Litchfield Wetland Management District Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Litchfield
Wetland Management District
Draft
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for
management decisions; set forth goals, objectives and strategies
needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and
Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above
current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do
not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and
maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Litchfield
Wetland Mangement District
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3
Submitted by:
Barry Christenson Date
WMD Manager
Concur:
Don Hultman
Refuge Supervisor (RFS 3) Date
Nita M. Fuller Date
Regional Chief
National Wildlife Refuge System
Approve:
William F. Hartwig Date
Regional Director
i
Acknowledgments
Many organizations, agencies and individuals provided invaluable assistance with
the preparation of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan. We gratefully ac-knowledge
the input and support of Tom Larson, Mike Marxen, John Schomaker,
Mary Mitchell, Sean Killen, and Jane Hodgins, Planners with the Division of
Ascertainment and Planning, and all of the dedicated employees of the Wetland
Management Districts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Region 3 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is grateful to the many conserva-tion
organizations active in western Minnesota for their dedication to the Wet-land
Management Districts in making them outstanding examples of cooperation
and partnership with the many local communities. The Region is equally grateful
to every volunteer who contributes time to the programs offered on the Wetland
Management Districts. You are truly the backbone of conservation efforts.
Contents
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... i
Comprehensive Conservation Planning .................................................................................................................. ii
The Planning Process ................................................................................................................................................ ii
Management Alternatives....................................................................................................................................... iii
Alternatives Development ............................................................................................................................... iii
Alternative 1 – Maintain Management on Current Acres With No Additional Land Acquisition .. iv
Alternative 2 – Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acres and Maintain Current Management Prac-tices
(Current Management) ....................................................................................................................... v
Alternative 3 – Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acres and Expand Management for Waterfowl,
Other Trust Species and the Public. (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................... vi
Planning Issues and Management Direction ........................................................................................................ vii
Wildlife and Habitat ........................................................................................................................................ viii
People................................................................................................................................................................... x
Operations ........................................................................................................................................................... x
Essential Staffing, Mission-Critical Projects and Major Maintenance Needs ................................................. xi
Essential Staffing Needs ............................................................................................................................ xi
Mission-Critical Projects ........................................................................................................................... xi
Major Maintenance Projects .................................................................................................................... xii
Serving People ........................................................................................................................................... xii
Where You Can Find the CCP ................................................................................................................................ xii
How You Can Be Involved ...................................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ................................................................................................... 1
Overview: History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and Management .................................................. 1
Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ..................................................................... 5
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................................................... 5
The National Wildlife Refuge System .............................................................................................................. 6
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts Vision Statement ............................................................................. 6
Legal and Policy Guidance........................................................................................................................................ 7
Existing Partnerships: The Ecosystem Approach ................................................................................................ 7
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ......................................................................................................... 7
Working With Partners ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2: Planning Process, Issues and Goals ....................................................................................... 9
Description of Planning Process ............................................................................................................................... 9
Planning Issues ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
Wildlife and Habitat ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Public Use .......................................................................................................................................................... 11
Operations ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Goals ............................................................................................................. 12
Wildlife and Habitat ......................................................................................................................................... 12
People................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Operations ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Chapter 3: The Environment ........................................................................................................................ 14
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting .............................................................................................................................. 14
Prairie Grasslands............................................................................................................................................ 14
Deciduous Woods .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Coniferous Forest ............................................................................................................................................. 16
Climate ............................................................................................................................................................... 16
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................................................... 16
Geology .............................................................................................................................................................. 18
District Resources ................................................................................................................................................... 19
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................................... 19
Waterfowl ................................................................................................................................................... 19
Migratory Birds ......................................................................................................................................... 23
Vertebrate and Invertebrate Species of Concern ................................................................................. 24
Reptiles, Amphibians, and Insects, Vertebrates and Invertebrates................................................... 24
Listed Endangered and Threatened Vertebrates and Invertebrates ................................................ 25
Endangered Mammals........................................................................................................................ 25
Endangered Birds ............................................................................................................................... 25
Reintroductions ......................................................................................................................................... 25
Management of Resident Species ............................................................................................................ 26
Habitat ............................................................................................................................................................... 26
Wetlands and Riparian Habitat ................................................................................................................ 26
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ................................................................................................. 28
Prairie Restoration................................................................................................................................... 29
Rare Communities .................................................................................................................................... 30
Plant Species of Concern .................................................................................................................... 31
Listed Plants ....................................................................................................................................... 32
External Threats ....................................................................................................................................... 32
Drainage and Pesticides..................................................................................................................... 32
Invasive Species ................................................................................................................................. 33
Rural Development ............................................................................................................................. 34
Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................................. 34
Archeological and Cultural Values.................................................................................................................. 34
Context ........................................................................................................................................................ 34
Existing Conditions and Cultural Resources Potential ............................................................................... 35
Indian Tribes and Other Interested Parties .................................................................................................. 36
Management of Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 36
People ........................................................................................................................................................................ 37
Public Use of Waterfowl Production Areas ................................................................................................... 37
Disabled User Access ...................................................................................................................................... 38
Operations................................................................................................................................................................. 39
Individual WPA Development Plans .............................................................................................................. 39
Consistent Use .................................................................................................................................................. 39
Drainage ..................................................................................................................................................... 41
Chapter 4: Management Direction .............................................................................................................. 42
Litchfield Wetland Management District .............................................................................................................. 42
Management Direction ........................................................................................................................................... 43
Wildlife and Habitat ......................................................................................................................................... 43
Goal 1: Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................... 43
Goal 2: Habitat .......................................................................................................................................... 46
Goal 3: Acquisition .................................................................................................................................... 49
Goal 4: Monitoring Goal ............................................................................................................................ 51
Goal 5: Endangered Species / Unique Communities ............................................................................. 52
People................................................................................................................................................................. 55
Goal 6: Public Use / Environmental Education ..................................................................................... 55
Operations ......................................................................................................................................................... 56
Goal 7: Development Plan ........................................................................................................................ 56
Goal 8: Support Staff, Facilities and Equipment ................................................................................... 57
Goal 9: Annual Capital Development Funds .......................................................................................... 58
Goal 10: Consistency ................................................................................................................................ 58
Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring .............................................................................................. 60
Essential Staffing, Mission-Critical Projects and Major Maintenance Needs ................................................ 60
Essential Staffing Needs ................................................................................................................................. 60
Mission-Critical Projects ................................................................................................................................ 60
Major Maintenance Projects ........................................................................................................................... 60
Serving People .................................................................................................................................................. 60
Step-down Management Plans ............................................................................................................................... 62
Partnership Opportunities...................................................................................................................................... 62
Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................... 63
Appendices
Appendix A: Authority and Legal Compliance ............................................................................................................. 67
Appendix B: Priority Bird Species ................................................................................................................................ 73
Appendix C: Species List .............................................................................................................................................. 77
Appendix D: National Wetlands Inventory – Minnesota Counties Wetland Types ................................................ 107
Appendix E: Regional Conservation Priority List for the Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem ............... 111
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations ................................................................................................................. 117
Appendix G: RONS Lists ............................................................................................................................................. 179
Appendix H: Existing Partnerships .............................................................................................................................. 183
Appendix I: Glossary ................................................................................................................................................... 189
Appendix J: Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................... 195
Appendix K: List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................................... 201
Appendix L: Guidance for Acquisition ......................................................................................................................... 205
Appendix N: Draft Environmental Assessment .......................................................................................................... 221
Appendix O: Drainage Policy ...................................................................................................................................... 299
List of Figures:
Figure 1: Minnesota Wetland Management Districts .......................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Average Breeding Population for Major Duck Species ...................................................................... 4
Figure 3: Minnesota Wetland Management District Ecosystems.................................................................... 15
Figure 4: Minnesota Wetland Management District Hydrology and Key Rivers ......................................... 17
Figure 5: Estimated Average Duck Pair Density, 1989-1999 ........................................................................... 20
Figure 6: Predicted Settling Density of Dabbling Duck Pairs ........................................................................... 22
Figure 7: Wetland Management District by Type, Litchfield WMD ................................................................. 27
Figure 8: Marsh Vegetation Cycles ....................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 9: GIS for Waterfowl Production Area Development Planning ............................................................ 40
Figure 10: Litchfield Wetland Management District .......................................................................................... 43
Figure 11: Litchfield Wetland Management District Staffing Chart ................................................................ 61
Executive Summary
i
Executive Summary
Litchfield Wetland Management District is part of a unique natural ecosystem
and an equally unique legacy of human partnership.
The ecosystem is known as the tallgrass prairie ecosystem, and its combination
of prairie grasslands and small wetlands made it among the most biologically
diverse and intricate landscapes in the world. When European settlers arrived
and discovered the land’s tremendous productivity, the tallgrass prairie ecosys-tem
became one of the most altered ecosystems
on earth. The landscape changed rapidly, and
little of the original prairie was saved. Today
only fragments exist in small, isolated blocks.
Partnerships have been inherent in efforts to
preserve the remaining prairie. From the Duck
Stamp Act of 1934 to the Wetland Loan Act of
1961 to the Small Wetland Acquisition Program
of 1962, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) and hunters, environmentalists and
communities have worked together to preserve
land and wildlife. Funding for acquisition of
Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA) comes in
large part from funds generated through the Duck Stamp Act, making duck
hunters a key partner in preserving critical habitat within the prairie pothole
region. Waterfowl Production Areas are upland grasslands and wetlands pur-chased
by the Service to provide nesting habitat for waterfowl and hunting areas
for waterfowl and upland game hunters. Wetland Management Districts (WMD)
are the federal administrative units charged with acquiring, overseeing and
managing WPAs and easements within a specified group of counties.
Litchfield WMD is part of this heritage. The District was established in 1978 and
today manages 148 WPAs covering more than 33,0000 acres of fee title lands, 417
easements covering 33,283 acres, and units of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie
National Wildlife Refuge. These tracts are scattered throughout seven central
counties of Minnesota. The District has proposed 102 Conservation Easements
on land on the inventory of the Farmers Home Administration in 16 counties
covering 7,166 acres to date; 36 of these easements totaling 2,871 acres have been
recorded.
Managing the District demands long range planning that reflects vision, science
and people. This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan describes how we
intend to improve wildlife habitat, foster waterfowl production, and expand
opportunities for compatible recreation, including hunting, wildlife observation,
and environmental education.
The management direction identified in this Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan charts a course for the next 15 years. This course is summarized in three
broad categories – Wildlife and Habitat, People, and Operations. USFWS Photo
Executive Summary
ii
Comprehensive Conservation Planning
The Comprehensive Conservation Plan, or CCP, is a guide for management on
the Litchfield WMD over the next 15 years. The document provides an outline
for how we will accomplish our mission and make our vision become a reality.
Several legislative mandates within the National Wildlife Refuge System Im-provement
Act of 1997 have guided the development of the Plan. These man-dates
include:
  The focus of management on the Districts is to benefit wildlife conserva-tion.
  Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, (hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpre-tation)
are encouraged when they are compatible with wildlife conserva-tion.
The CCP will benefit management of Litchfield WMD by:
  Providing a clear statement of direction for future management of the
Districts.
  Giving District neighbors, visitors and the general public an understand-ing
of the Service’s management actions on and around the Districts.
  Ensuring that the Districts’ management actions and programs are
consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
  Ensuring that District management is consistent with federal, state and
county plans.
  Wildlife-dependent recreation involving compatible hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and
interpretation, are the priority public uses of the Refuge System.
  Other uses have lower priority on the refuge system and are only
allowed if they are compatible with the mission of the Refuge System,
and with the purposes of the individual refuge.
  Providing a basis for the development of budget requests on the
District’s operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
The Planning Process
The planning process for this Comprehensive Conservation Plan began October
1, 1997, when a Notice Of Intent to prepare a comprehensive management plan
was published in the Federal Register. Initially, members of the planning team
identified a list of issues and concerns that were likely to be associated with the
management of the Refuge. These preliminary issues and concerns were based
on the team members’ knowledge of the area, contacts with citizens in the
community, and ideas already expressed to the Refuge staff. Refuge staff and
Service planners then began asking Refuge neighbors, organizations, local
government units, schools and interested citizens to share their thoughts in a
series of open house events.
Executive Summary
iii
Open houses were conducted at each District as well as the Regional Office at Ft.
Snelling, Minnesota.
People were invited to send in written comments describing their support or
concerns about the Districts. Fifty-one written comments were received.
A survey of public use was conducted and focus group
meetings were conducted to develop the issues, goals, and
objectives for the Plan. These meetings included the
District Managers and invited participants from the
University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and the
U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research
Center. Concurrent with the focus group meetings, plan-ning
staff met with individual Districts numerous times to
review issues and discuss District management.
A wide range of issues, concerns and opportunities were
expressed during the planning process. Numerous discus-sions
among Refuge and planning staff, focus groups and
resource specialists brought to light several recurring
themes. Issues fall into broad categories of wildlife, habitat
and people. Dealing with these issues is at the core of the
development of goals and objectives for the management of
the Minnesota Wetland Management Districts.
Management Alternatives
An environmental assessment (EA) encompassing all six of
the Minnesota Wetland Management Districts was pre-pared
as part of the planning process. Three management
alternatives were evaluated in the EA, including: main-taining
management of current wetland management district acres but not
acquiring more land; increasing land holdings to meet the goal acres and maintain
current management practices; and improve WMDs for waterfowl and other
trust species. The Service has selected the third alternative, improve the Dis-tricts
for waterfowl and other trust species, as the preferred alternative. Each
alternative is briefly described in the following paragraphs.
Alternatives Development
Project Leaders on WMDs within the major waterfowl breeding habitats of the
United States have been charged with the responsibility to identify tracts of land
that meet the goals of the Small Wetland Acquisition Program (SWAP) for
inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). Of all the responsi-bilities
Project Leaders carry, identifying lands to include in the NWRS has the
longest lasting implications and is by far the most important. The land, once
acquired, needs to be managed intensively with a variety of tools available to the
managers. The intensity of management is limited by the number of staff
available and the scattered distribution of the land holdings across a wide land-scape
in 28 counties of western Minnesota. The following alternatives identify
three approaches meeting the goals and responsibilities of land ownership and
management.
Vision Statement for the
Minnesota Wetland
Management Districts
The Districts will empha-size
waterfowl production
and ensure the preserva-tion
of habitat for migra-tory
birds, threatened and
endangered native spe-cies,
and resident wildlife.
The Districts will provide
opportunities for the
public to hunt, fish,
observe and photograph
wildlife and increase
public understanding and
appreciation of the North-ern
Tallgrass Prairie
Ecosystem.
Executive Summary
iv
The main goal of the SWAP has been, and still is, to purchase a complex of
wetlands and uplands that provide habitat in which waterfowl can successfully
reproduce. The basic concept has been to purchase in fee title key brood marshes
that include adequate nesting cover on adjacent uplands while protecting under
easement surrounding temporary and seasonal wetland basins as breeding pair
habitat. Once this is accomplished the land must be managed through seeding
with native grasses and forbs, burning, and spraying for exotic and/or invasive
vegetation and insects, and dispose abandoned buildings and wells. In addition,
the areas must be fenced, signed and made accessible to the public.
The SWAP began in 1958 and accelerated rapidly in the early 1960s with passage
of the Wetlands Loan Act. The original 1960s delineations were prepared for
each fee title parcel based on their suitability to provide brood rearing habitat for
waterfowl. These delineations designated wetlands as priority A, B, and C for
fee title purchase. These tracts had few upland acres and only existing wetlands
with no drainage facilities were considered for fee or easement purchase. In
some locations, these original delineations
have been reevaluated and revised. In
Minnesota, a 1974 exercise produced maps
showing proposed boundaries of each fee
title delineation, as well as wetlands within
a 2-mile radius that were eligible for ease-ment
purchase. A 1984 effort produced
maps of “significant wetland areas” for fee
title purchase. Although dated, these
efforts were biologically sound and provide
valuable information in deciding which
properties to purchase today.
Over the years our understanding of breeding waterfowl biology has increased
and the landscape of the Upper Midwest has changed dramatically. The SWAP
itself has evolved to include purchase of drained wetlands, increased upland
acreage, and grassland easements along with new counties that include lands
within intensely agricultural and urbanized landscapes.
Three possible alternatives to acquisition and management were considered as
we thought about the future of the programs for the wetland management
districts. The three alternatives were (1) manage what lands we currently own;
(2) acquire additional lands and manage them as we currently manage the lands
that we own; and (3) acquire additional lands and expand management beyond
the present level of intensity.
In the following sections we summarize what we would do under each alterna-tive.
More detail is provided in Chapter 2 of the EA (Appendix N of this docu-ment).
The third alternative is our preferred alternative, which is developed in
more detail as the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Alternative 1 – Maintain Management on Current Acres With No Additional Land
Acquisition
Under this alternative we would manage fee title land already in the system and
would not increase the holdings to the agreed goal acres for each county within
the District. We would restore native grasslands using local ecotypes of mixed
native grasses and forbs and improve wetlands by increasing water control and
improving watersheds. We would regularly evaluate our approach to waterfowl
USFWS Photograph
Executive Summary
v
production. We would maintain the recruitment rate of waterfowl and the
current level of inspection of our lands and easements. We would continue to
conduct the 4-square-mile monitoring program and the monitoring of nesting
structures under this alternative. We would continue routine surveys such as the
scent post survey and bird counts and non-routine surveys when requested, such
as the deformed frog survey. We would continue to avoid any actions that would
harm endangered or threatened species, and we would note the presence of any
species that is federally listed as endangered or threatened.
We would maintain the public access to WPAs
that currently exists. We would complete and
document development plans for every WPA on
the District as time and staffing permit. The
development plans would be recorded in a
geographic information system and document
ownership boundaries, habitat, facilities and
history of management.
Each District would continue with the current level of staffing. We would
identify and replace facilities and equipment that do not meet Service standards.
We would expect that the maintenance backlog would be reduced, but not
eliminated, over the life of the CCP.
Management would continue to be inconsistent among Districts. There would be
limited coordination with the Districts in Iowa, Wisconsin, and the Dakotas.
Alternative 2 – Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acres and Maintain Current Management
Practices (Current Management)
Under this alternative we would continue acquiring land up to the goal acres
agreed to by each county within the District (See Table A). We would expand the
size of WPAs in areas of prime waterfowl use through easements and working
with partners.
We would restore native grasslands using local ecotypes of mixed native grasses
and forbs and improve wetlands by increasing water control and improving
watersheds. We would regularly evaluate our approach to waterfowl production.
We would maintain the recruitment rate of waterfowl and the current level of
inspection of our lands and easements. We would continue to conduct the 4-
square-mile monitoring program and the monitoring of nesting structures under
this alternative. We would continue routine surveys such as the scent post
survey and bird counts and non-routine surveys when requested, such as the
deformed frog survey. We would continue to avoid any actions that would harm
endangered or threatened species. We would note the presence of any species
that is federally listed as endangered or threatened.
We would continue current public access on existing areas and add access to new
acquisitions slowly over several years. We would complete and document devel-opment
plans for every WPA on the District as time and staffing permit. The
development plans would be recorded in a geographic information system and
document ownership boundaries, habitat, facilities and history of management.
Each District would continue with the current level of staffing. We would
identify and replace facilities and equipment that do not meet Service standards.
File Photograph
Executive Summary
vi
We would expect that the maintenance backlog would be reduced, but not
eliminated, over the life of the CCP.
Management would continue to be inconsistent among Districts. There would be
limited coordination with the Districts in Iowa, Wisconsin, and the Dakotas.
Alternative 3 – Increase Land Holdings to Goal Acres and Expand Management for
Waterfowl, Other Trust Species and the Public. (Preferred Alternative)
Under this alternative we would continue acquiring land up to the goal acres
agreed to by each county within the District (See Table A). We would expand the
size of WPAs in areas of prime waterfowl use through easements and working
with partners. We would focus whenever possible on prime habitat as outlined in
the Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) “thunderstorm” maps.
These maps reveal high density waterfowl populations and, because the results
are color coded, look somewhat like weather maps.
We would follow the Strategic Growth of the SWAP Guidelines for Fee and
Easement Purchase (See Appendix L). These Guidelines specify that:
1) The program will focus on providing the mission compo-nents
for the WMD landscape: wetland complexes, sur-rounding
grasslands and a predator component that ap-proaches
a naturally occurring complement (i.e., coyotes vs.
red fox).
2) The program will focus on established delineation criteria
(size, location, ratio of upland to wetlands, soil composition,
etc.) for all fee title, habitat and wetland easements (Ap-pendix
L).
3) The program will prioritize acquisition based on thunder-storm
maps, land cover (grassland acres), landscape
characteristics and data on predator populations.
Prioritization will be given to tracts that benefit waterfowl,
but other wildlife benefits will be considered in the priori-ties
such as native prairie, endangered or threatened
species, colonial nesting birds and expanding and protecting
large tracts of grassland as Grassland Bird Core Conserva-tion
Areas as proposed by Fitzgerald et al. (1998).
We would restore native grasslands using local ecotypes of mixed native grasses
and forbs and improve wetlands by increasing water control and improving
watersheds. We would, where possible, follow HAPET recommendations for
nesting platforms and predator management (electric fencing, predator control,
islands, etc). Cooperating landowners within the District’s watershed would be
offered incentives and/or compensated through cost-sharing agreements for
applying conservation and environmental farming practices on their lands and for
creating, maintaining, or enhancing habitat for wildlife.
We would regularly evaluate our approach to waterfowl production and improve
waterfowl monitoring. We would increase the recruitment rate of waterfowl and
increase inspection of our lands and easements. We would work to prohibit the
introduction of wildlife species that are not native to the Northern Tallgrass
Prairie Ecosystem.
Photo by Bernie Angus
Executive Summary
vii
We would employ a scientifically defensible means to monitor and evaluate
habitats and populations under this alternative. We would increasingly use
geographic information systems in our monitoring. We would inventory the
hydrological systems within the Districts, invertebrate communities, and monitor
contaminant levels in water flowing into District wetlands. We would increase
our surveys and monitoring of threatened and endangered species, invertebrates,
and unique communities under this alternative. We would seek opportunities to
enhance and reintroduce native species in the districts.
Under this alternative we would expand and improve opportunities for public use
through construction of additional parking lots and interpretive kiosks on exist-ing
and acquired lands.
We would complete and document development plans for every WPA on the
District within three years under this alternative. The development plans would
be recorded in a geographic information system and document ownership bound-aries,
habitat, facilities and history of management.
Staff would be added to the Districts under this alternative. Implementation of
the CCP would rely on partnerships formed with landowners in the watershed,
volunteers and interested citizens, farm and conservation organizations, and with
appropriate government agencies. We would
identify and replace facilities and equipment that
do not meet Service standards. Our goal would be
to meet the standards by 2010.
Management of the Districts would be more
consistent among the Minnesota Districts and
with the Districts in Iowa, Wisconsin and the
Dakotas.
Planning Issues and Management Direction
A wide range of issues, concerns and opportunities were expressed during the
planning process. Numerous discussions among Refuge and planning staff, focus
groups and resource specialists brought to light several recurring themes. Issues
fall into broad categories of wildlife, habitat and people. In the following para-graphs,
we list the issues that were identified in this planning process and our
objectives for addressing that issue.
Table A: Fee Title Acres Approved and Goal Acres Per District in
Accordance with the Land Exchange Board
Fee Title Acres
Wetland Approved for
Management Purchase by the
Districts Land Exchange Board Goal Acres Remainder
Detroit Lakes 40,585 98,280 48,695
Fergus Falls 42,671 74,6675 32,004
Litchfield 32,828 76,220 43,392
Big Stone 2,329 0 0
Morris 49,780 74,830 25,050
Windom 12,074 24,476 14,927
USFWS Photo
Executive Summary
viii
Wildlife and Habitat
Can we improve waterfowl productivity?
We will work to increase waterfowl production through effective monitoring of
populations, evaluating current management actions, increasing recruitment
through cropland conversion to grassland, use of artificial structures where
appropriate, and protecting existing National Wildlife Refuge System lands as
well as other waterfowl habitats in cooperation with District partners.
Strategic Acquisition: Can we buy the highest priority land in the most efficient
and cost-effective manner possible?
We will ensure strategic land acquisition by evaluating current acquisition
guidelines, identifying priority acquisition areas, and evaluating acreage goals
while securing rapid responses to sellers through close coordination with the
acquisition office.
Managing Uplands: Can we improve prairie restoration by planting the right
seeds, using the right management tools?
We will seek to reestablish and manage native plant communities by seeding a
diverse mixture of local grasses and forbs each year as determined through the
development of a grassland management plan dictating the location, use of fire,
grazing, and haying as viable management tools.
Managing and Restoring Wetlands: How do we
manage wetlands to maintain or increase productiv-ity?
We will strive to restore and manage wetlands
primarily within identified priority areas, increasing
the amount and quality of water level management,
monitoring hydrological systems, and encouraging and
cooperating in research of these systems.
Can we improve biological inventories and monitoring on WPAs?
We will improve biological inventories and monitoring through planning, training,
expanded species data gathering, research, and utilization of Geographic Infor-mation
Systems (GIS). The District will increase the use of biological data when
making management decisions.
Can we stem the loss of migratory birds in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie
Ecosystem?
We will try to stem the loss of all migratory birds by expanding restoration of
upland wetland and riparian habitats on private lands and developing or manag-ing
one or more wetlands in each county or priority area exclusively for webless
migratory birds.
Can we manage District land to preserve, restore and enhance threatened and
endangered species, rare and declining species, and address regional priority
species?
USFWS Photo
Executive Summary
ix
We will preserve, restore and enhance threatened and endangered species and
rare and declining species through the collection of baseline population and
habitat data, tailored management activities, enforcement of regulations and
cooperation with partners.
Under what circumstances should we reintroduce rare native species to District
land?
We will seek to reintroduce rare native species where feasible by identifying,
evaluating and prioritizing opportunities as well as implementing reintroduction
programs in close cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.
How do we mitigate negative external influences such as contaminants on WPAs
and reduce its impact on long-term health and productivity of District land?
We will work to mitigate negative external influences on Service lands by
identifying, monitoring and developing action plans to address threats such as
pesticide use, contaminants, soil erosion and poor water quality.
How do we balance management for Federal trust species with the needs of
resident species?
We will balance management of Federal trust species with the needs of resident
species by cooperating with state wildlife agencies and local conservation organi-zations
to provide compatible food and cover sources where there are docu-mented
needs.
How do we reduce crop loss caused by Canada geese foraging on private land
adjacent to WPAs?
We will work to reduce crop loss caused by Canada Geese foraging on private
lands adjacent to Waterfowl Production Areas by developing a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources which
defines agency responsibilities to provide alternate feeding areas
and long-term solutions.
Invasive species, both exotic and native, are negatively impacting
the natural ecological balance of grasslands and wetlands on
WPAs.
We will seek to control the negative impacts of invasive species
by taking aggressive control measures against exotic plants,
documenting and eradicating invasive plant populations, and
increasing long-term resolution of these problems through
biological controls.
What is the Long Range Goal of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
(Private Lands) be on Wetland Management Districts?
We will identify the long-range goals of the District’s Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program (private lands) by developing priority action items that could
include identification of partners in key project areas, and developing a brochure
for the public to better define the Partners program and its benefits.
USFWS Photo
Executive Summary
x
People
There are conflicting views concerning the costs and benefits of federally owned
land in a community. Who benefits? Who pays?
We will identify the benefits and costs of Federally owned land to a community
by investigating the economic value of wetlands and federal land ownership as
well as revenue sharing in relation to local taxes. We will seek to determine the
social values of wildlife and natural habitats to people.
How do we provide adequate facilities and
programs for the public to fully enjoy wildlife-related
recreation in a way that is compatible
with our main mission?
We will provide adequate facilities and programs
for public enjoyment of compatible wildlife-related
recreation by enhancing public use
experiences with accessible facilities that meet
National Visitor Service Standards as well as
providing current maps and District information.
We will increase environmental education oppor-tunities
through additional “hands-on” exhibits,
specific on-site interpretative opportunities, and building volunteer programs to
establish a District Friends Group.
Operations
Districts need sufficient staff in critical areas to fully meet resource challenges
and opportunities.
We will meet staffing needs for resource challenges and opportunities by hiring
additional administrative, biological, technical and maintenance personnel.
Districts need office, maintenance, and equipment storage facilities to carry out
their mission.
We will provide adequate maintenance and storage facilities by selecting and
developing a secure maintenance and equipment storage area within the bound-aries
of the Wetland District.
Vehicles and other necessary equipment need to be replaced on a regular basis
according to Service standards.
We will schedule vehicle and equipment replacements to achieve industry
standards when normal life expectancy is reached and acquire all adequate
equipment to achieve Wetland Management District Goals.
Funding is needed to develop and manage newly acquired WPA land and
facilities.
We will develop newly acquired Waterfowl Production Areas by identifying these
needs, securing funding and carrying out projects immediately after lands are
USFWS Photo
Executive Summary
xi
purchased. We will identify the costs of new lands to the District’s annual opera-tion
and maintenance budget.
We will maintain existing waterfowl production areas at Service standards
including boundary posting, nature trails, parking lots, access trails, water
control structures and fences by maintaining a current inventory of maintenance
needs on the Maintenance Management System database, and we will update
these costs and priorities annually.
Individual WPA development plans and
record keeping need to be updated.
We will ensure that Waterfowl Production
Area Development Plans are current by
performing complete resource inventories
and utilizing the most current Geographic
Information System technology and com-plete
unit planning to meet trust responsi-bilities.
The Districts need to be consistent in their application of policy and resource
protection efforts.
We will seek consistency in policy and practices on all Service Wetland Manage-ment
Districts by attending coordination meetings and following Service policy
when implementing programs.
Essential Staffing, Mission-Critical Projects and Major
Maintenance Needs
The Service relies on two systems to track the needs of the Wetland Manage-ment
Districts and other units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These
systems are the Refuge Operating Needs System and the Maintenance Manage-ment
System. Each station has scores of projects in each system, representing a
need which is often beyond the realities of funding. However, each station has
identified its most critical needs which form a realistic assessment of funding
needed to meet many of the goals, objectives, and strategies identified in the
CCP. These needs also form the basis for the President’s budget request to
Congress. These critical needs are listed below in the categories of essential
staff, mission-critical projects, and major maintenance projects. A complete
listing of projects in the Operating Needs System is found in Appendix G of this
document and it represents the long-term needs of the Litchfield Wetland
Management Districts to operate at optimum levels.
Essential Staffing Needs
Wildlife Biologist
Visitor Services Specialist
Equipment Operator
Mission-Critical Projects
Farming and Native Prairie Restoration Operations Support
Native Prairie Restoration
USFWS Photo
Executive Summary
xii
Wetlands Restoration
Water Level Management
Visitor Services
Major Maintenance Projects
Repair Maintenance Building
Repair WPA Fences
Replace Tractor
16 Additional Projects
Serving People
Rehabilitate Recreational Facilities
Total Funding Needs: $1,671,00
Where You Can Find the CCP
The complete comprehensive conservation plan is available for review at each
Wetland Management District office and at local libraries in Odessa, Fergus
Falls, Detroit Lakes, Morris, Litchfield and Windom.. The Draft CCPs for each
District are also available on the Service’s planning web site:
http://midwest.fws.gov/planning/wmdtop.htm
How You Can Be Involved
Public participation is the cornerstone of comprehensive conservation planning.
By letting us know what you think of the draft comprehensive conservation
plans, you can help the Service develop plans that accomplish conservation goals
and fulfill the needs of people visiting Minnesota Wetland Management Districts.
A public review period follows the release of the comprehensive conservation
plan and this summary. Comments will continue to be welcome throughout the
planning process, however in order for your thoughts to be considered in prepa-ration
of the final CCP, we need to receive your comment by September 13, 2002.
Written comments can be submitted either through the mail or electronically
through our Web site (http://midwest.fws.gov/planning/wmdtop.htm). Please
address written correspondence to:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Litchfield WMD
Attention: CCP Comment
22274--615 Avenue
Litchfield, MN 55355
USFWS Photo
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Overview: History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and
Management
The Wetland Management Districts of Minnesota are set in a landscape that was once
a mosaic of prairie and wetlands. From north to south the land varied between
woodland, sandy ridges and hills covered by prairie flowers, dotted with small, blue
wetlands and oak savannah. It was beautiful, rolling country teaming with waterfowl
and other wildlife. Early explorers from Europe described its park-like quality with
wonder. The combination of prairie grasslands and small wetlands made it among the
most biologically productive landscapes in the world; supporting many people and an
abundance of wildlife.
The prairie harbored bison herds estimated at 50 to
60 million. From Alexander Henry’s January 14,
1801, journal reporting for the Red River Valley,
“...At daybreak I was awakened by the bellowing of
buffaloes...I dressed and climbed my oak for a better
view. I had seen almost incredible numbers of
buffalo in the fall, but nothing in comparison to what
I now beheld. The ground was covered at every
point of the compass, as far as the eye could reach,
and every animal was in motion.”
Only 100 years after this entry, the myth of the
prairies’ unlimited abundance was severely tested.
Many important game species were driven to near
extinction by intensive and uncontrolled killing and
commercial over-harvest encouraged by East Coast
and European markets. Free-roaming bison, the
Great Plains wolf, swift fox, pronghorn antelope and
grizzly bear were eliminated from Minnesota. Black bear and elk were removed from
their prairie niche. Many Native American tribes that depended on these resources
were decimated by disease and conflict.
When European settlers arrived on the prairies, they recognized the land’s productiv-ity
and rapidly turned it to agriculture. In a few decades it ranked among the richest
agricultural land in the world. The landscape changed so rapidly, little of the original
prairie was saved. Today, only fragments remain in isolated, small blocks. With
fragmentation and the loss of large predators, smaller predators such as raccoon,
striped skunks and fox increased, much to the detriment of ground-nesting birds and
other native grassland species.
Perhaps no other ecosystem on earth as been so dramatically altered, in such a short
time, as the tallgrass prairie ecosystem of the Midwest.
The early mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service was to protect species from over-harvest
and manage wildlife for a quality hunt. Waterfowl have been a central focus
from the very beginning. Many species of prairie waterfowl and shorebirds were
saved by legislation formed to protect them from market hunting.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo
Litchfield Wetland Management District Draft CCP
2
Early surveys of the Prairie Pothole Region revealed a strong correlation between
prairie wetlands and waterfowl breeding habitat. Biologists learned that waterfowl
success is directly linked to the number of wetlands. When winter snows fill the small
wetlands, waterfowl populations soar. Since the wetlands are shallow by nature,
their value to waterfowl varies from year to year depending on the amount of snow
and rain. In years of drought, wetlands dry and waterfowl populations plummet. The
crucial link between wetlands and waterfowl was made during a time when wetlands
throughout the prairies were being drained at an unprecedented rate for agriculture.
In 1934 the Duck Stamp Act was passed, setting the stage for the most aggressive
land acquisition campaign for conservation of wildlife habitat in American history.
Although the original Act did not allow purchase of small wetlands, it created a way
for hunters to actively participate in maintaining waterfowl populations. In 1958 the
Act was amended, making it possible for the Service to buy small wetlands and
uplands for breeding waterfowl and for hunting. The acquired wetlands became
Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) and formed the core of the Wetland Manage-ment
Districts.
The Act was passed in the nick of time. Between
1780 and 1980 approximately 42 percent of Minne-sota
wetlands were drained. Between 1974 and
1980, an estimated 16.8 percent of the remaining
seasonal, semi-permanent and permanent wetlands
were lost. Today over 70,000 miles of ditches drain
wetlands in Minnesota with a continuing annual
wetland loss of 2.4 percent per year.
At the time the Small Wetland Acquisition Pro-gram
(SWAP) began in 1962, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service entered into a Procedural Agree-ment
with the State of Minnesota. This document
laid out the rules for the purchase of wetlands as required by the Wetland Loan Act of
1961. The agreement was amended in 1976 when the number of counties authorized
for acquisition increased from 19 to 28, and the goal acreage was increased. In 1991,
the Minnesota Land Exchange Board gave the Service approval to expand its land
acquisition program to all 87 counties of the state. The state goal of 231,000 acres in
fee title and 365,170 acres in easements, as established in 1976, remains unchanged
(See Appendix A for a complete listing of the District legal mandates).
In western Minnesota, as of March 31 1999, the Service owned 171,863 acres, of which
56,693 acres were wetlands (Figure 1). In addition, the Service administers perpetual
easement agreements on 266,171 acres, of which 62,098 acres are wetlands. Wetlands
that were once drained have been restored; on Waterfowl Production Areas, 4 ,064
wetland restorations have impounded 15,900 wetland acres.
The program has been remarkably successful in the face of great odds. The Wetland
Management Districts combine to form a greater land mass than the largest national
wildlife refuge in the lower 48 states. Each District has, on average, 23,400 to 73,400
breeding ducks each year; all Districts combined average 240,600 breeding ducks each
year (Figure 2).
Photo Copyright Jan Eldridge
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
3
Figure 1: Minnesota Wetland Management Districts
Litchfield Wetland Management District Draft CCP
4
Figure 2: Breeding Pair Population (Averaged) for Major Duck Species in
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts 1987-2000
Data values are for 13 species (mallard, gadwall, blue-winged teal, northern shoveler, northern pintail,
wigeon, green-winged teal, wood duck, redhead, canvasback, scaup, ringneck and ruddy duck).
Litchfield, Roseau and Windom wetland management districts data are for the years 1989-2000.
Source: Waterfowl Breeding Populations and Production Estimates, for the Prairie Pothole Region of
Minnesota (4 square mile survey). Habitat and Population Evaluation Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Fergus Falls, Minnesota
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
5
Background
Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan, or CCP, is a guide for management on the
Wetland Management Districts over the next 15 years. The document provides an
outline for how we will accomplish our mission and make our vision become a reality.
Several legislative mandates within the National Wildlife Refuge System Improve-ment
Act of 1997 have guided the development of the Plan. These mandates include:
  The focus of management on the Districts is to benefit wildlife conservation.
  Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation) are encour-aged
when they are compatible with wildlife conservation.
This CCP will benefit management of Wetland Management Districts by:
  Providing a clear statement of direction for future management of the Dis-tricts.
  Giving District neighbors, visitors and the general public an understanding of
the Service’s management actions on and around the Districts.
  Ensuring that the Districts’ management actions and programs are consistent
with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
  Ensuring that District management is consistent with federal, state and
county plans.
  Wildlife-dependent recreation involving compatible hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation,
are the priority public uses of the Refuge System.
  Other uses have lower priority on the refuge system and are only allowed if
they are compatible with the mission of the Refuge System, and with the
purposes of the individual refuge.
  Providing a basis for the development of budget requests on the District’s
operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as we know it today has evolved and changed with
the country’s use of natural resources and the growing respect for the environment.
Today the Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for conserving, protect-ing,
and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people.
Specific responsibilities include enforcing Federal wildlife laws, managing migratory
bird populations, restoring nationally significant fisheries, administering the Endan-gered
Species Act, and restoring wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The Service also
manages the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Litchfield Wetland Management District Draft CCP
6
The National Wildlife Refuge System
The National Wildlife Refuge System is a significant focus of the Service. Founded in
1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt with the designation of Pelican Island as a
refuge for brown pelicans, the National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest
collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The
System is a diverse network of more than 500 national wildlife refuges
encompassing more than 92 million acres of public land and water.
Most of the land - 86 percent - is in Alaska, with approximately 15
million acres spread across the lower 48 states and several island
territories. Refuges provide habitat for more than 5,000 species of
birds, mammals, fish and insects.
Like Pelican Island, many early national wildlife refuges were created for herons,
egrets and other water birds. Others were set aside for large mammals like elk and
bison. By far the most refuges have been created to protect migratory waterfowl.
This is a result of the United States’ responsibilities under international treaties for
migratory bird conservation as well as other legislation, such as the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act of 1929. A map of the National Wildlife Refuge System shows
refuges dotting the four major flyways that waterfowl follow from their northern
nesting grounds to southern wintering areas.
National wildlife refuges also play a vital role in preserving endangered and threat-ened
species. Among the refuges that are well known for providing habitat for
endangered species are Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, the winter home
of the whooping crane; the Florida Panther Refuge, which protects one of the nation’s
most endangered mammals; and the Hawaiian Islands Refuge, home of the Laysan
duck, Hawaiian monk seal and many other unique species.
Refuges also provide unique opportunities for people. When it is compatible with
wildlife and habitat needs, refuges can be used for wildlife-dependent activities such
as hunting, fishing, hiking, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education
and environmental interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers, wildlife trails,
automobile tours, and environmental education programs. Nationwide, more than 33
million people visited national wildlife refuges in 1999.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established many
mandates aimed at making the management of national wildlife refuges more cohe-sive.
The preparation of Comprehensive Conservation Plans is one of those man-dates.
The legislation requires the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and purposes of the individual refuges
are carried out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the biological integrity,
diversity and environmental health of the refuge system.
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts Vision Statement
The Districts will emphasize waterfowl production and ensure the preservation of
habitat for migratory birds, threatened and endangered native species, and resident
wildlife. The Districts will provide opportunities for the public to hunt, fish, observe
and photograph wildlife and increase public understanding and appreciation of the
Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem.
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
7
Legal and Policy Guidance
Waterfowl Production Units within the Fergus Falls Wetland Management District
are acquired under the establishing authority of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp
Act (Duck Stamp Act) as amended (16 U.S.C. 718-718h).
“The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to utilize funds made available under
subsection (b) of this section for the purposes of such subsection, and such other funds
as may be appropriated for the purposes of such subsection, or of this subsection, to
acquire, or defray the expense incident to the acquisition by gift, devise, lease, pur-chase
or exchange of, small wetland and pothole areas, interests therein, and rights of
way to provide access thereto. Such small areas, to be designated as “ Waterfowl
Production Areas” may be acquired without regard to the limitations and require-ments
of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, but all the provisions of such Act
which govern the administration and protection of lands acquired thereunder, except
the inviolate sanctuary provisions of such Act, shall be applicable to areas acquired
pursuant to this subsection.”
In addition to the Fergus Falls Wetland Management District’s establishing authority
legislation and the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, several
Federal laws, executive orders and regulations govern its administration. See Appen-dix
A for a list of the guiding laws and orders.
Existing Partnerships: The Ecosystem Approach
The Service initiated its Ecosystem Approach in March of 1994. The primary goal of
the Ecosystem Approach is conserving natural biological diversity and ecosystem
integrity while supporting a sustainable level of human use. Nationally, the Service
divided the country into 53 ecosystems based upon watersheds. Ecosystem teams,
which include project leaders within each of the ecosystem boundaries, are the
primary forum through which the Service implements the Ecosystem Approach.
The Service has set new standards for teamwork, creativity, flexibility, and communi-cation
between and among our operational units and with all partners within the
ecosystem. The Service participates in public and private partnerships at many
levels. Since many of the species under our care do not respect state and national
borders, we also have a role within the larger ecosystem of the Western Hemisphere
via such treaties as the Migratory Bird Treaty with our neighbors in Mexico and
Canada.
In Minnesota, Wetland Management Districts fall within three organized ecosystem
efforts, namely the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Habitat Protection Area, the Missis-sippi
Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem, and the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture
of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The District programs are
compatible with the goals and objectives of these major projects as well as the plan
objectives for the Partners in Flight, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Wetland Management Districts participate in several ongoing migratory bird conser-vation
initiatives. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is a
partnership effort to restore waterfowl populations to historic levels. It was devel-
Litchfield Wetland Management District Draft CCP
8
oped in 1986, with objectives and strategies evolving through NAWMP Updates.
Districts strive to achieve waterfowl objectives outlined in Joint Venture Implemen-tation
Plans. The Wetland Management Districts of Western Minnesota fall within the
Prairie Pothole Joint Venture.
Several other bird initiatives have been developed in recent years. Partners In Flight
(PIF) deals primarily with landbirds and has developed Bird Conservation Plans for
numerous physiographic areas across the U.S. These plans include priority species
lists, associated habitats, and management strategies. Districts strive to implement
the conservation strategies outlined in these plans to the extent possible.
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and the North American
Waterbird Conservation Plan have regional components that
identify priority species and conservation strategies, mostly
focused around habitat, that will address the needs of these
groups of birds.
All migratory bird conservation programs will be integrated
under the umbrella of the North American Bird Conservation
Initiative (NABCI). This is a continental effort to have all bird
initiatives operate under common Bird Conservation Regions
and to consider the conservation objectives of all birds together
to optimize the effectiveness of management strategies. The
goal of NABCI is to facilitate the delivery of the full spectrum
of bird conservation through regionally-based, biologically-driven,
landscape-oriented partnerships.
Working With Partners
The Wetland Management Districts are composed of small parcels of land throughout
western Minnesota. The effectiveness of this habitat for wildlife is enhanced when
located near other protected areas. Land in programs such as The Nature Conser-vancy,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and set-asides such as the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) can add to
“effective habitat size.”
The Districts can not solve the problems posed by habitat fragmentation and contami-nation
on its own and will work to increase “effective habitat size” by combining
efforts with many partners, such as The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, as well as in programs such as CRP
and RIM.
Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 2 / Planning Process, Issues and Goals
9
Chapter 2: Planning Process, Issues and Goals
Description of Planning Process
The planning process for this Comprehensive Conservation Plan began October 1,
1997, when a Notice Of Intent to prepare a comprehensive management plan was
published in the Federal Register (Vol 62: 51482). Initially, members of the planning
team identified a list of issues and concerns that were likely to be associated with the
management of the Refuge. These preliminary issues and concerns were based on the
team members’ knowledge of the area, contacts with citizens in the community, and
ideas already expressed to the Refuge staff. Refuge staff and Service planners then
began asking Refuge neighbors, organizations, local government units, schools and
interested citizens to share their thoughts in a series of open house events.
Open houses were conducted on the following schedule:
November 17, 1997 – Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District, 7 attended
November 18, 1997 – Fergus Falls Wetland Management District, 9 attended
November 19, 1997 – Morris Wetland Management District, 9 attended
November 20, 1997 – Litchfield Wetland Management District, 1 attended
November 25, 1997 – Windom Wetland Management District, 15 attended
February 4, 1998 – Regional Office, Twin Cities, 62 attended
People were also invited to send in written comments describ-ing
their support or concerns about the Districts. Fifty-one
written comments were received.
A survey of public use on the Wetland Management Districts
was conducted through contract with Dr. Dorothy Anderson,
University of Minnesota. Forty individuals, all regular users
of the Wetland Management Districts, were invited to partici-pated
in this survey. Participants had extensive experience
with the Fish and Wildlife Service managers ( i.e., they
contacted WMD managers an average of almost 11 times/
year) and had good working relationships with managers. Almost all participants had
visited waterfowl production areas, and many were members of conservation organi-zations
(e.g. Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and other organizations). Of the 40
people interviewed, 37 were men, averaging 51 years of age and averaging 39 years
living in the area.
The participants were able to list benefits of the Wetland Management District
activities provide to rural communities and citizens. The following list of benefits is
ordered from benefits frequently mentioned, to benefits not as heavily discussed but
still mentions often.
  Provides areas for hunting waterfowl and upland bird species,
  Protects wetland areas for ecological reasons,
  Retains water and helps with flood control,
Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Litchfield Wetland Management District Draft CCP
10
  Improves water quality
  Improves communities economically through purchasing of hunting equip-ment
  Provides opportunities to introduce children to hunting, and
  Adds to the overall quality of life for rural residents
Many participants believed that the Wetland Management District managers were
good at acquiring and managing land. They appreciated the habitat provided in the
Waterfowl Production Areas and the work that District managers do with farmers to
increase wildlife habitat by taking potential wetlands out of agricultural production.
Participants also praised the cooperative role managers have with local citizens and
conservation organizations.
In addition to public meetings and survey, the following focus group meetings were
conducted to develop the issues, goals, and objectives for the Plan. These meetings
included the District Managers and invited participants from the University of
Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and the U.S. Geological Survey, Northern
Prairie Wildlife Research Center.
Following the focus groups meetings were held:
  Fergus Falls, Minnesota March 2-4, 1999
  Alexandria, Minnesota July 27-29, 1999
  Twin Cities, Minnesota August 26, 1999
Concurrent with the focus group meetings, planning staff met with individual Dis-tricts
numerous times to review issues and discuss District management.
A wide range of issues, concerns and opportunities were expressed during the plan-ning
process. Numerous discussions among Refuge and planning staff, focus groups
and resource specialists brought to light several recurring themes. Issues fall into
broad categories of wildlife, habitat and people. Dealing with these issues is at the
core of the development of goals and objectives for the management of the Minnesota
Wetland Management Districts.
Planning Issues
Wildlife and Habitat
1. Can we improve waterfowl productivity?
2. Strategic Acquisition: Can we buy the highest priority land in the most efficient
and cost-effective manner possible?
3. Managing Uplands: Can we improve prairie restoration by planting the right
seeds, using the right management tools?
4. Managing and Restoring Wetlands: How do we manage wetlands to maintain or
increase productivity?
5. Can we improve biological inventories and monitoring on WPAs?
6. Can we stem the loss of migratory birds in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosys-tem?
Chapter 2 / Planning Process, Issues and Goals
11
7. Can we manage District land to preserve, restore and enhance threatened and
endangered species, rare and declining species, and address regional priority
species?
8. Under what circumstances should we reintroduce rare native species to District
land?
9. How do we mitigate negative external influences such as contaminants on WPAs
and reduce its impact on long-term health and productivity of District land?
10. How do we balance management for Federal trust species with the needs of
resident species?
11. How do we reduce crop loss caused by Canada geese foraging on private land
adjacent to WPAs?
12: Invasive species, both exotic and native, are negatively impacting the natural
ecological balance of grasslands and wetlands on WPAs.
13. What is the Long Range Goal of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
(Private Lands) be on Wetland Management Districts?
Public Use
14. There are conflicting views concerning the costs and benefits of federally owned
land in a community. Who benefits? Who pays?
15. How do we provide adequate facilities and programs for the public to fully enjoy
wildlife-related recreation in a way that is compatible with our main mission?
Operations
16. Districts need sufficient staff in critical areas to fully meet resource challenges
and opportunities.
17. Districts need office, maintenance, and equipment storage facilities to carry out
their mission.
18. Vehicles and other necessary equipment need to be replaced on a regular basis
according to Service standards.
19. Funding is needed to develop and manage newly acquired WPA land and facilities.
20. Discretionary money is needed for managing newly acquired land. Historic
preservation responsibilities and other cultural resource concerns add cost and
delays.
21. Individual WPA development plans and record keeping need to be updated.
22. The Districts need to be consistent in their application of policy and resource
protection efforts.
Litchfield Wetland Management District Draft CCP
12
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Goals
The following Goals were identified through a variety of meetings to address the
issues raised during the planning process:
Wildlife and Habitat
Wildlife: Strive to preserve and maintain diversity and increase the abundance of
waterfowl and other key wildlife species in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem.
Preserve, restore, and enhance resident wildlife populations where compatible with
waterfowl and the preservation of other trust species. Seek sustainable solutions to
the impact of Canada geese on adjacent private croplands.
Habitat: Restore native prairie plant communities of the
Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem using local ecotypes
of seed and maintain the vigor of these stands through
natural processes. Restore functioning wetland complexes
and maintain the cyclic productivity of wetlands. Continue
efforts for long-term solutions to the problem of invasive
species with increased emphasis on biological control to
minimize damage to aquatic and terrestrial communities.
Continue efforts to better define the role of each District in
assisting private landowners with wetland, upland and
riparian restorations
Acquisition: Within current acquisition acreage goals, identify the highest priority
acres for acquisition taking into account block size and waterfowl productivity data.
These priority areas should drive acquisition efforts whenever possible. Service land
acquisition should have no negative impact on net revenues to local government.
Understand and communicate the economic effects of federal land ownership on local
communities
Monitoring: Collect baseline information on plants, fish and wildlife and monitor
critical parameters and trends of key species and/or species groups on and around
District units. Promote the use of coordinated, standardized, cost effective, and
defensible methods for gathering and analyzing habitat and population data. Manage-ment
decisions will be based on the resulting data.
Endangered Species/Unique Communities: Preserve, enhance, and restore rare
native northern tallgrass prairie, flora and fauna that are or may become endangered.
Where feasible in both ecological and social/economic terms, reintroduce native
species on WPAs in cooperation with the Minnesota DNR
People
Public Use/ Environmental Education: Provide opportunities for the public to use
the WPAs in a way that promotes understanding and appreciation of the Prairie
Pothole Region. Promote greater understanding and awareness of the Wetland
Management District’s programs, goals, and objectives. Advance stewardship and
understanding of the Prairie Pothole Region through environmental education.
USFWS Photo
Chapter 2 / Planning Process, Issues and Goals
13
Operations
Preparation of WPA Development Plans: Complete Geographic Information System
(GIS) based WPA Development Plans for each unit in each District. Provide Districts
with GIS to assist with acquisition, restoration, management and protection of public
and private lands.
Provide necessary levels of maintenance, technician and administrative support staff
to achieve other Wetland Management District goals: Provide all Districts with
adequate and safe office, maintenance and equipment storage facilities Acquire
adequate equipment and vehicles to achieve other District goals. Maintain District
equipment and vehicles at or above Service standards.
Ensure that annual capital development funds are large enough to meet necessary
development of new WPA land: Have adequate funds available each year to permit
completion of maintenance needs for each Wetland Districts current land base of
Waterfowl Production Areas.
Develop and apply consistent policies for habitat, public use, and resource protection
and ensure frequent coordination among Districts, both in Minnesota and in neighbor-ing
states with WPAs (North and South Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin).
Litchfield Wetland Management District Draft CCP
14
Chapter 3: The Environment
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
Three landscapes come together in Minne-sota:
prairies, deciduous woods, and conifer-ous
forests of the north. This variation in
landscape is caused by changes in climate
and precipitation from north to south and is
reflected in the wide diversity of plants and
animals inhabiting the state (Wendt and
Coffin 1988; Hargrave 1993; Aaseng, et al.
1993). The Districts own land within all
three habitat types and all have changed
dramatically since settlement, none more
than the prairie landscape (Figure 3).
Prairie Grasslands
At one time, the western edge of Minnesota was continuous prairie and scattered
woodlands dotted with small wetlands, known as potholes. Snow melt and spring rains
were contained in these small wetlands and released slowly into surrounding streams.
The wetlands acted like a natural flood control system. All of this has changed since
settlement. Now, only 150,000 acres of native prairie remain out of an original 18
million (Noss, et al. 1995). In some areas, almost all of the potholes have been drained.
Remnants of prairie and their associated wetlands are scattered and rare. They form
the last refuge for many species of prairie plants and wildlife.
Deciduous Woods
The deciduous forest of Minnesota extends from the northern aspen parkland to
maple basswood forests of the southeast. The term “deciduous” refers to trees that
lose their leaves in the fall. There are many forest communities within this landscape.
The northern aspen parkland is typical of a more Canadian landscape, with open
understory, wet meadows, aspen, willow and alder thickets. The communities include
wild flowers like the northern gentian and prairie-fringed orchid, wildlife such as the
moose, sandhill crane, sharp-tailed grouse, black-billed magpie and yellow rail. Fur-ther
south, the deciduous forest changes to one dominated by maple and basswood
trees and oak savannah. Birds of these hardwood forests include the tufted titmouse,
scarlet tanager, eastern screech owl, broad-winged hawk, barred owl, red-eyed vireo,
and wood thrush to name just a few. Wild flowers in the spring are a special feature of
these woods including trillium, hepatica, blood root, trout lily, Dutchman’s breeches
and spring beauty (Moyle and Moyle 1977; Henderson and Lambrecht 1997).
Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 3 / The Environment
15
Figure 3: Minnesota Wetland Management Districts Ecosystems
Litchfield Wetland Management District Draft CCP
16
Coniferous Forest
The coniferous forests dominate the northeastern portion of Minnesota. They are
characterized by red and white pines, balsam-fir, spruce and white cedar mixed with
other deciduous species. While the coniferous forests dominate Minnesota land-scapes,
the Districts own very little in this landscape because it is not particularly
productive for waterfowl.
Climate
The climate of Minnesota is seasonal and highly variable. Average annual precipita-tion
ranges from 20 inches in the northern aspen parklands to 32 inches in the south-western
prairie coteau. Within the eastern Great Plains, precipitation falls during two
peak periods, one in early summer and a less pronounced peak in September. Average
maximum annual temperature ranges from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in the northern
aspen parklands to 58 degrees Fahrenheit in the prairie coteau. Average minimum
annual temperature ranges from 23 degrees F in the aspen parklands to 36 degrees F
in the prairie coteau. The growing season ranges from 125 days in the aspen
parklands to 180 days in the prairie coteau (Hargrave 1993; Ostlie et al. 1996).
Hydrology
Conversion of the prairie to agriculture and the
general development of the area over the past 130
years has greatly changed the region’s hydrology.
The Districts contain five major watersheds: the
Red, the Upper Mississippi, the Minnesota, the
Missouri, the Cedar and Des Moines Rivers (Figure
4). Of these, the Red, Minnesota, and Des Moines are
clearly the most important hydrologically and cultur-ally
in terms of water flow, impacts to land use, and
associated water resources. The Minnesota River is considered the state’s most
polluted river. The Red River watershed has been degraded by dam construction,
agricultural practices, channelization and loss of riparian vegetation.
The Red River is the only major American river that drains northward into Hudson
Bay. Total drainage area in the U.S. is 39,200 square miles, of which 17,806 are in
Minnesota. Due to regional patterns in precipitation, evapotranspiration, soils, and
topography, the Red receives most of its flow from its eastern tributaries. Ten of
these tributaries traverse the Districts.
Many rivers in the Districts have been channelized in the downstream reaches to
improve agricultural drainage. Most of the small wetlands that once held spring melts
have been drained for agriculture through ditches or subsurface tile systems. Now,
the water rushes off the land and creates annual spring floods.
River hydrology has been further altered through the construction of approximately
270 flood control structures within the Minnesota basin of the Red River. Despite
these flood control projects, the Red remains a flood-prone system due to heavy
spring snow melt, the flatness of the area, and snow/ice melting in the upstream area
of the basin before that in the downstream areas.
Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 3 / The Environment
17
Figure 4: Minnesota Wetland Management Districts Hydrology and Key Rivers
Litchfield Wetland Management District Draft CCP
18
The Roseau, Red Lake, Wild Rice, and Buffalo rivers account for three-fourths of the
flood damage on the Minnesota tributaries.
The Minnesota River drains an area of 15,500 square miles within the District area.
The Minnesota River begins in Browns Valley, where it is separated from the water-shed
of the Red River (Lake Traverse) by the Big Stone Moraine. As it flows toward
its meeting with the Mississippi, the Minnesota River is impeded by four flood control
reservoirs located at Big Stone, Big Stone/Whetstone, Marsh Lake, and Lac Qui
Parle. Two smaller dams near Granite Falls slow the flow, but do not impound any
water within the floodplain. One small hydroelectric dam operates near Mankato on
the Blue Earth River. Flooding along the Minnesota is common within the floodplain,
but does not have the same cultural or ecological impacts as on the Red River because
the steep slopes of the Minnesota contain the river.
Southwestern Minnesota differs dramatically from the flat topography to the north
and east. The Coteau des Prairies region grades from gently undulating to steeply
rolling and hilly. These glacial moraines and ridges are well drained and have few
depressions. This area flows mostly southwest into the Missouri River. The outer
edges of the Coteau are less well drained and contain numerous wetlands and lakes.
The Big and Little Sioux rivers are the two largest rivers in this area. Both flow to
the southwest and into Iowa.
Geology
The area has a varied geological history but throughout the region, the departure of
the last glacier, The Wisconsin, is still evident upon the land. The retreating glacier
left behind gently rolling hills of gravel deposits with many scattered potholes,
remnants left by melting glacial ice. In relative geologic time, the rivers that drain
this land are new and inefficient (Ojakangas and Matsch 1982).
The southwest corner of Minnesota escaped the Wisconsin glaciation and features
more bedrock exposures because that area escaped a blanket of glacial till or drift.
Big Stone District is named after some of the rocky features of the bedrock exposure.
Rivers and streams in this area are better developed, resulting in more efficient
drainage systems.
Thousands of natural basins were left in the wake of thawing ice. Glacial lakes, the
largest of these being Lake Agassiz, left behind a series of beaches and as they
overflowed, they cut huge river channels. Lake Agassiz created a moraine at Browns
Valley that spilled over to become the glacial River Warren, later to become the
Minnesota River. The water volume of the Minnesota is a fraction of the River
Warren, which flowed through its broad river valley with high stream terraces,
dwarfing today’s river. The Minnesota has eroded deeply into the glacial sediment
and has exposed some of the world’s oldest rocks along its narrow valley.
Wind-blown loess also was a major influence in the soils of Minnesota, especially in
southwest Minnesota. The disintegration of the Wisconsin Glacier left a distinctive,
fine-textured till containing a high volume of Paleozoic limestone and Cretaceous
shale fragments. Combined with the loess swept by surface winds, it is the parent
material for most of today’s prairie soils of western and southern Minnesota.
Chapter 3 / The Environment
19
District Resources
Wildlife
Waterfowl
The prairie pothole region has historically been recognized as the most important
waterfowl production area in North America. Surveys have shown that although this
area represents only 10 percent of the breeding habitat, it averages 50 to 75 percent
of the duck recruitment each year in North America.
Waterfowl species that use the prairie wetlands of Minnesota include: redhead,
northern shoveler, blue-winged teal, mallard, gadwall, wood duck, canvasback and
Canada goose. Other waterfowl use the prairie wetlands to a lesser degree: pintail,
lesser scaup, and ring-necked duck. These species rely on grains for food most of the
year but during the spring and summer, they
shift to aquatic plants and insects. They
depend on the wetlands for food during the
breeding season.
The Habitat and Population Evaluation Team
(HAPET) census waterfowl populations
within the Wetland Management Districts of
western Minnesota. Summary statistics
generated by HAPET provide a necessary
overview of waterfowl production and land
use in the Districts. Their results show the
variability between districts in breeding pair
density. The average duck pair density ranges
from 23.5 in the Fergus Falls WMD to 3.7 in
the Windom WMD (Figure 5).
Rich soils and prairie wetlands make the region ideal for waterfowl; but also highly
productive for agriculture. The corn and soybean belt overlaps extensively with the
southern prairie pothole region. Massive conversion of wetlands and prairie to
agricultural fields has dramatically altered the landscape, the hydrology and the
region’s carrying capacity for waterfowl
Some waterfowl species are more susceptible than others to the transformation of
prairie into agriculture. Mallards and blue-winged teal have been fairly successful in
agricultural landscapes such as western Minnesota. Northern pintails, on the other
hand, have declined more dramatically than any other waterfowl species in North
America (Ducks Unlimited 1990). At the turn of the century, pintails were probably
as common in the prairies as mallards (Roberts 1932). Pintails favor ephemeral ponds,
which were the first and easiest to drain. They often nest far from water and duck-lings
have to move overland to get to ponds shortly after they hatch. In the current
landscape, newly hatched ducklings cross plowed agricultural fields in the spring and
they are vulnerable to predation. Like pintails, gadwalls were once very common in
this region. In 1879 gadwalls were reported to be as abundant as mallards if not more
so (Roberts 1932, in Galatowitsch and van der Valk 1994). Now, gadwalls comprise
less than 1 percent of the breeding population in western Minnesota (Green and
Janssen 1975). Roberts (1930) reported, the gadwall “...suffered most severely from
the settling of the country, probably as much from breaking-up of the prairie, where it
commonly nested, as from the hunters.” (Galatowitsch and van der Valk, 1994). At the
File Photograph
Litchfield Wetland Management District Draft CCP
20
Figure 5: Estimated Average Duck Pair Density, 1987-1999
Chapter 3 / The Environment
21
turn of the century, canvasback and redheads were common on the largest lakes and
marshes. Initially, over-hunting depleted canvasback populations but the decline of
wetland habitat, especially the wild celery beds, made it difficult for them to recover
(Galatowitsch and van der Valk 1994). Another diving duck, the scaup, was also
common but is now primarily a migrant through the region.
Research has shown that ducks nesting in large blocks of grassland habitat (1,000 to
10,000 acres) reproduce more successfully than ducks nesting in smaller blocks (200 to
500 acres) (Burger et al. 1994; Ball et al. 1995). Ron Reynolds of the HAPET in
North Dakota found waterfowl production increased on WPAs near large blocks of
CRP land (personal communication). His results show the importance of working
with partners to increase effective habitat block size and offset habitat fragmentation
and contamination.
A major factor depressing duck numbers is low nest success due to nest destruction
by predators on small units of habitat. Predators are quick to find these remnant
areas and concentrate their hunting activities on the vulnerable ground nests of
waterfowl. In some habitats, predators such as red fox, raccoon, mink and skunk are
able to take virtually every duck nest and many of the attendant hens.
Although agriculture has been an important feature in this area for over 100 years, it
has been particularly intensive during the last several decades. Conversion from
small, diverse family farms to large agricultural operations specializing in monocul-tures
of small grain and row crops has eliminated habitat on private lands such as
pasture, hayland and wetlands. Grassland birds are forced to nest in ever-dwindling
fragments of remaining cover. Often the only nesting sites available are small isolated
areas such as roadside ditches, abandoned farmsteads, rock piles or isolated patches of
habitat such as our Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs).
The average block size for Waterfowl Production Areas in western Minnesota is only
210 acres. In part, the small size of most acquisitions is due to the nature of the Small
Wetlands Acquisition Program (SWAP). The original SWAP approach was simple —
purchase only a minimum of acres in fee-title and surround them with permanent
easements.
In truth, it is difficult to purchase large tracts of land in prime agricultural areas.
What research identifies as an optimal size for wildlife is not always possible given the
competing needs for the land. Local county land boards often will not support taking
large blocks of land out of agricultural production and off the tax role. Areas that are
important for waterfowl may not be available or for sale. To purchase land strategi-cally,
managers are faced with the difficult task of finding willing sellers in the most
productive areas for waterfowl.
The landscape level monitoring by the Habitat and Population Evaluation Team
(HAPET), shows that waterfowl success varies depending on location within the
state. There is even great variance between WPAs within a single District. The
HAPET has produced a map for each district that ranks locations for waterfowl
production. The maps are known as “thunderstorm maps” because they resemble
doppler radar weather maps (Figure 6).
Existing GIS mapping data can be used to evaluate land acquisitions. Available
information can be compiled (as illustrated in Figure 7) to pick land parcels that have
high potential for waterfowl and that are located near other conservation lands, such
as state, county or CRP set-aside land, to increase the “effective size” of each unit.
Litchfield Wetland Management District Draft CCP
22
Figure 6: Predicted Settling Density of Dabbling Duck Pairs
Chapter 3 / The Environment
23
This approach can aid in setting priorities of acquisition. Ideally, managers could use
these maps to identify “hot spots” within their district for purchase as WPAs.
The Districts are trying to combat the unnatural impact of predators in small pieces of
habitat by removing abandoned buildings and brush. Abandoned farmsteads are
prime denning sites for major nest predators such as skunks (Lariviere and Messier
1998a, 1998b; Lariviere et al.1999). In addition, the Districts place nesting platforms
in many wetlands, and predator control is practiced on a limited scale in conjunction
with electric fence exclosures on 350 acres in Fergus Falls and 10 acres in the Morris
Wetland Management Districts.
Another threat to waterfowl reproduction is the increasing application of agricultural
chemicals such as fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides on cropland adjacent to
WPAs. Research has identified agricultural chemicals as important factors in decreas-ing
bird populations directly as well as affecting their food resources in wetlands (see
Chapter 3, External Threats).
Not all species of waterfowl are in decline. In recent
years, the population of Giant Canada Geese has
exploded across many of the Districts. Many WPAs
contain the large wetlands favored by geese. These
wetlands are often adjacent to private agricultural
land. Canada geese are upland grazers and, like most
wildlife, will take advantage of the bounty planted
nearby, whether it be succulent sprouts of soybeans,
corn, or the grass of lawns and golf courses. On
certain areas, geese can cause considerable financial
hardship for farmers by wiping out relatively large
areas of crops.
Although the more common species of ducks and geese in Minnesota have increased
over the last decade, many are still below the goals of the North American Plan.
Migratory Birds
Minnesota Wetland Management Districts contain habitat important to bird species
other than waterfowl, including songbirds, marsh and wading birds, shorebirds,
raptors, and upland game birds. Approximately 243 species of birds regularly use the
Districts at some time during the year, with 152 nesting species (Appendix C).
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minnesota Department of Natural Re-sources,
Partners in Flight, an international bird conservation initiative, and others
have evaluated the status of migratory birds, identifying “species of concern” at the
state, regional, and national levels. Partners in Flight have developed a bird conser-vation
plan that focuses on declining grassland and wetland birds in the Northern
Tallgrass Prairie Bird Conservation Region. This plan provides information on the
habitat needs of these species and proposes a model of landscape-level habitat conser-vation
for grassland birds (Fitzgerald et al. 1998). In the Districts, 48 birds identified
as “species of concern” are rare, declining, or dependent on vulnerable habitats,
including 43 that breed there. This list does not include hunted waterfowl or feder-ally-
listed threatened or endangered species, which are dealt with in another section
of this document (Appendix C).
About 44 percent of the species of concern depend on some type of grassland habitat.
Important habitats in the District include native and restored prairies, seeded grass-lands
(cool- or warm-season grasses), light- to moderately-grazed pastures, Conserva-
Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Litchfield Wetland Management District Draft CCP
24
tion Reserve Program lands (CRP), sedge meadows, old fields, and hayfields (if not
mowed before July 15). In North America, grassland birds have exhibited steeper
declines than any other avian group. Their decline has a number of causes: loss of
breeding and wintering habitat from agriculture, urbanization, habitat degradation
from fire suppression, inappropriate grazing regimes, woody plantings, pesticides and
nest predation and cowbird parasitism.
Within the category of “grassland birds,” individual species show a variety of habitat
preferences based on vegetation height, cover density, grass/forb ratio, soil moisture,
litter depth, degree of woody vegetation, and plant species composition. It is impor-tant
to maintain a mosaic of grassland habitats to meet the varying needs of grassland
birds.
Some of the species of concern found in the Districts are area-sensitive, which means
they require large, contiguous blocks of habitat to reproduce successfully. Area-sensitive
species include the greater prairie-chicken, northern harrier, upland sand-piper,
bobolink, Henslow’s sparrow, and savannah sparrow.
Vertebrate and Invertebrate Species of Concern
“Species of concern” refers to those species for which the Service has incomplete and
inconclusive information, but which might be declining in range, numbers, or security.
Service and state agency biologists and other experts confer on and use natural
heritage data bases and other published and unpublished information to follow the
welfare of these species. They have no protection under the Endangered Species Act
(Act) and are not candidates for listing.
These species are a diverse group of animals united by two factors: (1) the Service is
watching them, and (2) they occur within the general area and thus could appear in or
near tracts within the Districts. Some of these animals occur only in prairie habitats.
Some of the arthropods can live only in good tallgrass prairie habitat and thus are
good indicators of high quality prairies. It is not possible to predict which, if any, of
the species may occur on tracts within the Districts, nor predict how their occurrence
would be a factor in decisions regarding individual tracts. They are necessary compo-nents
of a healthy, functioning tallgrass prairie ecosystem and as indicators of prairie
tract quality.
Region 3 of the Service has developed a Resource Conservation Priorities (RCP)
document that includes all species of concern within the Region (U.S. Fish and Wild-life
Service 1998). The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources maintains an
official state list of animals being watched for changes in abundance and distribution,
and of animals that are endangered or threatened and protected by state law. The
Service will consider species listed by the State of Minnesota along with Service
species of concern in evaluating prairie sites and developing site protection measures.
Reptiles, Amphibians, and Insects, Vertebrates and Invertebrates
Reptiles, amphibians and insects may have limited popular appeal, but each species
plays an important role in the prairie ecosystem. The degree of interconnectedness in
the tallgrass prairie ecosystem is high. Landmark species such as the eagle, badger
and coyote find their food sources in these groups. Prairie plant diversity depends
upon pollination and seed dispersal, as well as soil aeration by the great variety of
insects. Grasshoppers (family Orthoptera) are major herbivores in the prairie ecosys-tem,
and many native prairie flowers rely on bees, butterflies and others for pollina-tion.
Numerous prairie birds, amphibians, reptiles and small mammals feed exclu-
Chapter 3 / The Environment
25
sively or partly on insects. The web of successes and failures within tallgrass prairie
communities is anchored to every point of diversity within the system, and the
protection of this entire spectrum is necessary for the persistence of its varied parts.
Listed Endangered and Threatened Vertebrates and Invertebrates
This section describes animals that are Federally listed under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended, and are listed as either endangered or threatened.
Endangered Mammals
Gray wolf, Canis lupus: Experts estimate approximately 2,000 gray wolves pres-ently
occur in Minnesota. Wolf numbers and range appear to be increasing in Minne-sota.
Wolves are no longer exclusive residents of Minnesota’s forested wilderness
areas, and adult wolves from Minnesota have dispersed through central and western
Minnesota to North and South Dakota. The Service recognizes the improving range
and security of the species and will reclassify the wolf when appropriate.
Endangered Birds
Bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus: Bald eagles have increased in abundance and
distribution across the United States, including Minnesota. In the 1990s nesting
territories increased in Minnesota every year from 437 in 1990 to 618 in 1995. In-creasing
numbers of migrating and wintering eagles also occur across Minnesota
where they find sheltered night roosts and feed on waterfowl, smaller wild mammals,
and fish in open water areas. Bald eagles became endangered because of habitat loss,
but especially because of DDT use following World War II. Today, the DDT threat is
largely gone. Now the challenge is to prevent contamination and loss of sites that
eagles depend on for nesting, feeding, migration and wintering.
Piping plover, Chadarius melodus: Piping plovers are tenuously present in Minne-sota.
They nest in Lake of the Woods, east of the Districts. Piping plovers nest in
coastal areas, but they are also prairie birds, nesting across the Great Plains of the
United States and Canada, but in perilously low numbers. The loss of prairie wetland
areas contributes to their decline. Like many shorebirds, piping plovers feed on
immature and adult insects and other invertebrates at the water’s edge; they winter
primarily along beaches, sandflats, and algal flats on the Gulf of Mexico.
Least tern (eastern population), Sterna antillarum: The least tern nests along
large rivers of the Colorado, Red, Mississippi, and Missouri River systems. This
species is a potential nester in the Missouri River area. It nests on sand and gravel
bars and protected beach areas of large rivers and winters in coastal Central and
South America. The species is endangered because human disturbance and alteration
of river systems has rendered much of its nesting habitat unusable. Pesticides may
reduce food available to the tern by reducing the numbers of small fish in their feeding
areas.
Reintroductions
The public has an interest in seeing presettlement native wildlife species returned to
the landscape. Examples include greater prairie chickens, trumpeter swans, bison,
and wolves. Giant Canada geese, once thought extinct, have returned to the prairies
of Minnesota in numbers as a result of captive breeding and reintroduction programs.
However, at times restoration efforts, and the ensuing adaptability of the species like
Canada geese, can create its own set of management problems (see next issue). Due
to the relatively small size of WPAs and the concerns for impacts off of WPAs, rein-troductions
of species like bison and wolves are not practical. However, trumpeter
Litchfield Wetland Management District Draft CCP
26
swan reintroductions have been successful and well-received by the public, while
prairie chicken reintroduction is showing some sign of success depending on the area.
There is also the potential for reintroducing species of prairie plants and native small
mammals, reptiles and amphibians and even insects like the Dakota Skipper butterfly
on certain units.
Management of Resident Species
Federal trust species are generally those that cross state and international bound-aries
or are afforded national protection through various laws and treaties, such as the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act. The well-being of
waterfowl populations is a classic Federal trust responsibility and the main purpose
for the creation of the Small Wetland Acquisition Program in the 1960s. This does not
mean that resident species such as white-tailed deer and pheasants found on WPAs
should not receive management attention. Rather it is the degree of management
focus, based on the knowledge that management for trust resources like waterfowl
will usually benefit the myriad of resident wildlife that share the prairie-wetland
landscape.
Local and regional residents, however, may often favor the management for those
species like white-tailed deer and pheasant that provide consumptive recreation
opportunities. Thus, managers are often faced with requests for food plots, tree and
shrub plantings, or direct stockings of game species that may have a negative effect
on the primary purpose of waterfowl production and the broader goals of restoring
native plant communities. The key is to seek the proper balance between practices
focused on trust species and those that can accommodate the public’s desire for
resident wildlife management.
Habitat
Wetlands and Riparian Habitat
Prairie wetlands and prairie streams are an important part of the prairie ecosystem.
Minnesota is naturally rich in wetland and riverine habitats (Appendix D). Western
Minnesota is part of the prairie pothole region, characterized by numerous, shallow
wetlands known as potholes. These wetlands provide essential fish and wildlife
habitat, permit ground water recharge, and
act as filters of sediment and pollutants.
They reduce floods by storing water and
delaying runoff. The region once included
about 20 million acres of these small wet-lands.
They were unconnected and poorly
drained and in the spring they retained
water, acting like a great landscape sponge.
Over the course of the season, water
drained slowly, so spring flooding was
reduced or eliminated.
Settlers found the shallow wetlands difficult to farm. In addition, the wetlands kept
the water table high so much of the land was saturated in a wet year. When the land
was converted to farms, the new owners built drainage ditches, straightened streams
and drained shallow wetlands off their land. Today, only about 5.3 million acres
remain in 2.7 million basins within five states. Now, in the spring, water rushes off
the land and floods the streams and rivers. Drainage has been so extensive that in
many areas the water table has been lowered and the hydrology of the entire region
has been transformed.
Photo Copyright by Jan Eldridge
Chapter 3 / The Environment
27
More than 78 percent of the remaining wetland basins are smaller than 1 acre in size.
Nearly two out of three of the remaining wetlands in Minnesota are privately owned;
consequently, they are vulnerable to continued drainage, development and pollution.
The Wetland Management Districts have focused on saving and restoring the small
wetlands of Western Minnesota. They have been remarkably successful in saving a
variety of wetland types (Figure 7). Wetland diversity is important because wetlands
change continuously; so, a single wetland can not be maximally productive all the time.
Waterfowl use specific types of wetlands at different times during the breeding
season. Laying hens may forage in ephemeral, temporary and seasonal wetlands
early in the season and shift to semipermanent and permanent wetlands after the
brood is hatched. Marsh birds need a variety of wetlands in close proximity so they
can shift from one wetland to another as the wetlands cycle through different phases.
It is very important that natural wetland complexes be preserved. Wetland com-plexes
include a variety of basins, some shallow and some deep, in close proximity.
Diverse wetland complexes are rare today because most shallow ephemeral, tempo-rary
and seasonal basins have been drained.
Saving single, isolated wetlands is much less valuable than saving several wetlands in
a wetland complex. The Wetland Management Districts focus on acquiring wetland
complexes with a variety of wetland types.
The fluctuating water levels in the shallow wetlands are natural to the dynamic
pattern of precipitation in the prairie. The changing water level results in circular
bands of vegetation around each basin because different plant species have different
tolerances for saturated soils. The depth of the basin also affects the kind of vegeta-tion
that grows. The drying pattern is one of the features used to classify wetland
basins (Cowardin et al.). Deeper basins have perineal emergent vegetation such as
cattail and dry every 5 to 10 years. Wetlands that dry every other year or on a
several year cycle are called semi-permanent or permanent wetlands. Basins that dry
every year are temporary and seasonal wetlands. Some very shallow basins dry early
in the spring after the frost leaves the ground and as a result are called ephemeral
wetlands.
Figure 7: Wetland Distribution by Type, Litchfield WMD
Litchfield Wetland Management District Draft CCP
28
Freshwater wetlands like those in the prairie pothole region are among the most
productive in the world (Weller 1982). The dynamic water cycle creates a rich
environment for many waterfowl and other marsh birds. Cycling water accelerates
decomposition of marsh vegetation, resulting in a natural fertilizer. When the basins
recharge in the spring, the water becomes a soup of nutrients and supports a diverse
and healthy population of aquatic invertebrates, which feed reproducing marsh birds
throughout the spring and summer. In the larger basins, the vegetation changes from
densely closed cattail or bullrush cover to completely open over a period of years
(Figure 8). In the process of transition, the cover vegetation moves through a phase,
known as hemi-marsh, when clumps of emergent vegetation are interspersed with
open water (Weller 1982). In this phase, the structure of the vegetation itself creates
habitat and stimulates the production of aquatic invertebrates. The marsh, in this
phase, hosts the maximum number of marsh birds. Unfortunately, the phase is only
temporary and wetlands cycle out of it in 1 to 3 years.
The prairie potholes are too shallow to be fish habitat but they have been used in the
past as hatcheries for minnows and walleye fingerlings. Leeches are also harvested
from these shallow ponds. Unfortunately, many of these artificially introduced native
species consume the same aquatic invertebrates as waterfowl. Fathead minnows
occur naturally in some wetlands in the region and have a significant effect on the
invertebrate populations of the wetlands (Hanson and Zimmer 1999).
Wetland restoration and management are high priorities in the Districts. In many
areas, the entire hydrology of the area has been altered and restoration is not always
a straightforward matter of plugging drains and filling in ditches (Galatowitsch and
van der Valk 1994). Restored wetlands employ water control structures for water
level management to mitigate the disruptive impact of wide scale drainage that has
altered natural water cycles. Many wetlands on WPAs are flooded because surround-ing
wetlands on private land have been drained and the excess water moves into the
WPA. Water control structures are often necessary, but these structures require
funding to install and staff to maintain. Neither are in adequate supply to do what is
needed.
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
Wetland Districts in Minnesota have led the nation in the sheer number of wetlands
restored through the cooperation of private landowners in the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program (Private Lands), which assists private landowners with the im-
Figure 8: Marsh Vegetation Cycles
Chapter 3 / The Environment
29
provement or restoration of wildlife habitat on their land. Technical assistance,
contracting, cost-sharing assistance and actual earth work is provided to private
landowners throughout the Districts. Since the program’s inception in 1987, 12,000
wetlands totaling more than 40,000 acres have been restored. However, some Dis-tricts
are now finding it more difficult to find landowners willing to restore wetlands.
More staff effort is required with longer trips and greater expense to seek out land-owners
willing to restore wetlands. Managers have also begun to explore assisting
landowners with efforts to restore native prairie and riparian or stream areas.
Additionally, Districts have restored more than 10,000 acres of native grasslands on
private property through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program during the same
period. In the past 2 years, new funding sources within the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program have placed added emphasis on riparian and instream habitat
restoration, and this has the potential to create additional opportunities for the
Districts to accomplish habitat restoration on private lands.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs have created many new opportu-nities
for Districts to assist in the restoration of a variety of trust resource habitats on
private lands. The USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has placed an
emphasis on wetland and native prairie restoration as a condition of enrollment, and
many new participants are making their lands available for wildlife habitat restora-tion.
This presents an important role for the Districts to lend their restoration experi-ence
and expertise to make these CRP restorations as high-quality as possible. The
USDA’s Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) likewise presents opportunities for
Districts to accomplish migratory bird objectives on private lands utilizing other
agency programs and dollars by making experience and expertise available to imple-ment
habitat restoration projects.
The Districts’ perpetual easement program, which encompasses both wetland and
conservation easements (both wetlands and uplands on a property), has greatly
benefited from the success of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program over the
past 10 years. Many of the private landowners who have restored wetlands on their
lands through the Partners Program have since come back to the District seeking
establishment of a permanent easement on their property to offer protection to their
project in future years. In some Districts it is fair to say that the vast majority of new
easements recorded in the past few years first started as Partners projects. This
continues to meet the needs of landowners who wish to improve their land for wildlife,
for themselves and for future generations.
By providing habitat restoration funds to complete restoration projects initiated by
the Districts as well as technical assistance funds to provide restoration experience
and expertise to other agencies’ programs, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Pro-gram
puts the Wetland Management Districts in a wonderful position to accomplish a
multitude of – and a variety of – trust species habitat restoration projects over the
next 10 years.
Prairie Restoration
Prairie landscapes are much more diverse than they seem at first glance. They
contain hundreds of species of plants, invertebrates and wildlife. Some prairies
contain as many as 200 plant species. The landscape is dominated by a relatively small
number of widespread, sod-forming bunch grasses such as big bluestem, northern
dropseed, and porcupine needlegrass, but flowering plants constitute the greatest
number of species (80 percent in some areas). Most abundant members are from the
Litchfield Wetland Management District Draft CCP
30
pea and sunflower families such as wild indigos, prairie clovers and scurf peas (pea
family), asters, gay-feathers, goldenrods, coneflowers and sunflowers (aster family)
(Henderson and Lambrecht, 1997).
Over the past decade, virtually all plantings of upland cover on Waterfowl Production
Areas have been with native grasses. In recent years, a more diverse mixture of
native forbs, warm and cool season native grasses have been used. Plants within a
single species vary with latitude (called ecotypes) and an effort is being made to plant
local ecotypes in restorations. Harvesting techniques of existing tallgrass prairie and
refinement of the cleaning and seeding process has made seed gathering easier.
However, native prairie forbs remain in short supply and are extremely costly for
large areas.
Prescribed fire remains a critical tool for maintaining the diversity and vigor of
existing and restored prairie plants. Prescribed burns can only be done during a small
window of time in the spring, so the number of acres that can be burned each spring is
limited. As a result, most WPAs can not be burned on a rotation frequent enough to
suppress invading shrubs and trees. Some of the Districts use haying and grazing as
additional means of maintaining grassland integrity.
The Districts also manage grasslands through the selective application of herbicides
during restoration. In 1990, 15,825 pounds of active ingredients representing 20
herbicides were applied to 15,533 acres of Service-managed lands in Minnesota
(USFWS 1990). The most heavily and most frequently used chemical was 2,4-D. In
1987, approximately $100,000 was spent on noxious weed control on approximately
16,000 acres of District lands (USFWS 1992). Because of concern that chemical use
could impact water quality (See Issue 9), the Twin Cites Ecological Services Field
Office conducted a 2-year study beginning in 1992 to determine the impact of the
herbicide application on wetlands in the Districts and concluded that concentrations of
2,4-D were consistently low and at concentrations that have not been shown to have
an adverse affect on aquatic life (Ensor and Smith 1994).
Rare Communities
Waterfowl Production Areas provide one of the last bastions of grassland and wetland
habitat in the prairie area of Minnesota. These areas provide some of the last remain-ing
habitat for threatened, endangered, rare or unique wildlife and plants. Examples
include the endangered prairie fringed orchid and prairie bush clover, and numerous
species of grassland and wetland-dependent species that are declining in numbers
(Appendix E). There is a need to have better baseline information on what species
are present on each WPA, and to monitor the effects of wetland and prairie restora-tion
efforts on these species of special concern.
Minnesota County Biological Survey (Survey) conducted systematic surveys of rare
biological features from 1987-1995. The goal of the Survey was to identify significant
natural areas and to collect and interpret data on the distribution and ecology of rare
plants, rare animals and natural communities. The Nature Conservancy, through a
cooperative agreement with the Service, consolidated these data and the data of the
Natural Heritage Information Systems of the Minnesota Natural Heritage, and
Nongame Research Program. From this data, the existing protected areas within
Minnesota were mapped and community types were identified.
Within the northern tallgrass prairie ecoregion (Iowa, Manitoba, Minnesota, North
Dakota, and South Dakota), 97 terrestrial natural communities have been docu-mented.
Chapter 3 / The Environment
31
Rare communities most at risk are the mesic, wet and dry prairie types. Three
grassland communities (mesic tallgrass prairie, sedge meadow and lake plain wet
prairie) are critically endangered in the United State