Duane. 2005. The impact of 

combined grass and wetland easements on agricultural land values in South Dakota. Journal 

of the American Society of Farm Managers and 

Rural Appraisers 68(1):110–5. 

Skagen, S.K.; Thompson, G. 2007. Northern Plains—

Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

Revised February 2007. Arlington, VA: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 35 p.

Skagen, S.K.; Thompson, G. 2011. Northern Plains/

Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan. Version 1.0. [Internet] <http://www

.nabci-us.org/bcr11.html> accessed April 22, 2011. 

37 p.

(SDARC) South Dakota State Historical Society 

Archeological Research Center. 2011. Reaching 

out to the past. [Internet]. <www.sdsmt.edu/wwwsarc/past.html> accessed April 22, 2011.

Sovada, M.A.; Sargeant, A.B.; Grier, J.W. 1995. Differential effects of coyotes and red foxes on duck 

nest success. Journal of Wildlife Management 

59(1):1–9.

Stephens, S.E.; Rotella, J.J.; Lindbert, M.S.; Taper, 

M.L.; Ringelman, J.K. 2005. Duck nest survival in 

the Missouri Coteau of North Dakota: landscape 

effects at multiple spatial scales. Ecological Applications 15:2137–49.

Stephens S.E.; Walker, J.A.; Blunck, D.R.; Jayaraman, A; Naugle, D.E.; Ringelman, J.K.; Smith, 

A.J. 2008. Predicting risk of habitat conversion in 

native temperate grasslands. Conservation Biology 22:1320–30.

Stewart, R.E. 1975. Breeding birds of North Dakota. Fargo, ND: Tri-College Center for Environmental Studies. 295 p.

Stewart, R.E.; Kantrud, H.A. 1971. Classification of 

natural ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie 

region. Research Publication 82. Washington, 

DC: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 57 p.

Sun Prairie Grain. 2011a. Markets: corn. [Internet] <www.sunprairiegrain.com/markets.php> 

February 2011.

Sun Prairie Grain. 2011b. Markets: spring wheat. 

[Internet] <www.sunprairiegrain.com/markets

.php> February 2011.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. 2006 National survey of 

fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. [Internet]. <www.census.gov/prod/www/

abs/fishing.html> February 2011.

 (USDA–NASS) USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2008. South Dakota 2008 county 

level land rents and values. Sioux Falls, SD: 

South Dakota Field Office. 4 p.

———. 2010. 2010 County Rents & Values. Fargo, 

ND: North Dakota Field Office. 4 p.

———. 2011. 2010 North Dakota State Agricultural 

Overview. [Internet] <http://www.nass.usda.gov/

Statistics_by_State/Ag_Overview/AgOverview_

ND.pdf > accessed August 10, 2011.

USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Range 

sites of North Dakota. Bismarck, ND. [Pages 

unknown].

(USEPA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

2011. Phorate. IRED Facts. [Internet] <http://

epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/phorate_fs

.htm> accessed July 27, 2011. 

(USFWS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

Washington, D.C. 26 p. 

———. 1995. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the United States: the 

1995 list. Washington, DC: Office of Migratory 

Bird Management. [Internet] <http://www.fws

.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/

SpecialTopics/speccon/NGBirdMgmtConcern.html> 

accessed February 2011.

———. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 

2008. Arlington, VA: Division of Migratory 

Bird Management. 85 p. <http://www.fws.gov/

migratorybirds/> [access date unknown].

———. 2009. Waterfowl population status, 2009. 

Washington, DC. 79 p.
Bibliography 169

———. 2010. Rising to the Urgent Challenge: 

Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating 

Climate Change. Washington, DC. 36 p.

———. 2011a. Administrative and Enforcement 

Procedures of Easements within the Prairie Pothole States Manual. Draft 2nd edition. Lakewood, 

CO: Mountain–Prairie Region. 654 p.

———. 2011b. Environmental Conservation Online System. [Internet] <http://ecos.fws.gov/

ecos/indexPublic.do> accessed February 23, 2011.

Whitman, W.C.; Wali, M.K. 1975. Grasslands of 

North Dakota. In: Wali, M.K.; editor. Prairie: A 

Multiple View. Grand Forks, ND: The University 

of North Dakota Press. 433 p.

Wiens J.A. 1974. Pattern and process in grassland bird communities. Ecological Monographs 

43:237–70.

Wood, Raymond; editor. 1998. Archaeology on the 

Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. 522 p.

Woodhouse, C.A.; Overpeck, J.T. 1998. 2000 years of 

drought variability in the central United States. 

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 

79:2693–714.

Zollinger, R.K.; Dexter, A.G.; Dahl, G.K.; [and 

others]. 1996. Pesticide use and pest management practices for major crops in North Dakota, 

1996. North Dakota State University Extension 

Report No. 43. [Internet] <http://www.ag.ndsu.

nodak.edu/aginfo/entomology/ndpiap/Major_

Crops_GS/01table_of_contents.htm> accessed 

February 2011.