Big Stone Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              i
Acknowledgments
Many organizations, agencies and individuals provided invaluable assistance with
the preparation of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan. We gratefully ac-knowledge
the input and support of Tom Larson, Mike Marxen, John Schomaker,
Mary Mitchell, Sean Killen, and Jane Hodgins, Planners with the Division of
Ascertainment and Planning and all of the dedicated employees of the Wetland
Management Districts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Region 3 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is grateful to the many conserva-tion
organizations active in western Minnesota for their dedication to the Wet-land
Management Districts in making them outstanding examples of cooperation
and partnership with the many local communities. The Region is equally grateful
to every volunteer who contributes time to the programs offered on the Wetland
Management Districts. You are truly the backbone of conservation efforts.
Contents
Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................................................................i
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................................i
Comprehensive Conservation Planning .................................................................................................................. ii
The Planning Process ................................................................................................................................................ ii
Management Alternatives ....................................................................................................................................... iii
Alternatives Development ............................................................................................................................... iii
Alternative 1 – Maintain Management on Current Acres With No Additional Land Acquisition ... v
Alternative 2 – Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acres and Maintain Current Management Prac-tices
(No Action) .......................................................................................................................................... v
Alternative 3 – Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acres and Expand Management for Waterfowl,
Other Trust Species and the Public. (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................... vi
Planning Issues and Management Direction ........................................................................................................ vii
People.................................................................................................................................................................. ix
Operations ........................................................................................................................................................... x
Essential Staffing, Mission-Critical Projects and Major Maintenance Needs ................................................. xi
Essential Staffing Needs ............................................................................................................................ xi
Mission-Critical Projects .......................................................................................................................... xii
Major Maintenance Projects .................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ................................................................................................... 1
Overview: History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and Management .................................................. 1
Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ..................................................................... 5
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................................................... 5
The National Wildlife Refuge System .............................................................................................................. 6
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts Vision Statement ............................................................................. 6
Legal and Policy Guidance ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Existing Partnerships: The Ecosystem Approach ................................................................................................ 7
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ......................................................................................................... 8
Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities ..................................................................... 9
Biological Needs Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 9
Working With Partners ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 2: Planning Process, Issues and Goals ....................................................................................... 9
Description of Planning Process ............................................................................................................................... 9
Planning Issues ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
Wildlife and Habitat ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Public Use .......................................................................................................................................................... 11
Operations ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Goals ............................................................................................................. 12
Wildlife and Habitat ......................................................................................................................................... 12
People................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Operations ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Chapter 3: The Environment ........................................................................................................................ 16
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting .............................................................................................................................. 16
Prairie Grasslands ............................................................................................................................................ 16
Deciduous Woods .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Coniferous Forest ............................................................................................................................................. 18
Climate ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Geology .............................................................................................................................................................. 20
District Resources ................................................................................................................................................... 21
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................................... 21
Waterfowl ................................................................................................................................................... 21
Migratory Birds ......................................................................................................................................... 25
Vertebrate and Invertebrate Species of Concern ................................................................................. 26
Reptiles, Amphibians, and Insects, Vertebrates and Invertebrates ................................................... 26
Listed Endangered and Threatened Vertebrates and Invertebrates ................................................ 27
Threatened Mammals ........................................................................................................................ 27
Threatened/Endangered Birds ......................................................................................................... 27
Reintroductions ......................................................................................................................................... 27
Management of Resident Species ............................................................................................................ 28
Habitat ............................................................................................................................................................... 28
Wetlands and Riparian Habitat ................................................................................................................ 28
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ................................................................................................. 30
Prairie Restoration ................................................................................................................................... 31
Rare Communities .................................................................................................................................... 32
Plant Species of Concern .................................................................................................................... 33
Listed Plants ....................................................................................................................................... 33
External Threats ....................................................................................................................................... 34
Drainage and Pesticides ..................................................................................................................... 34
Invasive Species ................................................................................................................................. 35
Rural Development ............................................................................................................................. 35
Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................................. 36
Archeological and Cultural Values .................................................................................................................. 36
Context........................................................................................................................................................ 36
Existing Conditions and Cultural Resources Potential ............................................................................... 36
Indian Tribes and Other Interested Parties .................................................................................................. 37
Management of Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 38
People ........................................................................................................................................................................ 38
Public Use of Waterfowl Production Areas ................................................................................................... 38
Disabled User Access ...................................................................................................................................... 40
Operations................................................................................................................................................................. 40
Individual WPA Development Plans .............................................................................................................. 40
Consistent Use .................................................................................................................................................. 41
Drainage ..................................................................................................................................................... 43
Chapter 4: Management Direction .............................................................................................................. 44
Big Stone Wetland Management District .............................................................................................................. 44
Goals, Objectives and Strategies ............................................................................................................................ 44
Wildlife and Habitat ......................................................................................................................................... 44
Goal 1: Wildlife Goals ............................................................................................................................... 44
Goal 2: Habitat Goals ............................................................................................................................... 47
Goal 3: Acquisition .................................................................................................................................... 51
Goal 4: Monitoring Goals .......................................................................................................................... 52
Goal 5: Endangered Species / Unique Communities ............................................................................. 54
People................................................................................................................................................................. 57
Goal 6: Public Use/ Environmental Education ....................................................................................... 57
Operations ......................................................................................................................................................... 59
Goal 7: Development Plan ........................................................................................................................ 59
Goal 8: Support Staff, Facilities and Equipment .................................................................................... 59
Goal 9: Annual Capital Development Funds ........................................................................................... 60
Goal 10: Consistency ................................................................................................................................. 61
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation .................................................................................................................. 60
Essential Staffing, Mission-Critical Projects and Major Maintenance Needs ................................................ 60
Essential Staffing Needs ........................................................................................................................... 60
Mission-Critical Projects .......................................................................................................................... 60
Major Maintenance Projects .................................................................................................................... 60
Funding ...................................................................................................................................................................... 60
Step-down Management Plans ............................................................................................................................... 61
Partnership Opportunities ...................................................................................................................................... 61
Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................... 62
Appendix A: Authority and Legal Compliance .................................................................................................... 65
Appendix B: Priority Bird Species ........................................................................................................................ 71
Appendix C: Species List ....................................................................................................................................... 77
Appendix D: National Wetlands Inventory – Minnesota Counties Wetland Types ........................................ 93
Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations ......................................................................................................... 97
Appendix F: RONS Lists ...................................................................................................................................... 161
Appendix G: Existing Partnerships ..................................................................................................................... 165
Appendix H: Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 171
Appendix I: Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................... 177
Appendix J: List of Preparers .............................................................................................................................. 183
Appendix K: Guidance for Acquisition ................................................................................................................ 187
Appendix L: Goal Acres ....................................................................................................................................... 199
Appendix M: Environmental Assessment .......................................................................................................... 203
Appendix N: Drainage Policy ............................................................................................................................... 301
Appendix O: Disposition of Public Comments on the Draft CCP ..................................................................... 305
List of Figures:
Figure 1: Minnesota Wetland Management Districts .......................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Breeding Pair Population (Averaged) for Major Duck Species in WMDS 1987-2000 ..................... 4
Figure 3: Minnesota Wetland Management District Ecosystems .................................................................... 17
Figure 4: Minnesota Wetland Management District Hydrology and Key Rivers .......................................... 19
Figure 5: Estimated Average Duck Pair Density, 1987-1999 ............................................................................ 22
Figure 6: Predicted Settling Density of Dabbling Duck Pairs ........................................................................... 24
Figure 7: Marsh Vegetation Cycles ....................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 8: GIS for Waterfowl Production Area Development Planning ............................................................ 42
Figure 9: Big Stone Wetland Management District ............................................................................................ 45
Figure 10: Big Stone Wetland Management District Staffing Chart ................................................................ 61
Executive Summary
i
Executive Summary
Big Stone Wetland Management District is part of a unique natural ecosystem
and an equally unique legacy of human partnership.
The ecosystem is known as the tallgrass prairie ecosystem, and its combination
of prairie grasslands and small wetlands made it among the most biologically
diverse and intricate landscapes in the world. When European settlers arrived
and discovered the land’s tremendous productivity, the tallgrass prairie ecosys-tem
became one of the most altered ecosystems
on earth. The landscape changed rapidly, and
little of the original prairie was saved. Today
only fragments exist in small, isolated blocks.
Partnerships have been inherent in efforts to
preserve the remaining prairie. From the Duck
Stamp Act of 1934 to the Wetland Loan Act of
1961 to the Small Wetland Acquisition Program
of 1962, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) and hunters, environmentalists, and
communities have worked together to preserve
land and wildlife. Funding for acquisition of
Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA) comes in
large part from funds generated through the Duck Stamp Act, making duck
hunters a key partner in preserving critical habitat within the prairie pothole
region. Waterfowl Production Areas are upland grasslands and wetlands pur-chased
by the Service to provide nesting habitat for waterfowl. Wetland Manage-ment
Districts (WMD) are the federal administrative units charged with acquir-ing,
overseeing, and managing WPAs and easements within a specified group of
counties.
Big Stone WMD is part of this heritage. The District was established in 1996 to
acquire and manage lands under the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program within
Lincoln and Lyon counties. It currently includes 11 Waterfowl Production Areas
covering 2,343 acres of fee title lands, 12 habitat and/or wetland easements
covering 1,387 acres and three FmHA Conservation Easements covering 160
acres for a grand total of 3,890 acres of protected habitat.
Managing the District demands long range planning that reflects vision, science,
and people. This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan describes how we
intend to improve wildlife habitat, foster waterfowl production, and expand
opportunities for compatible recreation, including hunting, wildlife observation,
and environmental education.
The management direction identified in this Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan charts a course for the next 15 years. This course is summarized in three
broad categories – Wildlife and Habitat, People, and Operations.
USFWS Photo
Executive Summary
ii
Comprehensive Conservation Planning
The Comprehensive Conservation Plan, or CCP, is a guide for management on
the Big Stone WMD over the next 15 years. The document provides an outline
for how we will accomplish our mission and make our vision become a reality.
Several legislative mandates within the National Wildlife Refuge System Im-provement
Act of 1997 have guided the development of the Plan. These man-dates
include:
■ The focus of management on the District is to benefit wildlife conserva-tion.
■ Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, (hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and inter-pretation)
are encouraged when they are compatible with wildlife
conservation.
The CCP will benefit management of Big Stone WMD by:
■ Providing a clear statement of direction for future management of the
District.
■ Giving District neighbors, visitors and the general public an understand-ing
of the Service’s management actions on and around the Districts.
■ Ensuring that the District’s management actions and programs are
consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
■ Ensuring that District management is consistent with other federal,
state, and local plans when practicable.
■ Establishing that wildlife-dependent recreation uses (compatible uses
including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or
environmental education and interpretation) are the priority public uses
within the Refuge System.
■ Providing a basis for the development of budget requests on operation,
maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
The Planning Process
The planning process for this Comprehensive Conservation Plan began October
1, 1997, when a Notice Of Intent to prepare a comprehensive management plan
was published in the Federal Register (Vol 62: 51482). Because the six Districts
face similar issues, Managers and planners decided to follow a shared CCP
process that would result in separate documents for each District. This chapter
describes the planning process that was employed.
Initially, members of the planning team identified a list of issues and concerns
that were likely to be associated with the management of the District. These
preliminary issues and concerns were based on the team members’ knowledge of
the area, contacts with citizens in the community, and ideas already expressed to
the District staff. District staff and Service planners then began asking District
Executive Summary
iii
neighbors, organizations, local government units, schools,
and interested citizens to share their thoughts in a series of
open house events.
Open houses were conducted at each District as well as the
Regional Office at Ft. Snelling, Minnesota.
People were invited to send in written comments describ-ing
their support or concerns about the Districts. Fifty-one
written comments were received.
A survey of public use was conducted and focus group
meetings were conducted to develop the issues, goals, and
objectives for the Plan. These meetings included the
District Managers and invited participants from the
University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and the
U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research
Center. Concurrent with the focus group meetings, plan-ning
staff met with staff from the District staff members
numerous times to review issues and discuss District
management.
A wide range of issues, concerns and opportunities were
expressed during the planning process. Numerous discus-sions
among District and planning staff, focus groups and
resource specialists brought to light several recurring
themes. Issues fall into broad categories of wildlife, habitat and people. Dealing
with these issues is at the core of the development of goals and objectives for the
management of the Wetland Management Districts in Minnesota.
Management Alternatives
An environmental assessment (EA) encompassing all six of the Minnesota
Wetland Management Districts was prepared as part of the planning process.
Three management alternatives were evaluated in the EA, including: maintain-ing
management of current wetland management district acres but not acquiring
more land; increasing land holdings to meet the goal acres and maintain current
management practices; and improving WMDs for waterfowl and other trust
species. The Service has selected the third alternative, improving the Districts
for waterfowl and other trust species, as the preferred alternative. Each alterna-tive
is briefly described in the following paragraphs.
Alternatives Development
Project Leaders on WMDs within the major waterfowl breeding habitats of the
United States have been charged with the responsibility to identify tracts of land
that meet the goals of the Small Wetland Acquisition Program (SWAP) for
inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). Of all the responsi-bilities
Project Leaders carry, identifying lands to include in the NWRS has the
longest lasting implications and is by far the most important. The land, once
Vision Statement for the
Minnesota Wetland
Management Districts
The Districts will empha-size
waterfowl production
and ensure the preserva-tion
of habitat for migra-tory
birds, threatened and
endangered native spe-cies,
and resident wildlife.
The Districts will provide
opportunities for the
public to hunt, fish,
observe and photograph
wildlife and increase
public understanding and
appreciation of the North-ern
Tallgrass Prairie
Ecosystem.
Executive Summary
iv
acquired, needs to be managed intensively with a variety of tools available to the
managers. The intensity of management is limited by the number of staff
available and the scattered distribution of the land holdings across a wide land-scape
in 28 counties of western Minnesota. The following alternatives identify
three approaches meeting the goals and responsibilities of land ownership and
management.
The main goal of the SWAP has been, and still is, to purchase a complex of
wetlands and uplands that provide habitat in which waterfowl can successfully
reproduce. The basic concept has been to purchase in fee title key brood marshes
that include adequate nesting cover on adjacent uplands while protecting under
easement surrounding temporary and seasonal wetland basins as breeding pair
habitat. Once this is accomplished, the land must be managed through seeding
with native grasses and forbs, burning and spraying, or otherwise controlling
exotic and/or invasive species. Additionally, abandoned human infrastructure
(wells, barns, etc.) must be removed. The
areas are signed, and sometimes fenced, to
provide safe public access.
The SWAP began in 1958 and accelerated
rapidly in the early 1960s with passage of
the Wetlands Loan Act. The original 1960s
delineations were prepared for each fee title
parcel based on their suitability to provide
brood rearing habitat for waterfowl. These
delineations designated wetlands as priority
A, B, and C for fee title purchase. These
tracts had few upland acres and only existing wetlands with no drainage facilities
were considered for fee or easement purchase. In some locations, these original
delineations have been reevaluated and revised. In Minnesota, a 1974 exercise
produced maps showing proposed boundaries of each fee title delineation, as well
as wetlands within a 2-mile radius that were eligible for easement purchase. A
1984 effort produced maps of “significant wetland areas” for fee title purchase.
Although dated, these efforts were biologically sound and provide valuable
information in deciding which properties to purchase today.
Over the years our understanding of breeding waterfowl biology has increased
and the landscape of the Upper Midwest has changed dramatically. The SWAP
itself has evolved to include purchase of drained wetlands, increased upland
acreage, and grassland easements along with new counties that include lands
within intensely agricultural and urbanized landscapes.
Three possible alternatives to acquisition and management were considered as
we thought about the future of the programs for the wetland management
districts. The three alternatives were (1) manage what lands we currently own;
(2) acquire additional lands and manage them as we currently manage the lands
that we own; and (3) acquire additional lands and expand management beyond
the present level of intensity.
In the following sections we summarize what we would do under each alterna-tive.
The third alternative is our preferred alternative, which is developed in
more detail as the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Executive Summary
v
Alternative 1 – Maintain Management on Current Acres With No Additional Land
Acquisition
Under this alternative we would manage fee title land already in the system and
would not increase the holdings to the agreed goal acres for each county within
the District. We would restore native grasslands using local ecotypes of mixed
native grasses and forbs and improve wetlands by increasing water control and
improving watersheds. We would regularly evaluate our approach to waterfowl
production. We would maintain the recruitment rate of waterfowl and the
current level of inspection of our lands and easements. We would continue to
conduct the 4-square-mile monitoring program and the monitoring of nesting
structures under this alternative. We would continue routine surveys such as the
scent post survey and bird counts and non-routine surveys when requested, such
as the deformed frog survey. We would continue to avoid any actions that would
harm endangered or threatened species, and we
would note the presence of any species that is
federally listed as endangered or threatened.
We would maintain the public access to WPAs that
currently exists. We would complete and document
development plans for every WPA on the District as
time and staffing permit. The development plans
would be recorded in a geographic information
system and document boundaries, habitat, facilities
and history of management.
Each District would continue with the current level of staffing. We would
identify and replace facilities and equipment that do not meet Service standards.
We would expect that the maintenance backlog would be reduced, but not
eliminated, over the life of the CCP.
Alternative 2 – Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acres and Maintain Current Management
Practices (No Action)
Under this alternative we would continue acquiring land up to the negotiated
goal acres within each county in the District (See Table A). We would expand the
size of WPAs in areas of prime waterfowl use through easements and working
with partners.
We would restore native grasslands using local ecotypes of mixed native grasses
and forbs and improve wetlands by increasing water control and improving
watersheds. We would regularly evaluate our approach to waterfowl production.
We would maintain the recruitment rate of waterfowl and the current level of
inspection of our lands and easements. We would continue to conduct the 4-
square-mile monitoring program and the monitoring of nesting structures under
this alternative. We would continue routine surveys such as the scent post
survey and bird counts and non-routine surveys when requested, such as the
deformed frog survey. We would continue to avoid any actions that would harm
endangered or threatened species. We would note the presence of any species
that is federally listed as endangered or threatened.
We would continue current public access on existing areas and add access to new
acquisitions over several years. We would complete and document development
plans for every WPA on the District as time and staffing permit. The develop-ment
plans would be recorded in a GIS and document boundaries, habitat,
facilities, and history of management.
Executive Summary
vi
Each District would continue with the current level of staffing. We would
identify and replace facilities and equipment that do not meet Service standards.
We would expect that the maintenance backlog would be reduced, but not
eliminated, over the life of the CCP.
Alternative 3 – Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acres and Expand
Management for Waterfowl, Other Trust Species and the Public.
(Preferred Alternative)
Under this alternative we would continue acquiring land up
to the negotiated goal acres for each county within the
District (See Table A). We would expand the size of WPAs in
areas of prime waterfowl use through easements and working
with partners. We would focus whenever possible on prime
habitat as outlined in the Habitat and Population Evaluation
Team (HAPET) “thunderstorm” maps. These maps reveal
high density waterfowl populations and, because the results
are color coded, look somewhat like weather maps.
We would follow the Strategic Growth of the SWAP Guide-lines
for Fee and Easement Purchase (See Appendix K).
These Guidelines specify that:
1) The program will focus on providing the mission
components for the WMD landscape: wetland com-plexes,
surrounding grasslands, and a predator
component that approaches a naturally occurring complement (i.e.,
coyotes vs. red fox).
2) The program will focus on established delineation criteria (size, location,
ratio of upland to wetlands, soil composition, etc.) for all fee title, habitat,
and wetland easements (Appendix K).
3) The program will prioritize acquisition based on thunderstorm maps,
land cover (grassland acres), landscape characteristics, and data on
predator populations. Prioritization will be given to tracts that benefit
waterfowl, but other wildlife benefits will be considered in the priorities
such as native prairie, endangered or threatened species, and colonial
nesting birds. Additional considerations may include expanding and
Photo by Bernie Angus
Table A: Fee Title Acres Approved and Goal Acres Per District in
Accordance with the Land Exchange Board
Fee Title Acres
Wetland Approved for
Management Purchase by the
Districts Land Exchange Board Goal Acres Remainder
Detroit Lakes 41,615 89,280 47,665
Fergus Falls 43,417 74,675 31,258
Litchfield 33,213 76,220 46,007
Big Stone 2,343 0 0
Morris 51,208 74,830 23,622
Windom 12,669 24,476 11,807
Executive Summary
vii
protecting large tracts of grassland as Grassland Bird Core Conservation
Areas as proposed by Fitzgerald et al. (1998).
We would restore native grasslands using local ecotypes of mixed native grasses
and forbs and improve wetlands by increasing water control and improving
watersheds. We would, where practicable, follow HAPET recommendations for
nesting platforms and predator management (electric fencing, predator control,
islands, etc.). Cooperating landowners within the District’s watershed would be
offered incentives and/or compensated through cost-sharing agreements for
applying conservation and environmental farming practices on their lands and for
creating, maintaining, or enhancing habitat for wildlife.
We would regularly evaluate our approach to waterfowl production and improve
waterfowl monitoring. We would strive to increase the recruitment rate of
waterfowl and increase inspection of our lands and easements. We would work to
prohibit the introduction of wildlife species that are not native to the Northern
Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem.
We would employ a scientifically defensible means to monitor and evaluate
habitats and populations under this alternative. We would increasingly use GIS
in our monitoring. We would inventory the hydrological systems within the
District, invertebrate communities, and monitor contaminant levels in water
flowing to and from District wetlands. We would increase our surveys and
monitoring of threatened and endangered species, invertebrates, and unique
communities under this alternative. We would seek opportunities to enhance and
reintroduce native species in the District.
Under this alternative we would expand and improve opportunities for public use
through construction of additional parking lots and interpretive kiosks on exist-ing
and acquired lands.
We would complete and document develop-ment
plans for every WPA on the District
within three years under this alternative.
The development plans would be recorded
in a geographic information system and
document boundaries, habitat, facilities, and
history of management.
Staff would be added to the Districts under this alternative. Implementation of
the CCP would rely on partnerships formed with landowners in the watershed,
volunteers and interested citizens, farm and conservation organizations, and with
appropriate government agencies. We would identify and replace facilities and
equipment that do not meet Service standards. Our goal would be to meet the
standards by 2010.
Management of the Districts would be more consistent among the Minnesota
Districts and with the Districts in Iowa, Wisconsin and the Dakotas.
USFWS Photo
Executive Summary
viii
Planning Issues and Management Direction
A wide range of issues, concerns and opportunities were expressed during the
planning process. Numerous discussions among Districtand planning staff, focus
groups and resource specialists brought to light several recurring themes. Issues
fall into broad categories of wildlife, habitat and people. In the following para-graphs,
we list the issues that were identified in this planning process and our
objectives for addressing that issue.
Can we improve waterfowl productivity?
We will work to increase waterfowl production through effective monitoring of
populations, evaluating current management actions and increasing recruitment.
We will strive to increase recruitment through cropland conversion to grassland
and artificial structures where appropriate, and protecting existing National
Wildlife Refuge System lands as well as other waterfowl habitats in cooperation
with District partners.
Strategic Acquisition: Can we buy the highest priority land in the most efficient
and cost-effective manner possible?
We will ensure strategic land acquisition by evaluating current acquisition
guidelines, identifying priority acquisition areas, and evaluating acreage goals
while securing rapid responses to sellers through close coordination with the
acquisition office.
Managing Uplands: Can we improve prairie restoration by planting the right
seeds and using the right management tools?
We will seek to reestablish and manage native plant communities by seeding a
diverse mixture of local grasses and forbs each year as determined through the
WPA development plans. We will actively manage to maintain quality grassland
habitats using fire, grazing and/or haying, and haying as viable management
tools.
Managing and Restoring Wetlands: How do we
manage wetlands to maintain or increase productiv-ity?
We will strive to restore and manage wetlands
primarily within identified priority areas, increasing
the amount and quality of water level management,
monitoring hydrological systems, and encouraging and
cooperating in research of these systems.
Can we improve biological inventories and monitoring on WPAs?
We will improve biological inventories and monitoring through planning, training,
expanded species data gathering, research, and use of GIS.
Can we stem the loss of migratory birds in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie
Ecosystem?
We will try to stem the loss of all migratory birds by expanding restoration of
upland wetland and riparian habitats on private lands.
USFWS Photo
Executive Summary
ix
Can we manage District land to preserve, restore and enhance threatened and
endangered species, rare and declining species, and address regional priority
species?
We will preserve, restore and enhance threatened and endangered species and
rare and declining species through the collection of baseline population and
habitat data, tailored management activities, enforcement of regulations, and
increased cooperation with partners.
Under what circumstances should we reintroduce rare native species to District
land?
We will seek to reintroduce rare native species where feasible by identifying,
evaluating and prioritizing opportunities. All reintroduction programs will be
conducted in close cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.
How do we mitigate negative external influences such as contaminants on WPAs
and reduce its impact on long-term health and productivity of District land?
We will work to mitigate negative external influences on Service lands by
identifying, monitoring and developing action plans to address threats such as
pesticide use, contaminants, soil erosion and poor water quality.
How do we balance management for Federal trust species with the needs of
resident species?
We will balance management of Federal trust species with the needs of resident
species by communicating with state wildlife agencies and local conservation
organizations to provide compatible food and cover sources where
there are documented needs.
How do we reduce crop loss caused by Canada geese foraging on
private land adjacent to WPAs?
We will work to reduce crop loss caused by Canada Geese forag-ing
on private lands adjacent to Waterfowl Production Areas by
developing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources which defines agency responsi-bilities
to provide alternate feeding areas and long-term solutions.
Invasive species, both exotic and native, are negatively impacting the natural
ecological balance of grasslands and wetlands on WPAs.
We will seek to control the negative impacts of invasive species by taking aggres-sive
control measures against exotic plants, documenting and eradicating inva-sive
plant populations, and increasing long-term resolution of these problems
through biological controls.
What is the Long Range Goal of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
(Private Lands) on Wetland Management Districts?
We will identify the long-range goals of the District’s Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program (private lands) by developing priority action items that could
USFWS Photo
Executive Summary
x
include identification of partners in key project areas, and developing a brochure
for the public to better define the Partners program and its benefits.
People
There are conflicting views concerning the costs and benefits of federally owned
land in a community. Who benefits? Who pays?
We will identify the benefits and costs of Federally owned land to a community
by investigating the economic value of wetlands and federal land ownership as
well as revenue sharing in relation to local taxes. We will seek to determine the
social values of wildlife and natural habitats to people.
How do we provide adequate facilities and programs for the public to fully enjoy
wildlife-related recreation in a way that is compatible with our mission?
We will provide adequate facilities and pro-grams
for public enjoyment of compatible
wildlife-dependent recreation by enhancing
public use experiences with accessible facili-ties
that meet National Visitor Service
Standards as well as providing current maps
and District information. We will increase
environmental education opportunities
through additional “hands-on” exhibits,
specific on-site interpretative opportunities,
and building volunteer programs.
Operations
Districts need sufficient staff in critical areas to fully meet resource challenges
and opportunities.
We will meet staffing needs for resource challenges and opportunities by hiring
additional administrative, biological, technical, and maintenance personnel.
Districts need office, maintenance, and equipment storage facilities to carry out
their mission.
We will provide adequate maintenance and storage facilities by selecting and
developing a secure maintenance and equipment storage area within the bound-aries
of the Wetland District.
Vehicles and other necessary equipment need to be replaced on a regular basis
according to Service standards.
We will schedule vehicle and equipment replacements to achieve industry
standards when normal life expectancy is reached and acquire all necessary
equipment to achieve Wetland Management District Goals.
USFWS Photo
Executive Summary
xi
Funding is needed to develop and manage newly acquired WPA land and
facilities.
We will develop newly acquired Waterfowl
Production Areas by identifying these needs,
securing funding, and carrying out projects
immediately after lands are purchased. We
will identify the costs of new lands to the
District’s annual operation and maintenance
budget.
We will maintain existing waterfowl produc-tion
areas at Service standards including
delineated boundaries, nature trails, parking
lots, access trails, water control structures
and fences by maintaining a current inventory of maintenance needs on the
Maintenance Management System database, and updating these costs and
priorities annually.
Individual WPA development plans and record keeping need to be updated.
We will ensure that Waterfowl Production Area Development Plans are current
by performing complete resource inventories and utilizing the most current GIS
technology and complete unit planning to meet trust responsibilities.
The Districts need to be consistent in their application of policy and resource
protection efforts.
We will seek consistency in policy and practices on all Service Wetland Manage-ment
Districts by attending coordination meetings and following Service policy
when implementing programs.
Essential Staffing, Mission-Critical Projects and Major
Maintenance Needs
The Service relies on two systems to track the needs of the Wetland Manage-ment
Districts and other units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These
systems are the Refuge Operating Needs System and the Maintenance Manage-ment
System. Each station has scores of projects in each system, representing a
need which is often beyond the realities of funding. How-ever,
each station has identified its most critical needs
which form a realistic assessment of funding needed to
meet many of the goals, objectives, and strategies identi-fied
in the CCP. These needs also form the basis for the
President’s budget request to Congress. These critical
needs are listed below in the categories of essential staff,
mission-critical projects, and major maintenance projects.
A complete listing of projects in the Operating Needs
System is found in Appendix F of this document and it
represents the long-term needs of the Big Stone Wetland USFWS Photo
USFWS Photo
Executive Summary
xii
Management District to operate at optimum levels. The following list includes
needs for the Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge.
Essential Staffing Needs
Biological technician
Biological technician
Visitor Services Specialist
Administrative Technician
Maintenance Worker
Maintenance Worker
Mission-Critical Projects
Provide Visitor Services through Interpretive Facilities
Native Prairie Restoration
Visitor Services and Biological Studies
American Bittern Bird Study
Water Level Management
Major Maintenance Projects
Replace fence around three quarries
Replace backhoe
Replace tractor
10 additional projects
Total: $2,399,000
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Overview: History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and
Management
The Wetland Management Districts of Minnesota are set in a landscape that was once
a mosaic of prairie and wetlands. From north to south the land varied between
woodland, sandy ridges and hills covered with prairie flowers, dotted with small, blue
wetlands and oak savannah. It was beautiful, rolling country teaming with waterfowl
and other wildlife. Early explorers from Europe described its park-like quality with
wonder. The combination of prairie grasslands and small wetlands made it among the
most biologically productive landscapes in the world; supporting many people and an
abundance of wildlife.
The prairie harbored bison herds estimated at 50 to
60 million. From Alexander Henry’s January 14,
1801, journal reporting from the Red River Valley,
“...At daybreak I was awakened by the bellowing of
buffaloes...I dressed and climbed my oak for a better
view. I had seen almost incredible numbers of
buffalo in the fall, but nothing in comparison to what
I now beheld. The ground was covered at every
point of the compass, as far as the eye could reach,
and every animal was in motion.”
Only 100 years after this entry, the myth of the
prairies’ unlimited abundance was severely tested.
Many important game species were driven to near
extinction by intensive and uncontrolled killing and
commercial over-harvest encouraged by East Coast
and European markets. Free-roaming bison, the
Great Plains wolf, swift fox, pronghorn antelope and
grizzly bear were eliminated from Minnesota. Black bear and elk were removed from
their prairie niche. Many Native American tribes that depended on these resources
were decimated by disease and conflict.
When European settlers arrived on the prairies, they recognized the land’s productiv-ity
and rapidly turned it to agriculture. In a few decades it ranked among the richest
agricultural land in the world. The landscape changed so rapidly, little of the original
prairie was saved. Today, only fragments remain in isolated, small blocks. With
fragmentation and the loss of large predators, smaller predators such as raccoon,
striped skunks, and fox increased, much to the detriment of ground-nesting birds and
other native grassland species.
Perhaps no other ecosystem on earth as been so dramatically altered, in such a short
time, as the tallgrass prairie ecosystem of the Midwest.
The early mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service was to protect species from over-harvest
and manage wildlife for a quality hunt. Waterfowl have been a central focus
from the very beginning. Many species of prairie waterfowl and shorebirds were
saved by legislation formed to protect them from market hunting.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo
Big Stone Wetland Management District CCP
2
Early surveys of the Prairie Pothole Region revealed a strong correlation between
prairie wetlands and waterfowl breeding habitat. Biologists learned that waterfowl
success is directly linked to the number of wetlands. When winter snows fill the small
wetlands, waterfowl populations soar. Since the wetlands are shallow by nature,
their value to waterfowl varies from year to year depending on the amount of snow
and rain. In years of drought, wetlands dry and waterfowl populations plummet. The
crucial link between wetlands and waterfowl was made during a time when wetlands
throughout the prairies were being drained at an unprecedented rate for agriculture.
In 1934 the Duck Stamp Act was passed, setting the stage for the most aggressive
land acquisition campaign for conservation of wildlife habitat in American history.
Although the original Act did not allow purchase of small wetlands, it created a way
for hunters to actively participate in maintaining waterfowl populations. In 1958 the
Act was amended, making it possible for the Service to buy small wetlands and
uplands for breeding waterfowl and for hunting. The acquired wetlands became
Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) and formed the core of the Wetland Manage-ment
Districts.
The Act was passed in the nick of time. Between
1780 and 1980, approximately 78.7 percent of
Minnesota wetlands in the Prairie Pothole and
Parkland Transition areas were drained (Dahl
1990). In intensive agricultural areas of the Prairie
Pothole Region, wetland losses often exceed 90
percent (Rex Johnson). Today over 70,000 miles of
ditches drain wetlands in Minnesota with a continu-ing
annual wetland loss of 2.4 percent per year.
At the time the Small Wetland Acquisition Pro-gram
(SWAP) began in 1962, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service entered into a Procedural Agree-ment
with the State of Minnesota. This document laid out the rules for the purchase
of wetlands as required by the Wetland Loan Act of 1961. The agreement was
amended in 1976 when the number of counties authorized for acquisition increased
from 19 to 28, and the goal acreage was increased. In 1991, the Minnesota Land
Exchange Board gave the Service approval to expand its land acquisition program to
all 87 counties of the state. The state goal of 231,000 acres in fee title and 365,170
acres in easements, as established in 1976, remains unchanged (See Appendix A for a
complete listing of the District legal mandates).
In western Minnesota, as of March 31, 1999, the Service owned 171,863 acres, of which
56,693 acres were wetlands (Figure 1). In addition, the Service administers perpetual
easement agreements on 266,171 acres, of which 62,098 acres are wetlands. Wetlands
that were once drained have been restored; on Waterfowl Production Areas, more
than 4 ,000 wetland restorations have impounded 15,900 wetland acres.
The program has been remarkably successful in the face of great odds. The Wetland
Management Districts combine to form a greater land mass than the largest national
wildlife refuge in the lower 48 states. Each District has, on average, 23,400 to 73,400
breeding ducks each year; all Districts combined average 240,600 breeding ducks each
year (Figure 2).
Photo Copyright Jan Eldridge
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
3
Figure 1: Minnesota Wetland Management Districts
Big Stone Wetland Management District CCP
4
Figure 2: Breeding Pair Population (Averaged) for Major Duck Species in
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts 1987-2000
Data values are for 13 species (mallard, gadwall, blue-winged teal, northern shoveler, northern pintail,
wigeon, green-winged teal, wood duck, redhead, canvasback, scaup, ringneck and ruddy duck).
Litchfield, Roseau and Windom wetland management districts data are for the years 1989-2000.
Source: Waterfowl Breeding Populations and Production Estimates, for the Prairie Pothole Region of
Minnesota (4 square mile survey). Habitat and Population Evaluation Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Fergus Falls, Minnesota
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
5
Background
Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan, or CCP, is a guide for management on the
Wetland Management Districts over the next 15 years. The document provides an
outline for how we will accomplish our mission and make our vision become a reality.
Several legislative mandates within the National Wildlife Refuge System Improve-ment
Act of 1997 have guided the development of the Plan. These mandates include:
■ The focus of management on the Districts is to benefit wildlife conservation.
■ Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation) are encour-aged
when they are compatible with wildlife conservation.
This CCP will benefit management of Wetland Management Districts by:
■ Providing a clear statement of direction for future management of the Dis-tricts.
■ Giving District neighbors, visitors and the general public an understanding of
the Service’s management actions on and around the Districts.
■ Ensuring that the Districts’ management actions and programs are consistent
with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
■ Ensuring that District management is consistent with federal, state and
county plans.
■ Establishing that wildlife-dependent recreation uses (compatible uses includ-ing
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental
education and interpretation) are the priority public uses within the Refuge
System.
■ Communicating that other uses have lower priority on the Refuge System
and are only allowed if they are compatible with the mission of the Refuge
System, and with the purposes of the individual refuge.
■ Providing a basis for the development of budget requests on the District’s
operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as we know it today has evolved and changed with
the country’s use of natural resources and the growing respect for the environment.
Today the Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for conserving, protect-ing,
and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people.
Specific responsibilities include enforcing Federal wildlife laws, managing migratory
bird populations, restoring nationally significant fisheries, administering the Endan-gered
Species Act, and restoring wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The Service also
manages the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Big Stone Wetland Management District CCP
6
The National Wildlife Refuge System
The National Wildlife Refuge System is a significant focus of the Service. Founded in
1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt with the designation of Pelican Island as a
refuge for brown pelicans, the National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest
collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The
System is a diverse network of more than 500 national wildlife refuges
encompassing more than 92 million acres of public land and water.
Most of the land - 86 percent - is in Alaska, with approximately 15
million acres spread across the lower 48 states and several island
territories. Refuges provide habitat for more than 5,000 species of
birds, mammals, fish, and insects.
Like Pelican Island, many early national wildlife refuges were created for herons,
egrets, and other water birds. Others were set aside for large mammals like elk and
bison. By far the most refuges have been created to protect migratory waterfowl.
This is a result of the United States’ responsibilities under international treaties for
migratory bird conservation as well as other legislation, such as the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act of 1929. A map of the National Wildlife Refuge System shows
refuges dotting the four major flyways that waterfowl follow from their northern
nesting grounds to southern wintering areas.
National wildlife refuges also play a vital role in preserving endangered and threat-ened
species. Among the refuges that are well known for providing habitat for
endangered species are Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, the winter home
of the whooping crane; the Florida Panther Refuge, which protects one of the nation’s
most endangered mammals; and the Hawaiian Islands Refuge, home of the Laysan
duck, Hawaiian monk seal and many other unique species.
Refuges also provide unique opportunities for people. When it is compatible with
wildlife and habitat needs, refuges can be used for wildlife-dependent activities such
as hunting, fishing, hiking, wildlife observation, photography, environmental educa-tion,
and environmental interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers, wildlife
trails, automobile tours, and environmental education programs. Nationwide, more
than 33 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 1999.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established many
mandates aimed at making the management of national wildlife refuges more cohe-sive.
The preparation of Comprehensive Conservation Plans is one of those man-dates.
The legislation requires the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and purposes of the individual refuges
are carried out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the biological integrity,
diversity, and environmental health of the refuge system.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts Vision Statement
The Districts will emphasize waterfowl production and ensure the preservation of
habitat for migratory birds, threatened and endangered native species, and resident
wildlife. The Districts will provide opportunities for the public to hunt, fish, observe
and photograph wildlife, and increase public understanding and appreciation of the
Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem.
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
7
Legal and Policy Guidance
Waterfowl Production Areas within the Big Stone Wetland Management District are
acquired under the establishing authority of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act
(Duck Stamp Act) as amended (16 U.S.C. 718-718h).
“The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to utilize funds made available under
subsection (b) of this section for the purposes of such subsection, and such other funds
as may be appropriated for the purposes of such subsection, or of this subsection, to
acquire, or defray the expense incident to the acquisition by gift, devise, lease, pur-chase
or exchange of, small wetland and pothole areas, interests therein, and rights of
way to provide access thereto. Such small areas, to be designated as “ Waterfowl
Production Areas” may be acquired without regard to the limitations and require-ments
of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, but all the provisions of such Act
which govern the administration and protection of lands acquired thereunder, except
the inviolate sanctuary provisions of such Act, shall be applicable to areas acquired
pursuant to this subsection.”
In addition to the Big Stone Wetland Management District’s establishing authority
legislation and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997,
several Federal laws, executive orders, and regulations govern its administration. See
Appendix A for a list of the guiding laws and orders.
Existing Partnerships: The Ecosystem Approach
The Service initiated its Ecosystem Approach in March of 1994. The primary goal of
the Ecosystem Approach is conserving natural biological diversity and ecosystem
integrity while supporting a sustainable level of human use. Nationally, the Service
divided the country into 53 ecosystems based upon watersheds. Ecosystem teams,
which include project leaders within each of the ecosystem boundaries, are the
primary forum through which the Service implements the Ecosystem Approach.
The Service has set new standards for teamwork, creativity, flexibility, and communi-cation
between and among our operational units and with all partners within the
ecosystem. The Service participates in public and private partnerships at many
levels. Since many of the species under our care do not respect state and national
borders, we also have a role within the larger ecosystem of the Western Hemisphere
via such treaties as the Migratory Bird Treaty with our neighbors in Mexico and
Canada.
In Minnesota, Wetland Management Districts fall within three organized ecosystem
efforts, namely the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Habitat Protection Area, the Missis-sippi
Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem, and the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture
of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The District programs are
consistent with the goals and objectives of these major projects as well as the plan
objectives for the Partners in Flight, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
Big Stone Wetland Management District CCP
8
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Over the last decade, bird conservation planning has become increasingly exciting as
it has evolved from a largely local, site-based focus to a more regional,
landscape-oriented perspective. Significant challenges include locating areas of
high-quality habitat for the conservation of particular guilds and priority bird species,
making sure no species are inadvertently left out of the regional planning process,
avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort, and identifying unique landscape and
habitat elements of particular tracts targeted for protection, management and resto-ration.
Several migratory bird conservation initiatives have emerged to help guide the
planning and implementation process. Collectively, they com-prise
a tremendous resource as refuges engage in comprehen-sive
conservation planning and its translation into effective
on-the-ground management.
Signed in 1986, the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan (NAWMP) outlines a broad framework for waterfowl
management strategies and conservation efforts in the United
States, Canada, and Mexico. The goal of the NAWMP is to
restore waterfowl populations to historic levels. The NAWMP
is designed to reach its objectives through key joint venture
areas, species joint ventures, and state implementation plans
within these joint ventures.
The Districts are in the Upper Prairie Pothole Joint Venture.
One of 12 habitat-based joint ventures, this Joint Venture
encompasses the states of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, portions of Minne-sota
and Iowa, and three Canadian provinces. The goal of this Joint Venture is to
increase populations of waterfowl through habitat conservation projects that improve
natural diversity across the U.S. Prairie Pothole landscape.
The objectives of this Joint Venture are:
Objective 1: By the year 2001, conserve habitat capable of supporting 6.8 million
breeding ducks that achieve a recruitment rate of 0.6 under average
environmental conditions, with all managed areas achieving a recruit-ment
rate of 0.49 at a minimum.
Objective 2: Stabilize or increase populations of declining wetland/grassland-associated
wildlife species in the Prairie Pothole Region, with special
emphasis on non-waterfowl migratory birds.
Formed in 1990, Partners in Flight (PIF) is concerned with most landbirds and other
species requiring terrestrial habitats. Partners in Flight has developed Bird Conser-vation
Plans for numerous Physiographic Areas across the U. S. (see http://
www.partnersinflight.org). These plans include priority species lists, associated
habitats, and management strategies.
The U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and the North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan are plans that address the concerns for shorebird and waterbirds.
These larger scale plans identify priority species and conservation strategies.
Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
9
In a continental effort, the Partners in Flight, North American Waterfowl Manage-ment,
U. S. Shorebird Conservation, and the North American Waterbird Conserva-tion
plans are being integrated under the umbrella of the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative (NABCI). The goal of NABCI is to facilitate the delivery of
the full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally-based, biologically-driven,
landscape-oriented partnerships (see http://www.dodpif.org/nabci/index.htm). The
NABCI strives to integrate the conservation objectives for all birds in order to
optimize the effectiveness of management strategies. NABCI uses Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) as its planning units. Bird Conservation Areas are becoming increas-ingly
common as the unit of choice for regional bird conservation efforts; The Districts
lie within Prairie Potholes (BCR 11) and the Boreal Hardwood Transition (BCR 23).
Each of the four bird conservation initiatives has a process for designating conserva-tion
priority species, modeled to a large extent on the PIF method of calculating
scores based on independent assessments of global relative abundance, breeding and
wintering distribution, vulnerability to threats, area importance (at a particular scale,
e.g. PA or BCR), and population trend. These scores are often used by agencies in
developing lists of bird species of concern; e.g., the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
based its assessments for its 2002 list of nongame Birds of Conservation Concern
primarily on the PIF, shorebird, and waterbird status assessment scores.
Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities
The Resource Conservation Priorities list is a subset of all species that occur in the
Region and was derived from an objective synthesis of information on their status.
The list includes all federally listed threatened and endangered species and proposed
and candidate species that occur in the Region; migratory bird species derived from
Service-wide and international conservation planning efforts; and rare and declining
terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals that represent an abbreviation of the
Endangered Species program’s preliminary draft “Species of Concern” list for the
Region.
Although many species are not included in the priority list, this does not mean that we
consider them unimportant.
The list includes species from the Service’s Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie
Ecosystem. The list can be accessed at http://midwest.fws.gov/pdf/priority.pdf.
Biological Needs Assessment
The National Wildlife Refuge System Biological Needs Assessment (U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, 1998) resulted from a self-analysis of biology within the System. The
Assessment addressed issues related to the biological aspect of Refuge management
and proposed six goals for their resolution along with actions and strategies for
achieving those goals.
The goals are:
Goal 1: Address inadequate and inconsistent biological program staffing.
Goal 2: Focus biological program activities through goals and objectives.
Goal 3: Integrate evaluation and oversight into the biological program.
Big Stone Wetland Management District CCP
10
Goal 4: Increase the amount and accountability of funding for the biological program.
Goal 5: Provide for career and professional needs of biological program staff.
Goal 6: Meet information needs of the biological program.
The Biological Needs Assessment provides a benchmark in measuring progress
toward meeting the biological mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997.
Working With Partners
The Wetland Management Districts are composed of small parcels of land throughout
western Minnesota. The effectiveness of this habitat for wildlife is enhanced when
located near other protected areas. Land in programs such as The Nature Conser-vancy,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and set-asides such as the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) can add to
“effective habitat size.”
The Districts can not solve the problems posed by habitat fragmentation and contami-nation
on its own and will work to increase “effective habitat size” by combining
efforts with many partners, such as The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, as well as in programs such as CRP
and RIM.
Chapter 2 / Planning Process, Issues and Goals
9
Chapter 2: Planning Process, Issues and Goals
Description of Planning Process
The planning process for this Comprehensive Conservation Plan began October 1,
1997, when a Notice Of Intent to prepare a comprehensive management plan was
published in the Federal Register (Vol 62: 51482). Because the six Districts face
similar issues, Managers and planners decided to follow a shared CCP process that
would result in separate documents for each District. This chapter describes the
planning process that was employed.
Initially, members of the planning team identified a list of issues and concerns that
were likely to be associated with the management of the District. These preliminary
issues and concerns were based on the team members’ knowledge of the area, contacts
with citizens in the community, and ideas already expressed to the District staff.
District staff and Service planners then began asking District neighbors, organizations,
local government units, schools, and interested citizens to share their thoughts in a
series of open house events.
Open houses were conducted on the following schedule:
November 17, 1997 – Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District, 7 attended
November 18, 1997 – Fergus Falls Wetland Management District, 9 attended
November 19, 1997 – Morris Wetland Management District, 9
attended
November 20, 1997 – Litchfield Wetland Management
District, 1 attended
November 25, 1997 – Windom Wetland Management District,
15 attended
February 4, 1998 – Regional Office, Twin Cities, 62 attended
People were also invited to send in written comments describ-ing
their support or concerns about the Districts. Fifty-one
written comments were received.
A survey of public use on the Wetland Management Districts was conducted through
contract with Dr. Dorothy Anderson, University of Minnesota. Forty individuals, all
regular users of the Wetland Management Districts, were invited to participated in
this survey. Participants had extensive experience with the Fish and Wildlife Service
managers ( i.e., they contacted WMD managers an average of almost 11 times/year)
and had good working relationships with managers. Almost all participants had visited
waterfowl production areas, and many were members of conservation organizations
(e.g. Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and other organizations). Of the 40 people
interviewed, 37 were men, averaging 51 years of age and averaging 39 years living in
the area.
The participants were able to list benefits of the Wetland Management District
activities provide to rural communities and citizens. The following list of benefits is
Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Big Stone Wetland Management District CCP
10
ordered from benefits frequently mentioned, to benefits not as frequently discussed but
still mentioned often.
■ Provides areas for hunting waterfowl and upland bird species,
■ Protects wetland areas for ecological reasons,
■ Retains water and helps with flood control,
■ Improves water quality
■ Improves communities economically through purchasing of hunting equip-ment
■ Provides opportunities to introduce children to hunting, and
■ Adds to the overall quality of life for rural residents
Many participants believed that the Wetland Management District managers were
good at acquiring and managing land. They appreciated the habitat provided in the
Waterfowl Production Areas and the work that District managers do with farmers to
increase wildlife habitat by taking drained wetlands out of agricultural production.
Participants also praised the cooperative role managers have with local citizens and
conservation organizations.
In addition to public meetings and survey, the following focus group meetings were
conducted to develop the issues, goals, and objectives for the Plan. These meetings
included the District Managers and invited participants from the University of
Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and the U.S. Geological Survey, Northern
Prairie Wildlife Research Center.
The following focus groups meetings were held:
■ Fergus Falls, Minnesota March 2-4, 1999
■ Alexandria, Minnesota July 27-29, 1999
■ Twin Cities, Minnesota August 26, 1999
Concurrent with the focus group meetings, planning staff met with individual Dis-tricts
numerous times to review issues and discuss District management.
A wide range of issues, concerns, and opportunities were expressed during the plan-ning
process. Numerous discussions among Refuge and planning staff, focus groups,
and resource specialists brought to light several recurring themes. Issues fall into
broad categories of wildlife, habitat, and people. Dealing with these issues is at the
core of the development of goals and objectives for the management of the Minnesota
Wetland Management Districts.
Planning Issues
Wildlife and Habitat
1. Can we improve waterfowl productivity?
2. Strategic Acquisition: Can we buy the highest priority land in the most efficient
and cost-effective manner possible?
3. Managing Uplands: Can we improve prairie restoration by planting the right seeds
and using the right management tools?
Chapter 2 / Planning Process, Issues and Goals
11
4. Managing and Restoring Wetlands: How do we manage wetlands to maintain or
increase productivity?
5. Can we improve biological inventories and monitoring on WPAs?
6. Can we stem the loss of migratory birds in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosys-tem?
7. Can we manage District land to preserve, restore, and enhance threatened and
endangered species, rare and declining species, and address Regional priority
species?
8. Under what circumstances should we reintroduce rare native species to District
land?
9. How do we mitigate negative external influences such as contaminants on WPAs
and reduce its impact on long-term health and productivity of District land?
10. How do we balance management for Federal trust species with the needs of
resident species?
11. How do we reduce crop loss caused by Canada geese foraging on private land
adjacent to WPAs?
12: Invasive species, both exotic and native, are negatively impacting the natural
ecological balance of grasslands and wetlands on WPAs.
13. What is the Long Range Goal of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
(Private Lands) on Wetland Management Districts?
Public Use
14. There are conflicting views concerning the costs and benefits of federally owned
land in a community. Who benefits? Who pays?
15. How do we provide adequate facilities and programs for the public to fully enjoy
wildlife-related recreation in a way that is compatible with our main mission?
Operations
16. Districts need sufficient staff in critical areas to fully meet resource challenges
and opportunities.
17. Districts need office, maintenance, and equipment storage facilities to carry out
their mission.
18. Vehicles and other necessary equipment need to be replaced on a regular basis
according to Service standards.
19. Funding is needed to develop and manage newly acquired WPA land and facilities.
20. Discretionary money is needed for managing newly acquired land. Historic
preservation responsibilities and other cultural resource concerns add cost and
delays.
21. Individual WPA development plans and record keeping need to be updated.
22. The Districts need to be consistent in their application of policy and resource
protection efforts.
Big Stone Wetland Management District CCP
12
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Goals
The following Goals were identified through a variety of meetings to address the
issues raised during the planning process:
Wildlife and Habitat
Wildlife: Strive to preserve and maintain diversity and increase the abundance of
waterfowl and other key wildlife species in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem.
Preserve, restore, and enhance resident wildlife populations where compatible with
waterfowl and the preservation of other trust species. Seek sustainable solutions to
the impact of Canada geese on adjacent private croplands.
Habitat: Restore native prairie plant communities of the
Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem using local ecotypes
of seed and maintain the vigor of these stands through
various processes. Restore functioning wetland complexes
and maintain the cyclic productivity of wetlands. Continue
efforts for long-term solutions to the problem of invasive
species with increased emphasis on biological control to
minimize damage to aquatic and terrestrial communities.
Continue efforts to better define the role of each District in
assisting private landowners with wetland, upland, and
riparian restorations
Acquisition: Within current acquisition acreage goals, identify the highest priority
acres for acquisition taking into account block size and waterfowl productivity data.
These priority areas should drive acquisition efforts whenever possible. Service land
acquisition should have no negative impact on net revenues to local government.
Understand and communicate the economic effects of federal land ownership on local
communities
Monitoring: Collect baseline information on plants, fish, and wildlife and monitor
critical parameters and trends of key species and/or species groups on and around
District units. Promote the use of coordinated, standardized, cost effective, and
defensible methods for gathering and analyzing habitat and population data. Manage-ment
decisions will be based on the resulting data.
Endangered Species/Unique Communities: Preserve, enhance, and restore rare
native northern tallgrass prairie, flora, and fauna that are or may become endangered.
Where feasible in both ecological and social/economic terms, reintroduce native
species on WPAs in cooperation with the Minnesota DNR
People
Public Use/ Environmental Education: Provide opportunities for the public to use the
WPAs in a way that promotes understanding and appreciation of the Prairie Pothole
Region. Promote greater understanding and awareness of the Wetland Management
District’s programs, goals, and objectives. Advance stewardship and understanding of
the Prairie Pothole Region through environmental education.
USFWS Photograph
Chapter 2 / Planning Process, Issues and Goals
13
Operations
Preparation of WPA Development Plans: Complete Geographic Information System
(GIS) based WPA Development Plans for each unit in each District. Provide Districts
with GIS to assist with acquisition, restoration, management and protection of public
and private lands.
Provide necessary levels of maintenance, technician, and administrative support staff
to achieve other Wetland Management District goals: Provide all Districts with ad-equate
and safe office, maintenance, and equipment storage facilities. Acquire ad-equate
equipment and vehicles to achieve other District goals. Maintain District
equipment and vehicles at or above Service standards.
Ensure that annual capital development funds are large enough to meet necessary
development of new WPA land: Have adequate funds available each year to permit
completion of maintenance needs for each Wetland District’s current land base of
Waterfowl Production Areas.
Develop and apply consistent policies for habitat, public use, and resource protection
and ensure frequent coordination among Districts, both in Minnesota and in neighbor-ing
states with WPAs (North and South Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin).
Big Stone Wetland Management District CCP
16
Chapter 3: The Environment
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
Three landscapes come together in Minne-sota:
prairies, deciduous woods, and conifer-ous
forests of the north. This variation in
landscape is caused by changes in climate
and precipitation from north to south and is
reflected in the wide diversity of plants and
animals inhabiting the state (Wendt and
Coffin 1988; Hargrave 1993; Aaseng, et al.
1993). The Districts own land within all
three habitat types and all have changed
dramatically since settlement, none more
than the prairie landscape (Figure 3).
Prairie Grasslands
At one time, the western edge of Minnesota was continuous prairie and scattered
woodlands dotted with small wetlands, known as potholes. Snow melt and spring rains
were contained in these small wetlands and released slowly into surrounding streams.
The wetlands acted like a natural flood control system. All of this has changed since
settlement. Now, only 150,000 acres of native prairie remain out of an original 18
million (Noss, et al. 1995). In some areas, virtually all of the potholes have been
drained. Remnants of prairie and their associated wetlands are scattered and rare.
They form the last refuge for many species of prairie plants and wildlife.
Deciduous Woods
The deciduous forest of Minnesota extends from the northern aspen parkland to
maple basswood forests of the southeast. The term “deciduous” refers to trees that
lose their leaves in the fall. There are many forest communities within this landscape.
The northern aspen parkland is typical of a more Canadian landscape, with open
understory, wet meadows, aspen, willow, and alder thickets. The communities include
wild flowers like the northern gentian and prairie-fringed orchid, wildlife such as the
moose, Sandhill Crane, Sharp-tailed Grouse, Black-billed Magpie, and Yellow Rail.
Further south, the deciduous forest changes to one dominated by maple and basswood
and scattered oak savannahs. Birds of these hardwood forests include the Tufted
Titmouse, Scarlet Tanager, Eastern Screech Owl, Broad-winged Hawk, Barred Owl,
Red-eyed Vireo, and Wood Thrush to name just a few. Wild flowers in the spring are
a special feature of these woods including trillium, hepatica, blood root, trout lily,
Dutchman’s breeches, and spring beauty (Moyle and Moyle 1977; Henderson and
Lambrecht 1997).
Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 3 / The Environment
17
Figure 3: Minnesota Wetland Management Districts Ecosystems
Big Stone Wetland Management District CCP
18
Coniferous Forest
The coniferous forests dominate the northeastern portion of Minnesota. They are
characterized by red and white pines, balsam-fir, spruce, and white cedar mixed with
other deciduous species. While the coniferous forests dominate Minnesota land-scapes,
the Districts own very little in this landscape because it is not particularly
productive for waterfowl.
Climate
The climate of Minnesota is seasonal and highly variable. Average annual precipita-tion
ranges from 20 inches in the northern aspen parklands to 32 inches in the south-western
prairie coteau. Within the eastern Great Plains, precipitation falls during two
peak periods, one in early summer and a less pronounced peak in September. Average
maximum annual temperature ranges from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in the northern
aspen parklands to 58 degrees Fahrenheit in the prairie coteau. Average minimum
annual temperature ranges from 23 degrees F in the aspen parklands to 36 degrees F
in the prairie coteau. The growing season ranges from 125 days in the aspen
parklands to 180 days in the prairie coteau (Hargrave 1993; Ostlie et al. 1996).
Hydrology
Conversion of the prairie to agriculture and the
general development of the area over the past 130
years has greatly changed the region’s hydrology.
The Districts contain five major watersheds: the
Red, the Upper Mississippi, the Minnesota, the
Missouri, the Cedar and Des Moines Rivers (Figure
4). Of these, the Red, Minnesota, and Des Moines are
clearly the most important hydrologically and cultur-ally
in terms of water flow, impacts to land use, and
associated water resources. The Minnesota River is considered the state’s most
polluted river. The Red River watershed has been degraded by dam construction,
agricultural practices, channelization, and loss of riparian vegetation.
The Red River is the only major American river that drains northward into Hudson
Bay. Total drainage area in the U.S. is 39,200 square miles, of which 17,806 are in
Minnesota. Due to regional patterns in precipitation, evapotranspiration, soils, and
topography, the Red receives most of its flow from its eastern tributaries. Ten of
these tributaries traverse the Districts.
Many rivers in the Districts have been channelized in the downstream reaches to
improve agricultural drainage. Most of the small wetlands that once held spring melts
have been drained for agriculture through ditches or subsurface tile systems. As a
result of this facilitated drainage, damaging summer floods are becoming more
common.
River hydrology has been further altered through the construction of approximately
270 flood control structures within the Minnesota basin of the Red River. Despite
these flood control projects, the Red remains a flood-prone system due to heavy
spring snow melt, the flatness of the area, and snow/ice melting in the upstream area
of the basin before that in the downstream areas.
Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 3 / The Environment
19
Figure 4: Minnesota Wetland Management Districts Hydrology and Key Rivers
Big Stone Wetland Management District CCP
20
The Roseau, Red Lake, Wild Rice, and Buffalo rivers account for three-fourths of the
flood damage on the Minnesota tributaries.
The Minnesota River drains an area of 15,500 square miles within the District area.
The Minnesota River begins in Browns Valley, where it is separated from the water-shed
of the Red River (Lake Traverse) by the Big Stone Moraine. As it flows toward
its meeting with the Mississippi, the Minnesota River is impeded by four flood control
reservoirs located at Big Stone, Big Stone/Whetstone, Marsh Lake, and Lac Qui
Parle. Two smaller dams near Granite Falls slow the flow, but do not impound any
water within the floodplain. One small hydroelectric dam operates near Mankato on
the Blue Earth River. Flooding along the Minnesota is common within the floodplain,
but does not have the same cultural or ecological impacts as on the Red River because
the steep slopes of the Minnesota contain the river.
Southwestern Minnesota differs dramatically from the flat topography to the north
and east. The Coteau des Prairies region grades from gently undulating to steeply
rolling and hilly. These glacial moraines and ridges are well drained and have few
depressions. This area flows mostly southwest into the Missouri River. The outer
edges of the Coteau are less well drained and contain numerous wetlands and lakes.
The Big and Little Sioux rivers are the two largest rivers in this area. Both flow to
the southwest and into Iowa.
Geology
The area has a varied geological history but throughout the region, the departure of
the last glacier, The Wisconsin, is still evident upon the land. The retreating glacier
left behind gently rolling hills of gravel deposits with many scattered potholes,
remnants left by melting glacial ice. In relative geologic time, the rivers that drain
this land are new and inefficient (Ojakangas and Matsch 1982).
The southwest corner of Minnesota escaped the Wisconsin glaciation and features
more bedrock exposures because that area escaped a blanket of glacial till or drift.
Big Stone District is named after some of the rocky features of the bedrock exposure.
Rivers and streams in this area are better developed, resulting in more efficient
drainage systems.
Thousands of natural basins were left in the wake of thawing ice. Glacial lakes, the
largest of these being Lake Agassiz, left behind a series of beaches and as they
overflowed, they cut huge river channels. Lake Agassiz created a moraine at Browns
Valley that spilled over to become the glacial River Warren, later to become the
Minnesota River. The water volume of the Minnesota is a fraction of the River
Warren, which flowed through its broad river valley with high stream terraces,
dwarfing today’s river. The Minnesota has eroded deeply into the glacial sediment
and has exposed some of the world’s oldest rocks along its narrow valley.
Wind-blown loess was also a major influence in the soils of Minnesota, especially in
southwest Minnesota. The disintegration of the Wisconsin Glacier left a distinctive,
fine-textured till containing a high volume of Paleozoic limestone and Cretaceous
shale fragments. Combined with the loess swept by surface winds, it is the parent
material for most of today’s prairie soils of western and southern Minnesota.
Chapter 3 / The Environment
21
District Resources
Wildlife
Waterfowl
The prairie pothole region has historically been recognized as the most important
waterfowl production area in North America. Surveys have shown that although this
area represents only 10 percent of the breeding habitat, it averages 50 to 75 percent
of the duck recruitment each year in North America.
Waterfowl species that use the prairie wetlands of Minnesota include: Redhead,
Northern Shoveler, Blue-winged Teal, Mallard, Gadwall, Wood Duck, Canvasback, and
Canada Goose. Other waterfowl use the prairie wetlands to a lesser degree: Pintail,
Lesser Scaup, and Ring-necked Duck. These species rely on grains for food most of
the year but during the spring and summer,
they shift to aquatic plants and insects. They
depend on the wetlands for food during the
breeding season.
The Habitat and Population Evaluation Team
(HAPET) Office census waterfowl popula-tions
within the Wetland Management
Districts of western Minnesota. Summary
statistics generated by HAPET provide a
necessary overview of waterfowl production
and land use in the Districts. Their results
show the variability between districts in
breeding pair density. The average duck pair
density ranges from 23.5 in the Fergus Falls
WMD to 3.7 in the Windom WMD (Figure 5).
Rich soils and prairie wetlands make the region ideal for waterfowl, but also highly
productive for agriculture. The corn and soybean belt overlaps extensively with the
southern prairie pothole region. Massive conversion of wetlands and prairie to
agricultural fields has dramatically altered the landscape, the hydrology, and the
region’s carrying capacity for waterfowl.
Some waterfowl species are more susceptible than others to the transformation of
prairie into agriculture. Mallards and Blue-winged Teal have been fairly successful in
agricultural landscapes such as western Minnesota. Northern Pintails, on the other
hand, have declined more dramatically than any other waterfowl species in North
America (Ducks Unlimited 1990). At the turn of the century, Pintails were probably
as common in the prairies as Mallards (Roberts 1932). Pintails favor ephemeral
ponds, which were the first and easiest to drain. They often nest far from water and
ducklings have to move overland to get to ponds shortly after they hatch. In the
current landscape, newly hatched ducklings cross plowed agricultural fields in the
spring and they are vulnerable to predation. Like Pintails, Gadwalls were once very
common in this region. In 1879, Gadwalls were reported to be as abundant as mal-lards
if not more so (Roberts 1932, in Galatowitsch and van der Valk 1994). Now,
Gadwalls comprise less than 1 percent of the breeding population in western Minne-sota
(Green and Janssen 1975). Roberts (1930) reported, the gadwall “...suffered most
severely from the settling of the country, probably as much from breaking-up of the
prairie, where it commonly nested, as from the hunters.” (Galatowitsch and van der
Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Big Stone Wetland Management District CCP
22
Figure 5: Estimated Average Duck Pair Density, 1987-1999
Chapter 3 / The Environment
23
Valk, 1994). At the turn of the century, Canvasback and Redheads were common on
the largest lakes and marshes. Initially, over-hunting depleted cCanvasback popula-tions
but the decline of wetland habitat, especially the wild celery beds, made it
difficult for them to recover (Galatowitsch and van der Valk 1994). Another diving
duck, the Scaup, was also common but is now primarily a migrant through the region.
Research has shown that ducks nesting in large blocks of grassland habitat (1,000 to
10,000 acres) reproduce more successfully than ducks nesting in smaller blocks (200 to
500 acres) (Burger et al. 1994; Ball et al. 1995). Ron Reynolds of the HAPET Office
in North Dakota found waterfowl production increased on WPAs near large blocks of
CRP land (personal communication). His results show the importance of working
with partners to increase effective habitat block size and offset habitat fragmentation.
A major factor depressing duck numbers is low nest success due to nest destruction
by predators on small units of habitat. Predators are quick to find these remnant
areas and concentrate their hunting activities on the vulnerable ground nests of
waterfowl. In some habitats, predators such as red fox, raccoon, mink, and skunk are
able to take virtually every duck nest and many of the attendant hens.
Although agriculture has been an important feature in this area for over 100 years, it
has been particularly intensive during the last several decades. Conversion from
small, diverse family farms to large agricultural operations specializing in monocul-tures
of small grain and row crops has eliminated habitat on private lands such as
pasture, hayland, and wetlands. Grassland birds are forced to nest in ever-dwindling
fragments of remaining cover. Often the only nesting sites available are small isolated
areas such as roadside ditches, abandoned farmsteads, rock piles, or isolated patches
of habitat such as our Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs).
The average block size for Waterfowl Production Areas in western Minnesota is only
210 acres. In part, the small size of most acquisitions is due to the nature of the Small
Wetlands Acquisition Program (SWAP). The original SWAP approach was simple –
purchase only a minimum of acres in fee-title and surround them with permanent
easements.
In truth, it is difficult to purchase large tracts of land in prime agricultural areas.
What research identifies as an optimal size for wildlife is not always possible given the
competing needs for the land. Local county land boards often will not support taking
large blocks of land out of agricultural production and off the tax role. Areas that are
important for waterfowl may not be available or for sale. To purchase land strategi-cally,
managers are faced with the difficult task of finding willing sellers in the most
productive areas for waterfowl.
The landscape level monitoring by the HAPET Office, shows that waterfowl success
varies depending on location within the state. There is even great variance between
WPAs within a single District. The HAPET Office has produced a map for each
district that ranks locations for waterfowl production. The maps are known as
“thunderstorm maps” because they resemble doppler radar weather maps (Figure 6).
Existing GIS mapping data can be used to evaluate land acquisitions. Available
information can be compiled to pick land parcels that have high potential for water-fowl
and that are located near other conservation lands, such as state, county, or CRP
set-aside land to increase the “effective size” of each unit. This approach can aid in
setting priorities of acquisition. Ideally, managers could use these maps to identify
“hot spots” within their district for purchase as WPAs.
Big Stone Wetland Management District CCP
24
Figure 6: Predicted Settling Density of Dabbling Duck Pairs
Chapter 3 / The Environment
25
The Districts are trying to combat the unnatural impact of predators in small pieces of
habitat by removing abandoned buildings and brush. Abandoned farmsteads are
prime denning sites for major nest predators such as skunks (Lariviere and Messier
1998a, 1998b; Lariviere et al.1999). In addition, the Districts place nesting platforms
in many wetlands, and predator control is practiced on a limited scale in conjunction
with electric fence exclosures on 350 acres in Fergus Falls and 10 acres in the Morris
Wetland Management Districts.
Another threat to waterfowl reproduction is the increasing application of agricultural
chemicals such as fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides on cropland adjacent to
WPAs. Research has identified agricultural chemicals as important factors in decreas-ing
bird populations directly as well as affecting their food resources in wetlands (see
Chapter 3, External Threats).
Not all species of waterfowl are in decline. In recent years, the population of Giant
Canada Geese has exploded across many of the Districts. Many WPAs contain the
large wetlands favored by geese. These wetlands are often adjacent to private
agricultural land. Canada Geese are upland
grazers and, like most wildlife, will take advan-tage
of the bounty planted nearby, whether it be
succulent sprouts of soybeans, corn, or the grass
of lawns and golf courses. On certain areas,
geese can cause considerable financial hardship
for farmers by wiping out relatively large areas
of crops.
Although the more common species of ducks and
geese in Minnesota have increased over the last
decade, many are still below the goals of the
North American Plan.
Migratory Birds
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts contain habitat important to bird species
other than waterfowl, including songbirds, marsh and wading birds, shorebirds,
raptors, and upland game birds. Approximately 243 species of birds regularly use the
Districts at some time during the year, with 152 nesting species (Appendix B).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minnesota Department of Natural Re-sources,
Partners in Flight, an international bird conservation initiative, and others
have evaluated the status of migratory birds, identifying “species of concern” at the
state, regional, and national levels. Partners in Flight have developed a bird conser-vation
plan that focuses on declining grassland and wetland birds in the Northern
Tallgrass Prairie Bird Conservation Region. This plan provides information on the
habitat needs of these species and proposes a model of landscape-level habitat conser-vation
for grassland birds (Fitzgerald et al. 1998). In the Districts, 48 birds identified
as “species of concern” are rare, declining, or dependent on vulnerable habitats,
including 43 that breed there. This list does not include hunted waterfowl or feder-ally-
listed threatened or endangered species, which are dealt with in another section
of this document (Appendix B).
About 44 percent of the species of concern depend on some type of grassland habitat.
Important habitats in the District include native and restored prairies, seeded grass-lands
(cool- or warm-season grasses), light- to moderately-grazed pastures, Conserva- Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Big Stone Wetland Management District CCP
26
tion Reserve Program lands (CRP), sedge meadows, old fields, and hayfields (if not
mowed before July 15). In North America, grassland birds have exhibited steeper
declines than any other avian group. Their decline has a number of causes: loss of
breeding and wintering habitat from agriculture, urbanization, habitat degradation
from fire suppression, inappropriate grazing regimes, woody plantings, pesticides, and
nest predation and cowbird parasitism.
Within the category of “grassland birds,” individual species show a variety of habitat
preferences based on vegetation height, cover density, grass/forb ratio, soil moisture,
litter depth, degree of woody vegetation, and plant species composition. It is impor-tant
to maintain a mosaic of grassland habitats to meet the varying needs of grassland
birds.
Some of the species of concern found in the Districts are area-sensitive, which means
they require large, contiguous blocks of habitat to reproduce successfully. Area-sensitive
species include the Greater Prairie-chicken, Northern Harrier, Upland
Sandpiper, Bobolink, Henslow’s Sparrow, and Savannah Sparrow.
Vertebrate and Invertebrate Species of Concern
“Species of concern” refers to those species for which the Service has incomplete and
inconclusive information, but which might be declining in range, numbers, or security.
Service and state agency biologists and other experts confer on and use natural
heritage data bases and other published and unpublished information to follow the
welfare of these species. They have no protection under the Endangered Species Act
(Act) and are not candidates for listing.
Species of concern are a diverse group of animals united by two factors: (1) the
Service is watching them, and (2) they occur within the general area and thus could
appear in or near tracts within the Districts. Some of these animals occur only in
prairie habitats. Some of the arthropods can live only in good tallgrass prairie habitat
and thus are good indicators of high quality prairies. It is not possible to predict
which, if any, of the species may occur on tracts within the Districts, nor predict how
their occurrence would be a factor in decisions regarding individual tracts. They are
necessary components of a healthy, functioning tallgrass prairie ecosystem and are
indicators of prairie tract quality.
Region 3 of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has developed a Resource Conservation
Priorities (RCP) document that includes all species of concern within the Region (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
maintains an official state list of animals being watched for changes in abundance and
distribution, and of animals that are endangered or threatened and protected by state
law. The Service will consider species listed by the State of Minnesota along with
Service species of concern in evaluating prairie sites and developing site protection
measures.
Reptiles, Amphibians, and Insects, Vertebrates and Invertebrates
Reptiles, amphibians, and insects may have limited popular appeal, but each species
plays an important role in the prairie ecosystem. The degree of interconnectedness in
the tallgrass prairie ecosystem is high. Landmark species such as the eagle, badger
and coyote find their food sources in these groups. Prairie plant diversity depends
upon pollination and seed dispersal, as well as soil aeration by the great variety of
insects. Grasshoppers (family Orthoptera) are major herbivores in the prairie ecosys-tem,
and many native prairie flowers rely on bees, butterflies, and others for pollina-
Chapter 3 / The Environment
27
tion. Numerous prairie birds, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals feed exclu-sively
or partly on insects. The web of successes and failures within tallgrass prairie
communities is anchored to every point of diversity within the system, and the
protection of this entire spectrum is necessary for the persistence of its varied parts.
Listed Endangered and Threatened Vertebrates and Invertebrates
This section describes animals that are Federally listed under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended, and are listed as either endangered or threatened.
Threatened Mammals
Gray wolf, Canis lupus: Experts estimate approximately 2,000 gray wolves pres-ently
occur in Minnesota. Wolf numbers and range appear to be increasing in Minne-sota.
Wolves are no longer exclusive residents of Minnesota’s forested wilderness
areas, and adult wolves from Minnesota have dispersed through central and western
Minnesota to North and South Dakota. The Service recognizes the improving range
and security of the species and has reclassified the wolf as a threatened species.
Threatened/Endangered Birds
Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus: Bald Eagles have increased in abundance
and distribution across the United States, including Minnesota, and have been reclas-sified
from endangered to threatened. In the 1990s nesting territories increased in
Minnesota every year from 437 in 1990 to 618 in 1995. Increasing numbers of migrat-ing
and wintering eagles also occur across Minnesota where they find sheltered night
roosts and feed on waterfowl, smaller wild mammals, and fish in open water areas.
Bald Eagles became endangered because of habitat loss, but especially because of
DDT use following World War II. Today, the DDT threat is largely gone. Now the
challenge is to prevent contamination and loss of sites that eagles depend on for
nesting, feeding, migration, and wintering.
Piping Plover, Chadarius melodus: Piping Plovers are tenuously present in Minne-sota.
They nest in Lake of the Woods, east of the Districts. Piping Plovers nest in
coastal areas, but they are also prairie birds, nesting across the Great Plains of the
United States and Canada, but in perilously low numbers. The Great Plains population
is listed as threatened. The loss of prairie wetland areas contributes to their decline.
Like many shorebirds, Piping Plovers feed on immature and adult insects and other
invertebrates at the water’s edge. They winter primarily along beaches, sandflats, and
algal flats on the Gulf of Mexico.
Least Tern (eastern population), Sterna antillarum: Listed as endangered, the
Least Tern nests along large rivers of the Colorado, Red, Mississippi, and Missouri
River systems. This species is a potential nester in the Missouri River area. It nests
on sand and gravel bars and protected beach areas of large rivers and winters in
coastal Central and South America. The species is endangered because human
disturbance and alteration of river systems has rendered much of its nesting habitat
unusable. Pesticides may reduce food available to the tern by reducing the numbers
of small fish in their feeding areas.
Reintroductions
The public has an interest in seeing presettlement native wildlife species returned to
the landscape. Examples include Greater Prairie Chickens, Trumpeter Swans, bison,
and wolves. Giant Canada Geese, once thought extinct, have returned to the prairies
of Minnesota in numbers as a result of captive breeding and reintroduction programs.
However, at times restoration efforts, and the ensuing adaptability of the species like
Big Stone Wetland Management District CCP
28
the Canada Goose, can create its own set of management problems (see next issue).
Due to the relatively small size of WPAs and the concerns for impacts off of WPAs,
reintroductions of species like bison and wolves are not practical. However, Trum-peter
Swan reintroductions have been successful and well-received by the public,
while Prairie Chicken reintroduction is showing some sign of success depending on the
area. There is also the potential for reintroducing species of prairie plants and native
small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians and even insects like the Dakota Skipper
butterfly on certain units.
Management of Resident Species
Federal trust species are generally those that cross state and international bound-aries
or are afforded national protection through various laws and treaties, such as the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act. The well-being of
waterfowl populations is a classic Federal trust responsibility and the main purpose
for the creation of the Small Wetland Acquisition Program in the 1960s. This does not
mean that resident species such as white-tailed deer and pheasants found on WPAs
should not receive management attention. Rather it is the degree of management
focus, based on the knowledge that management for trust resources like waterfowl
will usually benefit the myriad of resident wildlife that share the prairie-wetland
landscape.
Local and regional residents, however, may often favor the management for those
species like white-tailed deer and pheasant that provide consumptive recreation
opportunities. Thus, managers are often faced with requests for food plots, tree and
shrub plantings, or direct stockings of game species that may have a negative effect
on the primary purpose of waterfowl production and the broader goals of restoring
native plant communities. The key is to seek the proper balance between practices
focused on trust species and those that can accommodate the public’s desire for
resident wildlife management.
Habitat
Wetlands and Riparian Habitat
Prairie wetlands and prairie streams are an
important part of the prairie ecosystem.
Minnesota is naturally rich in wetland and
riverine habitats (Appendix D). Western
Minnesota is part of the prairie pothole
region, characterized by numerous, shallow
wetlands known as potholes. These wetlands
provide essential fish and wildlife habitat,
permit ground water recharge, and act as
filters of sediment and pollutants. They reduce floods by storing water and delaying
runoff. The region once included about 20 million acres of these small wetlands. They
were unconnected and poorly drained and in the spring they retained water, acting
like a great landscape sponge. Over the course of the season, water drained slowly.
Settlers found the shallow wetlands difficult to farm. In addition, the wetlands kept
the water table high so much of the land was saturated in a wet year. When the land
was converted to farms, the new owners built drainage ditches, straightened streams
and drained shallow wetlands off their land. Today, only about 5.3 million acres
remain in 2.7 million basins within five states. Now, in the spring, water rushes off
the land and floods the streams and rivers. Drainage has been so extensive that in
Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 3 / The Environment
29
many areas the water table has been lowered and the hydrology of the entire region
has been transformed.
More than 78 percent of the remaining wetland basins are smaller than 1 acre in size.
Nearly two out of three of the remaining wetlands in Minnesota are privately owned;
consequently, they are vulnerable to continued drainage, development, and pollution.
The Wetland Management Districts have focused on saving and restoring the small
wetlands of Western Minnesota. They have been remarkably successful in saving a
variety of wetland types. Wetland diversity is important because wetlands change
continuously; a single wetland can not be maximally productive all the time. Water-fowl
use specific types of wetlands at different times during the breeding season.
Laying hens may forage in ephemeral, temporary, and seasonal wetlands early in the
season and shift to semipermanent and permanent wetlands after the brood is
hatched. Marsh birds need a variety of wetlands in close proximity so they can shift
from one wetland to another as the wetlands cycle through different phases. It is
very important that natural wetland complexes be preserved. Wetland complexes
include a variety of basins, some shallow and some deep, in close proximity. Diverse
wetland complexes are rare today because most shallow ephemeral, temporary, and
seasonal basins have been drained.
Saving single, isolated wetlands is much less valuable than saving several wetlands in
a wetland complex. The Wetland Management Districts focus on acquiring wetland
complexes with a variety of wetland types.
The fluctuating water levels in the shallow wetlands are natural to the dynamic
pattern of precipitation in the prairie. The changing water level results in circular
bands of vegetation around each basin because different plant species have different
tolerances for saturated soils. The depth of the basin also affects the kind of vegeta-tion
that grows. The drying pattern is one of the features used to classify wetland
basins (Cowardin et al.). Deeper basins have perennial emergent vegetation such as
cattail and dry every 5 to 10 years. Wetlands that dry every other year or on a
several year cycle are called semi-permanent or permanent wetlands. Basins that dry
every year are temporary and seasonal wetlands. Some very shallow basins dry early
in the spring after the frost leaves the ground and as a result are called ephemeral
wetlands.
Freshwater wetlands like those in the prairie pothole region are among the most
productive in the world (Weller 1982). The dynamic water cycle creates a rich
environment for many waterfowl and other marsh birds. Cycling water accelerates
decomposition of marsh vegetation, resulting in a natural fertilizer. When the basins
recharge in the spring, the water becomes a soup of nutrients and supports a diverse
and healthy population of aquatic invertebrates, which feed reproducing waterfowl
and marsh birds throughout the spring and summer. In the larger basins, the vegeta-tion
changes from densely closed cattail or bullrush cover to completely open over a
period of years (Figure 7). In the process of transition, the cover vegetation moves
through a phase, known as hemi-marsh, when clumps of emergent vegetation are
interspersed with open water (Weller 1982). In this phase, the structure of the
vegetation itself creates habitat and stimulates the production of aquatic inverte-brates.
The marsh, in this phase, hosts the maximum number of marsh birds. Unfor-tunately,
the phase is only temporary and most wetlands cycle out of it in 1 to 3 years.
The prairie potholes are too shallow to be fish habitat but they have been used in the
past as hatcheries for minnows and walleye fingerlings. Leeches are also harvested
Big Stone Wetland Management District CCP
30
from these shallow ponds. Unfortunately, many of these artificially introduced native
species consume the same aquatic invertebrates as waterfowl. Fathead minnows
occur naturally in some wetlands in the region and have a significant negative effect
on the invertebrate populations of the wetlands (Hanson and Zimmer 1999).
Wetland restoration and management are high priorities in the Districts. In many
areas, the entire hydrology of the area has been altered and restoration is not always
a straightforward matter of plugging drains and filling in ditches (Galatowitsch and
van der Valk 1994). Restored wetlands employ water control structures for water
level management to mitigate the disruptive impact of wide scale drainage that has
altered natural water cycles. Many wetlands on WPAs are flooded because surround-ing
wetlands on private land have been drained and the excess water moves into the
WPA. Water control structures are often necessary, but these structures require
funding to install and staff to maintain. Neither are in adequate supply to do what is
needed.
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
Wetland Districts in Minnesota have led the nation in the sheer number of wetlands
restored through the cooperation of private landowners in the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program (Private Lands). The program assists private landowners with the
improvement or restoration of wildlife habitat on their land. Technical assistance,
contracting, cost-sharing assistance, and actual earth work is provided to private
landowners throughout the Districts. Since the program’s inception in 1987, 12,000
wetlands totaling more than 40,000 acres have been restored. However, some Dis-tricts
are now finding it more difficult to find landowners willing to restore wetlands.
More staff effort is required with longer trips and greater expense to seek out land-owners
willing to restore wetlands. Managers have also begun to explore assisting
landowners with efforts to restore native prairie and riparian areas.
Districts have also restored more than 10,000 acres of native grasslands on private
property through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program during the same period.
In the past 2 years, new funding sources within the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program have placed added emphasis on riparian and instream habitat restoration,
and this has the potential to create additional opportunities for the Districts to
accomplish habitat restoration on private lands.
Figure 7: Marsh Vegetation Cycles
Chapter 3 / The Environment
31
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs have created many new opportu-nities
for Districts to assist in the restoration of a variety of trust resource habitats on
private lands. The USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has placed an
emphasis on wetland and native prairie restoration as a condition of enrollment, and
many new participants are making their lands available for wildlife habitat restora-tion.
This presents an important role for the Districts to lend their restoration experi-ence
and expertise to make these CRP restorations as high-quality as possible. The
USDA’s Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) likewise presents opportunities for
Districts to accomplish migratory bird objectives on private lands utilizing other
agency programs and dollars by making experience and expertise available to imple-ment
habitat restoration projects.
The Districts’ perpetual easement program, which encompasses both wetland and
conservation easements (both wetlands and uplands on a property), has greatly
benefited from the success of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program over the
past 10 years. Many of the private landowners who have restored wetlands on their
lands through the Partners Program have since come back to the District seeking
establishment of a permanent easement on their property to offer protection to their
project in future years. In some Districts it is fair to say that the vast majority of new
easements recorded in the past few years first started as Partners projects. This
continues to meet the needs of landowners who wish to improve their land for wildlife,
for themselves and for future generations.
By providing habitat restoration funds to complete restoration projects initiated by
the Districts as well as technical assistance funds to provide restoration experience
and expertise to other agencies’ programs, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Pro-gram
puts the Wetland Management Districts in a wonderful position to accomplish a
multitude of, and a variety of, trust species habitat restoration projects over the next
10 years.
Prairie Restoration
Prairie landscapes are much more diverse than they seem at first glance. They
contain hundreds of species of plants, invertebrates, and wildlife. Some prairies
contain as many as 200 plant species. The landscape is dominated by a relatively small
number of widespread, sod-forming bunch grasses such as big bluestem, northern
dropseed, and porcupine needlegrass, but flowering plants constitute the greatest
number of species (80 percent in some areas). Most abundant members are from the
pea and sunflower families such as wild indigos, prairie clovers and scurf peas (pea
family); and asters, gay-feathers, goldenrods, coneflowers, and sunflowers (aster
family) (Henderson and Lambrecht, 1997).
Over the past decade, virtually all plantings of upland cover on Waterfowl Production
Areas have been with native grasses. In recent years, a more diverse mixture of
native forbs and warm and cool season native grasses have been used. Plants within a
single species vary with latitude (called ecotypes) and an effort is being made to plant
local ecotypes in restorations. Harvesting techniques of existing tallgrass prairie and
refinement of the cleaning and seeding process has made seed gathering easier.
However, many native prairie forbs remain in short supply and are extremely costly
for large areas.
Prescribed fire remains a critical tool for maintaining the diversity and vigor of
existing and restored prairie plants. Prescribed burns can only be done during a small
window of time in the spring, so the number of acres that can be burned each spring is
limited. As a result, most WPAs can not be burned on a rotation frequent enough to
Big Stone Wetland Management District CCP
32
suppress invading shrubs and trees. Some of the Districts use haying and grazing as
additional means of maintaining grassland integrity.
The Districts also manage grasslands through the selective application of herbicides
during restoration. In 1990, 15,825 pounds of active ingredients representing 20
herbicides were applied to 15,533 acres of Service-managed lands in Minnesota
(USFWS 1990). The most heavily and most frequently used chemical was 2,4-D. In
1987, approximately $100,000 was spent on noxious weed control on approximately
16,000 acres of District lands (USFWS 1992). Because of concern that chemical use
could impact water quality (See Issue 9), the Twin Cites Ecological Services Field
Office conducted a 2-year study beginning in 1992 to determine the impact of the
herbicide application on wetlands in the Districts. Results indicated that concentra-tions
of 2,4-D were consistently low and at concentrations that have not been shown
to have an adverse affect on aquatic life (Ensor and Smith 1994).
Rare