Comprehensive Conservation Plan Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge

              Comprehensive Conservation Plan Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge
August 2007 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge 7745 11th Street SE Pingree, ND 58476 701 /285 3341 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 Division of Refuge Planning 134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, CO 80228 303/236 8145
Approved by
Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by:Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by:Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by:Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by:Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by:Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by:Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by: Approved (and signed 8/22/2007) by:
Date Comprehensive Conservation Plan Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Submitted by:
Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by: Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by:Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by:Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by: Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by: Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by: Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by:Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by:Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by: Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by:Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by:Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by:Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by: Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by: Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by:Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by:Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by:Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by: Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by: Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by: Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by: Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by: Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by:Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by: Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by: Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by: Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by: Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by:Submitted (and signed 8/10/2007) by:
Date
Concurred with by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Concurred with (and signed 8/20/2007) by:
Date and
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
and Concurred with (signed 8/20/2007) by:
Date Contents
Abbreviations................................................................................................................................................. vii
Summary........................................................................................................................................................ ix
1 Purpose and Need...................................................................................................................... 1.1 Agency Guidance......................................................................................................................... 1.2 Refuge Overview......................................................................................................................... 1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Plan..............................................................................................
1 1 5 7
2 Planning Process........................................................................................................................ 2.1 Decisions to be Made...................................................................................................................
9 9
2.2 Public Involvement.....................................................................................................................
10
2.3 Coordination with Others............................................................................................................
11
2.4 Planning Issues............................................................................................................................ 2.5 CCP Revision...............................................................................................................................
11 12
3 Refuge Description.................................................................................................................... 3.1 Physical Resources...................................................................................................................... 3.2 Biological Resources.................................................................................................................... 3.3 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................
15 15 20 26
3.4 Special Management Areas........................................................................................................ 3.5 Visitor Services...........................................................................................................................
27 28
3.6 Aesthetics.....................................................................................................................................
31
3.7 Socioeconomic Environment.......................................................................................................
31
3.8 Staffing......................................................................................................................................... 3.9 Partnerships and Other Public Outreach.................................................................................
32 32
4 Management Direction............................................................................................................ 4.1 Management Summary............................................................................................................... 4.2 Goals, Objectives, Rationales, and Strategies.......................................................................... Upland Goal................................................................................................................................ Wetland Goal...............................................................................................................................
35 35 37 37 41
Visitor Services Goal...................................................................................................................
44
4.3 Staffing and Funding................................................................................................................... 4.4 Step-down Management Plans................................................................................................... 4.5 Monitoring....................................................................................................................................
46 47 48
Glossary..........................................................................................................................................................
51
vi Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
Appendixes
A. Key Legislation and Policies........................................................................................................... 57
B. Ecosystem Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................... 61
C. List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination...................................................................... 65
D. Public Involvement......................................................................................................................... 67
E. Environmental Compliance............................................................................................................. 73
F. Fire Management Program............................................................................................................. 75
G. List of Plant Species........................................................................................................................ 79
H. List of Insect Species....................................................................................................................... 93
I. List of Potentially Occurring Amphibian and Reptile Species.................................................. 97
J. List of Bird Species......................................................................................................................... 99
K. List of Potentially Occurring Mammal Species............................................................................107
L. Compatibility Determination for Hunting....................................................................................109
M. Compatibility Determination for Fishing.....................................................................................111
N. Compatibility Determination for Commercial Fishing...............................................................113
O. Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation and Photography...............................115
P. Compatibility Determination for Interpretation and Environmental Education...................119
Q. Compatibility Determination for Wild Food Gathering.............................................................121
R. Compatibility Determination for Recreational Trapping...........................................................123
S. Compatibility Determination for Horseback Riding...................................................................125
T. Economic Analysis...........................................................................................................................127
U. Section 7 Biological Evaluation......................................................................................................141
Bibliography..................................................................................................................................................147
FIGURES
1 Vicinity map for Arrowwood NWR, North Dakota....................................................................
2
2 Main stem Missouri River ecosystem............................................................................................
4
3 The planning process........................................................................................................................
10
4 Water impoundments at Arrowwood NWR, North Dakota......................................................
17
5 Upper James River watershed.......................................................................................................
19
6 Habitats at Arrowwood NWR, North Dakota.............................................................................
21
7 Public use areas at Arrowwood NWR, North Dakota................................................................
30
TABLES
1
Current staff at Arrowwood NWR,
North Dakota.....................................................................
33
2
Current and additional
staff required to carry out the management direction for
Arrowwood NWR, North Dakota .................................................................................................
47
3
Step-down management plans for Arrowwood NWR, North Dakota......................................
48 Abbreviations
Administration Act AGNPS CCC CCP CFR cfs DNC EA EIS EPA FMP FWS GS HMP HUA Improvement Act IPM Plan JAKES MMRE NEPA NDGF NOA NRCS NWR OWLS PL Reclamation Refuge System SAMMS Service SWG USFWS USGS UWA VOR WG WMD WPA WUI
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act agricultural nonpoint source (model) Civilian Conservation Corps comprehensive conservation plan Code of Federal Regulations cubic feet per second dense nesting cover environmental assessment environmental impact statement Environmental Protection Agency fire management plan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service general pay schedule habitat management plan hydrologic unit area National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 Integrated Pest Management Plan for the Arrowwood NWR Complex Juniors Acquiring Knowledge, Ethics & Skills Mainstream Missouri River ecosystem National Environmental Policy Act North Dakota Department of Game and Fish notice of availability Natural Resources Conservation Service national wildlife refuge outdoor wildlife learning site public law Bureau of Reclamation National Wildlife Refuge System Service Asset Maintenance Management System U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service state wildlife grant U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey North Dakota Unified Watershed Assessment visual observation reading wage grade pay schedule wetland management district Works Progress Administration wildland–urban interface
Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed this comprehensive conservation plan as the foundation for management and use of the Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge in North Dakota. The purposes of the plan are as follows:
Q to identify the role that the refuge will play in
support of the mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System
Q to provide guidance for management of refuge programs and activities during the next 15 years
This summary briefly describes the refuge, comprehensive conservation plan, and planning process.
(heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2):
The refuge was established in 1935 as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 7168 on September 4, 1935, “establishing Arrow-wood Migratory Waterfowl Refuge.” Now known as Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge, the 15,973-acre refuge is in east-central North Dakota. The refuge covers 14 miles of the James River Valley in Foster and Stutsman counties, approximately 30 miles north of Jamestown.
The purposes for the refuge, summarized here, are set out in the authorities for acquisition. Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge was established for the following:
Q use by migratory birds, with emphasis on waterfowl and other waterbirds
Q the conservation of fish and wildlife resources
Q use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other
management purpose, for migratory birds.
(Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929)
Q a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife (Executive Order 7168)
Habitat
The refuge lies on the Central Flyway migration corridor and is an important stopover for many species of birds as they journey north and south during annual migrations. Prairie grassland and wetland complex habitats at the refuge and surrounding private lands provide nesting and feeding habitat for waterfowl in the spring and summer. In addition, hundreds of thousands of
waterfowl migrate through the area and use these wetlands in the spring and fall for feeding and resting.
The refuge contains approximately 6,000 acres of native prairie; 5,340 acres of seeded grasses; 3,850 acres of wetlands (420 acres of natural wetlands); 660 acres of wooded ravines and riparian woodlands; and 125 acres of planted trees including shelterbelts.
The prairie ecosystem, of which the refuge is a part, evolved under constantly changing conditions. Grazing by large herds of animals, trampling, fire, and drought —with varied timing and intensity—resulted in diverse plant and animal communities in various successional stages. Today, large herds of grazing animals no longer exist. Tracts of prairie have been broken into smaller pieces and new habitats have been introduced (including croplands, woodlands, and brush lands).
Many of the sensitive native plant communities are suppressed with nonnative plants including smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, or invasive plants such as leafy spurge and Canada thistle. However, these sites still contain native plant seed sources and dormant native plants with the potential for tremendous biological diversity. These grasslands provide important breeding habitat to a variety of ground-nesting birds, especially the declining grassland-dependent songbirds.
Approximately 3,430 acres of wetlands are in managed impoundments and pools. The remaining acres are either natural wetlands or instream wetlands created by low-head dikes on tributaries flowing into the refuge. Historically, the managed impoundments were naturally occurring riverine lakes; these lakes were modified to improve water management capabilities. (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (credit): (credit): x Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
Administrative History
In the 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corps developed refuge impoundments designed to store water rather than facilitate drawdowns and shallow water management.
The Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized construction of the Jamestown Dam, roughly 30 miles south of the refuge, in 1954. The purpose of the dam was to provide flood control for the city of Jamestown. The reservoir filled for the first time in 1965 and backed water onto the Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge, preventing water management in most years. Several years later, operating levels of the reservoir were increased by 3 feet to accommodate recreation and to allow for the release of pollutant-flushing flows through Jamestown. This increased water level backed even more water onto the refuge and further eliminated water management options.
The Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986 required mitigation for the adverse impacts to the refuge caused by the Garrison Diversion Unit project. An environmental impact statement, signed in 1997, analyzed the need to provide the refuge with water management capability to mitigate for high water levels imposed by the Jamestown Reservoir.
The preferred alternative selected from the environmental impact statement consisted of the following: downstream channel improvements; new water control structures; fish barriers; a bypass channel around Mud Lake, Jim Lake, and Depuy Marsh; a dike and water control structure at Stony Brook; and subimpoundments within Mud and Jim lakes. In addition, the alternative called for the reduction of the Jamestown Reservoir operating elevation by 1.8 feet. These features of the Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge mitigation project are intended to mitigate past, present, and future impacts of the Jamestown Reservoir.
Visitor Services
Public use and recreation at the refuge includes the six priority wildlife-dependent uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and education. Hunters are allowed to pursue deer, upland game birds, cottontail rabbits, and fox. Fishing is allowed on all refuge impoundments; however, current fishing opportunities are temporary and sporadic due to the predominantly low water levels in managed impoundments. The auto tour route, the Warbler Woodland Watchable Wildlife Area, and an adjacent nature trail offer numerous wildlife-viewing opportunities. The entire refuge is open to walk-in access. Interpretation consists of refuge brochures, maps, and signs. In addition, the refuge offers tours and environmental education programs for school groups, scouts, and special events.
In addition, the refuge allows recreational trapping, commercial fishing for carp and bigmouth buffalo, recreational wild food gathering, and biking and horseback riding on designated trails.
(heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2):
The plan includes detailed objectives and strategies to carry out the vision and goals for the Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge (described below).
Vision
The following vision describes what the refuge will be and what the Service plans to do. The vision is based primarily on the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and specific purposes of the refuge.
Provide quality habitat for threatened and endangered species, waterfowl, other migratory birds, and other wildlife in the Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota. The refuge will provide an environment where a diversity of riparian, native prairie, grassland, and wetland habitats and their associated wildlife can be observed and explored. People will be able to learn about and appreciate the natural environment of the refuge and enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation.
Goals
A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a purpose, but does not define measurable units. Goals will direct work at carrying out the refuge’s mandates and achieving the purposes.
These goals—derived from the purposes and vision for the refuge—characterize the contributions of Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge to the National Wildlife Refuge System. The goals reflect the core mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources while providing compatible opportunities for the public to appreciate and enjoy the natural environment of the region.
Upland Goal
Provide a diversity of grassland types that emulate the range of natural variation characteristic of the Prairie Pothole Region to benefit trust resources including waterfowl, grassland birds, and songbirds. xi
Wetland Goal
Provide a diversity of wetland types that emulate the range of natural variation characteristic of the Prairie Pothole Region to benefit threatened and endangered species, waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and other wetland birds.
Visitor Services Goal
Visitors of all abilities will enjoy a refuge visit and increase their knowledge and appreciation of the prairie ecosystem and the refuge’s history by participating in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
Outcomes of the Plan
Management actions in this CCP emphasize wildlife and habitat management for migratory birds and species of concern. Maximized biological potential for wetland and upland habitats at the refuge will support a well-balanced and diverse flora and fauna representative of the Prairie Pothole Region. The Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge mitigation project will be used to achieve wetland habitat objectives.
A science-based monitoring program will be developed as part of the habitat management plan (a step-down plan) and carried out to monitor the responses of habitat and wildlife populations to management activities. (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption):
(credit):
Summary
A plan to improve water quality entering the refuge and reduce peak flows in the upper James River watershed during spring runoff and summer rainfall events will be prepared. The watershed management component will include working closely with private landowners through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and other federal, state, and private conservation programs. The focus will be to
protect and restore wetlands and grasslands, and reduce the impacts on water quality from cropland and livestock operations. Improving the health of the upper James River watershed will not only benefit wildlife habitat in the watershed and at the refuge, it will also benefit Jamestown Reservoir and all downstream users.
Public use will be enhanced with the improvement and expansion of wildlife-dependent recreation. Opportunities to increase hunting and fishing will be reviewed and facilities constructed as funding becomes available. Refuge-specific regulations regarding access into the refuge for wildlife observation, photography, and other wildlife-dependent recreational uses will be clarified and, where appropriate, modified to eliminate or minimize potential conflicts between refuge user groups.
In addition to hunting and fishing, new facilities and programs will be developed to enhance wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation.
(heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2):
The comprehensive conservation planning process is a series of steps that, along with environmental analysis and documentation, are conducted simultaneously. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service engaged the public in the planning process to provide a forum for ideas and issues to be shared, reviewed, and evaluated among agency staff and the public.
Based on the results of the planning process, the following decisions have been made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s regional director for region 6:
Q the type and extent of management and public
access that will occur on the Arrowwood National
Wildlife Refuge
Q whether or not the management and public access
on the Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge will
have a significant impact on the quality of the
human environment
Through the environmental analysis process, the Service selected as the preferred alternative for the final plan, alternative 3 from the environmental assessment published February 2007.
Implementation of the comprehensive conservation plan will be monitored throughout its 15-year effective period (2007–2022). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will annually monitor accomplishment of plan objectives. The objectives will be examined at a minimum of every 5 years to determine if revisions, additions, or deletions are necessary.1 Purpose and Need
This document presents the final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in North Dakota (see vicinity map , figure 1). NOTE: The Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex includes Arrowwood NWR, Arrowwood Wetland Management District (WMD), Chase Lake WMD, and Valley City WMD. This CCP does not address management of areas other than Arrowwood NWR. One or more CCPs will be developed to guide management of the districts and their inclusive waterfowl production areas and refuges. This chapter provides agency guidance, an overview of the refuge, and the purpose and need for the plan.
1.1 AGENCY GUIDANCE
This section describes agency guidance—laws and policies—that affects national wildlife refuges. This includes guidance that requires and directs development of a CCP for a national wildlife refuge.
The Service is the principal agency responsible for conservation of the United States’ fish, wildlife, and plant resources. The Service shares this responsibility with other federal agencies and state and tribal governments.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages a diverse network of more than 540 national wildlife refuges within the Refuge System, which encompasses 95 million acres of lands and waters. Arrowwood NWR is one of 60 national wildlife refuges in North Dakota and was the 70th national wildlife refuge established.
Nesting Canada goose.
(credit): 2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
Figure 1. Vicinity map for Arrowwood NWR, North Dakota.Chapter 1—Purpose and Need 3
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
Laws
Operation and management of national wildlife refuges are influenced by a wide array of laws, treaties, and executive orders (appendix A). The primary guidance comes from these laws: 􀁑􅄠 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (Administration Act) 􀁑􅄠 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act)
Policies
All national wildlife refuges are established with the following goals (“The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” 601 FW 1, 1.8): 􀁑􅄠 Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 􀁑􅄠 Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges. 􀁑􅄠 Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented in existing protection efforts. 􀁑􅄠 Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation). 􀁑􅄠 Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. These goals help step down the Refuge System mission and the principles of the 1997 amendments to the Administration Act. These goals articulate the foundation for stewardship of the Refuge System and define the unique niche it occupies among various federal land systems.
There are four guiding principles for management and general public use of the Refuge System established by Executive Order 12996 (appendix A): Public Use—The Refuge System provides important opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education. Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper without high-quality habitat and, without fish and wildlife, traditional uses of refuges cannot be sustained. The Refuge System will continue to conserve and enhance the quality and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat within refuges. Partnerships—America’s sportsmen and women were the first partners who insisted on protecting valuable wildlife habitat within wildlife refuges. Conservation partnerships with other federal agencies, state agencies, tribes, organizations, industry, and the general public can make significant contributions to the growth and management of the Refuge System. Public Involvement—The public should be given a full and open opportunity to participate in decisions regarding acquisition and management of our national wildlife refuges. To maintain the health of individual refuges and the Refuge System as a whole, managers must anticipate future conditions—to avoid adverse effects and take positive actions to conserve and protect refuge resources. Effective management also depends on knowledge of larger systems and resource relationships. 􀁑􅄠 The Service adopted an ecosystem approach to conservation to enable it to fulfill its federal trust resource responsibility with greater efficiency and effectiveness. Through this holistic approach to resource conservation, the Service can accomplish its mission. 􀁑􅄠 An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation means protecting or restoring functions, structure, and species composition of an ecosystem, while providing for its sustainable socioeconomic use. Key to carrying out this approach is recognizing that partnerships are an essential part of a diverse management to accomplish ecosystem health. 􀁑􅄠 The Service has adopted watersheds as the basic building blocks for ecosystem conservation. Arrowwood NWR is located in the “main stem Missouri River ecosystem” (MMRE), which includes North Dakota, South Dakota, and northeastern Montana (figure 2). Ecosystem planning for the MMRE sets forth visions and 4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
Figure 2. Main stem Missouri River ecosystem.Chapter 1—Purpose and Need 5
goals for prairie, wetland, and rivers to conserve fish and wildlife by protecting and restoring the natural ecosystem (appendix B). The habitat and wildlife goals and objectives for Arrowwood NWR contribute to the mission of the MMRE. It is the policy of the federal government—in cooperation with other nations and in partnership with states, local governments, Indian tribes, and private organizations and individuals—to administer federally owned, administered, or controlled prehistoric and historic resources in a spirit of stewardship for the benefit of present and future generations. Guidance for Planning The Administration Act, as amended by the Improvement Act (1997), requires that CCPs be in place for all national wildlife refuges within 15 years (2012). A CCP does the following: 􀁑􅄠 ensures that the purpose of the refuge and mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) are being fulfilled 􀁑􅄠 ensures that national policy direction is incorporated into refuge management 􀁑􅄠 ensures that opportunities are available for interested parties to participate in the development of management direction 􀁑􅄠 provides a systematic process for making and documenting refuge decisions 􀁑􅄠 establishes broad strategies for refuge programs and activities 􀁑􅄠 provides a basis for evaluating accomplishments The Improvement Act calls for making opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, as long as they are compatibly managed with other purposes and do not conflict with other use. Service policy allows recreational uses that are determined compatible. A compatible use is “a proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a national wildlife refuge, that based on sound professional judgment, would not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purpose(s) of the national wildlife refuge” (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 25.12). A compatible use generally does one or more of the following: 􀁑􅄠 contributes to the Refuge System mission, the refuge’s major purposes, or refuge goals or objectives 􀁑􅄠 is a public priority use (fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, or environmental education)
􀁑􅄠 supports the safe and effective conduct of a priority public use
1.2 REFUGE OVERVIEW
This overview presents descriptions of the establishment of the refuge, the history of the refuge area, and the Garrison Diversion Unit project.
Refuge Establishment
Management is dictated, in large part, by legislation that created the refuge and defines the purposes for which the refuge was established. Five authorities exist for the acquisition and establishment of Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge: 􀁑􅄠 Executive Order 7168—“as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wild life.” 􀁑􅄠 Migratory Bird Conservation Act—“for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 􀁑􅄠 The Fish and Wildlife Act—“for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources.” 􀁑􅄠 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act—“conservation, management, and … restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats … for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” 􀁑􅄠 The Refuge Recreation Act—“for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species.” On September 4, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 7168, establishing Arrow-wood Migratory Waterfowl Refuge. The order stated, “To effectuate the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, it is ordered that the following described lands ... are hereby, reserved and set apart ... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” In a news release dated October 30, 1935 and titled “Two More ‘Safety Islands’ for Ducks in North Dakota,” the Department of Agriculture stated, “Arrow-wood still offers annual nesting and resting attractions to large concentrations of ducks, largely canvasbacks, redheads, mallards and pintails. Canada geese, swans and white pelicans also inhabit the area ... Water ... caught (impounded) and held would be seasonably distributed to create favorable conditions for aquatic-plant production and the growth of nesting cover ... In addition to creating an ideal nesting condition for waterfowl, this development would also provide for control of flood waters of the James River.” 6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
(caption): (caption): (caption):
(credit): (credit): (credit): (credit):
History
The refuge and surrounding area were not settled until the late 1870s. Prior to that time, it was an important location along the Fort Totten Trail, a freight trail from Jamestown to Fort Totten, located near Devils Lake. Several watering stops were located along the valley and fuel wood was obtained from numerous wooded ravines. The first Europeans to establish residence were ranchers. However, following the turn of the century, homesteaders flocked into the area and the native prairie was put to the plow. The irregular terrain prevented some of what is now refuge land from being broken; the more level portions were in crop production prior to establishment. Most of the former cropland was heavily infested with smooth brome by the time of establishment and t he first refuge manager immediately “retired” many of these fields. Although a few of these areas were seeded to introduced grasses, most of them were allowed to revert or “go back” by natural succession. During the drought years of the thirties, extensive croplands lay idle and reverted slowly from annual weeds, forbs, and sweetclover to perennial grasses. Since the grasslands were extensively overgrazed prior to establishment of the refuge, very limited grazing of native grasslands was allowed until the early forties. At that time, it was deemed that the grasslands had recovered from the previous years of misuse. Demands for grazing land increased following World War II, and many new grazing units were set up to satisfy local needs. The stocking rates and season lengths later proved to be excessive and refuge grasslands continued to deteriorate in species composition and value for wildlife. Soon after the refuge was established, CCC and Works Progress Administration (WPA) camps were set up on th e southeast side of Arrowwood Lake. The United States was just coming out of the 1930s Dust Bowl period. Arrowwood NWR was created in response to the drought, low waterfowl numbers, and an economic downturn. The CCC immediately set out to develop the refuge for water management and to benefit people. The CCC and WPA employed many local men and lasted until 1942. Efforts of the first refuge managers led to enhancement of the three natural water areas and creation of a fourth. Two of these (Arrowwood and Jim lakes) were relatively deep, while the other two (Mud Lake and Depuy Marsh) were shallow marshes. The initial CCC development work took place during a drought, leading to the assumption that too much water would not be a problem. Consequently, refuge impoundments were designed to store water rather than facilitate drawdowns and dewatering to manage pools. While valid during the drought, this operation was later discovered to be impractical for obtaining
maximum waterfowl use; higher water levels were not conducive to production of vegetation preferred by waterfowl.
Prior to 1945, haying activity at the refuge was limited. However, as beef prices increased and more private lands were put into crop production, the demand for hay increased and extensive acreages of refuge grasslands were cut for hay. In addition, Kentucky bluegrass seed was harvested for 10 years (1947–1957). This practice was very detrimental to nesting waterfowl since it was conducted during peak nesting season.
Management at the refuge went from more than 11,700 upland acres idle in 1935 to only about 1,000 acres by 1953. The adverse effect on wildlife production was noted and management changes were made, as follows:
Q bluegrass stripping was eliminated
Q hayed acres were decreased by half in 1958 and virtually eliminated by 1960
Q cropped acres peaked in 1957, but were reduced by 75% soon after
Q grazed acres increased and peaked at more than 9,000 acres in 1963
Garrison Diversion Unit
In 1944, Congress passed the Flood Control Act, which was later renamed the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. This act authorized construction of a series of dams, power plants, irrigation projects, municipal water systems, and other water control features to manage the Missouri River for flood control, navigation, and power. The Garrison Diversion Unit was developed as part of this massive public works project. An early feature of the project was the Jamestown Dam, which was completed in 1954 for flood control. The Jamestown Reservoir filled for the first time in 1965; since then, backwater effects have resulted in higher water levels at Arrowwood NWR. In 1972, the summer operating Chapter 1—Purpose and Need 7
level of the reservoir was raised by 3 feet to accommodate recreation and allow for the release of flushing flows through the city of Jamestown to prevent stagnation. The increase in the reservoir operating level eliminated water management options at the refuge in most years. The James River has been called the flattest river of its length in North America. The river drops less than 0.5 foot per mile in the reach through and below the refuge. The low slope, coupled with water control structures initially designed to hold water, made elevation manipulations difficult at best. Operations of the Jamestown Reservoir further hampered refuge management. The Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986 requires mitigations for impacts to refuge operations caused by features of the Garrison Diversion Unit project. An interagency team assessed various measures to improve water management capabilities at the refuge during normal water years. An environmental impact statement (EIS), initiated in 1994 and signed in 1997, analyzed the need to provide the Arrowwood NWR with water management capability to mitigate for high water levels imposed by the Jamestown Reservoir. The EIS presents an incremental series of actions that can provide various levels of water management capability. The preferred alternative selected was the “Mud and Jim Lakes Bypass–Lower Joint Use Pool Alternative.” This alternative consists of downstream channel improvements, improved water control structures, fish barriers, a 2.5-mile channel around Jim Lake, a 7-mile channel around Mud Lake, a dike and water control structure at Stony Brook, and subimpoundments within Mud and Jim lakes. The alternative also calls for the reduction of the Jamestown Reservoir “Joint Use Pool” elevation by 1.8 feet. Once the mitigation project is completed, the features are expected to mitigate for past, current, and future impacts of the operations of the Jamestown Reservoir. The series of channels, capable of passing flood waters in 7 of 10 years, will also allow managers to perform water level manipulations on all pools independently of the other pools, both upstream and downstream.
(heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2):
The Improvement Act directs the Service to manage national wildlife refuges in accordance with approved CCPs. These plans must include public involvement in their development. A CCP needs to set goals and objectives that meet the establishment purposes for the refuge, as well as contribute to the mission of the Refuge System. Wildlife has first priority in the management of national wildlife refuges.
The purpose of developing the CCP is to provide the refuge manager with a 15-year management plan for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their related habitats, while providing opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses. The CCP, when fully implemented, should do the following: 􀁑􅄠 achieve the refuge purposes 􀁑􅄠 help fulfill the Refuge System mission 􀁑􅄠 maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the refuge System 􀁑􅄠 help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System 􀁑􅄠 meet other mandates
Vision Statement
As part of the planning process (see chapter 2), the refuge staff and planning team developed the following vision statement for Arrowwood NWR. Provide quality habitat for threatened and endangered species, waterfowl, other migratory birds, and other wildlife in the Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota. The refuge will provide an environment where a diversity of riparian, native prairie, grassland, and wetland habitats and their associated wildlife can be observed and explored. People will be able to learn about and appreciate the natural environment of the refuge and enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation.
Goals
A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a purpose, but does not define measurable units. Goals will direct work at carrying out the refuge’s mandates and achieving the purposes. Each management alternative is designed to meet all the goals for the refuge. These goals are derived from the purposes and vision statement for the refuge to reflect the refuge’s contribution to the Refuge System. The goals reflect the core mission of the Service to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources while providing opportunities for the public to appreciate and enjoy the natural environment of the region. 8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
Upland Goal Provide a diversity of grassland types that emulate the range of natural variation characteristic of the Prairie Pothole Region to benefit trust resources including waterfowl, grassland birds, and songbirds. Wetland Goal Provide a diversity of wetland types that emulate the range of natural variation characteristic of the Prairie Pothole Region to benefit threatened and endangered species, waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and other wetland birds.
Visitor Services Goal Visitors of all abilities will enjoy a refuge visit and increase their knowledge and appreciation of the prairie ecosystem and the refuge’s history by participating in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Chapter 2—Planning Process 1
2 Planning Process
The Service followed the planning steps listed below—in a thorough manner that meets requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Service policies—to determine the future management of Arrowwood NWR. The CCP process is a series of steps that are displayed sequentially (see figure 3). However, CCP planning, along with the associated environmental analysis and documentation, occurred simultaneously. Although public involvement is listed as part of two steps, the Service took public input throughout the following planning process: 􀁑􅄠 Preplan (form a planning team, review available data, organize efforts). 􀁑􅄠 Initiate public involvement and scoping (public input gathered on issues). 􀁑􅄠 Develop draft vision and goal statements. 􀁑􅄠 Develop and analyze alternatives including a proposed action with draft objectives. 􀁑􅄠 Prepare documentation of the environmental analysis, including the draft CCP (proposed action alternative). 􀁑􅄠 Conduct internal review (the Service, other federal, state, and tribal partners) and gather public input on the draft CCP and environmental assessment (EA). 􀁑􅄠 Analyze and respond to public comments. 􀁑􅄠 Select one of the alternatives to become the final CCP. 􀁑􅄠 Make revisions as necessary and prepare the final CCP. 􀁑􅄠 Approve and carry out the CCP. 􀁑􅄠 Monitor and evaluate actions and results. The planning team (appendix C) is comprised of representatives from various Service programs, including the refuge staff, has prepared this final CCP. Coordination with the North Dakota Department of Game and Fish (NDGF), the public, local groups, and other agencies has been essential in developing a realistic, meaningful plan. After reviewing a wide range of public comments and management needs, the Service selected its preferred alternative for the final CCP (alternative 3 from the environmental assessment published in February 2007). This CCP addresses all significant issues while determining how best to achieve the intent and purposes of the refuge. The following section describes the decisions to be made about management of Arrowwood NWR. In
addition, this chapter includes descriptions of public involvement and other coordination activities, followed by the issues related to management of the refuge. The CCP revision process is described.
2.1 DECISIONS TO BE MADE
Based on the environmental analysis documented in the EA, the following decisions have been made by the Service’s regional director for region 6, headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado. 􀁑􅄠 The type and extent of management and public access that will occur on the Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge. 􀁑􅄠 Whether or not the management and public access on the Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. As part of the decision-making process, the Service developed an EA in accordance with the NEPA. (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): 10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
Figure 3. The planning process.
Three alternatives provided options for addressing management concerns and for resolving public issues. The draft CCP for the refuge was described in alternative 3 (the Service’s proposed action) of the EA. This document displays the results of the CCP planning process. Appendix E, Environmental Compliance contains the “Environmental Action Statement” and “Finding of No Significant Impact.” This final CCP describes the purpose and need for this plan, the decision-making process, refuge resources, management direction, and final compatibility determinations.
2.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Service used the NEPA process to engage the public in refuge planning, while determining whether the preferred alternative for management of Arrowwood NWR would have significant effects. Scoping is the term for requesting input from the public, in this case, regarding management of the refuge. The primary thrust for the planning process is to provide a forum for ideas and issues to be shared, reviewed, and evaluated among agency staff and the public. Comments are reviewed to identify issues
and public concerns about, or advocacies for, future management of the refuge. These issues are addressed in the draft CCP and EA, other plans, and decision documents. An issues workbook was made available to the public, beginning in August 2001, through mailings to interested parties and public open houses. On August 14 and 15, 2001, the Service held open house, scoping sessions in the communities of Kensal, Pingree, Carrington, and Jamestown, North Dakota. Approximately 40 people attended these meetings. Numerous written comments were received during the comment period. Comments received identified biological, social, and economic concerns regarding refuge management. Many of these comments were incorporated into the draft CCP and EA. A “Notice of Availability” (NOA) was published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2007. The NOA announced the availability of the draft CCP and EA for Arrowwood NWR for public review and comment. An open house was held on April 13, 2007 at the Pingree Community Center, Pingree, North Dakota. Six people attended the open house. They provided a wide range of comments, concerns, and ideas. Many of these comments and ideas were incorporated and addressed in this final CCP. Chapter 2—Planning Process 11
A summary of those who participated in public involvement is in appendix D.
2.3 COORDINATION WITH OTHERS
The Service coordinated with tribes, other federal agencies, and state agencies as part of the planning process. The Service provided a planning update to relevant federal, state, and county representatives (including all county chairpersons). The planning update introduced them to the CCP process for Arrowwood NWR and welcomed their comments. Interested agencies are on the planning mailing list (appendix D).
Tribal Coordination
In the preliminary phase of planning (April 2001), the Service’s director of region 6 sent an invitation letter for participation in the CCP process to the following tribes: 􀁑􅄠 Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana 􀁑􅄠 Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, South Dakota 􀁑􅄠 Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, South Dakota 􀁑􅄠 Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe, South Dakota 􀁑􅄠 Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, South Dakota 􀁑􅄠 Santee Sioux Tribe, Nebraska 􀁑􅄠 Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, South Dakota 􀁑􅄠 Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota 􀁑􅄠 Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, North Dakota 􀁑􅄠 Yankton Sioux Tribe, South Dakota None of the tribes contacted expressed interest in participating in the planning process.
Federal Agency Coordination
Coordination with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) took place throughout the planning process. Reclamation representatives provided information pertinent to the development of the draft CCP and EA related to the ongoing mitigation project. The planning team worked with representatives from the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (Jamestown, North Dakota) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
State Coordination
The NDGF is charged with managing the state’s natural resources. Their mission is to “protect, conserve, and enhance fish and wildlife populations and their habitats for sustained public consumptive
and nonconsumptive uses.” The state manages more than 78,000 acres in support of wildlife, recreation, and fisheries. The Service’s director of region 6 sent an invitation letter for participation in the CCP process to the director of the NDGF. The local NDGF wildlife managers and the refuge staffs maintain excellent and ongoing working relations, preceding the start of the CCP process.
State Wildlife Grants Program
Over the past several decades, documented declines of wildlife populations have occurred nationwide. The State Wildlife Grant (SWG) program was created by Congress in 2001. This program provides states and territories with federal dollars to support conservation aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered and in need of protection under the Endangered Species Act. The SWG program represents an ambitious endeavor to take an active hand in keeping species from becoming threatened or endangered in the future. The comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (CWCS) for North Dakota was completed, with final revisions, in May 2006. These strategies will help define an integrated approach to the stewardship of all wildlife species, with additional emphasis on species of concern and habitats at risk. The goal is to shift focus from single species management and highly specialized individual efforts to a geographically based, landscape-oriented, fish and wildlife conservation effort. The Service approves CWCSs and administers SWG program funding. The State of North Dakota CWCS was reviewed and information was used during development of the CCP. The goals and objectives of the State of North Dakota CWCS are supported by the CCP through implementation of habitat goals and objectives.
2.4 PLANNING ISSUES
Internal and public scoping meetings, an internal management review, and a review of completed issues workbooks indicated seven major issues regarding the refuge.
Water Quantity
Jamestown Reservoir lies downstream of Arrowwood NWR on the James River in North Dakota. During high-water years, the reservoir backs up onto the refuge, floods pools, and eliminates or severely reduces water management capabilities at the refuge. The refuge has experienced increased flooding and water management problems since 12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
Jamestown Reservoir filled to normal operating levels in 1965. High water levels preclude moist soil management and result in decreased productivity at the refuge during most years. In addition, Jamestown Reservoir supports rough fish such as carp and big mouth buffalo that invade the refuge during high-water periods. Rough fish can cause extensive damage to aquatic resources important for migratory and nesting waterfowl. When wetland elevations are high, there may be no winterkill of the rough fish.
Invasive Plants
Invasive plants are an ongoing problem at the refuge and adjacent private agricultural lands. Invasive plants at the refuge degrade the quality of croplands, uplands, and hay harvested at the refuge by cooperative farmers. Since most refuge lands are not cropped, grazed, or mowed annually, these lands are viewed as weed sources that infest nearby private croplands.
Line drawing of thistle. Line drawing of thistle.Line drawing of thistle.Line drawing of thistle.Line drawing of thistle.Line drawing of thistle.Line drawing of thistle. Line drawing of thistle.Line drawing of thistle.Line drawing of thistle.Line drawing of thistle. Line drawing of thistle.
Visitor Services
The refuge offers a wide variety of year-round, accessible, recreational opportunities that are wildlife dependent. There is a keen interest in wildlife-dependent recreation, especially hunting and fishing. There is also interest in trapping, photography, and wildlife observation. Activities that are not dependent on the presence of wildlife are also of interest, for example, picnicking, boating, canoeing, and kayaking. All types of recreational opportunities should be universally accessible. However, there was concern about letting public use go too far. Some residents felt recreation needs to be controlled and restricted to ensure it stays compatible with the wildlife mission of the refuge. Examples include not allowing all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), snowmobiles, or jet skis, as there are other areas nearby already developed for these activities.
Agricultural Practices
The refuge conducts cropping, grazing, and haying —usually by private cooperators—to meet management objectives. The refuge has steadily decreased its cropland acreage, which has decreased economic benefits to cooperators.
Wildlife Depredation
The refuge is located in a predominately small-grain, row-crop, agricultural area. Migratory birds and other wildlife such as deer feed on crops on private as well as on refuge lands; Canada geese are of particular concern. Neighboring farmers would like to see the refuge managed to attract and hold wildlife on refuge lands to keep depredation on private land crops to a minimum.
Naturalness
Some area residents expressed a desire for the primary mission of the refuge to be restoration and protection of the natural ecosystem, including less artificial management (for example, water management) in favor of natural processes. This may include reestablishing native prairie, big game species such as elk and bison. There is concern with habitat disturbance and vegetative damage such as that caused by the Arrowwood NWR mitigation project.
Economic Benefits
Foster and Stutsman counties, where the refuge is situated, receive annual payments under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act. These payments are made to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of products from refuges. Local officials express concern and discontentment that the allocations are but a fraction of the entitlement. Area farmers and ranchers benefit economically by acting as cooperators to crop, hay, or graze at the refuge. The refuge gains valuable and cost-effective habitat treatments to meet management goals while offering an additional source of income for these cooperators.
2.5 CCP REVISION
Plans are dynamic—management strategies need to be reviewed and updated periodically. The Service will review the final CCP at least annually to determine if the plan requires any revisions. The CCP and associated step-down plans will be modified whenever this review or other monitoring and evaluation determine changes are needed to achieve the refuge’s purposes, vision, and goals. Monitoring and evaluation will determine whether management activities are achieving the refuge’s purposes, vision, and goals. The CCP can be revised when significant new information becomes available, ecological conditions change, major refuge expansions occur, or other needs are identified. Chapter 2—Planning Process 13
Revision will occur, at a minimum, every 15 years. If the plan requires a major revision, the CCP process starts anew. CCP revisions require NEPA compliance. The public will continue to be informed of and involved with any revision to the CCP for Arrowwood NWR.
3 Refuge Description
Located in the glacial drift plain of east-central North Dakota, the Arrowwood NWR lies in the center of the Prairie Pothole Region. The 15,973-acre refuge occupies 14 miles of the James River Valley in Foster and Stutsman counties. The refuge is in the Central Flyway migration corridor and is an important stopover for many species of birds as they journey north and south during annual migrations. This chapter describes the refuge’s setting, as follows: 􀁑􅄠 physical resources 􀁑􅄠 biological resources 􀁑􅄠 cultural resources 􀁑􅄠 special management areas 􀁑􅄠 visitor services 􀁑􅄠 aesthetics 􀁑􅄠 socioeconomic environment 􀁑􅄠 staffing 􀁑􅄠 partnerships and other public outreach
3.1 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The climate, air, soils, minerals, and water resources at the refuge are described in this section.
Climate
The Arrowwood NWR has a continental climate characterized by relatively warm, short summers; long cold winters; and rapidly changing weather patterns. January is the coldest month and July is the warmest. The average growing season ranges from 98 to 106 days. The average daily summer temperature is in the mid to upper 60s (ºF), with the average high temperature in the upper 70s to low 80s. The average winter low temperature ranges from -1ºF to -5ºF. The coldest temperatures vary from -40ºF to -60ºF, with summertime highs up to 112ºF. Annual temperature ranges can be as much as 150ºF. (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption):
(credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): 16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
Average annual precipitation is 18.36 inches, more than half of which falls between May and July. Recorded amounts vary greatly, from less than 10 inches to more than 30 inches. The average annual snowfall ranges from 30 to 40 inches, but can vary from 7 inches to more than 100 inches. In the winter, snow and high winds bring frequent blizzard conditions to the area. The frost-free season generally runs from May 20 to September 15.
Air Quality
Visibility and clean air are primary resource values. Based on North Dakota’s most current data, the state has relatively clean air. North Dakota is 1 of only 14 states to comply with all federal ambient air quality standards. The levels of ozone, sulfur, and nitrogen dioxide did not exceed federal or state standards at any monitoring site in 2004. In addition, levels of inhalable PM2.5 and inhalable continuous PM10 did not exceed federal standards during the year. Prescribed burning is the refuge management activity that has the greatest effect on air quality (find more information in the description of the fire management program in appendix F). The management of smoke is incorporated into planning prescribed burns and, to the extent possible, in suppression of wildfires. Sensitive areas are identified and precautions are taken to safeguard visitors and local residents. Smoke dispersal is a consideration in determining whether a prescribed burn is within prescription. Generally, the fine grass fuels and small burn size (80–600 acres) generate low volumes of smoke for short durations (4–5 hours).
Soils
Soils within Stutsman County have been inventoried and mapped, published copies of which are available. Arrowwood NWR contains soils formed in glacial drift. The advancing glacier picked up rocks and soil, ground and mixed them, and deposited the material as the ice melted from the receding glacier. Soils such as Barnes and Svea formed in unsorted material, or glacial till. Soils such as Bearden and Fargo formed in glaciolacustrine deposits, or glacial material deposited by water in glacial lakes. Other soils such as Divide and Sioux, were formed in glaciofluvial deposits or material deposited by glacial meltwater. The soils in Stutsman County formed mainly under grassland vegetation. Grasses provide a plentiful supply of organic matter, which improves the chemical and physical properties of the soil. The fibrous roots of these grasses penetrate the soil to a depth of several feet, making it more porous and more granular. As a result of these changes in the
soil, less water runs off the surface and more moisture is available for increased microbiological activity. The slope of the soils range from level to very steep. The degree of slope and the shape of the surface affect each soil type through their effects on runoff and internal drainage. On Buse and other soils on steep slopes, much of the precipitation is lost as runoff. Vegetation is sparse, leaching is restricted, and profile development is slow. Svea and other soils in the lower areas receive runoff from the Buse and other soils because of their position on the landscape. Soils formed in depressions vary widely in profile development, depending on the degree of wetness. Tonka soils, which are in shallow depressions, exhibit an advanced degree of horizonation (distinct horizons or layers) because of the alternate wet and dry cycles that occur in depressions. Because of increased moisture in the depressions, Tonka soils exhibit properties much like soils in areas of much higher precipitation. Southam soils, which are in deep depressions, are nearly continuously wet and have a thick surface layer and carbonates throughout. The horizonation in these soils is mostly the result of sedimentary processes resulting from the glacier and depositions within the James River floodplain. Approximately 10,000–12,000 years have passed since the glacier receded from Stutsman County. In geological terms, the soils in the county and at the refuge are young.
Mineral Resources and Reserved Rights
During the withdrawal of lands establishing the refuge in 1935, and as additional lands were acquired, there were reservations of surface or subsurface mineral rights outstanding to third parties on lands acquired in fee title by the federal government. Later purchase of additional land tracts were subject to outstanding mineral rights and existing rights-of-way at the time of acquisition. These rights-of-way include four road easements to the state of North Dakota.
Water Resources
Figure 4 shows the water resources of Arrowwood NWR. The refuge has four major water impoundments, which cover 3,064 acres: Arrowwood Lake (1,671 acres) Mud Lake (359 acres) Jim Lake (723 acres) Depuy Marsh, which is comprised of two units: Depuy Marsh (230 acres) and North Depuy subimpoundment (81 acres) Chapter 3—Refuge Description 17
Figure 4. Water impoundments at Arrowwood NWR, North Dakota.
18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
With completion of the Arrowwood NWR mitigation project, there are eight other managed water subimpoundments: South Arrowwood (11 acres) Southeast Arrowwood (6 acres) Mud Lake North (28 acres) Mud Lake Middle (47 acres) Mud Lake South (44 acres) North Jim Lake (69 acres) South Jim Lake (37 acres) Stony Brook (125 acres) The three northernmost pools (Arrowwood, Mud, and Jim lakes) are natural lakes that were modified by the CCC with low-level dikes and water control structures to retain more water. Depuy Marsh, on the south end of the refuge, was also a CCC project to create additional wetlands. The Arrowwood NWR mitigation project constructed a bypass channel that starts at the south end of Arrowwood Lake. The channel runs along the east side of Mud Lake, Jim Lake, and Depuy Marsh to the southern boundary of the refuge. There is a water control structure located at the southern end of the channel that controls the water level in the channel. A second water control structure located at the head of the bypass channel controls the amount of water entering the channel. There are water control turnouts and outlets in each impoundment that allow water elevations to be controlled independently of other impoundments. (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption):
(credit):
Based on historical runoff records, this system of water control structures and the bypass channel allows managers to reach target elevations an average of 7 out of 10 years. The other 30% of the time will be flood years when water levels overtop water control structures and dikes and the refuge would not be able to manage water until the Jamestown Reservoir level was lowered.
Hydrology
The James River, a tributary of the Missouri River, originates in central North Dakota. The headwaters flow generally eastward to the town of New Rockford and then southward to the South Dakota border. Arrowwood NWR is part of the upper James River watershed (figure 5). Most runoff occurs between March and July with very little runoff occurring between November and February, so average monthly stream flows vary widely throughout the year. The upper James River watershed consists of a poorly defined series of small ponds and marshes. In the rest of the watershed, the 20- to 40-foot-wide river channel meanders across a flat-bottomed, steep-sided valley. The river valley varies from a few hundred feet to approximately 2 miles wide. Channel capacity varies from 30 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the upper reaches to 10,000 cfs in the lower reaches in South Dakota. In the headwaters of the James River, the maximum bankfull flow is 250 cfs with an average velocity of 0.87 foot per second. Rocky Run Creek, Kelly Creek, and Juanita Lake are the only tributaries to the upper James River. (Bureau of Reclamation 1997) Winter snowmelt and spring rains often combine in March and April to form the runoff that replenishes refuge impoundments and wetland basins. Intense thunderstorms occur frequently in summer.
Water Quality
Before Arrowwood NWR was established, shallow, slowly draining wetlands served as natural wildlife areas in this flat terrain. The primary factors affecting water quality were hydrology and natural impediments to drainage. After construction of the dikes and water control structures, deeper and more permanent wetlands formed. The pools are eutrophic (depleted of oxygen by decay of organic matter) and highly productive. External nutrient inputs include agricultural runoff, bird droppings, decaying plants, and rough fish. At times, the refuge traps nutrients; however, during high-water events, the opposite is true and the refuge “exports” excess nutrients to Jamestown Reservoir. Backwater effects of Jamestown Reservoir became apparent after the reservoir filled in 1965, resulting in further increases in refuge pool depths. In particular, flood control operations result in prolonged periods of high water at the refuge during the spring and early summer. This is undesirable since this period is critical for the establishment of submerged aquatic plants such as sago pondweed. High water, in combination with turbidity, limits light availability for plant growth. Blue-green algae usually dominate in years when submergent plants do not become well established. Chapter 3—Refuge Description 19
Figure 5. Upper James River watershed.
20 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
Water quality upstream of the refuge is determined in large part by land use practices as well as the flushing and hydrology of the watershed. Draining natural wetlands and channeling watercourses increase water quality degradation caused by row cropping and associated use of fertilizers and herbicides. Livestock confinement facilities that drain into the watershed are also responsible for lower water quality. Snowmelt and large rainfall events flush the watershed; however, periods with little or no flow are frequent, and the river may dry up entirely during a drought. In 1997, Vice President Gore directed federal agencies to develop an action plan for clean water on the 25th anniversary of the 1972 Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Action Plan provided guidelines to restore and protect the water resources of the United States. One of the requirements of the Clean Water Action Plan was the North Dakota Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA). The UWA was issued September 25, 1998, and classified North Dakota=s 50 hydrologic unit areas (HUA) into four categories, as follows: Category I—watersheds in need of restoration Category II—watersheds meeting goals, but needing action to sustain water quality Category III—watersheds with pristine or sensitive aquatic systems on lands administered by federal, state, or tribal agencies Category IV—watersheds with insufficient data to make an assessment Nineteen data elements were used to categorize and rank each HUA. It was determined early in the evaluation that there were no watersheds in the state that met all of the goals of the Clean Water Act; therefore, all 50 HUAs were either classified as category I or IV. Eight were classified as category IV and the remaining 42 as category I. There were 14 HUAs identified as high-priority watersheds. The James River headwaters HUA was classified as medium priority for restoration and was ranked number 20 in the state. As authorized under Title III Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists impaired waters of each state. These waters do not meet the water quality standards established for their intended purposes, which include public water supply; recreation; and fish, shellfish, and wildlife protection and propagation. Upstream of the refuge, the reach of the James River from the confluence of Big Slough downstream to the confluence with Rocky Run is listed as threatened for recreation because it exceeds standards for total coliform bacteria. At the refuge, the reach between Arrowwood Lake and Mud Lake is listed as threatened for fish, shellfish, and wildlife
protection and propagation because it does not meet EPA standards for dissolved oxygen. Downstream of the refuge, the Jamestown Reservoir is listed as threatened for recreation due to excessive levels of nutrients. Annual water quality patterns at Arrowwood NWR are typical of shallow lakes in the Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota. The depth of the refuge pools and the resulting warm temperatures and light availability for photosynthesis are primary factors affecting productivity. Usually, highly productive summer conditions are followed by anoxic (absence of oxygen) winter conditions due to shallow depths and freeze out. During summer, respiration, photosynthesis, and mixing due to wave action can cause dissolved oxygen to fluctuate widely on a daily basis. During winter, limited photosynthesis and decaying organic matter under the snow and ice frequently deplete dissolved oxygen. Concentrations of nutrients are similar to values reported from other refuges in North Dakota and South Dakota. Major constituents, chlorophyll, pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen show seasonal variations consistent with data reported from other prairie wetlands. An examination of trace elements in the water column revealed the presence of elements (arsenic, selenium, mercury, lead) that can, in high concentrations, cause reproductive problems in waterfowl. However, the concentrations of these elements at the refuge are low and should not pose a threat to aquatic biota. Trace elements present in the sediments at the refuge are considered to be naturally occurring with the exception of arsenic. Elevated arsenic levels may be the result of treatments for grasshopper infestations during the 1930s. Although some persistent organic compounds such as pesticides have been detected in sediment samples from the refuge, the concentrations were within acceptable limits.
Water Rights
Water rights for Arrowwood NWR were filed September 1, 1934. These water rights provide 16,000 acre-feet annually or as much as it takes to fill the impoundments to spillway elevations. An additional water right of 10,000 acre-feet is allowed to maintain these elevations throughout the year.
3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes the existing habitat and wildlife at Arrowwood NWR. Figure 6 shows existing habitat conditions.Chapter 3—Refuge Description 21
Figure 6. Habitats at Arrowwood NWR, North Dakota. 22 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
Habitat
The refuge provides, protects, and manages habitat for resident and migratory species, as well as federal- and state-listed threatened and endangered species. The refuge provides production habitat and resting and feeding areas for thousands of waterfowl and other migratory birds. The refuge historically has been particularly important as a major staging area in North Dakota with specific importance to fall populations of canvasbacks. (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption):
(credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit):
The refuge contains approximately 6,000 acres of native prairie (unbroken sod); 5,340 acres of seeded grasses; 3,430 acres of enhanced wetlands; 420 acres of natural wetlands; 660 acres of wooded ravines and riparian woodlands; and 125 acres of planted trees (figure 6). Upland vegetation makes up almost 12,000 acres of the 15,973-acre refuge. Deterioration of grassland habitats occurred for many years prior to and, in some cases, after acquisition by the Service. Many tracts have histories of tillage or overgrazing. Farming eliminated many native plant species. Even native grasslands that do not have farming histories face threats from the introduction of exotic plant species. In addition to tillage and overgrazing, many of the native plant communities were altered by other refuge management practices such as fire suppression or excessive rest, which provides exotic species an opportunity to outcompete native grasses. Many of these acres are invaded with nonnative plants such as smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass, or invasive plants such as leafy spurge and Canada thistle. These nonnative species continue to alter the species composition and structure of grassland ecosystems, reducing their value as wildlife habitat. However, these sites still contain native plant seed sources and dormant native plants with the potential for tremendous biological diversity. Nearly 90% of wetland habitats are contained within managed impoundments and pools. The remaining wetland acres are natural wetlands or
wetlands created by low-head dikes on tributaries flowing into the refuge. The managed impoundments are natural riverine lakes that have been modified to enhance water management capabilities. The recent construction of the bypass canal and subimpoundments allow for the management of a variety of wetland habitats. The prairie grassland and wetland complex habitats on and adjacent to the refuge provide nesting and feeding habitat for waterfowl in the spring and summer as well as important breeding habitat for a variety of other ground-nesting birds, especially the declining grassland-dependent songbirds. In addition, hundreds of thousands of birds passing through this area during spring and fall migration rely on these habitats for feeding and resting. A list of refuge plant species is in appendix G. Upland Vegetation Uplands at the refuge are categorized as follows: 􀁑􅄠 native grass (within unbroken sod areas) 􀁑􅄠 “go-back” or old cropland from the 1930s allowed to naturally succeed 􀁑􅄠 seeded natives 􀁑􅄠 dense nesting cover (DNC), which is usually a mixture of introduced cool-season wheatgrass species, alfalfa, and sweetclover 􀁑􅄠 old DNC-seeded areas that are now predominately smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass 􀁑􅄠 riparian habitat of native prairie interspersed with deciduous tall shrubs and trees, wooded ravines, and shelterbelts Native Grassland The refuge is comprised of 7,000 acres of native grasses (1,000 acres of which is “go-back”), 800 acres
of seeded native grass species, and 660 acres within riparian corridors and wooded draws. The native
prairie habitat is pre-dominantly a cool-season, needlegrass-wheatgrass, mixed-grass prairie that primarily occurs on the steep bluffs on either side of the James River.
Vegetation of the mixed-grass prairie is characterized by grasses and forbs ranging from 2 to 4 feet tall. Grasses are a mixture of western wheatgrass, (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): Chapter 3—Refuge Description 23
needlegrasses, blue grama, little bluestem, and upland sedges. Interspersed within the grasses are numerous species of forbs such as coneflowers, asters, and goldenrods; and patches of shrubs comprised of western snowberry, Woods’ rose, silverberry, or mixtures of these species. The plant community is the transition zone between the wetter tall-grass prairie to the east and the drier short-grass prairie to the west. The 660 acres of riparian floodplain and wooded draws are primarily associated with the James River valley and with lakeshores within the refuge. Tree species present include green ash, cottonwood,elm, chokecherry, and cedar. Shrubs and small woody species are present in the native and “go-back” areas and wooded ravines. Common species are western snowberry, prairie rose, and silver buffaloberry. Tame Grassland Approximately 3,540 acres of the upland habitats are tame grasslands. About 400 acres have been recently seeded with DNC (a mixture of introduced wheatgrass species with alfalfa and sweetclover) and retain the seeded composition. The remaining 3,140 acres are old crop fields that were generally seeded to a mixture of introduced grasses and legumes in the 1970s and 1980s. These old crop fields are predominantly comprised of smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass and in many cases, invasive plants, with little to no forb component remaining. DNC fields have proven very attractive to nesting waterfowl and have shown increased nest success within their confines. DNC is very important to upland-nesting birds, especially ducks. DNC makes a major contribution toward achieving the waterfowl production objectives of the Arrowwood NWR Complex (Duebbert 1969, Duebbert and Lokemoen 1976, Higgins and Barker 1982). Some of these stands provide excellent nesting and winter cover. Many have declined in productivity due to the tendency of smooth brome to invade and dominate the stand andthen to become sod-bound. DNC fields tend to become heavily infested with leafy spurge, Canada thistle, and other exotic and invasive plant species. An integrated approach to invasive plant control has been carried out to combat this problem. Grazing, prescribed burning, haying, and cultivationhave been the primary management tools used to achieve habitat objectives. Other than prescribed fire treatments, most management actions have been conducted under a special use permit with permitteesselected through a bid process. Woodland and Shelterbelts Arrowwood NWR contains more than 125 acres in shelterbelts (planted tree rows) and old farmstead
tree groves. The CCC and WPA planted most of these from 1937 through 1942 to control wind erosion and provide wildlife habitat. Species planted were chokecherry, caragana, Russian olive, cottonwood, boxelder, ponderosa pine, red cedar, American elm, and plum. Firebreaks have protected the shelterbelts. However, the shelterbelts have deteriorated with no other management such as pruning or replacement of dead trees. More than 30 of these plantings remain scattered throughout the refuge. Tree plantings have significantly altered grassland habitats. The loss and degradation of native grasslands and habitat fragmentation have been implicated in the consistent decline of grassland bird populations (Samson and Knopf 1994, Herkert 1995, Bakker et al. 2002). In addition, the removal of trees may reduce avian predation on grassland-nesting species (Johnson and Temple 1990). Avian predators such as American crows and black-billed magpies prey on waterfowl eggs and use shelterbelts for nesting and food (Sargeant et al. 1993). Raptor species such as red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, and great horned owl prey on adult ducks and ducklings (Murphy 1997). The removal of woody vegetation within grasslands likely reduces the cover and travel corridors for mammalian predators (Sovada et al. [in press]). Wetland Vegetation Wetland or aquatic vegetation consists of plants associated with wetlands or soil saturated for the majority of the growing season. The impoundments and pools contain sedges, smartweed, cordgrass, duckweed, reedgrass, cattails, and submergent plants such as sago pondweed. One of the most important aquatic food resources occurring at the refuge is the extensive beds of sago pondweed. Diving ducks, especially the canvasback, heavily use these beds. Good sago pondweed production occurs approximately 5 out of every 10 years. (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption):
(credit): 24 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
Wetland plants affected by upland management are emergent vegetation along the upland–wetland edge. These include cattail, bulrush, and several species of moist soil plants such as smartweed. Substantial natural variation in submergent vegetation quantity and spatial distribution has occurred at the refuge since 1983. Emergent vegetation has remained relatively constant. Impoundments and pools have been managed using the bypass channel system and water control structures. This manipulation of water levels has encouraged desirable plant growth and discouraged less desirable species. Threatened and Endangered Plants The refuge has no documented threatened or endangered plant species; however, no formal surveys have been conducted. Invasive Plants “Noxious weeds” is a legal designation. In the North Dakota Noxious Weed Law and Regulations Guide, the North Dakota Department of Agriculture has identified noxious weeds as plants that are difficult to control, easily spread, and injurious to public health, crops, livestock, land, or other property. Many of the state-listed noxious weeds are also invasive species. Invasive plants are introduced organisms that colonize and rapidly spread in native systems due to the absence of natural controls. Invasive plants often share characteristics including effective seed dispersal, rapid colonization, and expansion capacities.
In
addition, invasive plants can have toxic or allelopathic (growth of one species inhibited by chemicals of another species) effects. All
these characteristics can result in dense single-species stands, which rapidly exclude
native species or suppress crop yields
or both. State laws, and agreements between the Service and
the state, mandate the control of state- listed noxious weeds on Service- owned lands. Limited resources
restrict the ability to vasive plants at the refuge;
control effectively all intherefore, priorities have been established to determine which species will be controlled first. These priorities are based the weeds’ potential
adverse effects to refuge grasslands, wildlife, and economic capital. The adverse effects are derived from the life history, species biology, and control techniques of the species. Those species selected as the highest priority for control are those known to be invasive in their characteristics and currently found in refuge habitats. The four priority invasive plant species are Canada thistle, absinth wormwood, leafy spurge, and Russian olive. Infestations of other invasive plant species are targeted for treatment immediately upon identification. Invasive plants are managed as described in the Integrated Pest Management Plan for the Arrowwood NWR Complex (IPM Plan) (USFWS 2005). Smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, crested wheatgrass, and quackgrass are species of tame grasses that have been seeded on or adjacent to refuge lands. These grasses have been seeded by neighboring landowners for forage or in plantings through the Conservation Reserve Program (a U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] program that “idles” highly erodible land), or by the USDA for bank stabilization. In some cases, the Service has seeded some of these species on refuge lands for wildlife habitat. Although these grass species are invasive in their characteristics and can damage native prairie grasslands when they invade, they are not considered invasive plants or noxious weeds in the IPM Plan (USFWS 2005). Significant infestations of invasive plants have resulted in more than a loss of habitat for wildlife and a decline in species diversity in prairie grasslands. For many years, invasive plant issues have been sources of contention between the Service, neighboring landowners, the state of North Dakota, and county officials. Invasive plants have not always been effectively managed at the refuge. Invasive plant control efforts were often cosmetic, shortsighted, and reactive; many times, control efforts used only one technique instead of an integrated approach designed to meet a habitat objective. The refuge employs an integrated approach to more effectively control noxious weeds and invasive plants, to achieve management goals and refuge purposes. The “Upper James River Weed Management Area” partnership was developed to work cooperatively and apply for grants. Cropland Although the refuge has a long history of agricultural crop production, there is currently little cropland at the refuge. The process of reducing cropland acres began in 1995 and most fields were seeded to native grass by 2005. Cropland will only be used to rejuvenate old DNC or to replace DNC with native grasses.
Line drawing of leaves and tree the Russian olive. Line drawing of leaves and tree the Russian olive. Line drawing of leaves and tree the Russian olive. Line drawing of leaves and tree the Russian olive. Line drawing of leaves and tree the Russian olive. Line drawing of leaves and tree the Russian olive. Line drawing of leaves and tree the Russian olive. Line drawing of leaves and tree the Russian olive. Line drawing of leaves and tree the Russian olive. Line drawing of leaves and tree the Russian olive. Line drawing of leaves and tree the Russian olive. Line drawing of leaves and tree the Russian olive. Line drawing of leaves and tree the Russian olive. Line drawing of leaves and tree the Russian olive.Line drawing of leaves and tree the Russian olive.
Chapter 3—Refuge Description 25
(caption): (caption): (caption): (caption):
(credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit):
Wildlife
An important stopping place for migratory birds, the refuge also hosts threatened and endangered species and other wildlife described in this section. Lists of refuge wildlife species are in appendixes H–K. Invertebrates Invertebrate production in refuge waters is excellent especially in low-water years. Production of chironomids (midges), corixids (water boatmen), notonectids, and many other aquatic species normally peak at the same time the majority of the waterfowl broods are hatching. These aquatic insects provide an important source of protein to waterfowl and other wildlife. Terrestrial invertebrates are also an important food source to wildlife at the refuge. There are no known endangered invertebrates at the refuge. Amphibians and Reptiles Tiger salamander, Great Plains toad, Dakota toad, leopard frog, snapping turtle, painted turtle, plains garter snake, and prairie skink are some of the common reptiles and amphibians that inhabit the James River watershed. Several species of reptiles and amphibians have been documented at the refuge, but no formal surveys have been conducted. Tiger salamander, leopard frog, chorus frog, and two species of turtles are known to be present. There are only three species of snakes known to occur at the refuge—garter snake, red-bellied snake, and smooth green snake. Appendix I contains a list of potentially occurring amphibian and reptile species at the refuge. Fish The shallow nature of impoundments usually results in a winterkill of fish. However, in high-water years fish can move upstream from the Jamestown Reservoir. This can result in good populations of northern pike, walleye, yellow perch, crappie, smallmouth bass, and black bullhead, but also brings
undesirable species such as bigmouth buffalo and carp. Fathead minnows and sticklebacks are also present. The fish provide a valuable food source for herons, grebes, mergansers, pelicans, and other fish-eating birds. Management efforts directed at sago production normally results in winterkill in all impoundments. Common carp and bigmouth buffalo are always present in the James River and will enter refuge subimpoundments at every opportunity. Management of water levels on the refuge will minimize these undesirable species. Low water levels in the fall will cause winterkill of fish in most years. In addition, the electric fish barrier constructed as part of the Arrowwood NWR mitigation project (located between the refuge and Jamestown Reservoir) prevents fish from migrating from the reservoir into the refuge. The barrier is effective in normal and low water years but in high-flow years when the reservoir elevation exceeds 1,442 feet, water will overtop the barrier and fish will move into the refuge. Birds There are 266 species of birds that have been observed at the refuge (appendix J). Of these, 124 species are known to nest at the refuge. Spring and fall migrations find spectacular numbers of waterfowl passing through the area and the refuge is an important stop for many on the journey north or south. The James River serves as a major migration route and breeding ground for thousands of geese and ducks. (caption): (caption): (credit):
Canada goose, snow goose, white-fronted goose, mallard, gadwall, blue-winged teal, American wigeon, lesser scaup, hooded merganser, redhead, and canvasback are common in the James River watershed. Arrowwood NWR provides production habitat as well as resting and feeding areas for thousands of waterfowl and other migratory birds. The refuge is particularly important as a major diving duck staging area in North Dakota, with specific 26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
importance to fall populations of canvasbacks. The refuge is a major waterfowl production area and provides wetland habitat for migratory waterfowl. In addition to the waterfowl use of the refuge, other migratory and resident species inhabit the wetlands. Game and nongame species observed in the watershed include ring-necked pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, gray partridge, mourning dove, upland sandpiper, bobolink, western meadowlark, and chestnut-collared longspur. Other bird species associated with riverine and wetland habitat found at the refuge include great blue heron, American bittern, American white pelican, red-winged blackbird, sora rail, American coot, Le Conte=s sparrow, and sharp-tailed sparrow. Numbers of upland birds are cyclic, but good populations are normally present. Mammals Upland habitats are important to mammals at the refuge in many ways. White-tailed deer is the major big game species found in the James River watershed. Populations have increased statewide over the past 30 years and reached near record levels in the late 1990s.
(caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption):
(credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (credit): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (credit):
Major furbearers in the James River watershed include mink, muskrat, beaver, raccoon, red fox, and
coyote. In addition, weasels, badgers, striped and spotted skunks, and jackrabbits inhabit the area. Appendix K contains a list of mammal species at the refuge. Threatened and Endangered Wildlife There are two federally listed threatened and endangered species known to occur at the refuge. The whooping crane is listed as endangered. The piping plover is a threatened species. Whooping cranes migrate through the area but there have been only two confirmed sightings in recent years on or near the refuge. A lone whooping crane with a flock of sandhill cranes was recorded during the 2001 fall migration. A single whooping crane was sighted just west of Pingree, North Dakota, during spring 1997. The piping plover has been recorded nesting at the refuge during years of low water; the bird prefers exposed gravel islands and shoreline habitat for nesting. Piping plovers have not been observed at the refuge since 1991. Because of its history of piping plover use, the refuge has designated critical habitat for piping plovers. The refuge participates in the “International Piping plover Breeding Census” conducted every 5 years. The following species of special concern may be present at the refuge during certain times of the year: 􀁑􅄠 black tern 􀁑􅄠 ferruginous hawk 􀁑􅄠 Baird's sparrow 􀁑􅄠 loggerhead shrike 􀁑􅄠 northern goshawk 􀁑􅄠 Dakota skipper butterflies (periodic surveys of butterflies have been conducted since 1997; no Dakota skippers have been recorded) 􀁑􅄠 Pyractomena sinuate Green, a rare firefly (documented in 1991 by a professor from the University of Florida, Gainesville)
3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The built environment and archaeological remains on and near refuge lands represent the rich 10,000-year cultural heritage of the Arrowwood NWR. The varied habitats and resources of the refuge have attracted human settlement for more than 10,000 years. Until the last 150 years, the region was occupied by numerous groups of Native Americans who used a wide variety of adaptations to local resources, which included economies based on hunting, gathering, and horticulture (an early form of agriculture). The fur trade initiated contact between native peoples and Anglo visitors in the seventeenth century. By the mid-eighteenth century, Chapter 3—Refuge Description 27
the influx of nonnative peoples significantly altered the traditional culture of the native people and reshaped the landscape of the region. Evidence of both the prehistory (pre-native contact) and the history (postnative contact) is found in the numerous archaeological sites and historic buildings on the refuge. The refuge lies within the James River study unit ofthe “Archeological Components of the North Dakota Comprehensive Plan for Historic Preservation.” Based on information provided in that document, the prehistoric occupation of the region began with the Paleo-Indian period (9500–5500 B.C.); and extended through the Archaic (5500–400 B.C.), Woodland (400 B.C.–A.D. 1000), and Plains Village (A.D. 1000–1780) periods. Archaeological evidence suggests that bison were a major component of the economies of the prehistoric residents, with dependence on this resource decreasing through time. The Paleo-Indian period was based on an economy that relied heavily on migratory, large-game animals; this required settlements to be highly mobile. The Archaic and Woodland periods were marked with increased specialization in a broader spectrum of local resources, which resulted in less need for mobile settlements. During the Plains Village period, people became more sedentary because plant husbandry required that crops be tended. The Plains Village lifestyle maintained bison hunting due to the lack of development of crops that would consistently produce in the short growing seasons of the area. A variety of archaeological sites and surface finds provide evidence for prehistoric occupation including stone tool and ceramic scatters, stone circles, burial mounds,villages, and bison kills. Although there has been very limited cultural resource survey done at the refuge, evidence from the surrounding areas suggests that a common location for prehistoric sites is along the bluff edge overlooking the river valley. Many of these sites probably exist at the refuge; however, future archaeological knowledge should used to identify and protect these resources. No doubt, prehistoric archaeological sites that were below the bluffs in the river valley were covered with the deposition of sediments when water was dammed for the reservoirs in historic times. Locations and items of traditional religious and cultural importance to Native Americans deserve special mention. The presence of several historic Native American tribes in the area at various times is well documented, predominantly various bands ofthe Lakota, Dakota, and Yanktonai Sioux. The namof the refuge, Arrowwood, comes from the fact that the Sioux gathered materials for bow and arrow manufacturing in this area from stands of oak and hackberry, which were not abundant outside the river valley. Sioux speakers named the area “Itazi paha koksj” meaning “the place for cutting bows”
e
and they called the James River “san san san,” meaning “white wooded river.” There was a close relationship between native people and refuge lands in the past. Currently, the Spirit Lake Nation Indian Reservation and the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of the Lake Traverse Reservation are near the refuge. Therefore, refuge lands likely support areas and resources that hold special meaning for these groups to preserve traditional religious or resource procurement activities. The historical period began with the appearance of the Euro-American explorers and fur traders in the area about A.D. 1750, although extensive settlement did not occur until nearly 100 years later. In 1872, the Fort Totten Trail was constructed as a military route connecting Fort Seward in Jamestown to Fort Totten near Devil’s Lake. The remains of the trail are still visible in the form of wagon ruts east of Jim Lake and in the Grasshopper Hills area. A fortified camp associated with the trail, complete with trenches and sod berms, lies near the north refuge boundary. Once the military was well established, the area became ripe for Anglo homesteading and agriculture. Many of these earlier settlers were of eastern European descent. Common site types associated with the establishment of farming communities are farmsteads, homesteads, dugouts, small rural communities, bridges, schools, and railroads. The establishment of the refuge is directly tied to the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and Works Progress Administration (WPA) programs of the mid-1930s. President Franklin D. Roosevelt created these programs during the Great Depression as a means to employ young men of ages 18–25 to work providing useful projects for society and income for the workers to send to their families. The men planted thousands of trees and shrubs at the refuge. The CCC and WPA built many low-level dikes and water control structures on the refuge between 1935 and 1942. Arrowwood, Mud, and Jim lakes were natural lakes enhanced by these projects, while Depuy Marsh is a constructed feature. In addition, infrastructure was constructed in the form of a residence, an equipment building, a barn, a root cellar (also referred to as an aquatic cellar), and a bunkhouse.
(heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2):
Arrowwood NWR meets the size, scientific, scenic, and ecological value criteria for wilderness. However, the refuge is impacted by roads, fences, and extensive human effects from grazing, agriculture, and wetland modifications that restrict it from being designated a wilderness area. 28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
To be designated a wilderness area, lands must meet certain criteria (below) as outlined in the Wilderness Act of 1964: 􀁑􅄠 generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of human work substantially unnoticeable 􀁑􅄠 has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation 􀁑􅄠 has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition 􀁑􅄠 may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value
3.5 VISITOR SERVICES
The refuge offers a wide variety of year-round accessible recreational opportunities that are wildlife dependent. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, and environmental education are popular activities. The report, “Banking on Nature 2004: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation” (Caudill and Henderson 2005), stated that Arrowwood NWR recorded 6,796 visitors in 2004. Residents accounted for 5,526 visits and nonresidents 1,270 visits. Visitors engaged in nonconsumptive activities 76% of the time, with hunting and fishing 19% and 5% of the time. In addition to the wildlife-dependent activities it provides, the refuge offers a scenic contrast to the agriculturally dominated landscape that surrounds it.
Hunting
Unlike most refuges in North Dakota, Arrowwood NWR has never been open to waterfowl hunting. Hunters are able to harvest waterfowl that leave the refuge to feed in surrounding crop fields; resident and nonresident hunters alike take advantage of this fact. In 2004, there were approximately 1,125 deer-hunting visits. Hunters pursue deer with bows, muzzleloaders, and modern firearms. To maintain a safe, high-quality hunt, access is walk-in only unless a hunter has a documented disability and obtains a refuge permit that allows the use of a vehicle for hunting. Specified times have been established to allow hunters to retrieve harvested deer using vehicles. The entire refuge is open to hunting, except the closed zone around the headquarters and the Warbler Woodland Watchable Wildlife Area (figure 7). The refuge is open to upland game hunting after the firearm deer season closes. Hunters can take ring-
necked pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, gray partridge, cottontail, and red fox. The hunting program is described in the compatibility determination in appendix L. (caption): (caption): (credit): (credit):
Fishing
The Service does not actively manage sport fisheries at refuges, including Arrowwood NWR, in the James River watershed. Managing for sport fisheries would conflict with the wildlife objectives for which the refuge was established. Sport fisheries would also create ideal habitat conditions for the survival of carp, which degrade wetland habitat for migrating and nesting waterfowl. Fishing opportunities at the refuge are limited to extremely high-water years when the refuge is flooded. When water from the Jamestown Reservoir overtops the levees, fish can move upstream and populate the refuge. Fish species are typical of northern reservoirs with sport fish such as northern pike, walleye, yellow perch, crappie, and smallmouth bass. Abundant nonsport species include black bullhead, white sucker, carp, and bigmouth buffalo. Public access is allowed to the sport fish resource when it is present. The spring and summer fishing season runs from May 1 through September 30. During that time, the following is allowed: Chapter 3—Refuge Description 29
motorized boats, 25 horsepower and under, on Arrowwood and Jim lakes nonmotorized boats on all refuge waters bank fishing Primitive boat launch facilities are located in the Warbler Woodland Watchable Wildlife Area and at the southwest corner of Jim Lake (figure 7). Bow fishing for rough fish is permitted from May 1 through September 30 of each fishing year, in accordance with state regulations. Spear fishing is not permitted. Arrowwood, Mud, and Jim lakes are open to winter fishing. Fish houses are allowed. Vehicles (no ATVs or snowmobiles) are allowed on the ice, but only on Jim Lake and only via the primitive boat launch. Fish houses must be removed no later than March 15.Portable fish houses can be removed daily and are allowed after March 15. The fishing program is described in the compatibility determination in appendix M. When needed to address the problem of carp and bigmouth buffalo, the refuge has issued a special usepermit for commercial fishing to net these undesirable fish species. More information is in the compatibility determination in appendix N.
Wildlife Observation and Photography
Three county roads and one state highway cross the refuge and offer opportunities for wildlife viewing. The refuge is included in two of the birding routes described in the “Birding Drives Dakota” brochure and the number of nonresident birders has increased in recent years. The first half of the 5.5-mile auto tour route (figure 7) follows the river channel and provides access to a wildlife observation deck on the riverbank overlooking two managed wetlands. The second half of the tour route climbs to the top of the river bluffs and offers panoramic views of the valley and surrounding lands. The Warbler Woodland Watchable Wildlife Area (figure 7) includes an interpretive nature trail, natural spring drinking water, a vault toilet, tables, and grills. The Centennial Overlook provides a panoramic view of Arrowwood Lake; in the spring and fall months, thousands of migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds can be seen. The public can reserve two blinds set up each spring on sharp-tailed grouse leks, offering excellent viewing and photo opportunities. Walk-in access is allowed everywhere except the closed area near the headquarters, which includes the shop, equipment storage areas, and residents’ quarters. Nonmotorized biking is allowed on roads
and service trails, but not allowed off-road. Horseback riding is allowed only by special use permit. During the boating season, from May 1 through September 20, nonmotorized boats and canoes are allowed on all waters Boats with less than 25 horsepower motors are allowed on Arrowwood and Jim lakes. The program for wildlife observation and photography is described in the compatibility determination in appendix O.
Interpretation
There is interpretive information for the auto tour route and nature trail. In addition, there are information kiosks at the entrance to the tour route, in the Warbler Woodland Watchable Wildlife Area, at the entrance to the grouse blind, and at refuge headquarters (figure 7). The refuge headquarters has a very small visitor contact area. The refuge staff is interested in increasing the size of the visitor contact area to provide interpretive information and brochures. The interpretive program is described in the compatibility determination in appendix P.
Environmental Education
The refuge has both on- and off-site environmental education programs. Special events include participation with other refuges and conservation agencies in several water and river festivals, “JAKES (Juniors Acquiring Knowledge, Ethics & Skills) Day,” “Refuge Night at the Redhawks,” “Go Wild at the Mall,” and “Refuge Day at the Zoo.”
(caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption): (caption):
(credit):
The refuge hosts numerous elementary, secondary, and college groups; and scout groups for environmental education activities and tours. 30 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
Figure 7. Public use areas at Arrowwood NWR, North Dakota.
Chapter 3—Refuge Description 31
Additionally, local third graders join the refuge for educational games and demonstrations during National Wildlife Refuge Week. The refuge is also a partner with the Kensal Public School and supports programs at the 1.5-acre Outdoor Wildlife Learning Site (OWLS). The environmental education program is described in the compatibility determination in appendix P.
Other Recreational Uses
Refuge users are allowed to collect aboveground portions of commonly used edible plants such as berries, mushrooms, and asparagus for their personal use (see appendix Q). Trapping for recreational purposes is also allowed, under special use permit, on most areas of the refuge (see appendix R). The visiting public, under special use permit, can enjoy horseback riding on designated areas (see appendix S).
Compatibility Determinations
Compatibility determinations were approved for several uses in 1998. New compatibility determinations (listed below) have been prepared to update the 1998 determinations and to address public use at Arrowwood NWR: 􀁑􅄠 hunting (appendix L) 􀁑􅄠 fishing (appendix M) 􀁑􅄠 commercial fishing (appendix N) 􀁑􅄠 wildlife observation and photography (appendix O) 􀁑􅄠 interpretation and environmental education (appendix P) 􀁑􅄠 wild food gathering (appendix Q) 􀁑􅄠 recreational trapping (appendix R) 􀁑􅄠 horseback riding (appendix S)
3.6 AESTHETICS
The NEPA requires agencies to consider aesthetic impacts to scenery, noise, and odor from proposed federal actions. The Service preserves and enhances aesthetic resources to the extent that refuge objectives can still be fulfilled. A natural undisturbed appearance is the visual standard that applies to refuge habitat rehabilitation and management projects. If this standard cannot be met, the Service takes actions to mitigate or diminish any negative impacts. Service policy is to use the most natural means available to meet wildlife objectives. In situations where objectives cannot be met using natural processes, more intensive and artificial methods
such as cropland management may be employed. The acreage cropped will be the minimum required to meet approved objectives. Service policy also states that the long-term productivity of the soil will not be jeopardized to meet wildlife objectives. The following are examples of how the refuge carries out these policies: 􀁑􅄠 Borrow sites are reclaimed using pre-existing species. 􀁑􅄠 Old crop fields are being converted to various mixtures of grasses. 􀁑􅄠 Firebreaks are kept to the minimum necessary for safety and to meet prescribed fire management objectives; most firebreaks are being eliminated, 􀁑􅄠 Existing gravel pits are being reclaimed and no new gravel pits are being opened.
3.7 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
This is a summary of the socioeconomic setting. The complete economic analysis is in appendix T. Jamestown (Stutsman County) and Carrington (Foster County) are the primary communities near the refuge. According to “Tour North Dakota” (Central Dakota Tourism Partnership 2004), one of the greatest assets of the area is the quality of life enjoyed by its residents. In 2000, the population of North Dakota was 642,200 with an average density of 9.3 persons per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2002). Stutsman County accounted for 3.4% of North Dakota’s total population in the year 2000, with a population of 21,908 residents averaging 9.9 persons per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2002). Jamestown, the county seat, is located in the south end of Stutsman County with a population of 15,571 people. Located in the valley where the James and Pipestem rivers meet, Jamestown offers a variety of recreational opportunities from summer activities such as fishing, hunting, and golfing to winter activities such as ice fishing, snowmobiling, and cross-country skiing (Jamestown, ND 2004). Foster County, located just north of Stutsman County, is one of the smallest of the state’s 53 counties, 18 miles by 36 miles in size. Foster County accounted for 0.5% of North Dakota’s total population in the year 2000, with a population of 3,759 residents averaging 5.9 persons per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2002). Carrington, the largest town in Foster County, is commonly referred to as the “Central City” for its location central to the four major North Dakota cities of Bismarck, Fargo, Minot, and Grand Forks. With its outstanding leadership, community commitment, location, and updated infrastructure, Carrington has 32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Arrowwood NWR, ND
been recognized as the most dynamic community in North Dakota with a population under 2,500 (Carrington, ND 2004). While the state of North Dakota experienced a relatively low 0.5 % population increase from 1990 to 2000, Stutsman County’s population increased by 3.0%, while Foster County’s population decreased 6.0% over the same time frame. Approximately 78% of the Foster County population and 81% of the Stutsman County population 25 years and older have high school diplomas, while 20% were college graduates (U.S. Census Bureau 2002). Based on population origin estimates from the 2000 census, 91.7% of the state’s population was white persons not of Hispanic/Latino origin, 5.0% were American Indian and Alaska Native, 1.2% were Hispanic or Latino origin, 0.6% were Black or African American persons, and 0.6% of Asian decent. Population origins in Foster and Stutsman counties were similar to the state population (U.S. Census Bureau 2002). The predominant immigrant cultures in the region include Scandinavian, German, Ukrainian, and Icelandic (Central Dakota Tourism Partnership 2004). The majority of Stutsman and Foster counties are rural with agriculture as the main industry (U.S. Department of Commerce 2002). Like most North Dakota communities, Jamestown and Carrington can trace their development to the arrival of the railroad (Central Dakota Tourism Partnership 2004). Agriculture formed the basis for the region’s early economy and still is an important component today. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce (2002), total farm self-employment accounted for 8.3% of total employment in North Dakota (8.3% in Stutsman County and 13.8% in Foster County) in 2000. Besides agriculture, the other major local and state employers are service-related business, government, and retail trade. Major employers in Jamestown include health providers, education, potato processing, and aerospace products manufacturing (U.S. Census Bureau 2002). Carrington's business community is diversified, including agriculture, manufacturing, financial, retail, and technology-based endeavors (Carrington, ND 2004). Carrington serves as the center of an important corridor of agribusiness (Dietz 2003). Carrington is home to state-of-the-art Dakota Growers Pasta Company, which markets premium quality pasta worldwide (Carrington, ND 2004). Foster County per capita personal income was $25,138 in 2000, which very close to the state average of $25,109. Meanwhile, Stutsman County per capita personal income was $23,686, which was $1,423 lower than the state average (U.S. Department of Commerce 2002). Total personal income was $94 million in Foster County and $517
million for Stutsman County in 2000 (U.S. Department of Commerce 2002). The communities and local governments near the refuge benefit economically from the presence of the refuge and the activities that occur there. In September 2005, the Service released the results of a report entitled “Banking on Nature 2004: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation” (Caudill and Henderson 2005). Arrowwood NWR served as a sample refuge for this study, which resulted in the creation of economic models used to estimate the economic impact of refuge visitation nationwide. The report estimates that in fiscal year 2004, Arrowwood NWR recreational visitors spend $68,300, with the majority of that related to big game hunting ($46,200). When the total monetary value of this economic activity to the local area economy is considered, recreational visitation to the refuge generates $87,500 per year, which is enough to create two jobs (both part time and full time) with a combined income of $30,400.
3.8 STAFFING
Staff located at the refuge headquarters has responsibility for the entire Arrowwood NWR Complex; however, for this document, the payroll expenditures are attributed entirely to Arrowwood NWR. Currently there are nine permanent employees and six temporary employees located at the refuge headquarters. Funding for employee salaries and benefits totaled $752,993 in fiscal year 2006. Table 1 shows the current refuge staff.
(heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2): (heading 2):
The refuge has a long history of fostering partnerships that help the refuge accomplish its mission and goals. These partners include city, county, state, and federal agencies; nongovernmental organizations; conservation groups; and private citizens. The refuge’s partners have assisted in wildlife and habitat management, visitor services and recreational opportunities, and community outreach. Many of these relationships have developed into formalized partnerships with written agreements or understandings, while others remain more informal.
Existing Partnerships
The most significant partnership is with the Bureau of Reclamation for construction of the mitigation features authorized under the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986. Once completed, this Chapter 3—Refuge Description 33
Table 1. Current staff at Arrowwood NWR, North Dakota. Staff Group Position
Management Biology Administration Maintenance Fire Term3, Temporary
Project leader, GS1-14* | Deputy project leader, GS-13* Refuge operations specialist, GS-7/9/11* Wildlife biologist, GS-9/11* Administrative officer, GS-11* Clerk (office assistant), GS-6* Engineering equipment operator, WG2-10 Fire management officer, GS-11* Fire technician, GS-6/7* Tractor operator (term), WG-6 Biological technicians (5), GS-3/4/5/6
Total Salaries and Benefits = $752,993
1GS=general pay schedule. 2WG=wage grade pay schedule. 3term=temporary time-limited position. *Staff with responsibilities for the entire Arrowwood NWR Complex.
project will allow independent management of water levels in each of the refuge impoundments. An agreement that stipulates Reclamation will purchase necessary equipment and supplies and fund a position to operate and maintain the mitigation project features has been in effect for several years. The refug