HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District and Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge Detroit Lakes, MN

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior September 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Scope and Rationale ...... 1 1.2 Legal Mandates ...... 2 Detroit Lakes WMD ...... 3 Hamden Slough NWR ...... 3 Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR ...... 4 1.3 Relationship to Other Plans ...... 4 Chapter 2 Background ...... 9 2. 1 Geographic and Physical Position in the Landscape ...... 9 2.2 Conservation Estate ...... 12 2.3 Ecological Classification and Historic Condition ...... 17 2.4 Current Conditions and Changes from Historic Habitat Types ...... 28 2.5 Climate Change ...... 32 2.6 Inventory/Reconnaissance of District Land and Implications for Management ...... 34 2.7 Making the Connection to Resources of Concern ...... 35 Chapter 3 Resources of Concern...... 37 3.1 Introduction ...... 37 3.2 Comprehensive Resources of Concern ...... 37 3.3 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ...... 39 3.4 Selection of Priority Resources ...... 49 3.5 Selection of District Priority habitats ...... 51 3.6 Relationship between Priority Habitats and Priority Resources of Concern ...... 54 3.7 Conflict Resolution ...... 64 Chapter 4 Habitat Goals and Objectives ...... 66 4.1 Introduction ...... 66 Objective 1-Restoration and Management of Priority Habitats...... 66 Objective 2-Prioritized Upland Management...... 68 4.2 Remnant Prairie Management...... 68 Objective 3- Native Prairie Remnants ...... 68 4.3 Restoring Biologically Diverse Grasslands ...... 70 Objective 4 -Promote High Diversity ...... 70 Objective 5- Establishment of High Diversity Seeding ...... 72

Objective 6-Mangement of High Diversity Native Seedings...... 73 Objective 7-Management of Low Diversity Seedings...... 74 Objective 8-Diversify Seedings...... 75 4.4 Restoration and Management of Wetland Resources ...... 76 Objective 9-Prairie Pothole Wetlands...... 76 Objective 10-Restore Wetland Function...... 77 Objective 11-Semi-permanent and Permanent Wetland Management...... 78 4.5 Oak Savanna restoration and management ...... 79 Objective 12- Restore Oak Savanna ...... 79 Objective 13-Oak Savanna Management:...... 81 4.6 Unique habitats and rare species ...... 82 Objective 14-Restore and Maintain Prairie Fens...... 82 Objective 15-Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species and their Habitats...... 83 4.7 District Waterfowl Populations...... 83 Objective 16- Maintian Breeding Populations...... 83 Chapter 5 Strategy Descriptions ...... 85 Chapter 6 Strategy Selection and Implementation (an Annual Work Plan Exercise) ...... 114 6.1 Introduction ...... 114 6.2 Background for Management Decisions and Conflict Resolution among Units ...... 114 6.3 Step One - Annually Selecting Units to Receive Management ...... 115 6.4 Step Two- Evaluate Current State of Vegetation/Habitat Types ...... 116 6.5 Step Three- Selecting Strategies to Shift the Current Habitat State to a Desired State .... 118 6.6 Step Four- Implementation of Selected Strategy ...... 119 6.7 Step Five- Administrative Aspects of Implementation ...... 119 Literature Cited ...... 124

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Detroit Lakes WMD CCP Wildlife and Habitat Goals and Objectives ...... 131 Appendix 2. Hamden Slough NWR CCP Wildlife and Habitat Goals and Objectives ...... 138 Appendix 3. Table of units, acres, priority score, province and pre-settlement vegetation ...... 140 Appendix 4. Priority Tool description ...... 154 Appendix 5. Potential native habitat types of District units ...... 157

Appendix 6. Documented native plant communities of District units...... 162 Appendix 7. Comprehensive List of Resources of Concern for the Detroit Lakes WMD ...... 173 Appendix 8. Potential Focal Species Selection Method ...... 197 Appendix 9. List of Potential Priority Resources of Concern for the Detroit Lakes WMD .....199 Appendix 10. Baseline Inventory Rapid Assessment (DRAFT for Prairie Habitats) ...... 200 Appendix 11. Long-term Restoration and Management Plan (DRAFT) ...... 203 Appendix 12. Rapid Assessment for potential oak savanna presence ...... 205 Appendix 13. Sample Wetland Restoration Tracking Log ...... 207 Appendix 14. Master Fire Management Spreadsheet (sample portion)...... 208 Appendix 15. Agricultural Management Plan ...... 209

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Location of Detroit Lakes WMD in Minnesota ...... 9 Figure 2.2 Location of USFWS Refuges within the Detroit Lakes WMD ...... 10 Figure 2.3 Location of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR in Minnesota and Iowa ...... 11 Figure 2.4 Distribution of Waterfowl Production Areas throughout the the District ...... 14 Figure 2.5 Distribution of easements throughout the District ...... 15 Figure 2.6 The conservation estate with Grassland Bird Conservation Areas in the Detroit Lakes WMD ...... 16 Figure 2.7 Location of the White Earth Tribal Nation within the Detroit Lakes WMD…… 17 Figure 2.8 ECS provinces of the Detroit Lakes WMD ...... 18 Figure 2.9 Pre-settlement vegetation of the Detroit Lakes WMD ...... 25 Figure 2.10 Landcover in the Detroit Lakes WMD ...... 29 Figure 2.11 Large tracts of remnant prairie in the DLWMD ...... 30 Figure 6.1 Example decision tree evaluating a high priority unit's need for management ..116 Figure 6.2 Evaluating current state of vegetation and management need ...... 117 Figure 6.3 Decision diagram selecting potential strategies to shift current state to desired state ...... 118

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Percentage of District-owned lands in each of the four ecological provinces ...... 24 Table 2.2 Pre-settlement vegetation of District units ...... 26 Table 3.1 Resources from which potential resources of concern were identified ...... 38 Table 3.2 Habitat types on District units representing BIDEH ...... 40 Table 3.3 Priority resources of concern for the Detroit Lakes WMD ...... 51 Table 3.4 High and low priority habitat types in the Detroit Lakes WMD ...... 53 Table 3.5 Priority resources of concern related to priority habitat types for the Detroit Lakes WMD ...... 56 Table 3.6 Habitat requirements of priority resources in the Detroit Lakes WMD ...... 57 Table 3.7 Priority resources of concern and other benefitting species in the Detroit Lakes WMD ...... 62 Table 6.1 Inventory, monitoring and planning as related to HMP Objectives ...... 123

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 SCOPE AND RATIONALE

The Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District (DLWMD, District) including Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge (HSNWR, Refuge), is managed as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). The mission of the NWRS is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

In 1997, Congress passed the landmark National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, preparing the way for a renewed vision for the future of the refuge system where:

• Wildlife comes first • Refuges are anchors for biodiversity and ecosystem-level conservation • Lands and waters of the System are biologically healthy • Refuge lands reflect national and international leadership in habitat management and wildlife conservation • The biological integrity, diversity and environmental health must be maintained, defined in 601 FW 3. • Monitoring of plant and animal populations is essential • Growth of the NWRS and conservation of ecosystems across the United States.

Meeting the wildlife conservation challenges of the 21st century and fulfilling the System mission and vision requires planning and partnerships. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) describes goals, objectives, and strategies that will guide management of a National Wildlife Refuge or Wetland Management District over a 15-year period. In 2003, Minnesota WMDs came together in development of station CCPs and created the following vision statement that ties districts together with a cohesive purpose:

The Districts will emphasize waterfowl production and ensure the preservation of habitat for migratory birds, threatened and endangered native species, and resident wildlife. The Districts will provide opportunities for the public to hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife and increase public understanding and appreciation of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 1

In addition, the CCP for Hamden Slough NWR (which resides within the District boundary) was completed in 2012 and is a more progressive approach to managing a prairie-wetland refuge in the 21st Century. While the Vision is a descriptive passage specifying a clear path for the future of the Refuge, the Wildlife and Habitat Goal encompasses a framework from which many of the HMP objectives were developed:

Habitats on Hamden Slough NWR will be restored, protected, and actively managed to provide a diversity of native wetland and grassland habitats. These efforts will be further leveraged by partnerships and conservation actions outside the Refuge, resulting in a resilient and balanced landscape, meeting the needs of migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife in an uncertain future.

The Detroit Lakes WMD and Hamden Slough Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is step-down plan of the District’s (USFWS 2003) and the Refuge’s CCPs (USFWS 2012) which provides more precise guidance for habitat management on the existing land base. It will help facilitate thoughtful and explicit planning for habitat objectives and management actions. This HMP also identifies when to use adaptive management to assess and modify management activities through research and monitoring. The HMP informs the District and Refuge Inventory and Monitoring Plan and Annual Habitat Management Plans.

Hamden Slough and Detroit Lakes WMD were complexed in 2007 and are managed by a single staff. Thus all the units are considered together in this habitat management plan. Northen Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge is new, established in 2000, and managed based on location, although its head office is located at Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge. Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR properties falling within the Detroit Lakes WMD boundary will be managed by the District staff and are also considered along with the other District units in this HMP.

This plan was prepared in accordance with guidance for developing HMPs provided by the USFWS Habitat Management Plans policy (620 FW 1). It also complies with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies governing the management of units of the NWRS.

The lifespan of this HMP is a 15-year cycle corresponding well with the lifespan of the Hamden Slough NWR CCP. HMPs may be peer reviewed every five years as necessary. The refuge manager may modify the CCP and/or HMP at any time if new information suggests these plans are inadequate or resources would benefit from changes. An Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP) is currently being developed to support the Goals and Objectives of this HMP, as well as the station’s CCPs.

1.2 LEGAL MANDATES

The District was established in 1962, originally as part of the Fergus Falls Wetland Management District, to manage tracts purchased under the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program (SWAP). In 1975, the District was restructured and renamed the Detroit Lakes WMD. In addition to the many fee title WPAs and

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 2

easements purchased under SWAP, it also administers Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge (established in 1989). One conservation easement and one fee-title tract, both units of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, are also overseen by the DLWMD. Key provisions are described here; for a detailed list of legal mandates and authorities, see Appendix A of the Detroit Lakes WMD CCP and the Hamden Slough NWR CCP.

DETROIT LAKES WMD

The Migratory Bird Conservation Act was established on February 19, 1929 (45 Stat. 1222) as amended, 16 (U.S.C. 715d, 715e, 715f, to 715k and 715l to 715r). The Act provides for the acquisition of lands determined to be suitable as an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds.

Waterfowl Production Areas within the Detroit Lakes WMD are acquired under the establishing authority of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934 as amended in 1958 (16 U.S.C. 718-718h). The Act authorized the “…acquisition by gift, devise, lease, purchase, or exchange of, small wetland pothole areas, interest therein, and right-of-way to provide access thereto. Such small areas to be designated as ‘Waterfowl Production Areas’, may be acquired without regard to the limitations and requirements of the Migratory Bird conservation Act”

“…As Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “…all the provisions of such Act…except the inviolate sanctuary provisions…” 16 U.S.C. 718c (Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp).

Mandate for FmHA Easements and Fee Title Transfers. .”…for conservation purposes…” 7 U.S.C. at 2002 (Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act).

HAMDEN SLOUGH NWR

The purpose of Hamden Slough NWR is derived from three authorities:

" . . . conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats . . . for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. ¤ 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

“ . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. ¤ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 3

. . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to “ . . . all the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act] . . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . . ” 16 U.S.C. ¤ 718(c) (Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Tax)

NORTHERN TALLGRASS PRAIRIE NWR

The principal source of funding for the Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge is the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 USC 460l - 460l-11), which provides funding through the sale of surplus Federal land, appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer continental shelf, and other sources for land acquisition.

1.3 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS

The habitat goals and objectives and habitat management strategies described in this HMP are consistent with many other local, regional, and national conservation plans. Many of the plans listed below were used to develop the HMP and key components of each plan are discussed below.

Detroit Lakes WMD Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) As described above, the HMP is a step-down plan of the Detroit Lakes WMD CCP (USFWS 2003). The CCP is a long-term, inclusive plan that guides all aspects of conservation in the district, including habitat management, public use, and district operations. However, the wildlife and habitat goals and objectives in the CCP (Appendix 1) were not specific enough for the step-down purposes of the HMP. For this reason, the HMP focuses on and refines the broad vision for habitat management provided in the CCP. The goals and objectives contained within the HMP support and further achieve the purpose for which Detroit Lakes WMD was established and are consistent with the actions outlined in Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) of the Environmental Assessment.

Hamden Slough NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) The Hamden Slough NWR CCP was completed in the fall of 2012 and is one of the more recent CCPs in the USFWS Region 3. It takes a more progressive approach in the development of goals, objectives and strategies (Appendix 2) compared to the DLWMD CCP, while still serving as an overarching operational plan. Although the Hamden Slough CCP is quite detailed, because of the broad-minded and flexibility built into the wildlife and habitat goals and objectives, many were used to develop the District HMP.

Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) The Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR was established to permanently preserve remnant tracts of northern tallgrass prairie (and dependent wildlife) through partnerships with individuals, groups, and government entities. The Interim Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement were published in a collective document in 1998. Goals focus on preserving remnant prairie, enhancing degraded prairie, and reconstructing buffers and connections to remnants using native

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 4

tallgrass prairie vegetation. The Detroit Lakes WMD administers two units, a fee title tract and a conservation easement, both in Clay County.

Detroit Lakes WMD Fire Management Plan Fire is a key ecological process in prairie and wetland ecosystems, and as such, prescribed fire is a primary habitat management strategy for the DLWMD. The District’s Fire Management Plan (USFWS 2008) is an operational guide for managing the wildland fire program. It is written to comply with both Department of Interior and USFWS requirements that units with burnable vegetation develop a fire management plan (620 DM 1). The Fire Management Plan outlines a program that accounts for the safest, most cost efficient, and ecologically responsible implementation of prescribed fires and suppression of all wildland fires.

The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy: Northeast Regional Action Plan This Northeast Regional Action Plan (Northeast Regional Strategy Committee 2013) details the goals, desired outcomes, investment options, outcome measures, and priority implementation actions for the Northeast Cohesive Strategy Region. These actions, as identified by the Northeast Regional Strategy Committee (RSC), will help guide all the partners in wildland fire management in the Northeast Region to make progress in achieving the three overarching national goals: Restore and Maintain Landscapes, Fire Adapted Communities, and Wildfire Response.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan The North American Waterfowl Management Plan was first signed in 1986 and has been updated several times since then. The most recent version states that “the purpose of the Plan is to sustain abundant waterfowl populations by conserving landscapes, through partnerships that are guided by sound science” (North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee 2004).

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan outlines shorebird conservation status, populations and priorities, national conservation strategies, recommends monitoring programs, and identifies regional conservation goals and strategies (Brown et al. 2001). The Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan provides similar information that is focused on this region (Skagen and Thompson 2000).

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan “provides an overarching continental framework and guide for conserving waterbirds” (Kushlan et al. 2002). It focuses on colonial-nesting waterbirds and sea birds, which are only a portion of the waterbird species that use the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR). The Northern Prairie & Parkland Conservation Plan is especially helpful for our area, since it more specifically addresses the species found here (Beyersbergen et al. 2004).

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 5

The North American Landbird Conservation Plan was developed to provide “a continental synthesis of priorities and objectives that will guide landbird conservation actions at national and international scales” (Rich et al. 2004). Partners in Flight wrote a regional plan for the Northern Tallgrass Prairie (Physiographic Area 40; Fitzgerald et al. 1998), but more recently has updated its species assessment scores by Bird Conservation Regions (Detroit Lakes WMD is primarily in BCR 11 – Prairie Potholes). Those scores can be found at www.rmbo.org/pif/pifdb.html

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan The Prairie Pothole Joint Venture was established under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but has since expanded from a focus on waterfowl to planning for “all-bird” conservation. The most recent implementation plan (Ringelman et al. 2005) provides stepped-down objectives from the four major species group plans described above (waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds and landbirds).

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Recovery Plan The Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara; WPFO) is Federally Threatened and State Endangered (Minnesota) species. A decline in populations of WPFO is attributed to habitat loss; primarily conversion of wet prairie to cropland. Additional threats include drainage and encroachment by trees. Historically, WPFOs were found on District lands. The recovery plan (USFWS 1996) is consulted when our habitat management actions occur on suitable habitat for this wildflower. Coordination with Partners and private landowners is essential in order to conserve their local population.

Poweshiek Skipperling Conservation Guidelines The Poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek) is a Federally Endangered and State Endangered (Minnesota) butterfly species. It is a small, nondescript skipperling found in high quality wet and mesic prairies and fens of the upper Midwest. Under a decade ago, Minnesota contained the vast majority of Poweshiek skipperlings. However, in recent years, the species has only been recorded in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Manitoba. A combination of habitat loss, prairie degradation, and pesticides has been suggested as cause for the population collapse. Historically, these small prairie butterflies were found on Service-owned land within the District. The conservation guidelines (Selby 2010) are referenced when our habitat management actions occur on suitable habitat for the Poweshiek. Coordination with Partners and private landowners is essential in order to recover this species.

Dakota Skipper Conservation Guidelines The Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae) is a Federally Threatened and State Endangered (Minnesota) butterfly species. It is a small, nondescript skipper found in tallgrass and mixed grass prairies of the upper Midwest, primarily North and South Dakota and Minnesota; it is thought to be extirpated from Iowa. Historically, the Dakota skipper was a common prairie butterfly however, in the last decade numbers have dropped due to habitat loss and degradation, as well as pesticide use. There is a known population of Dakota skippers within the District, however, not on Service-owned land. The conservation guidelines (USFWS 2007, revised 2014) are referenced when our habitat management

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 6

actions occur on suitable habitat for the Dakota. Coordination with Partners and private landowners is essential in order to conserve their local population.

Sprague’s Pipit Conservation Plan The Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii), a former Candidate species under the Endangered Species Act and current State Endangered (Minnesota) species, is a small passerine endemic to native grasslands. Historically, Sprague’s pipits bred in the prairies of western Minnesota. Today, the core breeding range is further west into the Dakotas and Montana; and very few have been observed in Minnesota since the 1960s. The Conservation Plan (Jones 2010) is consulted when our habitat management actions occur in suitable habitat for this bird. Coordination with Partners and private landowners is essential in order to conserve their local population.

Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-eared Bat and Activities Excpeted from Take Prohibitions The northern long-eared bat (Mytois septentrionalis, NLEB) is a Federally Threatened species for the entire District under the Endangered Species Act. To date, no known NLEBs have been documented on USFWS administered lands in the District. Tree removal is the main management activity that could potentially impact the NLEB. In 2016, the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion on a special rule under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, and is referenced when management actions occur on lands that could be used by the bat.

Minnesota’s Wildlife Action Plan 2015-2025 Minnesota’s Wildlife Action Plan (MN WAP) was recently updated in 2015 and builds on the foundation set forth in the 2005 Plan (MN DNR 2006a). This strategic plan still guides management for species in greatest conservation need (SGCN), however, incorporates a greater understanding of those needs and the approaches needed to address them. Climate change vulnerability assessments for both habitat and wildlife were also conducted. The 2015 Plan now lists 346 SGCN in Minnesota; 54 more species than the 2005 Plan. There is also a stronger focus on the importance of Partnerships for the successful implementation of the MN WAP.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Long Range Duck Recovery Plan The Minnesota Duck Recovery Plan (MN DNR 2006b) identifies both challenges and strategies to recover “historical breeding and migrating populations of ducks in Minnesota for their ecological, recreational, and economic importance to the citizens of the state.” The Duck Recovery Plan sets a 50-year goal to sustain a breeding duck population of one million birds.

Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan The Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan (MN Prairie Plan Working Group 2011) is a 25-year strategy developed by the state’s many conservation partners for accelerating conservation of prairie-wetlands and associated habitats. The Plan identifies core areas and corridors on which to build larger blocks of tallgrass prairie and associated habitats through permanent protection, restoration, and enhancement

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 7 activities (i.e. prescribed burning, grazing). A need for evaluating and adjusting restoration and enhancement activities was recognized and addressed in the plan. Species and/or groups were selected as indicators to represent different components of functioning landscapes in the prairie-wetland system.

The 2007 Audubon Watchlist The National Audubon Society and the American Bird Conservancy joined forces to develop an analysis for identifying bird species in the continental United States and Hawaii in need of immediate conservation help. The watchlist is divided into two levels: red and yellow. “Red” indicates species of greatest concern that are declining rapidly and/or have small populations, limited ranges, and face major conservation threats. “Yellow” indicates the species is either declining or rare, of national concern, but still have time before on the “red” list.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 8

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND

2. 1 GEOGRAPHIC AND PHYSICAL POSITION IN THE LANDSCAPE

The Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District manages Waterfowl Production Areas in a five county area of northwestern Minnesota, including Becker, Clay, Mahnomen, Norman, and Polk counties (Figure 2.1). The District includes the cities of Crookston, Moorhead, and Detroit Lakes. The office facilities are located 1 mile north of downtown Detroit Lakes on the 170 acre Headquarters WPA. Within the District lie four National Wildlife Refuges: Hamden Slough, Tamarac, Rydell and Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuges (Figure 2.2). Throughout the remainer of this document as we use the term District or Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District (DLWMD), we are referring to the Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District, Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge and any tracts of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge (Figure 2.3) that the Detroit Lakes office manages as one entity.

FIGURE 2.1. Location of Detroit Lakes WMD in Minnesota

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 9

Figure 2.2. Location of USFWS Refuges within the Detroit Lakes WMD. Data as of 12/2014.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 10

Figure 2.3. Location of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR in Minnesota and Iowa.

The DLWMD lies in the transition zone of western Minnesota, where the prairie meets the forest. The western portion of the District is in the historic Glacial Lake Agassiz lake bottom which is known today as the Red River Valley. Topography of that area is flat and the landscape is heavily agricultural. When moving east from the Red River Valley, the first important landscape feature is the Glacial Lake Agassiz Beachridge. This small transition from historical lake bottom to a more rolling glacial topography begins with only a slight rise in elevation. In some locations, it is less than 10 feet. The beachridge is unique due to its soils and hydrology. The soils below the ridge tend to be heavy and clay-based, while the ridge itself contains a mix of soil types but typically sandy and rocky. Many laterally-formed wetland basins lay on top of the ridge and much lateral movement of water occurs both above and below the ground from east to west. This unique combination of soils and hydrology has left many portions of the beachridge unplowed. The grassland on the beachridge has been used for haying and grazing and has not been heavily farmed. In recent years, however, the demand for construction aggregate and oil fracking has increased the destruction of the beachridge in search of sand, gravel and oil resources. The beachridge contains the greatest quantity of unbroken native prairie in the District, but it is under this new and direct threat right now. Moving east from the beachridge is the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of northwestern Minnesota. The PPR extends from northern Iowa through Alberta, Canada and is characterized by a prairie landscape dotted with shallow depressional wetlands. These “potholes” formed when the last glaciers receded around 10,000 years ago. The PPR is well known for its importance to breeding waterfowl; the region is responsible for producing over 50% of the continent’s waterfowl (Smith et al. 1964), earning it the nickname “the Duck Factory of North America.” Any remaining wetlands and grassland in this area of the District tend to be slightly topographic, with shallow prairie potholes and mesic prairie.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 11

The topography further increases up to the Alexandria Moraine in the eastern portion of our District. The Moraine was left by the last glaciation and contains undulating topography with deep lakes and wetlands. The soils tend to be sandy. Dry prairies and oak savannas occur most commonly in this area of the District in conjunction with this landscape feature. The eastern side of the moraine and the sandy outwash plains in the far eastern portion of the District are primarily deciduous and some mixed forest habitat.

2.2 CONSERVATION ESTATE

The District is comprised of 170 individual Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) totaling 46,970 acres (Figure 2.4). In addition to the WPAs owned in fee title, the District also administers 412 easements in the five-county area that protect 16,896 acres of habitat on private land (Figure 2.5). Wetland easements permanently protect wetlands from being burned, drained, leveled or filled; however, we do not actively manage them. The district also oversees wildlife habitat protection easements (“habitat” easements), and Farmers Home Administration easements, which protect both upland and wetland wildlife habitat. Habitat easement owners retain varying levels of authorized private use, so the district’s management responsibility on those easements varies by unit.

The DLWMD manages lands associated with two National Wildlife Refuges (NWR), Hamden Slough NWR and individual units of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR. Hamden Slough NWR is found in western Becker County and currently comprises 3,200 acres of grassland and wetlands in fee title ownership. The full acquisition boundary totals 5,944 acres. The Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR encompasses all or part of 85 counties in western Minnesota and Iowa. The refuge’s long-term goal is to protect 77,000 acres through conservation easements and government ownership. Easements and purchased lands are managed or overseen by the refuge or wetland management district office covering the area where the lands are located. The District currently manages one Tallgrass prairie easement and one Tallgrass fee title tract in Clay County.

District land ownership ranges from 0.3% of the land base in Norman County to 1.8% of the land base in Clay County. Since we own so little of the landscape as a whole, we are continually working with partnering agencies, organizations and private landowners who own land and easements for similar conservation purposes to our own. The map below (Figure 2.6) shows the conservation estate (fee title and easement lands) overlaid with the Type 2 GBCA layer (Johnson et al. 2010). The fee title lands include MN DNR Wildlife Management Areas, The Nature Conservancy preserves, MN DNR Scientific and Natural Areas, and National Wildlife Refuges. Easement holders in the District include The State of Minnesota, US Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The purpose of the GBCA types, as developed by the USFWS, were to pinpoint different areas in the landscape, based on amount of grassland core and surrounding grass matrix, that provide suitable habitat for many to all priority grassland bird species. Knowing the lands that make up the Conservation Estate within the District is important. As the conservation estate increases, complexes of conservation lands are realized. Working with partners and private landowners to restore and manage these lands for similar goals result in a greater probability of contributing toward the success of species; in this case, priority

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 12 grassland-obligate species (see Chapter 3). The premise behind of the Type 2 GBCA was used to help prioritize our management units based on size and is described in more detail in Appendix 4, Priority Tool description.

One Tribal Reservation, the White Earth Nation, is found two counties of the District: Mahnomen and eastern Becker (Figure 2.7). The lands of the White Earth Reservation include vast prairies and wetlands, as well as broadleaf and pine forests, and are managed to allow maximum usage by Tribal members while maintaining wildlife populations capable of regeneration. The Tribal Government ensures broad powers (self-governing) and is immune from state interference. It is also afforded certain immunities similar to other federal entities.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 13

46,970 Acres

50 WPAs 12,167 Acres

Figure 2.4. Distribution of Waterfowl Production Areas throughout the District. Data as of 12/2014.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 14

Figure 2.5. Distribution of Easements throughout the District. Data as of 12/2014.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 15

Figure 2.6. The Conservation Estate overlaid with the Tier 2 GBCA layer (USFWS 2002) in the Detroit Lakes WMD. Data as of 2/2017.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 16

Figure 2.7. Location of the White Earth Tribal Nation within the Detroit Lakes WMD. Data as of 12/2014.

2.3 ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION AND HISTORIC CONDITION Ecological classification systems are utilized for ecological mapping and landscape classification. A hierarchical ecological classification system (ECS) has been defined for Minnesota. The ECS “is used to identify, describe, and map progressively smaller areas of land with increasingly uniform ecological features…” and “…uses associations of biotic and environmental factors, including climate, geology, topography, soils, hydrology, and vegetation” (MN DNR 2005). Using this system, about 2/3 of the District is in the Prairie Parkland Province, while the remaining 1/3 lies almost equally divided among the Tallgrass Aspen Parkland, the Eastern Broadleaf Forest, and the Laurentian Mixed Forest Provinces. At the Subsection level, the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province within our District gets divided into “Pine Moraines and Outwash Plains” and “Chippewa Plains”. The map (Figure 2.8) and descriptions below outline our ecological provinces and subsections within the District.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 17

Figure 2.8. ECS Provinces of the Detroit Lakes WMD

Note: the entire text for the province and subsection descriptions is quoted directly from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ ecological classification system website: www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/index.html

The Tallgrass Aspen Parklands (TAP) Province covers a small part (about 3 million acres [1.2 million hectares]) of northwestern Minnesota and extends northwestward into Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta where it is recognized as the Boreal Plains Ecozone. In Minnesota, the province forms a transition, or ecotone, between semi-arid landscapes historically covered by prairie and semi-humid mixed conifer-deciduous forests to the east.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 18

Approximately 6 percent of the fee title land managed by the District is located within the Tallgrass Aspen Parkland Province. The District recognizes that we may be limited in our ability to impact species that utilize habitat within this province as only 6% of our ownership is contained within a province that covers less than 16% of our District.

Aspen Parkland SubSection: This subsection is bounded on the east by extensive conifer peat bogs. To the west, the section is bounded by areas where the dominant vegetation was tallgrass prairie. This subsection is part of a low, level lake plain (Glacial Lake Agassiz) occupied by extensive forested peatlands to the east and tallgrass prairie to the west. Low dunes, beach ridges, and wet swales mark the western edge of the subsection. They provided a barrier that reduced fire frequency and intensity, resulting in increased dominance by quaking aspen, balsam poplar, and shrubs. To the east, low ridges of water-reworked till are surrounded by herbaceous wetlands (Albert 1993). The Aspen Parklands Subsection in Minnesota is the southern end of the parkland landscape, which is more extensive to the north and west in the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta.

A. Landform: This subsection is part of an extensive glacial lake plain (Glacial Lake Agassiz). It consists of two regions, a lacustrine plain to the west and a water-reworked till plain on the east. Portions of the lacustrine lake plain are level, but there are also small dunes and a series of low beach ridges and swales. The beach ridges are commonly gravelly and swales often contain abundant cobbles and boulders (Cummins and Grigal 1981). The water-worked till plain has low relief due to wave action of Glacial Lake Agassiz. Topography is level to gently rolling. B. Soils: Soils of the lacustrine plain range from loams and silts to sands and gravels. Calcareous fens and saline seeps occur at the base of sand dunes and beach ridges. These soils are classified as Entisols (Psamments and Aquents), Histosols (Hemists), and Mollisols (Aquolls) (Soil Conservation Service 1967, Cummins and Grigal 1981). On the water-worked till plain, soils are generally loamy. The till often contains large boulders that restrict land use (Cummins and Grigal 1981). In places, till is partially mantled with lacustrine sands, silts, and clays. C. Climate: Total annual precipitation is 20 to 22 inches. 40% of this comes during the growing season. Only 11 to 14 percent of the annual precipitation falls from November through February (estimated from Midwestern Climate Center 1992). This low amount of snowfall in combination with extreme cold and desiccating winds, cause increased spring fires and severe stress on most shrub and tree species. As a result, open woodland vegetation was most common (Albert 1993). The growing season length is about 120 days.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 19

D. Hydrology: This subsection drains to the north and west. The major river is the Roseau River, which flows through the northern quarter of the subsection and into Canada. The drainage network is undeveloped. Rivers and streams commonly meander extensively. Flooding can be a problem due to level topography. Lakes are rare. E. Pre-settlement vegetation: Pre-settlement vegetation consisted of a combination of aspen savanna, tallgrass prairie, wet prairie, and dry gravel prairie (on gravelly beach ridges). Floodplain forests of silver maple, elm, cottonwood, and ash occurred along rivers and streams. F. Present vegetation and land use: Agriculture is the dominant land use in the southern half of the subsection. In the north, extensive areas have been cleared recently for farming. Remnants of pre-settlement vegetation are more common and in larger blocks than many other subsections where agriculture is important. G. Natural disturbance: Fire was the most common natural disturbance before settlement. Fire suppression has allowed woodlands to develop from what were previously oak openings or brush prairies (Wheeler et al. 1992). Other causes of disturbance are tornados and floods.

1. The Prairie Parkland (PPA) Province traverses western Minnesota, extending northwest into Manitoba, west into North Dakota and South Dakota, south into Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri, and east into Illinois and Indiana. In Minnesota, the province covers just over 16 million acres (6.5 million hectares), coinciding with the part of the state historically dominated by tallgrass prairie.

The land surface of the province was heavily influenced by the most recent glaciation. Ice sheets crossed the province several times during the Wisconsin glaciation, depositing a mantle of drift 100 feet to 600 feet (30 meters to 180 meters) thick in most places. The last lobe of ice, the Des Moines lobe, deposited calcareous drift in the southern part of the province. The ice lobe was fronted to the north by the largest pro-glacial lake in North America, Glacial Lake Agassiz, which deposited deep-water sediments over the northern part of the province in Minnesota.

Approximately 60 percent of the fee title land managed by the District is located within the Prairie Parkland Province. The District recognizes that managing land within this province will provide our greatest opportunity to impact species that rely on the habitat provided by this province. Approximately 60% of our District is also covered by this province. Red River Prairie Subsection: The western boundary of this subsection is the Red River of the North. The eastern boundary follows the eastern limits of continuous

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 20

tall grass prairie vegetation at the time of Euro-American settlement. Portions of a till plain (Fergus Falls Till Plain [Dept. of Soil Science, 1969 and 1980a]) are included. The southern boundary lies at the southern end of the till plain and the Glacial Lake Agassiz basin.

The majority of this subsection is a glacial lake plain with silty, sandy, and clayey lacustrine deposits. It is level, uniform, and featureless, broken only by wetlands, meandering waterways, and old beach ridges. Drainage is to the north via the Red River and its tributaries.

A. Landform: The major landform is a large lake plain (Glacial Lake Agassiz). Minor landforms include a till plain, beach ridges, sand dunes, and water- reworked till. The greatest depth of lake laid sediments is present along the Red River, which forms the west boundary. Lacustrine origin sediments thin to the east, where glacial till was leveled and reworked with little deposit of lacustrine sediments. Topography is level to gently rolling. There is some steeper topography along drainages and adjacent to Lake Traverse. B. Soils: Poorly, somewhat poorly, and moderately well-drained lacustrine clays, silts, and sands make up the majority of soils in this subsection. They are primarily Mollisols; Cummins and Grigal (1981) map most of these soils as Aquolls (wet Mollisols). Borolls (cold, dry Mollisols) are also common. Virtually all of the poorly drained soils have been ditched and drained for agricultural use. Saline soils are present in localized areas. Dry, sandy and gravelly soils are characteristic of the beach ridges present throughout the subsection. C. Climate: Total precipitation ranges from 21 inches in the northwest to 23 inches in the east, with roughly 40% occurring during the growing season. The growing season ranges from 111 to 136 days and is longest in the south. The climate of the subsection is influenced by Pacific Maritime, Gulf, and Polar air masses; the polar air mass has more regular impact upon this subsection than does the Gulf air mass (Critchfield 1974). D. Hydrology: This subsection is drained by the Red River, which forms the west boundary. The Red River flows north into Canada. The drainage network is minimally developed. Rivers and streams meander extensively. Flooding is common in early spring and can cause major problems due to level topography. Frozen conditions to the north can cause water to back up and flood large areas. There are few lakes present. Lakes are most common on a till plain in the southeast and characteristically, are shallow and perched. E. Pre-settlement vegetation: Tallgrass prairie and wet prairie were the dominant vegetation before settlement (Marschner, 1974). The upland prairie was dominated by bluestems, Indian grass, and several other

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 21

grasses. Wet prairie was dominated by bluejoint grass, cordgrass, cattails, rushes, and sedges. Narrow, forested floodplains were common along larger streams and rivers. Broader zones of woodland or brushland were common in "fire shadows" along streams; size and configuration depended on prevailing wind and stream alignment (Robert Dana, personal communication). F. Present vegetation and land use: The most important land use is agriculture. The lake plain has been intensively ditched for agriculture. Native flora persists in fragments (in some of moderate size) east of the beach ridges and in the interbeach zone (Albert 1993). G. Natural disturbance: Fire, drought, and annual flooding are important. High wind events (tornados and straight-line winds) are also common. Historically, bison grazing and ant activity caused important modifications of the vegetation and soils respectively (Albert 1993).

2. The Eastern Broadleaf Forest (EBF) Province traverses Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and Arkansas. In Minnesota, the EBF Province covers nearly 12 million acres (4.9 million hectares) of the central and southeastern parts of the state and serves as a transition, or ecotone, between semiarid portions of the state that were historically prairie and semi-humid mixed conifer-deciduous forests to the northeast. The western boundary of the province in Minnesota is sharply defined along much of its length as an abrupt transition from forest and woodland to open grassland. The northeastern boundary is more diffuse, with a gradual transition between eastern deciduous forests and the mixed conifer-hardwood forests of northern Minnesota.

The District owns 33 percent of our fee title lands in this transition province, and the province covers approximately 16% of our District. The District recognizes that we can make a substantial difference by managing habitat in this province for species that utilize this province because our ownership compared to the coverage of the District is much higher than other provinces in our District.

Hardwood Hills SubSection: The Alexandria Moraine Complex forms the western and southern boundary of this subsection. The eastern boundary was delineated based on general landform boundaries and the separation of lands dominated in the past by northern hardwoods from lands dominated by conifer or aspen-birch forest.

Steep slopes, high hills and lakes formed in glacial end moraines and outwash plains characterize this subsection. Pre-settlement vegetation included maple-basswood forests interspersed with oak savannas, tallgrass prairies, and oak forests. Much of this region is currently farmed. Where lakes are present, tourism is common.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 22

A. Landform: Ice stagnation moraines, end moraines, ground moraines, and outwash plains are major landforms present in this subsection. Kettle lakes are numerous, both on moraine and outwash deposits (Albert 1993). Parent material is primarily calcareous glacial till and outwash sediments. The glacial till is calcareous loamy sediment deposited by the last major glaciation (Wisconsin age). B. Soils: Soil textures range from loamy sands and sandy loams on outwash plains to loams and clay loams on moraines. Loamy soils are prevalent. Most are classified as Borolls (cold well drained soils developed under grassland) and Aquolls (wet soils developed under grassland), with some Udolls (dry soils developed under grassland, with soil temperatures warmer than Borolls). There are some Alfisols (soils developed under forested or savanna conditions) (Cummins and Grigal 1981). C. Climate: Total annual precipitation ranges from 24 inches in the west to 27 inches in the east. Growing season precipitation ranges from 10.5 to 11.5 inches. The growing season ranges from approximately 122 days in the north to 140 days in the south. D. Hydrology: The Alexandria Moraine forms a high ridge that is the headwaters region of many rivers and streams flowing east and west. The drainage network is young and undeveloped throughout this subsection. Major rivers include the Chippewa, the Long Prairie, the Sauk, and the Crow Wing rivers. The Mississippi River forms a portion of the east boundary. The Continental Divide splits this subsection. North of the divide, water eventually flows into Hudson Bay. South of the divide, water flows into the Mississippi River system. The subsection has numerous lakes, with over 400 lakes greater than 160 acres in size; many of which are present on end moraines and pitted outwash plains. E. Pre-settlement vegetation: Irregular topography and presence of numerous lakes and wetlands provided a partial barrier to fire, resulting in woodland or forest rather than prairie vegetation. A mosaic of tallgrass prairie, aspen-oak land, and oak openings or savanna was present along the prairie boundary to the west (Marschner 1974). Mixed forests of oaks, sugar maple, basswood, and other hardwoods were present in fire protected sites farther east. Tallgrass prairie grew on more level terrain within the subsection. F. Present vegetation and land use: Agriculture is the major land use. Wetlands and lakes in poorly-drained potholes provide opportunities for recreation or wildlife habitat. Some upland forests remain, adjacent to lakes or on steep landscapes. Tourism is important, especially in areas around lakes. G. Natural disturbance: Fire was important in oak savanna development. Windthrow was common in the sugar maple-basswood forests. Tornados and other high wind events also created natural disturbances (Albert 1993).

3. The Laurentian Mixed Forest (LMF) Province traverses northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, southern Ontario, and the less mountainous portions of New England. In Minnesota, the LMF Province covers a little more than 23 million acres (9.3 million ha) of the northeastern part of the state. In Minnesota, the

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 23

Province is characterized by broad areas of conifer forest, mixed hardwood and conifer forests, and conifer bogs and swamps. The landscape ranges from rugged lake-dotted terrain with thin glacial deposits over bedrock, to hummocky or undulating plains with deep glacial drift, to large, flat, poorly drained peatlands. Precipitation ranges from about 21 inches (53 cm) annually along the western border of the Province to about 32 inches (81 cm) at its eastern edge in Minnesota. Normal annual temperatures are about 34°F (1°C) along the northern part of the Province in Minnesota, rising to 40°F (4°C) at its southern extreme. Under influence of climate, the overall pattern of vegetation change across the Province in Minnesota is from warm and dry habitats in the southwest to cooler and moister ones in the northeast. Linked to climate are several other factors with southwest to northeast gradients that have important influence on vegetation and species ranges. Most notable are growing-degree days, evapotranspiration, and the depth and duration of snow cover.

The Detroit Lakes WMD manages one Waterfowl Production Area in this Province totaling 92 acres. The primary mission of the District does not lend itself to protection of further habitat in this province. The District recognizes that we will be nearly unable to impact species that use or specialize in habitat provided by this province. With the tiny ownership we have in this province we will focus very little of this habitat management plan on the species and habitats of this province. We will work with partnering agencies and organizations where possible to benefit unique resources that occur on our lands or neighboring our lands in locations where we are unable to focus our limited resources. Land ownership (%) in each province can be found in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1. Percentage of District-owned land in each of the four Ecological Provinces. (Based on land ownership April 2014).

Ecological Province District Land Ownership (%) Prairie Parkland 60% Tallgrass Aspen Parkland 6% Eastern Broadleaf Forest 33% Laurentian Mixed Forest 1%

Regardless of where traveling in Minnesota during the pre-settlement era, one can only begin to imagine what the landscape looked like. The landscape of this District is likely one of the most diverse in Minnesota. For example, in a 10 mile stretch of land in Mahnomen County, one can progress from flat, open wet prairie, through oak openings and barrens and into deciduous and coniferous forests. Many of

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 24 the pre-settlement vegetation/habitat types documented and then mapped by Marschner (1974) and later adapted by the MN DNR (1988) can be found within the District (Figure 2.9).

Figure 2.9. Pre-settlement vegetation of the Detroit Lakes WMD

To determine which pre-settlement vegetation types occurred on District units, 170 WPAs, Hamden Slough NWR and one Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge tract were classified using the adaptation (MN DNR 1988) of Marschner’s (1974) pre-settlement vegetation types. These classifications, along

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 25 with the Province in which it is located, unit acres, and a priority ranking can be found in Appendix 3. A description of the priority tool from which the rankings were conceived can be found in Appendix 4. This information is used extensively in habitat management planning. The number of District management units and the pre-settlement vegetation type is found below in Table 2.2. A majority of units (57% or 98 of 172) consisted solely of upland prairie and/or prairie wetland; while prairie and transitional zone habitat (aspen parkland or oak woodland brushland) were co-dominant on 21 units. Twenty-seven units were classified primarily as oak woodland brushland while 14 were Aspen Parkland. Maple-basswood forest was the dominant pre-settlement vegetation on nine units and two units contained mostly Great Lakes Pine Forest. The remaining two units were a combination of aspen parkland and oak woodland/brushland pre-settlement vegetation types.

Table 2.2. Pre-settlement vegetation of District units characterized using the generalized Marschner (MN DNR 1988, based on land ownership April 2014).

Number of Pre-settlement Vegetation (generalized Marschner; District Units MN DNR 1988) 98 Upland Prairie/Prairie Wetland 21 Prairie and Transitional Vegetation 14 Aspen Parkland 27 Oak Woodland/Brushland 9 Maple-Basswood Forest 2 Great Lakes Pine Forest 2 Aspen Parkland and Oak Woodland

Although these pre-settlement vegetation types provide a fairly accurate description of what should be present on District units given the ECS and where they lie in the landscape, we must acknowledge that in creating the more generalized habitat types, details from the original map needed to be simplified. The process of simplifying resulted in combining some boundaries of different types and eliminating types altogether (MN DNR 1988). In addition, because of the diversity of habitat types within the District boundary there is the potential for ecotonal habitats to constantly shift as a result of climate, as well as disturbance frequency and other factors. Finally, there is no doubt the landscape throughout the vast majority of the landscape has been highly altered by humans. In short, common sense must prevail. We need to couple the pre-settlement vegetation data along with other resources, as well as assess the current state of the landscape when planning restoration and management activities on a single unit- scale. This will be discussed later in the Chapter, as well as throughout the remainder of the HMP.

Upland Prairie/Prairie Wetland

Upland (Tallgrass) prairie/prairie wetland once covered one-third of Minnesota or nearly 18 million acres (Sampson and Knopf, 1994). It is a fire-maintained system that occupied a variety of landforms from topographic beach ridges and morainal hills to lower lake beds, draws and swales (MN DNR 1988). Along with fire, prairies were also highly influenced by large and small mammals, as well as the climate. The dominant vegetation of the prairie is grasses and forbs. Prairie grasses and forbs separate along soil

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 26 moisture gradients related to topography. Along the margins of wetlands and in wet-mesic prairies, prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) and bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis) are two of the dominant species. Moving to more mesic soils, big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) and Indiangrass (Sorgastrum nutans) are the characteristic species. On hilltops or in sandier soils, prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), porcupine grass (Stipa spartea) and side oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) are the most abundant grasses.

The diverse set of prairie forbs is dominated by two families: asters and legumes. These include asters (Aster spp), blazingstars (Liatris spp), sunflowers (Helianthus spp), coneflowers (Ratibida spp), and goldenrods (Solidago spp). Legumes include prairie clovers (Dalea spp) and vetches (Astragalus spp and Vicia spp). Common woody shrubs include western snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis), red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), and wild plum (Prunus spp). Throughout the prairies of western Minnesota, numerous pothole wetlands were interspersed among the upland prairies. These communities were dominated by sedges and rushes, as opposed to grasses of the uplands.

Aspen Parkland

Aspen Parklands formed the ecotone or transition area between the tallgrass prairies and coniferous forests in the northern portions of the District. Vast acres of poorly drained prairies, wet meadows and aspen groves situated between forests and open tallgrass prairies created the ultimate tension zone. Where fire could not reach, shrub thickets and aspen groves persisted; often called brush prairie. During times of drought coupled with fire, open prairies and meadows won the battle. Even today, this ecotonal habitat type is never static. Many of the same grasses, forbs, sedges and rushes characteristic of the prairie/wetland habitats are also prominent in the Aspen Parkland type.

Oak Woodland and Brushland

The oak woodland and brushland is the ecotonal type between the tallgrass prairies and deciduous forests in the eastern (and portions of the southern) District. The other ultimate tension zone, vegetation communities were highly influenced by fire and soils. They varied from the savanna-like structure of large open-grown oaks (primarily bur in the area of the DLWMD) with understory openings of tallgrass prairie to a more chaparral-like scrub forest/dense shrub community (MN DNR 1988). Once again never static, this ecotone shifted during times of climatic events, as well as surges in fires and large and small mammals. Herbaceous vegetation in sun-drenched areas often resembles that of tallgrass prairie. However, important components of the savanna understory include sedges and woodland forbs, as well.

Maple-Basswood Forest

The Maple-Basswood Forest, commonly referred to as the “Big Woods”, occurs at the far western edge of the deciduous forest biome of North America (MN DNR 1988). Elm, basswood, sugar maple and red oak are the dominant tree species and are all highly sensitive to fire. Because fire-maintained habitats (prairies and oak woodland/brushland) formed the western boundary of the Maple-Basswood Forest,

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 27 natural firebreaks such as rivers, lakes and topography prevented fire’s spread from the west allowing the Forest to prevail.

Great Lakes Pine Forest

The Great Lakes Pine Forest typically occurred in areas with gravelly moraines and sandy outwash plains or on thin glacial till over bedrock (MN DNR 1988) in north-central and extreme northern Minnesota, respectively. Two characteristic trees prevail: the eastern white pine and the red pine. Species and age were defined by the frequency of fire; in times where fire was prevalent, jack pine and young red pine persisted along with old growth white pine. In general, white pine were found on more mesic sites less prone to fire, while red pine were found on dry, more fire-prone sites.

2.4 CURRENT CONDITIONS AND CHANGES FROM HISTORIC HABITAT TYPES The landscape within the DLWMD has changed dramatically since the pre-settlement era. As white settlers arrived in western Minnesota, they discovered a precious resource in the prairie—its soils. This discovery ultimately led to the conversion of prairie to cropland in the heart of the District between the Lake Agassiz Beachridge and the Alexandria Moraine (Figure 2.10). Massive conversion of wetlands and prairie to agricultural fields has dramatically altered the landscape, hydrology, and the region’s carrying capacity for waterfowl and other prairie- and wetland-dependent plants and wildlife. In many locations in the district, the only areas with a native plant community are managed conservation lands. Minnesota has less than 1% of its original tallgrass prairie (Samson et al. 1998). Today, only about 22 acres of remnant prairie remain on Hamden Slough NWR, all in small, highly fragmented parcels. At the time of the CCP (USFWS 2003), the District owned an estimated 4051 acres of remnant prairie ranging in size from <1 ac to >900 acres scattered on numerous WPAs. Since 2003, the District has acquired 6,558 additional acres in new WPAs. However, we do not have an accurate or updated estimate of remnant prairie since 2003.

Remnant prairies of the District vary in quality and type. Many of the remaining prairies are small in size and in odd shapes near wetlands or on steep hilltops, both types having escaped the plow. Mesic prairie that has survived is constantly threatened by invasion of woody vegetation and other invasive species. The greatest amount of remnant prairie left within the District is along the Lake Agassiz Beachridge, due to highly variable soils and unique hydrology. Being the area being somewhat “intact”, the beach and lakeplain Land Type Associations (LTAs; Figure 2.11) identified north-south through the western portion of the District harbor many of the Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species and rare habitat features. Units containing the largest acres of quality, intact remnant prairie are identified with a red circle along and outside the Beachridge. Unfortunately, the Beachridge area is currently under expedited attack for its soil and gravel resources. Numerous open pit gravel mines scatter the ridge from north to south. The exodus of improved crop genetics along with a smorgasbord of pesticides has also enticed many landowners to break native (remnant) sod and try their luck at farming. Those prairies still remaining are highly threatened by exotic species such as smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass, plus a myriad of broadleaf weeds and invasive woody vegetation.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 28

Figure 2.10. Landcover in the Detroit Lakes WMD

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 29

Remnant Prairie Remaining On and Outside the Agassiz Beach Ridge

Figure 2.11. Red circles indicate large tracts of remnant prairie in the DLWMD that may harbor unique or rare species

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 30

In addition to remnant prairie, Detroit Lakes WMD manages thousands of acres of planted grasslands. Again, the exact (or even estimated) number of acres is currently unknown. The quality of these grasslands, like the prairie remnants vary in type and quality. Some older fields are dominated by warm season native species (sometimes cultivars) such as big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), switchgrass (Pancium virgatum), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), and little bluestem (Schyzachyrium scoparium). Since 1995, District staff has been planting a more-diverse mix of native grasses and forbs harvested from local remnant prairies within the District.

The 2003 CCP estimated >18,000 acres of wetlands (and riverine habitat) in the District. This has certainly increased with additional acquisition and restoration in the last 10 years. The distribution and types of wetlands in the District varies depending on location of the landscape. The DLWMD owns land in the heart of the eastern PPR, with densities of temporary and seasonal (and semi-permanent) wetlands in some locations rivaling that of the Dakotas. Larger, deeper shallow lakes are more numerous as one moves from the prairies to the transition zones, particularly that of the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province and units on the Alexandria Moraine. Here, increased topography or knob- and-kettle type formation provides the perfect place for deeper water bodies.

Prairie wetlands have also undergone dramatic losses and degradation since European settlement. Johnson et al. (2008) estimate that 85% of Minnesota’s pothole wetlands have been drained. Most commonly, they were drained by ditches or subsurface tile to facilitate agricultural production. Also like prairies, the remaining un-drained wetlands are very often in a degraded state. Common problems in our wetlands include invasive plants such as reed canarygrass and hybrid cattail (Typha x glauca), unnatural fish populations (particularly fathead minnow [Pimephales promelas], common carp [Cyprinus carpio], and other rough fish), water quality problems, and artificially deep and stable water levels. Wetlands in the transition zone, due to their size, depth and surrounding topography have been “left alone” to some degree and many still exist. However, because of the drainage in locations upstream from most, they are still inundated with many of the degradations of existing pothole wetlands.

Additional lands managed by Detroit Lakes WMD include those in the ecotonal areas as described above: Aspen Parkland and Oak Woodland/Brushland. Many of the units in Polk, Mahnomen, Becker and Clay Counties occur spatially between prairie and either deciduous or coniferous forests. Areas of tallgrass prairie/aspen parkland, or what we commonly call “brush prairie” are very common in the south-central and eastern portions of Polk County between the prairies and coniferous forest. These are generally wetter prairies that readily succumb to early successional establishment of aspen, willow and other woody shrubs and trees that thrive in wetter environments outside of very frequent fire or other disturbances. They are also highly vulnerable to invasion by reed canarygrass.

In the ecotonal or transition zone between prairie and the deciduous forests lie units that commonly contain varying size pockets of oak savanna and among tallgrass prairie vegetation. Oftentimes, oak savannas are highly degraded in that they are overgrown with shade-loving tree species due to lack of regular fire. Understories of savannas, if not managed regularly can also succumb to invasive woody and herbaceous vegetation such as glossy buckthorn and common parsnip, respectively. Even those oak savannas with open-grown bur oaks present and few if any shade-loving trees many times contain the

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 31 same invasives as prairies like leafy spurge, smooth brome, or Kentucky bluegrass. Some oak savannas also show evidence of prior cutting, where large single base stem/trunk erects into a double-trunk of slimmer size. These were highly sought after areas for establishing home sites and for sources of wood as settlers moved into this area. It is estimated there are 696 acres of oak savanna on District owned lands.

Finally, woodlands, forests, groves, lakes, and creeks/rivers are found in varying degrees on District lands. They are evaluated on a case by case basis.

2.5 CLIMATE CHANGE Changes in the overall landscape, land use, and vegetative communities clearly had dramatic consequences for the native flora and fauna. Many species of wildlife have been altogether extirpated from the region, such as bison (Bison bison) and long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus). Others, like the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and plains hog-nosed snake (Heterodon nasicus) are very rarely observed in the Detroit Lakes WMD. Waterfowl densities are a shadow of what they once were. Many other grassland birds are in steep decline. The Dakota skipper and poweshiek skipperling are prairie- obligate butterflies that were recently listed as Threatened and Endangered, respectively, under the Endangered Species Act. Western Prairie Fringed Orchids are found in wet prairies and fens associated with the Lake Agassiz Beach Ridge LTAs and although none are currently found on District-owned lands, they are found in close proximity. There are 50 state rare or endangered plants found in the district, many of which are found in oak savannas, prairies, and calcareous fens (themselves rare and endangered ecosystems).

Climate change will only compound the challenges and threats described above. The PPR is characterized by a strongly seasonal climate that also undergoes periodic extreme events. The condition and productivity of prairie wetlands and grasslands (and so the flora and fauna associated with them) are largely driven by these weather patterns and climatic events; it is reasonable to expect that prairie wetlands and grasslands will be sensitive to climate change. During the 20th Century, the upper Midwest warmed by approximately 4 degrees Celsius and received 20% more annual precipitation, mostly due to heavy precipitation events (Easterling and Karl 2001). It is predicted that the temperature will rise another 5-10 degrees Celsius, likely at a faster rate than observed in the previous Century. Additionally, precipitation trends will likely continue upward, with increases in frequency and intensity of events (Easterling and Karl 2001). Predicted climate changes for the eastern PPR, including DLWMD, include higher temperatures, increased precipitation, and a greater frequency of extreme weather events.

Today, the continental population of breeding grassland birds continues to decline at a very high rate compared to other bird guilds of North America. Fifty-four percent of species showed a significant negative trend between 1966 and 2010 (Sauer et al. 2011). Fifty-seven percent of grassland bird species also show a medium-to-high vulnerability to climate change (NABCI 2010). This added pressure could result in more birds listed as Species of Conservation Concern. Higher temperatures predicted for the Great Plains (Ojima and Lackett 2002) could decrease productivity of many grasslands (NABCI 2010) due

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 32 to changes in vegetation community and structure, loss of water sources, and decreased prey, among others. Native game birds such as the Sharp-tailed Grouse and Greater Prairie-Chicken already are declining due to habitat fragmentation and native prairie loss. Because these birds are non-migratory and lack the ability to travel long distances, they may be unable to shift their distribution in the wake of climate change (NABCI 2010). Finally, long distance migrants such as the Bobolink and Dickcissel may not be able to adapt quickly enough in response to effects of climate change (NABCI 2010).

Although wetlands are dynamic systems that fluctuate with changing weather, they also are very susceptible to climate change because of their shallow depths and high evapotranspiration rates (Johnson et al. 2010). Even slight temperature or precipitation changes could cause degradation or loss (NABCI 2010). Climate simulations show that a temperature increase of 2 °C could cause nearly two- thirds of the highly productive wetlands in the Dakotas and Saskatchewan to go dry (NABCI 2010), likely causing shifts once more in the breeding range of waterfowl (Johnson et al. 2010; Johnson et al. 2005). However, the majority of wetlands in the eastern PPR that historically supported waterfowl have been drained for agriculture, so pothole wetlands and the birds that depend on them are acutely threatened in this area (NABCI 2010).

Forested habitats will also be subject to impacts from climate change. It is projected that rising air temperatures will supersede precipitation in some areas, leading to a substantial increase in evaporation, thus causing soil moisture deficit and drought-like conditions (Easterling and Karl 2001), or savannification of upland forested habitats. This could have impacts on the distribution of savannas, woodlands, and forests in the upper Midwest and the wildlife that depends on those habitat types. Current savannas should be favored by the drier conditions, enabling fire to carry well throughout the understory, and thus allowing for better management of invasive species and native plant communities. Savannafication will also drive northern mesic forests containing such species as American basswood, sugar maple, hemlock, yellow birch and beech to a more oak-red maple-basswood-elm mixture (Frelich et. al. 2012). Maple-basswood forests will still be appropriate in areas of deep silty or silt-loam soils, however, they will become increasingly rare as savannafication occurs. The northern boreal (coniferous) forests of jack pine, black spruce, fir and birch could result in more red maple-oak woodlands, especially if windthrow remains a factor and more frequent fires exist. Ultimately, changing climate (savannification) coupled with greater frequency/intensity of fire will favor the establishment and sustainability of oak savanna. This predicted expansion will provide additional ecotonal habitat for use by grassland, forest-edge and savanna-dependent species. Those strongly affiliated with the northern boreal forest may be impacted more than the grassland or woodland species given the predicted retraction of boreal forest habitat.

New climate simulations are run frequently and many times, the models contradict earlier versions. In reality, we really don’t know exactly what is going to happen with climate change; we are only modeling “predictions”. Therefore, we must be flexible as new information is provided. For example, if temperatures rise and supersede increased precipitation, Aspen Parklands (wet brush prairie) may become dry-mesic or dry prairie over time. It is likely, as inferred above that ecotonal habitats could

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 33 become highly critical to plant and species alike, either as corridors for connecting and/or replacing disappearing critical habitats or areas for emigration and new settling.

Restoration and management of District uplands amidst all the threats is a challenge, especially during times of decreased budgets and staff. Utilizing agricultural practices is commonplace to meet our habitat objectives. For example, when a tract is purchased after being in commodity crop cover for decades, we work with neighboring landowners (or the previous landowner) to farm the land for up to three years in preparation for planting native prairie vegetation. Prescribed burning is our number one management tool, but due to limitations such as weather, we sometimes need to employ alternative tools. For instance, when burning is not possible, we may cooperate with a neighbor to hay the grassland. Haying removes residual herbaceous vegetation, helps break down the litter layer, and removes young woody stems that get established. The cooperator is able to use the bales as forage for cattle. Grazing of District lands is being considered more and more for specific habitat objectives such as setting back invasive cool season grasses and reinvigorating native forbs. There is a mutual benefit to the producer in that their cattle consume high quality forage while resting their own pastures. These agricultural management techniques are discussed in more detail in Chapters 4 and 5, as well as in the Agricultural Management Practice Implementation Plan (Appendix 15).

2.6 INVENTORY/RECONNAISSANCE OF DISTRICT LAND AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT The Detroit Lakes WMD is one location in Minnesota where all three major biomes occur in such a short distance. This has major implications for management in the DLWMD. Our jurisdictional obligation is to prairie waterfowl and migratory birds, which have to be a priority for our work. We also have some very unique resources like oak savanna, which may be more imperiled in North America than native tallgrass prairie (Nuzzo 1986). We have a number of prairie fens at the western edge of the Alexandria moraine and the discharge zone along the Glacial Lake Agassiz Beach Ridge. These unique resources and many others have to be considered in our habitat management planning.

District staff utilizes numerous resources to inventory natural resources on our management units. Initially when tracts were purchased they were mapped for restoration and development planning purposes. The Resource and Inventory Plan (RIP) cards have been useful to determine what has been restored and where. Unfortunately, the cards have many discrepancies in their descriptions of the native habitats and some of the restoration sites. In addition, many of the newer acquisitions do not have completed RIP cards. The cards have been a useful starting point for our inventory of our habitat and cover types. Management units and their associated native habitat types classified using the RIP cards is found in Appendix 5.

In addition to RIP cards, staff has utilized the products of specific studies, such as, “A Survey of Native Prairie Remnants and Prairie Species of Special Interest in the Vicinity of Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge, Becker County, Minnesota” (Pemble 1995). Studies such as this have provided very useful information about the natural resources within specific areas of the District.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 34

The Minnesota County Biological Survey and the many products resulting from the inventories have been infinitely useful for management unit inventory of natural resources. The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) GIS database for Minnesota provides locations of unique species and habitat features on and off District-owned lands. In addition, many native plant communities have been documented on our management units and can be found in Appendix 6. The location, habitat types, and descriptions in these data layers are quite accurate portrayals of the habitat on the ground. However, the quality grades for the habitat types are out of date and in some cases, do not accurately represent what is present on the ground today. The combination of the NHIS GIS Data and the Native Plant Community information found in the MN DNR (2005) “Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota” have been exceptional tools to help us identify unique native communities on our land.

We do recognize the need for additional inventory information on our lands. The primary inventory needs for the entire District are listed below.

1) A complete inventory of our tracts to evaluate the current vegetation state. 2) An inventory of unrestored sites that are still in need of full restoration. 3) Identify all native habitats on our tracts and quality of the native sites.

As the inventory is implemented and information is collected, it will be incorporated into this plan to further develop our habitat management planning. On-the-ground reconnaissance to cross-check current information will be used to update and expand our digital data resources. Building a database will be critical to make the best management decisions possible for each of our tracts. At present we do this on an as needed basis, but a complete inventory documenting the location and quality of cover on our management units is needed.

2.7 MAKING THE CONNECTION TO RESOURCES OF CONCERN District staff is using the Native Plant Community Type information in the MN DNR (2005) “Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota” as a guide and decision making tool for much of our habitat management. This tool is the direct link and classification key to the ECS for Minnesota and has been exceptional to help identify unique native communities on our land. It also contains much detail of the disturbance regimes, landscape setting, species frequency and cover, etc. for each habitat class in Minnesota. The content in these guides is the summary of inventories that have been completed on the native habitats in MN by the MNDNR County Biological Survey as well as the integration of the ECS.

The guide allows the user to key a section down to the associated habitat classes and types. We will refer to the descriptions of the habitat classes in the remainder of this document. Once keyed to a habitat class, there is a wealth of accessible information. Each habitat class is described by its vegetative structure and composition, landscape setting and soils as well as natural history. Habitat types provide even greater detail about indicator species that are likely found in each habitat type. We expect to key

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 35 our restored land cover to these classes and types, as well as evaluate our native habitats. We plan to use the detailed biological information in this document as a guide to our future habitat restoration and management.

As we develop this HMP, we will be considering the unique resources located in our District by the County Biological Survey. Many of these resources provide opportunities to benefit species that many other Districts in Minnesota do not have due to their geographic and biological landscapes. As such, we cannot ignore the unique opportunities we have to manage resources unique to our District as we choose our Resources of Concern for the DLWMD.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 36

CHAPTER 3 RESOURCES OF CONCERN

3.1 INTRODUCTION Resources of concern are the primary focus of this HMP and are central to the work of the NWRS. The FWS is entrusted with conserving and protecting migratory birds, federally listed threatened and endangered species, inter-jurisdictional fishes, and certain marine mammals (i.e. “trust species”). Furthermore, each unit of the Refuge System has one or more purposes for which it was established. The management direction of each refuge is driven by the refuge purpose(s) and statutory mandates, coupled with species and habitat priorities (aka. resources of concern). Refuges also support other elements of biological diversity including invertebrates, rare plants, unique natural communities, and ecological processes that contribute to biological integrity and environmental health at the refuge, ecosystem, and broader scales.

The FWS’s HMP Policy (620 FW 1) defines “resources of concern” as

All plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities specifically identified in Refuge purpose(s), System mission, or international, national, regional, State, or ecosystem conservation plans or acts. For example, waterfowl and shorebirds are resources of concern on a refuge whose purpose is to protect “migrating waterfowl and shorebirds.” Federal or State threatened and endangered species on that same Refuge are also resources of concern under terms of the respective threatened and endangered species acts.

Given the multitude of purposes, mandates, policies, and plans that can apply to a refuge, it is necessary to explicitly identify resources of concern and identify those resources for which the refuge is best suited to focus its management activities. The process used by Detroit Lakes WMD to identify potential resources of concern, priority resources of concern, and priority habitat types is described below. Priority resources of concern and habitat types were then used to develop habitat goals, objectives, and strategies (Chapter 4, 5) and decision-making and implementation (Chapter 6).

3.2 COMPREHENSIVE RESOURCES OF CONCERN A comprehensive list of potential resources of concern for Detroit Lakes WMD is found in Appendix 7. The list was developed by consulting several plans and lists, including District and Refuge species lists, national and regional priority documents, state fish and wildlife plans, and Federal and State endangered species lists (Table 3.1). Generally, any species known to occur or that could reasonably occur in Detroit Lakes WMD and that is included in any of the resources consulted was added to the comprehensive list. In addition to the species found in published lists and plans, all waterfowl that breed in Detroit Lakes WMD are included as a result of the District’s purpose. Key ecosystems were added because they are important under the auspices of the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Ecosystem Health policy (see section 3.3). The potential resources of concern include birds (269

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 37 species), mammals (15), reptiles and amphibians (5), fish (4), mussels and snails (10), other invertebrates (17), plants (51), and ecosystems/native plant communities (4).

Table 3.1. Resources from which potential resources of concern were identified.

Birds Other Wildlife Plants Ecosystems

• Refuge Purpose • Federal Threatened and • State Threatened • Biological Endangered Species and Endangered Integrity, • Federal Threatened and Species Diversity, and Endangered Species • State Threatened and Environmental Endangered Species • Region 3 Health Policy • State Threatened and Resource (601 FW 3) Endangered Species • Region 3 Resource Conservation Conservation Priorities Priorities • NatureServe • FWS Birds of Global/State Conservation Concern • Minnesota Species of • NatureServe Rankings (National, Region 3, and Greatest Conservation Global/State BCR 11 lists) Need Rankings

• Region 3 Resource • Plans and Prairie Conservation Priorities Potholes LCC Focal Species • Partners in Flight priorities-NTP • NatureServe Global/State Rankings • Minnesota Species of Greatest Conservation Need

• Plans and Prairie Potholes LCC Focal Species

• Prairie Pothole Joint Venture focal species

• FWS Division of Migratory Birds, Focal Species of Region 3

• U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan-NPPP

• North American Waterbird Plan-NPPP

• Audubon Watchlist

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 38

3.3 BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, DIVERSITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH POLICY As described in the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (BIDEH) policy (601 FW 3), the goal of habitat management on units of the NWRS is to ensure the long-term maintenance and where possible, restoration of healthy populations of native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. In addition to providing habitat for trust species, refuges support other elements of biodiversity including invertebrates, rare plants, unique natural communities, and ecological processes (USFWS 1999). Where possible, refuge management restores or mimics natural ecosystem processes or functions and thereby maintains biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health.

District lands, as previously stated in Chapter 2, are located within four distinct provinces of Minnesota: Tallgrass Aspen Parklands, Prairie Parkland, Eastern Broadleaf Forest, and the Laurentian Mixed Forest (MN DNR 2005). Although the vast majority of lands fall within the Prairie Parkland and Eastern Broadleaf Forest provinces, habitat types and associated elements of BIDEH must be taken into consideration for all provinces. Four broad habitat types occur on the District: tallgrass prairie, wetlands, oak savanna, and forest. Freshwater lakes are not considered since there are no documented lake-types on District lands and they are not defined in the Field Guide to Native Plant Communities of Minnesota (NPC Guides; MN DNR 2005) series. In addition, the FWS has limited authority and management capability of freshwater lakes; most management (e.g. invasive species control), if required, is done by the MN Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) or other agency.

Using the NHIS, NPC field guides, and best professional judgment, we developed a list of major native plant community classes (class/es) documented (or having the potential to occur) on District lands, class descriptions, natural processes, and State Rankings provided by NatureServe (2011, Table 3.2), representing BIDEH. Very limited documentation of native plant community classes exists for WPAs within the Tallgrass Aspen Parklands province, as well as forested types in general. While it does exist for the Laurentian Mixed Forest, only one WPA is located within that province. Therefore, information is generally lacking for woodland and forest plant community classes, as well as Polk County units as a whole. Specific management units containing documented native plant community classes and associated acreages can be found in Appendix 6.

The BIDEH table provides guidance on what conditions constitute biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of District habitats; how those conditions are maintained; how and when it is appropriate to restore degraded conditions, and awareness of external threats to those habitats and ecosystems. Given the continually changing environmental conditions and landscape patterns of the past and present (e.g., rapid development, climate change, invasive species), relying on natural processes is not always feasible nor always the best management strategy for conserving wildlife resources. Uncertainty about the future requires Detroit Lakes WMD to manage within a natural range of variability rather than emulating an arbitrary point in time. Doing this maintains mechanisms that allow species, genetic strains, and natural communities to evolve with changing conditions, rather than trying to maintain stability or achieve the highest state of productivity each time we manage (i.e. hemi- marsh state of a wetland).

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 39

Table 3.2. Habitat types and native plant community classes on District units representing BIDEH along with State Ranks (NatureServe 2011).

Broad Natural Process MN Native Plant Limiting State (S) Habitat Type Native Plant Community Description Responsible for Community1 Factors/Threats Rank2 Condition Northern Dry Grass-dominated herbaceous communities on nearly level Xeric conditions/low soil Fire suppression. S1, S2 Prairie (UPn12)* to steeply sloping sites with droughty soils. Moderate fertility favor dry prairie growing-season moisture deficits occur during most years, species. Fire is essential, Aggregate mining. and severe moisture deficits are frequent, especially during but at a lower frequency periodic regional droughts. Graminoid cover patchy to than required for mesic continuous (50–100%); Mid-height and short grasses, little prairies. Grazing and bluestem and porcupine grass prominent and important. trampling by large, Forb cover sparse to patchy (5–50%); some major forb native ungulates were species include silky aster, dotted blazing star, regular occurrences, pasqueflower, and hoary puccoon. Shrub layer up to 50%; influencing species mostly leadplant. Trees absent or small, grub bur oak may composition.

be present

Northern Mesic Grass-dominated but forb-rich herbaceous communities. Recurrent fire essential Fire suppression. S2 Prairie (UPn23)* Located on somewhat poorly drained loam soils in as conditions are

Prairie lacustrine sediments, glacial till, or outwash deposits on suitable for tree growth. Conversion to level to gently rolling sites. Graminoid cover 75–100%. Fire also promotes seed cropland. Tall grasses dominate, mid-height grasses are also production. important. Big bluestem and Indiangrass dominate; prairie Grazing/trampling Overgrazing. dropseed may be co-dominant. On drier sites, little occurred and influenced bluestem and porcupine grass. On moister sites, mat muhly fire behavior and species grass, switchgrass and prairie cordgrass. Forb cover sparse composition. to patchy (5–50%); heath aster, stiff goldenrod , wild bergamot, purple prairie clover, stiff sunflower, northern bedstraw, and smooth blue aster. Shrub layer sparse to interrupted (5–75% cover). Trees are absent

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 40

Broad Natural Process MN Native Plant Limiting State (S) Habitat Type Native Plant Community Description Responsible for Community1 Factors/Threats Rank2 Condition Southern Dry Grass-dominated herbaceous communities on nearly level Xeric conditions/low soil Fire suppression. S1, S2 Prairie (UPs13) to steeply sloping sites with droughty soils. Moderate fertility favor dry prairie growing-season moisture deficits occur during most years, species. Fire is essential, Aggregate mining. and severe moisture deficits are frequent, especially during but at a lower frequency periodic regional droughts. Vegetation structure and than required for mesic Eastern red cedar composition similar to Northern Dry Prairie (UPn12). prairies. Grazing and invasion. Species occurrence is different, whereas many species trampling by large, present in UPs13 are rarer in UPn12. native ungulates were regular occurrences, influencing species composition. Southern Mesic Grass-dominated but forb-rich herbaceous communities on Recurrent fire essential Fire suppression. S2 Prairie (UPs23)* somewhat poorly drained to well-drained loam soils as conditions are mainly formed in unsorted glacial till, sometimes in a thin suitable for tree growth. Conversion to loess layer over till, and locally in lacustrine sediments and Fire also promotes seed cropland. outwash deposits. Communities occur primarily on level production. to gently rolling sites. Vegetation structure and Grazing/trampling Overgrazing. composition similar to Northern Mesic Prairie (UPn23), the occurred and influenced only differences is species occurrence; several species fire behavior and species typical of UPs23 are not present in UPn23. Shrubs not as composition. important as in UPn23. Northern Wet Grass-dominated, forb-rich; often strong shrub component, Recurrent fire is Fire suppression. S2, S3 Prairie (WPn53)* poorly drained loam soils, unsorted glacial till, occasional essential as conditions outwash deposits. Primarily level to very gently sloping are suitable rapid Drainage. sites. Flooded for brief periods at most; upper part of succession to forest. Fire rooting zone is not saturated for most of growing season. promotes seed Overgrazing. Drought stress is infrequent, usually brief, and not severe. production and opens up Fires were very frequent historically. Graminoid cover 75– areas for plant Conversion to 100%, tall grasses dominate, prairie cordgrass and big regeneration. Water cropland. bluestem; low grasses and sedges. Forb cover 5–50% table typically high including sawtooth sunflower and Canada goldenrod. during most of growing Shrub layer is absent to interrupted (0–75% cover); season. Slender willow most widespread

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 41

Broad Natural Process MN Native Plant Limiting State (S) Habitat Type Native Plant Community Description Responsible for Community1 Factors/Threats Rank2 Condition Prairie Wet Open wetlands dominated by a dense cover of graminoids. Inundated during spring Invasion by non- S3 Meadow/Carr Present in small, shallow depressions in the western and runoff and after heavy native species, (WMp73)* southern parts of the state. On ground moraines and inter- rains; depths shallow primarily reed beach zone of Glacial Lake Agassiz, usually in broad, and flooding is short- canarygrass. shallow drainageways and shallow swales within regions lived. Anaerobic for of subdued topography. Graminoid cover 50–100% short time. Mostly Alterations in including narrow reedgrass, prairie cordgrass, Sartwell’s reliant on groundwater. wetland hydrology sedge, and woolly sedge. Forb cover < 50% with panicled (drainage, aster, smartweed, common mint, swamp milkweed, and Joe impounding water). pye-weed. Shrub cover < 5%. Susceptible to ag- runoff (high nutrient loads/sediment)

Overgrazing. Northern Wet Open wetlands dominated by dense cover of broad-leaved Alternate inundation Drainage. S4, S5 Meadow/Carr graminoids or tall shrubs. Present on mineral to sapric following spring runoff (WMn82)* peat soils in basins and along streams. Graminoid dense and heavy rains, and Loss of variable stands of mostly broad-leaved graminoids, periodic drawdowns water levels bluejoint, lake sedge, tussock sedge, and beaked sedge. during summer. Peak (stabilization). Forb cover is variable with tufted loosestrife, marsh water levels high Susceptible to bellflower, marsh skullcap, and great water dock. Shrub enough/persistent sphagnum with

Wetland cover is variable; tall shrubs such as willows, red-osier enough to prevent trees alterations in dogwood, and speckled alder. Trees taller than 16ft are (and often shrubs) from hydrology. rare. establishing, although there may be little or no standing water much of the growing season. Southern Seepage Open wetlands dominated by dense cover of hummock- Associated with Fire suppression. S3 Meadow/Carr forming broadleaved sedges or tall shrubs. Present in wetlands influenced by (WMs83)* areas of groundwater seepage along streams and drainage lateral groundwater Threats to ways, on sloping terraces, and at bases of slopes. flow. Alternate groundwater flow. Graminoid cover interrupted to continuous (50-100%) inundation following typically dominated by tussock sedge or aquatic sedge. spring runoff and heavy Drainage. Other grass and sedge occurrence by bluejoint, prairie rains, and periodic sedge, and fowl manna grass. Forb cover is variable (5- drawdowns during 50%) with common species being Joe-pye weed, great summer. Water levels water dock, common boneset and swamp milkweed. Shrub high enough to prevent cover is variable. trees/ shrubs from establishing. Frequent

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 42

Broad Natural Process MN Native Plant Limiting State (S) Habitat Type Native Plant Community Description Responsible for Community1 Factors/Threats Rank2 Condition fire in surrounding landscape may be important in reducing shrub presence or accumulation of peat Prairie Rich Fen Open graminoid-dominated peatlands in glacial lake plains Lateral downward Fire suppression. S3 (OPp91)* and broad glacial drainageways in the prairie region. movement of Dominated by fine-leaved sedges and grasses, with low groundwater through Threats to shrubs absent to common. Graminoid cover is interrupted peat is a feature, as well groundwater. to continuous (75-100%) with fen wiregrass sedge usually as subdued water level dominant and stiff reedgrass and Buxbaum's sedge co- fluctuation and brief Drainage. dominant. Other major components include clustered periods of deep muhly grass and tall cottongrass. Forb cover is usually inundation. Limited peat sparse (5-25%) and common species include marsh accumulation due to bellflower, bog aster, and grass-leaved goldenrod. Shrub susceptibility to surface cover is patchy (0-55%), <6ft tall and dominated by willow drying. High fire spp. Shrubby cinquefoil and bog birch sometimes frequency in common. surrounding prairies set back peat accumulation. Prairie Extremely Open graminoid-dominated fens on permanently saturated Water flows through Threats to S2 Rich Fen (OPp93)* peat sustained by mineral-rich groundwater discharge, calcareous glacial drift or groundwater. with little influence from surface water inputs. Typically bedrock, causing it present on sloping sites; peat is sometimes mounded or highly alkaline along Man-caused domed. Small pools and sparsely vegetated primarily peat with high calcium inundation areas are commonly present. Moss cover is variable. concentrations. The Graminoid cover is patchy to continuous (50-100%); mineral-rich, cold anoxic sedges and grasses being equally important. Common conditions of the sedge species include prairie sedge and sterile sedge. substrate exclude Important grasses include mat muhly and big bluestem. growth of most aquatic Forb cover is usually sparse (5-25%); most distinctive is plants, allowing American grass-of-Parnassus, Kalm's lobelia, marsh specialists to survive. arrowgrass and lesser fringed gentian. Common wet Does not occur in areas meadow forbs include spotted Joe pye-weed and common subject to flooding. boneset, while common wet prairie species include northern bedstraw, Riddell's goldenrod, and golden alexander. Shrubs are absent to sparse (0-25%). Several plants are restricted to OPp93 such as sterile sedge, hair- like beak rush and whorled nut rush.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 43

Broad Natural Process MN Native Plant Limiting State (S) Habitat Type Native Plant Community Description Responsible for Community1 Factors/Threats Rank2 Condition Northern Mixed Emergent marsh communities typically dominated by Dynamic water regimes Water permanence S2 Cattail Marsh cattails. Present on floating mats along shorelines in lakes, (drought/ flood) allow (increased in-flow). (MRn83)* ponds, or backwaters or rooted in mineral soil in shallow fluctuation of water wetland basins. Floating-leaved and submerged aquatic levels and thus, native Wetland drainage. plant cover is sparse. Duckweeds frequent; and common plant communities. bladderwort and common coontail occasionally present. Frequent fire in Fire suppression. Graminoid cover is variable, with lake sedge and bristly surrounding prairies sedge common. Forb cover dominated by cattail spp., at probably increased in Invasion by non- >50% cover. Other forbs include broad-leaved arrowhead, basins during times of native cattail. marsh skullcap, and bur marigold and beggarsticks. low water or drought, Shrubs absent or very sparse. removing any peat accumulation and pushing the marsh or open water area to increase. Prairie Mixed Emergent marsh communities typically dominated by Dynamic water regimes Water permanence S1 Cattail Marsh cattails. Present on floating mats or rooted in mineral soil (drought/ flood) allow (increased in-flow). (MRp83)* in shallow wetland basins. Floating-leaved and submerged fluctuation of water Wetland drainage. aquatic plant cover is variable. Duckweeds and water levels and thus, native smartweed common. Graminoid cover is variable, often in plant communities. Fire suppression. dense-forming clones or bulrush spp. and some sedges. Frequent fire in Cattail cover is variable and typically dense. Other forbs surrounding prairies Invasion by non- include tufted loosestrife, water parsnip, and water probably increased in native cattail. horsetail. Often-times cattail patches are interspersed with basins during times of areas of open water. low water or drought, removing any peat accumulation and pushing the marsh or open water area to increase.

Northern Dry Sparsely treed, shrubby communities with grass- Fire recurs frequently Fire suppression. S1, S2 Savanna (UPn13) dominated herbaceous ground layers on nearly level to enough to prevent trees steeply sloping sites with droughty soils. Moderate and shrubs from growing-season moisture deficits occur during most years, dominating but where and severe moisture deficits are frequent, especially during frequency and severity periodic regional droughts. Species composition similar to are low enough to allow that of Northern Dry Prairie (UPn12). Graminoid cover fire-tolerant trees to (25–100%) with big bluestem is present along with short- become established and and mid-height grasses such as porcupine grass, little sometimes reach Oak Savanna bluestem, and blue grama. Forb cover patchy (5–50%) maturity. Normally, fire

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 44

Broad Natural Process MN Native Plant Limiting State (S) Habitat Type Native Plant Community Description Responsible for Community1 Factors/Threats Rank2 Condition with characteristic species such as white sage, gray occurred every few goldenrod, and silky aster. Shrub layer (5–50%), with low years. Low productivity (< 20in) semi-shrubs, taller (up to 6ft) shrubs, seedlings and surface instability of and stunted (< 6ft) bur oak and root-sucker quaking aspen. sand result in reduced Common semi-shrubs include leadplant and prairie rose. fuel loads and thus lower Trees (25–50%), mostly bur oak, scattered, open grown, intensity fires than in typically small, and gnarled. prairies on loam. Browsing, grazing and trampling of large, native ungulates were regular occurrences in dry savannas. Northern Mesic Sparsely treed and usually shrubby communities with Fire recurs frequently Fire suppression. S1, S2 Savanna (UPn24) grass-dominated ground layers on somewhat poorly enough to prevent trees drained to well-drained loam soils mainly formed in glacial and shrubs from Conversion to till (sometimes water-reworked) and outwash deposits, dominating but where cropland. and less frequently in lacustrine sediments. Present frequency and severity primarily on level to gently rolling sites. Drought stress is are low enough to allow Overgrazing/invasion irregular. Species composition similar to Northern Mesic fire-tolerant trees to by exotic cool season Prairie (UPn23). Graminoid cover is interrupted to become established and grasses. continuous (50–100%) and includes species such as big sometimes reach bluestem, Indiangrass, and prairie dropseed being the maturity. Many occur more important. The presence of additional grass species interspersed with mesic such as little bluestem or switchgrass depend of moisture prairie but adjacent to gradient. Forb cover sparse to patchy (5–50%) and streams, lakes or contain common species of mesic prairie such as wild topographical features bergamot, heath aster, stiff goldenrod, and northern preventing the spread of bedstraw. Additional species depend on moisture fire. Very susceptible to gradient. Shrub layer is patchy to interrupted (25–75% succession in the cover) with low (< 20in) semi-shrubs, taller (up to 6ft) absence of fire. shrubs, seedlings and stunted (< 6ft) bur oak and root- Browsing, grazing and sucker quaking aspen. Common semi-shrubs include trampling by large, leadplant and prairie rose. Trees are scattered or in native ungulates were scattered clumps, with total cover 25–50% but up to 70%. regular occurrences pre- Bur oak dominates with quaking aspen on more mesic settlement. sites. Southern Dry Sparsely treed, shrubby communities with grass- Fire recurs frequently Fire suppression. S1, S2 Savanna (UPs14) dominated herbaceous ground layers on nearly level to enough to prevent trees steeply sloping sites with droughty soils. Moderate and shrubs from Overgrazing. growing-season moisture deficits occur during most years, dominating but where

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 45

Broad Natural Process MN Native Plant Limiting State (S) Habitat Type Native Plant Community Description Responsible for Community1 Factors/Threats Rank2 Condition and severe moisture deficits are frequent, especially during frequency and severity periodic regional droughts. Trees are open grown, typically are low enough to allow small, and gnarled. Very similar to Northern Dry Savanna fire-tolerant trees to (UPn13). However, less shrub cover and not likely to become established and contain quaking aspen. Northern pin oak is frequently sometimes reach present. The herbaceous component is similar to that of maturity. Browsing, Southern Dry Prairie (UPs13), but more likely to contain grazing and trampling by woodland herbs such as Pennsylvania sedge and carrion large, native ungulates flower species. Most documented occurrences in Anoka were regular Sand Plain subsection of the MN and NE IA Morainal (MIM) occurrences pre- Section. settlement. More resilient than mesic savannas to invasion by trees and shrubs due to low fertility of the soils and xeric conditions. Southern Mesic Very few plot data. Inferences suggest these are sparsely Fire recurs frequently Fire suppression. S1 Savanna (UPs24) treed communities with tallgrass-dominated ground layers enough to prevent trees on somewhat poorly drained to well-drained loam soils and shrubs from Conversion to mainly formed in unsorted glacial till, sometimes in a this dominating but where cropland. loess layer over till, and locally in lacustrine sediments and frequency and severity outwash deposits. Present primarily on level to gently are low enough to allow Overgrazing/invasion rolling sites. Drought stress is irregular in occurrence and fire-tolerant trees to by exotic cool season usually not severe. Vegetation structure and composition become established and grasses similar to Northern Mesic Savanna, however lack of plot sometimes reach data makes this comparison speculative. Differences in maturity. Browsing, herbaceous flora probably mirror differences in UPn23 and grazing and trampling by UPs23 (Northern and Southern Mesic Prairie). Northern large, native ungulates pin oak frequent and white oak occasional in UPs24, as were regular opposed to UPn24; aspen more frequent in UPn24. occurrences pre- settlement. Southern Dry- Dry-mesic hardwood forest dominated by bur oak and Fires were very common Fire suppression. S3, S4 Mesic Oak-Aspen quaking aspen on hummocky, stagnation moraines on throughout the range of Forest (FDs36)* well-drained, gravelly, loamy, calcareous till. Ground cover this plant community is patchy to continuous (25-100%). Common species class. Past PLS (Public include early meadow rue, wild sarsaparilla, Canada Land Survey) records mayflower and Pennsylvania sedge. Shrub layer is patchy indicate mild surface

Forest to interrupted (25-75%) with common species such as fires occurred about downy arrowwood, poison ivy, chokecherry and American every 20 years, while hazelnut. Quaking aspen and green ash are the most catastrophic fires

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 46

Broad Natural Process MN Native Plant Limiting State (S) Habitat Type Native Plant Community Description Responsible for Community1 Factors/Threats Rank2 Condition common subcanopy species with interrupted cover (25- happened once every 75%). The canopy is mostly interrupted to continuous (50- 100 years. Windthrow 100%) and dominated by bur oak and quaking aspen. not common. Occasionally basswood, American elm and paper birch are present. Central Mesic Mesic hardwood forests dominated mostly by basswood One of the least NA? S4 Hardwood Forest and sugar maple. Present on well-drained, loamy soils on disturbed native plant (MHc37)* rolling to hummocky stagnation moraines. Ground layer communities. Rare cover is variable with large-flowered bellwort and natural processes; Pennsylvania sedge most important. Other common catastrophic fires species include early meadow-rue, wild sarsaparilla, occurring every yellow violet, and rattlesnake fern. Lower species richness 500+years and than in other central and southern mesic forest classes. catastrophic windthrow Shrub layer is typically interrupted to continuous (50- every 1000+years (PLS). 100%) with abundant sugar maple saplings, ironwood, and Partial loss of canopy chokecherry. A patchy subcanopy (25-100%), as well as with light surface fires interrupted canopy (50-100%) dominated by sugar maple occurred every 70 years. and basswood, often with paper birch. Northern Wet Ash Wet hardwood forests on mucky mineral soils in shallow Strongly shaped by Changes in hydrology S4, S5 Swamp (WFn55)* basins and groundwater seepage areas and on low, level continuous inputs of (human-caused or terrain near rivers, lakes or wetlands. Typically has water and nutrients disruption by standing water in the spring but drains by late summer. supplied by moving beaver). The groundlayer cover is continuous with upland forest groundwater. hers on hummocks, decaying logs, and around tree bases. Infrequent natural Impacts to Wetland forest species occur in pools and mucky hollows. disturbances. Rotation groundwater. Ladyfern, dwarf raspberry and alpine enchanter's of catastrophic fires nightshade are common and often abundant. Shrub layer exceeds 1000 years and Flooding. cover is variable (25-75%) with black ash being common, windthrow occurs every along with mountain maple. Other shrub spp also occur. 370 years (PLS); The subcanopy is patchy (25-50%) mainly composed of selective windthrow mountain maple. Canopy cover is interrupted to (loss of partial canopy) continuous (50-100%) consisting solely of black ash or a occurred a bit more mix of black ash and other hardwoods such as red maple, frequent. Flooding quaking aspen, green ash, and depending on location, occurred. Severe yellow birch or white cedar. flooding could kill canopy trees and convert to WM or marsh communities.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 47

Broad Natural Process MN Native Plant Limiting State (S) Habitat Type Native Plant Community Description Responsible for Community1 Factors/Threats Rank2 Condition Northern Wet Limited detailed information on this plant community. It is Strongly shaped by Changes in hydrology S3 Alder Swamp a shrub-wetland community that tends to occur along continuous inputs of (human-caused or (WFn74)* lakes, streams or wetlands associated with deciduous water and nutrients disruption by swamp forests, or other areas where the water table is supplied to deep soil beaver). almost always within reach of plant roots, but does not layers by moving remain above soil surface for long periods of time. Many groundwater. Most Impacts to species in WF systems are fire-sensitive and shade- frequent disturbance groundwater. tolerant, many are characteristic of mesic upland regime for WF systems communities. WFn74 is dominated by speckled alder; was flooding, either by Flooding. other Indicator species include wood anemone, tall cyclical climate regimes meadow rue, nodding trillium and chokecherry. or beaver. Severe flooding could kill canopy trees and convert to WM or marsh communities. Low catastrophic fire return interval of 800-1000+ years. 1 Native Plant Community Types found in MN DNR (2005) "Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota-The Prairie Parkland and Tallgrass Aspen Parklands Provinces" and "The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province".

2State Ranking: S1-critically imperiled, S2-imperiled, S3-threatened, S4-apparently secure, S5-secure

*Native plant communities documented on WPAs in the Detroit Lakes WMD.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 48

3.4 SELECTION OF PRIORITY RESOURCES The comprehensive list of potential resources of concern contains many species with a wide array of habitat needs and life history requirements. However, in order to best evaluate the effects of our management of habitats, as well as the species using those habitats, a lesser number of priority resources of concern are needed. Priority resources of concern are species or species groups that are representative of the spectrum of habitats found on the District and will serve as indicators during monitoring. Detroit Lakes WMD has prioritized these species and their associated habitats (Section 3.5) to determine where we can make the greatest contribution to conservation efforts while taking into account three important considerations: 1) relevance to legal mandates, 2) management significance, and 3) ecological significance.

To guide in the selection of priority resources of concern, we used a series of filters and steps outlined in the Service’s Identifying Refuge Resources of Concern and Management Priorities for Refuges: a Handbook (Handbook; Paveglio and Taylor 2010) and guidance provided by the Region 3 Division of Biological Resources (Appendix 8, USFWS unpublished 2013). The first three “cuts” were made using the Region 3 guidance outlined below.

• Cut #1- Basic assessment of importance: species are cut if they are not included on any threatened or endangered status, conservation need, or other priority lists • Cut #2-Probability of Occurrence- species are cut if they are too common to occur on the MN State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP; MN DNR 2006a) or too rare to occur on the Refuge; only accidental waterfowl are removed during this step • Cut #3-Birds: species are cut a third time if they do not appear as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SCGN) in the MN SWAP o Clay-colored sparrow and Western meadowlark are not on the SCGN list but were kept. This decision is discussed in the species accounts section (Section 3.7) • Cut #3-Other Species: species other than birds were also cut a third time if they had a relatively low number of inclusions on priority lists; known occurrence was also take into consideration again

After applying the above filters, the list was still very lengthy. Because “production” is the primary focus of District habitats (and migration is secondary), we concentrated on breeding birds in the next two cuts. We applied a fourth and fifth cut to reach our final list of “potential” priority resources of concern (Appendix 9).

• Cut #4-Birds: species are cut a fourth time if they are solely migratory in nature; species breeding in the District are kept. o Birds using District habitats during migration only will also benefit from habitat manipulations for breeding birds. o One shorebird, Greater Yellowlegs, was kept as a representative of shorebirds since many are declining as much as our breeding grassland and wetland-dependent species

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 49

• Cut #5-Bird Breeding Range: species are cut if the highest concentrations of breeding birds are outside the District or if their breeding range encompasses a large part of the Country equally, including the District (references used: Breeding Bird Survey maps, Cornell Lab website, Johnson et al. 2004, Johnson et al. 2002).

From the list of potential resources, District staff discussed the following considerations related to each of the potential resources of concern as found in the Handbook (Paveglio and Taylor 2010): 1) Identify the number of rankings in State and National plans, 2) Assess the ability to be supported by current or restorable refuge capabilities, 3) Evaluate the response to management, and 4) Evaluate the capability to represent lager group of species or conditions. In addition to the above filters, we also relied heavily on our own knowledge and experiences (i.e. ease of monitoring, abundance on District, etc.) related to each species. Priority resources of concern selected for the Detroit Lakes WMD are found in Table 3.3.

When developing the priority list, we chose to focus primarily on prairie-pothole and transition zone habitats and resources (Figure 2.8). The prairie-pothole area or Prairie Parkland Province (MN DNR 2005) contains the true grassland-wetland complexes needed by breeding waterfowl, the primary purpose for the WMD, in addition to many prairie remnants and fens. Many WPAs are located within the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Section (MN DNR 2005) which contains the “ever-changing” transition zone between prairie and true forested habitats. This area contains significant cover of intact wetland/grassland complexes, as well as oak savanna, an imperiled ecosystem. Because of the importance of grassland/wetland complexes, and threatened habitats such as remnant prairies, prairie fens and oak savanna, these habitat types and ecosystems are also resources of concern for the District. The Tallgrass Aspen Parkland Section does contain units of true prairie, but also those considered “wet, brush prairie” which may or may not contribute significantly to the purpose depending on current state, surrounding landscape, and level of management. This is described in more detail in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. Some WPAs within the Eastern Broadleaf Forest and Tallgrass Aspen Parklands Sections contain woodland/forested habitats that do not contribute significantly to the purpose of the District. One management unit resides within the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province, which consists primarily of Pine Forest. There is a lack of information not only on specific forested habitat types on many of our units, but also related to specific resources of concern or their declines. Therefore, heavily wooded units because of their lack of contribution to the purpose, as well as the lack of information, preclude the allocation of significant district resources at this time.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 50

Table 3.3. Priority resources of concern for the Detroit Lakes WMD.

Species Group Resource Comments on Selection

Waterfowl Mallard Waterfowl production is the primary purpose of Detroit Lesser Scaup Lakes WMD. The Mallard represents a full suite of wetland niches and requires a grassland/wetland complex for breeding, similar to other dabbling ducks. The Lesser Scaup is currently experiencing serious declines and is being monitored between breeding and wintering grounds. Larger wetlands and shallow lakes are critical for its success, along with surrounding grass in the complex. It represents diving duck wetland habitat and overwater nesters, as well as upland-nesting ducks close to the water. Wetland- Greater Yellowlegs These wetland-dependent birds require a variety of wetlands dependent Black Tern and vegetation conditions from open and sparse to tall and Sedge Wren dense. They represent the guild of waterbirds (other than waterfowl) thoroughly. Habitats in MN are critical for sedge wrens nationally. Grassland- Marbled Godwit These grassland-nesting birds represent the guild of dependent Upland Sandpiper grassland birds. They require a wide range of grassland Greater Prairie Chicken types (wet-dry), patch size, species composition and Western Meadowlark structure throughout the geographic range of the District. Bobolink The presence of the clay-colored sparrow, because it prefers Clay-colored Sparrow habitat with a short-statured woody component, may help indicate deteriorating conditions in grasslands that should be kept free from woody vegetation. Rare or Critical Grassland/Wetland Grassland/wetland complexes are critical for waterfowl Habitat Complex production, the primary purpose of the District. Remnant Remnant Prairies prairies, prairie fens, and oak savannas are unique native Prairie Fens habitats with specific plant communities found in the Oak Savannas District. Most are threatened or imperiled within the State of Minnesota. All of these habitat types harbor State and/or Federally listed species. Many are in degraded condition and susceptible to further degradation without management.

3.5 SELECTION OF DISTRICT PRIORITY HABITATS

In addition to identifying priority resources of concern, we have identified the high and low priority habitats to manage on the district (Table 3.4). Priority habitats are those broad habitats that the Priority Resources of Concern depend on throughout much of their life cycle, as well as those threatened and imperiled habitat types. From selected priority habitats, we can develop measurable and achievable habitat goals and objectives for Detroit Lakes WMD which will benefit priority resources of concern. In addition, some priority habitats such as oak savanna and prairie fens are threatened habitats that are dependent on a specific collection of plants (invertebrates, microbes, etc.), as well as natural processes

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 51 to help them survive as a system. We have not tied specific wildlife resources to the fens or savannas. Wildlife dependent on fens is unknown and very few savanna-obligate wildlife exist (R. Russell, pers. comm.); many species commonly found in savanna-like habitat can survive using other ecotonal habitat (e.g. wild turkey, Eastern bluebird, wood duck). The red-headed woodpecker is probably one of the only savanna-dependent bird species and occurs so rarely in the District, it would be difficult to monitor. Therefore, we will concentrate on the plant community composition of savannas and fens. Low priority habitats benefit fewer priority resources of concern, have management restrictions, or do not require active management to maintain their present condition.

High and low priority habitat categories are primarily intended for long-term planning. The actual tracts of habitat that will be managed each year will be prioritized based on the scores from our prioritization tool (Appendix 4), current resource conditions at each unit, and logistical constraints such as available staff and equipment. These year-by-year factors will be addressed in the annual habitat work plans.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 52

Table3.4. High and low priority habitat types in the Detroit Lakes WMD.

High Priority Habitat Reasons for Ranking and Comments Remnant Prairie - dry, mesic, wet Imperiled Ecosystem; BIDEH, prairie-obligate species requirements, seed source for restorations, Ecosystem Services; (may/may not contain prairie pothole wetlands depending on location and type of prairie) High Diversity Seedings BIDEH, high resource input ($, time), management alters plant community composition and structure for grassland resources of concern, Ecosystem Services Temporary, Seasonal and Semi- Vulnerable/Imperiled, BIDEH, management (via associated permanent Wetlands uplands, temp/seasonal) benefits priority resources, especially breeding ducks; active management via WCS (semi-perms) critical as breeding/brood wetlands, especially in times of drought; Ecosystem Services Prairie Fens Vulnerable/Imperiled resource with endemic plant species; BIDEH Shallow Lakes BIDEH, critical for many resources of concern with active management, Ecosystem Services Oak Savanna – dry and mesic Imperiled ecosystem; BIDEH, restored/managed results in benefits for a wide range of priority resources, requires high input and intensive follow-up management Low Diversity Seedings/Grasslands Still serves function for some resources of concern with no or little management; selective prioritization for management and diversification; large quantity in the WMD Low Priority Habitat Reasons for Ranking and Comments Woodlands/Forests Time and management input is large; decision to treat/restore on case-by-case basis depending on where the unit lies within the District, the surrounding landscape, and other unique features; follow-up is necessary; must look at cost effectiveness; wooded and forested habitats provide little benefit to priority resources and many types require minimal to no management to sustain. Cropland (Cash crops, alfalfa) Provides no benefit to resources of concern; used to convert to native habitat type (prairie vegetation); Prioritize conversion Rivers/Streams Lack of ability to manage this habitat.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 53

3.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRIORITY HABITATS AND PRIORITY RESOURCES OF CONCERN Priority Resources (species) of Concern selected for the District are listed in at least one National and/or Regional Plan (see comprehensive table Appendix 7) due to concerns about population decline or vulnerability to external threats. Overall, national plan goals focus on stabilizing current populations, and in some cases, increasing populations over a given time period. Regional plan goals primarily concentrate on conserving and restoring critical habitats as a means to stabilize (or increase) populations. Summaries of each plan can be found in Chapter 1.

MN State Wildlife Action Plan Goal: Stabilize or increase populations of species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) in the next 10 years. SGCNs are determined to be rare, declining or vulnerable due primarily to habitat loss and/or degradation.

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan Goal: Stabilize populations of all shorebird species known or suspected to be in decline…, while ensuring that common species remain common.

• Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Goal 1: Maintain biotic integrity of breeding and persistence of breeding shorebird populations in the NP/PPR. Focus on identifying key habitats and limitations or threats. • Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Goal 2: Ensure existence and quality of stopover habitats for migrating bird. Focus on identifying and providing critical stopover habitats that serve as “stepping stones” for long-distance migrants especially.

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan Goal: To ensure sustainable distributions, diversity and abundance of waterbird species throughout each of their historical or naturally expanding ranges…

• Northern Prairie and Parkland Goal: Maintaining and managing healthy populations, distributions, and habitats of waterbirds throughout the Northern Prairie and Parkland Region of North America. Focus on no net-loss of population size in vulnerable or declining species, gather better population estimates, and ensure overabundant species aren’t detrimental to other species utilizing similar habitats.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan Goal 1: Abundant and resilient waterfowl populations to support hunting and other uses without imperiling habitat.

• Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV) Waterfowl Goal (Brice et al. DRAFT 2016): Sustain the overall duck production capability that existed in the PPJV during 1994-2015 (approximately 5 million breeding pairs).

North American Waterfowl Management Plan Goal 2: Wetlands and related habitats are sufficient to sustain waterfowl populations at desired levels, while providing places to recreate and ecological services to benefit society.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 54

• Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV) Goal: Protect and restore wetland and grassland habitats throughout the region through cooperative partnerships, including private landowners. o Waterfowl: focus on maintaining integrity and health of wetland basins and grasslands, complemented by restoration and enhancement projects that improve duck recruitment potential and offset potential losses due to future degradations of the landscape o Shorebird: to attain self-sustaining populations of shorebirds breeding in the NP/PPR; to ensure that stopover habitat is not limiting for migrant shorebirds o Waterbird: Protect existing wetlands and grasslands; priority restoration for shallow wetlands, fens, wet meadows, and sedge meadows o Landbird: Restoration of grassland following the Grassland Bird Conservation Areas (GBCA) model.

Partners in Flight Goal: Keep “common” species common.

• Northern Tallgrass Prairie Goal: For species exhibiting declines, increase populations by 3% per year until downward trends are reversed. For other priority species, populations should remain stable or increase. Focus on providing adequate habitat based on species-specific requirements. The GBCA model is recommended.

Many of the goals above, especially in the step-down (or Regional) plans relate directly to the restoration and management of grassland and wetland habitats-two of the WMD’s priority habitats. Active management of wetlands and uplands, in addition to protection, is still a focus in the DRAFT PPJV Waterfowl Implementation Plan (Brice et al. 2016). High priority habitats can be actively managed or restored to benefit the priority resources of concern (Table 3.5) given their specific habitat requirements for breeding, roosting, foraging or other. Remnant prairie, planted grasslands and wetlands may be managed according to plant community composition (maintaining ecological integrity) but structure will also dictate the use by particular bird resources of concern. The active management of these habitat types per the requirements of the priority Resources of Concern will, in the most general sense, allow for population stability. Increasing populations typically requires the addition of habitats (land) managed according to the species habitat requirements. Therefore, the restoration and management of grassland and wetland habitats within the DLWMD will contribute to the stability and in some cases where habitat is added (i.e. land acquisition/restoration), the increase in a species’ localized population.

Prairie fens and oak savanna (priority Resources of Concern) not directly tied to bird species will be managed for ecological integrity; metrics for management include specific plant community composition, structure and other criteria based on information contained in the MN DNR Native Plant Community Guides (2005) and expert opinion. To aid in management of District habitats for the priority resources, we must know their specific habitat requirements (Table 3.6). Those habitat requirements are often shared with other species. Therefore, each priority resource was chosen, in part, because managing for them would also benefit many of the other resources of concern on the comprehensive list. Some of those benefitting species are listed in Table 3.7.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 55

Table 3.5. Priority resources of concern related to priority habitats for the Detroit Lakes WMD.

Grassland Wetland Woodland

Prairie Temporary/ Semi- Permanent/ Mesic/Dry Remnant Planted Fens Seasonal permanent Shallow Lake Oak Savanna Mallard X X X X X Lesser Scaup X X X Greater Yellowlegs X X X Western Meadowlark X X Greater prairie-Chicken X X Marbled Godwit X X X X Sedge Wren X X X Grasshopper Sparrow X X Clay-colored Sparrow X X Black Tern X X Bobolink X X Upland Sandpiper X X Remnant Prairie X Natural Prairie Fens X Grassland/Wetland X X X X X X Complex Oak Savanna X

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 56

Table 3.6. Habitat requirements of priority resources of concern in the Detroit Lakes WMD. MN DNR Birds of MN Website1, Cornell Lab of Ornithology online bird guide2, Allen (1986), Helmers (1992), Johnson et al. (2002), Johnson et al. (2004), Poole (2005)

Key Habitat Relationships Conservation Vegetative Species Focus Composition Vegetative Structure Patch Size Special Considerations Mallard Grassland/wetland Grasses and forbs, Forage in open to interspersed Wetland-upland Tolerates less crowding complexes emergent and emergent cover, nest in dense upland complex >240 ha than other dabblers submergent wetland vegetation about 60 cm high. is best for vegetation. waterfowl More of an upland habitat production. “generalist”

Breeding populations closely tied to wetland conditions Lesser Grassland/wetland Emergent vegetation Primarily nest on land within close Wetland-upland Water levels should be Scaup complexes. cover (sedges) of proximity to water’s edge (<10m). complex >240 ha kept constant during Prefers semi- basin ~50% or more. Will also nest in mound of vegetation is best for laying and incubation permanent and Wild rice a favorite over water or on islands. waterfowl permanent food. production. Deterioration of wetland wetlands/shallow Submerged aquatic Will uses grasses to build nest; forbs edge (e.g. overgrazing) lakes. vegetation critical to and shrubs next. Extremely tall and adds to nest predation support invertebrate dense vegetation not suitable for food source. nest-building. Vegetation heights Broods need expansive Grasslands important between 21-60cm . open water for security; for nesting will use emergent vegetation for cover

Population declines in recent years; currently being studied by biologists

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 57

Key Habitat Relationships Conservation Vegetative Species Focus Composition Vegetative Structure Patch Size Special Considerations Western Grasslands >90% herbaceous Use a wide range of vegetation Male territory size Responds positively to meadowlark cover comprised of a heights and densities, but avoid 3-13 ha. light- moderate grazing mix of grasses (25- extremely sparse or tall cover and negatively to heavy 75% cover) and forbs. grazing. Only a limited amount (<5% cover) of scattered woody vegetation above 1 m tall is tolerated; fence lines, forbs, and posts, etc. used for perches

Low to moderate litter cover Greater Grasslands Grasses and forbs. Avoid dense vegetation >1 m but >200 ha grassland Will also use wetlands for prairie- height-density varies through season complex. winter cover in some chicken (booming grounds <15 cm, nests in years residual vegetation 30-40 cm, broods <25 cm with grass-forb and Sometimes forage in structural diversity) recently disturbed areas

Minimal woody cover Marbled Wetland Native grasses and Short/sparse to moderately Mean territory size Grazing, fall burning or godwit complexes, native variety of wetland vegetated. Tall, dense cover is >90 ha of haying could provide grasslands types. avoided. Height-density at nests contiguous nesting habitat the lower (<10-15 cm) than broods (15- grassland, with following spring, and the 60 cm) high percentage of denser, taller regrowth grass cover, many (15-60 cm) could provide Avoid dense emergent wetland wetlands, and high suitable brood habitat vegetation, prefer shallow water wetland diversity. areas with short, sparse to Prefer temporary and moderately dense shoreline seasonal wetlands during vegetation. Forage in 5-13 cm water breeding season and move depths toward semi-permanent wetlands in summer Prefer minimal shrub cover

Moderate to high litter (3.8-9.1 cm)

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 58

Key Habitat Relationships Conservation Vegetative Species Focus Composition Vegetative Structure Patch Size Special Considerations Sedge wren Grasslands and Grasses and forbs. Tall, dense grasslands and wetland Will use small Vegetation structure wetlands edges with vegetation 20-150 cm, dry areas, but favors seems to be more land or over shallow water large prairies. important than patch size in predicting occurrence. Abundant litter cover with little bare ground Upland Grasslands Grasses. Vegetation height at nests ranges >30 ha. Will forage in recently sandpiper from 10 to 65 cm (rarely uses burned areas. vegetation >70 cm tall) but feed in vegetation <10 cm tall

Minimal woody cover

Moderate to high litter depth (4-9 cm) Bobolink Grasslands High grass:forb ratio Moderate to tall, moderate to dense >40 ha Responds positively to vegetation haying or burning; some 1st year response after Moderately deep litter burns, most in 2+years

Will tolerate minor shrub component Need regular management intervals; use of Forbs are important for nesting, grasslands declines with perching lack of management resulting in increase in Absence of woody vegetation (trees) litter depth and shrub encroachment

Will respond positively to light grazing, not mod- heavy grazing

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 59

Key Habitat Relationships Conservation Vegetative Species Focus Composition Vegetative Structure Patch Size Special Considerations Greater Wetlands Flooded substrate Water depth 3-12cm NA Drawdown (artificial or Yellowlegs with some herbaceous natural) effectively vegetation Short to medium height vegetation increases available foraging/staging Sparse to moderate density zones/habitats for vegetation shorebirds during migration

Manage multiple wetlands within a complex differently to provide a variety of water depths, vegetation levels, and substrates for shorebirds and other waterbirds Black Tern Grassland-wetland 50:50 interspersion of No tree cover surrounding wetland Wetlands >20ha, Remove trees along complex; prefers open water and but will use wetland edge semi-permanent emergent vegetation Sparse to moderately dense emergent smaller if part of a wetlands, also uses (hemi-marsh) vegetation for nests or on floating complex Manage dense stands of permanent mats cattail to create areas of wetland/shallow No preference in Defends area open water lakes vegetation species Avoids densely vegetated wetlands, within 2m of nest especially cattail Water levels should be kept stable throughout breeding

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 60

Key Habitat Relationships Conservation Vegetative Species Focus Composition Vegetative Structure Patch Size Special Considerations Clay-colored Grasslands, brush Native and tame Low shrubs or trees (<50cm) with Nesting: 0.5ha Need large open areas for Sparrow prairies grasslands with shrub increasing cover foraging adjacent to component; Western Foraging: larger smaller shrubby acreage snowberry or Dense grasslands with increasing areas contiguous for nesting silverberry litter and VOR, if shrub component is to nesting territory lacking Vulnerable to cowbird parasitism

Uses idle grasslands

Use of areas increases as years since last prescribed burn increases

Ambiguous to most grazing prescriptions; more directly tied to shrub cover 1http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/birds/index.html

2http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/search

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 61

Table 3.7. Priority resources of concern and other benefiting species in the Detroit Lakes WMD. The bird habitat requirements in this table are summarized from the respective species accounts in Johnson et al. (2002), Johnson et al. (2004), Poole (2005), MN DNR Birds of MN Website1, Cornell Lab of Ornithology online bird guide2, Allen (1986), Helmers (1992), and expert opinion (S. Lewis, R. Russell, and T. Will, FWS, personal communication).

Priority Habitat Type Habitat Structure Life History Other Benefitting Resources Requirement Species

Greater Prairie Dry Prairie Short open Breeding Sharp-tailed grouse, Chicken vegetation, sparse Prairie Vole, Plains to moderately Pocketmouse, Upland Sandpiper vegetated Foraging Richardson’s Ground Squirrel, Northern Western Full season Pintail, Chestnut- Meadowlark collared Longspur,

Western Hognose Snake

Greater Prairie Clumped vegetation, Breeding Dakota Skipper, Regal Chicken > 20cm Fritillary, Sharp-tailed interspersed with Grouse, Dickcissel, Upland Sandpiper bare ground; Foraging Grasshopper Sparrow, moderate litter Prairie Vole, Plains Western Full Season Pocketmouse, Meadowlark Western harvest Mouse, Richardson’s Ground Squirrel, Jackrabbit

Upland Sandpiper Moderate to tall Brood rearing Spotted Skunk, and Nesting Franklin’s Ground Squirrel, Field Sparrow, Dickcissel, Sprague’s Pipit

Greater Prairie Moderate to tall, Nesting and Henslow’s Sparrow Chicken patchy brood rearing (needs litter), Baird’s Sparrow, Savanna Sparrow, Western Meadowlark

Greater Prairie Mesic Prairie Short, open Breeding Short-eared Owl, Chicken vegetation Marbled Godwit, Upland Sandpiper, Western Full season Northern Pintail, Meadowlark Grasshopper Sparrow

Marbled Godwit Short, sparse to Breeding LeConte’s Sparrow, moderately Spotted Skunk, vegetated Western Meadowlark

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 62

Priority Habitat Type Habitat Structure Life History Other Benefitting Resources Requirement Species

Greater Prairie Moderate to tall, Nesting and Henslow’s Sparrow Chicken patchy brood rearing (needs litter), Regal Fritillary, Poweshiek Skipperling, Savanna Sparrow, Baird’s Sparrow, Bobolink, Blue-winged Teal

Mallard Tall, dense Nesting Henslow’s Sparrow (needs litter), Dickcissel, American Bittern, Western Sedge Wren Full season Harvest Mouse, Ring- necked Pheasant,

White-tailed Deer, American Badger, Bobolink Full Season Northern Harrier

Clay-colored Low shrub Full Season Field Sparrow, Sparrow component Loggerhead Shrike

Mallard Wet Prairie Tall, dense Nesting Sandhill Crane, Bobolink, Common Yellowthroat, American Bittern, Sedge Wren Full season Western Harvest Mouse, Smooth Green

Snake, Northern Harrier

Marbled Godwit Disturbed prairie Breeding Hudsonian Godwit, (haying or grazing); Wilson’s Phalarope, areas with low Nelson’s Sparrow, vegetation Yellow Rail

Greater Wetland Natural Shallow water, Foraging Migratory shorebirds, Yellowlegs Depression short/sparse to Wilson’s Phalarope, (divided by open (low, Northern Pintail, Blue- zone, shallow, disturbed) shoreline winged Teal deep, and open vegetation water or basin Mallard water regime) Hemi-marsh Breeding, Trumpeter Swan, (Interspersed brood Great Egret, Great vegetation -open rearing, Blue Heron, Northern water), shallow molting Leopard Frog, dabbling ducks Black Tern Full Season

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 63

Priority Habitat Type Habitat Structure Life History Other Benefitting Resources Requirement Species

Sedge Wren Tall, dense Full season Virginia Rail, Sora, Marsh Wren, Common Yellowthroat, Yellow- headed Blackbird, Greater Prairie Wintering American Bittern Chicken

Lesser Scaup Shallow Lakes Varying degrees of Molting, Common Loon, vegetation and open staging, Western Grebe, water migration Canvasback, Bald Eagle, Common Mallard Breeding Mudpuppy, Ring- necked Duck,

waterfowl, fish Black Tern Full season

3.7 CONFLICT RESOLUTION Due to the number of priority resources and the diversity of habitat requirements, habitat management planning will undoubtedly evoke conflict between different species and/or criteria of a rare plant community. These conflicts will need to be resolved. Balancing the types and proportions of habitat conditions on the district will require a thoughtful process for determining the best course of action. Below are four common conflicts faced by District staff when making management decisions:

• Waterfowl Production Purpose vs. Integrity of Oak Savanna Ecosystem o Selective tree removal in oak savannas leave trees in the landscape that deter upland- nesting birds including waterfowl • Waterfowl Production Purpose vs. Integrity of Wet (Brush) Prairie o Tree/brush management improves nesting habitat for waterfowl and increases accessibility/preference of a wetland but eliminates the natural integrity of brush prairie or willow-shrub swamp • Waterfowl Production Purpose vs. Marshbird or Shorebird Requirements o Water level management, primarily drawdown, is great short-term for shorebird use, but water necessary for breeding ducks or young waterfowl may be lacking depending on recharge o Cattail reduction/removal is good for waterfowl/shorebirds, respectively, but eliminates preferred vegetation density by secretive marshbirds and some passerines • Fire-sensitive Pollinators vs. Integrity of Remnant Prairie o Fire management is necessary to sustain high quality plant communities of remnant tallgrass prairie, however prairie-obligate pollinators associated with those plant communities are highly vulnerable to fire and mortality does occur

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 64

The waterfowl purpose is the highest priority for a Wetland Management District so their needs will take priority in most situations. However, the needs of many wetland and grassland birds happen to be very similar to those of waterfowl. And waterfowl populations overall, are generally stable, whereas grassland bird numbers continue to decline. Minor adjustments in habitat manipulation can result in suitable habitat for other resources of concern, in addition to waterfowl. We can alter management on select units creating habitat structure that will attract not only a Western meadowlark, but also an upland-nesting duck. As managers we need to recognize opportunities that not only benefit waterfowl, but also provide valuable habitat for resources of concern in decline and be transparent in our management decisions.

It is important to note that the integrity of a rare or unique plant community will not be compromised for the benefit of one species or group. For example, a remnant oak savanna will not be clear-cut to provide more open habitat for upland-nesting waterfowl or grassland birds in decline. Instead, to the greatest extent possible it will be restored to its historic condition per the BIDEH policy (601 FW3), given availability of resources. One advantage to working at the landscape-scale of a WMD is that we can continually look at additional habitats available on other WPAs, refuges, and beyond our administrative boundaries. We can also work with our conservation partners and neighboring private landowners on a larger scale for the benefit of priority resources common to all, while maintaining the integrity of the native (historic) landscape.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 65

CHAPTER 4 HABITAT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

4.1 INTRODUCTION The Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Goal is centered on priority native habitat types and is aligned with the Refuge/District purpose, the USFWS Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health Policy, and the Refuge System mission. Since the WMD CCP wildlife and habitat goals and objectives (Appendix 1) were not specific enough for the purposes of a Habitat Management Plan and many are outdated, we developed HMP goals and objectives that focus and refine the broad vision provided in the District CCP but is also more closely aligned with the Hamden Slough Refuge-specific goals and objectives stated in the Refuge’s CCP (Appendix 2). The HMP habitat goal includes qualitative statements expressing ecological values to strive for, while working towards achieving the Service’s vision and District purpose. Objectives were developed based on S.M.A.R.T. (specific, measurable, achievable, results-oriented, time fixed) standards.

It is a special challenge to develop measurable, achievable, and time-specific goals and objectives for a WMD. Our priority resources of concern and priority habitats are spread across a large number of management units, throughout an expansive and highly altered landscape. Instead of writing habitat objectives for specific management units (WPAs), we chose to develop objectives based on priority units across the district as a whole and priority habitats those units may contain. The prioritization tool (Appendix 4) outlines three priority categories: High (57 units, 29,356 acres); Medium (76 units, 15,597 acres) and Low (38 units, 5,383 acres). The decision process, including selection of management technique, location, and cost-benefit are described in more detail in Chapter 6: Selection and Implementation of Strategies.

Habitat Goal: Grasslands, wetlands, and oak savannas will be restored, preserved, and actively managed to exemplify the pre-settlement habitats of the Detroit Lakes WMD. We will safeguard the integrity of remnant habitats and manage for their intrinsic ecological value. When restoring grasslands, wetlands and oak savanna, we will strive to achieve the physical character and natural function of those habitats. When possible, we will work with partners and neighbors who possess similar goals, to implement conservation actions outside FWS administrative boundaries for the benefit of waterfowl and other priority resources.

OBJECTIVE 1- RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT OF PRIORITY HABITATS: RESTORE AND MANAGE 75% OF THE GRASSLAND, WETLAND AND OAK SAVANNA HABITATS WITHIN THE DISTRICT TO PRESETTLEMENT CONDITIONS BY 2032.

Strategies:

• Conduct a baseline inventory: Annually, beginning in FY2017, conduct baseline inventories of habitat cover types on five percent of units and assign target plant communities (if applicable) to guide future restoration and management. • Inventory and evaluate new acquisitions within two years of acquisition.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 66

• Select inventory acres yearly using the WPA prioritization tool and known/suspected occurrence of priority habitats • Compile existing habitat-related data including RIP cards, tract information, soils, and documented native plant communities; • Record habitat cover types and assign a target native plant community type using “The Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota” (MN DNR 2005; hereafter NPC field guide or field guide) for each management unit. • Conduct rapid assessment (See Appendix 10 for prairie example) and use to develop long-term restoration and management plan • Record condition of infrastructure, including needed repairs, at wetland restoration sites during cover inventory. • Create a GIS data layer with habitat cover types and target plant communities; update as restoration and management occurs

Rationale:

Remnant tallgrass prairie and oak savanna are two of the District’s priority habitats and two of the most threatened. Over 99% of Minnesota’s tallgrass prairie has been lost to agriculture and development (MN DNR 2011). And some have said that Midwestern oak savanna is a more endangered ecosystem than tallgrass prairie (Nuzzo 1986). It is essential we actively manage the remaining remnant habitats not only for their inherent ecological value, but also to serve as models for restoration and local sources of native seed.

An updated baseline inventory of all habitats is crucial to guide future restoration and management activities on District lands, especially in light of decreased budgets and less staff. The District has Resource Inventory Program (RIP) cards with detailed information on the habitat cover at the time of acquisition, but this information has not been kept up-to-date as improvements were made. There are also inconsistencies in how the habitats were classified. In addition, the District also does not have a comprehensive list or data layer of remnant habitats and many of the tracts acquired in more recent years have limited information on habitat cover types, whether remnant or not. Most information is tucked away in files and requires time to seek out needed information. In order to make the best decisions on where to spend time and money, we must first know current land-cover and state of that habitat.

District lands for inventory will be selected annually using the WPA priority tool, known priority habitats and best professional opinion. Basic habitats will be documented along with a target native plant community (if applicable) using the NPC field guide and other resources (soils, surrounding plant communities, etc.). This guide is the most comprehensive resource of native plant community types and classes found in Minnesota and contains plant species composition and ecological information relevant to natural processes and threats. Information on current cover and target plant community will be recorded in a GIS data layer and updated as restoration and management activities take place.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 67

OBJECTIVE 2-PRIORITIZED UPLAND MANAGEMENT: AT A MINIMUM, MANAGE 25% OF HIGH PRIORITY UNITS AND 10% OF MODERATE PRIORITY UNITS ANNUALLY IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY OF PRIORITY HABITATS. MANAGE LOW PRIORITY UNITS AS OPPORTUNITIES ARISE.

Strategies:

• Utilize the priority tool (Appendix 4) in Habitat Team discussions to inform management decisions during Annual Habitat Management planning.

Rationale:

Prioritization of management actions becomes increasingly important as number of people and management capability dollars to implement these actions continue to decrease. The prioritization tool was designed to help staff make tough choices by weighing WPAs given specific criteria. These criteria are driven heavily by positive impacts to waterfowl and grassland birds (wetland and grass in landscape), presence of remnant habitats, WPA size and location in relation to other permanently-protected land. The decision process, including selection of management technique, location, and cost-benefit are described in more detail in Chapter 6: Strategy Selection and Implementation.

Managing priority units of the District on a regular basis mimics, as best we can, the natural processes (fire and grazing) that maintained habitats within this landscape. Information regarding these processes is listed in the NPC field guide and was used to develop the BIDEH table (Chapter 3). Regular management is essential, not only for the ecological integrity of priority habitats, but for the benefit of priority resources of concern in decline. Annual implementation of management District-wide will provide landscape-scale differences in vegetation structure and composition to meet the needs of particular guilds of species, including upland-nesting waterfowl, grassland-nesting birds, pollinators, small mammals and more.

4.2 REMNANT PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT To the best of our ability, manage remnant prairie utilizing knowledge of natural processes in order to promote its inherent ecological integrity and diversity, to protect critical prairie refugia for endemic flora and fauna, and to benefit grassland-dependent wildlife.

OBJECTIVE 3-NATIVE PRAIRIE REMNANTS : REMNANTS SHOULD EXHIBIT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE PERCENT COVER OF NATIVE HERBACEOUS SPECIES IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE REMNANT AREA; NATIVE SPECIES RICHNESS IS MAINTAINED AT A STABLE OR INCREASING NUMBER; AND LITTER DEPTH SHOULD NOT EXCEED 7.0 CM. NATIVE WOODY SPECIES < 2M TALL MAY COVER UP TO 5% OF MESIC AND DRY PRAIRIES AND UP TO 25% OF WET PRAIRIE AND WET MEADOW.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 68

Strategies:

• Use prescribed fire as main management tool • Apply grazing for site-specific objectives • Remove woody species >2m tall from remnant mesic and dry prairies using a combination of mechanical techniques, chemical application, and prescribed fire o The NPC field guide will be utilized to determine the appropriateness of further woody removal in remnant wet prairies and meadows. • For noxious weeds perceived as major threat, consider biological control first, if possible. o Chemical or mechanical methods will be spot-treatment only • Haying is on a case-by-case basis and used as last resort • Coordinate with other FWS offices, conservation partners, and Universities to initiate baseline inventory and monitoring, restoration, management, and/or research

Rationale:

Fire and grazing, along with a highly variable climate, shaped and maintained the pre-settlement tallgrass prairie (Anderson 2006). The historic fire return interval in prairie is estimated at about five years and up to 10 (Wright and Bailey 1980). However, a more recent literature review suggests fire frequencies in the tallgrass region of Minnesota and Wisconsin were between two and three years but were highly dependent on the climate (Dickmann and Cleland 2002).

Frequent fires set back encroaching woody vegetation. Bison trampled young woody seedlings while grazing on tender grass shoots of newly burned areas, allowing forb species to flourish. This interaction between fire and grazing created a shifting mosaic of microhabitats for grassland birds and other wildlife, prairie invertebrates, and prairie vegetation.

Grassland-dependent birds adapted to the microhabitats resulting from frequent disturbance in the tallgrass prairies. Grassland-dependent birds require open vistas devoid of trees and tall shrubs for nesting and rearing of young. Trees are hostile habitat on prairies, hosting cowbird parasites, as well as providing perch and den sites for avian and mammalian predators. In the annotated bibliography “The effects of woody vegetation on grassland birds”, Bakker (2003) compiled and summarized relationships between grassland birds and woody vegetation from 81 scientific papers. Grassland birds also prefer a range of vegetation structures. For example, the marbled godwit and upland sandpiper prefer grasslands with shorter, patchier structure while the sedge wren and bobolink prefer taller, dense stands of tallgrass vegetation. Overall, grassland bird resources of concern selected for DLWMD prefer a variety of vertical structure and mean litter depth between 1.6 cm and 6.5 cm (adapted from Johnson et al. 2004).

Plant community descriptions and species lists from the NPC field guide along with scientific literature

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 69 and survey data were used to set target parameters in Objective 3. For those remnant prairies we know exist (either documented or through the inventory), we can strive to shift the plant community from invasive-dominated to a more native state or maintain the native state through active management using grazing, burning, or both. We will also use the information in the field guide, including species lists, to assess whether the plant community exhibited after management has met the parameters set above. Sample and Mossman (1997) suggest that diversity of structure (and cover types) should be promoted at a variety of landscape scales Increasing species richness of native forbs especially will result in needed structure within the prairies for a variety of prairie-obligate wildlife, including grassland birds and pollinators.. In addition, litter accumulation that affects grassland stand health and vigor also negatively affect duck production (Naugle et al. 2000) as well as use by grassland nesting birds (Johnson et al. 2004). Therefore prairies should be managed when litter accumulation is in in pre-treatment state. This recovery time usually takes between two and eight years in the tallgrass region (Olechnowski et al. 2009).

Annual implementation of management throughout the District (i.e. primarily burning or grazing; See Chapter 5 for discussion) will provide landscape-scale differences in structure to meet the needs of many guilds of grassland-dependent species.

4.3 RESTORING BIOLOGICALLY DIVERSE GRASSLANDS Restore biologically diverse grasslands using local ecotype seed to mimic native plant communities and manage them using natural processes to provide quality habitat for upland- nesting waterfowl and other grassland-dependent wildlife.

OBJECTIVE 4 -PROMOTE HIGH DIVERSITY: THE SEED MIX CONTAINS AT LEAST 50% OF THE SPECIES LISTED IN THE NPC FIELD GUIDE FOR THE ASSOCIATED TARGET PLANT COMMUNITY TYPE. NATIVE FORBS MAKE UP A MINIMUM OF 40% TOTAL PLS AND NATIVE GRASS DOES NOT EXCEED 60% TOTAL PLS. COOL SEASON FORBS AND GRASSES COMPRISE 5-15% TOTAL PLS. WHEN INTERSEEDING, TAILOR SEED MIX TO INCLUDE MISSING SPECIES NEEDED FOR RESTORATION TO HIGH DIVERSITY GRASSLAND.

Strategies:

• Revise Master Species list to include criteria such as phenology (avg. bloom time), C3 or C4 (cool or warm season), and special attributes (benefit pollinators). • Develop a restoration plan, including target plant community type (from baseline inventory), harvest strategies and funding needs at least two years in advance to ensure the needed seed is acquired • When possible, harvest species from local native plant communities representative of the target habitat type for restoration (Objective 1).

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 70

o Where native plant communities exist adjacent to restoration sites, try to harvest from the adjacent native site. o Extra effort will be placed on replicating the native plant community on sites adjacent to State- or Federally-identified rare species and habitats. • Harvest multiple times during the growing season, given staffing and funding, in order to acquire the greatest diversity of species. • Where we cannot harvest everything we need, make an extra effort to acquire grant funds for custom harvest or purchase of seed. • Convert acquired cropland and food plots following Regional recommendations. We will strive to seed sites in three years or less. • Coordinate with other FWS offices, conservation partners, and Universities to initiate baseline inventory and monitoring, restoration, management, and/or research

Rationale:

In support of the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (BIDEH) policy, we should, to the best of our ability and in concert with Refuge purposes and the Service mission, restore habitats to their historic condition and mimic natural processes. Creating and planting seed mixes that mimic natural communities will undoubtedly be more resilient to outside stressors, including climate change. Information contained in the NPC field guide provides some of the most comprehensive information on remnant prairies (and other native habitats) in Minnesota. We used this field guide along with our best professional judgment to set the guidelines for building high diversity seed mixes found in Objective 4. We aim to build mixes based on species lists found in the field guide along with inventory data collected from a number of remnant prairies within the District. Native forbs, although not making up the bulk of the cover of prairies, do comprise the majority of the species and thus, the horizontal and vertical structure of prairies. Sample and Mossman (1997) suggest that the structural diversity should be achieved by planting diverse plant species. Excessive warm season grass results in a very homogenous, one-level prairie planting with very little structure. In addition, one of the groups missing from many restorations is cool-season species. Cool season species, both forbs and grasses are critical in establishing early in the growing season and utilizing niches similar to those filled by many invasive species.

Grasses and forbs of remnant prairies can also serve as a local seed source for tallgrass prairie restorations in localized areas. Local ecotype seed is important as it preserves the genetic integrity of each of the given species and when collected from a small geographic area is specially adapted for the climate. It is even possible that remnant prairie species could become established on adjacent grasslands. This is especially important of those restorations situated next to remnant prairies hosting rare or unique species. If managed in conjunction with diverse tallgrass prairie restorations, the total area could ultimately support some prairie-obligate species over time.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 71

OBJECTIVE 5: ESTABLISHMENT OF HIGH DIVERSITY SEEDING: BY YEAR FIVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT PHASE, THE PERCENT COVER OF NATIVE HERBACEOUS SPECIES IS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 50% AND ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TARGET PLANT COMMUNITY SET DURING RESTORATION PLANNING.

Strategies:

• Clipping of all weeds in newly established seedings is highly discouraged. If clipping is necessary for political reasons, grassland should be clipped no lower than 20inches in the smallest area possible for the issue to be resolved. • No broadcast chemical is used in the establishment phase of seedings. Spot spraying is an acceptable tool for controlling noxious and highly invasive species. • If after 5 years of seeding establishment, the minimum amount of native cover has not been attained and species composition is not similar to the target plant community, management for seeding improvement will be planned in order to move the project from the establishment phase to the management phase.(i.e. release burn, interseed) • Coordinate with other FWS offices, conservation partners, and Universities to initiate baseline inventory and monitoring, restoration, management, and/or research

Rationale:

By the fifth growing season, it has been found through inventory and monitoring of select ages of prairies restorations throughout the District, the criteria stated above is easily attained (USFWS unpublished data 2013, monitoring data in-house). We feel this is due, in part, to DLWMD’s seeding regimen: a combination of a diverse seed mix from locally-harvested remnant prairies, snow-seeding, and a hands-off approach to management (particularly mowing) during the establishment phase (USFWS unpublished data 2013, USFWS restoration and monitoring plan). In fact, species richness and frequency of native forbs alone in one restoration surpassed the above criteria after three growing seasons and native cover was nearly 90%. Restorations like the above are on track to becoming some of our best.

If after five years, the above criteria have not been met, planning for management to improve the seeding will begin. The preferred treatment will likely be a “release burn” and should move the seeding from the establishment into the management phase (see Obj. 6). Species richness of native grasses and especially forbs should increase dramatically after the burn, as well as an increase in native vegetation cover. If the criteria are still not met, more drastic measures such as interseeding or conversion may be necessary for stand improvement.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 72

OBJECTIVE 6-MANGEMENT OF HIGH DIVERSITY NATIVE SEEDINGS: HIGH DIVERSITY NATIVE SEEDINGS SHOULD EXHIBIT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: COVER OF NATIVE HERBACEOUS SPECIES IS GREATER THAN 50%; THE NUMBER OF PLANTED NATIVE GRASS AND FORB SPECIES IS MAINTAINED AT A STABLE OR INCREASING NUMBER; A HIGH DIVERSITY SEEDING SHOULD BE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS ASSIGNED NPC TYPE IN BOTH COVER AND FREQUENCY; LITTER DEPTH DOES NOT EXCEED 7.0 CM; AND NATIVE WOODY SPECIES <2M TALL MAY COVER UP TO 5% OF THE SEEDED GRASSLAND. IN WET PRAIRIE OR MEADOW LANDSCAPES, NATIVE WOODY SPECIES MAY COVER 25% OF A SEEDED SITE WHILE ALL OTHER CONDITIONS ABOVE WILL REMAIN THE SAME.

Strategies:

• Use prescribed fire as main management tool • Apply grazing for site-specific objectives • Remove woody species >2m tall from remnant mesic and dry prairies using a combination of mechanical techniques, chemical application, and prescribed fire o The NPC field guide will be utilized to determine the appropriateness of further woody removal in remnant wet prairies and meadows. • For noxious weeds perceived as major threat, consider biological control first if possible. o Chemical or mechanical methods will be spot-treatment only o Broadcast mowing or chemical use will require additional discussion and planning • Haying on case-by-case basis and used when fire and grazing are not possible • Coordinate with other FWS offices, conservation partners, and Universities to initiate baseline inventory and monitoring, restoration, management, and/or research

Rationale:

The loss of available grassland habitat may be influencing regional declines in the Midwest grassland bird populations (Herkert et al. 1996). Over 99% of Minnesota’s tallgrass prairie has been lost to agriculture or development (MCBS 2010) and 7 out of 13 of the State’s breeding grassland birds have experienced significant declines from 1966-2010 (Sauer et al. 2011). Restored tallgrass prairie not only benefits upland nesting waterfowl, but bobolinks, savanna and grasshopper sparrows, three of Minnesota’s grassland birds in decline today. In order for restored prairies to exhibit characteristics similar to native prairies and be the most beneficial to grassland species, providing a variety of vertical structure and mean litter depth between 1.6 cm and 6.5 cm, they must receive similar management (i.e. burning, grazing) to maintain the seedings. These natural processes are listed in the NPC field guide that was also used to establish the above criteria for the restored plant community per the BIDEH policy.

Our main management tool to manage diverse prairie restoration is fire. We rely on a ~5 year fire return interval on high priority sites. This is in line with literature that suggests after 6 years, native and restored prairies become dense, grass-dominated stands with increased litter depth (Olechnowski et al.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 73

2009, Naugle et al. 2000). They are also more susceptible to invasion by invasive species (Naugle et al. 2000) including trees and shrubs. Grassland stand health and vigor depletes due to increased litter accumulation (Naugle et. al 2000) and therefore should be managed when litter accumulation is in in pre-treatment state, usually recovering between years two and eight in the tallgrass region (Olechnowski et al. 2009).

Due to a variety of factors, accomplishing all scheduled burns in a year may be unrealistic. Therefore, implementing other methods of management in order to achieve plant community characteristics stated above is often necessary. For example, grazing will be considered on specific units, especially those that are difficult to implement fire, or that lend themselves to opportunities either with a neighboring rancher, joint management with Partners, or both. Grazing intervals are much different than that of fire and will likely not follow a “regular” rotation. Haying may be used in order to mow down young woody shoots if fire is not implemented, or to remove residual vegetation and reduce litter on moderate and lower priority units. Mechanical tree removal is utilized often for clearing of old building sites, tree rows/shelterbelts, or quickly-establishing woody species. Finally, many noxious weeds are either treated using chemical or mechanical means, when approved biocontrol agents are not available.

OBJECTIVE 7-MANAGEMENT OF LOW DIVERSITY SEEDINGS: LOW DIVERSITY SEEDINGS (PRE-1995) SHOULD EXHIBIT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NATIVE WOODY SPECIES <2M TALL MAY COVER UP TO 5% OF THE SEEDED GRASSLAND. IN WET PRAIRIE AND MEADOW LANDSCAPES, NATIVE WOODY SPECIES MAY COVER UP TO 25% OF A SEEDED SITE.

Strategies:

• Remove woody species >2m tall low diversity seedings using a combination of mechanical techniques, chemical application, and prescribed fire o The NPC field guide will be utilized to determine the appropriateness of further woody removal in wet prairie and wet meadow landscapes. • Prescribed burning, grazing or chemical application may be used on low diversity seedings to prepare a seedbed when selected for diversification (see Objective 8). • Coordinate with other FWS offices, conservation partners, and Universities to initiate baseline inventory and monitoring, restoration, management, and/or research

Rationale:

Low diversity grasslands still provide some benefits to waterfowl and grassland birds. Health and vigor of the grassland will deteriorate greatly if time between management exceeds 10 years (Naugle et al. 2000) due to litter accumulation, increased invasive species, or other factors. However, because low diversity grasslands are less of a priority overall for management, some change must push a low priority

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 74 site into the “needs management” category. Waterfowl typically do not key in on structural attributes for nesting and some grassland birds still use less structurally diverse stands. However, the presence of trees does deter most waterfowl and grassland birds from using grasslands for nesting. Therefore, the presence of woody vegetation beyond the criteria above will trigger management, likely prescribed fire or haying, of a low diversity seeding. It is possible for the low-diversity seeding to receive a treatment outside of woody removal depending on its location related to high priority habitats or units. This then may drive a decision to diversify in which additional tools may be used to prepare the seedbed.

OBJECTIVE 8-DIVERSIFY SEEDINGS: IMPROVE NATIVE SPECIES COMPOSITION OF LOW DIVERSITY SEEDINGS BY PREPARING 50-200 ACRES ANNUALLY FOR INTERSEEDING USING A PREFERRED MANAGEMENT TREATMENT OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS.

Strategies:

• Site selection is within the 160-acre grassland bird conservation matrix. • Develop a restoration plan, including target plant community type (from baseline inventory), harvest strategies and funding needs at least two years in advance to ensure the needed seed is acquired and seed bed is prepared. • Management activities including prescribed fire, grazing, nurse crops, and/or chemical application or farming will be used to prepare a seed bed. • When possible, harvest species from native plant communities representative of the target habitat type for restoration (Objective 1). o Where existing native plant communities exist adjacent to restoration sites, harvest from the adjacent native site if possible. o Where seedings occur adjacent to State- or Federally-identified rare species and habitats, extra effort will be made to replicate the adjacent native plant community. • Harvest multiple times during the growing season, given staffing and funding, in order to acquire the greatest diversity of species. • Where we cannot harvest everything we need, make an extra effort to acquire grant funds for custom harvest or purchase of seed. • For seed mix species composition, refer to Objective 4. • Coordinate with other FWS offices, conservation partners, and Universities to initiate baseline inventory and monitoring, restoration, management, and/or research

Rationale:

Up until 1995, DLWMD staff like many in the Natural Resource profession “restored” grasslands mainly by drill-seeding native and nonnative grasses into the previously-cropped fields. There are also diverse restorations with a history of intense management, leaving few forbs and old CRP fields that have yet to be converted to diverse stands of native grasses and forbs.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 75

The diversification of dense, homogenous stands of grass with forbs increases heterogeneity on the landscape and provides greater benefit to a larger variety of grassland-dependent birds (Sample and Mossman 1997, Bakker and Higgins 2009), including upland-nesting ducks (Keith 1961, Kaiser et al. 1979, Gilbert et al. 1996, Mckinnon and Duncan 1999, Naugle et al. 2000). The addition of forbs creates vertical structure and patchiness in the grassland, provides a food source for prey of grassland birds, as well as small mammals, and fills in niches that otherwise may be occupied by undesirable species. More specialized upland-nesting ducks such as blue-winged teal and northern pintail have been found to benefit from native seedings (Keith 1961, Kaiser et al. 1979). In northeast North Dakota, diverse native restorations were shown to support densities of upland-nesting ducks similar to fields of dense nesting cover (DNC), especially in the early nesting season (Haffele 2012). Blue-winged teal nested in highest densities in native plantings compared to DNC, although not statistically different (Haffele 2012).

Sites will be selected for diversification based on their location in relation to the Grassland Bird Conservation (GBC) matrix and other priority WPAs/refuge units to provide the greatest benefit to grassland resources of concern. We feel we can be successful in diversifying 50-200 acres per year as the number of new acres (previously cropped/newly acquired) we seed each year declines.

4.4 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT OF WETLAND RESOURCES Restore biologically diverse wetland resources and manage them using knowledge of natural processes to provide breeding pair habitat for waterfowl and other wetland dependent wildlife, while maintaining the natural integrity of the wetland.

OBJECTIVE 9-PRAIRIE POTHOLE WETLANDS: RESTORE PRAIRIE POTHOLE WETLANDS TO THEIR NATURAL TYPE AND HISTORICAL HYDROLOGY THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT. RESTORE ALL WETLANDS ON PREVIOUS PURCHASED TRACTS BY 2020. RESTORE WETLANDS ON NEWLY ACQUIRED TRACTS WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF THE SERVICE ACQUIRING THE LAND. ENHANCE NON-FUNCTIONAL DITCH PLUGS IDENTIFIED DURING THE BASELINE INVENTORY BY 2030.

Strategies:

• Develop a restoration plan using information collected from the baseline inventory, other available tools and resources, and the best available science. • Restore wetlands as quickly as possible while preserving biological integrity, and reduce the long term disturbance on the site. • Where native plant communities or rare species and habitats exist on or adjacent to the wetland restoration sites, extra effort will be made to seed a wetland fringe seed mix. • Manage prairie pothole wetlands (northern and prairie mixed cattail marshes) in conjunction with the surrounding uplands

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 76

o Monitoring of select wetlands continues per the Sediment Removal Adaptive Management project • Under specific circumstances (i.e. research), pothole wetlands may be managed individually and monitored. • Coordinate with other FWS offices, conservation partners, and Universities to initiate baseline inventory and monitoring, restoration, management, and/or research

Rationale:

Approximately 85% of Minnesota’s prairie pothole wetlands have been drained (Johnson et al. 2008) and that trend continues today. The majority of wetlands left to restore in the District are temporary and seasonal wetlands, arguably the most critical to breeding waterfowl and often referred to as “pair ponds”. Planning efforts to restore this habitat should begin as soon as a piece of land has been purchased. Our goal should be to get property restored as quickly as possible for breeding waterfowl as well as other resources of concern, without losing the site’s biological integrity. Most importantly, great effort should be made to reduce the long term disturbance on the site for biological, as well as aesthetic reasons.

The number of wetlands restored each year is highly dependent on funding and weather conditions. In a good year, approximately 200 wetlands can be restored if the funding is available. Currently, there are 250 wetlands left to restore. These wetlands, along with those on newly acquired lands, are the priority. Once we feel comfortable with the remaining number of priority wetlands, older wetlands restored via ditch plugs or other means will be enhanced given information collected during the baseline inventory (see Obj. 1).

Select restored wetlands are being monitored annually per the USFWS Sediment Removal Adaptive Management study. This monitoring provides us with a realistic look at the progression of wetland quality and characteristics (i.e. water depth) as related to restoration method, climate, and more. We will continue to add wetlands to this project as they fit the project criteria and as staff time allows. Monitoring will continue to occur utilizing approved protocol and data entered into the project database. Additional monitoring of restored pothole wetlands will not occur unless related to a wetland-specific research project.

OBJECTIVE 10- RESTORE WETLAND FUNCTION: RESTORE WETLAND FUNCTION, WHERE APPROPRIATE, THROUGH WATER MANAGEMENT BY 2032.

Strategies:

• By 2020 conduct a baseline inventory of all water management projects that are currently ongoing and identify “feasible” water management projects for possible future implementation.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 77

• Assess capability of water management infrastructure, effectiveness, and feasibility and decide whether to continue or abandon • Develop and execute 10-year water management plans for beneficial projects to replicate the natural plant community and hydrological cycle, and decrease invasive plant and fish populations in order to benefit wetland dependent resources of concern. o Basins on the south unit of Hamden Slough NWR (the “Big 6 wetlands”) and Anderson WPA will be managed together under a combined water management plan.

Rationale:

Currently, an estimated 27 basins contain some sort of infrastructure enabling water management. Ages of these structures range from <1 year old to > 20 years, and many, other than a quick condition assessment recording its presence, have not undergone a more scrutinizing assessment of whether management capability still exists. Concerns over consolidated drainage resulting in higher volumes of water through the watersheds, as well as age of materials among others deem the inventory necessary.

There may also be opportunities to work with Partners, including Ducks Unlimited and MN DNR given their organizations’ ability to focus on projects related to water management. On the flip-side, there may be non-functioning, overwhelmed, or underperforming structures making it more feasible for abandonment rather than repair or replacement, especially in light of lesser budgets and personnel to physically “manage” the water in the field.

OBJECTIVE 11-SEMI-PERMANENT AND PERMANENT WETLAND MANAGEMENT: CONSIDER FULL DRAWDOWN OF BASINS ONCE EVERY 7-10 YEARS OR WHEN AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA FALL BELOW THE THRESHOLDS: SECCHI DISK READING DROPS BY ONE (1) FOOT OVER A FIELD SEASON; SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION COVER <100% OF THE BASIN; SUBMERGED AQUATIC PLANT SPECIES RICHNESS <4; EMERGENT PLANT COVER <20% OR >60% OF THE BASIN; THE PRESENCE OF UNDESIRABLE FISH.

Strategies: • Work cooperatively with the MN DNR Shallow Lakes program staff to include our shallow lake needs, when possible, into their annual survey schedules to attain the best information for making more informed management decisions. • Draw down, biomanipulation, rotenone, fish barriers, chemical and mechanical plant control are tools that may be used to manage shallow lakes. The tool will be selected to fit the need of the individual basin.

Rationale:

Wetlands are dynamic systems. Heitmeyer et al. (2012) identifies an average 10 to 12 year climate pattern of wet and dry cycles in the prairie pothole region of northwestern Minnesota. Implementing

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 78 an active water level management regimen will restore natural wetland vegetation zones and provide all stages of wetland conditions for the benefit of wetland-dependent wildlife year-round. Mudflats and exposed shorelines attract foraging shorebirds and loafing waterfowl. Shallow water zones with submersed vegetation provide quality foraging conditions for dabbling ducks, waterfowl broods, and wading birds alike. Overwater nesting waterfowl and other wetland-dependent birds will take advantage of emergent vegetation interspersed throughout the wetland. Deeper water affords water column foraging for diving ducks, as well as space for molting and staging waterfowl. A variety of wildlife including the sora, American bittern, sedge wren, and black tern benefit from vegetation along the wetland edges during the warmer months. Over winter, white-tailed deer, greater prairie chickens, and other wildlife find reprieve from the cold, harsh temperatures and wind.

DLWMD staff works closely with DU to agree set thresholds for management (criteria above) on collaborative shallow-lakes projects and require limited expenditure of time and resources by District staff. In addition, our staff also works closely with the Shallow Lakes division of the MN DNR to incorporate many of our managed basins into a rotating schedule of habitat surveys. DNR personnel monitor an average of 2-3 District-owned basins per year, requiring only coordination by District staff. We will implement the drawdown schedule referred to above (every 7-10 years), unless data from DNR or DU monitoring projects inform a hastened response.

4.5 OAK SAVANNA RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT To the best of our ability, restore and manage remnant oak savanna utilizing knowledge of natural processes in order to promote its inherent ecological integrity and diversity and to protect critical refugia for endemic flora and fauna.

OBJECTIVE 12- RESTORE OAK SAVANNA : OAK SAVANNAS SHOULD EXHIBIT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AT THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AND INITIAL THINNING: BUR OAKS HAVE OPEN GROWN STATURE; AT LEAST ONE MATURE BUR OAK IS AT LEAST 150 YEARS OLD; MULTIPLE AGE CLASSES OF BUR OAK ARE MAINTAINED FOR REGENERATION; CANOPY COVER OF BUR OAK IS BETWEEN 10- 50% OF THE TOTAL SAVANNA AREA; NATIVE SHRUBS UP TO 2M TALL MAY COVER UP TO 50% OF THE SAVANNA AREA. TRY TO IMPLEMENT ONE PROJECT EVERY THREE YEARS THROUGH THE LIFE OF THIS PLAN.

Strategies:

• Assess incomplete oak savanna restoration attempts and develop new, multi-phased plans for sites with a high probability of success. • If the baseline inventory has not been completed (Obj. 1), use Pemble’s inventory, soils data, the NPC field guide and guidance provided in the oak savanna handbook (see Oak Savanna

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 79

assessment Appendix 12) to evaluate oak savanna potential and to assist with plan development. • Complete each plan (Appendix 11) at least two years prior to implementation in order to acquire necessary funding for initial woody removal, as well as follow-up management. • Initial removal of invasive shrubs/trees using mechanical means; chemical spot-spray follow-up o Mature quaking aspen are sometimes present in mesic and wet mesic savannas. . The NPC field guide and professional opinion will be used to determine appropriateness of mature aspen removal. • Continue to develop oak savanna multi-phased restoration and management plans for future implementation on priority units • Coordinate with other FWS offices, conservation partners, and Universities to initiate baseline inventory and monitoring, restoration, management, and/or research

Rationale:

Mid-western oak savanna is arguably the most endangered ecosystem in North America (Nuzzo 1986). Dry and mesic savanna can be found within the District boundaries and are critically imperiled in MN (Natureserve 2011). Thirty-three percent of land administered by DLWMD lies within the transition zone (Eastern Broadleaf Forest province) where many of these savannas existed. In addition, savannas can be found within the Prairie Parkland Province as well. Most, but not all savannas have been identified in some way, shape or form (initial acquisition, RIP cards, Pemble survey, etc). One estimate suggests nearly 700 acres of savanna are owned by the District. However, very little information regarding their state of degradation exists, especially since initial RIP cards were completed.

Recognizing oak savanna as an important habitat type, District staff began the restoration process on a few sites since the mid-2000s. However, with increased management need across the entire District coupled with decreased budgets and people, some of those projects have either been abandoned or are not maintained at the level of intensity needed to be successful. Therefore, critical scrutiny must be given to current/on-going projects and decisions have to be made on whether or not to continue with the restoration or to abandon, either for the time being or for good. In order to continue on with selected projects, robust, detailed long-term restoration and management plans must be developed and followed.

Once an oak savanna is “declared” an oak savanna during assessment, the question remains: what should it look like once restored? Criteria and guidance provided by the Savanna working group as found in the DRAFT oak savanna handbook, the NPC field guide, and best professional judgment/experience are just some of the “tools” to help picture the savanna post-management and guide future management decisions. These resources were used to formulate initial restoration criteria above. Key elements of oak savannas should include, if possible, multiple age classes of bur oak to best ensure regeneration and survival from human- and nature-caused disturbances (i.e. prescribed burn, windstorm). Coring of large, open-grown bur oaks is helpful in determining whether the savanna is pre- or post-settlement (settlement ~1870s; >150 years considered post-settlement). Coring also provides

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 80 information on age classes of the entire stand of trees, both oak and non-oak species. Presence of light is a major factor that drives perpetuation of bur oak and prairie species in the savanna understory. Light penetration allows natural growth of bur oak and light-loving herbaceous species, those typically found in prairies. Initial thinning is an easy “first step”; however, the road to savanna restoration is a long one and frequent management is needed.

OBJECTIVE 13-OAK SAVANNA MANAGEMENT: AS OAK SAVANNA PLANS ARE IMPLEMENTED, MANAGE OAK SAVANNAS TO EXHIBIT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: CANOPY COVER OF BUR OAK IS MAINTAINED BETWEEN 10-50% OF THE TOTAL SAVANNA AREA; NATIVE SHRUBS UP TO 2M TALL MAY COVER UP TO 50% OF THE SAVANNA AREA; THE PERCENT COVER OF NATIVE HERBACEOUS SPECIES IS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 50%; NATIVE SPECIES RICHNESS AT A STABLE OR INCREASING NUMBER. OAK SAVANNAS SHOULD BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR ASSIGNED NPC TYPE IN BOTH COVER AND FREQUENCY OF NATIVE SPECIES.

Strategies:

• Use prescribed fire as main management tool • Apply grazing for site-specific objectives upon discussion and best professional judgment • Mechanical removal of invasive shrubs/trees, chemical spot-spray follow-up o Mature quaking aspen are sometimes present in mesic or wet mesic savannas. The NPC field guide and professional opinion will be used to determine appropriateness of mature aspen removal. • For noxious weeds perceived as major threat, consider biological control first if possible. o Chemical or mechanical methods will be spot-treatment only • Reseed only after many attempts of burning (may take up to 10 years) or if area has been severely disturbed from past land-use (former building site, burial of junk, etc.) • Coordinate with other FWS offices, conservation partners, and Universities to initiate baseline inventory and monitoring, restoration, management, and/or research

Rationale:

Oak savannas, as part of the prairie landscape, expanded and contracted as a result of interactions between climate, fire, browsing, and grazing. Savannas served as critical habitat for grassland and woodland wildlife alike. Today, most savannas have either been clear-cut for development or agricultural uses. Those that remain are generally in a highly degraded state, invaded by noxious weeds and/or shade-loving woody trees and shrubs. Managing savannas for structural characteristics and native species composition as described in the NPC field guide and other resources, will best conserve the imperiled habitat not only for a diversity of wildlife but more importantly, for the ecological integrity of the savanna ecosystem. See Objective 12 for more information.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 81

Oak savannas require intensive and frequent management. From invading woody brush and trees to creeping noxious weeds, to a native herbaceous layer needing revitalization, the needs are many. Typically on the District, oak savannas are “embedded” within a larger grassland unit or WPA and will be managed using prescribed fire or grazing in conjunction with surrounding grassland. Because oak savanna is a priority habitat type and given “weight” in the priority tool, many savannas are within high and moderate priority units of the District and should receive treatment on a fairly regular basis (see Objective 2). On rare occasions we will focus management on the “oak savanna area” and not the larger unit. This management will likely be woody vegetation removal or other invasive species work. Decisions on management tools, locations and implementation related to oak savanna require continuous discussions, monitoring, and adapting our management to meet the needs of wildlife resources, as well as the achieve the criteria outlined in the above objective.

4.6 UNIQUE HABITATS AND RARE SPECIES Inventory and monitor other unique habitats and rare species of the District to safeguard critical refugia for endemic flora and fauna and use this information promote sound, responsible restoration and management in support of these critical populations.

OBJECTIVE 14- RESTORE AND MAINTAIN PRAIRIE FENS: RESTORE AND MAINTAIN ALL PRAIRIE FENS BY 2032.

Strategies:

• Conduct a baseline inventory of units known or anticipated to contain remnant prairie fens by the end of FY20. • Develop and maintain a GIS layer with this habitat type. • Consult the NPC field guide for management recommendations that maintain the fen’s integrity and improve its condition, but also accomplish the management needs of the surrounding uplands/wetlands. • Coordinate with other FWS offices, conservation partners, and Universities to initiate baseline inventory and monitoring, restoration, management, and/or research

Rationale:

Prairie fens of Minnesota support unique plant communities and many rare plant species. Two types of fens documented on Distirct-owned property, prairie rich and prairie extremely rich, are classified by NatureServe (2011) as threatened and imperiled, respectively. It is possible additional classes and types could be found given the topography and hydrology of two important landscape features: the Lake Agassiz beach ridge and the Alexandria moraine. Because of the unique habitat and rare species, there is great need in documenting all prairie fens on District lands to ensure they are not disturbed or negatively impacted during restoration, management or other activities.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 82

OBJECTIVE 15-RESTORE AND MAINTAIN ALL RARE, THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS WITHIN THE DISTRICT BY 2032.

Strategies:

• Work with the USFWS Ecological Services Field Office, DNR Natural Heritage Program and other Partners to coordinate inventory and monitoring of FWS-owned sites either solely or in conjunction with private and/or other conservation land to keep up-to-date records of Federal and State T&E spp. and the quality of their habitats for possible future needs. • Maintain a good working relationship with the FWS Ecological Services offices at the Regional and State level • Coordinate with Partners with similar rare species and habitat inventory needs • Stay up-to-date with information on past, present and future Federal or State T&E species • Maintain access to Natural Heritage Database to keep up-to-date, as well as historical records of rare species on FWS-managed lands.

Rationale:

Past records show some of our management units hosted species that are currently on or proposed for the Federal Endangered Species list. Although there are no current records, many native habitats on our units still harbor State and Federal species of concern. There is no telling whether or not these species will “reappear” but continuing to monitor habitats with the potential to host, especially after restoration or management actions to improve the habitat quality, is vital. It is also critical to know the status of these species on land adjacent to District lands so we can best coordinate management and other activities to help the species and habitat, as well as avoid practices that may negatively impact these important resources.

4.7 DISTRICT WATERFOWL POPULATIONS Maintain and enhance breeding waterfowl populations through sound management in alignment with, and stepping down, Prairie Pothole Joint Venture goals.

OBJECTIVE 16- MAINTAIN BREEDING DUCK POPULATIONS: MAINTAIN AN AVERAGE OF 69 BREEDING DUCK PAIRS PER SQUARE MILE OF FEDERAL LAND OVER THE LIFE OF THE HMP, EVALUATING EVERY FIVE YEARS. THIS AVERAGE MIRRORS THE 28-YEAR AVERAGE FROM 1987-2015 (RANGE 30-109 PAIRS).

Strategies:

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 83

• Monitor breeding waterfowl utilizing FSMS (Four Square Mile Surveys) protocol to estimate the District’s contribution to the PPJV population goal for breeding duck pairs. • Evaluate these data periodically and utilize the information to promote sound, responsible restoration and management of uplands and wetlands in support of our priority resources of concern • Maintain a good working relationship with the FWS HAPET offices at the Regional and State level o conduct FSMS in the most biologically-sound way o understand the meaning and implications of the data analyzed and distributed by HAPET annually • Continue to manage priority uplands and associated pothole wetlands annually , to promote quality pair, nesting, and brood habitat o Fire and grazing are the primary upland management tools • Where appropriate and feasible, manage individual potholes o for research or adaptive management purposes • On FSMS units, monitor specific management actions, when feasible, to determine effects on vegetation cover and resulting breeding duck pairs • Coordinate with other WMDs, State Partners, and others with similar waterfowl goals

Rationale:

The District’s primary purpose is to provide quality habitat for waterfowl production. We recognize that waterfowl populations in a given year are dependent on four main factors: wetland habitat, nest success, duckling survival, and hen survival (Brice et al. DRAFT 2016). The most influential factor on pair settling across existing habitat is precipitation level or the wet/dry cycle (Kantrud et al. 1989, Brice et al. DRAFT 2016) which directly affects wetland habitat availability. Precipitation levels in the western PPR can highly influence duck settling. If those areas receive abundant precipitation, settling will almost certainly occur in higher numbers in the western PPR, given the abundance of natural wetlands and intact grasslands. If precipitation levels are low compared to the eastern PPR, a greater abundance of pair settling is more likely in western Minnesota and northern Iowa.

On the District locally, six of our high priority units (Hamden Slough NWR, Helliksen Prairie, Flowing, Pederson, Anderson, and Lake Park WPAs) are also FSMS units. Active management of our priority units will only influence duck numbers on a small, localized scale, resulting in local population stability. Management of priority units is based on the state of the upland habitat and pothole wetlands are managed in conjunction with the uplands. In certain situations (e.g. research), targeted treatments of prairie pothole wetlands may be authorized, which could have short-term benefits for pair settling at the local level. However, only when habitat is added (protected via land acquisition), restored and managed according to the species’ habitat requirements, will the population exhibit increases. Understanding these natural fluctuations in waterfowl populations given precipitation and habitat management, we will continue to monitor the District’s contribution to the overall waterfowl population goal through FSMS as recommended by HAPET. We will evaluate this data periodically to promote sound management actions into the future.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 84

CHAPTER 5 STRATEGY DESCRIPTIONS

5.1 Objective 1-Restoration and Management of Priority Habitats

• Select inventory acres yearly using the WPA priority tool and known/suspected occurrence of priority habitats – Inventory of units will be completed over many years in order to keep the workload of this task manageable unless another resource can be located to complete this task. We are going to inventory units we suspect provide the greatest return on investment of time, energy and funds first. The priority tool will be used to help with yearly selection. It is built to consider the needs of multiple resources of concern, so the more species benefitting from a tract, the better score it gets. This allows us to focus our work where we will get the most out of our investment.

• Inventory new tracts within two years of acquisition – In order to prevent a backlog of cover inventory work, we need to inventory cover on new acquisitions quickly. As new tracts are acquired, both a restoration plan and a cover inventory will be completed by the station biologists. The plan for restoration and the cover inventory are critical pieces of information to guide our management and restoration long into the future.

• Compile existing habitat-related data including RIP cards, tract information, soils, and documented native plant communities- A large volume of information for our tracts exists in our records and files, but no consistent cover type is assigned to each tract. Soils and native plants are the critical components of the Ecological Classification System (ECS), so that data will be essential when assigning habitat classes and types to our tracts and fields. All of this information is required to accurately assign an ECS cover type.

• Record habitat cover types and assign a target native plant community type using “The Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota” (MN DNR 2005; hereafter NPC field guide or field guide) for each management unit- The Ecological Classification System for Minnesota is the core of this document. The NPC field guide is a key to classifying habitat from the subsection level down to native plant community classes, habitat types, and subtypes where applicable. We are using this information because it is built upon the ecological land classification system for Minnesota, county biological survey products, the public land survey and survey bearing trees from the original surveys of this landscape, and over 7,500 vegetation releve plots that have been completed on Minnesota’s native habitats. It is the most complete land classification system that is built on local data derived from the actual native habitats in Minnesota.

We will classify all native habitats on our sites with the NPC field guide down to the lowest classification that we can, either class, type or subtype depending on the habitat being evaluated. In addition, each of our management units will have a target habitat type identified

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 85

for it. The target habitat type will provide the background for restoration or enhancement of habitat throughout the District.

We will provide training to new staff on the use of the NPC field guide. Each staff member will receive a copy of the field guide for the Prairie Parkland and Tallgrass Aspen Parklands Provinces and Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province.

• Develop a rapid assessment checklist - A rapid assessment checklist will be developed from the NPC ECS. This key utilizes species differences and soils information primarily to key to vegetation class and then type. The ECS key was developed for evaluating native habitats. The assessment checklist will be an adaptation of this key in order to classify restored habitats also.

• Record condition of infrastructure, including needed repairs, at wetland restoration sites during cover inventory - We will assess the condition of all of the ditch plugs, water control structures and other habitat management related infrastructure on units during the inventory. There are a few hundred wetlands restored using old techniques, whether it’s a ditch plug or an inefficient water control structure. We need to know the locations where enhancement work is needed to make older restorations hydrologically functional and to ensure wetland type was restored correctly. The most efficient way to get this information collected is to do it while the cover inventory is being completed.

• Create a GIS data layer with habitat cover types and target plant communities; update as restoration and management occurs – The most critical aspect of this objective is getting the current cover type and target cover type information resulting from the Baseline Inventory into a geodatabase that can be analyzed. Having digital, geo-referenced comprehensive data for cover type is critical for long term planning purposes.

5.2 Objective 2-Prioritized Upland Management

• Utilize the priority tool in Habitat Team discussions to inform management decisions during Annual Habitat Management planning. As resources to accomplish our management goals decrease, we must be able to make habitat based decisions to focus our management efforts. Our limited resources must garner the greatest habitat benefits for our resources of concern. A number of different attempts have been made in the past to summarize model information and natural resources data to determine where best to focus our efforts in the District. The most recent tool, The WPA Priority Tool, uses the following criteria to assign a total score to each Waterfowl Production Area in the District: WPA size, native habitat type, size of the conservation estate surrounding each unit, percentage of grass in the landscape, WPAs with native prairie on them, predicted waterfowl nesting pair potential and a landscape wetland index score. The Total WPA score allows us to compare one unit to the next based upon a number of different habitat niches that are potentially filled for our resources of concern by

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 86

each of our WPAs. We will be using this tool in all of our management action discussions going forward, as units will be prioritized based on the diverse resource benefits they can provide.

5.3 Objective 3-Native Prairie Remnants

• Use prescribed fire as main management tool -Fire constitutes one of the most important ecological processes of the prairie ecosystem. We use prescribed fire to mimic this natural process. Fire return intervals in the pre-settlement tallgrass prairie region were generally 4-6 years between major fires and more frequently on a smaller geographic scale (Dickmann and Cleland 2002, Wright and Bailey 1980). Frequency of returns and location of fires influenced grazing by large and small mammals, as well. It is no surprise numerous studies have also demonstrated species composition and vegetation structure in prairies, whether restored or native, become more dense, grass-dominated stands with increased litter depth about year six years post-management (Olechnowski et al. 2009, Naugle et al. 2000). Given this knowledge, the generally-“accepted” management-return interval for tallgrass prairie, whether restored or native, is 4-5 years. This return interval is used by the DLWMD staff when making annual habitat management decisions unless a greater threat to the upland is identified. It is inherent then, that using a management return interval of ~5-yrs on our priority WPAs and Refuge units, will result in a variety of vegetation structures and litter depths across the District benefitting a variety of resources of concern, as well as maintain the integrity of the habitat type.

Prescribed or controlled burning is completed under a “prescription” that sets limits to various factors under which a fire may be initiated in relation to burn plan objectives and safety considerations. Weather factors such as temperature, wind speed and direction, relative humidity, and smoke lift are considered. Other factors include vegetative conditions, resource qualifications and availability (personnel, equipment, and contingencies), and drought monitoring. A variety of firing techniques (backing, flanking, and head fire) are used depending on the objectives for the fire. A combination of these firing techniques is typically used during prescribed fire treatments.

Prescribed fire is an effective tool when applied at the proper time, which depends on the habitat type, objectives, and vegetative conditions. Most fires are conducted during the growing season, but dormant season (when vegetation is not actively growing) fires are also used. Dormant season burns consume residual vegetation and litter, which warms the soil sooner in the spring and stimulates both cool and warm season grasses and forbs. In degraded grasslands, however, these fires can also perpetuate problems with cool season exotic species like Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome. Dormant season burns can also be used as a site preparation tool (e.g., before applying herbicides to control invasive species, or to clear vegetation from a site that will be farmed before grassland restoration or directly interseeded).

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 87

Dormant season burns can also reduce impacts to native cool season grasses that are often planted in newer grassland seedings.

Prescribed fire is most commonly used in grasslands during spring and fall; the exact timing is often chosen to target certain species for control. For example, Willson and Stubbendieck (2000) provide a provisional model for using prescribed fire to control smooth brome in tallgrass prairie. By burning within a specific phonological window (during tiller elongation, identified by presence of an above ground node or at least five green leaves, but before tiller heading), smooth brome will have reduced density and will be subjected to competitive stress from native warm season grasses. A similar model may hold true for Kentucky bluegrass, though specific research is lacking for this species.

In addition, spring and fall fires are conducted to kill and/or set back woody vegetation and to injure or kill second year growth (seed production) of sweetclover (Melilotus sp.). Spring burns also stimulate warm season native grasses and forbs, promoting heavy flowering and seed production. Fire can be an effective form of site preparation on sites where we intend to harvest native seed in the fall.

Wetland vegetation can also be treated with prescribed fire. The fire will consume dormant wetland vegetation and accumulated biomass that has a tendency to become stagnant and dense. Fire will often carry through accumulated cattail biomass even if it is standing in water. This in essence refreshes the wetlands by allowing light penetration into the water column which promotes vegetative growth. Some wetlands can be dewatered and allowed to dry out. The dried vegetation can be treated with fire which will remove the thatch layer and damage species like cattail. Cattail mortality is improved by reflooding the wetland to a depth of at least 0.6 m over the cattail.

• Apply grazing for site-specific objectives - As mentioned above, grassland species of the northern tallgrass prairie evolved under periodic disturbance and defoliation from fire and large, grazing ungulates. Grazing can create a more diverse vegetation structure than is normally possible with mowing or burning; cattle have uneven grazing patterns related to factors like the distribution of preferred and unpalatable plants. Grazing can be used to reduce litter build-up, stimulate desired plant species, control invasive species, and reduce vegetation height and density. Grazing can also control Canada thistle, sweetclover, and some shrubs. Livestock may even serve as dispersal agents of native seeds, thereby creating patches of desirable plants (Archer and Pyke 1991). Furthermore, cattle will consume early growing cattail and break down residual vegetation through hoof action. Cattail control is most effective when the cattle are confined to the wetland area of interest.

Ideally, we would use prescribed grazing in combination with prescribed fire. Historically, herds of bison and other grazing ungulates would follow fires because of the highly palatable and

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 88

nutritious vegetation that grows immediately after a burn. This is not always feasible, usually because of logistical issues such as a lack of cattle in the area, poor fence, or no access to water. In other situations, grazing is the only feasible management option (e.g., when prescribed fire is not safe or access is difficult).

Prescribed grazing is used to mimic the natural effects of ungulate and other grazing wildlife that were present during pre-settlement times. Like fire, the prescription for grazing will include specific parameters that will best achieve our goals for the management unit. Grazing is an effective management tool when used judiciously and properly. Parameters that must be defined for successful grazing include timing, duration, intensity, and species of livestock.

Grazing on WPAs requires working with a cooperative farmer; to use grazing as a management tool requires that we find ways to make the practice economically viable for the cooperator, while not sacrificing the habitat objectives we want to achieve. Sites must have adequate fencing and accessible, clean water. Creative solutions can be used such as providing credits for fencing work. Not all cooperators are willing to move their cattle to a unit for just a few weeks of grazing, so we have the most success working with cooperators who own pasture adjacent to our management unit.

The timing and duration of a grazing prescription will depend on the grassland type and condition. In native prairie, we commonly use a grazing technique called spring flash grazing, where the unit is grazed at a relatively high stocking rate for a short duration (4-6 weeks). Spring grazing is useful in a grassland system where the goal is to reduce invasive cool season grasses and promote warm season plants. It has a similar effect as a spring prescribed fire, helping to reduce cool season grasses (especially exotic species) while promoting native warm season plants. Typically, a grazing plan will include a flash graze in two consecutive springs. Sometimes we will also follow this with another flash graze in the fall after the warm-season native grasses are less palatable.

In low-diversity, seeded grasslands that are dominated by either warm season or cool season grasses, a summer graze may be used. In these situations the intent of the graze is to stimulate the grass stand and reduce litter build-up, rather than to reduce the cover of target species. The duration and intensity would be fairly similar to that of a spring graze (high stocking rate, 4-6 weeks).

Grazing with domestic cattle is most common; however we can also use other livestock such as sheep and goats depending on the goals of the graze. It is important to understand which plant species are preferred by the livestock being used. For example, cattle will favor herbaceous species over woody vegetation, so you cannot expect to eliminate a woody invasion issue with cattle. However, goats will eat woody vegetation, making them an excellent option for shrub control.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 89

Grazing can also be implemented to prepare a seed bed. In situations where farming is not an option or the need to completely start over on a new seeding is not needed, grassland may be grazed down to a very short height. Before all of the forage is gone, native seeds can be broadcast onto the ground while the cattle are still in the paddock. The hoof action from the cattle can actually be used to push the seeds into the ground. This is a less intense procedure to use for interseeding grassland and gives you a similar seed bed to burning a site off to prepare to broadcast seeds on the ground.

• Remove woody species >2m tall from remnant mesic and dry prairies using a combination of mechanical techniques, chemical application, and prescribed fire - Historically, a dry climate worked in combination with natural disturbance events (fire and grazing) to maintain an herbaceous-dominated vegetation community in the prairies. As those natural disturbances have been suppressed (fire) or eliminated (bison) and precipitation has increased due to climate change, trees have encroached in grasslands throughout Minnesota. In addition to the lack of disturbance, there is a more widespread seed source in the planted tree groves and windbreaks throughout the landscape. We use prescribed burning, grazing and haying to control woody vegetation, but their effectiveness declines as tree size increases. In some situations, additional strategies are required to remove woody cover.

We frequently cut, pile and stump treat trees that have encroached on our prairie and grassland habitats in the prairie pothole region of our District. Trees are removed by loggers or contractors who brush mow, cut, shear, grind, etc. woody species that are just getting established in the grasslands. We cut old grove sites and tree belts that were located on our properties before we purchased them. We nearly always follow the cutting with stump treatment using a triclopyr based chemical within 2 hours of the trees being cut to help prevent root sprouting. Sometimes the trees are piled and burned, sometimes they are scattered in areas where the scattered nature of trees will not damage the site. When we can afford it and make arrangements for it, we pile trees for firewood use by local residents. We also pursue hiring someone to chip the trees and use the wood for pulp or biomass. Getting the woody material off site allows us to maintain the site much easier in the future as there is no burn scar from burning tree piles, there are no trees obstructing retreatment of the site, and the local residents benefit from the woody material being available for heating their homes during the winter.

Basal bark treatments are effective for controlling woody vines, shrubs, saplings, and trees less than 5 cm in base diameter. Basal applications offer the advantage of a low profile application and selective control of target plants. Selected stems are removed while desirable plants are left to naturally and rapidly occupy sites. When properly applied, complete control of foliage, stems and roots is possible. Applications can be made year-round, but the fall is most efficient time when easy access to the base is possible and rapid chemical transport to the root system occurs. The basal spray method is highly selective and involves the application of an oil-based

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 90

triclopyr based herbicide to the bottom 18 inches of a plant’s stem. The oil penetrates the plant’s bark and carries the herbicide into the cambium for translocation to the roots. Basal spray formulations can also be applied to cut-stumps that have begun to re-sprout. Basal treatments can be used in combination with cut surface treatments when large undesirable trees are mixed with smaller stems.

Foliar treatments are also effective for controlling shrubs and trees less than 10 cm in base diameter. Ground based broadcast spray equipment and hand-held sprayers are used for these applications. Herbicide like Garlon 3A is applied to the foliage of selected trees and shrubs. The triclopyr chemical is absorbed by the leaf structures and translocated to the root system. Broadcast applications are only used occasionally to treat heavy infestations of shrub and tree saplings such as Siberian elm and willow. Hand-held sprayer applications are used for spot treating scattered trees and for small concentrated patches of woody vegetation. Herbicide is applied until the tree leaves are wet but not dripping, and applicators should avoid over spraying.

Girdling, or cutting through the phloem but leaving the xylem intact around the entire tree circumference, is an effective means of killing individual trees or excluding a particular tree species without use of herbicide (Solecki 1997). Severing the phloem prevents the flow of carbohydrates from the leaves to the roots, and over time the tree dies from lack of water and/or nutrients. If only the phloem layer is severed, it will take several years for the tree to die. Severing the deeper xylem layer results in quicker mortality, but it sometimes triggers increased suckering below the cut. Spring and summer is the best time to girdle trees. After initial spring growth, resources have been depleted and the tree is most vulnerable. Bark and cambium are also looser and easier to remove at this time than in fall. Girdled trees typically die slowly over several years, allowing understory species to adapt gradually.

The NPC field guide will be utilized to determine the appropriateness of further woody removal in remnant wet prairies and meadows. The Detroit Lake Wetland Management District has numerous habitat types that have been identified in the NPC guide that include both a shrub and tree component. In our prairie habitat types in many cases our objective will be to restore the most open landscape that is feasible as many of our trust resources depend on open prairie habitats. On sites that have been identified as brush prairie, aspen parkland, oak savannah, etc., we will need to consult the NPC guide to determine an appropriate management objective for each site. In many cases that will be reducing the shrub and tree component, but not completely removing it. Our goal will be to maintain woody vegetation in these landscapes in the historical range of what was found on these habitat types.

Tree removal on remnant prairies will almost always occur during the winter months, when the ground is frozen and/or snow-covered to avoid disturbance of the native sod. This is especially true when conducting tree removal activities on wet prairies and meadows. In some cases, in order to be the most effective, some activities are best done during the active growing season.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 91

If this is the case, we will ensure that activities only proceed when the ground conditions are dry and work is done with low- impact vehicles or if possible, on foot. Those using chemical in conjunction with tree removal are expected to use extra caution to avoid collateral damage on native prairie vegetation.

• For noxious weeds perceived as major threat, consider biological control first if possible. o Chemical or mechanical methods will be spot-treatment only

Biological Weed Control McFadyen (1998) defines classical biocontrol as “. . . the importation and release of exotic biocontrol agents, with the expectation that the agents will become established and further releases will not be necessary.” Since the 1990s, Detroit Lakes WMD has successfully used several species of beetles as biocontrol agents to manage leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) on District lands. Beetle populations are monitored at previous release sites, many of which have sufficient numbers that, if needed, we can collect and move to newly discovered infestations. Other biological control agents will be examined as they become available. Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) weevils will be used to control any large patches of this weed as this root mining weevils has proven to be very effective at controlling spotted knapweed statewide.

Leafy Spurge Four species of flea beetles (Aphthona lacertosa, A. czwalinae, A. flava, and A. nigriscutis) are being used for bio control of leafy spurge. Each species of flea beetle have a different habitat preference (soil type, soil moisture, spurge density, etc.). For all flea beetle species, the larva feeding on and damaging the root system does the primary damage to the plant (Bourchier et al. 2006).

Adult flea beetles, active from May to August, feed on spurge foliage and flowers. Soon after emergence, females lay eggs at the base of the plant. Larvae hatch, burrow into the soil, and begin feeding on the root hairs of the spurge plant. As they grow, the larvae utilize progressively larger spurge roots; mature larvae may also be found burrowing within large lateral roots and root buds. The larva pupate just under the soil surface, emerging as adults the following season (Bourcheir et al. 2006).

In some situations, integrating prescribed fire or grazing at leafy spurge biocontrol sites can enhance control. Carefully timed fire, when the adults are not active, will not harm established colonies of A. nigriscutis and can improve recruitment on new release sites (Fellows and Newton 1999). Grazing sheep or goats in combination with biological control agents may provide a more rapid reduction of leafy spurge stem density and vigor than the biological control agents alone (Bourcheir et al. 2006). In part these effects may be related to the litter layer in the

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 92

grassland – a very thick litter layer may result in females laying eggs too far from the soil surface or may inhibit emergence in the spring.

Purple Loosestrife Two leaf-beetles, Galerucella calmariensis and G. pusilla, are used to control purple loosestrife in Minnesota. Loosestrife beetles are good fliers and can disperse up to four miles in a year; they have been found more than 12 miles from their original release site on unmanaged purple loosestrife infestations (MN DNR undated). They tolerate a wide range of conditions but prefer full sun and fairly stable water levels. Adult and larval beetles defoliate plants, effectively stressing the plant to the point of reducing shoot height and even sometimes inhibiting flowering (Wilson et al. undated).

Adult loosestrife beetles emerge in early spring and feed on leaves and young shoots of the loosestrife plant. Eggs are laid on leaves and stems. Initially, the larvae feed on leaf buds and move to leaves and stems as they grow larger. The larvae pupate in the leaf litter below the plant, or, if the plant is in flooded water, in the aerenchyma in the stem. New adults emerge in mid-June to mid-July, feed for a short time, and then overwinter in the litter (Wilson et al. undated).

Mechanical Weed Control - Fire and grazing are natural ecological processes in the northern tallgrass prairie. Although they are the preferred strategies, there are times when mechanical defoliation techniques like mowing and haying are used instead. Mechanical treatment is useful for treating a smaller patch, for example in response to noxious weed complaints. Other situations when mowing and haying are used include woody vegetation control or to prepare a site for herbicide applications. Like grazing, haying on WPAs is accomplished by working with a cooperative farmer. Both mowing and haying are limited by the surface conditions in the field – an area that is too rocky or bumpy, too wet, or that has a steep terrain is not a good candidate for this strategy.

Haying includes removal of the cut vegetation. If raked, haying can also reduce the litter layer. By clipping or haying, we can prolong our fire interval on sites where our objective is to control small trees and shrubs invading grasslands. Haying also allows us to work with a cooperator to provide a use for the grass we intend to clip for tree control.

Mowing allows some flexibility in the cutting height, so that certain species can be targeted or protected. Mowing is an effective tool for creating control lines for prescribed fire operations. Mowing can also be an effective tool to create a short structure vegetative state in tall dense grasses, creating open habitat for species like western meadowlark, greater prairie-chicken, upland sandpiper, and marbled godwit.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 93

Mowing and shearing can also be used to manage vegetation structure and composition in wetlands. In this case, mowing involves the use of rotary and flail mowers but forestry mulching type equipment (e.g., Fecon) may also be used. Flail and forestry mulchers will chop material better than a rotary mower and a forestry mower has the added advantage of providing tillage if conditions allow. Mowing can be completed anytime conditions allow access to the wetland however control may be best if cutting in late summer or early fall and two clippings followed by stem submergence (where possible). Winter over-ice treatments have a potential to be successful particularly if a dry fall allows access into the basin and the cutting is followed by a wet spring which submerges the cut stems to at least 8 cm. One drawback of late-season treatment is that airborne seeds can clog equipment. Clipping cattail too early in the growing season may stimulate growth and lead to higher stem numbers the following year. Rock density in the basin may influence use of mowing equipment.

Generally, we will delay mowing or haying until after July 15, which will allow most ground- nesting species a chance to raise at least one brood. However, in some cases late spring mowing (mid to late June) is needed to control exotic species like plumeless thistle and sweetclover. When habitat is desired for late-nesting species such as dickcissels and sedge wrens, mowing should be delayed until early August. If more than one mowing is conducted or if mowing is required after the breeding season for some other purpose, the last mowing of the year should generally be early enough to promote some fall re-growth, which provides residual vegetative cover the following spring. This means mowing should be done by early September for cool-season grasses and early August for warm-season grasses in most years.

Crushing and/or rolling have been important tools for Detroit Lakes WMD in controlling weeds that are causing political weed complaints. In instances where we get weed complaints on our young seedings, crushing has proven to be a means for us take care of the political problem with the weed, without cutting the growth point and seed heads off of the plants. We want seed production on the native species so clipping is not a desirable way for us to control thistle problems. We typically hire a local cooperator to use a seed roller and run over the problem field. This will break the thistle stalks. Even if the thistle is not killed, the seed production is low to the ground keeping it from blowing around, which is where the political issues arise. The natives even if knocked over will continue to grow and produce their own seeds; also a desirable outcome, especially late in the summer.

Chemical Weed Control Herbicides can be an effective way to limit and reduce the spread of invasive plants within a native plant community. Herbicides work in different ways and may affect a wide range of species or only the specific target plant. Products may come in granular, pelleted, dust or liquid forms. Liquid herbicides are commonly diluted to an appropriate formula and mixed with other chemicals that facilitate mixing, application, or efficacy. Common application methods include foliar spray, basal bark, hack and squirt, injection, and cut stump. Much of our chemical

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 94

application is spot treatment to control individual invasive plants and small patches of invasives. We limit our broadcast spraying to only include large patches or sites with a large density of patches and individuals and it is rarely, if ever, used on remnant habitats. Spot spraying gives us the best long term sustainability of our seedings. One of the major reasons for planting a large diversity of forbs in our grasslands in that the forbs fill the niches in the grassland that would be most easily invaded by invasive species. If we broadcast spray we are destroying the competition that we need in place to keep invasives from getting established.

The timing of applications is critical to achieve effective control, as the growth stage at which an organism will be most effectively controlled, varies by species. The advantage of herbicide use is that the right chemicals, applied correctly, can produce desired results over a large area for a reasonable cost. The disadvantages are that the chemicals may affect non-target species at the site (including the applicator) and/or contaminate surface or groundwater. Proper planning includes using the selection of the most target-specific, least hazardous (humans and the environment), and most effective chemical to meet the habitat objectives. Additionally, the minimum effective dosage should be applied, as the chemical labels often give higher than necessary concentrations.

Species commonly targeted with herbicides include wild parsnip, common tansy, crown vetch, spotted knapweed, biennial or Canada thistles, and leafy spurge. Herbicides are often most effective when used in combination with other mechanical and cultural practices.

Attention to personal protective equipment, licensing requirements, and other regulations is required. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy provides guidelines for pesticide and other chemical applications (including adjutants designed to enhance effectiveness) and requires a Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) for all pesticide applications be submitted and approved annually.

Haying on case-by-case basis and used as last resort

Haying is frequently used in the District to extend the treatment period on uplands for burning, grazing or other treatments. We hay areas that need litter removal or small tree control, or for structural diversity in the landscape for specific species needs. Generally, we will delay mowing or haying until after July 15, which will allow most ground-nesting species a chance to raise at least one brood. However, in some cases late spring mowing (mid to late June) is needed to control exotic species like thistle and sweetclover. When habitat is desired for late-nesting species such as dickcissels and sedge wrens, haying should be delayed until early August. If more than one cutting is conducted or if cutting is required after the breeding season for some other purpose, the last cutting of the year should generally be early enough to promote some fall re-growth, which provides residual vegetative cover the following spring. This means cutting should be done by early September for cool-season grasses and early August for warm-season grasses in most years.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 95

5.4 Objective 4-Promote High Diversity

• Revise Master Species list to include criteria such as phenology (avg. bloom time), C3 or C4 (cool or warm season), and special attributes (benefit pollinators). The master species list will be updated during summer 2014 to include species identified in the NPC field guide for habitat types in the District. In addition, the species will be evaluated for the benefits to pollinators as well as any other special characteristics.

• Develop a restoration plan, including target plant community type (from baseline inventory), harvest strategies and funding needs at least two years in advance to ensure the needed seed is acquired. When we seed new sites or convert lesser quality grasslands to more diverse seedings, we must be fully prepared in advance of the actual restoration. That means having a restoration plan in place, including a target plant community (habitat type) that outlines needed species for the seed mix. Some species don’t get harvested in our typical fall native harvest. If we know we need them 2 years in advance they can be custom harvested for us. The NPC guide provides the basic composition of grasses and forbs, warm season to cool season, etc. for each of our targeted habitat types. The restoration plan should identify seed needs, funding needs, location of potential harvest sites with the desired plant community type or sources of needed seeds.

• When possible, harvest species from local native plant communities representative of the target habitat type for restoration (Objective 2).

o Where native plant communities exist adjacent to restoration sites, try to harvest from the adjacent native site. Where opportunities exist to harvest from native prairies on our own properties or partner properties, we will try to harvest from the actual adjacent native prairie. This seed harvest strategy will help us insure a species composition that is most representative of the local native habitat type. This strategy will be difficult in wet prairie areas and some of the brush prairies as access can be difficult. Long term planning will better prepare us for harvest of difficult sites when weather conditions allow us access.

o Extra effort will be placed on replicating the native plant community on sites adjacent to State- or Federally-identified rare species and habitats. We have a number of prairie specialist species that are listed as Federally Threatened or Endangered, and numerous State species of concern. When we have the opportunity to improve the quality of a seeding that may benefit an adjacent T & E species or species of concern, we will consider specific needs of these species during restoration planning. This will add cost to a restoration that would not be necessary to meet habitat needs for waterfowl production. The extra cost is justified as it will result in a more sustainable native restoration as well as provide habitat for other Federal trust species, species of concern, and grassland birds whose population trends have been significantly declining.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 96

• Harvest multiple times during the growing season, given staffing and funding, in order to acquire the greatest diversity of species. Whether we are harvesting or contracting native seed harvest, we need to obtain species that ripen in all seasons, not just in the fall. Many early- and mid- season forbs and a couple of critical species of native grasses are frequently missed in fall harvest. Again, this all leads to a more diversified seeding that will be more sustainable over the long term and more representative of the native habitat type.

• Where we cannot harvest everything we need, make an extra effort to acquire grant funds for custom harvest or purchase of seed. There are numerous grant programs available to secure restoration funding to diversify seed mixes and make higher quality restorations possible. In order to get this funding in a timely manner, we need to submit grant applications a year or two before the funds are needed to purchase seed. We hope to continue using funds from the farming program for our seed costs, but we are unsure how long this will be an option.

• Convert acquired cropland and food plots following Regional recommendations. We will strive to seed sites in three years or less. Due to potential impacts on pollinators and other resources, farming and cropping will be used as little as possible in the future to convert grasslands. Because of these impacts, Regional policy on the use of farming is currently evolving. We will follow the Regional guidance provided to us based on the most current science related to GMO crops and treated seeds, and their potential negative impacts to our natural resources. In some situations we may be able to farm sites with untreated seeds, and we will restrict chemical use by cooperators. In other situations, we may have to consider alternative methods to convert cropland.

Many tracts we purchase are cropland, thus we need a restoration plan in place once we own them. Often the restoration process takes multiple years. We will plan to restore new crop fields in three years or less. To achieve this goal, we need a solid restoration plan up front that identifies seed needs and funding needs in order to meet that three year deadline. It is often difficult for us to seed large pieces at a time due to cost of seed, but we will pursue additional funding as needed to expedite the restoration. We will establish grassland habitat on our tracts as quickly as feasible.

Farming is a common way to prepare uplands for reseeding with native prairie vegetation. Usually, a bean-corn-bean rotation is used over three years. Farming with GMO crops provides weed control in the field and establishes a firm seed bed. Often the practices of farming and/or disking are needed in sites where the old seeding was heavily invaded by pocket gophers. The disking and farming knock the gopher mounds down so the site can be seeded evenly. Each time a gopher disturbs the soil it creates a bare soil patch that can be colonized by invasive species. Reducing this impact is critical to the sustainability of a new seeding or interseeding.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 97

Using nurse crops, although commonly used in other areas of the country, is a fairly new alternative to traditional farming considered by the District to prepare a seed bed. Nurse crops are usually an annual grain crop such as oats, winter wheat or other forage/pasture grain planted for the purposes of holding soil in place and competing with weeds, while it protects or “nurses” newly-seeded prairie vegetation through the hardships of establishment. Another advantage of nurse crops is the cooperator is able to harvest the crop for his/her benefit. The nurse crop is usually in place for 2-3 years; however long it can be planted and harvested without damaging the growing native prairie plants.

Once a seed bed is ready, we broadcast seed our sites, typically over the snow, but sometimes on the bare ground. Planting typically occurs in early spring over the snow or during the dormant season (late fall through early spring). Better seed-to-soil contact is achieved with a seed drill, but seed must be fairly clean to run through a drill. A broadcast seeder allows for more bulk material with the seed, which is common in the native harvest that we use to restore our habitat. During the growing season broadcast seeding requires pulling a cultipacker or harrow after seeding to improve contact with the soil when the seeds are broadcast on bare ground. Detroit Lakes WMD typically broadcasts seed over snow. As the snow melts, the seed will work its way into the soil without additional mechanization needed for seed to soil contact. Another advantage of snow-seeding is that the operator has a better visual of where seed has been applied in the field. How and when seed is applied can influence establishment of planted species and resistance to exotic invasion. A recent study on refuge lands concluded that drilling seed was preferable for growing-season plantings, while broadcasting seed is most effective in the dormant season (Larson et al. 2011).

Detroit Lakes WMD does not clip or heavily manage new seedings. We spot treat invasives with chemicals as needed, but very little is done until the seeding is entering maturity. See below for more detail on this practice.

5.5 Objective 5- Establishment of High Diversity Seeding

• Clipping of all weeds in newly established seedings is highly discouraged. If clipping is necessary for political reasons, grassland should be clipped no lower than 20inches in the smallest area possible for the issue to be resolved. Inventory work on our new seedings in the Detroit Lakes WMD has been summarized for more than 5 years. We have learned that as a seeding gets established it basically chokes or crowds out invasive species like plumeless thistle. Many practitioners clip new seedings to keep annual and biannual weeds from seeding out and to try to get sunlight to newly establishing native plants. Our study shows that clipping does not improve restoration establishment. The effect is nearly neutral when a site is clipped at 26 inches or higher, but clipping may be detrimental to species richness when it occurs at heights under 13 inches.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 98

Clipping is not used in the Detroit Lakes WMD unless weed complaints have to be resolved, and then only high clipping of 20 inches or higher is used to deal with this political issue. We feel that a neutral to negative treatment that costs time and money is wasteful and possibly damaging to our restorations.

• No broadcast chemical is used in the establishment phase of seedings. Spot spraying is an acceptable tool for controlling noxious and highly invasive species. We are challenged by a number of very aggressive noxious and invasive species. If some of the more challenging species become established, we will make all possible efforts to treat the invasion with spot chemical treatment as the most effective means of control. Weed species controlled in newly-established seedings include common tansy, wild parsnip, crown vetch and spotted knapweed. All efforts will be made to stop these new invasions quickly before they spread. We will not broadcast chemical on a new seeding to control one species of invasive, because even the most selective chemicals will destroy the newly-seeded forbs on these sites. The best insurance we have long term is to maintain the most diverse mix of species possible in each seeding. Broadcast chemical use removes many forbs and opens niches in the seeding that can allow invasive establishment.

• If after 5 years of seeding establishment, the minimum amount of native cover has not been attained and species composition is not similar to the target plant community, management for seeding improvement will be planned in order to move the project from the establishment phase to the management phase. (i.e. release burn, interseed)- We will evaluate the site to determine the appropriate mechanism for achieving the desired result in our seeding. That mechanism is often a “release” burn. Typically a release burn is conducted in the spring to stimulate native warm season grasses and forbs and is completed by year 6 after a site has been seeded.

In some cases we may determine that our seeding needs additional species diversity. Maybe the seed catch was poor due to low precipitation post seeding or the seed mix didn’t contain a full suite of species important for a variety of soils on a specific site. In these cases we may burn or graze to prepare a seed bed and then interseed only the needed species into the existing grassland.

Interseeding remnant native prairies or planted grasslands is a management technique used to improve existing low diversity grasslands by planting additional grass or forb species directly into an existing sod (Packard 1997). It is especially useful on sites where plowing would cause erosion, create potential for noxious weed problems on weed-free sites, or destroy an existing – if degraded – native plant community.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 99

Interseeding is most effective where grass is not overly dominant. It can be more difficult in monocultures of switchgrass or reed canarygrass or in Kentucky bluegrass sod. Interseeding after a prescribed fire is most common, although site preparation can also include grazing, haying or light disking. Removing residual vegetation will provide light for seedlings and may improve seed-to-soil contact. Herbicide treatments can also be used to weaken existing grasses and decrease competition during seedling establishment. When interseeding into degraded native prairies, only seed collected from a local source will be used. Disking or other soil disturbance should not be used in remnant prairie as a means of incorporating seed.

5.6 Objective 6-Mangement of High Diversity Native Seedings (See Objective 3: Remnant Prairie Management for the below strategy descriptions)

• Use prescribed fire as main management tool • Apply grazing for site-specific objectives • Remove woody species >2m tall from remnant mesic and dry prairies using a combination of mechanical techniques, chemical application, and prescribed fire o The NPC field guide will be utilized to determine the appropriateness of further woody removal in remnant wet prairies and meadows. • For noxious weeds perceived as major threat, consider biological control first if possible. o Chemical or mechanical methods will be spot-treatment only o Broadcast mowing or chemical use will require additional discussion and planning • Haying on case-by-case basis and used when fire and grazing are not possible

5.7 Objective 7-Management of Low Diversity Seedings (See Objective 3: Remnant Prairie Management for the below strategy descriptions)

• Remove woody species >2m tall low diversity seedings using a combination of mechanical techniques, chemical application, and prescribed fire o The NPC field guide will be utilized to determine the appropriateness of further woody removal in wet prairie and wet meadow landscapes. • Prescribed burning, grazing or chemical application may be used on low diversity seedings to prepare a seedbed when selected for diversification (see Objective 5).

5.8 Objective 8-Diversify Seedings

• Site selection is within the 160-acre grassland bird conservation matrix. We selected this criterion for where to begin diversifying grassland restorations because these locations are most attractive to prairie specialist resources of concern, especially the grassland bird species that have been in long term decline. The GBCA Types (Johnson et al. 2010) were designed to identify

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 100

where we have enough grass in the landscape to make a difference for scale-selective grassland bird species. By working in our 160, 320 and 640 acre grassland bird matrices first, we can have the greatest positive impact on declining grassland birds. These cores of habitat are large enough to make a difference for the resources of concern that will benefit the most from this practice. A map illustrating the Conservation Estate including the Type 2 GBCA (core and matrix) can be found in Chapter 2.

• Develop a restoration plan, including target plant community type (from baseline inventory), harvest strategies and funding needs at least two years in advance to ensure the needed seed is acquired and seed bed is prepared. (See Objective 4-Development of a High Diversity Seed Mix for strategy description)

• Management activities including prescribed fire, grazing, nurse crops, and/or chemical application or farming will be used to prepare a seed bed (See Objective 4-Development of a High Diversity Seed Mix for strategy description and details on farming and using nurse crops; See Objective 5-Establishment of a High Diversity Seeding for strategy description on other ways to prepare a seed bed)

• When possible, harvest species from native plant communities representative of the target habitat type for restoration (See Objective 4-Development of a High Diversity Seed Mix for strategy description)

o Where existing native plant communities exist adjacent to restoration sites, harvest from the adjacent native site if possible. o Where seedings occur adjacent to State- or Federally-identified rare species and habitats, extra effort will be made to replicate the adjacent native plant community.

• Harvest multiple times during the growing season, given staffing and funding, in order to acquire the greatest diversity of species. (See Objective 4-Development of a High Diversity Seed Mix for strategy description)

• Where we cannot harvest everything we need, make an extra effort to acquire grant funds for custom harvest or purchase of seed. (See Objective 4-Development of a High Diversity Seed Mix for strategy description)

• For seed mix species composition, refer to Objective 4-Development of a High Diversity Seed Mix.

5.9 Objective 9-Prairie Pothole Wetlands

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 101

• Develop a restoration plan using information collected from the baseline inventory, other available tools and resources, and the best available science. - Soils, hydrology, watershed, wetland type, historical aerial photos, and numerous other tools exist to help ensure that wetlands are restored to their historical hydrology. We should always be utilizing the best available, scientifically based tools to decide how and where to restore wetlands to their most natural types. The below resources should be utilized as the restoration plan is developed. We have a couple of very useful forms for tracking how a wetland was restored. See the planning and tracking log (Appendix 13) for wetland restoration. (Historical aerial photos, soil survey, NWI, Restorable Wetland Inventory, Lidar, land surveys, hydric plant books, hydric soil indicator book, Munsell color chart, wetland restoration models, Stewart and Kantrud (1971) publication or any upcoming tools that help us make more informed restoration decisions.)

• Restore wetlands as quickly as possible while preserving biological integrity, and reduce the long term disturbance on the site. Secure enough funding and resources to mobilize and restore wetlands the least number of times on a specific tract. When possible, try to restore wetlands immediately before seeding the upland sites to native vegetation. Every time we stretch out the time frame for completion of a project, mobilize numerous years in a row or restore wetlands in new seedings, we disturb the ground and open the area for invasive species to take hold, creating potentially new invasive issues on that property.

• Where native plant communities or rare species and habitats exist on or adjacent to the wetland restoration sites, extra effort will be made to seed a wetland fringe seed mix. (See Objective 4:Development of a High Diversity Seed Mix for strategy description)

• Manage prairie pothole wetlands (northern and prairie mixed cattail marshes) in conjunction with the surrounding uplands Due to the large number and small nature of prairie pothole wetlands, they will be managed in conjunction with the surrounding uplands whether they get grazed, burned, hayed, etc. Usually the only treatments we make for small prairie pothole wetlands are to defoliate the wetland vegetation or control invasive species. These treatments alter the succession of the basin and keep the plant community in a more open state and more likely to be used by the greatest diversity of birds, but most importantly, they will provide settling locations for breeding waterfowl. The NPC guide outlines the functionality of this interconnected ecosystem and supports the management of the ecosystem as a functionally connected wetland and upland ecosystem.

o Monitoring of select wetlands continues per the Sediment Removal Adaptive Management project. We will continue our evaluation of wetland restorations in the District via our participation in Sediment Removal project. The approved monitoring protocol evaluates the success of removing sediment from wetlands when they are restored, but it also includes tracking management on the sites along with vegetation

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 102

characteristics annually. We should be able to glean some information about our typical land management regime from this long term adaptive management project.

Removing accumulated sediment from formerly cropped temporary and seasonal wetlands offers one option for the reduction of cattail-choked scenarios. These wetlands often endured decades of conventional cropland tillage across the adjacent uplands resulting in increased erosion of the upland topsoil into the wetlands. Removal of this accumulated sediment layer above the soil’s original A-horizon may return some hydrological and vegetative functionality to the wetland.

Sediment removal from wetlands works most effectively when the respective wetland is not inundated or saturated, usually in the fall of the year. While using excavation as a method for restoration, it is critical to ensure that the actions do not change the original water regime of the wetland (e.g., convert a temporary wetland to a seasonal). An individual wetland may have both seasonal and temporary zones where sediment depths may vary, so the excavation amounts may differ across a single wetland.

Sediment excavation requires proper planning to ensure that the placement of the removed material will not negatively impact the restored wetland. This material should be either transported off site or placed on the uplands. The material must not be placed within the wetland boundary or even adjacent to the wetland. The best place for it is typically in the downstream ditch as the material can be used to block the ditch leaving the basin. Consideration should also be given to the seed bank within the removed sediment layer, especially when plant species such as reed canarygrass are present.

Typical equipment used for sediment removal might include an excavator and bulldozer, and sometimes a scraper. On small, temporary wetlands the excavator works well and is a bit more precise than the bulldozer; whereas on larger temporary wetlands and seasonal basins the bulldozer will likely be needed. The latter is a less precise piece of equipment and generally results in removal within 5-10 cm of the targeted sediment removal amount. Scrapers work very well in large basins and if the site is dry enough. Scrapers can move large amounts of dirt and can cut very small depths of soil with each pass.

o Under specific circumstances (i.e. research), pothole wetlands may be managed individually. Again the focus of these treatments is typically on defoliation or alteration of a dense mat of vegetation. Crushing, rolling or haying have the potential to, at least temporarily, alter vegetation in temporary and seasonal wetlands or manipulate weeds while lessening the impact of the weed control on the native species we are trying to promote. Equipment used could be a cultipacker, roller drum, flail or rotary mower or other type of equipment (Marsh Master, Argo, ATV, etc.). Vegetation can be

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 103

manipulated any time conditions allow, though Weller (1975) found that cattail crushed and re-flooded after June had poor recoveries. Spring and early summer treatments may require follow-up treatment in the fall to control seedlings, particularly in shallower water. Dormant season cutting or haying combined with re-flooding in the spring has worked well also.

Disking can also be used to manage wetland vegetation, particularly to control cattail or reed canarygrass. Deep disking (below root mass, approximately 15-20 cm) can retard shoot formation and damage the rhizomes. Disking combined with continued drying and freezing in fall decreases plant survival; if a wetland can be kept dry enough to repeatedly disk for two or three successive seasons, cattail can be eliminated or their stem densities severely reduced. However, disking has some drawbacks. The equipment and personnel needed to carry out this method are costly. A heavy disc must be used, will cause serious disturbance at the site, potentially resulting in the loss of other native plants in the area. Sites must be able to be dried significantly to allow equipment access to complete the disking.

On dense stands of cattail several passes may be necessary to remove the erect stems, breakup the extensive rhizome system, and incorporate the soil. Disking should be done in the dry season when soil is dry enough to support equipment. Disking in the dry season ensures the best disturbance of the soil and enables exposed rootstalks and rhizomes to die through drying in the sun. Better results may be attained if disking of cattail is done when carbohydrate reserves lowest (i.e. pistillate and staminate portions of the spike are lime green and dark green, respectively) which usually occurs around mid-late June depending on local conditions. Additionally, disking is best done in conjunction with some other treatment to reduce the amount of standing vegetation (prescribed burning is the preferred treatment, but livestock grazing and haying also help). Disking is not recommended in areas vulnerable to invasion by Canada thistle.

5.10 Objective 10-Restore Wetland Function

• Assess capability of water management infrastructure, effectiveness, and feasibility and decide whether to continue or abandon. We need to make sure that the infrastructure we have in place is allowing us to achieve our biological objectives for water management. That means evaluating the resources that benefit from our management and deciding whether or not we are managing the most important basins in our District for wetland dependent species. Where we are not meeting our goals, we must develop solutions for enhancement, restoration or removal of the infrastructure that is not allowing us to meet our biological goals for habitat management. In all other cases, development of a long term management plan is recommended.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 104

• Develop and execute 10-year water management plans for beneficial projects to replicate the natural plant community and hydrological cycle, and decrease invasive plant and fish populations in order to benefit wetland dependent resources of concern. o Basins on the south unit of Hamden Slough NWR (the “Big 6 wetlands”) and Anderson WPA will be managed together under a combined water management plan. We must plan for having our units in various phases of drawdown in order to create a diversity of aquatic plant structure at a landscape scale. This is especially important in the Hamden Slough area as we have 10 water control structures within a couple of miles of each other. We can ensure the most diversity of available habitat to wetland dependent species by managing all of these wetlands in a coordinated fashion. A couple of these basins have to be managed together in order to achieve the full drawdown capacity of all of the structures. This requires planning and coordination for the long term.

In addition we should identify and evaluate future shallow lake and wetland management projects with our partners, both for feasibility and for benefit to our resources of concern. This will involve a crude identification of turbid water bodies, lakes surveys on the identified basins to determine potential causes of the turbidity and habitat loss, and then formulating plans for projects where they are feasible and able to have the greatest positive impacts on resources of concern. Projects will be coordinated with the DNR Shallow Lakes program and efforts to manage additional basins will be based on getting the lake surveys completed through this partnership.

5.11 Objective 11-Semi-Permanent and Permanent Wetland Management

• Work cooperatively with the MN DNR Shallow Lakes program staff to include our shallow lake needs, when possible, into their annual survey schedules to attain the best information for making more informed management decisions. The District works with MN DNR on our shallow lake surveys. We work with their program staff to evaluate our managed wetlands and shallow lakes, as well as the lakes where we are allow DNR Fisheries to stock walleye for control of invasive fish. These survey results help to better inform our shallow lake and fish stocking decisions. The shallow lakes program is obligated to provide information statewide that improves shallow lake habitat for species that depend on those habitats, especially diving ducks. This program is a perfect opportunity for our agencies to work together to meet our waterfowl management goals!

• Draw down, biomanipulation, rotenone, fish barriers, chemical or mechanical plant control are all tools that may be used to manage shallow lakes. The tool will be selected to fit the need of the individual basin. Shallow lakes can have numerous reasons for not providing the habitat needed by wetland dependent species and existing in the turbid water state. Driving factors could be high levels of nutrients, invasive fish, or unconsolidated sediment. Each management

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 105

strategy outlined below will help to solve specific habitat issues, but there is no one size fits all solution or one way to use the below strategies. Shallow Lakes surveys will be used to learn about each lake before projects are implemented. Once the driving factors for individual lakes are identified, one or a combination of the below tools will be prescribed for management of the shallow lake. None of these is completely effective or a simple solution to the problem of a turbid shallow lake. Each tool should be weighed for its potential effectiveness on each site.

Water Level Manipulation Most watersheds within the District have been irreparably altered and natural hydrological cycles no longer occur. Such hydrological alterations have reduced wetland productivity. The restoration of original wetland function and productivity often requires the development of water control systems to emulate natural hydrological regimes.

Wetlands and shallow lakes and their ecological processes have adapted to periods of low water or drought, and such systems often deteriorate during periods of high water or absence of drought. Drawdowns are used to mimic natural droughts, which occur less frequently than in the past and are the best approach to reestablishing emergent and submergent vegetation. Full drawdowns consolidate bottom sediments, facilitate decomposition of organic material, and stimulate plant growth. The seeds of most species of emergent aquatic vegetation require a period of drying for germination to occur. An additional benefit of a full drawdown includes the removal of rough fish populations. Drawdowns can also be conducted to facilitate vegetation manipulation through prescribed fire or mechanical means.

The District has water control structures with designs ranging from small culvert risers to large sheet pile weirs. The structures are all designed to allow for passive management; none of them can be used to actively flood a wetland. On basins without water control structures, it may be possible to dewater using pumps or siphons.

Fish Control Fish Barriers Fish barriers are engineered devices designed to prevent nuisance fish from entering a water body. Fish barriers are placed on the inlets and outlets of shallow lakes and wetlands where fish enter the wetland from feeder streams and ditches. Water passes through the structure, but fish are prevented from passing. Complete elimination of rough fish is often unlikely when using metal finger grates since small fry can pass through. Barriers have the disadvantage that the initial cost is high compared to other methods; they require construction and installation in addition to future operation and maintenance. Fish barriers require an incredibly large amount of maintenance year round. Potential adverse effects can include interference with the spawning runs of desirable fish species and restriction of boats on larger bodies of water.

Rotenone

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 106

Rotenone is a naturally occurring substance derived from the roots of certain tropical legume plants. Humans have been using the piscicide for centuries to harvest fish and manipulate fish communities. Aside from completely dewatering a basin, applying rotenone is the only method that will extirpate an entire fish population. Both the powdered and liquid forms of rotenone are designated as restricted-use pesticides (Finlayson et al. 2000).

Rotenone kills by interfering with cellular use of oxygen. It affects all gill-breathing animals such as fish, amphibians and insects. At normal application rates, mammals, birds and reptiles are not affected because their skins inhibit absorption and enzymes in their digestive systems break down small amounts of rotenone into harmless products.

The rotenone degradation rate is primarily affected by temperature and sunlight. Other water chemistry attributes can influence degradation rates as well; rotenone breaks down faster in waters with high alkalinity and pH (Finlayson et al. 2000). Rotenone should be applied at water temperatures greater than 20° C for optimum fish kill and detoxification. Natural degradation occurs within two days to two weeks in late summer. Dosage and exposure times selected will vary depending on water chemistry. Fall applications before ice formation eliminate the odor from decomposing fish, reduce disposal of dead fish, and allow detoxification by the time the ice breaks up (Wydoski and Wiley 1999).

Reverse Aeration Reverse aeration is a far less expensive process to control rough fish when compared to rotenone treatments. In the winter when a basin containing rough fish is covered in a thick layer of ice and dissolved oxygen levels are low, an aerator situated on the basin bottom is turned on. The bubbling aerator circulates the oxygen-depleted water on the bottom throughout the water column. This hungry water absorbs oxygen at a fast rate and lowers the dissolved oxygen levels so quickly that all fish die (N. Haukos, MN DNR, and personal communication). Reverse Aeration requires very specific timing, lots of time to evaluate the system and introduce the tool at a very specific point in the winter to be effective.

Biomanipulation Research strongly suggests that fish in prairie wetlands can have negative effects on the wetland ecosystem (Hanson and Butler 1994, Hanson et al. 2005). However, in some situations it is possible to take advantage of the food-web dynamics related to fish populations to improve wetland ecology. Biomanipulation – stocking walleye (Sander vitreus) fry in basins containing robust populations of fathead minnows – can effectively suppress fathead minnow populations, allowing zooplankton and other invertebrates to flourish, the water to clear, and submerged plants to increase cover (Potthoff et al. 2008). Submerged aquatic vegetation has a slower response than other wetland characteristics, though Herwig et al. (2004) speculate that repeated treatments will allow vegetation to improve enough to make the water quality improvements self-sustaining. The best candidates for biomanipulation are wetlands that are

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 107

deep enough to prevent summer anoxia of walleye, have no surface water connection to other wetlands, and with a fish community that is limited to fathead minnow or other minnows (B. Herwig, MN DNR, personal communication).

5.12 Objective 12-Restore Oak Savanna

• If the baseline inventory has not been completed (see Obj. 1 and associated strategies), use Pemble’s inventory, soils data, the NPC field guide and guidance provided in the oak savanna handbook to evaluate oak savanna potential and to assist with plan development –There is an increasing amount of informational resources available or in-progress to assist with initial assessment of areas with potential oak savanna. DLWMD is fortunate to have a resource in- house “A survey of native prairie and savanna remnants on USFWS Waterfowl Production Areas in Clay County, Minnesota” (Pemble 1995). In addition, information compiled by the R3 Oak Savanna working group coupled with other savanna resources also provides guidance for initial savanna assessment. These resources instruct on how to use GLO notes and survey maps, soils data, species presence, bur oak characteristics, landscape features and more to assist with determining presence of native oak savanna. The NPC field guide contains information on native savanna types in Minnesota and is also a helpful resource, not only for assessment but more importantly, for setting restoration targets and developing a restoration plan. First steps for savanna assessment must take place in the office doing background work. Biologists must know the history of the savanna in question. Clues include climate and geologic history, important landscape features, and soils. Another important component is GLO survey notes for the area of interest, along with any maps or drawings. Once the background is pieced together, a visit to the field is next. Time spent in the field is essential to answering any remaining questions. Key characteristics of savannas include presence of open-grown oak trees with low, horizontal branches; shade pruning of lower branches; presence of spring woodland forbs and sedges; presence of savanna-obligate species (multiple lists including in the NPC field guide); and verifying landscape features (i.e. topography, proximity to large bodies of water). Coring of select oak trees (and other species) can also determine whether the savanna is likely pre- or post-settlement. Additional notes on growth habitat of younger oaks, other tree species, shrub species and their cover estimates, as well as the presence of any invasive species will also help in informing a restoration plan. See Appendix 12 for a sample Rapid Assessment Form used by DLWMD to assess sites for potential oak savanna.

• Complete each plan at least two years prior to implementation in order to acquire necessary funding for initial woody removal, as well as follow-up management – Planning is essential for keeping any restoration project on track, especially long-term and intensive projects like oak savanna restorations. Many of the oak savanna restoration projects of the past did not have a complete plan in place, therefore, some steps were done “out of order” or incorrectly, staff didn’t know or understand their role, and many projects received no follow-up monitoring and

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 108

management. Some projects were more or less “abandoned” and now exist in a state similar to when work first began.

• Because oak savanna restoration projects are long-term and multi-phased, it is critical to sequester enough money (and staff time) to carry out the project from beginning to end. Much of the initial work, especially on tree thinning and brush control, will require multiple treatments over years. This fits nicely with many granting cycles, where much of our capability comes from, that allow dollars for work to be spent over a multiple-year (likely 3-year) time frame. The long- term restoration and management plan can be used to frame oak savanna projects (Appendix 11 DRAFT).

• Initial removal of invasive shrubs/trees using mechanical means; chemical spot-spray follow-up –The majority of oak savanna sites on the District are currently invaded by shade-loving tree species and overrun by native and nonnative brush. The herbaceous layer is virtually non- existent, or is dominated by generalist woodland herbs and/or invasive weeds. If in this state, it is unlikely prescribed burning will be successful. Therefore, the mostly likely starting point is to begin tree and shrub removal, either all at once or in phased approaches. The NPC field guide is an excellent resource for guiding which tree and shrub species should remain and at what frequency/cover. Species slated for removal, including oak developed under low-light levels, should all be identified in the restoration plan and verified in the field. See Objective 3-Remnant Prairie Management for woody species removal strategy description along with chemical follow- up) o Mature quaking aspen are sometimes present in mesic and wet mesic savannas. The NPC field guide and professional opinion will be used to determine appropriateness of mature aspen removal.

• Continue to develop oak savanna multi-phased restoration and management plans for future implementation on priority units – Although, at max, we are only able to implement approximately one restoration plan every three years, it is still important to continue to write plans for priority units as time allows. Oak savanna is an imperiled habitat in Minnesota and into the future savannas will likely be a priority for other Partners and grant administrators. We need to be ready with strong restoration plans so that as granting or other opportunities present themselves, we are ready to implement them to further preserve the ecological value of savanna habitat.

5.13 Objective 13-Oak Savanna Management

• Use prescribed fire as main management tool – As the desired woody character of the savanna is reached via mechanical and chemical means (Objective 12) prescribed fire is used as the primary tool in maintaining savannas. Fire frequency in savannas is similar to prairies and should be burned at a minimum 3-5 year burn interval. Fire is necessary for prairie grasses and

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 109

forbs found in savannas, as well as keeping light levels at intensities critical for bur oak survival and to keep the understory free from suffocation by shrubs. See Objective 3-Remnant Prairie Management for prescribed fire strategy description.

Many savanna experts, however, suggest annual dormant season burns to lessen the potential negative effects of fire on oaks and other resources caused by increased fuel load over the years. This annual application over time is also highly successful at keeping mid-story shrubs at an acceptable and natural level. Unfortunately, land managers who manage thousands of acres a year are unable to burn the same site annually. It’s just not realistic. Therefore the use of other management tools is necessary in savanna management.

• Apply grazing for site-specific objectives upon discussion and best professional judgment – There is not a lot of scientific literature backing the use of grazing for managing savannas. Primarily, grazing by Scottish Highland cattle or goats to reduce the cover of invasive woody vegetation has been the focus. Some field stations in Region 3 are just beginning to implement grazing in oak savanna landscapes. Over time, more information will surface on grazing. But for now, grazing as a management tool needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If the decision is made to utilize grazing in oak savannas, a specific management objective must be identified and defined in the plan and monitoring must occur before, during and after to help determine if the objective was met and to record any negative impacts to the savanna. For a more detailed description of grazing as related to prairies, see Objective 3-Remnant Prairie Management.

• Mechanical removal of invasive shrubs/trees, chem spot-spray follow-up o Mature quaking aspen are sometimes present in mesic-wet mesic savannas. The NPC field guide and professional opinion will be used to determine appropriateness of mature aspen removal. – For a complete discussion on woody removal strategies, please see Objective 3-Remnant Prairie Management and Objective 12- Assessment and Implementation of Oak Savanna Restoration.

• For noxious weeds perceived as major threat, consider biological control first if possible. o Chemical or mechanical methods will be spot-treatment only It is almost guaranteed that once initial (or later) woody removal occurs a flush of invasive weeds will appear in the understory due to the increased light penetration. If fire is not successful for invasive species control, alternative measures must be taken. In cases of remnant savanna with the presence of native species (or potential for their expression), biological control of invasives should be the first consideration, followed by chemical or mechanical methods. For more information on the use of biological, chemical and mechanical control of noxious/invasive weeds, see Objective 3- Remnant Prairie Management.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 110

• Reseed only after many attempts of burning (may take up to 10 years) or if area has been severely disturbed from past land-use – Remnant savannas developed over hundreds (if not thousands) of years, therefore, it will take time and patience during the recovery. Many remnant species will require years to express themselves. Unless the area has been bulldozed, built on, or cropped, it is recommended to implement natural processes (management per BIDEH table, Chapter 3) over a course of years, sometimes a decade or more, and watch annually for new native species to appear (Drobney, pers. comm.). After that time, consider supplementing the understory with missing species given inventories from other remnant savannas and species lists such as that found in the NPC field guide.

Seeding the savanna understory if native species are present will require little seed-bed prep other than a prescribed burn. Only local-ecotype seed should be used and from the site, if possible. Hand-seeding of particular species or a mix is a consideration, especially if one must weave around bur oak trees. Additional information on strategies related to seed mix and seeding can be found in Objective 4 – Developing a High Diversity Seed Mix and Objective 5- Establishment of a High Diversity Seeding. The condition or state of each savanna is different and thus, a site-specific restoration plan should be developed for each location.

5.14 Objective 14-Restore and Maintain Prairie Fens

• Develop and maintain a GIS layer with this habitat type. By using the DNR fen layer we can locate the great majority of our prairie fens. In addition, these fen locations help us to identify places where we should be looking for additional fens and ground water influenced wetlands. We know of a few locations where the DNR fen layer locates a couple of the fens on the site, but misses a few others that are in close proximity to the mapped locations.

• Consult the NPC field guide for management recommendations that maintain the fen’s integrity and improve its condition, but also accomplish the management needs of the surrounding uplands/wetlands. It is important to know the location of fens on Service-owned land to ensure that any planned construction or land management activities will not negatively impact these critically important natural wetland resources. The NPC guide offers information for different fen types that will help us make the best management decisions surrounding these unique landscape features. Our District has a significant number of these features due to both the Glacial Lake Agassiz Beachridge as well as the Alexandria Moraine. These geologic glacial features in our landscape have a significant amount of ground water influence which results in these unique wetland resources.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 111

5.15 Objective 15-Restore and Maintain Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species and their Habitats

• Maintain a good working relationship with the FWS Ecological Services offices at the Regional and State level. Several of our WPAs have had rare or unique features identified on them in the past. Many of our neighbors, especially our conservation neighbors also have these unique species. We need to maintain good connections with both State and Federal colleagues that invest their time and energy on the rare and unique communities and species. Where we can make subtle changes to our habitat management or restoration, we will make the effort and be part of the solution for these species.

• Coordinate with Partners with similar rare species and habitat inventory needs. Our working relationship may involve providing access to our properties so that folks can conduct research on rare species and habitats. This research may provide us with much more detailed information about how to benefit these species with management and restoration that aligns with our priority habitats and their management. This research could also occur on sites that are unique, but do not fit into our priority habitat management. In those cases, if a unique system occurs and we cannot complete the needed management, we will work with the interested partner to ensure they can do the needed management for the system. We always need to ensure that the research and management does not detract from our priority habitat management or negatively influence our priority habitats.

• Stay up-to-date with information on past, present and future Federal or State T&E species. District staff continues to be involved with the FWS Ecological Services office and the MN DNR Natural Heritage program so that we stay involved with efforts to conserve Federal and State T & E and other species of concern. As opportunities arise to learn about these species on the ground and from our resident experts, we need to take advantage of these critical learning experiences. Management and restoration should always address these unique resources and potential positive impacts should influence our management decisions.

• Maintain access to Natural Heritage Database to keep up-to-date, as well as historical records of rare species on FWS-managed lands. The Natural Heritage Database (NHD) is updated annually and available for purchase from the MN DNR. FWS has maintained access to this data via a single purchase through our state private lands office. If this agreement or means of acquiring this data ever changes, we need to acquire access to this important data via another avenue. We also need to provide additional locations or information that we have collected from our surveys and monitoring back to the NHD program to help them keep the data current.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 112

5.16 Objective 16 – Maintain Breeding Duck Populations (See Objective 3: Remnant Prairie Management and Objective 9: Prairie Wetlands for the below strategy descriptions):

• Continue to manage priority uplands and associated pothole wetlands annually , to promote quality pair, nesting, and brood habitat o fire and grazing are the primary upland management tools • Where appropriate and feasible, manage individual potholes o research or adaptive management purposes • Maintain a good working relationship with the FWS HAPET offices at the Regional and State level o conduct FSMS in the most biologically-sound way o understand the meaning and implications of the data analyzed and distributed by HAPET annually • On FSMS units, monitor specific management actions, when feasible, to determine effects on vegetation cover and resulting breeding duck pairs • Coordinate with other WMDs, State Partners, and others with similar waterfowl goals

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 113

CH. 6 STRATEGY SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION (AN ANNUAL WORK PLAN EXERCISE)

6.1 INTRODUCTION The selection of management strategies, as well as implementation, is completed on an annual basis while we are developing our workplan for the year. Work-planning occurs at different times of the year for various reasons. Although all District staff discusses overall priorities for the year, the Habitat Team proposes/makes the final management decisions (including strategy selection and implementation) in regularly-scheduled meetings. Team members also make last-minute or alternative decisions outside of the regularly-scheduled meetings, especially in light of weather or other conditions that would allow us to take advantage of an opportunity. There are many factors that play into strategy selection; and similarly, there are many factors that influence the implementation of a strategy. The process of strategy selection for the District’s Annual Work Plan is discussed below. We use a real-life example to illustrate the District’s habitat management planning process.

6.2 BACKGROUND FOR MANAGEMENT DECISIONS AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION AMONG UNITS The historical fire-return interval for maintaining prairies and oak savannas is frequent, oftentimes between 3-5 years based on the literature and supported by other resources, including the BIDEH table (see Objective 3, rationale, and strategy description). We aim for a fire-return interval of five years when implementing fire to our priority units. Therefore to begin our strategy selection process, we currently consult the master fire management spreadsheet (sample, Appendix 14) which includes unit name and smaller burn units (if applicable), last burn treatment (year) and next planned burn (year). Again, the schedule is based on a five-year return, but the spreadsheet also captures specific management needs, like seed harvest, interseeding, or woody vegetation control. Any of these needs may expedite a more frequent return interval. The spreadsheet also captures the priority ranking from the tool mentioned throughout this plan (Appendix 4). Finally, the spreadsheet tracks limitations of a successful fire (i.e. non-cooperative neighbor, access issues, dense forest, etc.). Ultimately, our goal over the next few years is to develop a large tracking spreadsheet that includes much of the information gleaned from baseline inventories described in Objective 1 (Chapter 4), as well as that contained in the fire spreadsheet and any information specific to management strategies other than fire. All of this information will relate back to the original habitat goals for each unit. As we complete Objective 1, we will also have more detailed inventory information to feed into the table and our decision making process. One other consideration as we are discussing the goal habitat type for each unit is to include discussion on conflict resolution as described in the next paragraph.

For example, the primary purpose of the District is to produce waterfowl from our landscape. In order for some of our units to produce waterfowl that will contribute to the fall flight (thus making them population sources), we would have to employ methods of management that are too labor intensive and expensive to be a feasible transformation. Likely, it also means we would be trying to change one habitat type to another habitat type, which goes against our BIDEH policy and our biological ethics policies. When we find ourselves participating in those types of discussions, we are resolving conflicts between our resources of concern. One example is maintaining aspen parkland habitat for migratory

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 114 brush-dependent species versus trying to force it to be open prairie. Open prairie would increase the productivity of the site for waterfowl, but may not be feasible or ethical. Goal habitat types will likely not change much over time, but in light of additional outside stressors, especially climate change, they should be evaluated periodically.

6.3 STEP ONE - ANNUALLY SELECTING UNITS TO RECEIVE MANAGEMENT The first step of the annual management planning process involves reviewing all management units that are due for a prescribed burn treatment during the current management year. We consult our Master Fire Spreadsheet (Appendix 14) for this first step. Units with a high priority score will be discussed first, as managing those units allow us to meet objectives for greatest number of different priority species and habitats; i.e., where can we get the most out of every management dollar that we spend.

Each unit is then discussed in terms of the dominant habitats present, especially priority habitats known or suspected to occur on each unit. The target plant community for the unit should be identified in the upland management spreadsheet outlined above once the baseline inventory is completed. Until then, we will use the pre-settlement vegetation (Appendix 3) and associated native plant communities (Field Guide) as our reference, along with best professional judgment. The current state of priority habitats will likely be the main factor in selecting a management strategy, addressed later in the process. In addition, priority resources of concern associated with the priority habitats for the unit are also reviewed (Table 3.5). The decision to implement management is typically a review of multiple pieces of information as well as a feasibility check because numerous factors weigh into these decisions. Our management decisions hinge heavily on our Resource of Concern (ROC) goals as well as what we can feasibly accomplish each season. The evaluation of priority units, priority habitat types, and ROC allow us to formulate goals for each unit on an annual basis. In some cases, nothing is necessary. Leaving a tract idle is also a management strategy. An example is described below.

In Figure 6.1, we evaluate the need for management on Helliksen Prairie WPA, a high priority unit. Helliksen Prairie is a ~1400acre WPA in the heart of the prairie pothole region. Nearly 900 acres consists of a remnant mesic prairie-natural wetlands complex, while the remaining acres range from “go-back” prairie to high diversity seedings to grass-dominated fields. All previously-drained wetlands have been restored. The priority habitat on Helliksen is remnant mesic prairie and would likely be the focus of upland management on this site. Helliksen Prairie is an exemplary representative of the prairie-wetland complex needed by waterfowl, grassland and wetlands birds alike. Small white lady’s slipper, marbled godwit, greater prairie chickens, and sandhill cranes are commonly observed on the WPA. Also, due to its size and quality of remnant mesic prairie, we treat Helliksen as if it could harbor the Endangered Poweshiek skipperling; although a 2013 survey found none.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 115

Spreadsheet Priority Rank High Priority Unit Habitat Type Potential ROCs

Remnant T&E??? prairie/wetland 1) High Helliksen Prairie Waterfowl 2) Med Grassland birds UNIT Restored Wetland birds prairie/wetland 3) Low

Figure 6.1. Example decision tree evaluating a high priority unit’s need for management.

6.4 STEP TWO- EVALUATE CURRENT STATE OF VEGETATION/HABITAT TYPES In step two, we must evaluate the current state of the vegetation. This evaluation is two-part: 1) evaluate the current vegetation compared to the target native plant community (BIDEH); and 2) evaluate whether or not the vegetation is meeting the needs of the Resources of Concern. Overall, we must ask ourselves whether we are “satisfied.” Whether a strategy selection is made depends on whether we are “satisfied” with the state of the vegetation. If we are satisfied the vegetation is representative of its habitat type and the needs of ROC are being met, the process ends for that WPA. If we answer “no” to the above question, we continue the process of strategy selection. Our process closely follows the Ecological Site Description (ESD) concept (these are not developed for MN, but we can still think about our habitat types in a similar fashion (NDSU Extension Service 2012)). Basically, the ESD uses a state and transition model to determine what state our piece of land is in, how it got there, and how to change it to the desired state. It is important to remember that plant communities are ecologically dynamic; they never exist in a static state. By implementing a state and transition process, we can shift plant communities into the desired ecological state to benefit our ROC the most. We must choose to shift the vegetation state to the desired state using the known results of different strategies described in Chapter 5. One last important element is documenting whether the priority habitat types are in the management phase or need restoration. This is critical as we must select strategies for either focused restoration (e.g. seeding or tree removal) or to shift the habitat to the desired state through management (e.g. prescribed burning or grazing).

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 116

In the Helliksen Prairie example, the current vegetation state of the remnant prairie (priority habitat) might be increasing cover of invasive Kentucky bluegrass and decreased native plant diversity (Fig 6.2). We already know, from the description of the current state (informed by monitoring data) that it is moving away from the plant community descriptions as found in NPC Field Guide (MN DNR 2005) as related to BIDEH. Next, we need to ask ourselves “is the current habitat state meeting the needs of our ROCs?” Currently, this is done through vegetation measures only. Typically, as Kentucky bluegrass increases, the native plant community decrease, resulting in dense, homogenous sod-forming mats of bluegrass, supporting very little diversity of wildlife. If we ask the overall question of whether we are satisfied, in this case the answer would be “no.” The decision to select a strategy given the current state and need for a shift is evident.

Habitat Type Current State Does the habitat state meet needs of ROC?

Yes

High N Diversity,

Remnant little invasive Management prairie/wetland Low N Diversity. High invasive

Satisfied High N No Diversity, Restoration Treatment Restored little invasive or prairie/wetland Management Needed Low N Diversity. High invasive

Yes Figure 6.2. Evaluating current state of vegetation and management need.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 117

6.5 STEP THREE- SELECTING STRATEGIES TO SHIFT THE CURRENT HABITAT STATE TO A DESIRED STATE While we are selecting a strategy, we should also be using the master fire management spreadsheet and staff knowledge to determine what types of site constraints we have. Maybe burning is the best tool to change the vegetation state, but a relationship with a critical neighbor, smoke concerns or any other logistics related to burning make it easier to achieve the desired change in vegetation state by grazing. Or maybe a strategy other than burning may get us to the desired vegetation state better than fire. We should consider all constraints and feasibility to ensure the strategy selected is practical to implement. If a site cannot be successfully treated with the most desirable strategy to change the current vegetation state to the desired state, we should determine whether another strategy may result in that desired change or buy us time until we are able to implement the desired strategy. In the case of low priority units, the latter is usually the case. Many times, we will implement haying on a low priority grassland unit to remove accumulated biomass and allow a longer fire-return interval. Once we have evaluated the needed vegetation state changes and feasibility issues related to our ROC based habitat goal, we can select our strategy.

In the Helliksen example, if cool season exotic grass is increasing on the remnant portion of the WPA, we will likely try to suppress that invasion. Suppression could be accomplished with a late spring fire, early season grazing, etc. We generally walk (Fig. 6.3) our team through the following questions to initiate discussion on different strategy options: 1) do we burn a site to change the state of the plant community to the desired state; 2) can we implement a strategy that “buys time” until the next burn, such as haying/brush mowing to cut down young encroaching woody vegetation; 3) do we select a strategy to replace burning such as prescribed grazing; or 4) do we select a strategy to restore the unit altogether (burning and interseeding, mass tree removal, etc.).

Plant Community State Potential Strategies Selection - Implementation

Remnant Strategy 1-Burn Implementation Prairie of Strategy State: Low Strategy 2 - Graze Diversity, High Invasive Strategy 3 - Hay

Figure 6.3. Decision diagram selecting potential strategies to shift current state to desired state.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 118

6.6 STEP FOUR- IMPLEMENTATION OF SELECTED STRATEGY At this point we have selected the most feasible strategy to change the current state of the plant community to the desired state that best benefits the priority ROC. The implementation of a strategy includes a number of other facets.

For each treatment to be most effective, the timing of implementation is important. As related to fire and grazing, we typically discuss the best timing of management treatments to impact the species we are trying to suppress/promote. The timing of these treatments is critical as poor timing can actually make a problem worse instead of better. Burning a tract early in the burn season rather than waiting for smooth brome grass to reach the five-leaf stage may actually promote smooth brome expansion versus suppress it. Timing is not a factor when considering haying for effective vegetation removal. It is a factor related to our ROC (upland nesting birds) in that it is typically not implemented during the nesting season. The removal of encroaching woody vegetation can be completed after the nesting season, which allows both bird nesting and forb seed production to be complete.

The frequency and intensity needed for a treatment to be effective must also be discussed. Grazing a tract to promote increases in forb production may necessitate grazing at similar or different times (seasons) over the course of a couple of years. This is somewhat different from implementing a fire treatment. The fire treatment requires some accumulated litter in order to be successful and therefore, we typically cannot implement it in back to back years. From an intensity standpoint, do we need to burn or graze really hard to achieve our habitat management goal, or can we graze a tract lightly and achieve our goal? By recording pertinent information such as AUs and duration or intensity of fire and couple with monitoring data, we can begin to understand and evaluate our treatments with more confidence.

As part of the overall discussion, we also consider more focused needs, such as chemical treatment or mechanical woody removal of invasive species in a particular area of the WPA or management unit. There may be a desirable order of multiple treatments that are needed on a site. This is the best place to discuss the different treatments needed, what order they should be completed in, and where the desired treatment to change the ecological state should take place. We may identify a treatment that is needed in three years after two other types of treatments are completed. In other words, we might need to burn to change an ecological habitat state, but in order to get the most out of the burn, we may need to cut trees, spray the resprouting trees in year two, and then burn the site for the final state change that we desire.

6.7 STEP FIVE- ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS OF IMPLEMENTATION In order to implement the selected management strategy, we must comply with numerous laws and procedures that ensure that our strategy selection process evaluated the impacts of our management strategy adequately. The laws and procedures below apply to the implementation of many of our management strategies.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 119

National Policies and Procedures:

National Environmental Protection Act – This act requires that we show the potential impacts of our activities on the local environment. An evaluation of the strategy to be implemented must be summarized in an Environmental Action Statement (EAS), an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The scale of the proposed strategy and its potential impacts drive the scale of document required for compliance with this law. Many routine management activities can be categorically excluded on an EAS, but some activities and plans will require more thorough reviews in an EA or EIS.

National Historical Preservation Act – This act requires that any of our management activities that could impact archeological or historically significant sites be evaluated to ensure that we do not damage these cultural resources. Any time we are working with a historical structure or moving earth, we must seek compliance on this law with our regional archaeologist. We provide a location of the work on an aerial photo and a description of the proposed work, at a minimum. Additional information may also be requested depending on the work, location, the archaeologist or other factors.

Endangered Species Act - We are required to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and must be able to evaluate our projects using a Section 7 compliance form. This form helps us decide if we have to consult further with our Ecological Services Division. If during the evaluation, we determine there will be no impact to endangered species in the general vicinity of the tract, we can document a “no impact” finding without involving Ecological Services. If any impact is expected, an informal consultation with Ecological Services is required.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act – Compatibility – Each tool we implement that allows a non-refuge use of the lands has to be reviewed by a compatibility determination, even if implemented for resource management. Management tools such timber cutting, farming, haying, grazing, etc. fall under compatibility. This allows us to evaluate every refuge use with regard to its impacts on refuge resources, natural resources, as well as staffing and funding, etc. A compatibility determination must also be current for any refuge use that we permit via a Special Use Permit. Compatibility is completed at least once every 10 years for standard uses of refuges. The big six uses outlined in the act are evaluated every 15 years, unless the way that the use is implemented changes. If the use changes from what a current compatibility determination states, a new determination is required. This process also requires that a minimum of 2 weeks of public comment period is allowed so that the public has the opportunity to weigh in on the process.

Clean Water Act - When wetlands are being managed or restored, we are subject to the Army Corp of Engineers regulatory division. The Section 404 process regulates filling and discharge of dredge material within regulated waterways including most wetlands. There is a blanket permit that covers most of our standard wetland restoration. Anything that we have questions about or anything that includes filling ditches or building water control structures should be run through ACOE 404 process. The permit is a simple one page form that can be found with the State Protected Waters Permit Application.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 120

State and Local Policies and Procedures:

Pesticide Application- We must abide by state law for storage and handling of pesticides, and we strongly suggest that each staff member get certified as a state non-commercial pesticide applicator. The application license is not required to spray on Service property, but it is highly recommended. Each station must have someone who is licensed supervising the chemical application.

Protected Waters- If we are placing fill in a basin, restoring or somehow altering a wetland below its ordinary high water level, and it has been inventoried as a state protected waters wetland or stream, we have to apply to the state to be permitted to complete the project. This permit includes three pieces. The first part of the permit goes to DNR waters for compliance with the state protected water law, the second piece of the permit goes to the local watershed district that has permitting authority for the watershed that we will be working in, and the third piece goes to ACOE for 404 compliance. It is a handy tool to be used in all wetland projects.

Local Watershed Management Boards- Any wetland restoration or water management project should be permitted via the above described permit to the local watershed management district.

State Weed Law- We are subject to the state noxious weed law. We do have to control weeds that are listed on the “eradicate” or “noxious” lists. The secondary list does not require control. We work with our county weed inspectors to control weeds in a manner that still allows us to meet our habitat management and restoration goals.

State Ditch Law- State ditch law requires that we apply to make modifications to any public water ditch in the state. This may come into play on wetland restoration or water level management projects. Many times the county is the local ditch authority, but each county is different. Sometimes the watersheds are responsible for the public ditch maintenance and permitting. Regardless, a permit should be acquired from the local authority prior to commencing work on a public ditch.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Storm Water Permit- Any time an earth work project is going to be implemented that will disturb more than 1 total acre of ground, we must get a state storm water permit. The permit requires an erosion control plan for the site, and erosion control measures must be implemented throughout the progress of the project.

6.8 Step Six- Monitoring and Connection to the Inventory and Monitoring Plan; criteria for adaptive changes to this plan (Feedback Loop)

We expect this plan to be dynamic. Many factors, such as lack of resources, existing habitat conditions, species response to habitat manipulations, climatic changes, or invasive species, may reduce or eliminate the ability of the refuge to achieve objectives. Although these limiting factors were considered during the development of management objectives, conditions are likely to change over the next 15 years and beyond. As we implement the station I&M plan to monitor the success of our management treatments and objectives from this plan and our CCPs, we expect to feed that information back into this plan. We will potentially alter our management decision making process to formulate more solid goals and objectives and how we select and implement strategies as new science informs our

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 121 management. This will also apply to any new research that fills a void in our decision making process or clears up a biological decision that we made in relationship to this plan. We are making the best decisions with the science we have today, but our plan is for this document to evolve and change as our understanding of the science continues to increase or stressors in the landscape change over time. An adaptive approach to habitat management based upon solid monitoring will allow us to most efficiently respond to change in information and habitat conditions. Inventory and monitoring activities related directly to the Habitat Management Plan objectives are found in Table 6.1.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 122

Table 6.1. Inventory, monitoring and planning as related to HMP Objectives.

Task Inventory, Objective Year Begin or Complete Monitoring, Plan Compile background cover Inventory Objective 1 Begin FY14 information (select Units/year) Baseline Inventory Rapid Inventory Objective 1 Begin FY14 Assessment of Habitat Cover Native Prairie Monitoring Monitoring Objective 3 Continue NPAM; (Protocol); NPAM develop new inventory or other in future Revise Master Species list to Inventory Objective 4 Begin FY15 include additional information Develop prairie restoration plans Planning Objective 4, 8 Begin in FY 15 per target plant community Establishment of High Diversity Monitoring Objective 5 Continue Seeding (Protocol); Current or other Monitoring of High Diversity Monitoring Objective 6 Continue Seedings (Protocol) ; Current Monitoring of Low Diversity Monitoring Objective 7 Begin in FY 16 Seedings (Protocol) Annual Invasive Species Monitoring Objective 3, 5, 6, 7 Continue Monitoring Annual Tree Removal Follow-up Monitoring Objective 3, 5, 6, 7 Continue monitoring Develop restoration plans for Planning Objective 9 Begin FY 16 prairie pothole wetlands Inventory of Water Inventory Objective 10 Begin FY16, Complete Management Capability FY17 Monitoring of Managed Basins Monitoring Objective 11 Continue (Protocol); DU/MN DNR Assessment of past/incomplete Inventory Objective 12 Begin FY 16 oak savanna restoration projects Develop revised oak savanna Planning Objective 12, 13 Begin FY 16 restoration plans for select sites Monitoring of Oak Savannas Monitoring Objective 13 Begin FY 15 (Protocol); new Inventory of Prairie Fens Inventory Objective 14 FY15-16 Inventory/Monitoring of T, E, or Inventory Objective 15 Continue rare species Monitoring (FWS, DNR, TNC)

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 123

LITERATURE CITED Allen, A.W. 1986. Habitat suitability index models for lesser scaup (breeding). Bio report 82(10.117), Habitat Evaluation Procedures Group, FWS, Ft. Collins, CO.

Anderson, R. C. 2006. Evolution and origin of the central grassland of North America: Climate, fire, and mammalian grazers. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 133(4):626–647.

Archer, S. and D.A. Pyke. 1991. Plant-animal interactions affecting plant establishment and persistence on revegetated rangeland. Journal of Range Management 44:558-565.

Bakker, K.K. 2003. The effect of woody vegetation on grassland nesting birds: an annotated bibliography. The Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science 82:119-141. *Updated January 2008

Bakker, K.K. and K.F. Higgins. 2009. Planted grasslands and native sod prairie: equivalent habitat for grassland birds? Western North American Naturalist 69(2):235-242.

Beyersbergen, G.W., N.D. Niemuth, and M.R. Norton, coordinators. 2004. Northern prairie and parkland waterbird conservation plan. A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas initiative. Denver, CO: Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. Available: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/nacwcp/northern_prairie_parklands.html

Bourchier, R., R. Hansen, R. Lym, A. Norton, D. Olson, C.B. Randall, M. Schwarzländer, and L. Skinner. 2006. Biology and biocontrol of leafy spurge. Morgantown, WV: U.S. Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team. FHTET-2005-07.

Brice, J. S., K.M. Carrlson, S.P. Fields, C.R. Loesch, R.J.D Murano, M. L. Syzmanski, and J. A. Walker. 2016. DRAFT 2016 PPJV Implementation Plan Update, Secion II- Waterfowl Plan. Prairie Pothold Joint Venture. 53pp.

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2nd ed. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 60 pp.

Dickmann, D. I. and Cleland, D. T. 2002. Fire return intervals and fire cycles for historic fire regimes in the Great Lakes Region: A synthesis of the literature, DRAFT. Great Lakes Ecological Assessment. 21 p.

Easterling, D. R. and T. R. Karl. 2001. Potential consequences of climate variability and change for the midwestern United States. In National Assessment Synthesis Team, Ed. Climate Change Impacts in the United States-Foundation Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 167-188. http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/06MW.pdf

Finlayson, B.J., R.A. Schnick, R.L. Cailteux, L. DeMong, W.D. Horton, W. Mc Clay, C.W. Thompson, and G.J. Tichacek. 2000. Rotenone use in fisheries management: administrative and technical guidelines manual. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.

Fitzgerald, J.A., D.N. Pashley, S.J. Lewis and B. Pardo. 1998. Partners in Flight bird conservation plan for the Northern Tallgrass Prairie (Phys. Area 40). Available: http://www.partnersinflight.org/bcps/plan/pl_40all.pdf

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 124

Frelich, L. E., D. W Peterson, and P. B Reich. 2012. The role of oak within the context of a changing climate. University of Minnesota Sustainable Forest Education Cooperative. http://sfec.cfans.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@sfec/documents/article/cfans_a rticle_394122.pdf

Gilbert, D. W., D. R. Anderson, J. K. Ringelman, and M. R. Szymczak. 1996. Response of nesting ducks to habitat and management on the Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado. Wildlife Monographs 131:3-44.

Haffele, R. D. 2012. Nesting ecology of ducks in dense nesting cover and restored native plantings in northeastern North Dakota. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois. 125pp.

Hanson, M.A. and M.G. Butler. 1994. Responses to food web manipulation in a shallow waterfowl lake. Hydrobiologia 279/280:457-466.

Hanson, M.A., K.D. Zimmer, M.G. Butler, B.A. Tangen, B.R. Herwig, N.H. Euliss Jr. 2005. Biotic interactions as determinants of ecosystem structure in prairie wetlands: an example using fish. Wetlands 25:764-775.

Heitmeyer, M. E., R. L. Esser, J. D. Eash and B. J. Newman. 2012. “Hydromorphic evaluation of ecosystem restoration and management options for Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge.” Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Minneapolis, MN. Greenbrier Wetland Services Report No. 12-01. Blue Heron Conservation Design and Printing LLC, Bloomfield, MO.

Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird Management Manual. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, Manomet, MA. 58pp

Herkert, J. R., D. W. Sample, and R. E. Warner. 1996. “Management of Midwestern grassland landscapes for the conservation of migratory birds.” Pages 89–116 in F. R. Thompson, III, ed. Management of Midwestern Landscapes for the Conservation of Neotropical Migratory Birds. U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report NC-187. North Central Forest Experimental Station, St. Paul, MN.

Herwig, B.R., M.A. Hanson, J.R. Reed, B.G. Parsons, A.J. Potthoff, A.J. Ward, M.C. Zimmer, K.D. Butler, M.G. Willis. 2004. Walleye stocking as a tool to suppress fathead minnows and improve habitat quality in semi-permanent and permanent wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region of Minnesota. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Section of Fisheries and Wildlife, Special Publication No. 159.

Johnson, D.H. and J.A. Dechant-Shaffer, series coordinators. 2002. Effects of management practices on wetland birds. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Available: www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/wetbird/index.htm (January 2010).

Johnson, D.H., L.D. Igl, and J.A. Dechant-Shaffer, series coordinators. 2004. Effects of management practices on grassland birds. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Available: www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/index.htm

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 125

Johnson, R.R., F.T. Oslund, and D.R. Hertel. 2008. The past, present, and future of prairie potholes in the United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(3):84a-87a.

Johnson, C., B. V. Millett, T. Gilmanov, R. A Voldseth, G. R. Guntenspergen, and D. E. Naugle. 2005. Vulnerability of northern prairie wetlands to climate change. BioScience 55(10):863-872.

Johnson, C., B. Werner, G. R. Guntenspergen, R. A. Voldseth, B. Millet, D. E. Naugle, M. Tulbere, R. W. H. Carroll, J. Tracy, and C. Olawsky. 2010. Prairie wetland complexes as landscape functional units in a changing climate. BioScience 60(2):128-140.

Johnson, R.R., D.A. Granfors, N.D. Niemuth, M.E. Estey, and R.E. Reynolds. 2010. Delineating Grassland Bird Conservation Areas in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 1(1):38–42; e1944-687X. doi: 10.3996/JFWM-022

Jones, S. L. 2010. Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) conservation plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 40pp.

Kaiser, P. H., S. S. Berlinger, and L. H. Fredrickson. 1979. Response of blue-winged teal to range management on waterfowl production areas in southeastern South Dakota. Journal of Range Management 32:295-298.

Kantrud, H. A, G.L. Krapu, G.A. Swanson. 1989. Prairie basin wetlands of the Dakotas: a community profile. Washington DC. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.28). http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/techrpt/85-7-28.pdf

Keith, L. B. 1961. A study of waterfowl ecology on small impoundments in southeastern Alberta. Wildlife Monograph 6:1-88.

Krapu, G. L., P. J. Pietz, D. A. Brandt, and R. R. Cox. 2004. Does presence of permanent fresh water affect recruitment in prairie-nesting dabbling ducks? Journal of Wildlife Management 68: 332- 341.

Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills,R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Washington, DC, U.S.A.

Larson, D.L., J.B. Bright, P. Drobney, J.L. Larson, N. Palaia, P.A. Rabie, S. Vacek, and D. Wells. 2011. Effects of planting method and seed mix richness on the early stages of tallgrass prairie restoration. Biological Conservation 144:3127-3139.

Marschner, F.J.. 1974. The Original Vegetation of Minnesota. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.

McFadyen, R.E.C. 1998. Biological control of weeds. Annual Review of Entomology 43: 369-393.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 126

McKinnon, D. T., and D. C. Duncan. 1999. Effectiveness of dense nesting cover for increasing duck production in Saskatchewan. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:382-389.

[MN DNR] Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1988. Natural vegetation of Minnesota at the time of the public land survey 1847-1907. Prepared by K. M. Wendt and B.A. Coffin, Natural Heritage Program, Section of Wildlife, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Biological Report 1, 8pp.

[MN DNR] Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Field guide to the native plant communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. MNDNR St. Paul, MN. 394 pp.

[MN DNR] Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Field guide to the native plant communities of Minnesota: The Prairie Parkland and Tallgrass Aspen Parklands Provinces. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. MNDNR St. Paul, MN. 362 pp.

[MN DNR] Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2006a. Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare: An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife. Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN. 297 pp. + appendices.

[MN DNR] Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2006b. Long Range Duck Recovery Plan. Division of Wildlife, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN. 22 pp.

[MN DNR] Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2011. “Minnesota’s remaining prairie 100 years after the public land survey.” Minnesota County Biological Survey, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/mcbs/prairie_map.pdf

[MN DNR] Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2015. Minnesota’s Wildlife Action Plan 2015- 2025. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN. (In print) http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mnwap/index.html

[MN DNR] Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Undated. Biological control of purple loosestrife. Available: www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/aquaticplants/purpleloosestrife/biocontrol.html

Minnesota Prairie Plan Working Group. 2011. Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan. Minnesota Prairie Plan Working Group, Minneapolis, MN. 55pp.

[NABCI] North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U. S. Committee. 2010. The state of the birds 2010 report on climate change, United States of America. U. S. Department of the Interior: Washington D.C. 32pp.

NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 127

Naugle, D.E., K.F. Higgins, and K.K. Bakker. 2000. A synthesis of the effects of upland management practices on waterfowl and other birds in the Northern Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada. College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, WI. Wildlife Technical Report 1. 28 pp.

[NDSU] North Dakota State University Extension Service. 2012. Ecological sites of North Dakota. NDSU Extension Service publication R-1556 in cooperation with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 27pp.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee. 2004. North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004. Strategic guidance: strengthening the biological foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.

Northeast Regional Strategy Committee. 2013. The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy: Northeast Regional Action Plan. 84 pp.

Nuzzo, V. 1986. Extent and status of Midwest oak savanna: Pre-settlement and 1985. Natural Areas Journal 6(2):6-36

Olechnowski, B.F.M., D. M. Debinski, P. Drobney, K. Viste-Sparkman and W.T. Reed. 2009. Changes in vegetation structure through time in a restored tallgrass prairie ecosystem and applications for avian diversity and community composition. Ecological Restoration 27(4):449-457.

Ojima, D. S. and J. M. Lackett. 2002. Preparing for a changing climate: The potential consequences of climate variability and change-Central Great Plains. Fort Collins: Central Great Plains Steering Committee and Assessment Team, Colorado State University.

Packard, S. 1997. Interseeding. Pages 163-191 in S. Packard and C. F. eds. The tallgrass restoration handbook: for prairies, savannas, and woodlands. Washington DC: Island Press.

Paveglio, F.L. and J.D. Taylor. 2010. Identifying resources of concern and management priorities for a refuge: a handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Pemble, R. H. 1995. A survey of native prairie remnants and prairie species of special interest in the vicinity of Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge, Becker County, Minnesota.

Pemble, R. H. 1995. A survey of native prairie and savanna remnants on USFWS Waterfowl Production Areas in Clay County, Minnesota.

Poole, A., editor. 2005. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available: bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/

Potthoff, A.J., B.R. Herwig, M.A. Hanson, K.D. Zimmer, M.G. Butler, J.R. Reed, B.G. Parsons, and M.C. Ward. 2008. Cascading food-web effects of piscivore introductions in shallow lakes. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1170-1179.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 128

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Available: www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/

Ringelman J.K., editor. 2005. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 2005 Implementation Plan. Denver, CO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Sample, D.W. and M.J. Mossman. 1997. Managing habitat for grassland birds: A guide for Wisconsin. Bureau of Integrated Science Services, Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. 154 pp.

Sampson, F. and F. Knopf. 1994. Prairie conservation in North America. Bioscience 44(6):418-421.

Samson, F. B., F. L. Knopf, and W. R. Ostlie. 1998. Grasslands. Pages 437-472 in M. J. Mac, P. A. Opler, C. E. Puckett Haecker, and P. D. Doran, eds. Status and trends of the nation’s biological resources, Vol. 2. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. THE NORTH AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD SURVEY, RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 1966 - 2009. VERSION 3.23.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, LAUREL, MD

Selby G. 2010. Status Assessment Update (2010): Poweshiek Skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek (Parker)) (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Prepared for Twin Cities Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, MN.

Skagen, S.K. and G. Thompson. 2000. Northern Plans/Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan, Ver. 1. Available: http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/RegionalShorebird/downloads/NORPLPP2.pdf

Smith, A. G., J. H. Stoudt, and J. B. Gollop. 1964. Prairie potholes and marshes. Pages 39–50 in J. P. Linduska, editor. Waterfowl Tomorrow. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Solecki MK. 1997. Controlling invasive plants. Pages 251-278 in S. Packard and Mutel CF, eds. The tallgrass restoration handbook: for prairies, savannas, and woodlands. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Stewart, R.E. and H.E.Kantrud. 1971. Classification of natural ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Resource Publication 92, 57 pp.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) Recovery Plan.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fulfilling the promise: the National Wildlife Refuge System. Arlington, VA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuges.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Landcover maps: Percent Grass in the Landscape. Habitat and Population Evaluation Team, Fergus Falls, MN.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 129

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Fort Snelling, MN: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Dakota Skipper Conservation Guidelines. USFWS, Ecological Services, Bloomington, MN.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District Fire Management Plan. Detroit Lakes, MN: Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. 3rd Generation Thunderstorm map. Habitat and Population Evaluation Team, Fergus Falls, MN.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Fort Snelling, MN: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-eared Bat and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest Reginal Office, Bloomington, MN. 109pp.

Weller, M.W. 1975. Studies of cattail in relation to management for marsh wildlife. Iowa State Journal of Science 49:383-412.

Willson, G. D. and J. Stubbendieck. 2000. A provisional model for smooth brome management in degraded tallgrass prairie. Ecological Restoration 18:34-38.

Wilson, L.M., M. Schwarzländer, B. Blossey, and C.B. Randall. No Date. Biology and biological control of purple loosestrife. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team. FHTET-2004-12. Wright, H. A. and A. W. Bailey. 1980. Fire ecology and prescribed burning in the Great Plains: A research review. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep INT-77

Wydoski, R.S. and R.W. Wiley. 1999. Management of undesirable fish species. Pages 403-430 in Kohler CC and Hubert WA, editors. Fisheries management in North America. 2nd edition. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 130

APPENDIX 1. DETROIT LAKES WMD COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN WILDLIFE AND HABITAT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Note: the entire text for this appendix is quoted directly from the Detroit Lakes WMD CCP (USFWS 2003). While the CCP wildlife and habitat goals were not adequate for the HMP process, the HMP goals and objectives are consistent with the vision and direction provided in the CCP. The CCP goals and objectives are provided here for reference.

Goal 1: Wildlife

Strive to preserve and maintain diversity and increase the abundance of waterfowl and other key wildlife species in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem. Seek sustainable solutions to the impact of Canada Geese on adjacent private croplands. Preserve, restore, and enhance resident wildlife populations where compatible with waterfowl and the preservation of other trust species.

Objective 1.1: Update MAAPE Process. The District will request the Fergus Falls Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) to review the “Multi-Agency Approach to Planning and Evaluation” (MAAPE) process every 5 years to incorporate monitoring results and reevaluate strategies for increasing waterfowl production within the Districts.

Objective 1.2: Alternative Waterfowl Monitoring. The District will develop alternative monitoring techniques by the year 2007 for waterfowl abundance and productivity estimates in areas of Districts that are not well-covered by the four-square-mile monitoring program. These estimates should be developed in cooperation with the HAPET office since the current four-square-mile data is used in the mallard model and forms the basis of the MAAPE process.

Objective 1.3: Recruitment Rate. The District will strive to increase potential recruitment rate for breeding pairs of ducks in an average year from the current level of 11.3 to 15.0 by the year 2010 (based on the four-square-mile survey).

Objective 1.8: Violations. The District will inspect at least 70 percent of the WPAs, and all Conservation, Habitat, and Wetland Easements, for compliance to insure protection of habitat migratory waterfowl and other wildlife. All illegal habitat activity will be addressed immediately and altered habitat will be restored as soon as possible.

Objective 1.9: Working With Partners. The District will cooperate with all USDA, Minnesota DNR and any other local agency programs as well as participate as a partner

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 131

with District conservation organizations to increase waterfowl habitat and production.

Objective 1.10: Develop a Memorandum of Understanding with the Minnesota DNR that clearly articulates the responsibilities of Wetland Districts for responding to landowner complaints about damage by geese from WPA wetlands.

Objective 1.11: Enforcement. The Districts will prohibit the introduction of wildlife species that are not native to the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem.

Goal 2: Habitat

Restore native prairie plant communities of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem using local ecotypes of seed and maintain the vigor of these stands through natural processes. Restore functioning wetland complexes and maintain the cyclic productivity of wetlands. Continue efforts for long-term solutions to the problem of invasive species with increased emphasis on biological control to minimize damage to aquatic and terrestrial communities. Continue efforts to better define the role of each District in assisting private landowners with wetland, upland and riparian restorations.

Objective 2.1: Prairie Restoration. Restore an average of 800 acres in fee title to native seeded grassland species each year. Begin the process on all new acquisitions within 3 years of purchase. Seed a diverse mix of native grasses and forbs using seed harvested from local native prairie or restored prairie. Replicate, to the extent possible, the structure, species composition, and processes of native ecological communities in the Tallgrass Prairie to improve migratory bird habitat and improve existing soil and water quality within respective watersheds. Our goal will be 50 species of prairie plants in the seed mix.

Objective 2.2: Grassland Management. Renovate and seed or interseed 200 acres of existing grasslands to improve diversity and vigor.

Objective 2.3: Prescribed Burn. Plan and conduct prescribed burns on 8100 acres (20 percent of WPA acreage) annually to maintain and restore native prairie plant species to improve waterfowl and wildlife utilization, and to prepare selected sites for native seed harvest.

Objective 2.4: Wildfire Management. Protect human life, property, natural/cultural resources, and real property both within and adjacent to Fish and Wildlife Service administered lands from those fires which start on FWS land by safely suppressing all wildland fires using strategies and tactics appropriate to

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 132

safety considerations, values to be protected, management objectives and in accordance with Service policy.

Objective 2.5: Forest Management. Conduct forest management on the District to replicate, to the extent possible, the structure, species composition, and processes of native ecological communities to improve migratory bird habitat and improve existing soil and water quality within respective watersheds.

Objective 2.6: Restoration. Restore an average of 100 wetlands per year both on and off District land to serve migratory birds as migration, breeding, and nesting habitat.

Objective 2.7: Management. Manage water levels on 100 percent of the wetlands that have built-in water control structures to increase vegetation and nutrient recycling for the benefit of waterfowl.

Objective 2.8: Monitoring. Inventory and monitor hydrological systems in the District as identified in the water management plan, including chemical water analysis, water level, water flow and the interaction of Federal lands and private lands within the watershed.

Objective 2.9: Plant Control. Reduce exotic plants including noxious weeds on state and county lists through an aggressive program including burning, mowing, chemical treatment, hand cropping, and restoration seeding. Primary targets include purple loosestrife, Canada thistle, leafy spurge and woody vegetation.

Objective 2.10: Minnow and Carp Control. Reduce or eliminate populations of exotic/invasive fish species on shallow prairie wetland communities within the District. Primary targets include fathead minnows, carp and buffalo.

Objective 2.11: Grasshopper Control. Conduct limited grasshopper control programs only as mandated by state law to protect infestation of adjacent private properties.

Objective 2.12: Biological Control. Increase emphasis on biological control whenever feasible. The District will continue to release beetles to control leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, and spotted knapweed.

Goal 3: Acquisition

Within current acquisition acreage goals, identify the highest priority acres for acquisition taking into account block size and waterfowl productivity data. These priority areas should drive

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 133

acquisition efforts whenever possible. Service land acquisition should have no negative impact on net revenues to local government. Understand and communicate the economic effects of federal land ownership on local communities.

Objective 3.1: Evaluating Acquisition Priority. Review and update the current acquisition guidelines by the year 2003. Acquisition strategies for future acquisitions within the Districts will be based on site potential. Consideration should be given to size, quality, key species affected, habitat fragmentation, landscape scale complexes, potential productivity of restored wetlands, etc. Managers will need to base acquisitions on biologically-based priorities, yet balance these priorities with the realities of those lands and waters available.

Objective 3.2: Goal Acres. Within four years conduct a biological assessment to determine if current goal acres will be sufficient to reach waterfowl recruitment objectives for the District lands.

Objective 3.3: Coordination. The District will coordinate with Fergus Falls Acquisition Office to ensure rapid response to willing seller offers that meet the acquisition priorities. An offer will be made to the seller within 6 months of the decision to acquire the tract.

Objective 3.4: Acquisition. At the current ability of the Acquisition Office and District to complete acquisitions and restorations, the District will meet our current District goal acres within 48 years by acquiring an average of 1000 acres in fee title, 100 acres of wetland easements, and 50 acres of upland easements per year for waterfowl breeding and use. This objective will be modified as appropriate if the goal acres are modified or restoration funding changes.

Objective 3.5: Advocate 100 percent of revenue sharing and a lump sum payment for past underpayment through a trust fund to the counties.

Objective 3.6: Conduct a study that would provide the following information to managers so that they can better communicate the issue to the public: 1) A graph of revenue sharing for the last 20 years. 2) A detailed explanation of the impact of federal ownership on school taxes. 3) A detailed study of the trust fund payments to the state in relation to the revenue sharing shortfall. 4) How much money do we really need to make up the trust fund from 1993 and prior?

Objective 3.7: Determine local economic value of Federal land ownership.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 134

Objective 3.8: Demonstrate the hydrological benefits of restored wetlands; determine cash value of wetlands.

Objective 3.9: Determine social value of natural habitat in the landscape. Determine importance of wildlife to people in a community.

Goal 4: Monitoring

Collect baseline information on plants, fish and wildlife and monitor critical parameters and trends of key species and/or species groups on and around District units. Promote the use of coordinated, standardized, cost effective, and defensible methods for gathering and analyzing habitat and population data. Management decisions will be based on the resulting data.

Objective 4.1: Inventory and Monitoring Workshop: Conduct an inventory and monitoring workshop by 2003 with recognized researchers in the field to identify monitoring needs, approaches, strategies and target species.

Objective 4.2: Inventory and Monitoring Plan. Develop an Inventory and Monitoring Plan by 2004 that will identify census needs and appropriate techniques as part of a coordinated monitoring program that will be used to evaluate species richness within the District by developing species data and accounts on selected sites.

Objective 4.3: Geographic Information System. Increase use of GIS technology in monitoring habitat and wildlife (See operations section for details).

Objective 4.4: Increase the use of biological data in the overall management of the Districts by fulfilling the actions identified in the Inventory and Monitoring Plan.

Objective 4.5: Biological Inventory. As part of the Inventory and Monitoring Plan, inventory the biological resources on the Districts by the year 2005.

Objective 4.6: Breeding Birds. Conduct regular surveys of breeding grassland and wetland migratory birds. Include information on reproductive success as well as species abundance using techniques that are outlined in the Inventory and Monitoring Plan.

Objective 4.7: Research. Encourage and cooperate in research that will further our understanding about management and habitat manipulations on the District.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 135

Objective 4.8: Monitoring. Monitor the levels of external threats to the Waterfowl Production Areas such as soil erosion, incoming water quality, pesticide use, and contaminants as identified in the Inventory and Monitoring Plan.

Goal 5: Endangered Species/Unique Communities

Preserve enhance, and restore rare native northern tallgrass prairie, flora and fauna that are or may become endangered. Where feasible in both ecological and social/economic terms, reintroduce native species on WPAs in cooperation with the Minnesota DNR.

Objective 5.1: Threatened and Endangered Species. Identify and survey threatened and endangered species within the District looking specifically for species of special interest to the Service.

Objective 5.2: Invertebrates. Conduct surveys of invertebrate communities in grassland and wetland communities following the approaches identified in the Inventory and Monitoring Plan.

Objective 5.3: Partners for Fish and Wildlife. With the Partners for Fish and Wildlife staff in the Regional Office, develop clear guidance for upland and riparian restoration work on private lands so each District is managing the program consistently.

Objective 5.4: Inventory and Monitoring. The District will identify the location of endangered and threatened species within the District boundaries through the Inventory and Monitoring Plan. The District will obtain baseline data including maps of all federally endangered and threatened species by 2002.

Objective 5.5: Management. The District will protect and enhance populations of endangered, threatened, and special emphasis species that are indigenous on District lands. Management actions applied to these areas will be tailored to meet species management needs.

Objective 5.6: Cooperation. The District will work with partners and other agencies to develop specific plans for target species occurring within the Districts.

Objective 5.7: Enforcement. The Districts will enforce all Endangered Species and Migratory Bird Act regulations within the District through increased contacts with hunters, neighbors and visitors.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 136

Objective 5.8: Monitoring. The Districts will review baseline data including maps of all federally-listed endangered and threatened species as well as all native prairie tracts, calcareous fens and oak savanna by 2005.

Objective 5.9: Cooperation. The Districts will identify threatened Northern Tallgrass Prairie unique communities and work through the Tall Grass Prairie Habitat Preservation Area project partners or other agencies and partners to acquire in fee title or protect through easement in cases where the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program is not appropriate. All remaining native prairie remnants within each District will be identified by 2005 and strategies for their protection will be developed by the year 2007.

Objective 5.10: Identify, evaluate and prioritize opportunities to reintroduce native species documenting the needs in a plan by 2005.

Objective 5.11: By 2010, begin a reintroduction program to reintroduce one species per year until all goal species identified under Objective 5.10 are reintroduced.

Goal 7: Development Plan

Preparation of WPA Development Plans: complete Geographic Information System (GIS) based WPA Development Plans for each unit in each District. Provide Districts with GIS to assist with acquisition, restoration, management and protection of public and private lands.

Objective 7.1: All existing WPAs will have development plans developed by 2005 if not already completed and all records will be entered into new GIS system.

Objective 7.2: Ensure that newly acquired land receives timely, effective unit planning to meet trust responsibilities within 2 years of taking title of a parcel.

Objective 7.3: Software Development. Develop and initiate use of a GIS customized for District management in all appropriate Minnesota field stations by 2003.

Objective 7.4: Data Entry. Complete entry of WPA and easement ownership boundaries by 2002. Enter habitat, facility, and management accomplishment layers for the District by 2003.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 137

APPENDIX 2. HAMDEN SLOUGH NWR COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN WILDLIFE AND HABITAT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Note: the entire text for this appendix is quoted directly from the Hamden Slough NWR CCP (USFWS 2012). The HMP goals and objectives are consistent with the vision and direction provided in the CCP. The CCP goals and objectives are provided here for reference.

Wildlife and Habitat Goal

Habitats on Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge will be restored, protected, and actively managed to provide a diversity of native wetland and grassland habitats. These efforts will be further leveraged by partnerships and conservation actions outside the Refuge, resulting in a resilient and balanced landscape, meeting the needs of migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife in an uncertain future.

Objective 1-1: Prairie Pothole Wetlands Inventory

Within three years, conduct a baseline inventory of all prairie pothole wetlands on the Refuge to guide future restoration.

Objective 1-2: Prairie Pothole Wetlands Restoration

Within 15 years, restore all prairie pothole wetlands to their natural hydrology and historical type.

Objective 1-3: Managed Wetlands

Develop and implement a new approach to wetland management that emphasizes sustainability by restoring the physical and hydrological character of all managed wetlands (Big 6, Bisson Lake, and Frog Ponds)

Objective 1-4: Relict Glacial Lakes

Restore the physical and hydrological character of Pierce Lake while continuing to work toward full restoration of Hamden Lake.

Objective 1-5: Uplands Inventory

Within three years, conduct a baseline vegetation inventory of all Refuge uplands (approximately 2,630 acres including Hamden lakebed) to guide future tallgrass prairie restoration and management decisions.

Objective 1-6: Tallgrass Prairie Remnants

In conjunction with the Refuge uplands inventory (Objective 2-1), verify and map the remaining 20 acres of remnant tallgrass prairie on the Refuge. Inventory all plant species possible in each remnant.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 138

Objective 1-7: Diversify Grasslands

Over the life of the plan, improve the floristic composition of approximately 500 acres of seeded grasslands (native and nonnative cool and warm season grasses) to attain high diversity restored mesic and wet-mesic prairie. Improved sites should exhibit at least 30 species of native tallgrass prairie vegetation within 10 years.

Objective 1-8: Conversion of Food Plots to Tallgrass Prairie

Convert 50 acres of food plots (corn and soybeans) to native tallgrass prairie vegetation within the first three years of CCP approval.

Objective 1-9: Conversion of Cropland to Tallgrass Prairie

Convert all existing and newly acquired cropland to native tallgrass prairie vegetation, primarily mesic and wet-mesic prairie, within five years of acquisition.

Objective 1-10: Habitat Structure

Manage 20 to 30 percent of Refuge uplands and the drained Hamden lakebed (currently ~2,630 acres) annually, using prescribed burning, grazing, haying and tree removal, alone or in combination. Managed lands should provide open vistas and mixed structures to benefit the full range of Refuge grassland focal species.

Objective 1-11: Watershed Sustainability

Over the course of the CCP, work with partners to focus efforts at the watershed level to reduce storm runoff, sedimentation, and other nonpoint sources pollution and their potential impacts to Refuge water quality and quantity.

Objective 1-12: Upland Nesting Ducks

Increase breeding duck pair density from 374 to 530 annually within the Refuge acquisition boundary by 2028.

Objective 1-13: Upland Nesting Waterfowl Recruitment

Over the life of the plan, increase the estimated median recruitment rate of ducks on Hamden Slough NWR from 0.46 to 0.55.

Objective 1-14: Bobolink Breeding Pairs

Increase the potential breeding pairs of bobolinks on managed Refuge uplands (not including drained Hamden Lake) from 37 to 54 over the life of the plan.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 139

APPENDIX 3. TABLE OF UNITS, ACRES, PRIORITY SCORE/CODE, PROVINCE AND PRE- SETTLEMENT VEGETATION

Pre-settlement Vegetation3 Priority Priority Unit Acres Score1 Code2 Province Dominant Secondary Tertiary

BECKER Anderson 582.1 11 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Aspen Parkland COUNTY

Arneson 158.2 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Audubon 163.8 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie AND Oak Woodland/Brushland

Axberg Lake 223.5 16 M Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Bakken 183.2 22 L Eastern Broadleaf Maple-Basswood Forest Forest

Balke Lake 384.8 17 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Bay Lake 322.0 14 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Prairie Wetland

Boyer Lake 282.1 13 H Prairie Parkland Oak Upland Prairie Woodland/Brushland

Brandy Lake 287.0 13 H Eastern Broadleaf Prairie Wetland Aspen Parkland Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Buchl 575.3 14 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Prairie Wetland

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 140

Pre-settlement Vegetation3 Priority Priority Unit Acres Score1 Code2 Province Dominant Secondary Tertiary

Clark 100.3 19 L Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Detroit 77.8 25 L Eastern Broadleaf Maple-Basswood Peatland Mountain Forest Forest

Dibley 59.0 18 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Donley/Tillman 643.8 14 H Prairie Parkland Prairie Wetland Upland Prairie

Dunham 90.1 23 L Eastern Broadleaf Maple-Basswood Forest Forest

Erickson 146.6 24 L Eastern Broadleaf Maple-Basswood Forest Forest

Hamden 3210.0 11 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Prairie Wetland Slough NWR

Haugrud 60.2 18 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Haverkamp 130.9 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Prairie Wetland

Headquarters 170.8 19 L Eastern Broadleaf Oak Aspen Parkland Prairie Wetland Forest Woodland/Brushland

Helliksen 1389.5 10 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Prairie

Jacobson 243.8 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie AND Oak Woodland/Brushland

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 141

Pre-settlement Vegetation3 Priority Priority Unit Acres Score1 Code2 Province Dominant Secondary Tertiary

Johnson 157.2 25 L Eastern Broadleaf Maple-Basswood Oak Forest Forest Woodland/Brushland

Kent 200.5 12 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Kruger 626.8 14 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Oak Woodland/Brushland

Lage 81.6 13 H Eastern Broadleaf Upland Prairie Forest

Lake Park 428.4 17 M Prairie Parkland / Upland Prairie Eastern Broadleaf Forest

Larson 186.4 11 H Eastern Broadleaf Upland Prairie Forest

Lee Marshes 480.4 16 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Prairie Wetland

Lethenstrum 77.8 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Lindsey Lake 141.4 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Lyman Lakes 91.6 23 L Laurentian Mixed Great Lakes Pine Forest Forest

Marks 320.3 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Maple-Basswood Forest

Matter 467.0 16 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Prairie Wetland

Pederson 249.9 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Prairie Wetland

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 142

Pre-settlement Vegetation3 Priority Priority Unit Acres Score1 Code2 Province Dominant Secondary Tertiary

Plum Grove 290.2 17 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Lake

Quick 203.3 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Read 369.4 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Scheelk 42.9 19 L Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Seter / Davis 774.8 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Severson Lake 224.2 22 L Eastern Broadleaf Maple-Basswood Forest Forest

Shay 164.2 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Shodean 40.4 14 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Spring Creek 70.3 18 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Spring 546.3 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Marshes

Stinking Lake 142.4 17 M Prairie Parkland / Upland Prairie Prairie Wetland Eastern Broadleaf Forest

Struss 96.0 23 L Eastern Broadleaf Maple-Basswood Forest Forest

Stumbo 111.1 19 L Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 143

Pre-settlement Vegetation3 Priority Priority Unit Acres Score1 Code2 Province Dominant Secondary Tertiary

Sullivan 80.9 17 M Eastern Broadleaf Upland Prairie AND Forest Oak Woodland/Brushland

Syverson 72.5 17 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Tessman 159.5 18 M Eastern Broadleaf Aspen Parkland Prairie Wetland Forest

Ulrich 200.9 16 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Westbury 109.1 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

White Earth 39.8 21 L Prairie Parkland Oak Woodland/Brushland

CLAY Anderson 207.4 12 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Prairie Wetland COUNTY

Ashmore 157.3 17 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Bjornson 117.0 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Carlson 60.7 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Christianson 236.5 12 H Eastern Broadleaf Upland Prairie Oak Prairie Wetland Forest Woodland/Brushland

Doran Lake 323.8 14 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Downer Prairie 267.6 17 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 144

Pre-settlement Vegetation3 Priority Priority Unit Acres Score1 Code2 Province Dominant Secondary Tertiary

Eide 107.4 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Flickertail 983.0 11 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Prairie Wetland Prairie

Flora Lake 233.7 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Flowing 146.7 18 M Prairie Parkland Prairie Wetland

Fuglie 631.9 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Prairie Wetland

Gjerve 37.6 18 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Goose Lake 217.1 14 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Hatchet Lake 92.6 16 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Haugtvedt 1129.0 11 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Prairie Wetland

Hawley 109.0 16 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Hay Creek 451.0 14 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Hillestad 235.0 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Hitterdal 179.2 14 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Holte 71.7 17 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Hoykens 486.1 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Jarvis 124.4 17 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Kasin 191.9 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 145

Pre-settlement Vegetation3 Priority Priority Unit Acres Score1 Code2 Province Dominant Secondary Tertiary

Kenyon 471.0 14 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Korell 763.1 12 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Lee Lake 88.5 18 H Prairie Parkland / Oak Aspen Parkland Eastern Broadleaf Woodland/Brushland Forest

Lofgren 199.8 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Malakowsky 39.8 17 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Manitoba 81.1 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Junction

Mcdonald 40.4 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Melby 87.8 17 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Moe 160.8 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Nelson 239.2 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Nord 83.5 16 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Noreen 495.9 12 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Olson 60.6 19 L Prairie Parkland / Aspen Parkland Eastern Broadleaf Forest

Rollag 81.8 19 L Prairie Parkland / Upland Prairie AND Eastern Broadleaf Aspen Parkland Forest

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 146

Pre-settlement Vegetation3 Priority Priority Unit Acres Score1 Code2 Province Dominant Secondary Tertiary

Rosell 64.5 20 L Prairie Parkland / Upland Prairie Eastern Broadleaf Forest

Rushfeldt 649.5 15 M Prairie Parkland / Oak Upland Prairie Aspen Parkland Eastern Broadleaf Woodland/Brushland Forest

Rustad Lake 411.2 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Sagebraaten 53.6 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Sieh 163.6 12 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Spieker 81.1 14 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Stangeland 169.6 16 M Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Swede Grove 32.3 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Lake

Tatlie 168.8 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Exchange

Tatlie Lake 247.1 14 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Maple-Basswood Forest

Three Jetvig 209.8 13 H Prairie Parkland / Upland Prairie Prairie Wetland Lakes Eastern Broadleaf Forest

Whiskey Lake 307.8 16 M Eastern Broadleaf Oak Upland Prairie

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 147

Pre-settlement Vegetation3 Priority Priority Unit Acres Score1 Code2 Province Dominant Secondary Tertiary

Forest Woodland/Brushland

Zillmer Prairie 11.2 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

MAHNOMEN Beaulieu Lake 326.6 19 M Prairie Parkland Oak Upland Prairie COUNTY Woodland/Brushland

Borgrud 65.9 20 L Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Chief Lake 421.6 12 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Aspen Parkland

Circle Lake 156.2 13 H Prairie Parkland / Upland Prairie Oak Eastern Broadleaf Woodland/Brushland Forest

Downing 562.6 11 H Prairie Parkland Prairie Wetland Upland Prairie

Edwin Lake 395.8 14 M Eastern Broadleaf Upland Prairie Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Erion 38.2 17 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Haggman 78.9 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Jason Barker 712.7 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Krebsbach 90.3 20 L Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Little Oak Lake 60.3 16 M Prairie Parkland / Upland Prairie Oak Eastern Broadleaf Woodland/Brushland Forest

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 148

Pre-settlement Vegetation3 Priority Priority Unit Acres Score1 Code2 Province Dominant Secondary Tertiary

Moore Lake 80.3 18 L Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Prairie Wetland

Nelson Prairie 2078.1 9 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Paul Jr. 78.7 17 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Paul Sr. 237.0 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Rothschadl 79.2 20 L Prairie Parkland / Oak Eastern Broadleaf Woodland/Brushland Forest

Sandy Lake 159.9 18 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Skoog 22.9 19 L Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Squirrel Lake 396.4 12 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie Prairie Wetland Oak Woodland/Brushland

Stalboerger 74.2 19 L Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Tiny 8.8 17 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Waubun 281.3 14 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Wolbeck 142.2 17 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

NORMAN Christensen 640.5 15 M Prairie Parkland Oak Upland Prairie Prairie Wetland COUNTY Woodland/Brushland

Lee 152.5 16 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Meadowlark 467.6 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 149

Pre-settlement Vegetation3 Priority Priority Unit Acres Score1 Code2 Province Dominant Secondary Tertiary

Slininger 198.9 13 H Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Sundal 119.5 19 L Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

POLK Aasen 199.7 19 L Eastern Broadleaf Oak Prairie Wetland COUNTY Forest Woodland/Brushland

Beito 321.6 18 M Tallgrass Aspen Aspen Parkland Parkland

Cable Lake 119.2 19 L Tallgrass Aspen Oak Aspen Parkland Parkland / Eastern Woodland/Brushland Broadleaf Forest

Clarke 868.9 13 H Tallgrass Aspen Aspen Parkland Upland Prairie Parkland

Erskine 1368.7 15 M Tallgrass Aspen Oak Aspen Parkland Complex Parkland / Eastern Woodland/Brushland Broadleaf Forest

Espeseth 163.0 19 L Eastern Broadleaf Aspen Parkland Prairie Wetland Forest

Farrell 38.6 19 L Tallgrass Aspen Oak Parkland / Eastern Woodland/Brushland Broadleaf Forest

Foot Lake 119.9 21 L Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 150

Pre-settlement Vegetation3 Priority Priority Unit Acres Score1 Code2 Province Dominant Secondary Tertiary

Gustafson 448.3 21 L Eastern Broadleaf Maple-Basswood Forest Forest

Hagen 378.8 22 L Eastern Broadleaf Great Lakes Pine Peatland Oak Forest Forest Woodland/Brushland

Halverson 159.0 16 M Eastern Broadleaf Upland Prairie Aspen Parkland Prairie Wetland Forest

Hanson 158.4 20 L Eastern Broadleaf Aspen Parkland Forest

Haslie Lake 159.7 20 L Eastern Broadleaf Aspen Parkland Prairie Wetland Forest

Hendrickson 78.8 17 M Eastern Broadleaf Prairie Wetland Lake Forest

Hill River 631.9 16 M Eastern Broadleaf Aspen Parkland AND Forest Oak Woodland/Brushland

Jacobson 117.9 17 M Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Jenkins 600.9 16 M Eastern Broadleaf Oak Aspen Parkland Forest Woodland/Brushland

Lengby 211.1 16 M Eastern Broadleaf Oak Prairie Wetland Forest Woodland/Brushland

Lepier 159.9 18 L Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 151

Pre-settlement Vegetation3 Priority Priority Unit Acres Score1 Code2 Province Dominant Secondary Tertiary

Maltrod Lake 295.1 15 M Eastern Broadleaf Aspen Parkland Prairie Wetland Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Maple Lake 352.1 18 M Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Mcintosh 35.4 21 L Eastern Broadleaf Aspen Parkland Prairie Wetland Forest

MEE 215.7 15 M Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Melvin Slough 1213.2 11 H Tallgrass Aspen Upland Prairie Parkland

Moren 190.8 16 M Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Ness 32.7 21 L Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Opgrand 122.5 19 L Prairie Parkland Upland Prairie

Poplar River 99.0 17 M Tallgrass Aspen Aspen Parkland Parkland

Salvhus 384.2 18 M Eastern Broadleaf Aspen Parkland Forest

Sand Hill Lake 146.6 19 L Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Smith 160.4 17 M Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 152

Pre-settlement Vegetation3 Priority Priority Unit Acres Score1 Code2 Province Dominant Secondary Tertiary

Sollie 296.8 17 M Eastern Broadleaf Aspen Parkland AND Enterprises Forest Oak Woodland/Brushland

Turtle Lake 171.8 19 L Eastern Broadleaf Aspen Parkland Forest

Underdahl 80.2 18 M Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Union Lake 306.3 16 M Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

Vaa 163.4 17 M Eastern Broadleaf Aspen Parkland Prairie Wetland Forest

Vesledahl 571.7 19 L Eastern Broadleaf Aspen Parkland Oak Prairie Wetland Forest Woodland/Brushland

Winger 1759.3 14 M Eastern Broadleaf Aspen Parkland Prairie Wetland Forest

Woodside 314.9 18 M Eastern Broadleaf Oak Forest Woodland/Brushland

1 Minimum Score=9, Mean Score=16, Maximum Score=25, SD=3; Low Priority Score=High Priority (See Appendix 4).

2 Priority Code L (Low)= 38 units, Priority Code M (Medium)=76 units, Priority Code H (High)=57

3 Pre-settlement Vegetation Types from Marschner (1974) as adapted by MN DNR (1988)

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 153

APPENDIX 4. PRIORITY TOOL DESCRIPTION Prioritizing habitat management based on landscape criteria:

As resources to accomplish our management goals decrease, we must be able to make habitat based decisions to focus our management efforts. Our limited resources must garner the greatest habitat benefits for our resources of concern. A number of different attempts have been made in the past to summarize model information and natural resources data to determine where best to focus our efforts in the District. The criteria established below were used to assign a total score to each waterfowl production area in the District. The score allows us to compare one unit to the next based upon numerous habitat needs for our resources of concern. In this scoring effort, a low score means higher priority. The mean score for our units was 16, the range was from 9 to 25, and the standard deviation was 3. As such, our priority scoring is as follows:

- High – 9 - 14

- Medium – 15 - 18

- Low– 19 - 26

Criteria Used (see table below for application and associate code/ranking):

WPA size is the first criteria in the model because many of our resources of concern rely on large blocks of open grassland whether they avoid smaller pieces or just have lower nest success due to the fragmented landscape they find themselves nesting in. Block size is a very important criterion for our focal species.

Native habitat type based on Marschner (MN DNR 1988) is important as much of our District is wooded. In an effort to provide the most productive habitat for our priority resources, we need to have large blocks of open grasslands mixed with wetlands. Thus the scores for prairie and wetlands are rated as the best habitat for our priority resources of concern, brushland and oak savannas are scored as average habitat, and forests are scored the lowest based on benefit to priority resources of concern. This criterion was weighted most heavily as our resources of concern are nearly all prairie specialists or utilize prairie parkland more than any other habitat type.

Conservation estate is important because it is not just our lands, but the lands of our neighboring conservation partners that also contribute to the success of our resources of concern. The Grassland Bird Conservation Area conceptual model (Sample and Mossman 1997, Fitzgerald et al. 1998) is a widely-accepted model to predict suitability of habitat for grassland birds. We used the concept of the Type 2 core (Johnson et al. 2010) to represent the minimum patch size (160 acres) ofperpetually protected habitat in which to prioritize prairie complexes in which to focus our work.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 154

Percent grass in the landscape (USFWS 2002) was the next criterion. The premise is working where we are going to benefit our resources of concern the most. If we focus our management efforts on the places where we know our resources of concern have a greater ability to be a source for their population versus a sink, our management will be focused where we can do the most to benefit those species. The utilization of this criterion underscores the importance of working in areas with a greater percentage of grass in the landscape.

The criterion for native prairie is important because nearly all of our Threatened and Endangered species are dependent on native prairie. In addition, the BIDEH policy has provided the guidance to focus our efforts on ecological integrity and diversity. These sites are not only relicts of what was in Western MN, but they are our greatest source of seeds for the highest quality restoration of native tallgrass prairie. Tallgrass Prairie is nearly gone in this part of the world, and due to the uniqueness of this habitat it is a resource of concern for our District. Data are from the NHIS database, MN DNR Division of Ecological Services, Copyright 2013.

As a Wetland Management District, the production of waterfowl will always be our primary focus. The third generation thunderstorm map (USFWS 2010) models the potential of the landscape to provide for nesting pairs of waterfowl. Utilizing this model allows us to target areas for protection and restoration. It is critical that this model be included in our tool, and the best areas for waterfowl also get scored to reflect their importance to the success of our priority species.

Since many of our resources of concern are dependent on wetlands and wetland complexes to fulfill the needs of their lifecycle, the wetland index was developed by Rex Johnson specifically to help us focus on the WPAs with the best wetland complexes within 1 mile of the unit. Scores indicate the type and number of wetlands in a 1 mile radius of a WPA. This is an average score of pixel indices for all pixels within a WPA. The index is crude, but helps us sort the quality wetland complexes contining necessary wetland types for breeding and brood rearing vs. wetland complexes that are lacking in wetland types. Focusing our work in areas of quality wetland complexes will benefit our resources of concern the most.

This prioritization tool is exactly that, a tool. This will give us both numerical scores for processing data in spreadsheets and a graduated color ramp for visually using the scoring in ArcMap to prioritize habitat management in the future. We do not expect to make decisions solely on the use of this tool. Professional judgment, expertise and feasibility, as well as the resource inventory of unique resources and native habitats present on our WPAs will also weigh into our decision making process on where to implement restoration and management activities.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 155

Table describing criteria used in the priority tool including application and associated code/ranking.

Criteria Application Code/Ranking WPA Size Basemap for project; individual WPAs will rise to top or bottom as additional WPA >640 acres = 1 layers are added. The score is based on HAPET Grassland Bird Conservation WPA <640 acres =2 Area Criteria .The Primary GBCAs are 640 acres or larger. Native Habitat Type Identifies which WPAs contain native habitats that align with Station purpose Upland Prairie=1 -Based on Marschner and management goals for Resources of Concern. Priority WPAs are those that Prairie Wetland=1 contain prairie habitat or the potential to impact prairie habitat, and was Aspen Parkland=5 scored with the heaviest weight. Oak Woodland and Brushland=5 Maple Basewood Forest=10 Northern Hardwood Forest=10 Conservation Estate Summed all permanently protected land in the District. Protected Land Complex >160 acres=1 -Complexes Complexes of 160 acres or more were weighted highest. Complexes of Complex <160 acres=2 protected lands must have a shared boundary with other protected land. No shared boundary & under 160 Individual WPAs over 160 acres were scored as 160+ complex. acres=3 Percent Grass Illustrates areas of WMD with largest percentages of grass remaining in the >41%=1 –% grass in the landscape landscape; directly related to land-use/ownership. Bigger bang for buck 31-40%=2 (2 miles from each cell) working in areas with greatest % grass and most beneficial to species for which 21-30%=3 the District is responsible. <21%=4 Identified Native Prairie Identify areas of native prairie remaining and ownership. Select WPAs based Yes=1 on native prairie component, threatened native habitat and ecological No=2 integrity. Predicted Duck Pairs- Predicted numbers of upland-nesting duck pairs that could potentially nest in >50=1 Waterfowl T-Storm the District’s habitats. Waterfowl production is the District’s primary purpose. 41-50=2 -3rd generation (20yrs of This is the best data we have to indicate the potential use in the District. 31-40=3 data) <31=4 Landscape Wetland Index Scores from processed NWI layer indicate the type and number of wetlands 306-220 = 1 within a 1 mile radius of a WPA. This is an average score of pixel indices for all 100-220 = 2 pixels within a WPA. The indices range from 306 to 23 and the mean score was 0-100 = 3 163. A crude index but helps sort the really good from the really poor.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 156

APPENDIX 5. POTENTIAL NATIVE HABITAT TYPES (PRIMARILY PRAIRIE, FENS, AND OAK SAVANNA) OF DISTRICT UNITS

County WPA ECS Subsection Potential Native Habitat Type* Acres/Comments from RIP Becker Anderson Red River Prairie Native prairie 10.5 wetland margins Oak savanna Arneson Red River Prairie Native Prairie on dry knobs ~29 with cs exotic grasses Axberg Lake Hardwood Hills Native Prairie 24 with cs exotics Mixed Hardwoods Interspersion with mixed hardwoods Audubon Red River Prairie Native Prairie 4.1 on steep banks Bakken Red River Prairie Mixed Hardwoods Extreme South field??? Pastured, Hardwood Hills Native prairie? not plowed Bay Lake Red River Prairie Native prairie 2.6 (NW and S edges of lake) Boyer Lake Red River Prairie Native prairie 20 native +22.72 with exotics Oak Savanna? Mixed hardwoods with grass understory Brandy Lake Hardwood Hills Oak Savanna? 21.2 mixed hardwoods with grass understory Dibley Red River Prairie Northern mesic and dry 14.2 (dry was pasture) Hamden Slough Red River Prairie Native Prairie ~22-fragmented pieces Jacobson Red River Prairie Dry and mesic 2.1 plus reestablished (37+acres in western unit) soil bank-native forbs and tame/native grasses

Kruger Red River Prairie Oak Savanna (P) 14.9 Lee Marshes Red River Prairie Native Prairie 2ac +18.8- tame grasses with native forbs Lethenstrum Red River Prairie Native prairie between wetlands 1 Pederson Red River Prairie Oak Savanna (P) 22 Plum grove lake Red River Prairie Native prairie 3.8 +8.6 tame/native grass and forbs Quick Red River Prairie Native Prairie 36.8 (14 of which had some

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 157

plowing) Shodean Red River Prairie Native Prairie NP along edges and roadsides; Oak Savanna along E edge large chunk along W and SW corner; oak sav on east boundary Spring Marshes Between wetlands/margins 2.8 and additional tame and native grasslands Stumbo Native Prairie 0.4 Tessman Hardwood Hills Native Prairie <1 ac prairie in n’s ditches Red River Prairie Oak Savanna (P) 12 Ulrich Native Prairie 3.6

Clay Ashmore 11 Christianson Hardwood Hills Oak savanna? 44.6 + 17ac grass interspersed with oaks Doran Lake Native prairie-wet 2 Gjerve Native prairie 5.5+ 1.1 (some indication) Goose Lake Native Prairie-wet and mesic 2ac wet + 4ac mesic (in patches) Hatchet Lake Red River Prairie Northern mesic and dry? 13 native, 14.5/29.3-some indication or go-back (quality)

Hawley Native Prairie 4.8 Hillestad Red River Prairie Native prairie-wetland fringe 1-south side of main wetland Holte Red River Prairie Native prairie 9.6

Jarvis Red River Prairie Northern mesic and dry 43 Kasin 18ac, 12 ac once plowed Kenyon Red River Prairie Wetland margin/interior 5.2 ac + 37.6 heavily grazed but unbroken Kordell Red River Prairie Native Prairie 24.5+3.4+16.5 Pastured natives and wetland margins Melby Need files Nelson Red River Prairie Native prairie 23 (some once plowed) Oak Savanna (P) 4.5

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 158

Nord Red River Prairie Oak Savanna (P) 5 *Nearby doc. as mesic oak sav (northern) Noreen Red River Prairie Oak Savanna (P) 0.6 Native Prairie 77 Olson Hardwood Hills Native Prairie 3+??? Check farm history Red River Prairie Rollag Hardwood Hills Native Prairie 2 Oak Savanna (P) 1.8 Rosell Hardwood Hills Oak Savanna (P) 10.3 Red River Prairie Rushfeldt Hardwood Hills Native Prairie 16.3+2.2+26 (mostly associated Red River Prairie Oak savanna (P) with savanna or around wetlands) 62.5 Rustad Lake Red River Prairie Check files, not on RIP card 7.7 +other? Check history in file Stangeland Hardwood Hills Native Prairie 0.9 –is there more? Check file Oak savanna (P) 4 Swede Grove Lake Tatlie Lake Red River prairie Oak savanna (P) 15.7 Three Jetvig Lakes Hardwood Hills Oak Savanna (P) 17.7 Red River Prairie Whiskey Lake Hardwood Hills Native Prairie 22.8 around main marsh (W&N)

Mahnomen Borgrud Hardwood Hills Native Prairie 6.7-check mgmt. files; others look to have been seeded Edwin Lake Native Prairie 1.8 ac with natives in tame grass; 6.4 ac tame grass (both in original west piece); check mgmt. files for info on east Erion Red River Prairie Native Prairie 3.6 (0.4 native on RIP); west side of wetland

Oak savanna SE of large marsh and island 6.7ac

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 159

Little Oak Lake Red River Prairie Native Prairie 2.07 native prairie; 30 tame grass with forbs Moore Lake Red River Prairie Native Prairie 3.8 ac tame grass and forbs, steep hill Paul Jr. Red River Prairie Native Prairie Native prairie 2.6 ac; tame and native 6.5 ac; interseeded tame grassland 18.4ac Sandy Lake Red River Prairie Native Prairie 23.4 ac native grass and forbs/tame grass

Oak Savanna 8 ac with forb/grass/brush understory Skoog Red River Prairie Native Prairie Native 2 ac; tame and native 6 ac Squirrel Lake Red River Prairie Native Prairie 21.6 ac native (NE chunk); tame/native (interseeded/grazed) 223 ac Stalboerger Red River Prairie Native Prairie 2.4 ac tame grassland (SE corner) Tiny Red River Prairie Native Prairie 0.4 ac on north east side

Norman Christensen Red River Prairie Lots of timber/grass never plowed/seeded; seeding in southwest opening where farmed Lee Red River Prairie Native Prairie All native prairie? Yes, old gravel pit also Meadowlark Red River Prairie Native Prairie Possible around wetland margins and steeper slopes on northwest boundary; other? Slininger Red River Prairie Native Prairie 55 ac mesic prairie Sundal Hardwood Hills Oak Savanna

Polk Aasen Hardwood Hills Native Prairie 7 ac low, wet prairie (tame and native) Beito Aspen Parklands Native Prairie 92 ac tame grasses/native forbs

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 160

Oak savanna? Cable lake Hardwood Hills Oak Savanna 6.8 Aspen Parklands Native prairie ?? lots of tame grassland, 62.4ac

Poplar River Aspen Parklands Native Prairie-Brush 43 acres * Information generated from RIP card information, inventory of oak savanna and remnant prairie in Clay and Becker Counties (Pemble 1995, 1996), and local knowledge/best professional opinion (in progress).

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 161

APPENDIX 6. DOCUMENTED NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES, ACREAGE ESTIMATES AND CONDITION RANKINGS OF DISTRICT UNITS. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DNR COUNTY BIOLOGICAL SURVEY PER THE NATURAL HERITAGE INFORMATION SYSTEM DATABASE (SEE COPYRIGHT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BELOW).

WPA/NTP Name ECS Subsection Native Plant Community Class Acres Condition Name Rank Anderson Red River Prairie Calcareous Fen (northwestern) OPp93a 0.2 C

Buchl Red River Prairie Prairie-Mixed Cattail Marsh MRp83 9.5 NR

Prairie-wetland Complex (northern mesic prairie, wet 87.7 C meadow/carr, northern wet prairie and/or cattail marsh) Clark Hardwood Hills Sugar Maple-Basswood- (Aspen) Forest MHc37b 14.2 B

Donley-Tillman Red River Prairie Willow-Dogwood Shrub Swamp WMn82a 151.2 NR

Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 36.7 NR

Cattail-Sedge Marsh (Prairie) MRp83a 2.9 NR

BECKER COUNTY Dry Sand-Gravel Prairie (Northern) UPn12b 66.1 C

Seepage Meadow/Carr WMs83a 39.2 B

Helliksen Prairie Red River Prairie Prairie-Wetland Complex (Northern Mesic Prairie, wet 1010.8 AB -some plowing meadow/carr, northern wet prairie, and/or cattail marsh) PWL_CX Prairie-Mixed Cattail Marsh MRp83 196.2 NR

Kent Red River Prairie Mesic Prairie (northern) UPn23a 17.8 CD -some plowing Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 162

Prairie Meadow/Carr WMp73a 2.7 C

Larson Hardwood Hills Dry-Sand Gravel Prairie (northern) UPn12b 5.1 BC

Lindsey Lake Red River Prairie Prairie-wetland Complex (Northern Mesic Prairie, wet 33.3 C meadow/carr, northern wet prairie and/or cattail marsh) PWL_CX

Cattail Sedge Marsh (Prairie)** MRp83a 14.2 NR

Marks Red River Prairie Prairie-Wetland Complex ( Northern Mesic Prairie, wet 62.4 BC -some plowing meadow/carr, northern wet prairie, and/or cattail marsh) PWL_CX

Dry Hill Prairie (Northern) UPn12d 28.6 BC

Prairie Mixed Cattail Marsh MRp83 13.5 NR

Pederson Red River Prairie Mesic Prairie (Northern)/ Dry Hill Prairie (Northern) 40.7 C/C UPn23b/UPn12d

Meadow-Marsh-Fen-Swamp Complex (prairie rich fen 57.4 NR and southern seepage meadow carr) MMS_CX

Calcareous Fen ( Northwestern) OPp93a 4.4 CD

Prairie-Mixed Cattail Marsh MRp83 6.5 NR

Alder (Red Currant-Meadow Rue) Swamp WFn74a 15 NR

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 163

Willow-Dogwood Shrub SwampWMn82a * BC

Read Red River Prairie Prairie-Wetland Complex (Northern Mesic Prairie, wet 262 BC(BC) meadow/carr, northern wet prairie, and/or cattail marsh) PWL_CX

Prairie-Mixed Cattail Marsh MRp83 45.6 NR

Seter Red River Prairie Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 69.6 NR

Prairie Mixed Cattail Marsh MRp83 17.2 NR

Willow-Dogwood Shrub Swamp WMn82a 8.4 NR

Spring Creek Red River Prairie Prairie Wetland Complex (Northern Wet Prairie, wet 32.5 C(C) meadow/carr, northern mesic prairie, and/or prairie- cattail marsh) PWL_CX Stinking Lake (and Red River Prairie Dry Hill Prairie (Northern) UPn12d 18.1 C Clay County) Hardwood Hills 2.5 D Dry Hill Prairie (Southern) UPs13d Syverson Red River Prairie Wet Prairie (Northern) WPn53c 21.3 C

Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 44.8 C

Anderson Red River Prairie Prairie Wetland Complex (Northern Mesic Prairie, wet 17.5 C meadow/carr, northern wet prairie, and/or prairie-cattail marsh PWL_CX Ashmore Red River Prairie Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 9.2 CD

Carlson Red River Prairie Prairie-Wetland Complex (Northern Mesic Prairie, wet 17 BC CLAY COUNTY meadow/carr, northern wet prairie, and/or prairie-cattail marsh) PWL_CX

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 164

Doran Lake Red River Prairie Wet Prairie (Northern) WPn53c 1.4 C

Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 1.0 B

Eide Red River Prairie Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 23 NR

Flickertail Red River Prairie Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 58.7 BC

Wet Prairie (Northern) WPn53c 183.9 BC

Prairie-Wetland Complex (Northern Mesic Prairie, wet 430.4 NR meadow/carr, northern wet prairie, and/or prairie-cattail marsh) PWL_CX Prairie Mixed Cattail Marsh MRp83 14.9 NR

Flowing Red River Prairie Prairie Wetland Complex (Northern Wet Prairie-saline, 128.2 CD Northern Mesic Prairie, wet meadow/carr, and/or prairie-cattail marsh) PWL_CX Fuglie Red River Prairie Prairie-Wetland Complex (Northern Mesic Prairie, wet 34.6 CD meadow/carr, northern wet prairie, and/or prairie-cattail marsh) PWL_CX Wet Prairie (Northern)WPn53c 33.9 BC

Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 32.9 CD

Prairie Mixed Cattail Marsh MRp83 74.1 NR

Willow-Dogwood Shrub Swamp WMn82a 30.3 NR

Gjerve Red River Prairie Dry Hill Prairie (Northern) UPn12d 5.7 C Goose Lake Red River Prairie Dry Hill Prairie (Northern) UPn12d 2.2 BC

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 165

Mesic Prairie (Southern) UPs23a 1.0 C

Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 5.6 D

Wet Prairie (Northern) WPn53c 1.5 C

Hatchet Lake Red River Prairie Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 52.3 C/D

Haugtvedt Red River Prairie Prairie Wetland Complex (Southern Mesic Prairie, 304.1 CD Southern Seepage Meadow/Carr, and/or prairie-cattail marsh) PWL_CX

Northwestern Calcareous Fen OPp93a 4.7 B

Cattail Marsh (Northern) MRn83b 27 NR

Prairie Rich Fen (sedge subtype) BC

Rich Fen (Prairie Seepage) AB

Seepage Meadow/Carr -Unresolved Shrub Swamp NR

Seepage Meadow/Carr -Shrub Swamp Seepage subtype AB Hay Creek Red River Prairie Wet Prairie (Northern) WPn53c 51.1 BC

Holte Red River Prairie Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 4.8 CD

Hoykens Red River Prairie Prairie-Wetland Complex (Northern Mesic Prairie, wet 26.2 AB meadow/carr, northern wet prairie, and/or prairie-cattail marsh) Jarvis Red River Prairie Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 3.3 C

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 166

Dry Sand-Gravel Prairie (Northern) UPn12b 4.7 B/C

Kasin Red River Prairie Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 18.1 C

Lofgren Red River Prairie Prairie Wetland Complex (Northern Wet Prairie, northern 78.2 CD mesic prairie, wet meadow/carr, and/or prairie-cattail marsh) McDonald Red River Prairie Wet Prairie (Northern) WPn53c 23.9 D

Olson Hardwood Hill Dry Sand-Gravel Prairie (Northern) UPn12b 3.7 BC

Sagebraaten Red River Prairie Mesic Prairie (Southern) UPs23a 17.7 CD

Spieker Red River Prairie Wet Prairie (Northern) WPn53c 49 B

Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 0.2 BC (private) Prairie-Wetland Complex PWL_CX 0.7 NR

Chief Lake Red River Prairie Prairie-Wetland Complex PWL_CX 50.8 NR

Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 26.3 NR

Sedge Meadow WMn82b 18.6 NR

Circle Lake Red River Prairie Sedge Meadow WMn82b 22.1 NR Hardwood Hill Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 2.2 NR

Southern Dry-Mesic Oak-Aspen Forest FDs36a 72.2 NR

Northern Mixed Cattail Marsh MRn83 8.2 NR

MAHNOMEN COUNTY MAHNOMEN

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 167

Downing (and Red River Prairie Meadow-Marsh-Fen Swamp Complex MMS_CX 164.7 NR Becker County)

Prairie Mixed Cattail Marsh MRp83 3.5 NR

Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23 128.1 NR

Prairie-Wetland Complex ( Northern Mesic Prairie, wet 214.7 NR meadow/carr, northern wet prairie, and/or prairie-cattail marsh) PWL_CX

Haggman Red River Prairie Prairie-Wetland Complex (Northern Mesic Prairie, wet 2.4 NR meadow/carr, northern wet prairie, and/or prairie-cattail marsh) PWL_CX

Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 55.3 NR

Sedge Meadow WMn82b 15.6 NR Krebsbach Hardwood Hills Southern Dry-Mesic Oak-Aspen Forest FDs36a 5.7 NR

Nelson Prairie Red River Prairie Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 95.8 BC

Meadow-Marsh-Fen-Swamp Complex MMS_CX 140.9 NR

Sedge Meadow WMn82b 3.9 NR

Prairie-Wetland Complex (Northern Mesic Prairie, wet 707.1 NR meadow/carr, northern wet prairie, and/or prairie-cattail marsh) PWL_CX

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 168

Paul Sr. Red River Prairie Meadow-Marsh-Fen-Swamp Complex MMS_CX 0.1 NR

Mesic Brush-Prairie (Northern) UPn23a 5.8 NR

Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 103.5 NR

Northern Mixed Cattail Marsh 5 NR

Prairie-Wetland Complex ( Northern Mesic Prairie, wet 117.7 NR meadow/carr, northern wet prairie, and/or prairie-cattail marsh) PWL_CX

Rothschadl Red River Prairie Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 38.6 NR Hardwood Hills Southern Dry-Mesic Oak-Aspen Forest FDs36a 9.6 NR

Prairie Rich Fen OPp91 1.5 NR

Prairie-Wetland Complex PWL_CX 24.5 NR

Waubun Red River Prairie Northwestern Calcareous Fen OPp93a 17.5 NR

Dry Prairie (Northern) UPn12 4.9 NR

Northern Mesic Prairie???? 0.04 NR

Northern Mixed Cattail Marsh MRn83 30.5 NR

Prairie Extremely Rich Fen OPp93 0.6 NR

Willow-Dogwood Shrub Swamp WMn82a 28 NR

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 169

Wolbeck Red River Prairie Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 2.4 C

Sedge Meadow WMn82b 9.7 NR

Lee Basin Meadow/Carr WMs92a 20.2 NR

Northwestern Wet-Mesic Aspen Woodland FDw44 26.8 NR

Seepage Meadow/Carr, Aquatic Sedge Subtype WMs83a2 22.8 BC

Wet Brush-Prairie (Northern) WPn53b 5.9 NR

Calcareous Fen (Northwestern) OPp93a 4.9 BC

Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 6.3 CD

Northwestern Mesic Aspen-Oak Woodland FDw34 1.8 NR

Meadowlark Agassiz Interbeach Prairie Complex AIP_CX 0.1 B

Seepage Meadow/Carr, Tussock Sedge Subtype 0.1 B WMs83a1 NORMAN Gustafson Hardwood Hills Meadow-Marsh-Fen-Swamp Complex MMS_CX 52.8 NR

Tamarack Swamp (Southern) FPs63a 13.0 BC

Northern Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest MHn46 7.8 BC

Mesic Hardwood Forest Complex MHF_CX 35 BC

Red Oak-Sugar Maple-Basswood-(Bluebead Lily) Forest

POLK MHn35b 3.0 BC

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 170

Hagen Hardwood Hills Northern Wet Ash Swamp WFn55 1.8 BC

Aspen-Birch-Fir Forest MHn44d 41 BC Tamarack Swamp (Southern) FPs63a BC 4.1 Willow-Dogwood-Shrub Swamp WMn82a BC 21.5 Mesic Hardwood Forest Complex MHF_CX 7 BC

Sugar Maple-Basswood-(Aspen) Forest MHc37b 52.8 BC

Meadow-Marsh-Fen-Swamp Complex MMS_CX 2.2 BC

Northern Wet Meadow/Carr WMn82 0.6 BC

Horseshoe Lake Hardwood Hills Sugar Maple-Basswood-(Aspen) Forest MHc37b 9 NR (photo interpretation) Meadow-Marsh-Fen-Swamp Complex MMS_CX 10.7 NR

Sedge Meadow WMn82b 0.6 NR

Mesic Hardwood Forest Complex MHF_CX 17.6 NR

Aspen-Birch-Fir Forest MHn44d 1.0 NR

Melvin Slough Aspen Parkland Seepage Meadow/Carr WMs83a 25.6 NR

Mesic Prairie (Northern) UPn23b 36.5 C

Wet Prairie (Northern) WPn53c 13 NR/B

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 171

Wet Brush-Prairie (Northern ) WPn53b 27.8 B

Northwestern Wet-Mesic Aspen Woodland FDw44 25.9 NR

Prairie-Wetland Complex PWL_CX 67.2 BC

Wet Saline Prairie (Northern) WPn53d 35.2 NR

Wet Seepage Prairie (Northern) WPn53a 1.0 AB

Underdahl Hardwood Hills Sugar-Maple-Basswood- (Aspen) Forest MHc37b ~30 AB

Copyright Notice: Copyright 2013 State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources

Acknowledgement: Data included here were provided by the Division of Ecological Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and were current as of 2013. These data are not based on an exhaustive inventory of the state. The lack of data for any geographic area shall not be construed to mean that no significant features are present.

A-rank: Site has a structure and composition free of human-caused degradation, including overgrazing, poorly-timed haying, fire suppression and forest/woodland succession, herbicide application/drift, invasive species invasion, fertilizer drift, tree planting, excessive burning, and ATV use.

B-rank: Site has a structure and composition similar to that of an A-rank occurrence, but has altered species abundances and richness due to moderate levels of degradation, such as persistent overgrazing, poorly-timed haying, woody plant invasion, minor wetland drainage, fertilizer drift, minor herbicide exposure, invasive species, tree planting, or low to moderate ATV use.

C-rank: The site is still dominated by native species, but has undergone heavy human-caused degradation, such as long-term overgrazing, wetland drainage, fire suppression, repeated herbicide treatment, siltation, invasive species invasion, or tree planting.

D-rank: The site has been highly degraded and the native vegetation has been severely altered, but enough native species are still present so that the occurrence can still be recognized as the community type it was prior to being degraded.

NR: Not Ranked

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 172

APPENDIX 7. COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF RESOURCES OF CONCERN FOR THE DETROIT LAKES WMD USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN Common Name Scientific Name LOONS Common Loon* Gavial simmer rare/ X Dec

GREBES Pied-billed Grebe* Podilymbus X X X X X podiceps Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus X X X X High Thr X Concern Red-necked Grebe* Podiceps X grisegena Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Mod X Concern Western Grebe* Aechmophorus High X occidentalis Concern Clark's Grebe* Aechmophorus X Low Risk clarkii

PELICANS American White Pelecanus Mod SpC X Pelican* erythrorhynchos Concern

HERONS & BITTERNS American Bittern* Botaurus X X X X X High rare/ X lentiginosus Concern dec Least Bittern* Ixobrychus exilis X X X Very rare/ X High dec

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 173

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN Concern Great Blue Heron* Ardea herodias Mod Concern Black-crowned Night Nycticorax Mod rare/ X Heron* nycticorax Concern dec Green Heron* Butorides Low Risk virescens Great Egret* Ardea alba Low Risk Snowy Egret Egretta thula Low Risk Cattle Egret* Bubulcus ibis Low Risk White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi Low Risk

DUCKS, GEESE, SWANS Greater white-fronted Anser albifrons Goose Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Ross' Goose Chen rossii Canada Goose* Branta canadensis X Trumpeter Swan* Cygnus buccinator X X X X rare/ Thr X dec Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Wood Duck* Aix sponsa X X X Gadwall* Anas strepera X X American Wigeon* Anas americana X X American Blackduck Anas rubripes x X Mallard* Anas X X X platyrhynchos Blue-winged Teal* Anas discors X X Northern Shoveler* Anas clypeta X X

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 174

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN Northern Pintail* Anas acuta X x X X Green-winged Teal* Anas crecca X Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera Canvasback* Aythya valisineria X X Redhead* Aythya americana X X Ring-necked Duck* Aythya collaris X X Greater Scaup Aythya marila X x Lesser Scaup* Aythya affinis X x X X Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Common Goldeneye Bucephala X clangula Hooded Merganser* Lophodytes X X cucullatus Common Merganser Mergus merganser Red-breasted Mergus serrator Merganser Ruddy Duck* Oxyura X jamaicensis

HAWKS & EAGLES Bald Eagle* Haliaeetus X X X x X SpC X leucocephalus Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos x Northern Harrier* Circus cyaneus X X rare/ X dec Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis SpC rare/ X dec Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus rare/ SpC X dec Swainson's Hawk* Buteo swainsonii X X X rare/ X

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 175

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN dec Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Broad-winged Hawk* Buteo platypterus Red-tailed Hawk* Buteo jamaicensis Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Sharp-shinned Hawk* Accipiter striatus Cooper's Hawk* Accipiter cooperii Osprey* Pandion haliaetus

FALCONS Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus X X X rare/ Thr X dec Prairie Falcon Falco peregrinus American Kestrel* Falco sparverius Merlin Falco columbarius Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus

UPLAND GAME BIRDS Greater Prairie Tympanuchus X X X SpC X Chicken* cupido Sharp-tailed Grouse* Tympanuchus X phasianellus Ruffed Grouse* Bonasa umbellus Wild Turkey* Mealagris gallopavo

RAILS & COOTS Yellow Rail* Coturnicops X X X x X X X X High rare/ SpC X noveboracensis Concern dec

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 176

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN Virginia Rail* Rallus limicola X Mod X Concern Sora* Porzana carolina X X Low Risk American Coot* Fulica americana X Low Risk Common Moorhen Gallinula Low Risk rare/ SpC X chloropus dec

CRANES Sandhill Crane* Grus canadensis X Low Risk

SHOREBIRDS Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis Mod- M squatarola American Golden Pluvialis dominica High-M X X Plover Semipalmated Plover Charadrius Mod-M semipalmatus Killdeer* Charadrius Mod-B, M vociferus American Avocet Recurvirostra High-B, M X americana Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Mod-M Greater Yellowlegs Tringa Mod-M rare/ X melanoleuca dec Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria X X X Mod-M Willet Tringa Moderate semipalmata Spotted Sandpiper* Actitis macularius Mod-B, M Upland Sandpiper* Bartramia X X X High-B, M X rare/ X longicauda dec Whimbrel Numenius X High-M rare/ X

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 177

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN phaeopus dec Hudsonian Godwit Limosa X X X High-M X X rare/ X haemastica dec Marbled Godwit* Limosa fedoa X X X x High-B, M X X X X rare/ SpC X dec Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres High-M X Red Knot Calidris canutus X X Low-M X Sanderling Calidris alba Low-M X Semipalmated Calidris pusilla x High-M X X X Sandpiper Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Mod-M White-rumped Calidris fuscicollis High-M X X X Sandpiper Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii Mod-M Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Mod-M Dunlin Calidris alpina High-M X X Stilt Sandpiper Calidris Mod-M X rare/ himantopus dec Buff-breasted Tryngites X X X x High-M X rare/ X Sandpiper subruficollis dec Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus X X X Moderate rare/ X griseus dec Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus Mod-M scolopaceus Common Snipe* Gallinago Mod-M X gallinago American Woodcock* Scolopax minor x High-B, M X rare/ X dec Wilson's Phalarope* Phalaropus High-B, M X X X rare/ Thr X tricolor dec Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus Mod-M lobatus

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 178

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN

GULLS/TERNS Franklin's Gull Leucophaeus X X High SpC X pipixcan Concern Herring Gull Larus argentatus Low Risk Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia Low Risk Ring-billed Gull Larus Low Risk delawarensis Caspian Tern Hydroprogne Mod caspia Concern Common Tern Sterna hirundo SpC X X Mod rare/ Thr X Concern dec Forster's Tern* Sterna forsteri Low Risk rare/ SpC X dec Black Tern* Chlidonias niger SpC X X X x X X High rare/ X Concern dec

DOVES Mourning Dove* Zenaida macroura X

CUCKOOS Black-billed Cuckoo* Coccyzus X X X X X rare/ X erythropthalmus dec Yellow-billed Cuckoo* Coccyzus americanus

OWLS Long-eared Owl Asio otus rare/ dec Short-eared Owl* Asio flammeus X X X X X rare/ SpC X dec

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 179

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN Eastern Screech-Owl* Otus asio Great Horned Owl* Bubo virginianus Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca Barn Owl Tyto alba Barred Owl* Strix varia Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus Northern Saw-whet Aegolius acadicus Owl Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia x End X

NIGHTHAWKS & NIGHTJARS Common Nighthawk* Chordeiles minor X Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus X rare/ X vociferus dec

SWIFTS Chimney Swift* Chaetura pelagica

HUMMINGBIRDS Ruby-throated Archilochus Hummingbird* colubris

KINGFISHERS Belted Kingfisher* Ceryle alcyon

WOODPECKERS Red-headed Melanerpes X X X X X X rare/ X Woodpecker* erythrocephalus dec

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 180

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN Red-bellied Melanerpes Woodpecker* carolinus Yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius X Sapsucker* Northern Flicker* Colaptes auratus X rare/ dec Black-backed Picoides arcticus X Woodpecker Pileated Woodpecker* Dryocopus pileatus Downy Woodpecker* Picoides pubescens Hairy Woodpecker* Picoides villosus

FLYCATCHERS and KINGBIRDS Eastern Wood-pewee* Contopus virens X Eastern Phoebe* Sayornis phoebe Least Flycatcher* Empidonax X minimus Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi X X rare/ X dec Willow Flycatcher* Empidonax traillii X X X Great Crested Myiarchus crinitus Flycatcher* Western Kingbird* Tyrannus verticalis Eastern Kingbird* Tyrannus tyrannus Say's Pheobe* Sayornis saya

SHRIKES Loggerhead Shrike* Lanius SpC X X X rare/ Thr X

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 181

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN ludovicianus dec Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor

VIREOS White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius Warbling Vireo* Vireo gilvus Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus Red-eyed Vireo* Vireo olivaceus Yellow-throated Vireo* Vireo flavifrons

CROWS and JAYS Blue Jay* Cyanocitta cristata Black-billed Magpie* Pica pica American Crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos Common Raven Corvus corax

LARKS Horned Lark* Eremophila alpestris

SWALLOWS and MARTINS Northern Rough- Stelgidopteryx X winged Swallow* serripennis Purple Martin* Progne subis Tree Swallow* Tachycineta

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 182

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN bicolor Barn Swallow* Tyto alba Bank Swallow* Riparia riparia Cliff Swallow* Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

CHICKADEES and TITMICE Black-capped Poecile atricapillus Chickadee* Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonicus X

NUTHATCHES Red-breasted Sitta canadensis Nuthatch* White-breasted Sitta carolinensis Nuthatch*

CREEPERS Brown Creeper* Certhia americana

WRENS House Wren* Troglodytes aedon X Sedge Wren* Cistothorus X X X rare/ X platensis dec Marsh Wren* Cistothorus X X X X palustris Winter Wren Troglodytes X troglodytes

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 183

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN KINGLETS Golden-crowned Regulus satrapa Kinglet Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Blue-gray Gnatcatcher* Polioptila caerulea

THRUSHES Eastern Bluebird* Sialia sialis American Robin* Turdus migratorius Veery* Catharus X fuscescens Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus rare/ dec Wood Thrush* Hylocichla X x X X mustelina Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius X Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus

MOCKINGBIRDS and THRASHERS Gray Catbird* Dumetella carolinensis Brown Thrasher* Toxostoma rufum X X Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos

PIPITS American Pipit Sprague's Pipit* Anthus spragueii Can X x X End X

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 184

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN

WAXWINGS Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus Cedar Waxwing* Bombycilla cedrorum

WARBLERS Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora SpC X X x X rare/ X chrysoptera dec Cape May Warbler Setophaga tigrina X Bay-breasted Warbler Setophaga X X castanea Ovenbird* Seiurus X aurocapilla Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis rare/ X dec Canada Warbler Cardellina X X rare/ X canadensis dec Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora X X X X cyanoptera Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina Orange-crowned Vermivora celata Warbler Nashville Warbler* Vermivora ruficapilla Northern Parula* Parula americana Yellow Warbler* Dendroica petechia Chestnut-sided Dendroica

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 185

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN Warbler* pensylvanica Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia Common Yellowthroat* Geothlypis trichas Black-throated Blue Setophaga X Warbler caerulescens Yellow-rumped Dendroica Warbler coronata Black-throated Green Dendroica virens Warbler* Blackburnian Warbler* Setophaga fusca Pine Warbler* Dendroica pinus Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum Mourning Warbler* Geothlypis philadelphia Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata Cerulean Warbler Setophaga cerulea SpC X X x SpC X Black-and-white Mniotilta varia Warbler* American Redstart* Setophaga ruticilla Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria X rare/ X citrea dec

TANAGERS Scarlet Tanager* Piranga olivacea

SPARROWS Baird's Sparrow Ammodramus X X End X bairdii Clay-colored Sparrow* Spizella pallida X X

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 186

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN Field Sparrow* Spizella pusilla rare/ X dec Vesper Sparrow* Pooecetes X X gramineus Grasshopper Sparrow* Ammodramus X x X X rare/ X savannarum dec Henslow's Sparrow* Ammodramus SpC X X x X X X rare/ End X henslowii dec Le Conte's Sparrow Ammodramus X X rare/ X leconteii dec Nelson's Sharp-tailed Ammodramus X X X X X rare/ SpC X Sparrow nelsoni dec Swamp Sparrow* Melospiza X georgiana White-throated Zonotrichia X Sparrow albicollis Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Harris’s Sparrow Zonotrichia querula White-crowned Zonotrichia Sparrow leucophrys Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea Chipping Sparrow* Spizella passerina Savannah Sparrow* Passerculus sandwichensis Song Sparrow* Melospiza melodia Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Eastern Towhee* Pipilo erythrophthalmus

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 187

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN Dickcissel Spiza americana X X X X X rare/ X dec Smith’s Longspur Calcarius pictus X X X Chestnut-collared Calcarius ornatus X X X Longspur* Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis

FINCHES, GROSBEAKS, BUNTINGS Purple Finch* Carpodacus purpureus Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea Hoary Redpoll Carduelis hornemanni Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus American Goldfinch* Carduelis tristis Indigo Bunting* Passerina cyanea Painted Bunting Passerina ciris x Northern Cardinal* Cardinalis cardinalis Rose-breasted Pheucticus X Grosbeak ludovicianus

BLACKBIRDS &

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 188

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN ORIOLES Bobolink* Dolichonyx X x X X rare/ X orizivorus dec Eastern Meadowlark* Sturnella magna rare/ X dec Western Meadowlark* Sturnella neglecta X rare/ dec Rusty Blackbird Euphagus X X x X X carolinus Orchard Oriole* Icterus spurius rare/ dec Red-winged Blackbird* Icterus spurius Brewer’s Blackbird* Euphagus cyanocephalus Common Grackle* Quiscalus quiscula Yellow-headed Xanthocephalus Blackbird* xanthocephalus Baltimore Oriole* Icterus galbula

MAMMALS Prairie Vole Microtus SpC X ochrogaster Least Weasel Mustela nivalis SpC X Northern Grasshopper Onychomys X Mouse leucogaster Plains Pocket Mouse Pergonathus SpC X flavenscens Western Harvest Reithrodontomys X Mouse magalotis Franklin’s Ground Spermophilus X Squirrel franklinii Richardson’s Ground Spermophilus X

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 189

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN Squirrel richarsonii American Badger Taxidea taxus X Mountain Lion Felis concolor SpC Elk Cervus elaphus X Moose Alces alces SpC Gray Wolf Canis lupus X Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus SpC Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus SpC Northern Long-eared Myotis Can Bat septentrionalis

REPTILES Western Hognose Heterdon nasicus SpC X Snake Smooth Green Snake Liochlorophis X vernalis Common Snapping Chelydra X Turtle serpentine

AMPHIBIANS Northern Leopard Frog Lithobates (Rana) SpC pipiens Common Mudpuppy Necturus X maculosus

FISH Lake Sturgeon-inland Acipenser rare/ SpC X population fulvescnes dec Least Darter Etheostoma SpC X microperca

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 190

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN Greater Redhorse Moxostoma X valenciennesi Pugnose Shiner Notropis SpC X anogernus

MUSSELS Threeridge Amblema plicata Rec Zebra Mussel Dreissena N polymorpha Creek Heelsplitter Lasmigona SpC X compressa Fluted-shell Lasmigona SpC X costata Black Sandshell Ligumia recta rare/ SpC X dec Mapleleaf Quadrula Rec quadrula

INSECTS Red-tailed Prairie Aflexia rubranura SpC X Leafhopper Arogos Skipper Atrytonearogos SpC SpC X Ghost Tiger Beetle Cicindela limbata End X nympha Sandy Tiger Beetle Cicindela patruela SpC patruela Assiniboia Skipper Hesperia comma End X assiniboia Dakota Skipper Hesperia dacotae Can rare/ Thr X dec Leonard’s Skipper Hesperia SpC leonardus

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 191

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN Pawnee Skipper Hesperia X leonardus Lakota Garita Skipper Oarisma garita X Poweshiek Skipperling Oarisma Can rare/ End X Poweshiek dec Varuna Arctic Oeneis uhleri End X varuna A Caddisfly Oxyethira SpC X ecorunuta A Caddisfly Oxyethira itascae SpC X Blazing Star Stem Borer Papaipema X beeriana Regal Fritillary Speyeria idalia SpC X

SPIDERS A Jumping Spider Metaphidippus SpC arizonensis

CRUSTACEANS Rusty Crayfish Orconectes N rusticus

SNAILS Delicate Vertigo Vertigo bollesiana rare/ dec Snail (no common Vertigo cristata rare/ name) dec Six Whorl Vertigo Vertigo morsei rare/ dec Mystery Vertigo Vertigo paradoxa rare/ dec

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 192

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN

VASCULAR PLANTS Indian Ricegrass Achnatherum End hymenoides Narrow-leaved Water Alisma SpC Plantain gramineum Small-leaved Pussytoes Antennaria SpC parvifolia Red Three-awn Aristada purpurea SpC var. longiseta Oat Grass Avenula hookeri SpC Prairie Moonwort Botrychium SpC campestre Mingan Moonwort Botrychium SpC minganense Goblin Fern Botrychium SpC mormo Pale Moonwort Botrychium End pallidum Least Moonwort Botrychium SpC simplex Plains Reedgrass Calamagrostis SpC montanensis Hall’s Sedge Carex hallii SpC Hooker’s Sedge Carex hookerii SpC Blunt Sedge Carex obtusata SpC Northern Singlespike Carex scirpoidea SpC Sedge Sterile Sedge Carex sterilis Thr Dryland Sedge Carex xerantica SpC Hill’s Thistle Cirsium hillii SpC SpC

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 193

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN Twig-rush Cladium SpC mariscoides Ram’s-head Lady’s Cypripedium Thr Slipper arietinum Small White Lady’s Cypripdium SpC Slipper candidum Western White Prairie Dalea candida var. SpC Clover oligophylla English Sundew Drosera anglica SpC Linear-leaved Sundew Drosera linearis SpC Few-flowered Elocharis SpC Spikerush quinqueflora Beaked Spikerush Eleocharis Thr rotellata Wolf’s Spikerush Eleocharis wolfii SpC End Blanketflower Gaillardia aristata SpC Northern Gentian Gentiana affinis SpC Felwort/Autumn Dwarf Gentianella SpC Gentian amarelle spp. acuta Northern Oak Fern Gymnocarpium SpC robertianum Rydberg’s Sunflower Helianthus SpC nuttallii spp. rydbergii Creeping Juniper Juniperus SpC horizontalis Rock Minuartia SpC Sanwort/Stitchwort dawsonensis Clustered Broomrape Orobanche SpC fasciculate

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 194

USFWS BCC U.S. Prairie PIF Audubon NA

2008 Shore- Pothole NT Watchlist Water-

Spec

Birds bird Plan JV 2007 bird Plan

. Thru ,

MSH 2002 MSH

Mug -

2004 -

R3 23 11

-

- -

Priority BCR Refuge Purpose or E, T, C Fed BCR FWS USFWS Focal Spp. NPPP PPJV R3 PPP LLC 2009 1998 Spp. Red Yellow NPPP R3 RCP State End, Spec MN SGCN Louisiana Broomrape Orobanche SpC ludoviciana var. ludoviciana Chilean Sweet Cicely Osmorhiza End berteroi Gray Ragwort Packera cana End American Ginseng Panax SpC quinquifolius Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera Thr Thr End Orchid praeeclara Oak’s Pondweed Potamogeton End oakesianus Hair-like Beak Rush Rhynchospora Thr capillacea Wigeon Grass Ruppia cirrhosa SpC Short-beaked Sagittaria End Arrowhead brevirostra Mc Calla’s Willow Salix maccalliana SpC Whorled Nutrush Scleria verticillata Thr Beaked Skeletonweed Shinnersoseris Thr rostrata Drummond’s Campion Silene drummondii SpC spp. Drummondii Shortray Fleabane Trimorpha SpC lonchophylla Purple Sand-grass Triplasis purpurea SpC Hidden-fruit Urticularia Thr Bladderwort geminiscapa *Breeding Birds in the District

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 195

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 196

APPENDIX 8. POTENTIAL FOCAL SPECIES SELECTION METHOD (USFWS, REGION 3 DIVISION OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2013, UNPUBLISHED) As a part of Comprehensive Conservation Planning, National Wildlife Refuges are charged with identifying their Resources of Concern (ROC)—species or groups of species that are considered high conservation priorities for management. The process begins by compiling comprehensive lists of refuge species by taxa. These lists are then refined through a series of filters to arrive at a subset of potential focal species that the planning team evaluate for selection. The following paragraphs describe the process used to create an ROC list for Patoka National Wildlife and fish Refuge and Wildlife Management Area.

Comprehensive lists of refuge species are assembled for each taxon using all available relevant sources of information. Published sources for all taxa include refuge CCP species lists (2001), Minnesota State Wildlife Action Plan Species of Greatest Conservation Need lists (2005), Minnesota state and federal and FWS Region 3 threatened and endangered species lists, MN DNR Rare Species lists for counties including the refuge and surrounding counties, as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Midwest Region Conservation Priorities list (2002).

Taxa specific information sources also prove invaluable. Birds of Conservation Concern for Region 3 and priority species for BCR 11 (2008), Partners in Flight (PIF) physiographic region 40 Northern Tallgrass Prairie (2000), and the American Bird Conservancy WatchList (2007) were used for bird assessment. The Upper Mississippi River Great Lakes Region Joint Ventures All Bird Plan (2007) priority species lists as well as the Joint Ventures Prairie Potholes Waterbird (2007), Shorebird (2006), and Landbird (2007) Plan information and the FWS FY 2012-2016 Focal Species (2011) list were also used.

Web based taxa specific resources were valuable for other taxa. State and regional rank lists for herpatofauna are obtained from the Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC) and range information from the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center’s National Amphibian Atlas as well as field guides. Fish range information was found at the USGS Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species site and at the USGS NPWRC Online Biological Resources site. Range maps and habitat for Mussels used found at the Illinois Natural History Survey’s Field guide to Freshwater mussels of the Midwest . Snail distribution was obtained from FWS species accounts for threatened and endangered species. The Xerces Society provides important information on butterflies and moths. Odonata information came from The MN DNR “Odonata of Special Concern” list and range information from the International Odonata Research Institute Odonata Information Network. State threatened and endangered plant species lists and the Minnesota noxious plant lists were obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture PLANTS Database. Headers and footnotes in this document include all sources and relevant web addresses.

Initial comprehensive species lists for the refuge are lengthy and provide useful reference information on all potential refuge species and status listings. They require monitoring, updating, and other maintenance as additional information is found or comes available over time. From the initial

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 197 comprehensive species lists, a number of filters are applied to arrive at a list of potential focal species for a refuge.

First cuts for taxa are based on a basic assessment of importance—a species is cut if not included on any of the threatened and endangered status, conservation need or priority lists for that taxa.

A second round of cuts is made based on the species’ probability of occurrence using range maps and refuge species lists. Species removed from consideration include those that are unlikely to occur on the refuge and species too common to list in SWAP plans. Only accidental waterfowl species are cut during this initial assessment regardless of conservation status because of their importance to the Service mission.

Birds, except waterfowl, were filtered a third time. In this round of cuts birds that were not a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the MN SWAP.

Potential focal bird species were selected based on species importance on bird specific lists and on presence in or near Rydell NWR (Polk Co surrounding counties)

In other taxa that were filtered a third time, the cuts were based on relatively few or low ranking appearances on SWAP, T & E or other lists. And, again, species appearing on a relatively high number of priority lists, concern and status lists and known or possible in the refuge or surrounding areas were selected as potential focal species.

A final evaluation and refinement of the list is made by the planning team using local knowledge, input from refuge staff, and consultation with local taxon-specific experts. At this point additional species may be cut if they are considered less important or less useful as focal species; also, previously cut species may be reconsidered for selection as focal species if they meet the necessary criteria. Once the final focal species selections have been made, a list of other benefitting species is compiled identifying additional species that may benefit from management and monitoring of the selected focal species.

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 198

APPENDIX 9. LIST OF POTENTIAL PRIORITY RESOURCES OF CONCERN FOR THE DETROIT LAKES WMD Reptiles/ Birds Mammals Amphibians Invertebrates Plants Greater Prairie Plains Pocket Smooth Green Small White Mallard Regal Fritillary Chicken Mouse Snake Lady’s Slipper Blue-winged Northern Franklin’s Plains Hognose Blanket Varuna Arctic Teal Harrier Ground Squirrel Snake Flower Richardson’s Northern Gadwall Short-eared Owl Sterile Sedge Ground Squirrel Leopard Frog Northern Black-billed Chilean Sweet

Shoveler Cuckoo Cicely Ring-necked Red-headed

Duck Woodpecker Eastern Wood Redhead Peewee Canvasback Least Flycatcher

Lesser Scaup Sedge Wren Clay-colored Ruddy Duck Sparrow Le Conte’s Wood Duck Sparrow Hooded Grasshopper

Merganser Sparrow Swamp Virginia Rail Sparrow Western Yellow Rail Meadowlark American Bobolink Bittern Black-crowned Rose-breasted

Night Heron Grosbeak Greater

Yellowlegs Marbled

Godwit Upland

Sandpiper Wilson’s

Phalarope Black Tern

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 199

APPENDIX 10. BASELINE INVENTORY RAPID ASSESSMENT (DRAFT FOR PRAIRIE HABITATS) Upland Habitat Inventory

Refuge or WPA Tract Field

Date______Observers ______

Remnant Prairie High Diversity Seeded (post-1995) Low Diversity Seeded (pre-1995)

Go-back Oak Savanna Other Date/Seeding method______

Estimated Average Litter Depth:

0-7.5 cm (0-3in) >7.5 cm (>3 in)

Cover of Native Herbaceous Vegetation (circle):

0-5% 6-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

Dominant Nonnative Herbaceous Vegetation (circle):

Smooth Brome Kentucky Bluegrass Reed Canarygrass Other ______

Cover of Woody Vegetation <2m tall (<6.5ft; circle):

0-5% 6-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

Cover of Woody Vegetation > 2m tall (>6.5ft; circle):

0-5% 6-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

List any Woody Species of Concern:

List any Nonnative Herbaceous Vegetation of Concern:

Native Indicator Species of Prairie (Circle any that apply)

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 200

Wet Prairie WPn53 Mesic Prairie UPn23 Dry Prairie UPn12 Seedings Yellow Star Grass Silverleaf Scurfpea Alumroot P. prairie clover Hypoxis hirsuta Pediomelum Heuchera richardsonii Dalea purpurea argophyllum Riddell’s Goldenrod White prairie clover Dotted Blazingstar Max. Sunflower Solidago riddellii Dalea candida Liatris punctata Helianthus maximiliani Sawtooth Sunflower Prairie Phlox Hairy Golden Aster Wild Bergamot Helianthus grosseserratus Phlox pilosa Chrysopsis villosa Monarda fistulosa Grass-leaved Goldenrod Wood Lily Pasqueflower Golden alexanders Euthamia graminifolia Lilium philadelphicum Anemone patens Zizia aurea Spotted Water Hemlock Hoary Puccoon Prairie Smoke Stiff Goldenrod Cicuta maculata Lithospermum Geum triflorum Solidago rigida canescens Prairie Cordgrass Blazingstar spp. Silky Aster Purple Meadow Rue Spartina pectinata Liatris spp. Aster sericeus Thalictrum dasycarpum White Camass Prairie Onion Prairie Turnip Northern Bedstraw Zigadenus elegans Allium stellatum Pediomelum Galium boreale esculentum Swamp Lousewort Bastard Toadflax Field Chickweed Thimbleweed Pedicularis lanceolata Comandra umbellata Cerastium arvense Anemone cylindrica

Northern Bog Violet Flodman’s Thistle Junegrass Gray-headed Viola nephrophylla Cirsium flodmanii Koeleria pyramidata Coneflower Ratibida pinnata Heart-leaved Alexanders Harebell Ground Plum Native Warm Zizia aptera Campanula Astragalus crassicarpus Season Grasses rotundifolia Bog Birch Indian Paintbrush Blanketflower Native Cool Season Betula pumila Castilleja coccinea Gaillardia aristata Grasses

Additional Indicator Spp. (see Red Book or Seed Mix List, if seeding)

______

Other Notable Habitats or Features (attach map):

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 201

• Please use the symbols on your map to indicate the following plant communities if present and if there are obvious changes: NP- Native Prairie OR UPn53 UPn23 UPn12 GoB-Go Back

HS- Hand Seeding OS- Oak Savanna T-trees S- Shrubs F- fen

• Please use the symbols on your map to indicate the following invasive species: P-Parsnip CV- Crown Vetch LS-leafy spurge BF-Bird’s Foot Trefoil CT-Common Tansy

PL-Purple Loosestrife Th- Thistle spp. (can identify) RCG-reed canarygrass

Notes or other information:

______

______

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 202

APPENDIX 11. LONG-TERM RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (DRAFT)

WPA or Refuge Unit Priority Ranking (L,M,H) Tract (if applicable) Field (if applicable)

County Township Range Sec Acreage Date of Plan

Author/s

General Summary of Site Assessment (see attached for full document):

Target Native Plant Community/ties (See NPC of MN Series books): Consideration should be given to location, soils, topography, hydrology, existing vegetation, and any other pertinent factors that could affect long-term success.

Applicable Habitat Management Plan Objectives

Proposed timetable for implementing the restoration activities Include building/structure removal, site preparation, establishment of diverse plant species, maintenance, and additional enhancement to establish the restoration. Activity/Staff Timeline Describe specific work activities Funding and Source Responsible (month/year)

Long-term maintenance and management needs and how financed Need Timeframe Funding Source

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 203

Attach maps, species lists and additional pages as needed. Include any other comments

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 204

APPENDIX 12. RAPID ASSESSMENT FOR POTENTIAL OAK SAVANNA PRESENCE

Oak Savanna Assessment-DLWMD Site:

YES NO Comments/Verification

GLO HISTORICAL

1930s photos

Marschner

Background HISTORIC/NATIVE VEG Eco-Section

Kuchler

Complex and SOILS parent soil

Oaks Present?

BUR OAK CRITERIA Open Grown?

ASSESSMENT Shade Pruning? SITE VISIT AND AND VISIT SITE

Large, Cut

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 205

stumps?

Pole Oaks? (lack of light)

Fire Sensitive FIRE INTOLERANT WOODY VEG Tree spp?

Native & non- SHRUB LAYER native Shrubs and location

Fuel Matrix ?

Prairie Spp and location HERBACEOUS LAYER

Spring Woodland Flowers and location

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 206

APPENDIX 13. SAMPLE WETLAND RESTORATION TRACKING LOG (Filled out by USFWS) _COUNTY Site

Basin #: Watershed Size (acres): Average Diameter (feet): Acres:

Lat. (DD): Long. (DD):

DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE: ______

Inspection Date:______Inspected By:______

INSPECTOR’S COMMENTS: ___O Completed per instructions.______

O Excellent O Very Good O Good O Poor Construction

O Needs additional work described as follows --

(Filled out by Contractor) On Site Date: ______Trackhoe Hrs. @ /Hr. = ______

______D-4 Dozer Hrs.@ /Hr. = ______Skidsteer Hrs. @ /Hr. = ______

______D-6 Dozer Hrs.@ /Hr. = ______Materials ______Cost______

Mobilization Cost______TOTAL COST FOR THIS SITE______

CONTRACTOR’S COMMENTS______

Completion Date: ______Contractor: ______

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 207

APPENDIX 14. MASTER FIRE MANAGEMENT SPREADSHEET (SAMPLE PORTION). DL FIRE DISTRICT MASTER BURN PLANNING

WPA FINAL BECKY STACY

NEXT SHAWN

SUBUNIT BURNED IN BURN UP FOLLOW WOOD SEED HAR SEED INTER RELEASE PREP WEED PRIORITY TOOL GRASS BIRD RANK BECKER COUNTY West 2004 2006 2015 15 10 Due to mechnical treatment 2015 is earliest we would burn anything here. 2010

Anderson Indian Grass 15 10

East 2006 2010 2015 15 10

East 05 2007 2011 2016 15 10 East - Prairie Knob needs mechanical cutting in 2015

Arneson West 2003 2008 2018 15 10 2013 2002 2007 13 10 Parsnip!!! Low priority for 2014 Audubon L LL

East Side 2002 2007 2019 16 7 Fall 2013 or low priority for 2014 L LL Axberg Lake 2014 West Side 2008 2013 16 7 South 1/2 2009 2014 22 9 No for 2014 Bakken North 1/2 22 9 Balke Lake All 2010 2015 17 3 East 2007 2012 14 11 High for 2015. Woody follow up. Bay Lake West 2006 2007 2012 14 11 South 2007 2014 2019 13 10 M LL Low 2014 Wildfire in 2014 Boyer Lake North 2006 2017 2019 13 10 M LL Low 2014 Wildfire in 2014 Brandy Lake 2002 2010 2015 17 9 No for 2014 North 2011 2016 14 8 Buchl South 2011 2016 14 8 Clark NO BURN 19 7 Davis 2006 2013 13 No for 2014 Detroit NO BURN 25 6 Mountain 2003 2008 2018 18 5 Dibley 2013 Donley/Tilman 2003 2012 2017 14 9 Dunham 2003 2008 23 11 No for 2014. Long Term Haying with local cooperator East 2009 2014 24 8 M LL Low 2014 Erickson West 2009 2011 24 8 No 2014 Haugrud All 2006 2012 2017 18 4 South 2014 2019 1 15 MHHH Yes 2014 Haverkamp North 2003 2008 15 11 MHHH High priority 2014 ALL 2001 2011 2016 19 6 No for 2014 Headquaters Trail Center 2014 2019 1 CANART 2006 19 6 No for 2014 East 1/2 2005 2011 2016 10 14 No 2014 Hellicksen Part 2012 Prairie West 1/2 2011 2016 10 14 No 2014 Jacobson 2011 2016 13 9 Johnson NO BURN 2010 20 8 Kent 2004 2012 2017 11 11 East 2007 2009 2017 14 ? No for 2014 Kruger 2012 West 14 No for 2014 2005 2011 2016 13 16 2015 for woody Lage

Lake Park 2007 2013 17 4 No 2014 Larson 2011 2016 11 16 No 2014

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 208 APPENDIX 15. AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PLAN MANAGEMENT PLAN

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 209

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 210

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 211

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 212

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 213

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 214

Detroit Lakes WMD Habitat Management Plan 215