Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Waubay
Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
National Wildlife Refuge
Complex
CCPs provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set
forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge
purposes and identify the 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.
WAUBAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX
including
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge
and
Waubay Wetland Management District
DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
June 2002
Prepared by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex
44401 134A Street
Waubay, South Dakota 57273-5301
and
Division of Planning
Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region
P.O. Box 25486, DFC
Denver, Colorado 80225-04186
S-1
“Like wind and sunsets,
wild things were taken
for granted until
progress began to do
away with them. Now
we face the question
whether a still higher
‘standard of living’ is
worth its cost in things
natural, wild and free.
For us of the minority,
the opportunity to see
geese is more important
than television, and the
chance to find a pasque-flower
is a right as
inalienable as free
speech.”
Aldo Leopold
Summary
Waubay N ational W ildlife Re fuge (R efuge) , comp rised of 4 ,650 ac res, is loca ted in
Day County in northeastern South Dakota (M ap 1). The Refuge’s mix of lakes,
wetlands, prairie, forests, and cropland is home to a diversity of wildlife. More than
100 bir d specie s nest on this sma ll piece of h abitat, w ith 37 mammals also c alling it
home. Waubay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established by President
Roosevelt in 1935 as “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife.”
Waubay Wetland Management District (WMD) protects over 250,000 acres of
wetlands and prairie in six counties of northeastern South Dakota. The area’s mix of
native grass, planted grasses, cropland, and wetlands support a variety of wildlife.
Wildlife communities are dependent on the abundant grasslands or wetlands, or both.
The WMD is home to 247 species of birds, 43 species of mammals, and over 20 species
of amphibians and reptiles. Breeding waterfowl and grassland-dependent passerines
are two groups tha t are espec ially promine nt.
Comprehensive planning is being undertaken for the Refuge and the Wetland
Management District (Complex) to guide management for the next 15 years. When
completed, the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) will provide clear goals and
objectives, implementation strategies, and recommended staffing and funding for the
Complex. Th is Plan will meet the planning requ irements of the Na tional Wildlife
Refuge Improvement Act of 1997.
The main goals set forth in the CCP for the Waubay Complex are:
■ Habita t Goal: To preserve, restore and enhance the ecological diversity of
grasslands, wetlands, and native woodlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of
the Gre at Plain s on W aubay Natio nal W ildlife R efuge C omplex.
■ Wildlife Goal: To promote a natural diversity and abundance of native flora
and fauna of the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains on Waubay
National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
■ Cultural Resources Goal: Protect and interpret significant historic and
prehistoric cultural resourc es associated with W aubay Na tional Wildlife
Refuge Complex.
■ Wildlife -depen dent R ecrea tion Go al: To foster an understanding and
appreciation of the ecology and management of the fauna and flora and of
the role of humans in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains by
providing Complex visitors of all abilities with compatible wildlife-depen
dent re creatio nal exp erience s.
These goals will help fulfill the mission and goals of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
and the National Wildlife Refuge System. In an ecosystem setting, Waubay Complex
CCP actions will also help meet the goals of the North American Waterfowl
Managem ent Plan , Partne rs in Fligh t, The N ature C onserv ancy’s T allgrass Prairie
Ecoregional Plan and others. Only by working together can we improve the
biological, social, and economic status of the northeastern corner of South Dakota and
the Great Plains.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 stipulates that a written
assessment must be made of any action proposed by an agency of the Federal
Government that significantly affects the quality of the human environment or has
significant impacts on the affected State or Federal land. NEPA also requires
Federa l decision ma kers to study , develop, an d describe a ppropriate alternatives to
the recommended a ction. V iews o f other F edera l and Sta te agen cies and the pub lic
are solicited during the decision making process. An Environmental Assessment
(EA) has been prepared to accompany this CCP. It is published after the Plan and
before the Appendices. The proposed action is to prepare and implement the CCP, or
enhan ced m anage ment a lternativ e.
i
Table of Contents
I. Introduction/Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Waubay Na tional Wildlife Refuge History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Time Line/Significant Dates of Waubay NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Waubay W etland Management District History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Time Line/Significant Dates of Waubay WMD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Purpose of and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Nation al Wildlife Refug e System Mission an d Goa ls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Waubay Na tional Wildlife Refuge Complex Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Waubay Complex Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Legal and Policy Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Existing Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
II. Planning Process
Planning Process, Planning Time Frame, and Future Revisions . . . . . . . . . 12
Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
III. Summary Waubay Complex and Resource Descriptions
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Air Qua lity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Waubay Complex Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Water Resources and Associated Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Economic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Special Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
IV. Management Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge
Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Native Woodlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Public Use and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Waubay W etland Management District
Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Native Woodlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Public Use and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Summary Comparison of Management Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
ii
V. Implementation and Monitoring
Funding and Personnel (Current/Proposed Staffing Plan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Step-down Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Partnership Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-89
List of Figures
Figure 1. Prairie Pothole Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 2. Annual Precipitation, Waubay NWR, 1953-1999 Bar Graph . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 3. Waubay Lake Historic Water Levels, 1934-1999 Bar Graph . . . . . . . . . 18
List of Maps
Map 1. Waubay NWR Complex Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-3
Map 2. Waubay NWR Historic Water Levels Map, Pre-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Map 3. Waubay NWR Base Map - Current Water Levels, 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Map 4. South Dakota Major Physiographic Re gions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Map 5. Region 6 Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Map 6. Waubay NWR Landcover Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Map 7. Waubay W MD Fee -title Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Map 8. Waubay WM D Waterfowl Breeding Pair Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Map 9. Waubay WM D Wetland Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Map 10. Waubay WM D Landcover Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Appendices
A. Wildlife Species of Waubay Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
B. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
C. Section 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
D. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
E. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
F. Key Legislation/Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
G. Mailing List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
H. WPA Management Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
I. Ecosystem Planning for the Mainstem Missouri River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
J. Grassland Easement Evaluation Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
K. Existing Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
L. Compatibility Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
M. Plans and Organizations affecting Waubay Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
N. RONS L ist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
O. MMS List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
P. List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 1
I. Introduction/Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plans
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Refuge Improvement Act), an
amendment to the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, was passed by
Congress in October of 1997. This historic “organic act,” the first in the National
Wildlife Refuge System’s history, required that Comprehensive Conservation Plans
(CCPs) be prepared for all refuges within 15 years. Lands covered by this Act include
National Wildlife Refuges and Wetland Management Districts, including grassland,
wetland, and conservation easements. The Refuge Improvement Act also clarified
compatibility and public use issues on Refuge System lands.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) worked with Congress to craft the Refuge
Impro veme nt Act a nd supp orted th e plann ing requ ireme nt. This pla nning e ffort w ill
assist each station, and the entire National Wildlife Refuge System, to meet the
chang ing nee ds of w ildlife and t he pub lic. Public inp ut during the CC P proc ess will
provide op portunities to co nsult with ne ighbors, custo mers, and other age ncies to
ensure that plans are relevant and address natural resource issues and public interests.
This Draft CCP discusses the planning process, Waubay Complex’s characteristics, and
the direction management will take in the next 15 years on Waubay Complex
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge History
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge was established on December 10, 1935, by Executive
Order 7245 “as a re fuge an d bree ding gro und for migra tory bird s and ot her w ildlife.”
Originally known as “Waubay Bluebill Refuge,” it consists of 4,650 acres and was
purchased from private landowners through 16 different purchase agreements. At the
time of purchase, the upland and water acres were 2,587 and 2,063, respectively. The
total cost of acquisition was $62,788.97. Approximately 2,402 acres of meandered lakes
were withdrawn from public domain and 2,249 acres were purchased; furthermore, the
acres were purchased for about $27.92/acre.
In the “Dust Bowl” days of the 1930s, the Refuge lakes were almost entirely dry,
contributing to record low waterfowl populations. Water levels and duck populations
gradu ally rose to an “a ccepta ble” or n orma l level and rema ined rela tively sta tic until
the 1990 s (Map 2 ). Heavy p recipitation betw een 199 3 and 199 9 caused la ke levels to
rise more than 15 feet to all-time recorded highs, flooding 100 -year-old trees (Map 3).
In 1995, when Waubay Lake spilled into Hillebrand’s Lake, a sport fishery developed
for the first time on the Refuge. Currently perch, northern pike, and walleye populations
thrive in Refuge waters. With such drastic water fluctuations came changes in bird
species, numbers, and habitats. Today, wood ducks, double-crested cormorants, and
great-blue herons thrive on the flooded, wooded islands of the Refuge, while over-water
nesting species have virtually disappeared along with the emergent cover.
2 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
Time Line/Significant Dates of Waubay NWR
1935 - Waubay Refuge established.
1936 - First manager, Watson E. Beed, reported for duty.
1937 - Refuge land acquisition completed.
- Waubay giant Canada goose flock started with 30 donated captive geese.
- Refuge observatio n tower b uilt.
1938 - Famous wildlife artist Frances Lee Jaques, standing on the shore of Spring
Lake with W atson B eed, ca lled W aubay “the pe rfect ref uge.”
1942 - Highest number of pheasants recorded on the Refuge - over 10,000.
1947 - Deer hunting allowed for the first time.
1948 - “By this time, the Refuge was the only place in the area where prairie chickens
could be found.” Prairie chickens soon disappeared from the Refuge.
1957 - Five pair of Cotournix quail released on the Refuge - failed.
1959 - Annual Refuge deer hunts began.
1960 - Nature trail established.
1963 - Twenty-five Rio Grande turkeys released on the Refuge - all disappeared by 1964.
1966 - User fees were charged for the picnic area; use dropped by 50 percent - user
fees discontinued after one year.
1973 - Activities within the State of South Dakota and administration of Waubay
NWR tran sferred from R egion 3 to Reg ion 6 w ith an A rea Of fice esta blished in
Pierre.
1986 - New Refuge headqua rters office bu ilt.
1993 - Waubay and Refuge lakes, Spring and Hillebrand’s, begin to rise because of
heavy precipitation.
1995 - Waubay and Hillebrand’s Lakes equalize.
1996 - Refuge east entran ce road ra ised four fee t.
1997 - Winter of 1996 -1997 totals 80.2 inches of snow (average is 30 to 35 inche s).
- Waubay/Hillebrand’s Lakes equalize with Spring Lake.
- Refuge east entran ce road ra ised 3.3 feet.
1998 - Refuge east entran ce road ra ised 7 feet.
- Refuge opened to ice fishing only.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 3
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 5
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 7
Waubay Wetland Management District History
Waubay Wetland Management District (WMD) is one of 37 WMD’s throughout the
prairie pothole region. They were started as part of the Small Wetlands Acquisition
Progr am (SWAP) in the 1 950s to save w etlands from v arious th reats, pa rticularly
draining. The passage of Public Law 85-585 in August of 1958, amended the Migratory
Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp Act) of 1934, allowing for the
acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”(WPAs) and “Easements for Waterfowl
Management Rights” (easements). The nation’s first WPA was acquired within the
Waubay stu dy are a (now know n as the WMD), wh en the 1 60-acr e McC arlson W PA in
Day County was purchased from Arnold McCarlson on January 19, 1959.
The Wetlands Loan Act (P.L. 87-383) was passed on October 4, 1961, and allowed for
the advan cemen t of funds aga inst future rev enues from Duck S tamp sale s. As a resu lt,
WMDs were created in 1962. In 1966, Waubay W MD consisted of 10 counties:
Brookings, Clark, Codington, Day, Deuel, Grant, Hamlin, Kingsbury, Marshall, and
Roberts. In 1970, Brookings, Deuel, Hamlin, and Kingsbury counties were transferred
to Madison WMD, leaving the remaining six which make up Waubay WMD today. The
grassland easement acquisition program was started in 1989 to help protect upland
habita t to com plime nt the wetla nd easement pr ogram. W auba y is cur rently the na tion’s
second largest WMD with over 250,000 acres of waterfowl habitat being protected
through easements and fee-title lands. Protected areas under fee-title total 39,885
acres, while wetland and grassland easements protect approximately 105,000 and
126,000 acres, respectively. An additional 5,260 acres are protected under conservation
easements.
Like Waubay NWR , the WMD has varying wetland and upland habitat types and
needs to be m anage d to ben efit wa terfow l and other wildlife, as well as human users.
Today, prescribed burning has taken the place of prairie wildfires and is one tool used
to rejuvenate grasslands. Although prescribed burning has proven effective,
constraints such as time, mo ney, and staff limit its use in the past. With additional staff
and fun ding, pre scribed burning will be us ed mo re exte nsively a s a managem ent tool.
Another tool available is haying, but it also has limiting factors. Haying is allowed on
fee-title lands by permit only ; furthermo re, it can only be accomp lished after Ju ly 15 to
protect nesting birds. This deters some producers, because the quality of forage may be
reduced. Grassland manipulation within Waubay WMD is primarily accomplished
through livestock grazing. This method is most closely related to the natural way of
manag ing grasses with livestock replacing the bison of the p ast.
Recently, increased precipitation has benefitted the WMD and waterfowl populations
dependent on these lands. In 1999, statewide wetland counts exceeded one million for
the first time and increased 104 percent above the 10-year and long-term averages.
Breeding mallards in South Dakota for 1999 exceeded 3 million for only the third time
in history (USF WS 1 999).
Time Line/Significant Dates of Waubay WMD
1959 - McCarlson WPA, the nation’s first WPA, purchased in Day County.
1961 - Wetland easement program began.
1963 - Wetland Management Office established in Webster; first manager - James
Pullium.
1964 - Wetland Management Office closes and function taken over by the Refuge.
1968 - Pheasant restoration program on WPAs started under Karl Mundt funding.
1973 - Activities within the S tate of Sou th Dako ta and administration of Waubay NWR
transfe rred fro m Re gion 3 to Regio n 6 with an Ar ea Offic e estab lished in
Pierre.
1989 - Grassland easement program began.
1994 - Hundreds of township, county, and state roads across the WMD flood from
rising waters of wetlands and lakes.
8 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
Purpose of and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Waubay Complex was established to provide “. . . a refuge and breeding ground for
migra tory bird s and ot her w ildlife.” The purpo se of the CCP is to acco mplish th e goals
establish ed for th e Com plex, inclu ding:
■ Habita t Goal: To preserve, restore and enhance the ecological diversity of
grasslands, wetlands, and native woodlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of
the Gre at Plain s on W aubay Natio nal W ildlife R efuge C omplex.
■ Wildlife Goal: To promote a natural diversity and abundance of native flora
and fauna of the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains on Waubay
National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
■ Cultural Resources Goal: Protect and interpret significant historic and
prehistoric cultural resourc es associated with W aubay Na tional Wildlife
Refuge Complex.
■ Wildlife -depen dent R ecrea tion Go al: To foster an understanding and
appreciation of the ecology and management of the fauna and flora and of the
role of humans in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains by providing
Complex visitors of all abilities with compatible wildlife-dependent
recreati onal ex perien ces.
The CCP, with its clear management direction laid out in specific objectives and
strategies, is needed for several reasons. Since the establishment of the Refuge in 1935
and the WMD in the 1960s, many changes have occurred to the landscape. Much habitat
has been lost to agriculture, roads, towns, and other development. This loss of habitat
has had a profound effect on wildlife populations that once depended on vast expanses
of undisturbed grasslands and wetlands. Management of the Complex as outlined in the
CCP will help to stem these losses and help to restore biodiversity to the landscape.
The CCP also addresses the need to provide an understanding and appreciation of
wildlife and of people’s role in the environment. Providing more environmental
programs and better interpretation will increase the public’s knowledge about the
biological values that continue to be lost each day and the need to prevent further
losses. T he Plan also calls fo r increa sed op portun ities for w ildlife-com patible
recrea tion.
It is the Service’s job to protect and provide habitat for migratory birds and other
wildlife - this is our purpose and reason for being. We must do this in a vastly changed
landscape, balancing the effects of saving wildlife with economic realities and human
needs. By preparing this CCP, documenting our goals and objectives, and involving our
partners and the public in the process, we can all gain a better understanding of the
issues - fr om all sid es. It doe sn’t have to be w ildlife vers us peo ple beca use all w ill
benefit, e conom ically and person ally, from a health y enviro nmen t. This CC P will he lp
explain how Waubay Complex fits into the landscape and our role in protecting our
natura l resour ces for p resent and futu re gen eration s.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 9
“When one tugs at a
single thing in nature,
he finds it attached to
the rest of the world”
John Muir
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals
The U .S. Fish & Wildlife S ervice, w hich adm inisters th e Ref uge Sy stem, is th e only
agency of the U.S. government whose primary responsibility is fish, wildlife, and plant
conservation. The National Wildlife Refuge System (System) is the world’s largest and
most diverse collection of lands set aside specifically for wildlife. The Mission of the
Refu ge Sys tem is, “To administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, managemen t, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife,
and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of
presen t and fu ture ge neratio ns of A meric ans.” Goals of the System are aimed at
fulfilling this mission. Some major goals are to provide for specific classes of wildlife
species for which the Federal government is ultimately responsible. These “trust
resources” are defined by the purpose of the Refuge and include threatened and
endangered species, migratory birds, and anadromous fish. Most refuges provide
breeding, migration, or wintering habitat for these species. Nearly all refuges also
supply h abitat fo r big gam e specie s and re sident o r nonm igratory wildlife a s well.
Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System are:
a. To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) and further the System
missio n.
b. Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and
plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
c. Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal
popul ations .
d. Cons erve a d iversity of fish, w ildlife, an d plan ts.
e. Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the United
States, in cludin g the eco logical proces ses char acteristi c of thos e ecosy stems .
f. To foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and
their conservation, by pro viding the public w ith safe, high-quality, and com patible
wildlife-dependent pu blic use. Such use inclu des hunting, fishing, w ildlife
observ ation a nd pho tograp hy, and environmental edu cation and in terpreta tion.
Individual refuges provide specific requirements for the preservation of trust
resource s. For exa mple, wa terfowl bre eding refug es in South a nd North Dakota
provide important wetland and grassland habitats to support populations of waterfowl
as required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan. Waubay Complex supports breeding populations as well as
providing migration habitat during spring and fall periods. Sabine NWR, and other
refuges in Louisiana and Texas, provide wintering habitat for these populations. The
network of lands is critical to these birds  surviva l; any def iciency in one loca tion will
affect the species and the entire network’s ability to maintain adequate populations.
Other refuge s may provide habitat fo r enda ngere d plants o r anim als that e xist in
unique habitats found only in very few locations. Refuges in these situations ensure
that populations are protected and habitat is suitable for their use. Refuges, by
providing a broad network of lands throughout the United States, help prevent species
from being listed as endangered by providing secure habitat for their use and
opportunities for recovery.
Unde r the N ational W ildlife Re fuge S ystem Impro veme nt Act o f 1997, s ix
wildlife-dependent recreational uses are recognized as priority public uses of refuge
lands. These are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
environmental education and interpretation. These and other uses are allowed on
refuges only after finding that they are compatible with the purpose of the refuge.
Uses are allowed through a special regulation process, individual special use permits,
and sometimes through State fishing and hunting regulations.
10 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
A vast landscape of native prairie splashed with sparkling blue jewels of pristine
wetlands with its variety of wildlife, where people can learn about the unique
features and enjoy the bounty of the Coteau des Prairie region.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Purpose
Waubay NWR Purpose
“. . . as a refu ge and breed ing grou nd for m igratory birds an d other wildlife . . .”
Executive Order 7245, dated December 10, 1935. Later Executive Orders allowed
for expansion of the Refuge under the same purpose.
Waterfowl Production Area Purpose
“. . . as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “. . . all of the provisions of such
Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act] . . . except the inviolate sanctuary
provisions . . .” 16 U.S.C. 718 § (Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp
Act)
“. . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d
(Migrator y Bird Co nservation Act)
“. . . for conservation purposes . . .” 7 U.S.C. § 2002 (Consolidated Farm and Rural
Develo pment A ct)
Waubay Complex Vision Statement
Although this vision has a dreamlike feel to it, it is founded in a real need to restore the
health of the Northern Great Plains. Restoring grasslands and wetlands and protecting
and promoting their long-term health will be good not only for wildlife, but for humans
as well. The economic health of this region may also soon depend on the soundness of
these natural systems as farming becomes economically challenging and more and more
people turn to to urism a nd the fis hing/hun ting indu stry to m ake a liv ing. Alre ady this is
becoming a reality with the increased fishing opportunities available with the onset of
new a nd exp anded lakes an d wetla nds. M ore an d mor e peop le are a lso filling the ir
leisure time with outdoor activities such as bird-watching, hiking, or fishing. By
restoring and enhancing native habitats, Waubay Complex can help attract visitors
providin g additio nal eco nomic oppor tunities in th e area .
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 11
Legal and Policy Guidance
The National Wildlife Refuge System started nearly 100 years ago with an Executive
Order, signed by President Theodore Roosevelt, protecting a small and unpretentious
island full of pelicans, ibises, and spoonbills from market hunters. It wasn’t until 1997
that the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act was passed which set the
mission and administrative policy for all refuges in the System. It also outlined the
importance of the six priority public uses (hu nting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, environmental education and interpretation) and how they should be
promoted except where incompatible with the purpose of the individual Refuge or the
system as a whole. A formal process for determining compatibility was also established
with this Act. From the first act to the most recent, the overriding principle that guides
the Refu ge system is wildlife come s first.
Other key legislative policies that direct management of Refuges include the Endangered
Species Act (1973), Clean Water Act (1977), Land and W ater Conservation Fund Act
(1965), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918), and Executive Order 12996 Management and
General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1996). These and other
Acts a nd Ex ecutive Order s that gu ide Re fuge S ystem activities a re listed in Appe ndix
F. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service also provides its own policy guidelines which can
be found in Refuge Manuals.
Existing Partnerships
Waubay Com plex staff w ork with a variety of individ uals and or ganizations to
accomplish habitat management, outreach, and environmental education projects. Some
past and current partners include Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe; Ducks Unlimited;
County Conservation Districts; South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks; The Nature
Conservancy; Ne-So-Dak (Glacial Lakes Outdoor School); local Boy and Girl Scout
troops; and numerous private landowners. Far less would be accomplished within and
beyon d our bo rders w ithout the se partn erships . A com plete listing of partn ers is
included in Appendix K.
12 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
II. Planning Process
Planning Process, Planning Time Frame, and Future Revisions
Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) provide a clear and comprehensive
statem ent of de sired futu re cond itions for e ach ref uge or planning unit. The CCP will
provide long-range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes,
help fulfill the Refu ge System mission, and maintain or restore the ecological integ rity
of each Refuge and the System. Additional goals of the CCP process include using
science and sound professional judgment to support management decisions, ensuring
the six priority public uses receive consideration during the preparation of the CCP,
providing a public forum for stakeholders and interested parties to have input in refuge
management decisions, and to provide a uniform basis for funding.
The CCP planning process consists of the following eight steps. Although the steps are
listed sequentially, CCP planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
documentation can be iterative. Some of the steps may be repeated or more than one
step can occur at the same time.
  Preplanning - form core team, identify needs
  Identify Issues and deve lop Vision - Public Input Gathered on Issues
  Develop Goals and Objectives - from issues, resource relationships, legal
responsibilities
  Develop and Analyze Alternatives, including the Proposed Action
  Prepa re Dra ft Plan an d NE PA D ocument - ass ess env ironm ental eff ects, Public
Comments on Draft Plan Gathered
  Prepare and Adopt Final Plan
  Implem ent Plan, M onitor and E valuate
  Review and Revise Plan
Comprehensive conservation planning efforts for Waubay Complex began in December
1997 with a meeting of regional management and planning staff and field station
employees from Waubay C omplex and Tewauko n Complex at Tewauko n’s headquarters
in North Dakota. At that meeting a core planning team was designated with the major
respon sibilities of g atherin g inform ation, so liciting pub lic input, an d writing the Plan .
Begin ning in Ja nuary of 1998 , an exte nsive sc oping e ffort w as und ertake n to solicit
comm ents fro m inter ested p arties. Comments w ere solic ited from at least 2 9 public
gatherings, including open houses, county commissioner meetings, sports/farm shows,
sportsma n groups, a gency m eetings, live rad io interview s, and other comm unity
organizations. Sixteen hundred leaflets were mailed out and media releases also
encoura ged the pu blic to comm ent and ge t involved in the CCP p rocess. Par ticipants
were provided an opportunity to learn about the Service and Complex’s purposes,
mission, goals, and management issues. Everyone had the chance to speak with Service
repres entative s and to share th eir com ments . The m ailing list is inclu ded in A ppend ix
G. The public has an additional chance to comment now during this Public Review of
the Dr aft Plan .
The CCP will guide management on the Refuge and WMD for the next 15 years. Plans
are signed by the Regional Director, Region 6, thus providing Regional direction to the
station project leader and staff. Copies of the Plan will be provided to all interested
parties when requested. Whenever there is a significant need or at least every 5 years,
the project leader will review the Plan and decide if a revision is necessary.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 13
Planning Issues
For the planning team, the biggest issue was the loss and degradation of grassland and
wetland habitats. Protecting and restoring these habitats would reduce the continued
loss of biodiver sity and help re store wildlife po pulations. Staff fe lt the best wa y to
accomplish this would be through partnerships, easement acquisition, and improved
management of fee-title lands. Habitat fragments would also be reduced by removing
food plots, replanting woodlands, and removing or controlling nonnative plants, shrubs,
or tree s.
Public comments also expressed a need to protect and enhance native habitats. Some
were in favor of increased acquisition (fee and easement), but others were not. Many
comments encouraged the use and management of native plants and animals and
biologica l control m ethods for we ed con trol.
Wildlife issues for the planning team centered on increasing baseline data for individual
WPAs and developing monitoring and inventory plans. These plans would improve our
ability to track managem ent activities and their effects on the landscape a nd wildlife
populations . For the pu blic, comm ents range d from w anting mo re nesting stru ctures to
reintrod ucing elk .
Only a few comments were received during scoping meetings regarding hunting. One
was to restrict hunting seasons to only primitive weapons, another to decrease the
number of tags offered, and a third to expand youth hunting and fishing programs.
Allowing all three deer hunting seasons to continue provides more opportunities for
hunters as well as accomplishing Refuge objectives to control deer numbers and
protect habitat. Hunting success for muzzleloader and archery seasons is usually about
25 to 30 percent while it is closer to 50 percent or higher for rifle seasons (Refuge files,
SDGFP 2001). Providing hunts for youth or people with disabilities will be considered
and de velope d if practic able.
Both the public and the planning team expressed an interest in increasing public use,
environmental education, and interpretation. There was also a desire to build better
relations with the community and provide more volunteer opportunities. There was a
particular interest in increasing the access and availability of fishing on the Refuge.
The pla nning te am ha d to con sider the require ments of trust re source s, particu larly
waterfowl, and compatibility issues when addressing these requests. There are also
safety and accessibility concerns that need to be considered, as well as the need for
additional funding to address these concerns. Issues such as providing additional boat
access an d stocking fish o ff-refuge ar e the prima ry respon sibility of the South Dakota
Game, Fish and Parks or other agencies.
The Sisseton-Wahpeton Tribe brought up two issues, bison grazing and collecting
plants on Service owned lands within the Complex.
Many of the issues brought up by the public were considered and incorporated into the
CCP, but some were dismissed due to incompatibility or other negative impacts. For
example, although elk at one time roamed the Great Plains, this issue was not
considered due to economic and other constraints.
14 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
Figure 1. Prairie Pothole Region
III. Summary Waubay Complex
and Resource Descriptions
Geographic / Ecosystem Setting
Waubay WM D is situated in the northeastern corner of South Dakota, covering
Marshall, Roberts, Day, Grant, Clark, and Codington counties. It is comprised of 40,000
acres of Waterfowl Production Areas (WP As), 105,000 acres of wetland easements,
126,000 acres of grassland easements, and 5,260 acres of Farmer’s Home Administration
(FmHA) conservation easements. Waubay NWR is located in northeastern Day
County and is comprised of 4 ,650 ac res.
Northeastern South Dakota is within the Central Lowlands Province, a major
physiographic province (Westin and Malo 1978). Prairie potholes, the major land
feature, were formed between 12,000 and 40,000 years ago during Pleistocene
glaciations. The first ice sheet covering eastern South Dakota was the Nebraskan,
followed by the Kansan, Illinoisan, and Wisconsin ice sheets. The Wisconsin ice sheet
had four separate advances. Four distinct physiographic regions cover Waubay
Complex from east to west: Minnesota River-Red River Lowlands, Coteau Des
Prairies, Lake Da kota Plain, and the Jam es River Low land (Map 4).
The Minnesota River-Red River Lowland was
formed from sediment deposited on the bottom
of ancient Glacial Lake Agassiz. Drainage runs
north into the Red R iver of the N orth or sou th
into the Minnesota River along the Continental
Divide . This D ivide, unlik e the on e locate d in
the Rockies, separates the continent depending
on whether water flows north to Hudson Bay or
south to the Gulf of Mexico. The Coteau des
Prairies is a series of north-south parallel
mora ines w hich rise 8 00 feet or mo re in
elevation above adjacent lowlands. Numerous
wetlan d basins are a pr omine nt featu re of this
land form. About 80 percent of Waubay
Complex is situated within the Coteau des
Prairies. The Lake Dakota Plain was formed
from silt and sand deposits under old Lake
Dakota. Flowing water drains into the James
River. The James River Lowland is a large
glacially-eroded valley drained by the James
River.
Waubay Complex is located wholly within the
Prairie Pothole Region of the Upper Great
Plains (F igure 1) . It is also pa rt of the P rairie
Pothole Joint Venture area, a geographic region
of importance to the North American
Wate rfowl M anage ment P lan. The prairie
pothole wetland complexes and associated
grasslands are an integral component of the
prairie landscape, providing a wide array of
ecological, social, and economic benefits. A high
density of wetlands in this region helps produce
the majority of game ducks, yet contains only 10
percent of the breeding habitat in the continent
(Balda ssarre and B olen 19 94).
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 15
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 17
There are four flyways denoting major migration pathways that funnel waterfowl from
winter ing to bre eding h abitat an d back . Contin ental w aterfow l manageme nt today is
based on this flyway concept. Waubay Complex is on the eastern edge of the Central
Flyway.
Waubay Complex falls under the jurisdiction of Region 6 of the U .S. Fish & Wildlife
Service and is part of the Mainstem Missouri River ecosystem (Map 5). Goals and
objectives for this Ecosystem can be found in Appendix I.
Waubay Complex also falls within the bounds of numerous other ecosystems and other
planning efforts such as The Nature Conservancy’s Ecoregional Plan for the Tallgrass
Prairie, North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Prairie Pothole Joint
Venture, Partners in Flight, and the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. A brief
listing of the se and other p rogram s or plan ning effo rts that a ffect W aubay Com plex is
l isted in Appendix M.
The Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe owns thousands of acres w ithin Lake Traverse
Reservation. The Reservation, created by treaty in 1867, covers portions of five
northeastern counties in South Dakota and two southeastern counties in North Dakota.
Much of the lan d within the rese rvation was o pened up to E uro-A merica n settlem ent in
1892. Native American landownership within the reservation then took on two forms:
tribal land and heirship trust land, the latter owned by the descendants of male tribal
members who had received allotments of land in 1892. Heirship trust land is managed
for the owners by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Historically, the landscape of northeastern South Dakota consisted of a vast expanse of
tall and mixed grass prairie with numerous shallow and deep wetlands. Woodlands
would have d evelop ed and been p rotecte d from prairie fir es arou nd large r lakes a nd in
the cooler, moister coulees coming off of the Coteau. No nonnative plants would have
been present. A rich assortment of native plants and wildlife existed, evolved with, and
were maintained by fire, periodic defoliation by large herds of grazing animals, and
climate.
As European settlement of the Northern Great Plains progressed, many changes
occurred on the land. Two of the processes which shaped grassland communities were
suppressed or eliminated (fire and herds of bison and elk) and settlers began planting
shelterbelts and woodlands to control soil and wind erosion. Agriculture soon
dominated the landscape and lifestyles of the inhabitants in the early-to-mid-1900s.
Nonnative grasses were planted for pastures and hay, while large portions of native
prairie were plowed up for cropland. Wetlands were drained to provide more cropland
and make farming operations easier and more profitable. The vast prairie that once
existed was soon covered by roads, railroads, houses, towns, trees, noxious weeds, and
nonnative grasses.
18 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
Climate
The climate is typically continental, characterized by cold winters and hot summers.
Winter and summer temperatures can vary from extremes of -430F to 1040F. More
common temperatures range from -260F to 950F. Av erage annua l precipita tion is 20.9
inches and is norm ally heavie st in late sp ring and early summer. Intense thunderstorms
are norm al occurren ces in sum mer. Fre quent spe lls of dry years often alterna te with
years that are wetter than average. Wetland levels can fluctuate widely with these
precipitation changes. The average seasonal snowfall is 30 to 35 inches. Combined snow
and high winds often produce blizzard conditions in the area. Prevailing winds are from
the northwest. Wind speeds average 13 miles per hour, but can often be much higher,
especially in the spring. The growing season varies from 109 to 112 days.
Waubay NWR has been an official weather station since 1953. Climatological conditions
have generally been extremely wet since 1992 (Figure 2). Every year since then has
recorded higher than average precipitation. Low evaporation conditions also prevailed
throughout this period. This has led to water levels not seen in 200 to 500 years in many
closed b asins in the WM D. Fo r exam ple, W aubay Lake has rise n mor e then 2 0 feet in
12 years (Figure 3 ).
Figure 2. Annual and long-term average precipitation at Waubay NWR, 1953-2001.
Figu re 3. Waubay Lake H istoric W ater Lev els.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 19
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 21
Air Quality
Waubay Wetland Management District, encompassing the National Wildlife Refuge,
meets attainment status for pollutants as reported by South Dakota Department of
Environme nt and N atural R esourc es.
Soils
Soils have been inventoried and mapped, and county soil surveys have been published
for the Waubay Complex. The soil associations vary greatly according to the
physiographic regions. The soils are derived from parent materials which include
glaciolacustrine sediments, early W isconsin glacial drift, and late-Wisconsin glacial drift
(loess).
The C oteau d es Pra iries con sists of re lief that is un dulating to steep . The lan dscape is
characterized by many potholes or depressions. The drainage pattern is poorly defined,
except near the Big Sioux River where the level to moderately sloping loamy
Brookings-Kranzburg-Vienna soils predominate. Coteau soils consist primarily of the
Forman-Aastad-Buse association which are well drained, nearly level to steep loamy
soils formed in glacial till. Stones and boulders scattered on the surface in some areas
limit the u se of the se soils fo r cultivatio n.
The Lake Dako ta Plain extends into the western counties of Marshall and Day and is a
plain of lacustrine material. Lacustrine deposits are alternating levels of clay and sandy
sediments. The primary soil associations are the Great Bend-Beotia and Harmony-
Aberdeen-Nahon associations. Soils are generally silty and moderately well drained,
but ther e are a reas w ith poor drainag e.
The Ja mes R iver Lo wland consists o f level to r olling, loam y soils tha t are m odera tely
well drained. The principal associations within this region are the Niobell-Noonan-
William s, Barn es-Sve a, and B ryant. D rainag e system s of thes e assoc iations a re poo rly
defined , and m any ter minate to form small ba sins.
The Minnesota River-Red River Lowland extends into the eastern half of Roberts and
Grant countie s on a pla in of lacus trine silts. P rincipal a ssociatio ns includ e Heim dal-
Svea -Sisseto n, Poins ett-Eckman -Heim dal, and Form an-A astad. S oils are m odera tely
well dra ined, ne arly leve l to sloping , and silty o r loam y.
22 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
Waubay Complex Resources
The Service has management and administrative responsibility on essentially five
different types of land holdings. This does not include the Private Lands Program.
These land holdings are described as follows:
1. National Wildlife Refuge
Waubay is derived from a Lakota word meaning “a place where numbers of birds
make their nests.” Waubay National Wildlife Refuge was purchased to further the
purpo ses of th e Migr atory B ird Con servat ion Ac t. It is own ed by th e Serv ice in
fee-title a nd ma naged to prov ide high- quality w etlands and ne sting cov er prim arily
for wa terfow l and oth er mig ratory birds. M any oth er wildlife species also ben efit
from the management, including white-tailed deer and ring-necked pheasant. The
Refuge is open for deer hunting and ice fishing as well as wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation.
The Refuge consists of 4,650 acres. Habitat types are approximately 48 percent
grassland, 35 percent wetland, 14 percent woodland/brush, and 3 percent cropland
(Map 6). Woodlands are surrounded by large glacial lakes and are thought to have
develo ped be cause th ey we re prote cted fro m pra irie wildfir es that commonly
occurred on surrounding open prairie. Bur oak, basswood, green ash, American
elm, hackberry, and cottonwood are the major tree species.
The following types of land holdings are located within the boundaries of the Wetland
Managemen t District:
2. Waterfowl Production Areas
Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) are lands purchased by the Service under the
provisions of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, as
amended in 1958. Funding for these purchases comes from the sale of Migratory
Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps (Federal Duck S tamp). These lands are
owned by the Service in fee-title and managed to provide high quality wetlands and
nesting cover primarily for w aterfowl and other m igratory birds. Other wildlife
species also benefit from these areas. WPAs are open to the public for hunting,
fishing, and trapping. New WPA s are currently purchased only if they are round-outs
to e xisting W PAs o r have some special fe atures . On ave rage, a new W PA is
purchased every 5 years.
The Service owns and manages a total of 39,885 WPA acres within the WMD (Map
7). There are 199 WPA units which range from 3 acres to over 1,325 acres and may
consist o f more than on e acqu isition trac t. Habita t types a re app roxim ately
56 percent grassland, 40 percent wetland, 0.5 percent cropland, 1.8 percent
woodland, and 1.3 percent brush.
3. Wetlan d Ease ments
The wetland easement program was authorized by Congress on August 1, 1958,
and like WPAs, is financed by receipts from the sale of Federal Duck Stamps.
Under this program, willing landowners are paid one lump sum payment to not
drain, burn, level, or fill natural wetlands. Wetlands must be of value to waterfowl
before they are considered for easement purchase. These easements cover only the
wetland a cres on the land and ar e perpetu al, that is, they are p erman ent.
Ownership remains with the landowner and the Service acquires no other
management rights with the easement. Easements do not affect normal farming
practices such as cropping, haying, grazing, plowing, or cultivating wetlands when
they ar e dry du e to natu ral cond itions.
The W MD currently pro tects appro ximately 1 05,000 ac res of we tlands with
waterfowl management easements. Acres of easements change regularly as
acquisition is still active. All wetlands under easement are inspected annually by
Service pe rsonnel for p ossible violations of the ease ment con tract.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 23
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 25
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 27
4. Grasslan d Ease ments
In 1989, the Service began the grassland easement program to protect important
nesting cover and enhance water quality on privately owned lands. Like wetland
easem ents, gra ssland e asem ents are perpe tual, with the Ser vice pur chasing certain
rights to th e grass land acr es. Un der this p rogram , willing landown ers reta in
owne rship an d grazin g is unre stricted. H owev er, distur bance of the so il, such as in
the production of agricultural crops, is prohibited and haying is allowed only after
July 15 each year to reduce disturbance to ground-nesting birds. All grassland
easement tracts are also covered by wetland easements. Grassland easements are
inspected ye arly for poss ible violations of the easem ent contrac t.
Each potential easement is evaluated for its value to wildlife. Lands must rate 40
pairs/square mile or higher on the Waterfow l Breeding Pair Distributions (M ap 8).
Large native grass tracts with good wetland complexes that include brood water
are given the highest priority. Tracts must protect at least 160 acres and have
perpetually protected brood water within one mile of the tract to be considered for
an easement. Easements less than 160 acres must be adjacent to other grassland
easements, WPAs, or South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) lands, to make
up 160 acres of protected grasslands. Occasionally, a tract is purchased with a
portion of the land still in crop production. The landowner enters into an agreement
to seed the cropland back to a recommended grass mixture to qualify for the
easem ent.
Grassland easements within the WMD range in size from approximately 40 to over
2,720 contiguous acres. Currently, approximately 126,000 acres are protected
under the grassland easement program. This program is expanding with new
easement contracts written every month. The Service acquires no other
manag ement rig hts with the e aseme nt docum ent.
The Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area (DTP-WMA ) is a new
Refuge addition intended to eventually preserve 190,000 acres of remaining
northern tallgrass prairie in eastern South Dakota and southeastern North Dakota.
The DTP-WMA augments the decade old grassland easement program, funded by
Migratory Bird Stamps, by purchasing grassland easements in areas in which the
Service cannot use Migratory Bird Stamp funding. The DTP-W MA boundary
includes over 80 percent of the remaining northern tallgrass prairie. The DTP-WMA
includes parts of 4 cou nties in North Dakota and 28 co unties in Sou th
Dako ta, includin g all of the countie s in the W aubay WMD. La rge bloc ks of pra irie
of 10,000 - 20,000 acres are the primary targets for enrollment into the program.
Preservation of the prairie will mainly be in the form of grassland protection
easements. Stipulations and ground disturbing restrictions are the same as on the
above stated grassland easements purchased with Migratory Bird Stamp m onies.
Funding for th e DTP-WMA come s directly from C ongre ssional a pprop riations in
the form of Land and Water C onservation Funds (LWCF ). The northern tallgrass
prairie is the m ost altered a nd possibly the most end angered ecosystem in North
America. Tod ay, less th an 4 pe rcent of the origin al north ern tallgr ass pra irie
remains. This means that almost 45 million acres of northern tallgrass prairie have
disappeared, mostly due to continuous conversion of prairie to croplands since the
late 1800s. The rich diversity of the northern tallgrass prairie consists of at least
300 species of plants, 113 species of butterflies, 35 reptile and amphibian species, 60
mammal species, and 260 species of birds that are known to breed in or use the
area.
28 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
5. Farm ers Hom e Adm inistration Con servation E aseme nts
The Federal agency previously called the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is required by Executive Order
11990 to preserve and protect all wetlands that were in FmHA ownership. The
1985 and 1990 Food Security Acts (Farm Bill) gave direction as to how and by
whom this shou ld be acc omplish ed. Co opera ting with FmH A, the S ervice w ould
recommend “conservation easem ents” on FmHA inventory properties. When these
properties sold to private ownership, the Service accepted the responsibility of
enforcing the terms of the conservation easements. Presently, 5,263 acres of former
FmHA inventory properties are under some type of conservation easement. These
easements, at a minimum, protect the wetlands from burning, draining, or filling.
There are 1,242 acres of wetlands protected. In some cases, the easements protect
adjacent upland habitat as well. Some upland easements protect the land from ever
being fa rmed, while o thers re strict nea rly all use s of the la nd. Du e to a ch ange in
the way USDA defines wetlands, it is expected that there will be no additional
conservation easements.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 29
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 31
“Greater familiarity with
marshes on the part of
more people could give
man a truer and more
wholesome view of
himself in relation to
Nature . . . . Marshes
comprise their own form
of wilderness. They have
their own life-rich
genuineness and reflect
forces that are much
older, much more
permanent and much
mightier than man.”
Paul Errington
Water Resources and Associated Wetlands
Wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining
the natu re of so il develop ment a nd the ty pes of p lant and anima l comm unities livin g in
the soil and on its surface (Cowardin et al. 1979). It is estimated that the contiguous
United States containe d 221 million acres of we tlands just 200 years ago (Dahl 1990).
By the mid-197 0s, only 46 percent of the original acre age remained (Tiner 1984).
Wetlands now cover about 5 percent of the landscape of the lower 48 states. Wetlands
are extremely productive and important to both migratory and resident wildlife. They
serve as breeding and nesting areas for many migratory birds and as wintering
habitat for many species of resident wildlife. Humans also benefit from wetlands,
which can improve water quality and quantity, reduce flooding effects, and provide
sites for recreation. Economically, wetlands provide places to hunt, fish, trap, or bird-watch
for millions of Am ericans. In the 1996 Su rvey of Fishing, Hunting a nd Wildlife
Associated Recreation, about 40 percent of U.S. residents 16 years or older
participa ted in w ildlife relate d activities . More than $1 00 billion w as spen t in pursu it
of these activities, m ost of w hich dep end on produ ctive w etlands (USF WS 1 996).
Wetlands can be classified by vegetation, water regimes (the length of time water
occupies a specific area), and water chemistry. More specifically, prairie potholes are
describ ed using the follow ing non tidal wa ter regim e mod ifiers from Cow ardin et al.
(1979).
■ Temporarily flooded - surface water is present for brief periods during the
growing season. The water table usually lies below the soil surface most of the
seaso n, so plan ts that gr ow in b oth upla nds an d wetla nds are charac teristic.
■ Seaso nally floo ded - su rface w ater is pr esent fo r exten ded pe riods es pecially
early in the growing season, but is absent by the end of the season in most
years. When surface water is absent, the water table is often near the surface.
■ Semipermanently flooded - surface water persists throughout the growing
seaso n in mo st years . Whe n surfac e wate r is abse nt, the w ater tab le is usua lly
at or very near the land surface.
■ Permanently flooded - water covers the land throughout the year in all years.
Vegetation is composed of obligate hydrophytes, such as cattails.
Even though drainag e and o ther w etland d ecima ting facto rs have taken th eir toll,
wetlands are still a prominent feature of the Complex’s landscape (Map 9). The
National Wetland Inventory has identified 348,482 wetland acres in the WMD. These
include ponds ranging from 0.1 acre with temporary water regimes to large glacial
lakes to major rivers and smaller tributaries.
In the James and Minnesota-Red River lowlands, temporarily and seasonally flooded
basins are more predominant while semipermanently and permanently flooded
wetlan ds are m ost abu ndant o n the Pr airie Co teau. Th e aver age size of wet lands in
eastern South Dakota is only .4 acre; 72.9 percent of wetlands are  1 acre a nd 92.1
percent are  5 (Johnson and H iggins 1997).
The eastern edge of the WMD is bordered by Big Stone Lake, an impoundment of the
Minnesota River, and Lake Traverse, an impoundment of the Red River of the North.
The Big Sioux River drains the south-central portion of the WMD and empties into the
Missouri River in southeastern South Dakota. The Big Sioux is a typical prairie river,
often flooding in spring and drying up in summer. When wet, however, the Big Sioux
offers tremendous benefits to many species of wetland-dependent plants and animals.
32 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
Vegetation
Upland Vegetation
The following native plant communities as developed by The Nature Conservancy
(Ande rson et a l. 1998) a nd use d by Sta te Nat ural H eritage Progr ams ca n be fou nd in
the WMD.
Native Prairie
Little B luestem -Porcu pine G rass D ry-Mesic Hill P rairie
Hill prair ie is found on mo derate to steep slopes w ith soils tha t are dry . This
community is dominated by grasses such as little bluestem, porcupine grass,
sideoa ts gram a, and w estern whea tgrass. Common forb s include leadpla nt, rigid
goldenrod, purple and prairie coneflowers.
Northern Mesic Tallgrass Prairie
Some of the largest remaining tracts of tallgrass prairie occur in the Prairie Coteau
where rolling, rocky topography prevented conversion to cropland. It is found on
level to gentle slopes with mesic soils. The prairie is dominated by tall grasses such
as big bluestem, along with shorter grasses like northern dropseed and porcupine
grass. Common forb s include leadpla nt, prairie lousew ort, and golden alexan der.
North ern W et-Me sic Tallgr ass Pra irie
This is found in low lying areas and drainage ways, but rarely occupies more than a
few a cres in siz e. The w ater tab le is often near th e surfa ce. It is do minate d by big
bluestem and C anada bluejoin t. Com mon fo rbs includ e Roc ky Mo untain b lazing sta r.
Forests, Woodlands and Savanna
Northern Bur Oak M esic Forest
This plan t comm unity is fou nd prim arily in co ulees a nd adja cent up lands an d is
more common on the eastern edge of the Coteau. It is mostly found on south or
west-facin g slopes an d with mo ist soils. The cano py is domin ated by bu r oak, with
smalle r amo unts of b assw ood an d gree n ash. Ironwo od is a common sma ll
tree/subcanopy species. The shrub layer may have American hazelnut, dogwood,
gooseberry, prickly ash, rose, and serviceberry. The herb layer has a diversity of
species including hog peanut, Pennsylvania sedge, columbine and sweet cicely.
Plains Basswood Forest
This for est type is found p rimarily on the n orth or e ast-facin g slopes on mo ist soils
in coulees and adjacent uplands. It is found only on the eastern edge of the Coteau
because the coulees on the eastern side are deeper and wider than those on the
weste rn side, a s well as east or n orthea st- facing , providin g a mo re suitab le
microclimate for this forest type. The canopy is dominated by American basswood,
with smaller amounts of green ash, bur oak, hackberry, and quaking aspen. Sugar
maple can be locally dominant on the northeast portion of the Prairie Coteau, the
only place on this land form where it occurs. Ironwood is a common small tree /
subcanopy species. The shrub layer may include gooseberry and serviceberry. The
herb layer may include Virginia waterleaf, sweet cicely, blue cohosh, bloodroot, and
red baneberry. Some of the herbs found here, as well as in the Northern Bur Oak
Mesic Forest, are typical eastern deciduous forest species and are on the western
edge of their range.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 33
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 35
Bur Oak Woodland
This com munity occurs on dry to mesic s ites and is floristically and stru cturally
intermediate between Northern Bur Oak M esic Forest and Bur Oak Savanna. It
has a patchy canopy and an understory dominated by shrubs and tree saplings. The
primary species in the canopy is bur oak. The shrub layer can range from scattered
to a dense thicket. It may include raspberries, gooseberries, dogwoods, American
hazeln ut, and p rickly ash . Prairie v egetat ion, if pres ent, only occurs in small
openings in the tree or shrub layer. The herbacious layer is generally sparse and
floristically poor.
Bur Oak Savanna
This dry to dry-mesic community is dominated by bur oak. The stature and spacing
of trees is somewhat variable, reflecting differences in soils, topography, and
climate, factors that strongly affect local droughtiness and fire frequency. Shrub
cover is variable and consists of oak grubs, American hazelnut, serviceberry, and
buckb rush. Th e herb aceou s layer is d omina ted by s pecies ty pically fou nd in Little
Bluestem-Porcupine Grass Dry-Mesic Hill Prairie. This is a fire maintained
community and, due to fire suppression, much of it has probably converted to bur
oak wo odland or fo rest.
The 75-a cre woo dland area north of H illebrand’s La ke is designa ted by the S ociety
of American Foresters as a Research Natural Area because of its unique bur
oak/little b luestem cover ty pe. No special m anage ment o ccurs fro m this
designa tion.
The six counties of northeastern South Dakota encompass 3.4 million acres, half of
which has been converted to cropland (Map 10). Of the 1.3 million acres of remaining
grasslands, approximately 1.0 million acres is considered native prairie. This “native”
prairie is defined as grassland that has never been plowed, but in reality all plant
communities have been altered somewhat from pristine conditions due to exotic plant
introductions, livestock grazing impacts, lack of fire, and other factors since European
settlemen t.
Grassland vegetation makes up approximately 54 percent of Service lands within the
Complex. On WPAs, approximately 95 percent of uplands consist of grasslands. On the
Refuge, 71 percent of uplands are grasslands, with the remainder in trees, brush or
developments. Of these grassland acres, approximately 65 percent is native grassland
and 35 percent is seeded exotic grass/forb mixes or restored native grasses.
As part of the Northern Great Plains, two major vegetation types are represented
within the Complex - tallgrass prairie and northern mixed-grass prairie (Johnson and
Larson 1999). The tallgrass, or true prairie, extends along the eastern Dakotas and
Nebraska int o Minn esota a nd Iow a. Less than 4 p ercent of the or iginal tallgr ass pra irie
ecosystem is left and more is lost each year (Steinauer and Collins 1996). All of the
Minne sota R iver-R ed Riv er Low land an d muc h of the C oteau d es Pra iries lie w ithin
this vegetation type. Tallgrass prairie gradually gives way to northern mixed-grass
prairie to the west, generally covering the Lake Dakota Plain and James River basin.
Remnant stands of eastern deciduous forest grow in ravines and north-facing slopes
along th e Cote au des Prairies and ad jacent to bigger la kes on the Co teau.
In addition to these natural vegetation types, approximately 35 percent of Service
lands are covered by planted tame (or exotic) grasses or restored natives. Tame
grasslands generally consist of smooth brome or Kentucky bluegrass, and few forbs.
Both of these exotic grasses can be found on native prairie tracts, often compromising
the health, vigor, and diversity of native sites. Restored native sites generally consist
of a mix of four or five grass species such as big and little bluestem, sideoats grama,
switchgrass, green needle grass, and a legume such as alfalfa or Canada milkvetch.
Currently, no other forbs are used in restoration efforts, mostly due to high costs and
difficulty in a cquiring seeds s uited to th is location .
36 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
There are two primary ways to evaluate grassland condition. One is range condition,
which is based on percentages of selected native plant species present at a given time
as com pared to perce ntages presen t under a climax range condition . The se cond is
forage or vegetative condition, which is more commonly referred to as grassland vigor.
This method does not evaluate grasslands based on species composition, but rather
health of the plants. In general, both range condition and vegetative condition of WPAs
are in fa ir-to-poo r conditio n.
Wetland Vegetation
Wetland vegetation refers to those plants which grow in water or in soils which are
saturated for most of the growing season. Wetland vegetation is broken down into four
major categories of plants, based on their growth form and the wetland zone they
inhabit. These categories are free-floating, submergent, emergent, and amphibious.
Free-floating are those wetland plants which float at or beneath the surface of the
water without attached roots. Common examples are duckweed, bladderwort, and
coontail. Submergent plants are those which have roots in the substrate, and do not
emerge above the surface of the water, except some may have floating leaves. Examples
are pond weed, w ater milfoil, wa terwee d, and widg eongras s. Eme rgent we tland plants
are rooted in the substrate and the foliage grows partially or entirely above the water
surface. Arrowhead, cattail, common reed, and bulrush are common exam ples.
Amphibious refers to wetland plants that can grow as either a submergent or an
emer gent. Commonly, w ater lev els drop , leaving th ese pla nts grow ing in a tem porarily
dry site. Some common plants are yellow water-crowfoot, pepperwort, and water
smartweed.
Wetlands cover approximately 40 percent of WPA s and 35 percent of the Refuge. Most
of these acres h ave on e or m ore typ es of w etland p lants. It is no t uncom mon fo r a single
wetland to have all four categories of aquatic vegetation.
Endangered Plants
The Western prairie fringed orchid is the only known federally threatened plant species
that ma y be pre sent on the Co mplex . Historic al location s have included sites in the Big
Sioux River valley in the southeastern part of South Dakota. It occurs in moist, tallgrass
prairies and sedge meadows, both of which can be found in the WMD. It appears to have
been extirpated from South Dakota, but remote populations may have been overlooked
as it does occur in adjacent counties of Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska.
The major reason for its decline is the conversion of native prairie habitat into cropland
and tame pasture. Heavy grazing, early haying, lack of fire, and noxious weed
infestations can all have detrimental effects on this orchid. Widespread use of
herbicides can also be a problem. Conversely, using herbicides in localized areas only,
can be beneficial by removing competing, nonnative species. Preserves where the
Western prairie fringed orchid is currently located are often managed by prescribed
burning. Burning is used to reduce mulch buildup and control the increase of nonnative
and woody plant species. This species of orchid is well adapted to survive periodic fires.
It is not known whether carefully timed short-duration grazing or haying will have
similar beneficial effects. Research is continuing in these areas. Moderate uses of these
tools may have no effect as orchids have been known to persist on private lands in some
grazed prairies and hayland (USFWS 1993; MN Department of Natural Resources
1991).
Noxious Plants
Many noxious plant species exist within the WMD. Most are introduced species with no
natural controls. The primary ones on WPAs are Canada thistle, leafy spurge, and
wormwood sage. These species often compete with and have a very negative effect on
native plant species. The control of noxious plants is important to benefit native plant
communities and is required by State law.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 37
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 39
Wildlife
Wildlife communities have changed significantly since settlement. Knickerbocker
(1869) listed elk, buffalo, antelope, grey wolf, black bear, otter, and marten as occurring
in the vicinity of Fort Sisseton, in Marshall County. All have been extirpated from the
region . Small h erds of antelop e have been re introdu ced an d som e buffa lo are ra ised in
domestic herds on ranches. The Fort commander issued an order in 1876 prohibiting
killing prairie chickens on the military reservation, due to serious reductions in the
popula tion. Pra irie chicke n num bers ha ve bee n low sin ce the 1 940s a lthough a sma ll
breeding population has recently been observ ed in Clark Coun ty. A list of wildlife
species present in the Complex can be found in Appendix A.
The following synopsis describes various species potentially occurring on Service lands.
This information is not intended to represent or describe all species.
Invertebrate Populations
Wetlands associated with Service lands normally carry high invertebrate populations.
Nesting waterfowl, waterfowl broods, marsh and water birds, and shorebirds are
highly dependent on these protein food sources for healthy, vigorous growth.
Invertebrates associated with Complex wetlands include worms, crustaceans, snails,
and insects.
Fish Populations
Over 100 species of freshwater fish inhabit South Dakota waters and waterways.
Thirty-nine are known, and 68 of these species have the potential, to occur in lakes and
wetlands on WMD lands. The fishery associated with Service lands is classified as
warm-water with low numbers of game fish and high numbers of minnows, carp, and
suckers. Due to the shallow nature of lakes and wetlands, there is a high probability of
fish winterkill. The exception are the Refuge lakes which are now part of Waubay Lake
due to rising water levels. This lake is currently providing excellent northern pike,
walleye, and yellow perch fishing.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Thirty-three species of reptiles occur in South Dakota. Ten are known, and 20 of these
species potentially, occur within the Complex. Broad reptile groups include turtles,
skinks, and snakes. There are 16 species of amphibians that occur in South Dakota.
Eleven could potentially occur on Service lands (Fischer et al. 1999). These species
consist of salamanders, toads, and frogs.
Birds
Two-hundred forty-seven bird species are recorded as regularly occurring within the
Complex (USFWS 1988). About 109 of these species nest within the Complex. Another
12 species are accidentals or extirpated. A complete listing can be found in Appendix A.
Species in the Complex listed in the Office of Migratory Bird Managem ent’s “Migratory
Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the United States: The 2000 List” (USFWS
2000) are shown with an asterisk in the Appendix.
40 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
Waterfowl and Other Water Birds
Waubay C omple x lies with in the Pr airie Po thole R egion o f North Ame rica. This area is
of prime importance for producing many of the nation’s ducks. In addition, as part of
the Central Flyway, other waterfowl species use the area as important stopover sites
on migrational routes. The tundra swan is the only species of swan to occur within the
Complex. Th ey are most o ften see n during fall migra tion. Thr ee spe cies of ge ese visit
the Complex during migration. Canada geese, white-fronted geese, and snow geese
pass through in the spring and fall. Canada geese and snow geese are the most
abundant species. Canada geese are also common nesters in the area. Duck species that
nest in the Complex are: mallard, gadwall, northern pintail, green-winged teal, blue-winged
teal, American wigeon, northern shoveler, wood duck, redhead, canvasback,
lesser scaup, ring-necked duck, and ruddy duck. Common goldeneye, bufflehead,
hooded merganser, common merganser, and red-breasted mergansers migrate through
the region.
The diver sity of wetland s associated with upland s on Serv ice lands attrac ts a great va riety
of shorebirds, wading birds, and passerines. Many shorebirds use the mudflats and
shallows along wetland edges or as water levels recede during their migrations in the
spring and fall. Wetlands provide breeding habitat for a number of species of marsh
and water birds including:eared, horned, red-necked, western, and pied-billed grebes;
great blue herons; black-crowned night herons; American bitterns; Virginia rails; soras;
America n coo ts; killde er; up land s andp ipers ; willet s; Am erican avo cets; W ilson’s
phalarope; Franklin’s gulls; and Forster’s, common, and black terns. Red-winged and
yellow-headed blackbirds are quite common in and around wetlands as are marsh and
sedge wren s.
Grassland Birds
Since South Dakota is in the Northern Great Plains, grassland birds are the
predominant bird life. Grassland bird species are of particular concern since they have
shown consistent population declines over the past 30 years (Sauer et al. 1997). Some
passerines that depend on grasslands include bobolink; dickcissel; savannah,
grasshopper, vesper, and clay-colored sparrows; and western meadowlark. Other
species that use grassla nds for n esting, fe eding, o r resting areas in clude w aterfow l,
some shorebirds and wading birds, as well as short-eared owl, northern harrier, and
Swainson’s hawk. Sharp-tailed grouse are common upland species that nest within the
Complex. Th e grea ter prair ie chicke n historic ally neste d in the re gion, an d a sm all
breeding population was recently found in Clark County.
The brown-headed cow bird is a grassland species whose range has exploded across
most of North America in response to the conversion of forests to farms and pastures.
Once associated with the moving herds of bison, it is now less migratory and has
successfully parasitized 144 of 220 species in whose nests its eggs have been found
(Ehrlich et al. 1988). Cowbirds can be particularly destructive to the reproductive
success of species that have not evolved or learned to recognize the foreign eggs.
Cowbird eggs generally hatch one day earlier than host eggs and the larger, more
aggressive cowbird young will out compete the host species hatchlings for food. Species
that may be susceptible to cowbird parasitism include yellow warblers, red-eyed and
warbling vireos, and song sparrows.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 41
Other Migratory Birds
Raptors including eagles, hawks, falcons, and owls are found on the Complex. The most
common are the red-tailed hawk, northern harrier, and Swainson’s hawk. Smaller
hawks, such as Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks, and American kestrels have been
docum ented a s nesting in the Co mplex . The m ost com mon o wl is the g reat ho rned o wl.
Other species that might be seen during migrations include osprey, northern goshawk,
broad-winged hawk, and prairie falcon.
Refuge woodlands and area coulees provide habitat for many migrating warblers
including palm, Tennessee, orange-crowned, yellow-rumped, mourning, blackpoll, and
black-and-white warblers. They also provide habitat for yellow warblers, red-eyed and
warbling vireos, rose-breasted grosbeaks, hairy and downy woodpeckers, black-capped
chickad ees, an d num erous o ther w oodlan d specie s.
No long-term studies of avian communities have been conducted in wooded draws.
Casual observations have found five species of warblers during spring migration as
well as reports of turke y vulture s and pile ated w oodpe ckers in wood ed cou lees in
Roberts County. One study of woodland types in the Little Missouri National
Grasslan ds found tha t certain neotr opical migra nts (red-eye d vireo, black-a nd-white
warbler, yellow-breasted chat, American redstart, lazuli bunting, rufous-sided towhee,
lark sparrow, and American goldfinch) were significantly more abundant in ash
woodlands than in juniper, pine or even cottonw ood habitats (Hopk ins et al. 1986).
Mammals
An estimated 43 mammal species are found within the six county Waubay Complex.
They range in size from tiny shrews weighing an ounce or less to large ungulates, such
as the common white-tailed deer or the rarely seen wandering moose, weighing
hundreds of pounds. Abundance varies with species. Prairie insectivores and native
mice common to prairie ecosystems are very abundant, and species like the opossum
and some species of bats are very uncommon on Service lands. No State or Federal
endangered or threatened mammals are known to occur in Waubay Complex.
State and Federal Endangered and Threatened Species
Bald eagles, a federally listed threatened species, are an uncommon migrant
througho ut the State, b ut can winte r in large num bers along the Misso uri River (S outh
Dakota Ornithologists’ Union 1991). They were historically a rare breeder in the
extreme southeast part of the State. Bald eagles were previously only seen during
migration in Waubay WM D, but within the last 3 years, pairs have been found nesting
in Roberts and Marshall Counties.
Piping plovers, a federally threatened species in South Dakota, are a locally common
resident albeit primarily in the Missouri River valley. They are generally an uncommon
migra nt elsew here in th e State and ha ve nes ted in D ay and Codin gton co unties o nly
rarely (S outh D akota O rnitholo gists’ Un ion 199 1). The la st know n nesting attem pt in
Day Cou nty occurred in 1985 b etween N orth and South W aubay lakes (SD GFP 199 4).
Loss of breeding and wintering habitat are its biggest threats. It needs open sand and
gravel bea ches with sp arse vege tation for nestin g and is a com mon bre eding asso ciate
with the interior least tern.
42 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
The whooping crane, a federally listed endangered species, only rarely passes through
the Complex during its migration. Most sightings occur farther west in the State. The
most rece nt sighting in the W MD w as in Clark C ounty in fall of 20 00. Befor e that,
whooping cranes hadn’t been seen in the District since 1985. The Eskimo curlew,
endangered, is nearly extinct. They pass through the Great Plains on their migrations
and can potentially occur in wet meadows within the Complex. The interior least tern,
endangered, nests along the Missouri River in central South Dakota. It is an uncommon
migrant in this area.
The osprey is a state threatened species whose numbers were drastically reduced as a
result of DDT use in the country. It is an uncommon migrant throughout the state and
previously nested in the southeastern part of the state (South Dakota Ornithologists’
Union 1991), w ith a confirmed nest record in the Black Hills in 1991 (Peterson 1995).
More recently in Waubay W MD, it has been reported during the spring, late summer,
and fall in scattere d locatio ns, mo stly in Da y Cou nty.
The American burying beetle, an endangered species, was once common over most of
easter n Nor th Am erica. It h as since disappe ared fr om ov er 90 p ercent of its histor ic
range (Lomolino and Creighton 1996). Hypotheses explaining its widespread decline
range from deforestation (Anderson 1982) to loss of available carrion in the required
size (especially with the extirpation of passenger pigeons and greater prairie chicken)
and increased competition for these resources from other scavengers such as raccoons,
fox, and skunks (Amaral et al. 1997). Recent trapping efforts have found American
burying beetles in extreme south central South Dakota, primarily in Tripp and Gregory
counties (Backlund and Marrone 1995). A trapline set up on the Refuge in 1996 produced
no American Burying beetles. Additional surveys should be done to completely rule out
the pre sence o f this end anger ed spe cies. Cu rrent m anage ment to ols used , especia lly
prescribed burns and pesticides, could negatively affect invertebrate populations. Not
knowing for sure if American burying beetles are present or how they may be affected
by curr ent pra ctices lea ves this s pecies a t risk.
The Topeka shiner is the only federally listed endangered fish species that may occur
on the C omple x. Altho ugh it w as believ ed to be missing from m uch of its h istoric
locations in South Dakota, recent surveys found healthy populations in many of the
tributaries of the James, Vermillion and Big Sioux Rivers. As an indicator of stream
health, finding the Topeka shiner sugg ests these sy stems are still relatively intact.
Locating the Topeka shiner is the first step to protecting vital waterways and
watersheds which sustain native fisheries as well as the human populations which also
depend on clean water.
No fede rally listed reptiles or amphibia ns have b een obse rved. The only State
threatened species in this region is the northern redbelly snake. The usual habitat for
this snak e is mo ist woo dlands. W aubay NWR is kno wn to h ost this sn ake.
The Da kota skippe r butterfly is listed as im periled in Sou th Dako ta because of its
rarity and vulnerability to extinction. It was also considered for Federal listing under
the En dange red Sp ecies A ct. Othe r rare p rairie-de pende nt butter fly specie s found in
the Complex include the powesheik skipper and the regal fritillary. Generally, large,
undisturbed native prairie tracts are required habitat for these species. Management of
sites where these butterflies are found will need to be adjusted to protect these
species. Primarily, sites should be divided into smaller management units, to prevent
management activities, such as burning or haying, from affecting the whole unit at
once.
State threatened fish species that may occur on Service lands include the northern
redbelly dace and trout-perch. State endangered species include the central
mudminnow and the banded killifish.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 43
Cultural Resources
A 1981 archaeological survey by Keller and Zimmerman found 27 archaeological
resource sites on the Refuge. Their cultural inventory report concluded that four sites
were significant resources. Artifacts found included lithics, ceramics, animal remains,
and stone tools.
Additio nal sites e xist in Da y and M arshall C ounties . The W aubay Complex lies w ithin
the Upper James, Prairie Coteau, Upper Big Sioux, and Northeast Lowland
Archaeological Regions of the State. Documented occupation of the area spans a
10,000-year period. Significant cultural resources are probably present on some of the
thousands of acres of native prairie. The Regional Archaeologist is consulted during the
plannin g phas e of any propo sed pro ject. The need fo r a cultur al resou rce inve ntory is
determined in consultation with the South Dakota Historic Preservation Office.
Public Use
The majority of outdoor recreational uses in northeast South Dakota are centered
around fishing and hunting. Numerous glacial lakes provide many opportunities for
fishing in the area. Due to the increase in water levels, Waubay Lake has become a
premier fishery, featured in several sportsmen’s magazines. In the past, the Complex
was also well-known for its ring-necked pheasant and white-tailed deer hunting.
Pheasa nt population s are recov ering slow ly from a low in 1997. D eer are still abu ndant,
but many of the trophy bucks have been harvested due to a lack of emergent
vegetation , which w as used as escape co ver. The a rea also offe rs some of South
Dakota ’s finest water fowl hunting and other small gam e hunting w hich attracts
hunters from all parts of the United States. Many public lands provide the quality and
quantity of hunting sites needed for residents and visitors to use.
Other outdoor activities such as photography, camping, hiking, and bird-watching are
also popular in this region. The South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department has
many State Parks and Recreation Areas that are used primarily in spring, summer, and
fall seasons for these activities.
Facilities for visitors to Service lan ds are som ewhat lim ited. Inform ation kiosks w ith
leaflet dispensers are located at the Headquarters building and tower. Refuge
entrances and boundaries are marked with signs; limited directional and regulation
signs are on the Refuge. A Visitor Center is located in the Headquarters building
which provide s inform ation an d exhib its for R efuge v isitors. Howev er, the b uilding is
currently only open during re gular office hours (Mon day-Friday 8:00 am to 4:30 pm),
with no week end ho urs. Tw o walk ing trails a re ava ilable dur ing day light hou rs. One is
½ mile lo ng and is located near th e Hea dquar ters build ing. A p ortion o f this trail is
accessible to persons with disabilities. The other trail travels ¼ mile up a small hill for a
view of Spring Lake and native prairie. Both trails include interpretive signs. A 110-
foot observation tower is also open for public use providing panoramic views of the
Refuge and surrounding area.
All WPAs have boundary signs. No kiosks or designated hiking trails are located on
WPAs. There are eight redwood recognition signs in the WMD that acknowledge from
whom the Ser vice pur chased the pro perty. T hese a re usua lly located along w ell-traveled
high ways. G rassed pa rking lots are lo cated at m any of the lar ger WP As to
provide off-roa d park ing.
44 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
Without a person on staff dedicated to public use, environmental education
opportunities on the Complex are limited. Currently, these duties tend to fall on the
wildlife biologist or any of the managers on staff. Talks and tours are offered at the
Refuge when re quested, if no c onflicts occur w ith other duties . Program s offered to
area schools or communities are also offered on an availability basis. Oftentimes, only a
few p rogra ms a re pre sente d eac h yea r. Thr ough an agreem ent w ith Ne -So-D ak’s
Glacial Lakes Outdoor School, educators from Ne-So-Dak use the Refuge as a base for
their environmental education efforts. Approximately 250 to 350 school-age children
visit the R efuge e ach ye ar than ks to this p artner ship.
Economic Environment
The Refuge is in Day County, approximately 25 miles northeast of the city of Webster,
the county seat and biggest town in the county, with a population of 2,200. The rural
population is very sparse due to its agricultural nature. Recent low farm prices,
coupled with water inundating many acres of cropland, have put a strain on the local
economy.
Approximately 2.6 percent of the land in the six county WMD is owned by State or
Fede ral age ncies. To help ach ieve go als and o bjective s, upland habitat m anage ment is
often accomplished by authorizing local farmers to hay or graze on Service lands. Weed
control also helps economically by protecting neighboring land from infestation by
noxious weeds. Surrounding landowners and economies may also be assisted through
development of new weed control methods such as using flea beetles or other
management tools and techniques.
The economy of the area is based primarily on ranching and tourism. Waubay Complex
contributes to the local economy primarily by attracting tourists, bird-watchers, and
hunters. The State collects hunting license fees for deer hunting on the Refuge. In 1999
the receipts for Refuge deer licenses totaled $4,270. Many out-of-state and resident
hunters are drawn to the WMD for public waterfowl hunting. Most of them will spend
money in this area for licenses, motels, food, fuel, and other hunting necessities. The
permitting of some grazing and haying on Service lands benefits the local economy. In
1999 nearly 4,000 acres in the WMD were grazed, 67 were hayed, and 18 were farmed.
Paym ents m ade to c ounties in-lieu of ta xes for Service lands als o prov ide eco nomic
benefit. I n 1998 these payme nts totale d $50,5 13.
Interstate 29 cuts through the center of the WMD, north and south. U.S. Highways 12
and 212 go through east to west. The nearest airport with scheduled passenger service
is in Watertown, the Codington County seat. Codington is the fifth most populated
county in the State.
Most of the land adjacent to the Refuge is in private ownership. The Sisseton-
Wahpeton Triba l boundary borders the Refuge to the east.
Special Designations
The woodland north of Hillebrand’s Lake is designated by the Society of American
Foresters as a Research Natural Area because of its unique bur oak/little bluestem
cover type. No special management occurs due to the designation.
To be considered for Wilderness designation a site must be greater than 5,000 acres.
No lands in the Complex qualify for this designation. No rivers qualify for Wild and
Scenic River status.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 45
“Those who dwell, as
scientists or laymen,
among the beauties and
mysteries of the earth
are never alone or weary
of life. Those who
contemplate the beauty
of the earth find
reserves of strength that
will endure as long as
life lasts.”
Rachel Carson
IV. Management Direction
The Complex planning team defined goals for four main categories: habitat, wildlife,
cultural resources, and wildlife-dependent recreation. Objectives and strategies are
further refinements of each goal. The most extensive section concerns habitat, with the
assumption that good habitat management should bring a corresponding response from
wildlife populations. Managing h abitat is often more controllable than w ildlife
population management, which may be subject to regional or continental influences
beyon d the co ntrol of lo calized m anage ment e fforts. F or exa mple, m anage ment f or tall,
dense, diverse grasslands may not bring a corresponding increase in waterfowl during
a drought cycle, when these birds also are dependent on abundant wetland resources.
Goals and objectives are presented separately for Waubay National Wildlife Refuge
and Waubay Wetland Management District for ease of understanding and reference.
(NWR go als are designated with an “R” while WMD goals are designated with a “D.”)
However, the NWR and W MD are interrelated in many ways. Waubay NWR is located
nearly in the center of Waubay WMD, and its habitats and wildlife are similar. The
major building facilities (headquarters, shop, storage buildings) are physically located
on Waubay NWR , but most staff activities, equipment, and facilities are associated
with WMD programs. At present, all staff work on both NWR and W MD activities.
The biggest concerns for the Complex include protecting remaining native prairie,
increasing biodiversity by restoring tame grasslands to native species, protecting and
providing habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds, protecting and restoring
wetlands, and providing increased opportunities for public use, environmental
education, and interpretation. There is also a concern for native woodlands in the
Complex - a little studied or understood resource in this area.
46 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge
Habitat
# R1 - Habitat G oal: To preserve, restore and enhance the ecological diversity of
grasslands, wetlands, and native woodlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of the
Great P lains on Waubay N ationa l Wildl ife Refu ge.
Grasslands
According to a 1948 Refuge land use plan, much of the Refuge had been farmed or
heavily grazed prior to acquisition. The dominant Refuge upland cover types are native
prairie (1,109 acres) and native trees (494 acres). However, the high water period of the
late 1990s inundated 941 acres of native prairie (Thanapura 1998), much of it diverse
tallgrass communities adjacent to Refuge lakes. Currently, there are 1,371 acres of
grassland on the Refuge, including 262 acres of tame grasses, dense nesting cover, or
old alfalfa fields. Old alfalfa fields (69 acres), heavily invaded by brome and quack grass,
are included in the grassland totals.
Objectives
R1.1 A nnually conve rt up to 5 0 acres of tam e grass es, dens e nestin g cove r, or old
alfalfa fields to native plant communities, including forbs, until reaching a total of 262
acres.
Ration ale for O bjective : The m ost abu ndant in troduce d grass es, espe cially
Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome, tend to be more uniform in height and
density than native species (Wilson and Belcher 1989). This uniformity may
produce change s in nongame bird sp ecies composition (W ilson and Belcher 198 9).
Conservation of grassland-dependent bird species and other wildlife depend on a
variety of successional and diverse habitat conditions within a large block of grass
(Skinner et al. 1984, Volkert 1992, Madden 1996). Several bird species, such as
dickcissel and savannah sparrow, are most abundant in fields with a strong forb
component (Sample and Mossman 1997). Forbs are also needed to provide nectar
and larv al host pla nts for b utterflies . Three Refug e specie s consid ered a t risk in
the Dakotas (Moffat and McPhillips 1993) include the regal fritillary, Dakota and
powesheik skippers. Resto red na tive pra irie tracts can pro vide m ore va riety in
structure, height, and species than is found in most monotypic tame stands, better
emulating native prairie.
Strategies:
# Research appropriate native seed mixes and their availability, within one year.
# Prioritize areas of tame grasses, dense nesting cover, and old alfalfa fields for
conversion.
# Develop managem ent plans to monitor restored native grasslands for weeds,
grassland condition, and wildlife response.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 47
R1.2 Eliminate 95 percent of Russian olive and juniper stands and reduce by 50 percent
other n onnativ e plants , such as leafy sp urge a nd Ca nada th istle, over the nex t 15 yea rs.
Rationale for Objective: For grassland obligate wildlife species, woody vegetation
should cover less than 5 percent of available ha bitat (Sample and M ossman 199 7).
Nonnative junipers, Russian olives, and other woody vegetation, especially those
over 1 meter (39 inches) in height in grasslands, can provide habitat for nest
parasites, predators, and corridors for p redator move ment (Berke y et al. 1993).
Removing woody vegetation can improve nesting habitat and success for waterfowl
and other grassland sp ecies. Nonnative plants, such as C anada thistle and leafy
spurge, have no natural controls in the United States and can aggressively invade
grasslands, reducing biodiversity and structure necessary for healthy grasslands
and wildlife species.
Strategies:
# Inventory and map existing distribution of nonnative plants, within 5 years.
# Use a combination of biological, chemical, and mechanical means; with an
emphasis on biological control for leafy spurge.
R1.3 Within 5 years, develop and implement a Habitat Management Plan for the
Refuge.
Ration ale for O bjective : Deve loping un it-specific h abitat m anage ment p lans w ill
increase staff effectiveness and habitat conditions by setting priorities and
ensuring a ctions are dire cted towa rds the m ost critical areas o n the Re fuge first.
Docu mentin g and m onitorin g chan ges im prove s the ab ility of staff to relate sp ecific
management tools to on-the-ground results.
Strategies:
# Develop individual unit plans for management, biological inventories, and
monitoring activities to be carried out on each grassland unit on the Refuge.
Unit plans would determine current grassland condition and decide
management course of action.
# Establish monitoring criteria to evaluate grassland management techniques,
within 5 years.
# Manage tame grassland sites not scheduled for conversion to natives for
maxim um pote ntial height and density base d on grass species involv ed and site
conditio ns. Strive for two decim eters (8 inches) o f total visu al obstru ction in
mid-April, as suggested for optimal nesting habitat for waterfowl (Duebbert et
al. 1981).
# Develop prescribed burn plans for all grassland units which would benefit from
periodic burning.
48 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
Wetlands
During “normal” water conditions, there are approximately 1,800 acres of wetlands on
the Refuge. About 12 acres were considered temporary, 90 acres seasonal, 192 acres as
semipermanent, and 1,500 acres as permanent lakes. High water conditions which
began in the mid-1990s have increased wet acreage (mostly lake acreage) by another
400 to 500 acres. Many semiperman ent wetlands have been swallowed up and are
currently included as part of Waubay Lake, which also now includes Spring and
Hillebrand’s Lakes. These changes have resulted in an increase in water depths and a
corres pondin g decre ase in su bmergent an d eme rgent v egetat ion. This m eans th ere is
less feeding and nesting habitat for diving ducks and over-water nesters such as red-necked
grebes, but more habitat for pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and wood
ducks. It is anticipated that current high water levels will continue for at least 15 years,
the life of this plan (Niehus et al. 1999, 1999a).
There are thre e wate r contro l structur es locate d on the Refug e. One is comp letely
inundated by the extreme water levels and will not be replaced or repaired when water
levels recede. Another, which affects approximately three acres, is located along the
entrance r oad and is in n eed of rep air. It will be replac ed with an ordinary cu lvert to
reduce maintenance problems and protect the road. The third is located on Barse
Slough, a 15 acre wetland on the east side of the Refuge. Some minor repairs are
neede d to ma ke this str ucture f ully functio nal.
Objective
R1.4 Enhance we tland conditions on 15 managed acres by allowing them to flood each
spring and slowly drawing down water levels to expose mudflats and provide shallow
water areas, 15 cm (6 inches), for waterfowl and shorebird feeding during spring
migra tions.
Rationale for Obje ctive: Water control structures ca n increase the productivity of a
wetland by allowing managers to change water levels to affect the types and
amount of vegetation that grows in the wetland. In fact, in many wetlands, active
management may be necessary to maintain desirable species and communities
(Baldassarre and Bolen 1994). Managed wetlands may also be able to provide
habitat that might be in short supply due to overall climatic conditions. However,
there is no water source for reflooding this wetland, it is dependent on spring
snowmelt and rains. Providing habitat for fall migration by drawing down in the
summer and reflooding in fall would be difficult if not impossible some years. Since
this structure only affects 15 acres, providing emergent cover for nesting or
brooding waterfowl or other waterbirds would not affect a large number of birds.
At this time, mudflats and shallow water areas are in short supply and providing
this habita t during s pring m igration could he lp num erous w aterbird s, espec ially
prenesting females. D rawing d own w ater levels w ill also help to conce ntrate
macroinvertebrates and other food sources for migratory birds.
Strategies:
# Monitor site frequently to make adjustments to water level depths for
optimum plant and macroinvertebrate production as determined by standard
methods.
# Maintain records of responses by plants and animals to determine if changes
need to be made in timing or frequency of drawdowns.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 49
Native Woodlands
There are approximately 500 acres of native bur oak woodlands on the Refuge. The
overstory consists mostly of bur oak, green ash, basswood, elm, and hackberry. The
understory includes choke cherry, buffalo berry, Juneberry (serviceberry), and
buckbrush. Ground cover is dominated by sedges and stinging nettle. Before the
establishment of the Refuge, food plots of 10 to 30 acres in size were cut out of three
woodland areas (West Woods, Centerwoods, and Clubhouse Woods). After the Refuge
was established, these three fields continued to be used for wildlife food plots. Rye was
planted in the fall for green b rowse, the n plowed under in spr ing and plan ted to millet,
which was left standing for wildlife (D. Okroi, pers. comm.). When waters began rising
these area s were p lanted to alfalfa a s staff realized g etting equipm ent to these s oon to
be isolated sites would be impossible.
Objectives
R1.5 Restore native trees on 3 food plots of 10 to 30 acres in size (total of 50 acres)
within the Refuge’s native woodlands (Map 6), within 15 years, to decrease
fragmentation to reduce brown-headed cowbird populations and increase woodland
bird spe cies and their nes ting succ ess.
Rationale for Objective: From 1994 to 1996 a constant effort mist netting site was
set up in Centerwoods. Data collected also contributed to the Monitoring Avian
Produ ctivity and Surviv orship (M APS) progra m. Poin t counts were condu cted in
conjunction with the m ist netting. Res ults averag ing the 3 yea rs of point cou nts
showed brown-headed cowbirds were the second most abundant species observed,
after red-winged blackbirds. They also made up nearly 6 percent of total captures
in mist nets. Even though yellow warblers comprised 10 percent of total captures,
only one hatch year bird was banded during this study period. Yellow warblers are
one of the three most frequent cowbird hosts (Ehrlich et al. 1988) and the high
abundance of cowbirds may be affecting yellow warbler nest success in this area.
Nests that occur along forest edges and in small forest patches experience greater
rates of nest predation (Wilcove 1985, Yahner and Scott 1988) and brood parasitism
by brown-he aded cowb irds (Brittingham and Te mple 1983, Ga tes and Gysel 197 8).
Replanting the old farm fields will reduce edges and increase effective woodland
size, ther eby re ducing n egative edge e ffects an d possib ly brood parasitis m.
Strategies:
# Replant old farm fields located on Headquarters, Centerwoods, and West
Woods islands to native trees.
# Monitor, with point counts, changes in bird populations as reforestation
progresses.
# Resea rch appro priate me thods, such a s field prepara tion and tree species to
use within 5 years.
50 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
R1.6 Develop and implement a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for oak savannah and
eastern deciduous forest types, within 5 years, to protect and sustain these important
habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife.
Ration ale for O bjective : Few mana geme nt plans h ave be en dev eloped specifica lly
for Refuge woodlands, although they encompass nearly one third of upland
habitats. Forest management is generally outside the scope of current staff and
most of their time is dedicated to wetland and grassland habitats. Although a few
prescribed burns have been executed in and around woodland areas, little is known
about the effects these burns have had or how best to continue management of
these areas. Consulting with people more knowledgeable in this field and
developing long-term management plans can provide benefits to many species that
inhabit these sites. Some woodland-dependent bird species that currently occur on
the Refuge that could benefit from improved management include black-billed
cuckoo, Cooper’s hawk, least and great-crested flycatchers, red-eyed and warbling
vireos, yellow warbler, northern oriole, and rose-breasted grosbeak.
Strategies:
# Use GIS or other methods to m ap forest types.
# Consult forestry experts to help formulate forestry management plans.
# Maintain 6 0 acres of ro tating food plo ts (outside fore st areas), ann ually, to
reduce browse pressure on wood lands from wintering deer.
# Develop research study to determine impact of white-tailed deer to forests and
possible strategies to minimize these impacts.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 51
Wildlife
■ R2 - Wildlife Go al: To promote a natural diversity and abundance of native flora
and fauna of the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains on Waubay National
Wildlife Refuge.
Because wildlife populations are dynamic and can be affected by factors such as
weather, disease, pollution or other factors outside of human control, the following
objectives focus on increasing ou r knowledge o f wildlife needs and mon itoring wildlife
populations and land us e patterns in o rder to bette r direct habitat m anagem ent.
Objectives
R2.1 Develop an Inventory and M onitoring Plan, within 3 years, to locate and track
specific locations used by the following endangered or threatened species: bald eagle,
piping plover, American burying beetle, and western prairie fringed orchid.
Rationale for Objective: The species listed above may potentially use the Refuge
for some part of their life-cycles. Bald eagles were previously only seen during
migration on the Refuge and in the District, but within the last 3 years, nesting
pairs have been found in Roberts and Marshall Counties. Sightings of bald eagles
are also becom ing mo re com mon d uring summer mon ths (Re fuge files ).
Piping plove rs rarely ne sted in Da y and Co dington cou nties (South Dakota
Ornithologists’ Union 1991), with the last known nesting attempt in 1985 between
North and South Waubay Lakes (SDGFP 1994). Major habitat changes have
occurred since then, reducing available sand or gravel beaches preferred for
nesting. However, even small reductions in water levels now can open up new
nesting sites for these birds. Monitoring for these changes can help to protect
future n esting pa irs.
Recen t trapping effo rts have fou nd Am erican bury ing beetles in e xtreme south
central South Dakota, primarily in Tripp and Gregory counties (Backlund and
Marrone 1995). A trapline set-up on the Refuge in 1996 produced no American
burying beetles. However, their presence cannot be ruled out without further
survey s. Kno wing o f their pre sence a nd locat ions w ill help Re fuge m anage rs avoid
adversely affecting them through actions such as prescribed burning and pesticide
application.
The Western prairie fringed orchid is the only known federally threatened plant
species that may be present on the Refuge. Historical locations have included sites
in the B ig Sioux River valley in th e south easter n part o f South Dako ta. It occu rs in
moist, tallgrass prairies and sedge meadows, both of which can be found on the
Complex. It appear s to have be en extirpate d from S outh Da kota, but rem ote
populations may have been overlooked as it does occur in adjacent counties of
Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska.
Strategies:
# Protect Refuge sites used by endangered and threatened species.
# Monitor public use of documented sites for adverse impacts and restrict access
if and when necessary to minimize disturbance and habitat degradation.
# Use appropriate management techniques and timing to help ensure continued
survival of these species.
52 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
R2.2 Develop an Inventory and M onitoring Plan, within 3 years, to locate and track
specific locations u sed by the fo llowing Sta te species at risk : regal fritillary, Dak ota
skipper, and powesheik skipper butterflies; osprey; northern redbelly snake; banded
killifish; and central mudminnow.
Rationale for Objective: South Dakota’s endangered species law was passed in 1977
to ensure the protection of threatened and endangered species within the state.
The Game, Fish, and Parks Com mission reviews the list of species every 2 years
with species added or deleted depending on their vulnerability, with the Game,
Fish and P arks De partme nt in charge o f the protection of listed species. T he South
Dakota Natural Heritage Program also documents and monitors over 400 plant and
animal species considered at risk in South Dakota. Ongoing monitoring is achieved
through the cooperation of various agencies and individuals and helps to keep
species from d eclining to the poin t wher e they m ust be liste d. We can furt her this
goal by monitoring these species as well as limiting or adjusting habitat
mana geme nt effort s to redu ce pote ntial neg ative im pacts.
Certain species may also serve as indicators of the health of an ecosystem, such as
butterflie s. Butte rflies are part of th e prairie ecosys tem. If th ese spe cies are in
trouble, other endemic (and harder to track) species may also be in decline.
Track ing these butterflie s and ad justing m anage ment to benefit th em sh ould
benefit other prairie endemics, improve the health of the prairie ecosystem, and
help to prevent the listing of these and other species that have declined due to the
poor h ealth of p rairie ha bitats.
Strategies:
# Initiate surveys during appropriate flight times to monitor presence,
abundance, and locations of at risk butterfly species.
# Protect Refuge sites where the above mentioned species are located.
# Monitor public use of documented sites for adverse impacts and restrict access
if and when necessary to minimize disturbance and habitat degradation.
# Use appropriate management techniques and timing to ensure continued
survival of these species at risk.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 53
R2.3 Rewrite and update the W ildlife Inventory Plan to include methodology for a
variety of surveys, increasing the number and quality of surveys of residential and
migratory wildlife species, within 10 years.
Rationale for Objective: Incredible habitat changes have occurred since 1968 and
1972 when the W ildlife Inventory Plan for Waubay NW R was written and last
amend ed. The C CP prov ides an opp ortunity to upd ate the Plan . Better qua lity
surveys will increase the staff’s knowledge of Refuge use patterns by resident and
migratory species. Pas t surveys ha ve concen trated on w aterfow l and deer w ith
little effort d evoted to other birds or wildlife b esides c asual o bserva tions. N ewly
developed refuge management plans and looking at regional plans developed by
The Nature Conservancy, Partners in Flight, Prairie Pothole Joint Venture, and
others, will help to direct which species would best benefit from monitoring.
Continued participation in cooperative surveys helps to contribute to long-term
national databases and a larger scale understanding of wildlife populations. These
surveys can help staff understand the Refuge’s role regionally, and to develop local
goals and o bjectives. W hite-tailed deer populations a re regulate d by the So uth
Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. Cooperation with them is essential for providing
recreation and keeping deer herds in check to reduce depredation complaints and
habitat d estructio n.
Strategies:
# Continue participation in cooperative surveys such as the Christmas Bird
Count.
# Coope rate with SDGFP on dee r surveys a nd popula tion mana gemen t.
# Review regional and national plans to help determine how to broaden surveys,
for which species.
# Research and determine appropriate survey methodologies for habitats and
species targeted.
54 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
Cultural Resources
■ R3 - Cultural Resources Goal: Protect and interpret significant historic and
prehistoric cultural resources associated with Waubay National Wildlife Refuge.
In 1981 a complete survey for cultural resources was conducted on the Refuge (Keller
and Zimmerman 1981) as well as other partial surveys (Zimmerman et al. 1978, Winham
1983, Bradley and Ranney 1985). A total of 27 sites were found: 14 prehistoric and 13
historic. Most of the prehistoric sites consist of mounds or habitation sites from several
major cultural groups, including the Plains Woodland and Plains Village cultures
(Keller and Zimmerman 1981). The historic sites are mostly foundations of destroyed
structures from early homesteads or farms inhabited prior to the establishment of the
Refu ge.
Jackson and Toom (1999) believed that Keller and Zimmerman (1981) misinterpreted
the guidelines of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) since they believed
the four major Refuge prehistoric sites were not eligible for nomination to NRHP.
Jackson and Toom pointed out that NRHP eligibility was not limited to just national
significance, but also can be evaluated on the basis of local or state importance
(National Park Se rvice 1998).
Historic sites, mostly old foundations, dating from around 1900, were submitted by the
Service for NRHP eligibility, but were found not to be significant resources. However,
the major prehistoric sites were not submitted to NRHP.
Objectives
R3.1 Within the 15 year life of this plan, locate, map, and determine NRHP eligibility of
all significant historic and prehistoric cultural and archaeological resources on the
Refuge.
Ration ale for O bjective : All sites sh ould be relocate d and re evalua ted as to their
current condition and protection needs. Unfortunately, some of the sites have
probably been covered or partially covered by high water levels. Sites that are
under water should be monitored closely for the appearance of artifacts and other
important materials. Jackson and Toom (1999) believe that most of the
archaeological sites should be reevaluated to determine their NRHP eligibility.
Most of the historic sites are likely ineligible. The information revealed from these
sites can help guide current and future management by providing a historical
background of habitats, wildlife, and cultural uses which shaped this land and the
changes that have occurred since then.
Strategies:
# Nominate for listing on the NRHP the four major prehistoric archaeological
sites.
# Reevaluate and record the remaining documented sites to determine official
NRHP status.
# Produce a cultural resource overlay for Geographic Information System (GIS)
database.
# Consult with the Regional Historic Preservation Officer prior to all proposed
actions.
# Monitor sites th at are n ow un der w ater an d expo sed sho relines a s wate r levels
recede for the appearance of artifacts and other important materials.
# Avoid areas of known cultural sites and potential sensitive areas when practical
and mitigate any adverse effects to sites.
# Utilize standard law enforcement practices and strategies to protect cultural
resources already identified and those that may be discovered where
development of water control structures, wetland restorations, and other
ground breaking activities will occur.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 55
R3.2 Interpret the cultural resources of the Refuge for visitors of all ages and abilities
through at least 3 exhibits within 7 years.
Rationale for Objective: Prehistoric and historic cultural sites can provide a
fascinating wealth of information about the history of this area and the people and
cultures that inhabited it. They help us learn how these cultures related to wildlife
and the environment. Interpreting these sites will allow the public to learn more
about this histo ry and thes e relationships . This can often be an imp ortant step to
understanding and developing solutions to current issues. Partnering with the
Sisseton-Wa hpeton Sioux T ribe w ill give a vita l perspe ctive ofte n missin g in
cultural in terpre tation.
Strategies:
# Upgrade Refuge kiosk exhibit as advised in the 2001 Visitor Services
Requirement report prepared by the regional Education and Visitor Services
group.
# Upgrade Refuge visitor center exhibit as advised in the 2001 Visitor Services
Require ment rep ort.
# Investigate establishment of a cooperative interpretive site with Sisseton-
Wahpeton Sioux Tribe.
# Ensure all new visitor materials and facilities reach the broadest audience
possible by follow ing the U niversa l Design concep t.
# Incorporate interpretation of Wetland Management District cultural resources
into the Refuge program, presenting a more comprehensive interpretive
progra m.
56 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002
Public Use and Education
■ R4 - Wildlife-depen dent Recreation Goal: To foster an understanding and
appreciation of the ecology and man agement of the fau na and flora an d of the role
of humans in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains by providing Refuge
visitors of all abilities with compatible wildlife-dependent recreational
experie nces.
In 1997, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement A ct was signed into law. In
addition to establishing a mission for the NWRS, it also determined that wildlife-dependent
recreation, when compatible with a Refuge’s purpose, are legitimate uses
and shou ld be facilitated w here app ropriate. Prio rity wildlife-dependent uses include
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education
and interpretation.
Hunting
Three types of deer hunting are allowed on the Refuge: archery, rifle, and black-powder
rifle (or muzzleloaders). Bows and black-powder rifles are considered primitive
weapons. Modern rifles are more effective for controlling herd numbers than either of
the primitive weapons. Currently, no separate archery season occurs on the Refuge.
Anyone with an east river or Statewide tag may archery hunt on the Refuge. In Day
County, and others, there is also an antlerless deer tag offered for archery hunters.
This season runs from late September through mid-January. These tags can also be
used on the Refuge.
For muzzleloader hunters, the Refuge offers two 5-day seasons for any deer before the
regular rifle se asons (R efuge or S tate). The S tate only offe rs a late De cembe r to
January hunt for antlerless only deer. Since most tags are sold each season, Refuge
hunts appear to be attractive to hunters.
Waterfowl hunting is not allowed on the Refuge for several reasons. Abundant
waterfowl hunting opportunities exist in the six county area around the Refuge,
including 40,000 acres of Waterfowl Production Areas managed by the Service, 46,700
acres of state-managed public hunting areas, and 88,700 acres of public walk-in areas,
for a total of 17 5,400 acre s. South D akota Ga me, Fish a nd Parks realizes the ne ed to
maintain closed areas to allow migrating birds to rest dur