Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge and
Wetland Management District
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.
Acknowledgments
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge is rooted in enthusiasm and concern
for natural resources. Looking to the future of the Refuge and Wetland Manage-ment
District has given us an opportunity to look back at those roots, and we are
deeply grateful for all of the people who have cared so much about the Refuge,
the habitat of the Minnesota River Valley and the wildlife inhabiting the Valley.
Because it will serve as a guide to Refuge and District management for the next
15 years, public input into the comprehensive conservation plan is vital. We
would like to thank all of the people who have contributed their time, expertise
and ideas to this planning process. All of your ideas are valuable and will contrib-ute
to the success of the plan.
We are especially grateful to Scott Sharkey for the use of his superb photographs
in this comprehensive conservation plan. We thank members of the Friends of
the Minnesota Valley for their help and their unflagging dedication to the envi-ronment.
And, finally, we are grateful to everyone who contributes time and
energy as a Refuge volunteer. You are truly the backbone of conservation.
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................................................... 5
The National Wildlife Refuge System ...................................................................................................... 5
Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System: ................................................................................ 6
The Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem .......................................................................... 6
Refuge Purpose .................................................................................................................................................. 7
Wetland Management District Purpose........................................................................................................... 8
Refuge and District Vision ................................................................................................................................ 8
Purpose and Need for Plan ............................................................................................................................... 9
Friends of the Minnesota Valley ..................................................................................................................... 10
History and Establishment .............................................................................................................................. 11
Lands Managed Under Leases or Agreements ............................................................................................ 11
Legal Context ................................................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ........................................................................................................... 13
Open Houses ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Issue-based Work Groups ............................................................................................................................... 14
Meetings and Other Public Forums................................................................................................................ 15
Public Use Survey ............................................................................................................................................ 15
Minnesota River Valley Area Survey ..................................................................................................... 15
Preparation and Publishing of CCP ................................................................................................................ 16
Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ........................................................................................ 16
Refuge Recreational Uses ........................................................................................................................ 16
Elimination of Confusing Rules and Regulations .......................................................................... 16
Completion of Minnesota Valley State Trail ................................................................................... 17
Continuance of High Quality Hunting and Fishing Opportunities .............................................. 17
Mountain Biking and Refuge Visitor Conflicts ............................................................................... 17
Horseback Riding Issues ................................................................................................................... 18
Environmental Education and Interpretation ....................................................................................... 18
Refuge Biology and Habitat Management ............................................................................................. 19
Refuge Land Acquisition and Watershed Activities ............................................................................ 19
External Threats and Conflicts................................................................................................................ 19
Mosquito Control ....................................................................................................................................... 20
Maintenance of Refuge and District Infrastructure ............................................................................. 20
Comments from the Public on the Draft CCP .............................................................................................. 21
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment ............................................................................................................ 22
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 22
Geography, Topography, and Hydrology ....................................................................................................... 22
Refuge River Units ................................................................................................................................... 22
Savage Fen ................................................................................................................................................. 23
Round Lake ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Wetland Management District ................................................................................................................. 24
Climate ............................................................................................................................................................... 24
Natural History ................................................................................................................................................ 25
Archeological and Cultural Values.................................................................................................................. 25
Social and Economic Context .......................................................................................................................... 27
Natural Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 27
Plant Communities .................................................................................................................................... 27
Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................................... 28
Forests ........................................................................................................................................................ 28
Oak Savannas ............................................................................................................................................. 29
Grasslands .................................................................................................................................................. 29
Fish and Wildlife Communities ................................................................................................................ 29
Birds ..................................................................................................................................................... 29
Mammals ............................................................................................................................................. 30
Fish....................................................................................................................................................... 30
Reptiles and Amphibians ................................................................................................................... 31
Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................... 31
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ....................................................................................................... 31
Fish, Wildlife and Plant Species of Management Concern ......................................................................... 32
Chapter 4: Refuge and District Management ........................................................................................ 39
Current Refuge and District Programs: Where We Are Today ............................................................... 39
Habitat Restoration .................................................................................................................................. 39
Habitat Management on the Refuge ....................................................................................................... 40
Deep Water Habitats .......................................................................................................................... 40
Small Streams..................................................................................................................................... 40
Wetlands .............................................................................................................................................. 40
Floodplain Forests .............................................................................................................................. 47
Hillside Forests .................................................................................................................................. 47
Oak Savanna ....................................................................................................................................... 47
Grasslands ........................................................................................................................................... 47
Exotic Species Control ....................................................................................................................... 48
Habitat Management on the Wetland Management District .............................................................. 48
Wetlands .............................................................................................................................................. 49
Grasslands ........................................................................................................................................... 49
Oak Savanna ....................................................................................................................................... 49
Forests ................................................................................................................................................. 49
Habitat Management: Private Lands Program..................................................................................... 49
Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 50
Refuge Public Recreation, Environmental Education and Outreach ................................................ 52
Hunting ................................................................................................................................................ 53
Youth Waterfowl Program ......................................................................................................... 53
Hunting Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities ............................................................. 53
Fishing ................................................................................................................................................. 53
Youth Fishing Day ....................................................................................................................... 54
Wildlife Observation ........................................................................................................................... 54
Wildlife Photography .......................................................................................................................... 54
Wildlife Interpretation ....................................................................................................................... 54
Environmental Education ................................................................................................................. 55
Pre-school ..................................................................................................................................... 55
Kindergarten – 3rd Grade .......................................................................................................... 55
4th – 12th Grade ........................................................................................................................... 55
Volunteer Contributions .................................................................................................................... 55
Wetland Management District Public Recreation, Environmental Education and Outreach........ 56
Refuge Mitigation Projects ...................................................................................................................... 57
Background ......................................................................................................................................... 57
Specific Mitigation Projects .............................................................................................................. 59
Archaeological and Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 59
Law Enforcement ..................................................................................................................................... 59
Wilderness Review ................................................................................................................................... 60
Future Management Direction: Where We Want To Go Tomorrow......................................................... 60
Goals, Objectives and Strategies ............................................................................................................. 60
Biological Goals: ......................................................................................................................................... 60
Goal 1. Floodplain Forest: .................................................................................................................. 60
Goal 2. Wetlands: ................................................................................................................................ 65
Goal 3. Upland Forest: ....................................................................................................................... 68
Goal 4. Grasslands and Oak Savanna: .............................................................................................. 70
Goal 5. Land Protection: .................................................................................................................... 71
Goal 6. Public Use: .............................................................................................................................. 76
Hunting......................................................................................................................................... 76
Fishing .......................................................................................................................................... 77
Wildlife Observation .................................................................................................................... 78
Wildlife Photography .................................................................................................................. 79
Wildlife Interpretation ................................................................................................................ 79
Environmental Education .......................................................................................................... 81
Inappropriate Recreational Uses: ............................................................................................. 82
Volunteer and Intern Programs: ............................................................................................... 83
Public Use Facilities .................................................................................................................... 84
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ............................................................................................................ 92
New and Existing Projects .............................................................................................................................. 92
Refuge Operating Needs (Highest Priority) ......................................................................................... 92
Wetland District Operating Needs (Highest Priority) ......................................................................... 93
Future Staffing Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 94
Partnership Opportunities ............................................................................................................................... 94
Step-down Management Plans ........................................................................................................................ 97
Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 97
Plan Review and Revision ............................................................................................................................... 98
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................... 99
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment.......................................................................................................... 101
Appendix A Exhibit 1: Goals, Objectives and Strategies by Management Alternative ................................ 129
Appendix B: Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 149
Appendix C: Priority Refuge and District Operational and Maintenance Needs ......................................... 155
Appendix D: List of Compatibility Determinations .......................................................................................... 161
Appendix E: Species List ..................................................................................................................................... 165
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements ............................................................................................................. 181
Appendix G: Mailing List ..................................................................................................................................... 187
Appendix H: Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 193
Appendix I: Land Protection Plan ....................................................................................................................... 197
Appendix J: Questions Frequently Asked About Land Acquisition ............................................................... 221
Appendix K: List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................. 227
Appendix L: Refuge Mitigation Plan, Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge ..................................... 231
List of Tables
Table 1: Fish, Wildlife and Plant Species of Concern to the Minnesota Valley NWR and
Wetland Management District ..................................................................................................................... 33-38
Table 2: New Positions Needed to Fully Implement the CCP ............................................................... 94
Table 3: Step-down Management Plan Schedule ...................................................................................... 97
List of Figures
Figure 1: Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................ 2
Figure 2: Round Lake Unit ......................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3: Minnesota Valley NWR and Wetland Management District ................................................ 4
Figure 4: Existing Habitat, Long Meadow Lake and Black Dog Units ................................................. 41
Figure 5: Existing Habitat, Upgrala, Wilkie and Bloomington Ferry Units ........................................ 42
Figure 6: Existing Habitat, Savage Fen Unit ........................................................................................... 43
Figure 7: Existing Habitat, Chaska Unit ................................................................................................... 44
Figure 8: Existing Habitat, Rapids Lake and Louisville Swamp Units ................................................ 45
Figure 9: Future Habitat Conditions, Long Meadow Lake and Black Dog Units ................................ 61
Figure 10: Future Habitat Conditions, Upgrala, Wilkie and Bloomington Ferry Units ..................... 62
Figure 11: Future Habitat Conditions, Chaska Unit ................................................................................ 63
Figure 12: Future Habitat Conditions, Rapids Lake and Louisville Swamp Units ............................. 64
Figure 13: Existing and Proposed Trails and Facilities, Long Meadow Lake and
Black Dog Units ........................................................................................................................... 85
Figure 14: Existing and Proposed Trails and Facilities, Upgrala, Wilkie and
Bloomington Ferry Units ........................................................................................................... 86
Figure 15: Existing and Proposed Trails and Facilities, Chaska Unit .................................................. 87
Figure 16: Existing and Proposed Trails and Facilities, Rapids Lake and
Louisville Swamp Units ............................................................................................................. 88
Figure 17: Minnesota Valley NWR Organization Chart, 2002 ............................................................... 95
Figure 18: Minnesota Valley NWR Organization Chart, 2017 ............................................................... 96
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Introduction
In the midst of 2.5 million people, down the road from the
largest shopping mall in the nation, Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge is a small vestige of Minnesota wildness. Bald
Eagles nest here, Woodcock preen, and Black-crowned Night
Herons stand poised on the edge of ponds, still as statues,
waiting for the glint of an unlucky fish. Waterfowl nest here,
and Tundra Swans rest up from a long migration. River otters
play, beavers build their meticulous and highly effective dams,
and foxes den within a few miles of the Twin Cities of Minne-apolis
and St. Paul, Minnesota.
It is a truly unique place. Of the more than 500 national wildlife
refuges managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Ser-vice),
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is
one of only four urban refuges. Long Meadow Lake, the north-ern
most unit of the Refuge, is just 10 miles south of downtown
Minneapolis.
Established in 1976, the Refuge was borne out of citizen concern for the diverse and
abundant fish, wildlife, and plant communities of the Lower Minnesota River Valley.
Today it consists of eight units along a 34-mile stretch of the Minnesota River located
between historic Fort Snelling and the City of Jordan (Figure 1). The Savage Fen Unit is
also located in the valley but is not immediately adjacent to the river. Nearly 12,500 acres
of the authorized 14,000 acres are currently owned in fee or managed as part of the
Refuge. Some areas are not owned by the Service but are administered through manage-ment
agreements. Although the Refuge is the single largest landowner along this portion
of the river, the valley itself contains a patchwork of ownerships including private land-owners,
non-profit organizations, corporations, cities, counties, and lands administered by
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). This mosaic of ownerships
offers great opportunities for partnerships but also requires a great deal of coordination
and cooperation among all land managers.
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge provides the Service a great opportunity to
showcase a variety of activities that occur within the National Wildlife Refuge System.
From strong citizen support to a variety of wildlife-dependent recreational programs to
an active habitat restoration and management program, this Refuge has a wonderful
story to tell. These features, plus the opportunity to significantly expand the Refuge land
base over the next 15 years, offers a very bright future for both the Service and the
citizens who support this effort.
The Round Lake Unit (Figure 2), a 152-acre tract containing a large permanent wetland
located in the City of Arden Hills, is also administered as a remote part of the Refuge.
Photograph by Scott Sharkey
2
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District Figure 1: Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
3
Figure 2: Round Lake Unit
4
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
Figure 3: Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
5
Unless stated otherwise, the use of the term “Refuge” in this document refers to all
Refuge units including Round Lake and the Savage Fen.
The Refuge is also responsible for a 14-county region known as the Minnesota Valley
Wetland Management District (District). It currently consists of more than 5,000 acres of
waterfowl production areas and conservation easements (Figure 3). District activities,
plus a very active Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, are seamlessly applied within
the watershed to complement the Refuge as well as other important natural areas
associated with the Minnesota River and the Cannon River watersheds.
A state-of-the-art Visitor and Wildlife Interpretive Center was completed in 1990 and
serves as the gateway to the Refuge at its Bloomington location, near the Mall of
America. Its exhibits, environmental education classrooms, and 125-seat auditorium help
make the Refuge a place where students and citizens of all ages have the opportunity to
learn, enjoy, respect, and develop an appreciation for wildlife in their natural habitats. An
estimated 300,000 visitors annually visit the Refuge and its associated waterfowl produc-tion
areas for a variety of reasons, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
interpretive programs. Minnesota Valley is truly a place where modern technology and
development coexist with some of nature’s most primitive and timeless rhythms of life.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The Refuge and District are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Ser-vice),
the primary federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing
the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. The Service oversees the
enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management and protection of migratory bird
populations, restoration of nationally significant fisheries, administration of the Endan-gered
Species Act, and the restoration of wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The Service
also manages the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Refuge and District lands are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, which was
founded in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican Island in Florida
as a sanctuary for brown pelicans. Today, the System is a network of over 500 refuges
covering more than 93 million acres of public lands and waters. Most of these lands (82
percent) are in Alaska, with approximately 16 million acres located in the lower 48 states
and several island territories. The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest
collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides
habitat for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish, and insects. As a
result of international treaties for migratory bird conservation as well as other
legislation, such as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, many refuges
have been established to protect migratory waterfowl and their migratory
flyways from their northern nesting grounds to southern wintering areas.
Refuges also play a vital role in preserving endangered and threatened species.
Among the most notable are Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, which provides
winter habitat for the whooping crane. Likewise, the Florida Panther Refuge protects
one of the nation’s most endangered predators.
6
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
Refuges also provide unique opportunities for people. When it is compatible with wildlife
and habitat conservation, they are places where people can enjoy wildlife-dependent
recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental
education, and environmental interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers, wildlife
trails, automobile tours, and environmental education programs. Nationwide, approxi-mately
30 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 1997.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established several
important mandates aimed at making the management of national wildlife refuges more
cohesive. The preparation of Comprehensive Conservation Plans is one of those man-dates.
The legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that the mission of
the National Wildlife Refuge System and purposes of the individual refuges are carried
out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System:
■ Fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) and further the System
mission.
■ Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and
plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
■ Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal popula-tions.
■ Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants.
■ Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the
United States, including ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems.
■ Foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and
their conservation, by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and compatible
wildlife-dependent public use. Such use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife obser-vation
and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
The Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem
The Refuge and District are located in the Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie
Ecosystem as currently defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This ecosystem is
primarily located in Minnesota and North Dakota with small sections extending into
Wisconsin and Iowa. This ecosystem occupies a major portion of the Prairie Pothole
Region of North America. The Prairie Pothole Region produces 20 percent of the conti-nental
waterfowl populations annually.
Historically, this portion of North America was subject to periodic glaciation and conse-quently,
glacial meltwaters were instrumental in forming the five major river systems
located or partly located within this ecosystem. These river systems are the Mississippi
River, St. Croix River, Red River, Missouri River, and the Minnesota River. Likewise,
glacial moraines and other deposits resulted in a myriad of lakes and wetlands that are
common throughout this area. Significant variation in the topography and soils of the
area attest to its dynamic glacial history.
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
7
The three major ecological communities within this ecosystem are the tallgrass prairie,
the northern boreal forest, and the eastern deciduous forest. Vegetation common to the
tallgrass prairie includes big bluestem, little bluestem, Indian grass, sideoats grama, and
switch grass. Native prairie also supports numerous ecologically important forbs such as
prairie cone flower, purple prairie clover, and blazing star. The northern boreal forest is
primarily comprised of a variety of coniferous species such as jack pine, balsam fir, and
spruce. Common tree species in the eastern deciduous forest include maple, basswood,
red oak, white oak, and ash. Current land uses range from tourism and timber industries
in the northern forests to intensive agriculture in the historic tallgrass prairie. Of the
three major ecological communities, the tallgrass prairie is by far the most threatened
with more than 99 percent of it having been converted for agricultural purposes.
Due to its ecological and vegetative diversity, this ecosystem supports at least 121
species of neotropical migrants and other migratory birds. It provides breeding and
migration habitat for significant populations of waterfowl plus a variety of other
waterbirds. The ecosystem supports several species of candidate and federally-listed
threatened and endangered species including the Bald Eagle, Piping Plover, Higgins eye
pearly mussel, Karner blue butterfly, prairie bush clover, Leedy’s roseroot, dwarf trout
lily, and the western prairie fringed orchid. The increasingly rare paddlefish and lake
sturgeon are also found in portions of this ecosystem.
Refuge Purpose
The Refuge was established by Congress in 1976 through the Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge Act (Public Law 94-466; October 8, 1976). In general, its purposes are to
(1) provide habitat for a large number of migratory waterfowl, fish, and other wildlife
species; (2) to provide environmental education, wildlife recre-ational
opportunities, and interpretive programs for hundreds of
thousands of Twin Cities residents; (3) to protect important natural
resource areas from degradation; and to (4) protect the valley’s
unique social, educational, and environmental assets.
The Act authorized the purchase of 9,500 acres for the Refuge. It
also acknowledged the presence of the Minnesota Valley State
Trail and the establishment of a wildlife recreation area, both to be
administered by MnDNR. The specific lands, waters, and interests
of the Refuge and the adjacent recreation area were to be identi-fied
through the development of a cooperatively prepared conser-vation
plan. That plan was completed in 1984 and has served as the
basis for Refuge development and management since that time. In
1984, the Act was amended to include an additional 2,000 acres in
the Refuge. This amendment plus the addition of the Mittelstad
tract (Rapids Lake Unit) in 1995 has now increased the authorized
Refuge size to approximately 14,000 acres.
Of particular note is Section 9 of the Act entitled “Continued Public Services.” This
section acknowledges the Refuge’s urban presence and does not allow the prohibition of
vital public services. Vital public services are defined in the Act as the continuation of
commercial navigation of the Minnesota River; the construction, improvement, and
Photograph by Scott Sharkey
8
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
replacement of highways and bridges; or any other activity that the Secretary of Interior
determines to be necessary. Consequently, several of these projects that directly affected
Refuge lands have occurred since establishment. Where these projects occurred, Refuge
staff have worked to minimize the impact of these projects through mitigation.
Wetland Management District Purpose
Minnesota Valley Wetland Management District was established in 1988 when the
Midwest Region of the Service implemented its broad-based Partners for Wildlife
program. Between 1988 and 1994, several Farmers Home Administration easements
within this 14-county district were assigned to Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge for management purposes. The Farmers Home Administration easements were
obtained by the Service through the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 7
(U.S.C. 2002) for “conservation purposes....” In addition, numerous high quality wetlands
were restored on private lands as part of this effort. The first waterfowl production area,
Soberg WPA, was purchased in 1994. Since 1988, over 5,000 acres of fee and easement
lands have been acquired as part of the District.
The Wetlands Loan Act of 1961 initiated the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program in
Minnesota. Lands are acquired under the authority of the Migratory Bird Hunting and
Conservation Stamp Act, and since 1958, under Public Law 85-585 as “Waterfowl Produc-tion
Areas”. The purpose of lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Hunting Conserva-tion
Stamp Act is “...as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “...all the provisions of
such act (the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929,16 U.S.C. 715d ) ...except the
inviolate sanctuary provisions...,” and “...for any other management purpose, for migra-tory
birds.”
The primary purpose of Minnesota Valley Wetland Management District, or District, is to
administer a complex of wetlands, grasslands, and limited amount of forests that provide
good habitat for waterfowl, grasslands nesting birds, and associated species. Secondary
objectives of the District include providing wildlife-dependent recreation, wildlife inter-pretation,
and environmental education to area citizens. In addition, the restoration of
wildlife habitats on fee, easement, and private lands contributes to the restoration and
protection of the Minnesota River watershed as well as the Cannon River in the Missis-sippi
River drainage basin.
Refuge and District Vision
The Refuge and the District will add richness to the social, cultural, economic, and
ecological communities by holding in public trust, a portion of the natural heritage of the
Minnesota River Basin and the Cannon River Watershed for the continuing benefit of the
American people. Within its area of influence, the Refuge and District will make signifi-cant
contributions toward:
■ Establishing an unbroken corridor of floodplain and hillside forest, wetlands, oak
savanna, and native prairie along the Minnesota River beginning at historic Fort
Snelling and proceeding up river to its origin at Big Stone Lake;
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
9
■ Managing diverse and abundant native fish and wildlife populations that use
healthy and productive native plant communities of the Minnesota River and its
watershed plus the Cannon River and its watershed;
■ Providing Minnesota citizens the opportunity to revitalize their spirits through
high quality wildlife-dependent recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation;
■ Supporting a community-based effort where citizens, businesses, private conser-vation
organizations, and local, state, and federal agencies combine their efforts
to restore and protect the Minnesota and Cannon rivers and their watersheds for
future generations.
Purpose and Need for Plan
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) articulates the management direction for
the Refuge and the District for the next 15 years. Through the development of goals,
objectives, and strategies, this CCP describes how the Refuge and District also contrib-ute
to the overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Several legislative
mandates within the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 have
guided the development of this plan. These mandates include:
■ Wildlife has first priority in the management of refuges.
■ Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, namely hunting, fishing, wildlife obser-vation,
wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation are
priority public uses of refuges. We will facilitate these activities when they do not
interfere with our ability to fulfill the Refuge’s purpose or the mission of the
Refuge System.
■ Other uses of the Refuge will only be allowed when determined appropriate and
compatible with Refuge purposes and mission of the Refuge System.
The plan will guide the management of Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and
the Minnesota Valley Wetland Management District by:
■ Providing a clear statement of direction for the future management of the
Refuge and the District.
■ Making a strong connection between Refuge activities and those activities that
occur off-Refuge in the District.
■ Providing Refuge and District neighbors, users, and the general public with an
understanding of the Service’s land acquisition and management actions on and
around the Refuge.
■ Ensuring the Refuge and District management actions and programs are consis-tent
with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
■ Ensuring that Refuge and District management is consistent with federal, state,
and county plans.
■ Establishing long-term continuity in Refuge and District management.
10
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
■ Providing a basis for the development of budget requests on the Refuge’s and
District’s operational, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
In addition to the above, this CCP will identify specific projects that will mitigate impacts
upon the Refuge from the construction and operation of runway 17/35 being built by the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. This issue will be discussed in greater detail
in Chapter 4 and Appendix L of the CCP.
Friends of the Minnesota Valley
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge owes it existence to a group of citizens who
were concerned about protecting the important fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the
Lower Minnesota River Valley in the early 1970s. Through hard work and determination,
they enlisted the support of more than 40 private groups and many citizens for conserv-ing
these important resources through the establish-ment
of a national wildlife refuge. Subsequent to
their efforts, Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale
introduced a bill to establish the Refuge on July 11,
1975. On October 8, 1976, Congress passed the
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge Act.
The Friends of the Minnesota Valley incorporated as
a non-profit organization on June 21, 1982. Its
mission is to support conservation and management
of the natural and cultural resources of the Lower
Minnesota River Watershed, and to promote envi-ronmental
awareness. The organization has a
membership of approximately 500 and is governed
by a Board of Directors. Since 1982, The Friends of the Minnesota Valley has been very
supportive of Refuge acquisition and development and due to its efforts, the Refuge has
been able to acquire nearly 11,500 acres and to complete its visitor and wildlife interpre-tive
center in 1990.
In 1991, the Friends employed part-time staff to begin implementing the Heritage
Registry program. This program is designed to encourage Refuge neighbors and other
private landowners in the Minnesota River Valley to adopt land management practices
that benefit fish, wildlife and plant communities. The Friends of the Minnesota Valley has
enrolled more than 125 private landowners in this program, including several corpora-tions.
Due to very similar goals and objectives, the Friends of the Minnesota Valley merged
with the Minnesota Valley Interpretive Association (MVIA) in 1998. Up until that time,
MVIA was a cooperating association and was largely responsible for administering the
Blufftop Bookshop, which is located in the Refuge visitor center. The Friends currently
serves as the cooperating association for this sales outlet. The Friends of the Minnesota
Valley employs full-time staff who are responsible for a variety of programs beyond the
Heritage Registry. Of particular note is the Leadership in Stewardship campaign, which
seeks to promote a healthy Lower Minnesota River Valley through an informed and
involved citizenry.
File Photograph
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
11
History and Establishment
The Lower Minnesota River Valley was long recognized as an important natural re-source.
Individuals as well as local, regional, state, and federal agencies supported
specific legislation to protect and enhance the natural, recreational, and cultural re-sources
of the valley. A major milestone of their efforts was the passage of the Minnesota
Valley National Wildlife Refuge Act of 1976 (PL 94-466). This Act established the original
9,500-acre Refuge, which was later expanded to 14,000 acres, and acknowledged an
adjacent 8,000-acre wildlife recreation area. In addition, the Act acknowledged that the
Minnesota Valley State Trail would provide an integral link between the Refuge and
wildlife recreation area along the lower 36 miles of the Minnesota River.
Among other items, the Act called for the completion of a comprehensive plan for the
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Recreation Area and State Trail. This plan
was completed in 1984 as a cooperative effort between the MnDNR and the Service.
Since its completion, this plan has provided guidance for the acquisition and management
of Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge as well as the management and develop-ment
of the State Trail and Recreation Area.
The Round Lake Unit of Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge was transferred as
U.S. Army surplus property to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in October, 1973. This
152-acre tract was administered by Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge until 1979, when
management was assumed by Minnesota Valley.
The first portion of the Savage Fen Unit (26 acres) was added to the Refuge in 1987. It
came about as a settlement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and
Fabcon, Inc., which had filled a portion of the wetland. Other lands have since been added
to this unit either through donations or actions initiated by the COE. The Service first
accepted management of these lands with the understanding that MnDNR would con-sider
them for exchange for habitats more closely aligned with the mission of the Refuge.
The 114-acre Soberg Waterfowl Production Area, which
is located in Scott and Dakota counties, was purchased
in 1994 and became the first Waterfowl Production Area
to be administered by the District. Since that time, 23
Waterfowl Production Areas totaling 4,105 acres have
been acquired within the 14-county District. In addition,
more than 1,000 acres of wetland conservation ease-ments
have been acquired. The Refuge also administers
several conservation easements obtained from the
Farmers Home Administration.
Lands Managed Under Leases or Agreements
The 1,400-acre Black Dog Lake Unit stretches along the south bank of the river from
Interstate Highway 35 on the west and Highway 77 on the east. In 1982, the Service
entered into a 50-year lease with Northern States Power to manage the area as part of
the Refuge. A portion of the Black Dog Preserve is managed as a Scientific and Natural
Area, a program run by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources that preserves
Photograph by Scott Sharkey
12
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
certain lands for their unique habitats. In 1997, the Service entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding with the City of Bloomington to manage the 735-acre Bloomington
Bluffs Open space. The Agreement calls for the area to be kept in a natural state while
still allowing for recreational use by the public. In addition, several small parcels of land
adjacent to the west side of the Rapids Lake Unit are managed under a Memorandum of
Agreement with the State of Minnesota.
Legal Context
In addition to the Refuge’s establishing legislation and the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, several Federal laws, executive orders, and regula-tions
govern administration of the Refuge. Appendix F contains a partial list of the legal
mandates that guided the preparation of this plan and those that pertain to Refuge
management activities.
Chapter 2 / The Planning Process
13
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
This CCP has been written with input and assistance from citizens,
conservation organizations, and employees of local and state agen-cies.
The participation of these stakeholders is vital and all of the
ideas have been valuable in setting the future direction of the Refuge
and the District. Refuge staff and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
as a whole are very grateful to everyone who has contributed time,
expertise and ideas throughout this process. We remain impressed
by the passion and commitment expressed by many for the lands
administered by the Refuge.
The CCP planning process began in October 1998 when a team
comprised of Refuge staff, a regional planner, an employee of the
Twin Cities Ecological Services Field Office, a representative from
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Executive
Director of the Friends of the Minnesota Valley were assembled.
During the months of November 1998 to March 1999, the planning
team reviewed the original Comprehensive Plan and associated
documents. In addition, this group identified a number of issues and
concerns that would likely affect the future of the Refuge and the
District. A list of required CCP elements such as maps, photos, and GIS data layers was
developed. Concurrently, federal and state mandates plus applicable local ordinances,
regulations, and plans were reviewed for application to this planning effort. Ultimately,
the team agreed to a process for obtaining public input and for completion of the Refuge
and District CCP.
Public input was obtained using several methods including open houses, issue-based focus
groups, public use surveys, and personal contacts.
Open Houses
Seven open houses were conducted during the spring and summer of 1999. The primary
purpose of the open houses was to obtain public input into the future direction of the
Refuge and its District. These events also gave Refuge staff the opportunity to revitalize
old friendships and develop some new ones. These citizens, non-profit organizations, and
cooperating agencies were notified of the events via news releases, posters displayed in
the various communities, the Refuge Calendar of Events, and direct mailings. Those
unable to attend the open houses were encouraged to submit written comments using a
pre-printed comment card or through regular correspondence. Many people who at-tended
open houses gave the comment cards to friends, family, and colleagues. A total of
241 people attended the open houses and submitted 110 comment cards. We also received
21 letters in the mail.
Photograph by Scott Sharkey
14
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
■ On March 31, 1999, an open house at the Refuge visitor center was held for non-profit
organizations and local agencies. Its purpose was to share knowledge,
identify existing or planned projects that may affect the Refuge and its District,
establish face-to-face contacts, and to ask for feedback regarding the planning
process.
■ On April 27, 1999, a public open house was held at the Refuge visitor center in
Bloomington, Minnesota.
■ On May 6, 1999, a public open house was held at the Student Union, Mankato
State University, Mankato, Minnesota.
■ On May 11, 1999, a public open house was held at Carver Village Hall, Carver,
Minnesota.
■ On May 19, 1999, a public open house was held at the City Hall, Burnsville,
Minnesota.
■ On May 25, 1999, a public open house was held at the Don Ney Environmental
Learning Center, Henderson, Minnesota.
■ On August 24, 1999, a public open house was held at Bethel College and Semi-nary,
Arden Hills, Minnesota. The primary purpose of this event was to obtain
public input into the future management of the Round Lake Unit.
Issue-based Work Groups
Based in part on the input received from the open houses, the Refuge planning team
decided to form issue-based work groups to discuss issues and obtain specific recommen-dations
for the CCP. Members of these work groups were chosen by the planning team
and were selected based on their interest, knowledge, and desire to participate in this
process. Individuals from a variety of backgrounds served on these work groups, includ-ing
technical experts plus county commissioners, avid hunters and anglers, volunteer
rangers, bird watchers, environmental educators, city recreation directors, MnDNR
employees, and Refuge staff. Each focus group was moderated by trained facilitators
from the MnDNR or the Service’s Regional Office. A brief description of their charge is
summarized in the following paragraphs.
Refuge Recreational Uses: This 21-member group reviewed existing Refuge and
District recreational activities in light of the six priority wildlife-dependent uses identi-fied
in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Threats and Conflicts: External threats and potential conflicts such as incompatible
development and contaminants were addressed by this 21-member group.
Refuge Management and Biology: Ongoing habitat management activities plus associ-ated
biological monitoring programs were the primary topics of discussion for this 22-
member focus group.
Refuge Expansion and Watershed Activities: This 20-member focus group concen-trated
on habitat restoration or protection opportunities beyond existing Refuge bound-aries
and out into the District.
Chapter 2 / The Planning Process
15
Environmental Education and Interpretation: This 18-member group reviewed
current environmental education and interpretive activities.
The Refuge hosted the initial meetings for the five focus groups on October 5, 1999, and
October 19, 1999, at the Refuge visitor center. Between October and December 1999,
each focus group convened from three to four times for two-hour meetings. Among other
items, they provided feedback on the Refuge’s mission, vision, and goals. In addition, each
focus group developed several recommendations to help the Refuge and its District
achieve their purposes over the next 15 years.
Meetings and Other Public Forums
In addition to open houses and focus groups, Refuge staff made presentations and
solicited comments about the CCP from various clubs and organizations over the nearly
3-year planning process. In February 2000, the Refuge manager and a MnDNR represen-tative
spoke to more than 200 mountain bike enthusiasts at the Bloomington REI store
concerning the issue of trail usage. Throughout the Spring of 2000 Refuge staff gave
presentations to various clubs such as the Society of Professional Engineers regarding
issues related to recreation and biology.
Public Use Survey
Minnesota River Valley Area Survey
In cooperation with the Refuge, Friends of the Minnesota Valley, and several other public
and corporate sponsors, the MnDNR conducted a survey of public attitudes toward the
Minnesota River Valley including recreational use, conservation and associated issues.
This survey was distributed to 1,500 river-area residents during July and August 2001.
The river was divided into five segments from Fort Snelling upstream to Le Sueur, thus
surveys were mailed to residents of both rural and urban areas.
Survey results were made available in May 2002. The planning team has reviewed our
recommended objectives and strategies in light of the public attitudes revealed by the
survey. The following are a few results that we found to be of interest:
■ 73 percent of respondents strongly to moderately agreed, or were neutral, when
asked if the government should buy land along the river for fish and wildlife
habitat or public recreation.
■ 74 percent of respondents strongly to moderately agreed there should be more
effort to preserve fish and wildlife habitat in the area.
■ Less that 3 percent of respondents thought that the level of effort to protect
wildlife habitat was too aggressive.
■ The most popular types of recreation activity in the area include nature/wildlife
observation, hiking/walking, sightseeing, and visiting historic or cultural sites
(35 percent to 55 percent of respondents participate).
16
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
■ 59 percent to 69 percent of respondents strongly to moderately agree that
opportunities for recreation, wildlife viewing, and learning about nature and
history should be expanded in the area.
Preparation and Publishing of CCP
The Refuge and District CCP and Environmental Assessment (EA) were primarily
written by Refuge staff with a great deal of assistance, review, and support from the
Regional Office. It was published in two phases and in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. The Final EA (Appendix A) presents a range of alternatives
for future management and identifies the preferred alternative. A public review period of
at least 45 days followed release of the draft plan. Alternative C, Balanced Public Use
and Habitat Management, was ultimately selected and is the basis of this CCP.
Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities
An array of issues, concerns, and opportunities were addressed during the planning
process. Numerous discussions among citizens, focus group participants, resource special-ists,
and Refuge planning staff brought to light several recurring themes.
Refuge Recreational Uses
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge provides a variety of wildlife-dependent
recreational uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
environmental education and interpretation. To facilitate these uses, a system of parking
lots, trails, and interpretive structures have been developed over the years. In addition,
the Refuge has worked cooperatively with the MnDNR to establish and maintain the
Minnesota Valley State Trail. Upon completion, the State Trail will transect several
Refuge units as it meanders through the Minnesota River Valley between Fort Snelling
State Park and the City of LeSueur.
Overall, many participants identified a need for greater public understanding and appre-ciation
of the Refuge and District lands and the recreational opportunities they offer. This
need can be addressed by several ways including enhanced communications through
appropriate brochures, web sites, signage, visitor center exhibitry, and high quality
recreational programming. A number of recreational issues became apparent during the
planning process and deserve further discussion. Specific recreational concerns, issues,
and opportunities are summarized as follows:
Elimination of Confusing Rules and Regulations
Due in part to the land ownership patterns within the Minnesota River Valley, there is a
great deal of public confusion about what type of recreation is appropriate on Refuge
lands and where this recreation is allowed. This perplexity is compounded by several
issues including inconsistent use regulations among public land management agencies,
lack of appropriate signs and brochures, a limited law enforcement presence, and the yet
to be completed Minnesota Valley State Trail. It was recognized that the first steps
toward addressing this very important issue are enhanced interagency coordination and a
commitment by all public land managers to address this issue.
Chapter 2 / The Planning Process
17
Completion of Minnesota Valley State Trail
As indicated previously, the Minnesota Valley State Trail has not been completed as
originally planned. Although the MnDNR is making progress toward this end, several
significant trail sections through Refuge lands await completion. To some degree, the
absence of this multiple-use trail has lead to some inappropriate uses of Refuge lands.
For example, a myriad of informal and unmaintained trails have been established in
several locations within the valley between Old Cedar Avenue and the Bloomington
Ferry Bridge. Likewise, the absence of bridges and trail crossings over streams and
creeks has contributed to the development of numerous braided trails by those seeking
access across these obstructions. Without an established and maintained trail, it has been
difficult to restrict public use along this corridor and limit damage to adjacent fragile
natural habitats.
There are several reasons why the Minnesota Valley State Trail has not been completed
including limited funding, unwilling sellers of keys tracts, and perhaps lack of public
support. Its completion has also been recently complicated by a local debate over the
proposed trail surface. More specifically, many mountain bike enthusiasts have expressed
opposition to a hard surfaced and/or paved trail. Hardened trail surfaces were called for
in the original Comprehensive Plan to provide access for elderly or disabled individuals.
We hope that preparation of this CCP will prompt a renewed effort by citizens, public
agencies, private conservation organizations, and recreational users of the valley to place
a high priority on the completion of the Minnesota Valley State Trail. Upon its comple-tion,
there is great potential for recreational users of this trail to develop an enhanced
appreciation for the cultural and natural resource values of the Refuge as well as the
greater Minnesota River Valley.
Continuance of High Quality Hunting and Fishing Opportunities
Although not endorsed by everyone, there was strong support among stake holders to
continue hunting and fishing programs on Refuge and District lands. Consistent with
requests to maintain these activities, the need to offer high quality recreational experi-ences
to Refuge users was frequently expressed throughout the planning process. For
example, public waterfowl hunting as it now occurs on Rice Lake is characterized by
over-crowding and a great deal of competition between hunters. Likewise, this area is
notable for hunting violations that occur each year including the killing of tundra swans,
late shooting, and the use of lead shot. In this particular case, some people suggested
improving the quality of this experience by initiating an adult hunter education program
and limiting the number of hunters allowed to hunt Rice Lake at any one time.
Mountain Biking and Refuge Visitor Conflicts
A very vocal and organized mountain biking group expressed the desire to continue using
much of the Minnesota River Valley for mountain biking. The rugged terrain and unde-veloped
landscape of the valley has attracted a growing number of bikers who use the
new heavy-framed bikes designed to traverse rough and uneven terrain. With the
exception of one semi-official trail established on City of Bloomington property, no
mountain bike trails have been designated or developed in this area. As a result, some
mountain bike enthusiasts took it upon themselves to establish a continuous trail between
the Bloomington Ferry Bridge and Lyndale Avenue. Much of this single tract trail
crosses both Refuge and private lands without authorization.
18
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
Several comments were received about the use of mountain
bikes on Refuge lands and conflicts with other Refuge visitors.
For example, bird watchers and nature photographers have
encountered aggressive mountain bikers on Refuge trails. In
many cases, these pedestrians were forced off hiking trails by
these bikers. On a related issue, some people noted the
excessive and unchecked erosion that currently exists in the
Bloomington Bluffs area of the Refuge northeast of Lyndale
Avenue. This natural resource degradation is due, in part, to
improperly designed trails and off-trail usage by some moun-tain
bikers.
Consistent with the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997,
bicycling beyond established roads or trails is not an appropri-ate
use of a national wildlife refuge. In addition, the establish-ment
of a single-track trail specifically for mountain biking
purposes is also inappropriate, especially on Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge. Consequently, the Refuge will
address this issue through the completion of the CCP.
Horseback Riding Issues
Horseback riding is currently limited on the Refuge to those
portions transected by the Minnesota Valley State Trail and a
small, unofficial trail around Fisher Lake on the Wilkie Unit.
In light of the popularity of this activity, a number of equestrians attended the open
houses to express their desire to maintain and possibly expand riding opportunities on
Refuge lands. Most of the requests came from people who live upstream from Shakopee
and who currently use portions of the State Trail for this pastime. Several individuals
suggested that any new lands added to the Refuge allow for horseback riding.
As with mountain biking, unrestricted horseback riding is not an appropriate use of the
Refuge. This CCP also addresses this issue by limiting horseback riding to the State Trail
where it transects Refuge lands.
Environmental Education and Interpretation
Several comments were received in support of the Refuge’s existing environmental
education and interpretive programs. Some people suggested program modifications or
improvements through enhanced partnerships and cooperation with other agencies, non-profit
organizations, industry and neighboring landowners. It was also suggested that
new sources of volunteers could be developed to improve educational and interpretive
programs as well as other Refuge activities. More importantly, many people suggested
that a renewed effort to strengthen partnerships with schools throughout the area would
greatly benefit the Refuge.
In 1992, a concept plan for the Refuge’s environmental education and interpretive
programs was developed along the theme of “How Should We Live Together?” This plan
examined the need to convey the Refuge’s unique identity and create a thought provok-ing
interpretive experience for Refuge visitors. Among other items, this plan sought to
link the various units of the Refuge with the visitor center through consistent messages.
USFWS File Photograph
Chapter 2 / The Planning Process
19
Several recommendations were included in this plan, some of which have since been
implemented. Prior to incorporating any major changes to Refuge environmental and
interpretive programs, it is very important that this concept plan be reviewed, modified,
and/or updated. Topics that should be addressed through this review include environmen-tal
education curricula and programming and their relevance to Minnesota public school
graduation standards, interpretive and special events, preservation of Refuge’s cultural
and historical features, and replacement of visitor center exhibitry and onsite informa-tional
kiosks.
Refuge Biology and Habitat Management
A thorough understanding of the biological communities and their processes is fundamen-tal
to sound fish and wildlife habitat management. Many stakeholders understand this
concept and consequently, several expressed a strong desire to enhance the capability of
the Refuge biological program. Among other items, participants recommended a compre-hensive
inventory of the flora and fauna, especially rare remnant native plant and animal
communities existing on Refuge and District lands.
The group acknowledged the importance of continuing Refuge and District habitat
management programs such as prescribed burning and marsh management, consistent
with well prepared habitat management plans. Future efforts should include plans for
target species such as neotropical migrants and the control of exotic plant and animal
species. It was also recommended that scientifically-based monitoring programs be
designed and implemented to document changes in plant and animal communities in
response to habitat management.
Refuge Land Acquisition and Watershed Activities
Many stakeholders understood that the health and vitality of many natural resource
areas, including Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, is very dependent upon the
overall health of its watershed. In light of this, the Refuge was encouraged to continue its
work within the watershed of the Minnesota River in cooperation with many others. In
particular, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and the acquisition of Waterfowl
Production Areas and easements were believed to be very beneficial for a host of species
and resource concerns.
Concurrent with the need to work within the watershed, many stakeholders suggested
expanding the Refuge upstream by acquiring lands from willing sellers that would
provide good quality wildlife habitat. Many suggested that adjacent hillside forest and
bluff land should be acquired along with floodplain parcels to ensure long-term biological
values of the Minnesota River Valley.
External Threats and Conflicts
Due to its urban location, the Refuge is subject to numerous threats and conflicts to its
lands and natural resources. As the Twin Cities population increases, so does the demand
to use any available open space for dissipation of noise, installation of utilities, and
drainage of storm waters.
20
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
An ongoing issue of significant concern is the impact that existing storm water sewer
discharges have upon the health of Refuge wetlands. In particular, the pollution entering
Long Meadow Lake from the City of Bloomington storm water sewers is cause for great
concern. As of this writing, Refuge staff have not been successful in finding agreement
with the City to address this problem. In the future, however, Refuge staff, with the
assistance of other conservation organizations, will attempt to work with the cities along
the Minnesota River to avoid or eliminate storm water pollution before it enters Refuge
lands.
Other potential conflicts include incompatible land use and development, toxic spills, and
general degradation of the river and its watershed. Several stakeholders expressed their
concern throughout the planning process about these threats and conveyed their views
about how they should be addressed. Although the Service, as an agency, only plays a
minor role in all of these issues, it was believed that the Refuge needs to continue to
cooperate and communicate with developers and city/county planners to avoid or mini-mize
any potential threats.
Mosquito Control
Since 1988, the Refuge has prohibited treatment of its lands for mosquitoes except in the
case of a health emergency. The policy was implemented after the Defenders of Wildlife
and other environmental organizations filed a suit against the Service for allowing control
of mosquitoes on Refuge lands. An out-of-court settlement was reached after the Service
agreed to conduct an environmental review of its program. Following the completion of
an environmental assessment and because of potential negative environmental effects,
the Service adopted a policy that allows treatment on the refuge to occur only in the
event of a human health emergency. Since the policy was adopted, there has not been a
human health emergency associated with mosquitoes on the Refuge.
Maintenance of Refuge and District Infrastructure
The Refuge and its facilities are considered some of the finest in the area and most
stakeholders believed that they needed to be maintained at a high standard. As acknowl-edged
by many, the maintenance of the Refuge’s infrastructure is one of the largest
challenges facing an urban national wildlife refuge. A large amount of capital improve-ments
including a state-of-the-art visitor center, 17 entrance signs, 12 parking lots, nine
information kiosks, six historic structures, six bridges, 10 water control structures, two
maintenance complexes, and miles of hiking trails all translate into significant mainte-nance
needs. These facilities, combined with a relatively high level of vandalism, arson,
dumping, and boundary encroachment, place excessive demands upon the Refuge’s
maintenance staff and its limited budget. Added to these responsibilities are nearly 5,000
acres of fee and easement lands scattered throughout the District.
Many stakeholders were surprised to learn of the small size of the maintenance staff and
the Refuge’s limited budget in light of all its maintenance needs. Others expressed a
strong opinion that current Refuge staffing and budget levels are not sufficient to main-tain
these facilities. They further suggested that the Refuge, the Service, and its support
within the community will erode if the current maintenance backlog is left unaddressed.
Chapter 2 / The Planning Process
21
Comments from the Public on the Draft CCP
Verbal and written comments received from the public concerning the Draft CCP con-tributed
to several modifications in this document. The Service received 32 letters and e-mail
comments during the review period. The comments covered a variety of topics and
detail, and not all thoughts could result in direct changes to the CCP. For example,
several writers simply endorsed the future direction of Refuge management or a specific
program presented in the plan. In a few cases, reviewers offered technical changes in
wording and we were able to easily incorporate those ideas. However, a few issues,
including proposals for outdoor amphitheaters, required further discussion in the plan.
We will examine those issues in Chapter 4.
22
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Introduction
All lands administered by Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge are located in east central Minnesota. This portion of
the State is characterized by the confluences of the Minnesota
and the St. Croix rivers with the Mississippi River. The
Cannon River and the Vermillion River, both smaller tributar-ies
of the Mississippi, are also located in east central Minne-sota.
These river systems lend a great deal of historic significance
to this part of Minnesota. Today, it is the most populous
portion of the State with more than 2.5 million citizens living
within the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area. Its
continued growth places additional development pressure on
any remaining open space and natural resources. Conse-quently,
many natural resource agencies and non-profit
conservation organizations are doing what they can to save
the most important natural resource sites in this area from
development.
Geography, Topography, and Hydrology
Refuge River Units
The river units of the Refuge lie along a 34-mile stretch of the lower portion of the
Minnesota River between historic Fort Snelling and the City of Jordan. Approximately
90 percent of the Refuge is located within the 100-year floodplain. The surrounding bluffs
have slopes of 12-25 percent and at their crest average 100 feet elevation above the river
valley. A natural levee along the river channel in several portions of the river has created
many natural wetlands and shallow lakes in the floodplain. These wetlands are very
productive and of considerable importance to waterfowl and waterbirds. A significant
portion of these riverine wetlands are recharged from emerging groundwater seeps and
springs along the toe of the bluff. Small feeder creeks and streams are also common in the
floodplain on or near several Refuge units. Consequently, the water quality of these
wetlands is high where the natural flows and recharge areas have not been altered by
development.
The Minnesota River is the largest tributary of the Upper Mississippi River. From its
source near Big Stone Lake in western Minnesota, the Minnesota flows southeast for 224
miles to Mankato, then northeast for 106 miles to its confluence with the Mississippi
River at Fort Snelling. It transects the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area in a
Photograph by Scott Sharkey
Chapter 3 / Refuge Environment
23
northeast direction and contains lands typical of an urban to rural continuum. The river
itself meanders very slowly through the valley and averages a grade of 0.8 foot per mile
from Mankato to Carver. Its gradient is nearly level from Carver to its confluence with
the Mississippi River.
The watershed of the Minnesota River is approximately 16,900 square miles, of which
2,000 square miles are located in South Dakota and Iowa. Most of the area was historic
tallgrass prairie with high densities of prairie potholes. Since development, modern day
agriculture has converted over 99 percent and 90 percent of its historic grasslands and
wetlands, respectively, to cropland.
Due in part to this dramatic change in land use, the Minnesota River is subject to fre-quent
flooding that has precluded most development within its floodplain. Although
water quality seems to be improving, the Minnesota River remains the most silt-laden
and polluted tributary of the Upper Mississippi River. Other sources of pollution that
may affect the Minnesota River and its associated resources include leachates from
landfills, storm water runoff, and untreated municipal waste. Situated in the lower
portion of the Minnesota River, the Refuge and its physical, biological, cultural, and
historical features are greatly affected by the river’s distinct personality.
Over 50 different soils have been identified in the Refuge and most are comprised of
alluvial, marsh, and peat land soil types. Hayden, Estherville, and Peaty Muck are soil
series typical of upland forests, dry prairies, and marshes, respectively.
Savage Fen
The 400-acre Savage Fen complex is located within the City of Savage at the toe of the
north-facing Minnesota River bluff. As suggested by its name, this area contains a fen
that was created in part, by the discharge of ground waters onto the floodplain of the
river. Uncommon and unique plant communities evolved under these fen conditions. The
Savage Fen is comprised of very poorly drained peat and muck soils ranging from 18
inches to 3 feet in depth. These areas are typically underlain by mineral soils. Over the
years, urban development has encroached upon and destroyed portions of the Savage
Fen. The Refuge currently owns 200 acres of this fen while the remaining lands are
either owned by MnDNR or by private landowners.
Round Lake
The 152-acre Round Lake Unit is within the City of Arden Hills in Ramsey County. It is
adjacent to the now dismantled Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant and is bounded on
the west by industrial development and on the south and east by private homes. This unit
lies within an area known as the Anoka Sand Plain, which was historically characterized
by oak savanna and sand prairie. Its topography is highly variable and its upland soils are
a dark sandy loam that support a heterogeneous mixture of grassland, trees and shrubs.
Hydric soils dominate the 120-acre permanent wetland.
The deep sediments of the wetland have elevated concentrations of heavy metals includ-ing
zinc, chromium, and cadmium. The origin of these contaminants was the Ammunition
Plant, which during World War II allowed industrial pollutants to enter area surface
waters and consequently, some of these contaminants found their way into Round Lake.
24
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
Ongoing investigations by the U.S. Army in cooperation with Service staff and several
other agencies are intended to determine the threat, if any, that these contaminants have
on the biological communities of this area.
Wetland Management District
The District consists of 14 counties that overlay a major portion of east central Minne-sota.
The northeastern portion of this District (Chisago and Washington counties) is
adjacent to the St. Croix River and is characterized by rolling terrain interspersed with
wetlands, lakes, and small creeks. Both of these counties are experiencing phenomenal
population increases. Hennepin and Ramsey counties are where Minneapolis and St. Paul
are located, respectively, and for the most part there is only limited opportunity to
undertake habitat restoration and protection activities. Historically, however, these
counties contained an array of lakes, wetlands, and
streams that offered excellent fish and wildlife
habitats. Any remaining wildlife habitats have been
largely influenced by these cities and their infrastruc-ture.
The central counties of the District, namely Carver,
Scott, and Dakota, lie primarily within the Minnesota
River watershed and contain a variety of lakes,
wetlands, and remnant habitats that attest to its
glaciated past. However, much of the open space and
agricultural lands in these counties are rapidly being
converted to suburban developments or rural residen-tial.
The western and southern counties of the District
are Sibley, Nicollet, Le Sueur, Rice, Blue Earth,
Waseca, and Steele. Most of these counties are rural in
nature and lie within the immediate watersheds of the
Minnesota River or the Cannon River. Topography in
these counties is also quite variable due to their glacial
history and the presence of the river systems.
A wide variety of soils occur throughout the District. In general, soil productivity in-creases
from north to south within the District where sandy soils of northern Ramsey
County transition into highly productive silt-loams of Blue Earth County. Most of the
lands and easements administered by the Refuge in the District are comprised of a high
percentage of hydric soils that are marginal for cropland use.
Climate
The climate in east central Minnesota is classified as a subhumid continental type charac-terized
by significant variations between summer and winter temperatures. The region
has four distinct seasons with moderate spring and fall weather. Summer is comfortable
because lakes and trees serve as natural air conditioners. In contrast, Minneapolis is the
second coldest city in the United States with an average daily temperature of 35 F (1.8
C). The region receives on average 34 inches of precipitation each year and most of this
occurs as rainfall between May and September. Annual snowfall averages approximately
45 inches.
Photograph by Scott Sharkey
Chapter 3 / Refuge Environment
25
Natural History
Eleven thousand years ago, during the Pleistocene Epoch, an inland sea named Glacial
Lake Agassiz was formed from the meltwaters of the retreating eastern edge of the Des
Moines Lobe of the Lurentide Ice Sheet. Lake Agassiz was 700 feet deep and covered
over 100,000 square miles in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Manitoba. Torrential meltwa-ter
drainage from Lake Agassiz created the River Warren, which varied from 1 to 7 miles
in width and from 75 to 200 feet in depth. In most of the lower river valley, the river
action carved out a very wide and deep channel. As the Ice Age diminished and a north-ern
outlet to Hudson Bay developed, the levels of both Lake Agassiz and the River
Warren receded. The resulting underfit stream meandered through the extremely wide
floodplain bordered by broad terraces of rock, sand, and gravel. The higher terraces have
been rounded-off and dissected by later erosion. These terraces form the bluffs of what is
now known as the Minnesota River Valley. Today, the Minnesota River Valley is a
corridor of floodplain, forest, and wetlands that extends across some of Minnesota’s most
productive and intensively cultivated agricultural lands. The valley is classified as a
northern floodplain forest ecosystem and flows through the Big Woods, Mississippi Sand
Plains, and Southern Oak Barrens landscape regions of the State.
Archeological and Cultural Values
Archeological evidence shows that people have lived in the vicinity of the Lower Minne-sota
River Valley and south of the valley for almost 12,000 years. The first people, known
as Paleo Indians, arrived shortly after the glaciers left the area. They are considered to
have been nomadic family groups subsisting on the large mammals of that period and left
behind little evidence of their occupancy. Even if these people used the valley, the cata-strophic
floods of the ancient glacial River Warren and accumulating siltation in the
Minnesota River floodplain would have destroyed and deeply buried archeological
remains. Although no Paleo Indian sites have been discovered in the vicinity, their
distinctive projectile points have been found. Paleo Indian sites could be expected on the
bluff tops along the Minnesota River as well as away from the river.
The people of the 5,000-year Archaic period that followed continued in the hunting-gathering
tradition. However, the large mammals had died off and the evidence for these
people shows larger groups with some seasonal settlement and a wider array of lithic
tools exploiting a more diversified environment. Bison appear to have been an important
part of their subsistence. This period includes the hot and dry altithermal (4700-3000
B.C.) when most surface water disappeared. Archaic period sites would likely be found in
the trickle remnant of the Minnesota, Cannon, and other rivers, and in the bottom of
formerly and subsequently large wetland basins.
Sites of the Woodland period are numerous and are found within the Refuge and the
District as well as many more on other lands in the area. This period is characterized by
pottery, ritual human burials, the bow-and-arrow, and semi-permanent settlements. The
population increased and diversified. The people followed a diverse subsistence pattern
based on a seasonal round of various habitat resource harvesting and storage, and
included gardens. Some evidence for warfare exists. Sites are usually but not always
associated with water, and are otherwise found in a variety of landforms including river
floodplains. These woodland cultures existed until the arrival of Europeans in the middle
of the 17th century.
26
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
The Minnesota River Valley has been a major route for exploration, trade, and commerce
throughout its history. Pierre LeSueur first explored the Minnesota River in the 1680s
and 1690s. Likewise, the Dakota Indians used the river to transport beaver, deer, and
bison hides through the fur trading era of the 1700s and 1800s. Fort Snelling was con-structed
in 1820 to regulate Indian trade and to guard the region from British intrusion.
Fur posts, missions, and Dakota villages were common throughout the Lower Minnesota
River Valley in the 1830s. River and keel boat traffic increased which gave life to in-creased
commerce and the promise of new lands. The signing of the treaty of Traverse
Des Sioux in 1851 opened the Minnesota Territory to European settlement and over the
next 20 years, paths and oxcart trails became roads and ferries were replaced by bridges.
During the 1870s riverboats were replaced with railroads as seemingly endless grass-lands
succumbed to the mow board plow. Lands that were inhabited by Native Ameri-cans
and roaming herds of bison and elk went through a very significant change in less
than one generation. By the turn of the century, the Minnesota River Basin had become
one of the most productive agricultural regions in North America.
In the early 1900s, a myriad of wet meadows and shallow wetlands within the Minnesota
River watershed were converted into cropland. Initially, shallow ditches were con-structed
to drain these areas into nearby creeks and lakes. As horse-drawn plows and
planters were replaced by tractors capable of handling increasingly larger machinery,
deeper and wider ditches were constructed and many of the natural creeks and streams
were straightened and significantly altered. Ultimately, most of this drainage ended up in
the Minnesota River.
At the same time, Twin Cities residents began to use portions of the Minnesota River
Valley for recreation. Country homes were constructed on its bluffs and many joined
privately-owned gun clubs that offered good waterfowl hunting. As the interest in these
natural resources began to grow, so did the desire to conserve the Minnesota River. The
recreational significance of the valley was first formally recognized in 1934 by Governor
Floyd B. Olson when he proposed a 42,000-acre park between Fort Snelling and the City
of Shakopee. Likewise, Theodore Wirth proposed a similar park in 1935, as did the State
of Minnesota in 1939. Unfortunately, none of these dreams materialized, in part because
of the onset of World War II.
After World War II, the Cargill Corporation purchased shipyards at Savage for a grain
elevator and barge loading facility for shipment of grain downstream to St. Louis and
New Orleans. To facilitate this, portions of the river were straightened and a 9-foot
channel was dredged between Shakopee and its confluence with the Mississippi River.
Interest in the Minnesota River as an important natural resource resurfaced in the 1960s
when the State of Minnesota established Fort Snelling State Park in 1961. The Minnesota
River was one of four rivers in the state designated by the Legislature as a state canoe
and boating route in 1963. Subsequently, the Legislature authorized the Minnesota Valley
State Trail in 1969 which extends from Fort Snelling to LeSueur. During this period, local
units of government also began preserving the natural resources of the valley. For
example, the Hennepin County Park Reserve District acquired the James J. Wilkie Park
Reserve located near Shakopee and Savage. Likewise, Bloomington acquired portions of
the valley for park purposes. Some of these lands eventually became part of the Refuge.
Chapter 3 / Refuge Environment
27
The 1970s brought increased environmentalism and significant change to the Valley. In
reaction to the proposed expansion of the Burnsville landfill, which is located in the
floodplain, a non-profit citizen’s organization known as the Burnsville Environmental
Council proposed the creation of a national wildlife refuge and recreation area. With the
support of the Bloomington Natural Resource Commission in 1973, an ad hoc Lower
Minnesota Valley Citizen’s Committee was established to promote the refuge and recre-ation
area concept. Their dreams were realized in 1976 with the passage of the Minnesota
Valley National Wildlife Refuge Act (Public Law 94-466).
Social and Economic Context
The seven-county Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is a vibrant community that serves as a
major hub for agriculture, transportation, industry, finance, trade, and technology.
Several renowned universities, including the University of Minnesota, make significant
contributions to education, science, and medical research. The well-known Guthrie
Theater and the world-class Minneapolis Institute of Art reflect area residents’ interest
in the arts. The world famous Mall of America in Bloomington is located directly up-stream
from Refuge lands. Year-round outdoor recreation is very important to the
citizens of the area and many enjoy activities such as boating, fishing, swimming, skating,
skiing, and snowmobiling. These residents are concerned about the quality of their
environment as reflected by the presence of more than 30 environmental education and
interpretive centers. Over the past decade, this vibrant economy has seen unprecedented
growth which has lead to significant suburban sprawl. New or modernized infrastructure
that support this growth includes roads, bridges, utilities, and airports. To a large degree,
all of this places added developmental pressure on any remaining open space in this
portion of Minnesota.
Natural Resources
Plant Communities
The Refuge and the District are located within the transition zone between the Eastern
Broadleaf Forest and the Prairie Parkland ecoregions as defined by Bailey, et al. Plant
communities within this transition contain a mixture of hardwood forest, oak savanna,
and mesic prairie. The many lakes, wetlands, streams, and springs of these ecoregions
exhibit diverse emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation. The specific community
types and their quality are dependent upon a number of factors including climate, soils,
historical vegetation, previous disturbance, and habitat restoration and management
activities.
The Minnesota County Biological Survey, a program of the MnDNR, has mapped rare
biological features on the Refuge and most of the Wetland District. The goal of the
Survey is to identify significant natural areas and to collect and interpret data on the
distribution and ecology of rare plants, rare animals, and native plant communities.
On a refined scale, Refuge and District vegetation have been mapped using the Minne-sota
Land Cover Classification System as developed by the MnDNR in partnership with
The Nature Conservancy. This five-tier system integrates cultural features, non-native
vegetation, natural and semi-natural vegetation into a comprehensive land cover classifi-
28
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
cation system. To the degree possible, we will use the terminology and definitions of this
system to describe site-specific plant communities.
Wetlands
Refuge units contain a variety of wetlands ranging from shallow wet meadows and
calcareous fens to permanently flooded mixed emergent marshes. The river units are
dominated by the latter where water is continuously present. Nearly all of these wet-lands
are spring fed and most of these large riverine basins are surrounded by mature
cottonwood, willow, silver maple, and box elder. Water control structures have been
installed on several basins and water levels are managed to control rough fish and greatly
improve the productivity of the aquatic communities. Many species of waterfowl, marsh,
and waterbirds are attracted to the resulting hemi marsh conditions in search of food and
cover. Purple loosestrife occurs in some of these wetlands and is a major concern as an
invasive, exotic plant.
Calcareous fens are also present on a few units, most notably on the Savage Fen. These
wetlands are typically located at the toe of the Minnesota River bluff and occur on
shallow or deep peaty soils in areas of calcareous groundwater discharge. The high
concentrations of dissolved salts plus discharge water low in oxygen promotes the
occurrence of rare plant species in the community. The long-term viability of fens is very
much dependent upon land uses. Any significant reduction in the amount of upstream
permeable soils and related groundwater discharge can threaten this rare plant commu-nity.
Round Lake is a 120-acre permanent wetland surrounded by cottonwood, maple, and box
elder. The shallow lake is an open body of water and aquatic emergents are limited to a
narrow fringe of cattail, slender bulrush, and water lily. Two storm water sewers enter
Round Lake and have the potential to impact its water quality. A previously installed
water control structure provides water level management capabilities. Due to a number
of factors, including the potential exposure of heavy metals, water levels for Round Lake
have been maintained at a constant level over the past 15 years.
The Waterfowl Production Areas and easements located within the District are charac-terized
by temporary, seasonally flooded, and semipermanent emergent and cattail
marshes. These wetlands overlay hydric soils and most have been restored on land
formerly used for agriculture. The productivity of these wetlands is generally high due to
periodic drought and recharging. The value of these areas to birds, mammals, reptiles,
amphibians, and invertebrates increases as the diversity of wetland types increases
within any geographic area.
Forests
Floodplain forests historically dominated much of the floodplain along the Minnesota
River and its tributaries. Today, this plant community remains on several of the Refuge
river units and a few Waterfowl Production Areas. Typical tree species found in these
seasonally flooded areas include silver maple, cottonwood, American elm, green ash,
boxelder, and occasionally, bur oak. The understory of these forests is generally open and
in places the groundcover consists of wood nettle. In the past several years, former
Refuge croplands that were historical floodplain forest have been replanted with species
typical of this community.
Chapter 3 / Refuge Environment
29
Oak forests dominated by northern pin and white
oaks are the most common upland forest commu-nity
on the Refuge. These stands occur on nutri-ent-
poor hillsides and well-drained sandy soils
along the Minnesota River Valley. The shrub layer
in these communities is frequently dense where
American hazel, dogwood, and blackberries are
commonly found. The control of European buck-thorn,
a prolific exotic in some of these plant
communities, is a very significant challenge.
Oak Savannas
Oak savanna, a mixture of prairie and oak stands, is critically imperiled throughout the
Midwest. Many of the oak forests described above were historic oak savanna prior to
European settlement and the subsequent control of fires. Natural regeneration of this
plant community is rare due to the inability of oak to reproduce under forest canopies.
Since 1994, several oak savanna restoration sites have been identified on the Refuge.
Restoration has been initiated on these sites through a rigorous combination of mechani-cal
treatment and prescribed burning. Initial results are encouraging as evidenced by the
return of a diverse understory of native grasses and forbs.
Grasslands
Remnant native prairie is some of the most diverse and important plant communities that
exist in the Midwest. These rare and unique grasslands on Refuge units include both
mesic and dry prairie and they are frequently interspersed with woodland areas, espe-cially
those forested sites protected from periodic fires. Mesic prairie is dominated by tall
grasses including big bluestem and Indiangrass. Medium-height grasses such as little
bluestem and side oats grama dominate dry prairies. Both mesic and dry prairies found
on the Refuge contain shrubs such as leadplant and wild rose. Pasque flower and purple
prairie clover are commonly found in both plant communities.
Native grassland restoration has occurred on upland sites of Refuge units, Waterfowl
Production Areas, easements, and associated private lands for many years. Former
croplands are typically planted to native grass mixtures consisting of big bluestem, little
bluestem, switch grass, side oats grama, and Canada wild rye. A mixture of forbs is also
planted to enhance the biological diversity of many of these sites.
Fish and Wildlife Communities
The habitats described above support an array of wildlife species that are common to east
central Minnesota. A rich diversity of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians
inhabit lands administered by Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
Birds
The Refuge and its associated District attracts over 260 species each year to its diverse
habitats. Of these, over 120 are known to nest in the area. Common waterfowl of the area
include Canada Goose, Mallard, Wood Duck, Blue-winged Teal, Gadwall, and American Photograph by Scott Sharkey
30
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
Wigeon. Waterfowl concentrate on Refuge and
District wetlands during spring and fall.
Marsh and waterbirds frequently observed in the
valley and surrounding areas include Great Egrets,
Double-crested Cormorant, Great Blue Heron, Green
Heron, and Black-crowned Night- Heron. A heron
rookery consisting of an estimated 750 nest sites
exists on the Wilkie Unit. The most prolific species of
this colony are Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets.
Exposed mud flats on Refuge riverbanks and Water-fowl
Production Area wetlands attract shorebirds
including Greater and Lesser Yellowlegs and Spotted
Sandpiper. Both Common Snipe and American Wood-cock
are commonly found on these lands as well.
Neo-tropical migrants attracted to forested habitats
include thrushes, vireos and warblers. Year-round
residents include Downy, Hairy, Pileated and Red-bellied
Woodpecker; Wild Turkey; and Ring-necked
Pheasant. Birds of prey inhabiting Refuge lands
include Red-tailed Hawk, American Kestrel, Sharp-shinned
Hawk and Cooper’s Hawk.
Mammals
At least 50 mammals occur on Refuge lands as year-round
residents and the most visible of these, of
course, is the whitetail deer. During the 1970s and
1980s, deer populations exceeding 100 per square mile within the urban portions of the
Refuge significantly damaged the area’s vegetation. Populations have since been de-creased
to a more sustainable level of 20-25 deer per mile using a combination of con-trolled
hunts and sharpshooting. The removal of an average of 45 deer each year on
Refuge lands is necessary to keep the populations at this level.
Mammals attracted to aquatic habitats include mink, muskrat, raccoon and beaver. As
with most refuges, relatively high populations of beaver tend to complicate water man-agement
activities. River otter, once nearly eliminated in this area, are now occasionally
seen utilizing Refuge wetlands and river banks.
Small mammals typical of this area include short-tail shrew, white-footed mouse, thir-teen-
lined ground squirrel, and plains pocket gopher. Eastern chipmunks plus eastern
gray, eastern fox, and red squirrels are commonly founded in forested habitats. Both big
and little brown bats use the Refuge and its associated lands. Red fox are the most
common carnivores of the area followed by coyote and gray fox.
Fish
The Minnesota River is inhabited by an array of fish including game species such as
northern pike, large mouth bass, walleye, bluegill, and crappie. Other species include
shovel nose sturgeon, catfish, and red horse. Like most other fresh water systems in the
United States, high populations of carp inhabit the Minnesota River. Due to regular
Photograph by Scott Sharkey
Chapter 3 / Refuge Environment
31
spring flooding, many of the Refuge wetlands contain a diversity of fish that originate in
the river. For some species, these wetlands offer spawning and nursery habitat.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Thirty species of reptiles and amphibians have been reported on the Refuge but little is
known about their populations or their limiting factors. Many of these, such as the
snapping and painted turtles, are associated with marsh and open waters while others,
such as the common garter snake and the hognosed snake, occur in oak savanna and
prairie. The chorus of spring peepers is common throughout the Minnesota River Valley
during spring.
Cultural Resources
Several hundred archaeological and cultural sites exist in the Lower Minnesota River
Valley and many are located on Refuge lands. These sites include prehistoric burial
mounds and village sites, early 19th century trading posts and ferry crossings, and early
20th century bridges and farmsteads. As an important part of this CCP process, the
Service contracted for a cultural resources study of Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge and associated areas. The product of this study is a report entitled “Cultural
Resources Management Plan for Cultural Resources within the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge” prepared by Anthony Godfrey, Ph.D. of U.S. West Research,
Inc. in Salt Lake City, Utah. This plan builds upon the previous work that has been
accomplished in this area plus offers significant documentation and guidance concerning
the management of these resources.
In light of the large number of archaeological and cultural sites on or near Refuge lands,
considerable care will be exercised to avoid any potential impact. If needed, site-specific
archaeological surveys will be completed before any significance ground disturbance
occurs. Likewise, any effort to upgrade or stabilize historical structures will be done in
such as fashion to maintain their historical character.
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Several migratory bird conservation plans have recently been published that can be used
to help guide management decisions for the Refuge and District. Over the last decade,
bird conservation planning efforts have evolved from a largely local, site-based focus to a
more regional, landscape-oriented perspective. Several trans-national migratory bird
conservation initiatives have emerged to help guide the planning and implementation
process. The regional plans relevant to the Minnesota Valley Refuge and District are:
(1) The Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Joint Venture Implementation Plan of the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan;
(2) The Partners in Flight Prairie Hardwood Transition [land] Bird Conservation Plan;
(3) The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan;
and
(4) The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan.
32
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
All four conservation plans will be integrated under the umbrella of the North American
Bird Conservation Initiative in the NABCI Prairie Potholes, Eastern Tallgrass Prairie
and Prairie Hardwood Transition Bird Conservation Regions (BCR 11, 22 and 23).
Each of the bird conservation initiatives has a process for designating priority species,
modeled to a large extent on the Partners in Flight method of calculating scores based on
independent assessments of global relative abundance, breeding and wintering distribu-tion,
vulnerability to threats, area importance, and population trend. These scores are
often used by agencies in developing lists of priority bird species. The Service based its
2002 list of nongame Birds of Conservation Concern primarily on the Partners in Flight,
shorebird, and waterbird status assessment scores.
Fish, Wildlife and Plant Species of Management Concern
Table 1 summarizes information on the status and current habitat use of important fish,
wildlife, and plant species found on lands administered by the Refuge. Individual species,
or species groups, were chosen because they are listed as Regional Resource Conserva-tion
Priorities or State-listed threatened or endangered species. Other species are listed
due to their importance for economic or recreational reasons or for their status as a
nuisance or invasive species.
Chapter 3 / Refuge Environment
33
Forster’s Tern Uncommon Yes R3, SSC M,P
Great Blue Heron* Common/ Yes M,P P
increasing
Great Egret* Common/ Yes M,P P
increasing
Common Tern Rare Yes R3, ST M
Species Refuge Status Monitored on Regional/ Potential Benefit by Habitat
(* = managing Refuge by Staff State Status Habitat used for Production (P) or
habitat for or by MnDNR? Migration (M)
these species) R3: Conservation Priority R3
E: Federal Endangered Wetlands Floodplain Upland Oak Grasslands
T: Federal Threatened Forest Forest Savanna
SE: State Endangered
ST: State Threatened
SSC: State Species of Concern
Table 1: Wildlife and Plant Species of Concern to the Minnesota Valley NWR and Wetland Management District
White-tailed Deer* Recreation/economic Yes P P
Common/abundant
Eastern Spotted Uncommon Yes ST P P
Skunk
Prairie Vole Rare No SSC P
Least Weasel Rare No SSC P P P
Northern myotis Rare No SSC P P
Plains Pocket Mouse Uncommon No SSC P P
Eastern pipistrelle Rare No SSC P P
Common Loon Occasional Yes R3 M
Horned Grebe Rare Yes ST M
American White Common Yes SSC M
Pelican* seasonally
Double-crested Common/ Yes R3 (nuisance) M M,P
Cormorant increasing
Franklin’s Gull Rare Yes SSC M M
Black Tern* Uncommon Yes R3 M,P
34
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
Mallard* Recreation/economic Yes R3 M,P P
Common
Northern Pintail* Recreation/economic Yes R3 M
Common seasonally
Wood Duck* Recreation/economic Yes R3 M,P P P P
Common
Table 1: Wildlife and Plant Species of Concern to the Minnesota Valley NWR and Wetland Management District
Black-Crowned Uncommon Yes R3 M,P P
Night Heron*
American Bittern Occasional Yes R3 M,P M
Least Bittern Uncommon Yes R3 M,P
Common Moorhen Rare Yes R3, SSC M,P
King Rail Rare No R3, SE M
Trumpeter Swan* Uncommon Yes R3, ST M,P
Snow Goose Occasional Yes R3 (nuisance) M
Canada Goose Recreation/economic Yes R3 M
(Migrants) Common
Canada Goose Recreation/economic Yes R3 (nuisance) M,P P
(Residents)* Common/nuisance
Blue-winged Teal* Recreation/economic Yes R3 M,P P
Common
Canvasback* Recreation/economic Yes R3 M
Uncommon seasonally
Lesser Scaup* Recreation/economic Yes R3 M
Common seasonally
Species Refuge Status Monitored on Regional/ Potential Benefit by Habitat
(* = managing Refuge by Staff State Status Habitat used for Production (P) or
habitat for or by MnDNR? Migration (M)
these species) R3: Conservation Priority R3
E: Federal Endangered Wetlands Floodplain Upland Oak Grasslands
T: Federal Threatened Forest Forest Savanna
SE: State Endangered
ST: State Threatened
SSC: State Species of Concern
Chapter 3 / Refuge Environment
35
Peregrine Falcon* Uncommon No ST, R3 M M
Red-shouldered Hawk* Rare No R3, SSC M,P M,P
Short-eared Owl Rare No SSC, R3 M M,P
Long-eared Owl Occasional No R3 M M M M
Table 1: Wildlife and Plant Species of Concern to the Minnesota Valley NWR and Wetland Management District
American Woodcock Recreation/economic No R3 M M M,P M,P
Uncommon
Marbled Godwit Rare No R3, SSC M M,P
Hudsonian Godwit Rare No R3 M M
Upland Sandpiper* Rare No R3 M,P
Buff-breasted Rare No R3 M
Sandpiper
Short-billed Occasional No R3 M
Dowitcher
Stilt Sandpiper Occasional No R3 M
Greater Yellowlegs Uncommon No R3 M
Wilson’s Phalarope Rare No R3, ST M
Bald Eagle* Threatened/recovering Yes T, SSC, R3 M M,P
Northern Goshawk Rare No R3 M M
Northern Harrier* Occasional No R3 M,P M,P
Species Refuge Status Monitored on Regional/ Potential Benefit by Habitat
(* = managing Refuge by Staff State Status Habitat used for Production (P) or
habitat for or by MnDNR? Migration (M)
these species) R3: Conservation Priority R3
E: Federal Endangered Wetlands Floodplain Upland Oak Grasslands
T: Federal Threatened Forest Forest Savanna
SE: State Endangered
ST: State Threatened
SSC: State Species of Concern
36
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
Canada Warbler Occasional No R3 M M
Cape May Warbler Occasional No R3 M M
Hooded Warbler Very Rare No SSC M,P
Prothonotary Warbler Occasional No R3 M M,P
Connecticut Warbler Rare No R3 M M
Table 1: Wildlife and Plant Species of Concern to the Minnesota Valley NWR and Wetland Management District
Black-billed Cuckoo Occasional No R3, R3 M,P M,P M,P
Whip-poor-will Rare No R3 M M,P M,P
Red-headed Uncommon No R3 M,P M,P M,P
Woodpecker*
Northern Flicker Common No R3 M,P M,P M,P M
Olive-sided Flycatcher Occasional No R3 M M M M
Loggerhead Shrike* Rare No R3, ST M,P M,P
Bell’s Vireo Rare No R3 M,P M,P
Sedge Wren* Uncommon No R3 M,P M,P
Wood Thrush Occasional No R3 M M,P
Louisiana Waterthrush Rare No R3, SSC M M,P
Golden-winged Rare No R3 M M M,P
Warbler
Cerulean Warbler Rare No R3, SSC M,P M,P
Blue-winged Warbler Rare No R3 M,P M,P
Species Refuge Status Monitored on Regional/ Potential Benefit by Habitat
(* = managing Refuge by Staff State Status Habitat used for Production (P) or
habitat for or by MnDNR? Migration (M)
these species) R3: Conservation Priority R3
E: Federal Endangered Wetlands Floodplain Upland Oak Grasslands
T: Federal Threatened Forest Forest Savanna
SE: State Endangered
ST: State Threatened
SSC: State Species of Concern
Chapter 3 / Refuge Environment
37
Smooth Softshell Common No SSC P
Snapping Turtle Common No SSC P P
Wood Turtle* Rare or Absent No ST P
Five-lined Skink Rare No SSC P P P
Northern Cricket Rare Yes SE P
Frog*
Table 1: Wildlife and Plant Species of Concern to the Minnesota Valley NWR and Wetland Management District
Black-throated Rare No R3 M M
Blue Warbler
Field Sparrow Uncommon No R3 M,P M,P
Grasshopper Sparrow* Occasional No R3 M,P
Henslow’s Sparrow Rare No R3, SE M,P
Le Conte’s Sparrow Occasional No R3 M M
Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Rare No R3, SSC M M
Sparrow
Dickcissel* Occasional No R3 M,P
Bobolink* Uncommon No R3 M,P
Rusty Blackbird Uncommon No R3 M M M
Western Meadowlark Uncommon No R3 P M,P
Eastern Meadowlark* Uncommon No R3 P M,P
Blandings Turtle Rare No ST P P P
Orchard Oriole Occasional No R3 M, P M, P
Species Refuge Status Monitored on Regional/ Potential Benefit by Habitat
(* = managing Refuge by Staff State Status Habitat used for Production (P) or
habitat for or by MnDNR? Migration (M)
these species) R3: Conservation Priority R3
E: Federal Endangered Wetlands Floodplain Upland Oak Grasslands
T: Federal Threatened Forest Forest Savanna
SE: State Endangered
ST: State Threatened
SSC: State Species of Concern
38
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
Table 1: Wildlife and Plant Species of Concern to the Minnesota Valley NWR and Wetland Management District
Gopher (Bull) Snake Common No SSC PP
Racer Uncommon No SSC P P P
Western Hognose Common No SSC PP
Snake
Brook Trout Uncommon No R3
Least Darter Uncommon No SSC
Paddlefish Rare No R3, SSC
Pugnose Shiner Rare No SSC P
Higgins Eye Absent (Historic) No E
Pearly Mussel
Arogos Skipper Rare Yes SSC PP
(Butterfly)
Leonardus Skipper Rare Yes SSC PP
Powesheik Skipper Rare Yes SSC PP
Regal Fritillary Rare Yes SSC PP
Karner Blue Rare or Absent No T
Dwarf Trout Lily Rare No E, SE PP
Prairie Bush CloverRare or Absent No T, ST P
Species Refuge Status Monitored on Regional/ Potential Benefit by Habitat
(* = managing Refuge by Staff State Status Habitat used for Production (P) or
habitat for or by MnDNR? Migration (M)
these species) R3: Conservation Priority R3
E: Federal Endangered Wetlands Floodplain Upland Oak Grasslands
T: Federal Threatened Forest Forest Savanna
SE: State Endangered
ST: State Threatened
SSC: State Species of Concern
Chapter 4 / Management Direction
39
Chapter 4: Refuge and District Management
Current Refuge and District Programs: Where We Are Today
Consistent with its authorizing legislation, Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge conducts a wide array of wildlife conservation activi-ties
within the Lower Minnesota River Valley and its District. The
Master Plan for the Refuge, which was completed in 1984, called for
the establishment of grasslands and food plots (corn and soybeans) on
Refuge floodplain to enhance the area for waterfowl nesting and
migration. Following some unsuccessful attempts to meet these
objectives, the Refuge reassessed its habitat restoration and manage-ment
programs and, with the input of other conservationists, devel-oped
its Landscape Plan in 1993. This plan basically set forth the
philosophy of restoring Refuge plant communities to native species. It
also identified the importance of using natural processes such as
prescribed fire and water management to maintain the diversity and
productivity of these communities. This philosophy remains today and
will be integral within this Comprehensive Conservation Plan. In
brief, the Refuge’s habitat restoration and management program can
be summarized by the phrase “native species and natural processes.”
The Refuge’s urban setting also offers unique opportunities to interact
with diverse and supportive audiences. For example, Refuge staff
have the privilege of providing environmental education programs to inner-city schools as
well as those located in suburban or rural locations. Likewise, hunting, fishing, and
wildlife observation, photography, and interpretive opportunities are provided on Refuge
and District lands.
Habitat Restoration
Since its establishment, nearly 12,000 acres have been acquired or placed under manage-ment
agreement within the Refuge. Initially, some of the former agriculture lands (less
than 100 acres) were converted to floodplain grasslands for waterfowl nesting purposes.
Introduced species such as Reed’s canary grass and others were planted to a variety of
native grasses. However, during 1992-93 all cropping ceased on remaining Refuge
agricultural fields (less than 200 acres). No deliberate attempts were made to re-establish
a preferred plant community on these areas. Consequently, early succession species such
as cottonwood, willow, and box elder emerged as well as thistle and ragweed.
In recent years, the Refuge has emphasized the restoration of all lands to native plant
communities. For example, bur oak, silver maple, and green ash have been planted to
complement natural succession and to increase diversity in the floodplain. Likewise, a
diverse mixture of native grasses and forbs have been reestablished on upland sites that
historically contained grasslands. Wetland restoration activities have included the
Photograph by Scott Sharkey
40
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
plugging of drainage ditches, the mechanical removal of woody vegetation from wet
meadows and fens, and the installation of outlet ditches and water control structures on
larger wetlands.
Habitat restoration activities on waterfowl production areas and easements also follow
this same philosophy. Native grasses are restored on upland areas and wetlands are
restored to historic levels when possible. Due to logistical concerns, water control
structures are generally not installed on wetlands located on Waterfowl Production
Areas or easement lands.
Habitat Management on the Refuge
The primary objective of the habitat management program at the Refuge is to maintain
diverse, productive, and sustainable native plant communities. Through periodic treat-ments,
these lands maintain their value to Refuge wildlife and help meet their produc-tion,
feeding, and migration requirements.
To assist in the management of these habitats, the Refuge in cooperation with the
MnDNR and others has completed cover-type GIS mapping for all units of the Refuge.
These units are mapped using the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System, which
integrates cultural features such as residences and roads, non-native vegetation, and
natural and semi-natural vegetation into a comprehensive system (Figures 4-8).
Deep Water Habitats
Horseshoe Lake on the Rapids Lake Unit is one of two deep water habitats on the
Refuge. Historically, this lake was an oxbow of the Minnesota River, but it has since
become disconnected from the main channel. The depth of this lake is currently unknown,
as is the composition of its fishery. The Refuge shares ownership with private parties on
Long Lake, the other deep water habitat on the Rapids Lake Unit. A 1998 fishery survey
showed that 18 species of fish occupied the lake, along with many large snapping turtles.
The most numerous species were black crappie, gizzard shad, black and brown bullhead,
and carp. Aquatic exchange with these lakes and the Minnesota River does occur nearly
every year during spring flooding. The open water pools serve as a loafing area for
waterfowl, marsh birds, and occasional seasonal habitat for shorebirds. The trees sur-rounding
the lakes provide good perch sites for a number of species including herons,
bitterns, and raptors such as the Bald Eagle and Red-tailed Hawk.
Small Streams
Several small streams exist on the Refuge and some of these historically supported
native brook trout populations. The origins of the larger streams, such as Sand Creek,
are in the watershed above the river valley. Some streams originate from springs within
the bluff and bluff/floodplain transition zone of the Minnesota River. To date, no active
habitat management has been undertaken on these streams.
Wetlands
The Refuge contains a variety of wetlands including fens, wet meadows, and large
riverine marshes. Water control structures and outlet ditches have been installed on
several of the riverine marshes. Over the years, three moist soil management units and
one green tree reservoir have also been established within the floodplain of the Minne-sota
River. Most of these wetlands provide good quality production, brood rearing,
Chapter 4 / Management Direction
41
Figure 4: Existing Habitat (2002), Long Meadow Lake and Black Dog Units
42
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
Figure 5: Existing Habitat (2002), Upgrala, Wilkie and Bloomington Ferry Units
Chapter 4 / Management Direction
43
Figure 6: Existing Habitat (2002), Savage Fen Unit
44
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
Figure 7: Existing Habitat (2002), Chaska Unit
Chapter 4 / Management Direction
45
Figure 8: Existing Habitat (2002), Rapids Lake and Louisville Swamp Units
46
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District
feeding, and/or migration habitats for a host
of resident and migratory species. They also
provide good quality spawning and nursery
habitat for fish that inhabit the Minnesota
River.
Water level management is the primary
technique used to maintain the diversity and
productivity of Refuge wetlands. Through
periodic drawdowns, followed by subsequent
reflooding, they support a variety of aquatic
emergents and expose mudflats that attract
good concentrations of waterfowl, waterbirds,
and shorebirds.
Frequent fluctuations of the Minnesota River
sometimes complicate the management of
these large wetlands. For example, high river elevations during late spring and summer
can prevent drawdowns and the germination of emergent vegetation. Likewise, pro-longed
or frequent flooding can destroy beneficial aquatic plants and convert the area
from a “hemi-marsh” community to open water wetland habitats with limited plant
diversity. Fortunately, however, the long-term productivity of these wetlands can be
maintained with a committed effort that is prepared to take advantage of drawdowns and
other management opportunities when they occur. Water control structures designed to
keep the low bounces of the Minnesota River out of these wetlands also enhance the
success of this management. An active water management program also helps to de-crease
rough fish populations that exist in many of these riverine wetlands.
As indicated earlier, three moist soil management units have been constructed on the
Refuge since its inception. All of these units were constructed as mitigation for a develop-ment
project that impacted Refuge lands to some degree. Unfortunately, these units have
not functioned as planned due to a number of factors, including permeable soils upon
which they were constructed. The long-term plan for these units is to convert them to
green tree reservoirs as the adjacent floodplains are reestablished to a forest cover.
Management of calcareous and sedge fens that occur on the Refuge consists of periodic
prescribed burning with hand removal of invading shrubs. Management is needed on
these units to maintain favorable conditions for the rare and unique species that occur in
these important ecological communities.
A water control structure and outlet ditch has also been installed on the Round Lake
Unit, which is located in Arden Hills. The sediments of Round Lake include high concen-trations
of boron and chromium.