Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 1
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lostwood
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
2 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 3
4 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 5
Table of Contents
PREFACE........................................................................................................................ 7
Four Seasons ............................................................................................................................................. 9
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.............................................................. 15
Purpose and Need for a Plan................................................................................................................ 15
National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................................................ 15
Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 17
Purpose and Regulatory Statutes ....................................................................................................... 17
Establishment and History................................................................................................................... 17
Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................ 18
Planning Issues and Opportunities.................................................................................................... 19
RESOURCE AND REFUGE DESCRIPTION .................................................... 21
Ecosystem Setting and Description ................................................................................................... 21
Acquisition............................................................................................................................................... 29
Environmental Assessment Summary .............................................................................................. 29
Defoliation and Rest--Importance and Methods, and Effects to Habitat and Wildlife ........ 34
REFUGE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................. 41
Mission ..................................................................................................................................................... 41
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ........................................................................................................ 41
Habitat Protection Strategy................................................................................................................. 50
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION..................................................................................... 51
Strategy for Project Funding and Personnel Requirements ....................................................... 51
Staffing Plan/Chart ............................................................................................................................... 52
Management Plans................................................................................................................................ 53
Partnership Opportunities................................................................................................................... 53
Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 54
APPENDIX A. References and Bibliography ........................................................ 55
APPENDIX B. Glossary of Terms ............................................................................ 59
APPENDIX C. Compatibility Determination ........................................................ 61
APPENDIX D. Intra-Service Section 7 Evaluation .............................................. 67
APPENDIX E. Summary of Public Involvement ................................................. 71
APPENDIX F. Mailing List of Agencies and Individuals ................................... 73
APPENDIX G. Preparers and Acknowledgments ................................................ 75
APPENDIX H. Key Legislation/Policies ................................................................ 77
APPENDIX I. Reference Maps ................................................................................. 79
APPENDIX J. Executive Order Establishing Lostwood Refuge...................... 85
APPENDIX K. Plant Species..................................................................................... 89
6 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 7
Aerial view of Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge’s wetland
complexes, one of several prominent resources that makes this
Refuge so unique and valuable.
PREFACE
Often, government plans are mundane, discouraging
readers to become involved in the planning process. I
thought if I presented, in writing, how dynamic this prairie
is, it would encourage you to be involved in planning the
Over every hill lies another wetland or prairie meadow. In
between, from hilltop to slough edge, sprawls a most splendid
variety of prairie plants.
future of Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge (Lostwood
Refuge). With narration and a few pictures, I present a
glimpse of a year on this unique resource so the reader can
“experience” the four seasons on Lostwood.
8 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 9
Four Seasons
Spring . . .
Visualize, if you will: you and I standing on a prairie
hilltop one crisp early April dawn, looking west across an
open expanse of rolling hills covered with last year’s
plant growth, now a suite of dull tans. Across the hills
are patches of snowdrifts on east and south facing slopes,
formed by the winter’s prevailing, northwesterly winds.
Wetlands occur at the bottom of every hill with dense
stands of previous years’ vegetation still covered in a
crusted layer of deep, wind driven snow. Air flowing
across our faces is damp and chilly, yet a hint of soft,
moist warmth is there, a relief from the relentless, sharp
bite of the long, windy arctic blast that can last for six
long months. As the sun rises and morning light
improves, scattered pastel purples become evident
among the dull tan hilltops, the first floral display of the
new years’ pasque flowers.
About a half mile away a “woo-wooing” sound begins and
increases, a cackle erupts, then more, as male sharp-tailed
grouse arrive on their dancing grounds to dance
relentlessly for their fair ladies. At first, this is the only
sound heard, except for the flutter and buzzes of small
flocks of longspurs and snow buntings, hurrying to catch
up with their earlier migrating fellows.
April progresses, and soon the smaller wetlands begin to
thaw. This is an exciting time -- SPRING MIGRA-TION!
We walk across the soft soil, loosened by the
many thawing ice crystals of winter, and hear a new
sound: PINTAILS! whistling, courting, zigzagging,
through the softer air. Then mallards. At first, just a
pair, but smaller flocks arrive as the day progresses.
Hey, what’s that yellow speck on the dull tan suite.
Wonderful, the first meadowlark has arrived. Meltwater
begins to roar in areas where it shouldn’t. Snow, melting
in warm temperatures, gushes down hills into dry
coulees, turning them into a white-water stream for a
day or two. The wetlands fill, their ice rising and
softening. Wetland edges become open water. Between
these edges of spring and winter, diving ducks appear,
purring and gurgling songs to their accompanying ladies.
The large lakes have not been released from winter’s
grip, but the dark honeycomb cover promises that soon
winter’s hold will be relinquished.
10 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Those hills, now with a hint of green showing, have so
much life, it is difficult to hear sharp-tails dancing, even
on still, early morns: giant Canada geese honk, mallards
quack, migrating sparrows’ whistle and chip, pipits’
skylark, meadowlarks’ flute, and the “noise” increases.
Spring tries hard to push winter away, driving the cold
north with strong, gusty southerly winds more gentle to
the face, but winter does not give up easily and returns
with strong, sharp-biting, northerly winds. Eventually
old-man winter loses, spring prevails, and new life
abounds.
Sounds multiply as more life arrives in May. The sky
resonates, evidence of something always moving: skeins
of snow, white-fronted, and smaller Canada geese and
ducks, flittering sparrows and warblers, kettling
sandhill cranes, darting yellowlegs, winnowing snipe,
and, dropping in from nowhere, clowning coots. Sprint-ing
through in small flocks, just above the rolling terrain,
we hear small flocks of shorebirds. Some land along
exposed beaches to rest and feed, but most don’t stop;
the relentless urge of migration never lets them rest.
Harriers drift through; some stay, most float on by, the
males sometimes “sky-dancing” perhaps to impress
females along the way.
Flocks of ruddy ducks appear as rafts on opened lakes.
Western and eared grebes are heard there too.
May explodes with migrating and nesting birds, all here
at the same time. Then it happens again; the north wind
returns, stronger than ever, biting, driving a heavy, wet
snow. Food is covered. Early arrivals are caught; some
make it, some do not. But just as quick as winter
returned, spring rushes back.
More grass-loving sparrows arrive using melodious
songs to establish territories. Sprague’s pipits, territo-ries
well established, skylark for hours over ridges and
hilltops. Life is good. More early colors are displayed,
such as plains cymopterus, but these are not very bold,
perhaps too bashful to display brilliance so early. But
the green is persisting, as well as more colorful flowers:
cushion milk-vetch, golden-bean, early yellow locoweed,
prairie buttercup. Now wetlands are filled with water
and life: blackbirds, both yellow-headed and red-winged,
create continuous raucous; ducks battle on water and in
the air to retain territories. Soon, duck pairs are walking
around on uplands, searching for THE nest site, but
flush by our presence, complaining loudly and persis-tently
while flying in tight circles, directly overhead. A
coyote yips and barks at us, unaccustomed to observing
humans after the long winter months.
A variety of “peeps” are along most lake shorelines,
feeding intensely before they continue their migration
northward. Suddenly this peaceful scene explodes and
out of nowhere a charcoal streak stoops through the
flushing shorebirds — PEREGRINE!
May gives way to June. We are now walking in a lush
growth of grasses and flowers. Birds are singing all
around us, some so loud, like the continuous, bubbling
flight song of the bobolink, that it prevents us from
hearing the more subtle song of the Le Conte’s sparrow.
Chestnut-collared longspur’s make their presence
known on grazed, rocky ridge tops with their pleasant,
rapid, buzzy warble. Upland sandpipers are wolf-whistling
on previous years’ burns. Baird’s sparrows
abound; their melodious song,
combines with others to
produce an impromptu prairie
orchestra.
The last to arrive, sounding
like a rusty gate swinging in
the wind, is the sharp-tailed
sparrow. This completes the
prairie nesters’ arrival. Now
everyone is busy maintaining
territories, nesting, and taking
care of newly-hatched young.
We roam across the hills, not
far from a big saline lake that’s so salty it can be tasted
in the wind, when a marbled godwit explodes from a
short-vegetated hilltop, and relentlessly dives at our
heads to drive us from her nest. We walk away from this
site so as not to disturb her anymore, only to have a
subtle hooting sound approach. A Wilson’s phalarope is
afraid we will come too near his nest. So, we again move
away, this time closer to the white shoreline of the saline
lake only to have a distinct “peep-lo” sound draw closer.
This time it is a piping plover coming to express its
displeasure of our presence. Everywhere we turn,
something flushes, gives alarm, scolds, or sings proudly.
Life is so full, it is difficult to be conscious of the indi-vidual
because the whole is so overwhelming.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 11
Summer . . .
Color abounds everywhere now. Brilliant red prairie
lilies line the wetland edges, and a deep, iridescent
purple of two-grooved milkvetch is found nearby in large,
round bunches. On the hill above us, sunny spots of
Gaillardia wave to-and-fro in the summer breeze.
Fleabanes’ hairlike ray petals bloom in pastel pinks.
Butterflies, some blue, some white, some orange, flutter
about. Sounds abound too, not only from birds, but from
insects, all contributing to a resounding prairie orches-tra.
So many things are happening, it is difficult to slow
down and “smell the flowers,” or to take time to watch
the evening hilltops reflect a golden green from the
warm, setting sun, contrasting with the dark green,
shadowed slopes. June rushes by; too beautiful and
astounding to absorb in just 30 days.
Soon, needlegrass seeds are maturing, reflecting the
sun’s rays in sparkling crystals as the gentle summer
breezes sway them to-and-fro. As the seeds mature,
entire hilltops turn to a waving sea of gold. Mingled in
this golden sea are a variety of pinks: purple coneflower,
purple prairie clover, spotted gayfeather. In richer soil
sites, warm-season grasses become showy, such as big
bluestem pushing up its dark green, stiff seed stalk
mixed with hints of deep purple. Prairie dropseed sends
up its wispy, delicate panicum of dotted seeds. Flowers
on these richer sites are very iridescent, particularly the
luminous purple of blazing star. Plant life abounds, of
many species, because several different plant communi-ties
meet here ranging from the tallgrass prairie of the
east to the arid prairie of the west. While we are so
absorbed in the luxurious plant community around us,
we suddenly become aware that the courting and
territorial sounds of June are waning. Now, more insect
sounds are heard, and bird sounds are softer, shorter
notes of parents feeding young and scolding us when we
press too close to their family affairs. Ducklings are now
getting quite large, looking more like their moms each
day.
July has slipped by, but how, where did it go? Time
moves so fast.
Tall, white billows appear on the west horizon. Very
pretty. They build into massive, towering giants as they
move closer. Western skies darken except for white
streaks flashing continuously. Blue skies overhead have
given way to rumbling and darkness, then flashes of bold
light from the atmosphere to the ground. Rain begins,
pours, water rushes everywhere. Something hard and
small hits the ground and bounces two feet back into the
air. HAIL! The air turns white with hail. Rain once
again, or is it a vertical river? On the west horizon, blue
sky! The storm passes
and sun shines through
millions of droplets, fields
of diamonds sprinkled
across the prairie.
Days are hot now. Winds,
recently soft and gentle
to the skin, bite again, but
now like sandpaper. The
hilltops turn to cream
color, but still are
sprinkled with color,
particularly blues and
yellows of asters and
yellows of goldenrods. In
rich soil sites, grasses
begin to turn pastel
pinks, purples, oranges,
reds, yellows while native
shrubs turn sharp reds,
oranges, and yellows.
Green still hangs in there, but it is scattered, mostly in
prairie cordgrass. Red dots, from prairie rose hips, are
scattered on hilltops. The once spectacular flowers are
replaced with pastel-colored seed heads that spatter the
sun’s rays.
12 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Fall . . .
It is eerily silent on the hilltop! Where have all the birds
gone? Only sounds of grasshoppers and crickets prevail.
Ah, let’s move to the wetlands. But, what has happened?
Many are dry, but look, over there, there’s water! Water
birds abound--ducks, coots, grebes, soras, sharp-tailed
sparrows, blackbirds, dragonflies, midges--yes, bountiful
life is still present.
As this bountiful life dwindles, new life begins to appear--
migration is on. First are the tundra nesting shorebirds,
lingering along mudflats and shorelines to feed and drift
about. But all too soon, many of these move on, leaving
behind mostly waterfowl, those that reproduced here.
By the end of August, even most of these move north to
molt and feed, a process known as staging, leaving the
prairie quite silent. These waterfowl, and those pro-duced
further north, do not return for several weeks,
unless some sudden, mid-October storm pushes them by
us without even saying good-bye.
It’s September, and the rolling prairie hills reflect fall
colors in the grasses, forbs, and shrubs. It is a subtle
beauty only lasting for a few days, a contrast to the
arrogant fall colors of deciduous forests, a softness
pleasing to the eye: creams, pinks, and pastel oranges,
purples, and yellows.
New sounds overhead! A raucous, trumpeting rattle is
heard. We look up to see migrating sandhill cranes in
long, v-shaped strings, rising up and down on air cur-rents,
then suddenly catching an updraft, and rapidly
kettling to 5,000 feet. As the day progresses, some
cranes land and feed on grazed or burned areas, or settle
onto mudflats and shallow bays of large lakes to night
roost. This crane activity continues through fall,
sometimes in small, drifting flocks, sometimes in major
migration thrusts.
One day while walking across the hilltops in warm,
unusually calm weather, we notice dots of circling
movements overhead. On rising kettles, large groups of
Swainson’s hawks are on the move, drifting southward
effortlessly by the dozens. Late in the day, some drop
and begin hopping on the ground, hunting grasshoppers.
More sparing hawks, falcons, and accipiters move
through, along with the whistles and chips of migrating
sparrows and juncos, although not as musical as in the
spring. Soon most of the sandhills have passed through,
as have most raptor and songbird species.
We wait, wait for the gradual, but sometimes quite
sudden explosion of migrating waterfowl that signals
fall’s close. At first, it is just one “v” here, another over
there, of geese, mostly white-fronts. But, a few days
later, the raucous of snow goose flocks pierce the air.
Resident giant Canada geese, seem to dislike the commo-tion
that accompanies large flocks of snow geese, leave
the preferred lakes to quieter, open-water wetlands.
Accompanying the mass of snow geese are the symbol of
the United States, bald eagles. These eagles continually
test the flocks for a goose not quite fit for the long trip
south. Golden eagles partake as well, but usually show
up later, just before freeze-up.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 13
Winter . . .
The air now is unsettled. Winds constantly shift from
gentle southerlies to harsh northerlies. Sometimes the
shifts are light, sometimes of hurricane force. Standing
on the same hilltop as we did in spring, we see dark gray
clouds being driven in, their tops and bottoms sheared by
sharp winds. The rolling darkness approaches; snow
falls. Ducks and geese linger, continue to feed in nearby
grain stubble fields. The storm passes. Warm, sunny
days return. These are quiet days, with soft winds, and a
few chip notes of passing warblers and sparrows that are
a little behind schedule. Ducks and geese continue to
field-feed and roost on large lakes. It’s the end of
October. We can feel it. They clearly feel it. They are
more restless than ever. You can see it in their flight
behavior. They search for a good field to feed in but are
not satisfied when they land. They lift, bounce around in
the increasing winds, land again. Feed a little, spook, and
lift again, and struggle into the howling wind to the next
field. Overhead, high overhead, pass skein after skein of
waterfowl, sometimes only visible with binoculars. We
see the major fall migration taking place; they are not
taking time to say good-bye this year. The birds on the
ground become even more restless. After feeding till
dark, they return to the lakes, fighting winds more than
40 mph. Temperatures plummet! Single digits! The
next morning we arise from our night’s sleep. Winds are
relentless. The LAKES, frozen, and, BIRDS, gone!
After three days of relentless, cold, piercing winds, a mild
winter day begins in light winds and double digit tempera-tures.
Once in a while, a small flock of geese or ducks are
observed, but, otherwise, all is very quiet. A few juncos
and tree sparrows still chip here and there, but silence is
becoming the norm.
The last harriers drift by us. Rough-legged hawks
appear, hovering like sparrow hawks while hunting for
mice. Gray clouds are heavy in the northwest. Snow
arrives, falls, and builds. Winds pick up, driving the snow
into new locations and shapes. Even though December
and January are filled with lots of sunshine, it brings
little warmth to the snow, allowing winds to constantly
reshape it. It is silent, except for the wind!
14 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
It is a cold, still morn. Longspurs and snow buntings
appear in large, bouncing flocks as they roll across the
stark, prairie hills blanketed in white. A sound, like a
knife cutting through cold, still air, is heard-- a sharp-tailed
grouse appears overhead, then another and
another, heading somewhere to feed before returning to
day-roost in the snow. Storms come and go, some so
severe that resident wildlife, like white-tailed deer and
great-horned owls, find it tough to get enough to eat.
Cold, wind, and snow takes its toll.
Warmth from the sun grows. We can feel it. The winds
do not bite as they did. The snow cover melts on the
surface, forming a crust thick enough on which to cross-country
ski--oh, what fun! It is too warm, it is 50oF; the
snow is melting too fast, making the skiing poor, but oh,
how good the warmth feels to us. It is a mistake to feel
too warm--the gray northwest skies warn us of impend-ing
cold, wind, and snow. It dumps on us and blows it
into deep drifts, especially on east- and south-facing
hillsides. The storm passes. Flocks of snow buntings
and longspurs pass by, with sprinkles of horned larks
singing the first spring songs. March is here. Spring is
not far away. It has been a good winter, most resident
wildlife survived, and abundant snow is available to refill
wetlands and restore topsoil moisture that will produce
lush plant growth and lots of insects for nesting birds.
Life is good. NO, it is more than good. Life is unbeliev-ably
beautiful with its ever-changing seasons and bounty.
Such is one year, four seasons, on Lostwood National
Wildlife Refuge.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 15
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Purpose and Need for a Plan
“As the century nears its end and demand for food and
competition for land escalate, a most important issue
facing conservationists will be the preservation of a
mosaic of habitats in which can be preserved a represen-tative
cross-section of native species” (Samson and Knopf
1982).
Preserving such habitat mosaics provides beautiful,
natural areas, but without intimate involvement of the
United States citizen, many of these habitats may be lost
or inappropriately cared for due to lack of support. John
C. Sawhill, President and Chief Executive Officer of The
Nature Conservancy, wrote:
“By conserving and celebrating important natural areas,
we can provide the necessary platform of beautiful,
unspoiled places critical to building a more intimate
relationship between people and land . . . From that
intimacy will come the connectedness--the sense of
interdependence--with nature that so many of us crave.
Similarly, the more places we save, the greater the
opportunity to inspire wonder and commitment in
people. And ultimately, . . . that will decide the fate of
the natural world” (Sawhill 1996).
The Draft Comprehensive Conservation (Management)
Plan was written in accordance with a Refuge System
policy requiring “all lands of the National Wildlife
Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an
approved Comprehensive Management Plan that will
guide management decisions and set forth strategies for
achieving refuge unit purposes.” The National Wildlife
Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (passed in October)
changes this from a policy to law, and calls the plans
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP).
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan has had public
comment, and we have incorporated those comments
someplace in this Plan. Hopefully public involvement
will not end here but will continue, further developing an
intimate relationship between the people and Lostwood
Refuge, a beautiful mixed-grass prairie nestled in
northwestern North Dakota. The Plan presents a
conservation direction for the mission and goals of the
Refuge System and Lostwood Refuge. Remember, this
Plan is just one step, part of a continuing Adaptive
Resource Management philosophy, a philosophy essential
to incorporate new directions and knowledge as they
develop to conserve and preserve Lostwood Refuge as a
unique natural resource.
Hopefully, through this continuing planning process,
appropriate revenue and staffing can be achieved for
Lostwood Refuge. The result will be a healthy, mixed-grass
prairie, and a much needed, well-developed, public
use program including environmental education and
interpretation, hunting, wildlife observation and photog-raphy,
and other compatible wildlife-dependent recre-ational
activities. The Refuge System is required to “. . .
ensure that the biological integrity and environmental
health of the Refuge System is maintained for the benefit
of present and future generations of Americans” (Execu-tive
Order 12996, March 25, 1996), which incorporates
managing a natural resource to maintain its health and
provide recreational opportunities for the public, all at
the same time. This is a challenging task, so the com-plexity
involved in this Plan is evident. We need your
help. Please take time to review and become involved in
planning the future of one of our national treasures,
Lostwood Refuge.
National Wildlife Refuge System
Mission
The National Wildlife Refuge System is a diverse
collection of 512 refuges encompassing over 92 million
acres, spanning all states and several territories. The
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 gives the Refuge System’s mission:
“To administer a national network of lands and waters
for the conservation, management, and where appropri-ate,
restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the
benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”
The Act establishes a Refuge System policy that “each
refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of the
Refuge System, as well as the specific purposes for
which that refuge was established.” The Act establishes
a hierarchy among refuge activities: that first are
activities to meet refuge purposes and Refuge System
Mission; second is to facilitate compatible wildlife
dependent recreation. By default, other uses would be
the last priority.
The National Wildlife Refuge System differs from other
federally-owned lands, (i.e., National Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management, or National Park Service)
in that wildlife conservation, not multiple-use activities, is
the fundamental mission. Wildlife and wildlife conserva-tion
come first over public use activities. The Act further
recognizes and encourages public use activities centering
around wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Even these
must be compatible with the mission of the Refuge
System and individual refuge purposes, but the Act
strongly encourages facilitation of these activities if
compatible. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses include
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
and environmental education and interpretation.
16 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
The Refuge Improvement Act explicitly defines words to
guide the Refuge System. Some definitions are pre-sented
here to help the reader understand what specific
phrases mean.
“The term ‘compatible use’ means a wildlife-dependent
recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, in the
sound professional judgement of the Director, will not
materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment
of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of
the refuge.”
The terms ‘wildlife-dependent recreation’ and ‘wildlife-dependent
recreational use’ mean a use of a refuge
involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, or environmental education and interpreta-tion.”
“The term ‘sound professional judgment’ means a
finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with
principles of sound fish and wildlife management and
administration, available science and resources, and
adherence to the requirements of the Act and other
applicable laws.”
“The terms ‘purposes of the refuge’ and ‘purpose of each
refuge’ mean the purposes specified in or derived from
the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement,
public land order, donation document, or administrative
memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a
refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit.”
Goals and guiding principles of the National Wildlife
Refuge System (Refuge System) identified in the 1997
Executive Order, 12996, are:
Goals
A. To preserve, restore, and enhance, in their natural
ecosystem (when practicable), all species of animals and
plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming
endangered.
B. Perpetuate the migratory bird resource.
C. Preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna
and flora on refuge lands.
D. To provide an understanding and appreciation of fish
and wildlife ecology and man’s role in his environment,
and to provide refuge visitors with high quality, safe,
wholesome, and enjoyable activities compatible with the
purposes for which the refuge was established.
Guiding Principles
Public Use. The Refuge System provides important
opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recre-ational
activities involving hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, and environmental
education and interpretation.
Habitat. Fish and wildlife will not prosper without high-quality
habitat, and without fish and wildlife, traditional
uses of refuges cannot be sustained. The Refuge System
will continue to conserve and enhance the quality and
diversity of fish and wildlife habitat within refuges.
Partnerships. America’s sportsmen and women were
the first partners who insisted on protecting valuable
wildlife habitat within wildlife refuges. Conservation
partnerships with other Federal agencies, State agen-cies,
tribes, organizations, industry, and the general
public can make significant contributions to the growth
and management of the Refuge System.
Public Involvement. The public should be given a full
and open opportunity to participate in decisions regard-ing
acquisition and management of our National Wildlife
Refuges.
Regulatory Statutes
Other legal mandates and policy guidelines of the Refuge
System that also affect Lostwood Refuge are:
“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other
management purpose, for migratory birds.” (16 U.S.C. §
715d , Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
“. . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in
order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to
help fulfill international obligations contained in various
migratory bird treaties and conventions . . .” (16 U.S.C. §
3901[b], 100 Stat. 3583, Emergency Wetlands Resources
Act of 1986)
“. . . review every roadless area of 5,000 contiguous acres
or more and every roadless island, regardless of size,
within the National Wildlife Refuge System . . . and
report to the President of the United States his recom-mendations
as to the suitability or nonsuitability of each
such area or island for preservation of wilderness.” (The
Wilderness Act, Public Law 88-577)
“. . . the following lands are hereby designated as
wilderness and, therefore, as components of the national
wilderness preservation system: . . . certain lands in the
Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota, . . .”
(To Designate Certain Lands as Wilderness. January 3,
1975. Public Law 93-632)
“. . .the Federal land manager and the Federal official
charged with direct responsibility for management of
Class I areas shall have an affirmative responsibility to
protect all those air quality related values (including
visibility) of any such lands.” (Clean Air Act section
165(d)(2)(B))
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 17
Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge
Purpose and Regulatory Statutes
Lostwood Refuge is “. . . a refuge and breeding ground
for migratory birds and other wildlife . . .” (Executive
Order 7171-A, September 4, 1935). Located in northwest-ern
North Dakota, it is primarily a breeding ground for
migratory birds during spring and summer.
In 1975, the 5,577-acre Lostwood Wilderness Area was
established within the boundaries of Lostwood Refuge
(P.L. 88-577). Its importance was described in the Final
EIS , “A unique example of the Coteau du Missouri of
the northern Great Plains would be set aside within our
Nation that constitutes the last sizeable tract of this
interesting formation.” The area is designated as Class I
and, therefore, receives the highest protection under the
Clean Air Act. In 1995, An interagency Wilderness
Strategic Plan was signed by the Directors of Bureau of
Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and Chief of the U.S. Forest Service.
This Plan is designed “To secure the benefits of wilder-ness
as called for in the Wilderness Act, . . . Management
actions are identified and grouped into five broad topics.
While some of these actions are more general than
others, and they all may not be equally important to each
of our agencies, our commitment to progress in every
one of these areas is unequivocal. America’s ‘enduring
resource of wilderness’ is too important for anything
less.” Those five topics are listed below.
1) Preservation of natural and biological values
2) Management of social values
3) Administrative policy and interagency coordination
4) Training of agency personnel
5) Public awareness and understanding
Lush prairie wetlands help create the unique diversity of
habitat on Lostwood Refuge that makes the area so attractive to
a variety of breeding migratory birds.
Establishment and History
In the late 1800’s, the area known today as Lostwood
Refuge was mixed-grass prairie mainly a wheatgrass-needlegrass
community, with almost no trees and few
shrubs (Coupland 1950, 1961; Singh et al. 1983). It was a
wide open prairie with nothing to block the vista of
rolling, sodded horizon. Migratory birds from ducks to
sparrows were the most visible wildlife, but sharp-tailed
grouse, a hardy resident species, were common. Few
species of small mammals, and even fewer of amphibians
and reptiles were present, perhaps owing to the harsh,
prolonged winters of this northern climate. Inverte-brates,
adapted to frequent and periodic drought and
vegetation removal mainly by bison herds and fire, also
were abundant and active during the growing season.
Teeming abundance of migratory birds, spring through
fall, was the main appeal in establishing Lostwood as a
National Wildlife Refuge. Numerous wetlands, all types
and shapes formed by the Wisconsin glacier some 10,000
years ago, provided prime habitat for many species of
water-dependent birds. Within wetlands during wet
years, grebes, ducks, and giant Canada geese prolifer-ated--
abundance and variety of duck species present in
this area were main incentives in establishing Lostwood
Refuge. The habitat between wetlands and upland
grasslands provided breeding habitat for another group
of birds, species with restricted distribution such as
marbled godwit, piping plover, sharp-tailed sparrow.
Unique upland birds, some with restricted breeding
ranges, were common on the upland prairie: Baird’s
sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, clay-colored sparrow, chest-nut-
collared longspur, upland sandpiper. Using the
entire prairie ecosystem were other unique prairie birds,
the Swainson’s hawk and, with a more limited breeding
range, the ferruginous hawk and burrowing owl. The
Refuge System was also interested in the area’s fall
migrant use. Geese, swans, ducks, and sandhill cranes
annually stopped at Lostwood Refuge for a short rest
during their southward migration.
Murphy (1993) reviewed and summarized historical
accounts of early explorers and naturalists who traveled
through the area, and found that, in the early- and mid-
1800’s, the Coteau prairie of northwestern North Dakota
was covered with short grasses, or barren, wherever
recent fire and especially bison occurred which appar-ently
were most places (i.e., Coues, Clandening, in
Murphy 1993). These observations supported a view that
the region was, historically, in a more arid, short grass
state (reviewed in Murphy 1993). But, early explorers’
and naturalists’ accounts also implied periodic deferment
or rest from heavy grazing and fire, during which
grasses would recover. Frequent mention was made by
these authors that woody vegetation needed for cooking
fires was scarce on the Missouri Coteau. Later records
from surveyors’ and biologists’ notes in the late 1800’s
and early 1900’s confirmed such observations, that
present-day Lostwood Refuge historically was grass
prairie. Aspen reached tree stage only after several
decades of fire suppression that accompanied settlement
by persons of European origin. Historical records and
indirect evidence from Lostwood Refuge reported in
18 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Murphy (op. cit.) also corroborated a 5-10 year fire
frequency for the region, asserted by Wright and Bailey
(1982).
R. Kellogg (Smithsonian Inst., Archives Record Unit
7176) gave one of the best, concise historical descriptions
of the area in August 1915:
“ . . . This region is high prairie country. Numerous
lakes, marshes and meadows are scattered over the
country. The prairie is rolling and in some places very
hilly. The subsoil in a lot of places is from a foot to a foot
and a half of gravel. The only timber in this region was
formerly on the southeast corner of [Lower] Lostwood
Lake but this was cut off by the homesteaders and now
there is nothing left but small oak [sic] and poplar brush,
with a clump of willows here and there.”
As immigrant settlement of northwestern North Dakota
took place at the beginning of the twentieth century,
mixed-grass prairies were replaced by grain fields.
Wetlands were drained to enhance agricultural produc-tion.
Even though drainage and other wetland-decimat-ing
factors have taken their toll elsewhere in the state,
prairie wetlands are still prominent on the Missouri
Coteau in northwestern North Dakota.
The Lostwood Refuge area was homesteaded mainly
during 1910-1930, with some native sod broken and
planted to small grain crops. When Lostwood Refuge
lands were first purchased in 1935, about 75 percent of
the designated Refuge area remained as unbroken
(native) mixed-grass prairie. In the absence of fire with
settlement, woody species rapidly expanded to dominate
Lostwood Refuge’s upland habitats, with snowberry
covering greater than 50 percent of uplands and most of
the Refuge changing from a mixed-grass prairie to aspen
parkland by the mid-1980’s (Murphy 1993). With this
significant change in plant community, so too did the
wildlife community dramatically change. Many grass-land
birds unique to this area disappeared from the
Lostwood Refuge or became very scarce.
Cultural Resources
Lostwood Refuge lies within a relatively un-researched
archaeological area. The nearest site that has been
excavated and studied is the Long Creek site near
Estevan, Saskatchewan, about 40 miles northwest of the
Lostwood Refuge (Wettlaufer and Mayer-Oakes 1960).
That site revealed occupation of the area as long ago as
5000 years ago. Because of the close proximity of
Lostwood Refuge to the Long Creek site, some of the
same cultures also may have occurred in the Lostwood
area. Historical records indicate that the last inhabit-ants
of the area before Western European settlement
were the southern Assiniboian tribes (Denig 1961), who
now reside in Canada. At least 200 “tipi ring” sites are
known to exist on Lostwood Refuge where Native
Americans occupied the area either in permanent or
transient camps.
The Service’s Regional Archaeologist will be consulted
during the planning phase of any proposed project and
will determine the need for a cultural resource inventory
in consultation with the North Dakota Historic Preser-vation
Office.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 19
Planning Issues and Opportunities
A planning issue is any unsettled matter that requires a
management decision; i.e., a Service initiative, an opportu-nity,
a management problem, a potential threat to the
resources of the unit, a conflict in uses, a public concern,
or the presence of an undesirable resource condition.
Input on issues was sought from the public, Federal,
State and local agencies, private organizations, and
political entities through an Environmental Assessment
and associated public comment period, and the draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (previously called
Comprehensive Management Plan).
Scoping for planning issues began with the 1994 Environ-mental
Assessment (EA) entitled “Management of
Upland Habitats on Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge.”
Scoping is a process Lostwood Refuge used whereby
Federal, State and local agencies, political entities, and
private organizations were sent copies and invited to
participate in the early planning of an EA to assist the
Service in identifying issues and alternative management
actions to be considered and evaluated in the EA.
Letters announcing the availability of the draft EA were
sent to all members of the Lostwood Communication
Council (a local group of citizens interested in Lostwood
Refuge’s management and other Service programs).
News releases announced availability of the draft EA for
review during a 30-day comment period (June 6- July 6,
1994) were published in local and regional newspapers.
Only one letter was received regarding the draft EA
from the public during or after the comment period.
That letter supported the preferred alternative, “En-hanced
Management Alternative.”
Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environ-mental
Quality’s regulations for implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other
statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and
wildlife resources, it was determined that actions within
the “Management of Upland Habitats on Lostwood
National Wildlife Refuge” EA were found to have no
significant negative environmental effects. A copy of the
“Finding of No Significant Impact” of the EA is in
Appendix C. A copy of the EA’s “Compatibility Determi-nation”
is in Appendix C.
Public involvement with Lostwood Refuge’s Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan was through news
releases, a public comment period, (August 25 to Sep-tember
30, 1997), and a public meeting (September 17,
1997 in Stanley, North Dakota). The issues, concerns,
and opportunities presented here include comments
from interested citizens and Service personnel. It is only
after all issues, concerns, and opportunities are identified
and clearly understood that the planning process can
fully be utilized. Lostwood Refuge’s management
strategies, along with accompanying goals and objec-tives,
will address these issues in some manner, unless
otherwise noted.
Land Acquisition
A common local concern was future acquisition within
the approved boundary established in the 1935 Executive
Order that created Lostwood Refuge. Opposition to
further acquisition existed because it was viewed as lost
opportunity for local farm and ranch operations and lost
tax revenues for local governments.
Hunting
Some citizens wanted more of Lostwood Refuge open to
upland game hunting during September - October.
Lostwood Refuge currently has a split upland game
season, one before the deer gun season begins, and one
after the deer gun season ends. About 4,600 acres are
open during the early season, and the entire Refuge
(except around Refuge headquarters) is open to upland
game hunting during the late season. The opportunity
exists to open other portions of the Refuge during the
first season through the compatibility determination
procedure.
Some local citizens were concerned that reduction in size
and number of aspen clumps may have negative effects
for white-tailed deer.
Class I Air Quality
Concerns were expressed about the potential conflict
that may arise between habitat renovation and mainte-nance
through the use of prescribed burning and the
Clean Air Act requirements for Lostwood Refuge and
Class I area of the Lostwood Wilderness Area. The use
of prescribed burning must be carefully balanced against
requirements of the Clean Air Act to protect and
enhance air quality in the Refuge and Class I air quality
of the Lostwood Wilderness Area. When noncompliance
is identified, the Refuge will identify solutions and
comply with all requirements. The Interagency Wilder-ness
Strategic Plan, completed by the Bureau of Land
Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service, identified that
without management of natural values of wilderness
areas, the underlying fabric of the National Wilderness
Preservation System is at risk. One of the identified
strategies is to restore fire to its natural role in the
ecosystem, allowing flexible spending of fire funding to
cover prescribed fire.
Wildlife-oriented Recreation
Some expressed appreciation of current horseback
riding opportunities on Lostwood Refuge.
20 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Environmental Education and Interpretation
Almost no funds or permanent staffing are available to
accomplish the Refuge System’s goals for compatible
recreation and outreach. Potential conflict exists
between developing permanent public use facilities (i.e.,
interpretative trails) and Refuge management needs.
Limitations on fire and grazing would cause habitat
quality to decline for indigenous wildlife. Interpretative
facilities may show only degraded, mismanaged prairie.
Disability
Some expressed the Americans With Disabilities Act of
1992 needs inclusion in Goals and Objectives. The Refuge
System will fully comply with the Disability Act.
Wildlife and Habitat Management
Habitat needs conflict among some indigenous species.
For example, Dakota skipper (an endemic tallgrass
prairie species) may need long-term rest to complete a
successful life cycle, while Baird’s sparrow, a species of
concern in northern mixed-grass prairie, needs only 2-4
years of rest after a prescribed burn or grazing period
but declines significantly with any additional rest.
A potential conflict exists between introduction of certain
species identified in the Endangered Species goal, i.e.,
western burrowing owl, and with other species needs, i.e.,
vegetation structure needed by Baird’s sparrow,
Sprague’s pipit, and waterfowl.
If Lostwood Refuge must rely strongly on partnerships
to secure funds, a program that takes a tremendous
amount of time, the resource will be compromised
because less staff time is available to maintain “ . . . the
critical biological integrity and environmental health . . .”
of the Refuge, so strongly emphasized in Executive
Order 12996 and the Refuge Improvement Act.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 21
RESOURCE AND REFUGE DESCRIPTION
Ecosystem Setting and Description
The 26,904-acre Lostwood Refuge is in Burke and
Mountrail Counties in northwestern North Dakota, 23
miles south of Canada and 70 miles east of Montana (see
Maps 1 and 2). It lies within the 12- to 19-mile wide
Missouri Coteau, a physiographic region chiefly of
moderate (100-200 feet) relief, dead ice moraine deposited
by the Wisconsin glacier over a previously occurring
escarpment (Clayton 1967; Freers 1973; Bluemle 1977).
Its rolling topography (elevation 2,227-2,442 feet) is
interspersed with 5,381 acres of prairie wetlands (20
percent of Refuge area) of all types and sizes. Hum-mocky,
knob-and-kettle topography typical of the
Missouri Coteau consists almost entirely of noninte-grated
drainage; rainfall and snowmelt collect in wetland
basins via surface runoff and subsurface seepage
(LaBaugh 1986; Winter 1989). Presence of glacial till
(Coleharbor formation) is evidenced by erratic and thin,
gravelly, mostly loam soils. The far southern 5 mi2 of
Lostwood Refuge has numerous deep, brushy coulees
that drain into a 0.9-mi2 saline lake.
The climate at Lostwood Refuge is semiarid with normal
temperature extremes of -40oF in winter and 100oF in
summer. Mean annual precipitation is 16.6 inches, with
extremes of 9 to 29 inches. Some winters have almost no
snow, while others are severe with snowstorms from
October through May. May and June are normally the
wettest months, while July and August present violent
thunderstorms often accompanied with several inches of
rain or hail. Winds ranging from 5-20 mph are prevalent
through most seasons, and 30-40 mph winds are common,
particularly in spring and fall. All wetlands, except
major lakes, may be completely full one year and
completely dry 5-10 years later. These extreme condi-tions
create a “boom and bust” scenario for the produc-tion
of water-dependent species such as ducks. This wet-to
dry-cycle also prevents frequent disease outbreaks
(i.e., botulism) and provides for maximum wetland
fertility, and thus high water bird productivity, in wet
years (Kantrud et al. 1989). The growing season varies
from 90 to 100 days.
Lostwood Refuge’s plant diversity on moist soil sites includes
components of the tallgrass prairie.
Primary soils are Zahl-Williams and Zahl-Max loams,
characterized as thinly developed, well-drained, fine
loamy soil complexes, on 3-25 percent slopes. On hilltops
and upper slopes, Zahl loam makes up 60 percent of the
Zahl-Max complex; on lower slopes, Max loams com-prise
25-50 percent of this complex. Spring surface
runoff can be rapid on steep slopes when sudden warm
temperatures melt snowdrifts. The hazard of wind and
water erosion is severe on cultivated areas during any
season.
When Refuge lands were first purchased in 1935, about
75 percent of uplands on the designated Refuge area
remained unbroken (native), mixed-grass prairie.
Although dominated by needle and wheat grasses, it
included a unique array of plant communities from dry
hilltops to slopes to moist sites (Appendix K for list of
dominant plant species). This prairie landscape
abounded with diverse, abundant native wildlife commu-nities.
Upland habitats were characterized by Baird’s
sparrow, Sprague’s pipit along with numerous other
grassland dependent birds. Wetland edge habitats
contained marbled godwit, piping plover, Nelson’s sharp-tailed
sparrow, and others. Wetlands abounded with
ducks and other water-dependent species .
The last free-ranging bison in North Dakota occurred in
the early 1880’s (Hornaday 1889; Grinell 1970; Joyce and
Skold 1988). The last raging wildfires occurred in the
early 1900’s as persons of European descent home-steaded
on the Missouri Coteau of northwestern North
Dakota in the early 1900’s, where Lostwood Refuge is
located (reviewed by Murphy 1993). Before settlement,
early explorers conveyed that no trees or shrubs were
anywhere (reviewed by Murphy 1993). However, suckers
and saplings of quaking aspen apparently were scattered
over the prairie, but were dwarfed by frequent fire and
herbivore grazing. Although no trees existed on
Lostwood Refuge before settlement (except for an elm
grove along a Refuge lake), by 1938, aspen tree clumps
totaled 275 and covered 100 acres; by 1969, 500 clumps
totaling 375 acres; and in 1985, 540 clumps (475 acres), or
about 13 clumps/mi2 (Murphy 1993). The spread has
Lostwood Refuge’s plant diversity on dry soil sites includes
components of the mixed-grass prairie and short-grass of the
more arid west.
22 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
continued, except on areas with several prescribed
burns. Most clumps border wetlands, particularly
seasonal wetlands. Over time, these clumps spread
around the wetlands, then invade the wetland basin. By
1985, more than 300 wetlands were overtaken by aspen
on Lostwood Refuge (USFWS, unpubl. data).
Other woody expansion took place too, particularly on
uplands where a low-growing shrub, western snowberry,
gradually increased. Lack of reference to low brush in
historical accounts suggests the plant either was
inconspicuous or occurred infrequently before settle-ment.
An estimate of 5 percent small shrub composition
comprised by snowberry and other low brush in pristine
mixed-grass prairie has been proffered based on relict
sites (summarized by Murphy 1993). Snowberry has
been found to proliferate under fire suppression and
cattle grazing (summarized in Murphy 1993). Land use
from the early 1900’s to mid-1970’s was primarily
livestock grazing and purposely excluded fire. Each
designated unit was grazed from annual season-long
grazing for 30-40 years to zero years (long-term rest or
idle treatment). Comparing the two extremes in treat-ment,
little difference in plant composition resulted with
both having extensive invasion extremes in woody plants
and exotic grasses. Aerial photographs, taken in 1935,
reveal snowberry already covering 24 percent of the
upland native prairie, and by 1985, the extent of snow-berry-
dominated cover doubled. This trend parallels
that of aspen proliferation.
Not only are unburned native plant communities at
Lostwood Refuge becoming dominated by woody plants,
associated changes in the wildlife community are
showing. One of the most conspicuous of these changes
is within the raptor community, a group of species
sensitive to alterations in the food chain and habitat
structure (Newton 1979). Historically (ca. late 1800’s to
early 1900’s), Swainson’s and ferruginous hawks, true
grassland raptors, were dominant breeders, while great-horned
owls were uncommon and red-tailed hawks
absent as breeding species on Lostwood Refuge (Murphy
1993). But with the advance of aspen trees, great-horned
owls and red-tailed hawks increased and pioneered,
respectively, and by the 1970s were dominant, large
raptors on the Refuge. Swainson’s hawks are now
uncommon, nesting only on the Refuge periphery, and at
most only one pair of ferruginous hawks nest on the
Refuge. The same transition of grassland to parkland,
with the raptor community changing from Swainson’s
and ferruginous hawks (true grassland raptors) to red-tailed
hawks and great horned owls (generalist raptors),
has been observed in southern Saskatchewan (Houston
and Bechard 1983, 1984) and Alberta (Schmutz 1984).
Another conspicuous change is within the grassland
passerine community, a group of species sensitive to
vegetation structure and composition. Madden (1996)
studied 10 upland passerine species on burned and
unburned areas of Lostwood Refuge. On unburned
areas, Baird’s sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, Le Conte’s
sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, and western meadowlark were
never detected on unburned areas, and bobolinks were
rarely detected. These species, however, were com-monly
found on areas treated with fire, as were two
grassland-generalist species (brown-headed cowbird and
savannah sparrow), and two shrub-associated species
(clay-colored sparrow and common yellowthroat).
On uplands currently dominated by western snowberry,
the shrub understory is either void of grass or has dense
mats of Kentucky bluegrass, a species that thrives in
relatively shaded, cool, moist microenvironments
particularly under a grazing regime (Kirsch and Kruse
1973; Pelton 1953; Bird 1971; Anderson and Bailey 1979).
But as western snowberry stands age, smooth brome
invades and within 5-10 years, dominates the site. Under
some of these conditions, native grasses and forbs are
still present but are significantly suppressed. If brome
has begun to invade a site by the time a first prescribed
burn is conducted, brome will dominate the site in less
than three years. The major vegetation problem swings
from dominance by woody plants to dominance by
smooth brome.
Refuge croplands include those farmed prior to Refuge
establishment in 1935 and not farmed afterwards (about
9 percent of uplands), and those farmed by the Service
until the mid-1950’s (15 percent of uplands). Croplands
farmed prior to 1935 generally were not seeded to
perennial cover and were subsequently invaded by a few
native grasses and forbs but more commonly exotic
grasses and extensive stands of woody plants. Crop-lands
farmed by the Refuge staff, however, were mostly
seeded to exotic grasses and alfalfa. These areas, now
nearly all dominated by smooth brome, pose substantial
threat to the integrity of surrounding native grassland.
Such areas need to be restored to native grasses and
forbs.
Other conspicuous features of the current landscape are
spots of leafy spurge and caragana (see Map 3). In the
northern prairie, aspen typically pioneers and spreads
along wetland borders (Maini 1960). Leafy spurge, is a
very invasive noxious weed in many upland habitats if not
controlled (North Dakota Department of Agriculture
1993). First reported and treated on Lostwood in 1958,
spurge invaded about 300 acres by 1997, but through
control measures, less than a third of that has active
growing spurge today. Spurge’s typical growth pattern
on the Refuge is small dense clones in widely separated
spots (280 “spots”), usually about 10-20 yards wide. A
higher probability exists of spurge invading in trees than
other Refuge habitat types (28 percent of the spurge on 2
percent of the land), and the least probability in native
grassland (46 percent of the spurge on 70 percent of the
land), and no significant difference than expected on
croplands (24 percent of the spurge on 28 percent of the
land). Caragana, a tall, nonnative shrub planted by
homesteaders at 20 locations on the Refuge, has spread
and now occupies about 62 acres and increasing. Stands
become so shaded and dense that no other vegetation
grows in the understory.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 23
Map 1 Area
24 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 25
Map 2 - Vicinity
26 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 27
Map 3
28 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 29
Areas that were not disturbed by cultivation hold a
scattered pattern of Native American “tipi rings,” as
well as numerous bison “rub rocks.” An unexplored
wealth of information on how Native Americans used this
area lies among these hills and wetlands. More recent
human use is evidenced by a couple of intact foundations
from old sod houses.
Acquisition
Lostwood Refuge’s Executive Order boundary would
comprise 33,045 acres. The current Refuge acreage is
26,904 acres, all within the approved boundary. Map 4
shows the Refuge Boundary as established under the
1935 Executive Order 7171; a copy of that Order with the
legal descriptions it lists is in Appendix J. Any lands not
already acquired as set forth in the Executive Order of
September 4, 1935, will be considered individually if
presented to the Service for acquisition in the future. In
deciding which lands will be accepted for purchase,
economic aspects will be included as part of routine
planning process. The Service will only acquire lands
from willing sellers. Therefore, these lands will remain
in private ownership until acquisition opportunities arise.
Environmental Assessment Summary
Preferred Alternative
In the 1994 Environmental Assessment (EA) entitled
“Management of upland habitats on Lostwood National
Wildlife Refuge,” the preferred management alternative
of three, was “Enhanced Management.” This CCP tiers
off of that EA. To attain habitat conditions described in
this alternative, will take greater than 15 years, longer
than the 15-year span of the CCP. Below is the preferred
alternative description, as presented in the EA.
“Selection of this alternative would demand expanded
efforts to manage upland habitats on Lostwood Refuge.
Upland habitat monitoring and evaluation would be
emphasized and management planning would be imple-mented.
Additional facility development on the Refuge
would allow increased use of management tools. Manag-ers
would be aware of the latest research and literature
pertaining to upland management and new methods and
practices would be implemented where appropriate.
Utility of upland management tools would increase.
Under this alternative, grasslands that have deteriorated
in the past would receive intensive management, if
needed. Management tools (rest excluded) may be
applied in consecutive or alternate years until plant vigor
and species diversity in native grasslands improve to
acceptable levels. This management strategy is com-monly
referred to as the restoration phase. When plant
vigor and diversity are acceptable, the maintenance
phase would be initiated. In this phase, the tool “rest”
would be used more frequently. Grasslands may only be
actively managed once every 4 or 5 years, resulting in 20-
25 percent of Refuge upland area being treated in a given
year. Plant vigor and species diversity would not be
allowed to deteriorate to the point that necessitates
restoration management to meet Refuge goals and
objectives.
Diversity and production of indigenous migratory birds
and other native wildlife would increase due to improved
habitat conditions (Wiens 1970; Kantrud 1981). Height
and density of herbaceous vegetation would increase
(Vogl 1967). Succession would increase until the upland
would be in a dynamic seral stage characteristic of native
grasslands (Ryan 1990). Over the long-term, noxious
weeds would decrease, and introduced, cool season
grasses would decrease in native grasslands. Plant
species diversity would increase. Little club moss would
be present. The water cycle, mineral cycle, and energy
flow would increase (Vogl 1974; Wright and Bailey 1982).
Opportunities for consumptive and non-consumptive
recreation would increase. The affect on the local
economy would be positive due to increased economic
opportunities from grazing and haying. Less noxious
weed control would be needed by neighbors. Income
derived through local purchases of materials, and income
derived indirectly from increased recreational use would
increase.
The public image of the Service would improve. The
ability of the Service to accomplish goals unrelated to
Refuges would improve. Private landowners would be
more willing to participate in cooperative wildlife en-hancement
activities on their lands. Wildlife habitat
would improve on private lands also. Neighbors would
see the benefits of upland management practices and
would likely implement them on their own land. The
Service’s acquisition program would be viewed with
much more favor.
If this alternative were adopted, the purposes and
objectives established for Lostwood Refuge would be
fully accomplished. Diversity and production of indig-enous
migratory birds and other native wildlife would
increase due to improved habitat conditions. This would
also likely occur on private lands because of the circum-stances
cited above. This alternative is compatible with
the purposes for which the Refuge was acquired.
This alternative involves a greater use of a combination of
upland management tools to achieve the desired results.
Even though the enhanced management alternative is
preferred, staff and budget constraints may prevent the
full implementation of this alternative. . . .”
30 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Consequences
The importance of this alternative is unclear until one
studies how the whole grassland system functions
together. To provide high-quality habitat for mainte-nance
and production of grassland migratory birds and
other wildlife, upland vegetation must be in a healthy and
vigorous state. This is accomplished through periodic
disturbance involving partial or total defoliation of the
vegetation, simulating two historical events, short,
intensive grazing by native herbivores and wildfires.
These defoliation events reduce buildup of residual
vegetation, and thus increase energy flow, water, and
nutrient cycling (Vogl 1974; Wright and Bailey 1982,
Bragg 1995, Bragg and Steuter 1996).
Management of Lostwood Refuge from the 1930’s to the
late 1970’s was based on the best management practices
known, focusing on light grazing by livestock through the
plant growing season, or leaving areas idle for up to
several decades (intentional rest). It is now known,
however, such management degrades northern mixed-grass
prairie (Kirsch and Kruse 1973, Ryan 1990, Bragg
and Steuter 1996). Lack of fire, too much of the same
type of grazing, and, in some cases, over-rest have
resulted in overwhelming vegetation problems and loss
of endemic wildlife.
Without fire, woody plants have spread, including aspen
trees, usually surrounding wetlands, changing Lostwood
Refuge from a herbaceous grassland to aspen parkland.
Currently, unburned areas of the Refuge could be
considered aspen parkland (Murphy 1993), and in these
areas, the change may soon be irreversible. Grassland
and grassland wildlife values on Lostwood Refuge will
continue to diminish as documented by Refuge and
research staff on these areas. Grassland ecosystems in
North America are decreasing in quantity and quality,
including that of the Missouri Coteau in the northern
Great Plains. A critical need prevails to aggressively act
to reverse the trend toward parkland on Lostwood
Refuge.
Experimental prescribed burning began on Lostwood
Refuge in 1972 with two small areas (less than 20 acres
each), when objectives and guidelines were first written
for the Refuge , introducing the idea of returning fire to
the ecosystem. Prescribed burning was not tried again
until 1978. If woody and exotic vegetation are to be
reduced, frequent defoliation with fire is needed (Bailey
1988). Refuge uplands require intensive treatment for
10-20 years to get them back into the proper condition
after too many years of rest and lack of, or inappropriate,
defoliation. In 1978, a more intensive prescribed burning
program began. Sixteen percent of the Refuge received
several prescribed burns over the next eight years.
Simple evaluations were used to review initial wildlife and
vegetation responses and trends. When these evalua-tions
(USFWS, unpubl. Refuge files) revealed trends in
the desired direction, management expanded, and
evaluation efforts were intensified. When results were
not desirable, the management approach was revised,
and reevaluated again to review trends. From informa-tion
gathered between 1978-91, the 1972 goals were
refined in 1991. This process of prescribing and applying
a management technique, evaluating the outcome, the
adjusting management as needed, is known as Adaptive
Resource Management (ARM). Walters (1986) defines
ARM as an “ . . . approach [beginning] with the central
tenet that management involves a continual learning
process that cannot conveniently be separated into
functions like ‘research’ and [management] . . . .” He
suggests using management as a learning process, as a
tool for experimentation. Lostwood Refuge’s native
prairie resources were rapidly being diminished by
succession and alien species, and management began
using ARM to reverse the trend. The entire process is
one of building blocks, one of continual and improved
predictions, evaluations, and changes that over the long-term
(20-50 years for Lostwood’s prairie) helps accom-plish
Lostwood Refuge’s mission, goals, and objectives.
Another of these building blocks is the 1998 CCP that
more explicitly defines Lostwood Refuge’s mission,
goals, and objectives. Setting clear, quantified objectives,
helps focus long-term management, which is essential to
successful natural resource conservation.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 31
Map 4
32 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 33
A dynamic ecological event took place in 1988 that likely
demonstrates fire’s role in preventing the establishment
of trees and other woody plants. That year, prairie soils
and vegetation were as dry as they have been since
perhaps the drought years of the mid-1930’s. Lightning
struck and ignited fire on the Lostwood Wilderness Area
in August, after no rain had fallen for a month, wetlands
had been dry for two years, and strong hot winds (30-40
mph) had prevailed throughout summer. Healthy aspen
trees, from saplings to mature trees (1.5 feet dbh and
larger), had little moisture in their trunks. The wildfire
burned through large aspen trees at ground level, and
those not burned through were heat-girdled (fire
destroyed the cambium layer in the lower trunk). Where
shrubs occurred, fire burned deep into the roots and
humus. Where only grasses and forbs occurred, how-ever,
fire swept across without burning beyond root
crowns and humus (USFWS, unpubl. Refuge files).
Likewise, areas dominated by grasses “greened up” in
September, but areas previously dominated by woody
plants remained black with exposed mineral soils and no
new growth. This fire suggests some historical mecha-nisms
by which woody plants were suppressed and
grasses were favored in prairie.
By fall 1997, 65 percent of Refuge uplands had been
treated with at least one prescribed burn. Prior to 1993,
this program was accomplished with volunteer and few
trained, paid professionals. All prescribed burns were
controlled safely within planned burn boundaries.
During 1993-1997, additional staff were hired and trained
specifically for the fire program, and fire equipment and
facilities were improved. If this type of funding and
staffing continues, the prescribed burning program will
progress, except for evaluations. Funds and staff are
insufficient for proper evaluation and monitoring how-ever.
In addition to fire, prairies evolved with a signifi-cant
grazing influence. From about 1940-1982, Refuge
grazing treatments did not simulate historical grazing
intensity and duration (large bison herds grazing an area
heavily in a few days). Grazing, without fire, tends to
increase Kentucky bluegrass, western snowberry, and
aspen, as previously described. Burning without grazing
will limit basal growth potential of native grasses, leaving
bare ground exposed for alien species to invade, and
apparently does little to reduce competitive ability of
smooth brome. By fall 1997, 26 percent of Refuge
uplands had been treated with at least one three-year 14-
day rotation grazing using livestock . Of this, 9 percent
of the uplands had received prescribed burns that
reduced the woody plants. Unfortunately, the grazing
program is somewhat limited as a tool, due to lack of
staff for proper planning, coordinating, monitoring of
grazing, and plant and wildlife evaluations.
Croplands dominated by smooth brome, Kentucky
bluegrass, quack grass, crested wheatgrass, and
snowberry need to be restored to native grasses and
forbs. This will reduce the potential for exotic species
invasion into native grassland, and will improve habitat
for endemic wildlife. Methods to accomplish this task
are continually being adopted under the ARM philoso-phy.
Native forb and grass seed best suited for
Lostwood Refuge will be purchased, and some will be
harvested on-site. Once seeded, frequent defoliation is
essential to develop plant root systems so the seeded
native plants can function together as a grassland and
develop with management. This program lacks funds for
staffing, preparing seedbeds, purchasing and harvesting
seed, and initial intensive management.
Harvesting of upland hay is another tool for managing
upland and wetland habitats on Lostwood Refuge. It is a
nonselective (cuts everything at the same time) treat-ment
that stimulates the Fast Nutrient cycle if applied
at appropriate times. It also removes excess litter. It is
a particularly important tool in managing newly planted
herbaceous native plants on croplands. It helps to
develop plant root systems, yet leaves behind stubble
that protects young plants from severe climatic events.
Funds for proper planning and evaluations are lacking.
Integrated Pest Management has been used to control
leafy spurge. If not controlled, it will gradually domi-nate
many upland sites, an unfortunate common occur-rence
across parts of North Dakota and surrounding
states. Chemical applications, mechanical treatments
(mowing), and prescribed burning have contained spurge
on about 60-100 acres of 300 acres infested. Biological
control was started in 1995 when leafy spurge beetles
(host specific) became available in sufficient quantities at
North Dakota nursery sites. As beetles on Lostwood
become established and are transported to new spots,
chemical dependency will be eliminated except where
there are too few plants to support beetles. This
program lacks funds to purchase chemicals and to hire
personnel for sufficient treatments and evaluations.
Proposed public use, wetland habitat management,
cultural resources, and research activities are presented
in the Refuge Goals and Objectives section.
34 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Defoliation and Rest--Importance and Meth-
ods, and Effects to Habitat and Wildlife
Not defoliating vegetation for one or more years is
defined as rest, another management tool. Some units of
the Refuge have not been or are rarely managed because
of various constraints. Rested habitat is important for
many species of migratory and resident birds and other
wildlife for reproduction, foraging, and roosting or escape
cover. Resting much more than five years, however, is
detrimental to the native herbaceous plant community.
Some native wildlife species also find too much rest
unattractive, as previously discussed. Periodic defolia-tion
treatments are needed to maintain native grasslands
in their best ecological condition, and provide appropriate
habitat diversity for grassland wildlife.
Native prairie plants have evolved mechanisms that
allow them to survive and flourish with periodic flood,
drought, grazing, and fire (Ellison 1960; Stubbendieck
1988, Bragg 1995, Bragg and Steuter 1996). One of these
adaptations is “mutualism,” a type of symbiosis where
species coexist to the benefit of each other. Here, the
relationship is between a plant and a group of fungi called
mycorrhizal fungi (Stoddart et al. 1975). About 85-90
percent of all native plants have developed this relation-ship.
Fungi grow in a narrow area along the edge of the
roots called the rhizosphere. This zone extends the root
system of native plants, increasing a plant’s ability to
absorb more moisture and nutrients than plants without
mycorrhizal fungi. The rhizosphere area is rich with soil
microbes that break down soil and old plant material into
forms that plants can use for growth (Barbour et al.
1980).
Periodic grazing and fire stimulate activity in the
rhizosphere and surrounding soil area, thereby fertiliz-ing
the plants (Wallace 1987; Bentivenga and Hetrick
1992). Plants without mycorrhiza cannot grow as well,
especially when grazed and burned. The whole system is
not fully understood, but it is known that two nutrient
cycles exist: a “Fast Nutrient cycle” is stimulated by
grazing and haying, and a “Slow Nutrient cycle” is
accelerated by fire.
Fire: Fire, whether set by humans or caused by light-ning,
has been a natural part of the prairie for thousands
of years (Sauer 1950; Higgins 1986, Bragg 1995, Bragg
and Steuter 1996). Fire causes the Slow Nutrient cycle
to release nutrients otherwise unavailable to growing
plants. Litter (dead plant material from previous years’
plant growth) contains nitrogen unavailable for plants
until the plant and litter is completely decomposed
(Bragg 1995). Accumulation of litter over several years
significantly reduces the amount of available nitrogen for
plants. Fire breaks down this litter, causing a flurry of
microbial activity that releases more nitrogen for plant
uptake than would been available without fire (Barbour et
al. 1980, Wright and Bailey 1982). This increase in
microbial activity occurs for up to three years after a
fire. Native plants in the northern Great Plains depend
on fire to keep nutrient cycles functioning normally.
Nutrient cycles are triggered with fire, and plants respond by
producing rich, succelent growth, as shown here in a xeric hill
site in late July after a mid-May burn.
Heavy layers of litter and excessive humus creates a
micro environment that is attractive to exotic grass
species (Ode et al. 1980). Fire removes litter and reduces
humus, producing a more arid soil environment (Bragg
and Steuter 1996), a condition unattractive to these exotic
species but attractive to most native herbaceous species
(Bragg 1995). Removing excessive litter with a pre-scribed
burn under predetermined conditions, decreases
the risk of destructive wildfires (Bailey 1988). Fire
prevents grasslands from succeeding to shrubland
(Sauer 1950). It can also reduce dominance of mosses
(Bragg 1995), a desired fire effect on club moss, an
allopathic (prevents other plants from establishing)
species in the northern Great Plains. Fire can maintain
or change a physical vegetation structure to provide
desired habitat for indigenous wildlife (Bailey 1988). Fire
usually increases species diversity (Anderson and Bailey
1980, Bragg and Steuter 1996), including wetlands
(Bailey 1988). Fire produces conditions for native
seedling establishment for long-term plant diversity,
particularly forbs (Bragg and Steuter 1996).
Use of fire as a management tool began in 1965 (Higgins
et al. 1989) in the northern Great Plains. Grasslands are
burned primarily to manipulate vegetation, soil mi-crobes,
nutrient cycles, and to enhance the biological
productivity and diversity of specific organisms, or to
accomplish specific objectives (reduce Kentucky blue-grass).
Specific objectives may be broad (prairie restora-tion
and maintenance) or narrow (management for
endangered or rare species or reduction of a woody plant
species), but will contain two characteristics: it is
measurable and specifies what specifically will be done.
Where native prairie is not a major component of the
management area, nearly all prescribed fires are used
to: reduce vegetative litter, control noxious weeds,
reestablish native grasses through reseeding, or improve
the chemical kill on exotic plants prior to reseeding
native grasses and forbs. Where native prairie is a major
part of a management area, the primary reasons for
burning are to restore, improve, or enhance the prairie
habitat for wildlife.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 35
Management needed on Lostwood Refuge to return
indigenous plant and wildlife species involves three
phases. (1) Renovation; burning 3-5 times over 7-10
years. Currently 50 percent of Lostwood Refuge is in
this phase. (2) Renovation-maintenance; in a 7-year
period, graze 3 years, rest 2-3 years, and burn 1-2 times.
Currently 15 percent of the Refuge is in this phase. (3)
Maintenance; alternately burn and graze with 2-5 year
rest periods. Currently none of the Refuge is in the
maintenance phase. From 1978-97, an average of 3.8
burns and 2,410 acres per year were prescribe burned
(includes 2 wildfires in 1988 totaling 6,135 acres). From
1990-1997, an average of 3.5 burns and 3,160 acres per
year were prescribed burned. Prescribed burns 500
acres or larger usually begin at 1100 hr and end at 1700
hr, resulting in 6 hours per burn day when smoke is
emitted. This calculates about 23 hours each year smoke
is emitted, or about 0.3 percent of the hours in a year.
Cool-season grasses, per pound burned, emitted less
than wood burning stoves (Bragg 1995). Grasses, even
tall, warm-season grasses, produce far less than trees
(Bragg 1995). Water erosion following a prescribed burn
in northern mixed-grass prairies was found to be
negligible (Bragg 1995). Annual prescribed burn plans
are completed and approved, following standard proce-dures
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Fire affects wildlife mainly by modifying habitat (Wright
and Bailey 1982, Higgins et al. 1989). Fire reduces
vegetative biomass and litter and therefore favors early
over later successional stages (Barbour et al. 1980).
Succession following a fire defoliation event produces a
series of successional changes for different wildlife
species. For example, the year of a burn and into the
second year provides habitat conditions attractive to lark
buntings, chestnut-collared longspurs, and horned larks.
The second and third years provide increased vertical
cover but open understory that provides preferred
habitat for Baird’s and grasshopper sparrows. As more
litter accumulates in the third and fourth years,
Sprague’s pipits increase along with nesting cover for
waterfowl and resident bird species. In Saskatchewan,
Maher (1973) found one of the highest breeding bird
densities recorded in any treatment during his study
(burn, grazed, un-grazed) on burned grassland during
the second year following the burn. Burns also increase
local habitat diversity by creating a mosaic of habitats
and increasing habitat interspersion and edge (Biondini et
al. 1989; Steuter et al. 1990). Some direct mortality of
wildlife can result from fire (Wright and Bailey 1982,
Higgins et al. 1989). Most often this occurs in sedentary
species such as some reptiles or immobile life stages, as
in the egg or pupal stage of many insects. Although fire
can be detrimental to some ground nesting birds,
prescribed burns may be timed to avoid overlap with
nesting seasons. Some prescribed burns may have to be
done during the nesting season to impact plant species to
be encouraged or discouraged. Many species of birds,
however, are known to successfully re-nest following
such disturbances or initiate nests in recently burned
prairie (Kirsch and Kruse 1973; Kruse and Piehl 1986).
Grazing: Grazing stimulates the Fast Nutrient cycle
only during a portion of a plant’s growth period called
the “window period” (based on plant physiological
responses [Manske 1994, 1996], about June 1 to July 15
for cool-season grasses and about June 15 to July 31 for
warm-season grasses in northwestern North Dakota).
To understand this, a little further explanation may be
helpful. About 85 percent of nitrogen in prairie soil is
tied up as organic nitrogen, a nitrogen form not available
for plant growth. When mycorrhizal fungi-dependent
plants are grazed during the window period, microbial
activity helps convert organic nitrogen to mineral
nitrogen. When aptly grazed, the plant’s nitrogen is
removed (primarily in the aboveground leaves) and the
plant releases carbon in the form of simple sugar
released into the rhizosphere (Coyne et al. 1995). This
causes an increase in bacteria activity that in turn causes
protozoa and nematodes (soil microbes) to also increase
activity. They give off ammonia. Mycorrhizal fungi
absorb the ammonia and convert it to nitrate, which is a
mineral form of nitrogen, usable by plants. Nitrogen is
passed from the fungi to the plant. The defoliated plant
has been stimulated to activate axillary buds (new leaves
that can tiller the year grazed) and the nitrogen from the
rhizosphere provides the nutrients. This increases plant
growth (Barbour et al. 1980, Manske 1996). Native plants
in the northern Great Plains depend on grazing to retain
a normal nutrient cycle.
Plants can easily be overgrazed (i.e., repeated defoliation
of individual plants over weeks or months) during window
periods. Indeed, grasslands grow most vigorously with
short periods of grazing during the window period.
Historically, bison probably did not stay and repeatedly
graze a given area for very long (Larson 1940; Edwards
1978). Grazing should not exceed 14 days at the recom-mended
rate of 2-3 acres/AUM (Animal Unit Month) for
this area (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1975).
Primary components of grazing are timing and intensity
(Stoddart et al. 1975). Timing refers to the time of year
and length of time the plants are exposed to grazing
animals (grazing period), including the number of
grazing periods. Intensity refers to the degree of
grazing pressure that plants and plant communities
experience. Intensity is a function of stocking density
and grazing period length, and is controlled by the
number of livestock in a given area (stocking rate) and is
measured in AUMs (Animal Unit Months)/acre. These
factors are managed to achieve a controlled grazing
program. For the purposes of management on Lostwood
Refuge, grazing and animal impact will be considered one
tool; both are means of removing herbage, i.e., defoliation.
While we recognize the difference between the two, one
cannot be used without the other (See Appendix B,
Glossary of Terms for definition of grazing and animal
impact.)
36 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Grassland is the dominant upland habitat on Lostwood
Refuge. Native grasses and most native forbs in the
northern Great Plains evolved with and require periodic
partial or total defoliation followed by periods of rest to
maintain their vigor and preserve floral richness (re-viewed
above). Vegetative vigor and diversity are
paramount to achieve the landscape description for the
Refuge. Grazing is one of the primary tools available to
accomplish the goals and objectives, relying on livestock
provided by local livestock producers. A critical part of a
successful grazing program is informing cooperating
livestock producers of the goals and objectives of the
Refuge, and how their efforts contribute to successful
Refuge management.
Grazing on Lostwood Refuge will not be restricted to
warm or cool season growth periods. Grazing may take
place during slow and fast growth stages and during the
dormant period, depending on the specific habitat
objective. In most cases, grazing is intended to stimulate
the Fast Nutrient cycle that promotes growth (Coleman
et al. 1983). The period of time the plants and plant
communities are exposed to livestock will vary, though
will be minimized as much as possible. Usually the
grazing period will not exceed 14 consecutive days
(Manske 1994). Stocking rates will vary depending on
specific objectives.
Grazing affects grasslands and wildlife. Effects can be
good or bad, depending on the type of grazing and how it
is used. If used correctly in upland areas, grazing will
improve wildlife habitat for many species. Effects of
grazing on grasslands and wildlife have been heavily
researched, yet many questions remain unanswered. On
Lostwood Refuge, spring grazing reduced densities of
mallards, gadwalls, and blue-winged teal (Kruse and
Bowen, 1996); nest density of gadwalls increased after
grazing ended. Nest success, however, was uninfluenced
by grazing. Sedivec et al. (1990) concluded that cattle
grazing enhanced waterfowl nesting habitat in south-central
North Dakota when properly managed by
specialized grazing systems. Moderately grazed
grasslands in Iowa were more attractive to blue-winged
teal than un-grazed habitats (Burgess et al. 1965). Many
other studies have found grazing detrimental to duck
production (Kirsch 1969; Miller 1971; Gjersing 1975;
Mundinger 1976; Kirsch et al. 1978). In central Montana,
the greatest density of duck pairs occurred on grass-lands
that were un-grazed during the previous year
(Mundinger 1976). Results of studies are often confusing
and conflicting, due to different habitats, wildlife, and
grazing types used among studies (Kirsch et al. 1978,
Kirby et al. 1992).
Research on effects of grazing on other migratory birds
in the Prairie Pothole Region is less plentiful. Grazing
mainly affects habitats of rangeland birds by reducing
vegetation quantity and quality (Kirsch et al. 1978,
Strassman 1987). Specific effects of grazing on breeding
birds, however, are not uniform or easily defined because
of differences in grazing intensity and rangeland type.
Owens and Myres (1973), Kantrud (1981), and Messmer
(1985) found that grazing reduced or eliminated some
nongame birds, while not affecting or increasing popula-tions
of others; some species preferred grazed over idle
grasslands. Total bird density in North Dakota prairies
generally increases with increased grazing intensity
(Kantrud and Kologiski 1983), although species richness
generally decreases (Kantrud 1981; Kantrud and
Kologiski 1983). Upland nesting shorebirds such as
marbled godwit and willet prefer prairie of short vegeta-tion,
such as that disturbed by grazing (Ryan et al. 1984;
Ryan and Renken 1987). Upland sandpipers, however,
might not initiate nests when cattle are present in mixed-grass
prairie (Bowen and Kruse 1993), and prefer lightly
grazed or idle areas (Higgins et al. 1969). Nest sites,
foraging habitats, or prey of several species of raptors at
Lostwood Refuge, especially ferruginous hawks and
burrowing owls, have been negatively affected by
increases in vegetation height and density under decades
of light grazing or rest (Murphy 1993). Ferruginous
hawks and burrowing owls seem to prefer heavily grazed
tracts in the northern Plains (Schmutz et al. 1980;
Konrad and Gilmer 1984; Haug and Oliphant 1990).
Kirsch et al. (1978) concluded that annual grazing
reduces production of most upland nesting birds,
although periodic treatments are needed to maintain
upland nesting habitats in their best ecological condition.
Effects of grazing on bird populations, positive or
negative, are greatly complicated by variation in climate,
topography, and soils across the northern Great Plains
(Kantrud and Kologiski 1983).
Rest: Rest can also be an important management tool.
The northern mixed-grass prairies historically were not
grazed season-long, or even parts of a year, year-after-year.
Some grassland wildlife species require freshly
burned areas during part of their lives, some require
grazed areas, and some need areas rested for several
years, providing accumulations of litter for nesting cover
(Kantrud 1981; Ryan 1990). Litter is also important to
building topsoil. However, rest for more than five years
decreases “beneficial” microbes in the soils that stimu-late
Fast and Slow Nutrient cycles (Coleman et al. 1983).
In addition, woody plants increase in areas only grazed
or rested, ultimately decreasing native grasses and forbs
(Bragg and Steuter 1996). In summary, litter builds
topsoils, but too much litter over too long of a period ties
up much of the nutrients. Fire, which historically
occurred at least every 5-10 years (reviewed above),
helps circulate these nutrients and maintain the grass/
forb composition.
For the purpose of upland management on Lostwood
Refuge, rest is defined as intentionally allowing upland
habitat to remain undisturbed for one year or longer.
Some units of the Refuge have not been or are rarely
managed because of various constraints. This uninten-tional
lack of disturbance is not considered “rest.” Rest
will be used as a tool to meet objectives established for
the Refuge.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 37
Past management of Lostwood Refuge followed contem-porary
philosophies and practices thought to be best for
wildlife. With increased knowledge, however, manage-ment
became more fine-tuned and techniques have
improved. Native wildlife in the northern Great Plains
need mosaics of grassland habitats to maintain their
diversity and abundance (Ryan 1990). Without one or
more of the historical treatments, the plant diversity
regresses and abundance of native grassland wildlife
suffers. Disturbances must be relatively short in
duration and vary from partial to total defoliation to
maintain natural patch dynamics (Hulbert 1969; Huber
and Steuter 1984; Bragg 1995). These disturbances also
provide varied vegetation height and density, succes-sional
stages, and amounts of residual cover required by
migratory birds (Madden 1996).
The importance of undisturbed cover for upland nesting
waterfowl is well documented (Keith 1961; Burgess et al.
1965; Duebbert 1969; Oetting and Cassel 1971; Page and
Cassel 1971; Duebbert and Kantrud 1974; Kirsch et al.
1978; Kaiser et al. 1979; Voorhees and Cassel 1980).
Research also indicates that long periods of rest may
reduce the attractiveness of cover to nesting waterfowl
(Voorhees and Cassel 1980, Higgins and Barker 1982,
Kemner 1989).
Importance of undisturbed cover for other migratory
birds varies among species. Passerine breeding densities
in North Dakota may be lower in undisturbed prairie
than in grazed and hayed areas, but species richness may
follow the opposite pattern (Kantrud 1981). Baird’s
sparrows, which nest at relatively high densities at
Lostwood Refuge, need mainly grass-forb, native prairie
vegetation of moderate height and density (Sousa and
McDonal 1983), such as that produced after a year of rest
from haying or burning. Northern harriers and short-eared
owls nest mainly in undisturbed grasslands or
lightly grazed grasslands (Toland 1986; Kantrud and
Higgins 1992), but ferruginous hawks, Swainson’s hawks,
and burrowing owls need closely grazed prairies for
foraging or nesting (Wakeley 1978; Kantrud 1981;
Jasikoff 1982; Kantrud and Kologiski 1983; Sharp 1986;
Haug and Oliphant 1990). Kirsch et al. (1978) concluded
that annual cover removal is detrimental to the produc-tion
of most upland nesting birds but acknowledged that
periodic treatment is needed. As reviewed elsewhere in
this document, periodic treatments are desired to
maintain native, upland nesting habitats in their best
ecological condition. Therefore, long periods of rest are
detrimental.
Rest will be used at Lostwood Refuge in a manner that
takes full advantage of its beneficial effects and mini-mizes
potential detrimental effects. Primary compo-nents
of rest are timing and duration. Rest will be used
to provide residual standing vegetation during fall,
winter, and spring for use by upland nesting waterfowl,
other migratory birds, and other wildlife as resting,
roosting, bedding, feeding, fawning, nesting, and escape
cover. Rest will not be overused in order to keep
succession, water and mineral cycles, energy flow, and
quality of cover at high levels in native prairie. The
length of rest will depend on the condition of the grass-land.
Those in poor condition may not improve with rest
unless other management tools are used to improve
condition prior to rest. Native grasslands in very good
condition can benefit for the first two to three years and
may sustain several more years of rest before deteriorat-ing
significantly. Due to the invasion of exotic, cool
season grasses in native grasslands on Lostwood Refuge,
habitat conditions quickly deteriorate if over-rested.
Conditions may deteriorate to the point that intensive
management is needed for recovery. Appropriate use of
rest ensures long-term health of native grasslands,
requiring less intensive use of other tools.
38 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Haying: Haying stimulates the Fast Nutrient cycle if
applied during the window period, but in contrast to
grazing it is nonselective (haying cuts everything
uniformly while livestock graze selectively). The use of
haying as a grassland management tool on the Lostwood
Refuge relies on local livestock producers. No upland
management program using haying as a tool will be
successful if it does not meet needs of these producers,
i.e., grass cut too late for nutritional value. However,
haying activities will be complete by September 1 to
allow regrowth for winter cover and residual cover
needed by ground-nesting birds the following spring.
Other haying activities such as baling and removal of
bales will also be accomplished by September 1. Haying
will not normally be conducted more than once per year
on a given area. In most cases, haying will not be done
annually, but only periodically (every 4-7 years) to
maintain grassland vigor.
Studies of waterfowl production in tame grass plantings
have shown that nesting ducks prefer un-mowed over
mowed upland vegetation (Oetting and Cassel 1971;
Duebbert and Kantrud 1974; Kirsch et al. 1978; Voorhees
and Cassel 1980). This can be attributed to needs for
residual vegetation especially by early nesting ducks
(Gates 1965; Martz 1967; Luttschwager and Higgins
1991). Although ducks prefer un-mowed vegetation, they
can have relatively good production in early successional
growth the first year after haying (Oetting and Cassel
1971; Vorhees and Cassel 1980; Luttschwager and
Higgins 1991). Periodic haying of seeded nesting cover
has also been shown to be an effective means of managing
grassland to enhance duck production (Kemner 1989).
Higgins and Barker (1982) found that seeded nesting
cover reached peak growth in 3 to 5 years, and renovation
was needed to maintain stand height-density and vitality.
Timing of haying is critical; haying during nesting can
cause up to 100 percent destruction of active nests
(Labisky 1957).
Research on effects of haying on other migratory birds
and other grassland-dependent wildlife is more limited.
Higgins et al. (1969) found that intermittently mowed
cover was excellent nesting habitat for upland plovers.
Annual haying has been implicated as a major cause of
population declines of the bobolink (Bollinger et al. 1990).
Kirsch et al. (1978) concluded that annual haying is
detrimental to the production of most upland nesting
birds, although periodic treatments may be needed to
maintain upland nesting habitats in their best ecological
condition. Mowing of grasslands has been recommended
as a management tool for willets and marbled godwits in
the northern Great Plains (Ryan et al. 1984; Ryan and
Renken 1987). Early haying of meadows in Europe has
markedly altered nesting chronology and species
composition of nesting migratory birds (Beintema et al.
1985; Pfeifer and Brandl 1991). Among small rodents
common to the northern Great Plains, haying generally
causes declines in abundance of meadow voles but
increased abundance of deer mice (Eadie 1953; LoBue
and Darnell 1959; Lemen and Clausen 1984; McGowan
and Bookhout 1986; Kotler et al. 1988).
As reviewed above, the whole grassland system was kept
active and healthy by periodic grazing, fire impact, and
rest; without these treatments, native plants decline and
changes in the plant community occur. Without these
three treatments, nonnative plants to the Lostwood area
such as smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, quack
grass, and leafy spurge, were competitively favored and
increased. Returning fire and simulating bison using
livestock in shorter durations will return indigenous
flora and fauna but will take 10-20 years of intensive
management to see the long-term results.
Twelve different species of waterfowl nest on Lostwood Refuge.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 39
The following habitat conditions describe the landscape
that will best meet the needs of native, breeding migra-tory
birds and will help achieve goals and objectives of
the Refuge.
Succession: A mosaic of native prairie communities will
be present with a predominance of habitats in seral, mid-successional
stages that approach a pristine condition
(i.e., Ryan 1990). Grasses and forbs will be mainly
perennial species native to northern mixed-grass prairie.
Composition of grasses will vary depending on soil type
and location on slopes, which affect soil moisture re-gimes.
Plants will be of mixed ages. Western snowberry
will be maintained at less than 25 percent canopy
coverage. The goal is to have no more than 300 aspen
clumps with an average size of no more than 0.5 acres/
clump. Uplands previously farmed and now dominated
by smooth brome, quack grass, or Kentucky bluegrass
will be reseeded to native grasses and forbs, except
perhaps the Lostwood Wilderness Area where vehicle
access is, for the most part (i.e., emergencies), prohib-ited.
Water Cycle: In general, soils and soil surfaces will be
permeable, well aerated, and covered with plant litter in
most years. Soil organic content will also be high. Water
runoff from rain events will be low due to litter and well
established root systems in the soil (Bragg 1995). Even
in the year of a prescribed burn, slight, if any, reduction
in infiltration and percolation rates will occur, persisting
for only one or two years (Bragg 1995).
Mineral Cycle: An active mineral cycle will exist with
minimal runoff or erosion from precipitation. Surface
litter will decompose, preventing buildup of old matted
dead vegetation, yet preserving a surface mulch. Moder-ate
to substantial amounts of residual standing vegeta-tion
will be present during the winter and early growing
season on most of the Refuge. Other areas recently
burned provide relatively snow-free areas for winter
feeding. This provides critical winter cover and feeding
habitat for resident wildlife and also residual and open
nesting habitat for the various grassland birds the
following spring. The healthy grass, forb, and shrub
component will promote deeper recycling of minerals
from subsurface to surface. Shallow-rooted, introduced
species, such as Kentucky bluegrass, will be discouraged
in native sod by increasing the competitive ability of
desirable species. This will prevent litter buildup,
hasten low mineral cycling, improve height-density of
residual vegetation, and improve vegetative species
diversity. High insect and microorganism activity will
exist at and below the soil surface.
Energy Flow: A moderately high energy flow will be
present as indicated by the high density of plants on the
ground surface through periodic defoliation from fire and
grazing events. A variety of both warm and cool season
grass and forb species will be present in the native
grasslands, resulting in a longer season of plant growth,
increased solar energy harvest, and more upright,
residual cover during periods of rest.
40 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 41
REFUGE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Lostwood Refuge is the only large block of federally-owned
land in the pothole region of the northern Great
Plain’s mixed-grass prairie. It has a rich mix of prairie
and wetland resources found nowhere else in the Refuge
System. The decision to purchase this unique and
diverse area was based on two Federal biologist’s
observations recorded in the mid-1910’s. It is from these
early recordings that the following mission was estab-lished
for Lostwood Refuge.
Mission
“To restore and preserve the indigenous biological
communities of the mid- to late-1800’s on a representa-tive
sample of the physiographic region known as the
Missouri Coteau of the northern Great Plains’ mixed-grass
prairie.”
To meet this mission, management must be flexible,
changing and adapting with information obtained through
monitoring and research. It is essential to apply Adap-tive
Resource Management to Lostwood Refuge, and
recognize management as a continual learning process
with variation and change as essential ingredients. If
Lostwood Refuge is to progress and meet the goals and
objectives, then management activity tools must be
viewed as experimental. Research and management
must work as a team towards meeting these goals and
objectives.
Lostwood Refuge’s vista should embrace the native plant
and wildlife community. It should represent a simula-tion
of what was first observed here at the turn of the 19th
century. It should be a wavy sea of native warm and cool
season grasses sprinkled with colorful floral displays
throughout the growing seasons. It should abound in
indigenous grassland and wetland birds and other
wildlife including sparrows, ducks, shorebirds, geese,
longspurs, grebes, pipits, grouse, deer, hawks, and much
more. It should be a place for people to enjoy through
wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, including
hunting, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation. Herein we
present Lostwood Refuge’s goals, objectives for each
goal, and strategies on how to obtain each objective.
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Presented below are Lostwood Refuge’s seven goals and
respective objectives. Accompanying each objective are
associated strategies, which are ongoing and adaptive.
1) Endangered Species Goal: To preserve, restore,
and enhance indigenous flora and fauna that are
candidate, threatened, endangered, or species of
special interest.
Objective A. Maintain at least 9 breeding pairs of piping
plovers and increase, where possible, habitat to accom-modate
at least 16 additional breeding pairs, with a mean
fledging rate at least 1.2 young per breeding pair (Ryan
et al. 1993).
Strategies:
P Monitor reproductive success of pairs through
fledging to evaluate effects of management activities on
piping plovers.
P Maintain and improve shoreline habitat (i.e., pre-scribed
burning, grazing, salt applications, gravel
addition).
P Protect beaches and nests from predators (i.e., by use
of barrier fences).
P Create new nesting beaches where appropriate.
Objective B. Provide protection and habitat for the
following migrant threatened and endangered species:
peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and whooping crane.
Strategies:
P Provide attractive shoreline habitats for shorebirds, a
staple prey for migrating peregrine falcons.
P Provide roosting sites during the fall for migrating
snow geese, a staple prey for migrating bald eagles.
P Provide exposed shorelines and grazed or burned
uplands for spring and fall migrating whooping cranes.
42 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Objective C. Maintain and increase breeding populations
of endemic species and other unique northern mixed-grass
species that are declining throughout much of
their range due to habitat loss, such as Baird’s sparrow,
Sprague’s pipit, marbled godwit, ferruginous hawk,
mealy primrose, and Dakota skipper.
Strategies:
P Monitor vegetation management to evaluate effects on
endemic species and other indigenous fauna.
P Provide a mix of plant successional stages, using
management tools such as fire, grazing, and rest to
maximize native biodiversity.
Objective D. Consider reintroduction of greater sandhill
crane, trumpeter swan, and western burrowing owl.
Strategies:
P Assess the potential of reintroducing these species.
2) Other Wildlife Goal: To develop and maintain
diversity and abundance of fauna indigenous to the
northern Missouri Coteau.
Objective A. Achieve an average annual duck production
of 14,000 (striving for an average of 7,500 breeding pairs
and Mayfield hatching success of at least 25 percent) and
an average of 70 giant Canada goose pairs.
Strategies:
P Monitor duck and goose breeding population size and
duck reproductive success to evaluate effects of manage-ment
activities.
P Monitor coyote, fox, raccoon, skunk, and badger
populations to assess potential predation risk of local
ground-nesting birds.
P Maintain whole or part of 4 to 6 coyote territories on
the Refuge to keep red fox to less than or equal to 3
breeding territories; higher duck hatching success has
been shown in coyote versus fox territories (Sovada et al.
1995).
P Keep raccoon numbers to less than 6 individuals on the
Refuge by reducing den sites (i.e., hollow trees, rock
piles, old buildings adjacent to boundary), or removal of
an individual, as a last resort (raccoons are a major
predator on ducks [Johnson et al. 1989]).
P Produce habitat attractive to grassland dependent
raptors but not to red-tailed hawks and great-horned
owls, by minimizing the number and size of tree clumps
as described in the Wildland Goal, Objective B, through
periodic prescribed burning and grazing.
P Provide interspersed blocks of rested nesting cover
for upland nesting ducks.
P Provide, where possible, emergent cover for over-water
nesting ducks.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 43
Objective B. Achieve an average number of occupied
nesting areas for ferruginous hawk of 3 to 5, for
Swainson’s hawk 5 to 10 with both of their productivity
greater than 1.6 young per occupied territory; for red-tailed
hawk less than 13, and for great-horned owl less
than 10.
Strategies:
P Monitor raptor nesting density and productivity to
evaluate the effects of management.
P Consider nesting platforms for ferruginous hawks
where Refuge lands adjoin privately-owned native
pastures that support abundant Richardson’s ground
squirrels and meet the hawk’s other biological needs.
P Provide grassland habitat attractive to ferruginous
and Swainson’s hawks and minimize competition from
red-tailed hawks and great-horned owls by reducing the
number and size of tree clumps as described in Wildland
Goal, Objective B.
Objective C. Achieve an average, annual breeding
densities (singing males/100 acres [based on point-counts
in an 82-yard radius]) for the following passerines:
chestnut-colored longspur, western meadowlark,
Sprague’s pipit, and Le Conte’s sparrow greater than 1
male; Baird’s sparrow and grasshopper sparrow greater
than 8 males; savannah sparrow greater than 10 males;
clay-colored sparrow from 4 to 15 males; and common
yellowthroat from 1 to 5 males.
Strategies:
P Monitor breeding passerine species abundance and
reproductive success.
P Provide different plant successional stages using
management tools, such as fire, grazing, and rest, that
will maximize indigenous biodiversity and abundance.
Objective D. Achieve minimum densities (pairs/100
acres) of 1 upland sandpiper, 1 marbled godwit, 1 willet,
and 2 Wilson’s phalarope (in areas with appropriate
adjacent wetlands) over a 5-year period average.
Strategies:
P Monitor abundance of upland-nesting shorebirds.
P Provide different plant successional stages using
management tools such as fire, grazing and rest, that
will maximize shorebird biodiversity and abundance .
Objective E. Achieve over a 5-year period an average
spring sharp-tailed grouse population (males attending
leks) of at least 600 males.
Strategies:
P Monitor spring grouse populations and nesting.
P Provide different plant successional stages using
management tools such as fire, grazing, and rest, that
will maximize abundance.
Objective F. Maintain diversity of other indigenous
vertebrate and invertebrate species in balance with other
goals and objectives of Lostwood Refuge.
Strategies:
P Establish a biological monitoring program using a
species or a group of species that can represent other
species for each habitat type.
P Inventory invertebrates in soils, wetlands, and plants
in different habitat types and successional stages.
P Develop, after inventories, strategies to effectively
maintain and increase indigenous species of concern.
P Plan management that incorporates the needs of
native communities for each management unit, and
accomplish Refuge management through an ecosystem
approach.
Objective G. Private lands within the original approved
boundary may be purchased from willing sellers to
provide additional habitat for migratory birds and other
wildlife.
Strategies:
P Provide an easy step for landowners to use when
interested in selling their land for inclusion into
Lostwood Refuge.
44 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
3) Wildlands Goal: To restore and maintain native
plant communities that occurred in the late 1800’s
(prior to homesteading by people of European descent)
in an ecological relationship with vertebrates and
invertebrates.
Objective A. Manage upland native flora to sustain the
following dominant associations, moist or mesic sites
porcupine grass, big bluestem, tufted hairgrass, prairie
dropseed, mat muhly, prairie cordgrass, blazing star,
prairie lily, two-grooved milkvetch; slopes or moderate
moisture sites with species such as green needlegrass,
western wheatgrass, prairie sandreed, rough fescue,
narrow-leafed poisonvetch, blanketflower, purple prairie
clover; dry or xeric sites with species such as blue
grama, bluebunch wheatgrass, plains muhly, spike oat,
Sandberg bluegrass, early bluegrass, needle-and-thread,
spotted gayfeather, purple coneflower, golden aster (for
list of scientific names, see Appendix K).
Strategies:
P Prescribe burn areas under renovation phase 3 to 5
times with 1 to 2 years rest between each burn; pre-scribe
burn renovation-maintenance phase at least
twice and graze at least 3 years in a 10-year period; and
prescribe burn maintenance phase at least once every 6
years and graze 3 years out of 10 with less than 6 years
rest between treatments.
P Identify plant community types that represent
indigenous flora in soil types and topography using the
Federal Vegetation Classification and Information
Standards (Federal Geographic Data Committee,
Vegetation Subcommittee 1996).
P Develop techniques to monitor effects of management
practices on vegetation structure and litter depth.
P Determine what soil nutrient cycles, soil invertebrates
and other living soil organisms are needed, and how to
maintain these conditions, for native flora.
P Stimulate the Fast Nutrient cycle by grazing in a
short-duration rotation.
P Prescribe-burn during different burning periods to
attain specific objectives (i.e., reducing smooth brome
when at the 3-6 leaf stage, reducing woody plants during
mid-July to late August).
P When native grasses and forbs comprise less than 50
percent canopy cover, reseed old fields to native herba-ceous
varieties suited to this area and Refuge-harvested
seed, and monitor wildlife and plant responses.
Objective B. Maintain western snowberry and snow-berry/
silverberry at less than 25 percent canopy
coverage, and trees at less than or equal to 300 clumps of
quacking aspen with an average size 0.5 acres/clump.
Strategies:
P Prescribe burn to reduce small shrubs to reach the
fauna objectives.
P Prescribe burn and use of other tools (i.e., chemical
injections) for obtaining the aspen objective that accom-plishes
the fauna objectives.
P Use grazing to encourage indigenous grasses and
forbs that will reduce woody plants.
Objective C. Attempt to eradicate exotic species or at
least reduce their frequencies of occurrence, i.e., quack
grass less than 10 percent, smooth brome less than 10
percent, Kentucky bluegrass less than 10 percent, leafy
spurge less than 0.01 percent, caragana 0 percent,
Russian olive 0 percent, and less than 0.1 percent by
other exotic plants (i.e., sweet clover), with the combined
total of exotics less than 20 percent on native prairie and
reseeded natives.
Strategies:
P Prescribe burn to reduce undesirable exotics by
drying out the soils, eliminating deep (greater than ½
inch) humus layers, and exposing plant growing points to
the sun.
P Reseed greater than or equal to 4,000 acres of crop-lands
(of which about 2,000 acres are in the Lostwood
Wilderness Area) to native grasses and forbs.
P Use grazing and mowing to reduce undesirable exotics
where applicable.
P Use herbicides where needed but keep to a minimum.
P Use biological controls (i.e., leafy spurge beetles)
wherever possible to obtain acceptable control of exotics.
P Use fire, herbicides, and mechanical methods (i.e.,
mowing) to eradicate caragana and Russian olive.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 45
Objective D. Manage the biotic integrity of the many
indigenous wetland communities.
Strategies:
P Inventory invertebrate populations for baseline
information, and develop a monitoring program to
periodically evaluate invertebrate populations that may
indicate wetland degradation from pollution (i.e., acid
deposition).
P Monitor wetland flora communities for baseline
information.
P Evaluate effects of defoliation and prolonged rest on
wetlands.
Objective E. Manage the Lostwood Wilderness Area’s
landscape to maintain wilderness values that incorporate
indigenous flora and fauna communities.
Strategies:
P Determine if permission can be gained to reseed about
2,000 acres of croplands to native grasses and forbs using
mechanical and chemical tools.
P Determine how grazing can be used without the use of
vehicles.
P Maintain the use of prescribed burning.
4) Environmental Quality Goal: Preserve and
enhance the pristine quality, wild character, and
beauty of a representative sample of the northern
Missouri Coteau for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.
Objective A. Protect and enhance air, water, and soil
resources.
Strategies:
P Monitor air, water, and soil resources based on
current air and water acts to ensure air and water
quality is achieved and maintained to assure biological
integrity and environmental health.
P Develop partnerships with appropriate parties (may
include petroleum and coal industries) that will ensure
the desired quality is maintained.
Objective B. Maintain the integrity of the Lostwood
Wilderness Area’s integral vista and Class I air quality
as required in the Clean Air Act, and native, grassland
landscape.
Strategies:
P Monitor the integral vista and air quality to determine
if changes occur and if standards (identified in the Clean
Air Act) are being met.
P Monitor management to evaluate effects on flora and
fauna.
P Restore native grasses and forbs on lands farmed
prior and during FWS ownership by reseeding natives,
prescribed burning, mowing (if applicable), grazing, and
leaving areas rest for up to six years.
P Renovate and maintain native grasslands using
prescribed burning, grazing, and rest.
P Restore drained wetlands.
P Eradicate caragana and Russian olive, increasing
exotic shrubs, through the use of fire, mechanics, and
herbicides.
46 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
5) Cultural Resource Goal: Preserve and interpret
the cultural resources of the Lostwood Refuge and
surrounding areas for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.
Objective A: Maintain archaeological resources and
develop interpretation of the native American habitation
of the Refuge.
Strategies:
P After each prescribed burn, search the area for “tipi
rings,” other native American habitation evidence, and
bison “rub rocks.”
P From the prescribed burned searches, have an
archaeologist evaluate and record each site, covering
about 1/3 of the Refuge every 5 years.
P Develop an interpretative program that explains the
use of the area by native Americans, through such means
as the kiosk, brochures, self-guided auto tour, and guided
tours.
Objective B: Maintain the archaeological resources and
develop interpretation of the early European settler
habitation of the Refuge.
Strategies:
P After each prescribed burn, search the area for sod
house foundations.
P From the prescribed burned searches, have an
archaeologist evaluate and record each site, covering
about 1/3 of the Refuge every 5 years.
P Develop an interpretative program that explains the
use of the area by early European settlers, through such
means as the kiosk, brochures, self-guided auto tour, and
guided tours.
6) Public Use Goal: Nurture an awareness and
appreciation of the northern mixed-grass prairie
Coteau’s wildlife, its ecosystem dynamics, and Refuge
management through public involvement, and permit-ted
and compatible public use activities. Through an
awareness of Lostwood Refuge, the public will gain an
appreciation for the entire Refuge System as the
largest system of lands in the world dedicated to
wildlife conservation.
Objective A. Continue and expand where appropriate
public hunting of sharp-tailed grouse, gray partridge,
and white-tailed deer in conjunction with State laws.
(Lostwood Refuge is open to big game and upland game
hunting in accordance with State seasons and regula-tions.)
Strategies:
P Monitor current and potential recreational users to
document desired experiences or changes for each type
of hunting season.
P Maintain existing hunting seasons.
P Maintain a quality hunt, i.e., a hunting season that
permits hunters to hunt designated species but lacks
constant disturbance to that species, a disturbance that
prevents this species from resuming normal, daily
activities.
P Maintain hunting ethics, taught in most hunter
education courses (i.e., respect quarry and its habitat,
courteous towards other hunters, safety aspects),
through outreach, number of hunters, and enforcement
contact and presence.
P Keep hunting activities compatible with the Refuge
System goals and objectives.
P Determine if other portions of the Refuge can be
opened to the hunting of upland game.
Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan - December 1998 47
Objective B. Develop environmental education and
interpretation programs for local school’s teachers and
students, organized groups (i.e., 4-H, scouts), families,
and students of teaching majors (i.e., Minot State
University) using any area of Lostwood Refuge that
meets lesson plans and management needs.
Strategies:
P Monitor users to document desired experiences or
changes for each type of activity.
P Keep the environmental education and interpretation
programs dynamic, like the ecosystem the Refuge is
within, by using different sites throughout the year, and
not using the same sites year after year.
P Construct a learning facility that will provide needed
indoor space for education and interpretative programs.
P Develop a variety of Refuge-specific environmental
education curriculums, allowing teachers and instruc-tors
to conduct self-guided education programs, (i.e.,
birding, plant, wetland, invertebrate, archaeological,
ecological, vertebrate, land management, bio-monitoring,
etc.).
P Incorporate within the monthly newspaper articles
current Refuge environmental education activities.
P Develop environmental education partnerships with
local schools, universities (i.e., Minot State University’s
teaching curriculum), and organizations.
P Explore ways to make these opportunities available to
visitors with disabilities.
Objective C. Develop environmental education and
interpretation for Refuge visitors, including birders,
hunters, photographers, plant and invertebrate enthusi-ast,
using any area of the Refuge that meets the lesson
plans and management needs.
Strategies:
P Monitor users to document desired experiences or
changes for each type of activity.
P Keep the environmental education and interpretation
programs dynamic, like the ecosystem the Refuge is
within, by using different sites throughout the year, and
not using the same sites year after year.
P Develop environmental education and interpretative
materials for the general public.
P Develop a variety of tours for the general public (i.e.,
birding, plant, wetland, invertebrate, archaeological,
ecological, vertebrate, land management, bio-monitoring,
resident and migratory species fall biology).
P Construct a learning facility for indoor interpretative
exhibits to orient visitors and help develop an under-standing
of the Refuge System and Lostwood Refuge and
its ecosystem (i.e., wetland and upland habitats displayed
with sounds, management and monitoring strategies,
hunting regulations, bird watching guides).
P Develop partnerships with instate and out-of-state
schools (i.e., intern programs) and organizations.
P Provide monthly news releases discussing items of
interest about the Refuge System and Lostwood Refuge.
P Explore ways to make these opportunities available to
visitors with disabilities.
48 Lostwood Comprehensive Conservation Plan -  December 1998
Objective D. Maintain and improve opportunities for
wildlife observation and photography on Lostwood
Refuge.
Strategies:
P Monitor users to document desired experiences or
changes for each type of activity.
P Provide fun, family activities (i.e., bird watching,
exploring wetlands, looking for insects, discovering
plants, archaeological walks, riding horseback, cross-country
skiing, North Dakota State Game and Fish’s
youth deer hunt) that emphasize values of a healthy
ecosystem.
P Provide wildlife observation blinds, (i.e., sharp-tailed
grouse dancing grounds, wetlands) that are moveable for
the varying conditions from year-to-year.
P Present photography ethics to prevent harassment to
wildlife, and hints for capturing the beauty and dynamics
of grassland flora and fauna, including biology of particu-lar
species of interest at the time.
P Maintain a self-guided auto tour route and hiking trail,
and year-around hiking and winter snowshoeing and
cross-country skiing on the Refuge.
P Make available a portion of the Refuge during a
specified time for horseback riding, and give an annual
guided hors