Comprehensive Conservation Plan Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge and Lacreek Wetland Management District

              Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge and
Lacreek Wetland Management District
29746 Bird Road
Martin, SD 57551
605/685 6508
and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Division of Refuge Planning
PO Box 25486 DFC
Lakewood, CO 80225
303/236 4365
Approved by:
J. Mitch King Date
Regional Director, Region 6
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lakewood, CO
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge and
Lacreek Wetland Management District
February 2006
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval
Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge and
Lacreek Wetland Management District
Submitted by:
__________________________________ ________________
Tom Koerner Date
Refuge Manager
Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge and
Lacreek Wetland Management District
Martin, SD
Concurred with:
__________________________________ ________________
David Wiseman Date
Refuge Program Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Lakewood, CO
and
__________________________________ ________________
Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date
Assistant Regional Director
National Wildlife Refuge System
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Lakewood, CO
i
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-1
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Purpose and Need for Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Ecosystem Descriptions and Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
National and Regional Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
The Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
2 Lacreek NWR and Lacreek WMD Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Vision and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Special Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3 Refuge Resources and Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Geology and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Vegetation Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Special Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Visitor Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Fire and Grazing History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4 Management Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Management Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Step-down Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Plan Amendment and Revision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Contents
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
ii
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Appendix A. Compatibility Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Appendix B. Key Legislation and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Appendix C. Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Appendix D. Planning Team and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Appendix E. Black-tailed Prairie Dog Management Plan, Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge. . . . 87
Appendix F. Fire Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Appendix G. Species List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Appendix H. Refuge Operating Needs System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Appendix I. Maintenance Management System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Appendix J. Environmental Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
iii
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
1. USFWS ecosystem map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. The steps in the CCP process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Location map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Prairie dog management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Habitat map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6. Public use map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
7. Adaptive management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Tables
1. Endangered and threatened species found at Lacreek NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2. Habitat requirements for selected grassland birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3. Current and proposed staff, Lacreek NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4. Step-down management plans for Lacreek NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in this CCP
BMPs best management practices
CCP comprehensive conservation plan
CD compatibility determination
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
EA environmental assessment
EO executive order
FMP fi re management plans
FONSI fi nding of no signifi cant impact
FTE full-time equivalent
FQA fl oristic quality assessment
FQI fl oristic quality index
Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
IPM integrated pest management
LWRRA Little White River Recreation Area
NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Non-wildlife-dependent
recreational uses
Personal watercraft, camping, swimming, horseback riding, volleyball,
basketball, tournament fi shing, power and speed boating
NWR national wildlife refuge
Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System
SAV submergent aquatic vegetation
SDGFP South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department
Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SWAP Small Wetlands Acquisition Program
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Wildlife-dependent
recreational uses
Hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental
education, and interpretation
WMA wildlife management area
WMD wetland management district
WPA waterfowl production area
S-1
The Refuge and Its Purpose
Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was
established in 1935 by President Franklin D.
Roosevelt through Executive Order No. 7160. The
order establishes Lacreek NWR “....as a refuge
and breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife.” The refuge lies in the Lake Creek Valley
on the northern edge of the Nebraska Sandhills
and includes 16,410 acres of native sandhills,
sub-irrigated meadows, impounded fresh water
marshes, and tall- and mixed-grass prairie uplands.
The refuge serves as an important staging area
for many species of waterfowl, sandhill cranes,
shorebirds, and Neotropical migrants. Spring
fl ows entering the refuge help to provide critical
wintering habitat for the high plains trumpeter
swan fl ock. These open waters during the winter
also attract large concentrations of Canada geese
and mallards. The refuge’s grasslands support
long-billed curlews, marbled godwits, grasshopper
sparrows, bobolinks, and other grassland bird
species of concern. Bald eagles, a threatened
species, are commonly observed on the refuge,
and the endangered whooping crane has been
documented using refuge wetlands during
migration.
Unique habitats are provided in black-tailed
prairie dog towns, which support high numbers of
burrowing owls and host other species of concern,
such as ferruginous hawks. The refuge provides
a variety of habitats for resident wildlife and
supports local concentrations of white-tailed and
mule deer, sharp-tailed grouse, and ring-necked
pheasants during the fall and winter.
The wetland management district (Lacreek
Wetland Management District) was started as
part of the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program in
the 1950s to save wetlands from various threats,
particularly draining. The passage of Public Law
85-585 in August of 1958 amended the Migratory
Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck
Stamp Act) of 1934, allowing for the acquisition
of waterfowl production areas and easements for
waterfowl management rights (easements).
Refuge Vision and Goals
The vision for the refuge is based on the
establishing purposes of the refuge, resource
conditions and potential, and the issues. The goals
help the refuge staff achieve the vision.
Summary
Pool 9
© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
S-2
Refuge Vision
Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge’s wetland
resources create a sanctuary within the semi-arid
Great Plains landscape. The refuge provides a
great diversity of uses for wildlife and humans
alike. Refuge stewards manage hydrology to
refl ect natural conditions and restore native plant
communities of the Lake Creek Valley and the
adjacent sandhills for migratory birds and other
native wildlife. Visitors learn about grasslands,
wetlands, and sandhill ecosystems and enjoy
wildlife-dependent recreation. Ongoing cooperation
with partners and the public fosters appreciation
and builds support for the refuge’s biological and
cultural assets.
Refuge Goals
Goal 1. Wildlife and Habitat Management:
Conserve, restore, and enhance the native
biological diversity of the Lake Creek Valley and
Nebraska Sandhills for migratory birds and other
wetland and grassland-dependent species.
Goal 2. Research and Science:
Use sound science, monitoring, and applied
research to advance the understanding of natural
resources and management within the Lake Creek
Valley, Nebraska Sandhills, and surrounding
grasslands.
Goal 3. Public Use:
Provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent
recreation and promote awareness of
Lacreek NWR’s resources and the mission of the
Refuge System.
Goal 4. Cultural Resources:
Identify, value, and preserve the cultural resources
and history of Lacreek NWR to connect refuge
staff, visitors, and the community to the area’s
past.
Goal 5. Refuge Operations:
Secure and demonstrate effective use of funding,
staffi ng, and partnerships for the benefi t of all
resources in support of the Refuge System mission.
Goal 6. Partnerships:
Engage a wide range of partners, including non-governmental
organizations and federal, state,
tribal, and local entities, to join with Lacreek NWR
Complex to support research and management,
promote awareness, and foster appreciation for
the Lake Creek Valley, Nebraska Sandhills, and
surrounding grasslands.
Outcome of the Plan
Through an integrated restoration approach, the
refuge will strive to restore ecological processes
and achieve habitat conditions that require reduced
management over time while recognizing the
place of the refuge in the overall landscape and
community. An emphasis on monitoring the effects
of habitat management practices and use of the
research results to direct ongoing restoration will
be a priority. Current levels of priority public uses
and activity will increase. The staff will continue to
manage the wetland management district (WMD)
through monitoring and enforcement of easements.
Kingfi sher
© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
1 Introduction
Sandhill Crane
Bob Savannah/USFWS
1
1 Introduction
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has
developed this CCP to provide a foundation for
the management and use of the Lacreek National
Wildlife Refuge Complex, which includes not
only the refuge but also the wetland management
district (WMD). The plan is intended to serve as
a working guide for management programs and
actions over the next 15 years.
The plan was developed in compliance with the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife
Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife
Service Manual. The actions described within this
plan also meet the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (see
appendix B). Compliance with NEPA is being
achieved through the involvement of the public
and the inclusion of an integrated environmental
assessment (EA).
When fully implemented, this plan will strive to
achieve the program vision and the purposes of
the refuge. Fish and wildlife and their habitats are
the fi rst priority in refuge management, and public
use (wildlife-dependent recreation) is allowed and
encouraged as long as permission is granted by
the manager and it is compatible with, or does not
detract from, a refuge’s purpose(s).
The plan has been prepared by a planning team
composed of representatives from various Service
programs, including the refuge staff and the
South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department
(SDGFP).
Purpose and Need for Plan
The purpose of this CCP is to identify the role
that Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge Complex
will play in support of the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), and
to provide long-term guidance to management
programs and activities. The plan is needed:
■ To provide a clear statement of direction for
the future management of the program;
■ To provide landowners, neighbors, visitors, and
government offi cials with an understanding
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
management actions on and around these
refuges;
■ To ensure that the Service’s management
actions are consistent with the mandates of the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997;
■ To ensure that the management of these
refuges is consistent with federal, state, and
county plans; and
■ To provide a basis for the development of
budget requests for the program’s operational,
maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
Canada Geese Taking Flight
Tom Koerner/USFWS
2
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
Perhaps the greatest need of the Service is to build
relationships with landowners and communicate
with the general public and other partners in
efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge
System. Sustaining our nation’s fi sh and wildlife
resources is a task that can be accomplished only
through the combined efforts of governments,
businesses, and private citizens.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Wildlife Refuge
System
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
“The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
working with others, is to conserve, protect, and
enhance fi sh and wildlife and their habitats for the
continuing benefi t of the American people.”
Over 100 years ago, America’s fi sh and wildlife
resources were declining at an alarming rate.
Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and
angling groups joined together to restore and
sustain our national wildlife heritage. This was the
genesis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife laws,
manages migratory bird populations, restores
nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and
restores vital wildlife habitat, protects and
recovers endangered species, and helps other
governments with conservation efforts. It also
administers a federal aid program that distributes
hundreds of millions of dollars to states for fi sh
and wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter
education, and related programs across America.
The Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge
System, thousands of waterfowl production areas
(WPA), and other special management areas. It
also operates 66 national fi sh hatcheries and 78
ecological services fi eld stations.
Service Activities in South Dakota
Service activities in South Dakota contribute to
the state’s economy, ecosystems, and education
programs. Lacreek NWR contributes to the
economic benefi ts of hunting, fi shing, wildlife
observation, and wildlife photography in South
Dakota. A report titled, Banking on Nature 2004:
The Economic Benefi ts to Local Communities of
National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, evaluated
the impacts of refuges to local economies. Based
on fi gures from 2004, Lacreek NWR is estimated
to have generated $84,500 in local economic effects
from refuge recreation visits. The majority of
effects were associated with expenditures by
non-resident visitors. The refuge budget also
contributes a stimulus to the local economy with
a signifi cant portion of payroll, maintenance, and
operation expenditures spent locally.
The refuge employs 7 full-time equivalent (FTE)
employees, with a current budget of $741,700 and
has an annual visitation of 16,400. This includes
funds for the fi re program and the Partners
for Fish and Wildlife Program. In addition, 150
volunteer hours are contributed to the refuge
operations.
In general, the South Dakota Federal Aid – Sport
Fish and Wildlife Restoration program is a source
of federal excise taxes paid by hunters, anglers,
and boaters on fi shing and hunting equipment. The
monies generated from this tax have economic
benefi ts to South Dakota. In 1998, the economic
impact of angler expenditures was $206 million
and hunters contributed $176 million to the overall
economy (Source: http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/
reference/briefi ng_book_nd_2000.pdf).
The National Wildlife Refuge System
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated
the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the nation’s
fi rst wildlife refuge for the protection of brown
pelicans and other native nesting birds. This was
the fi rst time the federal government set aside land
for the sake of wildlife. This small but signifi cant
designation was the beginning of the System. One
hundred years later, this System has become the
largest collection of lands in the world specifi cally
managed for wildlife, encompassing over 96 million
acres within 544 refuges and over 3,000 small areas
for waterfowl breeding and nesting. Today, there
is at least one refuge in every state in the nation
including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
In 1997, a clear mission was established for the
System through the passage of the Improvement
Act. That mission is:
“... to administer a national network of lands and
waters for the conservation, management, and
where appropriate, restoration of the fi sh, wildlife
and plant resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefi t of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The Improvement Act further states that each
refuge shall be managed:
■ To fulfi ll the mission of the System;
■ To fulfi ll the individual purposes of each refuge;
■ To consider the needs of fi sh and wildlife fi rst;
Chapter 1—Introduction
3
People and the National Wildlife Refuge
System
Our fi sh and wildlife heritage contributes to the
quality of our lives and is an integral part of our
nation’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places have
always given people special opportunities to have
fun, relax, and appreciate our natural world.
Whether through bird watching, fi shing, hunting,
wildlife photography, or other wildlife pursuits,
wildlife recreation also contributes millions of
dollars to local economies. In 2002, approximately
35.5 million people visited a national wildlife
refuge, mostly to observe wildlife in their natural
habitats. Visitors are most often accommodated
through nature trails, auto tours, interpretive
programs, and hunting and fi shing opportunities.
Signifi cant economic benefi ts are being generated
to the local communities that surround the refuges.
Economists have reported that national wildlife
refuge visitors contribute more than $792 million
annually to local economies.
Ecosystem Descriptions and Threatst
Central Flyway
Lacreek NWR is located in the Central Flyway,
which is one of four administrative fl yways in
North America (see fi gure 1, USFWS ecosystem
map). The states and provinces included are:
Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas,
Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota,
North Dakota, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. The
Central Flyway Council is made up of federal,
state, and provincial representatives from the
United States and Canada who meet regularly to
coordinate population surveys, regulate and set
hunting seasons, and plan for management of the
migratory bird resource. Lacreek NWR designates
a staff member to represent region 6 on the swan
subcommittee of the Central Flyway Council.
In 1986, Canada, the United States, and Mexico
united to form the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan (NAWMP), designed to restore
diminishing continental waterfowl populations to
the levels of the 1970s.
The NAWMP brought together federal and state
agencies, private conservation organizations,
business and private landowners, national
corporations and individuals of the three countries
into “Joint Ventures.” Joint Ventures are regionally
based, self-directed partnerships that carry out
science-based conservation through a wide array of
community participation. Joint Ventures strive:
■ To fulfi ll the requirement of developing a CCP
for each unit of the System, and fully involve
the public in the preparation of these plans;
■ To maintain the biological integrity, diversity,
and environmental health of the System;
■ To recognize that wildlife-dependent
recreational activities including hunting,
fi shing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, environmental education, and
interpretation, are legitimate and priority
public uses; and
■ To retain the authority of refuge managers to
determine compatible public uses.
In addition to the overall mission for the System,
the wildlife and habitat vision for each national
wildlife refuge stresses the following principles:
■ Wildlife comes fi rst.
■ Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are
vital concepts in refuge management.
■ Refuges must be healthy.
■ Growth of refuges must be strategic.
■ The System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from
others.
Following passage of the Improvement Act, the
Service immediately began efforts to carry out
the direction of the new legislation, including
the preparation of CCPs for all refuges. The
development of these plans is now ongoing
nationally. Consistent with the Improvement Act,
all refuge CCPs are being prepared in conjunction
with public involvement, and each refuge is
required to complete its own CCP within the 15-
year schedule (by 2012).
Tom Koerner/USFWS
Waterfowl Viewed from the Auto Tour Loop
4
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
Missouri River Main Stem Ecosystem Plan
The Service has adopted watersheds as the basic
building blocks for implementing ecosystem
conservation. Lacreek NWR is found in the
Missouri River Main Stem Ecosystem. This
vast area covers all of North and South Dakota
and small portions of Nebraska, Wyoming,
and Montana. The major threats identifi ed for
this ecosystem include conversion of prairie to
cropland, overgrazing, invasive species, and
aggressive prairie dog control. Lacreek NWR
contributes to the accomplishment of goals and
objectives for this ecosystem through its Partners
for Fish and Wildlife Program and the partnerships
that exist at the refuge and throughout the WMD.
Key legislation and policies can be found in
appendix B.
National and Regional Mandates
The administration of the Refuge System is guided
by a variety of international treaties, federal laws,
and Presidential Executive Orders. Management
options under each refuge’s establishing authority
and the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
(the legal and policy guidance for the operation
of national wildlife refuges) are contained in the
documents and acts listed in appendix B.
The Improvement Act amends the Refuge
System Administration Act by providing a
unifying mission for the System, a new process for
determining compatible public uses on refuges, and
a requirement that each refuge will be managed
under a CCP. The Improvement Act states that
wildlife conservation is the priority of System
lands and that the Secretary of the Interior will
ensure that the biological integrity, diversity
and environmental health of refuge lands are
maintained. Each refuge must be managed to fulfi ll
the System’s mission and the specifi c purposes for
which it was established. The Improvement Act
requires the Service to monitor the status and
trends of fi sh, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.
A list of other laws and executive orders that may
affect the CCP or the Service’s implementation of
the CCP is provided in appendix B. Service policies
providing guidance on planning and the day-to-day
management of a refuge are contained within the
Refuge System Manual and the Service Manual.
The Planning Process
This CCP for Lacreek NWR and Lacreek WMD
are intended to comply with the Improvement Act
and NEPA and their implementing regulations.
The Service issued a fi nal refuge planning policy in
■ To build partnerships for conservation where
participation is voluntary and programs are
non-regulatory;
■ To work on public and private lands to protect,
restore and enhance critical habitats for
waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and land
birds; and
■ To build a scientifi c foundation through
improvement of databases, scientifi c
technologies and monitoring that help partners
target conservation efforts to where they will
do the most good and make the best use of
resources.
Northern Great Plains Joint Venture
Lacreek NWR is found in the newest Joint
Venture, the Northern Great Plains Joint Venture.
It is bounded on the north and east by the Prairie
Pothole Joint Venture and on the west by the
Intermountain West Joint Venture.
The Northern Great Plains Joint Venture area
is arid to semi-arid and mostly unglaciated.
Relatively few natural wetlands exist. Land use
in the area is primarily livestock production and
numerous man-made wetlands have been created
for livestock and wildlife. This area of short- and
mixed-grass prairie has been dramatically altered
in the last 100 years, due primarily to human
intervention. Once common native grasslands are
seriously threatened and many bird species are
declining. Maintaining and protecting existing
wetlands and grasslands, as well as creation and
enhancement of wetlands, will be a major focus
for the Northern Great Plains Joint Venture.
Lacreek NWR contributes to and participates
in the Northern Great Plains Joint Venture
through its active Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program, management of the WMDs easements,
and management and restoration of the refuges
resources.
Lacreek NWR Headquarters
Tom Koerner/USFWS
Chapter 1—Introduction
5
Figure 1. USFWS ecosystem map
6
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
2000 that established requirements and guidance
for Refuge System planning, including CCPs
and step-down management plans, ensuring that
planning efforts comply with the provisions of the
Improvement Act. The planning policy identifi ed
several steps of the CCP and EA process (see
fi gure 2):
■ Form a planning team and conduct pre-planning;
■ Initiate public involvement and scoping;
■ Draft vision statement and goals;
■ Develop and analyze alternatives, including
proposed action;
■ Prepare draft CCP and EA;
■ Prepare and adopt fi nal CCP and EA and issue
a fi nding of no signifi cant impact (FONSI)
or determine if an environmental impact
statement is needed;
■ Implement plan, monitor and evaluate; and
■ Review (every 5 years) and revise (every 15
years) plan.
The Service began the pre-planning process in
September 2004 (see appendix C). A planning team
comprised of Service personnel from the refuge
and the SDGFP (appendix D), was developed
shortly after the initial kickoff meeting. Draft
issues and qualities lists were developed.
A notice of intent was published in the Federal
Register on November 30, 2004. Notifi cation of a
public open house was distributed through media
press releases.
Over the course of pre-planning and scoping, the
planning team collected available information about
the resources of the refuge and the surrounding
areas. This information is summarized under
“Chapter 3, Refuge Resources and Description”.
This CCP provides long-term guidance for
management decisions; sets forth goals, objectives,
and strategies needed to accomplish refuge
purposes; and identifi es the Service’s best estimate
of future needs. This CCP details program
Figure 2. The steps in the CCP process
Chapter 1—Introduction
7
planning levels that are sometimes substantially
above current budget allocations and, as such,
are primarily for Service strategic planning and
program prioritization purposes. This CCP does
not constitute a commitment for staffi ng increases,
operational and maintenance increases, or funding
for future land acquisition.
The Service has made compatibility determinations
for Lacreek NWR (appendix A).
2 Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge and
Lacreek Wetland Management
District Background
American Avocet
Bob Hines/USFWS
11
Establishment, Acquisition, and
Management History
Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge was established
on August 26, 1935 by President Franklin D
Roosevelt through Executive Order No. 7160:
“… as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory
birds and other wildlife.”
The refuge lies in the Lake Creek Valley on the
northern edge of the Nebraska Sandhills and
includes 16,410 acres of native sandhills, sub-irrigated
meadows, impounded fresh water
marshes, tall- and mixed-grass prairie uplands,
reseeded grasslands, and trees and shelterbelts
(see fi gure 3, location map). The refuge serves as
an important staging area for migrating Canada
geese, other waterfowl, sandhill cranes, shorebirds,
and Neotropical migrants. Providing critical
migrational and wintering habitat for the high
plains trumpeter swan fl ock is a primary goal.
Unique habitats are provided in black-tailed prairie
dog towns that support high numbers of burrowing
owls and host ferruginous hawks, a species of
concern. The refuge provides a variety of habitats
for resident wildlife and supports concentrations
of white-tailed and mule deer, sharp-tailed grouse,
and ring-necked pheasants during the fall and
winter.
The majority of the refuge was acquired shortly
after refuge establishment. Several inholdings
within the approved refuge boundary were never
acquired. The refuge will be interested in acquiring
these inholdings, should a future opportunity arise
to purchase from a willing landowner. At the time
of establishment it was the only managed NWR
west of the Missouri River in South Dakota. Today
Lacreek is one of two refuges west of the Missouri
River in South Dakota.
The WMD was started as part of the Small
Wetlands Acquisition Program (SWAP) in the
1950s to save wetlands from various threats,
particularly draining. The passage of Public Law
85-585 in August of 1958 amended the Migratory
Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck
Stamp Act) of 1934, allowing for the acquisition of
waterfowl production areas (WPAs) and easements
for waterfowl management rights (easements).
The WMD contains eight perpetual easements
totaling 3,443 acres. The easement restrictions
vary; however, they generally prohibit wetland
drainage, grassland conversion, development, and
they require a special use permit for vegetative
manipulation. The lands remain in private
ownership. No fee title lands are currently owned
2 Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge and
Lacreek Wetland Management District Background
Pool 5
© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
12
Figure 3. Location map
13
Chapter 2—Lacreek NWR and WMD Background
by the Service in the WMD. There is no active
easement or fee title acquisition program in the
WMD.
Refuge and Wetland Management
District Purposes
The purposes for the refuges and wetland
management district are as follows:
Executive Order, August 26, 1935 “…as a refuge
and breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife…”
Migratory Bird Conservation Act “…for use as an
inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management
purpose, for migratory birds.”
The 223 acre Little White River Recreation Area
was donated to and accepted by the Service on
May 20, 1980 under the authority of the Refuge
Recreation Act
Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460K-K4) “…for
public recreation on…developments adjacent to
conservation areas in existence.”
Lacreek Wetland Management
District
Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act 16 U.S.C.
718(c) “…as Waterfowl Production Areas
subject to all provisions of the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act …except the inviolate sanctuary
provisions…”
Migratory Bird Conservation Act 16 U.S.C.
715d “…for any other management purposes, for
migratory birds.”
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 7
U.S.C. 1924 “… for conservation purposes.”
Vision and Goals
Vision
Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge’s wetland
resources create a sanctuary within the semi-arid
Great Plains landscape. The refuge provides a
great diversity of uses for wildlife and humans
alike. Refuge stewards manage hydrology to
refl ect natural conditions and restore native plant
communities of the Lake Creek Valley and the
adjacent sandhills for migratory birds and other
native wildlife. Visitors learn about grasslands,
wetlands, and sandhill ecosystems and enjoy
wildlife-dependent recreation. Ongoing cooperation
with partners and the public fosters appreciation
and builds support for the refuge’s biological and
cultural assets.
Goals
Goal 1. Wildlife and Habitat Management:
Conserve, restore, and enhance the native
biological diversity of the Lake Creek Valley and
Nebraska Sandhills for migratory birds and other
wetland- and grassland-dependent species.
Goal 2. Research and Science:
Use sound science, monitoring, and applied
research to advance the understanding of natural
resources and management within the Lake
Creek Valley, Nebraska Sandhills and surrounding
grasslands.
Goal 3. Public Use:
Provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent
recreation and promote awareness
of the refuge’s resources and the mission of the
System.
Goal 4. Cultural Resources:
Identify, value, and preserve the cultural resources
and history of Lacreek NWR to connect refuge
staff, visitors, and the community to the area’s
past.
Goal 5. Refuge Operations:
Secure and demonstrate effective use of funding,
staffi ng, and partnerships for the benefi t of all
resources in support of the System mission.
Goal 6. Partnerships:
Engage a wide range of partners, including non-governmental
organizations and federal, state,
tribal, and local entities, to join with Lacreek NWR
Complex to support research and management,
promote awareness, and foster appreciation for
the Lake Creek Valley, Nebraska Sandhills, and
surrounding grasslands.
Tom Koerner/USFWS
Trumpeter Swans
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
14
Special Values
The planning team and public identifi ed special
values and qualities that make most of these
refuges valuable for wildlife and the American
people. The Lacreek NWR has the following
attributes:
■ The refuge lies at an intersection of different
grassland types. Sandhills prairie, tall-grass
prairie, and mixed-grass prairie can all be
found here.
■ Water in an otherwise arid landscape is a
wildlife magnet. The presence of reliable
springs with high quality water was the reason
for establishment of the refuge and continues
today.
■ Many species of both eastern and western
birds, small mammals, and other wildlife
overlap ranges here. For example, both
eastern and western meadowlarks can be found
on the refuge.
■ Lacreek NWR played a key role in the
restoration of the High Plains Flock of
trumpeter swans and continues to be one of the
primary fall staging and wintering sites for this
fl ock.
■ Visitors can still fi nd wide-open spaces that
remain relatively undisturbed. Visitors
may often feel as if they had the place to
themselves.
Wildlife is abundant and highly visible because of
habitat types and relatively low disturbance levels.
Planning Issues
This section describes issues regarding the refuge
that were identifi ed during public scoping.
Habitat Management
Lacreek NWR’s primary purpose is to provide
optimal habitat conditions for the needs of a suite
of migratory and resident wildlife found on the
refuge. To achieve goals and objectives set for the
refuge’s habitat, aggressive management must
be completed. Nearly all uplands north of Lake
Creek were previously farmed and the native
vegetation lost. Many of the refuge’s wetlands are
located behind or below earthen dams that can be
used to either create deep and stable water levels
or to mimic natural wet and dry cycles. There is a
gap between public perception of disturbance and
the understanding of how managed disturbance
mimics natural disturbance and creates healthier
ecosystems.
Black-tailed Prairie Dog
Management
In July 1998, the National Wildlife Federation
petitioned the Service to list the black-tailed
prairie dog as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act. In the fall of 1999, a moratorium of all
black-tailed prairie dog control on Service lands
was issued by the Regional Director. In February
2000, the Service concluded that this species
warranted listing, but was precluded from being
listed due to other higher priority species concerns
and resource constraints. In August 2004, an
updated evaluation of the best available scientifi c
information led the Service to determine that the
black-tailed prairie dog should be removed as a
candidate for listing.
In March 2005, the South Dakota legislature passed
Senate Bill 216. This measure sets forth conditions
under which prairie dogs will be considered pests
by the state. It also outlines a formalized complaint
process by which private landowners may fi le
complaints against adjacent landowners. If the
adjacent private landowner does not comply with
controlling a one mile buffer or mutually agreed
to buffer, then the County Weed Board may be
authorized to enter onto private lands to control
prairie dogs and bill the landowner for that work.
The state Department of Agriculture will attempt
to negotiate control measures on federal and tribal
lands where formal complaints are received from
adjacent private landowners.
During this same 1999-2005 period, a severe
drought hit western South Dakota. A cessation
of all control activities on federal lands combined
with the drought caused a rapid increase in
Tom Koerner/USFWS
Prairie Dog
15
Chapter 2—Lacreek NWR and WMD Background
Figure 4. Prairie dog management
Æ·73
Æ·73 £¤18
Tuthill
Martin
Legend
Prairie Dog Management Areas
Refuge Boundary
Residence Buffer
Prairie Dog Compatible
Acreage
Little White River
Recreation Area
1787
1956
Easement
Prairie Dog Management
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
Bennett County, South Dakota
Incompatible Soil Types
Rangeland Buffer
10933
2666
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Kilometers
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
16
total acres occupied by black-tailed prairie dogs
in southwestern South Dakota. The number of
occupied acres on Lacreek NWR showed a similar
trend, and increased an estimated 343 percent from
1997 to 2004. The number of individual prairie dog
towns increased from three in 1997 to 10 in 2004.
Prairie restoration includes control of noxious
weeds such as Canada thistle, and replacement
of non-native planted species that tend to form
single-species stands of vegetation (such as crested
wheatgrass and smooth brome). Restoration is
best accomplished by farming for 3 to 5 years, and
then reseeding with a diverse seed mix including
native grass collected locally, sedge, and forb seeds.
Under current regulations prairie dogs cannot be
disturbed by plowing. Therefore, this effective
prairie restoration technique can no longer be used
on the refuge.
Prairie dogs located on the refuge have expanded
onto adjacent private lands where they are not
wanted. Control on private lands has proven futile
in these situations, as prairie dogs quickly re-occupy
controlled sites. A step down black-tailed
prairie dog management plan is in appendix E.
Noxious Weed Control
Noxious weeds, especially Canada thistle, have
the ability to degrade wildlife habitat and to
spread into adjacent private lands. This has been
a signifi cant issue on the refuge for many years.
A large portion of the refuge’s resources are
directed at control of Canada thistle and other
invasive species. Integrated pest management
(IPM) strategies currently used include prescribed
burning, grazing, mowing, herbicides, insects,
interseeding, and farming in combination to
provide control.
New invasive species—such as salt cedar or
purple loosestrife—establishing on the refuge is a
constant threat. Generally, an immediate control
response to new invasive species is most effective
in the long term.
Water Rights and the Use of Water
for Wetland Management
Contested water rights on the Brown Ranch
portion of the refuge have been a signifi cant issue
for the refuge during the last 20 years. During
a coordinated resources management effort,
the Service agreed to withdraw its application
for diversion of water from Lake Creek to fl ood
irrigate portions of the refuge north of Lake Creek.
The CRM process was not successful in resolving
water issues with refuge neighbors. Following a
protracted hearing before the South Dakota Water
Management Board, a water right was granted for
installation and maintenance of Diversion 4A for
the primary purpose to act as a physical barrier for
carp. Adjacent landowners and Bennett County
offi cials involved in this dispute are concerned that
the Service may attempt to reapply for this water
right to divert water from Lake Creek.
Public Use
Hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, environmental education, and
interpretation are all uses currently allowed on
the refuge. Limited public lands available for
public recreation in the area make this an issue
of interest. There is demand for increased and
improved recreational fi shing opportunities on the
refuge.
Little White River Recreation Area
The Little White River Recreation Area (LWRRA)
was accepted as a donation in fee title under the
Refuge Recreation Act. The recreational fi shery
and opportunities for swimming and boating are
currently impaired by high sediment loads. Many
local residents are interested in determining if
improvements are possible.
A second issue concerning the LWRRA is the
proposed Phase III Project. The proposed project
includes excavation of a secondary emergency
spillway, replacement of the primary emergency
spillway, replacement of the outlet works, and
raising the elevation of the dam by one foot. The
operating level of the pool would not be increased
due to the 1 foot of additional freeboard. Once
completed, a probable maximum fl ood event would
pass without overtopping the dam.
Species of Concern
Pelicans. Lacreek NWR hosts the largest nesting
colony of American white pelicans in South Dakota.
Lacreek’s nesting colony has fl uctuated from
year to year, but has had continued use since the
1940s. Management of water levels in refuge pools,
particularly Pool 9, could impact this nesting colony
by allowing predators such as coyotes easier access
to the islands. When Pool 9 is drawn down, a land
bridge forms, allowing coyotes and other predators
to walk to the islands. Emergent vegetation
may also begin to grow around the islands with
successive drawdowns, making the site less
attractive to pelicans. During the 2005 nesting
season, all adult pelicans abandoned the island
and all young died. On several occasions, refuge
visitors observed a coyote on the island that had
swam from the shore. It is not known if a single
coyote or numerous coyotes learned this behavior
of swimming to the island. The abandonment and
17
Chapter 2—Lacreek NWR and WMD Background
American White Pelican
© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
subsequent loss of all young pelicans has occurred
at several other nesting colonies in recent years,
and coyote predation was also speculated as a
cause in these cases.
Swans. Lacreek NWR played a key role in the
restoration of the High Plains Flock of trumpeter
swans to the Central Flyway. Today, a signifi cant
portion of this fl ock returns to Lacreek each fall.
The swans winter on spring-fed streams in the
sandhills to the south. The refuge will continue to
play a key role as a fall staging and wintering area.
Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered
Species. The Biological Integrity, Diversity, and
Environmental Health Policy (published January
16, 2001, effective April 16, 2001) (http://policy.fws.
gov/library/ 01fr3809.pdf) guides System personnel
in implementing the clause of the Improvement
Act that directs the Secretary of the Interior to
ensure that the Service maintain the “biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health” of
the System. This policy further guides the Service
to consider restoring lost or severely degraded
components of the system “where appropriate and
in concert with refuge purposes and the System
mission.”
The Lacreek NWR staff reviewed all threatened
and endangered species with historical ranges
on or near the refuge to determine if additional
actions could be taken to restore or enhance
habitat for endangered species. Only the blowout
penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) was determined
to be appropriate for restoration actions.
Predators. The predator community on Lacreek
NWR is diverse, ranging from coyotes and short-tailed
weasels to bald eagles and kestrels. This
array of predators helps maintain the “biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health”
of the refuge. Several species, including striped
skunks and raccoons, are found at higher than
historical levels due to modifi cations of habitat.
These species can impact migratory bird
populations and reduce the likelihood of reaching
goals and objectives outlined for the refuge,
primarily by depredating the nests of an array of
grassland-nesting bird species.
3 Refuge Resources and Description
Sandhill Cranes
Tom Kelley/USFWS
21
Lacreek NWR is located about 12 miles southeast
of Martin in Bennett County in southwestern
South Dakota. The refuge lies in the shallow
Lake Creek Valley on the northern edge of the
Nebraska Sandhills and includes native sandhills,
sub-irrigated meadows, impounded fresh water
marshes, and tall- and mixed-prairie uplands.
The refuge occurs in a region characterized by
the transition between eastern and western
plant and animal species. Wildlife on the refuge
includes aquatic and marsh dwelling species, as
well as species typical of the prairie. This chapter
describes the refuge’s environmental resources
that may be affected by the implementation of the
CCP.
The refuge is in a semi-arid are characterized
by cold winters and hot summers. Temperature
fl uctuates both seasonally and daily. Summer
temperatures climb above 100ºF, while winter
temperatures may drop to -30ºF with wind chills
as low as -60ºF. Annual rainfall is 17 inches, of
which 80 percent occurs from April to September.
Average snowfall is 32 inches.
Geology and Soils
The geologic materials underlying the refuge
consist of clays and silts of the Chadron Formation
and siltstones and sandstones of the Brule
Formation, deposited during the Lower Tertiary
and overlain with materials of the Arikaree and
Ogallala Formations deposited during the Upper
Tertiary (Whitehead 1996). The materials of the
Arikaree and Ogallala Formations were deposited
primarily by streams, but the presence of volcanic
ash indicates that some material was deposited as
the result of wind (Perisho 1912).
The sandhills were of late Pleistocene age and were
formed by wind-deposited sands. The surface on
which the sand dunes were formed rises nearly
2,000 feet over the 250-mile east-west extension of
the sandhills.
Three major soil associations are present on the
refuge. The Valentine Association is an extension
of the Nebraska Sandhills, and consists of hills
with ridges ranging from 29 to 75 feet high. This
association is made up of excessively drained,
deep sandy soils. These soils are very permeable;
a large percentage of runoff percolates into the
groundwater. These soils also are very erosive,
causing large “blowouts” to form when vegetation
and its soil binding root systems are removed.
The Keith-Rosebud Association is an area of nearly
level to gently sloping tablelands and consists
of well drained, deep silty soils. These soils are
suitable for farming, and the majority of these soils
were farmed prior to establishment of the refuge.
The Mosher-Minatare Loup Association is found
on bottoms, terraces, upland valley bottoms, and
basins that have a fl uctuating water table. These
3 Refuge Resources and Description
Soil Erosion
Tom Koerner/USFWS
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
22
associations consist of nearly level, somewhat
poorly drained, deep loamy soils and saline soils
with a clay pan. The shallow water table supports
vegetation more typical of tall-grass prairie. In
areas of saline soils with a claypan, saltgrass and
foxtail barley are the predominant vegetation.
Water Resources
Surface Water
Several spring-fed creeks emerge from the
Nebraska Sandhills and provide a constant supply
of clear water for the refuge. Lake Creek is the
major spring-fed stream after which the refuge
is named (see fi gure 5, habitat map). Average
stream fl ows on Lake Creek range from a low of
9.2 cfs in 1981 to a high of 41.2 cfs in 1997. The
long-term average is about 20 cfs. A series of dikes
with control structures impound these waters
and create 5,400 acres of wetlands in 13 water
management units.
Groundwater
The majority of deep groundwater in Bennett
County occurs in geologic materials of Oligocene,
Miocene, and Holocene/Pleistocene age; however,
some aquifers also exist at greater depths in
Cretaceous and Paleozoic materials (Whitehead
1996). Some domestic wells exist in the deeper
aquifers, but there has been little development of
deep groundwater for irrigation in the vicinity of
the refuge.
Groundwater is also present in the alluvial aquifer
associated with Lake Creek, and in the sandhills
to the south of the refuge. The sandhills act like
a huge sponge, soaking up the limited amount of
precipitation that falls and slowly releasing it back
to surface water features. The sandhills are largely
responsible for maintaining Lake Creek as a
perennial stream. The alluvial aquifer is expressed
by the springs, small wetlands, and wet meadows
near Lake Creek and Cedar Creek. This aquifer
is critical to the maintenance of subirrigation
on the refuge and surrounding properties. This
subirrigated area has historically been the most
productive area for grass hay.
Wetlands
Wetlands on Lacreek NWR occur primarily
within the fl oodplain of Lake Creek. Given that
the majority of groundwater at Lacreek NWR
in this area discharges by movement to lakes
and streams, leakage to shallower aquifers, and
to springs (Whitehead 1996), surface hydrology
of wetlands on the NWR is infl uenced by a
combination of surface water and groundwater
inputs. Several small, spring-fed creeks and
major creeks (i.e., Lake Creek, Cedar Creek, Elm
Creek) contributing water to the NWR exhibit
perennial fl ows even though evaporation far
exceeds precipitation annually. Data from the
USGS gauging station on Lake Creek above the
refuge indicate daily fl ows exceeded 20 cfs and
10 cfs about 50 percent and 95 percent of days,
respectively, during the periods 1963-1979 and
1997-2003. Further, groundwater discharge from
aquifers has been documented as contributing more
than 50 percent of fl ows in the Little White River
and Minnechaduza Creek, which are in relatively
close proximity to the refuge (Carter 1998). This
suggests that the infl uence of groundwater on the
surface hydrology of wetlands on the NWR may
be substantial, particularly during the late spring
and summer when evapotranspiration rates are
greatest.
Water Rights
The following section is a summary of water rights
associated with the refuge:
■ U.S. Water Right 2-2, priority date October 16,
1934, for all unappropriated waters of Lacreek
(Lake Creek) and tributaries in Bennett
County to be used on the refuge by means of
dams 7, 8, 9, and 10. A maximum amount of
23,710 acre-feet (11,008 acre-feet of storage and
12,702 acre-feet of seasonal use) of water use is
permitted.
■ U.S. Water Right 3-2, priority date December
13, 1935, authorizes storage of water in the
LWRRA reservoir and the diversion of water
from the Little White River to Pools 9 and 10.
U.S. 3-2 was supplemented with the purchase
of water license 253-2, priority date May 27,
1940, for all of the unappropriated waters of
Wetland
Tom Koerner/USFWS
23
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description
the Little White River from its confl uence
with Lake Creek to the Town of White River.
A maximum of 1,827 acre-feet of storage with
843 acre-feet of seasonal use is authorized for
use in supplementing Pools 9 and 10.
■ Water Right 2147-2 to appropriate and
impound up to 167.5 acre-feet in the DU sub-impoundment
in Pool 9 with a priority date of
November 1, 1990.
■ Water Right 2192-2, priority 1991, authorizes
1444.7 acre-feet with 4.44 cfs from six springs
originating along the edge of the sandhills
to create 235 acres of marshes, sloughs and
wet meadows for waterfowl propagation and
enhancement of wildlife habitat.
■ Water Right 1921-2, priority May 20, 1933
for 4.45 cfs from Cedar Creek to be stored in
a dam on Cedar Creek with a capacity of 30
acre-feet, and to irrigate 362 acres.
■ South Dakota Reissued Water Permit 2300-
2 authorizes construction and maintenance
of a control structure to impound 0.75 acre-feet
of water to prevent carp from traveling
upstream of the structure, in order to protect
the state-listed threatened pearl dace. This
permit has a priority date of February 1, 1994.
Vegetation Communities
Wetlands and Associated Vegetative
Communities
Wetlands on the refuge (see fi gure 5) are managed
to provide both resting cover and food resources
for migratory birds. Flows from springs through
the winter months keep portions of some units
open and provide resting and feeding sites for
trumpeter swans, Canada geese, mallards, and
a small number of other migratory bird species.
Throughout the rest of the year, wetlands serve as
production and maintenance habitat for waterfowl,
other migratory birds, and resident wildlife.
Substantial emergent and submergent vegetation
occurs in wetlands at the refuge. Sago pondweed,
coontail, and duckweed occur in the deeper, more
permanently fl ooded zones, while cattail, bulrush,
wild rice, burreed, and arrowhead grow in more
shallowly fl ooded areas that may go dry due to a
drawdown. The perimeter of these units may be
dominated by smartweed, barnyard grass, Canada
bluejoint, prairie cordgrass, sedges, rushes, wild
mint, and dock that can tolerate shorter periods of
surface fl ooding and saturated soils.
The management of wetlands on the refuge
attempts to simulate historical wet/dry cycles by
raising and lowering water levels to meet specifi c
management objectives. Desirable emergent and
submergent vegetation establishment and growth
is encouraged, invertebrate substrate is increased,
water clarity can be improved, accumulated
nutrients in bottom sediments are broken down
and cycled, and some measure of carp control is
achieved. Extensive mudfl ats are created when
wetlands are in the initial drawdown phase and
create optimal feeding opportunities for migrating
shorebirds, wading birds, and other Neotropical
species.
Wet Meadows and Associated
Vegetative Communities
Wet, subirrigated meadows make up about 13
percent of the acres on the refuge and occur
notably between the Nebraska Sandhills to the
south and the drier, uplands to the north (see fi gure
5, habitat map). These meadows are nearly fl at,
have saturated soils near the surface for most of
the growing season, and frequently pond water
for short periods after rainfall events. Much of the
western portion of the refuge falls into the wet-meadow
category. These wet meadows contain
a full complement of native grasses and forbs.
Species found in this community include Nuttall’s
sunfl ower, blue vervain, goldenrod, wild licorice,
swamp milkweed, wild mint, spotted joe-pye weed,
and black-eyed susan.
Uplands and Associated Vegetative
Communities
There are 10,350 acres of grasslands at Lacreek
that consist of sandhills, meadows, and uplands (see
Nuttall’s Sunfl ower
© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
24
Figure 5. Habitat map
25
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description
fi gure 5, habitat map). Approximately 4,900 acres
of native grasses are within the refuge, of which
3,726 acres are in the Nebraska Sandhills. Big
bluestem, little bluestem, sand bluestem, prairie
sandreed, switchgrass, Indian grass, Canada
wildrye, June grass, sand dropseed, needle-and-thread
grass, western wheatgrass, and salt grass
have all been noted on refuge grassland transects.
The sandhills portion of the refuge contains a
diverse component of grass and forb species
generally not found anywhere else on the refuge.
Although not found on the refuge, today it is
believed that blowout penstemon may have
extended at one time to the edge of the sandhills,
including the area of Lacreek NWR. Several small
“blowouts” or areas of active sand movement can
be found and may be suitable habitat.
During the 1930s, large fi elds formerly planted
to crops were plowed to form ridges, and planted
with non-native grasses including smooth brome,
crested wheatgrass, and Kentucky bluegrass
species to minimize soil erosion. Today, the refuge
contains approximately 5,450 acres of uplands
dominated by these non-native species. Extensive
areas of crested wheatgrass and smooth brome
remain on the refuge.
In the early 1970s, habitat management techniques
were developed to provide dense nesting cover
for waterfowl. Several areas on the refuge were
planted to grass species such as smooth brome
and alfalfa. These fi elds initially provided good
cover for nesting birds; however, over time they
deteriorated and were prone to invasion by Canada
thistle and other noxious weeds. The refuge plans
to restore these grasslands, along with the crested
wheat grass fi elds, to native grasses and forbs.
The native grass restoration process generally
involves cropping the fi eld for 3 or more years
to eliminate exotic cool-season grass seeds and
rhizomes, control Canada thistle and other noxious
weeds, and prepare a seed bed for planting native
seed. Since 1997, the refuge has restored or is in
the process of restoring approximately 670 acres
to native grasses. Approximately 350 acres were
planted to native grasses in 2000 and 2001 alone.
Starting in 2004, refuge staff began to harvest
seed from the refuge and other local sites. Over
120 species of native grass, forb, sedge, and
rush species have been harvested to be used for
restoration. Future plantings will utilize over 100
species of locally collected seed.
Upland vegetation is maintained to provide nesting
habitat for migratory and resident bird species.
Upland habitats also provide necessary habitat
requirements for resident wildlife throughout the
year. A variety of management techniques have
been implemented to maintain and enhance upland
habitat conditions on the refuge including the use
of prescribed fi re, grazing, haying, native prairie
restoration, and invasive species management.
Shrub and Tree Plantings
(Shelterbelts)
The refuge has less than 70 acres of shrubs and
trees. Some refuge dikes are lined with American
plum, chokecherry, peachleaf willow, sandbar
willow, and eastern cottonwood. In order to
maintain dikes, and provide secure fi re lines for
prescribed burning, most of the peachleaf willows
will be removed from the dikes. American plum,
chokecherry, and sandbar willow provide habitat
for species such as Bell’s vireos and willow
fl ycatchers. Large mature cottonwoods will be
maintained to provide perch sites for bald eagles
and other raptors. The refuge has several mature
shelterbelts composed of green ash, American
elm, honey locust, hackberry, ponderosa pine,
eastern redcedar, and Russian olive. Many of the
shelterbelts are near refuge housing, headquarters,
and other buildings and provide protection from
the wind.
Wildlife
Mammals
A total of 39 species of mammals have been
recorded on the refuge. Representative species
include coyote, cottontail rabbit, deer mice, shrew,
meadow vole, weasel, ground squirrel, prairie dog,
badger, mink, beaver, muskrat, skunk, raccoon,
white-tailed deer, mule deer, and pronghorn.
Black-tailed Prairie Dogs
It is unknown to what extent prairie dogs
historically occurred on the refuge. Prairie dog
control programs were enacted prior to refuge
establishment and during the early years of the
refuge. It is likely, however, that prairie dogs
were present north of the sandhills and Lake
Creek. Most of these soils were farmed prior to
refuge establishment and were seeded to crested
wheatgrass and smooth brome. These shallow-rooted
introduced grasses are more prone to
drought stress than native mixed-grass prairie.
The resulting short vegetation allows for rapid
expansion of black-tailed prairie dogs during
droughts.
Eleven prairie dog towns totaling 502 acres are
currently located within the refuge and are found
primarily in the uplands north of Lake Creek (see
the Draft Black-tailed Prairie Dog Management
Plan in appendix E).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
26
Reptiles and Amphibians
Formal and informal surveys and observations
on the refuge have noted tiger salamanders,
Woodhouse’s toad, western chorus frog, leopard
frog, bullfrog, and plains spadefoot toad. Turtles
include common snapping turtle, western painted
turtle, and box turtle. Four species of lizard have
been observed: northern earless lizard, northern
prairie lizard, many-lined skink, and the prairie
racerunner. Snakes include the eastern yellow-bellied
racer, western hognose snake, bull snake,
plains garter snake, red-sided garter snake, and
prairie rattlesnake.
Birds
Over 281 species of birds have been recorded
at Lacreek NWR since 1959. The majority of
passerines and other birds common to the plains
states are found on the refuge at some time
during the year. Twenty-four species of waterfowl
are commonly observed. During spring and fall
migrations, waterfowl numbers have peaked at
29,000 ducks and 37,000 geese in recent years.
Refuge fi les indicate that as many as 80,000 ducks
have staged on the refuge during migration.
Approximately 150 to 200 trumpeter swans
typically winter at Lacreek. The largest nesting
colony of American white pelicans in South Dakota
is found on the refuge. Nine species of cormorant,
herons, egrets, bittern, and ibis use the refuge for
migration and/or nesting. Secretive species such
as American bitterns are commonly observed.
Golden eagles, bald eagles, red-tailed hawks,
Swainson’s hawks, northern harrier, American
kestrel, great horned owls, burrowing owls, and
short-eared owls are some of the more common
species of raptors seen on the refuge. Twenty-one
species of shorebirds use the refuge from spring
through fall, some staying to nest. Regionally rare
species such as long-billed curlews and marbled
godwits are commonly observed. A number of
songbirds migrate through or nest on the refuge.
Declining species, such as grasshopper sparrows,
bobolinks, eastern meadowlarks, and dickcissels,
are commonly observed in refuge grasslands.
Trumpeter Swans
Trumpeter swans were introduced on the refuge
from Red Rock Lakes NWR between 1960 to 1962.
These original birds established the High Plains
Flock, which now nest primarily on sandhill lakes
to the south of the refuge. An estimated 400 birds
make up this fl ock, with as many as 268 returning
to Lacreek NWR during the fall and winter. The
trumpeter swans also rely heavily on spring-fed
creeks in the sandhills for winter habitat. A portion
of this fl ock migrates north to Greenwater Lake
Provincial Park in Saskatchewan, Canada to nest
and returns to Lacreek NWR to winter.
Lacreek NWR has not had a successful nesting
attempt for over 5 years. Habitat has decreased,
but with wetland management efforts, habitat is
increased and there may be nesting in the future.
American White Pelicans
American white pelicans began nesting on two
islands in Pool 9 shortly after construction. This
nesting colony has become one of the largest in
South Dakota. A nesting site relatively free from
predators, little human disturbance, and abundant
food resources both on the refuge and lakes and
ponds within fl ying distance are believed to make
this site attractive to nesting pelicans. Although
nesting requirements were met previously,
predators have become a problem in recent years
Fish
Fish species including northern pike, saugeye,
large-mouth bass, black crappie, perch, bluegill,
pumpkinseed, bullhead, carp and a variety of
Snapping Turtle © 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Red-headed Woodpecker
© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
27
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description
minnows including the state threatened pearl dace
and red-belly dace are all found in refuge waters.
Rainbow trout are stocked in spring-fed ponds
in the sandhills portion of the refuge. Great blue
herons, American white pelicans, double-crested
cormorants, American bitterns, and western, pied
billed, eared, and horned grebes forage for fi sh in
the refuge waters. Selected pools (Pools 3, 4, 7,
10, the trout ponds, and the LWRRA) are open to
public fi shing.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Table 2 from the South Dakota Natural Heritage
Program documents federal and state listed
endangered and threatened species found at
Lacreek NWR.
Cultural Resources
Prehistoric Resources
Although the number of cultural resources
investigations in and around Lacreek NWR have
been few, a major discovery was made in 2000 of
a large bison bone and stone artifact site located
in Pool 8. The site was called the Sierra-Kai site.
Mapped and recorded by Service archaeologists
in August 2000 during a drawdown of the
reservoir, over 1,500 bison bones and numerous
stone artifacts were documented. It appears that
the site may have been used to process bison
carcasses. A Late Plains period (1500 A.D. to 1800
A.D.) projectile point was recovered with other
stone tools. The site covered nearly 20 acres and
extended to the northeast. Other indications of
prehistoric Native American activity within the
boundaries of Lacreek NWR include stone artifact
fi nds near Pool 9 by a Service archaeologist. These
sites indicate the potential for other prehistoric
sites, usually covered by the waters and vegetation
of the reservoirs, to exist along the old creek bed
and fl oodplain dammed in the 1930s to create
the reservoirs. It is now known that the Sand
Hills and the Badlands areas of Nebraska and
South Dakota have evidence of various periods
of Native American occupation, possibly going
back several thousand years. It is also known
from historic records, that the Lacreek NWR
area was frequently visited by various tribes
during the 18th and 19th centuries; including the
Lakota, Cheyenne, Arapahoe and Pawnee, to name
a few. Although no prehistoric sites have been
determined eligible for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places, future discoveries may
change that situation.
Historic Resources
The refuge’s early twentieth century history is
closely tied to the Civilian Conservation Corps
(CCC) and Works Progress Administration (WPA).
Young men enrolled in the CCC in the mid- to late
1930s completed much of the dike-construction and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
28
infrastructure work at the refuge. CCC Company
#4723 started work at the refuge in spring 1937
and completed its work in fall 1939. The WPA
worked at the refuge from 1937 to 1941. Young
men working under the WPA planted thousands of
trees and shrubs on the refuge. Both the CCC and
WPA were involved in building trails, dikes and
landscaping.
The refuge buildings were constructed in 1936 and
included a service garage and offi ce, small cabin
residence, equipment shed, lookout tower, and
barn. All these buildings are still present at the
refuge except for the equipment shed. The service
garage, barn, and lookout tower were determined
to be eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places (Register) in 1999, but none of these
structures has been formally listed on the Register.
The WPA constructed a picnic shelter at LWRRA
in 1940-1941. The original fabric of the picnic
shelter has been rebuilt over the years and it was
determined to be ineligible for the Register in 2000.
Special Management Areas
Wilderness Review
Lacreek NWR meets the size, scenic, and
ecological value criteria for wilderness; however,
the refuge has been modifi ed by roads, fences,
grazing, agriculture, and wetland drainage. These
alternations prevent designation as a wilderness
area. To be designated a wilderness area; lands
must meet certain criteria as outlined in the
Wilderness Act of 1964:
■ Generally appears to have been affected
primarily by the forces of nature, with
the imprint of human work substantially
unnoticeable;
■ Has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of suffi cient
size as to make practicable its preservation and
use in an unimpaired condition; and
■ May also contain ecological, geological, or other
features of scientifi c, educational, scenic or
historical value.
Little White River Recreation Area
The LWRRA is a special management area on the
refuge. The land was accepted as a donation in fee
title under the Refuge Recreation Act. Historically,
it has been a place that surrounding community
members have used for recreational purposes.
Within the deed, there are provisions for activities
not normally found on a wildlife refuge. In this
area of the refuge there are opportunities for
recreational hunting, fi shing, swimming, boating,
and camping.
Visitor Services
The refuge offers a variety of recreational
opportunities to local residents and other visitors
centered on the wildlife resources. Opportunities
on the refuge include wildlife-dependent and
wildlife compatible uses legislated by Congress
and outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997. These uses
include hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, environmental education, and
interpretation.
The refuge is open to hunting for white-tailed and
mule deer, ring-necked pheasant, and sharp-tailed
grouse. A number of select pools are open for
fi shing throughout the year. The refuge is a popular
destination for viewing migrations of waterfowl,
shorebirds, and Neotropical birds. Popular wildlife
watching opportunities on the refuge include
trumpeter swans, American white pelicans,
burrowing owls, and black-tailed prairie dogs.
Interpretive displays and brochures are available
at refuge headquarters. An auto tour route and
nature trails provide opportunities for viewing and
photographing wildlife. The LWRRA has facilities
for boating, fi shing, swimming, and camping.
Fishing
Fishing is permitted year-round on Pools 3, 4, 7, 10,
trout ponds, and the LWRRA. Warm water species
such as northern pike, channel catfi sh, and large
mouth bass are the species most desired by anglers
on the LWRRA. The trout ponds are spring-fed
and remain cold enough to support rainbow trout.
The refuge coordinates with the South Dakota
Red-winged Blackbird
© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
29
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description
lightning induced or deliberately set by Native
Americans, fi re has infl uenced the composition of
the plant community at the refuge. A handful of
fi re-tolerant shrubs such as chokecherry, American
plum, and leadplant were present, while other
woody species killed by fi re were restricted to
areas that were protected from fi re. The plant
community was dominated by a number of species
of grasses with many species of forbs dotting the
landscape.
It is believed that the historical fi re frequency for
the mixed grass prairie was 5 to 7 years. Little
information is available on the occurrence of
wildfi re during the early years of the refuge. More
recently, the refuge has had up to three wildfi res
a year. Potential exists for fairly large wildfi res
to occur; however, this has generally not been the
case.
Local fi re departments and area ranchers
aggressively suppress wildfi re. It is also refuge
policy to control all wildfi res occurring on the
refuge.
Refuge staff now uses prescribed fi re to simulate
the historical infl uence wildfi re had on the plant
communities (see appendix F). Most prescribed
fi res are generally ignited during late winter
through greenup in spring. This time of year
presents opportunities to complete prescribed
burns when temperatures are lower, humidity is
higher, and the fi re may be more easily controlled.
This time frame also coincides with other refuge
activities such as wetland management. Wetlands
can be drawn down in late winter and prescribed
burned, and then be re-fl ooded to provide spring
migratory habitat. Historically, wildfi res likely
also would have occurred during the summer and
fall. Prescribed fi re was infrequently used as a
management tool for most of the refuge’s history.
During the last 10 years, prescribed fi re has been
increasingly used, and refuge staff now completes
fi ve to ten prescribed burns each year, covering
1,500 to 3,000 acres.
Similar to fi re, grazing greatly infl uences
the structure and composition of grassland
Department of Game, Fish and Parks to manage
the recreational fi shery; the state stocks game fi sh.
Hunting
A portion of the refuge is open to pheasant and
sharp-tailed grouse hunting. The refuge also
provides bow and muzzle loading hunting for deer.
Special regulations apply to all hunting activities.
Environmental Education and
Interpretation
Refuge staff provides educational talks and
tours for schools and other groups upon request.
Exhibits, educational videos, and informational
brochures are available in the visitor center.
Informational brochures and refuge maps are also
available at two information kiosks located on the
refuge.
Wildlife Observation
The refuge provides outstanding opportunities
for viewing wildlife. The abundance and variety
of wildlife species combined with relatively low
visitation provides many opportunities to view
wildlife close up. The refuge offers a 4-mile, self-guided
auto tour loop, starting at the refuge
headquarters and winding around several large
wetlands. Waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and
raptors are common along the auto tour loop, as are
deer, muskrats, and snapping and painted turtles.
Trumpeter swans and large concentrations of ducks
and geese begin to arrive in October. Numbers
generally peak in November. From November
through March, trumpeter swans are easily
spotted from the auto tour route. Auto tour guides
are available at the visitor center and provide
interpretive information along the route.
The Bird Walk Trail (0.2 mile) originates at refuge
headquarters and takes visitors around a wooded
thicket. The Pelican Islands Trail (0.2 mile)
provides visitors with a rare opportunity to view
American white pelicans nesting on two islands.
During late April and early May, visitors can see up
to 1,500 pelican, double-crested cormorant, black
crowned night herons, and great blue heron nests
located on these islands. Black-tailed prairie dogs,
and, at times, burrowing owls, are easily viewed in
the large prairie dog towns north of the refuge.
Fire and Grazing History
Historically, grasslands in the northern Great
Plains co-evolved with various disturbance regimes
such as fi re and large-scale grazing. Whether Mule Deer
Tom Koerner/USFWS
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
30
communities. Herbivores such as bison, elk, deer,
pronghorn, and black-tailed prairie dog interact
with soils, plants, other animals, and other
processes to produce unique successional patterns
in the landscape at multiple scales.
Most plant species have developed growing points
located at or near the ground surface, which allows
the plant to be clipped off without killing it. Some
contain bitter or toxic substances that cause
animals to avoid grazing on them, and some species
have spines to cause injury to grazing animal’s
mouths.
Historically, Lake Creek and other springs on the
refuge were some of the only local water sources
available. It is likely that herds of bison spent a
considerable amount of time here. Their grazing,
trampling, trailing, and related activities likely
had a signifi cant impact on the development and
maintenance of the plant communities.
Bison and elk are no longer present on the refuge.
Instead, refuge staff works with local ranchers to
mimic natural disturbances due to grazing. Grazing
is generally conducted during the spring and early
summer, and again in the fall in upland habitats,
to stress exotic cool season grasses and favor
native warm season grasses and forbs. Wetland
and wet meadow grazing may occur for much of
the growing season to stress and physically injure
aggressive wetland species such as cattails and
favor species that provide more seed production,
open habitats, and competition to Canada thistle.
Wetland grazing reduces accumulations of organic
litter at the surface. A large amount of organic
litter often favors invasive species such as Canada
thistle. Grazing can also be used as part of an IPM
program. Refuge staff has found that cattle will
actively graze Canada thistle early in the growing
season. Follow-up treatments also tend to be easier
to complete and more effective after grazing.
Socioeconomics
Population and Demographics
The population in Bennett County grew 11.5
percent from 1990 to 2000. The population estimate
for the county in 2004 was 3,522, a 1.5 percent
decline from 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2005).
Martin, the county seat, had a population of 1,106
in 2000.
Farming and livestock ranching are the main
agricultural enterprises. About 96 percent of the
county land is in farms or ranches. Major crops are
winter wheat, alfalfa, hay, proso, sorghum millet,
and sunfl owers. During wet years, some dry land
corn and soybeans are also planted. Movement
of grain, livestock, and freight is by truck lines
and farm-owned trucks; there is no rail line in the
county.
The racial makeup of the county is 40.91 percent
White, 0.28 percent African American; 52.07
percent Native American, 0.06 percent Asian, 0.14
percent Pacifi c Islander, 0.17 percent from other
races and 6.38 percent from two or more races
(www.en.wikipedia.org/ southdakota).
Employment and Income
In 2001, Bennett county had 71 private non-farm
employment establishments with paid employees,
compared to a total of 24,032 in the state of South
Dakota overall. Agriculture is the major employer
in the county. A variety of businesses exist in
Martin, including health services, education, retail
sales, and support services. The median per capita
income is $10,106 (1999) compared with the state
which was $17,562. 39.2 percent of the population
was living below the poverty line, compared with
the state at 13.2 percent (U.S. Census Bureau
QuickFacts 2002).
Air Quality
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards
include maximum allowable pollution levels for
particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide, lead, and carbon dioxide. Particulate
matter is a measure of tiny liquid or solid particles
in the air that is respirable in the lungs.
Cottontail
Tom Koerner/USFWS
31
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description
Air Quality in the area of the refuge is considered
good, with no nearby manufacturing sites or major
air pollution sources. Carbon from automobiles
and diesel engines, prescribed fi re activities on the
refuge, and dust associated with wind-blown sand
and dirt from roadways and fi elds contribute to
particulate matter.
4 Management Direction
Prairie Dog
Bob Savannah/USFWS
35
In the uplands, greater than 20 percent of the
habitats in each category (tall, medium, and short)
will be restored. Less than 5 percent will be in
native fi re-tolerant shrubs.
Objectives:
Upland Objective A (tall): In 5 to 10 years,
increase fl oristic quality assessment C score by
greater than 10 percent in patches greater than
or equal to 125 acres, with vegetation measuring
greater than 16 inches in height, as measured
during the nesting season (May to July 15) within
these patches, and greater than 164 feet from trees
greater than 10 feet in height.
Upland Objective B (medium): In 5 to 10 years,
increase fl oristic quality assessment C score by
greater than 10 percent in patches greater than
or equal to 125 acres, with vegetation measuring
between 6 to 16 inches in height, as measured
during the nesting season (May to July 15) within
these patches, and greater than 164 feet from trees
greater than 10 feet in height.
Upland Objective C (short): In 5 to 10 years,
increase fl oristic quality assessment C score by
greater than 10 percent in patches greater than
or equal to 247 acres, with vegetation measuring
less than 6 inches in height, as measured during
the nesting season (May to July 15) within these
patches, and greater than 328 feet from trees
greater than 10 feet in height.
Strategies:
1. Seed 100 to 300 acres/year of formerly cropped
or exotic grass dominated uplands totaling 2,000
to 3,000 acres to more than 100 species of native
grasses, sedges, and forbs.
2. Within designated grassland patches greater
than or equal to 124 acres, remove trees greater
than 16 feet in height and all non-native trees.
3. Interseed 100 to 300 acres/year of existing
grasslands, totaling 1,500 to 3,000 acres, to more
than 100 species of native grasses, sedges, and
forbs.
4. Conduct 200 to 1,500 acres of prescribed burning
in upland habitats each year to encourage/promote
increased FQA C score and plant structure.
5. Conduct 200 to 1,500 acres of prescribed grazing
in upland habitats each year to encourage/promote
increased FQA C score and plant structure.
4 Management Direction
Introduction
Management Summary
Through integrated restoration, the refuge will
strive to restore ecological processes where
appropriate and achieve habitat conditions that
require reduced management over time. This will
be accomplished while recognizing the role of the
refuge in the overall landscape and community and
the capabilities of refuge staff and resources to
complete the proposed management actions during
the next 15 years. An emphasis on monitoring the
effects of habitat management practices and use of
the research results to direct ongoing restoration
will be a priority. Current levels of priority public
uses and activities will increase (fi gure 6).
Refuge staff will continue to manage the WMD
through monitoring and enforcement of easements.
Management Direction
The objectives and strategies below describe how
management of the refuge will be carried out to
meet the overall goals for the refuge.
Uplands Goal
Restore and enhance the mixed grass plant
community to create a mosaic that refl ects the
habitat requirements for grassland birds of
management concern.
American Avocet
© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
36
6. Continue use of IPM strategies to reduce
noxious weeds and other invasive species.
Rationale:
The decline of grassland nesting birds has been
attributed to habitat loss and conversion,
fragmentation, and the disruption of ecological
factors such as fi re and grazing that created a
mosaic of habitat types across the landscape. As
a result, many grassland bird species are now
considered species of biological concern (Service
2002). Managing natural areas for these bird
species involves providing the nesting habitat
requirements and food resources essential for
production and survival. These requirements
include large, treeless patches that contain within
them diversity in vegetation structure (Renken
and Dinsmore 1987; Johnson and Temple 1990;
Volkert 1992; Helzer and Jelinski 1999; DeJong
2001; Herkert et al. 2003; Davis 2004; Fritcher et
al. 2004). Through fi re, grazing, tree removal, and
grassland restoration, habitat for many grassland
nesting birds will be provided, but efforts will
concentrate on managing for those birds that are of
management concern.
Several federal, state, and private “birds of concern
lists” were reviewed. These lists are created based
on population status and habitat conditions for bird
species in certain biological regions. Some birds, such
as the long-billed curlew appear on as many as eight
different lists. Species that are on many different
lists are of the highest management concern and
those species that were confi rmed to nest on the
refuge were used as the focus for habitat objectives
in the CCP. Once those birds were identifi ed, a
literature search was conducted to determine the
specifi c habitat requirements for each species.
Requirements such as vegetation height, patch size,
and distance from trees were used to create science-based
objectives for the CCP (table 4). First, the
nesting and foraging habitat requirements were
identifi ed and compared. Birds were grouped based
on similar requirements. For example, dickcissels,
short-eared owls, grasshopper sparrows, and
bobolinks nest in patches with a grass/forb mix
where vegetation is moderate to tall and where
woody edges are at a minimum (Birkenholz 1972;
Wiens 1973; Rotenberry and Wiens 1980; Ryan
1986; and Frawley 1989). A vegetation height
somewhere in the middle of this range (8 to 30
inches) was assumed to suit the needs of all the
birds in this group, and greater than 16 inches
was chosen as identifi ed in Objective A (tall). The
next requirement that was examined was patch
size. Again, a range of acres was determined. It
was assumed that an acreage somewhere in the
middle (125 acres) could accommodate the birds
in the “tall” group, and be provided on the refuge
through management actions. The fi nal requirement
identifi ed was distance from trees. Trees on a
grassland landscape can affect grassland obligates
by fragmenting habitat and providing roost sites
for avian predators. Trees also create corridors for
mammalian predators such as skunks and raccoons
(Bakker 2003). In the upland objectives, it was
37
Chapter 4—Management Direction
assumed that anything greater than 10 feet was a
tree and anything above this height will provide
places for grassland bird predators.
Upland Objective B was developed just as A,
using sharp-tailed grouse determine specifi cs
(i.e., vegetation heights, number of acres, and
distance from trees). Sharp-tailed grouse nesting
requirements include large grassland patches
where native grasses and forbs are dominant,
of short to moderate heights, and far from
trees (Johnsgard 1983; Gregg 1987; Prose 1987;
Hanowski et al. 2000). As food and cover are
reduced in open habitats throughout the summer,
woody vegetation becomes increasingly important
because it provides cover and high-energy food
resources such as berries (Johnsgard 1983; Prose
1987; Connelly et al. 1998). This is an important
consideration for managing sharp-tailed grouse
that winter on the refuge.
Finally, species such as long-billed curlew,
burrowing owl, and upland sandpiper were used
to develop Objective C. These birds require short
grass/forb mix (less than 6 inches) patches free
from woody vegetation and adjacent to grasslands
with moderate vegetation heights for foraging
(Redmond and Jenni 1986; Pampush and Anthony
1993; Benedict et al. 1996; Thompson and Anderson
1988; Dechant et al. 1999b; Clayton and Schmutz
1999; Herkert et al. 1993; Bowen and Kruse 1993).
However, in this objective, the greatest acreage
requirement (247 acres) and distance from trees
(382 feet) was chosen based on the habitat needs
of the upland sandpiper. The largest fi gures were
chosen because it was assumed these quantities
(acres and feet) could be easily achieved through
grazing and prescribed fi re.
Methods:
To determine whether management actions are
providing a diverse native plant community on the
refuge, staff will use Floristic Quality Assessment
(FQA) methodology to determine plant species
diversity and integrity. FQA was developed by
Swink and Wilhelm (1979, 1994) to measure the
fl oristic quality of a natural area. It has been used
to determine the effectiveness of restoration
efforts, monitor natural areas, and determine
the fl oristic intactness of an area in Wisconsin,
Illinois, and the Dakotas (Taft et al 1997; USGS
2001; Bernthal 2003). Aspects such as tolerance
of a plant species to disturbance and fi delity to
specifi c habitat integrity are used to assign each
native plant a coeffi cient of conservatism (C). The
coeffi cient for each species is determined by its
conservatism relative to other species in the area.
Once an area has been surveyed, a mean C value
is calculated and the higher C value the higher
the quality of a natural area (C = 0 to 10). Given
the assumption that the fl oristic quality of an area
is correlated to species diversity (Wilhelm and
Ladd 1988), it can be said that a high C score is
directly related to high native plant diversity. Thus
an area with a high C score should also provide
the diversity in vegetation structure needed by
grassland nesting birds, provided the patches are
large enough. That is when sites are compared to
those with relatively higher C scores will display
a greater diversity in plant structure than a
corresponding area with low C scores. To test this
assumption, measures of vegetation structure will
be taken during the FQA. By talking to scientists
who have used the FQA method in the Northern
Great Plains and Midwest, it was determined that
an increase of greater than 10 percent within a
5- to 10-year period was feasible with persistent
grassland restoration efforts on the refuge.
Increasing native plant species diversity in
formerly cropped areas or in degraded grasslands
has received signifi cant attention, particularly
in the tallgrass prairie portions of the Great
Plains (Steinauer et al. 2003). Wide varieties of
techniques have been used to harvest and process
seed, prepare a seedbed, complete the seeding,
and manage the seeding. Similar techniques can
be adapted for use in the mixed-grass prairie and
utilized for high diversity seeding and management
at the refuge. Local seed sources will be utilized to
collect over 100 species of native grasses, forbs, and
sedges to include in these high diversity seedings.
Follow-up management of prescribed burning,
grazing, mowing, and haying will be used to help
the Service achieve goals and objectives.
Sandhills Goal
Preserve and maintain the ecological integrity of
indigenous fl ora and fauna of the sandhills portion
of the refuge.
Objectives:
Sandhills Objective A: Maintain the composition
of the sandhills in greater than 90 percent
native grasses and forbs to meet the needs of
Burrowing Owls
© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
38
the lark sparrow and sharp-tailed grouse. Plant
composition will consist of approximately 60 to
90 percent grasses (i.e., blue and hairy grama
grass, sand lovegrass, needle and thread, little and
big bluestem, prairie sandreed, Junegrass, sand
bluestem, switchgrass, and Indian grass), 5 to 15
percent forbs/woody vegetation (Puccoon spp.,
Penstemon spp., sand cherry, yucca, prickly poppy,
and Liatris spp.) and 5 to 10 percent bare ground.
Sandhills Objective B: Eradicate invasive plant
species, such as leafy spurge, from the sandhills
within 15 years.
Strategies:
1. Conduct annual monitoring to detect invasive
species.
2. Utilize IPM techniques (i.e., biological,
mechanical, chemical, and cultural techniques).
3. Conduct annual vegetation monitoring to
determine if objectives are being met.
4. Investigate potential for introduction of blowout
penstemon (Penstemon haydenii).
Rationale:
The sandhills prairie is distinctive because of
the particular combination of plant communities
found there. Typical short-, mixed-, and tall-grass
species are all located in the sandhills because
differences in topography and available moisture
create conditions that allow each to persist (Kaul
1990). Plant species that have a marked ability to
conserve water often occur on dune tops where
surface water and organic matter is limited. While
cool-season grasses and plants that use water less
effi ciently tend to be located in the interdunal
valleys. Pool (1914) recognized six communities
in the sandhills: four upland communities and a
wet meadow and marsh community. All these
communities are found within the sandhills portion
of the refuge, and each will be used to defi ne the
ecological integrity of indigenous fl ora and fauna to
be maintained on the refuge.
The Bunchgrass Community: Plant species
in this community consist of little bluestem,
junegrass, needle and thread, prairie sandreed, and
switchgrass, blue grama, lovegrass, and ricegrass,
sages, milkweeds, penstemon, puccoon, cactus,
aster, and pea plant. Some low shrubs such as sand
cherry and wild rose also occur.
Sand Muhly Community: The species of this
community are characteristic of places with dry
and unstable slopes that are undergoing succession
following disturbances such as fi re and blowouts.
Common species are sand muhly, sand bluestem,
needle-and-thread, prairie sandreed, hairy grama,
puccoon, and yucca.
The Blowout Community: Few plants occur in
this community because of aridity and instability
of the sand. Species include blowout grass, prairie
sandreed, sand muhly, ricegrass, sand lovegrass,
and lemon scruf-pea. Blowout penstemon, although
not on the refuge, is found in this community type.
The Meadow Community: Sandhill meadows
occur in level areas between dunes where water is
readily available. Grass species commonly found
here are slender and western wheatgrass, needle
and thread grass, porcupine grass, switchgrass,
Indiangrass, and junegrass.
Woody Vegetation: Trees and shrubs are abundant
near permanent water and areas on the sides and
bottoms of north-facing slopes (Schmidt 1986).
Species include plains cottonwood, green ash,
cedar, wild plum, chokecherry, buffaloberry, and
dogwood and provide habitat for lark sparrow,
Bell’s vireo, and sharp-tailed grouse.
Lark sparrow and sharp-tailed grouse habitat
requirements were identifi ed and used to develop
Sandhills Objective A. The lark sparrow appears on
two North American Bird Conservation Initiative
lists for region 19 (breeding and wintering)
and is found on Lacreek NWR. Finkbeiner and
Johnson (2002) found it exclusively occurred in
the sandhills portion of the refuge, perhaps due
to the open areas interspersed with native grass,
forbs, and yucca. Lark sparrows are found in areas
with a mix of native grass, forbs, small trees and
shrubs, and bare ground (Bock and Webb 1984;
Howe et al. 1985; Fannes and Lingle 1995; Martin
and Parrish 2000; Lusk et al. 2003). Lusk et al.
(2003) recommended management that focused on
creating abundant structural cover with moderate
levels of litter accumulation and bare ground.
There was more variation in structural cover
among successful nests than unsuccessful ones, and
successful nests had nearly twice as much litter
cover. Additionally, nests placed near structural
cover may provide thermal cover and protection
from predation (Lusk et al. 2003).
As mentioned previously, grassland habitats are
essential breeding areas for sharp-tailed grouse,
and woody areas are equally important for
overwinter survival. The refuge is an important
breeding and wintering area in Bennett County.
By maintaining the integrity of the sandhills, these
habitat requirements will be provided in order to
sustain the population that occurs on the refuge.
There are 2 to 3 acres of leafy spurge in the
sandhills portion of the refuge. Leafy spurge is
sprayed each year and new patches are monitored
and mapped when detected. Leafy spurge
has been sprayed for three consecutive years
beginning in 2002; the number of acres infested
remains constant. Leafy spurge is perhaps the
greatest threat to habitat in the sandhills. It
39
Chapter 4—Management Direction
has demonstrated an ability to invade native
grasslands in portions of the Great Plains and
signifi cantly degrade wildlife habitat.
Wet Meadows Goal
Restore and enhance the wet meadow plant
community using a diversity of native species
to create a habitat mosaic that meets the
requirements for birds of management concern
dependent on the wet meadow community. As part
of the plant community, native fi re-tolerant shrubs,
such as indigo bush, dogwood, and native willow,
will be allowed to persist.
In wet meadow habitats, more than 20 percent of
the habitats in each category (tall, medium, and
short) will be restored. Between 0 and 10 percent
will be in the riparian shrub community.
Objectives
Wet Meadow Objective A (tall): In 5 to 10 years,
increase fl oristic quality assessment C score by
greater than 10 percent in patches greater than 25
acres with vegetation measuring greater than 24
inches in height, as measured during the nesting
season (May to July 15).
Wet Meadow Objective B (medium): In 5 to 10
years, increase fl oristic quality assessment C score
by greater than 10 percent in patches greater than
25 acres with vegetation measuring from 12 to 24
inches in height, as measured during the nesting
season (May to July 15).
Wet Meadow Objective C (short): In 5 to 10 years,
increase fl oristic quality assessment C score by
greater than 10 percent in patches greater than
25 acres with vegetation measuring less than 12
inches in height, as measured during the nesting
season (May to July 15).
Wet Meadow Objective D (shrubby component):
Maintain 0 to 10 percent of wet meadow habitat
dominated (canopy cover greater than 75 percent)
by native shrubs.
Wet Meadow Objective E: Investigate techniques
and complete a feasibility study by 2009 for
restoration of the hydrology of Lake Creek.
Strategies:
1. By 2016, interseed 30 to 150 acres annually,
totaling 300 to 1,500 acres of wet meadow that has
been historically sprayed with herbicides.
2. Conduct 200 to 1,500 acres of prescribed burning
in wet meadow habitats each year to encourage/
promote increased FQA C scores and plant
structure.
3. Conduct 200 to 1,500 acres of prescribed grazing
in wet meadow habitats each year to encourage/
promote increased FQA C scores and plant
structure.
4. Utilize prescribed burning and prescribed
grazing on an adaptive management basis.
5. Utilize IPM to achieve acceptable levels of
control for noxious weeds.
6. Encourage beaver dam construction in areas
with no management confl ict.
Rationale:
Wet meadows are characterized by ecotones
between emergent wetland and perennial uplands.
The soils are moist to saturated with standing
water present for only brief to moderate periods
during the growing season. Vegetation includes a
wide variety of herbaceous species, from sedges
and rushes to forbs and grasses. Woody vegetation,
if present, accounts for less than 10 percent of the
total area covered. Wet meadow habitat on the
refuge occurs at the perimeter of wetland areas,
along riparian corridors, and at springs emerging
from the sandhills. Vegetation includes prairie
cordgrass, Canada bluejoint, switchgrass, foxtail
barley, barnyard grass, wooly sedge, slough sedge,
Nebraska sedge, golden doc, mint, golden rod,
Nuttall’s sunfl ower, wild licorice, spike rush, Baltic
rush, blue vervain, stinging nettle, sandbar willow,
red-osier dogwood, and false indigo.
This habitat type provides nesting and foraging
requirements for marshbirds, raptors (e.g., harriers
and short-eared owls), some shorebirds, and
passerines. Virginia rail, sora, and American bittern
are common in wetlands where the soils are moist
to shallow, the vegetation is dense and tall (24 to
51 inches) with very little (5 percent to 30 percent)
open water habitat. These marsh birds prefer areas
Sandhill Crane
© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
40
with a high diversity of wetland vegetation such as
cattail, bulrush, cordgrass, and wildrice.
Wet meadows provide nesting and foraging
requirements for marshbirds, raptors (e.g.,
harriers and short-eared owls), some shorebirds,
and passerines. The objectives for this habitat type
were developed in much the same way the upland
objectives were: by creating a list of birds that
was used to focus management; identifying specifi c
numbers for vegetation height, patch sizes, and the
role of trees based on scientifi c literature; grouping
birds with similar habitat requirements; and then
determining what number would accommodate
all birds in the group. These specifi c acres and
heights were then incorporated into Objectives
A through D. For Objective A, Virginia rail, sora,
and American bittern were grouped into the “tall”
category. These birds are common in wetlands
where the soils are moist to shallow, the vegetation
is dense and tall (24 to 51 inches) with very little (5
percent to 30 percent) open water habitat. These
marsh birds prefer areas with a high diversity
of wetland vegetation such as cattail, bulrush,
cordgrass, and wildrice.
To develop Objective B, northern harriers and
short-eared owls were used to determine the
appropriate vegetation heights and number of
acres. These raptors are often associated with wet
meadow areas because they require large tracts
(greater than 247 acres) of tall, dense vegetation
adjacent to upland areas interspersed with stands
of shrubs. These areas should be idle for 2 to
5 years to allow the accumulation of litter and
the persistence of small shrubby species such as
snowberry, a key species associated with harrier
nesting locations (Duebbert and Lokemoen 1977;
Kantrud and Higgins 1992; Murphy 1993).
Objective C was developed by looking at the
habitat requirements for a group of shorebirds.
Grazed and burned areas adjacent to wetlands can
provide the habitat requirements of shorebirds
such as long-billed curlew, Wilson’s phalarope,
and marbled godwit. These species utilize shorter
(less than 12 inches) grassland areas adjacent to
seasonal, semi-permanent wetlands that contain
native vegetation such as green needlegrass,
western wheatgrass, and inland saltgrass (Dechant
et al. 2000, 2001, 2003; Duggar and Duggar 2002).
Finally, Objective D was determined by examining
the needs of two species that require riparian
corridors and woody draws: Bell’s vireo and willow
fl ycatcher. Bell’s vireo declined at a rate of 2.4
percent between 1966 and 1987 and is currently
listed on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Birds of Conservation Concern list, the North
American Bird Conservation Initiative list for
regions 17 and 19, and on the National Audubon
Society Watch List. Bell’s vireo nests in relatively
open, low, dense, shrubby habitats throughout its
range (Overmire 1963; Brown 1993; Martin 1996;
Swanson 1999). Wild plum thickets were found to
be especially important nesting areas in western
South Dakota. Martin (1996) found that 77 percent
of all nests occurred in these areas. The remaining
nests were located in buckbrush, dogwood, and
chokecherry bushes. Willow fl ycatcher is on the
National Audubon Society Watch List and is a
bird strongly associated with the presence and
abundance of willow throughout its range (Taylor
1986; Sedwick and Knopf 1992; and Sanders and
Edge 1998).
Developed Wetlands Goal
In managed wetlands, mimic natural wet/dry cycle
with an emphasis on seed production, submerged
aquatic vegetation, and invertebrate production.
Defi nitions:
For the purposes of this goal and associated
objectives, the defi nitions below for water regimes
from Cowardin et al (1998) were modifi ed within
the context of the refuge’s managed wetlands.
Natural basins fl uctuate due to groundwater levels
and surface runoff. Water levels within managed
wetlands can generally be manipulated, with some
management constraints.
Semi-permanently fl ooded. Surface water persists
throughout the growing season in most years.
Seasonally fl ooded. Surface water is present for
extended periods, especially early in the growing
season. Surface water may again be present after
the growing season in the fall and winter. When
surface water is absent, the water table is often
near the surface.
Temporarily fl ooded. Surface water is present for
brief periods during the growing season. Plants
that grow both in uplands and wetlands are
characteristic of the temporarily fl ooded regime.
Meadow
© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
41
Chapter 4—Management Direction
Objectives:
Developed Wetland Objective A (temporary water
regime): From 2006-2021, manage 25 to 50 percent
of managed wetland acres with a temporary water
regime; greater than 50 percent of the unit area
will be dominated by desirable plant species (see
appendix G).
Developed Wetland Objective B (seasonal water
regime): From 2006-2021, manage 25 to 50 percent
of managed wetland acres with a seasonal water
regime; greater than 50 percent of the unit area
will be dominated by desirable plant species (see
appendix G).
Developed Wetland Objective C (semi-permanent
regime): From 2006-2021, manage 25 to 50 percent
of managed wetland acres with a semi permanent
water regime; greater than 50 percent of the unit
area will be dominated by desirable plant species
(see appendix G).
Strategies:
1. Surface water will be diverted to or released
from managed wetland units to provide the mix of
temporary, seasonal, and semi-permanent water
regimes outlined in objectives.
2. Conduct 200 to 1,500 acres of prescribed burning
in developed wetlands to reduce plant litter depths,
encourage germination and growth of desirable
species, and improve effectiveness of grazing and
IPM in this habitat.
3. Conduct 200 to 1,500 acres of prescribed grazing
in developed wetlands each year to reduce plant
litter depths, encourage germination and growth of
desirable plant species, injure aggressive perennial
wetland plant root systems, and create openings in
wetland vegetation.
4. Utilize IPM to achieve acceptable levels of
control for noxious weeds.
Rationale:
Wetland birds are a diverse group of species that
can have broadly contrasting habitat requirements.
Species such as trumpeter swan, American coot,
and American white pelican use deeper (31 to
144 inches) semi-permanent water to meet their
natural history requirements. Canada geese and
redheads can utilize deeper water as well, but
often obtain food resources in shallower (1 to 12
inches) more seasonal water. Seasonal wetlands are
essential for dabbling ducks such as blue-winged
teal, mallards, and northern pintails because these
wetlands provide optimum foraging depth for these
species and typically produce more abundant seed
and aquatic invertebrate resources (Fredrickson
and Reid 1988). Seasonal wetlands often contain
proportionately more waterfowl pairs than other
wetland classes (Ruwaldt et al 1979). Finally,
Wilson’s phalarope, godwit, willet, and long-billed
curlew use mostly seasonal or temporary wetlands
that measure 1 to 7 inches deep.
On the refuge, requirements of all these birds can
be met by managing for different water regimes in
the various units. Semi-permanent, seasonal, and
temporary wetland habitats can all be provided
on the refuge through the manipulation of water
levels. Water control structures (WCS) allow
staff to mimic the wet-dry cycle of the Plains. The
manipulation of water levels to mimic wet/dry
hydrologic cycles is one tool used by wetland
managers to infl uence vegetative productivity,
composition, and structure (Kadlec 1962;
Frederickson and Taylor 1982). The continuance of
static water levels can create anaerobic conditions
that limit decomposition and nutrient cycling
(Brinson et al. 1981). High, static water levels can
also adversely infl uence the growth of Submergent
Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) by limiting light
penetration and allowing water temperatures to
remain cool. Proper water level manipulations can
create hemi-marsh habitats that can provide open
water areas that may contain SAV and shallow
areas that may provide emergent food resources
and cover for many wetland-dependent species
(Weller and Frederickson 1974; Murkin et al. 1997).
Refuge staff have utilized water level
manipulations to increase wetland plant diversity
and nutrient cycling, and promote the growth
of SAV. Wetlands that were once dominated by
cattail and bulrush in emergent zones, are now
interspersed with species such as arrowhead,
beggarticks, and wild rice (Zizania aquatica).
Arrowhead is carbohydrate-rich and especially
important to swans in the winter and spring.
Beggarticks contains high amounts of protein
(Paullin 1973; Squires 1991; Eaggars and Reed
1997). Additionally, the establishment of species
such as waterweed and sago pondweed has
occurred in open water areas after drawdowns,
both important food resources for trumpeter swans
(Shea 1979; Hughlett et al. 1984; Mitchell 1994).
A secondary effect of increasing wetland plant
diversity is the assemblage of invertebrates
(Frederickson and Reid 1988). Invertebrate
groupings are often infl uenced by the species of
wetland vegetation present. For instance, the
structure of macrophytes present can infl uence
the species and number of invertebrates available,
because a plant species that is more complex has
more surface area available for invertebrates than
a species that has a simple leaf structure such as
wild celery (Frederickson and Reid 1988). This is
important because invertebrates are crucial for
providing protein needed for egg, muscle, and
feather development, and having high densities and
diversity of invertebrates can provide for many
types of waterbirds.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
42
Water level manipulations are believed to have
added benefi ts of controlling rough fi sh populations
and snapping turtles. Rough fi sh, primarily carp,
can thrive under static high water management.
The carp attain population levels great enough to
remove most desirable emergent and submerged
aquatic vegetation and signifi cantly increase
turbidity levels. This factor can severely limit
food resources for wetland-dependent migratory
birds. Snapping turtles also thrive in similar
environments. The stable water levels, especially
during overwinter periods, can increase survival
of snapping turtles. These long-lived predators can
reach unusually high population numbers under
these conditions, and may have a signifi cant impact
on brood survival for trumpeter swans, Canada
geese, ducks, and other waterbirds. Varying water
levels may kill snapping turtles overwintering in
bottom sediments.
Prairie Dogs Goal
Maintain a viable population of black-tailed prairie
dogs within the boundary of the refuge.
Objectives:
Prairie Dog Objective A: Support a minimum of
300 acres of occupied black-tailed prairie dog towns
within the biologically and socially compatible zone
identifi ed in appendix E, over the next 15 years.
Strategies:
1. Fully implement an approved refuge black-tailed
prairie dog management plan.
2. Within the socially incompatible zone, control
will be considered for use as part of mixed grass
prairie restoration efforts.
3. Within the biological/social compatible
zone, prairie restoration will utilize herbicide,
interseeding, burning, grazing, and other habitat
restoration techniques.
4. Conduct grazing, mowing and prescribed
burning activities adjacent to black-tailed prairie
dog towns in socially compatible zones when the
occupied area falls below 300 acres.
5. Work cooperatively with Bennett County
Weed Board and the state of South Dakota on
management of black-tailed prairie dogs on the
refuge.
6. If black-tailed prairie dogs are extirpated
within the boundaries of the refuge, and do not
re-establish passively within 3 years, planning for
translocation will be initiated.
7. Establish buffer zones for prairie dog towns
that are located along the exterior boundaries of
the refuge adjacent to private range and hay land
or private residences. Coordinate with adjacent
landowners on control efforts.
Rationale:
Black-tailed prairie dogs are an integral part of
the wildlife community and it is appropriate to
maintain a viable population on the refuge. Many
wildlife species associate with or depend upon
prairie dogs during some portion of their life cycle.
Over 167 vertebrate species have been documented
using prairie dog towns (Campbell and Clark
1981; Clarke et al. 1982; Knowles 1994; Reading
et al. 1989; Sharps and Uresk 1991). Some species
feed on prairie dogs, but others utilize the burrow
systems or the unique habitat to fulfi ll their needs.
Vacant burrows are used by cottontail rabbits,
several species of small rodents, tiger salamanders,
prairie rattlesnakes, bull snakes, and by burrowing
owls. Most active towns on the refuge have had
successful nesting by burrowing owls. As the size
and number of prairie dog towns have increased,
so has the documented sightings of burrowing
owls on the refuge. Many other passerine species,
such as meadowlark, grasshopper sparrow, lark
bunting, McCown’s longspur, and horned lark,
prefer the sparsely vegetated habitat created on
prairie dog towns due to the greater visibility of
seeds and insects (Agnew et al. 1986). In addition
to their importance to other wildlife species, prairie
dogs provide an opportunity for wildlife observers
and photographers. Management should focus on
maintaining a large enough acreage to maintain
prairie dogs and associated species while still
allowing for prairie restoration and other grassland
management objectives.
During the CCP scoping process, management of
prairie dogs on the refuge received considerable
attention. Neighboring landowners and local
government such as the Bennett County Weed and
Pest Board and the Bennett County Conservation
District were concerned that towns established
along the refuge boundary were causing prairie
dogs to spread onto adjacent private lands, where
they are undesirable. Control of prairie dogs on
private land is diffi cult as these areas are quickly
re-colonized from refuge lands.
A second issue concerning prairie dog management
relates to prairie restoration efforts. Large
expanses of exotic grasses and other invasive
species occur in the refuge’s uplands. A large seed
bank of these undesirable species exists and must
be removed with tillage and herbicides. Rapid
expansion and dispersal of prairie dogs have been
noted after discing or herbicide applications for
noxious weed control. Prairie dogs also expand
into newly seeded fi elds and repeated prescribed
burning and mowing may be needed to aid in
establishment of prairie species. The ability to
manage prairie dogs on the refuge is needed to aid
with an aggressive prairie restoration effort.
43
Chapter 4—Management Direction
A refuge-specifi c prairie dog management plan
has been approved that designates a portion of
the refuge in which prairie dogs will be allowed
to expand and contract without direct control
efforts. A large portion of the refuge is considered
to be unsuited to prairie dog occupation based on
soils and hydrology. The remainder of the refuge
will provide for a buffer adjacent to private hay
and rangeland or residences and control will be
authorized in these areas. Prairie dogs also may
be controlled to facilitate grassland restoration
efforts.
Trumpeter Swan Goal
Contribute to a long-term viable population of
wild, free ranging trumpeter swans in the High
Plains Flock, as outlined in the High Plains
Flock Management Plan (Central Flyway Swan
subcommittee).
Objectives:
Trumpeter Swan Objective A: From October
to March, when less than 10 percent of wetland
habitat remains open, and greater than 25 swans
concentrate on the trout ponds, restrict access by
the visiting public and staff within 164 feet of trout
ponds.
Trumpeter Swan Objective B: From April through
September, restrict access by the visiting public and
staff within 820 feet of occupied trumpeter swan nesting
territories.
Trumpeter Swan Objective C: Investigate lead
concentrations on refuge wetlands occupied by
swans by 2009. Eliminate known lead contributors
(i.e., fi shing sinkers) by 2009.
Trumpeter Swan Objective D: Continue to monitor
the High Plains Flock by conducting population
surveys in the fall and summarize results in an
annual report for public review.
Trumpeter Swan Objective E: Complete
new management plan for High Plains Flock
coordinated through the Central Flyway by 2006.
Strategies:
1. Implement regulations restricting use of lead
sinkers for fi shing on the refuge.
2. Educate public about impacts of lead on swans
and waterfowl through the use of signs, brochures,
and other outreach activities.
3. Monitor swan behavior starting in March 2006,
and every March through the life of the plan to
determine possible nesting territories.
4. Attend Central Flyway Committee and
Trumpeter Swan Society Meetings to disperse
information, maintain network, and coordinate on
management of this fl ock.
5. Conduct annual fall survey and coordinate
with Nebraska Game and Parks Commission on
publication of results.
6. Pursue research with partners to identify lead
concentrations, inventory wintering habitats, or
other research topics needed for management of
this fl ock.
Rationale:
Trumpeter swans are sensitive to disturbance.
This can cause nest abandonment, movement
from foraging areas, and ultimately result in poor
body condition and lowered reproductive success
(Holton 1982; Lockman et al. 1987; Henson and
Grant 1991). However, the types of disturbance do
affect the reaction of the birds. Henson and Grant
(1991) found that aircraft and passing road traffi c
alerted birds but did not cause females to leave
the nest. Additionally, the study found that swans
are sensitive to noise and the visible presence of
stopped vehicles, pedestrians, and researchers. The
study recommended posting wetlands where swans
nest to limit disturbance and restrict the use of
airboats by staff during nesting periods.
Limiting disturbance of winter foraging areas is
also important. Activities disrupting foraging or
causing excessive energy use may cause fatality or
loss of reproductive potential because the female
prelaying nutrition is lowered (Gale et al. 1987;
Mitchell 1994). Approximately 100 to 200 swans
winter on the refuge, and limiting disturbance
at key foraging areas where swans concentrate
might increase the probability of survival and
reproduction. Trumpeter swans will concentrate at
the trout ponds when temperatures are extremely
cold for an extended period. This area may be
disturbed by the public and access should be
restricted during these periods. The loop trail that
crosses the dam of trout pond #2 and a buffer of
Prairie Dog
USFWS
Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
44
approximately 164 feet around these ponds will be
signed as closed to the public during these periods.
The trail leading onto private land to the south
will remain open. Confl icts with fi shermen will
be negligible at this time as ice around the shore
prevents fi shing at this time.
Swans are particularly susceptible to lead
poisoning which may affect swans as young as
three weeks old (Mitchell 1994). Lead deposits in
the High Plains are generally thought to be the
result of shot and fi shing sinkers. According to a
study done by Pelizza (2001), elevated levels of
lead were found in 50 percent of all swans tested
from the refuge. Additionally, 12 swans died on the
refuge as a result of lead poisoning from 1979 to
1994. Although lead has been found in swans that
use the refuge, the s