Draft Comprehensive Conservation Planand Environmental Assessment Sullys Hill National Game Preserve

              Draft Comprehensive Conservation Planand Environmental AssessmentSullys Hill National Game Preserve
June 2008Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceSullys Hill National Game Preserve221 2nd Street WestDevils Lake, North Dakota 58301701/766 4272andU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6Division of Refuge PlanningPO Box 25486 DFCLakewood, CO 80225303/236 8145Contents
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................. iii
Summary..................................................................................................................................................................... v1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan ......................................................................................................................... 31.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System ........................................................................ 31.3 National and Regional Mandates ...................................................................................................................... 51.4 Refuge Contributions to National and Regional Plans ................................................................................. 51.5 Ecosystem Description and Threats .................................................................................................................. 71.6 The Planning Process .......................................................................................................................................... 9
2 The Refuge ............................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History ................................................................................ 132.2 Special Values of the Refuge ............................................................................................................................. 142.3 Purposes for the Refuge.................................................................................................................................... 152.4 Vision .................................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.5 Goals ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.6 Planning Issues ................................................................................................................................................... 16
3 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................................ 19
3.1 Elements Common to All Alternatives............................................................................................................ 19
3.2 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study ................................................................. 193.3 Elements Common to All Alternatives..............................................................................................................20
3.4 Description of Alternatives ................................................................................................................................203.5 Summary of Alternatives ....................................................................................................................................22
4 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................................... 49
4.1 General Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 49
4.2 Physical Environment ....................................................................................................................................... 524.3 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................................... 544.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 61
4.5 Special Management Areas ............................................................................................................................... 624.6 Visitor Services .................................................................................................................................................. 63
4.7 Current Socioeconomic Conditions ................................................................................................................... 63
5 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................................................... 67
5.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................... 67
5.2 Effect Common to all Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 68
5.3 Description of Consequences by Alternatives ................................................................................................ 69
6 Implementation of the Proposed Action (draft CCP) ................................................................................. 75
6.1 Proposed Goals, Objectives, and Strategies.................................................................................................... 75Woodland Goal .............................................................................................................................................................75
Prairie Habitat Goal ...................................................................................................................................................78
Wildlife Population Management Goal....................................................................................................................84Environmental Education, Interpretation, and Outreach Goal ..........................................................................89Visitor Services Goal ...................................................................................................................................................92
Protection and Maintenance Goal............................................................................................................................94ii Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
6.2 Personnel and Funding ..................................................................................................................................... 96
6.3 Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 96
Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................................... 99
Appendices
A. Key Legislation and Policies ............................................................................................................................. 105
B. Preparers ............................................................................................................................................................. 109
C. Public Involvement ..............................................................................................................................................111
D. Species List ...........................................................................................................................................................113
E. Fire Management Program ................................................................................................................................125
F. Draft Compatibility Determination for Environmental Education and Interpretation .............................129
G. Draft Compatibility Determination for Fishing ...............................................................................................133
H. Draft Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography .........................135
Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................................................139FiguresFigures
1 Vicinity map for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North Dakota ..................................................
2
2 Physiographic areas of the United States .................................................................................................
6
3 Missouri Main Stem River Ecosystem map ..............................................................................................
8
4 Steps in the planning process ......................................................................................................................
9
5 Sullys Hill National Game Preserve boundary map ................................................................................
50
6 Sullys Hill National Game Preserve management units .........................................................................
51
7 Vegetative communities within the Sullys Hill National Game Preserve ...........................................
55
8 Sullys Hill National Game Preserve public use map ...............................................................................
93
9 Adaptive management process ...................................................................................................................
98
Tables
1 Planning process summary and timeline for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve ............................. 2 Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan,
10
Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North Dakota ...........................................................................
23
3 Current and proposed staff for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve ...................................................
96
4 Step-down management plans for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve ..............................................
97
Abbreviations
Administration ActAMSL
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Actabove mean sea level
CCPCO2
comprehensive conservation plancarbon dioxide
CFRCWCSCWDDNCEA
Code of Federal Regulationscomprehensive wildlife conservation strategychronic wasting diseasedense nesting coverenvironmental assessment
EPAF
Environmental Protection AgencyFahrenheit
FMPFWS
fi re management planU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GISImprovement ActIPMNAWMPND
Geographic Information SystemNational Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997integrated pest managementNorth American Waterfowl Management PlanNorth Dakota
NDGFNEPANHPA
North Dakota Game and Fish DepartmentNational Environmental Policy ActNational Historic Preservation Act
NOANOI
notice of availabilitynotice of intent
NRCSORPpers. comm.PLPPRrefugeRefuge SystemService
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)outdoor recreation plannerpersonal communicationpublic lawPrairie Pothole RegionSullys Hill National Gme PreserveNational Wildlife Refuge SystemU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
spp.SWGUNDUSC
speciesstate wildlife grantUniversity of North DakotaUnited States Code
USDAUSFWS
U.S. Department of AgricultureU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGSVORWGWMAWMDWPAWUI
U.S. Geological Surveyvisual obstruction readingwage grade pay schedule (civil service employees) waterfowl management areawetland management districtwetlands production areawildland-urban interface
YCC
Youth Conservation Corps
Defi nitions of these and other term
s are in the glossary, located after Chapter 6.Summary
Entrance sign for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve
USFWS
The following summary provides an overview of this draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and environmental assessment for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, including (1) a general description; (2) purposes of the refuge; (3) vision and goals; (4) alternatives considered, including the proposed action; and (5) the decision to be made regarding the proposed comprehensive conservation plan.
SULLYS HILL NATIONAL GAME PRESERVE LOCATION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Sullys Hill National Game Preserve is a 1,675-acre national wildlife refuge sitting on the south shores of Devils Lake, about ten miles south of the city of Devils Lake, North Dakota. This refuge supports a unique community of habitats such as an oak, ash, basswood, and aspen woodland; mixed-grass prairie; and natural wetlands; along with beaver ponds and created wetlands. These diverse habitats create a large ecotone that provides “edge” habitat for over 250 species of migratory birds, plains bison, Rocky Mountain elk, white-tailed deer, turkeys, and prairie dogs. The refuge is one of only 19 designated natural areas in North Dakota, of which only four are national wildlife refuges. It is also one of only four refuges established for national bison conservation.
Sullys Hill National Game Preserve has a long history of visitation with over 60,000 annual visitors, making it the most visited refuge in North Dakota. The refuge is becoming a progressive regional conservation learning center, promoting the conservation role of the National Wildlife Refuge System while educating visitors about the functions and benefi ts of prairie wetlands and grasslands. The refuge uses both indoor and outdoor education with a focus on the sciences, biodiversity, and human dimensions in the environment, providing area educators an environment that makes learning more exciting and interesting.
SULLYS HILL NATIONAL GAME PRESERVE ESTABLISHMENT
The refuge was fi rst established on April 27, 1904, through Public Law 179, that authorized President Theodore Roosevelt to set aside a portion of unallotted lands as a public park in the Devils Lake Indian Reservation, including the unallotted tract of land known as the Fort Totten Military Reservation. The fi nal Proclamation No. 32, establishing Sullys Hill Park, was signed on June 2, 1904, by President Roosevelt and assigned management to the National Park Service. On June 30, 1914, appropriations were made for the creation of a big game preserve within the park.On December 22, 1921, President Warren Harding, by Executive Order 3596, ordered that all lands in the boundaries of Sullys Hill National Park Game Preserve be reserved and set apart as a refuge and breeding grounds for birds. In the Act of March 3, 1931, President Herbert Hoover transferred the preserve to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). It was renamed Sullys Hill National Game Preserve and administered as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System as a big game preserve, refuge, and breeding ground for wild animals and birds.
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSES
Every refuge has a purpose for which it was established. This purpose is the foundation upon vi Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
which to build all refuge programs, from biology and public use, to maintenance and facilities. No action that the Service or public takes may confl ict with this purpose. The refuge purposes are found in legislative acts or administrative orders, which provide the authorities to transfer or acquire a piece of land for a refuge. Over time, an individual refuge may contain lands that have been acquired under a variety of transfer and acquisition authorities, giving a refuge more than one purpose. The goals, objectives, and strategies identifi ed in the draft CCP are intended to support the individual purposes for which the refuge was established.The purposes for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve are described in the following legislation and public land orders:􀁑􅄠 “All the lands that are now reserved or may hereafter be included within the boundaries of the . . . Sullys Hill National Park Game Preserve . . . are hereby further reserved and set apart for the use . . . as refuges and breeding grounds for birds.” (Executive Order 3596, December 21, 1921)􀁑􅄠 “As a big game preserve, refuge, and breeding grounds for wild animals and birds . . . provided, that the said game preserve is to be made available to the public for recreational purposes in so far as consistent with the use of this area as a game preserve . . . provided further, that hunting shall not be permitted on said game preserve.” (46 Stat. 1509, act of March 3, 1931)
REFUGE VISION
The vision for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve is based on the establishing purposes of the refuge, resource conditions and potential, and the issues. Overlooking North Dakota’s largest natural lake and riding the tops of a glacial thrust block formation, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve is dressed in undulating native woodlands and prairie. Teddy Roosevelt’s vision and broad community support are largely responsible for the successful conservation of these habitats ensuring the preservation of the refuge’s plains bison and Rocky Mountain elk while supporting migrating waves of warblers and other native bird species. Sullys Hill National Game Preserve is renowned as a regional conservation learning center—greeting families, students, and outdoor enthusiasts of all abilities. Children are able to learn about their natural world using all their senses, which fosters their own environmental ethics. Each visitor’s experience not only enriches their personal lives, but instills a unique understanding and appreciation for preserving native prairie and wetland habitats, the natural resources of the Devils Lake Basin, and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System to preserve America’s wildlife heritage.
REFUGE GOALS
The goals described below refl ect the vision for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve.Goal 1. Prairie Habitat: Maintain prairie plant communities representative of the historical mixed-grass prairies to support healthy populations of grassland-dependent migratory birds in balance with bison, elk, and other indigenous wildlife.Goal 2. Woodland Habitat: Manage for healthy native woodlands of various age classes and Summary vii
structure to provide habitat for migratory birds, in balance with bison, elk, and other indigenous wildlife.Goal 3. Wildlife Population Management: Carry out management practices that ensure healthy populations of Rocky Mountain elk, plains bison, and other indigenous wildlife species that exemplify the genetic integrity of historic prairie wildlife.Goal 4. Environmental Education and Outreach: Deliver quality, interactive environmental education programming to regional schools, communities, organizations, and local governments to garner support and appreciation for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North Dakota’s wetland and grassland resources, and the conservation role of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceGoal 5. Visitor Services and Interpretation: Provide captivating visitor services facilities and activities for visitors of all abilities, as well as community groups, youth groups, and members of Spirit Lake Nation that result in a greater understanding and support for the preservation of native habitats and landscapes of North Dakota’s Prairie Pothole Region and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.Goal 6. Protection and Maintenance: Provide for the safety of staff, volunteers, and the visiting public while ensuring the protection and maintenance of refuge facilities, lands, and cultural resources.
THE DRAFT PLAN
After reviewing a wide range of public comments and management needs, the Service developed three alternatives for management of the refuge. Alternative C is the proposed action of the Service and is presented in chapter 6 as the draft comprehensive conservation plan.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
ALTERNATIVE A—CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION)
Alternative A, the no-action alternative, refl ects the current habitat management of the refuge. It provides the baseline against which to compare other alternatives. It is also a requirement of the National Environmental Protection Act that a no-action alternative be addressed in the planning process.
ALTERNATIVE B
Habitat management under alternative B would begin to address reduced forest regeneration by managing the uncontrolled browsing of captive bison, Rocky Mountain elk, and white-tailed deer within the big game forest, which has resulted in reduced habitat for forest interior birds. The environmental education program would be expanded to provide additional opportunities and improve quality, while providing a consistent message of protecting wetland and grassland habitats. Visitor safety and facility security would improve as a result of cooperative agreements with local law enforcement agencies, regular maintenance, and installing fi re and security systems.
ALTERNATIVE C—PROPOSED ACTION
Habitat management under alternative C would address reduced forest regeneration caused by browsing of captive bison, Rocky Mountain elk, and white-tailed deer, as well as deterioration of native prairie as a result of season-long grazing and lack of fi re. The environmental education program would be expanded to include additional on-site and off-site opportunities. Visitor safety and facility security would improve as a result of improved staffi ng, cooperative agreements with local law enforcement agencies, regular maintenance, and installing fi re and security systems.
DECISION TO BE MADE
The environmental assessment describes three alternatives for achieving the above goals. Based on the analysis described in the environmental assessment, a decision will be made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s regional director for region 6 (Mountain-Prairie Region) on which alternative will be selected to manage the refuge for the next 15 years. 1 Introduction
Birders
Scott Ralston/USFWS
This document presents an environmental assessment (EA) that evaluates three management alternatives for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve and potential environmental consequences of those alternatives. Alternative C is the proposed action of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and is presented in chapter 6 as the draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the refuge. This chapter provides an introduction to the CCP process and describes the involvement of the Service, the state of North Dakota, the public, and others, as well as conservation issues and plans that affect Sullys Hill National Game Preserve. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed this draft CCP to provide a foundation for the management and use of Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, which is located in Benson County near the town of Fort Totten, North Dakota (see fi gure 1, vicinity map). When fi nalized, the CCP will serve as a working guide for management programs and actions over the next 15 years.This draft CCP was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System
Planning) of “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described in this draft CCP and EA meet the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Compliance with NEPA is also being achieved through involvement of the public.The fi nal CCP will specify the necessary actions to achieve the vision and purposes of the refuge. Wildlife is the fi rst priority in refuge management, and public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with the refuge’s purposes. The draft CCP and EA have been prepared by a planning team comprised of representatives from various Service programs. In addition, the planning team used public input, public involvement, and the planning process as described in section 1.6, “The Planning Process.”After reviewing a wide range of public comments and management needs, the planning team developed alternatives for managing the refuge. The team recommended alternative C as the Service’s proposed action for management of the refuge. This action addresses all substantive issues, while determining how best to achieve the Map of North Dakota, showing the refuge in central northeastern portion state.
2 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
Chapter 1 — Introduction 3
purposes of the refuge. The proposed action and other alternatives are summarized in chapter 3. Chapter 4 describes the affected environment, and chapter 5 discusses the predicted effects (environmental consequences) of the proposed action and alternatives. Chapter 6 describes how the proposed action would be implemented.
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of this draft CCP is to identify the role that Sullys Hill National Game Preserve will play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) and to provide long-term guidance for management of refuge programs and activities. The CCP is needed:􀁑􅄠 to communicate with the public and other partners in order to carry out the mission of the Refuge System;􀁑􅄠 to provide a clear statement of direction for management of the refuge;􀁑􅄠 to provide neighbors, visitors, and government offi cials with an understanding of the Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;􀁑􅄠 to ensure that the Service’s management actions are consistent with the mandates of the Improvement Act;􀁑􅄠 to ensure that management of the refuge is consistent with federal, state, and county plans; and 􀁑􅄠 to provide a basis for development of budget requests for the refuge’s operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs. Sustaining the nation’s fi sh and wildlife resources is a task that can be accomplished only through the combined efforts of governments, businesses, and private citizens.
1.2 THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND THE REFUGE SYSTEM
The Service is the principal federal agency responsible for fi sh, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Refuge System is one of the Service’s major programs.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is to conserve, protect, and enhance fi sh and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of the American people.Over a century ago, America’s fi sh and wildlife resources were declining at an alarming rate. Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and angling groups joined together to restore and sustain America’s national wildlife heritage. This was the genesis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and restores vital wildlife habitat, protects and recovers endangered species, and helps other governments with conservation efforts. In addition, the Service administers a federal aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars to states for fi sh and wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education, and related programs across America.
SERVICE ACTIVITIES IN NORTH DAKOTA (2005)
Service activities in North Dakota contribute to the state’s economy, ecosystems, and education programs. The following list describes the Service’s presence and activities:􀁑􅄠 employed 201 people in North Dakota􀁑􅄠 assisted by 623 volunteers who donated more than 14,245 hours in support of Service projects􀁑􅄠 managed two national fi sh hatcheries and one fi sh and wildlife management assistance offi ce􀁑􅄠 managed 65 national wildlife refuges encompassing 342,799 acres (0.8 percent of the state)􀁑􅄠 managed 12 wetland management districts (WMDs) including:— 284,317 acres of fee waterfowl production areas (0.6 percent of the state)— 1,046,358 wetland acres under various leases or easements (2.4 percent of the state)􀁑􅄠 hosted more than 394,063 annual visitors to Service-managed lands including:4 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
— 152,160 hunting visits— 2,360 trapping visits — 83,650 fi shing visits— 142,281 wildlife observation visits— environmental education programs for over 51,000 students􀁑􅄠 provided $3.3 million to North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGF) for sport fi sh restoration and $3.4 million for wildlife restoration and hunter education􀁑􅄠 helped private landowners restore more than 191,225 acres on 4,464 sites and restore 47.8 miles of river since 1987, through the Partners for Wildlife Program􀁑􅄠 employed 11 Partners for Wildlife program managers􀁑􅄠 paid North Dakota counties $352,271 under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (funds used for schools and roads)
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the nation’s fi rst wildlife refuge for the protection of brown pelicans and other native, nesting birds. This was the fi rst time the federal government set aside land for wildlife. This small but signifi cant designation was the beginning of the Refuge System. One-hundred years later, the Refuge System has become the largest collection of lands in the world specifi cally managed for wildlife. It encompasses over 96 million acres within 547 refuges and over 3,000 small areas for waterfowl breeding and nesting. Today, there is at least one refuge in every state, including the territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In 1997, the Improvement Act established a clear mission for the Refuge System. The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fi sh, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefi t of present and future generations of Americans.The Improvement Act states that each national wildlife refuge (that is, each unit of the Refuge System, which includes wetland management districts) shall be managed:
􀁑􅄠 to fulfi ll the mission of the Refuge System;􀁑􅄠 to fulfi ll the individual purposes of each refuge and district;􀁑􅄠 to consider the needs of fi sh and wildlife fi rst;􀁑􅄠 to fulfi ll the requirement of developing a CCP for each unit of the Refuge System, and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans;􀁑􅄠 to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;􀁑􅄠 to recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are legitimate and priority public uses; and􀁑􅄠 to retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses.In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, the wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the Refuge System stresses the following principles:􀁑􅄠 Wildlife comes fi rst.��􅄠 Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge and district management.􀁑􅄠 Habitats must be healthy.􀁑􅄠 Growth of refuges and districts must be strategic.􀁑􅄠 The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad participation from others.Following passage of the Improvement Act, the Service immediately began to carry out the direction of the new legislation, including preparation of CCPs for all national wildlife refuges and wetland management districts. Consistent with the Improvement Act, the Service prepares all CCPs in conjunction with public involvement. Each refuge and each district is required to complete its CCP within a 15-year timeframe (by 2012).
PEOPLE AND THE REFUGE SYSTEM
The nation’s fi sh and wildlife heritage contributes to the quality of American lives and is an integral part of the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places have always given people special opportunities to have fun, relax, and appreciate the natural world. Whether through bird watching, fi shing, hunting, photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife Chapter 1 — Introduction 5
recreation contributes millions of dollars to local economies. In 2002, approximately 35.5 million people visited the Refuge System, mostly to observe wildlife in their natural habitats. Visitors are most often accommodated through nature trails, auto tours, interpretive programs, and hunting and fi shing opportunities. Signifi cant economic benefi ts are generated for the local communities that surround refuges and wetland management districts. Economists report that Refuge System visitors contribute more than $792 million annually to local economies.
1.3 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL MANDATES
Refuge System units are managed to achieve the mission and goals of the Refuge System, along with the designated purpose of the refuges and districts (as described in establishing legislation, executive orders, or other establishing documents). Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge System are in the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act), Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” and the Improvement Act. The Improvement Act amends the Administration Act by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge System, a new process for determining compatible public uses on refuges and districts, and a requirement that each refuge and district be managed under a CCP. The Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority of Refuge System lands and that the Secretary of the Interior will ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge and district must be managed to fulfi ll the Refuge System’s mission and the specifi c purposes for which it was established. The Improvement Act requires the Service to monitor the status and trends of fi sh, wildlife, and plants in each refuge and district. A detailed description of these and other laws and executive orders that may affect the CCP or the Service’s implementation of the CCP is in appendix A. Service policies on planning and day-to-day management of refuges and districts are in the “Refuge System Manual” and “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.”
1.4 REFUGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PLANS
Sullys Hill National Game Preserve contributes to the conservation efforts described here.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE
A 1999 report, “Fulfi lling the Promise, The National Wildlife Refuge System” (USFWS 1999), is the culmination of a yearlong process by teams of Service employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. This report was the focus of the fi rst national Refuge System conference in 1998—attended by refuge managers, other Service employees, and representatives from leading conservation organizations. The report contains 42 recommendations packaged with three vision statements dealing with wildlife and habitat, people, and leadership—this CCP deals with these three major topics. The planning team reviewed the recommendations in the report for guidance during CCP planning.
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT
The “Partners in Flight” program began in 1990 with the recognition of declining population levels of many migratory bird species. The challenge, according to the program, is managing human population growth while maintaining functional natural ecosystems. To meet this challenge, Partners in Flight worked to identify priority land bird species and habitat types. Partners in Flight activities have resulted in the development of 52 bird conservation plans covering the continental United States.The primary goal of Partners in Flight is to provide for the long-term health of the bird life of this continent. The fi rst priority is to prevent the rarest species from becoming extinct. The second priority is to prevent uncommon species from descending into threatened status. The third priority is to “keep common birds common.” There are 58 physiographic areas, defi ned by similar physical geographic features, wholly or partially contained within the contiguous United States, and several others wholly or partially contained in Alaska. The Sullys Hill National Game Preserve lies within the physiographic area known as the northern mixed-grass prairie, area 37 (see fi gure 2, physiographic areas).
PHYSIOGRAPHIC AREA DESCRIPTION
The northern mixed-grass prairie physiographic area includes almost the entire eastern half of South Dakota and central North Dakota, from the Red River Valley on the east, to the Missouri River and Montana border on the south and west. In Canada, it includes a small portion of southern 6 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
Manitoba and a swath that crosses Saskatchewan and extends into Alberta. The southern edge of this physiographic area is the terminus of a glacial moraine parallel to the course of the nearby Missouri River. To the north, prairie gives way to aspen parkland. Precipitation declines and evaporation rates increase from east to west across the northern mixed-grass prairie, resulting in differences in the height of dominant grasses. To the east, the mixed grass begins as topography rises out of the tall-grass prairie of the Red River Valley. Grass height gradually decreases toward the western boundary of this physiographic area. Because of the glacial history of the northern mixed-grass prairie and the relationship between precipitation and evapotranspiration, the area is dotted with thousands of depressions that range from permanently- to periodically-wet. This area is known as the Prairie Pothole Region. Priority bird species and habitats of the northern mixed-grass prairie include the following:GrasslandBaird’s sparrowgreater prairie-chickenMcCown’s longspurSprague’s pipitLe Conte’s sparrow
Wetlandyellow railNelson’s sharp-tailed sparrowmarbled godwitRiparian WoodlandBell’s vireoRiver Sandbarspiping ploverwaterfowlshorebirdsMaintenance of large, unfragmented grassland ecosystems is the conservation objective for areas where agriculture is not dominant. On the drift prairie and other agricultural areas, conservation of discrete blocks of grassland-wetland complexes is recommended.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN
Written in 1986, the “North American Waterfowl Management Plan” (NAWMP) envisioned a 15-year effort to achieve landscape conditions that could sustain waterfowl populations. Specifi c NAWMP objectives are to increase and restore duck populations to the average levels of the 1970s—62 million breeding ducks and a fall fl ight of 100 million birds.
Map of the United States showing boundaries physiographic areas.Map of the United States showing boundaries physiographic areas.Map of the United States showing boundaries physiographic areas. Map of the United States showing boundaries physiographic areas.Chapter 1 — Introduction 7
By 1985 waterfowl populations had plummeted to record lows. Habitat that waterfowl depend on was disappearing at a rate of 60 acres per hour. Recognizing the importance of waterfowl and wetlands to North Americans and the need for international cooperation to help in the recovery of a shared resource, the United States and Canadian governments developed a strategy to restore waterfowl populations through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. Mexico became a signatory to the plan in 1994. The plan is innovative because of its international scope, plus its implementation at the regional level. Its success depends on the strength of partnerships called “joint ventures,” involving federal, state, provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; conservation organizations; and individual citizens. Joint ventures are regional, self-directed partnerships that carry out science-based conservation projects through a wide array of community participation efforts. Joint ventures develop implementation plans focusing on areas of concern identifi ed in the plan. Sullys Hill National Game Preserve is part of the “Prairie Pothole Joint Venture.”
STATE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION WILDLIFE STRATEGY
Over the past several decades, documented declines of wildlife populations have occurred nationwide. Congress created the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) program in 2001. This program provides states and territories with federal dollars to support conservation aimed at protecting wildlife and preventing species from becoming endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The SWG program represents an ambitious endeavor to take an active hand in keeping species from becoming threatened or endangered in the future. According to the SWG program, each state, territory, and the District of Columbia were required to complete a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (CWCS) by October 1, 2005, in order to receive future funding. These strategies help defi ne an integrated approach to the stewardship of all wildlife species, with additional emphasis on species of concern and habitats at risk. The goal is to shift focus from single-species management and highly specialized individual efforts to a geographically based, ecosystems and landscape-oriented, fi sh and wildlife conservation effort. The Service approves CWCSs and administers SWG program funding.
The CWCS for the state of North Dakota was reviewed and information was used during development of this CCP. Implementation of CCP habitat goals and objectives will support the goals and objectives of the CWCS.
1.5 ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND THREATS
MISSOURI MAIN STEM RIVER ECOSYSTEM
Sullys Hill National Game Preserve is located within the Hudson Bay watershed, which is part of the federally recognized “Missouri Main Stem River Ecosystem” (see fi gure 3, ecosystem map). This ecosystem includes portions of the Missouri River and Hudson Bay watersheds. An initial ecosystem management plan identifi ed four focus areas needing the highest priority for protection and evaluation: wetlands, Missouri River, native prairie, and riparian areas. Priorities were based on signifi cance in the ecosystem, species diversity, risk or threat to the entire focus area, public benefi ts, international values, and trust resources. Although a detailed analysis of habitats, threats, and priorities for this ecosystem has not been completed, a vision and set of goals and objectives have been developed for each focus area, as described in the following narrative.WetlandsThreats: The glaciated prairies on North Dakota, South Dakota, and northeastern Montana cover approximately 60 million acres. Once an abundance of prairie pothole wetlands in a sea of native prairie, the area is now the “breadbasket” of the country and intensively farmed. Drainage for agricultural purposes has reduced wetlands by over 40%—from 7.2 million acres to 3.9 million acres. Vision: Diverse, wetland habitats and watersheds that provide an abundance and diversity of native fl ora and fauna in the ecosystem for the benefi t of the American public.Missouri RiverThreats: Originating in the Rocky Mountains of southcentral Montana, the Missouri River is vastly different from the “untamed” fl oodplain system of even 50 years ago. The river fl ows 2,300 miles—traversing seven states and passing through seven main stem dams built and maintained by the federal government. Over 900 miles (nearly 60%) of the former upper river passing through Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska now lie under permanent 8 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
Map of ecosystems in the eight states Mountain-Prairie Region, locating refuge within Mississippi Headwaters/Tall-grass ecosystem.Chapter 1 — Introduction 9
multipurpose reservoirs. As the Missouri River changed, so did the wildlife communities that depend on it. Currently, 8 species of fi sh, 15 species of birds, 6 species of mammals, 4 species of reptiles, 6 species of insects, 4 species of mollusks, and 7 species of plants native to the ecosystem are listed as either threatened or endangered, or are under status review for possible listing.Vision: A healthy Missouri River capable of self-sustaining fi sh and wildlife resources.Native PrairieThreats: Native prairie in the Missouri Main Stem River Ecosystem consists of tall-grass, mid-grass, and short-grass prairies. Although the plant and wildlife species differ across the gradation from tall- to short-grass prairie, the threats and issues remain the same—conversion of prairie for other uses. The western river area of North Dakota has lost approximately 60% of the original 34 million acres of native prairie due to conversion to agricultural use.Vision: Protect, restore, and maintain ecosystem native prairie and other grasslands ecosystems to ensure diversity and an abundance of native fl ora and fauna.Riparian AreasThreats: Riparian areas make up a small portion of the habitat in the Hudson Bay (Missouri Main Stem River) ecosystem. However, riparian and riverine wetland habitats are more important than other focus areas to fi sh and wildlife resources—migratory birds, threatened and
endangered species, native fi sh, rare and declining fi sheries, amphibians, and many mammals. Riparian habitats provide for much of the biodiversity in the ecosystem. Many of the species occurring in the ecosystem would be eliminated without healthy riparian areas. Sedimentation, contamination, invasive species, and development threaten the health of this diverse habitat.Vision: Healthy riparian and fl oodplain ecosystems that provide an abundance and diversity of indigenous fl ora and fauna.Refuge RelationshipNative plant species found in the refuge’s mixed-grass prairie habitat is declining due to extensive infestation of invasive plants.
1.6 PLANNING PROCESS
This draft CCP and EA for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve are intended to comply with the Improvement Act, NEPA, and the implementing regulations of both acts. The Service issued its Refuge System planning policy in 2000, which established requirements and guidance for refuge and district plans—including CCPs and step-down management plans—to ensure that planning efforts comply with the Improvement Act. The planning policy identifi ed several steps of the CCP and environmental analysis process (see fi gure 4, steps in the planning process).Table 1 lists the specifi c steps in the planning process to date for the preparation of this draft CCP and EA.
Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process. Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.Graphic showing the 8 steps in planning process.10 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
Table 1. Planning process summary and timeline for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve.
DateEventOutcome
June 23, 2005January 26, 2006January 26, 2006May 1, 2006May 23, 2006June 8, 2006June 15, 2006June 17, 2006June 29, 2006August 1, 2006August 1, 2006August 23, 2006August 29, 2006August 30–31, 2006
Forest management review.Kickoff meeting.Kickoff meeting.Vision statement developed.NOI published.Planning update mailed.Focus group meeting (woodland birds).Sullys Hill National Game Preserve Annual Birding Festival. Public meeting, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve visitor center.Public scoping ends.Focus group meeting (disease control/grazing).Focus group meeting(disease control).Meeting with Spirit Lake Nation tribal council.Vision and goals workshop.
Forest management program review with the ND Forest Service, NRCS, and Service staff.CCP overview developed; planning team list fi nalized; purposes identifi ed; initial issues and qualities list developed; development of mailing list initiated.Issues and qualities list updated; biological and mapping needs identifi ed; public scoping planned.Worked with team members, including the NDGF, to develop fi rst draft of vision statement for CCP.NOI published in Federal Register initiating public scoping.First planning update sent to mailing list describing planning process and announcing upcoming public scoping meeting.Discussed woodland bird habitat needs and impacts of grazing by bison (Service nongame biologists).Presentations and displays reach over 1,200 attendees at the annual birding festival.Public opportunity offered to learn about the CCP and provide comments.All public scoping comments were due. Comments were compiled for consideration by planning team.Discussed ungulate grazing and disease control (Service, NRCS, and UND researchers).Discussed fenced animal disease issues with North Dakota Board of Animal Health.Presented CCP process and potential partnership proposals to Spirit Lake Nation tribal council members and chairwoman. Fine-tuned initial vision statement and developed goals to support it.Chapter 1 — Introduction 11
Table 1. Planning process summary and timeline for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve.
DateEventOutcome
September 20, 2006September 21–22, 2006January 17–18, 2007February 2007–June 2007March 18–April 2, 2008
Focus group meeting(visitor services).Alternatives workshop.Objectives and strategies workshop.Prepare draft plan.Internal review.
Visitor Services Program experts from the USFWS and tribal members reviewed the current refuge program.Alternatives table developed.Finalized alternatives table and began writing objectives/strategies for the proposed action.Planning team prepared draft CCP/draft EA.Draft CCP reviewed by other Service divisions along with interested state and tribal agencies.
A notice of intent (NOI) to prepare the draft CCP and EA was published in the “Federal Register” on May 23, 2006; this date also initiated the public scoping process. Scoping was announced to the public through news releases, and a public scoping meeting was held on June 29, 2006. The public scoping period was closed August 1, 2006.
At this same time, the fi rst planning update was distributed. Over the course of pre-planning and public scoping, the planning team collected available information about the resources of the refuge and the surrounding areas. Chapter 4 summarizes this information.
Visitors enjoying one of several presentations given at the annual Birding and Nature Festival.
Scott Ralston/USFWS12 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
COORDINATION WITH THE PUBLIC
A mailing list was prepared during the preplanning phase. The list includes more than 320 names of private citizens; local, regional, and state government representatives and legislators; other federal agencies; and interested organizations, A summary of the nongovernmental, state, and federal organizations who participated in public involvement is in appendix C.The fi rst planning update issue was sent to everyone on the mailing list in June 2006. Information was provided on the history of the refuge and the CCP process, along with an invitation to the public scoping meeting. Each planning update included a comment form and postage-paid envelope to give the public an opportunity to provide written comments. Comments via email were also accepted at the refuge’s email address.Presentations about the CCP process were made during all public activities including the refuge annual birding festival, attended by over 1,200 individuals. The public scoping meeting was held on June 29, 2006 at the refuge visitor center. There were 10 attendees including local citizens, local teachers, and members of the Spirit Lake Nation. After a presentation about the refuge and an overview of the CCP and NEPA process, attendees met with presenters to ask questions and offer comments. Each attendee was given a written comment form to submit additional thoughts or questions. All written comments were due August 1, 2006. A total of 183 written comments were received throughout the scoping process. All comments were reviewed by the planning team and considered throughout the planning process.
STATE COORDINATION
The Service’s region 6 director sent an invitation letter in April 2006 to the director of NDGF requesting the department’s participation in the CCP process. Several representatives from the NDGF have participated in the planning process. Local NDGF wildlife managers and the refuge staff maintain excellent, ongoing working relations that preceded the start of the CCP process.The NDGF’s mission is to “protect, conserve, and enhance fi sh and wildlife populations and their habitats for sustained public consumptive and nonconsumptive uses.” The NDGF is responsible for managing natural resource lands
owned by the state, in addition to enforcement responsibilities for the state’s migratory birds and endangered species. The state manages over 78,000 acres in support of wildlife, recreation, and fi sheries.
TRIBAL COORDINATION
The Spirit Lake Tribal Council was sent a written invitation in April 2006 to participate in the CCP planning process. The Spirit Lake Nation Reservation surrounds the refuge boundary on three sides. Although no initial response was received, tribal members did attend the public scoping meeting. At that time another meeting was proposed for the tribal council meeting in August. On August 28, 2006, the tribal chairwoman and 11 other members of the tribe, including 3 council members and tribal planning staff, met with refuge staff and the planning team leader at the Sullys Hill National Game Preserve Education and Visitor Center (visitor center). A presentation on the CCP process and a separate presentation outlining common goals and interests between the refuge and the tribe were presented. The tribe also attended the visitor services workshop held the following month. Their insights were valuable and all comments were considered during development of alternatives. In particular, the refuge staff recognized several opportunities to further incorporate the tribe’s history and culture into future visitor services programs.
RESULTS OF SCOPING
Table 1 and appendix C summarize all scoping activities. Comments collected from scoping meetings and correspondence, including comment forms, were used in the development of a fi nal list of issues to be addressed in this draft CCP and EA. The Service determined which alternatives could best address the issues. The planning process ensured that issues with the greatest potential effect on the refuge would be resolved or given priority over the life of the fi nal CCP. These issues are summarized in chapter 2. In addition, the Service considered suggested changes to current refuge management presented by the public and other groups.View of lower forest surrounding Sweetwater Lake.
Scott Ralston/USFWS
This chapter discusses the history, purpose, and special values of Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, the proposed vision and goals, and planning issues.
2.1 ESTABLISHMENT, ACQUISITION, AND MANAGEMENT HISTORY
The establishment of Sullys Hill National Game Preserve was fi rst addressed in April 27, 1904, by the Fifty-Eighth Congress of the United States. The Senate and House of Representatives enacted bill H.R.11128, known as Public Law No. 179, which authorized President Theodore Roosevelt to reserve a tract of land embracing Sullys Hill as a public park. It stated that a portion of unallotted lands within the Devils Lake Indian Reservation, including the unallotted tract of land known as the Fort Totten Military Reservation, would be set aside for this purpose. Much of the remaining unallotted lands would be disposed under the general provisions of the homestead and town site laws of the United States and opened to settlement by proclamation of the President. The fi nal Proclamation, No. 32, was signed on June 2, 1904, by President Roosevelt, offi cially establishing Sullys Hill Park as part of the National Park Service system. Ten years later, on June 30, 1914, appropriations were made for the creation of a big-game preserve within the park.
On December 22, 1921, President Warren Harding, by Executive Order 3596, ordered that all lands within the boundaries of Sullys Hill National Park Game Preserve be reserved and set apart as a refuge and breeding grounds for birds. In the Act of March 3, 1931, President Herbert Hoover transferred the preserve from the National Park Service to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and renamed it Sullys Hill National Game Preserve. This transfer became law by the Seventy-First Congress where it was stated that the refuge should be administered “as a big game preserve, refuge and breeding grounds for wild animals and birds.” Sullys Hill National Game Preserve is administered as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
MANAGEMENT HISTORY
Sullys Hill National Game Preserve has a rich history of management, primarily centered on the purposes of migratory birds, big game, and public use. Refuge management history indicates that regular timber management occurred throughout the woodlands by cutting and coppice regeneration (growth of new shoots from stumps). Defoliation of grasslands primarily occurred because of grazing and haying activities
2 The Refuge14 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
associated with the management of the herds of bison, elk, and deer. Extensive visitor use continues to be a major component of the refuge.Historical records show that through 1943, the refuge utilized the services of Works Project Administration personnel, a depression-era program that was used for many public projects. A shortage of material and human resources caused by World War II (1939–1945) made refuge management very diffi cult. Historical data from the manager’s log indicates that staff did not have time to serve the public so they did their “work” during the daytime shift and then worked off-the-clock in the evenings to service visitors and maintain the facilities. Much of the historical visitation to the refuge was for wildlife viewing and social gatherings. Visitation during this broader public or “park” use was up to 90,000 visitors annually. Current management of the refuge refl ects its original purposes, and specifi cally supports the National Refuge System’s vision of putting wildlife fi rst. As an example, managing habitat for migratory birds is a major focus in managing the forest and prairie areas. Bison management has recently evolved to center upon Service-wide metapopulation management, focusing on the genetic conservation of this species. Public use is based on wildlife-dependent interpretative activities and education programs. The goal has been to use the refuge as a regional conservation learning center, keeping the refuge habitats and associated wildlife at the core. Approximately 5,000 students are taught each year in the indoor and outdoor classrooms, and there are 60,000 visitors annually.
2.2 SPECIAL VALUES OF THE REFUGE
Qualities are defi ned as the characteristics and features that make the areas special and worthy of refuge status. The planning team and the public identifi ed the following outstanding qualities of Sullys Hill National Game Preserve: 􀁑􅄠 The refuge contains shallow wetland, deep lake, woodland, and grassland habitats, and together they provide for a wide variety of migratory birds, unique small mammals and furbearers, and large ungulates, such as bison and elk.􀁑􅄠 The refuge protects an important piece of native woodland, a habitat type found only in 2% of North Dakota. This woodland likely includes the most western range of American basswood.
􀁑􅄠 The refuge attracts a diversity of woodland bird species, such as warblers, that are absent from the surrounding grassland ecosystem. 􀁑􅄠 Several unique plant species thrive on the undisturbed hills across the refuge, including ball cactus, downy paintbrush, Indian pipe, and marsh marigold.􀁑􅄠 The woodlands of Sullys Hill National Game Preserve provide a signifi cant acreage to support over 250 species of nesting and staging migratory birds unique to North Dakota.􀁑􅄠 Sullys Hill National Game Preserve is one of only 19 designated natural areas in North Dakota of which only 4 are national wildlife refuges.􀁑􅄠 Interactions with both fl ora and fauna are available to refuge visitors.􀁑􅄠 The Service has a tremendous opportunity to educate the visiting public at the station’s education and visitor center about the value of wetlands and grasslands, and about the refuges and wetland management districts in North Dakota and throughout the nation. There is no other place in this region of the country where the Service has this type of facility to accomplish this mission of outreach and environmental education.􀁑􅄠 The education and visitor center has numerous outreach displays, tools, and techniques available to Service personnel, teachers, and other educators to conduct both student and adult environmental education and interpretation. 􀁑􅄠 The refuge is a great education and learning destination for both indoor and outdoor environmental education with a focus on the sciences, biodiversity, and human dimensions in the natural environment.􀁑􅄠 Special events educate visitors from the surrounding areas and the nation on the values of the Refuge System for the purpose of garnering support for the Service’s mission.􀁑􅄠 The refuge is the Service’s link to the local community. The outreach conducted through the refuge is instrumental in educating the public and garnering support for the work carried out by the Devils Lake WMD Complex, especially for the protection of wetlands and grasslands. 􀁑􅄠 The “friends group” at Sullys Hill National Game Preserve was the fi rst formed in North Dakota and has been an active supporter of both the refuge and the Chapter 2 — The Refuge 15
conservation activities conducted by the staff at Devils Lake WMD Complex.􀁑􅄠 The refuge has several archaeological sites that refl ect thousands of years of human occupation and use.
2.3 PURPOSES FOR THE REFUGE
Every refuge has a purpose for which it was established. This purpose is the foundation upon which to build all refuge programs, from biology and public use, to maintenance and facilities. No action that the Service or public takes may confl ict with this purpose. The refuge purposes are found in legislative acts or administrative orders, which provide the authorities to transfer or acquire a piece of land for a refuge. Over time, an individual refuge may contain lands that have been acquired under a variety of transfer and acquisition authorities, giving a refuge more than one purpose. The goals, objectives, and strategies identifi ed in the draft CCP are intended to support the individual purposes for which the refuge was established. The purposes for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve are described in the following legislation and public land orders:􀁑􅄠 “All the lands that are now reserved or may hereafter be included within the boundaries of the . . . Sullys Hill National Park Game Preserve . . . are hereby further reserved and set apart for the use . . . as refuges and breeding grounds for birds.” (Executive Order 3596, December 21, 1921)􀁑􅄠 “As a big game preserve, refuge, and breeding grounds for wild animals and birds . . . provided, that the said game preserve is to be made available to the public for recreational purposes in so far as consistent with the use of this area as a game preserve
. . . provided further, that hunting shall not be permitted on said game preserve.” (46 Stat. 1509, Act of March 3, 1931)
2.4 VISION
A vision is a concept and includes the desired conditions for the future that the Service is trying to accomplish at the refuge. The vision for a refuge is a future-oriented statement designed to be achieved through refuge management throughout the life of a CCP and beyond. This is the draft vision statement developed by the planning team for the Sullys Hill National Game Preserve.Overlooking North Dakota’s largest natural lake and riding the tops of a glacial thrust block formation, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve is dressed in undulating native woodlands and prairie. Teddy Roosevelt’s vision and broad community support are largely responsible for the successful conservation of these habitats ensuring the preservation of the refuge’s plains bison and Rocky Mountain elk while supporting migrating waves of warblers and other native bird species. Sullys Hill National Game Preserve is renowned as a regional conservation learning center––greeting families, students, and outdoor enthusiasts of all abilities. Children are able to learn about their natural world using all their senses which fosters their own environmental ethics. Each visitor’s experience not only enriches their personal lives, but instills a unique understanding and appreciation for preserving native prairie and wetland habitats, the natural resources of the Devils Lake Basin, and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System to preserve America’s wildlife heritage.
Dragonfl y on Lead Plant.
Scott Ralston/USFWS
2.5 GOALS
The Service developed a set of goals for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve based on the Improvement Act, the refuge’s purposes, and information developed during CCP planning. The goals achieve the vision and purposes of the refuge and outline approaches for managing refuge resources. The Service established 6 goals for the refuge.16 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
PRAIRIE HABITAT
Maintain prairie plant communities representative of the historical mixed-grass prairie to support healthy populations of grassland-dependent migratory birds in balance with bison, elk, and other indigenous wildlife.
WOODLAND HABITAT
Manage for healthy native woodlands of various age classes and structure to provide habitat for migratory birds, in balance with bison, elk, and other indigenous wildlife.
WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Carry out management practices that ensure healthy populations of Rocky Mountain elk, plains bison, and other indigenous wildlife species that exemplify the genetic integrity of historical prairie wildlife.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
Deliver quality interactive environmental education programming to regional schools, communities, organizations, and local governments to garner support and appreciation for the refuge, North Dakota’s wetland and grassland resources, and the conservation role of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
VISITOR SERVICES AND INTERPRETATION
Provide captivating visitor services facilities and activities for visitors of all abilities, community groups, youth groups, and the members of Spirit Lake Nation that result in a greater understanding and support for the preservation of native habitats and landscapes of North Dakota’s Prairie Pothole Region and the mission of the Refuge System.
PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE
Provide for the safety of staff, volunteers, and the visiting public while ensuring the protection and maintenance of refuge facilities, lands, and cultural resources.
2.6 PLANNING ISSUES
Although Sullys Hill National Game Preserve is well established, celebrating its 100th birthday on June 4, 2004, it is not without challenges or management issues that need to be addressed. These challenges include areas such as
staffi ng, funding, visitor use and opportunities, accessibility, fl ooding, refuge support, biology, disease, and overall habitat and wildlife management. The following summarizes these issues and some of their effects:
STAFFING ISSUES
􀁑􅄠 Serving as a conservation learning center is an important designation and direction for this refuge. Inadequate staff for conservation education has created a roadblock to the refuge reaching its full potential. Numerous opportunities have been lost to instill a greater understanding and appreciation for the important conservation role of the Refuge System here in the Devils Lake Basin and abroad. 􀁑􅄠 The refuge struggles to remain open in the winter season due to lack of staff to keep roads clear.􀁑􅄠 This refuge has historically had only one full-time person dedicated to its management. The refuge hosts over 60,000 students and guests annually. Providing a safe and educational experience for these visitors is very important but leaves little time for wildlife and habitat management. The minimal staffi ng also prevents the expansion of programs into the surrounding schools and communities.􀁑􅄠 Wildlife management needs at the refuge include herd management, disease prevention, genetics, population dynamics, and trust species needs. 􀁑􅄠 Given the small staff-size and budget, numerous habitat needs have not been addressed, including promoting forest regeneration, determining native prairie carrying capacities, plant inventories, habitat health, invasive species, and disease management. 􀁑􅄠 There is no administrative staff located at the refuge.􀁑􅄠 Even though the refuge hosts 60,000 visitors annually, there is minimal law enforcement presence. There has been some vandalism, including fi res set on refuge lands.
VISITOR SERVICES PROGRAMS ISSUES
􀁑􅄠 The refuge is part of the Devils Lake WMD Complex, responsible for protecting and restoring grassland and wetland habitats in the Devils Lake Basin. There has been some confusion and mistrust as to the role of the Service in protecting these Chapter 2 — The Refuge 17
dwindling habitats. The refuge could serve as a resource to the community to provide a clearer understanding of the importance of protecting these resources, as well as acquiring rights from willing landowners. 􀁑􅄠 Improved communication is needed with the members of Spirit Lake Nation, along with assistance in development of education curriculum, technical assistance, fi re training opportunities, cultural and religious needs, and overall marketing and outreach of our joint landscapes and resources. 􀁑􅄠 There is potential to signifi cantly increase the number of students educated, but the current staff of 1 person limits the ability to reach these additional students. 􀁑􅄠 Approximately 20 different schools visit the refuge annually to participate in environmental education programs. The success of this program has relied on initiative from the schools due to lack of Service staff to facilitate visits, conduct programs, and conduct outreach to surrounding schools. This has resulted in a less structured program which does not provide a consistent message of wetland and grassland protection, and there have been missed opportunities to ensure students are aware of the Refuge System. There is much more potential to actively pursue partnerships with other schools within North Dakota if there were resources and a dedicated staff member. 􀁑􅄠 Because of the fl ooding that has occurred throughout the last 10–15 years, there have been many impacts to the accessible trails, hiking trails, amphitheater, outdoor classroom clearings, and remote classrooms. There is also a need for additional accessible trails.􀁑􅄠 The Sullys Hill education and visitor center building has been completed, but the interpretive displays have not been addressed. 􀁑􅄠 Curriculum needs to complement the state and local schools’ standards and education goals. Nature education could be used to improve math and science scores, while generating an overall understanding and support for the conservation role of the Refuge System.􀁑􅄠 Part of the refuge’s auto tour route needs to be resurfaced.􀁑���� The possibility of using funds from the sale of refuge elk for developing education and visitor services programs should be explored.
􀁑􅄠 The refuge staff and Spirit Lake Nation members should discuss how to complement and support each other’s roles and activities and develop partnerships when possible. 􀁑􅄠 The auto tour route goes through the big game unit where bison and elk roam freely. Although there are signs warning visitors not to approach wildlife, there is always concern for the safety of both visitors and wildlife.
WILDLIFE AND HABITAT ISSUES
􀁑􅄠 There needs to be a better understanding of the carrying capacity of the area to support the populations of bison, elk, and white-tailed deer to ensure that forest and prairie management can improve migratory bird production.􀁑􅄠 There is no complete plant inventory at the refuge. 􀁑􅄠 Invasive species such as brome, bluegrass, and other noxious weeds need to be reduced and native species restored. 􀁑􅄠 There needs to be a feral dog and prairie dog management plan.􀁑􅄠 Habitat management plans need to be developed and implemented.􀁑􅄠 There is a lack of forest regeneration as a result of grazing ungulates. 􀁑􅄠 Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) continues to be a disease issue among cervids. This and other disease issues such as brainworm, lungworm, and parasites all need to be part of an overall management plan.􀁑􅄠 There is a need for cross fencing, enclosures, and water development for better herd distribution and forest regeneration. Currently, the refuge land receives year-round grazing. 􀁑􅄠 The refuge should be part of the Service’s program to maintain genetically-pure bison in the nation. The Service needs to defi ne the refuge’s role and then a plan needs to be developed to ensure the success of this program. 􀁑􅄠 A review needs to be completed on winter feeding operations and its effi cacy to determine if it can be eliminated, reduced, or better managed.
PROTECTION AND FACILITIESMAINTENANCE ISSUES
􀁑􅄠 There are known occurrences of drug and alcohol use and vandalism on the refuge. The potential poses a danger to the visiting 18 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
public and facilities. Without consistent patrols, the refuge will continue to serve as a place for unlawful activities, putting wildlife, staff, and visitors at risk. 􀁑􅄠 Recreation fee compliance is based on a voluntary honor system with an estimated compliance rate of 40%, resulting in a loss of revenue for refuge programs. 􀁑􅄠 There is no on-site maintenance staff. Refuge facilities are maintained on an “as needed” basis if staff is available. 􀁑􅄠 There is no comprehensive survey of historical and cultural resources on the
refuge, only sporadic documentation as sites are discovered.􀁑􅄠 Due to minimal law enforcement resources, big game animals are vulnerable to illegal activities such as poaching and harassment.Challenges abound in the refuge, and these issues will be dynamic over the years and will have to be reviewed, changed, and added to as management actions are put into place, and as environmental and social issues interact with refuge purposes and plans.
Line drawing of bison cow and calf.3 Alternatives
Blooming purple conefl ower on native prairie unit.
Cami Dixon/USFWS
This chapter describes the management alternatives being considered for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve. Alternatives are different approaches to planning that are designed to achieve the refuge’s purposes, vision and goals, the mission of the Refuge System, and the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Alternatives are developed to address the substantive issues, concerns, and problems identifi ed by the Service, the public, and government partners during public scoping, and throughout the development of the draft plan. These alternatives represent different approaches for permanent protection and restoration of fi sh, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources. The planning team assessed the planning issues identifi ed in chapter 2, the existing biological conditions, and external relationships affecting the refuge. This information contributed to the development of the alternatives. All of the alternatives incorporate concepts and approaches intended to achieve the goals outlined in chapter 2 and are discussed in terms of how they would meet each goal. Each alternative was evaluated according to how it would advance the vision and goals of the refuge and the Refuge System, and how it would address the planning issues. Alternative A, the
no-action alternative, describes ongoing refuge management activities. Although the no-action alternative might not meet all of the CCP goals, it is provided as a basis for comparison with the other alternatives.
3.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
A public meeting was held at the refuge visitor center in Fort Totten, North Dakota, on June 29, 2006. In addition, a newsletter and comment form were mailed out. When the scoping period ended on August 1, 2006, the planning team had received over 183 written comments. The comments identifi ed biological, social, and economic concerns regarding refuge management.
3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY
After extensive analysis and discussion, the Service did not consider any alternatives other than the three that are fully developed in this chapter.20 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
3.3 ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
There are several common elements among all the alternatives being considered. For example, all alternatives, including the no-action alternative, would emphasize the same priority species or protect endangered species. This section identifi es key elements included in the CCP among all alternatives considered. Each alternative would incorporate the following:􀁑􅄠 The Service would ensure that refuge management activities comply with all other federal laws and regulations that provide direction for managing units of the Refuge System.􀁑􅄠 Each alternative would attempt to eradicate invasive species through an integrated pest management (IPM) approach including biological, chemical, and mechanical treatment methods.􀁑􅄠 No adjacent landowners would be adversely impacted by any action taken by the Service without a mutual agreement and adequate compensation.All three alternatives include cultural resource evaluations in response to activities that constitute an undertaking under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). There would be compliance with NHPA and other pertinent cultural resource laws and, when possible, resources that are eligible to the National Register of Historic Places would be protected.
3.4 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION (CURRENT MANAGEMENT)
Alternative A, the no-action alternative, refl ects the current habitat management of the refuge. It provides the baseline against which to compare the other alternatives. It is also fulfi lls the requirement in the National Environmental Policy Act that a no-action alternative be addressed in the analysis process.Key elements of alternative A include the following:􀁑􅄠 Ungulates would be maintained at historical levels (25–35 bison, 20–30 elk and 30–50 white-tailed deer). This is a deviation from the existing “Fenced Animal Management Plan” (Veilkly 1984). Season-long grazing with infrequent prescribed fi re would
continue, limiting forest regeneration and resulting in continued decline of native prairie. Available habitat for forest-interior breeding birds would be limited.􀁑􅄠 Herd health history would continue to be collected and shared with applicable state and federal agencies. The environmental education and interpretation program would continue to take requests from a variety of organizations, schools (within a 90-mile radius), state, and other federal agencies wanting to participate in various teacher or Service staff-led on-site conservation programs. Visitor use would be limited to the seasonal auto tour route, nature trails, and education and visitor center depending on staff and volunteer availability.􀁑􅄠 There would continue to be minimal law enforcement presence except during scheduled public use programs. Recreation fee compliance would continue to be based on a voluntary honor system, and the compliance rate would remain an estimated 40%. There would be no on-site maintenance staff and refuge facilities would be maintained on an “as needed” basis as staff is available. The effect on cultural resources would be evaluated in response to activities that constitute an undertaking under Section 106 of NHPA. There would be compliance with NHPA and other pertinent cultural resource laws and, when possible, resources that are eligible to the National Register of Historic Places would be protected.􀁑􅄠 Only one GS-11 Park Ranger would be assigned to manage the refuge.
ALTERNATIVE B
Habitat management under alternative B would begin to address reduced forest regeneration, which has resulted in reduced quality of habitat for forest-interior birds, by managing the uncontrolled browsing of bison, elk, and white-tailed deer within the big game forest. The environmental education program would be expanded to provide additional opportunities and improve quality, while providing a consistent message of protecting wetland and grassland habitats. Visitor safety and facility security would improve as a result of additional staffi ng, cooperative agreements with local law enforcement agencies, regular maintenance, and installed fi re and security systems.Key elements of alternative B include the following:Chapter 3 — Alternatives 21
􀁑􅄠 Maintain ungulates as per the “Fenced Animal Management Plan” (25–40 bison; 15–25 elk; 10–30 white-tailed deer) and establish 80 acres of woodland restoration units using various management tools including exclusion fences and chemical, biological, and mechanical techniques (such as tillage and prescribed fi re) for the benefi t of forest-interior breeding birds.􀁑􅄠 Visitors would be provided seasonal opportunities to view wildlife and learn about the refuge. All on-site educational programs (for up to 6,000 students) and special events would be developed and delivered ensuring they garner support and appreciation for the refuge, North Dakota’s wetland and grassland resources, and the conservation role of the Refuge System. An interactive habitat diorama display would be constructed in the education and visitor center to demonstrate the inter-relationship of North Dakota’s grasslands, wetlands, agricultural lands, and forest.􀁑􅄠 There would be an increased law enforcement presence, particularly during peak visitor-use days. Background checks on volunteers would be initiated to ensure the safety of students, staff, and visitors. A recreation fee collection booth would be constructed and randomly staffed, and routine patrols and fee compliance monitoring would be initiated due to the increased availability of law enforcement. There would be compliance with NHPA and other pertinent cultural resource laws and National Register eligible properties would be protected when possible. In addition, a sensitivity model indicating areas with a high potential for cultural resources would be established and those areas would be surveyed.􀁑􅄠 One GS-9 environmental education specialist, a GS-9 park ranger (a full time offi cer position shared with Devils Lake WMD Complex), and a career seasonal WG-6 maintenance worker would be recruited.
ALTERNATIVE C (PROPOSED ACTION)
Habitat management under alternative C would address (1) reduced forest regeneration due to overbrowsing of captive bison, elk, and white-tailed deer; and (2) deterioration of native prairie as a result of season-long grazing and lack of fi re. The environmental education program would be expanded to include additional on- and off-site opportunities. Visitor safety and facility security would be improved as a result of increased staffi ng, development of cooperative agreements with local law enforcement agencies, performance
of regular maintenance, and installation of fi re and security systems.Key elements of alternative C include the following:􀁑􅄠 Widespread restoration of native woodland (totally 80 acres) and prairie habitat by manipulating ungulate populations ( ≤20 bison, ≤18 elk, and ≤18 white-tailed deer) and use of various management tools including exclusion fences and chemical, biological, and mechanical techniques (such as tillage and prescribed fi re) for the benefi t of forest-interior breeding and grassland-nesting birds. 􀁑􅄠 The ungulate herd health program would take a more active disease surveillance and treatment approach, including timely introduction of ungulates to maintain genetic health.􀁑􅄠 Selected hayland acres would be dedicated to migratory bird habitat through restoration to a diverse native herbaceous prairie vegetation.􀁑􅄠 There would be an increase in delivery and programming of both on- and off-site youth environmental education programs for up to 7,500 students. Development of a formal wetland and grassland conservation curriculum for targeted grade levels would foster a living conservation ethic in the Devils Lake Basin. Staff would incorporate modern concepts of environmental education by exposing children to the fi ve senses of learning. Emphasis would be placed on developing education partnerships with Spirit Lake Nation schools and agencies.
Line drawing of bull elk.22 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
􀁑􅄠 Visitor, facility, and wildlife safety would be improved beyond levels in alternative B to include a volunteer management plan, regular routine patrols during peak and off-peak public use, and an automated fee gate.— In compliance with historic preservation laws, protection of eligible sites would occur when possible. In addition, working with other federal, state, and tribal agencies and other organizations, the refuge would be systematically surveyed for cultural resources over the next 15 years.— One GS-9 environmental education specialist, a GS-9 park ranger (a full-time offi cer position shared with Devils Lake WMD Complex), a GS-9 wildlife biologist, and a WG-6 maintenance worker would be recruited to expand, develop, and conduct biological, visitor services, law enforcement, and maintenance programs.
􀁑􅄠 In compliance with historic preservation laws, protection of eligible sites would occur when possible. In addition, working with other federal, state and tribal agencies and other organizations, the refuge would be systematically surveyed for cultural resources over the next 15 years.􀁑􅄠 One GS-9 environmental education specialist, a GS-9 park ranger (a full-time offi cer position shared with Devils Lake WMD Complex), a GS-9 wildlife biologist, and a WG-6 maintenance worker would be recruited to expand, develop, and conduct biological, visitor services, law enforcement, and maintenance programs.
3.5 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 2 provides a summary of the three management alternatives under consideration in this CCP and the anticipated environmental consequences of each alternative.
Line drawing of prairie dogs.Chapter 3 — Alternatives 23
Table 2. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North DakotaAlternative AAlternative C(Current Management)Alternative B(Proposed Action)Woodland Habitat GoalManage for healthy native woodlands of various age classes and structure to provide habitat for migratory birds, in balance with bison, elk, and other indigenous wildlife.Woodland Habitat, Big Game Forest—Management ActionsSeason-long grazing with Ungulates would be maintained Same as alternative B, plus the infrequent prescribed fi re would as per the “Fenced Animal following:be used.Management Plan” (25–40 bison; Ungulate populations would be 15–25 elk; 10–30 white-tailed deer) Ungulates would be maintained at further reduced to a lower level(Veikly 1984). historic management levels (25–35 (≤ 20 bison, ≤18 elk, and ≤18 bison; 20–30 elk; and 30–50 white-A total of 80 acres of woodland white-tailed deer) to restore tailed deer). This is a deviation restoration units would be native woodland habitat outside of from the existing “Fenced Animal established using various woodland restoration units.Management Plan” (Veikley 1984).management tools including exclusion fences and chemical, biological, and mechanical (such as tillage and prescribed fi re) techniques.Fuels treatment (including prescribed fi re or other mechanical means) would be used to reduce hazardous fuels.Woodland Habitat, Big Game Forest—Environmental ConsequencesSeason-long browsing would Woodland restoration units would Same as alternative B, plus the continue, limiting forest provide additional habitat for following:regeneration and the development forest-interior breeding birds Ungulate populations would be of understory and midstory forest and aid development of improved further reduced to levels that layers.successful forest regeneration would allow for more understory techniques. Ungulates would continue to and midstory growth in the entire be maintained at historical Reducing hazardous fuels would woodland areas for the benefi t of population levels, perpetuating minimize threats to life and forest-interior breeding birds. the degradation of forest layers. property on the refuge and the Available habitat for forest-surrounding private lands.interior breeding birds would be limited. Woodland Habitat, Lower Forest—Management ActionsIdleness and minimal prescribed Fuels treatment (including Same as alternative B, plus the fi re would continue to be used.prescribed fi re or other following:mechanical means) would be used Forestry stand improvements to reduce hazardous fuels.would provide optimal age classes and structure for migratory bird habitat24 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
Table 2. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North DakotaAlternative AAlternative C(Current Management)Alternative B(Proposed Action)Woodland Habitat, Lower Forest—Environmental ConsequencesThe lower forest would continue Same as alternative A, plus the Same as alternative B, plus the to provide adequate habitat for following: following:forest-interior birds.Reducing hazardous fuels would Optimal habitat would be minimize threats to life and provided for migratory birds property on the refuge and the that utilize all levels of the forest surrounding private lands.structure.Woodland Habitat, South (Isolated) Forest—Management ActionsThe forest would remain idle and Forest stands would remain idle Same as alternative B, plus the susceptible to wildfi res caused by but wildfi res would be prevented following: arson.and suppressed with assistance Forestry stand improvements from the Eastern North Dakota would provide optimal age classes Fire District.and structure for migratory bird Fuels treatment (including habitat.prescribed fi re or other mechanical means) would be used to reduce hazardous fuels.Woodland Habitat, South (Isolated) Forest—Environmental ConsequencesThe area would continue to Same as alternative A, plus the Same as alternative B, plus the provide adequate habitat for following:following:forest-interior breeding birds.Reducing hazardous fuels would Optimal habitat would be minimize threats to life and provided for migratory birds property on the refuge and the that utilize all levels of the forest surrounding private lands.structure.Woodland Habitat, Windbreaks on Hay and Native Units—Management ActionsThe only disturbance to the hay Wildfi res would be prevented Same as alternative B, plus the units would be wildfi res caused by or actively suppressed with following: arson. assistance from the Eastern The tree belt on the north side North Dakota Fire District.of the native prairie unit would Fuels treatment (including be removed to create a more prescribed fi re or other contiguous block of habitat for mechanical means) would be used grassland-dependent migratory to reduce hazardous fuels.birds.Woodland Habitat, Windbreaks on Hay and Native Units—Environmental ConsequencesWildfi res would continue to cause Wildfi res would be reduced, Same as alternative B, plus the the tree rows to deteriorate and allowing for increased following:increase noxious weed invasion sustainability of the tree rows and Removal of selected tree rows between, and adjacent, to the reduced noxious weed invasion.would increase the central core rows.Reducing hazardous fuels would area of grasslands, benefi ting minimize threats to life and grassland-nesting birds and property on the refuge and the decreasing fuels for wildfi res. surrounding private lands.Chapter 3 — Alternatives 25
Table 2. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North DakotaAlternative AAlternative C(Current Management)Alternative B(Proposed Action)Woodland Habitat, Staff—Management ActionsThe only position assigned to the Same as alternative A, plus the Same as alternative B, plus the refuge would be one GS-11 park following:following:ranger.A seasonal career biological A GS-9 wildlife biologist with science technician would assist visitor services skills would be with biological and other recruited to assist with biology, management programs. visitor services, and management programs.Woodland Habitat, Staff—Environmental ConsequencesMaintaining the current staffi ng A seasonal biological science Same as alternative B, plus the level would prevent adequate technician would allow for following:management, monitoring, and more data collection and A full-time biologist would be research of refuge resources.implementation of proposed able to independently collect habitat improvements.needed data and conduct analysis resulting in a greater understanding of the refuge habitats and wildlife. This biologist would also greatly enhance the quality of biological information presented in student and other visitor programs. 26 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
Table 2. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North DakotaAlternative AAlternative C(Current Management)Alternative B(Proposed Action)Prairie Habitat GoalMaintain prairie plant communities representative of the historical mixed-grass prairie to support healthy populations of grassland-dependent migratory birds in balance with bison, elk and other indigenous wildlife.Prairie Habitat, Big Game Prairie—Management ActionsUngulates would be maintained Same as alternative A, plus the Same as alternative B, plus the at historical management levels following:following: (25–35 bison; 20–30 elk; and 30–50 To reduce overgrazing, ungulates Grasslands would be managed white-tailed deer) permitting would be maintained as per the and enhanced by further reducing season-long grazing.“Fenced Animal Management ungulate populations (≤20 bison, There would continue to be Plan” (25–40 bison; 15–25 elk; ≤18 elk, and ≤18 white-tailed minimal control of invasive species 10–30 white-tailed deer) (Veikley deer).and noxious weeds.1984).There would be infrequent use Prescribed fi re would be used of prescribed fi re to enhance to maintain and enhance native grasslands.vegetative structure and composition.A rotational grazing program would be implemented using exclusion fences.Fuels treatment (including prescribed fi re or other mechanical means) would be used to reduce hazardous fuels.Invasive plants, pests, and noxious weeds would be effectively controlled by chemical, biological, and mechanical techniques.Prairie Habitat, Big Game Prairie—Environmental ConsequencesUndesirable plants, including Reducing overgrazing would Same as alternative B, plus the invasive species, would increase.increase native grass and forb following:diversity. Loss of native grassland plant Lower levels of ungulates would species and structure would Invasive species, pests, and further reduce overgrazing, make the area less attractive to noxious weeds would be creating a more representative migratory birds dependent on controlled, allowing for the historical mixed-grass prairie forest-edge habitat and other restoration and enhancement of grassland structure within the grassland-dependent wildlife and native plant species. enhanced native prairie area. insects.This would create more desirable Soil erosion would be reduced habitat for forest-edge and There would be increased soil and topsoil stability would be grassland-dependent birds. erosion, causing loss of nutrient-improved.rich topsoil while increasing There would be increased plant siltation in surrounding waters.vigor for ungulate grazing and Season-long grazing would reduce wildlife use.plant vigor and regrowth below a Reducing hazardous fuels would level necessary to sustain grazing minimize threats to life and ungulates, especially in dry years.property on the refuge and the surrounding private lands.Chapter 3 — Alternatives 27
Table 2. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North DakotaAlternative AAlternative C(Current Management)Alternative B(Proposed Action)Prairie Habitat, South (Isolated) Prairie—Management ActionsManagement activities would Prescribed fi re would regularly Same as alternative B, plus the include periods of rest and be used to maintain and enhance following:disturbance using occasional native vegetative structure and This area would be used as a prescribed fi re. composition and woody vegetation demonstration native prairie tract would be controlled.Wildfi res caused by arson would with regular monitoring activities continue.Wildfi res would be prevented and participation in region-wide and suppressed and prescribed research projects.There would continue to be grazing would be used as a minimal treatment of invasive management tool.species and noxious weeds. Invasive species, noxious weeds, Woody vegetation would be and encroaching woodlands controlled. would be effectively controlled using chemical, mechanical, and biological techniques.Fuels treatment (including prescribed fi re or other mechanical means) would be used to reduce hazardous fuels.Prairie Habitat, South (Isolated) Prairie—Environmental ConsequencesInfrequent prescribed fi re would Prevention of wildfi re fi res Same as alternative B, plus the provide some disturbance that would reduce the opportunity following:would increase native grassland for invasive and noxious weed The tract would provide a unique vegetation diversity.growth.opportunity to research and Wildfi res caused by arson Prescribed grazing and fi re would monitor healthy native prairie occurring at inappropriate stages be used as a tool which may in the northeastern mixed-grass of vegetative growth may actually decrease the spread of invasive prairie zone. This monitoring increase invasive species such species such as smooth brome would serve as a baseline for as smooth brome, Kentucky grass and provide necessary grassland restoration efforts bluegrass, and noxious weeds. disturbance to invigorate the across the Devils Lake WMD These nonnative species have growth of native plant species. Complex and the region.the potential to out-compete the Invasive species, encroaching native plant species, creating a woodlands, pests, and noxious monotypic stand of grass that weeds would be controlled, is less attractive to grassland-allowing for the restoration and dependent birds.enhancement of native plant Controlling woody vegetation species. would reduce its encroachment Reducing hazardous fuels would into grassland habitats.minimize threats to life and property on the refuge and the surrounding private lands.28 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
Table 2. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North DakotaAlternative AAlternative C(Current Management)Alternative B(Proposed Action)Prairie Habitat, Hay Units—Management ActionsUnits would be hayed annually.Grassland would be managed Same as alternative B, plus the using rotational haying and following: There would continue to be wildfi res would be prevented.frequent wildfi res caused by Selected hayland acres would arson.Control of invasive plants, pests, be restored to a diverse mixture and noxious weeds by chemical, of native herbaceous prairie Invasive plant species, pests, and mechanical, and biological vegetation.noxious weeds would be controlled techniques would continue.using chemical, mechanical, and biological techniques. Prairie Habitat, Hay Units—Environmental ConsequencesAnnual haying of the unit would Same as alternative A, plus the Same as alternative B, plus the provide winter food for ungulates following:following: in the big game unit. However, Ungulates would be provided Additional native habitat would because of the annual defoliation adequate winter food, and be created primarily for migratory of the vegetation on this site, improved residual cover would be birds and other grassland-residual wildlife cover is limited. available for wildlife on a rotating dependent native wildlife. Wildfi res caused by arson basis.occurring at inappropriate stages Prevention of wildfi re fi res of vegetative growth may actually would reduce the opportunity increase invasive species.for invasive and noxious weed Invasive plant species, pests, growth.and noxious weeds would be controlled, improving forage and reducing further spread to other refuge and neighboring lands.Chapter 3 — Alternatives 29
Table 2. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North DakotaAlternative AAlternative C(Current Management)Alternative B(Proposed Action)Wildlife Population Management GoalCarry out management practices that ensure healthy populations of Rocky Mountain elk, plains bison, and other indigenous wildlife species that exemplify the genetic integrity of historical prairie wildlife.Wildlife Population, Big Game Unit—Management ActionsMaintain ungulates at historical Same as alternative A, except:Same as alternative B, plus the management levels (25–35 bison; following: Ungulates would be maintained 20–30 elk; and 30–50 white-tailed per the “Fenced Animal Ungulate populations would deer). This is a deviation from Management Plan” (25–40 bison; be maintained at ≤20 bison, ≤18 the existing “Fenced Animal 15–25 elk; 10–30 white-tailed deer) elk, and ≤18 white-tailed deer Management Plan” (Veikley 1984).(Veikley 1984).to encourage restoration of the Herd health history would refuge fl oristics that support The prairie dog population, a be collected and shared with migratory bird nesting and species introduced to the refuge applicable state and federal migration habit. These limits in 1974 for educational purposes, agencies. may be adjusted as new data would be confi ned to the original and science, including the results Winter supplemental feeding 1.5-acre town.of monitoring these restoration would continue.efforts, become available.Service staff would work Winter supplemental feeding collaboratively through the would be reduced (grain, in Service-wide bison initiative to particular) to improve herd health conserve the genetic integrity of and habitat.plains bison. The ungulate herd health program Minimal prairie dog management would take a more active disease would continue, allowing the town surveillance, treatment, and to expand.prevention approach including Regular boundary fence timely introduction of ungulates inspections and maintenance to maintain genetic health.would continue.Facilities would be managed and technology would be used to maximize bison genetic integrity.30 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
Table 2. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North DakotaAlternative AAlternative C(Current Management)Alternative B(Proposed Action)Wildlife Population, Big Game Unit—Environmental ConsequencesCurrent levels of overgrazing and Same as alternative A, except:Same as alternative B, plus the overbrowsing would continue, following:Reduced ungulate numbers and prairie and forest habitat would decrease overgrazing Lower levels of ungulates would would provide reduced benefi ts to and overbrowsing and provide further increase refuge fl oristics targeted migratory birds.improved habitat for migratory that support migratory bird Monitoring herd health history birds.nesting and migration habitat.would allow the refuge to react The prairie dog population would Reduced supplemental feeding quickly to any health issues found not expand beyond the original (grain in particular) would likely in refuge ungulates. 1.5-acre boundary, protecting result in improved health of At current levels, winter adjacent grassland areas, while ungulates, specifi cally elk.supplemental feeding would put visitors would continue to view Disease episodes would be animals at higher risk for certain them safely. reduced and prevented. Periodic diseases and parasites.ungulate introduction would The refuge would continue to maintain the current genetic serve as a national resource for health of both the refuge and maintaining the genetic integrity other Service plains bison. of Service plains bison herds.Genetics of each bison on the Prairie dog populations would refuge would be known and serve continue to expand to adjacent as the basis for transfer of animals grassland areas, negatively to other refuges.impacting habitats.Using the latest techniques A functional boundary fence and methods would assist in would maintain refuge barriers, protecting the genetic integrity of reducing trespass, disease both the refuge and other Service transmission, and animal escape.plains bison herds. Chapter 3 — Alternatives 31
Table 2. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North DakotaAlternative AAlternative C(Current Management)Alternative B(Proposed Action)Environmental Education and Outreach Goal Deliver quality, interactive environmental education programming to regional schools, communities, organizations, members of the Spirit Lake Nation, and local governments to garner support and appreciation for Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North Dakota’s wetland and grassland resources, and the conservation role of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Environmental Education and Outreach, Youth Environmental Education—Management ActionsRequests would be taken from a Same as alternative A, plus the Same as alternative B, plus the variety of organizations, schools following:following: (within a 90-mile radius), state, Recruit an environmental Refuge staff would increase and other federal agencies education specialist to assist delivery and programming of wanting to participate in various educators in the development, on-site youth environmental teacher or refuge staff-led on-site delivery, and review of all on-education programs. Staff would conservation programs.site youth educational programs, incorporate the modern concepts Opportunistic off-site programs ensuring that most, if not all, of environmental education by presented at local schools would meet state and local education exposing children to the fi ve continue.standards. These programs senses of learning.would be designed to expose Refuge staff would plan children to the wonders of nature and initiate regular off-site while garnering support and programming to local schools.appreciation for the refuge, North Dakota’s wetland and grassland In coordination with the school resources, and the conservation system, refuge staff would role of the Refuge System.develop a formal wetland and grassland conservation All education programs presented curriculum for targeted grade on the refuge by other partners levels (meeting local and state would support the refuge’s education standards) which environmental education themes fosters a conservation ethic. of promoting wetland and The semester-long curriculum grassland conservation. would be delivered off-site but Limited off-site programs to local would be complemented by the schools and youth organizations outdoor classroom and facilities would be presented.of the refuge and the Devils Lake WMD Complex. Pre- and post-evaluations would be incorporated into the curriculum.32 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
Table 2. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North DakotaAlternative AAlternative C(Current Management)Alternative B(Proposed Action)Environmental Education and Outreach, Youth Environmental Education—Environmental ConsequencesThere would continue to be An effective outreach and Same as alternative B, plus the a lack of input into programs education program would following: presented by outside partners, support state and local education On- and off-site programs resulting in missed opportunities standards, affecting a larger developed and presented to educate the public about and number of students. cooperatively by teachers and garner support for the Refuge Through partnerships, there refuge staff would have the System, Sullys Hill National would be additional opportunities greatest effect on educating Game Preserve and its purposes, to educate youth about the students about the Refuge and the Service’s mission of importance of preserving wetland System, the refuge, and wetland promoting wetland and grasslands and grassland habitat.and grassland preservation. In conservation.addition, expanding programs off-Limited off-site programs would While current off-site refuge site would reach a larger number provide additional opportunities programs are benefi cial, they of students in the surrounding to educate area youth about the would remain limited and the area. Evaluations would help conservation of wetlands and refuge would miss opportunities teachers and staff gauge the grasslands.to educate area students about effectiveness of programs.the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System.Environmental Education and Outreach, Adult and Family Environmental Education—Management ActionsAnnual events, including Birding All programs and annual events Same as alternative B, plus the Festival, Winterfest, and would continue and be focused following: participation in the Chautauqua on garnering support and Scheduled conservation Program, would be completely appreciation for the refuge, North programming would be conducted dependent upon volunteers, Dakota’s wetland and grassland for adults and families throughout annual staff, and funding levels.resources, and the conservation the year.role of the Refuge System.Visitor use would be limited to the seasonal auto tour route, nature The education and visitor center trails, and education and visitor would be open year-round.center, depending on staff and Regularly developed press volunteer availability.releases, radio and television Opportunistic press releases, programming, and on- and off-site radio and television coverage, presentations would be provided.and on- and off-site presentations Additional volunteers and interns would continue. would be recruited to keep the education and visitor center open during key visitation times.Chapter 3 — Alternatives 33
Table 2. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North DakotaAlternative AAlternative C(Current Management)Alternative B(Proposed Action)Environmental Education and Outreach, Adult and Family Environmental Education—Environmental ConsequencesThere would continue to be no Additional staff and resources Same as alternative B, plus the guarantee that the two current would ensure the current annual following: annual events would continue. events continue and expand, Offering well-organized and This would result in a net loss of reaching even more visitors, consistent year-round programs reaching and educating over 2,500 while ensuring that a consistent would give adults and children adults and children annually. message of wetland and grassland multiple opportunities to learn conservation is presented. Seasonal visitation would continue about the refuge and its resources to result in a loss of opportunities Regular contact with the media and expose them to conservation to educate and interact with would ensure that the public is ethics in their communities and the area’s many winter visitors. kept informed on refuge programs homes.Also, the current independent and visitor services activities.visitor experience affords no Providing and maintaining more method to monitor and measure consistent education and visitor if the refuge’s education and center hours would eliminate interpretation goals are being some frustrations expressed met. by disappointed visitors, while providing for additional education opportunities. Environmental Education and Outreach, Partnerships with Teachers—Management ActionsOn- and off-site presentations and Facilities and general Same as alternative B, plus the interaction with local teachers and conservation message programs following:administrators would continue on for teacher workshops such as Partnerships with teachers an opportunistic basis.“Project Wild” and “Project would be established in order to Learning Tree” would be develop wetland and grassland provided. curriculum that would meet grade Teaching kits and a lending requirements for state and local library would be provided and education standards.would focus on the natural In coordination with the school resources of Sullys Hill National system, a formal wetland and Game Preserve, North Dakota grassland conservation curriculum wetlands and grasslands, and the for targeted grade-level heritage of the Refuge System.teachers would be developed. A teacher resources website The semester-long curriculum would be created, detailing would be delivered off-site but available materials, programs, and would be complemented by the facilities.outdoor classroom and facilities of the refuge and the Devils Lake WMD Complex. Pre- and post-evaluations would be incorporated into the curriculum.34 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
Table 2. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North DakotaAlternative AAlternative C(Current Management)Alternative B(Proposed Action)Environmental Education and Outreach, Partnerships with Teachers—Environmental ConsequencesThere would continue to be a Actively pursuing relationships Same as alternative B, plus the loss of opportunities to develop with area teachers and providing following:environmental education them with specifi c programs Working more closely with programs that schools can utilize and tools would target a larger teachers and students while to achieve curriculum objectives number of students with a developing refuge and state-and meet state and local education more consistent environmental specifi c environmental education standards. This would result in a education message. programs would ensure that the continued loss of opportunities to new programs meet curriculum reach and educate more students needs, while ensuring the in the surrounding communities maximum number of students through consistent in-school are reached with a consistent, programs. relevant message focused on wetlands, grasslands, and the conservation role of the Refuge System.Environmental Education and Outreach, Spirit Lake Nation—Management ActionsAmerican Indian programming at Same as alternative A, plus the Same as alternative B, plus the annual events would continue.following:following:Spirit Lake Nation fi re personnel Adult and youth conservation Partnerships with Spirit Lake would be involved in all fi re-education programming would Wildlife Department and specifi c training provided at the be used for educating Spirit Lake Cankdeska Cikana Community refuge.Nation members about the goals College would be fostered and purposes of the refuge and the to provide opportunities for Refuge System. Service programs American Indian students could compliment Spirit Lake interested in conservation-Nation’s own land management related fi elds. Students would be and visitor programs.recruited through the Student Career Experience Program to An educational kit would be provide training and opportunities developed in cooperation with for future employment.Spirit Lake Nation tribal members to detail their culture, Cankdeska Cikana Community traditional uses of natural College wildlife students would material, and natural resource be invited to participate in active conservation.wildlife conservation practices at the refuge.Chapter 3 — Alternatives 35
Table 2. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North DakotaAlternative AAlternative C(Current Management)Alternative B(Proposed Action)Environmental Education and Outreach, Spirit Lake Nation—Environmental ConsequencesVisitors would continue to have Same as alternative A, plus the Same as alternative B, plus the an opportunity to learn about following:following:the culture and traditions of the There would be a greater Opportunities would be expanded Spirit Lake Nation and other understanding of the vision and to recruit American Indian Midwestern tribes.goals of both the refuge and Spirit students for local and national There would be additional Lake Nation. This understanding employment within the Refuge education opportunities for Spirit would serve as a foundation for System. Lake Nation fi re staff while developing future partnerships to improving fi re management achieve mutual interests. techniques on Spirit Lake Nation A more developed cultural lands.program would reach more visitors and students, creating a greater understanding of Spirit Lake Nation’s history and traditions. Environmental Education and Outreach, “Friends Group” and Volunteers—Management ActionsThe refuge would continue to Same as alternative A, plus the Same as alternative B, plus the be dependent on a small, but following:following:dedicated volunteer “friends Refuge staff would assist the The lead park ranger and “friends group” to ensure that most of the “friends group” in staffi ng the group” would coordinate and refuge visitor services programs education and visitor center, actively recruit volunteers to are carried out.preparing grant proposals, assist with the presentation of The “friends group” would and developing community youth and adult conservation continue coordinating annual partnerships.programming and staff the festivals, orient visitors to the education and visitor center year-refuge, foster community support, round. and conduct local outreach A volunteer development and through media contacts.management plan would be “Friends group” volunteers would developed.continue to staff the education and visitor center on a limited basis. Environmental Education and Outreach, “Friends Group” and Volunteers—Environmental ConsequencesDepending on volunteers to Same as alternative A, plus the Same as alternative B, plus the run visitor services programs, following: following:including annual events would Additional funding and support Additional volunteers would provide tremendous opportunities would be generated for refuge allow the refuge visitor services for visitors to interact with programs. programs to expand, including these dedicated volunteers. year-round opportunities for the However using mostly volunteer Additional volunteer participation, public to learn from and interact assistance would make programs support, and enthusiasm would be with knowledgeable refuge vulnerable and inconsistent. The generatedvolunteers. loss of Service staff and public The public would have more interaction would continue.opportunities to interact with and learn from Service staff.36 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
Table 2. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North DakotaAlternative AAlternative C(Current Management)Alternative B(Proposed Action)Environmental Education and Outreach, Staffi ng—Management ActionsThe current GS-11 park ranger Same as alternative A, plus the Same as alternative B, plus the position would be maintained. following:following: One GS-9 environmental A GS-9 wildlife biologist with education specialist would be visitor services skills would recruited to assist with education be recruited to assist with and visitor services programs.biological, visitor services and other management programs (same position identifi ed in the “Woodland Habitat” alternative).Environmental Education and Outreach, Staffi ng—Environmental ConsequencesAt current staffi ng levels, the Recruiting an environmental Same as alternative B, plus the refuge would not be able to education specialist would provide following:guarantee that current programs the necessary skills and focus Additional staff would provide the would be maintained or expanded, needed to help the refuge achieve time and resources necessary to resulting in lost opportunities to its vision of expanding visitor expand the refuge’s on-site and educate visitors and students. services programs and becoming a off-site visitor and environmental conservation learning center. This The loss of Service staff and education programs while would allow the refuge to develop public interaction would continue.ensuring visitors are able to quality, relevant programs that interact with refuge staff. would be used to educate a larger number of adults and students. Chapter 3 — Alternatives 37
Table 2. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, North DakotaAlternative AAlternative C(Current Management)Alternative B(Proposed Action)Visitor Services and Interpretation Goal Provide captivating visitor services facilities and activities for visitors of all abilities, community groups, youth groups, and the members of Spirit Lake Nation which result in a greater understanding and support for the preservation of native habitats and landscapes of North Dakota’s Prairie Pothole Region and the mission of the Refuge System.Visitor Services and Interpretation, Education and Visitor Center and Outdoor Classroom—Management ActionsThe refuge staff and “friends Same as alternative A, plus the Same as alternative B, plus the group” volunteers would following:following: continue to be used to operate Interpretive displays would Under the direction of additional the education and visitor consist of an interactive habitat Service staff, a full cadre of center May through September diorama demonstrating North volunteers would be recruited to (approximately 25 hrs/week), Dakota’s grasslands, wetlands, operate the education and visitor manage the book store, greet agricultural lands and forest.center (48 hrs/week) year-round—visitors, and orient them to the weather permitting, manage the refuge. Hours of operation would In addition to volunteers, bookstore, greet visitors, and be sporadic.one environmental education orient them to the refuge.specialist would be available for The education and visitor center visitor contacts.In addition to volunteers, refuge interpretive displays would staff would be available for visitor continue to be completed and Electricity and water would contact and education, and visitor regularly updated as resources be provided to the outdoor center operation.become available. classroom.Dedicated audio visual equipment The birding garden would A patio and seating for the would be available for the continue to be maintained.outdoor birding garden would be education and visitor center and constructed.Maintenance of the education remote classrooms.and visitor center and outdoor Student equipment and wall classrooms would occur only as displays for the education and time and staffi ng allows.visitor center classroom and remote classroom would be updated.The refuge’s cultural resources and history would be interpreted.Through added maintenance staff and funding, facilities would be regularly maintained and upgraded as needed.38 Draft CCP and EA, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, ND
Table 2. Summary of alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan, Sullys Hill National Game
Preserve, North Dakota
Alternative A
Alternative C
(Current Management)
Alternative B(Proposed Action)
Visitor Services and Interp
retation, Education and Visitor Center and Outdoor Classroom—
Environmental Consequences
Visitors would continue to experience limited, inconsistent opportunities to interact with refuge staff and enjoy and learn about the refuge and surrounding resources through interpretive displays at the education and visitor center.Lack of maintenance may cause loss of building integrity.
There would be expanded education and visitor center hours and interpretive displays allowing for more contact with staff and volunteers, while providing additional opportunities for an increased hands-on experience for learning about the refuge, the Refuge System, and the importanc