Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 1
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Tewaukon
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
National Wildlife Refuge
2 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 3
Tewaukon
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
September 2000
Prepared by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge
9754 143 1/2 Avenue Southeast
Cayuga, ND 58013-9764
4 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 5
Table of Contents
Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction and Background
Background .......................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Purpose and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan ............................................................................................ 14
Description of Planning Process
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act .................................................................................................................... 19
Tewaukon Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process ................................................................................. 19
Compatibility Determinations ........................................................................................................................................... 19
Involving the Public ............................................................................................................................................................ 20
Issues Raised During the Planning Process..................................................................................................................... 20
Putting It All Together ....................................................................................................................................................... 21
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission and Goals ............................................................................................ 22
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals .................................................................................... 22
Complex and Resource Descriptions ....................................................................................................................... 23
Tewaukon Complex History ............................................................................................................................................... 23
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................................................... 24
Tewaukon Wetland Management District ................................................................................................................. 25
Tewaukon Complex Easement Refuges ..................................................................................................................... 25
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ......................................................................................................................................... 26
Historical Resources, Cultural Values, and Uses ............................................................................................................. 29
Land Use and Wildlife Species Changes ........................................................................................................................... 30
6 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Management by Unit
Special Management Units ................................................................................................................................................ 33
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................................................................. 34
Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Vision .......................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Habitat Management (Goal R1) ........................................................................................................................................ 39
Grasslands ..................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Native Prairie ........................................................................................................................................................ 39
Native Prairie Management ......................................................................................................................... 42
Tallgrass Prairie Management Approach ................................................................................................... 43
Introduced/Planted Cover ................................................................................................................................... 47
Dense Nesting Cover .................................................................................................................................... 47
Other Grasslands ........................................................................................................................................... 48
Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................................................ 49
Managed Wetlands................................................................................................................................................ 50
Water Rights .................................................................................................................................................. 51
Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................. 52
Non-Managed Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................... 53
Native Woodlands ......................................................................................................................................................... 54
Nonnative Plant Management On the Complex ....................................................................................................... 54
Prescribed Burning and Wildfires .............................................................................................................................. 56
Wildlife (Goal R2) ................................................................................................................................................................ 57
Waterfowl (Ducks, Geese, and Swans) ....................................................................................................................... 57
Waterfowl Nesting ................................................................................................................................................ 57
Planted Foods ........................................................................................................................................................ 59
Migratory Birds ........................................................................................................................................................... 60
Shorebirds .............................................................................................................................................................. 60
Wading Birds ......................................................................................................................................................... 60
Raptors ................................................................................................................................................................... 60
Woodland Migratory Birds .................................................................................................................................. 63
Grassland Migratory Birds ................................................................................................................................. 63
Migratory Bird Disease Outbreaks ..................................................................................................................... 64
Native Resident Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................. 64
Mammals ................................................................................................................................................................ 64
Birds ....................................................................................................................................................................... 65
Upland Game Birds ....................................................................................................................................... 65
Reptiles and Amphibians ..................................................................................................................................... 65
Fish ......................................................................................................................................................................... 66
Nonnative Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................................... 66
Wildlife Disturbance .................................................................................................................................................... 68
Wildlife Disturbance Closure Background ........................................................................................................ 69
Migratory Bird Habitat ....................................................................................................................................... 70
Nesting Birds and Other Breeding Wildlife ...................................................................................................... 71
Wintering Wildlife Habitat .................................................................................................................................. 72
Endangered Species (Goal R3) .......................................................................................................................................... 73
Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern .............................................................................................. 73
Other Rare Species ...................................................................................................................................................... 73
Public Use and Recreation (Goal R4) ............................................................................................................................... 74
Fishing .......................................................................................................................................................................... 74
Hunting .......................................................................................................................................................................... 76
Trapping ........................................................................................................................................................................ 85
Wildlife Observation and Photography ...................................................................................................................... 85
Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................................... 85
Environmental Education ........................................................................................................................................... 86
Public Outreach ............................................................................................................................................................ 86
Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 87
Partners (Goal R5) ............................................................................................................................................................... 88
Volunteer Program ....................................................................................................................................................... 89
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 7
Tewaukon Wetland Management District
Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................................... 90
Vision .......................................................................................................................................................................... 90
Description of the District .......................................................................................................................................... 91
Waterfowl Production Areas ............................................................................................................................... 91
Wetland Easements .............................................................................................................................................. 91
Grassland Easements ........................................................................................................................................... 91
ND FmHA Conservation Easements ................................................................................................................. 91
Waterfowl Production Areas ...................................................................................................................................... 92
Habitat Management (Goal D1) .......................................................................................................................... 97
Grasslands ...................................................................................................................................................... 97
Native Prairie................................................................................................................................................. 97
Enhancing Native Prairie ...................................................................................................................... 98
Protecting Native Prairie ...................................................................................................................... 99
Introduced/Planted Cover ........................................................................................................................... 100
Dense Nesting Cover........................................................................................................................... 100
Planted Cover ....................................................................................................................................... 100
Wetlands........................................................................................................................................................ 101
Water Rights ......................................................................................................................................... 101
Protecting Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 101
Protecting Fens .................................................................................................................................... 102
Riparian Zones ..................................................................................................................................... 102
Nonnative Plant Management .................................................................................................................... 103
Prescribed Burning and Wildfires ............................................................................................................. 103
Wildlife (Goal D2) ............................................................................................................................................... 103
Waterfowl ...................................................................................................................................................... 103
Migratory Birds ........................................................................................................................................... 103
Migratory Bird Disease Outbreaks .................................................................................................... 104
Native Resident Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 105
Mammals ............................................................................................................................................... 105
Upland Game Birds .............................................................................................................................. 105
Reptiles and Amphibians ..................................................................................................................... 105
Fish ........................................................................................................................................................ 106
Nonnative Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................... 106
Endangered Species (Goal D3) ................................................................................................................... 107
Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern ...................................................................... 109
Other Rare Species ............................................................................................................................... 109
North Dakota State Listed Rare Species .......................................................................................... 111
Public Use and Recreation (Goal D4) ............................................................................................................... 113
Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing ................................................................................................. ................ 113
Interpretation/Environmental Education ......................................................................................... ....... 113
Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 114
Partners ................................................................................................................................................................ 115
Tewaukon Easement Refuges ...................................................................................................................................... 116
Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................ 116
Habitat Management ................................................................................................................................................. 116
Kraft Slough ................................................................................................................................................................ 117
Implementation and Monitoring
Personnel ............................................................................................................................................................................ 118
Funding Needed to Implement This Plan ....................................................................................................................... 119
Step-Down Management Plans ....................................................................................................................................... 119
Partners .............................................................................................................................................................................. 119
Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................................................................................. 120
Plan Amendment and Revision ....................................................................................................................................... 121
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Preparers ............................................................................................................... 121
8 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Appendices:
Appendix A. Tewaukon NWR Complex Wildlife Species Lists ........................................................................................ 122
Appendix B. Plant Species Mentioned in CCP ...................................................................................... ............................. 126
Appendix C. ND State Rare and Unique Plant Species.............................................................................. ...................... 127
Appendix D. Tewaukon Complex Water Rights.................................................................................................................. 128
Appendix E. Key Legislation/Policies ............................................................................................ ...................................... 129
Appendix F. Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Action Memorandum ......................................... 133
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations ........................................................................................................................ 135
Appendix H. ND/SD Draft Ecosystem Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................... 143
Appendix I. Partnerships ........................................................................................................ .............................................. 148
Appendix J. RONS and MMS Projects .............................................................................................................................. 150
Appendix K. Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................................. 152
Appendix L. Waterfowl Production Area Priority Tables ................................................................................................ 160
Appendix M. Section 7 Consultation .................................................................................................................................... 163
Appendix N. Mailing List ...................................................................................................................................................... 166
Appendix O. Glossary ............................................................................................................................................................ 170
Appendix P. Summary of Public Involvement ................................................................................................................... 180
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 9
Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the principal Federal
agency with the responsibility for conserving, protecting, and enhancing
fish and wildlife and their habitats. The Service manages a diverse network
of more than 500 national wildlife refuges. The National Wildlife Refuge
System which encompasses more than 92 million acres of public land and
water, and provides habitat for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals,
fish, and insects.
The Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex) includes the
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and the Tewaukon Wetland
Management District (WMD). The Refuge is composed of the Tewaukon
and Sprague Lake Units (8,363 acres) and two easement refuges (Storm
Lake and Wild Rice). The WMD includes 14,000 acres of Waterfowl
Production Areas (WPAs), 35,000 acres of wetland easements and over
10,000 acres of grassland easements in Ransom, Richland, and Sargent
Counties, North Dakota. The lands were acquired for the primary purpose
of supporting migratory birds and other wildlife. The Complex is located
on the gently rolling glacial till plain of the Prairie Pothole Region and the
Red River of the North Valley (original bed of glacial Lake Agassiz). Birds
from both the Central and Mississippi Flyways use Complex habitat. Over
243 bird species have been recorded in the area. Of these species, 100 are
known to nest in the area, and the remainder can be seen during spring and
fall migrations. Many other reptile, amphibian, mammal, and invertebrate
wildlife species live on Tewaukon Complex lands.
The Complex has four key wildlife and habitat values: 1) wetlands provide
important migration and breeding habitat for waterfowl and other waterbirds, and
habitat for several species associated with wetlands including leopard
frogs, painted turtles, mink, muskrats, and invertebrates; 2) tallgrass
prairie remnants provide some of the last remaining habitat for nesting
and migrating grassland birds, rare prairie butterflies, and other prairie
wildlife; 3) other grassland habitat provides winter cover for resident
species and breeding habitat for ground nesting birds and other grassland
wildlife; 4) riparian habitat that provides breeding and migration areas for
many species of birds and mammals. The Tewaukon Complex also provides
unique and important values for people. Wildlife, habitat, scenery, recreation,
and cultural history all combine to make the Complex a national treasure.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP) were mandated by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. This Act requires that
the CCP must identify and describe 1) purposes of the Complex; 2) fish,
wildlife, and plant populations and their habitats; 3) archaeological and
cultural values; 4) significant fish, wildlife and plant problems; and 5) the
actions necessary to correct them. The CCP should also identify and
describe compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities and
administrative and visitor facilities.
Benefits of the CCP are several: better long-term continuity in Complex
management; better understanding of Complex management actions for
Complex staff members and visitors; a clear description of future development and
funding needs; and the assurance that Complex management will fulfill the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the specific purposes
for which the Complex was established.
The Tewaukon CCP will be used to prepare step-down management plans
and revise existing plans. It also will be used to prepare budgets which
describe specific actions to be taken by the Complex over the next 15 years.
Given that new information, guidance and technology frequently change
and become available, the CCP will be updated as necessary throughout
the 15-year period.
10 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
The Environmental Assessment considered three management alternatives
for management of the Tewaukon Complex. Each of the alternatives were
evaluated for environmental consequences in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The CCP is the preferred alternative.
Vision: Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex will be preserved,
managed, and enhanced as a part of the tallgrass prairie wetland
ecosystem capable of supporting migratory birds and other
native wildlife and plants for the benefit of present and future
generations. The Complex will provide an environment where a
diversity of native tallgrass prairie, wetlands, plants, wildlife,
and their natural processes can be observed and explored. It will
provide a place where people can learn about wildlife and their
habitats and enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation.
The management focus of the CCP is summarized by five major Complex
goals that are supported by a series of objectives and implementation
strategies. Those goals include:
Habitat: Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity of native
flora, other grasslands and wetlands within the tallgrass prairie
wetland ecosystem.
Wildlife: Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity and
abundance of migratory birds and other native wildlife with
emphasis on waterfowl, grassland, and wetland-dependent birds.
Endangered Species:
Contribute to the preservation and restoration of endangered,
threatened, rare, and unique flora and fauna that occur, or have
historically occurred, in the area of the Complex.
Public Use/Recreation and Environmental Education:
Provide recreational and educational opportunities for persons
of all abilities to learn about and enjoy the tallgrass prairie
wetland ecosystem, the fish and wildlife found there, and the
history of the Complex in a safe and compatible manner.
Partnerships:
Promote partnerships to preserve, restore, and enhance a
diverse, healthy, and productive prairie/wetland ecosystem in
which the Tewaukon Complex plays a key role.
The achievement of these goals will result in the following major accomplishments
in the Complex over the next 15 years (includes implementation of Drift
Prairie Project, North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grant, and
the Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Project):
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 11
Habitat:
n Protection of the remaining tracts of tallgrass prairie in the District
with grassland easements, cooperative agreements or fee title
acquisition (approximately 60,000 acres).
n Enhancement of 3,716 acres of existing native prairie areas on
Complex lands by reducing nonnative plants and increasing the
abundance and the number of native plant species.
n Management of the vegetative structure and species composition on
other grasslands on the Complex to provide for the needs of grassland
nesting birds.
n Restoration of 1,000 acres of old dense nesting cover (DNC), invasive
nonnative grasses, and crop fields to a diverse native plant community
on Complex lands.
n Enhancement of 38 managed Refuge wetlands to mimic natural
drawdown cycles and reduce nonnative wetland plants. Improve the
water quality in Wild Rice River as it enters the Refuge by restoring
wetlands and adding vegetative buffer strips.
n Protection of wetlands on private land through fee title, easements or
cooperative agreements.
n Enhancement of wetlands by implementing low impact (minimum till)
agricultural practices on surrounding uplands, grazing systems,
repairing water management structures, and placing waterfowl
nesting structures on private land.
n Restoration and creation of wetlands on private land.
Wildlife:
n Improvement of waterfowl nesting success on the Refuge and six high
priority Waterfowl Production Areas.
n Maintenance of 135 acres of cropland on the Refuge as food for migratory
birds and resident wildlife.
n Reduction of detrimental nonnative wildlife (carp, feral dogs and cats,
house sparrows) on the Complex through habitat management and
direct removal.
n Minimize wildlife disturbance by the public by limiting access at certain
times of the year and by activity.
Cultural Resources:
n Gather more information on the cultural resources on the Complex.
Provide additional interpretation and protection of these cultural resources.
Public Use/Recreation and Environmental Education:
n Maintain a recreational fishing program in Lake Tewaukon and Sprague
Lake by reducing carp and by continuing to manage the two lakes as
open water migratory bird rest areas.
n Continue to provide public opportunity for hunting of white-tailed deer
and pheasants on the Refuge and wildlife observation and photography
with limited access.
n Expand the Refuge visitor center, including exhibits. Expand the hours
the visitor center is open to the public.
n Improvement of the Complex outreach program through new
brochures, a website, displays, and signs.
n Continue to provide environmental education programs and activities.
Partnerships:
n Continue to work with existing partners on habitat management,
enhancement, and protection programs; recreational programs; and
environmental education activities.
n Create opportunities for new partnerships to assist in implementing
the CCP.
n Foster a volunteer program on the Complex.
12 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 13
14 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Introduction and Background
Background
The Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex) is located in
the southeast corner of North Dakota (See Map 1). The Complex includes
the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge (Tewaukon and Sprague Lake
Units), the Storm Lake Easement Refuge, the Wild Rice Easement Refuge,
and the Tewaukon Wetland Management District (see Map 2). The Refuge
is 8,363 acres in size and is located in Sargent County. On June 26, 1945,
Public Land Order 286 established the area known as the Tewaukon NWR
as “... a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife....”
The Tewaukon Wetland Management District (WMD) was established in
1960 as a management unit for migratory birds. The Wetland Management
District encompasses tracts in Sargent, Ransom, and Richland Counties.
The District is comprised of Waterfowl Production Areas (fee title),
wetland easements, and grassland easements in Ransom, Richland, and
Sargent counties. The Tewaukon Complex staff administers over 14,000
acres of WPAs, over 35,000 acres protected by wetland easements, and over 10,000
acres of grassland easements.
The Complex provides important habitat for migrating and breeding waterfowl,
other water birds, grassland birds, and other migratory birds. Lands in the
Complex also provide critical habitat for a variety of wetland and prairie
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. The Complex is a
valuable area for recreation including hunting, fishing, and wildlife
observation. The Refuge also has a long and rich cultural history. All of
these factors make the Tewaukon Complex a national treasure.
Purpose and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the principal Federal agency
with the responsibility for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and
wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
The Service manages a diverse network of more than 500 National Wildlife
Refuges. This National Wildlife Refuge System encompasses more than 92
million acres of public land and water, and provides habitat for more than
5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish, and insects.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) were mandated by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Refuge Improvement
Act requires that all lands and waters of the National Wildlife Refuge System
be managed in accordance with an approved Comprehensive Conservation
Plan. This Act requires the identification and description of 1) Complex
purpose(s); 2) fish, wildlife, and plant populations and their habitats; 3)
archaeological and cultural values; 4) significant fish, wildlife, and plant
problems; and 5) the actions necessary to correct them. The Plan should
also identify and describe opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent
recreational uses and administrative and visitor facilities.
The CCP describes long-term Complex management actions and purposes
of the actions for Refuge staff and the public, in order to provide Complex
management continuity. As the CCP was developed, public input regarding
Complex issues and management was considered. The CCP is a description
of the wildlife and habitat protection, management, and development that is
needed for Complex purposes to be achieved. Funding and personnel
needed to achieve the CCP are also described. Completing the work
described in the CCP will accomplish Complex purposes and contribute to
the mission of the Refuge System and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 15
16 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 17
18 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 19
Description of Planning Process
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 stipulates that a
written assessment must be made of any action proposed by an agency of
the Federal Government that significantly affects the quality of the human
environment. NEPA also requires Federal decision makers to study, develop,
and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action
and solicit the views of other Federal and State agencies and the public
early in the decision making process. An Environmental Assessment (EA)
was prepared to accompany the Draft CCP. The proposed action (preferred
alternative) identified in the EA is the CCP (enhanced management
alternative). A Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Action
Memorandum are located in Appendix F.
Tewaukon Complex Comprehensive Conservation
Plan Process
The Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCP is guided by the
established purpose of the Refuge and Wetland Management District; the
Service and National Wildlife Refuge System missions; Service compatibility
standards; and other Service policies, plans and laws related to Complex
management.
While developing the CCP, the planning team reviewed conservation planning
efforts of the following groups: Partners in Flight, Western Hemisphere
Shorebird Reserve Network, North American Waterfowl Management
Plan Committee, U.S. Forest Service, ND Game and Fish Department, and
Service Mainstem Missouri Eco-team (Appendix H).
This CCP establishes the goals, objectives, and strategies for Complex
management. Listed below is an outline of the planning process used to
develop the Tewaukon Complex CCP:
1. Preplanning (forming a planning team, identifying available people and
funds, organizing efforts)
2. Identify Issues and Develop Vision » Public Input Gathered on Issues
3. Gather Information on Resources and Legal Responsibilities
4. Analyze Resource Relationships (Develop Goals and Objectives)
5. Develop Range of Alternatives
6. Assess Environmental Effects
7. Identify Preferred Alternative
8. Publish Draft Plan » Public Comments on Draft Plan Gathered
9. Respond to Comments
10. Adopt Plan
11. Implement Plan, Monitor/Evaluate Actions, Review and Revise
As with any process, comprehensive conservation planning is not necessarily
linear or sequential, but can involve moving back and forth between steps.
Compatibility Determinations
Compatibility determinations are required by the Refuge Improvement Act
for any program or activity occurring on Refuge System lands. The planning team
reviewed previously completed compatibility determinations regarding
Complex programs and reevaluated these determinations to ensure they
were relevant and current. Compatibility determinations document the
evaluation of Complex programs and activities by the Refuge Manager. In
a compatibility determination, a program or activity is judged to be
compatible or incompatible with Complex purposes. No current program or
activity on the Complex was determined to be incompatible as a result of
this review. Even if uses are determined to be compatible, the Refuge
Manager must also evaluate whether adequate staff and funding are
available to support the program or activity. Compatibility determinations
can be found in Appendix G.
Planning is the process of deciding in
advance what you are going to do.
The Plan is the vehicle used to let
others know in advance what
you’re going to do.
20 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Involving the Public
This planning effort will provide local communities, national, State, and
Tribal organizations, and interested individuals an opportunity to have a
voice concerning the future direction of the Complex. The primary thrust
for the planning process is to provide a forum for ideas and issues to be
shared, reviewed and evaluated. It is also important for the Service to
provide information to the public throughout the process.
Since the Tewaukon Complex includes three Counties and many people visit
the Complex from Fargo and Wahpeton, it was decided to hold open houses
in several locations to gather public input. A list of the open houses held
are as follows:
Sargent County Forman City Hall (March 12, 1998)
Ransom County Lisbon High School (March 17, 1998)
Richland County American Legion Hankinson (March 24, 1998)
Wahpeton Law Enforcement Center (March 26, 1998)
Cass County (Fargo) ND State University Memorial Union (April 2, 1998)
A total of 103 people attended the four open houses.
The open houses provided participants an opportunity to learn about the
Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Wildlife Refuge System’s mission
and goals and the Refuge and District purposes and current management
issues. People attending were provided the chance to speak with Service
representatives and to share their comments and concerns about current
management. Attendees were also asked to suggest ways they would like
to see Complex management change.
Prior to the public meetings, the Complex staff discussed the planning process
with local County commissioners, sportsmen’s groups, other interested
groups, and advertised in the local media. Information on the planning
process was also displayed in cafes and businesses frequented by
community members in the three Counties comprising the Complex. A
questionnaire on Refuge issues was provided to the public to stimulate
additional public input for the planning process.
After the Draft CCP was published, a question and answer Open House
was held to gather input and comments. The comment period was extended
an additional 30 days during which staff met with a variety of area groups
and organizations on the Draft CCP.
Issues Raised During the Planning Process
The Tewaukon Complex staff received a variety of input from the meetings,
questionnaires, and verbal discussions. The majority of the public input dealt
with public use and recreation issues. Most of the local input dealt with
very specific issues. Refuge users were interested in expanded fishing hours,
more year-round access, and fishing in more Refuge wetlands. Expanding
Refuge hunting opportunities to include waterfowl and predators, and
modification of existing hunting seasons (i.e., shortening the pheasant
season) were other recreation issues brought up by the public. Habitat
issues identified by the public included expanding or decreasing the acres
of cropland and conducting more management (such as planting more
shelterbelts for winter cover and food plots) for pheasants and deer on the
Complex. Grassland habitat and management issues included more protection
for grasslands, integrating more grazing into management, maintaining and
increasing weed control efforts, and reducing grassland habitat fragmentation.
Crop damage on private lands by Canada geese was an issue raised
throughout the District. Issues involving land acquisition and subsequent
loss of local tax revenue were also raised. The planning team identified
many of the same issues raised by the public. Some additional issues that
the planning team raised included the decline, protection, and management
of wetland habitat, tallgrass prairie and associated wildlife.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 21
The Tewaukon CCP is designed to address broad management and wildlife
issues. Because public input is an important part of the CCP process and
the CCP does not always address specific comments, public input is
discussed in Appendix P.
Putting It All Together
Specific habitat management is the end product of this planning process.
For example, Refuge habitat management actions such as weed control,
farming, or water management should logically step-down from the broad
Refuge System mission statement to the purposes the Refuge was
established for, to the Refuge Vision statement. The links identified in the
CCP planning process that step-down from the Refuge Vision to a habitat
management action are established by setting habitat goals, quantifying
the goals into objectives, and identifying a series of strategies that can be
used to achieve the objectives. The strategies (specific habitat management)
applied must be evaluated to determine if the objectives are being met. If
the objectives are met, then the goals and vision should also be met.
Complex goals and objectives are presented separately for the Refuge, District,
and Easement Refuges for ease of understanding and reference. They are,
however, not independent of each other. Goals and objectives for all of the
management units must be considered when conducting management
actions and programs. The Complex is a part of an ecosystem where actions
in one area may affect other wildlife and plant species and their habitats.
These relationships were considered when the goals and objectives for
each unit were developed.
Habitat goals and objectives are the primary criteria which refuge
managers will use to guide and evaluate their efforts. The Monitoring and
Evaluation Section of the Plan addresses how this will be accomplished.
Providing the habitat components that are needed to support Complex
wildlife species is the focus of this plan. Habitat objectives are linked to
wildlife objectives and strategies. Without healthy and diverse habitat,
wildlife will not exist. Goals and objectives for wildlife, endangered and
threatened species, and interpretation and recreation provide additional
information for managers to refine specific actions and to assist in
evaluating success of habitat management and use of the Complex by the
public. In order for refuge managers to fully achieve the visions that have
been developed for the Complex, these objectives should be viewed
holistically and applied collectively. All objectives in this plan are for 15
years unless otherwise stated in the objective.
Some strategies may not be effective and some will take a long time to
evaluate. For example, an objective may be to eliminate the noxious weed
leafy spurge using a variety of strategies such as chemical application and
biological control. Refuge managers recognize that the objective of eliminating all
leafy spurge is not possible since new infestations can start in small areas
of soil disturbances. Current tools may also have limitations and may only
slow the spread of leafy spurge or reduce the size of the infestation. The
CCP is flexible. It allows for new strategies to be implemented as new
methods become available and when existing strategies are not effective
ways to meet the objective. Important things to keep in mind are other
factors that influence outcomes besides management activities. These
factors, which include animal impacts, wildfires, weather, funding and
staffing, all influence the effectiveness of strategies and their outcomes.
The CCP, which describes specific actions to be taken by the Complex staff
over the next 15 years, will be used to prepare step-down management
plans, revise existing plans, and budgets. Step-down management plans
give more specific information on the appropriate use of management tools
to achieve goals and objectives. Given that new information, techniques,
and technology frequently arise, the CCP will be updated as necessary.
Without healthy and diverse habitat,
there is no wildlife.
- Fulling the Promise (1999)
22 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mission and Goals
The Mission of the Service is “working with others to conserve, protect,
and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing
benefit of the American people.” The goals of the Service are aimed at
fulfilling this mission. Some of the Service goals are: 1) sustaining fish and
wildlife populations including migratory birds, endangered species,
anadromous fish, and marine mammals; 2) conserving a network of lands
and waters including the National Wildlife Refuge System; 3) providing
Americans opportunity to understand and participate in the conservation
and use of fish and wildlife resources.
National Wildlife Refuge
System Mission and Goals
The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to “administer a
national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management,
and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans” (1997 National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act). Goals of the System are to: 1) preserve, restore, and
enhance threatened and endangered species in their natural ecosystems; 2)
perpetuate the migratory bird resource; 3) preserve a natural diversity and
abundance of refuge flora and fauna; 4) provide the public an understanding
and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology; 5) provide visitors with
wildlife-dependent recreation.
National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the Service
and National Wildlife Refuge System, the designated purpose of the Refuge
unit as described in the establishing legislation and/or executive orders,
Service laws and policy, and international treaties (for a complete list see
Appendix E). Individual refuges provide specific habitat requirements that
support trust resource species including migratory birds, endangered
species, marine mammals, and anadromous fish. For example, waterfowl
breeding refuges in South and North Dakota provide important wetland
and grassland habitat that supports populations of waterfowl as authorized
by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan. The Tewaukon Complex supports breeding populations of
waterfowl and provides migration habitat during spring and fall periods.
Sabine NWR and other refuges in Louisiana and Texas provide wintering
habitat for waterfowl populations. This network (system) of refuge lands is
critical to the survival of these birds. Any deficiency in one location affects
the species and the entire system’s ability to maintain self-sustaining
populations.
Legislative history recognizes the importance of providing for wildlife
oriented recreation for people on national wildlife refuges. The Refuge
Recreation Act of 1962 (16 USC 460k-460k-4) provided guidance for the
Service to provide wildlife oriented recreational opportunities for the
public if they were compatible with the primary purposes of the refuge.
Funds must also be available for the development, operation, and
maintenance of recreational programs. In the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, six wildlife-dependent recreational uses
are recognized as priority public uses of refuge lands. These include
wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and
interpretation, and fishing and hunting. Priority public uses, and other
uses, can be allowed on refuges if they are compatible with the purpose of
the refuge and funding is available to support them. Uses may be allowed
through a special regulation process, individual special use permits, and
sometimes through State fishing and hunting regulations.
Mallards, Cindie Brunner
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 23
Complex and Resource
Descriptions
Tewaukon Complex History
The Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex is located in the
southeast corner of North Dakota (See Map 2). The Complex includes the
Tewaukon NWR and the Tewaukon Wetland Management District (WMD).
The Refuge is composed of the Tewaukon and Sprague Lake Units. The
WMD includes Waterfowl Production Areas and wetland and grassland
easements and two easement refuges. It is located on the gently rolling
glacial till plain in the Prairie Pothole Region and the Red River of the
North Valley (original bed of ancient glacial Lake Agassiz). It hosts birds
from both the Central and Mississippi Flyways (See Figure 1 and 2). More
than 243 bird species have been recorded in the area. Of these species, 100
are known to nest in the area and the remainder can be seen during spring
and fall migrations when peak numbers occur.
Central Flyway
Figure 1. USDI, FWS. Flyways, Pioneering Waterfowl
Management in North America. 5/84, 517 pgs.
Mississippi Flyway
Figure 2. USDI, FWS. Flyways, Pioneering Waterfowl Management
in North America. 5/84, 517 pgs.
24 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge
Land around Lake Tewaukon has been a part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System since 1934. An Easement
Refuge was established on November 26, 1934 by Executive Order 6910,
which provided for acquisition of easements for flowage and refuge
purposes and filing of water rights. At that time, the Government’s goal
was to provide jobs for the unemployed and conserve water and wildlife
resources. As part of Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” the Work Progress
Administration worked with local landowners to purchase refuge
easements which reserved the right to impound water (to maintain water
areas during drought), maintain no hunting areas for migratory birds, and
serve as wildlife conservation demonstration areas. Though these were
perpetual easements, the land remained in private ownership. The
construction of dams in these areas provided employment for workers and
developed additional water resources. Water rights for the additional
impounded water were also applied for from the State of North Dakota
during this time. The easement refuges where water rights were applied
for included Lake Tewaukon, Hepi Lake, Lake Elsie, Storm Lake, and
Wild Rice Refuges. One fee title piece of 80 acres along the Wild Rice River
west of the current headquarters was purchased in 1936 and used for
temporary housing and storage. The area was managed from the Sand
Lake National Wildlife Refuge located 80 miles to the southwest of
Tewaukon just north of Aberdeen, South Dakota.
The Tewaukon easement lands were reserved and purchased as a
Government-owned Refuge with the encouragement and support of local
landowners and sportsmens groups. These landowners and groups wanted
to protect the area for wildlife and to continue recreational fisheries
improvements. On June 26, 1945, Public Land Order 286 established
Tewaukon Refuge as “... a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds
and other wildlife....” In 1946, 512 acres were purchased in fee title around
Lake Tewaukon. Since that original Refuge purchase, additional lands have
been acquired totaling 8,363 acres. In March of 1956, Sand Lake NWR
turned over management of the area to an on-site staff (one refuge
manager) in a headquarters located five miles south of Cayuga, North
Dakota.
Original management objectives established in the Master Plan for the
Refuge in October 1962 included: “Primary objectives (1) to provide
optimum nesting habitat for ducks; (2) to provide protection and food for
fall and spring concentrations of migrant ducks and geese, primarily the
smaller races of Canada geese, and snow and blue geese. Secondary
objectives are (1) to maintain balanced population of all resident wildlife
species; (2) to provide for public observation of wildlife species in their
natural environment; (3) to provide limited day-use recreation including
public hunting, where and when such activities are compatible with
primary management objectives of the refuge.”
The Tewaukon area has a rich historical background. Prior to settlement
by Europeans, this area was inhabited by several plains nomadic tribes
that were primarily hunter-gatherers. They utilized the area around Lake
Tewaukon including the lake’s peninsula extensively. In 1867, the
Government established the Lake Traverse Dakotah Sioux Reservation for
the Sissetonwan and Wahpetonwan Dakota peoples. The boundaries
included a portion of the Lake Tewaukon area. This area continued to be
used for gatherings by Native Americans and white settlers. This lake is
still a popular spot today, especially for sightseeing, wildlife observation,
hunting, and recreational fishing.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 25
Tewaukon Wetland Management District
The Tewaukon Wetland Management District was established in 1960 to
administer a variety of Service property interests in Richland, Ransom,
and Sargent Counties. Enabling legislation includes: the Migratory Bird
Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Stamp Act) and amendments; the
Wetlands Loan Act and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, for acquisition
of areas for migratory birds and for Waterfowl Production Areas.
Waterfowl Production Areas are subject to the provisions of the Migratory
Bird Conservation Act “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any
other management purpose, for migratory birds....” Public Law 85-585
amended the Stamp Act to remove the inviolate sanctuary provision from
WPAs. This is further defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50
as areas open to hunting, trapping, and fishing.
The Wetland District is comprised of Waterfowl Production Areas (fee title
ownership), wetland easements, and grassland easements in Ransom,
Richland, and Sargent Counties. Wetland easements and WPAs are
purchased with Federal Duck Stamp dollars to protect migration and
nesting areas for waterfowl. The Waterfowl Production Areas are fee title
areas, from 20 to more than 1,000 acres in size, that provide migratory bird
habitat. The Tewaukon Complex staff administers over 14,000 acres of
these WPAs in the three Counties (See Map 2). Wetland easements have
been purchased from willing landowners in the District over the past 30
years. In order to protect wetlands on described tracts from draining,
filling, leveling, or burning, the Service has purchased a perpetual real
property interest in them. District personnel are responsible for managing
over 35,000 acres protected by wetland easements. In 1998, grassland
easements were added to the District to protect prairie tracts from being
converted to farmland. Grassland easements allow grazing at any time, and
haying after July 15 to protect grasslands for wildlife habitat. To date,
Complex personnel are responsible for administering over 10,000 acres of
grassland easements.
Tewaukon Complex Easement Refuges
Easements were purchased on Lake Elsie, Wild Rice, and Storm Lake
Refuges in 1934 as water and wildlife conservation projects. The Service
divested Lake Elsie in 1998. The real property interest that the Service
purchased in Wild Rice and Storm Lake Easement Refuges is limited, and
is similar to the interest that was purchased on some of the tracts around
Lake Tewaukon in the 1930s. On these three refuges, the Service
purchased refuge easements which reserved the right to impound water,
maintain no hunting areas for migratory birds, and serve as wildlife
conservation demonstration areas.
26 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
The majority of the Tewaukon Complex is located in the tallgrass prairie
ecosystem while a portion of western Ransom and Sargent Counties lie in
the mixed-grass ecosystem (See Figure 3). Of all the prairie types, the
tallgrass prairie is the most mesic with annual precipitation averaging 20
inches for southeastern North Dakota. Extreme seasonal
temperatures range from -31 degrees to 100 degrees
Fahrenheit. The tallgrass prairie is characterized by grasses,
some over five feet tall, including big bluestem, Indian grass,
switchgrass, prairie cordgrass, and a variety of forbs including
golden Alexander, Maximilian sunflower, blazing stars, and
leadplant. The mixed-grass prairie is characterized by grasses
and forbs ranging from two to four feet tall including needle-and-
thread grass, sideoats grama, little bluestem, coneflowers,
aromatic aster and golden rod. These plant communities are
not separated by distinct boundaries but transition from
tallgrass to mixed-grass in the western part of the District.
This boundary transition depends primarily on precipitation.
Tallgrass plant species are commonly found on wetter sites
and mixed-grass species are often found on higher, drier sites.
Sites that have less than a 10 foot difference in elevation can
have very different plant communities. Soils are also different
on these sites.
The Complex is also located in the Prairie Pothole Region (See
Figure 4). The wetlands in this region are among the continent’s
most biologically productive systems. They provide habitat for
waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, amphibians, and a variety
of other wildlife. The wetlands are important for maintaining
and recharging groundwater supplies, improving water quality,
storing flood waters, and trapping of sediments. The prairie
pothole wetland complexes and their associated grasslands are
an integral component of the prairie landscape, providing a
wide array of ecological, social, and
economic benefits. (U.S. Prairie Pothole
Joint Venture Implementation Plan
Update 1995). The Complex lands are
located in several river watersheds
including the Sheyenne, Red River of the
North, and the Wild Rice River (Map 3).
The Wild Rice River, a western tributary
of the Red River of the North, flows
through the Refuge. The Wild Rice River
and several unnamed tributaries provide a
water source for Refuge managed
wetlands that attract migratory waterfowl
which rest, feed, and nest in the area.
The Tewaukon Complex is located on the
eastern edge of the Central Migratory
Bird Flyway and migrating birds are
strongly influenced by the James River
Corridor. Birds from the Mississippi
Migratory Bird Flyway, following the Lake
Traverse-Minnesota River system also use
the area. As a result, Tewaukon is a mixing
point for birds associated with both the
Central and Mississippi Flyways (See
Figures 1 and 2).
Ernest M. Steinauer and Scott L. Collins
Prairie Ecoregions
Figure 3. Prairie Ecoregions
Figure 4. Prairie Pothole Region
Prairie Pothole Region
U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan Update, Jan. 1995
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 27
28 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 29
Historical Resources, Cultural Values, and Uses
Four major glacial periods impacted the northern plains during the
Pleistocene Age (Pielou 1992). The most recent was the Wisconsin glacial
stage, which reached its maximum extent about 13 thousand years ago
(Mayewski et al. 1981). All the dominant landscape features of the Prairie
Pothole Region are products of that geological event including prairie
wetlands or “potholes” and the rich glacial till soil that gave rise to the
tallgrass prairie. The gently rolling landscape with shallow, seasonal,
temporary, and permanent wetlands or potholes was carved out as the
glaciers receded.
The tallgrass prairie was once an estimated 190 million acres (Bailey 1995)
and stretched from southern Texas to southern Manitoba (See Figure 3)
and was the dominant vegetation type across the eastern portion of the
Great Plains during pre-settlement times (Steinauer and Collins 1996).
Shallow, seasonal temporary and permanent wetlands dotted the grassy
plain. Most of the original tallgrass prairie was plowed for agricultural
production shortly after European settlement. The Service’s Habitat and
Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) office, through the use of land
satellite imagery, currently estimates that 275,000 acres of tallgrass prairie
remain in North Dakota, a 99 percent loss. In the Tewaukon District,
118,700 acres are estimated to remain.
The Complex area has a rich history of use by prehistoric man. Three
periods of occupation have been documented through archaeological
excavation at the Refuge. The three main cultures described in the area
include the Plains Archaic (5500-500 B.C.), Plains Woodland (500 B.C. -
A.D. 1000), and Plains Village (A.D. 1000 - 1780). Evidence indicates that
the cultures using this area had an equestrian nomadic life style (Jackson
and Toom 1999) which focused on subsistence big game hunting (especially
bison) and the gathering of wild fruits and plants (Haberman 1978). Fish
and bird (probably waterfowl) remains have been found in limited
quantities in archaeological sites. Fruits and plants utilized included
chokecherry, plum, and hawthorn (Haberman 1978), prairie turnip (a food
staple), Jerusalem artichoke, Indian potato, wild onion, arrow leaf, pond
lily, wild raspberry, and wild strawberry (Gilmore 1977, Weaver 1954). It is
believed that eventually some of these cultures grew or traded for corn,
squash, and beans as they became less nomadic.
30 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Land Use and Wildlife Species Changes
Prior to the migration of European settlers, the Complex area was used by
nomadic tribes primarily for subsistence. They consumed large ungulates
(bison and elk), birds, and plants. Very little farming took place, and the
majority of the grassland remained intact. As European settlers moved
into southeastern North Dakota, farming was introduced and the highly
productive cropping potential of the soils was discovered. Production crops
in the area include wheat and barley, corn and soybeans. Sugar beets are
planted in the rich Red River Valley. In more recent years, other crops
have been introduced including sunflowers, canola, and higher cash yield
crops that require irrigation such as potatoes and dry edible beans.
Currently, the majority of the land in the District capable of producing a
crop is farmed. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) administered
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture has had a tremendous affect on the
landscape for grassland birds. Cropland is enrolled in the CRP and is
planted to grassland cover. Annual payments are made to the landowner
for a period of 10 years. As of January 2000, over 144,000 acres of CRP
grassland have been planted in the Tewaukon District. A few areas of
native prairie still remain primarily due to poorer soil quality and cattle or
buffalo are raised on these sites. See Map 4 for existing land cover types
for the three Counties (Ransom, Sargent, and Richland).
With the advent of European settlement, many of the grassland dependent
wildlife species that historically used the area were either pushed out,
hunted to extinction or severely reduced. Some of these grassland species
included: bison, elk, mule deer, antelope, grizzly bear, wolf, coyote, and
sharp-tailed grouse (Bailey 1926).
Originally, trees were found in the prairie but were located only along
natural rivers and lakes. As more trees were planted for windbreaks, and
other sheltered spots such as culverts, abandoned buildings, and rock piles
increased on the landscape, species of wildlife not previously found in the
area, or found in limited numbers, increased. Red-tailed hawks, great
horned owls, raccoons, woodchucks, striped skunks, white-tailed deer, and
red fox populations increased in response to agricultural and settlement
conversion. White-tailed deer are rarely mentioned by early explorers in
the Red River Valley region (Bailey 1926) but are numerous today. Several
species were introduced (either by natural events or by humans) from other
countries and have spread to North Dakota or were directly released.
These introduced species include house sparrows, ring-necked pheasants,
gray partridge, carp, cattle egrets, and pigeons (rock doves). Giant Canada
geese were originally found in the area but were hunted to extinction. They
were reintroduced in the 1970s and are now found in record numbers.
“The ground was covered (with bison)
at every point of the compass, as far
as the eye could reach, and every
animal was in motion.”
- Alexander Henry 1801; Explorer along the
Red River Valley
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 31
32 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 33
Management by Unit
The planning team spent considerable time describing the variety of habitats
on the Complex Units (Refuge, District, Easement Refuges) in order to
explain the management actions needed to meet Complex goals. Each of
the Management Units are presented to provide a logical step-down from
the broad purpose and vision statements to management decisions. The
CCP represents a course of action felt to best meet Complex goals and
objectives. Implementation of the CCP will depend on increased staffing and
funding. For more information on funding, staffing, and implementation of
the Plan, see the Implementation and Monitoring Section.
Management of the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge and the Tewaukon
Wetland Management District is conducted out of the Refuge headquarters.
General information on the Complex will be discussed jointly, and the Refuge
and District specific information will be discussed in detail in their
management sections.
Special Management Units
The Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge and Waterfowl Production Areas
are insufficient in size and have a history of intense management and
human impacts; for these reasons, they are not eligible to be included in
the National Wilderness Preservation System. The Wild Rice River which
flows through the Refuge has a history of human impacts and intense
manipulation including Refuge impoundments, making it ineligible for a
Wild and Scenic River Designation. Only two small areas in the Complex
meet the criteria for a Research Natural Area designation. These two
areas are on the Hartleben WPA and meet the criteria as an example of an
important or significant habitat type (wet tallgrass prairie). The Service
may consider this designation on these two sites in the future.
34 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge (See Map 5 and 6)
Purpose
Authorizing legislation for the Refuge initiated land acquisition and defined
the Refuge purposes.
n For Refuge lands acquired under the Executive Order 9337, dated
April 24, 1943, the purpose of the acquisition is to reserve and set apart
certain public lands for the use of the Department of the Interior.
n For Refuge lands acquired under Public Land Order 286, dated June 26,
1945, the purpose of the acquisition is ...as a refuge and breeding
ground for migratory birds and other wildlife....
n For Refuge lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation
Act, 16 U.S.C. § 715d, as amended, the purpose of acquisition is ... for
uses as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose,
for migratory birds. 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation
Act).
As part of the planning process, the Complex staff and planning team
reviewed past national, regional, and Complex planning documents and
current planning guidance. Using the legislation and plans, the planning
team developed the following vision statement for the Refuge:
Vision: Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge will be preserved, managed,
and enhanced as a part of the tallgrass prairie wetland ecosystem
capable of supporting migratory birds and other native wildlife
and plants for the benefit of present and future generations. The
Refuge will provide an environment where a diversity of native
tallgrass prairie, wetlands, plants, wildlife, and their natural
processes can be discovered and explored. It will provide a place
where people can learn about wildlife and their habitats and
enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 35
36 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 37
38 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 39
Habitat Management
Wildlife species are intimately tied to the landscape. The food, water, shelter,
and space that are provided on Refuge lands determine what wildlife species
use those lands. Diverse habitats support diverse wildlife populations.
R1 Goal: Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity of
native flora, other grasslands and wetlands within the
tallgrass prairie ecosystem.
Grasslands
Native Prairie
The tallgrass prairie was once an estimated 190 million acres (Bailey 1995)
and stretched from southern Texas to southern Manitoba (Figure 3).
Tallgrass prairie was the dominant vegetation type across the eastern
portion of the Great Plains during pre-settlement times (Steinauer and
Collins 1996).
The tallgrass prairie ecosystem had frequent disturbances. Wildfires,
caused by natural events like lightning strikes, burned the prairie at a
frequency that varied widely but was estimated to be every two to five
years (Axelrod 1985, Bragg 1982, Bragg and Hulbert 1976). Lightning was
the primary cause of these wildfires and would have been most common in
mid-summer (Bragg 1982). Fires that were set intentionally or accidentally
by Native Americans increased the frequency of fire (Pyne 1994). Bison,
elk, mule deer, and a few white-tailed deer made up the larger herbivores.
Pocket gophers, ground squirrels, and insects (ants, grasshoppers) made
up the smaller herbivores (Bailey 1926). Large periodic climatic events
including drought, hail, tornados, and flooding also shaped plant
communities.
All these forces, wet periods, dry periods, herbivory, and fire shaped the
tallgrass prairie into a complex and diverse floral ecosystem. The plant
species composition of the tallgrass prairie was dominated by warm season
native grasses such as big bluestem, switchgrass, Indian grass intermixed
with little bluestem, sideoats grama, blue grama, and prairie cordgrass.
Common cool season grasses included western wheatgrass, porcupine
grass, needle-and-thread, June grass, and green needlegrass. Wildflowers
were plentiful and bloomed from early spring into late fall. The early
spring color of blue-eyed grass and white lady’s slipper orchid turned to
the orange of the prairie lily and white of the meadow anemone of early
summer. Late summer brought on a dazzling display of purple blazing
stars, and purple prairie clover and gave way in the early fall to the bright
yellow of Maximilian sunflower, sneezeweed, and the delicate white petals
of nodding ladies tresses. The sea of grass, as the prairie was described by
some early travelers, was frequently interrupted by a large number of
wetlands (120-160 basins/square mile) in a variety of sizes and depths. The
plants associated with the wetlands added to the vegetative diversity of the
tallgrass prairie. Woody species such as American elm, red elm, white ash,
box elder, willow, bur oak, chokecherry, and buffaloberry were limited to
stream and river corridors and some wetter areas protected from
disturbance (Bailey 1926). As many as 300 species of plants were thought
to be components of this ecosystem.
The present plant community classification used by the North Dakota
Natural Heritage Program is a refinement of Heidel’s (1986) Classification.
The following types of plant communities of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem
are described by indicator species in Heidel’s 1986 Classification. These
indicator species will provide guidance to refuge managers on existing
prairie health and a measure for prairie restoration success. Prairie
remnants occur of all these plant community types represented on the
Complex.
Blazing Star, Cindie Brunner
“The Herbage of this Plain in general [is]
rich and luxuriant consisting chiefly of
strong and succulent grass of many
varieties. In the season of flowers a
very large portion of this great plain
presents one continual carpet of soft
verdure, enriched by flowers of every
tint.”
- General Sibley, 1863 on an expedition
through North Dakota
40 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Wet Prairie
This type is found in temporary wetlands, level low areas and in bands
surrounding deeper wetlands. It is dominated by prairie and wetlands
grasses and some sedges. Forbs may be moderately abundant to sparse.
Dominant species may include prairie cordgrass, switchgrass, and
northern reed grass. Forbs include Maximilian sunflower, prairie
dogbane, and golden alexanders.
Wet Mesic Tallgrass Prairie, Sand
This type is found in wet to mesic soils. It may grade into wet prairie
on wetter areas and mesic tallgrass prairie on drier areas. This prairie
type is dominated by tall, warm-season grasses with forbs that are
generally tall and showy. The sand subtype is subject to greater moisture
extremes and may have lower a diversity of forbs. Common grass
species include switchgrass, big bluestem, northern reedgrass, Baltic
rush, and Indian grass. Forbs may include tall blazing star, wild lily,
white camas, Maximilian sunflower, Canada anemone, and black-eyed
Susan.
Mesic Tallgrass Prairie, Sand
These types are found on relatively level areas of sand, lacustrine
deposits, or till. These types include tall grasses such as big bluestem
and Indian grass in most occurrences. On drier sites, mid-height grasses,
such as porcupine grass and little bluestem, increase in importance.
The sand subtype may have prairie sandreed in moderate amounts.
Forbs are usually diverse and may be abundant locally. Additional
grasses may include switchgrass and prairie dropseed. Some common
forbs include blazing star, leadplant, stiff goldenrod, hoary puccoon,
showy milkweed, white prairie clover, and stiff sunflower.
Central Mesic Tallgrass Prairie
Found on level to rolling topography or lower river valley slopes. Less
precipitation than mesic prairie in the eastern part of the State and
may contain more mixed-grass prairie components. It includes tall
grasses such as big bluestem and Indian grass in most occurrences.
Mid-height grasses such as porcupine grass and little bluestem are also
important. Forbs are usually diverse and may be abundant locally.
Additional grasses may include porcupine grass, green needlegrass, and
sideoats grama. Some common forbs include narrow-leaved blazing star,
leadplant, stiff golden rod, hoary puccoon, showy milkweed, white
prairie clover, and stiff sunflower.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 41
Dry Mesic Tallgrass Prairie
This type is dominated by mid-height grasses. It is found on rolling to
rough topography with varying slopes. Soils are generally well-drained
to excessively drained. The till subtype of this community is commonly
found on sides and river valley slopes. Common grasses include little
bluestem, porcupine grass, June grass, sideoats grama, and Indian grass.
Prairie sandreed is common and sand bluestem is occasional on sand
substrates. Forbs can be abundant and include narrow-leaved blazing
star, yellow coneflower, stiff sunflower, alum root, purple coneflower,
thimbleweed, prairie smoke, and pasture sage. Sub-shrubs are
common and include leadplant, prairie wild rose, and buckbrush.
Mesic Mixed-Grass Prairie
This type occurs generally on glacial till of hillsides, slopes, and river
valleys. Common grasses include: green needlegrass, bearded wheatgrass,
western wheatgrass, and porcupine grass. Common forbs are similar to
those in dry-mesic tallgrass and may include purple coneflower, alum
root, stiff sunflower, narrow-leaved blazing star, and yellow coneflower.
Shrubs and sub-shrubs include leadplant, prairie wild rose, and
buckbrush.
The Refuge lies along the western edge of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem.
Most of the Refuge was farmed prior to its establishment, and only 616
acres of native prairie remains. Most of the native prairie remaining on the
Refuge can be categorized as Wet, Central, Dry Mesic Tallgrass, and Mesic
Mixed-Grass Prairie types. Historically, only the very wet or lands
inaccessible to farming remained uncropped. Management history of the
sites included prescribed fire, used periodically in the 1970s to the present
time and limited haying. Little to no grazing has occurred on these areas.
42 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Native Prairie Management
Unlike most of the habitat management objectives described in this plan,
the following objective was not fundamentally driven by wildlife needs. The
planning team recognized that few remaining tracts of tallgrass prairie are
within the area that historically occurred in this ecosystem. Some of these
remaining tracts occur on Complex lands. These objectives recognize
managing and maintaining this rare and unique habitat and assumes
prairie associated wildlife will use these areas.
R1.1 Objective: Preserve, restore, and enhance the diverse native floral
communities on 616 acres of the Refuge’s existing native prairie so
that greater than 75 percent of the plant community is composed of
indicator species that are suitable for each site using Heidel’s
classification (Heidel 1986).
Strategies:
3 Conduct floristic surveys on existing native prairie on the Refuge to
establish baseline information on species composition to use for
comparison following management techniques.
3 Develop specific monitoring techniques to annually evaluate these
native prairie areas in a step-down Monitoring Plan.
3 Apply management tools (prescribed burning, mowing, grazing,
interseeding, chemical treatment, etc.) as appropriate.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 43
Tallgrass Prairie Management Approach
In an effort to develop a habitat-based approach to managing tallgrass
prairie, U.S. Geological Survey and Refuge staff worked to develop
management strategies that would guide grassland management on the
Refuge and District. The strategies published as a report provide information
to guide management efforts to maintain or restore native communities
within the tallgrass prairie on the Tewaukon Complex. It was not feasible
to provide information on all the species (plant and animal) that live in the
tallgrass prairie ecosystem. This approach was chosen to manage for
sensitive species (indicator species) because many of the environmental
stresses are reflected in these species population levels. Indicator species
that were chosen include four migratory grassland birds (upland sandpiper,
grasshopper sparrow, northern harrier, and bobolink) and three rare
prairie butterflies (Dakota skipper, regal fritillary, and powesheik skipper).
The criteria used for selecting the bird species were:
• Select species that are associated with tallgrass or mixed/tallgrass prairie.
• Select species of management concern using lists from the Audubon
Society Watchlist, Fish and Wildlife Service Nongame Migratory Birds
of Management Concern List or North Dakota Species of Special
Concern (Berkey et al. 1993).
• Select species for which the Complex is in the central part of the
species’ range, not on the periphery based on Breeding Bird Survey
(BBS) maps, Grassland Bird Home page (Sauer et al. 1995), and North
Dakota breeding bird maps (Stewart 1975).
Many species of invertebrates are excellent indicator species because their
habitat needs are very restrictive (Erhardt and Thomas 1991). For example,
some butterflies can only be found in high quality prairie habitat with
specific plants for nectar and larval food resources including Dakota
skipper and powesheik skipper. Some invertebrates are also sensitive to
local habitat changes (addition of roads, houses, wetland drainage, cropping of
prairie) and processes including grazing and fire (Schlicht and Orwig 1998).
For these reasons, three rare prairie butterflies (Dakota skipper, regal
fritillary, and powesheik skipper) were also added into the model. As more
information and research is conducted on these three butterfly species, the
model will be adapted to reflect any new or better information.
The following paragraphs are taken from “A Habitat-Based Approach to
Management of Tallgrass Prairies” (Schroeder and Askerooth 2000).
In tallgrass prairie habitats, grassland birds are of particular concern
because they have exhibited steeper, more consistent declines during
the past 25 years than any other group of North American birds
(Knopf 1995). Conservation of native prairie birds and other wildlife
depend on a variety of successional and diverse habitat conditions
within a large block of grass (Skinner et al. 1984; Renken and
Dinsmore 1987; Volkert 1992; Howe 1994; Madden 1996). Howe (1994)
recommends management for tallgrass assemblages that are diverse,
different from each other, and dynamic. Skinner et al. (1984) in a
Missouri grassland study suggests that management should provide a
wide range of grass cover heights during all seasons for the best
wildlife habitat. Madden (1996) emphasizes the need to manage for all
stages of prairie succession to provide for maximum grassland bird
diversity over decades of management. The habitat affinities of grassland
bird species are diverse, and species respond to similar conditions in
different ways (Wiens 1969; Herkert 1994).
The species richness of grassland birds is positively associated with the
size of the grassland area and large prairies are important for the
conservation of prairie bird populations (Herkert 1994). Herkert (1994)
notes that both area and vegetation structure significantly affect
grassland bird populations. Large areas that are uniform in plant
composition and structure may have less value than several smaller
areas with distinct and diverse vegetative components (Ryan 1986).
44 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
The most abundant introduced Eurasian grasses (i.e. Kentucky
bluegrass and smooth brome) tend to be more uniform in height and
density than native vegetation (Wilson and Belcher 1989).
Several studies suggest that grassland birds are experiencing large
population declines due to the loss of extensive areas of grasslands
(Samson 1980, Herkert 1994, Vickery et al. 1994). The useable area for
some grassland bird species is made smaller by the presence of trees in
the grassland or adjacent to the grassland. The shape of the grassland
area and its perimeter characteristics are as important to grassland birds
as the size of the grassland area (Helzer and Jelinski 1999). Grassland
birds that nested closer to wooded edges had higher predation rates on
the birds and their nests and increased parasitism of their nests (Johnson
and Temple 1986 and 1990, Burger et al. 1994). Some grassland species
avoid nesting near patch edges (including adjacent trees, shelterbelts
etc.) (Johnson and Temple 1986, Delisle 1995, Helzer 1996).
This research helped the planning team develop the next objective that
addresses the management of contiguous blocks of grassland cover for the
benefit of grassland nesting migratory birds and prairie butterflies. Six sites
were chosen to implement our tallgrass prairie management approach (See
Map 7). These sites were selected because they included tracts of native
prairie, were in areas with minimal woody vegetation greater than one
meter tall, and had access for management. Only one site (North Pool 2)
has a tree row that may be removed after monitoring and site evaluation
are done. Several of the sites have fields of tame grass, composed primarily
of smooth brome, warm season native grass plantings, and a couple of crop
fields. Two of the tracts are composed entirely of native prairie that have
never been broken for crop production; the other sites have smaller tracts
of native prairie. If this management approach proves to be an effective
method of habitat management and if additional funds and staff become available,
the management will be expanded to additional areas on the Refuge.
This objective recognizes that the establishing Refuge legislation describes
setting lands aside as a breeding ground for migratory birds including
grassland migratory birds. Under management, these prairie pieces should
support a diversity of vegetation structure and flowering plants needed by
prairie dependent butterflies.
R1.2 Objective: Manage the six Prairie Focus Areas (South Pool 4, Krause,
North Pool 2, Southwest Sprague Lake, NE 1/4 Section 36, and Southeast of
Railroad tracks - See Map 7): 1) to achieve an area of contiguous
grassland (greater or equal to 160 acres) that is greater than 50 meters
from woody vegetation (greater than one meter tall); 2) contain a
variety of vegetative heights on the area with 20 percent in each of the
following categories: 0 to 10 cm; 10 to 20 cm; 20 to 30 cm; 30 to 60 cm;
greater than 60 cm; 3) to increase native floral diversity so that greater
than 75 percent of the vegetative composition is composed of indicator
species of the dry mesic tallgrass, central mesic tallgrass prairie, wet
prairie, mesic tallgrass prairie climax communities (Heidel 1986).
Strategies:
3 Provide the critical limiting habitat factors outlined in the “Habitat-
Based Approach to Management of Tallgrass Prairie ” (Schroeder and
Askerooth 2000) for a variety of vegetative heights, and no woody
vegetation greater than one meter tall on the six sites and 75 percent
of vegetative composition composed of indicator species (Heidel 1986).
Include specific management details of these areas in a step-down
management plan.
3 Develop a detailed Monitoring Plan for the six sites.
3 Annually evaluate the vegetation using methods and techniques developed in
the Monitoring Plan for the six sites and apply management tools
(prescribed burning, mowing, grazing, interseeding, chemical treatment, etc.)
as appropriate to provide the limiting habitat requirements for
migratory grassland birds and rare butterflies.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 45
46 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 47
Introduced/Planted Cover
Dense Nesting Cover
Dense nesting cover (DNC) is comprised of one to two species of wheatgrass,
alfalfa, and sweet clover and planted to provide dense nesting habitat for
ground nesting birds, especially waterfowl. Duebbert et al. (1981) reported
that a minimum reading of two decimeters total visual obstruction is required
in mid-April to provide the cover preferred by waterfowl for nesting in the
Prairie Pothole Region. Thick cover helps conceal hen ducks from predators.
DNC stands once established, must receive management treatments every
few years to maintain optimum quality (Duebbert et al. 1981).
The Refuge has approximately 1,348 acres of DNC. DNC is one of the
primary grassland covers that Complex managers historically established
on previously farmed uplands in order to provide nesting cover for migratory
birds. DNC was primarily developed as a waterfowl nesting cover because
of the international importance of the Prairie Pothole Region to nesting
waterfowl. Haying has historically been the primary tool to rejuvenate
DNC fields. Every 10 to 15 years the fields must be broken up and farmed
for approximately three years to get rid of the smooth brome and Kentucky
bluegrass that invaded them. These field are usually reseeded to DNC.
The planning team recognized that most of the grassland dependent birds
that breed on the Refuge select nesting sites because of vegetative structure
and composition that provides cover and food requirements. Introduced/
planted cover objectives were developed to try and ensure that vegetative
cover on these sites remains attractive or is improved. Over a 15 year
period, the staff thought that maintenance of 80 percent of existing DNC
on the Refuge was an accomplishable objective.
R1.3 Objective: Maintain 80 percent of DNC fields with two decimeters
visual observation obscurity to provide optimal nesting habitat for
ground nesting ducks (mallards, teal, etc.) until the fields can be
seeded back into native plant species.
Strategies:
3 Annually monitor a selected sample of DNC fields on the Refuge for
visual obscurity using the Robel pole method.
3 Apply management tools (prescribed burning, haying, farming,
grazing or interseeding) as appropriate to maintain optimal nesting
habitat for ground nesting ducks.
48 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Other Grasslands
The Refuge has approximately 739 acres of planted warm season native
grass fields composed of three to four species including big bluestem, little
bluestem, Indian grass, and switchgrass. Tewaukon nest records for the
past nine years indicate that these stands do not attract nesting waterfowl
because they are lacking vegetative structural diversity. The Refuge also
has over 1,199 acres of introduced grasses consisting primarily of smooth
brome and Kentucky bluegrass. These fields were generally planted to
some other cover type, but have been invaded. If these fields are managed
with fire and haying, they do provide marginal nesting cover for species
like blue-winged teal but do not offer the structure preferred by many of
the other ground nesting birds like bobolinks, mallards, and gadwalls. A
total of 600 acres of planted cover would be converted to a diverse native
floral community which involves intensive management. This acreage total
includes sites in the six Prairie Focus Areas.
R1.4 Objective: Over the next 15 years convert 600 acres of planted cover
(DNC, introduced grasses, and warm season native grass plantings) to a
diverse native floral community composed of 75 percent of the climax
species identified in Heidel’s Classification (1986).
Strategies:
3 Gather existing information and initiate research on native plant
community restoration, interseeding techniques, chemical, and
mechanical treatments.
3 Develop site specific restoration plans, funding sources, and a Monitoring
Plan; then begin restoration efforts. Apply management tools (prescribed
burning, mowing, grazing, interseeding, chemical treatment, etc.)
where appropriate.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 49
Wetlands
The Prairie Pothole Region encompasses a 300,000 square mile region
(Figure 4) and includes 25 million wetlands of various types (U.S. Prairie
Pothole Joint Venture Board 1995). In North Dakota, a great majority of
these wetland basins are less than 15 acres (Stewart 1975). Wetlands are
lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the
nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities
living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin et al. 1979). Within a prairie
wetland, water depth and duration of ponding determines the distribution
of plant and wildlife species.
In the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States by Cowardin et al. in 1979, wetlands are described by vegetation,
water regimes (the length of time water occupies a specific area), and
water chemistry. Description of prairie potholes are listed below.
n Temporary wetlands: a shallow depressional area which holds water from
spring runoff, usually late May to early June. Temporary wetlands
frequently reflood during heavy summer and fall rains. Characterized by
smartweed, rushes, sedges, and grasses.
n Seasonal wetlands: a depression which holds water in normal years from
spring runoff until mid-July to early August. Commonly refloods with
frequent or heavy fall rains. Characterized by smartweed, rushes,
sedges, and some cattails.
n Semipermanent wetlands: a well-defined depression which holds water in
normal years throughout the summer. Generally only go dry in years
below normal runoff and precipitation. Characterized by a predominance
of cattail and bulrush vegetation with scattered open water areas.
n Permanent wetlands: a well defined basin which holds water throughout
the year. Only go dry after successive years of below normal runoff and
precipitation. Typically have a border of aquatic vegetation (usually
cattails) and a large open water area in the middle.
n Fens, or alkaline bogs, are distinguished separately because they are
saturated with water. They are dominated by grasses and sedges.
Prairie wetlands are dynamic in nature and go through various sequences
or stages. This process is influenced by alternating wet and dry periods.
These wet and dry periods can occur weekly, yearly, or last for several
years. Parts of an individual wetland may be in all or one of the stages
listed below at the same time. Temporary wetlands will go through all of
the stages but may not reach some of the higher water depths. It is this
alternating of wet and dry periods that make wetlands productive.
Wetlands that do not go through these stages lose productivity, and decline
in biotic and wildlife diversity.
Description of Stages:
n Dry - Expanses of bare mud flats characterized by annual vegetation
becoming replaced by perennial vegetation, the longer the wetland is in
the dry stage.
n Shallow - Water depth of approximately one inch to two feet. Some
emergent vegetation present.
n Mid-depth - Water depth of approximately two to four feet. Open water is
interspersed with emergent vegetation.
n Open water - Water depth greater than four feet with some emergent
vegetation around the edges.
“The entire face of the country is
covered with these shallow lakes,
ponds and puddles, many of which
are, however, dry or undergoing a
process of gradual drying out.”
- Charles Froebel Traveled with General
Alfred Sully’s expedition in 1865 in Dakota
Territory.
50 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Wetlands are also influenced by other natural forces such as fire and wildlife
impacts. During long periods of drought, prairie fires would burn the dry
organic layer of wetlands removing years of accumulated sediments. Large
herds of bison would trample the surrounding area and vegetation around
wetlands. Bison would lie down and create depressions or wallows in wetland
basins. They would remove soil, sediments, and plant seeds and take dust
baths in dry wetland basins (Steinauer and Collins 1995). Bison wallows
were three to five meters (10 to 16 feet) in size (Collins and Barber 1985)
and would be free of vegetation. The large amount of hoof action would
create exposed soil areas where seeds were planted as they were pushed
into the soil. Bison also helped to decrease wetland sedimentation by
removing soil during wallowing on their thick shaggy coats (Costello 1969).
Muskrats also impact wetlands by removing cattails and rushes which
create open water areas.
Managed Wetlands
The Refuge receives water from four sources (see Map 5 and 6):
1) Wild Rice River
2) LaBelle Creek
3) Tributary to Hepi (Cloud’s) Lake
4) Tributary to Sprague Lake
The Refuge has 38 semipermanent and permanent wetlands with water
level management capabilities on both Tewaukon and Sprague Lake Units.
Historically, water management in these 38 wetlands has maintained
approximately three to four feet of water throughout the year. Water was
usually passed through the system in the spring; management levels were
reached in late spring as snow melt runoff slowed. If possible, wetlands were
refilled in the fall to store water in case of low precipitation in the winter
and spring. Drawdowns, though planned, were infrequent, short-term and
often difficult to do with water control structure capabilities. Often a plan
to dry out a managed wetland could not be achieved because local runoff
would refill the basin. Evaporation is the main option available to de-water
some Refuge pools. With a flow through system, pool outlet elevations are
often higher than the bottom of the pool which makes de-watering through
the structures in high water years impossible. Past management strategy
could be characterized as achieving an average which did not include the
natural large fluctuations that normally occur in prairie wetlands.
The planning team recognized the need to refine water management
techniques so managed wetland conditions would more closely correlate
with the natural processes of drying and flooding. The planning team also
recognized that objectives needed to be developed that would help
managers collect better water use and water quality data on managed and
non-managed wetlands. The planning team felt that a mixture of 20
percent of each stage (dry, shallow, mid-depth, open water) across Refuge
managed wetlands and a remaining 20 percent reserve to provide habitat
that is deficient in the watershed, was a way to quantify water
management objectives. For example, when watershed wetland conditions
are dry, the remaining 20 percent (reserve) of Refuge pools will be
managed to provide wet stages. This diversity of wetland stages will meet
the needs of a variety of wildlife species.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 51
R1.5 Objective: Annually provide for approximately 20 percent in dry, 20
percent in shallow, 20 percent mid-depth, and 20 percent open water wetland
conditions on Refuge managed wetlands and manage the remaining 20
percent as a reserve to adjust to local climatic and habitat conditions.
Strategies:
3 Develop a step-down Water Management and Monitoring Plan for
Refuge managed wetlands. Continue to provide annual Water
Management Plan/Water Use Reports for Regional Office review.
3 Utilizing water level manipulations, alter water levels within and
amongst years to assure each unit proceeds through each of the
wetland categories during a three to five year period.
3 Utilize fire manipulation to alter vegetation structure and mechanical
methods to alter vegetation and disturb soil as needed.
3 Manipulate the 20 percent reserved category to meet habitat
deficiencies detected within Red River watershed by annually
assessing habitat conditions using information from the National
Weather Service and the Habitat and Population Evaluation Team
(HAPET) office.
3 Manage Lake Tewaukon and Sprague Lake as open water habitats for
migratory waterfowl rest areas.
Water Rights
Water rights for the Tewaukon NWR were established in 1934 pursuant to
Section 8270 (repealed 1943) of the Compiled Laws of North Dakota for the
year 1913. On August 30, 1937, plans and data were submitted documenting
the United States’ right to use waters tributary to each dam to its spillway
capacity, and after each dam was filled to spillway capacity, an additional
amount of water to maintain this level to stimulate aquatic vegetation for
migratory waterfowl foods. In 1964, the Refuge was issued three water
right permits authorizing use of additional water needed as a result of
developments under the Refuge Annual Master Development Plan. (See
Appendix D for a more complete description of water rights).
The State Engineer’s Office has raised questions about the adequacy of the
Refuge’s water rights. The Service has agreed that it will review water
rights and management on all North Dakota refuges and provide updated
information on capacity and water use. Tewaukon NWR will be one of the
first to be evaluated in this effort. Additional data collection capabilities on
the Refuge need to be developed in order to more accurately record water
use. Water use is currently calculated using acre-feet tables that correspond
to water elevations on Refuge pools. Each year a report is compiled on
water use and proposed management in the Refuge Water Management
Plan and forwarded to the North Dakota State Engineer. This report
meets the North Dakota statutory requirement for an annual operations
plan for all impoundments containing 1,000 acre-feet or more.
R1.6 Objective: Protect existing water rights and clarify water rights
needs on Refuge wetlands in order to provide long-term protection of
water resources.
Strategies:
3 Improve Refuge water use database by installing data loggers on four
dams and three major tributaries of the Wild Rice River and gages in
every managed pool on the Refuge.
3 Document Refuge water use and maintain records annually.
52 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Water Quality
Two water quality surveys have been conducted in the Wild Rice Watershed
(Map 3). The first was conducted in 1996, by the North Dakota Department
of Health’s Water Quality Division and the Wild Rice Soil Conservation
District (SCD). The goal of this study was to implement an assessment
project in order to gather sufficient data to document water quality trends,
quantify pollutants, and identify potential nonpoint source pollution within
the Wild Rice Watershed. The sampling was done for one year, 1996. Water
quality variables monitored included: total ammonia as nitrogen, conductivity,
total phosphorus, nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen,
total suspended solids, and fecal coliform bacteria. Six monitoring stations
were located upstream from the Refuge, one was on LaBelle Creek and
one was located downstream of Lake Tewaukon. The station downstream
from Lake Tewaukon had the highest net yield for all the water quality
variables. The report attributed part of this to the accumulation of excessive
nutrients from upstream sources. Controlling upstream pollution and
nutrient sources is the best way to decrease the amount of nitrates and
sediments from entering the Refuge.
Since 1996, a water quality survey has been conducted by Sisseton-Wahpeton
Sioux Tribe’s Office of Environmental Protection. The goal of this study
was to enhance and protect the Tewaukon NWR by ultimately setting
water quality standards. Data has been collected for the last four years.
The 1998 raw data was received and currently the Refuge is waiting for the
report on the study’s findings.
The planning team developed the following objective to improve the water
quality of the Wild Rice River as it comes into the Refuge. This would be
accomplished through a variety of cooperative private land agreements
designed to improve water quality for aquatic plants, wildlife, and fish. The
planning team felt that in 15 years a reduction of nitrates and sediments by
15 percent could reasonably be accomplished.
R1.7 Objective: Reduce annual Wild Rice River watershed nitrate
inputs and sediment loads as it comes into the Sprague Lake Unit, and
LaBelle Creek as it enters the Tewaukon Refuge Unit by 15 percent.
Strategies:
3 Determine the parameters to monitor water quality in the Wild Rice
River and LaBelle Creek as they enter the Refuge and implement a
water quality monitoring program.
3 Work with Department of Health to conduct a land-use survey to
further pinpoint the land-use practices that are influencing the water
quality of the Wild Rice River Watershed. This survey should include a
stream/riparian area assessment including current vegetation conditions
and composition and land-use practices. Utilize the land survey to
implement a Clean Water Act Section 319 Watershed Cleanup Project.
3 Develop or use existing Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and
USDA programs to partner with upstream landowners who farm/
ranch along the River to establish vegetative buffer zones, reduce livestock
impacts along the Wild Rice River, and decrease sediment loads and
contaminants.
3 Partner with U.S. Department of Agriculture buffer strip program to
establish stabilizing and filtering vegetation along Wild Rice River and
LaBelle Creek to prevent erosion and sedimentation.
3 Work with landowners to restore riparian vegetation and wetlands
along the Wild Rice River and LaBelle Creek in order to decrease
sediment loads, contaminants, and help reduce flooding.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 53
Non-Managed Wetlands
The Refuge has over 1,500 acres of non-managed prairie wetlands. These
wetlands are diverse in nature and include temporary, seasonal, and
semipermanent types. The majority of these wetlands are surrounded by
grassland cover while a small portion are found in cropland. Not much
information has been gathered about their health or condition.
The wetlands in Refuge cropland are subject to varying degrees of siltation.
Cultivating wetland basins (disturbing the vegetation) has contributed to
soil erosion. Wetlands in agricultural fields receive more sediment from
surrounding areas than wetlands surrounded by grasslands (Gleason and
Euliss 1998). Other wetland impacts include increased turbidity, sediments,
and a decrease of invertebrate production, a food source for other wildlife
(Gleason and Euliss 1998). One of the control measures that could reduce
sediment in agricultural fields is vegetative buffer strips around wetland
basins (Dillaha et al. 1989). A need exists for more work on methods to
restore pool depth in silted-in wetlands, evaluation of sedimentation effects
on wetland functions, and effective ways to reduce sediment inputs
(Gleason and Euliss 1998).
R1.8 Objective: Determine the quality and health parameters of non-managed
prairie wetlands in order to preserve their natural
productivity, longevity, and function.
Strategies:
3 Gather baseline information on Refuge wetland conditions and identify
potential and existing threats.
3 Implement management methods to reduce or eliminate threats to
wetland productivity and function.
54 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Native Woodlands
Historically Refuge woody vegetation occurred along riparian corridors
and around some wetlands. Bailey (1926) states that these southeastern
North Dakota riparian woodlands were composed of American elm, red
elm, white ash, box elder, willow, bur oak, serviceberry, chokecherry,
buffaloberry, and rose. Today native woody vegetation is still present on
the shores of Lake Tewaukon, on the peninsula that juts out into the Lake,
and along LaBelle Creek.
Managing native woodlands has had little emphasis in previous Refuge
planning efforts. The planning team recognizes that while this habitat
component makes up a very small portion of the Refuge land base, it is
important habitat for thrushes, orioles, warblers, and other tree nesting
birds that reproduce on the Refuge. The establishing Refuge legislation
language sets aside this area as a breeding ground for migratory birds.
Managers need to have a better plan for the perpetuation of the native tree
resource and the migratory birds that breed there.
R1.9 Objective: Maintain native woody vegetation on the Lake
Tewaukon peninsula, on the shore of Lake Tewaukon, and along
LaBelle Creek corridor to provide roosting habitat, food, and cover for
migratory and resident birds and other wildlife.
Strategy:
3 Coordinate with a forest resource specialist to evaluate health of
existing native wooded sites and provide recommendations for a
management plan.
Nonnative Plant Management On the Complex
Several nonnative plant species exist on Complex lands and waters and are
listed below:
Grasslands: Wetlands:
Leafy spurge Reed canary grass
Canada thistle Canada thistle
Musk thistle Kentucky bluegrass
Bull thistle Smooth brome
Kentucky bluegrass
Smooth brome
Yellow and white sweetclover
Russian olive trees
Watch Species:
Purple loosestrife (sighted in several locations on private land in the
District)
All of these nonnative plants were intentionally or accidentally brought
over to the United States from other countries. Without their natural
control agents, these plants began to aggressively invade many of this
country’s native habitats. These nonnative plant species can out-compete
native plant species or other desired plant species when frequent disturbances
(grazing and burning) and nonnative plant control methods are not conducted.
The Complex staff uses a multi-faceted approach to nonnative plant control
termed Integrated Pest Management (IPM). This approach to the control
of pests (nonnative plants in this case) utilizes a practical, economical, and
scientifically based combination of biological, mechanical, and chemical
control methods. Many of these nonnative plant species are very aggressive,
and relying on only one control method is usually not effective. A
combination of methods has been proven to increase effective control over
these plants. Nonnative plant species can crowd out the native or desirable
flora making the grasslands or wetlands unattractive to many species of
wildlife. For example, uniform grasslands that are comprised primarily of
smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass provide little in the way of nesting
cover for ground nesting birds and very poor cover in the winter.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 55
Complex staff spend a considerable amount of time and funds on nonnative
plant control. In 1999, over $20,000 dollars (labor and chemical costs) were
spent on leafy spurge, Canada thistle, musk thistle, and bull thistle alone.
Control of these four plant species will continue to be a top priority on
Complex lands. Russian olive tree control also received more attention on
the Complex (Refuge and Hartleben WPA) for the past five years. Several
methods were tried until a time efficient and effective treatment was
developed. Over 2,000 Russian olive trees have been chemically treated on
the Hartleben WPA and Refuge to date. Control of the other nonnative
species (smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and sweetclover) is currently
managed with prescribed burning. More effort and methods will need to be
used in the future to control these two nonnative grass species and
sweetclover.
R1.10 Objective: Reduce by 15 percent (measured as canopy cover)
nonnative plants on Complex lands and waters.
Strategies:
3 Annually evaluate fields through visual observations and continue to
aggressively manage highly invasive nonnative species focusing on
Canada, musk and bull thistle and leafy spurge.
3 Use a variety of techniques and tools including: chemical, mechanical,
and biological methods, prescribed burning and grazing to control
nonnative plants.
3 Continue to evaluate nonnative control methods for effectiveness and
gather information on methods developed in the future.
3 Monitor Complex for additional nonnative plant species and control
new invasions before they become a large problem.
3 Document and coordinate with the County Weed Board and State to
control nonnative plant species on and off Service lands.
56 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Prescribed Burning and Wildfires
The primary reason the remaining native prairie is not in better condition
is the lack of periodic disturbance (Service Ecological Services Botanist,
Kathy Martin 1993; Barbour et al. 1987; Duebbert et al. 1981). Grassland
species of the northern great plains evolved under periodic disturbance and
defoliation from bison and fire (Eldridge 1992; Barbour et al. 1987). This
periodic disturbance was important for prairie plant health and maintained
a place of enormous diversity for thousands of years. Defoliations can be
mimicked to some degree by the periodic use of prescribed fire, grazing,
and to a lesser extent, haying. Fish and Wildlife Service botanists
recommend that a burning and/or mowing regime be used to enhance the
tallgrass and low prairie communities (Kathy Martin 1993). Periodic
rejuvenation using fire, grazing or haying is also recommended for planted
cover in order to maintain optimum vigor (Duebbert et al. 1981).
Prescribed fire on the Complex has typically been carried out in the spring
and fall. More work is being done to incorporate summer burning into the
rotation to mimic historic fire occurrence.
Since the 1960s, Complex managers have used prescribed fire to restore,
change, and maintain the diversity in plant communities. Prescribed fire is
also used to reduce hazardous fuels on Complex grasslands. Hazardous
fuels have six inches or more of accumulated dead litter material. A large
amount of litter can cause additional control problems for fire suppression
efforts. Reducing these high amounts of litter can reduce fire intensity and
make wildfires easier and more cost effective to control. The Tewaukon
Complex has an average of one wildfire per year. Human caused fires
account for 99 percent of all wildfires on the Complex. Wildfires on the
Complex are usually caused by equipment or fires escaping from adjacent
private land.
Fire is an important grassland management tool that can be utilized to
accomplish Complex habitat management objectives. Fire is also a tool that
can quickly destroy Federal or private equipment, buildings, and property
and hurt or kill those that work with it. Proper planning, training, and
equipment reduces the risk of this management tool.
The following two objectives recognize that prescribed burning and
wildfires play an important role in Complex habitat management. The
objectives also recognize that fire inherently has human health, social, and
economic risks that other management tools do not.
R1.11 Objective: Utilize prescribed fire, in an ecosystem management
context, applied in a scientific way under selected weather and
environmental conditions, on approximately 5,000 acres of grasslands
and 200 acres of wetlands annually on the Complex to accomplish
habitat management objectives.
Strategies:
3 Maintain a current Complex Fire Management Plan and implement
the Plan to accomplish resource management objectives.
3 Conduct all fire management programs in a manner consistent with
applicable laws, policies, and regulations.
R1.12 Objective: Protect life, property, and other resources from
wildfire by safely suppressing all wildfires on Complex lands and
adjacent private lands.
Strategies:
3 Use strategies and tactics that consider safety and values at risk.
3 Use prescribed fire to reduce hazardous fuels on Complex lands to
reduce the intensity and favorable conditions for wildfires.
More detailed information on wildfire suppression and prescribed burning
methods, timing, and monitoring can be found in a step-down Complex Fire
Management Plan.
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000 57
Wildlife
R.2 Goal: Preserve, restore, and enhance the diversity and abundance
of migratory birds and other native wildlife with emphasis
on waterfowl, grassland and wetland-dependent birds.
Waterfowl (Ducks, Geese, and Swans)
North America’s greatest duck producing area is known as the Prairie
Pothole Region (Figure 4). This area includes south central Canada,
eastern North and South Dakota, western Minnesota, and north central
Iowa. The Refuge provides nesting habitat for 13 species of waterfowl, and
migrating food and resting habitat for 21 species of waterfowl. Blue-winged
teal, mallards, gadwall, northern pintails, and northern shovelers are
common nesters in Refuge grasslands while redheads, canvasbacks, and
ruddy ducks nest overwater in Refuge wetlands. Wood ducks nest in
Refuge trees. Large flocks of Canada geese, snow geese, and ducks use
Refuge crop fields to feed during spring and fall migration. Prior to 1900,
the giant Canada goose was distributed throughout North Dakota. Hunting
pressure, egg collecting, and habitat destruction decimated this population
during the 1900s. Restoration of giant Canada goose populations began in
the 1930s with considerable effort made in the 1960s to 1970s (Lee et al.
1984). The Refuge was a release site for some of the restoration efforts.
Since then, the return of the giant Canada goose to North Dakota has been
a huge success story. Resident Canada geese populations have grown from
their reintroduction populations in the 1970s to levels that yield 10 to 15
area crop depredation complaints per year.
Waterfowl Nesting
The Refuge is surrounded by intense agricultural use, that severely alters
the landscape. The Refuge provides the majority of quality waterfowl
upland nesting habitat in the area. The Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) has greatly increased grassland cover throughout the Complex in
the past 10 years. However, the continued presence of this cover on the
landscape depends on funding for this U.S. Department of Agriculture
program. As grasslands are fragmented and tracts become smaller, nesting
ducks become more vulnerable to predation. Predation has been identified
as a principal cause of nest loss (Sargeant and Raveling 1992). In areas
with intense agriculture, nesting ducks and their eggs are one of the most
abundant, vulnerable, and desirable prey types available to red foxes
(Sargeant et al. 1984). Large tracts of thick residual cover require more
effort for predators to search. At the Refuge, the major predators on ducks
and duck eggs include: red fox, striped skunk, raccoon, mink, and Franklin’s
ground squirrel. (See Land Use and Wildlife Species Changes Section for
more discussion.) Avian predators including northern harriers, red-tailed
hawks, and great horned owls prey on duck and young. Gulls can also
destroy nests on islands. The red fox is the main ground nesting duck
predator in southeastern North Dakota. Red fox will not only eat and
destroy eggs but will kill the hens if possible. Red fox kill an estimated
242,000 dabbling ducks annually in North Dakota during the three month
(approximate) fox denning season (Sargeant et al. 1984). Removal of
predators (primarily red fox) can cause nest success to increase from 8
percent (Sargeant et al. 1995) to an average 30 percent (Refuge nest
success records 1990-1998). A nesting success of approximately 15 to 20
percent is suggested to maintain stable duck populations of the five most
common species of dabbling ducks (Cowardin et al. 1985, Greenwood 1986,
Klett et al. 1988). In severely altered landscapes, like the Refuge, intensive
management such as predator control is the only efficient way to increase
nest success (Clark and Nudds 1991, Nudds and Clark 1992). The most
effective time to conduct predator control is in the spring when red fox are
caring for their young and little movement of foxes occurs in and out of an
area (Sargeant et al. 1993).
“Refuges Are Places Where Wildlife
Comes First.”
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Fulfilling
the Promise, 1999
“The original northern prairies were
strewn with small lakes, potholes,
and marshes and veined with tiny
creeks ... Through spring, summer,
and fall these regions were
darkened with clouds of waterfowl
of all kinds.”
- John Madson, 1982, Where the Sky Began
58 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2000
Other activities that increase nesting success have been researched,
discussed, and examined to determine the most economical, feasible, and
effective method. One possibility includes purchasing enough additional
tracts of land adjacent to the Refuge to create a large enough block of
contiguous grassland habitat to increase nest success. This approach would
be similar to USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). To provide
for grassland cover on 100 acres of cropland for a 10-year period would cost
$40,000 to $50,000 assuming a $40 to $50 per acre, per year payment. This
would not be economically possible at this time. Predator proof fences are
another way to increase nesti