Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish
and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
i
Agassiz
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Summary Comprehensive Conservation Plan .......................................................................................................I
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................1
History and Establishment ...........................................................................................................................4
Legal Context ...............................................................................................................................................5
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...............................................................................................................5
The National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................5
The Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem ..........................................................................6
Refuge Purpose ...........................................................................................................................................8
Refuge Management District .......................................................................................................................9
Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project Lands ...........................................................................................9
Refuge Vision ..............................................................................................................................................9
Purpose and Need for Plan .........................................................................................................................10
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ...............................................................................................................11
Internal Agency Scoping ............................................................................................................................11
Open House ...............................................................................................................................................12
Focus Group Meeting ...............................................................................................................................13
Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP ......................................................15
Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ......................................................................................15
Habitat Management ..........................................................................................................................15
Loss of Sedge Meadow ..............................................................................................................................15
Drawdown Frequency to Provide Shorebird Habitat ...................................................................16
Prairie Restoration on Old Cropfields ..........................................................................................16
Invasive Plant Species .................................................................................................................16
Croplands (Food Plots) .................................................................................................................16
Alteration of Wilderness Habitat Due to Managed Impoundments ...........................................17
Prescribed Fire .............................................................................................................................17
Forest Habitats ............................................................................................................................17
Commitment to Wildlife/Natural Resources ...............................................................................17
Off-Refuge Involvement in Providing Habitat ..............................................................................18
Water Management ...........................................................................................................................18
Waterfowl Versus Non-game Water Species .............................................................................18
Flood Control ...............................................................................................................................18
Maintenance of Drainage Ditches ..............................................................................................18
Wildlife Management .........................................................................................................................18
Nuisance Wildlife Control ...........................................................................................................18
Trapping Program .........................................................................................................................18
Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................................................18
Wildlife Diseases ........................................................................................................................18
Wildlife-dependent Recreation ..........................................................................................................19
ii
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Deer Hunting ............................................................................................................................... 19
Upland Game ............................................................................................................................... 19
Waterfowl Hunting ...................................................................................................................... 19
Fishing ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Wildlife Observation: Fire Tower and Other Viewing Platforms ................................................. 19
Miscellaneous Forms of Motorized and Non-motorized Recreation .......................................... 19
Visitor Access .............................................................................................................................. 20
Facilities, Appearance of Facilities ............................................................................................. 20
Outreach, Environmental Education with Schools, etc. .............................................................. 20
Environmental Education ............................................................................................................. 20
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment .................................................................................................................. 21
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 21
Climate ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
Geography, Topography, and Hydrology .................................................................................................... 23
Natural History .......................................................................................................................................... 26
Archeological and Cultural Values ............................................................................................................. 27
Pre-Contact Period .............................................................................................................................. 27
The Paleoindian Stage ................................................................................................................ 29
The Archaic Stage ....................................................................................................................... 29
The Ceramic/Mound Stage ......................................................................................................... 29
The Late Prehistoric Stage .......................................................................................................... 29
Contact Period ................................................................................................................................... 29
Post-Contact Period ............................................................................................................................ 30
Indian Communities and Reservations ........................................................................................ 30
Railroads and Agricultural Development .................................................................................... 30
Federal Relief Construction in Minnesota .................................................................................. 30
Social and Economic Context ..................................................................................................................... 31
Natural Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 32
Plant Communities .............................................................................................................................. 32
Wetlands and Open Water ......................................................................................................... 32
Lowland Shrub ............................................................................................................................. 34
Woodland ................................................................................................................................... 34
Grassland .................................................................................................................................... 36
Cropland ..................................................................................................................................... 36
Fish and Wildlife Communities .......................................................................................................... 36
Birds ............................................................................................................................................ 37
Mammals .................................................................................................................................... 37
Amphibians ................................................................................................................................. 37
Reptiles ....................................................................................................................................... 38
Fish ............................................................................................................................................. 38
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ..................................................................................................... 38
Wildlife Species of Management Concern ................................................................................................ 39
Chapter 4: Refuge and District Management ........................................................................................... 48
Current Refuge and District Programs: Where We Are Today .................................................................. 48
Habitat Restoration ............................................................................................................................ 49
Habitat Restoration on the Refuge ............................................................................................ 49
Habitat Restoration on the Management District ..................................................................... 50
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................................... 50
iii
Managing Water Levels and Moist Soil Units ............................................................................51
Mowing .......................................................................................................................................52
Farming .......................................................................................................................................53
Prescribed Fire .............................................................................................................................53
Controlling Invasive Plants ..........................................................................................................54
Habitat Monitoring .....................................................................................................................55
Wildlife Monitoring and Research .....................................................................................................55
Surveys and Censuses................................................................................................................. 55
Studies and Investigations ..........................................................................................................57
Wildlife Management .........................................................................................................................60
Disease Monitoring and Control ................................................................................................60
Nest Structures ............................................................................................................................60
Predator and Exotic Wildlife Control ...........................................................................................60
Crop Depredation Relief .............................................................................................................61
Coordination Activities .......................................................................................................................61
Interagency Coordination ............................................................................................................61
Tribal Coordination ......................................................................................................................62
Private Land Activities .................................................................................................................63
Partners, Volunteers and Cooperating Organizations .................................................................63
Law Enforcement ...............................................................................................................................64
Wildfire Preparedness ........................................................................................................................64
Archeological and Cultural Values .....................................................................................................64
Wilderness Area and Wilderness Review ..........................................................................................65
Public Education and Recreation ........................................................................................................65
Provide Visitor Services ......................................................................................................................66
Wildlife Observation/Photography ..............................................................................................67
Hunting ......................................................................................................................................67
Environmental Education/Interpretation .....................................................................................69
Outreach .....................................................................................................................................70
Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision ..................................................................................70
Refuge Vision .....................................................................................................................................70
Goals, Objectives and Strategies ..............................................................................................................71
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation .................................................................................................................93
New and Existing Projects .........................................................................................................................93
Refuge Operating Needs (Highest Priority) ........................................................................................93
Future Staffing Requirements ...................................................................................................................96
Partnership Opportunities ..........................................................................................................................97
Step-down Management Plans .................................................................................................................98
Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................................................98
Plan Review and Revision ..........................................................................................................................99
iv
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact ...................................................................................... 101
Appendix: B: Glossary ............................................................................................................................... 105
Appendix: C: Species Lists ........................................................................................................................ 111
Appendix: D: Compatibility Determinations .......................................................................................... 131
Appendix: E: Compliance Requirements ................................................................................................ 133
Appendix: F: Priority Refuge and District Operational and Maintenance Needs ........................... 139
Appendix: G: Mailing List .......................................................................................................................... 145
Appendix: H: List of Preparers .................................................................................................................. 151
Appendix: I: Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 155
Appendix: J: Public Scoping Process ..................................................................................................... 163
Appendix: K: Response to Comments ...................................................................................................... 173
v
Agassiz
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
List of Figures
Figure 1: Location of Agassiz NWR and National Wildlife Refuges/Wetland Management Districts in
Region 3 of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ....................................................................................2
Figure 2: Location of Agassiz NWR Management District ..............................................................................4
Figure 3: Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem .....................................................................7
Figure 4: Conservation Lands in Northwestern Minnesota ...........................................................................22
Figure 5: Soils Types on Agassiz NWR ..........................................................................................................24
Figure 6: Watersheds of Northwestern Minnesota .......................................................................................25
Figure 7: Historic Vegetation (1895) in the Vicinity of Agassiz NWR ............................................................28
Figure 8: Current Land Cover, Agassiz NWR (1997 Classification) ...............................................................33
Figure 9: Bird Conservation Regions, Agassiz NWR ......................................................................................39
Figure 10: Moose and Deer Population 1969-2003, Agassiz NWR .................................................................58
Figure 11: Visitor Service Facilities, Agassiz NWR .........................................................................................68
Figure 12: Future Habitat Conditions, Agassiz NWR .......................................................................................77
Figure 13: Current and Future Landcover on the Open Landscape Management Area, Agassiz NWR ..........78
Figure 14: Current and Future Landcover on Webster Creek and Mud River Natural Watercourse
Management Areas, Agassiz NWR ................................................................................................79
Figure 15: Current Staffing Chart, Agassiz NWR .............................................................................................96
Figure 16: Future Staffing Needs, Agassiz NWR .............................................................................................97
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
vi
Agassiz
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
List of Tables
Table 1: Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern to Agassiz NWR and Refuge Management District .. 40
Table 2: Trapping Statistics, Agassiz NWR ................................................................................................. 61
Table 3: Visitation and Off-site Environmental Education, 2001 and 2002, Agassiz NWR ......................... 66
Table 4: Staffing Required to Fully Implement the CCP by 2020, Agassiz NWR ......................................... 97
Table 5: Step-down Management Plan Schedule, Agassiz NWR ................................................................ 98
Summary Comprehensive Conservation Plan
I
Summary
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Introduction
Some 10,000 years ago, the last Ice Age was
nearly spent. As the frigid grip of the
Pleistocene Epoch weakened, the great
continental glaciers that had blanketed the
northern expanses of North America under
thousands of feet of ice for the better part of two
million years melted and receded. One of these
glaciers spanned an area greater than that of the
present-day five Great Lakes, and meltwater
poured from it to form an enormous inland sea.
One hundred centuries later, that prehistoric,
glacial lake would be named in honor of the
Swiss-American naturalist and geologist, Jean
Louis Rodolphe Agassiz.
Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge (NWR),
established in 1937 as Mud Lake Refuge, was re-named
in 1961 for this vast, ancient body of
water – Glacial Lake Agassiz – that produced the exceedingly flat terrain characterizing the area
today. The Refuge lies in the aspen parkland transitional zone between the coniferous or boreal
forest to the north and east and the tallgrass prairie and prairie pothole region to the west and south.
This diversity of habitats in turn supports a wide diversity of resident and migratory wildlife,
including 287 species of birds, 49 species of mammals, 12 species of amphibians, and nine species of
reptiles.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Refuge by Executive Order 7583 on March 23, 1937.
Its primary purpose was to be “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife.” Although its original focus was on waterfowl (ducks and geese), over the years other
migratory birds and year-round resident wildlife, including mammals such as moose, deer, and
wolves, have received an increasing emphasis in Refuge management.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 mandated that each national wildlife
refuge in the country to develop a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) to direct its
management. To that end, the Service, with the participation of the Red Lake Band of the Chippewa,
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and other partners, developed this draft
CCP. It provides management goals and objectives to guide the Refuge and strategies to implement
Marsh habitat on Agassiz NWR. USFWS
II
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
over the next 15 years. An Environmental Assessment (EA) outlining several future management
directions was also written and is published with the CCP.
The CCP is a vital part of the future of Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge. Although prepared by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the Draft CCP and EA reflects the thoughts, ideas and
concerns of many organizations and local residents.
Vital Statistics
The northern boundary of Agassiz NWR is within 40 miles of the Canadian province of Manitoba and
Lake of the Woods, which straddles the U.S.-Canadian border. The nearest city is Grand Forks,
North Dakota, 75 highway miles to the southwest. The City of Thief River Falls lies 25 miles to the
southwest.
The Refuge’s 61,500 acres are a key breeding ground for 17 species of ducks and the Refuge is an
important migration rest stop for waterfowl. The Refuge is also noted for two resident packs of gray
wolves, moose, and nesting Bald Eagles.
Agassiz NWR includes the following habitats, in the approximate acreages shown:
# 37,400 acres of wetland and shallow open water (“pools”);
# 11,650 acres of shrubland;
# 9,900 acres of woodland;
# 1,710 acres of grassland;
# 170 acres of cropland managed for the benefit of wildlife; and
# 670 acres of developed land (roads, parking lots, etc.)
Agassiz NWR is an integral part of a sizeable complex of lands
managed for wildlife. The Minnesota DNR has acquired and
manages over 50,000 acres in three large and several smaller
nearby Wildlife Management Areas. The Minnesota DNR works
closely with Refuge staff on issues of mutual concern.
As a result of the 1985 Food Security Act, Agassiz NWR assumed
additional responsibilities for a seven-county Refuge
Management District (RMD). Staff duties expanded to include
working with the National Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) on wetland
determinations, Swampbuster Act provisions, and the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The Refuge actively collaborates on habitat restoration
projects for both uplands and wetlands on private and CRP lands throughout its Management
District.
The Refuge Environment
Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge is located in the Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie
Ecosystem as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This ecosystem is primarily located in
Minnesota and North Dakota with small portions extending into Wisconsin and Iowa. The three
Meadow vole, Agassiz NWR. USFWS
Summary Comprehensive Conservation Plan
III
major ecological communities within this ecosystem are the tallgrass prairie (which includes oak
savanna and barrens), the northern boreal forest, and the eastern deciduous forest. Of the three
major ecological communities, the tallgrass prairie is by far the most threatened, with more than 99
percent having been converted to agricultural uses.
Agassiz NWR is located in the eastern Red River Valley,
an area with relatively flat terrain and a gentle gradient
averaging 1.5 feet per mile, sloping from east to west
across the Refuge. The climate is continental, with long,
cold winters and relatively short, hot summers. Winter is
relatively dry, and summer is the wettest season;
thunderstorms are the main source of rain in the area.
The major threat of flooding at Agassiz NWR is the
result of spring runoff of snowmelt following wet winters.
Flooding is one of the key issues affecting the Refuge –
both its habitat and its facilities – as well as the
neighboring region.
The Refuge includes 26 impoundments (known variously
as lakes, ponds, pools, or moist soil units) and three
natural lakes. Whiskey Lake and Kuriko Lake are
located within the Refuge’s designated Wilderness Area
and Webster Lake is located in the northeast area of the
Refuge. The artificial impoundments vary widely in size,
ranging from 30 acres to the approximately 9,000 acres
that comprise the Agassiz Pool. Water is contained
within the impoundments by an extensive network of dikes. Water levels can be raised or lowered in
any given impoundment by adjusting water control structures at pool outlets. The Refuge’s
dominant geographic features are its impoundments with their marshes, mudflats, and open water.
They are also the focus of the Refuge’s aquatic habitat management efforts on behalf of migratory
birds.
Who We Are and What We Do
The Refuge is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the primary federal agency
responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and
their habitats. The Service oversees the enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management and
protection of migratory bird populations, restoration of nationally significant fisheries,
administration of the Endangered Species Act, and the restoration of wildlife habitat like wetlands.
The Service also manages the National Wildlife Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when
President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican Island in Florida as a sanctuary for Brown
Pelicans. Today, the System is a network of over 545 refuges covering more than 93 million acres of
public lands and waters. Most of these lands (82 percent) are in Alaska, with approximately 16
million acres located in the lower 48 states and several island territories.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands specifically managed
for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish,
reptiles, amphibians, and insects. On national wildlife refuges, “Wildlife Comes First,” but they also
provide people with unique opportunities for outdoor activities, when they are compatible with
wildlife and habitat conservation. Refuges are places where people can enjoy wildlife-dependent
recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and
environmental interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers, wildlife trails, observation towers
Pitcher plants, Agassiz NWR. USFWS
IV
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and platforms, automobile tours, and environmental education programs. Nationwide,
approximately 30 million people visit national wildlife refuges each year.
Refuge Vision
Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge lies within the shallow depressional lake plains formed by
the pre-historic Glacial Lake Agassiz. The Refuge is located within the aspen parkland
transitional zone between the tallgrass prairie to the west and northern forest to the east.
Agassiz comprises a diversity of plant and animal species, typical of ecotonal communities.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, the lands within this area have been manipulated
for agricultural purposes, which highly modified natural landscapes and ecosystem
functions. Since its establishment, the Refuge has been intensively managed for the benefit
of migratory birds and other wildlife through the construction of dikes and water control
structures.
Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge and the surrounding area will be the premier natural
resource of Marshall County and northwestern Minnesota. The Refuge and its seven-county
management district, working with partners, will take a landscape approach to promote
functional watersheds and connect natural areas. Refuge management programs and
activities will emulate natural functions and processes of the different native habitats for
optimal wildlife use. The resulting benefits will be showcased to demonstrate the
compatibility of biological diversity, integrity, natural ecological processes and sustainable
agriculture.
People will be attracted to the Refuge and northwestern Minnesota to view and enjoy the
wonders of natural ecosystems. Visitors will have quality, wildlife-dependent experiences
that provide personal and societal benefits, such as a sense of peace and tranquility and
support of a strong conservation ethic. Refuge staff, visitors and the community will
understand and appreciate a well-functioning landscape and the cultural history of the area.
This vision will be the catalyst to further strengthen a positive community-Refuge
relationship.
The Planning Process
Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge’s CCP has
been written with input and assistance from
private citizens, non-governmental conservation
organizations (NGOs), and employees of tribal,
state, and local agencies. The participation of
these stakeholders is vital and all of their ideas
have been valuable in determining the future
direction of the Refuge and its Management
District.
On the evening of December 5, 2002, the
USFWS and Agassiz staff welcomed the public
to an open house and CCP/EA scoping meeting at the Heritage Center in Thief River Falls. About
30 individuals attended the meeting, most of whom were from Marshall County and all of whom were
Minnesota residents. Attendees listened to an overview of the CCP and EA processes and then were
given the chance to address the gathering.
Restored CRP wetland, Agassiz NWR. USFWS
Summary Comprehensive Conservation Plan
V
Public input continued on Saturday, January 18, 2003, during a 1-day focus group or “technical
working group” meeting at Northland Community and Technical College in Thief River Falls. The
approximately 30 participants in this all-day event had the opportunity to discuss and explore in
greater depth the various Refuge issues, goals, and opportunities in a relaxed, congenial setting.
Refuge staff sent invitations to a number of stakeholders in the area. Individuals who signed up at
the scoping meeting on their own, and all members of the public were welcome, provided they were
willing to commit an entire Saturday to helping plan the future of the Refuge.
The Draft CCP/EA was released for public review and comment on March 3, 2005. A Draft CCP/EA
or a summary of the document was sent to more than 200 individuals, organizations, and local, state
and federal agencies and elected officials. An open house event was held on April 6, 2005, in Thief
River Falls following release of the draft document. We received a total of 20 comment lettes and e-mails
during the 45-day review period. Appendix K of the CCP summarizes these comments and our
responses. Several of the comments resulted in changes int the CCP.
Refuge Issues
The Planning Team organized all of the issues/concerns/opportunities received during the public
scoping process into five major categories. Many of the goals, objectives and strategies presented in
this draft CCP relate to one or more of the issue categories. The categories include habitat
management, water management, wildlife management, public use and cultural resources.
Habitat Management
The Refuge’s major habitat management issues include the following: loss of sedge meadow (an
increasingly rare habitat type in Minnesota), drawdown frequency to provide shorebird habitat,
prairie restoration on old cropfields, invasive plant species, food plots for wildlife, alteration of
designated Wilderness habitat due to management of impoundments, prescribed fire, forest
habitats, commitment to wildlife and natural resources, and off-Refuge involvement in providing
habitat.
Water Management
Water is a central fact of life at Agassiz. Managing flows and levels is critical not only to wildlife and
habitat, but to minimizing on and off-Refuge impacts of floods.
Major water management issues include the following: waterfowl versus non-game water-dependent
species, flood control, and maintenance of drainage ditches.
Wildlife Management
Managing wildlife populations in perpetuity for the continuing benefit of the American people is the
very reason the Refuge exists. Major wildlife management issues include: nuisance wildlife control,
non-game species, threatened and endangered species, and wildlife diseases.
Public Use
The Refuge provides the visiting public with opportunities to enjoy a number of wildlife-dependent
recreational pursuits. Major public use issues include: deer hunting, upland game and waterfowl
hunting, fishing, trapping, wildlife observation platforms and towers, miscellaneous forms of
motorized and non-motorized recreation, the visitor center, visitor access, appearance of facilities,
outreach, and environmental education.
VI
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Cultural Resources
The Refuge has a legal responsibility to preserve its ample cultural resources. A principal cultural
resources issue is interpretation of the Mud Lake homesteads and Civilian Conservation Corps
(CCC) buildings.
Management Direction
Based on the issues, concerns and opportunities we heard during the scoping process, the Planning
Team developed three alternative management scenarios that could be used at Agassiz NWR. These
alternatives and the consequences of adopting each were fully presented in the Environmental
Assessment that was published with the draft CCP.
Alternative C, Open Landscape/Natural Watercourses,
is the preferred alternative and was the basis for
development of this CCP.
Alternative C – Open Landscape/Natural
Watercourses (Selected Alternative)
Under the Open Landscape / Natural Watercourses
Alternative (selected alternative), Agassiz NWR’s water
impoundments continue to be managed to provide a
variety of water conditions for waterbirds (e.g., ducks,
geese, shorebirds, and wading birds) during spring, summer, and fall. As in the No Action
Alternative, furbearers are managed through a trapping program and hunting is used as a
management tool to maintain an optimal white-tailed deer population for a quality hunt program and
as a food source for gray wolves. Moose are managed for wildlife viewing and a quality hunt
program, though their numbers are currently too low to permit hunting on the Refuge.
The Open Landscape / Natural Watercourses Alternative focuses on setting back upland succession
in the southeast corner of the Refuge and experimenting with restoring sinuosity on two interior
watercourses by lowering water levels in three pools. While there is minimal management of the
Refuge’s designated Wilderness Area, both prescribed and wildland fires may occur there.
A large focal area of uplands is managed as a grassland/shrubland matrix. Remaining uplands are
managed in a mix of aspen forest, oak savannas, open grasslands, and shrub/scrub but only as time
and personnel resources allow after activities in the focus area are achieved. Refuge management
designates old-growth aspen areas. Prescribed fire is used to control succession. Croplands are
phased out over time as natural grassland habitats are established. This alternative’s large, open-area
approach benefits from partnership with adjacent Minnesota DNR lands and private
landowners. Invasive plant species continue to be controlled using a variety of chemical, mechanical
and biological methods.
Off-Refuge habitat activities are expanded with a primary focus on lands adjacent to the Refuge,
open areas, and riparian areas district-wide. Off-Refuge habitat activities include FSA easements,
Partners for Fish and Wildlife programs, CREP activities, participation on inter-agency teams, and
other partnership efforts.
Cow moose and calf, Agassiz NWR. USFWS
Summary Comprehensive Conservation Plan
VII
Public use under the Open Landscape / Natural
Watercourses Alternative is served by a variety
of on-Refuge environmental education, seasonal
auto-tour routes, annual open houses, foot trails,
visitor contact station, and observation
platforms. Winter wildlife viewing will be
enhanced with a designated, ungroomed cross-country/
snowshoe/walking trail. The hunting
program includes a firearms deer and moose
season, when appropriate. New hunting
opportunities are provided.
During and after the deer/firearms season,
archery/deer, muzzleloader/deer and Ruffed and
Sharp-tail Grouse hunting will be permitted in
the same areas open to deer/firearms. Following
the deer/firearms season strategic parking lots will be opened; however, this will be primarily a
walk-in hunt as Refuge roads will not be plowed. A “youth” waterfowl hunt will be permitted in the
Farmes Pool area in conjunction with the state youth waterfowl hunt season and regulations. The
Refuge’s shallow and/or seasonal water bodies do not lend themselves to fishing, so as in the other
two alternatives, there is also no fishing under this alternative. Off-Refuge outreach includes school
talks, radio programs, informational kits, displays at fairs, etc. Five of the six public uses allowed on
the National Wildlife Refuge System are encouraged and take place at Agassiz NWR under this
alternative.
Flood waters are accommodated only prior to nesting season or when extreme events have made it
uncontrollable.
Planned Refuge Program Highlights
The Comprehensive Conservation Plan, developed from the preferred alternative, identifies a
number of key programs and strategies that can be implemented:
Habitat Management and Restoration
A large focal area of uplands will be managed as a grassland/shrubland matrix. We will seek to
increase the area of native habitats that have declined locally and in Minnesota over the past
century, such as prairie grasslands, sedge meadow, and bur oak/savanna. Simultaneously, the
Refuge will aim to reduce the area now taken over by lowland shrub, aspen/mixed hardwood, and
cattail or phragmites-dominated marsh, which either have lower intrinsic value for wildlife or have
simply become too abundant. In turn, these habitat shifts will help those wildlife species associated
with the rarer habitats.
Water Management
The Refuge proposes to restore a more natural sinuosity on two interior watercourses by lowering
water levels in three pools. With that effort, the die-off of conifers in the Wilderness Area, which may
be related to high water, will be studied.
Snowshoe hare, Agassiz NWR. USFWS
VIII
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Partnerships
A principal theme throughout the CCP is the tremendous potential for expanding and reinvigorating
partnerships to attain the purpose, goals, and objectives of the Refuge. Existing and potential
partners include nearby communities, industries, tribal, state and local governments, private
citizens, and non-profit organizations. Many such partnerships already exist, but the Refuge has
further potential for bringing together larger and more effective private and public partnerships for
the mutual benefit of the Refuge as well as these stakeholders.
Volunteers
We hope to expand on our active pool of volunteers to
assist in everything from research, habitat
improvement projects, and environmental education
on and off-Refuge. The goal of any Refuge volunteer
program is to have staff and volunteers working side
by side in the most efficient manner to accomplish the
goals and objectives of the Refuge.
Expanded Public Use Opportunities
Winter wildlife viewing will be enhanced with a
designated, un-groomed cross-country/snowshoe/
walking trail. New hunting opportunities are proposed.
During and after the deer/firearms season, archery/
deer, muzzleloader/deer and Ruffed and Sharp-tailed
Grouse hunting will be permitted in the same areas
open to deer/firearms. A “youth” waterfowl hunt will
be permitted in the Farmes Pool area in conjunction
with the state youth waterfowl hunt season and
regulations.
Plan Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation
This CCP outlines an ambitious but achievable course of action for the future management of
Agassiz NWR. Pursuing and ultimately achieving goals set out in this CCP will require considerable
staff and partnership commitment. Throughout the life of this CCP we will monitor our progress on
achieving the goals, objectives and strategies it establishes. On a periodic basis, the Service will
evaluate Refuge activities in light of the CCP. Additional “step-down” management plans will also be
necessary to provide more details on Refuge programs such as visitor services, hunting, law
enforcement, habitat, and fire and water management.
White-tailed deer, Agassiz NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Introduction
Some 10,000 years ago, the Ice Age was nearly
spent. As the frigid grip of the Pleistocene
Epoch weakened, the great continental glaciers
that had blanketed the northern expanses of
North America under thousands of feet of ice for
the better part of two million years melted and
receded. One of these glaciers spanned an area
greater than that of the present-day five Great
Lakes, and meltwater poured from it to form an
enormous inland sea. One hundred centuries
later, that prehistoric, glacial lake would be
named in honor of the Swiss-American naturalist
and geologist, Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz.
Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge (NWR),
established in 1937 as Mud Lake Refuge, was re-named
in 1961 for this vast, ancient body of
water – Glacial Lake Agassiz – that produced the
exceedingly flat terrain characterizing the area today. Located in northwestern Minnesota, the
Refuge lies in the aspen parkland transitional zone between the coniferous or boreal forest to the
north and east and the tallgrass prairie and prairie pothole provinces to the west and south
(Figure 1). This diversity of habitats in turn supports a wide diversity of resident and migratory
wildlife, including 287 species of birds, 49 species of mammals, 12 species of amphibians, and nine
species of reptiles.
Agassiz NWR is a key breeding ground for 17 species of ducks and it is an important migration rest
stop for waterfowl. It is also noted for two resident packs of gray wolves, moose, nesting Bald
Eagles, and consistently hosting the largest Franklin’s Gull colony in the United States.
Agassiz NWR is comprised of the following habitats, in the approximate acreages shown:
# 37,400 acres of wetland and shallow open water (“pools”);
# 11,650 acres of shrubland;
# 9,900 acres of woodland;
# 1,710 acres of grassland;
# 670 acres of developed land (roads, parking lots, and buildings); and
# 170 acres of cropland managed for the benefit of wildlife
Agassiz NWR. USFWS
2
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 1: Location of Agassiz NWR and National Wildlife Refuges/Wetland
Management Districts in Region 3 of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
3
The Refuge area wasn’t always this way. A century ago, settlers were lured by farming promoters
into what was then a boggy wilderness, checkered with wetlands and ponds, hoping to convert it to
farmland. It was called the Mud Lake area. In 1909, in an effort to make farming more feasible and
productive, state, local and private interests, supported by loans from the federal government,
undertook a large, expensive drainage project. This drainage system eventually became one of the
largest public drainage project ever undertaken in the United States.
By 1933, a million dollars had been spent
on the drainage system without the
anticipated farming success. High tax
assessments on drainage costs were a
major financial burden on affected
landowners, and ultimately the financial
condition of Marshall County. To rescue
the county from bankruptcy, the
Minnesota Legislature passed a statute to
absorb the drainage taxes and authorized
the lands to be purchased for the
development of the Mud Lake Migratory
Waterfowl Refuge. President Franklin D.
Roosevelt established the new refuge by
Executive Order 7583 on March 23, 1937.
Once established as a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Refuge’s wildlife benefited
greatly from active habitat management conducted by Refuge staff. Wetlands were restored
through an extensive system of dikes and water control structures. Twenty-six pools/impoundments
were developed ranging in size from 30 to 9,000 acres. Today water levels and flows are manipulated
to create a variety of wetland types with a mix of emergent and submerged vegetation communities.
This management of water is a vital tool used to benefit waterfowl and other water-dependent bird
species at Agassiz NWR. In addition, prescribed fire and mowing are widely employed to manage
habitats such as grasslands, shrublands, and sedge meadows to benefit nesting waterfowl, deer,
moose, songbirds, and other native wildlife. Farming has been used to attract migrating waterfowl
and to benefit resident wildlife. A variety of small grains have been planted including barley, oats,
and wheat.
As a result of the 1985 Food Security Act-Farm Bill, Agassiz NWR became a Refuge Management
District (RMD) in 1989. Staff duties expanded to include working with the National Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) on wetland determinations,
Swampbuster responsibility, and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) across portions of seven
counties in northwestern Minnesota. The RMD includes Red Lake, Pennington, Marshall, Kittson,
Roseau, and Lake of the Woods counties in their entirety, and a part of Beltrami County (Figure 2).
Currently, about 7,000 acres are managed under permanent easements.
Located in Mud Lake, East Valley, Eckvoll, Whiteford, Cedar and Agder townships of Marshall
County, Agassiz NWR is about 25 miles northeast of Thief River Falls. Although off the beaten
track, it offers wildlife-related experiences to thousands of visitors every year, including wildlife
viewing, photography, hunting, environmental education, and interpretation.
“There was at first the land and the people who
lived there: a land of wonderful, fertile game-producing
bogs and oak and aspen forests. The bogs
produced food for waterfowl which darkened the
skies in flight; rivers that fish swam in; and a
marvelous abundance of game just waiting to be
caught: muskrat, beaver, mink, raccoon, and
squirrel. In addition, there were the caribou, deer,
moose and other wildlife.”
Betty Rantanen, 1976
Marshall County resident
4
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
History and Establishment
Prior to the settlement of northwestern Minnesota by Euro-Americans and the vast ecological
changes these pioneers wrought, what is now Agassiz NWR consisted largely of marshes, wetlands,
and the Mud Lake basin. American Indians of the Eastern Dakota and Anishinaabe tribes inhabited
the greater region. Like many natural areas, the Mud Lake basin was subject to considerable
climatic variation and corresponding ecological changes on the ground. During dry years, the
surface flow of the Thief River would dwindle to almost nothing, or stop altogether, while Mud Lake
would shrink in area. Wildland fires swept periodically through vegetation communities, altering
plant structure and composition and sometimes causing peat fires, which could create potholes.
Flooding from the Thief River also occurred regularly. The swamps and marshes surrounding Mud
Lake provided habitat for a rich array of wildlife, including ducks, geese, songbirds, black bear, elk,
moose, wolves, muskrats, minks, bobcats, coyotes, weasels, and fish.
The Mud Lake area was the last part of Marshall County to be settled by Euro-Americans, who
began homesteading there in the 1890s. Initially, the area’s abundant wildlife was a crucial food
source for these newcomers. By 1915, approximately 150-200 homesteads had sprung up in the area.
In 1909, the massive, federally-supported land drainage project described earlier began, with the
goal of converting the soggy swamps and marshes into productive, well-drained farmland. However,
agricultural productivity never met expectations, and both drainage and drought continued to
plague agriculture in the area. Thus, most of the farmers in the basin were unable to make payments
on their drainage assessments, forcing Marshall County’s bond payment into default. The county
was reportedly on the verge of bankruptcy. The deteriorating financial circumstances of the county
and the farmers were no doubt aggravated by the regional drought and nationwide economic
Figure 2: Location of Agassiz NWR Management District
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
5
depression of the late 1920s and early 1930s. By 1933, approximately $1 million had been spent on
Judicial Ditch 11. The State Legislature appropriated $750,000 to pay for delinquent drainage taxes
on 90 percent of the area.
In the meantime, the Izaak Walton League (a national conservation organization) and other sport
hunters had begun to urge the creation of a national migratory bird sanctuary in the vicinity. As a
result of the State Legislature’s rescue of Marshall County from bankruptcy, the Minnesota
Conservation Department had the right to use lands in the drainage district for conservation
purposes. Eventually, this agency, with funds provided by the U.S. Resettlement Administration,
acquired properties totaling 55,170 acres by condemnation, and in 1937 transferred them to the
federal Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (now known as the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) for
the establishment of Mud Lake NWR. In the six and a half decades since, Agassiz NWR has
expanded to 61,500 acres.
Legal Context
In addition to the executive order establishing the Refuge, and the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, several federal laws, executive orders, and regulations govern
administration of Agassiz NWR. Appendix E contains a partial list of the legal mandates that guided
the preparation of this plan and those that pertain to refuge management activities.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Mission of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Agassiz NWR and the seven-county Refuge Management District are
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service is the
primary federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and
enhancing the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. It
oversees the enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management and
protection of migratory bird populations, restoration of nationally
significant fisheries, administration of the Endangered Species Act, and the restoration of wildlife
habitat such as wetlands. The Service also manages the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
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. Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Agassiz NWR is part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when
President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican Island in Florida as a sanctuary for Brown
Pelicans. Today, the system is a network of about 545 refuges and wetland management districts
covering about 95 million acres of public lands and waters. Most of these lands (82 percent) are in
Alaska, with approximately 16 million acres located in the lower 48 states and several island
territories.
6
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands specifically managed
for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish,
amphibians, reptiles, and insects. As a result of international treaties for migratory bird
conservation and other legislation, such as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, many
refuges have been established to protect migratory waterfowl and their migratory flyways, from
their northern nesting grounds to southern wintering areas. Agassiz NWR serves a dual purpose
both as a critical nesting ground and as an important link in the Mississippi Flyway network of
refuges that serve as rest stops and feeding stations for migrating ducks and geese.
Refuges also play a crucial role in preserving endangered and threatened species. Among the most
notable are Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, which provides winter habitat for the highly
endangered Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Florida Panther Refuge protects one of the nation’s
most endangered predators. Refuges also provide unique recreational and educational opportunities
for people. They are places where people can enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation such as hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and environmental
interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers, wildlife trails, automobile tours, and
environmental education programs. Nationwide, approximately 30 million people visited national
wildlife refuges in 1997.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established several important
mandates aimed at making the management of national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The
preparation of CCPs is one of those mandates. The legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to
ensure that the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and purposes of the individual
refuges are carried out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the biological integrity, diversity,
and environmental health of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System are to:
# Fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) and further the System mission.
# Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that
are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
# Perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations.
# Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants.
# Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the United States,
including ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems.
# Foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their
conservation, by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent
public use. Such use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
The Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem
The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to conservation because we cannot look just at an
individual animal, species, or fragment of land in isolation from all that surrounds it. We recognize
that we are not going to achieve conservation within the boundaries of a national wildlife refuge, or
restore aquatic resources with a national fish hatchery, and that listing an endangered species is not
going to conserve the system on which it depends. The ecosystem approach thus strives to be
comprehensive. It is based on all of the biological resources within a watershed (the total land area
from which water drains into a single stream, lake, or ocean) and it considers the economic health of
communities within that watershed landscape. An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
7
conservation means protecting or restoring the function, structure, and species composition of an
ecosystem while providing for its sustainable socioeconomic use.
Agassiz NWR and its Management District are located in the Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass
Prairie Ecosystem as currently defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Figure 3). This
ecosystem is primarily located in Minnesota and North Dakota with small portions extending into
Wisconsin and Iowa. It falls within the Prairie Pothole Region of North America. The Prairie
Pothole Region produces 20 percent of the continental waterfowl populations annually. This portion
of North America was subject to periodic glaciation and consequently, glacial meltwaters were
instrumental in forming the five major river systems located or partly located within this ecosystem.
These river systems are the Mississippi River, St. Croix River, Red River of the North, Missouri
River, and the Minnesota River. Likewise, glacial moraines and other deposits resulted in a myriad
of lakes and wetlands that are common throughout this area. Significant variation in the topography
and soils of the area attests to its dynamic glacial history.
The three major ecological communities within this ecosystem are the tallgrass prairie (which
includes oak savanna and barrens), the northern boreal forest, and the eastern deciduous forest.
Grasses common to the tallgrass prairie include big bluestem, little bluestem, Indian grass, sideoats
grama, and switch grass. Native prairie also supports numerous ecologically important forbs such as
prairie coneflower, purple prairie clover, and blazing star. The northern boreal forest is dominated
by a variety of coniferous species such as jack pine, balsam fir, and spruce. Common tree species in
Figure 3: Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem
8
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
the eastern deciduous forest include maple, basswood, red oak, white oak, and ash. Current land
uses range from tourism, timber harvest and mineral extraction in the northern forests to intensive
agriculture in the tallgrass prairie. Of the three major ecological communities, the tallgrass prairie is
by far the most threatened, with more than 99 percent of it having been converted to agricultural
uses.
Due to its ecological and vegetative diversity, the Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie
Ecosystem supports at least 121 species of neotropical migrants and other migratory birds. It
provides breeding and migration habitat for significant populations of waterfowl plus a variety of
other waterbirds. The ecosystem supports several species of candidate and federally-listed
threatened and endangered species including the Bald Eagle, Piping Plover, Higgins eye
pearly mussel, Karner blue butterfly, prairie bush clover, Leedy’s roseroot, dwarf trout
lily, and the western prairie fringed orchid. The increasingly rare paddlefish and lake
sturgeon are also found in portions of this ecosystem.
Like all parts of the nation, the Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem is confronted
with an invasion of non-native and nuisance species. Most of these “exotic” species are plants, but
animals are counted among the invaders as well. Some were brought to the region or country
deliberately, and then escaped their confines or intended environment. Others arrived by accident.
They can cause extensive and expensive ecological and economic damage throughout the region and
the nation as their infestations spread. The primary nuisance species the Service has identified in the
Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem are purple loosestrife, Eurasian watermilfoil,
spotted knapweed, leafy spurge and the zebra mussel. Reed canary grass, Canada thistle, and
hybrid cattail are particularly invasive at Agassiz NWR.
Refuge Purpose
President Franklin D. Roosevelt established Mud Lake
Migratory Waterfowl Refuge by Executive Order 7583
on March 23, 1937. Its primary purpose was to be “a
refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and
other wildlife.” While the Refuge was renamed Agassiz
NWR in 1961, its fundamental purpose remained
unchanged. Although its original focus was on waterfowl
(ducks and geese), over the years, other water-dependent
birds, other migratory birds such as neo-tropical
migrants, and “other wildlife” – including
mammals such as moose, deer, and wolves – have
received increasing emphasis on the part of Refuge
managers.
In 1976, Congress designated 4,000 acres in the north-central portion of the Refuge as Wilderness
(Public Law 94-557). Section 6 of P.L. 94-557 directs that the Agassiz Wilderness Area be
administered in accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act. The purposes of the
Wilderness Act are to secure an enduring resource of wilderness; to protect and preserve the
wilderness character of areas within the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS); and to
administer the NWPS for the use of enjoyment of the American people in a way that will leave these
areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. Wilderness purposes are “within and
supplemental” to refuge establishing purposes. They become additional purposes of the area within
the Refuge designated as wilderness.
Franklin’s Gull. Jim Mattsson, USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
9
Refuge Management District
As a result of the 1985 Food Security Act, Agassiz NWR assumed additional responsibilities for a
seven-county management district. To date nearly 7,000 acres of permanent easement have been
acquired on 40 properties through the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) and Farm Service
Agency (FSA) review process. Refuge staff provide leadership and technical assistance in wetland
delineation, preservation, and restoration. The Refuge is involved in habitat restoration projects for
both uplands and wetlands on private and CRP lands throughout its Refuge Management District.
Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project Lands
Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project Lands consist of 81,695.5 acres owned by the federal
government in scattered parcels throughout the Beltrami Island State Forest and Red Lake Wildlife
Management Area in Lake of the Woods, Roseau, and Beltrami counties. The purpose of the Land
Utilization Project lands as stated in Executive Order 9091, is that: “such lands be reserved as a
refuge and breeding ground for native birds and other wildlife.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
administers these lands, which have been managed by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources Division of Wildlife under a lease agreement since 1940. Agassiz NWR is the first point of
contact for all Land Utilization Project management issues.
Refuge Vision
Agassiz NWR lies within the shallow depressional lake plains formed by the pre-historic
Glacial Lake Agassiz. The refuge is located within the aspen parkland transitional zone
between the tallgrass prairie to the west and northern forest to the east. Agassiz NWR
comprises a diversity of plant and animal species, typical of ecotonal communities. Since the
beginning of the 20th century, the lands within this area have been manipulated for
agricultural purposes, which highly modified natural landscapes and ecosystem functions.
Since its establishment, the refuge has been intensively managed for the benefit of
migratory birds and other wildlife through the construction of dikes and water control
structures.
Agassiz NWR and the surrounding area will be the premier natural resource of Marshall
County and northwestern Minnesota. The Refuge and its seven-county management
district, working with partners, will take a landscape approach to promote functional
watersheds and connect natural areas. Refuge management programs and activities will
emulate natural functions and processes of the different native habitats for optimal wildlife
use. The resulting benefits will be showcased to demonstrate the compatibility of biological
diversity, integrity, natural ecological processes and sustainable agriculture.
People will be attracted to the Refuge and northwestern Minnesota to view and enjoy the
wonders of natural ecosystems. Visitors will have quality, wildlife-dependent experiences
that provide personal and societal benefits, such as a sense of peace and tranquility and
support of a strong conservation ethic. Refuge staff, visitors and the community will
understand and appreciate a well-functioning landscape and the cultural history of the area.
This vision will be the catalyst to further strengthen a positive community-refuge
relationship.
10
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Purpose and Need for Plan
This draft CCP articulates the management direction for Agassiz NWR and its Management
District for the next 15 years. It does not address Land Utilization Project lands. Through the
development of goals, objectives, and strategies, this draft CCP describes how the Refuge and
District also contribute to the overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Several
legislative mandates within the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and
principles identified in “Fulfilling the Promise” (a strategic vision document for the Refuge System)
have guided the development of this plan. These mandates and principles include:
# Wildlife has first priority in the management of refuges.
# Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, namely hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses of refuges.
We will facilitate these activities when they do not interfere with our ability to fulfill the
Refuge’s purpose or the mission of the Refuge System.
# Other uses of the refuge will only be allowed when determined appropriate and compatible
with Refuge purposes and mission of the Refuge System.
The plan will guide the management of Agassiz NWR and the RMD by:
# Providing a clear statement of direction for the future management of the Refuge and the
District.
# Making a strong connection between Refuge activities and those activities that occur off-
Refuge in the District.
# Providing Refuge and District neighbors, users, and the general public with an understanding
of the Service’s land acquisition and management actions on and around the Refuge.
# Ensuring the Refuge and District management actions and programs are consistent with the
mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
# Ensuring that Refuge and District management considers federal, state, and county plans.
# Establishing long-term continuity in Refuge and District management.
# Providing a basis for the development of budget requests on the Refuge’s and District’s
operational, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
11
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
The CCP for Agassiz NWR has been written with input
and assistance from citizens, non-governmental
conservation organizations (NGOs), and employees of
tribal, state, and local agencies. The participation of
these stakeholders is vital and all of their ideas have been
valuable in determining the future direction of the
Refuge and its Management District. Refuge and
regional staff – indeed, the entire U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service – are grateful to all of those who have
contributed time, expertise and ideas throughout the
comprehensive conservation planning process. We
appreciated the enthusiasm and commitment expressed
by many for the lands and living resources administered
by Agassiz NWR.
Internal Agency Scoping
Agassiz NWR’s CCP planning process began in early October 2002 with a kickoff meeting involving
Refuge staff, a regional planner from the USFWS Region 3 office in the Twin Cities, and a
consultant under contract to assist in preparation of the CCP. The 12 participants in this “internal
scoping” exercise reviewed the Agassiz NWR vision statement and goals, existing baseline resource
data, planning documents and other Refuge information. In addition, the group identified a
preliminary list of issues, concerns and opportunities facing the Refuge and RMD that would need to
be addressed in the CCP.
A list of required CCP elements such as maps, photos, and GIS data layers was also developed at
this meeting and during subsequent e-mail and telephone communications. Concurrently, the group
studied federal and state mandates plus applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans for their
relevance to this planning effort. Finally, the group agreed to a process and sequence for obtaining
public input and a tentative schedule for completion of the Agassiz NWR and Management District
CCP. Public input was encouraged and obtained using several methods, including an open house,
written comments during a public scoping period, a questionnaire, an issue-based focus group, and
personal contacts. The local news media attended the open house, conducted interviews with study
team members, and published articles about the CCP planning process in the local Thief River Falls,
Minnesota, newspaper.
Internal scoping continued with a meeting at the Regional Office in Fort Snelling, Minnesota in early
December 2002. Ten staffers from Region 3, including supervisors, planners, and biologists covering
wildlife/habitat and migratory birds joined Agassiz NWR’s Refuge Manager for a discussion on the
open house held in Thief River Falls on December 5, 2002, and a number of considerations related to
the CCP.
Least Bittern chick. Brad Dokken
12
Agassiz NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Open House
On the evening of December 5, 2002, Agassiz NWR staff and Service planners welcomed the public
to an open house and CCP/EA scoping meeting at the Heritage Center in Thief River Falls. About
30 individuals attended the meeting, most of whom were from Marshall County and all of whom were
Minnesota residents. Attendees heard an overview of the CCP and National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) processes and then were given the chance to address the gathering. Many speakers
shared information about the area, issues they wanted to see addressed in the CCP, concerns, and
their ideas as to how Agassiz NWR should be managed in the future. The following comments were
made during the open house:
# Refuge should allow bow-hunting.
# Refuge should give flood control higher priority.
# Refuge should carry out better weed control (e.g., Canadian thistle).
# Refuge allows for adequate public use – it’s open to a sufficient extent to see and appreciate
resources.
# Refuge should open more areas to public visitation.
# Refuge should strive for better appearance around headquarters; mow more acres.
# Refuge should have more food plots for game like ducks, geese and deer.
# Refuge should improve maintenance of legal drainage ditches, which are clogged with weeds
and/or vegetation on banks.
# Refuge should lower pool level elevations; there should be less water and more upland habitat
to benefit upland game in general.
# Refuge should seek better cooperation with neighbors and work with surrounding landowners
(e.g., road maintenance, water release, infrastructure).
# Refuge should seek better cooperation and coordination with local governments, including
counties, townships, and ditching authorities, in such matters as repair and works in legal
drainage ditches.
# Refuge should construct more control structures on upper reaches of the Refuge and
diversion ditches upstream of the Refuge to the south side in the WMA, so as to reduce
summer flooding.
# Refuge should manage wildlife using biology/science instead of politics, to the maximum
extent feasible.
# Refuge should allow for cross-country skiing trails.
# Refuge should increase payment in lieu of taxes to local government(s).
# Refuge should allow fishing.
# Refuge should modify dams or other water control structures to facilitate fish migration.
# Bookstore in visitor center is asset for the Refuge.
# Refuge should conduct more prescribed burning to enhance wildlife habitat.
Meeting attendees were also provided with a comment form and encouraged to fill it out and submit
it that evening or mail at a later date. The comment form contained the following questions:
# What do you think are the most important issues facing the Refuge?
# How do you think these issues can be resolved?
# Should Refuge habitats be managed any differently than they are today?
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
13
# Are the types of use and visitation permitted and encouraged by the Refuge appropriate?
# Any other comments you would like to make?
Those interested in making comments had until January 18, 2003, to submit this form. Any member
of the public who wished to comment in writing also had until that date to send a letter. Comments
could be sent by U.S. mail, e-mail, or via the Agassiz NWR planning website on the Internet.
Approximately 40 comment forms and other written comments were submitted to the Refuge during
the scoping process. These comments, concerns, and suggestions are summarized in Appendix J of
this document.
Focus Group Meeting
On Saturday, January 18, 2003, a 1-day
focus group or “technical working group”
meeting was held at Northland Community
and Technical College in Thief River Falls.
The approximately 30 participants in this
all-day event had the opportunity to discuss
and explore in greater depth the various
Refuge issues, goals, and opportunities in a
relaxed, congenial setting. Refuge staff sent
invitations to a number of stakeholders in
the area. Individuals who signed up at the
scoping meeting on their own, and all
members of the public were welcome,
provided they were willing to commit an
entire Saturday to helping plan the future of
the Refuge.
Some participants signed up at the December 2002 open house and others notified Refuge
management afterwards of their desire to participate. Representatives of the Red Lake Band of the
Chippewa Tribe and the Minnesota DNR – both of which own large tracts of adjacent and nearby
land on which they manage wildlife and habitat – participated in the meeting. A contractor for the
Service facilitated the discussion. The following list of issues generated by the open house session
and internal refuge and regional office scoping was used as a point of departure for discussion:
Habitat Management:
# Loss of sedge meadow to cattail marsh
# Drawdown frequency to provide shorebird habitat
# Prairie restoration on old cropfields
# Invasive plant species (weed control)
# Croplands (food plots)
# Possible loss to wilderness habitat due to managed impoundments
# Prescribed burning
# Forest habitats
# Commitment to wildlife/natural resources
# Off-refuge involvement (e.g., corridor habitat along ditches and rivers, acquire easements/land
acquisition related to flooding issues)
Aerial view of Agassiz NWR across its Wilderness Area. Gary
Tischer, USFWS
14
Agassiz NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Water Management:
# For waterfowl vs. non-game water species (e.g., shorebirds, colonial nesting waterbirds)
# Flood control (inflows – outflows, pool levels, no flood control)
# Retention of spring and summer flood waters by the Refuge.
# Maintenance of drainage ditches
Wildlife Management:
# Nuisance wildlife control
# Non-game species
# Threatened and endangered species
Public Use:
# Deer hunting (e.g., bow, muzzle, take-a-kid)
# Waterfowl hunting
# Fishing
# More trapping opportunities
# Wildlife observation; fire tower and other viewing platforms
# Miscellaneous forms of motorized and non-motorized recreation (e.g., hiking, bicycling, cross
country skiing, canoeing)
# Road network, auto tour route, parking
# Visitor Center
# Visitor access (increase, current level adequate, no access)
# Other facilities
# Appearance (well groomed vs. natural)
# Better outreach (e.g., biological benefits and eco-tourism benefits of Refuge)
# More environmental education with schools and local communities
Cultural Resources:
# Interpretation of Mud Lake homesteads and CCC buildings
# Tribal rights
At the outset of the meeting, there was a consensus within the group that due to the intractability of
the political impasse over water management and water rights, which has lasted decades and which
shows no sign of resolution in the foreseeable future, the focus group should not squander its limited
time in debating this question extensively. Suggestions received by certain individuals during
scoping that Agassiz NWR should be managed primarily as a flood control facility for the benefit of
surrounding and downstream landowners contradicts the founding purpose of the Refuge and the
spirit and mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. For the interests of wildlife to be
relegated to a secondary purpose of a national wildlife refuge or merely an incidental benefit of its
presence would require Congressional or Presidential action.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
15
Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of
the CCP
The Agassiz NWR CCP was prepared by a contractor with a great deal of input, review, and support
from Refuge staff and the Service’s Regional Office. The CCP was published in two phases and in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Draft Environmental
Assessment (Appendix A) presented a range of alternatives for future management and identified
the preferred alternative, which is also the Draft CCP. The alternative that was selected has become
the basis of the Final CCP. This document then, becomes the basis for guiding management on the
Refuge and its Management District over the coming 15-year period. It will guide the development
of more detailed step-down management plans for specific resource areas and it will underpin the
annual budgeting process through Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance
Management System (MMS). Most importantly, it lays out the general approach to managing
habitat, wildlife, and people at Agassiz NWR and its Management District that will direct day-to-day
decision-making and actions.
The Draft CCP/EA was released for public review and comment on March 3, 2005. A Draft CCP/EA
or a summary of the document was sent to more than 200 individuals, organizations, and local, state,
and federal agencies and elected officials. An open house event was held on April 6 in Thief River
Falls following release of the draft document. We received a total of 20 comment letters and e-mails
during the 45-day review period. Appendix K of the CCP summarizes these comments and our
responses. Several of the comments resulted in changes in the CCP.
Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities
Habitat Management
We asked a wide range of people for their views on the issues, concerns and opportunities
confronting Agassiz NWR. Citizens, non-governmental conservation organizations (NGOs), and
employees of tribal, state, and local agencies all offered ideas. Refuge staff and staff from the
Service’s Regional Office in the Twin Cities were also asked to identify the issues and opportunities
that they see for the Refuge. The following paragraphs summarize what we heard.
Loss of Sedge Meadow
Sedge meadow is a rare habitat type in Minnesota. Some people said that invasion by willow, reed
canary grass, and cattail is a problem for the sustainability of this resource on the Refuge.
Individuals noted that prolonged high water contributes to invasion of the sedge zone by cattails.
Present management is to lower water levels prior to fall burning of sedge meadow, as well as
cutting 200-300 acres of willows in the winter. Some individuals believe that these practices are
proving insufficient and net losses will continue to mount under the present approach.
While some said that a solution might be to spray with chemicals, it was suggested that it would be
difficult if not impossible to find an herbicide with specificity for just willows and cattails. It was
suggested that a longer dry period for each pool might reduce invasive plant species. Some people
said that further monitoring and research are needed to determine whether continuing to expend
scarce staff and budgetary resources on efforts to curb cattail and willow encroachment is
worthwhile or whether it is ultimately a costly and futile fight against natural succession.
Individuals said that the timing or frequency of prescribed burns is important. It was suggested that
multiple burns over a short time period might improve success.
16
Agassiz NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The focus group identified three possible alternatives for dealing with this phenomenon:
# Let it go;
# Continue with present control measures;
# Intensify actions (consider private contracts for cutting willow).
Drawdown Frequency to Provide Shorebird Habitat
Some people said that the Refuge is on the right track with its recent effort to experiment with the
timing of the drawdowns as a way to provide shorebird habitat. On the other hand, some people said
that the Refuge is already providing enough shorebird habitat. Others said that wet years assure
that surrounding agricultural land is also providing habitat.
Prairie Restoration on Old Cropfields
In some cases, comments about prairie restoration on old cropfields took the form of questions. For
example, some people wonder about the lack of naturally occurring big bluestem on Agassiz NWR
and question whether it is related to soil pH or a high water table. Others question whether the area
once included oak savanna habitat.
It was suggested that Refuge management prepare a cost/benefit analysis of prairie restoration on
wet sites. While some people said that grasslands are beneficial for wildlife observation, particularly
birding, others noted that native plant restoration on a wet site is more costly than restoration on
upland prairie.
The kinds of prairie plants used in restoration also generated comments. Some people said that
waterfowl nesting on cool-season grass fields could result in low nesting success because of higher
predation rates.
Some people said that restoration should be “hands-off, gradual, and intense”. One strategy
suggested was to leave old fields in crops for a few years and then plant in prairie, especially if the
seed source is limited.
Invasive Plant Species
People cited leafy spurge and Canada thistle as invasive plants that are causing problems on the
Refuge. It was noted that the Refuge is currently combatting both leafy spurge and Canada thistle
with chemical and biological control agents. In the case of leafy spurge, the use of beetles is having
limited success.
Other invasive, exotic or weedy species that were noted as concerns for the Refuge and that are not
being controlled are hybrid cattail, reed canary grass, quackgrass, and cocklebur. Eurasian
buckthorn has not been observed on the Refuge to date, but could become a problem in aspen
uplands in the future. Some people said that purple loosestrife and spotted knotweed prevention is
important for the Refuge. Other said that reed canary grass is expanding within the region.
The focus group suggested two alternatives for approaching the problem of invasive plants:
# The present strategy, which is only partially stemming the tide of encroachment by invasive
plant species;
# A combination of intensified control, prevention, monitoring and education.
Croplands (Food Plots)
Agassiz NWR farms 170 acres (winter wheat, barley, oats, etc.) as lure crops and for wildlife
observation. Six farm units provide two to three fields each. Some people said that these food plots
are good bear and deer viewing areas. Others noted that farm units also serve as rendezvous areas
for wolf pups. While the original justification for establishing food plots was to help control crop
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
17
depredations by wildlife (especially waterfowl) on surrounding farmland, some people said that the
effectiveness of food plots is unknown. Other people said that Refuge croplands do hold some local
birds, especially prior to migrant birds arriving in the fall.
Some alternatives for croplands were suggested:
# Maintain the existing configuration and acreage of croplands;
# Discontinue croplands;
# Expand the acreage of croplands;
# Use cooperative farming.
Alteration of Wilderness Habitat Due to Managed Impoundments
Some people expressed concern that a die-off of spruce in the designated Wilderness area may be
related to high-water conditions. Others suggested that the die-off could also be due to a rise in pH
(salts). People suggested that ongoing research into the cause or causes of this die-off and
monitoring throughout future high water periods needs to continue.
Prescribed Fire
Concern was expressed about some degree of controversy in the region about the appropriateness of
using prescribed fire on the Refuge. Others said that in general, the surrounding community seems
to understand the value of burning. Up to 25 percent of the Refuge has been burned annually, split
between seasons in the spring and fall. Some people said that a higher burn frequency may not set
back succession due to lower fuel loads. Alternatives suggested included:
# Burn more acres;
# Increase fall burns
# Summer burn cattails;
# Higher frequency of prescribed burning;
# Less frequency of prescribed burning.
Forest Habitats
Agassiz NWR now has approximately 9,900 acres in aspen, spruce, oak, and ash. Some people
suggested that, in general, the region had a more open landscape in the 1940-50s. Others question
whether brushlands should be recognized as a desirable habitat type. Some people questioned
whether wildlife and habitat diversity would benefit from more woodland or less woodland. Some
people said that open grasslands and old fields would be lost if woodland acreage were to expand. It
was suggested that Agassiz NWR designate some old-growth aspen for cavity-nesting birds and
nesting Bald Eagles. It was noted that harvesting aspens during the early years of the Refuge
virtually eliminated habitat for cavity-nesting birds.
Some people questioned whether the Refuge should reduce the area in water impoundments. It was
noted that abandoning water impoundments in favor of forest would actually necessitate dike
removal.
Some people said that one of the forest management issues facing Agassiz NWR is how much
emphasis should be placed on restoring oak savanna at the expense of aspen woodlands.
Commitment to Wildlife/Natural Resources
Some individuals noted that the Refuge should not forget the wildlife-first mandate of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
18
Agassiz NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Off-Refuge Involvement in Providing Habitat
Some people said that Agassiz NWR should coordinate efforts and communicate with local
governments. Others said that potential road upgrades on the Refuge involve right-of-way issues.
People said that the Refuge needs to continue dialog with county road authorities.
Water Management
Waterfowl Versus Non-game Water Species
Recent high water has had an impact on furbearers. However, some people suggested that there is
no need to change water management on behalf of non-game water species.
Flood Control
Some people said that farmers on the west side of Agassiz NWR could benefit from small changes in
water management. In the opinion of some people, a diversion ditch or a better (or repaired) outlet
for the Refuge could prove to be a positive move. Analysis by flood control engineers has shown
there would be little impact on downstream flooding from a diversion ditch or improved outlet. Some
people said that Agassiz NWR staff should continue to participate in a comprehensive watershed
management plan that brings together many diverse and sometimes conflicting parties and
interests.
Maintenance of Drainage Ditches
Some individuals said that communication among Refuge management, local officials and neighbors
is vital. Others suggested that the Refuge send a letter to local townships when the Refuge approves
its annual water management plan. People also suggested that the Refuge work with Marshall
County and Red Lake Watershed District.
Wildlife Management
Nuisance Wildlife Control
People noted that beaver do cause problems at culverts or ditches
and that response time for beaver removal could be improved.
The current procedure is for the Refuge to call upon trapping
permit holders to concentrate in certain areas. Off-refuge, a
bounty is paid by the county in problem ditches (which goes to
half-price during trapping season) throughout the Refuge
Management District.
Trapping Program
Currently the Refuge is divided into eight trapping units. Targeted species include beaver and
muskrat that damage infrastructure, and predatory species like skunk and mink. Some people
expressed a desire for more trapping opportunities, saying that trapping could possibly be expanded
to include fisher and bobcat. Some people also suggested that extra incentives could be provided for
trappers to bid on trapping units.
Threatened and Endangered Species
People enjoy seeing Bald Eagles, which are the most conspicuous and spectacular listed species that
occurs at Agassiz NWR. Many expressed a desire for the continued protection of nesting eagles.
Gray wolves, a controversial species for some people, appear to match their deer prey base. Two
packs use the Refuge and adjacent lands. Some people encouraged the Refuge to continue
monitoring the wolves.
Wildlife Diseases
Some people said that the CCP should address how Agassiz NWR will approach Chronic Wasting
Disease (CWD) and West Nile Virus, two new, foreign wildlife diseases with implications for
Bald Eagle chicks. USFWS
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
19
humans. It was noted that Agassiz NWR will work with an interagency team on a foreign wildlife
disease outbreak contingency plan.
Wildlife-dependent Recreation
Deer Hunting
The Refuge has one disabled-hunter blind. It received good use
the first year but less use more recently. Some people said that a
potential problem with hunting is that non-hunting visitors may
not feel safe during hunting season, and thus stay away from the
Refuge. People suggested alternative for deer hunting such as:
#Expansion beyond the 9-day deer season to include archery and
muzzleloader hunts
#No deer hunting at all.
Upland Game
Some people suggested that a ruffed grouse season and a rabbit
season could also be held. While the Refuge does not contain
large populations of upland game species, some people also
suggested opening hunting to all upland game.
Waterfowl Hunting
At present, no waterfowl hunting is allowed on the Refuge. Some people said that if certain areas are
opened for hunting, a “no motors allowed” policy would limit the number of hunters. People also said
that a majority of the Refuge should remain closed because there are plenty of waterfowl hunting
opportunities nearby. Others suggested that some areas could be opened on the Refuge perimeter,
noting the Farmes pool as a possibility. People also said that a retrieval zone around the Farmes
“firing line” could be expanded. On the other hand, others felt strongly that the Refuge should not be
open to waterfowl hunting because it currently holds waterfowl and promotes waterfowl hunting in
the surrounding area.
Fishing
Everyone agreed that the Refuge contains little or no gamefish habitat. One individual described
Ditch 200 as an opportunity for fishing on the Refuge because it has a run of northern pike once in
awhile. Others suggested that the Refuge consider allowing white sucker spearing during high water
events.
Wildlife Observation: Fire Tower and Other Viewing Platforms
At present, the wildlife observation tower is closed due to liability concerns. The Refuge will try to
keep the tower open, although safety rules may restrict access. Some people said that the Refuge
should consider placing a new platform on the auto tour route. Others suggested building a marsh
boardwalk. On the other hand, some people said that prescribed burning and flooding complicate
placement of such a facility because it would be vulnerable to damage or destruction by fire and
flood. Some people suggested that a dike or peninsula may be a better, more damage-resistant
option. Some people questioned whether or not the Refuge should limit new visitor facilities to one
region of the Refuge.
Miscellaneous Forms of Motorized and Non-motorized Recreation
People questioned whether or not the Refuge should allow visitors to canoe and camp at the
Wilderness area. It was noted that no substantial changes are proposed for the existing Agassiz
NWR road network, auto tour route, and parking locations.
Hunter on Agassiz NWR. USFWS
20
Agassiz NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Some people suggested that the Refuge consider allowing cross-country skiing and snowshoeing as
recreational uses on the Refuge.
Visitor Access
Some people suggested that the Refuge keep its northern boundary road open throughout the year.
It is currently closed during hunting seasons.
Facilities, Appearance of Facilities
Some people said that the outdoor toilet facility near the visitor center should be made more visible.
Others questioned whether landscaping around the visitor center should be natural on manicured.
Outreach, Environmental Education with Schools, etc.
Individuals said that outreach could be increased with the addition of a new staff member.
Environmental Education
It was suggested that the Refuge could improve on-site environmental education by updating the
field lab to incorporate a wet lab and environmental education classroom.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
21
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Introduction
All lands administered by Agassiz NWR are
located in northwestern Minnesota. The
northern boundary of the Refuge is within 40
miles of the Canadian province of Manitoba and
Lake of the Woods, which straddles the U.S.-
Canadian border. The nearest city is Grand
Forks, North Dakota, 75 highway miles to the
southwest.
This rural corner of Minnesota, which is 260 air
miles or six hours by car north-northwest of
Minneapolis and St. Paul, consists of thinly
populated agricultural and forestland, with a
number of farming villages and towns scattered
across the mostly flat countryside. The region
includes several large American Indian reservations, including the Red Lake Indian Reservation,
which cooperates with Agassiz NWR on matters related to wildlife and resource management.
Natural lakes and artificial reservoirs are also much in evidence, although these are not as abundant
as they are to the south and east. Drainage around the Refuge is into the Thief River, which joins the
Red Lake River to the south of the Refuge at the town of Thief River Falls. The Red Lake River in
turn is a tributary of the Red River of the North, which flows by Grand Forks on its way north past
Winnipeg, Manitoba and ultimately, Hudson Bay.
Agassiz NWR is an integral part of a sizeable complex of lands managed for wildlife. The Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (Minnesota DNR) has acquired and manages over 50,000 acres in
three large and several smaller nearby Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs): Elm Lake WMA is
contiguous with the Refuge’s southern boundary, Eckvoll WMA is contiguous with the southeastern
boundary, and Thief Lake WMA sits several miles to the north (Figure 4). The Minnesota DNR
works closely with Refuge staff on issues of mutual concern.
Climate
Northern Minnesota possesses a continental climate, with long, cold winters and relatively short, hot
summers. The Refuge’s mean annual temperature is 38 degrees Fahrenheit, but this average hides
wide and rapid variations in temperature. The Refuge’s 30-year mean January maximum is 13
degrees F, and mean minimum -8 degrees F, while its mean July maximum is 80 degrees F, and
minimum 55 degrees F.
Aerial view of Agassiz NWR Pool 8 bordering agricultural
lands. USFWS
22
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 4: Conservation Lands in Northwestern Minnesota
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
23
Annual mean precipitation at Agassiz is 22 inches, which includes an average 39 inches of snowfall a
year. Winter is relatively dry, and the wettest months of the year are June, July, and August.
Seventy-five percent of annual precipitation falls in the 6 months from April through September.
Thunderstorms are the main source of rain in the area, these occur some 25 to 30 times a year on
average (Agassiz NWR, 1978).
The major threat of flooding at Agassiz is the result of spring runoff of snowmelt following wet
winters. Flood peaks are affected by the amount of moisture in the soil at freeze-up, amount of
accumulated moisture at the start of the spring melt, and weather conditions during the spring melt.
Spring and summer thunderstorms that drop more than 5 inches of rainfall on a single day occur
occasionally and can cause severe flooding. From June 9-11, 2002, more than 8 inches of rain fell
throughout northwest Minnesota, raising Refuge pool levels from 1 to 4 feet, and causing flooding
that impacted wildlife habitat, waterfowl nesting, and Marshall County Road 7 (the main Refuge
road, which traverses east-west in the southern part of Agassiz NWR).
Geography, Topography, and Hydrology
Agassiz NWR is located in the eastern Red River Valley in what was once the lakebed of ancient
Glacial Lake Agassiz. The terrain is relatively flat, with a gentle gradient averaging 1.5 feet per mile,
sloping from east to west across the Refuge. Underlying rocks in the area are Precambrian in origin,
overlain by sedimentary rock – sandstones, limestones, and shales – dating to the Paleozoic and
Mesozoic eras. Overlying all of these strata are thick deposits of glacial till and lake sediments from
the Pleistocene Epoch. The layer of till and lake sediments on Agassiz NWR is estimated to exceed
200 feet in depth (Agassiz NWR, 1978).
The Refuge’s surface soils are typical of lakebed deposits, consisting of mostly peat or silty loams
and clays (Figure 5). Peat occurs at depths of 1-2 feet but is thicker in some areas. Clay-dominated
glacial drifts with pockets and lenses of sand are found beneath the surface soils. Except for the
peat, these soils have generally lent themselves well to dike construction. However, they are
vulnerable to erosion because fine-grained silts and clays predominate. Also, dike slopes need to be
protected from wave action by encouraging heavy vegetative cover. Peat soils may be used to dress
the dike slopes (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1967).
The glacial lake sediments and drift deposits of sand and gravel contain ground water in quantities
sufficient for domestic and stock use. Local ground water is of good quality but is relatively hard and
high in iron. Over much of the Refuge the depth to the water table is only 1-4 feet. This proximity to
the surface has been favorable for pothole development, but conversely, makes building construction
difficult and subsurface waste disposal impractical. The relative impermeability of the Refuge’s
surface soils impedes recharge of even its more permeable aquifers.
As previously described, the Refuge lies within the Red Lake River watershed, which drains into the
northward-flowing Red River of the North. Approximately 610 square miles of drainage basin are
upstream of Agassiz NWR’s outlet. The largest contributing watershed is the Thief River basin,
which drains about 350 square miles above the northern boundary of the Refuge (Figure 6). Mud
River drains 160 square miles to the confluence of the Mud River diversion and Judicial Ditch 11, 2
miles east of the Refuge. Impermeable soils and subsurface rock layers in combination with flat
topography and minimal stream gradient favor the ponding of surface waters in and around the
Refuge, as well as overtopping of banks and flooding.
The Thief River drains Thief Lake, a large marsh managed by the Minnesota DNR and located 4
miles north of the Refuge. This lake, in turn, is fed by the Moose River. The Mud River Judicial
Ditch 11 system drains from the east into the Refuge. The channel capacity of Thief River is
24
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 5: Soils Types on Agassiz NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
25
Figure 6: Watersheds of Northwestern Minnesota
26
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
approximately 1,500 cubic feet per second (cfs), while that of Ditch 11 is about 900 cfs at the Mud
River diversion. Despite the smaller size of its drainage area and channel, Mud River usually
contributes more water to Agassiz NWR than the Thief River does due to the storage effect of Thief
Lake and its controlled outlet. The Refuge’s many pools furnish water storage capacity. In April and
May of 1996, two flood events occurred back to back. The first was caused by snowmelt and the
second by rainfall. The Refuge stored a total of 102,071 acre-feet during these two events.
Flooding is one of the key issues affecting the
Refuge – both its habitat and its facilities – as
well as the neighboring region. Not only does
flooding affect the Refuge and surrounding
private lands, roads, and infrastructure directly,
but it also has a big impact on relations between
the Refuge and property-owners and officials in
the surrounding community. Floods occur most
often during March, April and May, when spring
rains may combine with snowmelt to exceed
channel capacity. The largest flood discharge
ever recorded at the Thief River Falls gauge 15
miles downstream of the Refuge was 5,610 cfs in
May 1950. During that flood an estimated 108,000 acre-feet of water was stored in the Refuge’s
various pools. During the 1997 flood event, inflows to the Refuge averaged 5,985 cfs for six
consecutive days (April 15 to April 21, 1997). The average outflow at the Refuge was 808 cfs during
the same time period, resulting in over 10,350 acre-feet of water put into storage on the Refuge per
day, making a dramatic difference in reducing the level of flooding in downstream communities.
Agassiz NWR includes 26 impoundments (known variously as lakes, ponds, pools, or moist soil units)
and three natural lakes. Whiskey Lake and Kuriko Lake are located in the Wilderness Area and
Webster Lake is located in the northeast area of the Refuge. The artificial impoundments vary
widely in size, ranging from 30 acres to the approximately 9,000 acres that comprise the Agassiz
Pool. Water is contained within the impoundments by an extensive network of dikes, and water
levels can be raised or lowered in any given impoundment by adjusting water control structures at
pool outlets. Agassiz’s impoundments with their marshes, mudflats, and open water are the
dominant geographic features of the Refuge. They are also the focus of the Refuge’s aquatic habitat
management efforts on behalf of migratory birds.
Natural History
Eleven thousand years ago, during the waning days of the Pleistocene Epoch or Ice Age, meltwaters
from the retreating eastern edge of the Des Moines Lobe of the Laurentide Ice Sheet formed a
sprawling inland sea named Glacial Lake Agassiz (Bluemle, 2002). Lasting some 4,000 years, this
lake was the largest in all of North America at the time – 700 feet deep and covering more than
100,000 square miles in what are now Minnesota, North Dakota, and Manitoba. Dammed to the
north by the immense continental glacier, Glacial Lake Agassiz’s waters drained southward, carving
the Minnesota River Valley. As the last of the northern ice melted away, Lake Agassiz’s outlet
shifted to the north, and it emptied rapidly into Hudson Bay and the North Atlantic in such a surge
of freshwater that it is believed to have altered ocean circulation patterns and the very climate of the
earth for a while (Hu et al., 1997; Rosenberg, 2003).
As Glacial Lake Agassiz rose and ebbed over the eons, its dynamics formed and shaped many of the
geologic features that still characterize the present-day Red River Valley. Strand lines (or beaches)
of sand and gravel mark periods of stability in the lake level. Large alluvial fans mark the site of
Thief Bay Pool. USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
27
ancient river deltas flowing into the lake. The continental glaciers themselves also left their own
marks on the valley as they went through successive advances and retreats.
With the final disappearance of Glacial Lake Agassiz, terrestrial plants gradually returned to sites
from which they had been absent for thousands of years. In northern Minnesota, pollen studies have
documented ceaseless shifts in the region’s vegetation communities over the millennia of the
Holocene Epoch. Today Agassiz NWR finds itself within a dynamic zone of ecological transition,
between the boreal forest to the north and east, the prairie pothole province to the west, and the
northern temperate forest to the south. Over time spans of thousands of years, this area’s vegetation
communities or habitat have undergone perpetual change. This change may not be obvious from
year to year, but over centuries or millennia it is strikingly evident. With the arrival of Native
Americans, the pace of change accelerated as tools like fire were used to manipulate the landscape.
With the later appearance of Euro-American settlers, and the wholesale clearing of forests and
draining of swamps and lakes they effected, impacts on plant communities and wildlife habitats and
populations were abrupt, drastic, and in some ways irreversible. Figure 7 is a depiction of the land
cover and habitats at the time of European settlement in the late 19th century.
Archeological and Cultural Values
Responding to the requirement that CCPs consider the archaeological and cultural values of the
planning unit, the Service contracted for a cultural resources overview and management direction
study. This section of the CCP derives mostly from the September 2002 “Cultural Resources
Management Plan for Agassiz NWR, Marshall County, Minnesota.”
The Cultural Resources Management Plan provided background information about the contextual
zone, resources, previous research, and historical contexts that have been used in the preparation of
this CCP. The Cultural Resources Management Plan also described the historical context of Judicial
Ditch 11 and an overview of management goals and the legislative framework for cultural resources
management on the Refuge.
The Cultural Resources Management Plan is incorporated into the CCP by reference. It identifies
management measures for cultural resources on the Refuge that are necessary to comply with the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966. These measures include:
# Establishing internal procedures and identifying key personnel for archeology, architectural
history, and traditional cultural properties.
# Developing a programmatic agreement if desirable.
# Identifying and consulting with interested parties.
# Responding to inadvertent discoveries.
# Establishing a system of records management.
Cultural resources are important parts of the nation’s heritage. The Service is committed to
protecting valuable evidence of human interactions with each other and the landscape. Protection is
accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources.
Pre-Contact Period
This context resembles that of eastern North America and is divided into several stages based on
material culture like projectile-points and ceramic types as well as subsistence adaptations like
hunting, gathering, fishing, or agriculture/horticulture.
28
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 7: Historic Vegetation (1895) in the Vicinity of Agassiz NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
29
The Paleoindian Stage
The Paleoindian Stage (c. 10,000 B.C. to 6000 B.C.) was characterized by small, nomadic bands of
big-game hunters. Based on the paucity of Paleoindian sites in Minnesota as well as the presence of
Glacial Lake Agassiz covering these lands for much of this time, sites from this stage are not
expected to occur on Agassiz NWR and none have been found.
The Archaic Stage
The Archaic Stage (c. 6000 B.C. to 1000 B.C.) was characterized by adaptation to the warmer and
drier post-glacial environment and the development of efficient hunting and gathering cultures and
greater utilization of the local environment for food and tools. Technological innovations of this stage
include notched projectile points, the use of copper for tools, and new flaked-stone tools like scrapers
and drills. No archaic stage sites have been discovered on Agassiz NWR, but small settlements and
seasonal base camps might be expected.
The Ceramic/Mound Stage
The Ceramic/Mound Stage (c. 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1100) was characterized by the initial appearance of
pottery and the construction of earthen mounds. No ceramic/mound state sites have been identified
on the Refuge, but seasonal habitations or campsites might be expected.
The Late Prehistoric Stage
The Late Prehistoric Stage (c. A.D. 800 to A.D. 1700) is characterized by a move from riverine to
lakeshore and possibly by the utilization of wild rice. In northern Minnesota, it is divided into the
Blackduck complex and the Sandy Lake ceramic series. Blackduck ceramics are typically globular,
sand-tempered and cord marked, and associated features of the archeological culture include small,
circular burial mounds that sometimes include grave goods such as small mortuary pots, beads and
knives. Sandy Lake ceramics are typically globular, squat and cord marked, and either grit- or shell-tempered.
It is generally agreed that their makers were Siouan-speaking peoples. No sites from the
Late Prehistoric Stage have been identified on the Refuge but seasonal fishing stations and camp-sites
might be expected.
Contact Period
The contact-period contexts for Agassiz NWR are based on those groups – both indigenous and
Euro-American – that inhabited the northwestern part of the state from 1650 to 1837, the latter date
being when treaties were signed with the Dakota, Ho-Chunk, and Anishinaabe peoples.
The Eastern Dakota (pre-1650 to 1837) may have left behind cultural landscapes and traditional
cultural properties in unmodified portions of the Refuge that have not been obliterated by the large-scale
drainage, diking, and pool-creation projects of the 20th century. There are no known Eastern
Dakota properties on Agassiz NWR, but examples of what might be expected include village sites,
summer residential/logistical bases, winter encampments, muskrat procurement sites, cranberry
camps, deer hunting base camps, deer cache sites, deer kill sites, and scaffold burial sites.
The Anishinaabe (c. 1740 to 1837), like the Eastern Dakota, may be represented by cultural
landscapes and traditional cultural properties that have not been destroyed by large-scale habitat
modifications. There are no known Anishinaabe properties on the Refuge, but examples of what
might be expected include seasonal villages, wintering camps, cemeteries, fishing stations, religious/
ceremonial/sacred places or structures, sites of battles, and traditional cultural properties.
The French (1660 to 1760) were almost certainly the first Europeans to enter the region, especially
explorers, Jesuits, and fur traders. French fur-trading posts also existed throughout Minnesota until
the mid-19th century. No French context properties have been found on the Refuge, but expected
30
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
property types would include fortified entrepots, temporary outposts, accommodations at Indian
villages, special activity areas, canoe accident sites and fur-trade posts.
The British (1760 to 1803) also had fur-trading posts throughout Minnesota. While no properties are
been identified on the Refuge, expected property types would be wintering posts, small posts and
central places.
The Initial United States Presence (1803 to 1837) in the region could be represented on Agassiz
NWR by military campsites, forts, fur-trade posts, and Native American habitation sites, although
none have yet been discovered on the Refuge.
Post-Contact Period
There are three general post-contact contexts on
the Refuge:
Indian Communities and Reservations
The Indian Communities and Reservations (1837
to 1934) context includes nearly a century of
settlement and use by the Anishinaabe people
(Ojibwe and Chippewa tribes). By 1837, the
Anishinaabe occupied the northern part of
Minnesota, with the Dakota having been
relegated to the southern part of the state. The
Red Lake Reservation was one of eight
reservations established for the Anishinaabe in
northern Minnesota, and it encompassed most of
Agassiz NWR lands until 1889. While no
properties have been found on the Refuge, the
potential for discovery of properties from this context is considered high, and would include
habitation sites, trails, cultural landscapes, and traditional historic properties.
Railroads and Agricultural Development
The Railroads and Agricultural Development (1870 to 1940) context relates to the arrival of Euro-
American homesteaders beginning in the 1890s and the subsequent construction of railroads and
drainage ditches. The construction of the Great Northern Railroad into Holt, 6 miles west of what is
now the Refuge, and the excavation of Judicial Ditch 11 both contributed to a local population boom,
which peaked at 150-200 homesteaders around 1915. Known property types that occur on the Refuge
include Judicial Ditch 11 itself, former homesteads and farmsteads, schools, and other public
institutions.
Federal Relief Construction in Minnesota
The Federal Relief Construction in Minnesota (1933 to 1941) context includes establishment of a
national wildlife refuge and the contribution of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). As a result of
poor farming productivity from a debilitating combination of droughts and floods, farmers were
unable to make their payments on drainage assessments and Marshall County’s bond payment went
into default. The Midwestern drought and the national economic depression of the late 1920s and
early 1930s aggravated local financial duress. Eventually, the State of Minnesota intervened. Using
funds provided by the U.S. Resettlement Administration, it purchased the lands through
condemnation, and ultimately transferred ownership and maintenance responsibilities to the Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (predecessor to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) for the
establishment of Mud Lake NWR. These actions led to protests and civil disobedience on the part of
local farmers in 1938, including the breaching of an earthen dam on Judicial Ditch 11. Also in 1938,
the CCC arrived at Agassiz NWR. Their extensive efforts on the Refuge – the results of which are
Refuge headquarters was constructed by a CCC crew in 1938-
39. USFW
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
31
still much in evidence more than 60 years later – included surveying and delineating boundaries,
construction of miles of dikes, clearing of drainage ditches, gravelling truck roads, and construction
of many buildings, of which only a few remain.
It should be emphasized that while a century of extensive and intensive landscape modification on
Agassiz NWR may have destroyed or compromised historic properties from pre-contact, contact,
and post-contact contexts, there is still potential for undiscovered cultural resources at the Refuge,
especially in those portions that have not been heavily subjected to such modification.
Social and Economic Context
Agassiz NWR is located in Marshall County while its
Refuge Management District (RMD) spans six
additional counties in northwestern Minnesota: Red
Lake, Pennington, Kittson, Roseau, Lake of the
Woods, and part of Beltrami County. These seven
counties occupy the northwestern corner of Minnesota,
a rural region with a generally low population density
whose economic mainstay is agriculture. Within its
1,675 square miles, Marshall County had an estimated
10,025 residents in 2001, for an average population
density of six per square mile, compared to the state’s
average population density of 57 per square mile. The
county population declined by about 8 percent since 1990. Overall, about half of the counties in the
seven-county Management District are experiencing modest population growth, and the other half
population declines. The percentage of minorities as a share of the overall population tends to be
lower in these counties than in Minnesota as a whole, with the exception of Beltrami County.
Because of the Red Lake Reservation, Beltrami County’s population is 20 percent American Indian
compared to 1 percent for the state.
The thick, rich glacial drift soils of the Red River Valley are very productive, and are used to
cultivate wheat and a variety of other crops, including soybeans, sugarbeets, barley, dry beans,
alfalfa, potatoes, corn, sunflowers and canola. Specialty crops grown locally include rhubarb and
asparagus. Livestock numbers are generally low in Marshall County but beef cattle, dairy cows,
horses and some sheep can be found.
Like most rural regions of the United States, the seven counties in the RMD are not as affluent as
Minnesota’s more urban regions. In Marshall County, for example, the median household income in
1999 was approximately $16,300 compared to $23,200 for the state as a whole. Ten percent of
Marshall County’s population lived below the poverty level in the same year, versus 8 percent for
Minnesota (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). To some extent however, lower incomes are offset by a lower
cost of living at least in some aspects, such as housing costs.
The nearest communities to Agassiz NWR are Holt, Middle River, Gatzke, Grygla, Goodridge, and
Thief River Falls, the latter two of which are located in Pennington County just to the south of
Marshall County. Thief River Falls has about 8,400 residents and the other communities are much
smaller. Thief River Falls touts itself as the “birthplace of snowmobiling” and as one of the top
wildlife and birding areas in the country. Indeed, Arctic Cat snowmobiles have been manufactured in
town for more than 30 years while the Pine to Prairie Birding Trail, which passes through Thief
River Falls, is Minnesota’s first such trail. Further to the northeast within the RMD, Lake of the
Woods is a major tourist, fishing, and boating destination.
Wheat combine in Marshall County. USFWS
32
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Natural Resources
Plant Communities
Agassiz NWR is situated within an ecological transition zone or ecotone, specifically, the aspen
parkland transitional zone between the coniferous or boreal forest to the north and east and the
tallgrass prairie and prairie pothole zone to the west and south. Figure 8 illustrates the major
habitat types at the Refuge, which are described in the following paragraphs. Habitat acreages are
based on the 1997 vegetation classification and digitized map. There are:
# 37,400 acres of wetland and shallow open water (“pools”);
# 11,650 acres of shrubland;
# 9,900 acres of woodland;
# 1,710 acres of grassland;
# 670 acres of developed land (roads, parking lots, and buildings); and
# 170 acres of cropland managed for the benefit of wildlife.
Wetlands and Open Water
Wetlands and open water comprise
approximately 37,400 acres or 61 percent
(almost two-thirds) of Agassiz’s 61,500 acres.
Included are cattail/mixed emergent marsh,
bulrush emergent, open water/mudflats, sedge
meadow, and common reed (Figure 8). Wetlands
and open water are important or indispensable
to many of the migratory birds found on the
Refuge, either during nesting season or in
transit during migration. Ducks, geese,
shorebirds, wading birds and certain songbirds
and raptors are all heavily dependent on various
kinds of wetland, open water and mudflat
habitat. A number of mammals, especially the
furbearers, utilize or depend on these habitats as well.
These habitats are to some extent amenable to management (that is, controlling viability, vigor,
composition, distribution, and extent) by adjusting water levels in the Refuge’s various
impoundments. The Refuge has a Marsh and Water Management Plan that provides overall
guidance in these matters. Emergent vegetation consists of aquatically-adapted species that respond
differently to various flooding regimes and water depths. Emergents have their lower stems and
roots underwater and extend their upper stems, leaves, flowers and fruits above the water surface.
The seeds of most species of emergents require moist mudflats or very shallow water to germinate.
At Agassiz NWR, hybrid cattail (Typha glauca) and hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus) can tolerate
water depths greater than 2 feet for more than 2 or 3 years. Under stable water regimes, cattail can
increase to undesirable densities and must be controlled through drawdown, prescribed fire, and
mechanical or chemical control. Emergent marsh habitat is important to Franklin’s Gulls, Red-winged
Blackbirds, Yellow-headed Blackbirds, Long-billed Marsh Wrens, Black-crowned Night
Herons, and Least Bitterns.
Submerged aquatic vegetation and associated invertebrates provide essential food for waterbirds.
Submergents are present throughout the marsh but reach their greatest densities in open bays free
of emergents. They also provide some nesting material for the five grebe species.
Marsh habitat on Agassiz NWR. USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
33
Figure 8: Current Land Cover, Agassiz NWR (1997 Classification)
34
Agassiz NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Mudflats in seasonally flooded wetlands promote the growth of moist soil plants, which germinate on
exposed mudflats<