St. Croix Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
St. Croix
Wetland Management District
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions;
set forth goals, objectives and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and,
identify the Fish and Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations
and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization
purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and
maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network
of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration
of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the
benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people.
Cover Photograph: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
St. Croix
Wetland Management District
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval
Submitted by:
'1li1 i~oo8
Thomas M. Kerr Date
District Manager
Concur:
f-~3-0
Date
Date
____~~---"----~.25'· 2068
Date
Charles M. Wooley
OQ
Acting Regional Director
St. Croix
Wetland Management District
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
i
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ..................................................................................................................1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................1
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ....................................................................................................................................1
The National Wildlife Refuge System ...............................................................................................................................1
District Purposes ...............................................................................................................................................................3
District Vision ....................................................................................................................................................................3
Purpose and Need for Plan ................................................................................................................................................3
History and Establishment ................................................................................................................................................4
Legal Context .....................................................................................................................................................................4
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ...............................................................................................................................5
Meetings and Involvement ................................................................................................................................................5
Publication of the Draft CCP ..............................................................................................................................................5
Issues .................................................................................................................................................................................6
Habitat Management .................................................................................................................................................6
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ................................................................................................................................7
Land Acquisition .........................................................................................................................................................7
Visitor Services ..........................................................................................................................................................8
Service Identity ..........................................................................................................................................................8
Wilderness Review ....................................................................................................................................................8
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management ..........................................................................................9
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................9
Wetland Management District ..................................................................................................................................9
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting .........................................................................................................................................9
Historic Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................................9
Land Use/Cover ..........................................................................................................................................................9
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ....................................................................................................................19
Wildlife Species of Management Concern ...............................................................................................................21
Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Area ............................................................................................22
Wisconsin Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need ..............................................................22
Socioeconomic Setting ....................................................................................................................................................25
Potential District Visitors .........................................................................................................................................25
Climate and Climate Change Impacts .............................................................................................................................26
Observed Climate Trends .........................................................................................................................................28
Scenarios of Future Climate .....................................................................................................................................28
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
ii
Key Issues in the Midwest .......................................................................................................................................28
Reduction in Lake and River Levels ...................................................................................................................28
Agricultural Shifts .............................................................................................................................................28
Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems ..................................................................................................29
Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................................................30
Water and Hydrology ......................................................................................................................................................30
District Resources ...........................................................................................................................................................30
Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................................................30
Plant Communities ...................................................................................................................................................32
Plant Communities Associated with Wetlands .................................................................................................32
Plant Communities Associated with Uplands ...................................................................................................33
Grasslands ........................................................................................................................................................33
Shrub-Scrub ......................................................................................................................................................34
Forests ..............................................................................................................................................................34
Shrubs and Trees in Fencerows ........................................................................................................................34
Fish and Wildlife Communities ................................................................................................................................35
Birds ..................................................................................................................................................................35
Mammals ..........................................................................................................................................................35
Amphibians and Reptiles ..................................................................................................................................35
Invertebrates .....................................................................................................................................................35
Fish ....................................................................................................................................................................35
Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................................................................36
Threats to Resources .......................................................................................................................................................36
Invasive Species .......................................................................................................................................................36
Drainage and Pesticides ..........................................................................................................................................36
Rural Development ...................................................................................................................................................37
Administrative Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................37
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation ..................................................................................................................37
Museums and Repositories ...............................................................................................................................39
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................................................................39
Other District Uses ..........................................................................................................................................................40
Current Management ......................................................................................................................................................40
Habitat Management ...............................................................................................................................................40
Wetland Management .....................................................................................................................................40
Grasslands ........................................................................................................................................................41
Forests ..............................................................................................................................................................42
Cropland ............................................................................................................................................................42
Management of Resident Species ....................................................................................................................43
Habitat Management: Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ........................................................................43
Land Acquisition .......................................................................................................................................................43
Monitoring ................................................................................................................................................................44
Visitor Services ........................................................................................................................................................44
Hunting .............................................................................................................................................................44
Fishing ...............................................................................................................................................................46
Interpretation, Wildlife Observation, and Photography ....................................................................................46
Environmental Education ..................................................................................................................................46
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iii
Pest Management ....................................................................................................................................................46
Archaeological and Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................46
Farm Service Agency Conservation Easements ........................................................................................................46
Existing Partnerships .......................................................................................................................................................47
Chapter 4: Management Direction ............................................................................................................................49
Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................................49
Goals and Objectives ...............................................................................................................................................49
Goal 1: Habitat ..................................................................................................................................................49
Goal 2: Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................54
Goal 3: People ...................................................................................................................................................57
Goal 4: Land and Visitor Protection ...................................................................................................................62
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ...............................................................................................................................65
Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................................65
New and Existing Projects .............................................................................................................................................65
Minimum District Operations Needs ........................................................................................................................65
Prairie Restoration on WPAs and Easements ...........................................................................................................65
Enhance Biological Program (District Biologist) .......................................................................................................65
Expand District Prescribed Fire and Fuels Removal Program (Lead Range Technician) ...........................................66
Enhance Visitor Services Program (Seasonal Tractor Operator) .............................................................................66
Control of Invasive Species, Noxious Weeds and Woody Invaders .........................................................................66
Replace Facilities (Headquarters and Maintenance Facilities) ................................................................................66
Staffing ...........................................................................................................................................................................66
Partnership Opportunities ...............................................................................................................................................67
Step-Down Management Plans ......................................................................................................................................67
Monitoring and Evaluation ..............................................................................................................................................69
Plan Review and Revision ...............................................................................................................................................69
Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact .......................................................................................................71
Appendix B: Glossary .................................................................................................................................................75
Appendix C: Species List ...........................................................................................................................................81
Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority Species ........................................................................................109
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ................................................................................................................115
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations ...........................................................................................................123
Appendix G: Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................................125
Appendix H: RONS and MMS .................................................................................................................................129
Appendix I: List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................................133
Appendix J: Response to Comments Received on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan ..............137
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iv
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Location of St. Croix Wetland Management District ........................................................................................2
Figure 2: Barron County, Wisconsin, St. Croix Wetland Management District ..............................................................10
Figure 3: Burnett County, Wisconsin, St. Croix Wetland Management District ............................................................11
Figure 4: Dunn County, Wisconsin, St. Croix Wetland Management District ................................................................12
Figure 5: Pepin County, Wisconsin, St. Croix Wetland Management District ...............................................................13
Figure 6: Pierce County, Wisconsin, St. Croix Wetland Management District ..............................................................14
Figure 7: Polk County, Wisconsin, St. Croix Wetland Management District ..................................................................15
Figure 8: St. Croix County, Wisconsin, St. Croix Wetland Management District ...........................................................16
Figure 9: Washburn County, Wisconsin, St. Croix Wetland Management District ........................................................17
Figure 10: Historic Vegetation for the St. Croix Wetland Management District ............................................................18
Figure 11: Current Landcover for the St. Croix Wetland Management District ............................................................20
Figure 12: Prairie Potholes, Eastern Tallgrass and Prairie Hardwood Transition Bird Conservation Regions ..............21
Figure 13: Other Conservation Lands in the Area of St. Croix WMD .............................................................................23
Figure 14: Wisconsin Ecological Landscapes ................................................................................................................24
Figure 15: Wisconsin Groundwater Contamination Susceptability Model ....................................................................31
Figure 16: Focus Areas, St. Croix Wetland Management District .................................................................................45
Figure 17: Locations of Conservation Easements, St. Croix WMD .................................................................................48
Figure 18: Current Staff, St. Croix WMD ........................................................................................................................68
Table 1: Landcover in the St. Croix Wetland Management District ...............................................................................19
Table 2: Socioeconomic Characteristics, St. Croix Wetland Management District .......................................................25
Table 3: Population Projections 2005-2025 in St. Croix WMD Counties ........................................................................26
Table 4: Current and Proposed Staffing Under the CCP ................................................................................................67
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Introduction
The St. Croix Wetland Management District,
established in 1992, manages over 7,500 acres of
Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) in eight west-central
Wisconsin counties (Figure 1). The heart of
the District in the central portion of St. Croix
County is known as the Star Prairie Pothole Grass-lands.
These grasslands are ranked sixth out of 26
priority grassland landscapes in Wisconsin. The
District also administers 15 conservation ease-ments.
WPAs consist of wetland habitat surrounded
by grassland and woodland communities. While
WPAs are managed primarily for ducks and geese,
they also provide habitat for a variety of other wild-life
species such as non-game grassland birds,
shorebirds, wading birds, mink, muskrat, Wild Tur-key,
and deer.
Because the District is located on the eastern
edge of the tallgrass prairie and forest transition
zone, it includes a variety of habitats not typically
found on a wetland management district.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
The St. Croix Wetland Management District
(WMD) is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wild-life
Service (USFWS or Service). The USFWS is
the primary federal agency responsible for conserv-ing,
protecting, and enhancing the nation’s fish and
wildlife populations and their habitats. It oversees
the enforcement of federal wildlife laws, manage-ment
and protection of migratory bird populations,
restoration of nationally significant fisheries,
administration of the Endangered Species Act, and
the restoration of wildlife habitat such as wetlands.
The Service also manages the National Wildlife Ref-uge
System.
The National Wildlife Refuge
System
District lands are part of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when
President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican
Island in Florida as a sanctuary for Brown Pelicans.
Today, the system is a network of about 545 refuges
and wetland management districts covering about
95 million acres of public lands and waters. Most of
these lands (82 percent) are in Alaska, with approxi-mately
16 million acres located in the lower 48 states
and several island territories.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the
world’s largest collection of lands specifically man-aged
for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat
for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish,
amphibians, reptiles, and insects. As a result of
international treaties for migratory bird conserva-tion
and other legislation, such as the Migratory
Bird Conservation Act of 1929, many refuges have
been established to protect migratory waterfowl
and their migratory flyways. Horicon National
Wildlife Refuge serves a dual purpose both as a crit-
Oak Ridge Waterfowl Production Area, part of St. Croix
Wetland Management District. USFWS photo.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2
ical nesting ground and as an important link in the
Mississippi Flyway network of refuges that serve as
rest stops and feeding stations for migrating ducks
and geese.
Refuges also play a crucial role in preserving
endangered and threatened species. Among the
most notable is Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in
Texas, which provides winter habitat for the highly
endangered Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Florida
Panther NWR protects one of the nation’s most
endangered predators. Refuges also provide unique
recreational and educational opportunities for peo-ple.
When human activities are compatible with
wildlife and habitat conservation, they are places
where people can enjoy wildlife-dependent recre-ation
such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
photography, environmental education, and envi-ronmental
interpretation. Many refuges have visitor
centers, wildlife trails, automobile tours, and envi-ronmental
education programs. Nationwide,
approximately 30 million people visited national
wildlife refuges in 2004.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improve-ment
Act of 1997 established several important
mandates aimed at making the management of
national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The prepa-ration
of Comprehensive Conservation Plans
(CCPs) is one of those mandates. The legislation
directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that
the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
and purposes of the individual refuges are carried
out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System
are to:
# Fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge
purpose(s) and further the System mission.
# Conserve, restore where appropriate, and
enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and
plants that are endangered or threatened
with becoming endangered.
# Perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdic-tional
fish, and marine mammal populations.
# Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and
plants.
# Conserve and restore, where appropriate,
representative ecosystems of the United
States, including ecological processes char-acteristic
of those ecosystems.
# Foster understanding and instill appreciation
of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conser-vation,
by providing the public with safe,
Figure 1: Location of St. Croix Wetland
Management District
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3
high-quality, and compatible wildlife-depen-dent
public use. Such use includes hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation and photogra-phy,
and environmental education and inter-pretation.
District Purposes
The purposes for the District are based upon its
land acquisition authorities. Lands are acquired
under the authority of the Migratory Bird Hunting
and Conservation Stamp Act, and since 1958, under
Public Law 85-585 as “Waterfowl Production
Areas.” The purpose of lands acquired under the
Migratory Bird Hunting Conservation Stamp Act is
“...as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “...all
the provisions of such act (the Migratory Bird Con-servation
Act of 1929,16 U.S.C. 715d ) ...except the
inviolate sanctuary provisions...,” and “...for any
other management purpose, for migratory birds.”
District Vision
The planning team considered past vision state-ments
and emerging issues and drafted the fol-lowing
vision statement as the desired future state
of the District:
Waterfowl and other migratory birds find Dis-trict
lands isles of refuge in a landscape of
increasing residential development. Native
plants and animals, amazing in their diversity,
flourish on District and private lands from the
efforts of many active partners. Neighbors and
visitors enjoy and value District land and work
to conserve the region’s natural heritage.
Purpose and Need for Plan
This CCP articulates the management direction
for the St. Croix Wetland Management District for
the next 15 years. Through goals, objectives, and
strategies, this CCP describes how the District
intends to fulfill its purpose and contribute to the
overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge Sys-tem.
Several legislative mandates within the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997 have guided the development of this plan.
These mandates include:
# Wildlife has first priority in the management
of refuges.
# Wildlife-dependent recreation activities,
namely hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, environmental educa-tion
and interpretation are priority public
uses of refuges. We will facilitate these activ-ities
when they do not interfere with our abil-ity
to fulfill the refuges’ purpose or the
mission of the Refuge System.
# Other uses of the Refuge will only be allowed
when determined appropriate and compati-ble
with Refuge purposes and mission of the
Refuge System.
The plan will guide the management of St. Croix
WMD by:
# Providing a clear statement of direction for
the future management.
# Making a strong connection between District
activities and conservation activities that
occur in the surrounding area.
# Providing neighbors, visitors, and the gen-eral
public with an understanding of the Ser-vice’s
land acquisition and management
actions in the District.
# Ensuring District actions and programs are
consistent with the mandates of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
# Ensuring that District management consid-ers
federal, state, and county plans.
Willow River, Betterly Waterfowl Production Area at St.
Croix Wetland Management District. USFWS photo
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
4
# Establishing long-term continuity in District
management.
# Providing a basis for the development of
budget requests on the District’s opera-tional,
maintenance, and capital improve-ment
needs.
History and Establishment
The WMD has its roots in a 1974 interagency
agreement based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) Director Lynn Greenwalt’s authorization
for federal purchase of land and waters in Wiscon-sin.
These lands would be managed by mutual
agreement between the Service and the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WIDNR) under
a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
Management of the WPAs was accomplished
according to the MOU signed in 1974 and several
addenda after that. In general, Wisconsin Depart-ment
of Natural Resources personnel were respon-sible
for on-the-ground management activities, and
Service personnel were responsible for administra-tion.
Federal management authority was under the
guidelines of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act with the day-to-day activities
spelled out in the Wisconsin Wetland Management
Guidelines.
As WPA acreage increased, so did the time and
commitment of management personnel. A WIDNR
“Workload Analysis” in the late 1980s documented a
staff shortage for management activities on the
WPAs. The WIDNR Director of the Bureau of Wild-life
Management and the Service’s Regional Direc-tor
began meeting in early 1990 to discuss
transferring management of the WPAs to the Ser-vice.
The date selected for the transfer was Septem-ber
30, 1995.
The transition date was later moved forward
when the Service received funding for District Man-agers
and summer temporaries to work with the
Wisconsin DNR in the summer and fall of 1992. The
final transition and establishment of the St. Croix
and the Leopold WMDs took place July 1, 1993.
The advent of the Service’s Partners for Fish and
Wildlife and conservation easement responsibilities
in the late 1980s further defined the WMD’s role.
Private land habitat restoration projects, and pro-tection
and management of wetlands, flood plains,
and other important habitats on conservation ease-ments
added greatly to the workload and habitat
diversity of the District.
Legal Context
In addition to the acquisition authorities of the
District, and the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, several federal laws,
executive orders, and regulations govern its admin-istration.
Appendix E contains a partial list of the
legal mandates that guided the preparation of this
plan and those that pertain to District management.
Volunteers collect native prairie seeds at St. Croix
Wetland Managemet District. USFWS photo.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
5
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Meetings and Involvement
The planning process for this CCP began in July
2006. Planning for the Wisconsin Wetland Manage-ment
Districts, the St. Croix WMD and Leopold
WMD, occurred along the same timeline with key
meetings held jointly. The planning was conducted
jointly because the Districts face the same issues,
and it makes sense to address the issues consis-tently
and share knowledge and experience between
Districts.
Initially, members of the regional planning staff
and District staff identified a list of issues and con-cerns
that were associated with the management of
the Districts. These preliminary issues and con-cerns
were based on staff knowledge of the area and
contacts with citizens in the community.
District staff and Service planners then asked
District neighbors, organizations, local government
units, and interested citizens to share their thoughts
at open houses and through written comments. In
September 2006, people were invited through local
papers and individual letters to open houses in New
Richmond, Portage, and Waukau. Total attendance
for the three open houses was 30 people. Three writ-ten
comments were received by the St. Croix Dis-trict
during the 30-day comment period.
In January 2007 a biological review of the Dis-tricts’
biological programs provided technical com-ments
and recommendations. In addition to Fish
and Wildlife Service Refuges and District person-nel,
the review team consisted of a panel of experts
and partners from the U.S. Geological Survey, the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan Sci-ence
Support Team, and the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources. The review team considered
the programs of both Districts.
A visitor services review was independently con-ducted
for each District. A visitor services review
report of the District dated June 2006 helped clarify
visitor services issues and provided potential actions
to consider in formulating alternatives. The visitor
services review team included regional and refuge
visitor services specialists and District staff.
Publication of the Draft CCP
A Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment were released to the
public on July 25, 2008. The availability of the docu-ment
was announced in the Federal Register and
through an Update mailing to all parties on the
planning mailing list. A press release was sent to
media outlets throughout the District, as well. The
draft document as either a compact disc or hard
copy was sent to approximately 50 persons or orga-nizations
with special interests in the District. In
addition, the draft document was distributed to
approximately 50 persons or organizations that had
requested all documents produced by the Region’s
Conservation Planning Division. The document was
also available as an Adobe pdf file on the Region’s
Emerald Lands, a private lands project. St. Croix
Wetland Management District. USFWS photo.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
6
planning website. A public open house was held on
August 12, 2008, at District Headquarters to receive
any comments on the draft document. Eight people
attended. A 30-day comment period closed on
August 25, 2008. Comments received and responses
to them are included in an appendix to this docu-ment.
Issues
Issues play an important role in planning. Issues
focus the planning effort on the most important top-ics
and provide a base for considering alternative
approaches to management and evaluating the con-sequences
of managing under these alternative
approaches. The issues and concerns expressed dur-ing
the first phase of planning have been organized
under the following headings.
Habitat Management
Background: Managing habitat is at the heart of
providing for wildlife. The presence of high quality
habitat is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition
for abundant wildlife use. For example, a WPA may
contain very high quality habitat for puddle ducks,
but they may not occur on the WPA at the usual
time because of poor conditions on wintering
grounds or extreme weather during migration.
When the forces external to the WPA weaken, how-ever,
the habitat base is there to provide for the
ducks. On the other hand, low quality habitat will
cause wildlife to be absent or less abundant. If a
WPA has inadequate habitat, ducks will be absent or
occur at very low levels, regardless of the timing or
duration of other factors such as weather or condi-tions
on wintering grounds. Recognizing that exter-nal
factors may limit wildlife use on a WPA, it is
reasonable to focus on the things that we can control
and provide habitat conditions that offer the great-est
potential for the species of concern to us
(Schroeder et al. 1998).
Main Concerns:
1. The WMD has identified management strate-gies
that would improve habitat conditions,
but the strategies can not be applied as
needed. The needs exceed the existing capa-bility
of staff hours and budgets. The result is
that habitat conditions offer less than their
potential for species of concern.
2. Invasive species are a particular challenge
within habitat management as they degrade
native habitats and reduce biological diversity.
Control techniques for invasive species place
further demands on the staff and budget of a
WMD, and effective control techniques have
not been identified for all invasive species.
3. To be most effective, habitat management
should be based on good data and sound sci-ence.
Basic biological information is required
to understand the habitat needs of species of
concern. Biological data is also needed to eval-uate
the effectiveness of management strate-gies
within an adaptive management
framework. Faced with pressing day-to-day
demands, WMD staff find it difficult to allo-cate
the time and resources to develop and
discover the desirable biological information.
Activities to answer this concern would
include literature searches, expert technical
workshops, and on-the-ground studies.
4. Management actions sometimes draw nega-tive
reaction from neighbors to WPAs. For
example, a neighbor may complain about the
appearance of a blackened field and the smoke
that was generated during a burn. Or, a citizen
may complain about the cutting of trees as
part of a prairie restoration. There is concern
that this negative reaction will lead to opposi-tion
to the management activity and an inabil-ity
to apply the desired treatment. If we are
not able to apply particular strategies at the
Wood frog. USFWS photo.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
7
appropriate time, habitat on the WPA will
change and there will be less benefit to wild-life.
5. Habitat management, control of invasive spe-cies,
biological monitoring, and community
outreach require staff and funding for pro-grams,
facilities, and equipment. Plans and
planning need to articulate these needs and
ensure they are represented in databases and
other documents used in budget decision-making.
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
Background: The loss and degradation of habitat
has been identified as an important factor in the
decline of many species worldwide and at many
scales. Development is considered the most lasting
form of habitat loss, since the presence of pavement
and buildings hinders the return to natural condi-tions.
Development can result in habitat fragmenta-tion
where remaining patches of habitat not only
support less wildlife, but also may isolate popula-tions
vulnerable to a lack of genetic diversity and in
an increased “edge” effect, which may increase the
effect of predators and parasites (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2002). Wisconsin, along with other
Midwest states, is forecast to have continued hous-ing
growth in rural areas through 2030 (Radeloff et
al. 2006). In its Wildlife Action Plan, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources identified habitat
loss and fragmentation as a major issue faced by
land managers (Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources 2005). The Wisconsin WMD counties are
experiencing and are expected to continue to experi-ence
housing development and its accompanying
effects over the next 25 years.
Main Concerns:
1. Development is occurring around some exist-ing
waterfowl production areas. The develop-ment
may be reducing the value of the WPAs
to wildlife – the effect is not known with cer-tainty.
If the value of the WPA for wildlife is
reduced, we need to think of how, or if, we
should continue to manage the land.
2. The effect of habitat loss and fragmentation is
best dealt with at a broad landscape level in
which several entities (federal, state, local,
non-governmental organizations, private land-owners)
have responsibilities. There is an
opportunity for improved coordination among
responsible entities.
3. How the forecasted development in the
WMDs should affect land acquisition decisions
is not clear. The criteria for land acquisition
used in landscapes dominated by agriculture
or other conservation lands may not be appro-priate
in counties with forecasted high levels
of development.
Land Acquisition
Background: Managers of a WMD, in addition to
managing existing WPAs, are responsible for identi-fying
tracts that would be worthwhile to acquire for
inclusion in the WMD. The primary goal of the
acquisition program is to acquire a complex of wet-lands
and uplands that provide habitat in which
waterfowl can successfully reproduce. Identifying
lands for purchase as waterfowl production habitat
requires weighing a number of biological factors
related to breeding waterfowl within an often rap-idly
changing social and economic context – all the
while keeping an eye on cost and efficiency.
Main Concerns:
1. Expanding housing development and chang-ing
land use in the Wisconsin WMDs offers
particular challenges to the land acquisition
program. The challenges are both direct and
indirect. Directly, development causes the loss
of opportunities through conversion of land to
uses that would be difficult to reclaim or
restore. And, areas near development are less
desirable as waterfowl production habitat.
Indirectly, the demand for development is
causing a rapid rise in property values with
the result that less habitat can be purchased
with the funds available.
2. With the current and forecasted continued
development, there is a concern that the possi-ble
loss of habitat will cause more acquisitions
to emphasize the opportunity considerations
(“buy while we can”) in comparison to the bio-logical
considerations and value to waterfowl.
3. How to proceed with land acquisition for the
WMDs has increased uncertainty given the
above concerns and the lack of biological
information on waterfowl production in areas
of residential development. The criteria that
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
8
guide acquisition in western Minnesota, the
Dakotas, and Montana are likely not applica-ble
to Wisconsin without modification.
Visitor Services
Background: The National Wildlife Refuge Sys-tem
Improvement Act of 1997 established six prior-ity
uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
photography, environmental education, interpreta-tion)
for the Refuge System, which includes Water-fowl
Production Areas. The Service is to facilitate
these uses when compatible with the purpose of the
WPA and the Mission of the System. WPAs differ
from national wildlife refuges in that they are open
to hunting, fishing, and trapping by specific regula-tion
and open to the other wildlife-dependent activi-ties
by notification in general brochures available at
the District office. New and existing WPAs are thus
“open until closed” in contrast to national wildlife
refuges, which are “closed until opened.” Hunting
has long been associated with WPAs. The other
wildlife-dependent activities are increasingly being
encouraged by developing interpretive signs,
kiosks, and wildlife trails. Identification signs and
small parking areas are usually placed at each WPA
to facilitate its use by the public.
Main Concerns:
1. Some visitor facilities are sub-standard.
Higher quality experiences and greater satis-faction
among visitors may be possible with
improved visitor facilities.
2. Unauthorized uses (horseback riding, ATVs,
dogs off leash, for example) occur on WPAs.
The uses lead to habitat degradation and dis-turbance
to wildlife that ultimately reduce
wildlife numbers and health. Better habitat
conditions and less wildlife disturbance would
result from a reduction in unauthorized uses.
3. The public sometimes requests use of WPAs
for other than the six priority uses. In order
for the public to understand our purpose and
mission and its relation to public uses, the
compatibility analyses should be consistent
within Wisconsin and, ideally, within the
Region.
Service Identity
Background: People often approach and interact
with staff of the WMD as if they work for the Wis-consin
Department of Natural Resources and
administer state areas. Because the missions of the
two agencies are different, the misperception can
lead to misunderstanding. When WMD employees
interact with people directly, the misperception can
be cleared up through conversation. Over the last
several years the Service has acted to develop an
improved “corporate identity” through unified stan-dards
for publications, uniforms, signs, and vehicles.
The experiences of WI WMD personnel suggest
that much work still remains in developing the Ser-vice
identity.
Main Concern:
1. If people do not understand the purpose and
mission of the WPAs and the Service, they are
not likely to understand our management. The
lack of understanding may lead to a lack of
support, and, ultimately, to indifference or
opposition to our management. If the public
had a clear perception of the Service, the pub-lic
would be able to differentiate between the
federal and state missions and understand the
actions of the WMD staff. With that under-standing
the public would make more
informed decisions about fish and wildlife
issues in general and, particularly relevant to
a WPA management, more informed reactions
to on-the-ground management activities.
Wilderness Review
As part of the CCP process, lands within the Dis-trict
were reviewed for wilderness suitability. No
lands were considered suitable for Congressional
designation as wilderness as defined by the Wilder-ness
Act of 1964. The District does not contain 5,000
contiguous acres of roadless, natural lands. Nor
does the District possess any units of sufficient size
to make their preservation practicable as wilder-ness.
District lands and waters have been substan-tially
altered by humans, especially by agriculture.
Extensive modification of natural habitats and
manipulation of natural processes has occurred.
Adopting a “hands-off ” approach to management of
District lands would not facilitate the restoration of
a pristine or pre-settlement condition, which is the
goal of wilderness designation.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
9
Chapter 3: The District Environment and
Management
Introduction
Wetland Management District
The St. Croix Wetland Management District
(WMD) covers eight counties in west-central Wiscon-sin.
(See Figure 2 to Figure 9.) The staff also admin-isters
an eight-county Partners for Fish and Wildlife
(PFFW) private lands district and an eight-county
Wetland Management District, which involves man-agement
and enforcement of U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency Conservation
Easements (CEs). Currently there are 41 fee-titled
WPAs and 15 CEs.
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
Historic Vegetation
The nature and distribution of vegetation types in
Wisconsin are described by Curtis in his 1959 book
Vegetation of Wisconsin. The southern forests cov-ered
the southern half and western third of the state.
Dominant species were primarily oak on the drier
sites; sugar maple, basswood, slippery elm, red oak
and ironwood on the mesic sites; and silver maple
and American elm dominating the lowland sites. In
pre-settlement times these forests covered approxi-mately
5.2 million acres with another 7.3 million
acres of what is considered oak savanna also falling
into this category. In this region the closed wood-lands
and oak savannas provided no distinct bound-aries
but blended together. Forests dominated the
northern half of Wisconsin. These northern forests
supported jack, red, and white pine with red maple
and red oak on the dry sites. The more mesic stands
of the northern forests were dominated by sugar
maple but hemlock and/or beech may have been co-dominant.
Finally, the northern lowland (swamp) for-ests
of Wisconsin are split into the tamarack-black
spruce bog forests, the white cedar-balsam fir coni-fer
swamps, and the black ash-yellow birch-hemlock
hardwood swamps. Prairie and oak savanna covered
about 9.5 million acres of Wisconsin. These areas
were dominated by many species, including big
bluestem, little bluestem, needlegrass and many
other grass and forb species. Burr, black, Hill’s and
white oak dominated the oak savannas. The detail of
historic vegetation for the District is depicted in
Figure 10 on page 18.
Land Use/Cover
Of the approximately 9.5 million acres of prairie
and oak savanna that Wisconsin hosted just 150
short years ago, only one-half of 1 percent (less than
10,000 acres) of the prairies and less than one-tenth
of 1 percent (less than 1,000 acres) of the savanna
remains. Farming, urban sprawl, fire suppression,
and other developments continue to threaten the few
acres of prairie and savanna that remain. A quote
Oak Ridge WPA, St. Croix Wetland Management
District. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
10
Figure 2: Barron County, Wisconsin, St. Croix Wetland Management District
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
11
Figure 3: Burnett County, Wisconsin, St. Croix Wetland Management District
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
12
Figure 4: Dunn County, Wisconsin, St. Croix Wetland Management District
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
13
Figure 5: Pepin County, Wisconsin, St. Croix Wetland Management District
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
14
Figure 6: Pierce County, Wisconsin, St. Croix Wetland Management District
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
15
Figure 7: Polk County, Wisconsin, St. Croix Wetland Management District
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
16
Figure 8: St. Croix County, Wisconsin, St. Croix Wetland Management District
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
17
Figure 9: Washburn County, Wisconsin, St. Croix Wetland Management District
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
18
Figure 10: Historic Vegetation for the St. Croix Wetland Management District
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
19
that appears in Curtis’s book provides a view of
what we have lost in the last 150 years. This quote is
through the eyes of a Lieutenant D. Ruggles (1835)
in writing about the prairies around Fort Winnebago
in Columbia County:
“In some instances, the prairies are found
stretching for miles around, without a tree or
shrub, so level as scarcely to present a single
undulation; in others, those called the “rolling
prairies,” appears in undulation upon undula-tion,
as far as the eye can reach presenting a
view of peculiar sublimity, especially to the
beholder for the first time. It seems when in
verdure, a real troubled ocean, wave upon wave,
rolls before you, ever varying, ever swelling;
even the breezes play around to heighten the
illusion; so that here at near two thousand miles
from the ocean, we have a facsimile of sublimity,
which no miniature imitation can approach.”
The northern forests, much like the southern for-ests
and prairies, have been altered through logging,
farming, fire prevention, and urbanization. Because
of this, few stands of “virgin” timber exist outside of
those protected by conservation organizations, some
Forest Service and State Forest areas, lands within
the WIDNR State Natural Areas program, or
through conservation easements.
In 2002 about 52 percent of the land area in the
District was in farms. (Table 1) For the State of Wis-consin
about 45 percent of the land is in farms. The
counties with the highest proportion of farm land in
the District are Dunn, Pepin, and Pierce with over
70 percent of their lands in farms. The counties with
the least proportion of farm land are Burnett, which
has about 49 percent of the county in forest, and
Washburn, which has about 61 percent of the county
in forest. Both of these counties have about 20 per-cent
of their land in farms. Within the District
97,031 acres of land were enrolled in Conservation
Reserve or Wetlands Reserve Programs in 2002.
This represents 5.0 percent of the farm land or 2.6
percent of the total land area of the District.
In 1999 a land cover map was completed for Wis-consin.
The map was created though automated
computer interpretation of satellite images. The
work was completed by the partnership WIS-CLAND.
The land cover for the District is depicted
in Figure 11. Percent land cover for each county are
shown in Table 1.
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Several migratory bird conservation plans have
been published over the last decade that can be used
to help guide management decisions for the Dis-tricts.
Bird conservation planning efforts have
evolved from a largely local, site-based orientation
to a more regional, even inter-continental, land-
Table 1: Landcover in the St. Croix Wetland Management District
Urban Agricultural Grassland Forest Water Wetland Barren Shrubland
Barron County 0.6% 38.7% 12.2% 34.2% 3.3% 7.0% 3.2% 0.8%
Burnett County 0.2% 3.4% 15.5% 48.9% 5.9% 20.2% 0.3% 5.7%
Dunn County 0.5% 35.5% 17.4% 37.4% 1.4% 7.5% 0.0% 0.2%
Pepin County 0.4% 33.4% 15.0% 40.4% 6.1% 4.6% 0.0% 0.1%
Pierce County 0.7% 43.1% 24.4% 27.5% 2.6% 1.5% 0.1% 0.0%
Polk County 0.5% 21.2% 25.7% 37.8% 4.4% 9.3% 0.3% 0.7%
St. Croix County 1.0% 45.0% 30.8% 18.2% 2.0% 2.6% 0.3% 0.0%
Washburn
County
0.2% 4.7% 11.8% 60.6% 5.7% 14.0% 0.4% 2.5%
Wisconsin State 1.6% 30.8% 10.7% 37.5% 3.4% 14.1% 1.1% 0.9%
Source: Wisconsin DNR Wiscland 1998 as cited in Wisconsin SCORP
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
20
Figure 11: Current Landcover for the St. Croix Wetland Management District
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
21
scape-oriented perspective. Several transnational
migratory bird conservation initiatives have
emerged to help guide the planning and implemen-tation
process. The regional plans relevant to St.
Croix Wetland Management District are:
# The Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes
Joint Venture Implementation Plan of the
North American Waterfowl Management
Plan;
# The Partners in Flight Boreal Hardwood
Transition [land] Bird Conservation Plan;
# The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes
Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan; and
# The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes
Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan.
All four conservation plans will be integrated
under the umbrella of the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative (NABCI) in the Prairie Pot-holes,
Eastern Tallgrass and Prairie Hardwood
Transition Bird Conservation Regions (BCR 11, 22
and 23) (Figure 12). Each of the bird conservation
initiatives has a process for designating priority spe-cies,
modeled to a large extent on the Partners in
Flight method of computing scores based on inde-pendent
assessments of global relative abundance,
breeding and wintering distribution, vulnerability to
threats, area importance, and population trend.
These scores are often used by agencies in develop-ing
lists of priority bird species. The Service based
its 2001 list of Non-game Birds of Conservation
Concern primarily on the Partners in Flight, shore-bird,
and waterbird status assessment scores.
Wildlife Species of Management
Concern
As described in the Biological Integriy, Diversity,
and Environmental Health policy (601 FW 3), the
goal of habitat management on units of the National
Wildlife Refuge System is to ensure the long-term
maintenance and, where possible, restoration of
healthy populations of native fish, wildlife, plants,
and their habitats. Resources of concern include
species, species groups, and/or communities that
Figure 12: Prairie Potholes, Eastern Tallgrass and Prairie Hardwood
Transition Bird Conservation Regions
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
22
support District purposes as well as Service trust
resource responsibilities (including threatened and
endangered species and migratory birds) .
Resources of concern are also native species and
natural, functional communities such as those found
under historic conditions that are to be maintained
and, where appropriate, restored on a refuge (601
FW 3.10B[1]. Resources of concern take into
account the conservation needs identified within
international, national, regional, or ecosystem goals/
plans; state fish and wildlife conservaton plans;
recovery plans for threatened and endangered spe-cies;
regional fisheries management plans; and pre-viously
approved resource management plans.
Appendix D summarizes information on the sta-tus
and current habitat use of important wildlife
species found on lands administered by the District.
Individual species, or species groups, were chosen
because they are listed as Regional Resource Con-servation
Priorities or State-listed threatened or
endangered species. Other species are listed due to
their importance for economic or recreational rea-sons,
because the District or its partners monitor or
survey them, or for their status as an overabundant
or invasive species.
Other Conservation and Recreation
Lands in the Area
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
manages over 138,000 acres of conservation and rec-reation
lands within the District (Figure 13). The
DNR lands include 22 State Wildlife Areas with a
total acreage over 83,000 acres. The largest Wildlife
Area, Crex Meadows, is over 27,000 acres. The
DNR manages nearly 4,000 acres of natural areas,
8,600 acres of parks and trails, and 8,200 acres of
other wildlife habitat within the District. Most of the
lands managed for wildlife and some other state
lands are open to wildlife-dependent recreation.
County forests are also a part of the conservation
and recreation landscape of the District. Burnett,
Washburn, Polk, and Barron Counties administer
approximately 275,000 acres to address ecological
and socioeconomic needs. These forests provide
benefits to fish, wildlife, and endangered species
and recreation opportunities, while being managed
for a sustaining timber harvest.
The 252 miles of the St. Croix and Lower St.
Croix National Scenic Riverways occur along much
of the western boundary of the District. The River-ways
include the St. Croix and Namekogan Rivers
and their biologically diverse habitats. “The St.
Croix Valley is an important route for migrating
birds. It connects the western Great Lakes basin
and much of central Canada with the Mississippi
Flyway. Millions of birds annually pass along the
Riverway during spring and fall migrations. Many
of these migrants depend upon the contiguous for-ested
corridor that the Riverway protects.”
(www.nps.gov/sacn/management/natural_res.html)
Wisconsin Strategy for Wildlife
Species of Greatest Conservation Need
Wisconsin has developed a State Wildlife Action
Plan that has analyzed the animal species of Wiscon-sin,
identified those most in need of attention
because they are declining or are dependent on hab-itat
or places that are declining, and suggests con-servation
measures to ensure their survival. The
document describing their analysis and findings is
filled with information that helps identify conserva-tion
needs. For each Ecological Landscape of Wis-consin
(see Figure 14), it provides information on
the overarching needs and opportunities in the land-scape
as well as lists of those natural communities
that are major and important management opportu-nities.
It also lists those Species of Greatest Conser-vation
Need with high, moderate, or low degrees of
probability of occurring in the landscape. The
State’s analysis provides a good basis for coordina-tion
of District activities with the State and other
conservation organizations. This information is
available in the State Wildlife Action Plan (http://
dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/wwap/).
The State of Wisconsin has designated the West-ern
Prairie Habitat Restoration Area (WPHRA) as
one of two important conservation focus areas
within the state. When the first European settlers
arrived in west central Wisconsin, in what is now St.
Croix and Polk Counties, they found over 200,000
acres of tallgrass prairie and oak savanna. This com-plex
of prairie, wetlands and oak savanna was very
productive, both for wildlife and farming. Many of
the local communities, such as Star Prairie and Erin
Prairie, have names reflecting the surrounding prai-rie
landscape. Only a small percentage of the origi-nal
tallgrass prairie still exists, making it one of the
rarest and most fragmented ecosystems in America.
The goal of the WPHRA is to restore and protect
20,000 acres of wetland and grassland habitat in St.
Croix and southwestern Polk counties.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
23
Figure 13: Other Conservation Lands in the Area of St. Croix WMD
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
24
Figure 14: Wisconsin Ecological Landscapes
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
25
Socioeconomic Setting
Just as the environmental characteristics vary
across the District, so, too, do the socioeconomic
characteristics. (Table 2) The Minneapolis/Saint
Paul Metropolitan Area influences St. Croix County.
St. Croix County has the highest total population,
percent urban population, percent college educated,
median household income, and median housing
value in the District. The District has a low minority
population much like the State of Wisconsin. In com-parison
to the rest of the District and the State of
Wisconsin, Barron, Burnett, Pepin and Washburn
Counties are well below median household income,
housing value, and percent college educated. Polk
and Dunn Counties are nearer the state averages in
these characteristics.
The population of the District is expected to
grow about 1 percent per year over the next 20
years. (Table 3) The county projected to grow at the
highest average annual rate is St. Croix. The Dis-trict
is projected to increase in population about
57,000 from 2005 to 2025. For additional detailed
descriptions of the characteristics and projections
for the counties and their implications for recreation
see the regional demographic profiles prepared by
the Applied Population Lab and Wisconsin Depart-ment
of Natural Resources for the Wisconsin
SCORP 2005-2010 planning process.
Potential District Visitors
We used block group data from the 2000 census to
estimate how many people lived near WPAs. For the
WPAs managed by the District, we learned that
about 53,000 people lived within 5 miles of a WPA in
2000; 158,000 within 10 miles; and 262,000 within 15
miles.
In order to refine our understanding and esti-mate
the potential market for visitors to the WPAs,
we looked at 1998 consumer behavior data for an
area within an approximate 15-mile distance from
WPAs. The data were organized by zip code areas,
which made the buffers around the WPAs irregular
and not equidistant at all boundary points. We
thought the distance was a good approximation for a
reasonable drive to a WPA for an outing.
The consumer behavior data used in the analysis
is derived from Mediamark Research Inc. data. The
company collects and analyzes data on consumer
demographics, product and brand usage, and expo-sure
to all forms of advertising media. The con-sumer
behavior data were projected by Tetrad
Table 2: Socioeconomic Characteristics, St. Croix Wetland Management District
Total
Population
Percent
Urban
Median
Age
Female College
Educated
Asian American
Indian
Median
HH
Income
Median
Housing
Value
Barron County 44,963 27.9% 38.8 50.5% 15% n/a 0.8% $37,275 $78,000
Burnett County 15,674 0.0% 44.1 49.6% 14% n/a 4.5% $34,218 $87,500
Dunn County 39,858 41.5% 30.6 49.6% 21% 2.1% n/a $38,753 $92,900
Pepin County 7,213 0.0% 38.7 49.7% 13% 0.2% n/a $37,609 $79,200
Pierce County 36,804 38.4% 32.1 50.7% 25% 0.4% n/a $49,551 $123,100
Polk County 41,319 6.9% 38.7 50.0% 16% n/a 1.1% $41,183 $100,200
St. Croix County 63,155 43.2% 35.0 50.0% 26% 0.6% n/a $54,930 $139,500
Washburn County 16,036 16.5% 42.1 49.7% 15% n/a 1.0% $33,716 $85,700
State of Wisconsin 68.3% 36 50.6% 22% 1.6% 0.8% $43,791 $112,200
Source: Census 2000 as reported in Wisconsin SCORP
Percent college educated calculated for persons age 25 and older. Housing value is calculated for owner occupied housing units. n/a is not
available.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
26
Computer Applications Inc. to new populations
using Mosaic data. Mosaic is a methodology that
classifies neighborhoods into segments based on
their demographic and socioeconomic composition.
The basic assumption in the analysis is that people
in demographically similar neighborhoods will tend
to have similar consumption, ownership, and life-style
preferences. Because of the assumptions made
in the analysis, the data should be considered as rel-ative
indicators of potential, not actual participation.
We looked at potential participants in birdwatch-ing,
photography, freshwater fishing, hunting, and
hiking. The consumer behavior data apply to per-sons
more than 18 years old. For the area that we
included in our analysis, the estimated maximum
participants for each activity are: birdwatching
(34,882), photography (56,898), hunting (32,715),
freshwater fishing (64,909), and hiking (50,539). We
interpret the estimates to represent the core audi-ence
for repeated trips to a WPA. It is important to
recognize that each WPA offers different opportuni-ties
for these wildlife dependent types of recreation
based on habitat types and wildlife use.
Climate and Climate Change
Impacts
The District’s climate is continental with cold
winters and warm summers. The normal tempera-tures
and annual precipitation averages for the
period 1971-2000 for a region that includes Dunn,
Pepin, Pierce, and St. Croix Counties and other
southern counties present an adequate indication of
the climate of the District. The region has an aver-age
annual temperature of 44.1 degrees Fahrenheit.
July is the warmest month with an average temper-ature
of 70.8 degrees Fahrenheit. The coldest month
is January with an average temperature of 12.7
degrees Fahrenheit. Annual precipitation is 33.34
inches. The average monthly precipitation exceeds 3
inches for April, May, and September. The average
monthly precipitation exceeds 4 inches for June,
July, and August. (Source: State of Wisconsin Blue
Book 2005-2006)
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.
Table 3: Population Projections 2005-2025 in St. Croix WMD Counties
Historical Projections Average
Annual Percent
Increases
1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2005-
2020
2005-
2025
Barron County 38,730 40,750 44,963 46,067 47,401 48,493 49,386 50,004 0.60 0.43
Burnett County 12,340 13,084 15,674 16,375 16,993 17,329 17,415 17,390 0.53 0.31
Dunn County 34,314 35,909 39,858 42,046 43,771 45,165 47,061 49,105 0.99 0.84
Pepin County 7,477 7,107 7,213 7,631 8,121 8,418 8,737 8,862 1.21 0.81
Pierce County 31,149 32,765 36,804 38,194 39,818 41,190 42,655 44,368 0.97 0.81
Polk County 32,351 34,773 41,319 43,621 45,901 47,842 49,592 51,152 1.14 0.86
St. Croix County 43,262 50,251 63,155 72,377 80,779 87,967 95,202 100,806 2.63 1.96
Washburn County 13,174 13,772 16,036 16,671 17,250 17,634 17,869 18,023 0.60 0.41
St. Croix WMD 214,777 230,401 267,022 284,987 302,044 316,053 329,937 341,735 1.31 1.00
Wisconsin Department of Administration Official Population Projections, June 2002
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
27
The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the
earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual
rise in surface temperature commonly referred to
as global warming. In relation to comprehensive
conservation planning for wetland management dis-tricts,
carbon sequestration constitutes the primary
climate-related impact to be considered in planning.
The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon Seques-tration
Research and Development” defines carbon
sequestration as “...the capture and secure storage
of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or
remain in the atmosphere.”
Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon
sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts –
grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert –
are effective both in preventing carbon emission and
acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric
CO2. The Department of Energy report’s conclu-sions
noted that ecosystem protection is important
to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent
loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial bio-sphere.
Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the
heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife
refuges. The actions proposed in this CCP would
conserve or restore land and habitat, and would
thus retain existing carbon sequestration on the
Wetland Management District. This in turn contrib-utes
positively to efforts to mitigate human-induced
global climate change.
One Service activity in particular – prescribed
burning – releases CO2 directly to the atmosphere
from the biomass consumed during combustion.
However, there is actually no net loss of carbon,
since new vegetation quickly germinates and
sprouts to replace the burned-up biomass and
sequesters or assimilates an approximately equal
amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Boutton et
al. 2006).
Several impacts of climate change have been
identified that may need to be considered and
addressed in the future:
# Habitat available for cold water fish such as
trout and salmon in lakes and streams could
be reduced.
# Forests may change, with some species shift-ing
their range northward or dying out, and
other trees moving in to take their place.
# Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breed-ing
habitat due to stronger and more fre-quent
droughts.
# Changes in the timing of migration and nest-ing
could put some birds out of sync with the
life cycles of their prey species.
# Animal and insect species historically found
farther south may colonize new areas to the
north as winter climatic conditions moderate.
The managers and resource specialists on the
Wetland Management District need to be aware of
the possibility of change due to global warming.
When feasible, documenting long-term vegetation,
species, and hydrologic changes should become a
part of research and monitoring programs on the
District. Adjustments in District management
direction may be necessary over the course of time
to adapt to a changing climate.
The following is an excerpt from the 2000 report,
Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The
Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and
Change, produced by the National Assessment Syn-thesis
Team, an advisory committee chartered
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to help
the US Global Change Research Program fulfill its
mandate under the Global Change Research Act of
1990. These excerpts are from the section of the
report focused upon the eight-state Midwest region.
Jackrabbit. USFWS photo
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
28
Observed Climate Trends
Over the 20th century, the northern portion of the
Midwest, including the upper Great Lakes, has
warmed by almost 4 degree Fahrenheit (F) (2
degrees Celsius (C)), while the southern portion,
along the Ohio River valley, has cooled by about 1
degree F (0.5 degree C). Annual precipitation has
increased, with many of the changes quite substan-tial,
including as much as 10 to 20 percent increases
over the 20th century. Much of the precipitation has
resulted from an increased rise in the number of
days with heavy and very heavy precipitation
events. There have been moderate to very large
increases in the number of days with excessive mois-ture
in the eastern portion of the basin.
Scenarios of Future Climate
During the 21st century, models project that tem-peratures
will increase throughout the Midwest,
and at a greater rate than has been observed in the
20th century. Even over the northern portion of the
region, where warming has been the largest, an
accelerated warming trend is projected for the 21st
century, with temperatures increasing by 5 to 10
degrees F (3 to 6 degrees C). The average minimum
temperature is likely to increase as much as 1 to 2
degrees F (0.5 to 1 degree C) more than the maxi-mum
temperature. Precipitation is likely to continue
its upward trend, at a slightly accelerated rate; 10 to
30 percent increases are projected across much of
the region. Despite the increases in precipitation,
increases in temperature and other meteorological
factors are likely to lead to a substantial increase in
evaporation, causing a soil moisture deficit, reduc-tion
in lake and river levels, and more drought-like
conditions in much of the region. In addition,
increases in the proportion of precipitation coming
from heavy and extreme precipitation are very
likely.
Key Issues in the Midwest
Reduction in Lake and River Levels
Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based
transportation and recreation are all climate-sensi-tive
issues affecting the region. Despite the pro-jected
increase in precipitation, increased
evaporation due to higher summer air temperatures
is likely to lead to reduced levels in the Great Lakes.
Of 12 models used to assess this question,11 suggest
significant decreases in lake levels while one sug-gests
a small increase. The total range of the 11
models’ projections is less than a 1-foot increase to
more than a 5-foot decrease. A 5-foot (1.5- meter)
reduction would lead to a 20 to 40 percent reduction
in outflow to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Lower lake
levels cause reduced hydropower generation down-stream,
with reductions of up to 15 percent by 2050.
An increase in demand for water across the region
at the same time as net flows decrease is of particu-lar
concern. There is a possibility of increased
national and international tension related to
increased pressure for water diversions from the
Lakes as demands for water increase. For smaller
lakes and rivers, reduced flows are likely to cause
water quality issues to become more acute. In addi-tion,
the projected increase in very heavy precipita-tion
events will likely lead to increased flash
flooding and worsen agricultural and other non-point
source pollution as more frequent heavy rains
wash pollutants into rivers and lakes. Lower water
levels are likely to make water-based transportation
more difficult with increases in the costs of naviga-tion
of 5 to 40 percent. Some of this increase will
likely be offset as reduced ice cover extends the nav-igation
season. Shoreline damage due to high lake
levels is likely to decrease 40 to 80 percent due to
reduced water levels.
Adaptations: A reduction in lake and river levels
would require adaptations such as re-engineering of
ship docks and locks for transportation and recre-ation.
If flows decrease while demand increases,
international commissions focusing on Great Lakes
water issues are likely to become even more impor-tant
in the future. Improved forecasts and warnings
of extreme precipitation events could help reduce
some related impacts.
Agricultural Shifts
Agriculture is of vital importance to this region,
the nation, and the world. It has exhibited a capacity
to adapt to moderate differences in growing season
climate, and it is likely that agriculture would be
able to continue to adapt. With an increase in the
length of the growing season, double cropping, the
practice of planting a second crop after the first is
harvested, is likely to become more prevalent. The
CO2 fertilization effect is likely to enhance plant
growth and contribute to generally higher yields.
The largest increases are projected to occur in the
northern areas of the region, where crop yields are
currently temperature limited. However, yields are
not likely to increase in all parts of the region. For
example, in the southern portions of Indiana and
Illinois, corn yields are likely to decline, with 10-20
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
29
percent decreases projected in some locations. Con-sumers
are likely to pay lower prices due to gener-ally
increased yields, while most producers are
likely to suffer reduced profits due to declining
prices. Increased use of pesticides and herbicides
are very likely to be required and to present new
challenges.
Adaptations: Plant breeding programs can use
skilled climate predictions to aid in breeding new
varieties for the new growing conditions. Farmers
can then choose varieties that are better attuned to
the expected climate. It is likely that plant breeders
will need to use all the tools of plant breeding,
including genetic engineering, in adapting to climate
change. Changing planting and harvest dates and
planting densities, and using integrated pest man-agement,
conservation tillage, and new farm tech-nologies
are additional options. There is also the
potential for shifting or expanding the area where
certain crops are grown if climate conditions
become more favorable. Weather conditions during
the growing season are the primary factor in year-to-
year differences in corn and soybean yields.
Droughts and floods result in large yield reductions;
severe droughts, like the drought of 1988, cause
yield reductions of over 30 percent. Reliable sea-sonal
forecasts are likely to help farmers adjust
their practices from year to year to respond to such
events.
Changes in Semi-natural and Natural
Ecosystems
The Upper Midwest has a unique combination of
soil and climate that allows for abundant coniferous
tree growth. Higher temperatures and increased
evaporation will likely reduce boreal forest acreage,
and make current forestlands more susceptible to
pests and diseases. It is likely that the southern
transition zone of the boreal forest will be suscepti-ble
to expansion of temperate forests, which in turn
will have to compete with other land use pressures.
However, warmer weather (coupled with beneficial
effects of increased CO2), are likely to lead to an
increase in tree growth rates on marginal forest-lands
that are currently temperature-limited. Most
climate models indicate that higher air tempera-tures
will cause greater evaporation and hence
reduced soil moisture, a situation conducive to for-est
fires. As the 21st century progresses, there will
be an increased likelihood of greater environmental
stress on both deciduous and coniferous trees, mak-ing
them susceptible to disease and pest infestation,
likely resulting in increased tree mortality.
As water temperatures in lakes increase, major
changes in freshwater ecosystems will very likely
occur, such as a shift from cold water fish species,
such as trout, to warmer water species, such as bass
and catfish. Warmer water is also likely to create an
environment more susceptible to invasions by non-native
species. Runoff of excess nutrients (such as
nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer) into lakes
and rivers is likely to increase due to the increase in
heavy precipitation events. This, coupled with
warmer lake temperatures, is likely to stimulate the
growth of algae, depleting the water of oxygen to
the detriment of other living things. Declining lake
levels are likely to cause large impacts to the cur-rent
distribution of shoreline wetlands. There is
some chance that some of these wetlands could
gradually migrate, but in areas where their migra-tion
is limited by the topography, they would disap-pear.
Changes in bird populations and other native
wildlife have already been linked to increasing tem-peratures
and more changes are likely in the future.
Wildlife populations are particularly susceptible to
climate extremes due to the effects of drought on
their food sources.
Big bluestem, St. Croix Wetland Management District.
USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
30
Geology and Soils
The counties that lie within the St. Croix WMD
owe much of their ecology to the glacial history of
Wisconsin. Glaciers most recently flowed into Wis-consin
about 25,000 years ago and reached their
greatest extent, covering approximately two-thirds
of the state, some 14,000 to 16,000 years ago. The
retreat of the ice front was interrupted a number of
times by re-advances, the last one touched west-cen-tral
Wisconsin about 10,000 years ago. The area that
contains most of the District’s WPAs lies within the
Western Prairie Ecological Landscape identified by
Wisconsin in their Strategy for Wildlife Species of
Greatest Conservation Need. This area is described
as containing “the only true representative prairie
potholes in the state. It is characterized by its glaci-ated,
rolling topography and primarily open land-scape
with rich prairie soils and pothole lakes,
ponds, and wet depressions, except for forested
areas along the St. Croix River. Sandstone underlies
a mosaic of soils. Silty loams that can be shallow and
stony cover most of the area. Alluvial sands and
peats are found in stream valleys.”
The northern portion of the District lies prima-rily
in the Forest Transition Ecological Landscape
whose western portion lies on the moraines of the
Wisconsin glaciation (Figure 14). The soils are
diverse and range from poorly drained to well
drained. The southern and eastern part of the Dis-trict
lies within the Western Coulee and Ridges Eco-logical
Landscape, which “is characterized by its
highly eroded, Driftless topography and relatively
forested landscape. Soils are silt loams (loess) and
sandy loams over sandstone residuum over dolo-mite.”
Information on soils is essential for their conser-vation,
development, and productive use. The vari-ous
soil types have characteristic properties that
determine their potential and limitations for specific
land uses. Knowledge of soils is important in manag-ing
the District's wildlife habitat programs.
Water and Hydrology
Hydrologic features vary across the ecological
landscapes of the District, although the past drain-ing
of wetlands is consistent throughout the Dis-trict.
According to the Wisconsin DNR, watershed
and groundwater pollution vary considerably across
the District (Figure 15). From a practical perspec-tive,
the relevance of hydrology to the establishment
and management of a WPA is best analyzed and dis-cussed
at a local scale.
District Resources
Wetlands
Wetlands are lands where saturation with water
is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil
development and the types of plant and animal com-munities
living in the soil and on its surface (Cowar-din
et al. 1979). It is estimated that the contiguous
United States contained 221 million acres of wet-lands
just 200 years ago (Dahl 1990). By the mid-
1970s, only 46 percent of the original acreage
remained (Tiner 1984). Wetlands now cover about 5
percent of the landscape of the lower 48 states.
Wetlands are important to both migratory and
resident wildlife. They serve as breeding and nest-ing
habitat for migratory birds and as wintering
habitat for many species of resident wildlife.
Humans also benefit from wetlands as these habi-tats
improve water quality and quantity, reduce
flooding effects, and provide areas for recreation.
Wetlands are classified using a number of
attributes including vegetation, water regimes (the
length of time water occupies a specific area), and
water chemistry. District wetlands are classified
using the following water regime descriptions (Cow-ardin
et al. 1979):
Star Prairie WPA, St. Croix Wetland Management
District. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
31
# Temporarily flooded-surface water is present
for brief periods during the growing season.
The water table usually lies below the soil
surface most of the season, so plants that
grow in both uplands and wetlands are char-acteristic.
# Seasonally flooded-surface water is present
for extended periods especially early in the
growing season, but is absent by the end of
the season in most years. When surface
water is absent, the water table is often near
the surface.
Figure 15: Wisconsin Groundwater Contamination Susceptability Model
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
32
# Semi-permanently flooded-surface water
persists throughout the growing season in
most years. When surface water is absent,
the water table is usually at or very near the
land surface.
# Permanently flooded-water covers the land
throughout the year in nearly all years. Veg-etation
is composed of obligate hydrophytes,
such as cattails.
The District has focused on saving and restoring
small wetlands. Wetland diversity is important
because wetlands change continuously; a single wet-land
can not be maximally productive all the time.
Waterfowl use different types of wetlands at differ-ent
times during the breeding season. Laying hens
may forage in ephemeral, temporary, and seasonal
wetlands early in the season and shift to semi-per-manent
and permanent wetlands after the brood is
hatched. Marsh birds need a variety of wetlands in
close proximity so they can shift from one wetland
to another as the wetlands cycle through different
phases. Wetland complexes include a variety of
basins, some shallow and some deep, in close prox-imity.
Diverse wetland complexes are rare today
because most shallow ephemeral, temporary, and
seasonal basins have been drained.
Freshwater wetlands like those in the District are
among the most productive in the world (Weller
1982). The dynamic water cycle creates a rich envi-ronment
for many waterfowl and other marsh birds.
Cycling water accelerates decomposition of marsh
vegetation, resulting in a natural fertilizer. When
the basins recharge in the spring, the water
becomes a soup of nutrients and supports a diverse
and healthy population of aquatic invertebrates,
which feed reproducing waterfowl and marsh birds
throughout the spring and summer. In the larger
basins, the vegetation changes from densely closed
cattail or bulrush to completely open over a period
of years. In the process of transition, the cover vege-tation
moves through a phase, known as hemi-marsh,
when clumps of emergent vegetation are
interspersed with open water (Weller 1982). In this
phase, the structure of the vegetation itself creates
habitat and stimulates the production of aquatic
invertebrates. The marsh, in this phase, hosts the
maximum number of marsh birds. Unfortunately,
the phase is only temporary and most wetlands
cycle out of it in 1 to 3 years.
Wetlands within the District occur in a diverse
distribution of sizes, types, locations, and associa-tions.
The WPAs have approximately 1,452 acres of
wetlands ranging in size from small seasonal basins
less than half an acre in size to large, permanent
marshes more than 200 acres in size.
Plant Communities
Plant Communities Associated with Wetlands
Wetlands throughout the District provide both
resting cover and food resources for migratory
birds. Substantial emergent and submergent
aquatic vegetation occurs in freshwater wetlands.
Sago pondweed, coontail, various pondweeds and
duckweed occur in the deeper, more permanently
flooded zones, while cattail, hardstem and softstem
bulrush, burreed, arrowhead, sedges, and smart-weed
grow in shallow areas that may go dry during
some periods.
Most palustrine basins exhibit concentric zones of
vegetation that are dominated by different plant
species. The terms commonly used in reference to
these zones are, in decreasing order of water per-manency,
deep marsh, shallow marsh, and wet
meadow (Kantrud et al. 1989). The water regime in
a deep marsh zone is usually semipermanent. Domi-nant
plants include cattail, hardstem and softstem
bulrush, submergent or floating plants, and submer-gent
vascular plants, but this zone also may be
devoid of vegetation if bottom sediments are uncon-solidated.
Shallow marsh zones are usually domi-nated
by emergent grasses, sedges, and some forbs,
Purple stemmed aster, St. Croix Wetland Management
District. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
33
but submergent or floating vascular plants also may
occur. Wet meadow zones also are typically domi-nated
by grasses, rushes, and sedges, whereas sub-mergent
or floating plants are absent.
A listing of 50 plant species found on WPA wet-lands
during a study completed between 1983 and
1990 (Lillie, 2004) can be found in Appendix C on
page 102.
A variety of wildlife species, from ducks to rails to
songbirds, use this community. Common breeding
bird species include Mallard, Blue-winged Teal,
Wood Duck, Sandhill Crane, Canada Goose, Trum-peter
Swan, Hooded Merganser, Pied-billed Grebe,
Great Blue Heron, Green Heron, Killdeer, Red-winged
Blackbird and Virginia Rail. Waterfowl spe-cies
present during the spring and fall migration
include Mallard, Wood Duck, Canada Goose, Green-winged
Teal, Blue-winged Teal, Ring-necked Duck,
Canvasback, Lesser and Greater Scaup and Ameri-can
Wigeon.
Plant Communities Associated with Uplands
Upland vegetation is essential to provide nesting
habitat for migratory and resident bird species.
Upland habitats also provide necessary habitat
requirements for resident wildlife throughout the
year. The District currently uses a variety of man-agement
techniques to maintain and enhance upland
habitat conditions including prescribed fire, native
grass seeding, mowing, grazing, tree cutting, and
invasive species management.
Grasslands
Past habitat management emphasized the provi-sion
of dense nesting cover (DNC) for waterfowl.
Several areas on the District were planted to grass
species such as tall and intermediate wheatgrass,
sweetclover, and alfalfa. These fields initially pro-vided
good cover for nesting birds; however, over
time they deteriorated and were prone to invasion
by Canada thistle and other problem species (e.g.,
smooth brome). In addition, many of the Waterfowl
Production Areas contained fields that had been
enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program and
were planted to brome by the previous owners.
These monotypic stands of brome provide some
habitat for wildlife but not as much as diverse native
species plantings. The District has begun the pro-cess
of restoring these grasslands to native grasses
and forbs. The native grass restoration process gen-erally
involves cropping the field for 3 or more years
to eliminate exotic cool-season grass seeds and rhi-zomes,
control Canada thistle and other invasive
plants, and prepare a seed bed for planting native
grass seed. Fields are planted to corn for 2 years
and then soybeans for 1 year. Soybean stubble pro-vides
a good seedbed for native grassland and forb
species.
Some uplands in the District were historically
comprised of cool-and warm-season grasses charac-teristic
of the tall-grass prairie. Vegetation composi-tion
at local levels was determined by numerous
interrelated factors, including elevation, topogra-phy,
climate, soil characteristics, herbivory, and fire.
Species typical of the historical mixed-grass prairie
include little bluestem, Indian grass, big bluestem,
switchgrass, side oats gramma and numerous forbs
such as yellow coneflower, blue vervain, oxeye sun-flower,
blazing star, bergamont, cup plant, giant hys-sop
and potentilla. Appendix C includes a listing of
prairie plants found on the WPAs.
The District has been planting native grasses and
forbs as former crop lands are converted to more
favorable wildlife habitat. The District has approxi-mately
4,192 acres of grassland in blocks that range
from 1 to 400 acres in size. Approximately 2,576
acres of the grassland is brome or other introduced
cool season grasses while 1,616 acres is native prai-rie.
In addition, the District is in the process of con-verting
640 acres of cropland to native grass.
Grassland restoration and management is tar-geted
to create large blocks of unbroken grassland
habitat. Many species of grassland- and wetland-dependant
migratory birds have declined dramati-cally
due to the loss of habitat such as grasslands
and wetlands. Most of these species evolved in a
treeless landscape of prairie and wetlands with scat-
American Widgeon. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
34
tered patches of oak savanna. There is growing evi-dence
that the presence o f trees has dire
consequences for these species, often resulting in
lower reproductive success.
Bird species that benefit from the District’s
grasslands include Henslow’s Sparrow, Bobolink,
Eastern and Western Meadowlark, Sandhill Crane,
Mallard, Blue-winged Teal, Ring-Necked Pheasant,
Wild Turkey, Dickcissel, Northern Harrier, Short-eared
Owl and many other grassland-dependent
species.
Shrub-Scrub
Some scrub shrub communities are found on Dis-trict
lands. Most are found in upland grass fields
that have not been managed intensively with fire,
mowing or grazing. These fields are usually going
through succession and if left unmanaged would
eventually turn into forest. Common plant species
include willow, dogwood, box elder, prickly ash,
sumac and numerous young tree saplings.
Wetland areas also support some scrub shrub
habitat, mostly around the edge of wetlands or wet
meadows. These areas are very important for
migratory birds such as warblers or woodcock,
especially during spring or fall migration. This wet-land
shrub habitat contains numerous species
including alder, willow, red osier dogwood and
numerous species of sedges. No plant or animal
inventories have been completed for scrub shrub
habitat.
Shrub scrub acreage is included under the head-ing
of wetland or grassland habitat.
Forests
The District is located along a transition zone
where several forest, wetland and prairie vegetation
community types intersect. Several types of forests
are found on the District including oak savanna,
southern oak forest, southern mesic forest and
northern mesic forest. Oak savannas are dominated
by burr oaks, white oaks and an understory of prai-rie
grasses and forbs. Southern oak forests are
found in small sections of the District and are domi-nated
by white, black and red oaks. Southern mesic
forests contain sugar maple, elm and basswood
while northern mesic forests contain maple, hem-lock
and yellow birch. Most of the forested habitat
on WPAs are oak savannas, old farm woodlots or
pine plantations with red pine or white pine.
Oak savannas are an extremely rare community
with less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the original
oak savanna habitat remaining. Oak savannas
depend on fire to prevent the succession to decidu-ous
forest. With the suppression of fire, many oak
savannas need intensive management to bring back
the understory community. Burr oaks, which have a
thick fire resistant bark are the dominant tree spe-cies
in oak savannas. A wide variety of prairie grass
and forb species are found in the understory of a
healthy oak savanna.
Numerous animal species are found in forested
habitats on WPAs. Many species of neotropical
migrants use the small woodland patches for migra-tion
habitat. In addition, numerous mammals use
the forested habitat including white-tailed deer,
Wild Turkey, coyote, red fox, gray fox and many
small mammals. No surveys have been completed
on the District to assess wildlife use of forested hab-itats.
Oak savannas are important habitat for Red-headed
Woodpeckers and are also used heavily by
Wild Turkey and deer.
The District has approximately 1,202 acres of for-est
in blocks that range from less than an acre to 90
acres in size. The forest acreage includes oak
savanna, pine plantations, deciduous forest and
grassland areas taken over by trees.
Shrubs and Trees in Fencerows
Some WPAs contain old fencerows that are rem-nants
from previous land owners. The fencerows
contain shrubs and trees that are beneficial for
some wildlife and are, generally, a detriment to
grassland bird species. Many of the trees found in
fencerows are invasive species such as Siberian elm,
honeysuckle, black locust, box elder and buckthorn.
Since these trees and shrubs have invaded grass-land
areas, the trees along the fencerows are typi-cally
removed. Although these trees provide habitat
for edge species such as Brown-headed Cowbirds,
Blue Jays and Robins, these fencerows are detri-mental
to grassland dependent species that require
large tracts of unbroken grassland for their habitat.
Because interior fencerows fragment blocks of habi-tat,
the wire and posts are removed in addition to
trees and shrubs. The removal of interior fencerows
also improves our ability to manage the habitat with
mowing or prescribed fire. Within the District there
are over 30 miles of fencerows.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
35
Fish and Wildlife Communities
The variety of vegetative communities on the Dis-trict
provides habitat for both wetland and upland
associated wildlife, such as ducks, herons, song-birds,
deer, and turkey. The District also hosts fur-bearers,
marsh birds, raptors, and a variety of
woodland mammals, in addition to amphibians and
reptiles. Most wetlands within the District are too
shallow to support fish although several basins,
including Oak Ridge Lake, Bass Lake and some
larger wetland basins have fish in them.
Birds
A complete inventory of bird species that use
WPAs within the District has not been completed.
Based on the state list and surveys completed dur-ing
the 1970s, we would expect over 250 species to
be found on the WPAs. (Appendix C)
Mallards, Wood Ducks, Blue-winged Teal,
Hooded Mergansers, Trumpeter Swans, and Can-ada
Geese are common nesting waterfowl species on
WPAs. In addition, during migration the following
waterfowl species are also common: Canvasback,
Greater and Lesser Scaup, Gadwall, Northern
Shoveler, Redhead, Bufflehead, Green-winged Teal,
Ameican Wigeon, Pintail, and Ring-necked Duck.
The grassland and wetland complexes in the Dis-trict
provide nesting habitat for many species of
birds including Bobolinks, Meadowlarks, Bluebirds,
Henslow’s Sparrows, Killdeer, Sandhill Cranes,
Northern Harrier, and Short-eared Owls. In addi-tion,
many species of waterbirds including Great
Blue Herons, Great Egrets, Green Herons, Least
Bitterns, rails, and American Coots use District
wetlands. Numerous other species use District
lands during spring and fall migration.
Mammals
Common mammal species for the District include
white-tailed deer, raccoon, black bear, beaver, musk-rat,
mink, red squirrel, gray squirrel, eastern cot-tontail
and numerous small mammals such as
eastern chipmunks, deer mouse, meadow jumping
mouse, meadow vole, shorttail shrew, white-footed
mouse, thirteen lined ground squirrel and plains
pocket gopher. Red fox are the most common carni-vores
of the area followed by coyote and gray fox.
An inventory of mammal species has not been com-pleted
for the District. A checklist of mammals that
are likely to occur on WPAs, although they have not
all been confirmed, is included in Appendix C.
Amphibians and Reptiles
Data from state lists indicates that 19 species of
amphibians and reptiles could be found on District
lands. Appendix C lists the species that may occur
on District lands. No surveys have been conducted
on District lands to document species presence or
distribution, although some species such as snap-ping
turtle, painted turtle, and spring peepers are
commonly seen or heard.
Invertebrates
Data from a study conducted from 1983 to 1992
indicated that there were 250 invertebrate taxa col-lected
in WPA wetlands and adjacent uplands. This
included 54 terrestrial taxa and 196 aquatic inverte-brate
species. A listing of the taxanomic orders is
found in Appendix C. A complete listing of inverte-brate
species can be found in Evard and Lillie
(1996). Freshwater invertebrates are an extremely
important food source for waterfowl, especially for
hens during spring migration and egg laying.
Fish
Data from surveys conducted in 1983-1992 indi-cated
that seven species of fish were found on
WPAs. These species were yellow perch, white
sucker, golden shiner, pumpkinseed, fathead min-now,
stickleback and mud minnow. In addition,
brown trout are found in the Willow River which
flows through the Betterly WPA.
Black bear. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
36
Threatened and Endangered Species
The Karner blue butterfly is listed as endangered
in all but Pepin and Pierce Counties within the Dis-trict.
To date, no Karner blue butterflies have been
identified on Service lands, nor has wild lupine, a
critical component of Karner blue butterfly habitat,
been found on Service lands within the District.
Threats to Resources
Invasive Species
Three categories of undesirable species (invasive,
exotic, noxious) are found within the District. Inva-sive
species are alien species whose introduction
causes or is likely to cause economic or environmen-tal
harm or harm to human health. Executive Order
13112 requires the District to monitor, prevent, and
control the presence of invasive species. Exotic spe-cies
are species that are not native to a particular
ecosystem. Service policy directs the District to try
to maintain habitats free of exotic species. Noxious
weeds are designated by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture or the Wisconsin Department of Agri-culture
as species which, when established, are
destructive, competitive or difficult to control. Can-ada
thistle and field bindweed (creeping Jenny), and
leafy spurge are introduced species classified as
noxious weeds in Wisconsin. Purple loosestrife and
multiflora rose are introduced species classified as
nuisance weeds.
Invasive, exotic and noxious weed species are rel-atively
abundant within the District. These species
are quite diverse and are found in most District hab-itats,
although some are typically found in agricul-tural
fields or lakes and ponds. Currently, most
District control efforts focus on Canada thistle,
spotted knapweed, leafy spurge, buckthorn and
black locust. The principal invasive and exotic plant
species within the District are reed canary grass,
spotted knapweed, leafy spurge, garlic mustard, box
elder, buckthorn, black locust, phragmites, hybrid
cattail, brome and purple loosestrife. Exotic and
invasive plant species pose one of the greatest
threats to the maintenance and restoration of the
diverse habitats found on WPAs. They threaten bio-logical
diversity by causing population declines of
native species and by altering key ecosystem pro-cesses
like hydrology, nitrogen fixation, and fire
regimes. Left unchecked, these plants have come to
dominate areas on some WPAs and reduced the
value of the land as wildlife habitat. There is a boun-tiful
seed source of many of these exotic/invasive
species on the lands surrounding the WPAs, thus in
order to be effective in our management plans, we
must bring together a complex set of interests
including private landowner, commercial, and public
agencies.
Drainage and Pesticides
Waterfowl Production Areas are often islands in a
sea of intensive agriculture. Natural drainage pat-terns
have been altered throughout the landscape,
increasing the frequency, intensity, and duration of
water flowing into many units. Siltation, nutrient
loading, and contamination from point and non-point
sources of pollution are a serious problem on many
WPAs. Waterfowl Production Areas are also threat-ened
by farming, trespass, dumping, wildfires, and
pesticide applications on adjacent agricultural land.
A study in Ontario examined the effects of habitat
and agricultural practices on birds breeding on
farmland and determined that the most important
variable decreasing total bird species abundance
was pesticide use (Freemark and Csizy 1993).
Recent changes in agriculture have accelerated
the impact of pesticides on surrounding land. Genet-ically
altered Round-up ready corn, soybeans, cot-ton
and sugar beats have expanded the window of
opportunity for pesticide applications and promises
to kill everything green on fields except the geneti-cally
altered crops. Another altered crop, Bt. Corn,
contains a genetically engineered insecticide.
Research has shown that insecticides commonly
used for sunflowers, soybeans and corn can kill wild-life
directly and indirectly (e.g. by decreasing the
amount of food available to ducks). For example,
ducks feed on grain much of the year but in the
spring they shift to aquatic invertebrates (insect lar-vae,
amphipods, snails, etc.) and depend on this food
source for reproduction and survival. Even when
aerial pesticide applications are done carefully and
wetlands are avoided, the chemicals drift into wet-lands
in measurable amounts and kill aquatic inver-tebrates
(Tome et al. 1991 and Grue et al. 1986).
Insecticides have a direct effect by killing aquatic
invertebrates, but herbicides also have an indirect
effect on food available to waterfowl. The Service
conducted a study of the impact of agricultural
chemicals on selected wetlands in four of the Wet-land
Management Districts (Ensor and Smith,
1994). Herbicides from surrounding agricultural
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
37
land enter wetlands and disrupt the functional inter-action
between vegetation structure and aquatic
invertebrate life. The changing dynamic reduces
food available to breeding waterfowl.
Seasonal and semipermanent wetlands (the
majority of WPA wetlands) are the most exposed to
agricultural chemicals. These wetlands are small
and interspersed with croplands, which increases
the probability of pesticides from over-spray and
aerial drift. Most herbicides and insecticides are
applied to crops in the spring and early summer,
coincident with maximum runoff and waterfowl
breeding. Ensor and Smith (1994) write:
“A result of our survey... indicates that prairie
pothole wetlands may involve interactions of
multiple herbicides (and potentially insecti-cides)
comprising chemical “soups” unique to
individual wetlands.”
This study showed that “typical agricultural use”
of pesticides on surrounding land had a significant
impact in reducing the biological quality of WPA
wetlands.
Rural Development
Rural development also threatens District lands
in counties with growing populations, such as St.
Croix County. Lands adjoining WPAs are often seen
as highly desirable rural building lots that are pur-chased
as small hobby farms or rural home sites.
This can result in the WPA being “ringed” by
homes, with a series of negative impacts on the
WPA. Such development can limit future manage-ment
such as prescribed fire; increase trespass on
District lands by neighbors using ATVs, horses, or
vehicles; increase threats to wildlife from stray pets
(cats and dogs); increase incidents of illegal use of
District land by neighbors for purposes such as
dumping, gardening, equipment storage, etc.; and
can place hunters and neighbors at odds over con-cerns
about safety during the hunting seasons. In
addition to limiting future management options on
the property, these rural developments adjacent to
WPAs also require a large amount of staff time to
deal with these issues. Large-scale rural develop-ment
would also bring threats from noise and storm
water runoff.
Administrative Facilities
The Service is responsible for maintaining the
District headquarters building and maintenance
buildings. The headquarters is located on the St.
Croix Prairie WPA about 2 miles west of New Rich-mond.
The headquarters building consists primarily
of office space for the District and Private Lands
Program. The building is a modified residential
house that has 2,800 square feet and was built in the
mid 1980s. An 880-square-foot, three-stall garage is
located next to the headquarters building.
The maintenance complex is a former farmsite
that was purchased with the Prairie Flats South
WPA and is located about 3 miles north of Somerset.
The maintenance building consists of a modified
machine shed that has 1,920 square feet. Except for
a small office space in the barn, the maintenance
building is the only heated space in the maintenance
complex. There are also several other buildings
including a 6,292-square-foot pole building used to
store equipment, supplies and seed. There is a
2,925-square-foot barn and a 3,894-square-foot calf
barn. These two buildings are used for equipment
and supply storage.
Cultural Resources and
Historic Preservation
Cultural resources are important parts of the
Nation���s heritage. The Service is committed to pro-tecting
valuable evidence of human interactions with
each other and the landscape. Protection is accom-plished
in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to
protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources. Respond-ing
to the requirement in the National Wildlife Ref-uge
System Improvement Act of 1997 that
comprehensive conservation plans include “the
Development near the St. Croix Wetland Management
District. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
38
archaeological and cultural values of the planning
unit,” the Service contracted for an archeological
and historic resources study of the Leopold and St.
Croix Wetland Management Districts. The Leopold
WMD is located in southcentral Wisconsin and the
report combines information for both districts. The
study report was submitted in 2003.
Egan-Bruhy (2003) reports:
“Wisconsin has a rich and complex history of
11,500 years of change. Through time, popula-tions
adapted to the unique and changing envi-ronmental
setting of the region. The
archeological and historical records reflect
alterations in the economy, belief systems,
social organization, cultural composition, and
lifeways of the people of what is now the state of
Wisconsin.”
“The archeological data ... provides information
regarding the probability of identifying prehis-toric
sites in association with specific environ-mental
attributes. An association between site
location and types of water bodies, soils, and
elevations was established for several of the
prehistoric time periods. The analysis also indi-cates
that there is a relatively high probability
of encountering historic archaeological sites ...
particularly proximate to transportation routes
and along section lines....”.
The Saint Croix WMD and Leopold WMD cover
30 counties in Wisconsin. Consequently they are
likely to contain archeological sites from all of the
cultural periods found in Wisconsin: PaleoIndian,
Archaic, Woodland, Mississippian, Oneota, and
Western (French, British, and United States) cul-tures.
(See Chapter 3 of the Egan-Bruhy report for
a more complete discussion of cultural resources on
the Districts.) In addition, Indian tribes may iden-tify
sacred sites and traditional cultural properties
on WPAs, and the Districts may acquire buildings
and other structures of historical importance. How-ever,
as of 2006, the Service has no record of extant
sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, and his-toric
buildings and structures on any WPA.
Just 118 acres of District land have been sub-jected
to an archeological survey. From those sur-veys
and other sources, 89 cultural resources sites
are reported on the Districts. The potential, there-fore,
is high for finding many more cultural
resources sites.
A review of the National and/or State Registers
of Historic Places by Egan-Bruhy (2003) showed the
eight counties of the District contained 10 historic/
architectural properties. The places include a house,
farmhouse, farmstead, bridges, and church among
other properties. There are no National Historic
Landmark properties within the District. At this
time no sites on waterfowl production areas have
been nominated or placed on the National Register
of Historic Places, although all sites are considered
eligible until determined not eligible through the
Section 106 process.
The following listed Indian tribes have been rec-ognized
by the Federal government or self-identi-fied
by the tribe as having a potential concern for
traditional cultural resources, sacred sites, and cul-tural
hunting and gathering areas in Wisconsin.
# Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe
of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reser-vation,
Wisconsin
# Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minne-sota
Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota
# Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma
# Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South
Dakota
# Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota
Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota
# Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wis-consin
# Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota
Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota
# Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan
# Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin
# Iowa Tribe of Kansas
# Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan
# Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin
# Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau
Reservation of Wisconsin
# Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians, Michigan
# Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota
Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
39
# Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State
of Minnesota
# Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
# Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa
Tribe, Minnesota
# Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota
# Nottawaseppi Huron Band
# Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
# Peoria Indian Tribe
# Pokagon Band of Potawatomi
# Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas
# Prairie Island Indian Community in the
State of Minnesota
# Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians of Wisconsin
# Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and
Nebraska
# Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma
# Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa
# Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska
# Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake
Traverse Reservation, South Dakota
# Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin
# Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota
# St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin
# Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin
# Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota
# White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa
Tribe, Minnesota
# Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska
Although Indian tribes are generally understood
to have concerns about traditional cultural proper-ties,
other groups such as church congregations,
civic groups, and county historical societies could
have similar concerns.
Museums and Repositories
The Districts have museum property. Archeologi-cal
collections are not stored on-site, but 526 arti-facts
from four collections are stored in non-Federal
repositories. Artifacts are owned by the Federal
Government and can be recalled by the RHPO at
any time. The Districts have no other types of
museum property such as artwork, historical
objects or documents (including photographs), nor
natural resources collections. They have no scope of
collections statement.
Cultural resources are important parts of the
Nation’s heritage. The Service is committed to pro-tecting
valuable evidence of human interactions with
each other and the landscape. Protection is accom-plished
in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to
protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources.
Visitor Services
The Refuge Improvement Act established six pri-ority
uses of the Refuge System, which includes the
WPAs in the District. These priority uses all depend
on the presence of, or expectation of the presence, of
wildlife, and are thus called wildlife-dependent uses.
These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observa-tion,
photography, environmental education, and
interpretation. Although Congress clearly expects
managers to facilitate these priority uses, they must
be compatible with the purpose for which the WPA
was established and the mission of the Refuge Sys-tem.
Compatibility Determinations for the priority
uses and numerous other uses in compliance with
the Refuge Improvement Act and national compati-bility
policy and regulations are included (Appendix
F).
Waterfowl Production Areas differ from national
wildlife refuges in that they are open to hunting,
fishing, and trapping by specific regulation, and
open to the other wildlife-dependent activities by
notification in general brochures available at the
District office. New and existing WPAs are thus
“open until closed” versus national wildlife refuges,
which are “closed until opened.” Within the St.
Croix WMD, Oak Ridge WPA has special hunting
regulations since it is located within a state closed
area. Oak Ridge WPA is closed to hunting from the
opening day of waterfowl season until the first Sat-urday
in December except deer hunting during reg-ular
archery, gun and muzzleloader seasons.
Hunters and hunting have a long and linked his-tory
with WPAs. When Congress amended the
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp
Tax Act (Duck Stamp Act) in 1958, it authorized the
acquisition of wetlands and uplands as WPAs and
waived the usual “inviolate sanctuary” provisions
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
St. Croix Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
40
for new migratory bird units. Thus, WPAs were
intended to be open to waterfowl hunting, in part
because waterfowl hunters, through the purchase of
Duck Stamps and support for price increases of the
stamp, played a major role in acquisition of these
areas.
Wildlife observation, photography, interpreta-tion,
and environmental education are encouraged
on WPAs and are increasing in popularity with the
public. In general, WPAs lack an adequate fishery to
support fishing.
Other District Uses
In addition to the wildlife-dependent recreational
uses, the District regularly receives requests for
various non-wildlife-dependent uses such as dog tri-als,
horseback riding, plant collecting, berry pick-ing,
and special events. Also, various economic uses
such as haying, grazing, and timber harvest are
used as habitat management tools and involve the
issuance of special use permits. The manager must
often make decisions about other “uses” including
requests for rights-of-way for new or expanded
roads, utilities, pipelines, and communications
equipment. Generally the District receives a few
requests each year for these “uses”, although the
quantity has been increasing, which may be one
result of the increased developmental pressure in
St. Croix County.
Current Management
Habitat Management
Wetland Management
The intention of the District is to restore and man-age
wetlands on the WPAs. As the District purchases
new WPAs or round-outs to existing WPAs, restor-ing
or enhancing wetlands often provides a chal-lenge
to securing the necessary funding to complete
the work in a timely manner. The District has fre-quently
utilized grant funds from the North Ameri-can
Wetland Conservation Act or donations from
conservation organizations to accomplish much of
the work on these projects. In addition to wetland
restorations on new tracts, restorations are also
completed on existing lands whenever possible.
Some restoration opportunities are limited due to
potential impacts on adjacent properties. This is fre-quently
true when drainage ditches are involved.
A common restoration technique on the WPAs is
scraping out sediment from small Type I basins. In
many cases, former agricultural practices have
resulted in erosion of sediment into these small sea-sonal
basins which are usually less than 2 feet in
depth. In addition, many of the small seasonal
basins were filled with r