Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Sherburne
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions; set
forth goals, objectives and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the
Fish and Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning
levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are
primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not
constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or
funding for future land acquisition.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of
lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the
fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans.
Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect,
and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people.
Sherburne
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
i
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ............................................................................................ 1
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ....................................................................................................... 4
Mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................. 4
Goals of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................................................. 4
The National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 4
Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System ......................................................................... 5
Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System ............................................................................ 5
The Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem .................................................................. 6
Refuge Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 6
Refuge Vision ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Purpose and Need for Plan ................................................................................................................... 7
History and Establishment .................................................................................................................... 8
Legal Context ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Refuge Boundary ................................................................................................................................. 9
1837 Treaty ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ....................................................................................................... 13
Meetings and Public Involvement ...................................................................................................... 13
Issues and Critical Needs ................................................................................................................... 16
Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................... 16
Endangered and Threatened Species ......................................................................................... 16
Upland Management .................................................................................................................. 17
Wetland Management: Impoundments, River Valley, and Other Wetlands .............................. 17
Landscape .................................................................................................................................. 18
Promoting Wildlife-dependent Recreation ................................................................................. 18
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management .................................................................. 24
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting .......................................................................................................... 24
The Fish and Wildlife Service Ecosystem ................................................................................... 24
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ...................................................................................... 25
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan ........................................................... 25
North American Bird Conservation Initiatives (NABCI) ....................................................... 25
Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities .................................................................... 27
Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Area .............................................................. 27
Socioeconomic Setting ....................................................................................................................... 27
Population .................................................................................................................................. 27
Employment ................................................................................................................................ 29
ii
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Income ........................................................................................................................................ 29
Climate ............................................................................................................................................... 30
Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................... 30
Water and Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 32
Refuge Resources ............................................................................................................................... 32
Plant Communities ...................................................................................................................... 35
Wetlands .............................................................................................................................. 35
Forests ................................................................................................................................. 45
Grasslands ........................................................................................................................... 46
Fish and Wildlife Communities ................................................................................................... 46
Birds .................................................................................................................................... 46
Mammals ............................................................................................................................. 47
Reptiles and Amphibians ..................................................................................................... 47
Fish ...................................................................................................................................... 47
Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................................. 47
Threats to Resources .......................................................................................................................... 47
Invasive Species .......................................................................................................................... 47
Administrative Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 48
Archeological and Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 48
Wildlife-dependent Recreation .......................................................................................................... 48
Current Refuge Programs: Where We Are Today .............................................................................. 53
Current Visitor Use On Refuge .................................................................................................... 53
Wildlife Observation and Photography ................................................................................ 53
A Haven for Wildlife – March 1 to August 31 ..................................................................... 53
Special Events/Outreach .................................................................................................... 54
Environmental Education ..................................................................................................... 54
Hunting ................................................................................................................................ 54
Fishing ................................................................................................................................. 54
Volunteer Program ............................................................................................................... 55
Friends Group ....................................................................................................................... 55
Habitat Management on the Refuge .......................................................................................... 55
Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 55
Big Woods ............................................................................................................................ 56
Oak Savanna ........................................................................................................................ 56
Invasive Species Control ...................................................................................................... 57
Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Monitoring ........................................................................................... 58
Visitor Services ........................................................................................................................... 59
Hunting ................................................................................................................................ 59
Fishing ................................................................................................................................. 61
Interpretation ....................................................................................................................... 61
Environmental Education ..................................................................................................... 61
Wildlife Observation and Photography ................................................................................ 61
Mushroom and Berry Picking ............................................................................................... 62
Law Enforcement ........................................................................................................................ 62
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 62
Farm Services Administration Conservation Easements ............................................................ 62
Habitat Management: Private Lands Program ............................................................................ 63
iii
Chapter 4: Management Direction ..................................................................................................... 64
Planned Refuge Programs .................................................................................................................. 64
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 64
Managing Habitat for Wildlife ............................................................................................ 64
Improving Visitor Services ................................................................................................... 65
Climate Change Impacts ............................................................................................................. 66
Goals, Objectives and Strategies ....................................................................................................... 66
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ......................................................................................................... 89
New and Existing Projects .................................................................................................................. 89
Refuge Operating Needs (Highest Priority) ................................................................................. 89
Future Staffing Requirements ........................................................................................................... 90
Partnership Opportunities ................................................................................................................... 92
Step-down Management Plans .......................................................................................................... 92
Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 93
Plan Review and Revision .................................................................................................................. 93
Archeological and Cultural Values ..................................................................................................... 93
Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment .............................................................................. 95
Appendix B: Glossary ....................................................................................................................... 187
Appendix C: Species List ................................................................................................................. 193
Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations ................................................................................. 231
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ....................................................................................... 249
Appendix F: Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) .............................................................. 255
Appendix G: Mailing List .................................................................................................................. 261
Appendix H: List of Preparers ......................................................................................................... 265
Appendix I: Resource Conservation Priority Species .............................................................. 269
Appendix J: References ................................................................................................................... 277
Appendix K: Matrix Used for Area-weighted Average Potential Species Occurrence
Score (PSO Score) ..................................................................................................... 281
Appendix L: Matrices for Comparing Water Bird Response Using the PSO Score ............ 287
Appendix M: National Wetland Inventory Classification and Acreages on
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge ...................................................................... 299
Sherburne
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
List of Figures
iv
Figure 1: Location of Sherburne NWR in Region 3 of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ........................ 2
Figure 2: Location of Sherburne NWR in Minnesota .............................................................................. 3
Figure 3: New Refuge Boundaries Resulting From a Land Exchange (2003), Sherburne NWR ........... 10
Figure 4: Portion of Sherburne NWR Within the Treaty of 1837 Ceded Lands .................................... 12
Figure 5: Bird Conservation Planning Physiographic Areas .................................................................. 26
Figure 6: Other Conservation Areas in the Proximity of Sherburne NWR ............................................ 28
Figure 7: Soils, 1968, Sherburne NWR ................................................................................................. 31
Figure 8: Watersheds Surrounding Sherburne NWR ............................................................................ 33
Figure 9: Historic Vegetation on Sherburne NWR, 1855 ...................................................................... 34
Figure 10: Vegetation on Sherburne NWR at Time of Establishment, 1968 ......................................... 36
Figure 11: Current (1999) Vegetation, Sherburne NWR ......................................................................... 37
Figure 12: Water Management Potential, Sherburne NWR ................................................................... 38
Figure 13: Drained Wetlands at the Time of Refuge Establishment, Sherburne NWR ......................... 40
Figure 14: Changes in Woody Wetland Vegetation Over Time, 1855, 1968, 1999, Sherburne NWR ... 41
Figure 15: Historic Wetland Vegetation, 1968 and 1999, Sherburne NWR ........................................... 42
Figure 16: Increases in Open Water Over Time, 1855, 1968, 1999, Sherburne NWR ........................... 43
Figure 17: Flooded Uplands, Sherburne NWR ........................................................................................ 44
Figure 18: Current Facilities, Sherburne NWR ........................................................................................ 49
Figure 19: Hunting Areas, Sherburne NWR ............................................................................................ 60
Figure 20: Future Desired Upland Condition, 100-year Preferred Vegetation, Sherburne NWR........... 68
Figure 21: Future Desired Upland Condition, 15-year Preferred Vegetation, Sherburne NWR ............. 69
Figure 22: Refuge Management District, Sherburne NWR .................................................................... 87
Figure 23: Current Staff Chart (2005), Sherburne NWR ......................................................................... 91
Sherburne
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
List of Tables
v
Table 1: Public Meetings ...................................................................................................................... 14
Table 2: Technical Work Groups and Focus Group Meetings .............................................................. 14
Table 3: National Wetland Inventory Data Wetlands by Type ............................................................ 45
Table 4: Participation in Public Use Activities, Sherburne NWR ......................................................... 48
Table 5: Participation in Public Use Activities, Sherburne NWR ......................................................... 50
Table 6: Wildlife Observation Visitors, Sherburne NWR ..................................................................... 53
Table 7: Total Environmental Education Participation, Sherburne NWR ............................................. 54
Table 8: Special Event Attendance, Sherburne NWR .......................................................................... 54
Table 9: Volunteer Hours, Sherburne NWR ......................................................................................... 55
Table 10: Number of Hunters, Sherburne NWR ..................................................................................... 55
Table 11: Number of Anglers, Sherburne NWR ..................................................................................... 55
Table 12: History of Fire on Sherburne NWR ......................................................................................... 57
Table 13: New Staff Required to Fully Implement the Sherburne NWR CCP by 2019 .......................... 90
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Imagine a place where migrating birds flock to
rest and build energy on their flights north and
south. Imagine a natural setting nearly 50 square
miles in size next door to 3 million people. Imagine
a place discovered anew by black bears and gray
wolves after a long absence. Now, imagine a place
where wildlife comes first, but the need for people
to interact with nature is not forgotten. Perhaps
the place you have imagined is the Sherburne
National Wildlife Refuge; a wild remnant at the
meeting of the western prairies and the northern
woods.
Sandhill Cranes nest and roost in numbers here,
Bald Eagles sit on bulky nests, and tall wading
birds stand poised at the edge of the water waiting
for the glint of an unlucky fish. Grassland birds have a home here, beavers build their lodges, and
foxes den close to their human neighbors.
The Refuge is truly a special place appreciated by many people. However, the nature of the
surrounding countryside is changing as rural farms give way to suburban homes and businesses. Can
wildlife and natural things be sustained as the Refuge becomes more isolated in a developed
landscape? Can we manage Refuge lands to stimulate the best fish and wildlife habitat possible? What
is the balance between the needs of wildlife and the increasing number of people who will discover this
wild place? The comprehensive conservation planning process explores these questions with
involvement by neighbors, outdoor sports enthusiasts, local communities, non-government
organizations, state wildlife agencies and other federal agencies. Ultimately, this document will
answer them.
The 30,575-acre Refuge was established in 1965 at the urging of local conservationists and sportsmen
interested in restoring the wildlife values of the St. Francis River Basin, which had been altered by a
series of drainage ditches and agricultural production. The land was purchased under the authority of
the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 and is now part of the National Wildlife Refuge System
(Figure 1 and Figure 2).
With evolving science and social priorities, the Refuge has seen many changes in management
techniques and emphasis during the past 40 years. However, the greatest changes may be those
happening outside its boundary. According to the 2000 Census, Sherburne County is the second most
rapidly developing county in the State of Minnesota, recording a growth of 54 percent from 1990 to
Gary Moss
2
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 1: Location of Sherburne NWR in Region 3 of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
3
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Figure 2: Location of Sherburne NWR in Minnesota
4
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2000. It has also been included in the newly expanded nine-county metropolitan area of the Twin
Cities. Rapid population growth is projected to continue in the region and will greatly influence the
future of the Refuge and its programs.
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge is the largest public land holding in Sherburne County.
Most of the Refuge is located within the St. Francis River Watershed, which extends northward into
Benton County. The St. Francis River begins about 18 miles from where it enters the northwest
corner of the Refuge. After traveling through the Refuge, the St. Francis River drains into the Elk
River, which in turn drains into the Mississippi River at the City of Elk River, Minnesota. A small
portion of the Refuge lies within the Snake River Watershed, including Johnson Slough and Orrock
Lake.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The Refuge is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the primary federal
agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the nation=s fish and wildlife populations
and their habitats. The Service oversees the enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management and
protection of migratory bird populations, restoration of nationally significant fisheries, administration
of the Endangered Species Act, and the restoration of wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The Service
also manages the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The mission of the Service is working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and
plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
Goals of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
# Sustainability of Fish and Wildlife Populations: Migratory birds, endangered fish and
wildlife species, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammals are conserved, protected,
enhanced, or restored. The Service is participating in conservation of other species when its
expertise, facilities, or land can enhance state, tribal, or local efforts.
# Habitat Conservation – Network of Lands and Waters: An ecologically diverse network of
lands and waters, of various ownerships, is conserved to provide habitats for marine
mammals and migratory, interjurisdictional, endangered, and other species associated with
ecosystems conserved in cooperation with others.
# Connecting Americans to Wildlife: The American public understands and participates in
the conservation and use of fish and wildlife resources.
# Workforce Excellence: The Service’s workforce, scientific capability, and business practices -
in cooperation with the Department of Interior’s scientific expertise - fully support
achievement of the Service mission.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Refuge lands are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when
President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican Island in Florida as a sanctuary for Brown Pelicans.
Today, the System is a network of more than 540 refuges covering more than 93 million acres of public
lands and waters. Most of these lands (82 percent) are in Alaska, with approximately 16 million acres
located in the lower 48 states and several island territories. The National Wildlife Refuge System is
the world=s largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides
habitat for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish, and insects. As a result of international
5
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
treaties for migratory bird conservation as well as other legislation, such as the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act of 1929, many refuges have been established to conserve migratory waterfowl and
their migratory flyways from their northern nesting grounds to southern wintering areas. Refuges
also play a vital role in preserving endangered and threatened species. Among the most notable is
Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, which provides winter habitat for the Whooping Crane.
Likewise, the Florida Panther Refuge protects one of the nation=s most endangered predators.
Refuges also provide unique opportunities for people.
They are places where people can enjoy wildlife-dependent
recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, environmental education, and
environmental interpretation. Many refuges have visitor
centers, wildlife trails, automobile tours, and
environmental education programs. Nationwide,
approximately 30 million people visited national wildlife
refuges in 1997.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 established several important mandates aimed at
making the management of national wildlife refuges more
cohesive. The preparation of a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) is one of those mandates. The
legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that the mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System and purposes of the individual refuges are carried out. It also requires the Secretary
to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and
waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and
plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.
Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System
The administration, management, and growth of the System are guided by the following goals:
# To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) and further the System mission.
# To conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants
that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
# To perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations.
# To conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants.
# To conserve and restore where appropriate representative ecosystems of the United States,
including the ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems.
# To foster understanding and instill appreciation of native fish, wildlife, and plants, and their
conservation, by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent
public use. Such use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
6
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem
The Refuge is located in the Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. This ecosystem is primarily located in Minnesota and North Dakota with small
sections extending into Wisconsin and Iowa.
Historically, this portion of North America was subject to periodic glaciation and consequently, glacial
meltwaters were instrumental in forming the five major river systems located or partly located within
this ecosystem. These river systems are the Mississippi River, St. Croix River, Red River, Missouri
River, and the Minnesota River. Likewise, glacial moraines and other deposits resulted in a myriad of
lakes and wetlands that are common throughout this area. Significant variation in the topography and
soils of the area attest to its dynamic glacial history.
The three major ecological communities within
this ecosystem are the tallgrass prairie, the
northern boreal forest, and the eastern deciduous
forest. Vegetation common to the tallgrass prairie
includes big bluestem, little bluestem, Indian
grass, sideoats grama, and switch grass. Native
prairie also supports numerous ecologically
important forbs such as prairie coneflower, purple
prairie clover, and blazing star. The northern
boreal forest is primarily comprised of a variety of
coniferous species such as jack pine, balsam fir,
and spruce. Common tree species in the eastern
deciduous forest include maple, basswood, red oak, white oak, and ash. Current land uses range from
tourism and timber industries in the northern forests to intensive agriculture in the historic tallgrass
prairie. Oak savanna and tallgrass prairie are by far the most threatened landscapes in the Midwest,
with more than 99 percent having been converted for agricultural or residential purposes.
Due to its ecological and vegetative diversity, this ecosystem supports at least 121 species of
neotropical migrants and other migratory birds. It provides breeding and migration habitat for
significant populations of waterfowl plus a variety of other water birds. The ecosystem supports
several species of candidate and federally-listed threatened and endangered species including the
Bald Eagle, Piping Plover, Higgins eye pearly mussel, Karner blue butterfly, prairie bush clover,
Leedy’s roseroot, dwarf trout lily, and the western prairie fringed orchid. The increasingly rare
paddlefish and lake sturgeon are also found in portions of this ecosystem.
Refuge Purpose
Interpretation of the migratory bird purpose of the Refuge was the first step in determining
management actions in this CCP. However, development of the CCP also considered the full diversity
of native species that make up and depend upon healthy ecosystems. This is in accordance with the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the Service Policy on Maintaining the
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
Notice (Federal Register 66 (10): 3810-3823).
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1965 under the general authority of the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715d). That Act states that lands may be acquired
“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” The
term “inviolate sanctuary”, as interpreted by the Service, means that the Refuge will be managed to
7
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
promote the health and well-being of migratory birds and their habitats. Other activities may also be
accommodated, provided they are compatible with the Refuge purpose (as per Service Compatibility
Policy, Federal Register 65 (202): 62484-62496).
It appears the intention of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission in establishing the Refuge
was primarily to provide habitat for migratory waterfowl. Considering the wording of the establishing
legislation, along with recent policy and legislation, the Refuge purpose is interpreted to include all
migratory birds as identified in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 10.13).
Refuge Vision
In a region where citizens treasure natural areas managed by national, state, and local
governments, the Refuge is celebrated for its wildlife and the extraordinary
opportunities it provides for visitors. The Refuge conserves a diverse mosaic of restored,
quality, native Anoka Sandplain communities and protected cultural resources. The
upland habitats are dynamic, ranging from grasslands to oak savanna to forest. These are
interspersed with a variety of wetland and riverine habitats ranging from sedge meadow
to deep water marsh. The Refuge’s hydrologic regime includes a functional St. Francis
River riparian system, with clean water flowing into and out of the Refuge. Wildlife and
habitat are in balance, and management reflects an adaptive response to climatic change
and other changing conditions, using pre-European settlement vegetation as a guide.
Visitors have quality experiences that provide personal and societal benefits, including
heightened awareness and support of a strong conservation ethic. Refuge staff, visitors,
and the community understand and value the cultural history of the area. Visitor use and
management activities are consistent with the maintenance of sustainable populations of
wildlife and their associated habitats. The Refuge is part of the community and the
community claims ownership of, actively supports, and advocates for the Refuge mission,
purpose, and programs. The surrounding lands are recognized as valuable to the
integrity of the Refuge by providing green corridors and habitat continuity to adjacent
natural areas.
Purpose and Need for Plan
This draft CCP articulates the management direction for the Refuge for the next 15 years. Through
the development of goals, objectives, and strategies, this CCP describes how the Refuge also
contributes to the overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Legislative and other
policies, including the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, have guided the
development of this plan. These mandates include:
# Wildlife has first priority in the management of refuges.
# Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, namely hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses of
refuges. We will facilitate these activities when they do not interfere with our ability to fulfill
the Refuge=s purpose or the mission of the Refuge System.
# Other uses of the Refuge will only be allowed when determined appropriate and compatible
with Refuge purposes and mission of the Refuge System.
8
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The plan will guide the management of Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge by:
# Addressing Refuge critical needs.
# Providing a clear statement of direction for the future management of the Refuge.
# Making a strong connection between Refuge activities and off-Refuge activities.
# Providing Refuge neighbors, users, and the general public with an understanding of the
Service’s management actions on and around the Refuge.
# Ensuring that Refuge management actions and programs are consistent with the mandates
of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
# Ensuring that Refuge management considers federal, state, and county plans.
# Establishing long-term continuity in Refuge management.
# Providing a basis for the development of budget requests on the Refuge=s operational,
maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
History and Establishment
Native Americans have lived in the area of Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge for over 10,000 years
and American Indian village sites discovered on the Refuge date back to 1300 A.D. Tremendous
numbers of ducks, muskrats, beaver and mink were supported on small lakes, and marshes near the
river which were abundant with wild rice and other wetland plants. The surrounding upland was
primarily oak savanna, which provided habitat for elk, bison, and wolves.
The St. Francis River Valley was settled by people of European descent in the 1870s under the
Homestead Act. In the early 1900s, when lakes and marshes were still in prime condition throughout
Minnesota, the St. Francis River basin was regarded as one of the finest wildlife areas in the state.
This condition prevailed until the late 1930s. There was an abundance of wild rice in the area, which
the old timers associated with abundant wildlife. The last rice harvest by the Native Americans in the
area was made in the 1930s.
The early European immigrants attempted to farm the sandy uplands by cutting oak savanna and
draining the marshy bottoms. A ditch system was built to increase agricultural land and at first it was
successful, but the drought years in the early 1930s were particularly hard on these early farms. Many
pine plantations were started to hold the dry, sandy upland soils and create barriers to the wind.
The river was also impacted in the early 1940s when carp invaded the lakes and streams through open
ditches. Submerged vegetation important to aquatic wildlife was uprooted and destroyed by the new
invaders. In addition, as the years past, partially drained wetlands became overgrown with brush and
the remaining native oak savanna, once maintained by regular burning, transformed to dense
woodlands.
Soon after World War II, local conservationists and sportsmen became interested in the possibility of
restoring the former wildlife values of the St. Francis River Basin. The Minnesota Conservation
Department (now the Department of Natural Resources) conducted studies with the intention of
managing the area as a state wildlife area. By the early 1960s it had become apparent that the
magnitude of the project was beyond the funding capabilities of the Minnesota Conservation
Department, as over 300 individual land holdings, comprising over 30,000 acres, would need to be
purchased. Therefore, the State of Minnesota formally requested the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, now known as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to consider the area for a national
wildlife refuge.
9
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
The Bureau took on the task and began seeking approval for the Refuge from various local, state and
federal authorities. The intention of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission in establishing the
Refuge was primarily to provide habitat for migratory waterfowl. The early documentation justifying
the Refuge reads:
“Restoration of these drained wetlands will provide a waterfowl production, feeding, and resting area
equal to any in the Lake States region. Annual production should exceed an estimated 10,000 birds,
the majority being mallards, wood-ducks, and blue-winged teal. Redheads, ring-necked ducks, and
Canada geese can also be well represented under proper management. The peak fall concentration is
estimated at 100,000 ducks and coots and 30,000 Canada Geese.
Final approval of the Refuge was received from
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission on May
18, 1965, and land was purchased with Federal
Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp (Duck Stamp)
funds.
Legal Context
In addition to the Refuge=s establishing legislation
and the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, several Federal laws,
executive orders, and regulations govern
administration of the Refuge. Appendix E
contains a partial list of the legal mandates that
guided the preparation of this plan and those that
pertain to Refuge management activities.
Refuge Boundary
Since its establishment, there have been many minor changes to the Refuge boundaries as roads have
been rerouted and management concerns realized. One of the largest boundary changes occurred
after this CCP process was under way and impacts the maps within this document. It was a land
exchange initiated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources based on safety concerns for
recreational users of the South Sand Dunes State Forest. This exchange was completed in 2002 on the
area adjacent to the Sand Dunes State Forest, south of Sherburne County Road 4. The exchange was
undertaken on a equal dollar value basis. Based on the market value of the lands, one parcel of
Service-owned land (about 44 acres) on the Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge was exchanged for
two parcels owned by the State of Minnesota totalling about 114 acres. The benefits of this exchange
included expanding the native vegetation and quality wildlife habitat acreage on the Refuge, a larger
upland buffer to the river corridor in this area, more manageable Refuge and state forest boundaries,
and improved safety for state recreational trail users.
The original GIS work performed in preparation for the CCP mapping current and historic conditions,
such as soils, vegetation covertypes, management changes and management units was done before the
exchange was proposed. In addition, the exchange boundaries were changing throughout the CCP
process. It was based on this knowledge, that we decided to use the boundary in existence when the
CCP began to show current and historic conditions and to analyze and compare proposed alternatives
for management of the Refuge over the next 15 years. To recreate this analysis based on the new
boundary would not show significant differences. A comparison of the new and old boundaries is
shown here (Figure 3). However, the majority of the maps within this document will show the old
boundary.
Jim Mattsson
10
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 3: New Refuge Boundaries Resulting From a Land Exchange (2003), Sherburne NWR
11
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
1837 Treaty
In 1837, before Minnesota was a state, the United States signed a treaty with the Chippewa Indians
including the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and several other tribes. The tribes that signed this treaty
sold, or ceded, land to the United States government on the condition that they would still have the
right to hunt, fish and gather in the ceded territory. Today, Mille Lacs Band members and members of
the other tribes that signed the treaty can still exercise their treaty rights to hunt, fish and gather on
public lands within the ceded territories under tribal regulations. Treaty rights are exercised on the
ceded portion of the Refuge during established seasons, following State and Refuge specific
regulations.
The 1837 ceded territory boundary crosses through a portion of the Refuge on a trajectory designated
by the Treaty of 1837 (Figure 4).
12
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 4: Portion of Sherburne NWR Within the Treaty of 1837 Ceded Lands
13
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
This draft CCP and associated Environmental
Assessment (EA) were prepared in compliance
with the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and Service
policy set forth in the Departmental Manual on
National Wildlife Refuge System Planning (part
602 FW 1).
Meetings and Public
Involvement
Public involvement is a key element of
comprehensive conservation planning, and
throughout this planning process we strive to
provide as many opportunities for public participation as possible. A Notice of Intent to prepare a
comprehensive conservation plan for Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge was published in the
Federal Register May 4, 2001. Subsequently, articles in local newspapers notified citizens and a web
page was developed. In addition, over 5,000 letters were sent to surrounding residents inviting them
to participate. Seven public meetings were conducted between May 29, 2001, and September 13, 2002.
Invitees and participants included members of the public, Ojibway and Dakota Tribes, Sherburne
NWR Friends Group, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, private conservation groups
(NGOs), university faculty and government scientists. The planning effort benefited from the creative
involvement of the public, tribal, state, university and federal participants.
Our planning process follows eight basic steps described in the Service's planning policy. The steps
are:
# Preplanning: Planning the Plan
# Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping
# Review Vision Statement and Goals and Determine Significant Issues
# Develop and Analyze Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
# Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA Document
# Prepare and Adopt Final Plan
# Implement Plan, Monitor, and Evaluate
# Review and Revise Plan
USFWS
14
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The CCP planning process began in November 2000 with a team comprised of Refuge staff, regional
and Washington Office planners, representatives of regional office programs, and biologists from the
U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division. The team agreed to proceed through a
combination of expert technical groups and workshops open to the public and facilitated by
Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG), which is a Species Survival Committee (SSC)
member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Three technical groups
(upland, wetland, and public use) met throughout the year. Concurrently, four CBSG workshops were
held. These workshops were designed to incorporate the technical group findings and the public
meetings and to consolidate work to produce a mission statement, vision statement, and goals and
draft objectives for the environmental assessment and comprehensive conservation plan.
This draft CCP incorporates the results of these meetings and workshops. In addition to the general
public, we invited individuals from a diversity of groups and institutions.
Table 1 and Table 2 specify public involvement efforts leading toward a public review draft.
Table 1: Public Meetings
Public Meetings Date Location Participants Results
Open House and
Public Meeting
5/29/01 Sherburne NWR 22 Reviewed issues
Open House 5/30/01 Sherburne NWR Reviewed issues.
CBSG Workshop I 7/16-18/01 St. Cloud 39 Refuge Vision,
purpose, key issues,
preliminary goals
CBSG Workshop 2 10/9-12/01 Otsego, Minn. 21 Refuge goals,
alternative
management
scenarios and
preliminary objectives
CBSG Workshop 3 3/12-15/02 Otsego, Minn. 27 Refined purpose,
defined alternatives,
developed objectives
CBSG Workshop 4 9/10-13/02 St. Cloud, Minn. 22 Finalized Alternatives
and Objectives
Table 2: Technical Work Groups and Focus Group Meetings
Technical and Focus Group
Meetings
Date Location Purpose
Sherburne NWR Staff
Meeting
12/14-15/00 Sherburne NWR Introduce staff to
Comprehensive
Conservation Planning and
begin issue development.
CBSG Approach 6/6/01 Regional Office First Organizing Meeting
with CBSG
Upland Technical Group.
USGS/BRD
6/27-29/01 Sherburne NWR Begin Alternative and
Objective setting for upland
oak savanna.
15
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Recreation Focus Group
Meeting
8/15/01 Sherburne NWR Issues development
Recreation Focus Group
Meeting
8/27/01 Sherburne NWR Review of CBSG meeting
results and issues
development
Migratory Bird issues
related to wetland
management at Sherburne
NWR
9/09/01 Conference Call Murray Laubhan, Jim
Mattsson, Steve Wilds, Tom
Will, Bob Russell, and Steve
Lewis.
The purpose of the call was
to provide Murray with
input from Regional Office
biologists. The emphasis of
the discussion was
migratory birds, the
conservation of which is the
stated primary purpose of
the Refuge.
Hunting Focus Group
Meeting
9/20/2001 Sherburne NWR Review hunting activities
and identify issues.
Query Tool USGS/BRD 1/08/02 Regional Office Review of the Decision Tools
and matrix approach
developed by Carl
Korschgen, Kevin Kenow,
and Jason Rohweder.
Ecosystem Planning
The Nature Conservancy
(TNC)
1/15/02 Sherburne NWR Review of TNC designation
of Sherburne NWR as a
priority area, review of their
ecosystem approach
Upland and Wetland
Technical Group Meeting
(USGS-BRD)
1/23-25/02. Sherburne NWR Completed Objectives for
Alternative 5.
Public Use and Recreation
Focus Group
2/09/02 Sherburne NWR Issues development and
public use/recreation
alternatives discussed
Upland Technical Group
USGS/BRD
2/15/02 Sherburne NWR Completed objective
development for Alternative
2
Query Tool Matrix
Development USGS/BRD
3/4-5/02 Regional Office Developed bird matrix for
Sherburne NWR and
mapped Alternatives
Query Tool Matrix
USGS/BRD
7/17/02 Regional Office Matrix development for
breeding, brood rearing,
and migratory waterfowl
and wetland birds.
Wetland Technical Group
(USGS/BRD, Gaylord
Laboratory, TNC, MN
DNR).
07/18-19/02 Sherburne NWR Development of Biological
objectives for Alternatives 2
and 4.
Public Use Technical Group
(University of Minnesota
and USGS/MN Cooperative
Research Unit
08/29/02 Regional Office Reviewed the public use
survey results, discussed
what additional work was
needed.
Review of Alternatives and
Objectives
8/09/02 Regional Office Reviewed Objectives and
clarified Alternatives 2 and
4.
Table 2: Technical Work Groups and Focus Group Meetings (Continued)
16
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Issues and Critical Needs
The following is a consolidated list of issues and the resulting critical needs that were identified during
many public meetings and technical group sessions during the course of the CCP process. The critical
needs statement is meant to summarize and represent a group of related issues.
Wildlife
Critical Need: To restore, conserve, and enhance wildlife populations that use the Refuge.
Issue: How do we expand management focus to ecosystem restoration without losing
the original Refuge mission as outlined in the enabling legislation? When the
Refuge began, management for ‘migratory birds” focused on waterfowl, now the
focus has expanded to include shorebirds, neotropical migrants, grassland birds,
and endangered and threatened species.
Issue: Change in availability of neighboring croplands used as food by cranes.
Issue: Which declining species will benefit from oak savanna restoration?
Issue: Local species/gene pool reservoir may be lost by the Refuge’s isolation.
Issue: What is the definition of migratory birds in 2001 as opposed to 1965?
Issue: Local and regional concern about diminishing waterfowl populations.
Issue: Is the Refuge waterfowl monitoring program adequate?
Issue: We need more information about reptiles and amphibians on the Refuge.
Issue: We need to monitor human disturbance of wildlife on the Refuge.
Issue: Should we consider re-introduction of historic large mammals, especially elk and
bison?
Endangered and Threatened Species
Critical Need: To provide habitat for endangered and threatened species within the Refuge.
Issue: We need to consider conducting searches of the Refuge for federally listed and
state-listed endangered and threatened species.
Issue: How do we manage Refuge land to conserve and restore threatened and
endangered species, rare and declining species, and address regional priority
species?
Issue: Why are Bald Eagles not expanding off the Refuge to surrounding habitats?
Issue: Should artificial nesting platforms be provided for Bald Eagles to supplement
loss of trees?
Issue: Issue: Under what circumstances should we reintroduce rare, native species to
the Refuge?
17
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Upland Management
Critical Need: To conserve and restore native plant communities, especially oak savanna on the
edge of an expanding urban population.
Issue: Should we return the uplands to pre-1850’s habitat quality?
Issue: Do we have the right burning prescriptions? Have we integrated the Cedar
Creek prescribed burning research into our plans?
Issue: Is there a net loss of “snag” trees and natural cavities due to prescribed burning.
What is the impact on Bald Eagle and cavity nesters?
Issue: Increased urbanization has resulted in a loss of surrounding cropland for cranes,
ducks and geese.
Issue: Is oak wilt native to the region and should it be controlled?
Issue: We need to address a negative public perception about prescribed burning and
conifer removal.
Issue: How do we get Regional resource dollars for oak savanna restoration when
dollars are focused on species management.
Issue: What species should we concentrate on in Big Woods, forested wetlands, etc.?
Issue: What is the historic distribution and prevalence of aspen clones within Refuge
uplands?
Issue: How do we deal with invasive species, both exotic and native, that are negatively
impacting the natural ecological balance of Refuge habitats.
Issue: How do we control undesirable plant species (Norway pine, purple loosestrife,
leafy spurge, Siberian elm, black locust, white spruce, box elder, scotch pine, jack
pine, Colorado spruce, buckthorn).
Wetland Management: Impoundments, River Valley, and Other Wetlands
Critical Need: To provide habitat for migrating waterfowl and other water birds that depend on
the marshes and sedge meadows of this area.
Critical Need: To plan for a functioning watershed and wetland diversity within the altered St.
Francis River valley.
Issue: Is the quality of the water entering the Refuge changing due to changing land
use in surrounding areas?
Issue: Why was the St. Francis River valley historically considered prime waterfowl
habitat?
Issue: What is the best strategy for managing impoundments for migratory water
birds?
Issue: Should the Refuge maintain impoundments given the goal of restoration to pre-
1800’s conditions?
Issue: What is the impact of the impoundments on the historic flooding regime? Have
they inadvertently caused a decline in the quality of natural river bottom
wetlands?
18
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Issue: What is the effect of impoundments on water levels and vegetation on nearby
uplands?
Issue: Is carp control possible or desirable on managed and unmanaged
impoundments?
Issue: Does the Refuge need further protection of water rights (minimum flow?)
Issue: What is the original ground water state in Anoka Sand Plain? Baseline study
needed.
Issue: Need to monitor fish populations within the impoundments.
Issue: Is it possible to maintain a northern pike spawning run?
Landscape
Critical Need: To establish partnerships and promote public awareness of the value of oak
savanna and marsh habitat for the continuing benefit of wildlife.
Issue: How to deal with the fact that Sherburne NWR will be an island and must
become its own buffer. Specifically, management of healthy wildlife populations
while at the same time dealing with increasing expectations and pressures from
the public.
Issue: How do we deal with the loss of connectivity between the Refuge and
surrounding or nearby habitat?
Issue: How do we increase the “effective habitat size” of the Refuge? Should we expand
the Refuge boundaries?
Issue: Increase in complaints from neighbors about wildlife damage.
Issue: How can we use the partners for Fish and Wildlife Programs and USDA, DNR
and private programs to further Refuge goals?
Issue: Urbanization/adjacent land use places constraints on management tools and
movement of wildlife and plants and their gene flow.
Issue: Working with local planning to engender sustainable ecosystem in face of human
population growth, dispersion, use and politics.
Issue: The Refuge lacks contingency plans relative to urban encroachment, climate
change, pollution, and funding uncertainties.
Promoting Wildlife-dependent Recreation
Critical Need: To provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation activities, particularly
hunting and fishing, environmental education and environmental interpretation,
wildlife observation and wildlife photography.
# Access and Legal Issues
Issue: Trash dumping, vandalism of signs, snowmobile trespass and unleashed pets may
increase on the Refuge.
Issue: The old schoolhouse is an inadequate space for special events, schools groups.
Issue: The spruce plantation on Blue Hill trail: to cut or not to cut.
Issue: Conflicts may occur between cross-country skiers and people on snowshoes on
trails.
19
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Issue: Providing public education on resource issues such as prescribed burning, tree
removal and exotics.
Issue: Safety concern over high number of deer hunters during opening weekend of
firearms season.
Issue: Refuge lacks appropriate visitor service infrastructure to accommodate large
groups which limits environmental education opportunities.
Issue: Zoning of all uses, including environmental education and hunting, is not
formalized and needs to be reviewed during CCP process.
# General Comments/Issues
Issue: What will be the impact of full use of road right-of-ways by the county and state?
Issue: Inviolate sanctuary versus public use: How much should be open and where?
Issue: Is there unequal access to the Refuge by hunters as opposed to people interested
in other activities such as wildlife observation and photography?
Issue: Snowmobiles have access to county and state road right-of-ways. Can this be
controlled within the Refuge boundaries?
Issue: What will the environmental impacts be of ATV access to state and county right-of-
ways?
Issue: How do we deal with improper chemical application on road right-of-ways?
Issue: Does the Refuge have an adequate oil spill contingency plan for the underground
pipeline?
Issue: We need to maintain a working relationship with the tribes.
Issue: Can we determine a carrying capacity for the number of people on the Refuge?
Issue: Recreation – Conflicted desires i.e., some people want more recreational use
while others want less use of the Refuge.
# Outreach
Issue: Do we want to expand our outreach? Is a staff increase needed?
# Environmental Education and Interpretation
Issue: Are enough areas on the Refuge open for environmental education?
Issue: Need more environmental education in the context of expanded urban
development.
Issue: The current focus is on schools, do we need new facilities to accommodate school
groups?
Issue: Where should a possible new visitor center be located and what should it provide
to the public?
Issue: How can we increase public understanding of the prescribed burning and conifer
removal programs?
Issue: Space for indoor classrooms is needed to bridge the transition between the
school room and the outdoors.
Issue: Teaching exhibits are needed with an area in front for kids to sit.
20
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Issue: Marketing of the Refuge environmental education program is needed on an
ongoing basis to get more teachers to “buy into” taking field trips to the Refuge
and doing teacher-led activities.
Issue: Staff are needed for teaching students on the Refuge, for leading teacher in-service
training sessions, and for doing ongoing marketing of the Refuge EE
program.
Issue: An outdoor amphitheater is needed to provide a teaching area for large groups.
Issue: Funding from corporate sponsors is needed to assist schools with transportation
costs for field trips to Refuge.
Issue: View of wetland, oak savanna, and prairie opening habitats are needed from an
indoor facility to lead the students gradually into their field studies.
Issue: There is a need to establish the
carrying capacity of the areas
designated for environmental
education to assure quality
environmental education studies and
minimal impact to habitat and
wildlife. It is also important to
establish the number of groups per
day and the number of people in each
group.
Issue: Oak savanna study sites are needed
to provide locations for implementing
the oak savanna curriculum.
Issue: Encourage the township park boards
to fund and offer environmental
education programs on the Refuge
for township children.
Issue: Need to send introductory materials
to teachers to entice them to come
out to the Refuge.
Issue: There is a need for more trained
volunteers to lead interpretive
programs.
Issue: There is a need for Refuge-specific educational materials.
Issue: There is a need for display and storage space for books for sale, free brochures,
etc.
Issue: Refuge management programs should be addressed through interpretation:
prescribed burning, removal of non-native vegetation (pines), water level
management, restoration to native oak savanna habitat, land use planning on
private lands, cultural history, geologic history and land forms and how they
shaped the present landscape.
Issue: Other potential themes include the National Wildlife Refuge System and how we
are different from other natural resource agencies, environmental ethics and
visitor etiquette.
Issue: Water management can be demonstrated through a video production or time
series photography.
Douglas Johannsen
21
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Issue: Environmental ethics can be demonstrated through placing a camera monitoring
on an active eagle nest and letting visitors view the action from inside a visitor
center.
Issue: Interpretive programs highlighting wildlife management and including resource
issues on the Refuge can be offered to community organizations.
# Wildlife Observation and Photography
Issue: There are too many people. Are restrictions needed for the number of vehicles on
the tour route?
Issue: Does the observation drive optimize the viewing of wildlife? Should there be
different drives for viewing wildlife and for scenic observation, such as flowers?
Issue: Are the observation decks useful? Are they in the right place?
Issue: People need training to see wildlife, how do we provide it?
Issue: Photography blinds are not being provided, should they be? Should people be
able to use portable blinds?
Issue: The wildlife drive has too many signs, many of them are not informative.
Issue: Do we have adequate facilities for wildlife viewing such as observation decks,
trails and auto tour routes?
Issue: Are there too many signs and leaflets on the Refuge?
Issue: People should feel like they’ve been in a pristine area, wild country; many say
they feel that now.
Issue: Refuges should show management, and signs could be useful for this purpose.
Issue: Wildlife drive does not open until mid-April.
Issue: Increased visitation may reduce quality of personal experience by seeing others;
perceived crowding.
Issue: Noise interference from other activities, e.g., hunting. Birding tours via
motorcoaches (another example of noise interference).
Issue: Should we consider reintroduction of extirpated species as a viewing opportunity,
e.g. Karner blue butterfly.
Issue: Fund raisers for Friends of Sherburne (e.g., bird-a-thon) to support more
opportunities and action.
# Hunting and Fishing
Firearms Deer Hunt
Issue: The antlerless deer quota does not agree with the DNR model. The scale of their
model is too large for the size of our block.
Issue: This is the only hunt that is biologically justified.
Issue: Safety. Between 800 and 1000 hunters participate on the opening day of the
firearms deer season. Safety among hunters and other users is perceived as a
real or potential problem. The safety concern will also apply to other hunts.
Issue: The restriction on hunter numbers is due to safety concerns. Blaze orange is
required in open areas. Quality of hunt is a bigger concern. The CCP should
address the number on opening days.
22
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Issue: Look to the future, increasing development promises problems with deer.
Issue: Are there ways to arrive at a more accurate deer herd size? (red oak cause a
problem with aerial counts as well as pellet counts).
Issue: Should hunter registration for deer at the Refuge be mandatory? That would
mean a commitment of staff for 9 days.
Issue: How can we manage a herd that moves on and off the Refuge?
Issue: Are there browse problems on the Refuge?
Issue: Should we allow a muzzle-loader season? A muzzleloader deer hunt would
provide another deer hunting opportunity but may not be necessary from a
population management standpoint. There are conflicts with the muzzle-loader
season and other uses (example: cross country skiing).
Issue: Firearms season may limit access of waterfowl hunters (road to the boat landing
is closed). In most years, this is not a concern as the water is frozen (but not
every year).
Issue: Ethical versus non-ethical hunters. Examples: Leaving stands overnight,
infringing on stands, etc. This is perceived as primarily a law enforcement issue.
Issue: Disruption of non-hunting visitor’s quality of Refuge experience and safety
perceptions. Some non-hunting visitors may be unaware that firearm hunters are
in the field (no blaze orange required for non-hunters).
Archery Deer Hunt
Issue: Is archery hunt purely a recreational hunt and difficult to justify as population
control? If so, why are bow hunters allowed greater access?
Issue: How do we address issue of injured deer? Are deer injury rates greater than
during the firearms season?
Issue: Potential disturbance of migratory birds, such as roosting cranes, being pushed
from preferred areas on the west side of the Refuge.
Issue: Consider closing the Refuge (especially the west side) once the gun season is
over.
Other Hunting
Issue: Is the Refuge open too long for small game?
Issue: Prey base for predators may be negatively impacted by small game harvest.
Issue: Small game hunters and other recreational users can spoil an archer’s hunt.
Issue: Disturbance to migratory birds, such as bowhunters walking on dikes in a closed
waterfowl hunting area.
Issue: Potential Turkey Hunt: There is a conflict between the State spring hunt and
other Refuge functions. There are also safety and zoning problems. A fall hunt
may not conflict with other Refuge programs.
Issue: Consider a turkey hunt for hunters with disabilities.
Issue: All types of hunting access should be limited, not because of safety but because of
the quality of the hunt.
Issue: Hunting during the early goose season may be viable on the Refuge if the over-water
restriction is removed.
23
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Issue: Disturbance of other migratory birds is a problem, especially along the river
corridor.
Issue: Consider predator hunting and trapping consistent with state regulations.
Fishing
Issue: Could over-fishing may lead to a lack of fish for eagles?
Issue: Limited access for anglers with disabilities.
Issue: We need to deal with litter, tackle left at site, trampling vegetation, monofilament
line, lead sinkers.
Issue: Is there a possible solution to control carp.
Issue: Do we need to expand access to the river?
Issue: Do we need interpretive panels at access points?
24
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and
Management
Introduction
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge lies on the edge of three
important plant communities in Minnesota: the coniferous forests
to the north, the broadleaf forests to the southeast and the prairies
to the west.
The Refuge’s sandy, thin soils tell the story of the geological
history of land that is known as the Anoka Sandplain. Ten
thousand years ago, the area was formed as a sandy glacial lake
bottom after the Wisconsin glacier started to melt and retreat. A
small river, the St. Francis River, runs through the Refuge and
drains into the Elk River, which ultimately enters the Mississippi
River south of the Refuge boundary.
The land in the area of the Refuge was originally surveyed in 1855,
prior to European settlement, by James Marsh who described a
typical township as follows:
“There are quite a number of lakes and ponds in this
township, with some fen marshes and tamarack
swamps. The surface is gently rolling, soil sandy and
light and... second and third rate timber very poor
scattering. Mostly a growth of black and bur oaks,
aspens with tamarack in the swamps..there are no
settlers in this township.”
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
The Fish and Wildlife Service Ecosystem
The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to conservation and designated 53 ecosystem units.
The ecosystem units delineate portions of the landscape where the Service and its partners can set
ecosystem-wide resource goals and work together to achieve these goals.
The Refuge is located in the Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem. The extent and
features of the ecosystem are described in Chapter 1 of this Draft CCP.
USFWS
25
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
An ecosystem team has identified the following work activities in response to resource management
challenges and opportunities:
# Restore, enhance and conserve important habitats/communities.
# Restore, enhance and conserve aquatic resources in the Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass
Prairie Ecosystem.
# Restore, enhance and conserve quality and rare resources (especially imperiled and native
species) to increase or maintain biodiversity.
# Create or improve partnerships to accomplish ecosystem goals.
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Over the last decade, bird conservation planning has evolved from a largely local, site based focus to a
more regional, landscape oriented perspective. Significant challenges include locating areas of quality
habitat for the conservation of particular guilds and priority bird species, making sure no species are
inadvertently left out of the regional planning process, avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort, and
identifying unique landscape and habitat elements of particular tracts targeted for conservation,
management and restoration. Several migratory bird conservation initiatives have emerged to help
guide the planning and implementation process. Collectively, they comprise a tremendous resource as
Sherburne NWR engages in comprehensive conservation planning and its translation into effective on
the ground management.
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Signed in 1986, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) outlines a broad
framework for waterfowl management strategies and conservation efforts in the United States,
Canada, and Mexico. The goal of the NAWMP is to restore waterfowl populations to historic levels.
The NAWMP is designed to reach its objectives through key joint venture areas, species joint
ventures, and state implementation plans within these joint ventures.
The Refuge is in the Upper Mississippi River Great Lakes Region Joint Venture. One of 12 habitat
based joint ventures, this Joint Venture encompasses the states of Michigan and Wisconsin in their
entirety, plus portions of Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.
The goal of this Joint Venture is to increase populations of waterfowl and other wetland wildlife by
conserving, restoring and enhancing wetland and associated upland habitats within the Joint Venture
region. The objectives of this Joint Venture are:
# Conserve 9,118,884 acres of habitat capable of supporting an annual breeding duck
population of 1,542,000, under average environmental conditions, by the year 2013.
# Conserve 532,711 acres of habitat on migration focus areas capable of supporting 266 million
duck use days during annual fall migration, under average environmental conditions, by the
year 2013.
# When consistent, contribute to the conservation and/or increase of habitats for wetland and
associated upland wildlife species in the Joint Venture, with emphasis on declining
migratory birds.
North American Bird Conservation Initiatives (NABCI)
Formed in 1990, Partners in Flight (PIF) is concerned with most land birds and other species
requiring terrestrial habitats. Partners in Flight has developed Bird Conservation Plans for
numerous Physiographic Areas across the U. S. These plans include priority species lists, associated
habitats, and management strategies. Reflecting the local physiography, Sherburne NWR lies within
PIF Physiographic Area 40 Physiographic Area.
26
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan are
plans that address the concerns for shorebird and water birds. These larger scale plans identify
priority species and conservation strategies.
.
In a continental effort, the Partners in Flight, North American Waterfowl Management, U. S.
Shorebird Conservation, and the North American Water Bird Conservation plans are being
integrated under the umbrella of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). The goal
of NABCI is to facilitate the delivery of the full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally
based, biologically driven, landscape oriented partnerships. The NABCI strives to integrate the
conservation objectives for all birds in order to optimize the effectiveness of management strategies.
NABCI uses Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) as its planning units. Bird Conservation Areas are
becoming increasingly common as the unit of choice for regional bird conservation efforts; Sherburne
NWR lies within BCR 23 (Figure 5.)
Each of the four bird conservation initiatives has a process for designating conservation priority
species, modeled to a large extent on the PIF method of calculating scores based on independent
assessments of global relative abundance, breeding and wintering distribution, vulnerability to
threats, area importance (at a particular scale, e.g. BCR), and population trend. These scores are
often used by agencies in developing lists of bird species of concern; e.g., the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Figure 5: Bird Conservation Planning Physiographic Areas
27
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Service based its assessments for its 2002 list of nongame Birds of Conservation Concern primarily on
the PIF, shorebird, and water bird status assessment scores.
Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities
The Resource Conservation Priorities (RCP) list is a subset of all species that occur in the Region and
was derived from an objective synthesis of information on their status. The list includes all federally
listed threatened and endangered species and proposed and candidate species that occur in the
Region; migratory bird species derived from Service wide and international conservation planning
efforts; and rare and declining terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals that represent an
abbreviation of the Endangered Species program's preliminary draft “Species of Concern” list for the
Region. The RCP list also includes invasive species in need of conservation action (Appendix I).
Although many species are not included in the priority list, this does not mean that we consider them
unimportant.
The list includes 60 species or populations for the Service's Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie
Ecosystem.
Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Area
The portion of the Refuge that extends south of County Road 4 is bounded by the Sand Dunes State
Forest. This State Forest provides a patchy buffer (due to its 3,155 acres of private inholdings in
addition to the 5,456 acres of State-owned land) of undeveloped land where it is adjacent to the
Refuge. Its mission as a Minnesota State Forest is to produce timber and other forest crops, provide
outdoor recreation, protect watersheds, and perpetuate rare and distinctive species of flora and fauna.
The Uncas Dunes Scientific and Natural Area lies within the Sand Dunes State Forest and contains a
rare sand prairie and savanna remnant. Outside of this, over half of the state-owned land area of the
Sand Dunes State Forest has been planted to conifers (predominantly Norway pine, white pine, Jack
pine, white spruce and Norway spruce). Its vegetative cover differs greatly from that found on the
Refuge, for the most part.
There are also seven state wildlife management areas (WMAs) managed for natural resources within
a 5-mile radius of the Refuge (Figure 6). These areas are smaller parcels owned by the State for the
purposes of wildlife management, including the provision of wildlife-related recreation and education.
They are the Kunkel WMA (2,165 acres located 1 mile to the north), Benlacs WMA (571 acres located
4 miles north), Glendorado WMA (200 acres located about 3 miles north), Freemont WMA (182 acres
located about 1 and one-quarter miles to the east), Santiago WMA (80 acres located less than 1 mile to
the west), Vietnam Veteran's Memorial WMA (80 acres located about 4 miles to the east, across U.S.
Highway 169), and the Bibles WMA (67 acres about 4.5 miles north).
Socioeconomic Setting
Population
Minnesota’s population grew 9 percent from 1990 to 1998 according to the State Demographic Center
at Minnesota Planning. The population is expected to increase 14 percent over the next 25 years with
the most dramatic increase in the Brainerd lakes area and the counties around the Twin Cities. The
City of St. Cloud and surrounding urban areas expect a 35 percent rise in population between 1998
and 2020.
28
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 6: Other Conservation Areas in the Proximity of Sherburne NWR
29
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Sherburne County is in the heart of this suburban expansion. In the years from 1990 to 2000, the
townships surrounding the Refuge (Becker, Orrock, Blue Hill and Santiago) saw population increases
of 74 to 106 percent. Three cities within Sherburne County have more than doubled in population
during this time (Sherburne County Zoning Office). Sherburne County has also been included in the
newly expanded nine-county metropolitan area of the Twin Cities.
Sherburne County’s population has increased greatly compared to Minnesota and the United States.
The County’s population has a higher percentage of high school graduates (90 percent) than both the
State of Minnesota (88 percent) and the United States (80 percent). Sherburne County’s home
ownership rate (84 percent) is nearly 20 percent higher than the United States (66 percent)
(Minnesota State Demographic Center).
The City of Zimmerman designated Urban Expansion Zone approaches within 1.25 miles of the
Refuge boundary from the east. The City of Elk River's Urban Expansion District comes within 1.5
miles of the Refuge boundary to the southeast and the Urban Expansion Zone of the City of Princeton
approaches within 2 miles from the northeast.
Urban development throughout the Anoka Sandplain is a major conservation concern. This includes
lands surrounding the Refuge. Due to its location and easy access to the St. Cloud and the Twin Cities
urban centers, residential and, to a lesser extent, light business development is occurring rapidly in
the area around the Refuge.
Lands directly adjacent to the Refuge are developing into rural residential and residential
subdivisions, especially on the Refuge's east, southeast and south sides. There are also some areas,
especially to the north, west and northeast that remain in agricultural use. The majority of these areas
are in production for corn and soybeans, or are used as pasture for cattle.
These land use patterns portray a trend of increasing development of lands adjacent to the Refuge. As
more and more people move into the area, the demand for recreational opportunities has also grown.
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge represents the largest public land holding in the County.
Employment
In 1980, more than two-thirds of employment in Sherburne County was concentrated in four sectors:
transportation and public utilities (14 percent), retail trade (17 percent), government (20 percent), and
services (20 percent). In 2001, employment continued to be strong in government (13 percent), retail
trade (16 percent), and services (33 percent). However, transportation and public utilities experienced
a noticeable decline, with employment representing only 4 percent of total employment in Sherburne
County. Furthermore, employment in transportation and public utilities was the only sector to suffer
any decrease between 1980 and 2001. Dramatic employment increases were exhibited in the
construction sector and manufacturing sector.
Employment in Sherburne County escalated between 1980 and 2001 (71 percent). While the
Sherburne County population has grown considerably over the last 20 years, the rise in employment
has outpaced population growth. The employment increase in Sherburne County is double the
employment increase in the State of Minnesota (35 percent) over the same time period.
Income
In 2001, employment earnings in Sherburne County totaled $789 million, which was an 86 percent
increase from earnings in 1980. This earnings growth is nearly double the statewide earnings growth
rate in Minnesota.
30
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Employment earnings in 1980 were concentrated in the government sector and in the transportation
and public utilities sector, which together accounted for approximately 46 percent of the County’s
earnings. Between 1980 and 2001, employment earnings have become more evenly distributed across
the major business sectors. In 2001, services represented 20 percent of County earnings, which was
followed by government (19 percent), manufacturing (16 percent), construction (13 percent), and retail
trade (11 percent). The contribution of transportation and public utilities toward County earnings
diminished significantly, dropping from 24 percent to 4 percent. The finance, insurance, and real
estate sector remained fairly stable, representing between 3 percent and 5 percent of the County’s
earnings from 1980 to 2001.
During the past two decades, per capita personal income (PCPI) in Sherburne County was
consistently less than both Minnesota and the United States. Furthermore, Sherburne County’s PCPI
was only 85 percent, 80 percent, and 76 percent of Minnesota’s PCPI in 1980, 1990, and 2001,
respectively. This increasing margin is due to Minnesota’s PCPI growth rate exceeding the U.S.
growth rate, while Sherburne County’s PCPI growth rate has not kept up with the United States.
Climate
The climate in east-central Minnesota is classified as ‘sub-humid continental’ and is characterized by
significant variations between summer and winter temperatures. The region has four distinct seasons
with moderate spring and fall weather. Summer is comfortable because lakes and trees serve as
natural air conditioners. The winters in nearby Minneapolis, the second coldest city in the United
States, have an average daily temperature of 35 degrees Fahrenheit.
The mean temperature during December, January, and February is 13.3 degrees Fahrenheit. The
temperature can drop to between minus 20 degrees and minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit on several days
each winter. The June, July and August mean temperature is 68.2 degrees Fahrenheit. Frost is likely
to occur until mid-May, and to return by the end of September. The latest recorded occurrence of a
freezing temperature in spring is June 9, and the earliest in fall is September 3. The freeze-free period
is long enough that such crops as corn, soybeans, small grain, and vegetables generally have time to
reach maturity.
Precipitation is well distributed throughout the growing season. About 17.4 inches, or 60 percent of
the total annual precipitation, falls during the period from May through September. The average
annual precipitation ranges from around 26 to 31 inches. In 1976, a total of only 13.07 inches of
precipitation was recorded at the DNR reporting station in nearby Zimmerman during the entire
year. During the following 7 months, from January to July 31, 1977, 21.08 inches had fallen, thus
indicating the substantial variation that can occur (USDA Climate Data).
Geology and Soils
The Refuge lies within the deciduous forest-woodland zone of Minnesota on the Anoka Sandplain, a
large flat sandy outwash area now thought to be lacustrine in origin, with small dune features and low
moraines exposed above the outwash (Wright, 1972). This zone in Minnesota is transitional between
tallgrass prairie and deciduous forest. The uplands within the Refuge consist of these flat sandy areas
with some rolling small sand dune areas, interspersed with wetlands and four natural lakes. Upland
soils are Zimmerman, Lino and Isanti loamy fine sands from 0 to 6 percent slope, good drainage, very
low water holding capacity, and high erosion potential, severe limitations for crops, but suitable for
pasture or range (USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1968) (Figure 7). These soils are placed in the
Zimmerman-Lino-Isanti-peat Soil Association due to the presence of many small scattered peat bog
inclusions. The presettlement vegetation on the uplands throughout the Anoka Sandplain was oak
barrens and openings (MN-DNR, 1996b).
31
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Figure 7: Soils, 1968, Sherburne NWR
32
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Mille Lacs Uplands subsection of the State's Ecological Classification System comes into the
northern portion Refuge. Overall, this subsection covers the large area of Superior Lobe ground
moraines and end moraine in east central Minnesota. The vegetation at pre-European settlement
times consisted of a mosaic of forest types. Along the southern boundary, where it intersects the
Refuge, maple-basswood forests were prevalent (MN -DNR, 1996b). Soils in the portion of this
subsection which lies in the Refuge belong to the Milaca-Mora-Ronneby Soil Association. These
nearly level to undulating soils overlay slightly acid, red, glacial till and range from the fine sandy
loam Milaca soils to the somewhat poorly drained loam Ronneby soils. Uncleared areas support fair
stands of mixed hardwoods (USDA, 1968). Soils in this association make up three percent of the
Refuge's total area, while soils in the Zimmerman-Lino-Isanti-peat Association make up the other 97
percent of the Refuge lands (USDA, 1968). The distribution of the major soil associations on the
Refuge is shown in Figure 7.
Water and Hydrology
The majority of the Refuge is located within the St. Francis River Watershed, which extends
northward into Benton County (Figure 8). The Refuge was developed along a portion of the St.
Francis River Valley, historically known for its wildlife resources. The St. Francis River begins in
Benton County, about 18 miles from where it enters the northwest corner of the Refuge. After
traveling through the Refuge, the St. Francis River exits the Refuge's south spur and drains into the
Elk River just north of Big Lake, then drains into the Mississippi River within the city limits of Elk
River. The middle one-third of the Refuge's western boundary follows the boundary of the Snake
River Watershed, which lies to its west. A small portion of the Refuge lies within the Snake River
Watershed, including Johnson Slough and Orrock Lake.
Refuge Resources
The predominant presettlement vegetation
on the uplands throughout the Anoka
Sandplain was oak barrens and openings
(MN-DNR, 1993) (Figure 9) . Fire
suppression began with Euro-American
settlement around 1850, dramatically
changing vegetative communities that had
developed under a fire regime dictated by
weather and Native Americans.
Once open oak barrens filled in to become
Dry Oak Forest (Wovka et al. 1996). Often
these were pastured. Though light soils
presented severe limitations for crops
(USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1968)
most settlers became farmers and put large
areas under cultivation.
While the nation was reeling from the economic depression of the 1930s, the “dust bowl” years
brought another burden to the farmers. The double blow of the Depression and drought was felt in the
townships that make up the Refuge, as strongly as any place in the State. Farm abandonment became
commonplace during the 1930s and early 1940s. It was from these tax-forfeited lands that the first
public land came to exist in the area, as part of the Sand Dunes State Forest. This occurred in 1943, by
an act of the State Legislature, in an attempt to stabilize soils. Conifers grew extremely well on the
sandy soils and were planted by the millions in the then two square mile State Forest. Private
Douglas Johnannsen
33
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Figure 8: Watersheds Surrounding Sherburne NWR
34
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 9: Historic Vegetation on Sherburne NWR, 1855
35
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
landowners followed the State's example and began planting pine and spruce on their own lands,
including lands now held by the Refuge. At the time of Refuge establishment (1965) there were
approximately 970 acres of conifer plantations (not including windbreaks) on what are now Refuge
lands. With the many acres of conifer plantations being installed in the county, fire suppression
became an even higher priority to both local residents and the State's Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). From the 1940s until the present day, the policy of the DNR and local fire
departments is to extinguish all wildfires, whatever their cause. With the present and projected urban
interface, this policy has become more than socially acceptable – it has become a necessity for the
protection of life and property.
Plant Communities
Following establishment of the Refuge in 1965, old agricultural fields began to be seeded into native
warm season grass species. Fire began to be used as a tool, primarily to stimulate grassland plantings
for dense nesting cover. Relative percent cover and distribution of vegetative cover types when the
Refuge was established are shown in Figure 10.
The landscape of the Refuge at the time of establishment was dominated by agriculture in the form of
cropped fields (32 percent of the land area). The next most dominant types were “Shrub Swamp” with
19 percent of the land area, and “Oak” with 17 percent of the land area. Much of the Oak type was
probably grazed by domestic livestock. Wet meadows had approximately 10 percent of the land cover
and mixed hardwoods dominated 6 percent. Conifer plantations at the time occupied about 970 acres,
roughly 3 percent of the Refuge's acreage.
As a result of management practices at the Refuge and the cessation of farming on Refuge lands,
vegetative communities rapidly changed following establishment of the Refuge. An impoundment
system installed in the early 1980s reflooded, and expanded previously drained wetlands. Figure 11
displays present day (2000) vegetative cover type distribution and relative percent cover information.
During the more than 30 years since the Refuge was established, wetland areas have increased from
34 percent relative cover to 45 percent relative cover. This is significant in terms of fire management
as many of these wetlands (with the exception of “Open Water”) are dominated by emergent
vegetation that falls into fuel model 3 of the Fire Behavior Fuel Model System.
Another significant change during this period is the increase of native tallgrass types (also fuel models
1 and 3), which have climbed from 1 percent in 1968 to 27 percent in 1998. At the same time, cultivated
fields that accounted for 32 percent of the Refuge in 1968 have disappeared.
Refuge vegetation goals today are directed primarily by the Refuge's Landscape Plan. These goals
include returning upland vegetation to, as close as possible, a “pre-settlement” state. Today's
plantings and seedings, in light of these goals, include a large variety of native forbs, grasses and
trees, in an effort to restore native plant communities. Fire is being used on most upland types to open
forest canopies and restore/maintain native plant associations and structures.
Wetlands
The Refuge contains a variety of wetlands ranging from shallow wet meadows to permanently flooded
mixed emergent marshes. During the restoration of wetlands on the Refuge, dikes with water control
structures were placed on 23 ditches. Twenty-two of these structures are still in place and water levels
are managed to control rough fish and greatly improve the productivity of the aquatic communities
(Figure 12). Many species of waterfowl, marsh, and water birds are attracted to the resulting
conditions in search of food and cover. Purple loosestrife, although not found universally, does occur in
some of these wetlands and is a major concern.
36
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 10: Vegetation on Sherburne NWR at Time of Establishment, 1968
37
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Figure 11: Current (1999) Vegetation, Sherburne NWR
38
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 12: Water Management Potential, Sherburne NWR
39
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
An Historical Look at Wetlands
The Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge encompasses 30,569 acres of wetlands according to the
National Wetland Inventory. The wetlands of Sherburne NWR were affected by two man-made
environmental changes; 1) drainage prior to the Refuge establishment, and 2) flooding after the
impoundments were in place and operational. The following analysis looks at both of the these events
with the best available information.
This analysis is based on early survey summaries by Marschner, wetland data from the National
Wetland Inventory, soil data from the 1968 Soil Survey of Sherburne County and the 1997 soils data
from National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Soil Survey Geographic Database
(SSURGO), prepared by Kevin Kenow and Jason Rohweder of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
ecoregion and watershed data from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Data Deli, and
the Refuge specific GIS vegetation surveys and other data developed by Gary Swanson of the
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge and summarized by USGS.
Summary of Wetland Changes
During presettlement times, 44 percent of the acres within the current Refuge boundaries were
wetlands. During the 1930s, 2,152 wet acres were drained resulting in 34 percent of the Refuge in
wetlands (Figure 13). In the early 1970s the impoundment system returned more than the original wet
acres and now 46 percent of the Refuge is wet.
The effect of these changes can be seen in the vegetation and water levels on the Refuge. The early
wetland vegetation of the 1850s was primarily wet meadows; there was no reference to cattail and
trees were thin and located in woody swamps (Figure 9). When the wetlands were drained in the
1930s, wetlands changed to shrub-scrub and forested swamps with an increase in woody vegetation
and decrease in wet meadows. After the impoundments were in place in the early 1970s, the shrub-scrub
wetlands decreased while cattail marshes increased. Figure 14 provides a visual overview of this
trend; notice that the woody vegetation in wetlands (Figure 15) peaked at the time of the Refuge was
established (late 1960s), but through a combination of management approaches, it has almost returned
to the areas originally identified in the early 1850s surveys.
Wild rice is not identified in the vegetation surveys of Sherburne NWR, however the transcripts in the
1960s on the reasons why a refuge was necessary cited a decline in wild rice as one reason why
waterfowl had declined in the area.
After the impoundments, the major change has been in the amount of open water identified in the
various surveys (Figure 16 and Figure 17). There has been an increasing amount of open water on the
Refuge since its inception. Open water signifies an area of water without emergent vegetation. The
overall trend is of increasing open water on the Refuge. Since 1994, the Refuge has increased water
management to hold pools to lower levels and this has developed the amount of open water.
A History of Drainage
The history of wetlands at Sherburne NWR parallels wetland development throughout the
agricultural portion of Minnesota. During the early 1900s, county ditch systems were established to
drain wetlands and convert them to cropland. Establishment of private ditch systems followed. The
county ditch systems on the Refuge were established between 1900 and 1920. Private drainage
continued until the establishment of the Refuge in 1965 (Figure 13).
The St. Francis River runs a winding course north and south through the Refuge. The Watershed of
the river originally encompassed 59,171 acres or 92 square miles (Figure 8). But the drainage system
created in the early 1930s and continuing to this day increases the effective size of the watershed to as
large as 214 square miles. The St. Francis River Watershed, a subwatershed of the St. Cloud-
Mississippi River Watershed, crosses into the Rum River Watershed as a result of ditching.
40
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 13: Drained Wetlands at the Time of Refuge Establishment, Sherburne NWR
41
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Figure 14: Changes in Woody Wetland Vegetation Over Time, 1855, 1968, 1999, Sherburne NWR
42
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 15: Historic Wetland Vegetation, 1968 and 1999, Sherburne NWR
43
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Figure 16: Increases in Open Water Over Time, 1855, 1968, 1999, Sherburne NWR
44
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 17: Flooded Uplands, Sherburne NWR
45
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Drainage of the larger wetlands was generally inadequate for conversion of the basins to crop land.
Surface waters were removed but the soils remained waterlogged. When the Refuge was established,
the area was heavily ditched; 130 basins were drained and many of the wetlands were affected by
drainage (Figure 13). Drained wetlands were disproportionately the wet meadows known in Cowardin
et al. as saturated and seasonally flooded wetlands, also drained were the shallow shrub-scrub
wetlands. The shrub-scrub wetlands and other woody wetlands so prevalent in the early 1970's were
probably the result of failed drainage. The woody vegetation moved in and dominated many wet areas
(Figure 14). The combination of woody vegetation and the loss of the shallow, seasonally flooded
wetlands probably contributed to declines in breeding waterfowl and many other types of marsh
birds, such as shorebirds, rails, cranes, and bitterns in the area.
The large, shallow sedge wetlands were the easiest to drain and the NWI data reflects this result.
Impoundments and Wetland Flooding
After the Refuge was established, impoundments were created in an effort to mitigate the earlier
drainage. As a result, most of the Refuge wetlands were affected by the resulting flooding of the
impoundments. Open water increased from 818 acres in the late 1960s to 3,508 acres in 1992. Total
wetland acres increased from 10,464 in late 1970s to 14,023 acres in 1992. All of the wetlands were
affected by the impoundment flooding. Using hydric soils as a conservative estimate of wetland acres
prior to alteration by ditching, the construction and flooding of the impoundments resulted in 2,910
acres of the uplands (non hydric soils) being flooded. The flooded uplands are generalized throughout
the Refuge as could be expected from a raised water table (Figure 17).
Forests
Oak Savanna
In pre-European settlement times, the distribution of oak savanna in the Midwest was widespread. It
occupied up to half of midwestern landscape, especially along the prairie-forest border and extended
over portions of Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio, covering 11 to 13
million hectares (27.5 to 32.5 million acres) (Nuzzo, 1985). Since then, these places have become
fragmented and in many areas lost entirely. A survey of this plant community by Nuzzo in 1985 found
about 0.02 percent of the pre-European oak savanna remaining in scattered remnants. Losses of oak
savanna were due to timber cutting, fire suppression (which converted it to oak woodland and forest),
and conversion to homesteads and/or farming (pasture, crop fields). Today, oak savanna and open oak
woodlands are among the world's most threatened plant communities. The Nature Conservancy ranks
Midwest savannas as “globally endangered” (Leach and Ross, 1995) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency chose midwestern oak savanna for its first Ecosystem Recovery Project (Leach
Table 3: National Wetland Inventory Data Wetlands by Type
Water Regime Acreage
Temporarily Flooded 188
Saturated (wet meadow) 4,594
Seasonally Flooded (wet meadow) 4,792
Semi-permanently Flooded (marsh) 2,306
Intermittently Exposed (marsh) 432
Permanently Flooded (open water) 305
Total Wetlands 12,617
46
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Ross, 1995). As described elsewhere in this chapter, 95 percent of the Refuge's upland was
considered oak savanna by Marschner (1930) at the time of European settlement. Today, 732 acres
exist on the Refuge as remnants of this important plant community.
Grasslands
Very few small, scattered tracts of native prairie exist on the Refuge, amounting to less than 1,000
acres. These rare and unique grasslands include both mesic and dry prairie and they are frequently
interspersed with woodland areas, especially forested sites protected from periodic fires. Mesic
prairie is dominated by tall grasses including big bluestem and Indian grass. Medium-height grasses
such as little bluestem and side oats grama dominate dry prairies. Both mesic and dry prairies found
on the Refuge contain shrubs, such as leadplant and wild rose. Pasque flower, purple prairie clover are
commonly found in both plant communities.
Native grassland restoration has occurred for many years on some upland sites of the Refuge and on
private lands in the area through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Former croplands are
typically planted to native grass mixtures consisting of big bluestem, little bluestem, switch grass, and
Indian grass. A mixture of forbs is also included to enhance the biological diversity of many of these
sites.
Fish and Wildlife Communities
The habitats described in the preceding section support an array of wildlife species that are common
to east central Minnesota. A rich diversity of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians inhabit
lands administered by Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. (See Appendix C for a Sherburne NWR
species list.)
Birds
Background:
The Refuge attracts over 230 species each year to its diverse habitats (Appendix C). Of these, over 120
are known to nest in the area. The Refuge wetlands provide habitat for about 30 nesting pairs of
Greater Sandhill Cranes and serves as a staging area for thousands of cranes during fall migration.
During fall and spring migration, the Refuge wetlands also support thousands of waterfowl, including
Trumpeter Swans, Canada Geese, Wood Ducks, Northern Pintail, Ring-necked Ducks, Mallards,
Gadwall, American Wigeon, Northern Shoveler, and Green-winged Teal that use the Refuge as a place
to rest and feed along their journey. Common nesting waterfowl of the area include Canada Goose,
Mallard, Wood Duck, Blue-winged Teal, and Hooded Merganser.
Other marsh and water birds frequently utilizing the Refuge and surrounding areas include Green
Heron, Double-crested Cormorant, Great Blue Heron, Sora, Virginia Rail, and American and Least
Bitterns. Exposed mud flats that occur sporadically around the edges of Refuge wetlands attract
shorebirds including Greater and Lesser Yellowlegs and Spotted Sandpiper. Both Common Snipe and
American Woodcock are commonly found on these lands as well.
Songbirds attracted to the woodland and open grassland areas on the Refuge include Eastern
Kingbird, Indigo Bunting, Eastern Meadowlark, Bobolink, Scarlet Tanager, and Brown Trasher
which use these upland areas for nesting and raising their young. Several species of warblers and
other neotropical migrants pass through the Refuge regularly in the spring on their migration to
northern breeding grounds. Year-round residents include Downy, Hairy, Pileated and Red-bellied
Woodpecker, Wild Turkey, Ruffed Grouse, and Ring-necked Pheasant. Birds of prey inhabiting
Refuge lands include Bald Eagle, Red-tailed Hawk, Red-shouldered Hawk, American Kestrel, Sharp-shinned
Hawk, Northern Harrier, and Cooper’s Hawk.
47
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Mammals
The Refuge lies within the known breeding range of 54 mammal species (Appendix C). Of these, 46
species have been confirmed on the Refuge. Two species, bison and elk, known to historically reside on
Refuge lands, were extirpated in the early 1900s.
The largest land mammals currently residing and breeding on the Refuge are black bear and white-tailed
deer. Small mammals typical of this area include short-tail shrew, white-footed mouse, thirteen-lined
ground squirrel, and deer mouse. Eastern chipmunks, eastern gray, fox, and red squirrels are
commonly found in wooded habitats. Both big and little brown bats use the Refuge and its associated
lands. Coyote, red fox and gray fox are the most common carnivores of the area. Bobcat are also found
on the Refuge. Mammals attracted to aquatic habitats in the Refuge include river otter, mink,
muskrat, raccoon, and beaver.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Twenty-three species of reptiles and amphibians have been reported on the Refuge but little is known
about their populations or their limiting factors. Many of these, such as the snapping and painted
turtles, are associated with marsh and open waters while others, such as the common garter snake
and the hognose snake, occur in oak savanna and prairie.
Fish
Like most other fresh water systems in the United States, high populations of carp inhabit the St.
Francis River. Due to regular spring flooding, many of the Refuge wetlands contain a diversity of fish
that originate in the river. For some species, these wetlands offer spawning and nursery habitat.
Threatened and Endangered Species
The federally-listed threatened Bald Eagle is known to breed on the Refuge. In 2004, there were
seven active Bald Eagle nests. Since eagles first nested on the Refuge in 1983, almost 100 eagles have
been produced.
Transient individuals of the federally listed gray wolf also frequent the Refuge. No established packs
occur on the Refuge.
Threats to Resources
Invasive Species
Several invasive species exist on the Refuge, most of which are exotic species, that have the potential
to significantly affect the diversity and quality of important wildlife habitats and natural vegetation
restoration efforts. Currently, leafy spurge, Siberian elm, and black locust pose the greatest threats in
the upland areas, followed by European buckthorn, spotted knapweed, and coniferous tree species not
native to area before European settlement such as scotch pine, white spruce, red pine, and Colorado
spruce. Box elder and aspen are invasive native species that also pose potential problems in upland
restoration areas.
Purple loosestrife is the major exotic species in wetland areas on the Refuge and currently affects at
least one-third of the restored wetlands. Reed canary grass is another aggressive species found in
wetland areas on the Refuge that can reduce the quality of these areas to wildlife. Eurasian water
milfoil also has potential to adversely impact Refuge wetlands and has been found within the
watershed above the Refuge.
48
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Administrative Facilities
Located near the east entrance, the Refuge headquarters is a renovated home with a few additions
made through the years (Figure 18). A schoolhouse, constructed early in the 20th century near the
Refuge headquarters, has been converted for use as a meeting hall and environmental education
facility. The schoolhouse is the center of public use programs on the Refuge.
In 2001, a new maintenance facility was completed for the Refuge. The main building contains a fire
bay, heated shop with offices, carpenter shop and storage bay. A large pole barn provides additional
storage for Refuge equipment. A four-stall garage provides cover for Refuge vehicles and small
equipment.
Archeological and Cultural Resources
Cultural resources are important parts of the Nation’s heritage. The Service is committed to
protecting valuable evidence of human interactions with each other and the landscape. Protection is
accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to conserve fish, wildlife, and plant resources.
Cultural resources are “those parts of the physical environment – natural and built- that have cultural
value to some kind of sociocultural group…[and] those non-material human social institutions…”
Cultural resources include historic sites, archeological sites and associated artifacts, sacred sites,
traditional cultural properties, cultural items, (human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and
objects of cultural patrimony), and buildings and structures.
Archeological evidence indicates people of all major cultural traditions have occupied the Refuge area
from the end of the last glacier to the present time. Paleo-Indian sites, based on the contents of a
privately owned collection, would be very important to the State of Minnesota. An archeological
resource survey was conducted early in the Refuge’s history, with only one percent of the Refuge
surveyed, there are 53 known sites. The Refuge contains two important Woodland period mound
groups and associated villages. The Refuge has 20 reported archeological collections totaling almost
17,000 items. These collections are stored primarily at the Minnesota Historical Society, with a
smaller collection at Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center. There was also a National Register of
Historic Places property known as the Glidden-Fox house that was moved to the Town of Becker.
There are four additional sites on the Refuge that are eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. All four sites are of Native American origin and are sub-surface. They include archeological
sites No. 13 and No 14 (Lane 1974), the northern mound group burial site (Lane 1969) and the
southern mound group burial site (Lane 1969). While not on the National Registry, the Grundrude
Cemetery is a pioneer family cemetery near Orrock and is of local historical significance.
Wildlife-dependent Recreation
The average annual visitation to the Refuge between 1998 and 2003 was 95,951. Visitors participate in
bird, upland game, and deer hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation. Participation in these wildlife-dependent recreation
activities is displayed in Table 4.
In preparation for comprehensive planning, visitors to the Refuge were surveyed from April 2001 to
April 2002. The survey was a cooperative effort with the University of Minnesota Department of
Forest Resources and Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The survey results
are available in a report, “Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge: A Study of Visitor Experiences and
49
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Figure 18: Current Facilities, Sherburne NWR
50
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Preferences in Support of Comprehensive Conservation Planning.” The surveyors contacted 760
visitors. A detailed survey was completed by 451 respondents.
In the survey we learned that most respondents were white and had at least a high school degree.
Approximately 40 percent had a college degree. About 25 percent live in rural communities. Over half
of the respondents traveled 20 miles or fewer to visit the Refuge.
Respondents were given a list of activities that they could participate in while on the Refuge. The five
activities with the greatest participation were: watching wildlife, observing on the Wildlife Drive from
a vehicle, viewing scenery, bird watching, and looking at wildflowers. The five activities engaged in
least often were: hunting from disability blinds, mushroom picking, fishing from a canoe, cross-country
skiing off-trail, and berry picking. Participation in activities varied across seasons. Hunting,
of course, occurred in the fall during open seasons.
To identify the motivations important to visitors, respondents were asked to rate how important 32
experiences were to them in relation to their most satisfying recreational activity at the Refuge. The
five experiences with the highest importance mean scores were to: experience nature, see wildlife,
view scenic beauty, enjoy smells and sounds of nature, and get away from usual demands of life.
Visitors were asked to look over a list of 27 possible problems and rate how much the problem
detracted from their experience. Mean scores indicate that none of the problems are more than a
slight distraction from their experiences when looking across all respondents. However, about one-third
of the respondents indicated that litter and trash left by others was a moderate to severe
Table 4: Participation in Public Use Activities, Sherburne NWR
19981 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Total Refuge Visitation 86,881 102,261 93,049 88,365 94,000 111,151
Hunting
Waterfowl 1,334 1,425 1,608 1,479 1,438 1,764
Upland Game 951 1,054 1,182 1,196 1,844 2,435
Big Game 3,594 3,928 4,300 3,831 4,446 4,251
Total 5,879 6,407 7,090 6,506 7,728 8,450
Fishing 1,991 2,095 1,670 1,420 1,341 1,958
Interpretation, Observation, Photography
Wildlife Drive 18,000 20,65 4 19,445 16,977 18,547 24,942
Foot Trails 15,00 0 18,659 18,465 17,240 17,837 22,795
Special Events 1,53 9 1,862 1,542 1,431 1,061 1,388
Total 34,539 41,175 39,452 35,648 37,445 49,125
Environmental Education
Staff/volunteer-led 2,002 1,539 1,359 1,092 1,037 1,233
Teacher-led 3,517 1,331 1,591 1,421 1,694 1,145
Total 5,519 2,870 2,950 2,513 2,731 2,378
1.Years presented are U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service fiscal years, which run from October through September.
51
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
problem for them. One-third of the respondents also indicated that people not following hunting
regulations and people not obeying Refuge rules detracted moderately to severely from their
experience. Visitors were also asked about the number of other visitors they saw at various places on
the Refuge. In general, respondents did not feel crowded. About a third of visitors reported the
number of people in the field while hunting deer with firearms as somewhat to very unacceptable. In
addition, a little over 20 percent of visitors found the number of people in the field while hunting
waterfowl was unacceptable.
Visitors were asked to rate their support or opposition to 17 possible management actions.
Respondents slightly supported: controlling invasive species, closing access to promote nesting,
providing more educational opportunities, and providing more exhibits. Respondents slightly
opposed: decreasing prescribed burning, limiting number of hiking trails, providing fewer hunting
opportunities, and providing fewer information signs. Approximately a third of the respondents
strongly opposed providing fewer hunting opportunities.
Finally, visitors were asked about their general feelings about the Refuge, the staff, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service. Overall, respondents most strongly agreed that the time they spent at the Refuge
could not have been spent elsewhere. They identify strongly with the Refuge and see it as an
important place for their children and future generations. Respondents generally agreed that they
feel welcome at the Refuge. They trust that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will make good
decisions, have confidence in the local staff, and believe that the staff will do what is best for the
Refuge.
Analysis of the survey data reveals several major trends that should be addressed in future
management decisions. First, and most importantly, visitors greatly appreciate the recreational
opportunities and other benefits the Refuge provides. Secondly, distinct user groups visit the Refuge
and each group has its own special needs. Conflicts between groups could potentially cause problems
and efforts should be made to avoid this. Building positive, strong relations between visitors and
between visitors and Refuge managers will not only improve experiences on the Refuge, but will also
create a sense of community and connectedness among Refuge visitors. Actions promoting a positive
social environment will also enhance visitor support and dedication to the Refuge and will more firmly
establish the Refuge’s role within the community.
Maintain and Improve Current Opportunities at the Refuge
Although a wide range of preferences exists, Refuge visitors are very satisfied with current recreation
activity and experience opportunities at the Refuge. Managers should make efforts to maintain the
diversity of activities available and improve techniques used to inform visitors and enhance experience
opportunities. Visitors will be better able to achieve recreational goals and pursue interests if they are
aware of the possibilities. For example, signs, brochures, and maps can clearly direct people to
locations suitable for hiking, observing wildlife, biking, hunting, or other activities appropriate to the
Refuge. Additionally better and/or timelier information can help visitors attain and benefit from their
desired experiences.
Observing wildlife and scenery were the most popular visitor activities. It is therefore important that
visitors have a variety of viewing opportunities. Current viewing locations, such as observation
platforms, trails, and the wildlife drive, should be monitored to ensure sites continue to provide
opportunities to see a great blue heron, a fading summer sunset, and so on. Over time, modifications
may need to be made to viewing stations and perhaps new ones created.
Educating visitors can also help visitors attain and benefit from experiences they value. For example,
Refuge visitors reported that they highly value observing wildlife. But, they also reported they were
not able to attain this experience to their desired level. Often, spotting wild animals takes practice and
patience. Visitors may be looking at the wrong time of day, in the wrong type of habitat, or may need
52
Sherburne NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
to be quieter on trails or on the wildlife drive. Interpretive programs or signs could provide visitors
with hints on how to improve their observation techniques to enhance their wildlife viewing
opportunities. Letting visitors know what types of animals they should be looking for in a specific area
might also improve their success.
Visitors were also interested in learning more about nature in general and the natural history of the
area. Several individuals expressed interest in guided Refuge tours and the establishment of a
permanent educational center. While an education center may not be an immediate possibility, an
increase in educational/ interpretive programs, signs, brochures, and activities will help satisfy this
visitor need. Programs could be designed and led by volunteers if budgetary or other constraints
exist.
Creating a Sense of Community Among Refuge Visitors
Creating a community atmosphere among Refuge visitors can result in substantial and far-reaching
benefits. Although most visitors had very few complaints regarding their visit to Sherburne National
Wildlife Refuge, some did report feelings of crowdedness or the presence of too many people. In
addition, it seems that many visitors would benefit from a better understanding of other individuals
with differing recreational interests. Learning to appreciate a variety of recreational interests and
values could help alleviate feelings of crowdedness and conflicts between visitors.
The survey data reveals distinctions between fall and summer visitors. Winter/ spring visitors were
very similar in most aspects to summer visitors. Differences in attitudes, perceptions, and interests
can lead to varying degrees of conflicts between visitors. Currently there does not appear to be any
severe problems, however, the potential exists. By encouraging all types of visitors to interact or learn
more about different viewpoints, managers can help improve visitors’ relationships with one another.
Better understanding of fellow visitors is vital to acceptance of others and to the construction of a
visitor community.
One area that deserves attention is hunting. A large number of respondents support hunting on the
Refuge and enjoy hunting on the Refuge. Others believe that the Refuge should serve as a haven for
wildlife and hunting should be excluded. Hunting is an essential tool managers use to keep wildlife
populations in balance with the habitat resources. Programs concentrating on the role of hunting in
wildlife Refuges – and Sherburne NWR in particular – could be implemented to inform visitors of the
benefits of hunting to wildlife populations as well as to continued visitor opportunities to view wildlife.
Compared to summer and winter/spring visitors, fall visitors appear to place less importance on the
Refuge’s role in managing habitat for wildlife, retaining and restoring ecosystem functions,
preserving natural landscapes, and providing educational opportunities for visitors. A majority of fall
visitors are hunters. Perhaps more than other groups, hunters should be targeted with information
and education efforts to increase their knowledge and understanding of the Refuge’s many different
goals. A better understanding on the part of hunters on the role of the Refuge would improve the
relationship between hunters and non-hunters. It might also increase support for management
strategies and tactics designed to eliminate or decrease visitor caused damage to resources and other
visitors’ experiences.
Another way to foster a sense of community among Sherburne NWR visitors is to encourage
volunteerism and membership in the Friends of Sherburne group. Currently the Refuge has a large
and active volunteer force – one out of every seven visitors volunteers time at the Refuge engaging in
activities such as collecting prairie seeds to serving as an interpreter along the wildlife drive during
summer – and an active Friends group. Although a diversity of volunteer opportunities exists, the list
of volunteer activities could be expanded to include a greater diversity of visitors. Retaining dedicated
volunteers contributes immensely to creating a sense of community and shared values between
visitors and staff.
53
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Current Refuge Programs: Where We Are Today
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge conducts a wide array of wildlife conservation activities both on
and off the Refuge. Over the years, a variety of habitat management approaches have been applied to
the Refuge. Many of these practices were aimed at improving Refuge lands for waterfowl production;
an historic focus of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1999, the Refuge, with the input of other
conservationists, assessed its habitat restoration and management programs and developed a
Landscape Plan. This plan basically set forth the philosophy of restoring Refuge plant communities to
native species. It also identified the importance of using natural processes such as prescribed fire and
water management to maintain the diversity and productivity of these communities. This philosophy
remains today and will be integral within this Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
The Refuge’s proximity to urban areas also offers unique opportunities to interact with diverse and
supportive audiences. For example, Refuge staff have the privilege to work with a large cadre of
dedicated volunteers. Environmental education programs are provided to area schools from suburban
or rural locations. Likewise, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, and interpretive
opportunities are offered on Refuge lands.
Current Visitor Use O