Comprehensive Conservation Plan Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge

              Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge
September 2005
Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge
39650 Sand Lake Drive
Columbia, SD 57433
605/885 6320
and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Division of Refuge Planning
PO Box 25486 DFC
Lakewood, CO 80225
303/236 4365
Approved by:
__________________________________ ________________
Ralph O. Morgenweck Date
Regional Director, Region 6
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lakewood, CO
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval
Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Submitted by:
__________________________________ ________________
Gene Williams Date
Project Leader
Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Columbia, SD
Concurred with:
__________________________________ ________________
Rod Krey Date
Refuge Program Supervisor (ND, SD)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Lakewood, CO
and
__________________________________ ________________
Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date
Assistant Regional Director
National Wildlife Refuge System
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Lakewood, CO
Contents
Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... ix
1 Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Agency Guidance.......................................................................................................................................... 1
Refuge Review ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose and Need for Action ...................................................................................................................... 4
2 Planning Process........................................................................................................................................ 7
The Process................................................................................................................................................... 7
Planning Issues............................................................................................................................................. 8
3 Refuge Resources and Description ......................................................................................................... 11
Geographic Setting ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Special Management Areas ......................................................................................................................... 13
Physical Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Biological Resources.................................................................................................................................... 14
Fire Regime and Fire History .................................................................................................................... 19
Natural Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Population and Habitat Monitoring............................................................................................................ 21
Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Wilderness Review ...................................................................................................................................... 23
Socioeconomic Setting................................................................................................................................. 23
Public Use ..................................................................................................................................................... 24
Partnerships ................................................................................................................................................. 28
4 Management Direction.............................................................................................................................. 31
Management Summary ............................................................................................................................... 31
Management Direction................................................................................................................................ 32
Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 51
Personnel and Funding ............................................................................................................................... 51
Glossary.............................................................................................................................................................. 53
Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies ................................................................................................... 61
Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations................................................................................................. 63
Appendix C—Species List............................................................................................................................... 69
Appendix D—Landscape-level Goals and Objectives................................................................................... 73
Appendix E—Ecosystem Goals and Objectives............................................................................................ 75
Appendix F—List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination .............................................................. 79
Appendix G—Environmental Compliance ..................................................................................................... 81
Appendix H—Public Involvement .................................................................................................................. 83
Appendix I—Economic Analysis .................................................................................................................... 87
Appendix J—Fire Management Program......................................................................................................101
Appendix K—Section 7 Biological Evaluation ..............................................................................................103
Appendix L—Refuge Operations Needs System Projects..........................................................................109
Appendix M—Maintenance Management System Projects .......................................................................111
Bibliography .....................................................................................................................................................113
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
1. Vicinity map for Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota.................................................. 2
2. Mainstem Missouri River ecosystem......................................................................................................... 6
3. The prairie–pothole region .......................................................................................................................... 11
4. Base map for Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota ....................................................... 12
5. Existing habitat conditions at Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota.......................... 15
6. Shelterbelt and Russian olive locations at Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota...... 18
7. Public use at Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota........................................................ 26
8. Public hunting areas at Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota...................................... 27
9. Water management units at Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota............................. 33
10. Expected habitat conditions at Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota ........................ 34
Tables
1. Step-down management plans for Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota ................... 8
2. Priority ratings of bird groups relative to habitat management on Sand Lake National
Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota ................................................................................................................... 35
3. Grassland birds of special concern with known nesting activity on Sand Lake National
Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota ................................................................................................................... 39
4. Species benefiting from grassland management of Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge,
South Dakota................................................................................................................................................ 40
5. Current and proposed staff at Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota.......................... 52
Summary
This is a summary of the comprehensive conservation
plan (CCP) for the Sand Lake National Wildlife
Refuge in Brown County, South Dakota. This plan,
approved in 2005, will guide management of the
refuge for the next 15 years.
The restoration of a historical, well-functioning
riverine system and provision of quality habitat for
grassland-dependent birds were the key factors
driving development of this CCP.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to develop a comprehensive conservation
plan by 2012 for each national wildlife refuge in the
Refuge System.
The Heart of the Prairie
The Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge was
established in the mid-1930s as a refuge and
breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife. The 21,498-acre refuge lies in the James
River basin within Brown County, South Dakota.
This northeastern area of South Dakota is in the
heart of the prairie–pothole region of the northern
Great Plains and plays a major role for migratory
birds.
The refuge has been designated as a “Globally
Important Bird Area” and a “Wetland of
International Importance.” The refuge supports the
largest nesting colony of Franklin’s gulls in the
world, along with thousands of snow geese and other
waterfowl, white pelicans, shorebirds, and colonial-nesting
birds.
HABITAT
The occurrence of 48 species of mammals illustrates
the importance of the area for nongame, as well as
game species such as white-tailed deer. Despite the
frequent occurrence of adverse conditions, the James
River maintains a substantial fish population
including 60 species.
The refuge’s nutrient-laden waters are contained in
11,450 acres of marsh and open water. Dams form
the two main bodies of water—Mud and Sand lakes.
Most of the more than 8,000 acres of grassland is
infested with invasive plant species including Canada
thistle, leafy spurge, Russian olive, and wormwood
sage.
Of the estimated 424 acres of woodlands, most occur
as deteriorated shelterbelts planted by the Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC) in the late 1930s to
control wind erosion and provide wildlife habitat.
Historically, woody vegetation occurred along
riparian corridors and around some wetlands.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Although there are no known prehistoric resources
on the refuge, documented occupation of the general
area spans a 10,000-year period.
The refuge contains clear ties to the Depression-era
period based on the original landscape design and
presence of buildings built by the CCC. The focus of
many CCC projects was to preserve water in ponds,
link channels, and build habitat islands for migratory
birds.
PUBLIC USE
Each year, about 50,000 people recreate at the
refuge. Areas open to visitors include a small visitor
area, a 15-mile auto tour route with a viewing
platform, a 20-mile loop road, an observation tower,
and two day use areas.
Hunting for waterfowl, white-tailed deer, ring-necked
pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, and gray
partridge is popular on the refuge. Fishing is offered
year-round.
American avocet in a Sand Lake wetland. © John Jave
x Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
The Planning Process
The CCP process consisted of a series of steps
including environmental analysis. Public and partner
involvement were important throughout the process.
Management alternatives were developed to meet
the purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge. The
Service selected alternative 3 (proposed action) as
the CCP. Implementation of this CCP will be
monitored throughout its 15-year effective period.
ISSUES
Public scoping initiated in 2001, along with refuge
information, indicated that there are four major
issues regarding refuge management, which are
summarized below. This CCP addresses these issues.
Wildlife and Habitat
The quality of upland grassland habitats is important
for providing the needs of migratory birds and
meeting the establishment purposes of the refuge.
Prior to the refuge’s establishment, the native
prairie within the vicinity of Sand Lake National
Wildlife Refuge was almost entirely broken up and
converted to cropland.
Refuge users want a great diversity of wildlife,
including game species, supported by a variety of
habitats. Waterfowl and deer are important
recreational resources. The farm program on the
refuge helps maintain populations of white-tailed
deer and pheasant. Some refuge neighbors are losing
crops of corn and alfalfa to foraging deer.
Water Management
The refuge must use, maintain, and protect its water
rights for the use of James River water. Control of
water levels on the refuge to manage wetlands is
extremely dependent on river flows. Demands on the
water resources of the James River require
collaboration between many stakeholders.
The water cycle affects the wildlife and the fishery and
subsequent recreational opportunities. There was some
public concern that water management for waterfowl
may have a detrimental impact on the fishery.
Water levels on the refuge may affect water tables
on neighboring lands. Salt is surfacing on lands
within Brown County.
Public Use
Recreational opportunities on the refuge and the
James River are very important to local residents.
Hunting is a priority public use, when determined
compatible with the refuge’s purposes. Hunting,
especially of deer, waterfowl, and pheasant, is very
popular on the refuge.
People want more fishing opportunities, but the
ability of the refuge to provide fishing that is
compatible with management for migratory wetland
birds is very limited.
To better accommodate increased public use and
interest in environmental education, there is public
support for an education center.
There is some public interest in camping and
recreational trapping.
Invasive Plants
Invasive plants, especially Canada thistle, are
dominating plant communities and impacting
habitats in some areas. Without intensive
management, the refuge would become a sea of
smooth brome and Canada thistle, incapable of
providing habitat for a diversity of grassland-dependent
wildlife.
Neighbors view the refuge as a source of invasive
plant expansion onto their lands.
Chemicals used for control are of concern from the
standpoint of environmental contamination and
negative impacts on desirable plant species.
White-tailed Deer
John Stehn/USFWS
Summary xi
Ruddy Duck
© John Jave
The Future of the Refuge
The issues, along with resource conditions, were
important considerations during the development of
the vision and goals for the Sand Lake National
Wildlife Refuge.
THE REFUGE VISION
Provide habitat for the production,
maintenance, and basic life requirements
for threatened and endangered species,
migratory birds, and other wildlife
species.
Promote the natural biological diversity
of the region through preservation,
management, and enhancement of
refuge lands and waters.
Provide the public with the opportunity
for wildlife-dependent recreation and the
enjoyment and appreciation of America’s
wildlife resources.
GOALS
These goals were developed to meet the refuge
vision.
Biological Diversity Goal
Promote the natural biological diversity of the area
and, through management of refuge habitats,
provide for the greatest number of native fauna and
flora species within the capabilities of the Sand Lake
National Wildlife Refuge.
Threatened and Endangered Species Subgoal:
Provide for the protection and welfare of any
threatened or endangered plants and animals that
may occur on the refuge.
Waterfowl and Grassland-nesting Birds Subgoal:
Provide sufficient habitat (wetlands and grasslands)
for the production and maintenance of waterfowl and
grassland-nesting, nongame bird species.
Colonial Birds Subgoal: Provide and manage
wetland habitats as nesting areas for the tremendous
variety of colonial bird species using
the refuge.
Resident Wildlife Subgoal: Contribute to habitat
requirements for regional populations of resident
wildlife including fish, reptiles, amphibians,
mammals, and nonmigratory birds.
Grassland Habitat Subgoal: Restore, maintain, and
provide quality habitat for the life requirements of
a diversity of migratory birds and other wildlife
species.
Wetland Habitat Subgoal: Maintain a diversity of
quality wetland habitat that meets the needs of
wetland-dependent wildlife species.
Wildlife-dependent Recreational Use Goal
Provide opportunities for quality, wildlife-dependent
recreation for visitors to Sand Lake National
Wildlife Refuge.
Consumptive Use Subgoal: Provide wildlife-dependent,
consumptive, recreational opportunities
that are compatible with refuge purposes and
contribute to a quality outdoor hunting or fishing
experience.
Nonconsumptive Use Subgoal: Provide wildlife-dependent,
compatible, nonconsumptive, recreational
activities on the refuge that increase public
understanding and appreciation of wildlife and its
conservation.
Public Education and Outreach Goal
Provide wildlife- and wildland-viewing opportunities
for the public to enjoy and, through education and
outreach, encourage them to gain a greater
understanding and appreciation of national wildlife
refuges and wildlife resources in general.
OUTCOMES OF THE PLAN
This CCP is designed to optimize the biological
potential for migratory birds and finds a balance
with reducing cropland, while ensuring depredation
is minimized.
The vegetative diversity of grasslands will be
greatly enhanced by reseeding for native plants or
rejuvenated dense nesting cover. Some shelterbelts,
isolated trees, and invading Russian olives will be
removed.
The five subimpoundments will be managed as shallow-water
wetlands for waterfowl breeding pairs and
broods, nesting black terns and pied-billed grebes,
and foraging waterbirds and shorebirds. The ability
to cycle vegetation and create interspersed cover
and water through current water level manipulations
will be hindered. Reduced invertebrate production
xii Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
may impact wetland productivity, as well as limit a
major food source for waterfowl.
Watershed-level conservation efforts through
partnerships may result in a long-term reduction of
sediment entering the James River and refuge.
Cropland acreage will be reduced. The size and
location of remaining cropland will be based on the
need to control invasive plants, especially Canada
thistle, and will be coordinated with the South
Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks to
address resident wildlife issues. Canada thistle will
be much more contained than it is currently,
reducing the potential for a seed source to invade
adjacent or downstream private lands.
Fire management will be used to protect life,
property, and other resources from wildfire by
safely suppressing all wildfires on the refuge.
Prescribed fire will be used for habitat management,
as well as for protection of property through fuel
reduction.
Recreational opportunities will include wildlife-dependent
and wildlife-compatible uses legislated by
Congress and outlined in the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997—hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
environmental education, and interpretation. Hiking
has also been deemed a compatible use during
limited times of the year.
Wildlife-dependent recreational and educational
activities will be expanded and improved on- and off-refuge.
All hunting and fishing seasons will continue as
presently managed. Support facilities will be
improved.
The construction of an education center will provide
visitors a quality experience and a focal point for
public use activities.
USFWS
A school group “dip-nets” for invertebrates during a
field trip.
1 Purpose and Need
The Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge (figure 1, next
page) manages the Sand Lake Wetland Management
District (WMD), which contains 162 waterfowl
production areas (WPAs). This entire area is known
as the Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge complex.
This comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)
addresses management of the refuge itself; a
separate CCP will be developed to guide
management of the WMD.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act, as amended by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997),
requires that CCPs be in place for all national
wildlife refuges within 15 years of enactment (2012).
A CCP is needed to guide the conservation and use
of resources on the refuge for the next 15 years.
In general, a CCP serves to do the following:
■ Ensure that the purpose of the refuge and mission
of the National Wildlife Refuge System are being
fulfilled.
■ Ensure that national policy direction is
incorporated into refuge management.
■ Ensure that opportunities are available for
interested parties to participate in the
development of management direction.
■ Provide a systematic process for making and
documenting decisions.
■ Establish broad strategies for programs and
activities.
■ Provide a basis for evaluating accomplishments.
AGENCY GUIDANCE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal
agency responsible for conservation of our Nation’s
fish, wildlife, and plant resources. This responsibility
is shared with other federal agencies and state and
tribal governments.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
is working with others to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats
for the continuing benefit of the American people.
The Service manages a diverse network of more than
540 national wildlife refuges within the National
Wildlife Refuge System, which encompasses 95
million acres of lands and waters. Sand Lake is one of
six national wildlife refuges in South Dakota and was
the 71st national wildlife refuge established.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System is to administer a network of lands and
waters for the conservation, management, and
where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife,
and plant resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.
Operation and management of national wildlife
refuges are influenced by a wide array of laws,
treaties, and executive orders (appendix A). The
primary guidance comes from these laws:
■ National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act of 1966, as amended
■ National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997
All national wildlife refuges are established with
these national goals (Service Director’s Order
No. 132):
■ Fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge
purpose(s) and further the Refuge System
mission.
■ Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance
all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are
endangered or threatened with becoming
endangered.
■ Perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional
fish, and marine mammal populations.
Scaup
© John Jave
2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
Figure 1. Vicinity map for Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota
1—Purpose and Need 3
■ Perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional
fish, and marine mammal populations.
■ Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants.
■ Conserve and restore, where appropriate,
representative ecosystems of the United States,
including the ecological processes characteristic of
those ecosystems.
■ Foster understanding and instill appreciation of
fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation,
by providing the public with safe, quality, and
compatible wildlife-dependent public use. Such use
includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, environmental education, and
interpretation.
These goals help support the Refuge System mission
and principles of the 1997 amendments to the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act. These goals serve as a foundation for
stewardship of the Refuge System and define its role
among various federal land systems.
The Improvement Act calls for making opportunities
for wildlife-dependent recreation, as long as they are
compatibly managed with other purposes and do not
conflict with other use. Service policy allows use if it
is appropriate (appendix B).
An appropriate use
contributes to the Refuge System
mission, the refuge’s major purposes, or
refuge goals or objectives;
is a priority public use (hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, environmental education,
and interpretation);
supports the safe and effective conduct
of a priority public use.
It is the policy of the federal government—in
cooperation with other nations and in partnership
with states, local governments, Indian tribes, and
private organizations and individuals—to administer
federally owned, administered, or controlled
prehistoric and historic resources in a spirit of
stewardship for the benefit of present and future
generations.
To maintain the health of individual national wildlife
refuges, and the Refuge System as a whole, managers
must anticipate future conditions—to avoid adverse
effects and take positive actions to conserve and
protect refuge resources. Effective management also
depends on knowledge of larger systems and resource
relationships.
REFUGE OVERVIEW
Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge was established
in 1935 as a refuge and breeding ground for
migratory birds and other wildlife.
The marshes and open water impoundments of the
refuge are surrounded by prairie grasslands,
cultivated fields, and scattered woodlands along the
James River. The refuge was formed primarily from
farms and homesteads that failed during the drought
of the 1930s.
The original purchase of 21,451 acres was completed
by 1939. Since that time, several land exchanges with
neighboring landowners and the South Dakota
Department of Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) have
resulted in boundary changes. An inholding along the
west edge of the refuge was purchased in 1985,
bringing the fee- title ownership to 21,498 acres. The
refuge also has approximately 320 acres under
agreement, lease, or easement, bringing the total
acreage under refuge management to 21,820 acres.
PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHMENT
Management is dictated, in large part, by legislation
that created the refuge and defines the purposes for
which the refuge was established.
Bobolink
© John Jave
4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
Five authorities exist for the acquisition and
establishment of Sand Lake National Wildlife
Refuge:
■ Executive Order 7169 (September 4, 1935), “…as a
refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds
and other wild life…”
■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act, “…for use as an
inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management
purpose, for migratory birds…”
■ The Fish and Wildlife Act, “…for the
development, advancement, management,
conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife
resources…”
■ National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act, “…conservation, management, and
…restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats…for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans….”
■ The Refuge Recreation Act, “…for (1) incidental
fish and wildlife-oriented recreational
development, (2) the protection of natural
resources, (3) the conservation of endangered
species or threatened species….”
The refuge was specifically established to improve
and maintain habitat for nesting and resting
waterfowl and other migratory birds, such as diving
and puddle ducks, geese, grebes, herons, egrets,
gulls, and terns. Management continues to be
directed toward meeting the habitat requirements of
these priority species as well as other migratory and
resident wildlife, such as white-faced ibis, double-crested
cormorant, tundra swan, American white
pelican, perching birds, ring-necked pheasant, white-tailed
deer, and furbearers.
A complete list of vertebrate species that are known
to occur on the refuge can be found in appendix C.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
As directed by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act, CCPs will be developed for all
units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These
plans must include public involvement in their
development. A CCP needs to set goals and
objectives that meet the establishment purposes for
the refuge, as well as contribute to the mission of the
Refuge System. Wildlife has first priority in the
management of national wildlife refuges.
The purpose of developing this CCP is to provide a
15-year management plan for the conservation of
fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their related
habitats on the refuge, while providing opportunities
for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses.
This CCP, when fully implemented, should
achieve refuge purposes;
maintain and restore the ecological
integrity of the refuge;
help fulfill the Refuge System mission;
meet other mandates.
VISION STATEMENT
As part of the planning process, the refuge staff and
planning team developed the following vision
statement for the Sand Lake National Wildlife
Refuge.
Provide habitat for the production, maintenance,
and basic life requirements for threatened and
endangered species, migratory birds, and other
wildlife species.
Promote the natural biological diversity of the
region through preservation, management, and
enhancement of refuge lands and waters.
Provide the public with the opportunity for
wildlife-dependent recreation and the enjoyment
and appreciation of America’s wildlife resources.
GOALS
A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of desired
future conditions that conveys a purpose, but does
not define measurable units. Goals will direct work
at carrying out the refuge’s mandates and achieving
the purposes.
These goals are derived from the purposes and vision
statement for the refuge to reflect the refuge’s
contribution to the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Beth Ullenberg/USFWS
1—Purpose and Need 5
The goals reflect the core mission of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to protect fish, wildlife, and
plant resources while providing compatible
opportunities for the public to appreciate and enjoy
the natural environment of the region.
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY GOAL
Promote the natural biological diversity of the area
and, through management of refuge habitats,
provide for the greatest number of native fauna and
flora species within the capabilities of Sand Lake
National Wildlife Refuge.
Threatened and Endangered Species Subgoal:
Provide for the protection and welfare of any
threatened or endangered plants and animals that
may occur on the refuge.
Waterfowl and Grassland-nesting Birds Subgoal:
Provide sufficient habitat (wetlands and grasslands)
for the production and maintenance of waterfowl and
grassland-nesting, nongame bird species.
Colonial Birds Subgoal: Provide and manage
wetland habitats as nesting areas for the tremendous
variety of colonial bird species using the refuge.
Resident Wildlife Subgoal: Contribute to habitat
requirements for regional populations of resident
wildlife including fish, reptiles, amphibians,
mammals, and nonmigratory birds.
Grassland Habitat Subgoal: Restore, maintain, and
provide quality habitat for the life requirements of a
diversity of migratory birds and other wildlife
species.
Wetland Habitat Subgoal: Provide and maintain a
diversity of quality wetland habitat that meets the
needs of wetland-dependent wildlife species.
WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT RECREATIONAL USE GOAL
Provide opportunities for quality, wildlife-dependent,
recreation for visitors to Sand Lake
National Wildlife Refuge.
Consumptive Use Subgoal: Provide wildlife-dependent,
consumptive, recreational opportunities
that are compatible with refuge purposes and that
contribute to a quality outdoor hunting or fishing
experience.
Nonconsumptive Use Subgoal: Provide wildlife-dependent,
compatible, nonconsumptive, recreational
activities that increase public understanding and
appreciation of wildlife and its conservation.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH GOAL
Provide wildlife- and wildland-viewing opportunities
for the public to enjoy and, through education and
outreach, encourage them to gain a greater
understanding and appreciation of national wildlife
refuges and wildlife resources in general.
AN ECOSYSTEM APPROACH
The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to
conservation to enable it to fulfill its federal trust
resource responsibility with greater efficiency and
effectiveness. Through this holistic approach to
resource conservation, the Service can accomplish its
mission to conserve, protect, and enhance the
Nation’s fish and wildlife and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the American people.
Landscape-level goals have been developed within
several wildlife conservation plans for North
America (appendix D).
An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife
conservation means protecting or restoring function,
structure, and species composition of an ecosystem,
while providing for its sustainable socioeconomic use.
Key to implementing this approach is recognizing
that partnerships are an essential part of a diverse
management plan.
The Service has adopted watersheds as the basic
building blocks for implementing ecosystem
conservation. Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge is
located in the Mainstem Missouri River ecosystem,
which includes the Dakotas and northeastern
Montana. This ecosystem is depicted in figure 2 (next
page).
Planning for the Mainstem Missouri River ecosystem
sets forth visions and goals for prairies, wetlands,
and rivers to conserve fish and wildlife by protecting
and restoring the natural ecosystem (appendix E).
The habitat and wildlife goals and objectives for the
refuge will contribute to meeting the mission for the
Mainstem Missouri River ecosystem.
Northern Pintail Dave Menke/USFWS
6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
Figure 2. Mainstem Missouri River ecosystem
2 Planning Process
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to manage refuges in accordance with an
approved CCP.
This section describes the planning process and
issues specific to Sand Lake National Wildlife
Refuge.
THE PROCESS
The Service is following the planning steps listed
below to determine the future management of the
refuge, in a thorough manner that meets
requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and Service policy.
The CCP process consists of a series of steps that are
displayed sequentially; however, CCP planning,
along with NEPA analysis and documentation, occur
simultaneously. Although public involvement is
listed as part of two steps, the Service will take
public input at any point in the planning process.
■ Preplan—form a planning team, review available
data, organize efforts.
■ Initiate public involvement and scoping—gather
public input on issues.
■ Develop draft vision and goal statements.
■ Develop and analyze draft alternatives, including a
proposed action—includes developing draft
objectives.
■ Prepare documentation of the NEPA analysis,
including the draft plan (proposed action
alternative).
■ Conduct internal review (Service, state and tribal
partners) and gather public input on draft
document.
■ Analyze and respond to public comments.
■ Select one of the alternatives, which becomes the
CCP.
■ Make revisions as necessary and prepare the final
CCP.
■ Approve and implement the CCP.
■ Monitor and evaluate actions and results.
The planning team for this CCP (appendix F) has
carried out the process and prepared this CCP.
Coordination with the public, local groups, and other
agencies has been essential in developing a realistic,
meaningful plan.
Appendix G (environmental compliance) contains the
“Environmental Action Statement” and “Finding of
No Significant Impact” for this CCP.
STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS
This CCP is a broad umbrella plan that provides
general concepts and specific wildlife, habitat,
endangered species, public use, and partnership
objectives. The purpose of step-down management
plans is to provide greater detail than what is in this
CCP to managers and employees who will implement
the strategies described in this CCP.
Step-down management plans describe strategies,
procedures, methods, and tasks for specific resources
or functions. Often these plans require their own
compatibility determinations, environmental
assessments (EAs), or other justification before they
can be implemented.
The preparation and execution of these plans is
dependent on funding and the availability of staff or
technical expertise. Additional step-down plans will
need to be developed, revised, or amended as a
result of this CCP (table 1, next page). Plans will be
completed or revised, as needed, within 2 years of
funding and necessary staff becoming available.
PLAN REVISION
Plans are dynamic—management strategies need to
be reviewed and updated periodically. This CCP will
be reviewed at least annually to determine if it
requires any revisions.
Birdwatching is popular on many national wildlife
refuges, including Sand Lake.
USFWS
8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
Table 1. Step-down management plans for Sand
Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota
Step-down
Management
Plan
Completed
Plan, Year
Approved
New or
Revised Plan,
Completion Year
Deer management
plan — 2006
Fire management
plan 1999 —
Habitat
management plan — 2010
Integrated pest
management plan
1996
(obsolete) 2005
Law enforcement
plan — 2010
Predator
management plan 1992 —
Safety plan 2003 2010
Visitor services plan 1990
(obsolete) 2010
Water management
plan 2001 —
Monitoring and evaluation will determine whether
management activities are achieving the refuge
purposes, vision, and goals. When significant new
information becomes available, ecological conditions
change, major refuge expansions occur, or other
needs are identified, this CCP can be revised.
Revision will occur, at a minimum, every 15 years. If
the plan requires a major revision, the CCP process
starts anew. Plan revisions require NEPA compliance.
The public will continue to be informed of, and
involved with, any revision to this CCP.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The NEPA process was used by the Service to
engage the public in refuge planning, while
determining whether the proposed action for
management of the refuge would have significant
effects.
“Scoping” is the term for requesting input from the
public, in this case, regarding management of a
refuge. The primary thrust for the planning process
is to provide a forum for ideas and issues to be
shared, reviewed, and evaluated among agency staff
and the public.
Comments were reviewed to identify issues and
public concerns about, or advocacies for, future
management of the refuge. These issues are
addressed in the EA and draft CCP, other plans, and
decision documents.
Public scoping was initiated in a “Notice of Intent”
published in the Federal Register (August 1, 2001),
announcing the availability of an issue workbook and
dates for open houses to be held for public input on
management of the refuge. The open houses were
held in October 2001.
The Service provided a 30-day review period for the
draft CCP and EA, during which the public
submitted comments. A summary of the public
involvement, including a summary of the comments
and the Service’s responses, is in appendix H.
PLANNING ISSUES
The public scoping meetings, issues workbooks, and
refuge information indicated that there are four major
issues of concern regarding refuge management.
WILDLIFE AND HABITAT
The quality of upland grassland habitats is important
for providing the needs of migratory birds and
meeting the establishment purposes of the refuge.
Prior to the refuge’s establishment, the native
prairie within the vicinity of Sand Lake National
Wildlife Refuge was almost entirely broken up and
converted to cropland.
Today, the uplands largely consist of smooth brome,
a cool-season grass that lacks structural diversity
and tends to form a less vigorous species
monoculture as the stand ages. Dense nesting cover
(DNC)—tame, introduced cool-season grasses with
sweetclover and alfalfa—was planted on the uplands
as nesting cover for migratory birds. Grazing has
been the primary tool used to manage these stands.
Eventually DNC needs intensive management to
restore the best wildlife habitat. Either these
uplands are replanted to DNC or native grass can be
reestablished.
Refuge users want a great diversity of wildlife,
including game species, supported by a variety of
habitats. Game species, especially waterfowl and
deer, are important recreational resources. Maintaining
Male Wood Duck
Tim McCabe/USFWS
2—Planning Process 9
Canada Thistle
© Cindie Brunner
the farm program would help maintain resident
game species (white-tailed deer and pheasant). Some
refuge neighbors are losing crops of corn and alfalfa
to foraging deer.
WATER MANAGEMENT
The refuge must use, maintain, and protect its water
rights for the use of James River water. Refuge
management strategies are impacted by the
extremely low gradient of the James River in
northern South Dakota. Water levels are
manipulated on Sand and Mud lakes and five
subimpoundments to modify emergent vegetation to
help meet wetland objectives. During the nesting
period, the refuge attempts to hold water levels
steady to protect the nests of colonial, overwater-nesting
birds. The critical period is May 15–
August 1, during which sudden changes place
nesters at risk.
With the refuge being located on the James River,
control of water levels to manage wetlands is
extremely dependent on river flows. Demands on the
water resources of the James River require
collaboration between a diversity of stakeholders
including the following:
■ Army Corps of Engineers
■ Bureau of Reclamation
■ Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge
■ Kulm Wetland Management District
■ Oakes Test Area
■ Garrison Diversion District
■ North Dakota State Water Commission
■ South Dakota Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
■ James River Water Development District
■ Many private irrigation interests
The water cycle affects the wildlife and the fishery
and subsequent recreational opportunities. There
was some public concern that water management for
waterfowl may have a detrimental impact on the
fishery. For example, water drawdowns to winterkill
rough fish also kill game fish.
Water levels on the refuge may affect water tables
on neighboring lands. Salt is surfacing on lands
within Brown County. It was asserted that water
should be moved through the system as quickly as
possible.
PUBLIC USE
Recreational opportunities on the refuge and the
James River are very important to local residents.
Hunting is a priority public use to be considered on
national wildlife refuges, when determined compatible
with the refuge’s establishment purposes. Hunting,
especially of deer, waterfowl, and pheasant, is very
popular on Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge.
There is demand for fishing, particularly ice fishing.
People want more fishing opportunities, but the
ability of the refuge to provide fishing that is
compatible with the purposes of the refuge
(i.e., migratory wetland birds) is very limited.
Insufficient fishing access occasionally creates minor
traffic congestion at one access point when anglers
use the road right-of-way for fishing.
There is increasing demand for on-site educational
and interpretive programs, including public support
for an education center. In addition, there is some
public interest in camping and recreational trapping.
INVASIVE PLANTS
Invasive plants, especially Canada thistle, are
dominating plant communities and impacting
habitats in some areas.
Canada thistle is a serious invasive species problem
on the refuge. This plant tends to form monocultures
in the absence of management actions such as
herbicide application, haying, or replanting.
Without intensive
management, the refuge
would become a sea of
smooth brome and Canada
thistle, incapable of
providing habitat for a
diversity of grassland-dependent
wildlife.
Invasive plants on the
refuge are particularly
troublesome for neighbors
who are required by state
and local laws to control
invasive species on their
lands and view the refuge as
a source of invasive plant
expansion onto their lands.
Chemicals used to control invasive plants are of
concern from the standpoint of environmental
contamination and negative impacts on desirable
plant species.
3 Refuge Resources and Description
The Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge is located in
Brown County, South Dakota, approximately 25 miles
northeast of Aberdeen.
To get to the refuge, visitors must travel 5 miles east
of Aberdeen on South Dakota Highway 12, and then
20 miles north on Brown County Highway 16.
The refuge lies in north–central South Dakota and
covers 21,498 acres (figure 4, next page). This area of
South Dakota is in the heart of the prairie–pothole
region of the northern Great Plains and plays a
major role for migratory birds associated with the
Central Flyway. Since the refuge is located near the
100th meridian, both eastern and western migratory
bird species may be found.
This chapter describes the current physical and
socioeconomic environment of the refuge:
■ Geographic setting
■ Special management areas
■ Physical resources
■ Biological resources
■ Fire regime and fire history
■ Natural resources
■ Population and habitat monitoring
■ Cultural resources
■ Wilderness review
■ Socioeconomic setting
■ Public use
■ Partnerships
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING
The Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge is located in
the upper James River basin (figure 1). The 21,116-
square-mile area of the James River basin is divided
between North Dakota (6,688 square miles) and
South Dakota (14,428 square miles). The South
Dakota portion of the basin is 350 miles long, with a
maximum width of about 100 miles. The river begins
west of Fessenden, North Dakota, flows east for a
short distance, then follows a general southerly
course through North Dakota and South Dakota to
its confluence with the Missouri River east of
Yankton, South Dakota.
The upper James River basin is a flat plain bounded
by the Missouri River escarpment on the west and
the Altamount, Antelope, and Gary moraines on the
east. The basin contains extinct glacial lakes whose
beds are distinguishable by the extremely flat
topography. The basin slopes from an elevation of
1,630 feet above sea level in the headwaters, down
to 1,300 feet above sea level at the North Dakota–
South Dakota line, and to 1,170 feet above sea level
at the mouth of the James River. The river follows
747 miles of winding channel across the 350-mile
length of the basin (within South Dakota). This
meandering stream lies in a shallow floodplain that
varies from a few hundred feet to three miles in width.
The James River lowlands are bordered by the
Missouri Coteau, which extends from the Missouri
River on the west and the prairie coteau to the east.
The major land features associated with this area of
South Dakota are products of the Pleistocene
glaciations that formed the Missouri River and the
prairie potholes sometime between 12,000 and 40,000
years ago. This area of the prairie–pothole region
provides important habitat for waterfowl production
and other prairie birds (figure 3).
Wetlands fill the backdrop behind the Sand Lake
National Wildlife Refuge’s sign.
Beth Ullenberg/USFWS
Figure 3. The prairie–pothole region
12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
Figure 4. Base map for Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota
3—Refuge Resources and Description 13
The refuge is located in these rich lowlands along the
James River. The James River bisects the refuge
north and south and has the flattest gradient of any
river its size in North America. From its source to its
mouth, its average gradient is only 3 inches per mile.
Through the refuge and most of Brown County, the
river has a drop of only 1 inch per mile.
Two dams, with water-control structures, were built
across the James River during the 1930s by the
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). These
structures impound and enhance two main pools,
Mud Lake (containing 5,300 surface acres when full)
and Sand Lake (containing 6,100 acres surface acres).
Several other impoundments provide additional
wetland habitat.
This region of South Dakota was once dominated by
native prairie vegetation. The tall-grass prairie is
located primarily east of the James River, and the
mixed- and tall-grass transition dominates most of
the James River basin physiographic region. Much of
this zone has been farmed, but some prairie still
exists, particularly in areas with numerous shallow
wetlands or poor quality soils.
The Service has adopted watersheds as the basic
building blocks for implementing ecosystem
conservation. The Mainstem Missouri ecosystem
includes portions of the Missouri River and Hudson
Bay watersheds.
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS
In recognition of its value to the conservation of
birds and their habitats, Sand Lake National Wildlife
Refuge has been designated as both a Globally
Important Bird Area (GIBA) by the American Bird
Conservancy (March 17, 2001), and a Wetland of
International Importance (WII) (Convention on
Wetlands of International Importance 1971).
The refuge has supported the largest nesting colony
of Franklin’s gulls in the world, with up to 150,000
breeding individuals. At the time, this amounted to
about 50 percent of the entire population of this at-risk
species (National Audubon Society 2002). In
addition, many thousands of Franklin’s gulls gather
on the refuge in the fall.
Other colonial-nesting birds on the refuge include
white-faced ibis, black-crowned night-heron, eared
and western grebes, and Forster’s and black terns.
One large, mixed-species, heron rookery hosts up to
6,000 pairs.
The marbled godwit and the willet nest on the
refuge, as do the short-eared owl, the bobolink, the
Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow, and the clay-colored
sparrow. When mud flats are exposed during spring
and fall migration, the refuge hosts thousands of
shorebirds.
Fall migrations of snow geese may reach peaks of
250,000 individuals, whereas the spring migration
has been documented at more than 1.2 million.
Hundreds of thousands of ducks also stop over on
migration. As many as 12,000 American white
pelicans are found on the refuge seasonally.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources largely determine habitat
communities, along with climatic factors. Mineral
resources and air quality, other important resources,
are also described in this section.
SOILS
The refuge is located along the James River within
the Dakota Lake plain, a lowland physiographic
division of South Dakota. The area is characterized
by the sandy bottom of an ancient lake, glacial
uplands, and alluvial floodplains. Soil composition is
strikingly different on opposite sides of the refuge.
To the east, the soils are characteristically sandy and
loamy soils similar to the lake plain. To the west and
beyond the refuge, the soil is characteristically silty
and sodium-affected silty soils (USDA 1993).
WATER RESOURCES
The upper James River is a unique portion of the
total James River ecosystem in South Dakota. At the
refuge, the flow of the sluggish James River is
interrupted by two natural pools (Mud and Sand
lakes) that have been regulated by low, earthen
dams and water control structures. Both lakes are
shallow; Mud Lake averages about 1.5 feet in depth
and Sand Lake averages about 2.75 feet in depth
with current management. The maximum depths of
the pools are approximately 6 feet. Margins and
other shallow areas of both impoundments produce
dense stands of emergent vegetation.
The principal water right at the refuge is withdrawal
number U.S. 1-3 (October 16, 1934). The withdrawal
A Franklin’s gull lands on a refuge lake.
© John Jave
14 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
covers 61,062 acre-feet of water (27,021 acre-feet
storage and 34,041 acre-feet seasonal use) from the
James River. The water’s principal use is for
migratory waterfowl use, supplemental use, game
and fish propagation, and public recreation.
The refuge also holds water license number 4225-3
(February 2, 1978) for 0.67 cubic feet per second
(totaling 150 acre-feet annually) from a well at
headquarters, with supplemental pumping to a marsh.
Water license number 4258-3 (March 24, 1978) allows
63 acre-feet of water storage and sufficient water
annually to maintain the water level at outlet
elevation 1,291.0 feet mean sea level from Dry Run
for waterfowl production.
Water permit number 5516-3 (March 8, 1991) allows
for impoundment of 295 acre-feet with sufficient
water annually to maintain water level to the outlet
elevation of 1288.5 feet mean sea level in Columbia
Marsh. This water is diverted from James River
overflow during high, spring runoff events to provide
habitat for fish and wildlife production.
The refuge also holds a vested right for an artesian
well drilled in 1935 by the CCC. The well flows
approximately 5 gallons per minute and the water is
used for domestic purposes.
CLIMATIC CONDITIONS
Large seasonal fluctuations of climate in the region
are the rule, rather than the exception. Extreme cold
in the winter, with mean minimum temperatures of
-2.7°F in January, is normal. During the summer,
mean maximum temperatures are commonly near
83.5°F in July. Precipitation averages 20.3 inches
annually, but cycles of drought and heavy
precipitation are evident (NOAA 2002).
MINERAL RESOURCES AND RESERVED RIGHTS
During the withdrawal of lands establishing the
refuge in 1935, and as additional lands were acquired,
there were no reservations of surface or subsurface
mineral rights (to other than the federal government)
on all the land owned fee-title by the federal
government. Purchase of some land tracts were subject
to existing rights-of-way at the time of acquisition.
These rights-of-way include a buried telephone line, an
electric distribution line, and three highway easements
to the South Dakota Department of Highways.
AIR QUALITY
Visibility and clean air are primary resource values.
The protection of these resources must be given full
consideration in fire management planning and
operations. Additionally, smoke can have serious
health and safety effects that must be considered.
The management of smoke will be incorporated into
the planning of prescribed fires and, to the extent
possible, in the suppression of wildfire. South Dakota
does not have a permit system for air quality, but
does have regulations concerning agricultural burning.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) air
quality index rates air quality in Brown County,
South Dakota as “good” (U.S. EPA 2004). In 2001,
Brown County ranked among the best, i.e., cleanest,
20 percent of all counties in the U.S. in terms of total
environmental releases.
Based on the EPA’s most current data, Brown
County ranked among the cleaner 40 percent of all
counties in the U.S. in terms of an average
individual’s added cancer risk from hazardous air
pollutants (Environmental Defense Network 2004).
Conversely, Brown County ranked among the worst,
i.e., dirtiest, 20 percent of all counties in the U.S. in
terms of aerial emissions of fine particles
(Environmental Defense Network 1999), 70 percent
of which is a result of agricultural practices (EPA 1999).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes the existing plant and animal
communities on the refuge. Figure 5 shows existing
habitat conditions.
HABITAT
The nutrient-laden waters contained in the 11,450
acres of marsh and open water form the heart of the
21,498-acre Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge.
Cattail Wetland
© John Jave
3—Refuge Resources and Description 15
Figure 5. Existing habitat conditions at Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota
16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
The remaining 10,000 acres of uplands consist of 424
acres of shelterbelts; 1,217 acres of croplands; and
more than 8,000 acres of grasslands.
Downstream from the refuge, the meandering,
wooded channel provides a scenic contrast to the
surrounding agricultural landscape. Terrestrial
habitat associated with the upper James River
channel is generally characterized by a hardwood
corridor, interspersed with thickly vegetated
marshes and brushy fields. The existing natural
woodland and forest habitat consists primarily of
mature, mixed stands of American elm, green ash,
boxelder, and willow. This habitat offers scenic
beauty and provides the diverse habitat necessary
for wildlife to reproduce and survive in the typical
prairie environment that surrounds it.
Grasslands
Grassland vegetation makes up 8,600 of the 21,498-
acre refuge. These grassland acres are primarily
composed of reseeded exotic grass and forb species,
mainly smooth brome and alfalfa with some fields of
intermediate wheatgrass and sweetclover.
Grasslands are managed with emphasis on providing
optimum nesting cover for upland-nesting waterfowl.
Approximately 8,000 acres of tame grass and
legumes (DNC) and restored native grass plantings
are on the refuge. Most DNC fields have degraded to
smooth brome. These fields have not been recently
restored by farming and reseeding to maintain stand
vigor. Because Canada thistle tends to invade new
grass-seeded areas, the breakup of DNC fields
slowed. Instead, management actions such as grazing
or haying, followed by a disking, were used to
improve the existing stands by encouraging the forb
component.
Nearly 500 acres of cropland has been removed from
production and planted to restored native grass.
These native sites generally consist of six or seven
grass species, which may include big and little
bluestem, green needlegrass, western wheatgrass,
Indiangrass, sideoats grama, and switchgrass. The
seeding of forbs in the restoration process has been
limited due to high seed costs, difficulty in acquiring
seed, and problems associated with the control of
Canada thistle in the plantings.
Grasslands are managed using grazing, haying, and
prescribed burning. The management tool selected is
dependent on the availability of water, fences,
livestock, ease of firebreak construction, and
suitability for haying. Management is focused on
obtaining the maximum height and density of
grasslands with some type of management action
occurring every 4–5 years.
The refuge has been divided into management zones;
individual units are selected each year within a zone
depending on the monitoring results. Grazing is used
most commonly to reduce litter, stimulate forb
species, and promote active healthy growth of the
grasslands. Grazing is also used help control invasive
species. Permittees for all grassland management
actions are selected by the bid process and only
farmers and ranchers who operate on land within 2
miles of the refuge boundary are eligible to bid.
Wetlands
The wetland component is comprised of two main
bodies of water, Mud and Sand lakes. The
construction of the two low-lying dams changed the
habitat conditions of these historical marshes.
Wetland habitat on the marsh is characterized by
open water, submergent vegetation (e.g., sago
pondweed and coon’s tail), emergent vegetation (e.g.,
cattail and common reed), and temporary and
seasonal vegetation (e.g., rush, sedge, and prairie
cordgrass).
Water management on the refuge is greatly
dependent on flows in the James River, largely due
to the low gradient. Spring flows are generally
allowed to fill Mud and Sand lakes to full-pool level
by early May. The pools are held near full-pool level
through mid-August. Water levels are dropped
1 foot below full-pool level prior to freeze-up to
protect the water control structures and dikes from
ice damage. Summer drawdowns are scheduled when
needed to reestablish emergent vegetation within
the pools.
In addition to the two main impoundments, there are
five subimpoundments and many smaller, natural
wetlands scattered throughout the uplands.
Management of the subimpoundments is opportunistic,
being dependent on water levels in the James River
or local runoff. Efforts are made to draw down the
subimpoundments when wetlands surrounding the
refuge are full. The subimpoundments are reflooded
during periods of drought to provide quality habitat
when it is most beneficial to wetland-dependent
wildlife.
3—Refuge Resources and Description 17
Woodlands
Most of the estimated 424 acres of woodlands are in
shelterbelts planted by the CCC in 1937–38 to
control wind
erosion and
provide wildlife
habitat. The
shelterbelts have
been deteriorating
and no active
management has
been done to
restore them. Most
of these plantings
consist of American
and Chinese elms
and green ash.
Dutch elm disease
has been gradually
killing the
American elms in
these plantings
(figure 6, next
page).
Historically, woody vegetation occurred along
riparian corridors and around some wetlands. Native
cottonwood seedlings have colonized naturally into
many of the marsh edges due to flood conditions on
the James River during much of the 1990s. These
isolated, scattered trees, with an understory of
cattail and Canada thistle, have been allowed to
grow naturally in the floodplain, except where
controlled by upland management activity.
Management of native woodland vegetation has not
been emphasized in previous habitat management
efforts.
Croplands
The uplands have a long history of agricultural crop
production and virtually all native prairie on the
refuge has been lost to the plow. Approximately
3,146 acres of cropland was farmed on the refuge in
1952. In response to a variety of factors, including
complaints of short-stopping geese from the
southern states, management emphasis for uplands
has shifted from providing food for migrating snow
geese to waterfowl production. Much of the cropland
was replanted with DNC.
Beginning in the late 1990s, additional cropland was
replanted to grassland because of the lack of use by
the snow geese, and because the midcontinent
population of lesser snow geese were well above
objectives set for the species. The planting of
agricultural crops was not needed for the
management of migratory birds.
A total of 1,217 acres of cropland is currently farmed
by 8 cooperators on the refuge. Farming is conducted
to restore native grass on deteriorating tame
grasslands, to reduce use of nonselective broadleaf
herbicides, to control invasive plants and to provide,
indirectly, food for white-tailed deer.
Fields are typically rotated between corn and spring
wheat or soybeans. Refuge cooperators maintain the
food plots on a 25:75 sharecrop basis. The kinds of
herbicides permitted are limited and no insecticides
are allowed. The refuge’s share is taken in corn,
which is left standing to provide food for wintering
white-tailed deer.
INVASIVE PLANTS
Canada thistle, leafy spurge, Russian olive, and
wormwood sage are the primary invasive species in
the grasslands on the refuge. At least 3,000 acres of
uplands and wetlands are heavily infested with
Canada thistle. Most control efforts are directed at
Canada thistle using grazing, haying, mowing, and
biological methods. This species is a pervasive pest,
partly because control measures are limited and
generally require repeated application.
Canada thistle has infested almost all wetland
margins in northeastern South Dakota, providing an
endless seed source. The James River just ended an
unprecedented, extended period of flooding during
the 1990s. During this period, above-normal
precipitation provided ideal germination and growing
conditions for this species.
On the refuge, Canada thistle colonizes the wetland
margins, spreading from there into the grasslands.
Areas identified for treatment have generally been
grazed, mowed, or burned prior to chemical
application. To keep infestations in check, an average
of 800 acres has been chemically treated annually.
The uplands are often reinfested within 4–5 years.
While efforts are made to limit the amount of
herbicide used on the refuge, control efforts are
never complete because of the tolerance of Canada
thistle to control efforts. In addition, an endless seed
source from public and private lands makes
reinfestation highly likely.
Prescribed fire is an important tool for grassland
management; however, Canada thistle usually
responds well to fire. Application of herbicides
following prescribed burns is essential. There are
2,900 acres of wet meadows. While such areas often
have the most severe infestations, these areas are
extremely difficult to burn effectively.
Herbicides used to control invasive plants have a
disastrous impact on the forb/legume component of a
plant community. Chemical control is driving
vegetative “succession” toward a chemical-tolerant
grass community. The high water table on the refuge
is problematic for herbicide application, particularly
in the lower wet areas where infestations are the
most severe.
© Cindie Brunner
18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
Figure 6. Shelterbelt and Russian olive locations at Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota
3—Refuge Resources and Description 19
Great Blue Heron
Tom Kelley/USFWS
Four species of insects were introduced on the
refuge for biological control of Canada thistle, two of
which have been found to overwinter. However, no
reduction in thistle stands has yet been observed.
Flea beetles have been introduced to control leafy
spurge, with mixed results.
Russian olives have invaded many wetland margins
and lowland areas. While annual herbicide
treatments control new seedling growth, scattered
mature trees continue to serve as seed sources.
Mowing prevents seed germination and dispersal. In
addition, mowing prepares areas for subsequent
herbicide application if needed. Hundreds of acres
are mowed every year.
Grazing is used on a limited scale as part of the
integrated approach to invasive plant control;
however, the availability of interested cooperators is
limited. Grazing serves as a site preparation prior to
herbicide applications.
FIRE REGIME AND FIRE HISTORY
Wildfire is one of the primary natural disturbances of
native prairie. Historical records describe huge
prairie fires started by lighting or humans. Fires
burned millions of acres, as there were few natural
fuel breaks and no suppression. Wright (1980) and
others believe that fire frequency in the prairie
grasslands is 5–10 years. Other studies indicate that
a longer frequency of 10–20 years may be more
accurate (Jave 1999).
Prior to the 20th century, the role of fire in the
northern plains had been one of continued
perpetuation of the prairie ecosystem. Fire restored
vigor to plant growth, increased seed production,
released nutrients, and reduced accumulations of
litter (Higgins 1986a, b). This included the area now
designated as the Sand Lake National Wildlife
Refuge.
Since the early 20th century and the establishment of
the refuge, nearly all fires within the boundaries
have been suppressed and adjacent habitat has been
fragmented by agricultural practices. These
activities have significantly reduced the role fire
plays as a vital element of the prairie ecosystem in
north–central South Dakota. In addition, grassland
composition and structure have changed (i.e.,
exotics). This has influenced fuel type, extent, and
micro-environmental factors (moisture). Recently,
there has been an accumulation of knowledge, now
being translated into management practices, that
recognizes fire as an essential process of the mixed-grass
prairie.
Over a 20-year period (1977–97), only 16 wildland
fires, burning a total of 517 acres of Service and non-
Service lands, have been reported. This limited
acreage burned is partly attributed to barriers such
as roads, plowed fields, lakes, ponds, or rivers that
serve as breaks. Remaining areas within the refuge
had been mostly hayed or grazed, making them less
fire prone.
NATURAL RESOURCES
The upper James River provides aquatic habitat for
a wide range of plants and animals that have
persisted through the years, despite multiple human
alterations and fluctuating conditions. The James
River basin is one of few major north–south
migration corridors in the northern Great Plains
with relatively intact riparian vegetation. This draws
large numbers of migratory birds to move through
the Dakotas in spring and fall.
The James River, running more than 600 miles
through North Dakota and South Dakota, forms a
natural flight path for migrating birds—one of the
most heavily used in the Central Flyway. The upper
James River is an important migration route for
many species of songbirds, marsh birds, and other
nongame birds.
As part of the only continuous north–south corridor
of woodland habitat in South Dakota, at least 161
species of birds have been identified in this area
during migration periods, many of which remain
there to nest. Schneider (1978) identified 138 species
on his census routes, including 103 in woodlands, 71
in savannahs, 67 in marshes, and 62 in grasslands. In
addition, a minimum of 48 species of mammals have
been identified. The bird and mammal diversity
demonstrate the importance of the river system
(including the refuge) to both nongame and game
species.
Mud and Sand lakes are managed for intensive use
by waterfowl and other migratory birds during the
20 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
Northern Pike
Tom Kelley/USFWS
spring, summer, and fall and for rough fish control
during the winter. Production of sago pondweed and
other submergents that are important food resources
for birds are encouraged.
WATERFOWL
The prairie–pothole region is the primary breeding
grounds for waterfowl in the United States. Mallards,
wood ducks, and blue-winged teal are the most
common breeding ducks (Schneider 1978). Populations
are variable, peaking in high-water years.
Studies conducted by the Service found
concentrations as high as 15 breeding pairs per
square mile. Wood duck densities of two breeding
pairs per square mile use the refuge woodlands.
Breeding densities on the river were the highest in
Brown County, primarily at the Stratford Slough
area.
Large concentrations of migrating waterfowl use the
floodplain and temporary and seasonal wetlands in
the area for resting and feeding. On the refuge,
waterfowl populations have averaged approximately
184,000 ducks and 216,000 geese annually.
COLONIAL BIRDS
Colonial-nesting grebes, gulls, ibises, terns, and
herons are found on the refuge. Fall concentrations
of Franklin’s gulls and ring-billed gulls have peaked
at 150,000 and 5,000, respectively.
Information gathered by the Service (USFWS 1985)
indicates that use of the James River by colonial-nesting
species, including the great blue heron and
double-crested cormorant, may be greater than
previously realized. The preliminary list includes 24
rookery sites below the refuge, 9 of which are in
Brown County. These birds depend on trees for
nesting and on aquatic habitats for food, mostly fish.
SHOREBIRDS
Shorebird surveys have been conducted annually
since 2000. Refuge data contributes to Manomet’s
International Shorebird Survey and the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) prairie–potholes shorebird survey.
Analyses of shorebird numbers in conjunction with
records of water levels in Mud and Sand lakes may
be helpful in making future decisions regarding
management of impoundments for shorebirds.
FISH
The upper James River, from the North Dakota
border to near Redfield, South Dakota (including the
refuge), is an important fish production area for
the James River.
Currently, 60 species of fish have been identified as
occurring in the James River and at least 22 in the
upper reaches in South Dakota. Owen and others
(1981) collected 41 species in the river. Primary
game fish species are black bullhead, walleye,
northern pike, yellow perch, channel catfish, and
crappie. The majority of fish biomass in the river is
made up of nongame species such as carp, buffalo,
and freshwater drum.
The upper James River, which includes the refuge,
provides excellent spawning habitat and has highly
productive rearing areas during spring floods.
Occasional test-netting by SDGFP showed an annual
influx of fish during the spawning season.
There is important reproductive and rearing habitat
for the northern pike, which is probably the only
game fish that occurs on the refuge.
Fish greatly influence relationships of species in
aquatic systems. In the upper James River, fish are
an important food source for birds such as
cormorants and herons and mammals such as mink
and raccoon. In turn, fish depend on a rich supply of
aquatic insects,
crustaceans, and
other organisms for
food. Collectively,
these organisms are
dependent on the
diverse environment
of pools, riffles, brush
piles, and overhanging
vegetation that the
upper James River
provides.
The quality of the aquatic habitat is directly related
to stream flow characteristics. The James River is
a typical prairie stream, subject to heavy organic and
sediment loads, low oxygen levels, and wide
fluctuations in stream flow. Historical flows range
from zero in dry years to several hundred-thousand
acre-feet.
Generally, stream flow is at a minimum in winter and
reaches maximum in the spring (March–June).
Dissolved oxygen levels sometimes reach zero in
stretches of the river, usually during periods of low
Snow Geese
Dave Menke/USFWS
3—Refuge Resources and Description 21
flow, resulting in fish kills. Despite frequent
occurrence of these adverse conditions, the upper
James River maintains a substantial fish population
with its diversity of habitat types—deepwater pools
(protective areas) and spawning sites (reproductive
areas)—and the migration of fish from other areas.
DEER
The white-tailed deer population in Brown and Spink
counties largely depends on the James River for
production and survival.
Data gathered on the Oahe Irrigation Project
(Solomon 1982) showed that deer sightings ranged
from 0.117 to 0.431 adults per mile in the irrigation
areas and from 0.477 to 1.555 adults per mile on the
James River. In this study, 91.2 percent of the
sightings were along the river’s floodplain.
A standardized spotlight survey was developed to
obtain total deer counts and doe/fawn ratios for the
prehunting population of deer on the refuge in 1990.
A postseason spotlight survey was standardized to
provide comparative data. This data was collected by
Bill Antonides of the SDGFP, with annual assistance
from refuge staff. The data provides an index of the
total deer population used by SDGFP and refuge
staff to set hunting licenses for population control.
OTHER WILDLIFE
The upper James River’s marsh habitat (Brown and
Spink counties) is important to the pheasant
population as protection from winter storms. Winter
concentrations of more than 1,000 birds have been
reported in this area (SDGFP 1976). In addition, the
brushy, wooded cover provides roosting and loafing
areas.
Furbearing mammals are closely tied to the river
ecosystem, depending on both the terrestrial and
aquatic habitat. Mink, raccoon, and beaver thrive and
fox and badger make use of available cover.
The importance of the natural river habitat for
wildlife is also indicated by the diversity of species
found there. In addition to game species, many
nongame species including the belted kingfisher, red-headed
woodpecker, white-breasted nuthatch, and
bank swallow are found in this area. These species,
although not important from a harvest perspective,
are a vital part of the total ecosystem. Their
presence indicates the unique nature of the upper
James River.
Trapping for Management Purposes
The refuge has had a furbearer trapping program for
both recreation and management purposes
throughout most of its history. Interest in trapping
has decreased in recent years partially because of a
decrease in fur prices. Consequently, the knowledge
and skills are being passed on to fewer young people.
Most interest is in trapping muskrats after freeze-up.
Trapping success is based on the muskrat
population, which fluctuates depending on hydrologic
conditions of the James River. Wetter conditions
following a period of drought provide resources such
as flooded stands of cattails and adequate water
depths for lodges that allow muskrat populations to
flourish. Fall trapping can be used to remove
muskrats causing damage to dikes and roads.
The Service discourages fall trapping of furbearers
for recreation on national wildlife refuges. Trapping
was not included in the wildlife-compatible uses
legislated by Congress and outlined in the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
The fall trapping of fox, raccoon, and skunk does not
increase the spring nesting success of upland-nesting
species of waterfowl.
A 90-acre predator exclosure was constructed near
the refuge headquarters as a Ducks Unlimited
project in 1990. Waterfowl nest depredation is
reduced by trapping predators inside the exclosure
and along the perimeter. These species include red
fox, raccoon, striped skunk, mink, and Franklin’s
ground squirrel. Nest success is 60–80 percent, with
a record number of 220 nests recorded in 2000. As a
result, a spring trapping program was initiated on
Mud Lake Island during periods of high water in the
James River.
POPULATION AND HABITAT
MONITORING
Population monitoring of migratory and breeding
birds occurs annually. Nest dragging is conducted to
determine preferred habitat use by upland-nesting
waterfowl and to determine waterfowl production in
the predator exclosure. Other on-going monitoring is
achieved through the cooperation of various agencies,
volunteers, and individuals.
Doe with Fawn
© John Jave
22 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge is an official
banding station as part of the North American Duck
Banding Program. More than 51,000 ducks were
banded on the refuge from 1982 through 2004.
Nesting activity of various bird species is monitored.
Waterfowl-nesting success is monitored within the
90-acre predator exclosure. Refuge staff monitors
the use of wood duck boxes, bluebird boxes, goose
tubs, and mallard baskets, and checks for signs of
bald eagle-nesting activity.
Until recently, habitat monitoring has not received
the primary emphasis or the attention as population
monitoring. A grassland-monitoring plan was
developed in 2003–4 and a program of formal habitat
monitoring was begun. Upland grassland habitats
were classified and are monitored annually by refuge
staff. The results are used to make future management
decisions and to evaluate past techniques.
Monitoring of wildlife diseases is limited primarily to
detection of waterfowl botulism outbreaks in wetlands.
Other diseases of recent concern include West Nile
virus, avian chlamydiosis, and chronic-wasting disease.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Documented occupation in the vicinity of Sand Lake
National Wildlife Refuge spans a 10,000-year period,
thus there is potential for presence of archeological
resources on the refuge. There are no known cultural
resources on the refuge; however, a comprehensive
cultural resource inventory has not been conducted.
Individual sites that may be affected by management
activities are surveyed for cultural resources prior to
disturbance.
As indicated on a plaque, the Columbia Day Use
Area is the location of the first Catholic mass in
South Dakota in 1845.
The refuge contains clear ties to the Depression-era
period, based on the original landscape design and
presence of all but one of the original buildings. An
evaluation of the historical context of structures
built during the Depression-era identified one
historical site; however, the buildings have been
altered.
The eight-stall vehicle building is probably the most
intact and unique. In addition, the entrance sign
represents the standard sign originally designed for
refuges.
In South Dakota, most refuges were established in
the 1930s, during the Depression. The CCC, formed
during the Depression years, performed early
construction activities on Sand Lake National
Wildlife Refuge. Projects focused on holding water,
linking channels, and creating habitat islands for
migratory birds.
The CCC Camp BF-2, for Company #2749 was
opened in June 1935 and closed in July 1939. Various
works were accomplished, as described in the
following excerpt from a report (CCC 1939).
“Forty miles of very satisfactory refuge
trails provide travel facilities to almost
any part of the area. Seventy miles of
fence surround the refuge.
More than one-half million new trees are
now thriving on the area and enhancing
its appearance.
Two major and seven minor dams have
been constructed or reconstructed.
Where 17 sets of farm buildings once
existed, a portion of three now remain.
More than 200 miles of undesirable and
run down farm fences have been removed.
Nesting and resting islands, a network
of low water system channels and a
complete set of water controls now are
in evidence on the large marsh area that
used to be marked only by hay stacks.
The foundations of two public picnic
grounds have been laid.
New buildings have been constructed on
the headquarters and secondary
residence sites.
Large signs are located in strategic
locations near the refuge, proclaiming
the purpose and sponsor of the refuge.
Many upland game shelters are
observed as one tours the refuge.
Large areas have been seeded to aquatic
plants and an abundance of natural cover
growth is present.
As a result of the display pool dam, the
first CCC project, a small lake with
pinioned geese and many broods of wild
ducks swimming around on it is the first
picture seen when entering.”
Refuge staff doing early-morning duck banding.
Bill Schultze/USFWS
3—Refuge Resources and Description 23
WILDERNESS REVIEW
To be designated a wilderness area, lands must meet
certain criteria as outlined in the Wilderness Act of
1964:
■ Generally appears to have been affected primarily
by the forces of nature, with the imprint of human
work substantially unnoticeable.
■ Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a
primitive and unconfined type of recreation.
■ Has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient
size as to make practicable its preservation and
use in an unimpaired condition.
■ May also contain ecological, geological, or other
features of scientific, educational, scenic, or
historical value.
The Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge meets the
size and scientific, scenic, and ecological value
criteria for wilderness. However, roads, fences,
grazing, agriculture, and wetland drainage have
modified the refuge. These alterations prevent
designation as a wilderness area.
SOCIOECONOMIC SETTING
This section is a summary of the socioeconomic
setting. The complete economic analysis is in
appendix I.
The refuge is located in Brown County, South
Dakota. The county is part of the glacial lakes and
prairies region of South Dakota and is sometimes
called the heart of the prairie–pothole region of
North America. Brown County has a total area of
1,713 square miles (1,096,320 acres).
Brown County offers such attractions as the Dacotah
Prairie Museum, the Centennial Village, pari-mutuel
horse racing, the Brown County Fair, and the
Richmond Lake Youth Camp (Brown County 2004).
Aberdeen, the third largest city in South Dakota, is
the county seat and the center of commerce for the
region. Aberdeen was nicknamed the "Hub City"
because it served as an important intersection for
many busy railroad lines. Today's "Hub City" has
grown into a diverse, regional trade center with
service and manufacturing industries, attractive
retail shopping opportunities, convention facilities, a
private college, a state university, and two large
medical centers (Aberdeen Area Chamber of
Commerce 2004).
POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND INCOME
The 2000 census estimated Brown County’s
population at 35,460 persons (U.S. Census Bureau
2002). Approximately 70 percent of the county’s
residents reside in Aberdeen (Discover Aberdeen
2004).
While South Dakota experienced a 7.8 percent
population increase from 1990 to 2000, Brown
County’s population decreased 0.4 percent over the
same time frame (U.S. Census Bureau 2002). In 2000,
Brown County averaged 21 persons per square mile;
the state average was 10 persons per square mile.
The 2000 census reported the following for the
county’s population:
■ 95.1 percent are white persons not of
Hispanic/Latino origin
USFWS
The 108-foot observation tower at
refuge headquarters in the 1930s.
Looming over a small wetland, the tower continues to
be a favorite with visitors.
Beth Ullenberg/USFWS
24 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
■ 2.7 percent are American Indian and Alaska
Native persons
■ 0.7 percent are persons of Hispanic or Latino
origin
■ 0.4 percent are Asian persons
■ 0.3 percent are Black or African American persons
Approximately, 86 percent of the county population
25 years and older were high-school graduates and
24 percent were college graduates (U.S. Census
Bureau 2002). There are two colleges in Aberdeen—
Northern State University and Presentation
College.
South Dakota’s major exports include computers and
electronic production, machinery manufactures,
processed foods, and crop production (U.S.
Department of Commerce 2002).
In 2000, 83.5 percent of county jobs were in private
wage and salary employment (people who work for
someone else) as compared to 79.2 percent for South
Dakota. According to the Discover Aberdeen
website, the major employers in Aberdeen are health
services, education, manufacturing, hotel
reservations, agriculture, higher education, the call
center, and support services.
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
The refuge offers a wide variety of year-round
accessible recreational opportunities that are wildlife
dependent. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
(e.g., bird watching), wildlife photography, and
education are all popular activities.
The refuge is a nationally recognized wildlife
sanctuary and offers opportunities for big game,
upland game, and waterfowl hunters. Pheasant
hunting draws outdoorsmen and women from across
the country each fall. Fishing is allowed year-round
at five locations on the refuge.
Major visitor expenditure categories include lodging,
food, and supplies. Current visitors to the refuge
spend about $655,500 annually in the Brown County
economy. The current level of visitor spending
directly generates more than $152,000 in personal
income and 9.4 jobs for local businesses
accommodating visitors including hotels, restaurants,
supply stores, and gas stations. The associated
indirect and induced effects generate an additional
4.3 jobs and more than $102,000 in personal income
throughout the Brown County economy. This has a
total economic impact of 13.7 jobs and more than
$254,000 in personal income associated with the
current level of refuge visitation.
REFUGE STAFFING AND BUDGETING
Current refuge staffing and budgeting generates 13
permanent and 4 temporary and seasonal employees.
The current staff accounted for an annual payroll,
including salaries and benefits, of $910,600 in 2003.
In addition to providing salaries and benefits, the
refuge purchased goods and services totaling
$165,200 in 2003, approximately 65 percent of which
was spent locally in the Brown County economy.
PUBLIC USE
In addition to the various fish and wildlife habitats,
the James River provides a scenic contrast to the
agriculturally dominated prairie. An appreciation
of this value was shown with the nomination of the
upper James River as a Scenic and Recreational
River by the SDGFP (1976).
Studies have documented the recreational value of
the river. Hanson (1981) surveyed recreational and
other uses of the river from 1975 to 1979. He divided
the river into three segments beginning at Sand
Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The upper section,
just south of the refuge, included the river from
Columbia to Fisher Grove State Park. In 1 year, this
upper section had an estimated 357,590 hours of
recreation, including 27 different activities. Camping
and fishing were the highest uses. In Hanson’s
discussion, he stated:
“The number and variety of uses
observed are proof that the James River
is truly a multi-use resource. Uses such
as sightseeing, that do not directly
consume a product of the river, were
consistently important to the total
recreational value. Impacts upon this
total recreational value, rather than a
single use or value, must be considered
in any management plans for the river.”
Students look in wonderment at items on the “discovery
table” in the visitor center.
Beth Ullenberg/USFWS
3—Refuge Resources and Description 25
The refuge offers a variety of public use activities
(figure 7, next page). Approximately 50,000 people
visit annually to participate in some form of
recreation. Activities include hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
environmental education, interpretation, and hiking.
Interpretive displays, a book sales outlet, various
brochures, and accessible rest rooms are located at
refuge headquarters; the visitor area and main office
are open year-round.
A small room adjacent to the lobby serves as space
for educational activities and as a small visitor area
housing exhibits, displays, wildlife mounts, and audio
equipment. This space also holds two employee
offices. Maximum capacity is 20–25 elementary
students and 20 or fewer junior and high school
students. Classes of more than 25 students find it
difficult to use the facility because of the limited size;
it also has no classroom or laboratory-type space.
There is increasing demand for on-site educational
and interpretive programs. Educational programs
are limited to videos or floor activities. The current
facility can accommodate only one school group at a
time and, during peak use, groups have to be turned
away. This space is used for special refuge events,
which are also limited due to the facility’s small size.
The Columbia Day Use Area is often used for
birding and it provides accessible restrooms and
parking, a hiking trail, tables, and a sun shelter.
Public access to the interior of the refuge is limited
during hunting seasons from mid-October to
February 1. During this time, gates and roads are
closed and access is limited only to hunters to avoid
user conflicts and ensure safety.
Wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
environmental education, interpretation, and hiking
are best from April 1 through mid-October when
wildlife is more prevalent and roads and gates are
open.
Areas open to visitors include the 15-mile “wildlife
drive” auto tour route, the 20-mile North Loop Road,
and the Columbia and Hecla day use areas.
HUNTING
The refuge has long been famous for waterfowl
hunting and huge fall concentrations of snow geese.
In fiscal year 2004, there were approximately 1,100
waterfowl-hunting visits.
Pass shooting for waterfowl is offered from
approximately 200 waterfowl blinds placed around
the refuge perimeter (figure 8). This program was
set up in response to the article, “Carnage at Sand
Lake,” published in the National Audubon Society
magazine (1970), documenting excessive crippling of
waterfowl.
In 1970, in cooperation with the state of South
Dakota, certain road rights-of-way were closed to
hunting to reduce waterfowl crippling, reduce road
congestion, and space hunters in blinds for a higher
quality hunt. In recent years, the hunting from these
blinds has been less productive. Many blinds on the
northern portion of the refuge receive very little use
because of changed use-patterns of snow geese. It is
anticipated that the number and locations of these
blinds may change in the future, if the lack of use
continues.
The refuge is a popular area for white-tailed deer
hunters, with archery, muzzleloader, and rifle
seasons occurring in November and December. In
fiscal year 2004, there were approximately 2,200
deer-hunting visits.
The local agri-business community is appreciative of
the refuge’s efforts to provide for additional deer
harvest, in addition to what is available in Brown
County surrounding the refuge. Cooperative plans
and strategies have been ongoing for years with
SDGFP to address the dynamics of the regional deer
herd.
Upland game birds include ring-necked pheasant,
sharp-tailed grouse, and gray partridge. A December
season for upland birds, primarily ring-necked
pheasant, is offered each year at the close of the rifle
seasons. In fiscal year 2004, there were
approximately 900 upland game-hunting visits.
FISHING
The angling pressure on the upper and middle sections
of the James River is significant, comparing favorably
to the better lakes in northeastern South Dakota.
Fishery resources on the James River in the vicinity
of Jamestown Reservoir and isolated reaches
upstream are also important fishery resource areas.
Ring-necked Pheasant
© John Jave
26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
Figure 7. Public use at Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota
3—Refuge Resources and Description 27
Figure 8. Public hunting areas at Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota
28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
Fishing on the refuge is offered year-round at five
locations, where road rights-of-way cross the James
River. Motorized and nonmotorized boating is not
allowed and no facilities for fishing exist. Angler
preferences include walleye, northern pike, yellow
perch, and rough fish. In fiscal year 2004, there were
approximately 1,200 angler visits.
The fisheries are not actively managed and fishing is
opportunistic. Fish populations flourish during wet
cycles and decline (winterkill) during periods of low
flow or when lower water levels occur in Mud and
Sand lakes. Sand Lake is generally too shallow to
support a viable game fishery. Water depths at full-pool
level pool are less than 6 feet, which is not
enough to overwinter game fish. However, during
years of high flow, the James River may provide
winter fish habitat.
Anglers are limited to ice fishing within a close
proximity of the designated fishing areas. Ice shacks
are allowed, but must be removed daily. Vehicles are
not allowed on the ice.
WILDLIFE OBSERVATION AND WILDLIFE
PHOTOGRAPHY
Several state and county highways traverse the
refuge and offer excellent viewing opportunities.
Most activity is in spring and fall, when thousands
of people visit to see large concentrations of birds
when migrations are at their peak.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
The Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge has an
active on- and off-site environmental education
program. Special events include several water
festivals, Scout camps, 4-H camps, local fairs, and
a free fishing day.
Each year, more than 600 students visit the refuge
on school field trips. This use is dropping due to
budget constraints within local school districts,
which includes the elimination of busing for
nonessential activities and decreased funding for
field trips and outdoor education. Refuge staffs are
exploring creative ways to assist schools with busing
issues to help bring field trips to the refuge.
Due to constraints on school budgets, off-site
environmental education programs have flourished.
More than 3,000 students are reached through staff-and
educator-led programs and special events each
year. Classroom programs use The Prairie Learning
Trunk, The Shorebird Trunk, and other teaching kits.
INTERPRETATION
Refuge facilities for public use are somewhat limited.
Interpretive kiosks on Highway 10, at the refuge
headquarters, and in the Columbia Day Use Area
provide visitors with information about wildlife and
the Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge.
A small visitor area, located within the headquarters
building, provides information and exhibits. The
building is open during regular work hours
(Monday–Friday, 8:00 am–4:30 pm). During the
spring waterfowl migration, volunteers staff the
visitor area on weekends. A 100-foot observation
tower that is open for public use in the headquarters
area provides panoramic views of the refuge and the
surrounding area.
A self-guided auto tour route, known as the “wildlife
drive,” is available for the public to learn about the
refuge and its wildlife. The route has 12 numbered
stations and is open, when conditions permit, from
April through mid-October. A viewing platform
along the route overlooks Sand Lake.
A 0.75-mile-long, self-guided hiking trail with
interpretive signs is located in the Columbia Day
Use Area. A second nature trail is planned for the
headquarters display pool area along with a shelter
to be used for environmental education.
No photography blinds are maintained for the
public. However, special-use permits are issued to
professional photographers who are working on
specific photographic projects.
PARTNERSHIPS
The refuge has a long history of fostering
partnerships to help accomplish its mission and
goals. These partners include city, county, state, and
federal agencies; nongovernmental organizations;
conservation groups; and private citizens.
The refuge’s partners have assisted in wildlife and
habitat management, public use and recreational
activities, and community outreach. Many of these
relationships have developed into formalized
partnerships that have written agreements or
Eagle Day visitors learn about birds of prey at a live
bird exhibit.
USFWS
3—Refuge Resources and Description 29
understandings, while others remain more informal.
Existing and potential partners are listed below.
ORGANIZATIONS
■ 4-H Clubs of Brown County
■ Aberdeen Bird Club
■ American Bird Conservancy
■ Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce
■ Aberdeen Convention and Visitors Bureau
■ American Rivers
■ Booth Society
■ Boy Scouts–Sioux Council
■ Dacotah Prairie Museum
■ Ducks Unlimited
■ Girl Scouts–Nyoda Council
■ Glacial Lakes and Prairies Tourism
■ Hecla Sportsmen’s Club
■ Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences
■ National Audubon Society
■ National Wildlife Refuge Association
■ Pheasants Forever
■ South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union
■ South Dakota Wildlife Federation
■ Sportsmen’s Club of Brown County
■ The Nature Conservancy–Ordway Prairie
■ The Wildlife Society–South Dakota Chapter
■ Whitetail Bowmen
■ Whitetails Unlimited
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
■ Northern State University
■ South Dakota State University
GOVERNMENTAL GROUPS
■ Aberdeen Parks, Recreation and Forestry
■ Brookings Wildlife Habitat Office
■ Brown County Commission
■ Brown County Emergency Manager
■ Brown County Extension Service
■ Brown County Farm Service Agency
■ Brown County Highway Department
■ Brown County Natural Resources Conservation
Service
■ Brown/Marshall Conservation District
■ Bureau of Reclamation–Dakotas Area Office
■ Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance
■ Garrison Diversion Conservancy District
■ Local and Regional School Districts
■ Lower Crow Creek Watershed District
■ National Weather Service
■ Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center
■ Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
■ South Dakota Department of Agriculture
■ South Dakota Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
■ South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and
Parks
■ South Dakota Water Rights Program
■ South Dakota Division of Forestry
■ South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer
■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers–Omaha District
■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (international
conservation, ecological services)
■ USGS (water resources)
POTENTIAL PARTNERS
A “friends group” within the community could be
established and other potential partners include:
■ American Fisheries Society–Dakota Chapter
■ Wildlife Management Institute
■ Northeast South Dakota Walleye Club
■ Izaak Walton League
4—Management Direction 1
© John Jave
4 Management Direction
This CCP takes an integrated approach that
optimizes the biological potential for migratory birds
and finds a balance with reducing cropland, while
ensuring depredation is minimized.
The management direction in this chapter meets the
purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge. Objectives
and strategies to carry out the goals will provide for
ecosystem and resource needs and public use.
■ A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of desired
future conditions that conveys a purpose, but does
not define measurable units.
■ An objective is a concise statement of
what is to be achieved;
how much is to be achieved;
when and where it is to be achieved;
who is responsible to achieve it.
■ Strategies are ways to achieve an objective.
■ Rationale for each objective includes background
information, assumptions, and technical details
used to formulate the objective. The rationale
provides context to enhance comprehension and
facilitate future evaluations.
Development of refuge goals and objectives involved
multiple sources of information:
■ a review and interpretation of national plans
■ a review of existing scientific literature
■ an evaluation of habitat conditions
■ the personal knowledge of planning team
participants
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Upland habitat management will be geared toward
providing tall and dense nesting cover on a high
percentage of the uplands for nesting birds,
especially waterfowl. Rejuvenation of decadent
grasslands and the control of invasive plant species
will be emphasized. This will be accomplished
through an active management program of grazing,
prescribed burning, haying, farming, reseeding,
invasive plant control, and habitat monitoring.
■ Cropland acreage will be reduced.
■ No new shelterbelts will be planted. Existing
shelterbelts will be allowed to die out to increase
the size of grassland blocks for nesting migratory
birds. In addition, selected shelterbelts will be
removed and the disturbed sites seeded to grass.
Pied-billed Grebe
32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
■ Invading Russian-olive trees will be removed or
controlled where they are threatening the
productiveness of grassland-nesting migratory
bird species.
The refuge will acquire areas approved by the
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission when the
land becomes available from willing sellers.
Both Mud and Sand lakes will be managed to provide
a wetland category preferred by overwater-nesting
birds and waterfowl. The five subimpoundments
(figure 9) will be managed as shallow-water,
seasonally flooded wetlands—used by waterfowl
breeding pairs and broods, nesting black terns and
pied-billed grebes, and foraging waterbirds and
shorebirds. Drawdowns will be accomplished,
depending on the amount of flow in the James River;
water can only be moved out of the units when there
are low flows in the river. Siltation problems within
Mud and Sand lakes will be addressed.
The refuge will manage its wildland fire program
according to the steps outlined in appendix J.
The section 7 biological evaluation for threatened
and endangered species can be found in appendix K.
Wildlife-dependent recreational activities will be
expanded and improved on and off refuge lands.
■ The building of an education center will allow
visitors a quality experience and provide a focus
point for public use. This new education center,
larger than the current headquarters facility, will
meet current demand for educational materials
and activities, as well as for special events.
■ Support facilities for hunting and fishing
opportunities will be improved.
■ The Columbia and Hecla day use areas will
continue to be managed for public activities.
Improvements such as updated signing,
interpretive kiosks, and expanded trails will be
made to each site.
■ On-site tours, school field trips, and educational
activities will be promoted and associated facilities
will be improved.
■ Off-site programs will promote visitation to the
refuge.
MANAGEMENT DIRECTION
The biological diversity goal will be met through the
following objectives and strategies. Expected habitat
conditions are shown in figure 10.
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY GOAL
Promote the natural biological diversity of the area
and, through management of refuge habitats,
provide for the greatest number of native fauna and
flora species within the capabilities of the Sand Lake
National Wildlife Refuge.
Threatened and Endangered Species Subgoal
Provide for the protection and welfare of any
threatened or endangered plants and animals that
may occur on the refuge.
Threatened and Endangered Species Objective:
Provide nesting and roosting habitat for bald eagles
during the course of the year. Make special efforts to
protect and provide for the well-being of any
threatened or endangered species, such as the
whooping crane, that is found to be present.
Strategy
— Allow riparian zone trees, especially cottonwoods,
to grow except where affected by habitat
management activities.
Waterfowl and Grassland-nesting Birds Subgoal
Provide sufficient habitat (wetlands and grasslands)
for the production and maintenance of waterfowl and
grassland-nesting, nongame bird species.
Waterfowl and Grassland-nesting Birds
Objective: Maintain or develop a minimum of 8,000
acres of nesting habitat for waterfowl and grassland-nesting
nongame birds within 10 years of CCP
approval.
Strategy
— Maintain upland habitats through applied
management such as grazing, haying, and
prescribed fire.
Bald Eagle
© Cindie Brunner
Prescribed fire is a tool to rejuvenate grassland.
Neil Powers/USFWS
4—Management Direction 33
Figure 9. Water management units at Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota
34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
Figure 10. Expected habitat conditions at Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota
4—Management Direction 35
Colonial Birds Subgoal
Provide and manage wetland habitats as nesting
areas for the tremendous variety of colonial bird
species using the refuge.
Colonial Birds Objective: Manage the emergent
vegetative zones through water level manipulations
to provide nesting and roosting habitat for the
hundreds of thousands of colonial-nesting birds that
use the refuge. Maintain 750 acres of emergent
vegetation south of Highway 10 within the
traditional nesting area.
Rationale
Overwater colonial-nesting birds rank high on the
hierarchy of wildlife priorities of the refuge (table 2).
This objective describes the deepwater/dense-emergent
category of wetland habitat preferred as
overwater nest sites by a high percentage of colonial-nesting
birds found on the refuge, as follows:
■ Franklin’s gull (Burger 1974, Guay 1968)
■ White-faced ibis (Ryder and Manry 1994, Zeiner
et al. 1990)
■ Black-crowned night-heron (Davis 1993)
■ Eared grebe (Dechant et al. 2002)
■ Western grebe (Short 1984)
■ Forster’s tern (Gorenzel 1977, McNicholl 1979)
Table 2. Priority ratings of bird groups relative to
habitat management on Sand Lake National Wildlife
Refuge, South Dakota
Priority Rating Bird Group
1 Waterfowl
2 Colonial-nesting birds
3 Grassland-nesting passerine
birds
4 Shorebirds
5 Other marsh and waterbirds
6 Raptors
7 Woodland-nesting passerine
birds
8 Resident species
By managing areas of Sand and Mud lakes (see
impoundment objectives in the wetland habitat
section) for overwater-nesting birds, habitat for
other wetland birds will naturally be provided in
areas of different depth.
■ Deepwater/sparse-emergent habitat will be
provided along the edges of deepwater/dense-emergent
areas and in areas of variable depth.
■ Shallow-water/emergent habitat will be provided
along the marshy edges of Sand and Mud lakes
and in the northern part of Mud Lake.
■ Open-water/submergent habitat will be provided
in the deeper, center part of Sand Lake and in the
deeper pockets of Mud Lake.
■ Shallow-water/sparse habitat will be provided
along the lake edges and shorelines.
The location and amount of each habitat type will
vary with the natural wetland cycles. As emergent
vegetation gradually decreases, the habitat type will
change. This can happen gradually over time or
within several years if water levels are extreme.
In addition, water levels in the subimpoundments
are intended to vary like natural wetlands. The
success and timing of such management actions are
subject to dynamic weather patterns.
Plant communities in prairie wetlands are
continually changing because of short- and long-term
fluctuations in water levels and salinity. Prairie
wetlands have evolved under these fluctuating
conditions. The process of cycling with wet and dry
periods makes prairie wetlands productive. For
instance, exposure of mud flats during drought
periods is necessary for the germination of many
emergent macrophytes and facilitates the oxidation
of organic sediments and nutrient releases that
maintains high productivity.
Within the framework of a dynamic wetland system,
management of the subimpoundments is directed
toward waterfowl (foraging, breeding pairs, and
broods), shorebirds, and wading birds. This objective
sets an upper and lower threshold of emergent
vegetation, because an interspersion of emergent
vegetation and wetland openings is preferred by
both dabbling and diving ducks and their broods
(Kantrud 1986).
Interspersed emergent vegetation also benefits
other marsh-dwelling birds and mammals (Seabloom
1958, Vogl 1973, Weller and Spatcher 1965). Such
conditions may also result in avian communities of
greater species diversity or richness (Weller 1978,
Weller and Spatcher 1965). In addition, Voigts (1976)
found maximum invertebrate abundance occurring
where beds of submerged vegetation were
interspersed with stands of emergent vegetation.
A lower invertebrate biomass threshold is part of the
subimpoundment objective. Invertebrate abundance
is quantified relative to biomass in June, because
that is when invertebrate biomass is known to peak
in most wetlands (Euliss and Mushet 2003).
36 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
Abundance of aquatic macroinvertebrates is
positively related to waterfowl use (Kaminski and
Prince 1981, Schroeder 1973, Swanson and Meyer
1973) and early growth of ducklings (Chura 1961,
Perret 1962, Sugden 1973). Aquatic invertebrates
also are important food resources for shorebirds
(Eldridge 1987), amphibians (Clark 1978, Deutschman
1984), and other marsh birds (Weller 1981).
Shallow water conditions during some portion of the
year are also favorable. Deep water may reduce the
availability of invertebrates to feeding waterfowl
(Laperle 1974, Murkin and Kadlec 1986) and
shorebirds. Optimum foraging depths for dabbling
ducks, shorebirds, and wading birds are 2–9.8 inches,
0–9.8 inches, and 3–23.6 inches, respectively (Jasmer
2000). Diving ducks can also exploit food resources in
shallow water (Fredrickson and Reid 1988).
Strategy
— Manipulate water levels in the major
impoundments.
When emergent cover is in optimal condition,
conventional water strategies will be applied.
This consists of moving spring runoff through
the refuge as quickly as possible, until water
levels have fallen to full-pool elevation (1,287.52
feet above sea level). Full-pool elevation will be
maintained through the nesting season (May
15–August 1). Refuge staff will continue to
coordinate with upstream dam managers to
minimize negative impacts to overwater
nesters.
Control of water levels to manage wetland
habitats is dependent on the flows of the James
River. Conditions on the river can change
quickly and need to be continually evaluated.
After multiple years of high water, cattail
stands often need to be reestablished through
managed drawdowns. The best time to
reestablish cattail in Sand Lake is during low-flow
years, when water levels can be drawn
down during the summer months.
In Mud Lake, drawdowns will be limited by the
level in Sand Lake, but conditions should be
sufficient to reestablish cattail during low-flow
years.
The coordinated release of water from Dakota
Lake National Wildlife Refuge, just north of
Mud Lake, may also be an option if the releases
benefit both refuges or if the benefits to Sand
Lake National Wildlife Refuge override the
benefits to Dakota Lake National Wildlife
Refuge. The managers at both refuges will
determine this. These releases may be needed
to reflood part of Mud Lake after a drawdown
or to address a botulism problem in Mud or
Sand lakes.
If the wetland experiences only shallow
flooding, emergent vegetation may eventually
expand through vegetative propagation to
dominate the entire wetland. The resultant
buildup of litter and organic material from
emergent species can reduce water depth or
eliminate shallow water areas (Hammond 1961;
Ward 1942, 1968). Decreased waterfowl use is
commonly associated with the decreased habitat
variation in stands of tall, emergent hydrophytes,
which typically form monotypes in the absence
of disturbance.
General references (Kozlowski and Ahlgren
1974, Wright and Bailey 1982) indicate that
burning of marsh vegetation releases nutrients
and opens the canopy and detrital layer.
Reduction in the height and density of tall,
emergent hydrophytes by fire generally
benefits breeding waterfowl. Such benefits are
an increase in pair density probably related to
increased interspersion of cover and open
water, which decreases visibility among
conspecific pairs (Kantrud 1986). Grazing by
cattle also may remove much organic matter
and create open water areas where submersed
plants flourish (Schultz 1987).
Prolonged deepwater flooding reduces emergent
macrophytes due to extended inundation and
the expansion of muskrats and their
consumption of macrophytes (Euliss et al. 1999).
Drawing the wetlands down early in the
summer when mud temperatures are too cool to
allow cattail germination helps discourage
cattail invasions. Alternately, allowing the
subimpoundments to drain naturally will expose
the mud flats in midsummer and likely
encourage cattail proliferation.
The James River is embedded within an
agricultural landscape where cultivation of
wetland catchment areas has likely increased
Young eared grebes keep watch from their mother’s back.
© John Jave
4—Management Direction 37
the intensity of runoff events and decreased the
time available for infiltration.
Although all major dams constructed on rivers
have a finite life span due to natural
sedimentation processes, human-caused
influences on sedimentation rates have great
potential to fill prematurely Mud and Sand
lakes, degrading their wetland functions.
Increased sediment in water generally reduces
the depth of the photic zone, reducing the light
available for primary production by aquatic
macrophytes and algae (Ellis 1936, Robel 1961).
Sediment depths of 0.1 inch can significantly
reduce species richness, emergence, and
germination of wetland macrophytes (Jurik et al.
1994, Wang et al. 1994).
Because of the negative impacts on aquatic
vegetation from sediments, water quality
functions may be altered (Gleason and Euliss
1998). Such loss of standing vegetation
structure and algal biomass generally makes
wetlands less productive for invertebrates
(Euliss and Grodhaus 1987, Krecker 1939, Krull
1970, Neill and Cornwell 1992). Aside from their
obvious role in the feeding ecology of waterfowl
and other birds, invertebrates provide critical
food chain support for a wide variety of other
organisms and play significant roles in nutrient
cycling and overall wetland productivity
(Murkin and Batt 1987).
In 2000, the USGS estimated the vertical
accretion rate of sediment near the Mud Lake
dike to be 0.5 inch per year, with sedimentation
rates greater than 0.8 inch per year during the
1990s when river flows were especially high
(Gleason et al. 2003).
At the current rate of sedimentation, the
projected loss of water depth over the next
20 years would prohibit manipulation of water
levels in Mud Lake. Lacking the ability to cycle
vegetation and create an interspersion of cover
and water, current wildlife objectives would not
be met. Once Mud Lake fills with sediment,
sedimentation rates are expected to escalate in
Sand Lake as well.
If Mud Lake basin continues to fill with silt at
its current rate, it could lose most of its original
wetland volume. Methods to restore the basin
will need to be evaluated within the context of
economics and the postrestoration potential to
provide targeted functions. Future work should
assess current sedimentation rates in Sand Lake
to project the life span of this impoundment.
Maintenance of the topographic relief of the
basins of Mud and Sand lakes is essential to
maintaining the functions and biological
diversity of the wetlands. Management of the
upper basin may be the most practical
alternative to reducing sediment in these lakes.
Conservation practices that target sustained
agricultural production and long-term wetland
management can be quite effective in slowing
overland input into the James River, as follows:
■ fencing out riparian zones
■ creating greenways
■ establishing grassed waterways and
vegetative buffer strips
■ implementing the Natural Resources
Conservation Service’s (NRCS) best
management practices
The NRCS has already implemented the
wetland reserve and conservation reserve
programs on scattered lands along the James
River. However, based on lack of significant
enrollment in these programs, a new approach
may be necessary to achieve coordinated effort
among landowners to address effectively runoff
issues along the James River.
One approach may include an entirely new
program designed specifically for protection of
the James River basin. Economic incentives
could be used to facilitate landowner
implementation of the program. Partners will be
needed to develop such a large-scale program
and could include the James River Watershed
District, soil conservation districts, state and
federal agencies, and other conservation
organizations.
This approach could also involve a presentation
of existing programs with a coordinated effort
among multiple state and federal agencies. This
outreach effort could be directed toward
property owners on the James River floodplain
to ensure that they are made aware of their
options. Region 6's Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program will be one avenue for
promoting new and existing programs to
private landowners.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
has the conservation reserve enhancement
program (CREP), which has great potential
although it has not yet been implemented in
South Dakota. Based on observations in other
states, the CREP program may prove to be a
valuable tool to achieve the desired James River
environmental goals.
In addition, the possibility of land easements or
purchases could be made available. Perpetual
protection of the floodplain is preferable to a
temporary solution. However, consideration
should be given to the fact that perpetuity
clauses may inhibit landowner participation.
38 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, SD
Water could be moved in and out of the five
subimpoundments opportunistically, as flows in
the James River and water levels in Mud and
Sand lakes allow.
When management action is necessary and
water elevations in the main pools are not
conducive to take advantage of gravity flow, a
16-inch Crisafulli pump could be used to move
water into or out of these subimpoundments.
This will add significantly to the cost, will be
time consuming, and must not violate
restrictions placed on the refuge’s water rights.
However, it could create the desired habitat
conditions when other management alternatives
are not available.
Most of the subimpoundments are smaller areas
separated from the main pools by an
embankment. Water could be diverted into or
out of the subimpoundments by gravity flow.
Because of their smaller size and isolation from
the main pools, it will be possible to provide
some water level control, thereby influencing
the plant and invertebrate communities, as well
as the productivity of the subimpoundments.
Plant and invertebrate production could be
maximized through carefully planned
drawdowns and subsequent reflooding events.
Drawdowns of the subimpoundments will be
accomplished in different years to provide a
diversity of habitat conditions during any given
year. The need for rejuvenation of plant and
invertebrate communities within each unit and
the ability to move water out of the unit will
largely determine when drawdowns could be
conducted.
Resident Wildlife Subgoal
Contribute to habitat requirements for regional
populations of resident wildlife including fish,
reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and nonmigratory
birds.
Resident Wildlife Objective: Work with the South
Dakota Cooperative Research Unit and the South
Dakota Heritage Program on nongame wildlife
issues.
Strategy
— Work with the South Dakota Cooperative
Research Unit and the South Dakota Heritage
Program on inventories and development of
habitat management techniques to support
resident, nongame wildlife species.
Deer Management Objective: Continue working
cooperatively with SDGFP to meet winter food
requirements for white-tailed deer.
Strategy
— Allow the refuge’s share of the farm program
crop to remain in the field and available during
winter months.
Grassland Habitat Subgoal
Restore, maintain, and provide quality habitat for
the life requirements of a diversity of migratory
birds and other wildlife species.
Directly connected to this subgoal, the refuge’s farm
program serves two purposes:
First and foremost, it has tremendous
value as a habitat management tool.
Farming is used to reclaim decadent
grasslands and monotypic stands of
undesirable grass species (brome and
bluegrass), and to combat invasive plant
infestations.
In addition to its use as a habitat
management tool, farming provides
direct benefits to wildlife.
Over the next 15 years, the scope of the farm
program on the refuge will be reduced. However, a
base acreage of approximately 800 acres will be
maintained to address these needs.
Grassland Block Objective: Manage at least
8,000 acres of grassland habitat with a minimum of
80 percent of the grassland habitat managed in
blocks of at least 160 acres within 15 years of CCP
approval.
Rationale
With the United States’ grasslands listed as
critically endangered, i.e., greater than 98 percent
declines (Noss et al. 1995), larger blocks of
contiguous grassland will benefit grassland-dependent
species.
An extensive, 8-year study in Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, and Alberta, Canada found hatching
rates of waterfowl were generally higher in larger
patches of habitat (Howerter 2002). In Minnesota’s
tall-grass prairie, nest-depredation rates were lower
Red Fox
Bob Savannah/USFWS
4—Management Direction 39
on large (321–1,201 acres) versus small (40–79 acres)
grassland blocks (Johnson and Temple 1990).
By creating larger grassland blocks, more favorable
habitat is created for grassland birds of special
concern that are known to nest on the refuge (table 3).
Of these 15 species, 9 use grassland growth forms in
the tall- or medium-height category (Dechant et al.
1998b–d, 1998f, 1999a–c, 1999e, 1999f). These nine
species, along with the more abundant savannah
sparrow, bobolink, sedge wren, and clay-colored
sparrow (Dechant et al. 1998a, 1998e, 1999d;
Swanson 1998), have the greatest capacity to
indirectly benefit from the management of tall, dense
vegetation for nesting waterfowl (table 4, next page).
Eight of these 13 species (table 4) avoid woody
vegetation (Dechant 1998a, 1999f; Wildlife Habitat
Management Institute 1999); 7 of the 13 are area
sensitive (Dechant et al. 1998b, 1998d, 1999a, 1999d,
1999f; Swanson 1998); and 6 of the 13 experience
brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds
(Dechant et al. 1998a–b, 1998f, 1999d–e; Swanson
1998).
Vegetative Structure and Composition Objective:
Manage habitat blocks of DNC so that, in 7 out of 10
years, the habitat blocks w