Rydell National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Rydell
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
Rydell NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
i
Acknowledgments
A variety of groups and individuals provided invaluable assistance with the
preparation of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan. We gratefully acknowl-edge
the input and support of:
Shawn Abraham
NRCS, McIntosh, Minnesota
Jack Bailey
Union/Sara Lake Campground
John Dobrovolny, USFWS
Regional Historic Preservation
Officer
Dave Fink
Water Programs Technician
Red Lake Watershed District
Paul Glander, Minnesota DNR
Area Fisheries Supervisor
Wayne Goeken
Development Director
Agassiz Environmental Learning
Center
Jay Johnson
Executive Director
Options Resource Center
Rick Julian, USFWS
Refuge Manager
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
Allen Hanson, Minnesota DNR
Conservation Officer, Retired
Bob Hiltner, USFWS
Maintenance Worker
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
Gary Huberty, Minnesota DNR
Fisheries
Donna Larson
Rydell NWR Volunteer Coordinator
Gary Lee
District Manager
East Polk County SWCD
Mike Marxen, USFWS
Landscape Architect/Planner
Jerry Paul, Minnesota DNR
Regional Hydrologist
Les Peterson, USFWS
Wildlife Biologist
Detroit Lakes WMD
Dave Radloff, USFWS
Fishery Biologist
Pendills Creek National
Fish Hatchery
Bill Roeszler
President
American State Bank
Rollin Siegfried, USFWS
When serving as Complex Manager
Minnesota Wetland Management
Complex
Chuck Schear
President
Mentor Sportman’s Club
Dan Svedarsky
Professor of Natural Resources
University of Minnesota, Crookston
Rupert Syverson
Chairman
Polk County Board of Commissioners
Stephen Taylor
President
Fertile Community Conservation Club
Douglas Thorson
Board Member
Maple Lake Improvement District
Terry Wolfe, Minnesota DNR
Area Wildlife Manager
Crookston, Minnesota
Table of Contents / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Contents
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................. i
Chapter 1: Vision, Introduction and Background......................................................... 1
A Vision for Rydell National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................ 1
Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................................ 2
The National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................................................... 2
Purpose of Rydell National Wildlife Refuge .......................................................................... 3
Existing Partnerships ............................................................................................................. 5
Legal and Policy Guidance..................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ................................................................................... 6
Planning Issues ...................................................................................................................... 6
Water Management ....................................................................................................... 7
Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 7
Community Involvement ................................................................................................. 7
Public Use....................................................................................................................... 7
Interpretive and Educational Potential ........................................................................... 7
Habitat Restoration and Management........................................................................... 8
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment ............................................................................... 9
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ............................................................................................. 9
The Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem ............................................ 9
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives............................................................................... 10
Partners in Flight .......................................................................................................... 10
North American Waterfowl Management Plan ........................................................... 10
Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District...................................................................... 11
Region 3 Fish & Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities ................................................ 11
Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses...................................................................... 12
General ......................................................................................................................... 12
Refuge Resources......................................................................................................... 12
Major Habitats ...................................................................................................... 12
Plant Communities ................................................................................................ 13
Wildlife.................................................................................................................. 16
Existing Facilities .................................................................................................. 16
Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 16
Existing Programs ......................................................................................................... 17
Volunteers and Friends ......................................................................................... 17
White-tailed Deer Management Hunt .................................................................. 17
Visitor and Education Programs ........................................................................... 18
Fishery Management ............................................................................................ 19
Cropland Management ......................................................................................... 19
Cultural Resources Management ......................................................................... 19
Wilderness Review ............................................................................................... 20
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 4: Management Direction ............................................................................... 21
Habitat Restoration and Wildlife Management .................................................................. 21
1.0 Habitat Restoration and Wildlife Management Goal: ................................................. 23
Potential Climate Change............................................................................................. 29
Water Quality Management ................................................................................................ 30
2.0 Water Quality Management Goal:................................................................................. 30
Community Involvement ...................................................................................................... 32
3.0 Community Involvement Goal: ....................................................................................... 32
Public Use ............................................................................................................................ 33
4.0 Public Use Goal: ............................................................................................................. 34
5.0 Protection Goal: ............................................................................................................ 37
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ................................................................................... 38
Partnerships ......................................................................................................................... 38
Personnel Needs .................................................................................................................. 39
Step-down Management Plans ........................................................................................... 39
Funding ............................................................................................................................... 40
Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................................. 40
Index .................................................................................................................................. 41
Appendix A: Glossary ..................................................................................................... 47
Appendix B: Bibliography .............................................................................................. 53
Appendix C: Chronology of Events ............................................................................... 57
Appendix D: Library Distribution .................................................................................. 61
Appendix E: Project List ................................................................................................. 65
Appendix F: Species List ................................................................................................ 69
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements ..................................................................... 83
Appendix H : Compatibility Determinations .............................................................. 89
Appendix I: Environmental Assessment................................................................... 111
Appendix J: Mailing List .............................................................................................. 131
Appendix K: List of Preparers ..................................................................................... 135
Appendix K: Summary and Disposition of Public Comments on the Draft CCP . 139
List of Figures
Figure1 National Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl Production Areas .............................4
Figure 2 Waterfowl Production Areas and Easements Near Rydell NWR ....................... 13
Figure 3 Original Vegetation of Minnesota ..................................................................... 14
Figure 4 Current Major Habitats ......................................................................................15
Figure 5 Planned Habitat Restoration and Management ................................................24
Figure 6 Planned Water Management ............................................................................ 27
Figure 7 Planned Water Quality Management ................................................................31
Figure 8 Planned Visitor Facilities....................................................................................35
Figure 9 Current Staffing .................................................................................................39
Figure 10 Proposed Organization Chart ...........................................................................39
List of Tables
Table 1 Habitat Conversion.............................................................................................. 25
Chapter 1 / Vision, Introduction and Background
1
A Vision for Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
Through innovative partnerships with multiple State and Federal agencies,
conservation organizations and private individuals, Rydell National Wildlife
Refuge will enhance habitat and populations of waterfowl, fish and other wildlife
species; provide wildlife-dependent recreation; and demonstrate wildlife and
natural resource conservation techniques. The majority of Refuge wetlands,
uplands, and woodlands will be restored and managed to
reflect the original natural character of the landscape.
Selected lakes will be managed to support waterfowl and
fish. Trails, observation decks, a visitor center, a headquar-ters
office and other facilities will be designed to provide
enjoyable, informative and barrier-free wildlife-dependent
experiences for people of all ages. The U. S. Fish & Wildlife
Service and local citizens have charted a course of manage-ment
for the Rydell National Wildlife Refuge that is de-signed
to benefit wildlife and people well into the 21st
century.
The charted course is described in this plan.
Introduction
Located in Polk County in northwestern Minnesota, Rydell
National Wildlife Refuge is a 2,120-acre refuge that was
established in 1992 on property donated to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service by the Richard King Mellon Foundation.
The Refuge was established to protect wildlife habitat and
diversity, to encourage waterfowl and other migratory bird production, and to
promote environmental education and recreation. In addition, the Refuge was
established to demonstrate sound fish and wildlife management and wise land
and water stewardship.
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan, or CCP, will guide the development and
management of the Refuge for the next 15 years (2001 through 2016).
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established clear
legislative mandates for refuge management and planning, including:
  Wildlife has first priority in the management of refuges.
Chapter 1: Vision, Introduction and Background
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
2
  Wildlife-dependent recreation involving compatible hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and
interpretation are the priority public uses of the Refuge System.
  Other uses have lower priority in the Refuge System and are only
allowed if they are compatible with the mission of the Refuge System
and with the purposes of the individual refuge.
Specifically, this Comprehensive Conservation Plan accomplishes the following
objectives for Rydell National Wildlife Refuge:
  Provides a clear statement of the desired future condition of the Refuge.
  Ensures that management of the Refuge is consistent with the goals and
policies of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
  Provides Refuge neighbors and partners with a clear understanding of
the reasons for management actions on and around the Refuge.
  Provides for long-term continuity in Refuge management.
  Provides a basis for Fish and Wildlife Service staffing and for operation,
maintenance, and capital improvement budget requests.
  Identifies potential projects for cost share and partnership contributions.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to work with
others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife and plants
and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (PL 105-57)
By law and treaty, the Service has national and international management and
law enforcement responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered
species, fisheries and many marine mammals. The Service assists state and tribal
governments and other Federal agencies in helping to protect America’s fish and
wildlife resources, and the National Wildlife Refuge System plays an important
role in fulfilling many of these responsibilities.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to admin-ister
a national network of lands and waters for the conserva-tion,
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.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The National Wildlife Refuge System is a network of more than 525 refuges
encompassing 93 million acres of lands and waters, 41 wetland management
districts that are responsible for 2.4 million acres of Waterfowl Production Areas,
Chapter 1 / Vision, Introduction and Background
3
and 50 coordination areas covering 317,000 acres that are managed by State fish
and wildlife agencies under cooperative agreements. Refuge System lands span
the continent from Alaska’s Arctic tundra to the tropical forests in Florida and
from the secluded atolls of Hawaii to the moose-trodden bogs of Maine.
National wildlife refuges are established for different purposes. Most refuges
have been established for the conservation of migratory birds while some have
been established to provide habitat for endangered species; others have been
formed to protect and propagate large mammals such as bison, elk, and desert
bighorn sheep. Refuge habitats consist of a great diversity of plants and animals.
Within Minnesota, the Service manages 12 national wildlife refuges – Agassiz,
Rydell, Hamden Slough, Crane Meadows, Tamarac, Big Stone, Rice Lake, Mille
Lacs, Northern Tallgrass Prairie, Sherburne, Minnesota Valley, and Upper
Mississippi River – and approximately 180,000 acres of Waterfowl Production
Areas. (See Figure 1.)
Purpose of Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
The purpose of the Refuge arises from legislative authority. The Service ac-quired
the property and established the Rydell National Wildlife Refuge under
authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended, and the Recreational
Use of Conservation Areas Act of 1962, as amended. Relevant sections from this
legislation that establish the purpose of the Refuge include:
“... for the development, advancement, management, conserva-tion
and protection of fish and wildlife resources... 16 U. S. C.
742f (a) (4) “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such
acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or
affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U. S. C.
742f(b) (1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U. S. C. 742(a) -754,
as amended).
The Preliminary Management Plan, which accompanied the Environmental
Assessment of the establishment of the Refuge, identified the Refuge’s primary
goal “ to increase mallard, northern pintail, wood duck, redhead, canvasback,
ring-necked duck and Canada goose production. Goals for these species are
included in the Regional Resource Plan and the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan. Other migratory birds, endangered
species, resident wildlife and associated habitats would also
benefit from the broad based, diverse habitat management
program (biodiversity).”
The Preliminary Management Plan identified the Refuge’s
secondary goal as a wildlife and fish management demonstra-tion
area “to provide the visiting public with opportunities to
learn about effective fish and wildlife habitat management
practices and land and water stewardship.”
The Preliminary Management Plan raised the possibility of
conducting aquaculture or fish hatchery operations for
interpretative and educational purposes.
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
4
Figure 1: National Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl Production Areas Within Minnesota
Chapter 1 / Vision, Introduction and Background
5
Since the Refuge was established, the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
has further clarified the purposes of the Refuge System and refuges. The Act
specifies that “each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of the System,
as well as the specific purposes for which the refuge was established.” The Act
further specifies that “compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate
and appropriate general public use of the System.” Further, the Act establishes
compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses of hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation as
the priority general public uses of the System.
Existing Partnerships
Beginning with the Richard King Mellon Foundation’s gift of the land and
continuing through a variety of programs being offered today, partnerships have
been a vital part of Rydell National Wildlife Refuge. The Friends of the Rydell
Refuge Association, which formed in 1996, assists the Service with management,
public use and fund raising activities. Other partners play a vital role in offering
educational programs at Rydell. These organizations include:
  Options Resource Center for Independent Living
  Maple Lake Improvement District
  Union Lake Sarah Improvement Association
  Agassiz Environmental Learning Center
  East Polk County Soil and Water Conservation District
  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Former landowners continue to contribute to Refuge management and program-ming
and are an invaluable asset to Rydell National Wildlife Refuge.
Legal and Policy Guidance
In addition to the Refuge’s establishing authority legislation and the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, several Federal laws, execu-tive
orders, and regulations govern its administration. See Appendix G for a list
of the guiding laws and orders.
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
6
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
The Service began developing the Rydell National Wildlife
Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan in June 1996, and
one of the first steps was to form a Citizen Committee that
would provide local and regional input to the plan. The
20-member group consisted of local residents, government
officials, individuals representing local business interests,
representatives from conservation and sportsmen’s groups,
and representatives from educational institutions.
A kick-off workshop was held with the Citizen Committee
on June 11 and 12, 1996. Workshop participants identified
several management issues, concerns, and opportunities. A
public open house was also held on the evening of June 11 to
inform the general public of the planning process and to
gather individuals’ ideas and concerns. Much of the informa-tion
gathered from the public has been incorporated into
this Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
The Citizen Committee also met on September 19, 1996, and February 12, 1997.
Throughout the process, the Citizen Committee reviewed the components of the
plan and provided input into the process.
Additional meetings and discussions were held on water management and fishery
management.
Reference materials used in the preparation of the CCP include the Environmen-tal
Assessment prepared in 1991 during the establishment of the Refuge; the
vegetative survey report prepared in 1995; a Cultural Resource Overview study
prepared in 1997; the Polk County Comprehensive Local Water Management
Plan; aerial photographs; and numerous state and Federal maps. Much of the
information has been incorporated into a computerized geographic information
system. (A bibliography listing all of the resources used in preparation of this
Comprehensive Conservation Plan is included in Appendix B.)
Planning Issues
Issues, concerns, and opportunities were gathered in the first citizen and public
meetings and have been grouped together and summarized into major categories.
Issues are either occurring at the present time and need to be resolved or could
occur if the plan is implemented.
Chapter 2 / The Planning Process
7
Water Management
Many of the lakes, wetlands, and water flows
in the Refuge landscape have been altered
over the years for fish rearing, farming, or
aesthetic purposes. Most of the alterations
were completed without permits or approval
from the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources. Some people strongly favor
restoring the hydrologic system on the
Refuge to its original character. Removing all
of the water control structures and channels
on the Refuge, however, could limit some
waterfowl management capabilities and
hamper some fishery values demonstration opportunities. In addition, a county
drainage ditch affects several wetlands on the Refuge.
Water Quality
Water quality within the Refuge, particularly in Tamarack Lake, is influenced by
land management practices on lands draining into County Ditch 73. Water quality
in Maple Lake, downstream of Tamarack Lake, is a major concern to local
residents. Some people feel that potential projects could be identified to improve
water quality and demonstrate effective water quality management practices on
and off the Refuge.
Community Involvement
The local community is very interested in participating in the decisions that have
an impact on the future direction of the Refuge. Former landowners, volunteers,
and other individuals want to contribute and be involved in Refuge management
and programs. The human history of the area (settlement, reliance on the land,
structures) is of special interest and should play a role in the education and
interpretation programs.
Public Use
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge presents a wide range of both issues and oppor-tunities
for Federal planners and the surrounding community. They include:
  Opinions vary on how to maintain the improvements made by the former
owner, including trails, roads, observation structures, and buildings that
provide visitor access to the Refuge.
  There is concern about the level of use that would be consistent with the
natural resource values of the Refuge.
  Accessibility to the landscape, facilities, hunting and fishing, and other
programs is a major concern.
Interpretive and Educational Potential
Most people support the concept of using Refuge resources and facilities to
interpret the natural environment, educate about natural resources manage-ment,
and demonstrate effective conservation techniques.
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
8
Habitat Restoration and Management
A wide range of habitat restoration and management decisions challenge Rydell
National Wildlife Refuge, including:
  Control of exotic species such as Eurasian buckthorn, spotted knapweed,
reed canary grass, and leafy spurge;
  Protection of unique natural communities such as the Sundew Bog,
prairie remnants, and high quality maple/basswood forests;
  Limited habitat for forest interior species due to fragmentation of the
existing forested habitat;
  Management and alteration of non-native plantings such as shelterbelts
and conifer plantations; and
  Distribution and quantity of grassland, forest, and wetland habitat.
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
9
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
The Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has adopted an approach to fish and wildlife
conservation that is described as an ecosystem approach. What this means is that
the Service is working to perpetuate dynamic, healthy ecosystems that ulti-mately
will foster natural biological diversity. The strategy behind this effort is
interdisciplinary and integrates the expertise and resources of all stakeholders.
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge lies
within the Mississippi Headwaters/
Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem. This
ecosystem includes the majority of
Minnesota and portions of Wisconsin
and Iowa. The Ecosystem is one of
transition from Prairie Parkland, to
Eastern Broadleaf Forest, and then to
Laurentian Mixed Forest. Land uses
and conditions range from northern
forests dominated by tourism and
timber industries to vast areas of
intensively used agricultural lands,
typically containing severely frag-mented
and degraded remnants of the
tallgrass prairie. A major threat to the Ecosystem is the continued loss and
fragmentation of grassland, wetland and native woodland habitats for conversion
to agricultural and other land uses. Degradation of remaining wetlands, lakes,
and rivers due to runoff from agricultural lands and other non-point or point
source discharges is also a concern. Timber harvesting, mineral extraction, and
increasing pressures from recreational uses are problems in the northern reaches
of the Ecosystem.
This Ecosystem supports neotropical and other migratory birds. It constitutes a
key component of the Prairie Pothole Region, which produces 20 percent of the
continental population of waterfowl. The Ecosystem supports several species of
candidate and federally-listed threatened and endangered species including
plants, mammals, birds, and mussels. No group of animals in the Midwest is in
such grave danger of extinction as mussels. The four major watersheds of the
Ecosystem (Mississippi, Minnesota, St. Croix, and Red rivers) are important
habitats for these mussels and several species of interjurisdictional fishes such as
the paddlefish and lake sturgeon.
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
10
The Service responsibilities must be accomplished in areas important to the
state’s economy. Agriculture provides a livelihood for one in four Minnesotans
and the state ranks seventh in agricultural exports worth $2.4 billion.
Minnesota’s forested areas not only provide important wildlife habitat and
stabilize soils but they also support a $7.8 billion forest products industry. Needs
of citizens from rural, agricultural and forested areas of this ecosystem differ
greatly from those of the Twin Cities, a major metropolitan area that is home to
2.2 million people.
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Partners in Flight
Nationally and internationally, several nongame bird initiatives are in the plan-ning
stage and implementation is expected to begin in the near future. Partners
In Flight (PIF) is developing Bird Conservation Plans, primarily for landbirds, in
numerous physiographic areas. The plans include priority species lists, associated
habitats, and management strategies. The same elements will be by-products of
ongoing planning efforts for shorebirds (U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan) and
colonial waterbirds (North American Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan). As
these plans are finalized, Rydell National Wildlife Refuge will strive to imple-ment
the conservation strategies they outline to the extent possible and practi-cal.
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge lies within Partners in Flight Physi-ographic
Area No. 40, Northern Tallgrass Prairie. Species priorities for this
area can be found at http://www.cbobirds.org/pif/physios/40.html. The
priority bird species for the grasslands/wetlands in Area No. 40 are
Greater Prairie-Chicken, Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow, Sedge Wren,
Bobolink, and Yellow Rail. The priority bird species for riparian forest
habitat is the Black-billed Cuckoo.
The Partners in Flight Plan for Physiographic Area No. 40 recommends that
maintaining grassland/wetland complexes across the landscape is the most
important factor necessary to maintain populations of birds in this suite. The plan
recommends continuing the efforts to protect and restore wetlands in the Prairie
Pothole Region, which will benefit priority non-game, wetland-associated birds.
Due to the fragmented nature of grassland bird habitat, the Plan recommends
providing large blocks of habitat as part of the grassland conservation objectives.
The Plan proposes Bird Conservation Areas consisting of a 2,000-acre core of
high quality grassland embedded in a 10,000-acre buffer. This buffer would
include an additional 2,000 acres of smaller patches of grassland. (http://
www.blm.gov/wildlife/pl_40sum.htm).
It is hoped that at some future point all bird conservation programs will be
integrated under the umbrella of the North American Bird Conservation Initia-tive.
This is a continental effort to have all bird initiatives operate under common
Bird Conservation Regions, and for the people implementing these initiatives to
consider the conservation objectives of all birds together to optimize the effec-tiveness
of management strategies.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Signed in 1986, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)
outlines a broad framework for waterfowl management strategies and conserva-
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
11
tion efforts in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The goal of the NAWMP is
to restore waterfowl populations to historic levels. The NAWMP is designed to
reach its objectives through key joint venture areas, species joint ventures, and
state implementation plans within these joint ventures.
Rydell is within the U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV) area. The empha-sis
of the PPJV is to increase waterfowl populations through habitat conserva-tion
projects across the landscape. The philosophy of the PPJV is to accomplish
projects at the local level through Federal partnerships with state and local
governments, private organizations, and individuals. Through 1999, the PPJV
had protected 558,420 acres of habitat, restored 223,107 acres, and enhanced
568,357 acres. Increasingly, the PPJV is cooperating in projects that will benefit
shorebirds and grassland birds.
Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge is located within the Detroit Lakes Wetland
Management District. The District includes Becker, Clay, Mahnomen, Norman,
and Polk counties. The Wetland Management District staff manage Waterfowl
Production Areas and easements.
Waterfowl Production Areas preserve wetlands and grasslands critical to
waterfowl and other wildlife. These public lands, managed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, became part of the National Wildlife Refuge System in 1966
through the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act.
Wetland Management District staff also manage wetland easements; perpetual
contracts with willing private landowners that protect their wetlands from
draining and filling with soil. In recent years, grassland easements have been
purchased to provide permanent grassland cover around wetlands to meet the
needs of upland nesting waterfowl and other wildlife.
The District currently manages 40,489 fee acres on 155 Waterfowl Production
Areas, and 306 easements covering 11,960 acres. In addition, 14 Conservation
Easements totaling 1,340 acres are administered by the District, covering
restored wetlands and farmed lands on former Farmers Home Administration
inventory property.
Region 3 Fish & Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) required the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to identify its most important functions and to direct its
limited fiscal resources toward those functions. From 1997 to 1999 within Region
3, a group looked at how best to identify the most important functions of the
Service within the region.
The group chose to focus on species in identifying conservation priorities. Group
members prioritized species based on biological status (endangered or threat-ened,
for example), rare or declining levels, recreational or economic value, or
“nuisance” level. The group pointed out that species not on the prioritized list are
important too. But, when faced with the needs of several species, the Service
should emphasize the species on the priority list.
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
12
Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses
General
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge is located in Grove Park and Woodside town-ships
in Polk County, Minnesota, just south of U.S. Highway 2 between the
communities of Mentor and Erskine. The Refuge is located between the flat Red
River Valley floodplain on the west and the rolling hardwood forest and lake
region on the east.
The Refuge is located on the eastern edge of the Lake Agassiz Plain subsection
of the Red River Valley section of the ecological units of the Eastern United
States. The potential natural vegetation types for the general area include
bluestem prairie, northern flood plain forest along major tributaries of the Red
River and, to the east, aspen parkland, dogwood-willow swamp, sedge meadow,
big bluestem-Indiangrass prairie, bur oak openings-woodland, and
maple-basswood forest.
Historically, bison and elk lived in the area. The dominant large predator was the
wolf. Other species included prairie chicken, sharptail grouse, beaver, and
meadow lark. The area supported large populations of nesting and migrating
waterfowl. Major natural disturbances to the area included fire and high winds.
Past changes by humans have included clearing of the land for agriculture,
drainage of wetlands, logging, and the near-extinction of some fur-bearing
mammals for the fur trade. Today, farming and recreation are the major human
activities affecting the ecosystem.
The Refuge is part of the chain of national wildlife refuges that extends across
Minnesota from the southeast to the northwest. It is also near the northernmost
extent of waterfowl production areas that are scattered throughout western
Minnesota. Numerous waterfowl production areas are located within 5 miles of
the Refuge. (See Figure 2.)
At least 19 farmsteads existed historically within the Refuge boundaries. These
farmsteads had been consolidated into one ownership by the time it was acquired
by the Richard King Mellon Foundation in 1992. In the same year, the Founda-tion
donated the property to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be managed as
part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge currently has two
employees and is supported by administrative personnel of Hamden Slough
National Wildlife Refuge.
Refuge Resources
Historically, the area in which the Refuge is located was a small forested island
within the Prairie Pothole Region. A concentration of lakes south and west of
the Refuge formed a “fire shadow” that supported the growth of maple-basswood
and oak forest surrounded by northern tallgrass prairie. (See Figure 3, Original
Vegetation of Minnesota.)
Major Habitats
Many of the trees were cleared for farming during the homesteading era. The
areas that were not cleared were grazed. Today the Refuge is a mosaic of wet-lands,
hardwood stands, conifer plantations, grass meadows and cropland. Lakes
and wetlands make up 570 acres of the Refuge; trees and shrubs about 554 acres;
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
13
grassland 489 acres; and cropland constitutes 272 acres (see Figure 4). The
fragmentation of the plant communities negatively affects wildlife and ecosystem
management. The area around the Refuge is dominated by agriculture with crops
grown on most cleared land.
Plant Communities
In 1994 and 1995, a team of biologists from the University of Minnesota–
Crookston conducted a baseline plant inventory with emphasis on native, rem-nant
communities. The biologists concluded that “... the Refuge is in a uniquely
positioned ecotonal setting on the borders of major North American biomes.
Consideration should be given to looking at the entire Refuge as an example of
large scale ecosystem restoration with a view towards restoring a sizable unit of
maple-basswood and oak forest types, particularly for forest interior species
(birds and plants).” Forest interior bird species are those that require large,
unfragmented blocks of forest habitat. These species generally have been shown
to be in decline due to pressures caused by increased predation and also nest
parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds. The biologists further identified Sundew
Bog as the most unique remnant community on the Refuge. The biologists also
recommended controlling undesirable invasive woody species such as common
buckthorn and prickly ash to protect the integrity of the native communities.
Figure 2: Waterfowl Production Areas and Easements Near Rydell NWR
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
14
Figure 3: Original Vegetation of Minnesota
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
15
Figure 4: Current Major Habitats
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
16
Wildlife
The diverse Refuge habitat is currently used by both diving and dabbling ducks,
geese, swans, white-tailed deer, moose, ruffed grouse, cormorants, herons,
rabbits, raccoon, otter, beaver, mink, muskrats, fox, coyotes, black bear, hawks,
and owls. More than 195 species of birds have been observed on the Refuge (see
Appendix F for a list of birds, reptiles and amphibians, mammals and butterflies).
A bald eagle’s nest is located approximately 1 mile south of the Refuge, and
eagles and osprey are often seen using Refuge habitat. Trumpeter swans, a
state-listed threatened species, were recently reintroduced on the Refuge and
now use the Refuge regularly. The Refuge is within the peripheral range of the
gray wolf and confirmed sightings of wolves have been reported on the Refuge.
Existing Facilities
The facilities on the Refuge include the Refuge office,
a residence, a Visitor Center, a maintenance shop, two
cold storage buildings, a small barn, a fish hatchery
building, two earthen fish rearing ponds, three
homestead sites with log structures, and a number of
old buildings on former building sites. Several power
lines transect the Refuge. The townships have aban-doned
all of their former roads within the Refuge, and
these former roads are closed to the public. Approxi-mately
9 miles of hiking/cross-country skiing trails
were developed on the Refuge by the former owner.
We have discontinued use of the fish hatchery. The hatchery equipment, including
tanks and fish fry hatching equipment, were transferred to the LaCrosse Fishery
Resources Office. Walleye fingerling production will continue in one Refuge
wetland to support Fish and Wildlife Service programs off the Refuge.
Cultural Resources
Responding to the requirement in the law that comprehensive conservation plans
will include “the archaeological and cultural values of the planning unit;” the
Service contracted for a cultural resources overview study of Rydell National
Wildlife Refuge. This section of the CCP derives mostly from the report, “A
Cultural Resources Management Plan for the Rydell National Wildlife Refuge,
Polk County, Minnesota,” by Jeanne Ward and Robert Cromwell, Institute for
Minnesota Archaeology, dated October 1997.
The Refuge has 24 reported cultural resources sites and 58 standing structures
on Refuge land. Ward (1997:24) identified land characteristics on the Refuge
indicative of prehistoric occupations; but Ward’s areas of high potential shown on
the map exclude the location of the one known prehistoric site on the Refuge.
Ward studied several historic maps to determine the locations of previous and
existing farmsteads and the school; but Ward’s map locates no historic site at No.
9 (Gran). A historic farmstead at No. 3 (Raymond) is more problematic.
The potential for additional cultural resources on the Refuge is mixed. Undiscov-ered
prehistoric sites are likely, especially for the Woodland culture (500 B.C. to
A.D. 1650) in this vegetative transition zone. The Cheyenne tribe is the earliest
historic period tribe in the area, replaced by the Ojibwa. Most likely all historic
period sites have been located, with little potential for Indian sites and trading
posts.
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
17
As of September 6, 2000, Polk County contains six properties on the National
Register of Historic Places. All these properties are historic period structures
located in cities.
Ward identified potentially interested parties. The Cheyenne, whose antecedent
may have been the prehistoric Cambria culture, are not concerned about cultural
properties in the Refuge area. By the early 17th century Dakota groups occupied
the area, but similarly are not concerned about the Refuge area. Eventually the
Ojibwa became the dominant tribe in the area, but only the Red Lake Band of
Chippewa Indians now expresses an interest in cultural properties on the Ref-uge.
No evidence exists for the removal of human remains from the Refuge area.
The Polk County Historical Society has an interest in cultural resources on the
Refuge. Thus, these two organizations should be consulted in the search for and
evaluation of cultural properties on the Refuge.
Existing Programs
When established in 1992, the Refuge was managed by the Detroit Lakes Wet-land
Management District staff and one permanent Refuge employee. The
Refuge now has an on-site manager and a maintenance worker. In the Refuge’s
first 8 years, several management emphases have emerged.
Public uses are a significant component of the Refuge’s programs. All Refuge
public use activities must be compatible with the National Wildlife Refuge
System mission or the purposes of the Refuge. Wildlife-dependent recreational
activities are compatible at Rydell. We determined that other activities are not
appropriate at Rydell. These activities include the picking of wild flowers,
recreational riding of all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles, horseback riding, in-line
skating, canoeing, beekeeping, fish bait harvest, and large-scale production of
crops.
Volunteers and Friends
The volunteer program on the Refuge has developed and increased each year
since 1992. In 1992, one volunteer contributed 320 hours of service; nine volun-teers
put in 373 hours in 1993; 26 people contributed 770 hours in 1994; 43 volun-teers
contributed 1,052 hours in 1995; 99 volunteers contributed 5,438 hours in
1996; and 164 volunteers contributed 5,455 hours in 1997. In 1998 and 1999,
several volunteers logged more than 1,000 hours and one logged more than 1,500
hours. Many of the Refuge programs are possible only through the assistance of
dedicated volunteers. The volunteer program is expected to grow and play an
integral role in Refuge management.
The Friends of the Rydell Refuge Association was formed in 1996 to assist the
Refuge with management, public use, and fund raising activities. The Friends
Association received its nonprofit 501(c)(3) status in early 1997 and has begun
applying for grant and aid monies to complete needed wildlife and public use
projects. In 2000, the Association was awarded the Friends Association of the
Year Award by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the National
Refuge Association.
White-tailed Deer Management Hunt
The Refuge and surrounding area historically attracted large numbers of deer,
especially in winter, because both prairie and woodland habitat were available.
The previous owner of the Refuge property actively encouraged deer to use the
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
18
area by planting many acres of lure crops, limiting hunting pressure, and provid-ing
a high degree of protection for the deer herd. Because of this, the deer
population increased dramatically and became concentrated in the relatively
small area of the Refuge.
In 1993, the Refuge and surrounding area supported about 300 white-tailed deer
in the spring and fall and about 500 in the winter. Over-population by deer was
obvious. Browse lines in Refuge woodlands was evident and extensive crop
damage occurred annually-both on farmed Refuge land and on neighbors’ land.
To reduce the damage to Refuge vegetation and neighbors’ crops, all of the lure
crops were discontinued on the Refuge in 1994 and several corn plots were
established on private or Federal lands within a 5-mile radius of the Refuge.
In addition, antlerless deer hunts were held on the Refuge starting in November
1994. During the next 3 years, 186 antlerless deer were taken on the Refuge
through the management hunt.
Because the deer herd had been reduced sufficiently,
two new deer hunts were conducted on the Refuge in
1996 – one for people with disabilities and one for
youth. Both were conducted in accordance with the
Rydell Deer Hunting Plan. The hunt by persons with
disabilities was conducted on October 18 and 19 with
the cooperative assistance of the Options Resource
Center for Independent Living from East Grand
Forks, Minnesota, and numerous volunteer hunting
assistants. Twenty-three hunters harvested 11 deer.
The deer hunt for youth ages 12 through 15 was
conducted on November 9 and 10 with the cooperative assistance of the Minne-sota
Department of Natural Resources and 30 volunteer mentors. Thirty youth
hunters participated in the training and hunting and 23 harvested a deer on the
Refuge.
The winter of 1998 caused a significant reduction in the Refuge deer herd.
Because of the reduced population, the only hunters permitted between 1998 and
2000 were persons with disabilities. In 1998, 17 hunters harvested seven deer.
In 1999, 20 hunters harvested 12 deer. In 2000, 18 disabled hunters harvested 14
deer.
Visitor and Education Programs
In cooperation with the Friends of Rydell Association, the Maple Lake Improve-ment
District, the Union Lake Sarah Improvement Association, the Agassiz
Environmental Learning Center, and numerous volunteers, several
wildlife-oriented public programs were initiated on the Refuge during 1996. The
programs covered bluebird houses, landscaping for wildlife, bats and astronomy.
Most of the programs were well attended and they have been expanded over the
years.
On August 18, 1996, a “homecoming” open house was held on the Refuge. The
event was open to the general public, and individuals who formerly lived on the
land that is now refuge received special invitations. More than 290 people
attended the event, many of whom had ties with former homesteading families on
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
19
the Refuge. Refuge auto tours, a historical
program and exhibits were available for
visitors to enjoy during the day. We have
continued to host an annual Refuge open
house since 1996.
Conservation tours for youth from several
East Polk County school districts have been
hosted by the Refuge and the East Polk
County Soil and Water Conservation District
during the past several years. About 180
seventh graders from four schools participate
in the program each year. These programs are
expected to continue.
With the help of dedicated volunteers, in June of 1996 the Refuge was opened to
the public from 1 to 4 p.m. on Sundays. Since then the program has expanded to
12 to 5 p.m. each Sunday, year round. Volunteers answer questions, work around
the Visitor Center and direct visitors to hiking trails. For the summer of 2000, we
hired a student to keep the visitor center open from 12 to 5 p.m. Thursday,
Friday, and Sunday and from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday.
Fishery Management
Each year, walleye fry supplied by the Minnesota Department of Natural Re-sources
are stocked in Clifford Lake. The purpose is to produce advanced finger-ling
walleye to help meet the annual Fish and Wildlife Service fishery goals. The
fingerlings are trapped in the fall to stock lakes on Region 3 National Wildlife
Refuges and Tribal lands.
Cropland Management
Approximately 800 acres, or 37 percent of the Refuge, was farmed or hayed
under a cooperative agreement with local farmers when the Refuge was estab-lished
in 1992. The intent of the original farming program was to provide food
plots for the wintering deer herd on the acquired land. After the Refuge was
established, the cooperative farming agreement allowed the co-op farmer to use
Refuge lands for crop and hay production in exchange for planting food plots on
private property within 5 miles of the Refuge. This program was significantly
reduced as the Refuge wintering deer population decreased to an acceptable
level. Today 272 acres are still being farmed. Five hundred acres have been
converted from tilled land to prairie, wetland, and forest restoration areas. The
majority of the remaining cropland will be converted to grassland or wetland
over the next 3 years.
Cultural Resources Management
The Refuge Manager considers potential impacts of management activities on
historic properties, archeological sites, traditional cultural properties, sacred
sites, and human remains and cultural materials. The Refuge Manager informs
the Regional Historic Preservation Officer early in the planning stage to allow
qualified analysis, evaluation, consultation, and mitigation as necessary.
The Refuge has no museum nor on-refuge museum collections (art, ethnography,
history, documents, botany, zoology, paleontology, geology, environmental
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
20
samples, artifacts). If an on-refuge museum were to be established, it would be
required to adhere to 411 DM. To date, two cultural resources investigations
have produced artifacts from Refuge lands; these collections are stored at the
Minnesota Historical Society under a cooperative agreement.
Archeological investigations and collecting are performed only in the public
interest by qualified archeologists working under an Archaeological Resources
Protection Act permit issued by the Regional Director. Refuge personnel take
steps to prevent unauthorized collecting by the public, contractors, and Refuge
personnel. Violations are reported to the Regional Historic Preservation Officer.
Wilderness Review
As part of the CCP process, we reviewed the lands within the legislative bound-aries
of Rydell National Wildlife Refuge for wilderness suitability. No lands were
found suitable for designation as Wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act of
1964. Rydell National Wildlife Refuge does not contain 5,000 contiguous roadless
acres nor does the Refuge have any units of sufficient size to make their preser-vation
practicable as Wilderness. The lands of the Refuge have been substan-tially
affected by humans.
Chapter 4 / Management Direction
21
Chapter 4: Management Direction
This section presents long-term guidance (15-year plan) for the Refuge in the
form of Refuge goals, objectives, and strategies. This section is organized into
four broad areas:
  Habitat restoration and wildlife management
  Water management
  Community involvement
  Public use and demonstration
For the purpose of this analysis, Refuge goals are
qualitative statements that define what the
Refuge must be to satisfy its purpose, legal
mandates, and the needs of citizens and agencies
having a vital interest in what and how the
Refuge performs. The objectives provide quanti-tative
bench marks that indicate progress toward
the Refuge purpose and goals. Strategies are the
specific actions and projects that will lead to the
accomplishment of the management objectives.
The Refuge was donated to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service by the Richard King Mellon
Foundation in 1992 to protect its valuable habitat
and wildlife diversity, encourage waterfowl and
other migratory bird production, provide
wildlife-oriented recreation, and promote environ-mental
education that is focused on demonstrating sound fish, wildlife, and
agricultural practices. These purposes provide the basic framework for setting
refuge goals, objectives, and strategies. Management functions, public uses, and
facilities can be developed and provided only if they fall within the framework of
and are compatible with the Refuge purpose. As such, a compatibility determina-tion
is the primary statutory standard determining which uses will be permitted
on national wildlife refuge lands. All proposals in this plan are considered com-patible
based on a site-specific evaluation of the anticipated impacts (conflicts) on
migratory bird use and habitat. See Appendix H for compatibility statements.
Habitat Restoration and Wildlife Management
Habitat restoration and wildlife management on the Refuge involves using a
variety of management techniques to preserve, restore, and enhance the wet-land,
grassland, woodland, and other habitats for wildlife. Wetland management
involves restoring drained wetlands and managing lake water levels to meet the
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
22
Guiding
Principles of
Management
Rydell National
Wildlife Refuge
Protect Wildlife
This includes all “hands-on” biological activities such as surveying
and monitoring wildlife and habitat; relocating and reintroducing
wildlife where appropriate; controlling populations of invasive destruc-tive
wildlife; preventing outbreaks of disease; responding to outbreaks
when they occur; and preventing harmful population imbalances.
Improve Habitat
Improving habitat encompasses the full range of natural environmental
management, from protection of pristine areas with little or no intervention
in the natural process to intensive manipulation of soils, water, topography
and vegetative cover. It includes restoration, enhancement, and management
of wetlands, forests, grasslands, and other areas on the Refuge. Management
strategies would include prescribed burning, wildlife-oriented farming,
haying and grazing, control of invasive alien plants, and protection and
monitoring of air and water quality.
Serve People
All of the educational and recreational activities that take place on the
Refuge, as well as outreach ventures that occur elsewhere on behalf
of the Refuge, relate to this guiding principle. Involving people
includes all activities that are based upon contacts with people,
such as the volunteer program and partnerships with organiza-tions
and individuals; law enforcement; Friends of the
Refuge; and Refuge visitors. It also includes management
of archeological and historical sites that are located on
the Refuge.
Chapter 4 / Management Direction
23
seasonal needs of wildlife populations. Grassland management includes estab-lishing
and maintaining native prairie areas to provide nesting habitat for
waterfowl and other ground nesting bird species. Woodland management
involves restoring and enhancing large contiguous blocks of native tree and shrub
species for the benefit of neotropical migratory birds, cavity nesting birds, and
resident wildlife. Fragmentation has been shown to negatively affect certain
wildlife species, for example, the veery and grasshopper sparrow, that require
large, relatively continuous blocks of habitat. These species are considered
habitat interior species, that is, they favor the interior of the forest (veery) or
grassland (grasshopper sparrow) and mostly avoid edges. They are also consid-ered
to be area-sensitive, or area-dependent, requiring larger rather than
smaller blocks of habitat to meet their breeding and post-breeding needs. As the
Refuge implements these management principles, we expect a greater diversity
of plant and animal species.
The Refuge contains 82 known wetland basins. Many of the basins
have been drained or altered in the past. Of the original grasslands,
99 percent have been altered. Restoration of these wetland basins
and grasslands will provide excellent waterfowl production.
Throughout the Prairie Pothole Region of Minnesota, an estimated
90 percent of all wetlands and 99 percent of all tallgrass prairie
habitat have been lost to development. Many wetland-dependent
wildlife species, including waterfowl, have experienced significant
long-term population declines due to the continued loss of wetland
and grassland habitat in Minnesota, the Dakotas, and prairie
Canada. Managing the Refuge wetlands and uplands for waterfowl
production and maintenance will contribute toward the habitat and waterfowl
production goals identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
The species of birds that we expect to benefit through habitat management are
displayed in a table in Appendix F.
1.0 Habitat Restoration and Wildlife Management Goal:
Restore, preserve and enhance the natural wildlife and plant species
diversity within a refuge that is located in the transition zone between the
northern tallgrass prairie and the northern hardwood deciduous forest.
(See Figure 5, Planned Habitat Restoration and Management, and Table 1,
Habitat Conversion.)
As we manage, restore and enhance habitat within the Refuge boundaries,
we will evaluate inholdings and surrounding lands for suitable wildlife
habitat. We will seek to protect these lands, if appropriate. If it is desirable
to acquire the lands, the land will only be acquired from willing sellers.
1.1 Objective: Restore up to 300 acres (10 acres per year) of mesic deciduous
forest with emphasis on expanding remnant stands for the benefit of forest
interior bird species.
Supplement: Ferio, Svedarsky, and Narog (1999) identified breeding pairs
of the following area-sensitive species in the maple-basswood stands on
Rydell NWR – red-eyed vireo, ovenbird, great crested flycatcher, rose-breasted
grosbeak, veery, pileated woodpecker, American crow, hairy
woodpecker. These species, and others, are expected to benefit from forest
restoration under this objective.
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
24
Figure 5: Planned Habitat Restoration and Management
Chapter 4 / Management Direction
25
Planned Habitat Acres
Current Habitat Acres Lakes Wetlands Grassland/ Grass/Shrub Maple, Agricultural Conifer Facilities
and Wet Wetland Complex Basswood Fields Demonstration Development
Meadows Complex and Oak
Forest
Table 1: Habitat Conversion
Lakes 232 232
Wetlands 338 188 39 28 88
Hardwood 419 9 15 26 365
Conifer 135 3 25 16 86 5
Plantations
Grass 489 12 220 88 163 4
Meadows
Cropland 272 115 116 42
Facilities/ 26 26
Development
Grassland/ 85 24 11 33 17
Wetland
Complex
Grass/Shrub 11 2 3 6
Complex
Total Acres 2,007* 232 238 428 191 841 42 9 26
* Total acres do not equate total legal acreage (2,120) due to lack of precision of GIS at the scale digitized.
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
26
Strategies:
1.1.1 Develop a habitat management plan for the Refuge.
1.1.2 Plant native hardwoods and shrubs adjacent to existing woodlands,
including planting tamarack trees around Tamarack Lake (to be
specified in the Habitat Management Plan).
1.1.3 Phase out mature conifer plantations. Replace/interplant native
hardwoods and shrubs into conifer plantations. Manage existing
forest stands for native wildlife species.
1.1.4 With partner groups, plant hardwood trees and shrubs. Groups
might include the Boy Scouts of America, the Girl Scouts of
America, 4-H clubs, Ruffed Grouse Society, Future Farmers of
America (FFA) clubs, volunteers, conservation organizations,
Friends of the Rydell Refuge, school groups, and garden clubs.
1.1.5 Through the use of fire and other techniques, control invading
brush species such as prickly ash and buckthorn in existing wood-lands.
1.1.6 In partnership with the University of Minnesota-Crookston,
continue the forest health research on the Refuge woodlands.
1.1.7 Clean up 12 abandoned building sites and convert to wildlife
habitat. (98013)
1.2 Objective: Restore all of the drained seasonal wetlands by 2003, manage
wetland water levels, and re-establish natural hydrologic patterns to
benefit waterfowl, fish and other wildlife. (See Figure 6, Planned Water
Management.)
Strategies:
1.2.1 Restore drained wetlands to promote waterfowl production and
enhance water quality. (00008)
1.2.2 Manage water levels in Sunset, Golden, Swan, and other lakes for
waterfowl brood habitat. Manage the water level in Clifford Lake
to mimic the natural hydrologic cycle.
1.2.3 Introduce wild rice and wild celery into Church, Otter, and High
lakes.
1.2.4 Manage water levels in Swan Lake to provide trumpeter swan
nesting habitat.
1.2.5. Remove minnows from Otter, High, and Church lakes to foster
benthic production for the benefit of waterfowl. Construct fish
barriers in drainage ditches leaving lakes to restrict minnow
reintroduction into the wetlands. (99001)
1.3 Objective: Establish and maintain with fire 300 acres of native prairie
grassland to benefit waterfowl, other migratory birds and resident wildlife.
Strategies:
1.3.1 Restore 20 to 50 acres of cropland into native prairie habitat per
year. Seed with locally harvested native grasses and prairie forbs.
Chapter 4 / Management Direction
27
Figure 6: Planned Water Management
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
28
The seeding mix should contain at least 50 native grass and forb
species. Monitor restored prairie areas for wildlife use. (00017)
(00005) (98006)
1.3.2 Enlist partners to assist with grassland establishment and mainte-nance,
i.e. hand stripping forb and grass seeds , hand pulling exotic
weeds, and broadcast seeding of new upland areas.
1.3.3 Develop prescription fire plans and a monitoring program for all
burn units to facilitate site maintenance and seed production. Burn
grassland units on at least a 4-year cycle for maintenance and a 1-
year cycle for seed production.
1.3.4 Construct a secure and heated chemical storage shed for chemicals
needed in upland restoration work (98001)
1.3.5 Limit the use of chemical sprays for controlling exotic weed
species. Primarily use prescribed burning, mowing, biological
controls, and hand pulling to control weeds.
1.4 Objective: Using wildlife-compatible farming practices, farm approxi-mately
40 acres of land with no-till farming practices to enhance wildlife
viewing opportunities.
Strategy:
1.4.1 Work with University of Minnesota-Crookston to develop a farm-ing
program that is both farmer-friendly and that benefits wildlife.
Employ a variety of techniques, including no-till/reduced-till/
spring-till, buffer strips, contour, residual, and other conservation
farming practices to demonstrate benefits for wildlife and provide
enhanced opportunities for wildlife viewing. (00014)
1.5 Objective: Promote production of cavity nesting migratory bird species
(wood duck, hooded merganser) by protecting all large tree snags and
maintaining artificial nesting structures.
Strategy:
1.5.1 Produce wood ducks, hooded mergansers and bluebirds through
natural and artificial nesting structures. Enlist partners to build
and maintain wood ducks and bluebird nesting structures. (98009)
1.6 Objective: Rear walleye fingerlings to support restoration of native fish to
tribal and refuge lands.
Discussion: We are concerned that using the lake for rearing walleye
compromises invertebrate and plant production and thus wetland produc-tivity
for waterfowl and other migrant water birds. However, because
walleye rearing has met the needs of DeSoto and other national wildlife
refuges and various Native American tribes, we plan to continue the
program while monitoring its effects. We will continue to evaluate the need
for rearing walleye in support of restoration of native fish on tribal and
refuge lands. If the need is filled, we will discontinue rearing fingerlings.
In addition, beginning in the spring of 2002, we will investigate the possible
negative impact on invertebrate production and natural wetland productiv-ity
in terms of waterfowl and other bird and wildlife use. Our intent is to
Chapter 4 / Management Direction
29
have a complete assessment of impacts completed by 2005. We will con-tinue
rearing walleye until the monitoring shows a negative impact or the
needs are met.
Strategy:
1.6.1 With partners, evaluate the need for rearing walleye fingerlings
and the effects of rearing walleye on invertebrate production and
waterfowl and other wildlife use.
1.7 Objective: Maintain the health and integrity of Sundew Bog.
Strategies:
1.7.1 Maintain the water level in the bog area.
1.7.2 Install an observation boardwalk to facilitate research activities
and public education.
1.8 Objective: Determine the abundance and distribution of the Refuge’s
vascular plants and vertebrates by 2006.
Strategies:
1.8.1 Gather baseline biological data for the Refuge. (98010)
1.8.2 Develop Geographic Information System for the Refuge that
includes biological and physical data. (00009)
1.9 Objective: Maintain summer white-tailed deer population at 25 to 30 deer
per square mile.
Discussion: If we are to restore woodland habitats, we will need to manage
the deer herd to keep it within the limits of the available resources. Deer
herd populations can fluctuate significantly with changes in weather
conditions, hunting pressure, and food availability. The deer herd can also
be affected by the presence of large predators such as wolf, bear, and
coyote. All of these factors must be evaluated when determining the
appropriate harvest activities. The goal is to have no more than 60 breed-ing
deer on the Refuge after the harvest.
Strategies:
1.9.1 Assess the current herd status each spring to determine harvest
strategies for the fall.
1.9.2 Acquire necessary permits from the State of Minnesota to facilitate
any needed harvest.
1.9.3 Promote hunts for youth and people with disabilities whenever
possible. Allow limited archery and black powder hunts when
needed to reduce the breeding population.
Potential Climate Change
The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring
federal agencies under its direction that have land management responsibilities
to consider potential climate change impacts as part of long range planning
endeavors.
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
30
The increase of carbon 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 national wildlife refuges,
carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact to be
considered in planning. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon Sequestration
Research and Development” (U.S. DOE, 1999) defines carbon sequestration as
“...the capture and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to
or remain in the atmosphere.”
The land is a tremendous force in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all
sorts – grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice and desert – are
effective both in preventing carbon emission and acting as a biological “scrubber”
of atmospheric carbon monoxide. The Department of Energy report’s conclusions
noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and may
reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere.
Preserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long range plan for
national wildlife refuges. The actions proposed in this comprehensive conserva-tion
plan would preserve or restore land and water, and would thus enhance
carbon sequestration. This in turn contributes positively to efforts to mitigate
human-induced global climate changes.
Water Quality Management
The quality of wetland habitat on the Refuge and in Maple Lake is largely
determined by the farming practices within the Red Lake Watershed District. In
cooperation and partnership with the Red Lake Watershed District and the
Maple Lake Improvement Association, the Refuge will take an active role in
addressing water quality issues that originate outside of the Refuge boundary.
Most activities will be through partnerships with landowners in the watershed,
farm and conservation organizations, and appropriate Federal, state, and county
agencies.
Refuge staff will work with private landowners, conservation organizations, and
governmental agencies to bring programs into the watershed to help meet the
water quality goal. Special emphasis will be given to involving landowners along
Polk County Ditch 73 in programs and practices such as filter strips, grass
waterways, and wetland restoration. The purpose of the program is to reduce the
amount of chemical-laden water that flows into the ditch. The program would be
designed to give landowners voluntary opportunities to manage their land in a
way that improves water quality and benefits wildlife.
This initiative recognizes that agriculture will always be a predominant land use
within the watershed. However, it seeks to promote the concept that profitable,
sustainable agriculture can be compatible with good water quality and with
abundant and diverse wildlife populations.
2.0 Water Quality Management Goal:
With watershed partners, improve and maintain water quality in Rydell
National Wildlife Refuge lakes and wetlands and contribute to water
quality improvements in Maple Lake. (See Figure 7, Planned Water
Quality Management.)
Chapter 4 / Management Direction
31
Figure 7: Planned Water Quality Management
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
32
2.1 Objective: Reduce and monitor the phosphorous and nitrate loads that
enter the Refuge from Polk County Ditch 73.
Strategies:
2.1.1 Develop a detailed water quality management plan for the Refuge.
2.1.2 Working through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, work
with landowners along Ditch 73 to restore drained wetlands and
establish grass waterways and buffer zones to slow down and filter
the chemical-laden water that flows into the ditch. Establish
partnerships with the Maple Lake Improvement Association and
other organizations to help cover the costs.
2.1.3 Develop a monitoring system that will effectively determine the
nutrient levels that are flowing through and from the Refuge.
(00007)
2.1.4 In partnership with the Maple Lake Improvement Association,
study the feasibility of slowing down or rerouting the water that is
flowing out of Tamarack Lake into Maple Lake. If feasible, develop
a plan and secure partners to help complete the project.
Community Involvement
Since it was established in 1992, Rydell National Wildlife
Refuge has enjoyed a great deal of public support from people
and organizations in the surrounding communities. Commu-nity
ownership in the Refuge has enabled it to function
effectively in an era of budget shortages and minimal staff.
Many of the activities presently occurring on the Refuge are
only possible because of the large number of dedicated volun-teers
who are willing to invest their time and energy into the
Refuge. Community involvement in Refuge programs will
continue to be promoted and encouraged to build an ever increasing base of
support. Refuge staff will recruit a cadre of volunteers from the surrounding
communities. The volunteers will be trained, equipped, and enabled to become
actively involved in many aspects of Refuge management.
The Refuge has formalized a partnership with the Friends of the Rydell Refuge
Association. This association will assist the Refuge by seeking funding and
providing assistance with the public use and educational programs. A variety of
organizations, including the Agassiz Environmental Learning Center, Options
Resource Center For Independent Living, the University of
Minnesota-Crookston, the Fertile Conservation Club, the Minnesota Deer
Hunters Association, the Ruffed Grouse Society and others, have been active in
Refuge projects but have not formalized partnership agreements with the
Refuge.
3.0 Community Involvement Goal:
Promote community stewardship of the Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
through innovative citizen participation in Refuge operations.
3.1 Objective: Establish a self-managed volunteer program that is fully
integrated in Refuge operations.
Chapter 4 / Management Direction
33
Strategies:
3.1.1 Develop a detailed community involvement plan for the Refuge.
3.1.2 Establish a cost share approach with Friends of the Rydell Refuge
to support a volunteer coordinator.
3.1.3 Assist Friends of the Rydell Refuge with technical advice during
the preparation of a business management plan.
3.2 Objective: Formalize an educational partnership with Agassiz Environ-mental
Learning Center in Fertile, Minnesota.
Strategy:
3.2.1 Establish a partnership with the Agassiz Environmental Learning
Center to develop and present educational programs, activities, and
exhibits on the Refuge that promote awareness of wildlife and
other natural resources.
3.3 Objective: Formalize an accessibility partnership with Options Resource
Center for Independent Living, an East Grand Forks, Minnesota, organiza-tion.
Strategy:
3.3.1 Establish a partnership with Options Resource Center for Indepen-dent
Living to offer hunting, recreation and education programs to
special-needs populations.
3.4 Objective: Formalize a research partnership with the University of
Minnesota-Crookston.
Strategy:
3.4.1 Establish a partnership with the University of
Minnesota-Crookston to use Refuge facilities and environments for
off-campus training and, in return, provide continuing research and
monitoring of Refuge natural resources.
Public Use
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge currently
provides wildlife-oriented recreational
opportunities including bird watching,
wildlife observation, photography, environ-mental
education, nature programs, deer
hunting, hiking and cross country skiing. The
Refuge also allows natural resources re-search
activities. Visitation surpassed 5,000
visits in 2000. Maintenance of facilities is
largely supported by dedicated volunteers.
Six priority visitor uses are planned for the
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge – wildlife observation, photography, environ-mental
education, interpretation, fishing, and hunting. These activities are
encouraged within the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Refuge System when such
activities are compatible with Refuge purposes.
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
34
Activities and facilities have been located to minimize conflicts with wildlife and
to provide opportunities for solitude and wildlife observation. Approximately 3.5
miles of existing roads and 7 miles of existing trails have been identified for
visitor use. These will need to be upgraded so that they are fully accessible and
able to withstand increased use. Other roads and trails within the Refuge will be
closed to the public and used for maintenance access. Visitor activities will be
concentrated in the north central and east central portions of the Refuge, leaving
much of the south and west parts of the refuge to function as wildlife sanctuary.
Programs for visitors will promote the enjoyment of the outdoors and a greater
understanding and appreciation for fish and wildlife, wildlands ecology, and
wildlife management. Specific planning, implementing, and evaluating of the
Refuge’s public use program will be guided by a step-down Public Use Plan that
will be developed following the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. All public use
activities must meet the compatibility criteria established for national wildlife
refuges before they will be permitted on the Refuge. Activities, uses, and facili-ties
will be phased in over the 15-year time frame as funding and staff become
available.
4.0 Public Use Goal:
Provide fully accessible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities
that educate and demonstrate wildlife and habitat stewardship. (See
Figure 8, Planned Visitor Facilities.)
4.1 Objective: Meet the needs of 5,000 to 7,000 people per year by improving
programs, facilities, and information.
Strategies:
4.1.1 Develop a detailed Public Use Plan that includes appropriate
signing, informational brochures, Visitor Center displays, and other
information needed to enable visitors to have an educational and
enjoyable experience while on the Refuge. (98007) (00002) (98008)
(00016)
4.1.2 In partnership with the Friends of the Rydell Refuge, staff the
Visitor Center to the extent that the Refuge can be open to the
public 6 days per week with an emphasis on evening hours.
4.1.3 In partnership with Options Resource Center for Independent
Living and Friends of the Rydell Refuge, make the Visitor Center
and headquarters office building and observation decks fully
accessible. (00010)
4.2 Objective: Provide visitors with opportunities for wildlife observation,
environmental education, interpretation, photography and deer hunting
with a strong emphasis on making these activities and facilities fully
accessible.
Strategies:
4.2.1 With partners, plan and host two annual “Open House” events at
the Refuge. Invite visitors to hike, ski, observe wildlife, tour the
Refuge, and learn about the cultural history of the Refuge.
4.2.2 With partners and volunteers, provide deer and waterfowl hunting
opportunities for youth and disabled hunters; participate in the
Chapter 4 / Management Direction
35
Figure 8: Planned Visitor Facilities
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
36
Conservation Youth Tours; and present one environmental educa-tion
workshop each year for local school teachers.
4.2.3 As part of the restoration of Sundew Bog, construct a board walk
over the bog to provide access for educational programs. (00010)
4.3 Objective: Establish and maintain a 3.5-mile self-guided interpretive auto
tour route for wildlife observation, interpretation and demonstration.
Demonstrate effective fish and wildlife management, and soil and water
stewardship along the auto tour route.
Strategies:
4.3.1 In partnership with the Polk County Historical Society and the
Friends of the Rydell Refuge, identify two or three culturally
significant sites to interpret and to enhance visitors’ appreciation
for the Refuge’s cultural history. (00016)
4.3.2 Upgrade the auto tour route so it will be accessible by cars and
buses during the spring, summer, and fall months. Include two fully
accessible wildlife observation structures at strategic locations
along the route. Each observation site will need a parking lot that
is large enough to accommodate buses. (00004)
4.4 Objective: Establish and maintain a 7-mile network of accessible trails for
wildlife observation, interpretation, and recreational enjoyment.
Strategy:
4.4.1 Develop exhibits and interpretive information for all trails and
fishing piers. (00001)
4.5 Objective: Provide high quality fishing opportunities in Tamarack Lake.
Strategies:
4.5.1 Complete a fishing plan and amend refuge-specific regulations to
allow fishing on the Refuge.
4.5.2 Complete a fishing pier and access at Tamarack Lake.
4.6 Objective: Promote the “Watchable Wildlife” program and provide acces-sible
facilities for viewing wildlife on the Refuge.
Strategy:
4.6.1 Promote the Refuge as a “Watchable Wildlife”
destination. With partner organizations, conduct one
watchable wildlife skills workshop per year to
educate Refuge visitors on species identification,
habitat recognition and wildlife observation skills.
Also develop a system of signs, brochures, wildlife
identification materials and equipment to provide
visitors with enhanced ability to see wildlife.
Chapter 4 / Management Direction
37
5.0 Protection Goal:
To protect the biological and cultural integrity of Refuge resources and
the health and safety of visitors and Refuge staff.
5.1 Objective: A safe and sanitary environment for visitors and staff.
Strategies:
5.1.1 Construct restroom facilities at the visitor center.
5.1.2 Construct a fuel and chemical storage building.
5.2 Objective: On the average, provide 8 hours per week of field law enforce-ment.
Strategy:
5.2.1 Hire a resource specialist with law enforcement authority. (00006)
5.3 Objective: Eliminate known electrical line hazard to waterfowl and other
birds.
Strategy:
5.3.1 Remove and relocate electrical power lines underground. (00012)
5.4 Objective: Staff and operate the Refuge to achieve minimum standards of
protection to the resource and service to the public.
Strategies:
5.4.1 Provide basic facilities and maintenance for the Refuge. (00011)
5.4.2 Provide basic office equipment and administrative support for the
staff. (00003)(98012)
5.5 Objective: Fulfill requirements of Section 14 of the Archaeological Re-sources
Protection Act and Section 110 (a) (2) of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
Strategy:
5.5.1 Establish a plan that will meet the requirements of the Archaeo-logical
Resources Protection Act for surveying lands to identify
archaeological resources and the National Historic Preservation
Act for a preservation program.
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
38
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation
Partnerships
The future of Rydell National Wildlife Refuge, like most national wildlife refuges,
is dependent upon a public constituency that is aware of Refuge and environmen-tal
issues and that is willing to work toward resolving them. The expanded
educational, recreational, and partnership opportunities proposed by this CCP
will help build and maintain this constituency. Promoting
the Refuge as a natural and recreational asset in north-western
Minnesota will enhance the Refuge’s image and
help build public support.
A key component in implementing the CCP will be the
development of partnerships with organizations, agencies,
and individuals. Partnership potential exists with institu-tions
and organizations that include:
  University of Minnesota-Crookston
  Friends of the Rydell Refuge
  Agassiz Environmental Learning Center
  Local school districts
  Maple Lake Improvement Association
  Options Resource Center for Independent Living
  Polk County Park Board
  East Polk County Soil and Water Conservation District
  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
  Advanced Hunter Education Program
  Fertile Conservation Club
  Minnesota Deer Hunters Association
  Numerous individual volunteers
  Ruffed Grouse Society
  Minnesota Waterfowl Association
  Ducks Unlimited
The refuge manager will seek to establish partnerships with these and other
organizations or agencies that have an interest in working together to benefit
wildlife, the Refuge, and their communities.
Chapter 5 / Plan Implementation
39
Personnel Needs
A manager and a maintenance worker are assigned to the Refuge operations (see
Figure 9). Eventually, as many as five staff members, including a park ranger,
biological technician, and clerk, will be stationed at the Refuge to implement the
goals and objectives identified in this CCP (see Figure 10). In addition, a paid
position for a volunteer coordinator is expected to be funded through a cost share
partnership with the Friends of the Rydell Refuge Association. Annual Work
Plans will reflect the priorities and intent of the long-range CCP. When discre-tionary
funding and staff time is available, it will be used to implement additional
components of the plan.
Step-down Management Plans
The CCP provides broad conceptual guidance for future protection, management,
and development of the Rydell National Wildlife Refuge. Before the projects are
implemented, additional detailed plans will need to be prepared. Refuge staff will
continue to look for innovative partnerships with local professionals and busi-nesses
to help with preparing the plans.
Several step-down management plans must be completed to better describe the
planned work and to meet Service policy. Within the next 4 years the following
plans will be completed:
  Inventory and Monitoring
  Habitat Monitoring
  Public Use
  Law Enforcement
  Cultural Resource Management
  Hunt Management
  Fire Management
  Cropland Management
  Fisheries Management
  Forest Management
Figure 10: Proposed Organization Chart
Figure 9: Current Staffing
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
40
Funding
Funding will come through a variety of internal and external sources. Refuge
Maintenance funds will be used to renovate some of the facilities identified in this
plan. However, these funds are in short supply, and Refuge staff will look for
ways of leveraging and matching dollars through new and innovative public and
private sources. The full implementation of this plan will be dependent on new
sources of funding as a result of partnerships and grants.
The Friends of the Rydell Refuge Association will be an important means of
connecting the Refuge with interested local citizens and organizations that are
willing and able to contribute time and money to the development of the pro-grams
identified in this plan. Volunteers will also play a critical role in assisting
Refuge staff with fulfilling the future vision of Rydell National Wildlife Refuge.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring is critical to successful implementation of this plan. Monitoring is
necessary to evaluate the progress toward objectives and to determine if condi-tions
are changing. The techniques and details for monitoring related to specific
objectives will be specified in the Inventory and Monitoring Step-down Plan.
Every 5 years this plan will be revisited to document progress, reassess its
direction and determine if any modifications are necessary to meet changing
conditions. Public involvement in evaluating progress and plan implementation
will be encouraged. Increased public visitation and new facilities will be evalu-ated
for compatibility with Refuge purposes.
Index
41
Index
A
Agassiz Environmental Learning Center 5, 32, 33, 38
Agriculture 7, 10, 12, 13, 28, 30
B
Bird Conservation Areas 10
Birds 23, 28, 37
migratory birds 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 21, 23, 26
C
Clifford Lake 19
Community Involvement 7, 21, 32, 33
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1, 2, 6, 34
County Ditch 73 7, 30, 32
Cropland Management 19, 26, 28
Cultural Resources 6, 16, 34, 36, 37
D
Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District 11, 17
E
East Polk County 19
East Polk County SWCD 5, 19, 38
Endangered Species 2, 3, 9, 11
Environmental Assessment, Rydell NWR 3, 6
Environmental Education 1, 21, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38
Erskine 12
Exotic Species 8, 28
F
Fertile Conservation Club 38
Fish 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 21, 26, 28, 34, 91, 96, 101, 103, 105, 107
Fish Management 1, 3, 6, 19, 36
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 3, 91, 93, 96, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107
Fish Hatchery, Rydell NWR 3, 7, 16
Friends of the Rydell Refuge Association 5, 17, 26, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40
Funding, Rydell NWR 2
G
Grassland 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 19, 21, 23, 26, 28
Grove Park Township 12
H
Habitat Restoration 1, 10, 11, 21, 23, 26
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
42
I
Invasive Species 13
L
Location and size, Rydell NWR 1
M
Maple Lake 7, 30, 32
Maple Lake Improvement District 5, 18, 32, 38
Mellon Foundation 1, 5, 12, 21
Mentor 12
Minnesota Deer Hunters Association 32, 38
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 5, 7, 18, 19, 38
N
National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act 1
National Wildlife Refuge System 2, 11, 12
North American Waterfowl Management Plan 3, 23
O
Options Resource Center for Independent Living 18, 33, 38
P
Partners in Flight 10
Partnerships 1, 2, 5, 11, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39
Polk County 1, 12, 38
Polk County Historical Society 36
Prescribed Fire 26, 28
Public Use 1, 2, 5, 7, 17, 18, 21, 28, 32, 33, 34, 36
S
Sundew Bog 8, 13, 36
T
Threatened Species 2, 9, 11, 16
U
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19, 21, 33, 91, 93, 96, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107
U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 11
Union Lake Sarah Improvement Association 5
University of Minnesota-Crookston 13, 26, 28, 32, 33, 38
Uplands 1, 11, 23, 28
V
Vision, Rydell National Wildlife Refuge 1
Volunteers 7, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, 33, 34
Index
43
W
Water 1, 3, 6, 7, 21, 26, 32, 36
Water Quality 7, 26, 30, 32
Waterfowl 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 21, 23, 26, 28, 37
Waterfowl Production Area 2, 3, 11, 12
Wetland Management Districts 2
Wetlands 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 19, 21, 23, 26, 30, 32
Wildlife
1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 26, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 103, 105, 107
Wildlife Management 1, 3, 10, 13, 18, 21, 23, 34, 36
Wildlife-dependent Recreation 1, 5, 21, 34, 36
Woodlands 1, 9, 12, 17, 21, 26
Woodside Township 12
Appendices
45
Appendix
Appendix A: Glossary
Appendix B: Bibliography
Appendix C: Chronology of Events at Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
Appendix D: Library Distribution
Appendix E: Project List
Appendix F: Species List
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations
Appendix I: Environmental Assessment
Appendix J: Mailing List
Appendix K: List of Preparers
Appendix L: Summary and Disposition of Public Comments Received
on the Draft CCP
Appendix A / Glossary
47
Appendix A: Glossary
Appendix A / Glossary
49
Appendix A: Glossary
Alternative: A set of objectives and strategies needed to
achieve refuge goals and the desired future
condition.
Biological Diversity: The variety of life forms and its processes,
including the variety of living organisms, the
genetic differences among them, and the com-munities
and ecosystems in which they occur.
Compatible Use: A wildlife-dependent recreational use, or any
other use on a refuge that will not materially
interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of
the mission of the Service or the purposes of the
refuge.
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan: A document that describes the desired future
conditions of the refuge, and specifies manage-ment
actions to achieve refuge goals and the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelated complex of plant and
animal communities and their associated
non-living environment.
Ecosystem Approach: A strategy or plan to protect and restore the
natural function, structure, and species composi-tion
of an ecosystem, recognizing that all compo-nents
are interrelated.
Ecosystem
Management: Management of an ecosystem that includes all
ecological, social and economic components that
make up the whole of the system.
Endangered Species: Any species of plant or animal defined through
the Endangered Species Act as being in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and published in the Federal
Register.
Environmental
Assessment: A systematic analysis to determine if proposed
actions would result in a significant effect on the
quality of the environment.
Goals: Descriptive statements of desired future condi-tions.
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
50
Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a manage-ment
decision. For example, a resource manage-ment
problem, concern, a threat to natural
resources, a conflict in uses, or in the presence of
an undesirable resource condition.
National Wildlife
Refuge System: All lands, waters, and interests therein adminis-tered
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as
wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife man-agement
areas, waterfowl production areas, and
other areas for the protection and conservation
of fish, wildlife and plant resources.
Objectives: Actions to be accomplished to achieve a desired
outcome.
Preferred Alternative: The Service’s selected alternative identified in
the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Scoping: A process for determining the scope of issues to
be addressed by a comprehensive conservation
plan and for identifying the significant issues.
Involved in the scoping process are federal,
state and local agencies; private organizations;
and individuals.
Species: A distinctive kind of plant or animal having
distinguishable characteristics, and that can
interbreed and produce young. A category of
biological classification.
Strategies: A general approach or specific actions to achieve
objectives.
Threatened Species: Those plant or animal species likely to become
endangered species throughout all of or a
significant portion of their range within the
foreseeable future. A plant or animal identified
and defined in accordance with the 1973 Endan-gered
Species Act and published in the Federal
Register.
Vegetation: Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant
life in an area.
Vegetation Type: A category of land based on potential or existing
dominant plan species of a particular area.
Watershed: The entire land area that collects and drains
water into a stream or stream system.
Appendix A / Glossary
51
Wetland: Areas such as lakes, marshes, and streams that
are inundated by surface or ground water for a
long enough period of time each year to support,
and that do support under natural conditions,
plants and animals that require saturated or
seasonally saturated soils.
Wildlife Diversity: A measure of the number of wildlife species in
an area and their relative abundance.
Wildlife-dependent
Recreational Use: A use of refuge that involves hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation and photography, or envi-ronmental
education and interpretation, as
identified in the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997.
Appendix B / Bibliography
53
Appendix B: Bibliography
Appendix B / Bibliography
55
Appendix B: Bibliography
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Assessment and Preliminary
Management Plan. November 1991. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
A Vegetative Survey of the Rydell National Wildlife Refuge. P.R. Baird, J.M.
Dyer, and W.D. Svedarsky. July 1995
A Cultural Resources Management Plan for the Rydell National Wildlife Refuge.
J.A. Ward, J.P. McCarthy. February 1997.
Polk County Comprehensive Local Water Plan, 1996 Revision. N. Hoberg and G.
Lee. September 1996.
Maple Lake Citizen Monitoring Project. Maple Lake Assessment Report. W.R.
Goeken. December 1992.
Environment; NEPA Handbook -- Introduction (30 AM 2). September 23, 1983.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Administrative Manual.
Environment; NEPA Handbook -- Intra-Service Planning and Documentation
(30 AM 3). September 23, 1983. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Administrative
Manual.
Environmental Quality; National Environmental Policy Act; Documenting and
Implementing Decisions (550 FW 3). March 29, 1996. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Manual.
Ferio, T.A., W.D. Svedarsky, and S.M. Narog. 1999. Breeding birds of remnant
maple-basswood stands on the Rydell National Wildlife Refuge, 1998. Final
report conducted under contract order n. 32583-8-M009 for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. 11p.
Fish and Wildlife Service (National Environmental Policy Act Implementing
Procedures; 516 DM 6, Appendix 1). January 16, 1997. Appendix 1 to U.S.
Department of the Interior Manual; Environmental Quality; National Environ-mental
Policy Act of 1969; Managing the NEPA Process (516 DM 6). March 18,
1980
How to Write Quality EISs and EAs; Guidelines for NEPA Documents. 1992.
Shipley Associates.
Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System
(E.O. 12996). March 25, 1996.
Minnesota Department of Transportation. 1998. Marschner Map of
Presettlement Vegetation in Minnesota. Distributor: Chief Archaeologist,
Cultural Resource Unit, 395 John Ireland boulevard, Mail Stop 676, St. Paul, MN
55155-1899.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
56
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-
668jj).
Planning; NEPA Compliance (4 RM 5). March 12, 1982. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Refuge Manual.
Public Use Requirements Handbook; October 1984, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Redelegation of Authority - Signatory on Finding of No Significant Impact. July
16, 1996. Region 1 Policy Book - Regional Policy Order No. 96-08.
Refuge Management; Refuge Planning; Policy and Responsibilities (602 FW 1).
June 23, 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual
Refuge Management; Refuge Planning; Planning Process (602 FW 2). November
12, 1996. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
Refuge Management; Refuge Planning; Step-down Management Planning (602
FW 3). June 23, 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k - 460k-4).
Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Envi-ronmental
Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-1508). September 23, 1983. President’s
Council on Environmental Quality.
Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook. March 1996.
Supplement to 602 FW 1-3 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
Appendix C / Chronology of Events
57
Appendix C: Chronology of Events
Appendix C / Chronology of Events
59
Appendix C: Chronology of Events
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
1967 The first tract of land was purchased by Leonard Rydell
(Ramberg homestead).
1971 The house near the maintenance shop was built.
1972 The main house was built (Headquarters Office).
1974 The township roads were closed through abandonment proceed-ings.
1985 The fish hatchery construction was completed and walleye
rearing began.
1985 Two hundred Canada geese were released on the property.
1986 A pair of mature trumpeter swans were released on the prop-erty.
Thirty-nine immature swans were kept on the property
until they were released at several northern Minnesota sites.
1988 176,000 conifer, hardwood and fruit bearing trees were planted
on the property.
1992 The Richard King Mellon Foundation purchased the property
and transferred it to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be
managed as a national wildlife refuge.
1992 Bob Hiltner was hired as the first permanent full-time employee
of Rydell NWR.
1992 The first Polk County SWCD youth conservation tours were
conducted on the Refuge.
1992 The first volunteer began working on the Refuge.
1994 The first deer hunts were conducted on the Refuge to manage
the excessive deer population.
1995 Seventeen abandoned wells and three cisterns at old building
sites were capped.
1996 The first prescribed burn was conducted on the Refuge.
1996 The Friends of the Rydell Refuge Association was formed and
incorporated.
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
60
1996 The former pool house was filled to convert the building into a
visitor center.
1996 The first open house was held on the Refuge with 290 people
attending.
1996 With the help of volunteers, the Refuge Visitor Center first
opened to the public.
1996 The first deer hunt for persons with disabilities was conducted
on the Refuge.
1996 A youth deer hunting skills training program and youth deer
hunt were initiated.
1997 The Minnesota State Legislature provided $200,000 to the
Friends of Rydell Refuge Association to make Refuge facilities
accessible.
1998 Volunteers began forest restoration with replanting on 20 acres.
2000 Refuge visitation surpassed the 5,000 mark for the first time.
Appendix D / Library Distribution
61
Appendix D: Library Distribution
Appendix D / Library Distribution
63
Appendix D: Library Distribution
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
Bagley Public Library
21 Main Ave. North
Bagley, MN 56621
East Grand Forks Public Library
223 2nd Avenue Northwest
East Grand Forks, MN 56721
Grand Forks Public Library
2110 Library Circle
Grand Forks, ND 58206
Polk County Library
Fertile Branch
212 Mill Street North
Fertile, MN 56540
Crookston Public Library
110 North Ash
Crookston, MN 56716
Fosston Public Library
405 North Foss
Fosston, MN 56542
McIntosh Public Library
McIntosh, MN 56556
Red Lake Falls Public Library
109 Main Avenue Southwest
Red Lake Falls, MN 56750
Appendix E / Project List
65
Appendix E: Project List
Appendix E / Project List
67
Appendix C: RONS and MMS
Refuge Operation Needs System List (RONS)
RONS Project Cost Summary – Refuge Project Priorities
The projects are prioritized based on the likelihood and potential impact of the project.
RONS No. Strategy No. Project Description First Year
Need
98006 1.3.1 Native prairie establishment $114,000
and maintenance
00017 1.3.1 Native prairie establishment $119,000
and maintenance
98012 5.4.2 Increase administrative $55,000
capabilities
00011 5.4.1 Minimum refuge operations $53,000
needs
00012 5.3.1 Remove waterfowl hazard $76,000
00006 5.2.1 Hire resource specialist $129,000
with law enforcement
99001 2.2.1-4 Restoration of diving $35,000
duck habitat
00005 1.3.1 Harvest of native prairie $31,000
seed for restoration work
98007 4.1.1 Development of education/ $40,000
interpretation programs
98008 4.4.1 Improve visitor accommo- $82,000
dations
00001 4.4.1 Develop exhibits and inter- $31,000
pretive information for
trail system
00004 4.3.2 Develop watchable wildlife $348,000
auto tour route
98013 1.1.7 Conversion of old home sites $102,000
to wildlife habitat
00008 1.2.1 Restore drained wetland basins $38,000
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
68
RONS No. Strategy No. Project Description First Year
Need
00009 1.8.2 Develop geographic infor- $33,000
mation database
00010 4.2.3 Construct accessible inter- $61,000
pretive bog walk
00016 5.1.1 Construct restroom facility $94,000
for visitors center
98001 5.1.2 Construct fuel and chemical $75,000
storage building
98010 1.8.1 Expand biological community $143,000
identification and numeration
00007 2.1.3 Evaluate aquatic resources $36,000
and water quality
00002 4.1.1. Create audiovisual program $46,000
for visitor center
98009 1.5.1 Promote artificial nest $20,000
structure program
00003 5.4.2 Purchase office furniture $20,000
00014 1.4.1 Conservation farming $80,000
demonstration program
Appendix F / Species List
69
Appendix F: Species List
Appendix F / Species List
71
Mammals
Arctic Shrew Sorex arcticus
Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus
Northern Water Shrew Sorex palustris
Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi
Shorttail Shrew Blarina brevicauda
Starnose Mole Condylura cristata
Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus
Keen’s Myotis Myotis keenii
Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans
Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus
Red Bat Lasiurus borealis
Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus
Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus
Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus
Whitetail Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii
Woodchuck Marmota monax
Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger
Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus
Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel Spermophilus tridecemlineatus
Least Chipmunk Tamias minimus
Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus
Beaver Castor canadensis
White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus
Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus
Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius
Boreal Redback Vole Clethrionomys gapperi
Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus
Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster
House Mouse Mus musculus
Plains Pocket Gopher Geomys bursarius
Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus
Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus
Least Weasel Mustela nivalis
Longtail Weasel Mustela frenata
Shorttail weasel Mustela erminea
Mink Mustela vison
River Otter Lutra canadensis
Raccoon Procyon lotor
Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis
Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius
Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum
Appendix F: Species List
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
72
Badger Taxidea taxus
Red fox Vulpes vulpes
Coyote Canis latrans
Gray Wolf Canis lupus
Black Bear Ursus americanus
Bobcat Lynx rufus
Whitetail deer Odocoileus virginianus
Moose Alces alces
Reptiles and Amphibians
Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina
Western Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta belii
Smooth Green Snake Liochlorophis vernalis
Northern Red-bellied Snake Storeria occipitomaculata occipitomaculata
Plains Garter Snake Thamnophis radix
Red-sided Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis
Northern ribbon snake Thamnophis suaritus
Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus
Eastern Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum
American Toad Bufo americanus
Canadian Toad Bufo hemiophrys
Great Plains Toad Bufo cognatus
Northern Spring Peeper Pseudacris crucifer crucifer
Boreal Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata
Gray Treefrog Hyla versicolor
Swamp Tree Frog Pseudacris nigrita.
Wood Frog Rana sylvatica
Butterflies
Dusted Skipper Atrytonopsis hianna
Dun Skipper Euphyes vestris
Delaware Skipper Anatrytone logan
Dakota Skipper Hesperia dacotae
Northern Broken-Dash Wallengrenia egeremet
Peck’s Skipper Polites peckius
Tawny-edged Skipper Polites themistocles
Long Dash Polites mystic
Poweshiek Skipperling Oarisma poweshiek
Common Checkered-Skipper Pyrgus communis
Dreamy Duskywing Erynnis icelus
Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes
Checkered White Pontia protodice
Cabbage White Pieris rapae
Alfalfa Butterfly Colias eurytheme
Common Sulphur Colias philodice
Purplish Copper Lycaena helloides
Melissa Blue Lycaeides melissa
Appendix F / Species List
73
Viceroy Limenitis archippus
Red Admiral Vanessa atalanta
Painted Lady Vanessa cardui
Mourning Cloak Nymphalis antiopa
Pearl Crescent Phyciodes tharos
Harris’ Checkerspot Chlosyne harrisii
Silvery Checkerspot Chlosyne nycteis
Silver-bordered Fritillary Pieris rapae
Regal Fritillary Speyeria idalia
Great Spangled Fritillary Speyeria cybele
Aphrodite Fritillary Speyeria aphrodite
Variegated Fritillary Euptoieta claudia
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Eyed Brown Satyrodes eurydice
Inornate Ringlet Coenonympha inornata
Common Wood Nymph Cercyonis pegala
Source for scientific names:
Opler, Paul A., Harry Pavulaan, and Ray E. Stanford (coordinators). 1995.
Butterflies of North America. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Re-search
Center Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/lepid/
bflyusa/bflyusa.htm (Version 17AUG2000).
The following table was compiled from four sources – the Refuge’s bird list (first
six columns); the January 1999 edition of the Region 3 Fish & Wildlife Resource
Conservation Priorities (last column); Minnesota’s List of Endangered, Threat-ened,
and Special Concern Species (last column). Leslie Peterson, Biologist for
Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District, completed the entries for “Poten-tial
Benefit by Habitat Objectives” columns from his professional knowledge,
experience, and judgment.
Species
(Bold indicates species that are
abundant or common on the refuge
for at least part of the year)
Nested
on
refuge
recently
Status On
Refuge
Potential Benefit by
Habitat Objectives
(Habitat used regularly for
food, nesting, or cover)
Status In Region
and State
a - abundant: a common species that is
very numerous
c - common: certain to be seen or heard
in suitable habitat, not in large numbers
u - uncommon: present, but not always
seen
o - occasional: seen only a few times
during the season
r - rare: seen every two to five years
1 2 3 4 R3 - Region 3 Conservation
Priority
SMC - Species of Mgt.
Concern
SSC- State Special Concern
ST - State Threatened
SE - State Endangered
T - Federal Threatened
E - Federal Endangered
Restore mesic deciduous forest
500 acres
Restore and manage wetlands for
waterfowl and other wildlife
Establish native prairie grassland
300 acres
Manage cropland for wildlife food and
viewing opportunities 40 acres
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Birds With Special Regional Status
Common Loon Y c c o f,c R3,SMC
Horned Grebe r r f,c ST
American White Pelican r r r f,c SSC
Double-crested Cormorant o o o f,c R3
American Bittern o o o f,c R3,SMC
Snow Goose r r f,c c f R3
Canada Goose (giant race) Y a a a o f,n,c c f R3
Canada Goose (EPP) c o c f,c c f R3
Trumpeter Swan Y c c u f,n,c R3,SMC,ST
Wood Duck Y c c c f,n,c R3
American Black Duck r r r f,c f,c f R3
Mallard Y c c c r f,n,c f,n,c f R3
Blue-winged Teal u u u f,c c f R3
Northern Pintail r r f,c c f R3
Canvasback o r o f,c R3
Lesser Scaup u r u f,c R3
Bald Eagle u u u r f,n,c f f f R3,T,SSC
Northern Harrier u u u n,c f f f R3, SMC
Northern Goshawk Y r f,c f f f R3, SMC
Peregrine Falcon r r f ,c f f f R3,E,ST
Species
(Bold indicates species that are
abundant or common on the refuge
for at least part of the year)
Nesting?
Status on Refuge
(See top of table for codes)
Potential Benefit
f=food, n=nesting, c=cover Status in Region
and State
Y=Yes Sp S Fall W Forest Wet. Grass. Crop (See top for codes)
Upland Sandpiper o o o f,c R3, SMC
American Woodcock o o o f,n,c f,c R3
Franklin’s Gull u u f,c SSC
Common Tern u o u f,c R3,SMC,ST
Forester’s Tern u o u f,c SSC
Black Tern u o u f,c R3,SMC
Yellow-billed Cuckoo r r r f,c R3,SMC
Northern Flicker u o u r f,c R3,SMC
Acadian Flycatcher r r r f,c SSC
Sedge Wren Y u c u f,n,c R3,SMC
Veery o r r f,c R3,SMC
Chestnut-sided Warbler u o u f,c R3,SMC
Field Sparrow o o o f,c f,c f,c R3,SMC
Grasshopper Sparrow o o f,c f,c f,c R3,SMC
Bobolink Y u c u f,c f,n,c f,n,c R3,SMC
Eastern Meadowlark r r r f,c f,c R3,SMC
Birds Currently Not on Regional Lists
Pied-billed Grebe Y u u u f,n,c
Eared Grebe r r f,c
Red-necked Grebe o o o f,c
Great blue Heron c c u f,c
Green Heron o o o f,c
Tundra Swan r r f,c
Green-winged Teal o o o f,c c f,c
Northern Shoveler o r r f,c c
Gadwall o o f,c c f,c
American Wigeon o o f,c c f,c
Redhead o r o f,c
Ring-necked Duck u o u f,c
Greater Scaup r r f,c
Species
(Bold indicates species that are
abundant or common on the refuge
for at least part of the year)
Nesting?
Status on Refuge
(See top of table for codes)
Potential Benefit
f=food, n=nesting, c=cover Status in Region
and State
Y=Yes Sp S Fall W Forest Wet. Grass. Crop (See top for codes)
Common Goldeneye u r u f,c
Bufflehead u r u f,c
Ruddy Duck r r f,c
Hooded Merganser Y o o o n f,n,c
Common Merganser o o f,c
Red-breasted Merganser o 0 f,c
Turkey Vulture r r f,c f f f
Osprey r r r f,c f f f
Sharp-shinned Hawk o o o r f,c f f f
Cooper’s Hawk Y o o o r f,n,c f f f
Red-tailed Hawk Y c c c f,n,c f f f
Rough-legged Hawk r r f,c f f f
Golden Eagle r f,c f f f
American Kestrel o o o f,c f f f
Merlin r r f,c f f f
Virginia Rail o o r f,c
Sora Y u c o f,n,c
American Coot u o u f,c
Sandhill Crane o o c f,c
Killdeer Y c u u f,n,c f,n,c
Spotted Sandpiper o o o f,c
Common Snipe r r r f,c
Bonaparte's Gull u u f,c
Ring-billed Gull u u u f,c
Herring Gull r r f,c
Rock Dove Y c c o o f f,c
Mourning Dove Y c c c f,n,c f,c f,c
Black-billed Cuckoo u o o f,c
Great-horned Owl u u u o f,c f f f
Barred Owl o o o o f,c f f f
Species
(Bold indicates species that are
abundant or common on the refuge
for at least part of the year)
Nesting?
Status on Refuge
(See top of table for codes)
Potential Benefit
f=food, n=nesting, c=cover Status in Region
and State
Y=Yes Sp S Fall W Forest Wet. Grass. Crop (See top for codes)
Snowy Owl r r f,c f f f
Common Nighthawk o o o f,c f f f
Whip-poor-will r r r f,c f f f
Chimney Swift r r r f,c f f f
Ruby-throated Hummingbird Y u c c f,n,c f,c f,c
Belted Kingfisher u u u c f,c
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Y o u u f,n,c
Downy Woodpecker Y c u u c f,n,c
Hairy Woodpecker Y u u u u f,n,c
Pileated Woodpecker Y u o o u f,n,c
Eastern Wood-Pewee u c c f,c f f f
Least Flycatcher Y u c c f,n,c f f f
Eastern Phoebe Y c c c f,n,c f f f,n,c
Great Crested Flycatcher Y u c u f,n,c f f f,n,c
Western Kingbird r f,c f f f,c
Eastern Kingbird u u u f,c f f f,c
Horned Lark u u u f,c f,c
Purple Martin r r f f f f,c
Tree Swallow Y c a a f,n,c f f f,n,c
Northern Rough-winged Swallow o o o f,c f f f,c
Bank Swallow Y u o u f,n,c f f f,n,c
Cliff Swallow Y u u u f,n,c f f f,n,c
Barn Swallow Y c a c f,n,c f f f,n,c
Blue Jay Y c c c c f,n,c f f f,n,c
Black-billed Magpie o o o r f,c f f f,c
American Crow Y c c c o f,n,c f f f,n,c
Common Raven r r f,c f f f,c
Black-capped Chickadee Y o c c a f,n,c f f,n,c
Red-breasted Nuthatch o r o o f,c
White-breasted Nuthatch Y c c c c f,n,c
Species
(Bold indicates species that are
abundant or common on the refuge
for at least part of the year)
Nesting?
Status on Refuge
(See top of table for codes)
Potential Benefit
f=food, n=nesting, c=cover Status in Region
and State
Y=Yes Sp S Fall W Forest Wet. Grass. Crop (See top for codes)
Brown Creeper o r o o f,c
House Wren Y u c u f,n,c f,n,c
Marsh Wren Y u c u f,n,c f,c f,c
Golden-crowned Kinglet r r f,c f,c
Ruby-crowned Kinglet o o f,c f,c
Eastern Bluebird Y u c u f,n,c f,c f,n,c
Swainson's Thrush o o f,c f
Hermit Thrush o o f,c f
American Robin Y c c c f,n,c f,c f,n,c
Gray Catbird Y u c u f,n,c f,c f,n,c
Brown Thrasher Y u u u f,n,c f,c f,n,c
Bohemian Waxwing r r f,c f f,c
Cedar Waxwing Y u u u o f,n,c f f,n,c
Ring-necked Pheasant r r r r f,c f,c f,c
Ruffed Grouse Y o u u u f,n,c
Northern Shrike r o f,c f f f,c
European Starling r r r r f,c f f,c
Solitary Vireo o r o f,c f,c
Yellow-throated Vireo Y u o u f,n,c f,n,c
Warbling Vireo u o u f,c f,c
Philadelphia Vireo o r o f,c f,c
Red-eyed Vireo Y u c u f,n,c f,n,c
Tennessee Warbler o r o f,c f,c
Orange-crowned Warbler o o f,c f,c
Nashville Warbler o r o f,c f,c
Northern Parula o o f,c f,c
Yellow Warbler Y c c c f,n,c f,n,c
Magnolia Warbler o o f,c f,c
Cape May Warbler o o f,c f,c
Yellow-rumped Warbler u u f,c f,c
Species
(Bold indicates species that are
abundant or common on the refuge
for at least part of the year)
Nesting?
Status on Refuge
(See top of table for codes)
Potential Benefit
f=food, n=nesting, c=cover Status in Region
and State
Y=Yes Sp S Fall W Forest Wet. Grass. Crop (See top for codes)
Black-throated Green Warbler o o f,c f,c
Blackburnian warbler o o f,c f,c
Pine Warbler o o f,c f,c
Palm Warbler o o f,c f,c
Bay-breasted Warbler o o f,c f,c
Blackpoll Warbler o o f,c f,c
Black-and-white Warbler o r o f,c f,c
American Redstart o r o f,c f,c
Ovenbird Y c c c f,n,c f,n,c
Connecticut Warbler r r f,c f,c
Mourning Warbler r r f,c
Common Yellowthroat Y u c u f,n,c f,n,c f,n,c f,n,c
Wilson's Warbler o o f,c f,c f,c
Canada Warbler o o f,c f,c
Scarlet Tanager Y u o o f,n,c f,n,c
Rose-breasted Grosbeak Y u o o f,n,c f,n,c
Rufous-sided Towhee o o f,c f,c
Pine Grosbeak r r f,c
Evening Grosbeak r r f,c
Blue Grosbeak r f,c
Indigo Bunting u o o f,c f,c
Snow Bunting r r f,c
American Tree Sparrow r r r f,c f,c f,c f,c
House Sparrow Y c c c c f,n,c f,n,c f,c f,n,c
Chipping sparrow Y c a c f,c f,n,c
Clay-colored Sparrow Y c a c f,n,c f,c f,n,c
Vesper Sparrow Y c c u f,n,c f,c f,n,c
Savannah Sparrow Y c c u f,c f,n,c
LeConte’s Sparrow o r o f,c f,c
Sharp-tailed Sparrow r r r f,c f,c
Species
(Bold indicates species that are
abundant or common on the refuge
for at least part of the year)
Nesting?
Status on Refuge
(See top of table for codes)
Potential Benefit
f=food, n=nesting, c=cover Status in Region
and State
Y=Yes Sp S Fall W Forest Wet. Grass. Crop (See top for codes)
Fox Sparrow o o f,c
Song Sparrow Y c c c f,n,c f,c f,c f,n,c
Lincoln's Sparrow r r f,c f,c f,c f,c
Swamp Sparrow u o u f,c f,c f,c
White-throated Sparrow u r u f,c f,c
White-crowned Sparrow o o f,c f,c f,c f,c
Harris’ Sparrow o o f,c f,c f,c f,c
Dark-eyed Junco o o r f,c f,c f,c
Western Meadowlark u o u f,c f,c
Red-winged Blackbird Y a a a r f,n,c f,n,c
Yellow-headed Blackbird o o f,c
Rusty Blackbird r r r f,c f,c
Brewer’s Blackbird r r r f,c
Common Grackle c u c f,c
Brown-headed Cowbird c u c f,c
Orchard Oriole r r f,c f,c
Northern Oriole Y u u u f,n,c f,c
Purple Finch u u u u f,c
House Finch o o o o f,c
Red Crossbill r r f,c
White-winged Crossbill r r f,c
Common Redpoll r r f,c f,c
Hoary Redpoll r r f,c f,c
Pine Siskin o o o o f,c
American Goldfinch Y c c c o f,n,c f,n,c
Appendix G / Compliance Requirements
83
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements
Appendix G / Compliance Requirements
85
Rivers and Harbor Act (1899) (33 U.S.C. 403): Section 10 of this Act requires the
authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to any work in, on, over, or
under a navigable water of the United States.
Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on Federal
land and provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected
without a permit.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory birds as a
Federal responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations
including the closing of areas, Federal or non-Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds.
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for acquisition by
purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commis-sion.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), as amended: Requires that the Fish and
Wildlife Service and State fish and wildlife agencies be consulted whenever water is to be
impounded, diverted or modified under a Federal permit or license. The Service and
State agency recommend measures to prevent the loss of biological resources, or to
mitigate or compensate for the damage. The project proponent must take biological
resource values into account and adopt justifiable protection measures to obtain maxi-mum
overall project benefits. A 1958 amendment added provisions to recognize the vital
contribution of wildlife resources to the Nation and to require equal consideration and
coordination of wildlife conservation with other water resources development programs.
It also authorized the Secretary of Interior to provide public fishing areas and accept
donations of lands and funds.
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorized the opening of
part of a refuge to waterfowl hunting.
Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (1935), as amended: Declares it a national
policy to preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those
located on refuges. Provides procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and
protection of such sites.
Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (1935), as amended: Requires revenue sharing provisions
to all fee-title ownerships that are administered solely or primarily by the Secretary
through the Service.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 1940
Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act (1948):
Provides that upon a determination by the Administrator of the General Services Admin-istration,
real property no longer needed by a Federal agency can be transferred without
reimbursement to the Secretary of Interior if the land has particular value for migratory
birds, or to a State agency for other wildlife conservation purposes.
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
86
Federal Records Act (1950): Directs the preservation of evidence of the government’s
organization, functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic
historical and other information.
Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife
policy and broadened the authority for acquisition and development of refuges.
Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges for recreation when such uses
are compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient funds are avail-able
to manage the uses.
Wilderness Act (1964), as amended: Directed the Secretary of Interior, within 10 years,
to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless island (regard-less
of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Systems and to recom-mend
to the President the suitability of each such area or island for inclusion in the
National Wilderness Preservation System, with final decisions made by Congress. The
Secretary of Agriculture was directed to study and recommend suitable areas in the
National Forest System.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from the sale of
surplus Federal land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for land
acquisition under several authorities.
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (1966), as amended by the Na-tional
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997)16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee. (Refuge
Administration Act): Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the
Secretary to permit any use of a refuge provided such use is compatible with the major
purposes for which the refuge was established. The Refuge Improvement Act clearly
defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy and appro-priateness
of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, or environmental education and interpretation); establishes a formal
process for determining compatibility; established the responsibilities of the Secretary of
Interior for managing and protecting the System; and requires a Comprehensive Conser-vation
Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of the Refuge
Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.
National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended: Establishes as policy that the
Federal Government is to provide leadership in the preservation of the nation’s prehis-toric
and historic resources.
Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings
and facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities.
National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires the disclosure of the environmen-tal
impacts of any major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (1970),
as amended: Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell their
homes, businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act requires that any purchase offer be
no less than the fair market value of the property.
Appendix G / Compliance Requirements
87
Clean Air Act, 1970
Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all Federal agencies to carry out programs for
the conservation of endangered and threatened species.
Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires programmatic accessibility in addition to physical
accessibility for all facilities and programs funded by the Federal government to ensure
that anybody can participate in any program.
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974): Directs the preservation of historic
and archaeological data in Federal construction projects.
Fishery (Magnuson) Conservation and Management Act, 1976
Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404 permits)
for major wetland modifications.
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977) as amended (Public Law 95-87)
(SMCRA): Regulates surface mining activities and reclamation of coal-mined lands.
Further regulates the coal industry by designating certain areas as unsuitable for coal
mining operations.
Executive Order 11988 (1977): Each Federal agency shall provide leadership and take
action to reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on human safety,
and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by the floodplains.
Executive Order 11990: Executive Order 11990 directs Federal agencies to (1) minimize
destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and (2) preserve and enhance the natural
and beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alternative exists.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs): Directs the
Service to send copies of the Environmental Assessment to State Planning Agencies for
review.
Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Land
Executive Order 12962, Recreational Fisheries
Executive Order 13084, Consultation/Coordination with Tribal Governments
Executive Order 11987, Exotic Organisms
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978): Directs agencies to consult with native
traditional religious leaders to determine appropriate policy changes necessary to protect
and preserve Native American religious cultural rights and practices.
Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act (1978): Improves the administration of fish and
wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws including the Refuge Recreation Act,