Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Waubay
Comprehensive
Conservation
Plan
National Wildlife Refuge Complex
CCPs provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set
forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge
purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs.
These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes
substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are
primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization
purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing
increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for
future land acquisition.
WAUBAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX
including
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge
and
Waubay Wetland Management District
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
September 2002
Prepared by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex
44401 134A Street
Waubay, South Dakota 57273-5301
and
Division of Planning
Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region
P.O. Box 25486, DFC
Denver, Colorado 80225-0486
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
S-1
Summary
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), comprised of 4,650 acres, is
located in Day County in northeastern South Dakota (Map 1). The Refuge’s
mix of lakes, wetlands, prairie, forests, and cropland is home to a diversity
of wildlife. More than 100 bird species nest on this small piece of habitat,
with 37 mammals also calling it home. Waubay National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR) was established by President Roosevelt in 1935 as “a refuge and
breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.”
Waubay Wetland Management District (WMD) protects over 250,000 acres
of wetlands and prairie in six counties of northeastern South Dakota. The
area’s mix of native grass, planted grasses, cropland, and wetlands support a
variety of wildlife. Wildlife communities are dependent on the abundant
grasslands or wetlands, or both. The WMD is home to 247 species of birds,
43 species of mammals, and over 20 species of amphibians and reptiles.
Breeding waterfowl and grassland-dependent passerines are two groups
that are especially prominent.
Comprehensive planning is being undertaken for the Refuge and the
Wetland Management District (Complex) to guide management for the next
15 years. When completed, the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
will provide clear goals and objectives, implementation strategies, and
recommended staffing and funding for the Complex. This Plan will meet the
planning requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of
1997.
The main goals set forth in the CCP for the Waubay Complex are:
■ Habitat Goal: To preserve, restore and enhance the ecological
diversity of grasslands, wetlands, and native woodlands of the
Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains on Waubay National
Wildlife Refuge Complex.
■ Wildlife Goal: To promote a natural diversity and abundance of
native flora and fauna of the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great
Plains on Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
■ Cultural Resources Goal: Protect and interpret significant historic
and prehistoric cultural resources associated with Waubay
National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
■ Wildlife-dependent Recreation Goal: To foster an understanding
and appreciation of the ecology and management of the fauna and
flora and of the role of humans in the Prairie Pothole Region of the
Great Plains by providing Complex visitors of all abilities with
compatible wildlife-dependent recreational experiences.
These goals will help fulfill the mission and goals of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System. In an ecosystem setting,
Waubay Complex CCP actions will also help meet the goals of the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, The Nature
Conservancy’s Tallgrass Prairie Ecoregional Plan and others. Only by
working together can we improve the biological, social, and economic status
of the northeastern corner of South Dakota and the Great Plains.
“Like wind and sunsets, wild
things were taken for granted
until progress began to do away
with them. Now we face the
question whether a still higher
‘standard of living’ is worth its
cost in things natural, wild and
free. For us of the minority, the
opportunity to see geese is more
important than television, and
the chance to find a pasque-flower
is a right as inalienable
as free speech.”
Aldo Leopold
S-2
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 stipulates that a
written assessment must be made of any action proposed by an agency of
the Federal Government that significantly affects the quality of the human
environment or has significant impacts on the affected State or Federal
land. NEPA also requires Federal decision makers to study, develop, and
describe appropriate alternatives to the recommended action. Views of
other Federal and State agencies and the public are solicited during the
decision making process. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared
to accompany the Draft CCP. The proposed action was to prepare and
implement the CCP, or enhanced management alternative.
S-3
S-4
Table of Contents
I. Introduction/Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plans ......................................................... 1
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge History .............................................. 1
Time Line/Significant Dates of Waubay NWR ................................ 2
Waubay Wetland Management District History..................................... 7
Time Line/Significant Dates of Waubay WMD ................................ 7
Purpose of and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan .............. 8
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals ............................. 9
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Purpose ............................ 10
Waubay Complex Vision Statement .......................................................... 10
Legal and Policy Guidance.......................................................................... 11
Existing Partnerships ................................................................................. 11
II.Planning Process
Planning Process, Planning Time Frame, and Future Revisions ........ 12
Planning Issues ............................................................................................. 13
III. Summary Waubay Complex and Resource
Descriptions
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ................................................................. 14
Climate ................................................................................................... 18
Air Quality ............................................................................................. 21
Soils ................................................................................................... 21
Waubay Complex Resources ...................................................................... 22
Water Resources and Associated Wetlands ..................................... 31
Vegetation .............................................................................................. 32
Upland Vegetation ......................................................................... 32
Wetland Vegetation ....................................................................... 36
Endangered Plants ........................................................................ 36
Noxious Weeds ............................................................................... 36
Wildlife ................................................................................................... 39
Invertebrate Populations ............................................................. 39
Fish Populations ............................................................................ 39
Reptiles and Amphibians.............................................................. 39
Birds ................................................................................................. 39
Waterfowl and Other Birds .......................................................... 40
Grassland Birds .............................................................................. 40
Other Migratory Birds .................................................................. 41
Mammals ......................................................................................... 41
State and Federal Endangered and Threatened Species ....... 41
Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 43
Public Use .............................................................................................. 43
Economic Environment .............................................................................. 44
Special Designations .................................................................................... 44
IV. Management Direction
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge
Habitat ................................................................................................... 46
Grasslands ....................................................................................... 46
Wetlands .......................................................................................... 48
Native Woodlands .......................................................................... 49
Wildlife ................................................................................................... 51
Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 54
Public Use and Education ................................................................... 56
Hunting............................................................................................ 56
Fishing ............................................................................................. 58
Environmental Education ............................................................ 60
Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, Interpretation
and Community Involvement ............................................... 61
Waubay Wetland Management District
Habitat ................................................................................................... 64
Grasslands ....................................................................................... 64
Wetlands .......................................................................................... 73
Native Woodlands .......................................................................... 76
Wildlife ................................................................................................... 77
Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 79
Public Use and Education ................................................................... 80
V. Implementation and Monitoring
Funding and Personnel (Current/Proposed Staffing Plan) ................... 82
Step-down Management Plans .................................................................. 83
Partnership Opportunities .......................................................................... 84
Monitoring and Evaluation ......................................................................... 84
Plan Amendment and Revision.................................................................. 84
Environmental Action Statement.................................. 85
Finding of No Significant Impact ................................. 86
List of Figures
Figure 1. Prairie Pothole Region .................................................................... 14
Figure 2. Annual Precipitation, Waubay NWR, 1953-1999 Bar Graph .... 18
Figure 3. Waubay Lake Historic Water Levels, 1934-1999 Bar Graph .... 18
List of Maps
Map 1. Waubay NWR Complex Vicinity Map ............................................... S-3
Map 2. Waubay NWR Historic Water Levels Map, Pre-1995 .................... 3
Map 3. Waubay NWR Base Map - Current Water Levels, 1998 ................ 5
Map 4. South Dakota Major Physiographic Regions ................................... 15
Map 5. Region 6 Ecosystems ........................................................................... 19
Map 6. Waubay NWR Landcover Types ........................................................ 23
Map 7. Waubay WMD Fee-title Lands ........................................................... 25
Map 8. Waubay WMD Waterfowl Breeding Pair Distributions ................. 29
Map 9. Waubay WMD Wetland Resources .................................................... 33
Map 10.Waubay WMD Landcover Types ........................................................ 37
Appendices
A. Wildlife Species of Waubay Complex ........................................................ 87
B. References ................................................................................................... 91
C. Section 7 ................................................................................................... 95
D. Glossary ................................................................................................... 100
E. Acronyms ................................................................................................... 102
F. Key Legislation/Policies ............................................................................. 102
G. Mailing List ................................................................................................... 105
H. WPA Management Priorities ..................................................................... 107
I. Ecosystem Planning for the Mainstem Missouri River ......................... 112
J. Grassland Easement Evaluation Worksheet ........................................... 124
K. Existing Partnerships ................................................................................. 125
L. Compatibility Determination ..................................................................... 126
M. Plans and Organizations affecting Waubay Complex............................. 136
N. RONS List ................................................................................................... 137
O. MMS List ................................................................................................... 138
P. List of Preparers .......................................................................................... 139
Q. Public Involvement / Response to Comments......................................... 140
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 1
I. Introduction/Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plans
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Refuge
Improvement Act), an amendment to the National Wildlife Refuge
Administration Act of 1966, was passed by Congress in October of 1997.
This historic “organic act,” the first in the National Wildlife Refuge System’s
history, required that Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) be
prepared for all refuges within 15 years. Lands covered by this Act include
National Wildlife Refuges and Wetland Management Districts, including
grassland, wetland, and conservation easements. The Refuge Improvement
Act also clarified compatibility and public use issues on Refuge System
lands.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) worked with Congress to craft
the Refuge Improvement Act and supported the planning requirement. This
planning effort will assist each station, and the entire National Wildlife
Refuge System, to meet the changing needs of wildlife and the public. Public
input during the CCP process will provide opportunities to consult with
neighbors, customers, and other agencies to ensure that plans are relevant
and address natural resource issues and public interests. The Draft CCP
discussed the planning process, Waubay Complex’s characteristics, and the
direction management will take in the next 15 years on Waubay Complex.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge History
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge was established on December 10, 1935, by
Executive Order 7245 “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds
and other wildlife.” Originally known as “Waubay Bluebill Refuge,” it
consists of 4,650 acres and was purchased from private landowners through
16 different purchase agreements. At the time of purchase, the upland and
water acres were 2,587 and 2,063, respectively. The total cost of acquisition
was $62,788.97. Approximately 2,402 acres of meandered lakes were
withdrawn from public domain and 2,249 acres were purchased;
furthermore, the acres were purchased for about $27.92/acre.
In the “Dust Bowl” days of the 1930s, the Refuge lakes were almost entirely
dry, contributing to record low waterfowl populations. Water levels and
duck populations gradually rose to an “acceptable” or normal level and
remained relatively static until the 1990s (Map 2). Heavy precipitation
between 1993 and 1999 caused lake levels to rise more than 15 feet to all-time
recorded highs, flooding 100-year-old trees (Map 3). In 1995, when
Waubay Lake spilled into Hillebrand’s Lake, a sport fishery developed for
the first time on the Refuge. Currently perch, northern pike, and walleye
populations thrive in Refuge waters. With such drastic water fluctuations
came changes in bird species, numbers, and habitats. Today, wood ducks,
double-crested cormorants, and great-blue herons thrive on the flooded,
wooded islands of the Refuge, while over-water nesting species have
virtually disappeared along with the emergent cover.
2 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Time Line/Significant Dates of Waubay NWR
1935 - Waubay Refuge established.
1936 - First manager, Watson E. Beed, reported for duty.
1937 - Refuge land acquisition completed.
- Waubay giant Canada goose flock started with 30 donated captive
geese.
- Refuge observation tower built.
1938 - Famous wildlife artist Frances Lee Jaques, standing on the shore of
Spring Lake with Watson Beed, called Waubay “the perfect refuge.”
1942 - Highest number of pheasants recorded on the Refuge - over 10,000.
1947 - Deer hunting allowed for the first time.
1948 - “By this time, the Refuge was the only place in the area where
prairie chickens could be found.” Prairie chickens soon disappeared
from the Refuge.
1957 - Five pair of Cotournix quail released on the Refuge - failed.
1959 - Annual Refuge deer hunts began.
1960 - Nature trail established.
1963 - Twenty-five Rio Grande turkeys released on the Refuge - all
disappeared by 1964.
1966 - User fees were charged for the picnic area; use dropped by 50
percent - user fees discontinued after one year.
1973 - Activities within the State of South Dakota and administration of
Waubay NWR transferred from Region 3 to Region 6 with an Area
Office established in Pierre.
1986 - New Refuge headquarters office built.
1993 - Waubay and Refuge lakes, Spring and Hillebrand’s, begin to rise
because of heavy precipitation.
1995 - Waubay and Hillebrand’s Lakes equalize.
1996 - Refuge east entrance road raised four feet.
1997 - Winter of 1996-1997 totals 80.2 inches of snow (average is 30 to 35
inches).
- Waubay/Hillebrand’s Lakes equalize with Spring Lake.
- Refuge east entrance road raised 3.3 feet.
1998 - Refuge east entrance road raised 7 feet.
- Refuge opened to ice fishing only.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 3
4 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 5
6 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 7
Waubay Wetland Management District History
Waubay Wetland Management District (WMD) is one of 37 WMD’s
throughout the prairie pothole region. They were started as part of the
Small Wetlands Acquisition Program (SWAP) in the 1950s to save wetlands
from various threats, particularly draining. The passage of Public Law 85-
585 in August of 1958, amended the Migratory Bird Hunting and
Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp Act) of 1934, allowing for the
acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas”(WPAs) and “Easements for
Waterfowl Management Rights” (easements). The nation’s first WPA was
acquired within the Waubay study area (now known as the WMD), when the
160-acre McCarlson WPA in Day County was purchased from Arnold
McCarlson on January 19, 1959.
The Wetlands Loan Act (P.L. 87-383) was passed on October 4, 1961, and
allowed for the advancement of funds against future revenues from Duck
Stamp sales. As a result, WMDs were created in 1962. In 1966, Waubay
WMD consisted of 10 counties: Brookings, Clark, Codington, Day, Deuel,
Grant, Hamlin, Kingsbury, Marshall, and Roberts. In 1970, Brookings, Deuel,
Hamlin, and Kingsbury counties were transferred to Madison WMD, leaving
the remaining six which make up Waubay WMD today. The grassland
easement acquisition program was started in 1989 to help protect upland
habitat to compliment the wetland easement program. Waubay is currently
the nation’s second largest WMD with over 250,000 acres of waterfowl
habitat being protected through easements and fee-title lands. Protected
areas under fee-title total 39,885 acres, while wetland and grassland
easements protect approximately 105,000 and 126,000 acres, respectively.
An additional 5,260 acres are protected under conservation easements.
Like Waubay NWR, the WMD has varying wetland and upland habitat
types and needs to be managed to benefit waterfowl and other wildlife, as
well as human users. Today, prescribed burning has taken the place of
prairie wildfires and is one tool used to rejuvenate grasslands. Although
prescribed burning has proven effective, constraints such as time, money,
and staff limit its use in the past. With additional staff and funding,
prescribed burning will be used more extensively as a management tool.
Another tool available is haying, but it also has limiting factors. Haying is
allowed on fee-title lands by permit only; furthermore, it can only be
accomplished after July 15 to protect nesting birds. This deters some
producers, because the quality of forage may be reduced. Grassland
manipulation within Waubay WMD is primarily accomplished through
livestock grazing. This method is most closely related to the natural way of
managing grasses with livestock replacing the bison of the past.
Recently, increased precipitation has benefitted the WMD and waterfowl
populations dependent on these lands. In 1999, statewide wetland counts
exceeded one million for the first time and increased 104 percent above the
10-year and long-term averages. Breeding mallards in South Dakota for
1999 exceeded 3 million for only the third time in history (USFWS 1999).
Time Line/Significant Dates of Waubay WMD
1959 - McCarlson WPA, the nation’s first WPA, purchased in Day County.
1961 - Wetland easement program began.
1963 - Wetland Management Office established in Webster; first manager -
James Pullium.
1964 - Wetland Management Office closes and function taken over by the
Refuge.
1968 - Pheasant restoration program on WPAs started under Karl Mundt
funding.
1973 - Activities within the State of South Dakota and administration of
Waubay NWR transferred from Region 3 to Region 6 with an Area
Office established in Pierre.
1989 - Grassland easement program began.
1994 - Hundreds of township, county, and state roads across the WMD
flood from rising waters of wetlands and lakes.
8 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Purpose of and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Waubay Complex was established to provide “. . . a refuge and breeding
ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” The purpose of the CCP is to
accomplish the goals established for the Complex, including:
■ Habitat Goal: To preserve, restore and enhance the ecological
diversity of grasslands, wetlands, and native woodlands of the
Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains on Waubay National
Wildlife Refuge Complex.
■ Wildlife Goal: To promote a natural diversity and abundance of
native flora and fauna of the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great
Plains on Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
■ Cultural Resources Goal: Protect and interpret significant historic
and prehistoric cultural resources associated with Waubay
National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
■ Wildlife-dependent Recreation Goal: To foster an understanding
and appreciation of the ecology and management of the fauna and
flora and of the role of humans in the Prairie Pothole Region of the
Great Plains by providing Complex visitors of all abilities with
compatible wildlife-dependent recreational experiences.
The CCP, with its clear management direction laid out in specific objectives
and strategies, is needed for several reasons. Since the establishment of the
Refuge in 1935 and the WMD in the 1960s, many changes have occurred to
the landscape. Much habitat has been lost to agriculture, roads, towns, and
other development. This loss of habitat has had a profound effect on wildlife
populations that once depended on vast expanses of undisturbed grasslands
and wetlands. Management of the Complex as outlined in the CCP will help
to stem these losses and help to restore biodiversity to the landscape.
The CCP also addresses the need to provide an understanding and
appreciation of wildlife and of people’s role in the environment. Providing
more environmental programs and better interpretation will increase the
public’s knowledge about the biological values that continue to be lost each
day and the need to prevent further losses. The Plan also calls for increased
opportunities for wildlife-compatible recreation.
It is the Service’s job to protect and provide habitat for migratory birds and
other wildlife - this is our purpose and reason for being. We must do this in a
vastly changed landscape, balancing the effects of saving wildlife with
economic realities and human needs. By preparing this CCP, documenting
our goals and objectives, and involving our partners and the public in the
process, we can all gain a better understanding of the issues - from all sides.
It doesn’t have to be wildlife versus people because all will benefit,
economically and personally, from a healthy environment. This CCP will
help explain how Waubay Complex fits into the landscape and our role in
protecting our natural resources for present and future generations.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 9
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which administers the Refuge System, is
the only agency of the U.S. government whose primary responsibility is fish,
wildlife, and plant conservation. The National Wildlife Refuge System
(System) is the world’s largest and most diverse collection of lands set aside
specifically for wildlife. The Mission of the 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.” Goals of the System are aimed at
fulfilling this mission. Some major goals are to provide for specific classes of
wildlife species for which the Federal government is ultimately responsible.
These “trust resources” are defined by the purpose of the Refuge and
include threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, and
anadromous fish. Most refuges provide breeding, migration, or wintering
habitat for these species. Nearly all refuges also supply habitat for big game
species and resident or nonmigratory wildlife as well.
Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System are:
a. To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) and
further the System mission.
b. Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish,
wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with
becoming endangered.
c. Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine
mammal populations.
d. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants.
e. Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems
of the United States, including the ecological processes
characteristic of those ecosystems.
f. To foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife,
and plants, and their conservation, by providing the public with
safe, high-quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent public use.
Such use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
Individual refuges provide specific requirements for the preservation of
trust resources. For example, waterfowl breeding refuges in South and
North Dakota provide important wetland and grassland habitats to support
populations of waterfowl as required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Waubay Complex
supports breeding populations as well as providing migration habitat during
spring and fall periods. Sabine NWR, and other refuges in Louisiana and
Texas, provide wintering habitat for these populations. The network of lands
is critical to these birds* survival; any deficiency in one location will affect
the species and the entire network’s ability to maintain adequate
populations. Other refuges may provide habitat for endangered plants or
animals that exist in unique habitats found only in very few locations.
Refuges in these situations ensure that populations are protected and
habitat is suitable for their use. Refuges, by providing a broad network of
lands throughout the United States, help prevent species from being listed
as endangered by providing secure habitat for their use and opportunities
for recovery.
Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, six
wildlife-dependent recreational uses are recognized as priority public uses
of refuge lands. These are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, environmental education and interpretation. These and other
uses are allowed on refuges only after finding that they are compatible with
the purpose of the refuge. Uses are allowed through a special regulation
process, individual special use permits, and sometimes through State fishing
and hunting regulations.
“When one tugs at a single
thing in nature, he finds it
attached to the rest of the
world” John Muir
10 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Purpose
Waubay NWR Purpose
“. . . as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife . . .” Executive Order 7245, dated December 10, 1935. Later
Executive Orders allowed for expansion of the Refuge under the same
purpose.
Waterfowl Production Area Purpose
“. . . as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “. . . all of the provisions
of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act] . . . except the inviolate
sanctuary provisions . . .” 16 U.S.C. 718 § (Migratory Bird Hunting and
Conservation Stamp Act)
“. . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C.
§ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
“. . . for conservation purposes . . .” 7 U.S.C. § 2002 (Consolidated Farm
and Rural Development Act)
Waubay Complex Vision Statement
Although this vision has a dreamlike feel to it, it is founded in a real need to
restore the health of the Northern Great Plains. Restoring grasslands and
wetlands and protecting and promoting their long-term health will be good
not only for wildlife, but for humans as well. The economic health of this
region may also soon depend on the soundness of these natural systems as
farming becomes economically challenging and more and more people turn
to tourism and the fishing/hunting industry to make a living. Already this is
becoming a reality with the increased fishing opportunities available with
the onset of new and expanded lakes and wetlands. More and more people
are also filling their leisure time with outdoor activities such as bird-watching,
hiking, or fishing. By restoring and enhancing native habitats,
Waubay Complex can help attract visitors providing additional economic
opportunities in the area.
A vast landscape of native
prairie splashed with
sparkling blue jewels of
pristine wetlands with its
variety of wildlife, where
people can learn about the
unique features and enjoy the
bounty of the Coteau des
Prairie region.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 11
Legal and Policy Guidance
The National Wildlife Refuge System started nearly 100 years ago with an
Executive Order, signed by President Theodore Roosevelt, protecting a
small and unpretentious island full of pelicans, ibises, and spoonbills from
market hunters. It wasn’t until 1997 that the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act was passed which set the mission and
administrative policy for all refuges in the System. It also outlined the
importance of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and
interpretation) and how they should be promoted except where
incompatible with the purpose of the individual Refuge or the system as a
whole. A formal process for determining compatibility was also established
with this Act. From the first act to the most recent, the overriding principle
that guides the Refuge system is wildlife comes first.
Other key legislative policies that direct management of Refuges include the
Endangered Species Act (1973), Clean Water Act (1977), Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act (1965), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918), and
Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public Use of the National
Wildlife Refuge System (1996). These and other Acts and Executive Orders
that guide Refuge System activities are listed in Appendix F. The U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service also provides its own policy guidelines which can be found
in Refuge Manuals.
Existing Partnerships
Waubay Complex staff work with a variety of individuals and organizations
to accomplish habitat management, outreach, and environmental education
projects. Some past and current partners include Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux
Tribe; Ducks Unlimited; County Conservation Districts; South Dakota
Game, Fish and Parks; The Nature Conservancy; Ne-So-Dak (Glacial Lakes
Outdoor School); local Boy and Girl Scout troops; and numerous private
landowners. Far less would be accomplished within and beyond our borders
without these partnerships. A complete listing of partners is included in
Appendix K.
12 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
II. Planning Process
Planning Process, Planning Time Frame, and Future
Revisions
Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) provide a clear and
comprehensive statement of desired future conditions for each refuge or
planning unit. The CCP will provide long-range guidance and management
direction to achieve refuge purposes, help fulfill the Refuge System mission,
and maintain or restore the ecological integrity of each Refuge and the
System. Additional goals of the CCP process include using science and
sound professional judgment to support management decisions, ensuring the
six priority public uses receive consideration during the preparation of the
CCP, providing a public forum for stakeholders and interested parties to
have input in refuge management decisions, and to provide a uniform basis
for funding.
The CCP planning process consists of the following eight steps. Although
the steps are listed sequentially, CCP planning and National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) documentation can be iterative. Some of the steps may
be repeated or more than one step can occur at the same time.
✓ Preplanning - form core team, identify needs
✓ Identify Issues and develop Vision - Public Input Gathered on Issues
✓ Develop Goals and Objectives - from issues, resource relationships, legal
responsibilities
✓ Develop and Analyze Alternatives, including the Proposed Action
✓ Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA Document - assess environmental
effects, Public Comments on Draft Plan Gathered
✓ Prepare and Adopt Final Plan
✓ Implement Plan, Monitor and Evaluate
✓ Review and Revise Plan
Comprehensive conservation planning efforts for Waubay Complex began in
December 1997 with a meeting of regional management and planning staff
and field station employees from Waubay Complex and Tewaukon Complex
at Tewaukon’s headquarters in North Dakota. At that meeting a core
planning team was designated with the major responsibilities of gathering
information, soliciting public input, and writing the Plan.
Beginning in January of 1998, an extensive scoping effort was undertaken to
solicit comments from interested parties. Comments were solicited from at
least 29 public gatherings, including open houses, county commissioner
meetings, sports/farm shows, sportsman groups, agency meetings, live radio
interviews, and other community organizations. Sixteen hundred leaflets
were mailed out and media releases also encouraged the public to comment
and get involved in the CCP process. Participants were provided an
opportunity to learn about the Service and Complex’s purposes, mission,
goals, and management issues. Everyone had the chance to speak with
Service representatives and to share their comments. The mailing list is
included in Appendix G.
The CCP will guide management on the Refuge and WMD for the next 15
years. Plans are signed by the Regional Director, Region 6, thus providing
Regional direction to the station project leader and staff. Copies of the Plan
will be provided to all interested parties when requested. Whenever there is
a significant need or at least every 5 years, the project leader will review
the Plan and decide if a revision is necessary.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 13
Planning Issues
For the planning team, the biggest issue was the loss and degradation of
grassland and wetland habitats. Protecting and restoring these habitats
would reduce the continued loss of biodiversity and help restore wildlife
populations. Staff felt the best way to accomplish this would be through
partnerships, easement acquisition, and improved management of fee-title
lands. Habitat fragments would also be reduced by removing food plots,
replanting woodlands, and removing or controlling nonnative plants, shrubs,
or trees.
Public comments also expressed a need to protect and enhance native
habitats. Some were in favor of increased acquisition (fee and easement),
but others were not. Many comments encouraged the use and management
of native plants and animals and biological control methods for weed control.
Wildlife issues for the planning team centered on increasing baseline data
for individual WPAs and developing monitoring and inventory plans. These
plans would improve our ability to track management activities and their
effects on the landscape and wildlife populations. For the public, comments
ranged from wanting more nesting structures to reintroducing elk.
Only a few comments were received during scoping meetings regarding
hunting. One was to restrict hunting seasons to only primitive weapons,
another to decrease the number of tags offered, and a third to expand youth
hunting and fishing programs. Allowing all three deer hunting seasons to
continue provides more opportunities for hunters as well as accomplishing
Refuge objectives to control deer numbers and protect habitat. Hunting
success for muzzleloader and archery seasons is usually about 25 to 30
percent while it is closer to 50 percent or higher for rifle seasons (Refuge
files, SDGFP 2001). Providing hunts for youth or people with disabilities will
be considered and developed if practicable.
Both the public and the planning team expressed an interest in increasing
public use, environmental education, and interpretation. There was also a
desire to build better relations with the community and provide more
volunteer opportunities. There was a particular interest in increasing the
access and availability of fishing on the Refuge. The planning team had to
consider the requirements of trust resources, particularly waterfowl, and
compatibility issues when addressing these requests. There are also safety
and accessibility concerns that need to be considered, as well as the need for
additional funding to address these concerns. Issues such as providing
additional boat access and stocking fish off-refuge are the primary
responsibility of the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks or other agencies.
The Sisseton-Wahpeton Tribe brought up two issues, bison grazing and
collecting plants on Service owned lands within the Complex.
Many of the issues brought up by the public were considered and
incorporated into the CCP, but some were dismissed due to incompatibility
or other negative impacts. For example, although elk at one time roamed
the Great Plains, this issue was not considered due to economic and other
constraints.
14 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
III. Summary Waubay Complex
and Resource Descriptions
Geographic / Ecosystem Setting
Waubay WMD is situated in the northeastern corner of South Dakota,
covering Marshall, Roberts, Day, Grant, Clark, and Codington counties. It is
comprised of 40,000 acres of Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs), 105,000
acres of wetland easements, 126,000 acres of grassland easements, and 5,260
acres of Farmer’s Home Administration (FmHA) conservation easements.
Waubay NWR is located in northeastern Day County and is comprised of
4,650 acres.
Northeastern South Dakota is within the Central Lowlands Province, a
major physiographic province (Westin and Malo 1978). Prairie potholes, the
major land feature, were formed between 12,000 and 40,000 years ago
during Pleistocene glaciations. The first ice sheet covering eastern South
Dakota was the Nebraskan, followed by the Kansan, Illinoisan, and
Wisconsin ice sheets. The Wisconsin ice sheet had four separate advances.
Four distinct physiographic regions cover Waubay Complex from east to
west: Minnesota River-Red River Lowlands, Coteau Des Prairies, Lake
Dakota Plain, and the James River Lowland (Map 4).
The Minnesota River-Red River Lowland
was formed from sediment deposited on
the bottom of ancient Glacial Lake
Agassiz. Drainage runs north into the
Red River of the North or south into the
Minnesota River along the Continental
Divide. This Divide, unlike the one located
in the Rockies, separates the continent
depending on whether water flows north
to Hudson Bay or south to the Gulf of
Mexico. The Coteau des Prairies is a
series of north-south parallel moraines
which rise 800 feet or more in elevation
above adjacent lowlands. Numerous
wetland basins are a prominent feature of
this land form. About 80 percent of
Waubay Complex is situated within the
Coteau des Prairies. The Lake Dakota
Plain was formed from silt and sand
deposits under old Lake Dakota. Flowing
water drains into the James River. The
James River Lowland is a large glacially-eroded
valley drained by the James River.
Waubay Complex is located wholly within
the Prairie Pothole Region of the Upper
Great Plains (Figure 1). It is also part of
the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture area, a
geographic region of importance to the
North American Waterfowl Management
Plan. The prairie pothole wetland
complexes and associated grasslands are
an integral component of the prairie
landscape, providing a wide array of
ecological, social, and economic benefits.
A high density of wetlands in this region
helps produce the majority of game ducks,
yet contains only 10 percent of the
breeding habitat in the continent
(Baldassarre and Bolen 1994).
Figure 1. Prairie Pothole Region
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 15
16 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 17
There are four flyways denoting major migration pathways that funnel
waterfowl from wintering to breeding habitat and back. Continental
waterfowl management today is based on this flyway concept. Waubay
Complex is on the eastern edge of the Central Flyway.
Waubay Complex falls under the jurisdiction of Region 6 of the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service and is part of the Mainstem Missouri River ecosystem (Map
5). Goals and objectives for this Ecosystem can be found in Appendix I.
Waubay Complex also falls within the bounds of numerous other ecosystems
and other planning efforts such as The Nature Conservancy’s Ecoregional
Plan for the Tallgrass Prairie, North American Waterfowl Management Plan
and the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture, Partners in Flight, and the South
Dakota Natural Heritage Program. A brief listing of these and other
programs or planning efforts that affect Waubay Complex is listed in
Appendix M.
The Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe owns thousands of acres within Lake
Traverse Reservation. The Reservation, created by treaty in 1867, covers
portions of five northeastern counties in South Dakota and two southeastern
counties in North Dakota. Much of the land within the reservation was
opened up to Euro-American settlement in 1892. Native American
landownership within the reservation then took on two forms: tribal land
and heirship trust land, the latter owned by the descendants of male tribal
members who had received allotments of land in 1892. Heirship trust land is
managed for the owners by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Historically, the landscape of northeastern South Dakota consisted of a vast
expanse of tall and mixed grass prairie with numerous shallow and deep
wetlands. Woodlands would have developed and been protected from prairie
fires around larger lakes and in the cooler, moister coulees coming off of the
Coteau. No nonnative plants would have been present. A rich assortment of
native plants and wildlife existed, evolved with, and were maintained by
fire, periodic defoliation by large herds of grazing animals, and climate.
As European settlement of the Northern Great Plains progressed, many
changes occurred on the land. Two of the processes which shaped grassland
communities were suppressed or eliminated (fire and herds of bison and elk)
and settlers began planting shelterbelts and woodlands to control soil and
wind erosion. Agriculture soon dominated the landscape and lifestyles of the
inhabitants in the early-to-mid-1900s. Nonnative grasses were planted for
pastures and hay, while large portions of native prairie were plowed up for
cropland. Wetlands were drained to provide more cropland and make
farming operations easier and more profitable. The vast prairie that once
existed was soon covered by roads, railroads, houses, towns, trees, noxious
weeds, and nonnative grasses.
18 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Climate
The climate is typically continental, characterized by cold winters and hot
summers. Winter and summer temperatures can vary from extremes of -
430F to 1040F. More common temperatures range from -260F to 950F.
Average annual precipitation is 20.9 inches and is normally heaviest in late
spring and early summer. Intense thunderstorms are normal occurrences in
summer. Frequent spells of dry years often alternate with years that are
wetter than average. Wetland levels can fluctuate widely with these
precipitation changes. The average seasonal snowfall is 30 to 35 inches.
Combined snow and high winds often produce blizzard conditions in the
area. Prevailing winds are from the northwest. Wind speeds average 13
miles per hour, but can often be much higher, especially in the spring. The
growing season varies from 109 to 112 days.
Waubay NWR has been an official weather station since 1953. Climatological
conditions have generally been extremely wet since 1992 (Figure 2). Every
year since then has recorded higher than average precipitation. Low
evaporation conditions also prevailed throughout this period. This has led to
water levels not seen in 200 to 500 years in many closed basins in the WMD.
For example, Waubay Lake has risen more then 20 feet in 12 years (Figure 3).
Figure 2. Annual and long-term average precipitation at Waubay NWR, 1953-2001.
Figure 3. Waubay Lake Historic Water Levels.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 19
20 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 21
Air Quality
Waubay Wetland Management District, encompassing the National Wildlife
Refuge, meets attainment status for pollutants as reported by South Dakota
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Soils
Soils have been inventoried and mapped, and county soil surveys have been
published for the Waubay Complex. The soil associations vary greatly
according to the physiographic regions. The soils are derived from parent
materials which include glaciolacustrine sediments, early Wisconsin glacial
drift, and late-Wisconsin glacial drift (loess).
The Coteau des Prairies consists of relief that is undulating to steep. The
landscape is characterized by many potholes or depressions. The drainage
pattern is poorly defined, except near the Big Sioux River where the level
to moderately sloping loamy Brookings-Kranzburg-Vienna soils
predominate. Coteau soils consist primarily of the Forman-Aastad-Buse
association which are well drained, nearly level to steep loamy soils formed
in glacial till. Stones and boulders scattered on the surface in some areas
limit the use of these soils for cultivation.
The Lake Dakota Plain extends into the western counties of Marshall and
Day and is a plain of lacustrine material. Lacustrine deposits are alternating
levels of clay and sandy sediments. The primary soil associations are the
Great Bend-Beotia and Harmony-Aberdeen-Nahon associations. Soils are
generally silty and moderately well drained, but there are areas with poor
drainage.
The James River Lowland consists of level to rolling, loamy soils that are
moderately well drained. The principal associations within this region are
the Niobell-Noonan-Williams, Barnes-Svea, and Bryant. Drainage systems
of these associations are poorly defined, and many terminate to form small
basins.
The Minnesota River-Red River Lowland extends into the eastern half of
Roberts and Grant counties on a plain of lacustrine silts. Principal
associations include Heimdal-Svea-Sisseton, Poinsett-Eckman-Heimdal, and
Forman-Aastad. Soils are moderately well drained, nearly level to sloping,
and silty or loamy.
22 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Waubay Complex Resources
The Service has management and administrative responsibility on
essentially five different types of land holdings. This does not include the
Private Lands Program. These land holdings are described as follows:
1. National Wildlife Refuge
Waubay is derived from a Lakota word meaning “a place where
numbers of birds make their nests.” Waubay National Wildlife Refuge
was purchased to further the purposes of the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act. It is owned by the Service in fee-title and managed to
provide high-quality wetlands and nesting cover primarily for waterfowl
and other migratory birds. Many other wildlife species also benefit from
the management, including white-tailed deer and ring-necked pheasant.
The Refuge is open for deer hunting and ice fishing as well as wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and
interpretation.
The Refuge consists of 4,650 acres. Habitat types are approximately 48
percent grassland, 35 percent wetland, 14 percent woodland/brush, and
3 percent cropland (Map 6). Woodlands are surrounded by large glacial
lakes and are thought to have developed because they were protected
from prairie wildfires that commonly occurred on surrounding open
prairie. Bur oak, basswood, green ash, American elm, hackberry, and
cottonwood are the major tree species.
The following types of land holdings are located within the boundaries of the
Wetland Management District:
2. Waterfowl Production Areas
Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) are lands purchased by the
Service under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Hunting and
Conservation Stamp Act, as amended in 1958. Funding for these
purchases comes from the sale of Migratory Bird Hunting and
Conservation Stamps (Federal Duck Stamp). These lands are owned by
the Service in fee-title and managed to provide high quality wetlands
and nesting cover primarily for waterfowl and other migratory birds.
Other wildlife species also benefit from these areas. WPAs are open to
the public for hunting, fishing, and trapping. New WPAs are currently
purchased only if they are round-outs to existing WPAs or have some
special features. On average, a new WPA is purchased every 5 years.
The Service owns and manages a total of 39,885 WPA acres within the
WMD (Map 7). There are 199 WPA units which range from 3 acres to
over 1,325 acres and may consist of more than one acquisition tract.
Habitat types are approximately 56 percent grassland, 40 percent
wetland, 0.5 percent cropland, 1.8 percent woodland, and 1.3 percent
brush.
3. Wetland Easements
The wetland easement program was authorized by Congress on August
1, 1958, and like WPAs, is financed by receipts from the sale of Federal
Duck Stamps. Under this program, willing landowners are paid one
lump sum payment to not drain, burn, level, or fill natural wetlands.
Wetlands must be of value to waterfowl before they are considered for
easement purchase. These easements cover only the wetland acres on
the land and are perpetual, that is, they are permanent. Ownership
remains with the landowner and the Service acquires no other
management rights with the easement. Easements do not affect normal
farming practices such as cropping, haying, grazing, plowing, or
cultivating wetlands when they are dry due to natural conditions.
The WMD currently protects approximately 105,000 acres of wetlands
with waterfowl management easements. Acres of easements change
regularly as acquisition is still active. All wetlands under easement are
inspected annually by Service personnel for possible violations of the
easement contract.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 23
24 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 25
26 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 27
4. Grassland Easements
In 1989, the Service began the grassland easement program to protect
important nesting cover and enhance water quality on privately owned
lands. Like wetland easements, grassland easements are perpetual, with
the Service purchasing certain rights to the grassland acres. Under this
program, willing landowners retain ownership and grazing is
unrestricted. However, disturbance of the soil, such as in the production
of agricultural crops, is prohibited and haying is allowed only after July
15 each year to reduce disturbance to ground-nesting birds. All
grassland easement tracts are also covered by wetland easements.
Grassland easements are inspected yearly for possible violations of the
easement contract.
Each potential easement is evaluated for its value to wildlife. Lands
must rate 40 pairs/square mile or higher on the Waterfowl Breeding
Pair Distributions (Map 8). Large native grass tracts with good wetland
complexes that include brood water are given the highest priority.
Tracts must protect at least 160 acres and have perpetually protected
brood water within one mile of the tract to be considered for an
easement. Easements less than 160 acres must be adjacent to other
grassland easements, WPAs, or South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks
(SDGFP) lands, to make up 160 acres of protected grasslands.
Occasionally, a tract is purchased with a portion of the land still in crop
production. The landowner enters into an agreement to seed the
cropland back to a recommended grass mixture to qualify for the
easement.
Grassland easements within the WMD range in size from approximately
40 to over 2,720 contiguous acres. Currently, approximately 126,000
acres are protected under the grassland easement program. This
program is expanding with new easement contracts written every
month. The Service acquires no other management rights with the
easement document.
The Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area (DTP-WMA) is
a new Refuge addition intended to eventually preserve 190,000 acres of
remaining northern tallgrass prairie in eastern South Dakota and
southeastern North Dakota. The DTP-WMA augments the decade old
grassland easement program, funded by Migratory Bird Stamps, by
purchasing grassland easements in areas in which the Service cannot
use Migratory Bird Stamp funding. The DTP-WMA boundary includes
over 80 percent of the remaining northern tallgrass prairie. The DTP-WMA
includes parts of 4 counties in North Dakota and 28 counties in
South Dakota, including all of the counties in the Waubay WMD. Large
blocks of prairie of 10,000 - 20,000 acres are the primary targets for
enrollment into the program. Preservation of the prairie will mainly be
in the form of grassland protection easements. Stipulations and ground
disturbing restrictions are the same as on the above stated grassland
easements purchased with Migratory Bird Stamp monies. Funding for
the DTP-WMA comes directly from Congressional appropriations in the
form of Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). The northern
tallgrass prairie is the most altered and possibly the most endangered
ecosystem in North America. Today, less than 4 percent of the original
northern tallgrass prairie remains. This means that almost 45 million
acres of northern tallgrass prairie have disappeared, mostly due to
continuous conversion of prairie to croplands since the late 1800s. The
rich diversity of the northern tallgrass prairie consists of at least 300
species of plants, 113 species of butterflies, 35 reptile and amphibian
species, 60 mammal species, and 260 species of birds that are known to
breed in or use the area.
28 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
5. Farmers Home Administration Conservation Easements
The Federal agency previously called the Farmers Home
Administration (FmHA) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
is required by Executive Order 11990 to preserve and protect all
wetlands that were in FmHA ownership. The 1985 and 1990 Food
Security Acts (Farm Bill) gave direction as to how and by whom this
should be accomplished. Cooperating with FmHA, the Service would
recommend “conservation easements” on FmHA inventory properties.
When these properties sold to private ownership, the Service accepted
the responsibility of enforcing the terms of the conservation easements.
Presently, 5,263 acres of former FmHA inventory properties are under
some type of conservation easement. These easements, at a minimum,
protect the wetlands from burning, draining, or filling. There are 1,242
acres of wetlands protected. In some cases, the easements protect
adjacent upland habitat as well. Some upland easements protect the
land from ever being farmed, while others restrict nearly all uses of the
land. Due to a change in the way USDA defines wetlands, it is expected
that there will be no additional conservation easements.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 29
30 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 31
Water Resources and Associated Wetlands
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). It is estimated that the contiguous United States contained 221
million acres of wetlands just 200 years ago (Dahl 1990). By the mid-1970s,
only 46 percent of the original acreage remained (Tiner 1984). Wetlands now
cover about 5 percent of the landscape of the lower 48 states. Wetlands are
extremely productive and important to both migratory and resident wildlife.
They serve as breeding and nesting areas for many migratory birds and as
wintering habitat for many species of resident wildlife. Humans also benefit
from wetlands, which can improve water quality and quantity, reduce
flooding effects, and provide sites for recreation. Economically, wetlands
provide places to hunt, fish, trap, or bird-watch for millions of Americans. In
the 1996 Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation,
about 40 percent of U.S. residents 16 years or older participated in wildlife
related activities. More than $100 billion was spent in pursuit of these
activities, most of which depend on productive wetlands (USFWS 1996).
Wetlands can be classified by vegetation, water regimes (the length of time
water occupies a specific area), and water chemistry. More specifically,
prairie potholes are described using the following nontidal water regime
modifiers from Cowardin et al. (1979).
■ Temporarily flooded - surface water is present for brief periods
during the growing season. The water table usually lies below the
soil surface most of the season, so plants that grow in both uplands
and wetlands are characteristic.
■ Seasonally flooded - surface water is present for extended periods
especially early in the growing season, but is absent by the end of
the season in most years. When surface water is absent, the water
table is often near the surface.
■ Semipermanently flooded - surface water persists throughout the
growing season in most years. When surface water is absent, the
water table is usually at or very near the land surface.
■ Permanently flooded - water covers the land throughout the year in
all years. Vegetation is composed of obligate hydrophytes, such as
cattails.
Even though drainage and other wetland decimating factors have taken
their toll, wetlands are still a prominent feature of the Complex’s landscape
(Map 9). The National Wetland Inventory has identified 348,482 wetland
acres in the WMD. These include ponds ranging from 0.1 acre with
temporary water regimes to large glacial lakes to major rivers and smaller
tributaries.
In the James and Minnesota-Red River lowlands, temporarily and
seasonally flooded basins are more predominant while semipermanently and
permanently flooded wetlands are most abundant on the Prairie Coteau.
The average size of wetlands in eastern South Dakota is only .4 acre; 72.9
percent of wetlands are #1 acre and 92.1 percent are #5 (Johnson and
Higgins 1997).
The eastern edge of the WMD is bordered by Big Stone Lake, an
impoundment of the Minnesota River, and Lake Traverse, an impoundment
of the Red River of the North. The Big Sioux River drains the south-central
portion of the WMD and empties into the Missouri River in southeastern
South Dakota. The Big Sioux is a typical prairie river, often flooding in
spring and drying up in summer. When wet, however, the Big Sioux offers
tremendous benefits to many species of wetland-dependent plants and
animals.
“Greater familiarity with marshes
on the part of more people could
give man a truer and more
wholesome view of himself in
relation to Nature . . . . Marshes
comprise their own form of
wilderness. They have their own
life-rich genuineness and reflect
forces that are much older, much
more permanent and much
mightier than man.”
Paul Errington
32 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Vegetation
Upland Vegetation
The following native plant communities as developed by The Nature
Conservancy (Anderson et al. 1998) and used by State Natural Heritage
Programs can be found in the WMD.
Native Prairie
Little Bluestem-Porcupine Grass Dry-Mesic Hill Prairie
Hill prairie is found on moderate to steep slopes with soils that are dry.
This community is dominated by grasses such as little bluestem,
porcupine grass, sideoats grama, and western wheatgrass. Common
forbs include leadplant, rigid goldenrod, purple and prairie coneflowers.
Northern Mesic Tallgrass Prairie
Some of the largest remaining tracts of tallgrass prairie occur in the
Prairie Coteau where rolling, rocky topography prevented conversion to
cropland. It is found on level to gentle slopes with mesic soils. The
prairie is dominated by tall grasses such as big bluestem, along with
shorter grasses like northern dropseed and porcupine grass. Common
forbs include leadplant, prairie lousewort, and golden alexander.
Northern Wet-Mesic Tallgrass Prairie
This is found in low lying areas and drainage ways, but rarely occupies
more than a few acres in size. The water table is often near the surface.
It is dominated by big bluestem and Canada bluejoint. Common forbs
include Rocky Mountain blazing star.
Forests, Woodlands and Savanna
Northern Bur Oak Mesic Forest
This plant community is found primarily in coulees and adjacent uplands
and is more common on the eastern edge of the Coteau. It is mostly
found on south or west-facing slopes and with moist soils. The canopy is
dominated by bur oak, with smaller amounts of basswood and green ash.
Ironwood is a common small tree/subcanopy species. The shrub layer
may have American hazelnut, dogwood, gooseberry, prickly ash, rose,
and serviceberry. The herb layer has a diversity of species including hog
peanut, Pennsylvania sedge, columbine and sweet cicely.
Plains Basswood Forest
This forest type is found primarily on the north or east-facing slopes on
moist soils in coulees and adjacent uplands. It is found only on the
eastern edge of the Coteau because the coulees on the eastern side are
deeper and wider than those on the western side, as well as east or
northeast- facing, providing a more suitable microclimate for this forest
type. The canopy is dominated by American basswood, with smaller
amounts of green ash, bur oak, hackberry, and quaking aspen. Sugar
maple can be locally dominant on the northeast portion of the Prairie
Coteau, the only place on this land form where it occurs. Ironwood is a
common small tree / subcanopy species. The shrub layer may include
gooseberry and serviceberry. The herb layer may include Virginia
waterleaf, sweet cicely, blue cohosh, bloodroot, and red baneberry. Some
of the herbs found here, as well as in the Northern Bur Oak Mesic
Forest, are typical eastern deciduous forest species and are on the
western edge of their range.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 33
34 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 35
Bur Oak Woodland
This community occurs on dry to mesic sites and is floristically and
structurally intermediate between Northern Bur Oak Mesic Forest and
Bur Oak Savanna. It has a patchy canopy and an understory dominated
by shrubs and tree saplings. The primary species in the canopy is bur
oak. The shrub layer can range from scattered to a dense thicket. It may
include raspberries, gooseberries, dogwoods, American hazelnut, and
prickly ash. Prairie vegetation, if present, only occurs in small openings
in the tree or shrub layer. The herbacious layer is generally sparse and
floristically poor.
Bur Oak Savanna
This dry to dry-mesic community is dominated by bur oak. The stature
and spacing of trees is somewhat variable, reflecting differences in soils,
topography, and climate, factors that strongly affect local droughtiness
and fire frequency. Shrub cover is variable and consists of oak grubs,
American hazelnut, serviceberry, and buckbrush. The herbaceous layer
is dominated by species typically found in Little Bluestem-Porcupine
Grass Dry-Mesic Hill Prairie. This is a fire maintained community and,
due to fire suppression, much of it has probably converted to bur oak
woodland or forest.
The 75-acre woodland area north of Hillebrand’s Lake is designated by
the Society of American Foresters as a Research Natural Area because
of its unique bur oak/little bluestem cover type. No special management
occurs from this designation.
The six counties of northeastern South Dakota encompass 3.4 million acres,
half of which has been converted to cropland (Map 10). Of the 1.3 million
acres of remaining grasslands, approximately 1.0 million acres is considered
native prairie. This “native” prairie is defined as grassland that has never
been plowed, but in reality all plant communities have been altered
somewhat from pristine conditions due to exotic plant introductions, livestock
grazing impacts, lack of fire, and other factors since European settlement.
Grassland vegetation makes up approximately 54 percent of Service lands
within the Complex. On WPAs, approximately 95 percent of uplands consist
of grasslands. On the Refuge, 71 percent of uplands are grasslands, with the
remainder in trees, brush or developments. Of these grassland acres,
approximately 65 percent is native grassland and 35 percent is seeded exotic
grass/forb mixes or restored native grasses.
As part of the Northern Great Plains, two major vegetation types are
represented within the Complex - tallgrass prairie and northern mixed-grass
prairie (Johnson and Larson 1999). The tallgrass, or true prairie,
extends along the eastern Dakotas and Nebraska into Minnesota and Iowa.
Less than 4 percent of the original tallgrass prairie ecosystem is left and
more is lost each year (Steinauer and Collins 1996). All of the Minnesota
River-Red River Lowland and much of the Coteau des Prairies lie within
this vegetation type. Tallgrass prairie gradually gives way to northern
mixed-grass prairie to the west, generally covering the Lake Dakota Plain
and James River basin. Remnant stands of eastern deciduous forest grow in
ravines and north-facing slopes along the Coteau des Prairies and adjacent
to bigger lakes on the Coteau.
In addition to these natural vegetation types, approximately 35 percent of
Service lands are covered by planted tame (or exotic) grasses or restored
natives. Tame grasslands generally consist of smooth brome or Kentucky
bluegrass, and few forbs. Both of these exotic grasses can be found on native
prairie tracts, often compromising the health, vigor, and diversity of native
sites. Restored native sites generally consist of a mix of four or five grass
species such as big and little bluestem, sideoats grama, switchgrass, green
needle grass, and a legume such as alfalfa or Canada milkvetch. Currently,
no other forbs are used in restoration efforts, mostly due to high costs and
difficulty in acquiring seeds suited to this location.
36 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
There are two primary ways to evaluate grassland condition. One is range
condition, which is based on percentages of selected native plant species
present at a given time as compared to percentages present under a climax
range condition. The second is forage or vegetative condition, which is more
commonly referred to as grassland vigor. This method does not evaluate
grasslands based on species composition, but rather health of the plants. In
general, both range condition and vegetative condition of WPAs are in fair-to-
poor condition.
Wetland Vegetation
Wetland vegetation refers to those plants which grow in water or in soils
which are saturated for most of the growing season. Wetland vegetation is
broken down into four major categories of plants, based on their growth
form and the wetland zone they inhabit. These categories are free-floating,
submergent, emergent, and amphibious.
Free-floating are those wetland plants which float at or beneath the surface
of the water without attached roots. Common examples are duckweed,
bladderwort, and coontail. Submergent plants are those which have roots in
the substrate, and do not emerge above the surface of the water, except
some may have floating leaves. Examples are pondweed, water milfoil,
waterweed, and widgeongrass. Emergent wetland plants are rooted in the
substrate and the foliage grows partially or entirely above the water
surface. Arrowhead, cattail, common reed, and bulrush are common
examples. Amphibious refers to wetland plants that can grow as either a
submergent or an emergent. Commonly, water levels drop, leaving these
plants growing in a temporarily dry site. Some common plants are yellow
water-crowfoot, pepperwort, and water smartweed.
Wetlands cover approximately 40 percent of WPAs and 35 percent of the
Refuge. Most of these acres have one or more types of wetland plants. It is
not uncommon for a single wetland to have all four categories of aquatic
vegetation.
Endangered Plants
The Western prairie fringed orchid is the only known federally threatened
plant species that may be present on the Complex. Historical locations have
included sites in the Big Sioux River valley in the southeastern part of
South Dakota. It occurs in moist, tallgrass prairies and sedge meadows, both
of which can be found in the WMD. It appears to have been extirpated from
South Dakota, but remote populations may have been overlooked as it does
occur in adjacent counties of Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska.
The major reason for its decline is the conversion of native prairie habitat
into cropland and tame pasture. Heavy grazing, early haying, lack of fire,
and noxious weed infestations can all have detrimental effects on this orchid.
Widespread use of herbicides can also be a problem. Conversely, using
herbicides in localized areas only, can be beneficial by removing competing,
nonnative species. Preserves where the Western prairie fringed orchid is
currently located are often managed by prescribed burning. Burning is used
to reduce mulch buildup and control the increase of nonnative and woody
plant species. This species of orchid is well adapted to survive periodic fires.
It is not known whether carefully timed short-duration grazing or haying
will have similar beneficial effects. Research is continuing in these areas.
Moderate uses of these tools may have no effect as orchids have been known
to persist on private lands in some grazed prairies and hayland (USFWS
1993; MN Department of Natural Resources 1991).
Noxious Plants
Many noxious plant species exist within the WMD. Most are introduced
species with no natural controls. The primary ones on WPAs are Canada
thistle, leafy spurge, and wormwood sage. These species often compete with
and have a very negative effect on native plant species. The control of
noxious plants is important to benefit native plant communities and is
required by State law.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 37
38 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 39
Wildlife
Wildlife communities have changed significantly since settlement.
Knickerbocker (1869) listed elk, buffalo, antelope, grey wolf, black bear,
otter, and marten as occurring in the vicinity of Fort Sisseton, in Marshall
County. All have been extirpated from the region. Small herds of antelope
have been reintroduced and some buffalo are raised in domestic herds on
ranches. The Fort commander issued an order in 1876 prohibiting killing
prairie chickens on the military reservation, due to serious reductions in the
population. Prairie chicken numbers have been low since the 1940s although
a small breeding population has recently been observed in Clark County. A
list of wildlife species present in the Complex can be found in Appendix A.
The following synopsis describes various species potentially occurring on
Service lands. This information is not intended to represent or describe all
species.
Invertebrate Populations
Wetlands associated with Service lands normally carry high invertebrate
populations. Nesting waterfowl, waterfowl broods, marsh and water birds,
and shorebirds are highly dependent on these protein food sources for
healthy, vigorous growth. Invertebrates associated with Complex wetlands
include worms, crustaceans, snails, and insects.
Fish Populations
Over 100 species of freshwater fish inhabit South Dakota waters and
waterways. Thirty-nine are known, and 68 of these species have the
potential, to occur in lakes and wetlands on WMD lands. The fishery
associated with Service lands is classified as warm-water with low numbers
of game fish and high numbers of minnows, carp, and suckers. Due to the
shallow nature of lakes and wetlands, there is a high probability of fish
winterkill. The exception are the Refuge lakes which are now part of
Waubay Lake due to rising water levels. This lake is currently providing
excellent northern pike, walleye, and yellow perch fishing.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Thirty-three species of reptiles occur in South Dakota. Ten are known, and
20 of these species potentially, occur within the Complex. Broad reptile
groups include turtles, skinks, and snakes. There are 16 species of
amphibians that occur in South Dakota. Eleven could potentially occur on
Service lands (Fischer et al. 1999). These species consist of salamanders,
toads, and frogs.
Birds
Two-hundred forty-seven bird species are recorded as regularly occurring
within the Complex (USFWS 1988). About 109 of these species nest within
the Complex. Another 12 species are accidentals or extirpated. A complete
listing can be found in Appendix A. Species in the Complex listed in the
Office of Migratory Bird Management’s “Migratory Nongame Birds of
Management Concern in the United States: The 2000 List” (USFWS 2000)
are shown with an asterisk in the Appendix.
40 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Waterfowl and Other Water Birds
Waubay Complex lies within the Prairie Pothole Region of North America.
This area is of prime importance for producing many of the nation’s ducks.
In addition, as part of the Central Flyway, other waterfowl species use the
area as important stopover sites on migrational routes. The tundra swan is
the only species of swan to occur within the Complex. They are most often
seen during fall migration. Three species of geese visit the Complex during
migration. Canada geese, white-fronted geese, and snow geese pass through
in the spring and fall. Canada geese and snow geese are the most abundant
species. Canada geese are also common nesters in the area. Duck species
that nest in the Complex are: mallard, gadwall, northern pintail, green-winged
teal, blue-winged teal, American wigeon, northern shoveler, wood
duck, redhead, canvasback, lesser scaup, ring-necked duck, and ruddy duck.
Common goldeneye, bufflehead, hooded merganser, common merganser, and
red-breasted mergansers migrate through the region.
The diversity of wetlands associated with uplands on Service lands attracts
a great variety of shorebirds, wading birds, and passerines. Many
shorebirds use the mudflats and shallows along wetland edges or as water
levels recede during their migrations in the spring and fall. Wetlands
provide breeding habitat for a number of species of marsh and water birds
including: eared, horned, red-necked, western, and pied-billed grebes; great
blue herons; black-crowned night herons; American bitterns; Virginia rails;
soras; American coots; killdeer; upland sandpipers; willets; American
avocets; Wilson’s phalarope; Franklin’s gulls; and Forster’s, common, and
black terns. Red-winged and yellow-headed blackbirds are quite common in
and around wetlands as are marsh and sedge wrens.
Grassland Birds
Since South Dakota is in the Northern Great Plains, grassland birds are the
predominant bird life. Grassland bird species are of particular concern since
they have shown consistent population declines over the past 30 years
(Sauer et al. 1997). Some passerines that depend on grasslands include
bobolink; dickcissel; savannah, grasshopper, vesper, and clay-colored
sparrows; and western meadowlark. Other species that use grasslands for
nesting, feeding, or resting areas include waterfowl, some shorebirds and
wading birds, as well as short-eared owl, northern harrier, and Swainson’s
hawk. Sharp-tailed grouse are common upland species that nest within the
Complex. The greater prairie chicken historically nested in the region, and a
small breeding population was recently found in Clark County.
The brown-headed cowbird is a grassland species whose range has exploded
across most of North America in response to the conversion of forests to
farms and pastures. Once associated with the moving herds of bison, it is
now less migratory and has successfully parasitized 144 of 220 species in
whose nests its eggs have been found (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Cowbirds can be
particularly destructive to the reproductive success of species that have not
evolved or learned to recognize the foreign eggs. Cowbird eggs generally
hatch one day earlier than host eggs and the larger, more aggressive
cowbird young will out compete the host species hatchlings for food. Species
that may be susceptible to cowbird parasitism include yellow warblers, red-eyed
and warbling vireos, and song sparrows.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 41
Other Migratory Birds
Raptors including eagles, hawks, falcons, and owls are found on the
Complex. The most common are the red-tailed hawk, northern harrier, and
Swainson’s hawk. Smaller hawks, such as Cooper’s and sharp-shinned
hawks, and American kestrels have been documented as nesting in the
Complex. The most common owl is the great horned owl. Other species that
might be seen during migrations include osprey, northern goshawk, broad-winged
hawk, and prairie falcon.
Refuge woodlands and area coulees provide habitat for many migrating
warblers including palm, Tennessee, orange-crowned, yellow-rumped,
mourning, blackpoll, and black-and-white warblers. They also provide
habitat for yellow warblers, red-eyed and warbling vireos, rose-breasted
grosbeaks, hairy and downy woodpeckers, black-capped chickadees, and
numerous other woodland species.
No long-term studies of avian communities have been conducted in wooded
draws. Casual observations have found five species of warblers during
spring migration as well as reports of turkey vultures and pileated
woodpeckers in wooded coulees in Roberts County. One study of woodland
types in the Little Missouri National Grasslands found that certain
neotropical migrants (red-eyed vireo, black-and-white warbler, yellow-breasted
chat, American redstart, lazuli bunting, rufous-sided towhee, lark
sparrow, and American goldfinch) were significantly more abundant in ash
woodlands than in juniper, pine or even cottonwood habitats (Hopkins et al.
1986).
Mammals
An estimated 43 mammal species are found within the six county Waubay
Complex. They range in size from tiny shrews weighing an ounce or less to
large ungulates, such as the common white-tailed deer or the rarely seen
wandering moose, weighing hundreds of pounds. Abundance varies with
species. Prairie insectivores and native mice common to prairie ecosystems
are very abundant, and species like the opossum and some species of bats
are very uncommon on Service lands. No State or Federal endangered or
threatened mammals are known to occur in Waubay Complex.
State and Federal Endangered and Threatened Species
Bald eagles, a federally listed threatened species, are an uncommon migrant
throughout the State, but can winter in large numbers along the Missouri
River (South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union 1991). They were historically a
rare breeder in the extreme southeast part of the State. Bald eagles were
previously only seen during migration in Waubay WMD, but within the last
3 years, pairs have been found nesting in Roberts and Marshall Counties.
Piping plovers, a federally threatened species in South Dakota, are a locally
common resident albeit primarily in the Missouri River valley. They are
generally an uncommon migrant elsewhere in the State and have nested in
Day and Codington counties only rarely (South Dakota Ornithologists’
Union 1991). The last known nesting attempt in Day County occurred in
1985 between North and South Waubay lakes (SDGFP 1994). Loss of
breeding and wintering habitat are its biggest threats. It needs open sand
and gravel beaches with sparse vegetation for nesting and is a common
breeding associate with the interior least tern.
42 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
The whooping crane, a federally listed endangered species, only rarely
passes through the Complex during its migration. Most sightings occur
farther west in the State. The most recent sighting in the WMD was in
Clark County in fall of 2000. Before that, whooping cranes hadn’t been seen
in the District since 1985. The Eskimo curlew, endangered, is nearly extinct.
They pass through the Great Plains on their migrations and can potentially
occur in wet meadows within the Complex. The interior least tern,
endangered, nests along the Missouri River in central South Dakota. It is an
uncommon migrant in this area.
The osprey is a state threatened species whose numbers were drastically
reduced as a result of DDT use in the country. It is an uncommon migrant
throughout the state and previously nested in the southeastern part of the
state (South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union 1991), with a confirmed nest
record in the Black Hills in 1991 (Peterson 1995). More recently in Waubay
WMD, it has been reported during the spring, late summer, and fall in
scattered locations, mostly in Day County.
The American burying beetle, an endangered species, was once common
over most of eastern North America. It has since disappeared from over 90
percent of its historic range (Lomolino and Creighton 1996). Hypotheses
explaining its widespread decline range from deforestation (Anderson 1982)
to loss of available carrion in the required size (especially with the
extirpation of passenger pigeons and greater prairie chicken) and increased
competition for these resources from other scavengers such as raccoons, fox,
and skunks (Amaral et al. 1997). Recent trapping efforts have found
American burying beetles in extreme south central South Dakota, primarily
in Tripp and Gregory counties (Backlund and Marrone 1995). A trapline set
up on the Refuge in 1996 produced no American Burying beetles. Additional
surveys should be done to completely rule out the presence of this
endangered species. Current management tools used, especially prescribed
burns and pesticides, could negatively affect invertebrate populations. Not
knowing for sure if American burying beetles are present or how they may
be affected by current practices leaves this species at risk.
The Topeka shiner is the only federally listed endangered fish species that
may occur on the Complex. Although it was believed to be missing from
much of its historic locations in South Dakota, recent surveys found healthy
populations in many of the tributaries of the James, Vermillion and Big
Sioux Rivers. As an indicator of stream health, finding the Topeka shiner
suggests these systems are still relatively intact. Locating the Topeka
shiner is the first step to protecting vital waterways and watersheds which
sustain native fisheries as well as the human populations which also depend
on clean water.
No federally listed reptiles or amphibians have been observed. The only
State threatened species in this region is the northern redbelly snake. The
usual habitat for this snake is moist woodlands. Waubay NWR is known to
host this snake.
The Dakota skipper butterfly is listed as imperiled in South Dakota because
of its rarity and vulnerability to extinction. It was also considered for
Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. Other rare prairie-dependent
butterfly species found in the Complex include the powesheik
skipper and the regal fritillary. Generally, large, undisturbed native prairie
tracts are required habitat for these species. Management of sites where
these butterflies are found will need to be adjusted to protect these species.
Primarily, sites should be divided into smaller management units, to prevent
management activities, such as burning or haying, from affecting the whole
unit at once.
State threatened fish species that may occur on Service lands include the
northern redbelly dace and trout-perch. State endangered species include
the central mudminnow and the banded killifish.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 43
Cultural Resources
A 1981 archaeological survey by Keller and Zimmerman found 27
archaeological resource sites on the Refuge. Their cultural inventory report
concluded that four sites were significant resources. Artifacts found
included lithics, ceramics, animal remains, and stone tools.
Additional sites exist in Day and Marshall Counties. The Waubay Complex
lies within the Upper James, Prairie Coteau, Upper Big Sioux, and
Northeast Lowland Archaeological Regions of the State. Documented
occupation of the area spans a 10,000-year period. Significant cultural
resources are probably present on some of the thousands of acres of native
prairie. The Regional Archaeologist is consulted during the planning phase
of any proposed project. The need for a cultural resource inventory is
determined in consultation with the South Dakota Historic Preservation
Office.
Public Use
The majority of outdoor recreational uses in northeast South Dakota are
centered around fishing and hunting. Numerous glacial lakes provide many
opportunities for fishing in the area. Due to the increase in water levels,
Waubay Lake has become a premier fishery, featured in several sportsmen’s
magazines. In the past, the Complex was also well-known for its ring-necked
pheasant and white-tailed deer hunting. Pheasant populations are
recovering slowly from a low in 1997. Deer are still abundant, but many of
the trophy bucks have been harvested due to a lack of emergent vegetation,
which was used as escape cover. The area also offers some of South Dakota’s
finest waterfowl hunting and other small game hunting which attracts
hunters from all parts of the United States. Many public lands provide the
quality and quantity of hunting sites needed for residents and visitors to
use.
Other outdoor activities such as photography, camping, hiking, and bird-watching
are also popular in this region. The South Dakota Game, Fish and
Parks Department has many State Parks and Recreation Areas that are
used primarily in spring, summer, and fall seasons for these activities.
Facilities for visitors to Service lands are somewhat limited. Information
kiosks with leaflet dispensers are located at the Headquarters building and
tower. Refuge entrances and boundaries are marked with signs; limited
directional and regulation signs are on the Refuge. A Visitor Center is
located in the Headquarters building which provides information and
exhibits for Refuge visitors. However, the building is currently only open
during regular office hours (Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 4:30 pm), with no
weekend hours. Two walking trails are available during daylight hours. One
is ½ mile long and is located near the Headquarters building. A portion of
this trail is accessible to persons with disabilities. The other trail travels ¼
mile up a small hill for a view of Spring Lake and native prairie. Both trails
include interpretive signs. A 110-foot observation tower is also open for
public use providing panoramic views of the Refuge and surrounding area.
All WPAs have boundary signs. No kiosks or designated hiking trails are
located on WPAs. There are eight redwood recognition signs in the WMD
that acknowledge from whom the Service purchased the property. These are
usually located along well-traveled highways. Grassed parking lots are
located at many of the larger WPAs to provide off-road parking.
44 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Without a person on staff dedicated to public use, environmental education
opportunities on the Complex are limited. Currently, these duties tend to
fall on the wildlife biologist or any of the managers on staff. Talks and tours
are offered at the Refuge when requested, if no conflicts occur with other
duties. Programs offered to area schools or communities are also offered on
an availability basis. Oftentimes, only a few programs are presented each
year. Through an agreement with Ne-So-Dak’s Glacial Lakes Outdoor
School, educators from Ne-So-Dak use the Refuge as a base for their
environmental education efforts. Approximately 250 to 350 school-age
children visit the Refuge each year thanks to this partnership.
Economic Environment
The Refuge is in Day County, approximately 25 miles northeast of the city of
Webster, the county seat and biggest town in the county, with a population
of 2,200. The rural population is very sparse due to its agricultural nature.
Recent low farm prices, coupled with water inundating many acres of
cropland, have put a strain on the local economy.
Approximately 2.6 percent of the land in the six county WMD is owned by
State or Federal agencies. To help achieve goals and objectives, upland
habitat management is often accomplished by authorizing local farmers to
hay or graze on Service lands. Weed control also helps economically by
protecting neighboring land from infestation by noxious weeds. Surrounding
landowners and economies may also be assisted through development of
new weed control methods such as using flea beetles or other management
tools and techniques.
The economy of the area is based primarily on ranching and tourism.
Waubay Complex contributes to the local economy primarily by attracting
tourists, bird-watchers, and hunters. The State collects hunting license fees
for deer hunting on the Refuge. In 1999 the receipts for Refuge deer
licenses totaled $4,270. Many out-of-state and resident hunters are drawn to
the WMD for public waterfowl hunting. Most of them will spend money in
this area for licenses, motels, food, fuel, and other hunting necessities. The
permitting of some grazing and haying on Service lands benefits the local
economy. In 1999 nearly 4,000 acres in the WMD were grazed, 67 were
hayed, and 18 were farmed. Payments made to counties in-lieu of taxes for
Service lands also provide economic benefit. In 1998 these payments totaled
$50,513.
Interstate 29 cuts through the center of the WMD, north and south. U.S.
Highways 12 and 212 go through east to west. The nearest airport with
scheduled passenger service is in Watertown, the Codington County seat.
Codington is the fifth most populated county in the State.
Most of the land adjacent to the Refuge is in private ownership. The
Sisseton-Wahpeton Tribal boundary borders the Refuge to the east.
Special Designations
The woodland north of Hillebrand’s Lake is designated by the Society of
American Foresters as a Research Natural Area because of its unique bur
oak/little bluestem cover type. No special management occurs due to the
designation.
To be considered for Wilderness designation a site must be greater than
5,000 acres. No lands in the Complex qualify for this designation. No rivers
qualify for Wild and Scenic River status.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 45
IV. Management Direction
The Complex planning team defined goals for four main categories: habitat,
wildlife, cultural resources, and wildlife-dependent recreation. Objectives
and strategies are further refinements of each goal. The most extensive
section concerns habitat, with the assumption that good habitat
management should bring a corresponding response from wildlife
populations. Managing habitat is often more controllable than wildlife
population management, which may be subject to regional or continental
influences beyond the control of localized management efforts. For example,
management for tall, dense, diverse grasslands may not bring a
corresponding increase in waterfowl during a drought cycle, when these
birds also are dependent on abundant wetland resources.
Goals and objectives are presented separately for Waubay National Wildlife
Refuge and Waubay Wetland Management District for ease of
understanding and reference. (NWR goals are designated with an “R” while
WMD goals are designated with a “D.”) However, the NWR and WMD are
interrelated in many ways. Waubay NWR is located nearly in the center of
Waubay WMD, and its habitats and wildlife are similar. The major building
facilities (headquarters, shop, storage buildings) are physically located on
Waubay NWR, but most staff activities, equipment, and facilities are
associated with WMD programs. At present, all staff work on both NWR
and WMD activities.
The biggest concerns for the Complex include protecting remaining native
prairie, increasing biodiversity by restoring tame grasslands to native
species, protecting and providing habitat for waterfowl and other migratory
birds, protecting and restoring wetlands, and providing increased
opportunities for public use, environmental education, and interpretation.
There is also a concern for native woodlands in the Complex - a little studied
or understood resource in this area.
“Those who dwell, as scientists
or laymen, among the beauties
and mysteries of the earth are
never alone or weary of life.
Those who contemplate the
beauty of the earth find
reserves of strength that will
endure as long as life lasts.”
Rachel Carson
46 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge
Habitat
■ R1 - Habitat Goal: To preserve, restore and enhance the ecological
diversity of grasslands, wetlands, and native woodlands of the Prairie
Pothole Region of the Great Plains on Waubay National Wildlife
Refuge.
Grasslands
According to a 1948 Refuge land use plan, much of the Refuge had been
farmed or heavily grazed prior to acquisition. The dominant Refuge upland
cover types are native prairie (1,109 acres) and native trees (494 acres).
However, the high water period of the late 1990s inundated 941 acres of
native prairie (Thanapura 1998), much of it diverse tallgrass communities
adjacent to Refuge lakes. Currently, there are 1,371 acres of grassland on
the Refuge, including 262 acres of tame grasses, dense nesting cover, or old
alfalfa fields. Old alfalfa fields (69 acres), heavily invaded by brome and
quack grass, are included in the grassland totals.
Objectives
R1.1 Annually convert up to 50 acres of tame grasses, dense nesting cover,
or old alfalfa fields to native plant communities, including forbs, until
reaching a total of 262 acres.
Rationale for Objective: The most abundant introduced grasses,
especially Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome, tend to be more
uniform in height and density than native species (Wilson and Belcher
1989). This uniformity may produce changes in nongame bird species
composition (Wilson and Belcher 1989). Conservation of grassland-dependent
bird species and other wildlife depend on a variety of
successional and diverse habitat conditions within a large block of grass
(Skinner et al. 1984, Volkert 1992, Madden 1996). Several bird species,
such as dickcissel and savannah sparrow, are most abundant in fields
with a strong forb component (Sample and Mossman 1997). Forbs are
also needed to provide nectar and larval host plants for butterflies.
Three Refuge species considered at risk in the Dakotas (Moffat and
McPhillips 1993) include the regal fritillary, Dakota and powesheik
skippers. Restored native prairie tracts can provide more variety in
structure, height, and species than is found in most monotypic tame
stands, better emulating native prairie.
Strategies:
■ Research appropriate native seed mixes and their availability,
within one year.
■ Prioritize areas of tame grasses, dense nesting cover, and old alfalfa
fields for conversion.
■ Develop management plans to monitor restored native grasslands
for weeds, grassland condition, and wildlife response.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 47
R1.2 Eliminate 95 percent of Russian olive and juniper stands and reduce by
50 percent other nonnative plants, such as leafy spurge and Canada thistle,
over the next 15 years.
Rationale for Objective: For grassland obligate wildlife species, woody
vegetation should cover less than 5 percent of available habitat (Sample
and Mossman 1997). Nonnative junipers, Russian olives, and other
woody vegetation, especially those over 1 meter (39 inches) in height in
grasslands, can provide habitat for nest parasites, predators, and
corridors for predator movement (Berkey et al. 1993). Removing woody
vegetation can improve nesting habitat and success for waterfowl and
other grassland species. Nonnative plants, such as Canada thistle and
leafy spurge, have no natural controls in the United States and can
aggressively invade grasslands, reducing biodiversity and structure
necessary for healthy grasslands and wildlife species.
Strategies:
■ Inventory and map existing distribution of nonnative plants, within
5 years.
■ Use a combination of biological, chemical, and mechanical means;
with an emphasis on biological control for leafy spurge.
R1.3 Within 5 years, develop and implement a Habitat Management Plan for
the Refuge.
Rationale for Objective: Developing unit-specific habitat management
plans will increase staff effectiveness and habitat conditions by setting
priorities and ensuring actions are directed towards the most critical
areas on the Refuge first. Documenting and monitoring changes
improves the ability of staff to relate specific management tools to on-the-
ground results.
Strategies:
■ Develop individual unit plans for management, biological
inventories, and monitoring activities to be carried out on each
grassland unit on the Refuge. Unit plans would determine current
grassland condition and decide management course of action.
■ Establish monitoring criteria to evaluate grassland management
techniques, within 5 years.
■ Manage tame grassland sites not scheduled for conversion to
natives for maximum potential height and density based on grass
species involved and site conditions. Strive for two decimeters (8
inches) of total visual obstruction in mid-April, as suggested for
optimal nesting habitat for waterfowl (Duebbert et al. 1981).
■ Develop prescribed burn plans for all grassland units which would
benefit from periodic burning.
48 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Wetlands
During “normal” water conditions, there are approximately 1,800 acres of
wetlands on the Refuge. About 12 acres were considered temporary, 90
acres seasonal, 192 acres as semipermanent, and 1,500 acres as permanent
lakes. High water conditions which began in the mid-1990s have increased
wet acreage (mostly lake acreage) by another 400 to 500 acres. Many
semipermanent wetlands have been swallowed up and are currently
included as part of Waubay Lake, which also now includes Spring and
Hillebrand’s Lakes. These changes have resulted in an increase in water
depths and a corresponding decrease in submergent and emergent
vegetation. This means there is less feeding and nesting habitat for diving
ducks and over-water nesters such as red-necked grebes, but more habitat
for pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and wood ducks. It is anticipated
that current high water levels will continue for at least 15 years, the life of
this plan (Niehus et al. 1999, 1999a).
There are three water control structures located on the Refuge. One is
completely inundated by the extreme water levels and will not be replaced
or repaired when water levels recede. Another, which affects approximately
three acres, is located along the entrance road and is in need of repair. It will
be replaced with an ordinary culvert to reduce maintenance problems and
protect the road. The third is located on Barse Slough, a 15 acre wetland on
the east side of the Refuge. Some minor repairs are needed to make this
structure fully functional.
Objective
R1.4 Enhance wetland conditions on 15 managed acres by allowing them to
flood each spring and slowly drawing down water levels to expose mudflats
and provide shallow water areas, 15 cm (6 inches), for waterfowl and
shorebird feeding during spring migrations.
Rationale for Objective: Water control structures can increase the
productivity of a wetland by allowing managers to change water levels
to affect the types and amount of vegetation that grows in the wetland.
In fact, in many wetlands, active management may be necessary to
maintain desirable species and communities (Baldassarre and Bolen
1994). Managed wetlands may also be able to provide habitat that might
be in short supply due to overall climatic conditions. However, there is
no water source for reflooding this wetland, it is dependent on spring
snowmelt and rains. Providing habitat for fall migration by drawing
down in the summer and reflooding in fall would be difficult if not
impossible some years. Since this structure only affects 15 acres,
providing emergent cover for nesting or brooding waterfowl or other
waterbirds would not affect a large number of birds. At this time,
mudflats and shallow water areas are in short supply and providing this
habitat during spring migration could help numerous waterbirds,
especially prenesting females. Drawing down water levels will also help
to concentrate macroinvertebrates and other food sources for migratory
birds.
Strategies:
■ Monitor site frequently to make adjustments to water level depths
for optimum plant and macroinvertebrate production as determined
by standard methods.
■ Maintain records of responses by plants and animals to determine if
changes need to be made in timing or frequency of drawdowns.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 49
Native Woodlands
There are approximately 500 acres of native bur oak woodlands on the
Refuge. The overstory consists mostly of bur oak, green ash, basswood, elm,
and hackberry. The understory includes choke cherry, buffalo berry,
Juneberry (serviceberry), and buckbrush. Ground cover is dominated by
sedges and stinging nettle. Before the establishment of the Refuge, food
plots of 10 to 30 acres in size were cut out of three woodland areas (West
Woods, Centerwoods, and Clubhouse Woods). After the Refuge was
established, these three fields continued to be used for wildlife food plots.
Rye was planted in the fall for green browse, then plowed under in spring
and planted to millet, which was left standing for wildlife (D. Okroi, pers.
comm.). When waters began rising these areas were planted to alfalfa as
staff realized getting equipment to these soon to be isolated sites would be
impossible.
Objectives
R1.5 Restore native trees on 3 food plots of 10 to 30 acres in size (total of 50
acres) within the Refuge’s native woodlands (Map 6), within 15 years, to
decrease fragmentation to reduce brown-headed cowbird populations and
increase woodland bird species and their nesting success.
Rationale for Objective: From 1994 to 1996 a constant effort mist
netting site was set up in Centerwoods. Data collected also contributed
to the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS)
program. Point counts were conducted in conjunction with the mist
netting. Results averaging the 3 years of point counts showed brown-headed
cowbirds were the second most abundant species observed, after
red-winged blackbirds. They also made up nearly 6 percent of total
captures in mist nets. Even though yellow warblers comprised 10
percent of total captures, only one hatch year bird was banded during
this study period. Yellow warblers are one of the three most frequent
cowbird hosts (Ehrlich et al. 1988) and the high abundance of cowbirds
may be affecting yellow warbler nest success in this area. Nests that
occur along forest edges and in small forest patches experience greater
rates of nest predation (Wilcove 1985, Yahner and Scott 1988) and brood
parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Brittingham and Temple 1983,
Gates and Gysel 1978). Replanting the old farm fields will reduce edges
and increase effective woodland size, thereby reducing negative edge
effects and possibly brood parasitism.
Strategies:
■ Replant old farm fields located on Headquarters, Centerwoods, and
West Woods islands to native trees.
■ Monitor, with point counts, changes in bird populations as
reforestation progresses.
■ Research appropriate methods, such as field preparation and tree
species to use within 5 years.
50 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
R1.6 Develop and implement a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for oak
savannah and eastern deciduous forest types, within 5 years, to protect and
sustain these important habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife.
Rationale for Objective: Few management plans have been developed
specifically for Refuge woodlands, although they encompass nearly one
third of upland habitats. Forest management is generally outside the
scope of current staff and most of their time is dedicated to wetland and
grassland habitats. Although a few prescribed burns have been
executed in and around woodland areas, little is known about the effects
these burns have had or how best to continue management of these
areas. Consulting with people more knowledgeable in this field and
developing long-term management plans can provide benefits to many
species that inhabit these sites. Some woodland-dependent bird species
that currently occur on the Refuge that could benefit from improved
management include black-billed cuckoo, Cooper’s hawk, least and
great-crested flycatchers, red-eyed and warbling vireos, yellow warbler,
northern oriole, and rose-breasted grosbeak.
Strategies:
■ Use GIS or other methods to map forest types.
■ Consult forestry experts to help formulate forestry management
plans.
■ Maintain 60 acres of rotating food plots (outside forest areas),
annually, to reduce browse pressure on woodlands from wintering
deer.
■ Develop research study to determine impact of white-tailed deer to
forests and possible strategies to minimize these impacts.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 51
Wildlife
■ R2 - Wildlife Goal: To promote a natural diversity and abundance of
native flora and fauna of the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains
on Waubay National Wildlife Refuge.
Because wildlife populations are dynamic and can be affected by factors
such as weather, disease, pollution or other factors outside of human control,
the following objectives focus primarily on increasing our knowledge of
wildlife needs and monitoring wildlife populations and land use patterns in
order to better direct habitat management.
Objectives
R2.1 Within the 15 year life of this plan, conserve habitat capable of
achieving a waterfowl recruitment rate of 0.49 under average environmental
conditions.
Rationale for Objective: This is a step-down objective from the U.S.
Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV) Implementation Plan. The PPJV
itself is a step-down plan from the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan. Both plans focus on protecting, restoring, and
enhancing wetlands and grasslands in order to achieve waterfowl
population objectives. Accordingly, this CCP also focuses on providing
quality habitat for waterfowl.
Strategies:
■ Preserve, restore, and enhance wetland and grassland habitat as
outlined in objectives R1.1, R1.3, and R1.4.
52 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
R2.2 Develop an Inventory and Monitoring Plan, within 3 years, to locate
and track specific locations used by the following endangered or threatened
species: bald eagle, piping plover, American burying beetle, and western
prairie fringed orchid.
Rationale for Objective: The species listed above may potentially use
the Refuge for some part of their life-cycles. Bald eagles were
previously only seen during migration on the Refuge and in the District,
but within the last 3 years, nesting pairs have been found in Roberts and
Marshall Counties. Sightings of bald eagles are also becoming more
common during summer months (Refuge files).
Piping plovers rarely nested in Day and Codington counties (South
Dakota Ornithologists’ Union 1991), with the last known nesting
attempt in 1985 between North and South Waubay Lakes (SDGFP
1994). Major habitat changes have occurred since then, reducing
available sand or gravel beaches preferred for nesting. However, even
small reductions in water levels now can open up new nesting sites for
these birds. Monitoring for these changes can help to protect future
nesting pairs.
Recent trapping efforts have found American burying beetles in
extreme south central South Dakota, primarily in Tripp and Gregory
counties (Backlund and Marrone 1995). A trapline set-up on the Refuge
in 1996 produced no American burying beetles. However, their presence
cannot be ruled out without further surveys. Knowing of their presence
and locations will help Refuge managers avoid adversely affecting them
through actions such as prescribed burning and pesticide application.
The Western prairie fringed orchid is the only known federally
threatened plant species that may be present on the Refuge. Historical
locations have included sites in the Big Sioux River valley in the
southeastern part of South Dakota. It occurs in moist, tallgrass prairies
and sedge meadows, both of which can be found on the Complex. It
appears to have been extirpated from South Dakota, but remote
populations may have been overlooked as it does occur in adjacent
counties of Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska.
Strategies:
■ Protect Refuge sites used by endangered and threatened species.
■ Monitor public use of documented sites for adverse impacts and
restrict access if and when necessary to minimize disturbance and
habitat degradation.
■ Use appropriate management techniques and timing to help ensure
continued survival of these species.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 53
R2.3 Develop an Inventory and Monitoring Plan, within 3 years, to locate
and track specific locations used by the following State species at risk: regal
fritillary, Dakota skipper, and powesheik skipper butterflies; osprey;
northern redbelly snake; banded killifish; and central mudminnow.
Rationale for Objective: South Dakota’s endangered species law was passed
in 1977 to ensure the protection of threatened and endangered species
within the state. The Game, Fish, and Parks Commission reviews the
list of species every 2 years with species added or deleted depending on
their vulnerability, with the Game, Fish and Parks Department in charge of
the protection of listed species. The South Dakota Natural Heritage
Program also documents and monitors over 400 plant and animal species
considered at risk in South Dakota. Ongoing monitoring is achieved
through the cooperation of various agencies and individuals and helps to
keep species from declining to the point where they must be listed. We can
further this goal by monitoring these species as well as limiting or adjusting
habitat management efforts to reduce potential negative impacts.
Certain species may also serve as indicators of the health of an ecosystem,
such as butterflies. Butterflies are part of the prairie ecosystem. If
these species are in trouble, other endemic (and harder to track) species
may also be in decline. Tracking these butterflies and adjusting management to
benefit them should benefit other prairie endemics, improve the health
of the prairie ecosystem, and help to prevent the listing of these and
other species that have declined due to the poor health of prairie habitats.
Strategies:
■ Initiate surveys during appropriate flight times to monitor
presence, abundance, and locations of at risk butterfly species.
■ Protect Refuge sites where the above mentioned species are located.
■ Monitor public use of documented sites for adverse impacts and
restrict access if and when necessary to minimize disturbance and
habitat degradation.
■ Use appropriate management techniques and timing to ensure
continued survival of these species at risk.
R2.4 Rewrite and update the Wildlife Inventory Plan to include methodology
for a variety of surveys, increasing the number and quality of surveys of
residential and migratory wildlife species, within 10 years.
Rationale for Objective: Incredible habitat changes have occurred since
1968 and 1972 when the Wildlife Inventory Plan for Waubay NWR was
written and last amended. The CCP provides an opportunity to update
the Plan. Better quality surveys will increase the staff’s knowledge of
Refuge use patterns by resident and migratory species. Past surveys
have concentrated on waterfowl and deer with little effort devoted to
other birds or wildlife besides casual observations. Newly developed
refuge management plans and looking at regional plans developed by
The Nature Conservancy, Partners in Flight, Prairie Pothole Joint
Venture, and others, will help to direct which species would best benefit
from monitoring. Continued participation in cooperative surveys helps
to contribute to long-term national databases and a larger scale
understanding of wildlife populations. These surveys can help staff
understand the Refuge’s role regionally, and to develop local goals and
objectives. White-tailed deer populations are regulated by the South
Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. Cooperation with them is essential for
providing recreation and keeping deer herds in check to reduce
depredation complaints and habitat destruction.
Strategies:
■ Continue participation in cooperative surveys such as the Christmas
Bird Count.
■ Cooperate with SDGFP on deer surveys and population management.
■ Review regional and national plans to help determine how to broaden
surveys, for which species.
■ Research and determine appropriate survey methodologies for
habitats and species targeted.
54 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Cultural Resources
■ R3 - Cultural Resources Goal: Protect and interpret significant historic
and prehistoric cultural resources associated with Waubay National
Wildlife Refuge.
In 1981 a complete survey for cultural resources was conducted on the
Refuge (Keller and Zimmerman 1981) as well as other partial surveys
(Zimmerman et al. 1978, Winham 1983, Bradley and Ranney 1985). A total of
27 sites were found: 14 prehistoric and 13 historic. Most of the prehistoric
sites consist of mounds or habitation sites from several major cultural
groups, including the Plains Woodland and Plains Village cultures (Keller
and Zimmerman 1981). The historic sites are mostly foundations of
destroyed structures from early homesteads or farms inhabited prior to the
establishment of the Refuge.
Jackson and Toom (1999) believed that Keller and Zimmerman (1981)
misinterpreted the guidelines of the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) since they believed the four major Refuge prehistoric sites were
not eligible for nomination to NRHP. Jackson and Toom pointed out that
NRHP eligibility was not limited to just national significance, but also can
be evaluated on the basis of local or state importance (National Park Service
1998).
Historic sites, mostly old foundations, dating from around 1900, were
submitted by the Service for NRHP eligibility, but were found not to be
significant resources. However, the major prehistoric sites were not
submitted to NRHP.
Objectives
R3.1 Within the 15 year life of this plan, locate, map, and determine NRHP
eligibility of all significant historic and prehistoric cultural and
archaeological resources on the Refuge.
Rationale for Objective: All sites should be relocated and reevaluated as
to their current condition and protection needs. Unfortunately, some of
the sites have probably been covered or partially covered by high water
levels. Sites that are under water should be monitored closely for the
appearance of artifacts and other important materials. Jackson and
Toom (1999) believe that most of the archaeological sites should be
reevaluated to determine their NRHP eligibility. Most of the historic
sites are likely ineligible. The information revealed from these sites can
help guide current and future management by providing a historical
background of habitats, wildlife, and cultural uses which shaped this
land and the changes that have occurred since then.
Strategies:
■ Nominate for listing on the NRHP the four major prehistoric
archaeological sites.
■ Reevaluate and record the remaining documented sites to
determine official NRHP status.
■ Produce a cultural resource overlay for Geographic Information
System (GIS) database.
■ Consult with the Regional Historic Preservation Officer prior to all
proposed actions.
■ Monitor sites that are now under water and exposed shorelines as
water levels recede for the appearance of artifacts and other
important materials.
■ Avoid areas of known cultural sites and potential sensitive areas
when practical and mitigate any adverse effects to sites.
■ Utilize standard law enforcement practices and strategies to protect
cultural resources already identified and those that may be
discovered where development of water control structures, wetland
restorations, and other ground breaking activities will occur.
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 55
R3.2 Interpret the cultural resources of the Refuge for visitors of all ages
and abilities through at least 3 exhibits within 7 years.
Rationale for Objective: Prehistoric and historic cultural sites can
provide a fascinating wealth of information about the history of this area
and the people and cultures that inhabited it. They help us learn how
these cultures related to wildlife and the environment. Interpreting
these sites will allow the public to learn more about this history and
these relationships. This can often be an important step to
understanding and developing solutions to current issues. Partnering
with the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe will give a vital perspective
often missing in cultural interpretation.
Strategies:
■ Upgrade Refuge kiosk exhibit as advised in the 2001 Visitor
Services Requirement report prepared by the regional Education
and Visitor Services group.
■ Upgrade Refuge visitor center exhibit as advised in the 2001 Visitor
Services Requirement report.
■ Investigate establishment of a cooperative interpretive site with
Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe.
■ Ensure all new visitor materials and facilities reach the broadest
audience possible by following the Universal Design concept.
■ Incorporate interpretation of Wetland Management District cultural
resources into the Refuge program, presenting a more
comprehensive interpretive program.
56 Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Public Use and Education
■ R4 - Wildlife-dependent Recreation Goal: To foster an understanding
and appreciation of the ecology and management of the fauna and flora
and of the role of humans in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great
Plains by providing Refuge visitors of all abilities with compatible
wildlife-dependent recreational experiences.
In 1997, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act was signed
into law. In addition to establishing a mission for the NWRS, it also
determined that wildlife-dependent recreation, when compatible with a
Refuge’s purpose, are legitimate uses and should be facilitated where
appropriate. Priority wildlife-dependent uses include hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and
interpretation.
Hunting
Three types of deer hunting are allowed on the Refuge: archery, rifle, and
black-powder rifle (or muzzleloaders). Bows and black-powder rifles are
considered primitive weapons. Modern rifles are more effective for
controlling herd numbers than either of the primitive weapons. Currently,
no separate archery season occurs on the Refuge. Anyone with an east river
or Statewide tag may archery hunt on the Refuge. In Day County, and
others, there is also an antlerless deer tag offered for archery hunters. This
season runs from late September through mid-January. These tags can also
be used on the Refuge.
For muzzleloader hunters, the Refuge offers two 5-day seasons for any deer
before the regular rifle seasons (Refuge or State). The State only offers a
late December to January hunt for antlerless only deer. Since most