Comprehensive Conservation Plan North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

              Comprehensive Conservation Plan
North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
September 2008 Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arrowwood Wetland Management District Audubon Wetland Management District Chase Lake Wetland Management District Crosby Wetland Management District Devils Lake Wetland Management District J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District Kulm Wetland Management District Lostwood Wetland Management District Valley City Wetland Management District and Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region Division of Refuge Planning 134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, CO 80228 303/236 8145
Approved by Steve Guertin Regional Director, Region 6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lakewood, CO
Signature of Steve Guertin, dated 9/30/2008Comprehensive Conservation Plan
North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Submitted by
Kim Hanson Project Leader
Date
Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Arrowwood, Chase Lake, and Valley City wetland management districts) Pingree, ND
Lloyd Jones Project Leader
Date
Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Audubon Wetland Management District) Coleharbor, ND
Roger Hollevoet Project Leader
Date
Devils Lake Wetland Management District Complex Devils Lake, ND
Kelly Hogan Project Leader
Date
J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge Complex (J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District) Upham, ND
Michael Erickson Project Leader
Date
Kulm Wetland Management District Kulm, ND
David Gillund Project Leader
Date
Lostwood Wetland Management District Complex (Crosby and Lostwood wetland management districts) Kenmare, ND
Concurred with by
Richard A. Coleman, PhD Assistant Regional Director, Region 6 National Wildlife Refuge System U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lakewood, CO Paul Cornes Refuge Supervisor
Date
Date
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 Lakewood, CO Contents
Abbreviations ...................................................................................ix
Summary ......................................................................................xi
1 Introduction .................................................................................1
1.1Purpose and Need for the Plan...............................................................1
1.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System ..........................................3
1.3 National and Regional Mandates .............................................................4
1.4 District Contributions to National and Regional Plans ..........................................5
1.5 Ecosystem Description and Threats ..........................................................8
1.6Planning Process...........................................................................8
2 The Districts................................................................................13
2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History .........................................13
2.2 Special Values ............................................................................19
2.3Purposes.................................................................................20
2.4 Vision....................................................................................21
2.5 Goals ....................................................................................21
2.6 Planning Issues ...........................................................................21
3 District Resources and Description ..........................................................25
3.1 Physical Environment .....................................................................25
3.2Biological Resources.......................................................................40
3.3Cultural Resources........................................................................53
3.4 Visitor Services...........................................................................54
3.5Partnerships..............................................................................55
3.6Socioeconomic Environment................................................................56
3.7 Operations ...............................................................................57
4 Management Direction......................................................................59
4.1Management Focus........................................................................59
4.2 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale ..................................................60
Habitat and Wildlife Goal........................................................................60
Monitoring and Research Goal ....................................................................88
Cultural Resources Goal.........................................................................91
Visitor Services Goal ...........................................................................91
Partnerships Goal .............................................................................95
Operations Goal ..............................................................................96
4.3 Funding and Staff .........................................................................97
4.4 Step-down Management Plans ..............................................................97
4.5 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................101
4.6Plan Amendment and Revision.............................................................101
Glossary .....................................................................................103
Appendixes
Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies .....................................................113
Appendix B—Preparers and Contributors......................................................121
Appendix C—Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125
Appendix D—Section 7 Biological Evaluation...................................................129
Appendix E—Environmental Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
Appendix F—Compatibility Determinations for Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses, Grazing,
Haying, and Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
Appendix G—Fire Management Program for Wetland Management Districts within the Eastern
North Dakota Fire District...................................................................145
Appendix H—Fire Management Program for Wetland Management Districts within the Western
North Dakota Fire District...................................................................149
Appendix I—Bird Species of the Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153
Appendix J—Primary and Secondary Bird Species of the North Dakota Prairie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Appendix K—Evaluation Criteria for Easements................................................163
Appendix L—North Dakota’s Threatened and Endangered Species................................169
Appendix M—Priority-setting Example for Native Prairie Portions of Fee-title Lands...............171
Bibliography .................................................................................173
vi Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Figures
1 Vicinity map of the nine districts, North Dakota................................................2
2 Map of the bird conservation regions of North America .........................................6
3 Ecosystem map for region 6 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.................................9
4 Steps in the planning process ...............................................................10
5 Map of the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States and Canada .............................15
6 Map of the physiographic regions in the nine districts, North Dakota.............................26
7 Map of the level 4 ecoregions in the nine districts, North Dakota ................................28
8 Map of the predicted duck-pair concentrations in the nine districts, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
9 Map of the grassland bird conservation area matrix for the nine districts, North Dakota ............ 49
10 Map of the seven-county core area for piping plover in North Dakota ............................51
11 Map of the whooping crane sightings in the nine districts, North Dakota..........................52
12 Map of the wetland priority zones in the nine districts, North Dakota ............................61
13 Evaluation criteria for wetland easements....................................................62
14 Map of the grassland priority zones in the nine districts, North Dakota...........................66
15 Evaluation criteria for grassland easements ..................................................67
16 The adaptive management process..........................................................101
Tables
1 Planning Process Summary for the Nine Districts, North Dakota................................11
2 Ecoregions in the Nine Districts, North Dakota ...............................................29
3 Water Rights for Audubon Wetland Management District, North Dakota......................... 35
4 Water Rights for Chase Lake Wetland Management District, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5 Water Rights for Devils Lake Wetland Management District, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6 Water Rights for J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District, North Dakota.................... 39
7 Water Rights for Valley City Wetland Management District, North Dakota ....................... 39
8 Prairie Decline in North Dakota.............................................................40
9 State-listed Noxious Weeds Found at Waterfowl Production Areas in North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
10 Step-down Management Plans for Arrowwood Wetland Management District, North Dakota . . . . . . . 97
11 Step-down Management Plans for Audubon Wetland Management District, North Dakota.......... 98
12 Step-down Management Plans for Chase Lake Wetland Management District, North Dakota . . . . . . . 98
13 Step-down Management Plans for Crosby Wetland Management District, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 99
14 Step-down Management Plans for Devils Lake Wetland Management District, North Dakota . . . . . . . 99
15 Step-down Management Plans for J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District, North Dakota.... 100
16 Step-down Management Plans for Kulm Wetland Management District, North Dakota ............ 100
17 Step-down Management Plans for Lostwood Wetland Management District, North Dakota . . . . . . . . 100
18 Step-down Management Plans for Valley City Wetland Management District, North Dakota ....... 100
vii
Abbreviations
Administration Act
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966
APHIS
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
BCR
bird conservation region
CCP
comprehensive conservation plan
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
cfs
cubic feet per second
CWCS
comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy
CWD
chronic wasting disease
district
wetland management district
DNC
dense nesting cover
DOI
U.S. Department of the Interior
EA
environmental assessment
EO
executive order
FmHA
Farmers Home Administration
FMP
fire management plan
FTE
full-time equivalent
GIS
geographic information system
gpm
gallons per minute
GPS
global positioning system
GS
general schedule (employment)
HAPET
Habitat and Population Evaluation Team
HPAI
highly pathogenic avian influenza
Improvement Act
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
IPM
integrated pest management
ISST
invasive species strike team
NABCI
North American Bird Conservation Initiative
NAWCA
North American Wetlands Conservation Act
ND
North Dakota
NDGF
North Dakota Game and Fish Department
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
PIF
Partners in Flight program
PL
public law
PPJV
Prairie Pothole Joint Venture
RAPP
Refuge Annual Performance Plan
Reclamation
Bureau of Reclamation
Refuge System
National Wildlife Refuge System
region 6
Mountain-Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service x Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
RLGIS
refuge lands geographic information system
Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SWG
State Wildlife Grant
USC
United States Code
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
VOR
visual obstruction reading
WDA
wildlife development area
WG
wage grade (employment)
WMD
wetland management district
WPA
waterfowl production area
WUI
wildland–urban interface Summary
USFWS Blue-winged teal nest within the uplands in district lands.
This is a summary of the comprehensive conservation plan for nine of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s wetland management districts in North Dakota:
QQ
Arrowwood
Audubon
Chase Lake
Crosby
Devils Lake
J. Clark Salyer
Kulm
Lostwood
Valley City
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a comprehensive conservation plan by 2012 for each wetland management district. In September 2008, the Service approved the plan for the nine wetland management districts, which will guide management for the next 15 years.
The Districts
A wetland management district provides oversight for all of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s small land tracts in a multicounty area.
The nine wetland management districts manage 1,208 waterfowl production areas, tens of thousands of conservation easements, and 37 wildlife development areas in 34 counties. These district lands, totaling 1,125,084 acres, are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, a network of lands set aside to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat. The prairies of North Dakota have become an ecological treasure of biological importance for birds. The prairie potholes of North Dakota support a wide diversity of wildlife, but they are most famous for their role in waterfowl production. Complexes of wetlands scattered throughout the nine wetland management districts attract abundant numbers of breeding duck pairs.
Line drawing of grass.xii Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Planning Process and
Main Issues
The planning process began in February 2007 with
the issuing of a notice of intent in the Federal Register.
The Service finalized the comprehensive conservation
plan in September 2008. The district staffs and the
public identified the primary issues for the districts,
which the plan addresses; these issues are summarized
below.
Wetland and Upland Habitats
All districts have a primary purpose to provide
optimal habitat conditions for the needs of a suite of
waterfowl and other migratory birds and, to a lesser
extent, native, resident wildlife.
inVasiVe plants
Nonnative grasses and forbs and potentially invasive,
native, woody species substantially diminish the
quality and suitability of upland habitat for many
native wildlife species.
energy deVelopment
Impacts to the districts’ waterfowl production areas
from oil and gas development include salt water
contamination, wetlands filling, and road development.
Wind power has an unknown effect on bird species
and needs evaluation.
prairie ConVersion
The loss of native prairie is occurring at an alarming
rate. Restoration and management needs to be part
of the districts’ plan.
Wildlife management
Threatened and endangered species, predators, and
wildlife disease are mounting issues for each district.
Visitor serViCes
A growing demand for public recreation in North
Dakota and the nation makes hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, photography, environmental
education, and interpretation primary issues of
interest.
operations
The efficient use of staff, partnerships, volunteers,
and funding—through effective communication and
innovation—will support each of the districts.
monitoring and researCH
The Service needs basic data about recruitment,
mortality, and habitat use for representative groups
of species. It is important to collect and analyze
this data on a regular basis so the Service can make
appropriate decisions about the habitats on which
these species depend.
Steve Hillebrand/USFWS
The whooping crane is an endangered species.
Vision statement
Wetland management districts conserve an
important network of public and private
wetland and upland habitat in North Dakota.
This network preserves the integrity of the
historical and vital resting and breeding
grounds of North America’s
migratory waterfowl.
As part of the National Wildlife Refuge System,
these lands benefit ducks, other migratory birds,
threatened and endangered species, and
resident wildlife.
The responsible management and protection
of this expanding network requires adequate
funding, dedicated personnel, and
successful partnerships.
District communities and visitors value
grasslands and marshes as a beneficial and
important component of a diverse, healthy,
and productive prairie landscape.
Current and future generations enjoy wildlife-dependent
uses of these lands and partners,
especially waterfowl hunters, actively support
and encourage the districts’ habitat
conservation programs.
Summary xiii
goals
The Service developed goals to meet the vision.
Habitat and Wildlife Goal
Protect, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity of grasslands and wetlands of the North Dakota Prairie Pothole Region. Contribute to the production and growth of continental waterfowl populations to meet the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Also, support healthy populations of other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife.
Monitoring and Research Goal
Use science, monitoring, and applied research to advance the understanding of the Prairie Pothole Region and management within the North Dakota wetland management districts.
Cultural Resources Goal
Identify and evaluate cultural resources in the North Dakota wetland management districts that are on Service-owned lands or are affected by Service undertakings. Protect resources determined to be significant and, when appropriate, interpret resources to connect staff, visitors, and communities to the area’s past.
Visitor Services Goal
Provide visitors with quality opportunities to enjoy hunting, fishing, trapping, and other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation on Service-owned lands and expand their knowledge and appreciation of the prairie landscape and the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Partnerships Goal
A diverse network of partners joins with the North Dakota wetland management districts to support research; protect, restore, and enhance habitat; and foster awareness and appreciation of the prairie landscape.
Operations Goal
Effectively employ staff, partnerships, and volunteers and secure adequate funding in support of the National Wildlife Refuge System’s mission.
Management Direction
Management objectives for habitat types are based on the habitat preferences of groups of target species such as waterfowl, migratory shorebirds, grassland birds, and threatened and endangered species. The Service will focus on high- and medium-priority tracts. District staffs will carry out compatible techniques to enhance production of targeted migratory bird populations. The district staffs will expand existing environmental education and visitor services programs, with additional waterfowl emphases. The Service proposes, at a future date, (1) one new administration and visitor center facility each for Audubon and Kulm wetland management districts, and (2) one new visitor contact station each for Arrowwood, Devils Lake, Lostwood, and Valley City wetland management districts. 1 Introduction
© Craig Bihrle Mallards are one of the common waterfowl species on district lands.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) developed this comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) to provide the foundation for the management and use of nine wetland management districts (districts) in North Dakota (see figure 1, vicinity map):
QQ
Arrowwood Wetland Management District
Audubon Wetland Management District
Chase Lake Wetland Management District
Crosby Wetland Management District
Devils Lake Wetland Management District
J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District
Kulm Wetland Management District
Lostwood Wetland Management District
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
Wildlife is the first priority in district management, and the Service allows and encourages public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with the districts’ purposes. “Chapter 4, Management Direction” specifies the actions necessary to achieve the purposes and vision for the nine wetland management districts.
Based on the results of public involvement and an environmental analysis, the Service’s region 6 director made the decision on September 30, 2008, to implement this CCP to guide the nine districts for the next 15 years. The Service developed the CCP in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described within this CCP meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Compliance with the NEPA included the involvement of the public. The planning process and public involvement are described in section 1.6, “The Planning Process.”
1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan
The purpose of this CCP is to identify the role that the districts play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) and to provide long-term guidance for management of districts programs and activities. 2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Figure 1. Vicinity map of the nine districts, North Dakota. Chapter 1—Introduction 3
The CCP is needed
to communicate with the public and other
partners in efforts to carry out the mission
of the Refuge System;
to provide a clear statement of direction for
management of the districts;
to provide neighbors, visitors, and government
officials with an understanding of the Service’s
management actions on and around the
districts;
to ensure that the Service’s management
actions are consistent with the mandates of
the Improvement Act;
to ensure that management of the districts is
consistent with federal, state, and county plans;
to provide a basis for development of budget
requests for the districts’ operation, maintenance,
and capital improvement needs.
Sustaining the nation’s fish and wildlife resources
is a task that can be accomplished only through the
combined efforts of governments, businesses, and
private citizens.
1.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the Refuge System
The Service is the principal federal agency responsible
for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Refuge
System is one of the Service’s major programs.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, working with others, is to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and
their habitats for the continuing benefit
of the American people.
U.s. fisH and Wildlife serViCe
Over a century ago, America’s fish and wildlife
resources were declining at an alarming rate.
Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and
angling groups joined together to restore and sustain
America’s national wildlife heritage. This was the
genesis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife laws,
manages migratory bird populations, restores
nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores
vital wildlife habitat, protects and recovers
endangered species, and helps other governments
with conservation efforts. In addition, the Service
administers a federal aid program that distributes
hundreds of millions of dollars to states for fish and
wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education,
and related programs across America.
serViCe aCtiVities in nortH dakota
Service activities in North Dakota contribute to the
state’s economy, ecosystems, and education programs.
The following list describes the Service’s presence
and activities:
QQ Employed 169 people in North Dakota.
Assisted by 539 volunteers who donated more
than 10,200 hours with Service projects.
Managed two national fish hatcheries and one
fish and wildlife management assistance office.
Managed 65 national wildlife refuges totaling
343,145 acres (0.8% of the state).
Managed 11 wetland management districts.
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
—Q 284,660 acres of fee waterfowl production
areas (WPAs) (0.6% of the state)
1,080,636 wetland acres under various leases
or conservation easements (2.4% of the state)
—Q
QQ Hosted more than 385,300 annual visitors to
Service-managed lands.
—Q 166,908 hunting visits
59,500 fishing visits
26,346 photography visits
—Q
—Q
QQ Provided $3.8 million to North Dakota Game
and Fish (NDGF) for sport fish restoration and
$3.9 million for wildlife restoration and hunter
education.
Helped private landowners restore, create, and
enhance more than 214,000 acres on 8,400 sites
and restore 17 miles of river since 1987 through
the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.
Employed 11 Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program biologists.
Paid North Dakota counties $435,325 under the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (money used for
schools and roads).
QQ
QQ
QQ
national Wildlife refUge system
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated
the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the nation’s
first wildlife refuge for the protection of brown
pelicans and other native, nesting birds. This was the
first time the federal government set aside land for
wildlife. This small but significant designation was
the beginning of the Refuge System.
4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
One hundred years later, the Refuge System has
become the largest collection of lands in the world
specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more
than 96 million acres within 546 refuges and more than
3,000 small areas for waterfowl breeding and nesting.
Today, there is at least one refuge in every state
including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
In 1997, the Improvement Act established a clear
mission for the Refuge System.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System is to administer a national network
of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and, where appropriate,
restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans.
The Improvement Act states that each national
wildlife refuge (that is, each unit of the Refuge System,
which includes wetland management districts) shall
be managed
to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
to fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge
and district;
to consider the needs of fish and wildlife first;
to fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP for
each unit of the Refuge System and fully involve
the public in the preparation of these plans;
to maintain the biological integrity, diversity,
and environmental health of the Refuge System;
to recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation
activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, and environmental
education and interpretation are legitimate and
priority public uses;
to retain the authority of refuge managers to
determine compatible public uses.
In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, the
habitat and wildlife vision for each unit of the Refuge
System stresses the following principles:
QQ Wildlife comes first.
Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are
vital concepts in refuge and district management.
Habitats must be healthy.
Growth of refuges and districts must be strategic.
The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
Following passage of the Improvement Act, the
Service immediately began to carry out the direction
of the new legislation, including preparation of
CCPs for all national wildlife refuges and wetland
management districts. Consistent with the
Improvement Act, the Service prepares all CCPs in
conjunction with public involvement. Each refuge
and each district is required to complete its CCP
within the 15-year schedule (by 2012).
people and tHe refUge system
The nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to
the quality of American lives and is an integral part
of the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places
have always given
people special
opportunities to
have fun, relax,
and appreciate
the natural world.
Whether through
bird watching,
fishing, hunting,
photography, or
other wildlife
pursuits, wildlife
recreation contributes millions of dollars to local
economies. In 2002, approximately 35.5 million people
visited the Refuge System, mostly to observe wildlife
in their natural habitats. Visitors are most often
accommodated through nature trails, auto tours,
interpretive programs, and hunting and fishing
opportunities. Significant economic benefits are
generated in the local communities that surround
refuges and wetland management districts. Economists
report that Refuge System visitors contribute more
than $792 million annually to local economies.
1.3 National and Regional Mandates
Refuge System units are managed to achieve the
mission and goals of the Refuge System, along with
the designated purpose of the refuges and districts
(as described in establishing legislation, executive
orders, or other establishing documents). Key concepts
and guidance of the Refuge System are in the Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration
Act), Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFRs), “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” and
the Improvement Act.
The Improvement Act amends the Administration
Act by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge
System, a new process for determining compatible
public uses on refuges and districts, and a requirement
that each refuge and district be managed under a CCP.
The Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation
is the priority for Refuge System lands and that the
Secretary of the Interior will ensure that the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge
lands are maintained. Each refuge and district must
be managed to fulfill the Refuge System’s mission
and the specific purposes for which it was established. The Improvement Act requires the Service to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge and district. A detailed description of these and other laws and executive orders that may affect the CCP or the Service’s implementation of the CCP is in appendix A. Service policies on planning and day-to-day management of refuges and districts are in the “Refuge System Manual” and ���The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.”
1.4 District Contributions to National and Regional Plans
The nine North Dakota districts contribute to the conservation efforts described in this section.
fUlfilling tHe promise
A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise, The National Wildlife Refuge System” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1999), is the culmination of a yearlong process by teams of Service employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. This report was the focus of the first national Refuge System conference (in 1998)—attended by refuge managers, other Service employees, and representatives from leading conservation organizations. The report contains 42 recommendations packaged with three vision statements dealing with habitat and wildlife, people, and leadership. This CCP deals with all three of these major topics. The planning team looked to the recommendations in the document for guidance during CCP planning.
bird ConserVation
“All-bird” conservation planning in North America is being achieved through the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). Started in 1999, the NABCI committee is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, and bird initiatives in the United States working to advance integrated bird conservation based on sound science and cost-effective management that will benefit all birds in all habitats. Conservation of all birds is being accomplished under four planning initiatives: the North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Partners in Flight), the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
partners in fligHt
The Partners in Flight program (PIF) began in 1990 with the recognition of declining population levels of many migratory bird species. The challenge, according to the program, is managing human population growth while maintaining functional natural ecosystems. To
Chapter 1—Introduction 5
meet this challenge, PIF worked to identify priority, land bird species and habitat types. PIF activity has resulted in 52 bird conservation plans covering the continental United States. The primary goal of PIF is to provide for the long-term health of the bird life of this continent. The first priority is to prevent the rarest species from going extinct. The second priority is to prevent uncommon species from descending into threatened status. The third priority is to “keep common birds common.” PIF splits North America into seven avifaunal biomes (birds of an ecological regional area) and 37 bird conservation regions (BCRs) for planning purposes (see figure 2, map of BCRs). The nine wetland management districts are within the “prairie avifaunal biome” in BCR 11, the Prairie Pothole Region. BCR 11 is the most important waterfowl production area on the North American continent, despite extensive wetland drainage and tillage of native grasslands. The density of breeding dabbling ducks commonly exceeds 100 pairs per square mile in some areas during years with favorable wetland conditions. The area comprises the core of the breeding range of most dabbling duck and several diving duck species. BCR 11 provides critical breeding and migration habitat for more than 200 other bird species, including such species of concern as Franklin’s gull and yellow rail and a threatened species, the piping plover. In addition, Baird’s sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, chestnut-collared longspur, Wilson’s phalarope, marbled godwit, and American avocet are among the many priority nonwaterfowl species that breed in BCR 11. According to the NABCI, wetland areas also provide key spring migration sites for Hudsonian godwit, American golden-plover, white-rumped sandpiper, and buff-breasted sandpiper. PIF conservation priorities in the prairie avifaunal biome focus on protection of remaining prairies, management of existing grasslands with fire and grazing, and control of invasive plants including woody plant encroachment.
© Bob Gress The chestnut-collared longspur breeds in BCR 11. 6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Figure 2. Map of the bird conservation regions of North America.
nortH ameriCan WaterfoWl management plan
Written in 1986, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan envisioned a 15-year effort to achieve landscape conditions that could sustain waterfowl populations. Specific objectives of the plan are to increase and restore duck populations to the average levels of the 1970s—62 million breeding ducks and a fall flight of 100 million birds. By 1985, waterfowl populations had plummeted to record lows. Habitat that waterfowl depend on was disappearing at a rate of 60 acres per hour. Recognizing the importance of waterfowl and wetlands to North Americans and the need for international cooperation to help in the recovery of a shared resource, the United States and Canada governments developed a strategy to restore waterfowl populations through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. Mexico became a signatory to the plan in 1994. The plan is innovative because of its international scope, plus its implementation at the regional level.
Its success depends on the strength of partnerships called “joint ventures,” which involve federal, state, provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; conservation organizations; and individual citizens. Joint ventures are regional, self-directed partnerships that carry out science-based conservation through community participation. Joint ventures develop implementation plans that focus on areas of concern identified in the plan. The North Dakota districts lie within the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV), which covers the Prairie Pothole Region of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa. Established in 1987, the PPJV is one of the original six priority joint ventures under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The joint venture protects, restores, and enhances high-priority wetland and grassland habitat to help sustain populations of waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and prairie land birds. The PPJV includes one-third (100,000 square miles) of North America’s Prairie Pothole Region. The remaining 200,000 acres is located in 7 Chapter 1—Introduction
the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. This unique area contains millions of depressional wetlands (“potholes”) that constitute one of the richest wetland systems in the world. These glacially formed prairie potholes and their surrounding grasslands are highly productive and support an incredible diversity of bird life.
ppJV implementation plan
The Prairie Pothole Region remains the most important waterfowl-producing region on the continent, generating more than half of North America’s ducks. Nearly 15% of the continental waterfowl population comes from the PPJV region (Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa). As many as 10 million ducks and 2 million geese use the PPJV region during migration or for nesting. The wetlands and associated grassland habitat in the PPJV region provide breeding habitat to more than 200 species of migratory birds. Bald eagles, peregrine falcons, whooping cranes, piping plovers, and interior least terns frequent the PPJV region during migration and breeding periods. The PPJV implementation plan was prepared in 2005 and outlines the mission, goals, objectives, and strategies for joint venture activities. Individual state action groups and steering committees prepared state action plans that “stepped down” joint venture activities to the state and local level. The goal of the PPJV is to increase waterfowl populations through habitat conservation projects that improve natural diversity across the prairie pothole landscape of the United States. The joint venture attempts to carry out landscape-level habitat projects so that waterfowl populations increase during the wet years and stabilize under moderate conditions. Since little can be done to stabilize the breeding populations across the Prairie Pothole Region during extended drought, joint venture strategies are designed to carry out actions that take advantage of years when precipitation is at least normal.
reCoVery plans for federally listed tHreatened or endangered speCies
Where federally listed threatened or endangered species occur at the nine districts, the Service will follow the management goals and strategies in the species recovery plans. The list of threatened or endangered species that occur at the districts will change as species are listed or delisted, or as listed species are discovered on district lands.
The districts are these species:
following the recovery plans for
QQ
Piping plovers (threatened) in the northern
Great Plains (USFWS 1994a).
Whooping crane (endangered) (USFWS 1994b).
Interior least tern (endangered) (USFWS 1990).
QQ
QQ
QQ
Western prairie fringed orchid (threatened) (USFWS 1996).
USFWS The piping plover is a threatened species that uses district shorelines for feeding and nesting.
state CompreHensiVe Wildlife ConserVation strategy
Over the past several decades, documented declines of wildlife populations have occurred nationwide. Congress created the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) program in 2001. This program provides states and territories with federal dollars to support conservation aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered and in need of protection under the Endangered Species Act. The SWG program represents an ambitious endeavor to take an active hand in keeping species from becoming threatened or endangered in the future. According to the SWG program, each state, territory, and the District of Columbia must complete a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (CWCS) by October 1, 2005 to receive future funding. These strategies will help define an integrated approach to the stewardship of all wildlife species, with additional emphasis on species of concern and habitats at risk. The goal is to shift focus from single-species management and highly specialized individual efforts to a geographically based, landscape-oriented, fish and wildlife conservation effort. The Service approves these plans and administers SWG program funding. North Dakota’s CWCS is a strategic vision with the goal of preserving the state’s wildlife diversity. It is intended to identify species of greatest conservation need, provide fundamental background information, strategic guidance, and a framework for developing and coordinating conservation actions to safeguard all fish and wildlife resources. The state of North Dakota has taken a landscape approach to conservation planning, which has numerous advantages. It allows the state to link species requiring conservation to a key landscape and habitat, often within a specific geographic area. This approach also 8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
provides a comprehensive listing of all other fish and wildlife using the landscape, while providing relative plant and soil conditions applicable to the landscape. A landscape approach helps to identify corresponding conservation actions needed across the landscape, along with the potential partners who are or could be addressing them. Three tools are used to identify landscape components: land cover information, ecoregions, and statistical models. Ecoregions were defined based on general similarity of geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The CWCS recognizes four ecoregions commonly referred to as the Red River Valley, Drift Prairie, Missouri Coteau, and Missouri Slope. The CWCS identified conservation problems encountered in North Dakota that apply to all four of the ecoregions. Direct loss of habitat is a key issue because very little, native, tall-grass prairie remains in the state. The conservation action will be to protect native tall-grass prairie where possible. Habitat fragmentation is occurring throughout the state due to construction of roads, shelterbelts, and agricultural practices. Actions will include the removal of dilapidated shelterbelts or stands of trees within grasslands. Habitat degradation occurring from improper grazing practices and loss of the historical fire regime can be fixed by using grazing systems to benefit tall-grass species and promoting the use of fire. Other actions include extending the time between haying and grazing, promoting mid-term required management, and providing incentives to defer or idle cutting of tame grass (cultivated, nonnative grass such as smooth brome). Invasive plants, including noxious weeds such as leafy spurge, will be controlled through biological and chemical methods. The CWCS for the state of North Dakota was reviewed and information was used during development of the CCP. Carrying out CCP habitat goals and objectives will support the goals and objectives of the CWCS.
1.5 Ecosystem Description and Threats
The Service has adopted watersheds as the basic building blocks for carrying out ecosystem conservation. The districts span two Service-designated ecosystems —the Missouri River main stem ecosystem and the Hudson Bay ecosystem—with the majority falling within the former (see figure 3, ecosystem map). Major threats identified for these ecosystems include native prairie conversion to cropland, expansion of invasive plant species, and wetland drainage and degradation. The districts play a major role in (1) continued leadership and support of regional initiatives such as the PPJV, and (2) continued support of conservation partners including the NDGF and private organizations such as Ducks Unlimited. In addition, the Service is continually working with
private landowners through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to restore and improve grassland and wetland habitats on private lands.
1.6 Planning Process
This CCP for the districts is intended to comply with the Improvement Act, the NEPA, and the implementation regulations of the acts. The Service issued its Refuge System planning policy in 2000. This policy established requirements and guidance for refuge and district plans—including CCPs and step-down management plans—to ensure that planning efforts comply with the Improvement Act. The planning policy identified several steps of the CCP and environmental analysis process (see figure 4, steps in the planning process). Table 1 summarizes accomplishment of the main planning steps for this CCP effort. The Service began the “preplanning” process in August 2006. The planning team was Service personnel from the affected North Dakota districts; the regional divisions of refuge planning, realty, and visitor services; and the NDGF (see appendix B for a list of preparers and contributors). During preplanning, the team developed a mailing list, internal issues, and a special qualities list. The planning team identified current district program status, compiled and analyzed relevant data, and determined the purposes of the districts. A notice of intent to prepare the CCP was published in the Federal Register on February 28, 2007. The Service complied with the NEPA through public involvement (see appendix C).
sCoping
The notice of intent started scoping for the CCP. Scoping is the process of obtaining information from the public for input into the planning process. The Service received 46 written comments throughout the scoping process. The public identified issues about the districts (see chapter 2, “2.6 Planning Issues”). In addition, over the course of preplanning and scoping, the planning team collected available information about the resources of the districts and surrounding areas (see “Chapter 3, District Resources and Description”).
draft plan
The Service considered all input during development of the draft CCP and EA. This included changes to the districts’ current management that were suggested by the public and other groups. The planning process ensures that issues with the greatest effect on the districts are resolved or given priority. Chapter 1—Introduction 9
Figure 3. Ecosystem map for region 6 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process. Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.Graphic that shows eight steps in the planning process.
Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
3. Draft Vision Statement and Goals Determine Substantive Issues
4. Develop and Analyze Alternatives Create a reasonable range of alternatives including a “no-action” alternative.
1. Preplanning Plan the plan.
2. Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping Involve the public.
8. Review and Revise Plan Public involvement when applicable.
7. Implement Plan Monitor and Evaluate Public involvement when applicable.
6. Prepare and AdoptFinal Plan Respond to public comments. Select preferred alternative.
➠ ➠ ➠➠ ➠➠ 5. Prepare Draft Plan and➠National Environmental Policy Act Document ➠Public comment and review. Figure 4. Steps in the planning process.
10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
After scoping and detailed analysis, the planning team developed three management alternatives that best addressed the issues. The Service identified alternative B as the proposed action. On August 19, 2008, the Service published a notice of availability announcing that the draft CCP and environmental assessment (EA) document was available for a 30-day public review. A summary of written comments gathered during the review period, along with the Service’s responses, is in appendix C.
final plan
After an analysis of the public comments, the Service’s region 6 director selected alternative B as the preferred alternative. Subsequently, the planning team produced this final CCP, based on the draft CCP with minor changes. The biological evaluation for the final CCP determined that there would likely be no adverse effect on threatened or endangered species or critical habitats as a result of the actions of the CCP (see appendix D). The regional director approved the final CCP in September 2008 after a “finding of no significant impact” (see appendix E, “Environmental Compliance”).
“Chapter 4, Management Direction” outlines the long-term guidance for management decisions; sets forth objectives and strategies to accomplish district purposes and meet goals; and identifies the Service’s best estimate of future needs. The CCP details program levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning purposes.
pUbliC Coordination
A mailing list of more than 1,025 names included private citizens; local, regional, and state government representatives and legislators; other federal agencies; and interested organizations (see appendix C). In April 2007, the first planning update was sent to everyone on the mailing list. The update provided information about the planning process for the districts, along with an invitation to public scoping meetings. A comment form and postage-paid envelope gave the public an opportunity to easily provide comments. In addition, the local media announced the public meetings. The Service held public scoping meetings during March–April 2007 (see table 1 for details). Each attendee received a comment form to submit comments or questions in writing. Chapter 1—Introduction 11
Table 1. Planning Process Summary for the Nine Districts, North Dakota.
Date Event Outcome
Initial meeting with
May 2006
North Dakota project
CCP overview.
leaders.
August 2006
Meeting with district staffs and field review.
Planning team was finalized; biological and visitor services issues were reviewed.
December 2006
Kick off meeting, initial development of vision and goals.
District purposes were identified; initial issues and qualities list was developed; mailing list was started; biological and mapping needs were identified; and public scoping was planned.
February 2007
Public notice of intent to prepare a CCP.
Notice was published in the Federal Register.
March 2007
Initial public contact through mailing of the first planning update.
Public opportunity was offered (to learn about the CCP and provide comments); planning update described the CCP process and provided comment forms and postage-paid envelopes mailed.
March–April 2007
Six public meetings.
Public opportunity was offered (to learn about the CCP and provide comments).
March–April 2007
Alternatives development.
Alternatives for district management were developed and drafted by the planning team.
February–August 2007
Development of biological objectives.
Objectives and strategies were developed and drafted by the planning team for the biological aspects of district management.
June–July 2007
Development of visitor services objectives.
Objectives and strategies were developed and drafted by the planning team for the visitor services at the districts.
April 2008
Internal review of the draft plan.
Draft plan was reviewed by the Service’s regional staff.
August 2008
Draft plan release for public review.
Revised draft plan was published for review by the public.
September 2008
Nine public meetings.
Presented the draft CCP and EA and collected public comments.
September 2008
Final plan approval.
Regional director signed the “finding of no significant impact” and approved the final plan.
state Coordination
On September 12, 2006, an invitation letter to participate in the CCP process was sent by the Service’s region 6 director to the director of the NDGF. Two representatives from the NDGF were part of the CCP planning team. Local NDGF wildlife
managers and the district staffs maintain excellent and ongoing working relations, which preceded the start of the CCP process. The NDGF’s mission is to “protect, conserve, and enhance fish and wildlife populations and their habitats for sustained public consumptive and 12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
nonconsumptive uses.” The NDGF is responsible for managing natural resource lands owned by the state, in addition to enforcement responsibilities for the state’s migratory birds and endangered species. The state manages more than 78,000 acres in support of wildlife, recreation, and fisheries.
tribal Coordination
On October 19, 2006, the Service’s region 6 director sent a letter to six Native American tribal governments in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota:
Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Spirit Lake Tribal Council Standing Rock Sioux Three Affiliated Tribes White Earth Band of Chippewa Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa
With information about the upcoming CCP, the letter invited tribal recipients to serve on the planning team. None of the tribes expressed interest in participating in the process.
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
2 The Districts
USFWS The Service purchases waterfowl production areas with Duck Stamp dollars to protect habitat for waterfowl.
A wetland management district provides oversight for all of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s small land tracts in a multicounty area. The nine districts manage 1,208 waterfowl production areas (232,509 acres), ten of thousands of conservation easements, and 50 wildlife development areas (18,540 acres) in 34 counties in North Dakota. These district lands (totaling 1,125,084 acres) are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, a network of lands set aside to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat.
QQ
The Service bought these WPAs with funds generated from the sale of federal Duck Stamps to protect and restore waterfowl habitat. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) bought the wildlife development areas (WDAs) as part of North Dakota’s Garrison Diversion Unit. Developed for wildlife by restoring drained wetlands and planting cropland acres to grass, the Service manages these areas primarily for the production of migratory birds. The conservation easements are on private lands where landowners have sold some of their property rights to the Service for protection and restoration of wildlife habitat.
QQ
QQ
This chapter describes the history, special values, purposes, vision, goals, and planning issues for the nine North Dakota wetland management districts.
2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History
The nine districts were established in the early 1960s, with the major objectives of wetland preservation, waterfowl and wildlife production, and maintenance of breeding grounds for migratory birds. The districts also provide a northern staging area and habitat for migration.
Habitat proteCtion
The Service manages the WPAs for the benefit of waterfowl, other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and resident wildlife. The districts protect habitat primarily with two tools— WPAs and conservation easements, which are described below. On May 5, 1960, the Service bought the first WPA (212 acres in LaMoure County) within the nine-district geographic area. 14 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
QQ
WPAs are public lands bought by the federal government for increasing the production of migratory birds, especially waterfowl. The purchase of land is also known as “ownership in fee title,” where the federal government holds ownership of land on behalf of the American public. Money to buy WPA lands generally comes from the public purchase of a federal Duck Stamp. This important program is to ensure the long-term protection of waterfowl and other migratory-bird-breeding habitat that is located primarily in the Prairie Pothole Region of the northern Great Plains. All WPAs are within districts managed by Service staff. WPAs are open to the public for hunting, fishing, bird watching, trapping, hiking and most other nonmotorized and noncommercial outdoor recreation. (Recreational trapping is an activity that has been authorized by 50 CFR, part 31.16.) Conservation easements are acquired to protect migratory bird species habitat on private land. Typically used where fee acquisition is not desirable or needed, perpetual easements are bought from willing landowners within a wetland management district. Conservation easements have several advantages over the outright purchase of lands by the Service. First, they are more cost-effective, both in terms of initial purchase, and in long-term management responsibilities. While conservation easement contracts do require attentive enforcement to ensure their integrity, they do not carry the other burdens of ownership; for example, maintenance of facilities such as fences and signs, control of invasive plants, and mowing of ditches. Second, the operator owns and manages the land in much the same way as it was before the conservation easement purchase. This is because the program was developed and carried out by managers, biologists, and realty specialists with an interest in protecting resources at the landscape scale while minimally affecting, and even complementing, other agricultural practices. Therefore, a single-habitat conservation easement is often referred to as either a “wetland easement” or a “grassland easement.” Conservation easements generally prohibit the cultivation of grassland habitat, while still permitting the landowner traditional grazing uses. A wetland easement generally prohibits draining, burning, and leveling.
QQ
The federal Migratory Bird Conservation Fund finances the habitat protection programs—WPAs and conservation easements. The Migratory Bird Conservation Fund provides the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) with monies to acquire migratory bird habitat. The 1958 amendment to the Duck Stamp Act authorized the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program and provided for the acquisition of WPAs in addition to the previously authorized habitats. Receipts from the sale of the Duck Stamp are used to acquire habitat
under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 715). The purpose of this important program is to ensure the long-term protection of waterfowl and other migratory bird breeding habitat that is located primarily in the Prairie Pothole Region of the northern Great Plains (see figure 5, map of the Prairie Pothole Region). The Service’s perpetual conservation easements are key components of the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program; these easements, together with WPAs, have contributed greatly to the conservation and maintenance of prairie-nesting migratory birds. The legislation authorizing the use of Duck Stamp money for wetland easement acquisitions through the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program required state approval. In North Dakota, approvals have been granted over time on a county-by-county basis. Soon after the passage of the 1958 amendment to the Duck Stamp Act, a team of Service biologists evaluated wetland habitats in North Dakota and made recommendations on the number of acres that should be protected in each county north and east of the Missouri River and two counties to the south and west. The original plan was for the state of North Dakota to protect half of these acres and for the Service to protect the other half with easements. The Service, therefore, proposed an acreage figure for each county based on this assumption. The state approved these figures, which became the respective “caps” for number of wetland acres that could be covered by Service easements in each county, even though they represented only half of what the Service recommended should actually be protected. In some counties, these caps have been met and no additional wetland easements can be bought with Duck Stamp funds without further approval from the governor; however, easements can be bought with non-Duck Stamp funds. To keep track of the number of acres bought in each county, the Service created and maintained easement summaries, which identify the number of wetland acres for which landowners were paid. WDAs are another means through which the districts conserve habitat. Reclamation bought valuable wetland habitat and transferred these lands to the Service for management to offset habitat losses resulting from the development of the Garrison Diversion Project in western North Dakota. Through a memorandum of agreement between the Service, Reclamation, and NDGF, the Service manages these lands as part of the Refuge System within wetland management districts for migratory birds, particularly waterfowl. There are 37 WDAs (19,829 acres) scattered across North Dakota. The management of and regulations for public use at WDAs are similar to that for WPAs. There are other conservation easements administered by the districts, but these were not acquired through the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program. The most common of these are Farmers Home Administration conservation easements—“FmHA easements” (also known as RECD [Rural Economic and Community Chapter 2—The Districts 15
Figure 5. Map of the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States and Canada. 16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Development] easements, Farm Service Agency “Ag-Credit easements,” and U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] conservation easements, depending on the status of the USDA program responsible for these properties at the time they were in federal inventory). The 1985 Farm Bill Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act was the initial authorization for FmHA easements. The Farmers Home Administration was given authority to establish easements for conservation, recreation, and wildlife purposes on properties that were foreclosed on by the federal government (“inventory” properties), and the Service was designated easement manager for those easements worthy of inclusion into the Refuge System. The Farmers Home Administration’s inventory lands were inspected for wetlands and identified similarly as if the Service were to accept wetlands for its Small Wetlands Acquisition Program. However, protection of wetlands, floodplains, and their watersheds, along with historical and cultural resources (that is, “Native Tree Claims”) required a variety of provisions and restrictions in these conservation easements. The quitclaim deed that was prepared when the inventory lands were sold outlined these provisions—rights reserved by the Service are listed in the “Covenants by the Landowner” and vary from easement to easement.
distriCt desCriptions
The nine wetland management districts are home for all waterfowl species found in the Prairie Pothole Region (see figure 1, vicinity map, in chapter 1). The nine districts manage approximately 1,146,322 acres. Below is a brief description for each of the nine districts.
Arrowwood Wetland Management District
QQ
Foster and Eddy counties Headquarters—Pingree, North Dakota Part of the Arrowwood National Wildlife
Refuge Complex
All district lands—25,199 acres
QQ
QQ
QQ
—Q
28 WPAs: 6,144 acres wetland easements: 18,639 acres grassland easements: 0 acres FmHA easements: 416 acres WDAs: 0 acres
—Q
—Q
—Q
—Q
The district, in east-central North Dakota, was established in 1961 as a breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. Wildlife species often observed at the WPAs include waterfowl, upland game birds, songbirds, birds of prey, deer, and numerous furbearers. The WPAs offer many opportunities for wildlife observation, hiking, hunting, photography, winter sports (cross-country skiing), and education and interpretation for organized groups.
Audubon Wetland Management District
QQ
McLean, Ward, and Sheridan counties Headquarters—Coleharbor, North Dakota Part of the Audubon Wetland Management
District Complex
QQ
QQ
QQ
All district lands—188,751 acres
—Q
101 WPAs: 18,584 acres wetland easements: 95,061 acres grassland easements: 55,022 acres FmHA easements: 7,400 acres 20 WDAs: 12,684 acres
—Q
—Q
—Q
—Q
The district includes WPAs and WDAs. Reclamation developed these WDAs for wildlife by restoring drained wetlands and planting cropland acres to grass. The WDAs were transferred to the Service to be managed primarily for the production of migratory birds and for public use. All public lands managed as the Audubon Wetland Management District contain wetland and grassland habitat for waterfowl, other migratory birds, and many other species of wildlife. Rotational grazing, haying, and prescribed burning are common techniques used to improve and maintain grasslands for nesting birds. These public lands help sustain North America’s waterfowl populations by providing secure wetland and grassland habitats.
USFWS American white pelicans rest at Chase Lake Wetland Management District.
Chase Lake Wetland Management District QQ
Stutsman and Wells counties Headquarters—Woodworth, North Dakota Part of the Arrowwood National Wildlife
Refuge Complex
All district lands—111,680 acres QQ
QQ
QQ
—Q
129 WPAs: 35,473 acres wetland easements: 56,057 acres grassland easements: 14,812 acres
—Q
—Q
—Q
FmHA easements: 1,608 acres 5 WDAs: 3,730 acres —Q
Located in the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States, the district and surrounding area provide breeding and resting habitat for more than 293 bird species. The district is comprised of native prairie, dense nesting cover, and an amazing density of wetlands. The majority of this land has not been altered since Euro-American settlement times. The WPAs, purchased since 1960, have been used by researchers to provide important information about waterfowl and wetland densities. The diversity and abundance of wildife species at these WPAs provide excellent opportunities for outdoor recreation such as hunting, trapping, and wildlife observation.
Crosby Wetland Management District
QQ
Burke, Divide, and Williams counties Headquarters—Crosby, North Dakota QQ
Chapter 2—The Districts 17
QQ
Part of the Lostwood Wetland Management
District Complex
All district lands—114,552 acres QQ
—Q
99 WPAs: 18,730 acres wetland easements: 70,019 acres grassland easements: 25,083 acres FmHA easements: 720 acres WDAs: 0 acres
—Q
—Q
—Q
—Q
Wetlands and grasslands have been preserved on private property by the purchase of easements from landowners who have agreed not to drain, fill, or burn their wetlands, or to till their grasslands. Several hundred easement contracts protect wetlands and native grasslands. The district, located in northwestern North Dakota, shares a border with Canada and the state of Montana. This area is known as one of the finest nesting and breeding sites for hundreds of species of birds.
Devils Lake Wetland Management District
QQ
Benson, Cavalier, Grand Forks, Nelson, Pembina, Ramsey, Towner, and Walsh counties Headquarters—Devils Lake, North Dakota Part of the Devils Lake Wetland Management District Complex All district lands—210,717 acres QQ
QQ
QQ
—Q
257 WPAs: 48,885 acres wetland easements: 150,182 acres grassland easements: 4,264 acres FmHA easements: 4,606 acres 11 WDAs: 2,780 acres
—Q
—Q
—Q
—Q
The district primarily provides wetland areas needed by waterfowl in the spring and summer for nesting and feeding. Primary objectives of the Devils Lake Wetland Management District are wetland habitat preservation and improvement, waterfowl and wildlife production, maintenance of migration habitat, and provision of winter cover for resident wildlife. Devils Lake Wetland Management District is home for all waterfowl species found in the Prairie Pothole Region. Mallard, gadwall, and blue-winged teal are the most abundant ducks. Giant Canada geese have been reintroduced and efforts are underway to expand the range of this historically important species. Spectacular concentrations of migratory birds gather in the district each spring and fall including snow geese, whose vast numbers are a magnificent sight. The WPAs also provide habitat for white-tailed deer, pheasant, turkey, sharp-tailed grouse, Hungarian partridge, and occasional moose.
Photograph of a Baird's sparrow standing in grass.
Baird’s sparrow.
Photograph of a Sprague's pipit standing on rock in grass.
Birding groups nationwide know North Dakota as the best area for opportunities to view the unique Baird’s sparrow and Sprague’s pipit (above). 18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
The WPAs provide many opportunities for year-round outdoor enjoyment including hunting, trapping, wildlife observation, photography, and environmental study.
J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District
QQ
Bottineau, Kenville, McHenry, Pierce, and
Rolette counties
Headquarters—Upham, North Dakota Part of the J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District Complex All district lands—197,691 acres
QQ
QQ
QQ
—Q
127 WPAs: 27,332 acres wetland easements: 135,321 acres grassland easements: 28,065 acres FmHA easements: 6,973 acres WDAs: 0 acres
—Q
—Q
—Q
—Q
The district’s lands are important feeding and resting areas for hundreds of thousands of waterfowl that annually migrate through the Central Flyway. The district has developed into one of the most important duck production areas in the United States. The district has become a favorite spot for birds of all descriptions to stop on their migrations north and south. Gadwall, blue-winged teal, mallard, and Canada goose are the most numerous nesting waterfowl. Many species of shorebirds and grebes, American white pelican, sandhill crane, lark bunting, longspurs, and sparrows— including Baird’s and Le Conte’s—are among the birds that take summer residence at the district. Managing upland areas for waterfowl nesting habitat has also benefited upland game birds. The sharp-tailed grouse, ring-necked pheasant, gray partridge, ruffed grouse, and wild turkey are all occupants of the district.
Kulm Wetland Management District
QQ
Dickey, LaMoure, Logan, and McIntosh counties Headquarters—Kulm, North Dakota Part of the Kulm Wetland Management District Complex
QQ
QQ
QQ
All district lands—200,712 acres
—Q
231 WPAs: 44,739 acres wetland easements: 112,692 acres grassland easements: 38,251 acres FmHA easements: 4,390 acres 1 WDA: 640 acres
—Q
—Q
—Q
—Q
In the heart of the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States, the district is in southeastern North Dakota. Glacial action molded the landscape of the area, leaving a wealth of wetlands. Vegetation that developed on the glacially scoured area and glacial
end moraine hills represents a transition between tall-grass and short-grass prairie. Bison, waterfowl, and early native people thrived. The James River, running through the eastern part of the district, forms a major migration corridor for numerous species of migratory birds. Although highly altered following the influx of European immigrants, the area retains many of its wetlands and numerous acres of native grass. A wide variety of migratory birds uses the district for breeding grounds, nest sites, and migration rest stops. Preservation and management of the migratory bird resource is the primary duty of the district.
Lostwood Wetland Management District
QQ
Mountrail County Headquarters—Kenmare, North Dakota Part of the Lostwood Wetland Management
District Complex
All district lands—84,145 acres
QQ
QQ
QQ
—Q
56 WPAs: 12,506 acres wetland easements: 35,000 acres grassland easements: 36,034 acres FmHA easements: 605 acres WDAs: 0 acres
—Q
—Q
—Q
—Q
The district is located in northwestern North Dakota and extends from eastern Burke County, north to the Canadian border, west to the Montana line, and south to Lake Sakakawea. A variety of wildland habitats are present ranging from (1) prairie creeks and rivers to rolling hills covered with native prairie grasses and dotted with numerous wetlands, and (2) flat croplands to gradual slopes leading downward toward Lake Sakakawea and the rough breaks and bluffs that border this impoundment in the Missouri River system. The WPAs in the district provide more than 2,700 acres of prairie grasses, wildflowers, and wetlands habitat as a great opportunities for hunting, trapping, and wildlife observation within the coteau (hilly upland) prairie.
Valley City Wetland Management District
QQ
Barnes, Cass, Griggs, Steele, and Traill counties Headquarters—Valley City, North Dakota Part of the Arrowwood Wetland Management District Complex All district lands: 61,218 acres
QQ
QQ
QQ
—Q
82 WPAs: 17,653 acres wetland easements: 41,583 acres grassland easements: 0 acres FmHA easements: 1,982 acres WDAs: 0 acres
—Q
—Q
—Q
—Q
Chapter 2—The Districts 19
The district is located in east-central North Dakota. The eastern one-third of the district is located in the Red River Valley. This area, characterized by flat, intensively farmed lands, was once the lake bed of Glacial Lake Agassiz. The remaining two-thirds of the district is part of the glaciated Prairie Pothole Region known as the Drift Prairie. The area is characterized by a gentle and smooth rolling topography with numerous wetlands, ranging from under an acre to several hundred acres. The district staff promotes conservation farming and ranching practices, protects unique prairie ecosystems, increases waterfowl and other prairie wildlife species, and provides consumptive and nonconsumptive public use.
distriCt information sUmmary
Mallard, gadwall, and blue-winged teal are the most abundant ducks, with several other species of diving and dabbling ducks common to the districts. Giant Canada geese have been reintroduced and efforts are underway to expand the range of this historically important species. Spectacular concentrations of waterfowl and other migratory birds gather in the districts each spring and fall, including snow geese, whose vast numbers are a magnificent sight. In addition, WPAs provide habitat for many resident species of wildlife including white-tailed deer, pheasants, turkeys, and sharp-tailed grouse. Creating habitat diversity and managing wildlife cover in WPAs result in an increase in wildlife abundance, an important objective of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The districts use many management practices to benefit waterfowl. These techniques include construction of nesting structures, creation and restoration of wetlands, management of water levels in wetlands, establishment of winter food plots, management of nesting cover, prescribed burning, haying and grazing (see appendix F), and law enforcement. These techniques enhance and create a diversity of habitats that are used by many wildlife species.
2.2 Special Values
Early in the planning process, the planning team and public identified the outstanding qualities of the nine wetland management districts. District qualities are the characteristics and features of each district that make it special, valuable for wildlife, and worthy of Refuge System status. It was important to identify the special values of each district to recognize its worth and to ensure that the special values of the districts are preserved, protected, and enhanced through the planning process. District qualities can be unique biological values, as well as something as simple as “a quiet place to see a variety of birds and enjoy nature.” The following summarizes the qualities that make the districts unique and valued:
QQ
The districts have a very high density of wetlands for waterfowl and migratory birds.
USFWS District staffs work with private landowners to protect wetland habitat under easement. 20 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
USFWS District habitats are essential to breeding waterfowl populations.
QQ
Very large blocks of intact native prairie ecosystem are protected through the districts’ conservation easements and fee ownership. The districts provide protected and managed wetlands and uplands for breeding and staging habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds during migration within the Central Flyway. Visitors can find diverse and abundant
possibilities for public use at the districts.
The districts provide for quality environmental education. The districts provide for the protection of breeding areas for endangered species such as the piping plover. The districts protect and manage unique landscapes such as the deciduous forest of the Turtle Mountains.
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
2.3 Purposes
The districts were designated as part of the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program in the 1950s to save wetlands from various threats, particularly drainage. The passage of Public Law 85-585 in August 1958 amended the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934 (“Duck Stamp Act”) and allowed for the acquisition of waterfowl production areas and conservation easements for waterfowl production. The main authorities in establishment of the districts follow:
QQ
Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act 16 USC 718(c)—“As waterfowl production areas subject to all provisions of the Migratory
Bird Conservation Act … except the inviolate sanctuary provisions.” Migratory Bird Conservation Act 16 USC 715d—“For any other management purposes, for migratory birds.”
QQ
The districts are “to assure the long-term viability of the breeding waterfowl population and production through the acquisition and management of waterfowl production areas, while considering the needs of other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife” (memorandum from Region 6 Assistant Regional Director Richard A. Coleman, December 2006). This purpose statement was developed for all region 6 wetland management districts. The districts provide a northern staging area and habitat for migration. For this CCP, the Service has combined the nine districts for evaluation as a group and program. The purposes and management capabilities and challenges are similar for the nine districts. All nine districts were established under two authorities—the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934, and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of February 18, 1929:
QQ
The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (“Duck Stamp Act”) provides for the conservation, protection, and propagation of native species of fish and wildlife, including migratory birds that are threatened with extinction. The Migratory Bird Conservation Act works toward meeting the obligations of the United States under the migratory bird treaty with Great Britain by the following:
QQ
Chapter 2—The Districts 21
—Q Lessening the dangers threatening migratory
game birds from drainage and other causes.
The acquisition of areas of land and water
to furnish in perpetuity reservations for the
adequate protection of such birds.
Authorizing appropriations for the
establishment of such areas, their maintenance
and improvement, and for other purposes.
—Q
—Q
2.4 Vision
At the beginning of the planning process, the Service
developed a vision for the districts. The vision describes
the focus of district management, including what will
be different in the future, and is the essence of what
the Service is trying to accomplish by the end of the 15­year
CCP period. The vision for the districts follows.
Wetland management districts conserve an
important network of public and private
wetland and upland habitat in North Dakota.
This network preserves the integrity of the
historical and vital resting and breeding
grounds of North America’s
migratory waterfowl.
As part of the National Wildlife Refuge System,
these lands benefit ducks, other migratory birds,
threatened and endangered species, and
resident wildlife.
The responsible management and protection
of this expanding network requires adequate
funding, dedicated personnel, and
successful partnerships.
District communities and visitors value
grasslands and marshes as a beneficial and
important component of a diverse, healthy,
and productive prairie landscape.
Current and future generations enjoy wildlife-dependent
uses of these lands and partners,
especially waterfowl hunters, actively support
and encourage the districts’ habitat
conservation programs.
2.5 Goals
The Service developed six goals for the districts based
on the Improvement Act and information developed
during planning. The goals direct work toward
achieving the vision and purposes of the districts and
outline approaches for managing district resources.
Habitat and Wildlife goal
Protect, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity
of grasslands and wetlands of the North Dakota
Prairie Pothole Region. Contribute to the production
and growth of continental waterfowl populations to
meet the goals of the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan. Also, support healthy populations
of other migratory birds, threatened and endangered
species, and other wildlife.
monitoring and researCH goal
Use science, monitoring, and applied research to
advance the understanding of the Prairie Pothole
Region and management within the North Dakota
wetland management districts.
CUltUral resoUrCes goal
Identify and evaluate cultural resources in the North
Dakota wetland management districts that are on
Service-owned lands or are affected by Service
undertakings. Protect resources determined to be
significant and, when appropriate, interpret resources
to connect staff, visitors, and communities to the
area��s past.
Visitor serViCes goal
Provide visitors with quality opportunities to enjoy
hunting, fishing, trapping, and other compatible
wildlife-dependent recreation on Service-owned
lands and expand their knowledge and appreciation
of the prairie landscape and the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
partnersHips goal
A diverse network of partners joins with the North
Dakota wetland management districts to support
research; protect, restore, and enhance habitat; and
foster awareness and appreciation of the prairie
landscape.
operations goal
Effectively employ staff, partnerships, and volunteers
and secure adequate funding in support of the National
Wildlife Refuge System’s mission.
2.6 Planning Issues
Several key issues were identified following the
analysis of comments collected from Service staff
and the public and a review of the requirements of
the Improvement Act and the NEPA. Substantive
comments (those that could be addressed within the
authority and management capabilities of the Service)
were considered during the formulation of the
alternatives for future management. Summaries of
these key issues are below.
22 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Wetland and Upland Habitats
All of the districts have a primary purpose to provide optimal habitat conditions for the needs of a suite of waterfowl and other migratory birds and, to a lesser extent, native resident wildlife. Aggressive management of wetland and upland habitats must be conducted to achieve goals and objectives. Wetland and upland habitats need to be protected and enhanced through management. Habitat protection needs to be evaluated through a priority system so that different means of protection, through either fee title or conservation easement, can be evaluated.
Invasive Plants
The districts include uplands, which were previously farmed. Farmed uplands have since been restored to mixes of tame and native grasses and are interspersed with native uplands, the bulk of which have the native vegetation character but are compromised by invading species. The primary invasive plants are leafy spurge, Canada thistle, and absinth wormwood. Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome are primary invasive grass species. These nonnative grasses and forbs, and potentially invasive native woody species, substantially diminish the quality and suitability of upland habitat for many native wildlife species. Western snowberry and silverberry are native shrubs that have greatly expanded their coverage in some areas where natural regimes of fire and grazing have been altered.
Al Schneider/USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database Canada thistle is one of the invasive plants that are troublesome on district lands.
Energy Development
While the Service works to minimize the negative effects of energy development, the demand for energy is an increasing factor in habitat quality and preservation at the districts. The production of biofuels, coal, oil, gas, and wind energy has the potential to impact effectiveness of many district programs. The Service supports research that helps to understand the effects on wildlife of such energy projects as wind towers and conversion of grassland to cropland to support production of ethanol. It is a high priority for the Service to work in partnership with conservation and agricultural groups to support conservation programs such as the following: federal Farm Bill legislation, NDGF projects, water quality and watershed projects, and private conservation efforts. The physical structure of wind power turbines has unknown effects on birds. Through studies and analysis, the Service is currently evaluating wind towers to determine their effect on wildlife. In addition, it is unknown if wind power will affect the potential for future habitat protection through conservation easements. The Service needs to evaluate oil and gas development. Effects on some district lands—including salt-water contamination, filling of wetlands, and road development —have increased as increasing exploration takes place in North Dakota.
Prairie Conversion
The loss of native prairie is occurring at an alarming rate. Prairie is being converted for corn production to produce ethanol, which also has additional needs for irrigation water. An active role by the agricultural community, in partnership with conservation groups, needs to be taken to protect the federal Farm Bill and its conservation provisions, such as the Conservation Reserve Program and “Swampbuster” and “Sod Saver” provisions in the 1985 Farm Bill (amended 1990, 1996, 2002).
Wildlife management
Threatened and endangered species, predators, and wildlife disease are issues for the districts.
Threatened and Endangered Species
The piper plover is a federally listed, threatened, shorebird. Breeding piping plovers occur in small numbers on numerous alkali wetlands in the Audubon, Crosby, and Lostwood wetland management districts. Endangered whooping cranes can be observed in the marshes across the districts. The primary issues related to these and other species of concern center on the Chapter 2—The Districts 23
following: (1) monitoring populations; (2) monitoring habitat use; (3) identifying, securing, and maintaining essential habitat; and (4) developing habitat conditions in areas with potential for these species and that will promote increased recruitment or population protection to secure and increase their populations.
Predator Management
Several species including red fox, coyote, striped skunk, Franklin’s ground squirrel, mink, badger, and raccoon are found at higher than historical levels due to modifications of habitat and other factors. These species can adversely affect—primarily by predation on nests of grassland-nesting bird species—waterfowl and other migratory bird populations and reduce the likelihood of reaching wildlife population goals and objectives. The woody vegetation has a negative influence on grassland songbirds because it provides habitat for predators and attracts forest-edge bird species that may displace grassland species.
Wildlife Disease
The districts administer migratory bird programs and have the lead role in addressing wildlife and, in particular, bird disease issues. Wetland management districts in North Dakota have a history of botulism outbreaks. Success in combating botulism occurs at the expense of other resources. There is the ongoing issue of striking a balance between providing optimal habitats, maintaining other district programs, and managing botulism.
Visitor serViCes
Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation are uses currently authorized on lands administered by the districts. A growing demand for public recreation in North Dakota and the nation makes these six wildlife-dependent recreational uses, as specified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, a primary issue of interest. Some of the commenting public wants more opportunity to participate in not only the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses, but also in trapping.
operations
Funding and staff are not sufficient to fulfill the purposes and meet the goals of the districts. Identification of priorities and direction of resources efficiently will always be an issue for the districts. The Service’s staff needs to identify and describe unfunded needs to be able to compete effectively for additional money from within the Service and from partners and other sources. District facilities need to be evaluated and upgraded.
monitoring and researCH
Monitoring habitat and wildlife populations is an essential element in achieving the primary goals and objectives of the districts. Basic data about recruitment, mortality, and habitat use for a representative group of species must be collected and analyzed on a regular basis to make appropriate decisions that affect the habitats these species depend on. The use of the districts as a research field station could make valuable strides in development of new directions in management and expansion of the knowledge of field biologists. 3 District Resources and Description
Photograph of a marsh in the morning.
Sunrise over a Wells County wetland.
The nine wetland management districts manage thousands of noncontiguous tracts of federal land totaling 1,125,084 acres. These lands include 1,208 WPAs, 37 WDAs, and tens of thousands of conservation easements. This chapter describes the physical environment and biological resources of these district lands. In addition, this chapter addresses the fire and grazing history, cultural resources, visitor services, socioeconomic environment, and operations of the districts.
3.1 Physical Environment
The districts are primarily east and north of the Missouri River, from the Canadian border south to the state line of South Dakota. Because districts cover such a large geographic area, the physical environment and biological resources are described in terms of physiographic region (or level 3 and level 4 ecoregions) (Bryce et al. 1996) in which each district is located. Five physiographic regions occur in the nine-district area: Red River Valley, Glaciated Plains, Turtle Mountains, Missouri Coteau, and Coteau Slope (see figure 6, map of physiographic regions). These physiographic regions correspond closely to the level 3 ecoregions described below with the exception of the Turtle Mountains, which is described as a level 4 ecoregion.
The prairies of North Dakota have become an ecological treasure of biological importance for waterfowl and other migratory birds. The prairie potholes of North Dakota and South Dakota support a wide diversity of wildlife, but they are most famous for their role in waterfowl production. Although the Prairie Pothole Region occupies only 10% of North America’s waterfowl-breeding range, it produces approximately 50% of the continent’s waterfowl population. Complexes of wetlands scattered throughout the wetland management districts attract breeding duck pairs. While semipermanent and permanent wetlands provide brood-rearing habitat and migratory stopover habitat, respectively, it is the smaller temporary and seasonal wetlands that draw breeding duck pairs to the North Dakota prairies and other parts of the Prairie Pothole Region.
global Warming
The DOI issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies under its direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate change effects as part of long-range planning endeavors. The U.S. Department of Energy’s report, “Carbon Sequestration Research and Development,” concluded 26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Figure 6. Map of the physiographic regions in the nine districts, North Dakota. that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. The report defines carbon sequestration as “the capture and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface temperature commonly referred to as “global warming.” In relation to comprehensive conservation planning for Refuge System units, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related effect considered during planning. Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon sequestration. Large, naturally occurring communities of plants and animals that occupy major habitats— grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert—are effective both in preventing carbon emission and in acting as biological “scrubbers” of atmospheric CO2. One Service activity in particular—prescribed burning —releases CO2 directly to the atmosphere from the biomass consumed during combustion yet results in no net loss of carbon because new vegetation quickly germinates and sprouts to replace the burned-up biomass. This vegetation sequesters an approximately equal amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Dai et al. 2006). Several other effects of climate change may need consideration in the future:
QQ
Habitat available in lakes and streams for cold-water fish such as trout and salmon could be reduced. Forests may change, with some plant species shifting their range northward or dying out and other trees moving in to take their place. Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding habitat because of stronger and more frequent droughts. Changes in the timing of migration and nesting could put some birds out of synchronization with the life cycles of their prey.
QQ
QQ
QQ
Climate
The normal average annual temperature in North Dakota ranges from 37°F in the northeast to 43°F along the southern border. January is the coldest month with average temperatures ranging from 2°F in the northeast to 17°F in the southwest. July is the warmest month with temperatures averaging 67°F in the northeast to 73°F in parts of the south. The range of normal average monthly temperatures between the coldest and warmest months is 54°F in the southwest and 65°F in the northeast. These large annual ranges attest to the continental nature of North Dakota’s climate (Jensen, no date). The highest temperature ever recorded in North Dakota was 121°F at Steele on July 6, 1936, and the
Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 27
lowest temperature measured was –60°F at Parshall on February 15, 1936. Temperatures of 100°F or higher occur nearly every year somewhere in North Dakota. Chances of this occurring are greatest in the south- central area where, in about 85% of the years, maximum temperature will equal or exceed 100°F. These temperatures of 100°F or more last only for a day or two. In the northeast, temperatures reach 100°F or higher in only 3 years out of 10 (Jensen, no date). Annual precipitation ranges from less than 13 inches in the northwest to more than 20 inches in parts of the Red River Valley and southeast. The lines of equal precipitation, although subject to some meandering, are oriented north–south; as a generalization, precipitation increases about 1 inch for every 50 miles of eastward movement. There are two areas where the general increase of precipitation in an easterly direction does not apply:
QQ
One area is located in the southwest where the annual precipitation of more than 16 inches is higher than the surrounding area. This area of higher precipitation is largely a result of topographic uplift. The other area is in the north-central section of the state, where the annual precipitation of less than 16 inches is lower than surrounding areas. This area is caused primarily by air moving downhill from all but a southerly direction, which works against the precipitation process (Jensen, no date).
QQ
Annual snowfall in North Dakota ranges from less than 26 inches in parts of Mountrail and McLean counties (west-central portion of the state) to about 38 inches in a belt extending diagonally across the state northeast–southwest (Jensen, no date).
pHysiograpHy, geograpHy, and soils
This section describes the districts’ ecoregions and soils.
Ecoregions
Four level 3 ecoregions cover the nine districts (see figure 7): Lake Agassiz Basin, Northern Glaciated Plains, Northwestern Glaciated Plains, and Northwestern Great Plains. The differences in ecosystem properties and functions in the level 3 ecoregions are distinguished by the patterns of biotic and abiotic phenomena: vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife use, and hydrology. Local biotic and abiotic factors have further refined the ecoregions. Each level 3 ecoregion is subdivided into several level 4 ecoregions; level 4 ecoregions are the finest level in the hierarchy (Bryce et al. 1996). Table 2 displays the level 3 ecoregions in which each district occurs. 28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
Figure 7. Map of the level 4 ecoregions in the nine districts, North Dakota. Table 2. Ecoregions in the Nine Districts, North Dakota. Wetland Management District Level 3 Ecoregion
Arrowwood
Northern Glaciated PlainsEcoregion 46
Audubon
Northwestern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 42 Northwestern Great PlainsEcoregion 43 Northern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 46
Chase Lake
Northwestern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 42Northern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 46
Crosby
Northwestern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 42 Northwestern Great PlainsEcoregion 43 Northern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 46
Devils Lake
Northern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 46Lake Agassiz Basin Ecoregion 48
J. Clark Salyer
Northern Glaciated PlainsEcoregion 46
Kulm
Northwestern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 42Northern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 46
Lostwood
Northwestern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 42 Northwestern Great PlainsEcoregion 43 Northern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 46
Valley City
Northern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 46Lake Agassiz Basin Ecoregion 48
Descriptions of the four level 3 ecoregions and their level 4 ecoregions relevant to the districts follow (see figure 7). Most text and graphics in this section are from “Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota” (USGS 2006).
Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 29
USFWS North Dakota’s prairie is a haven of unique species.
NorthwesterN Glaciated PlaiNs ecoreGioN 42 (level 3)
Portions of Audubon, Chase Lake, Crosby, Kulm, and Lostwood wetland management districts occur within this ecoregion. The Northwestern Glaciated Plains ecoregion marks the westernmost extent of continental glaciation. The youthful morainal (ridges of rock debris at the margins of glaciers) landscape has significant surface irregularity and high concentrations of wetlands. The rise in elevation along the eastern boundary defines the beginning of the Great Plains. Land use is transitional between the intensive dryland farming in Drift Plains ecoregion 46i (below) to the east and the predominance of cattle ranching and farming to the west in Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion 43 (described below).
Missouri Coteau Ecoregion 42a (Level 4)
Like closely spaced ocean swells, the rolling mounds of the Missouri Coteau enclose countless wetland depressions or potholes. During its slow retreat, the Wisconsinan glacier stalled at the Missouri escarpment for thousands of years, melting slowly beneath a mantle of sediment to create the characteristic pothole topography of the coteau. The wetlands of the Missouri Coteau and the neighboring Prairie Pothole Region are the major WPAs in North America. Land use on the coteau is a mixture of tilled agriculture in flatter areas and grazing land on steeper slopes. 30 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
USFWS The vastness of the North Dakota prairie is protected by grassland easements throughout the districts.
Collapsed Glacial Outwash Ecoregion 42b (Level 4)
Areas of Collapsed Glacial Outwash formed from gravel and sand that was deposited by glacial meltwater and precipitation runoff over stagnant ice. Many large, shallow lakes are found in these areas; these lakes and wetlands tend to be slightly to very alkaline depending upon the flow path of groundwater moving through the permeable outwash deposits. They attract birds preferring large areas of open water such as American white pelican, black tern, and Forster’s tern, as well as those living in brackish water such as American avocet and tundra swan.
Missouri Coteau Slope Ecoregion 42c (Level 4)
The Missouri Coteau Slope ecoregion declines in elevation from Missouri Coteau ecoregion 42a to the Missouri River. Unlike Missouri Coteau ecoregion 42a, where there are few streams, the Missouri Coteau Slope has a simple drainage pattern and fewer wetland depressions. Due to the level to gently rolling topography, there is more cropland than in Missouri Coteau ecoregion 42a. Cattle graze on the steeper land that occurs along drainages.
Northern Missouri Coteau Ecoregion 42d (Level 4)
The Northern Missouri Coteau lies in a transition zone to a more boreal climate to the north and a more arid climate to the west. Willow and aspen, southern occurrences of aspen parkland to the north, may occur at wetland margins. Rough fescue, also a northern species, appears in grassland associations. Wetlands
tend to dry out earlier in the summer than in Missouri Coteau ecoregion 42a to the south and east. Mixed dryland agriculture is the major land use.
Glaciated Dark Brown Prairie Ecoregion 42i (Level 4)
The boundary of the Glaciated Dark Brown Prairie marks a transition to drier conditions. Glaciated Dark Brown Prairie has a well-defined drainage system and fewer wetlands compared with the more recently glaciated Missouri Coteau Slope ecoregion 42c to the east. Land use is a mosaic of cropland and rangeland.
NorthwesterN Great PlaiNs ecoreGioN 43 (level 3)
Small portions of the Audubon, Crosby, and Lostwood wetland management districts occur within this ecoregion. The Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion encompasses the Missouri Plateau section of the Great Plains. It is a semiarid rolling plain of shale, siltstone, and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes and badlands. Native grasslands persist in areas of steep or broken topography, but they have been largely replaced by spring wheat and alfalfa over most of the ecoregion. Agriculture is limited by erratic precipitation patterns and limited opportunities for irrigation.
River Breaks Ecoregion 43c (Level 4)
The River Breaks form broken terraces and uplands that descend to the Missouri River and its major tributaries. They have formed in soft, easily erodible strata, such as Pierre shale. The dissected topography, wooded draws, and uncultivated areas provide a haven for wildlife. Riparian gallery forests of cottonwood and green ash persist along major tributaries such as the Moreau and Cheyenne rivers, but they have mostly been eliminated along the Missouri River by impoundments.
NortherN Glaciated PlaiNs ecoreGioN 46 (level 3)
All nine districts have portions of their management area within this ecoregion. Also commonly referred to as the Drift Plains or Drift Prairie, this area was subject to scouring and deposition due to prolonged glacier activity between 70,000 and 10,000 years ago. A flat to gently rolling landscape of glacial drift characterizes the Northern Glaciated Plains ecoregion. The subhumid conditions foster a grassland transition between the tall- and short-grass prairies. High concentrations of temporary and seasonal wetlands create favorable conditions for duck nesting and migration. Although the tilled soil is very fertile, agricultural success is subject to annual climatic fluctuations.
Pembina Escarpment Ecoregion 46a (Level 4)
The Pembina Escarpment is a rugged, forested slope that marks the boundary between Northern Black Prairie ecoregion 46g (below) and the Lake Agassiz Plain. Though small, the Pembina Escarpment is a distinctive level 4 ecoregion. Originally formed by the undercutting of Cretaceous sandstones by the ancestral Red River, glacial scouring later steepened the escarpment. The vista today, of wooded hills with small farms tucked into valleys, is reminiscent of pastoral sections of New England. Streams flowing off the escarpment have high gradients and a cobble substrate.
Turtle Mountains Ecoregion 46b (Level 4)
The undulating landscape and abundant wetlands of the Turtle Mountains are similar to Missouri Coteau ecoregion 42a (previous). However, the Turtle Mountains contain larger, deeper, and more numerous lakes. Additionally, this ecoregion receives about 10 inches more precipitation than the surrounding drift plains; thus, it supports a forest cover of aspen, birch, bur oak, elm, and ash. The forest soils are erodible and poorly suited for cropland, although there is some clearing for pastureland.
Glacial Lake Basins Ecoregion 46c (Level 4)
Lake Souris, Devils Lake, and Lake Dakota once occupied the Glacial Lake Basins. These proglacial (adjacent to a glacier) lakes were formed when major stream or river drainages were blocked by glacial ice during the Pleistocene. The smooth topography of the Glacial Lake Basins—even flatter than the surrounding drift plains (ecoregions 46g, 46i, and 46n)—resulted from the slow buildup of water-laid sediments. The level, deep soils in the lake plains are intensively cultivated. In the north, the primary crops are spring wheat, other small grains, and sunflowers; in the Lake Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 31
Dakota basin of South Dakota, corn and soybeans are more prevalent.
Glacial Lake Deltas Ecoregion 46d (Level 4)
The Glacial Lake Deltas were deposited by rivers entering glacial lake basins (for example, Glacial Lake Souris, Devils Lake, and Lake Dakota). The heaviest sediments, mostly sand and fine gravel, formed delta fans at the river inlets. As the lake floors were exposed during withdrawal of the glacial ice, wind reworked the sand in some areas into dunes. In contrast to the highly productive, intensively tilled glacial lake plains, the dunes in the delta areas have a thin vegetative cover and a high risk for wind erosion. These areas are used mainly for grazing or irrigated agriculture.
End Moraine Complex Ecoregion 46f (Level 4)
The End Moraine Complex is a concentration of glacial features in east-central North Dakota. Blue Mountain and Devils Lake Mountain are comprised of blocks of surface material scraped off and thrust up by the continental glacier at the south end of the Devils Lake basin. In the western part of the ecoregion, patches of stagnation moraine similar to Missouri Coteau ecoregion 42a (previous) have high densities of wetlands. Favorable precipitation, aspect, and slightly higher elevations result in wooded lake margins and morainal (stone debris carried by glaciers) ridges for the moraines south of Devils Lake basin.
Northern Black Prairie Ecoregion 46g (Level 4)
The Northern Black Prairie represents a broad range of biological events (such as flowering, seeding, and propagation) within this transition zone that is influenced by the boreal climate. Aspen and birch appear in wooded areas, willows grow on wetland perimeters, and rough fescue, common to the Rocky Mountain foothills, becomes evident in grassland associations. This ecoregion has the shortest growing season and the lowest January temperatures of any level 4 ecoregion in North Dakota and South Dakota. Most of the area is used for growing small grains, with durum wheat being a major crop.
Northern Dark Brown Prairie Ecoregion 46h (Level 4)
The Souris and Des Lacs rivers generally divide the Northern Dark Brown Prairie from Northern Black Prairie ecoregion 46g. These ecoregions differ in precipitation, soil, and vegetation characteristics. The Souris River is within the broad transitional zone between subhumid and semiarid climatic conditions. Soils west of the Souris River developed under drier conditions than those soils further east; they have less organic material, which gives them a lighter color. In addition, crop and native grass production is generally lower than in ecoregions further east.
Drift Plains Ecoregion 46i (Level 4)
On the Drift Plains, the retreating Wisconsinan glaciers left a subtle, rolling topography and a thick mantle of glacial till (mixture of clay, sand, and rocks). A greater proportion of temporary and seasonal wetlands are 32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
found in the Drift Plains than in the coteau areas, where semipermanent wetlands are numerous. Because of the productive soil and level topography, this ecoregion is almost entirely cultivated, with many wetlands drained or simply tilled and planted. However, valuable waterfowl habitat still remains, concentrated in state- and federally sponsored duck production areas. The historical grassland in the Drift Plains was a transitional mix of tall- and short­grass prairie. The prairie grasses have been largely replaced by fields of spring wheat, barley, sunflowers, and alfalfa.
Glacial Outwash Ecoregion 46j (Level 4)
The separated areas of Glacial Outwash differ from outwash areas in Missouri Coteau ecoregion 42a (previous) in that they generally have a smoother topography. The soils are highly permeable with low water-holding capacity. Areas of excessive soil permeability have a poor to fair potential for dryland crop production. Some areas are used for irrigated agriculture. The risk for blowing soil in droughty areas is reduced by retaining native range grasses like little bluestem, needle and thread, and green needlegrass.
Jennifer Anderson/USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database Big bluestem.
lake aGassiz BasiN ecoreGioN 48 (level 3)
Devils Lake and Valley City wetland management districts occur in this ecoregion. Glacial Lake Agassiz was the last in a series of proglacial lakes to fill the Red River Valley since the beginning of the Pleistocene era. The Lake Agassiz Plain is comprised of thick lacustrine (formed in lakes) sediments underlain by glacial till. It is extremely flat and has fewer lakes and pothole wetlands than neighboring ecoregions. The historical tall-grass prairie has been replaced by intensive agriculture. The preferred crops in the northern half of the region are potatoes, beans and wheat; soybeans and corn dominate in the south. Sugar beets are grown throughout the ecoregion.
Glacial Lake Agassiz Basin Ecoregion 48a (Level 4)
From the Pembina escarpment, the view of the Glacial Lake Agassiz Basin is an extremely flat patchwork of cultivated farmland. Because the Red River of the North has a poorly defined floodplain and very low gradient, flooding can be a problem. Outside of channelized areas in the floodplain, muddy valley streams meander within narrow buffer strips of cottonwood, elm, ash, and willow. Soils range from silty to clayey in texture. Most have high water tables and are extremely productive.
Sand Deltas and Beach Ridges Ecoregion 48b (Level 4)
The varying relief of the Sand Deltas and Beach Ridges interrupts the extremely flat and intensively farmed land of the Lake Agassiz Plain. The beach ridges appear as parallel lines of sand and gravel formed by wave action on the varying shoreline levels of glacial Lake Agassiz. Three sand deltas—
the largest being the Sheyenne River delta in the south—occur where major rivers entered glacial Lake Agassiz and dropped their sediment load. A high erosion risk exists in the sand dune areas.
Saline Area of the Lake Agassiz Basin Ecoregion 48c (Level 4)
In the Saline Area of the Lake Agassiz Basin, salty artesian groundwater flows to the surface through glacial till and lacustrine sediments from the underlying beds of Cretaceous sandstone. The regional boundary of the Saline Area of the Lake Agassiz Basin delineates an area where salt effects are most evident. Other saline areas occur along the tributaries of the Park, Forest, and Turtle rivers in northeastern North Dakota. Salt-affected soils in the saline area reduce crop productivity. Many areas are not suitable for farming, but are used for range or wildlife habitat.
Soils
Data for soil temperature and frost penetration in North Dakota are scarce. Dr. Guy Wilkinson of the department of soils at North Dakota State University did the most complete study of soil temperatures. Wilkinson measured soil temperature at Fargo, North Dakota, continuously over a 4-year period (Jensen, no date). Chapter 3—District Resources and Description 33
At Fargo, the average date of soil surface freezing was November 26. Freezing progressed to greater depths throughout the winter until the average maximum frost penetration depth of 4.5 feet was reached April 1. Surface thawing in the spring began on March 26, a few days earlier than the occurrence of maximum frost penetration. After April 1, soil thawing proceeded both downward from the surface and upward toward the surface from the deeper unfrozen soil until May 1, when the last of the frozen soil at about the 3-foot level was thawed (Jensen, no date). The lowest average soil temperature of 8.2°F was found at a depth of 0.25 inch on January 17. The time of minimum soil temperature for deeper soil depths was progressively later, with minimum soil temperatures at the 4.5-foot depth occurring on April 1. Highest average soil temperature at the 0.25-inch depth reached the low 80s during the third week in July. As in winter, soil temperatures at greater depths reached their highest levels later in the season. For instance, soil temperatures at the 2-foot depth did not reach their highest levels until about August 6, while 3-foot-deep maximum temperatures were reached August 15 (Jensen, no date).
Water resoUrCes
The districts cover the prairie basins of the Red River Valley basin to the east, to the Missouri basin to the west. Prairie basin wetlands of North Dakota and South Dakota are part of a series of community profiles on ecologically important wetlands of national significance. The shallow wetlands of North Dakota and South Dakota form the bulk of the portion of the Prairie Pothole Region lying within the United States. This region is famous as the producer of at least half of North America’s waterfowl and an unknown, but large, proportion of other prairie-dwelling marsh and aquatic birds.
Hydrology
The wetlands described here lie in relatively small, shallow basins that vary greatly in their ability to maintain surface water, and in their water chemistry, which varies from fresh to hypersaline. These wetlands occur in a wide variety of hydrological settings, in an area where annual and seasonal precipitation varies greatly in form and amount. Thus, the presence of surface water in these wetlands is largely unpredictable. Superimposed on these phenomena are the effects of a variety of land uses including pasture, cultivation, mechanical forage removal, idle conditions, and burning. All these factors greatly affect the plant and animal communities found in these basins (Kantrud et al. 1989). These wetlands described as lacustrine basins and palustrine basins (wetlands that lack flowing water including marshes, swamps, bogs, and floodplains) have water regimes that are temporarily flooded, seasonally flooded, and semipermanently flooded. Basins with these water regimes compose about 90%
of the basins in the Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota and South Dakota. This profile outlines the wetland subsystems, classes, and subclasses that occur in these basins and provides a useful reference to their geologic, climatic, hydrologic, and pedologic (natural composition, distribution, and formation of soils) setting (Kantrud et al. 1989). Glacially created wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region, in combination with the surrounding grasslands, provide breeding habitat that supports half of the continent’s waterfowl production (Kantrud 1983). The original density of wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region is thought to have been about 80 wetlands per square mile before historical settlement. Since European settlement, 49% of North Dakota’s wetlands have been drained for agriculture or development (Dahl 1990). The Prairie Pothole Region is a major world supplier of cereal grains. Consequently, wetlands in the region are often drained for crop production or otherwise cropped when water conditions permit. Wetlands exist because specific geologic settings and hydrologic processes favor pooling of water or soil saturation. A unique combination of glaciation and climatic conditions in the Prairie Pothole Region has produced a large number of dynamic aquatic ecosystems that have a tendency to not receive or contribute to channelized surface flow. These basins have the potential to impound large volumes of water and undergo long-term, extreme changes in water depth and biotic conditions in response to climatic trends. The water level fluctuates in typical, seasonal and semipermanent North Dakota wetlands. The low-grade shorelines of prairie wetlands combine with the semiarid climate to produce dynamic wetlands; for example, small increases in water level cause great increases in the proportion of a basin inundated and, conversely, hot, dry conditions often remove surface water from large areas of a basin in a relatively short time (Kantrud et al. 1989).
Water Quality
Some wetland basins function as groundwater recharge areas; such basins tend to be temporarily or seasonally flooded. These basins hold water for only a few months each year, and the water is generally low in dissolved solids. Some basins are through-flow systems with respect to groundwater; that is, groundwater flows in through parts of their bed while other parts recharge groundwater. Through-flow basins hold water over longer periods and the water tends to have higher concentrations of dissolved solids. Some basins serve only as discharge areas for groundwater. Lakes that receive discharge from both regional and local groundwater flow systems and do not lose water to seepage or surface outflow are highly saline (Kantrud et al. 1989). Human-related disturbance such as drainage and cultivation are the most extreme disturbances seen 34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota Wetland Management Districts
in most prairie wetlands in North Dakota and South Dakota. In some instances, fill (earth or rocks) or use for solid-waste disposal has also destroyed the basins (Kantrud et al. 1989).
W
etlands are a natural filter for the nation’s water resources. USFWS
Water Rights
During the 1930s, the U.S. Bureau of Biological Survey on behalf of the federal government submitted “declarations of filing” in North Dakota for many impoundments on national wildlife refuges. Such filing applies for and documents the claim of ownership of the right to use water for current purposes. In 1930, there was a fire at the state capitol that destroyed most of these early filings, and, subsequently, new legislation was introduced to alter the way in which water rights were applied for and processed. As a result, there are many old declarations of filing that have not been entered into the state’s water rights database and have never been “perfected” (described in following paragraph) in the same manner as the newer water right permits. There is one documented filing on a conservation easement for Billings Lake WPA. The state of North Dakota currently issues a “conditional water permit” when an application for a water right is made. This permit grants the claimant the right to develop the structure or structures necessary to put the water to beneficial use. After
the claimant has developed the necessary structures and put the water to beneficial use, the North Dakota State Water Commission has to inspect the project and verify that the water as claimed is being put to beneficial use. The North Dakota State Engineer then issues a “perfected” water permit. Early water rights usually included a storage amount as well as an amount for seasonal use. The seasonal use is the water needed to offset evaporation and is generally only seen in connection with a reservoir. The state instituted a one-time fill rule, eliminating the ability to offset evaporation. This rule was waived in some cases, but many of the later water rights only list a storage volume. Some water rights—particularly groundwater rights, but also some surface water rights—have an associated flow rate. If there is a decreed flow rate, this is the maximum rate at which water can be pumped or diverted. There are no water rights associated with Crosby, Kulm, and Lostwood wetland management districts. Tables 3–8 list the water rights for Arrowwood, Audubon, Chase Lake, Devils Lake, J. Clark Salyer, and Valley City wetland management districts, respectively. Table 3. Water Rights for Audubon Wetland Management District, North Dakota. Declarationof FilingConditionalPermitNumberPerfect Water PermitNumberPriority DateCountyAreaStructureTypeUseFlow RateStorage Acre-feetSeasonalAcre-feet
—
—
—
—
Dunn
Audubon WMD
Lake Ilo G-6
—
—
1.80
—
—
—
—
—
Slope
Audubon WMD
White Lake G-1 Dugout
—
—
0.30
—
—
—
—
—
Dunn
Audubon WMD
Lake Ilo G-5 Dam
—
—
0.90
—
—
—
—
—
Dunn
Audubon WMD
Lake Ilo Wl-3 Dam
—
—
0.80
—
—
—
—
—
Dunn
Audubon WMD
Lake Ilo G-6 Dam
—
—
1.40
—
—
—
—
—
Dunn
Audubon WMD
Lake Ilo A-6
—
—
0.20
—
—
—
—
—
Dunn
Audubon WMD
Lake Ilo G-5 Dugout
—
—
0.80
—
—
—
—
—
Dunn
Audubon WMD
Lake Ilo G-5 Channel Dam
—
—
1.50
—
—
—
—
—
Slope
Audubon WMD
White Lake G-2 Dugout
—
—
0.60
—
—
—
—
—
McLean
Coal Coulee WDA
—
Fish, wildlife
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sheridan
Goodrich WDA
Dikes
Fish, wildlife
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
McLean
Heckers Lake WDA
—
Fish, wildlife
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sheridan, Wells
Johnson Lake WDA
—
Fish, wildlife
—
2,591.00
—
—
—
—
—
McLean
Koenig WDA
Muskrat Wetland #2
Fish, wildlife
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
McLean
Koenig WDA
Cattail Wetland #207
Fish, wildlife
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
McLean
Koenig WDA
Gravel Pit Wetland #154
Fish,