Animal community

Animal Community – Wildlife Interpretations

Landscape:

The MLRA 55A landscape is characterized by mostly nearly level to gently rolling till plains with some steep slopes adjacent to streams. The MLRA includes areas of kettle holes, kames, and moraines. MLRA 55A is considered to have a continental climate with cold winters and hot summers, low humidity, light rainfall, and much sunshine. Extremes in temperature are common and characteristic of MLRA 55A. This area supports mid- to tall-grass prairie vegetation with quaking aspen, bur oak, green ash, and willow species growing on the higher elevations in Turtle Mountain, on moraines in proximity south of Devils Lake, Pembina River Gorge, and various drainageways throughout the MLRA. Numerous depressional wetlands are ringed with quaking aspen. Complex, intermingled ecological sites create diverse grass/shrub land habitats interspersed with varying densities of linear, slope, depressional, and in-stream wetlands associated with headwater streams and tributaries of the Mouse and Pembina Rivers. MLRA 55A is located entirely within North Dakota and within the boundaries of the Prairie Pothole Region. The primary land use is cropland. Glacial Lake Souris and the Devils Lake Basin are known for exceptional fertility with major crops including corn, canola, soybeans, and small grains. Together, these two areas make up 73% of the MLRA (Glacial Lake Souris 5500 mi2, 43%; and the Devils Lake Basin 3810 mi2, 30%).

Turtle Mountain (1000 mi2 of which 405 mi2 are found in America), in the north-central part of the MLRA on the Canadian border, is approximately 1,950 to 2,541 feet (595 to 775 meters) in elevation, rising approximately 600 to 800 feet (150 meters) above the adjacent till plain. Home to an extensive forest of quaking aspen, bur oak, green ash, and willows, it has an understory of beaked hazel, with associates of chokecherry, Saskatchewan serviceberry, downy arrowwood, and rose. Turtle Mountain comprises the largest area of quaking aspen forest in North Dakota.

The Pembina Escarpment extends from the Canadian border southeast to Walhalla where the Pembina River enters the floor of the Red River Valley in MLRA 56. Mainly found on steep slopes along the Pembina River, the Pembina Gorge is in a rugged and sheltered setting with bur oak, green ash, cottonwood, and American elm. Encompassing approximately 12,500 acres, the Pembina Gorge is one of the largest uninterrupted blocks of woodlands in North Dakota. This segment of the Pembina River is the longest segment of unaltered river valley in the North Dakota.

Two major Hydrologic Unit Areas make up this MLRA. 56% of the MLRA drains into the Mouse (also known as Souris) River while 44% drains into the Red River via the Pembina or into Devils Lake (out-letting to Sheyenne River via a pump, pipeline, canal system). The North Dakota portion of the Mouse River watershed is in this MLRA. The Mouse River basin drains nearly 23,600 square miles and has a long history of flooding.

By the mid-19th century, over 75% of the MLRA had been converted from mid- to tall-grass prairie or woodland to annual crop production. To alleviate crop production loss from wetlands and overland flow, a system of shallow surface ditches, judicial ditches, and road ditches removes surface water in spring and during high rainfall events. Tile drainage systems have been or are being installed extensively throughout MLRA 55A for sub-surface field drainage to enhance annual crop production.

Historic Communities/Conditions within MLRA 55A:

The northern tall- and mixed-grass prairie along with the quaking aspen forest were disturbance-driven ecosystems with fire, herbivory, and climate functions as the primary ecological drivers - either singly or often in combination. American bison roamed MLRA 55A wintering along the Mouse River and migrating through MLRA 55A into MLRAs 56 and 55B. Many species of grassland birds, small mammals, insects, reptiles, amphibians, elk, moose, pronghorn and large herds of American bison were historically among the inhabitants adapted to this region. Roaming herbivores, as well as several small mammal and insect species, were the primary consumers linking the grassland resources to large predators such as the wolf, American black bear, grizzly bear, and smaller carnivores such as the coyote, bobcat, red fox, and raptors. Extirpated species include free-ranging American bison and gray wolf (breeding). Extinct is the Rocky Mountain locust.

Present Communities/Conditions within MLRA 55A:

This area supports natural prairie vegetation characterized by western wheatgrass, green needlegrass, needle and thread, and blue grama. Little bluestem is an important species on the more sloping and shallower soils. Prairie cordgrass, northern reedgrass, big bluestem, and wheat sedge are important species on soils with higher water tables. Western snowberry, leadplant, and prairie rose are commonly interspersed throughout the area. Native forests occur in Turtle Mountain, Pembina Gorge, moraines south of Devils Lake, woody draws, scattered tracts along the Mouse River, and in the sand dunes in west central region of the MLRA.

Over 75% of MLRA 55A has been converted to annual crop production. European influence has impacted remaining grassland, forestland, and shrubland by domestic livestock grazing, elimination of fire, tree harvest, removal of surface and subsurface hydrology via artificial drainage, and other anthropogenic factors influencing plant community composition and abundance.

Hydrological manipulation is extensive throughout the MLRA. Extensive wetland and subsurface tile drainage have taken place. Ephemeral and intermittent streams and the Mouse River have been straightened - removing sinuosity, creating isolated oxbows, and converting riparian zones to annual crop production. These anthropogenic impacts have reduced flood water detention and retention on the landscape. The results have been increasing storm water runoff sediment and nutrient loading impacting the Mouse and Des Lacs Rivers and their tributaries along with Devils Lake and other lakes within the MLRA. The installation of instream structures has reduced aquatic species movement within the MLRA. Two large dams in Saskatchewan, Canada (Rafferty on the Mouse River and the Alameda on Moose Mountain Creek, a major tributary to the Mouse River) were built, in part, to reduce flood peaks on the Mouse River. In addition, three USFWS National Wildlife Refuges were created by building two low-head dams on the Mouse River and one on the Des Lacs River in North Dakota. Numerous low-head dams are located on the Mouse and Des Lacs Rivers in North Dakota. The Eaton Irrigation Project low-head dam, located in the vicinity of Towner, North Dakota, provides flood irrigation to approximately 6,700 acres of hayland and pastureland.

The loss of the American bison and fire, as primary ecological drivers, greatly influenced the character of the remaining native plant communities and the associated wildlife moving towards a less diverse and more homogeneous landscape. Annual cropping is the main factor contributing to habitat fragmentation, reducing habitat quality for area-sensitive species. These influences fragmented the landscape, reduced or eliminated ecological drivers (fire), and introduced exotic species including smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and leafy spurge further impacting plant and animal communities.

Included in this MLRA are over 121,000 acres of National Wildlife Refuges and over 77,000 acres of waterfowl production areas owned and managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. White Horse Hill National Game Preserve is a 1,674-acre national wildlife refuge sitting on the south shores of Devils Lake, about 10 miles south of the city of Devils Lake. Numerous state-owned parks, state wildlife management areas, North Dakota Forest Service and Department of Trust Lands are found in the MLRA. Wakopa Wildlife Management Area is the largest WMA covering approximately 6,739 acres.

Some characteristic wildlife species in this area are:

Birds: Common loon, common goldeye, bufflehead, ruffed grouse, broad-winged hawk, alder flycatcher, mourning warbler, mallard, blue-winged teal, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, killdeer, eastern and western kingbird, American crow, common yellowthroat, clay-colored sparrow, vesper sparrow, red-necked grebe, Savannah sparrow, downy and hairy woodpeckers, black-capped chickadee, white-breasted nuthatch, and brown-headed cowbird.

Mammals: Northern short-tailed shrew, water shrew, beaver, muskrat, mink, long-tailed weasel, American martin, fisher, white-tailed jackrabbit, snowshoe hare, Franklin’s ground squirrel, thirteen-lined ground squirrel, northern pocket gopher, plains pocket gopher, western harvest mouse, deer mouse, meadow vole, meadow jumping mouse, western jumping mouse, coyote, red fox, racoon, American badger, striped skunk, white-tailed deer, elk, moose, and woodchuck, red squirrel, porcupine, and northern flying squirrel.

Reptiles/Amphibians: American toad, Great Plains toad, northern leopard frog, chorus frog, tiger salamander, plains garter snake, smooth green snake, wood frog, and common garter snake.

Presence of wildlife species is often determined by ecological site characteristics including grass and forb species, tree and shrub species, hydrology, aspect, and other associated ecological sites. The home ranges of a majority species are usually larger than one ecological site or are dependent on more than one ecological site for annual life requisites. Ecological sites offer different habitat elements as the annual life requisites change. Habitat improvement and creation must be conducted within the mobility limits of a known population for the species.

Insects play an important role providing ecological services for plant community development. Insects that are scavengers or aid in decomposition provide the food chain baseline sustaining the carnivorous insects feeding upon them. Many insects provide the ecological services necessary for pollination, keeping plant communities healthy and productive. Insects provide a protein food source for numerous species including grassland-nesting birds, woodpeckers, woodland edge and interior species and their young. Extensive use of insecticides for specialty crops such as soybeans, corn, and other crops has greatly reduced insects within this MLRA.

Species of Concern within MLRA 55A:

The following is a list of species considered “species of conservation priority” in the North Dakota State Wildlife Action Plan (2015) and “species listed as threatened, endangered, or petitioned” under the Endangered Species Act within MLRA 55A at the time this section was developed:

Invertebrates: Dakota skipper, monarch butterfly, and regal fritillary. Within the MLRA, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service lists 5 areas (in Rolette and McHenry Counties) as critical habitat for the Dakota skipper.

Birds: American avocet, American bittern, American kestrel, American white pelican, Baird’s sparrow, bald eagle, black tern, black-billed cuckoo, bobolink, canvasback, chestnut-collared longspur, ferruginous hawk, Franklin’s gull, grasshopper sparrow, horned grebe, LeConte’s sparrow, lesser scaup, loggerhead shrike, marbled godwit, Nelson’s sparrow, northern harrier, northern pintail, piping plover, sharp-tailed grouse, short-eared owl, Sprague’s pipit, Swainson’s hawk, upland sandpiper, western meadowlark, whooping crane, willet, Wilson’s phalarope, and yellow rail.

Mammals: American martin, Arctic shrew, big brown bat, gray fox, little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, plains pocket mouse, pygmy shrew, Richardson’s ground squirrel, river otter, and Townsend’s big-eared bat.

Amphibians/Reptiles: Canadian toad, common snapping turtle, plains hog-nosed snake, and smooth green snake.

Fish: Finescale dace, hornyhead chub, largescale stoneroller, logperch, northern pearl dace, and trout-perch.

Mussels: Black sandshell, creek heelsplitter, creeper, mapleleaf, and pink heelsplitter.

Grassland and Woodland Management for Wildlife in the MLRA 55A

Management activities within the community phase pathways impact wildlife but are essential for maintenance of healthy grassland ecosystems. Community phase, transitional, and restoration pathways are keys to long-term management within each State and between States. Timing, intensity, and frequency of these inputs can have dramatic positive or negative effects on local wildlife species. Ranchers and other land managers must always consider the long-term beneficial management effects of grassland and woodland resources in comparison to typically short-term negative effects to the habitats of individual species.

Ecological sites occur as intermingled complexes on the landscape with gradual or sometimes abrupt transitions. Rarely do ecological sites exist in large enough acreage to manage independently for wildlife. Conversion to annual cropping and fragmentation due to transportation and electrical transmission corridors and to rural housing are main causes of fragmentation. This MLRA supports ecological sites that are dominated by woody vegetation and can be located adjacent to ecological sites that support tall- to mid-statured grasses (Thin Loamy/Shallow Loamy) or are adjacent to ecological sites that support wetland vegetation (Shallow Marsh and Wet Meadow).

Management of these ecological site complexes challenges managers to properly manage the entire landscape. A management strategy for one ecological site may negatively impact an adjacent site. For example, grazing Upland Hardwood Forest or Loamy Savanna ecological sites along with herbaceous dominated Loamy Overflow ecological sites may degrade one site by under-use, favoring woody vegetation or increasing exotic cool-season grasses.

Life requisites and habitat deficiencies are determined for targeted species. Deficiencies need to be addressed along community phase, transitional, and restoration pathways as presented in specific state-and-transition models. Ecological sites should be managed and restored within the site’s capabilities to provide sustainable habitat for targeted species or species guilds. Managers also need to consider vegetative associations provided by adjacent/intermingled ecological sites for species with home ranges or life requisites that may not be provided by one ecological site. Understanding specific grassland species’ sensitivity to woody encroachment and preferred vegetative structure enables managers to determine which grassland-nesting bird species will avoid grassland habitats adjacent to Upland Hardwood Forest or Loamy Savanna ecological sites or woody dominated, Plant Community Phase 5, Loamy ecological site.

Many passerine species utilize MLRA 55A as a major migratory travel corridor. Grassland species sensitive to woody associations during nesting and brooding may utilize the woodier fragmented sites such as the Wooded State 5.0 in the Loamy ecological site during migration.

Grassland-nesting birds use various grass heights for breeding, nesting, foraging, or winter habitat. While most species use varying heights, many have a preferred vegetative stature height or sensitivity to woody vegetation. Understanding the sensitivity of grassland species to woody vegetation and preferred vegetative structure enables managers to determine which grassland-nesting bird species avoid grassland habitats adjacent to Upland Hardwood Forest or Loamy Savanna ecological sites.

The following chart provides sensitivity to woody vegetation and preferred vegetative stature heights. To see the chart please follow the hyperlink:

https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/ND/55A_Loamy_Savannah_Narrative_FINAL_Ref_FSG.pdf

Loamy Savanna Wildlife Habitat Interpretation:

Loamy Savanna ecological sites are located on moraines (Turtle Mountain and south of Devils Lake), and escarpments (Pembina Gorge). Loamy Savanna ecological sites are a tension zone. No significant water table or surface run-on influencing vegetation production occurs on this site. Associated ecological sites include Limy Subirrigated, Loamy Overflow, Thin Loamy, Shallow Marsh, and Upland Hardwood Forest. Loamy Savanna sites are located adjacent to wetlands, grasslands (native and introduced), and cropland.

Dependent upon the density of trees and shrubs, Loamy Savanna habitat features and components support woodland edge and interior birds and other wildlife species to meet their life requisites. Grassland-nesting birds avoid these ecological sites unless converted to herbaceous vegetation. Grassland-nesting birds that commonly avoid woody vegetation may have their habitat needs met depending on the degree of woody vegetation. They may also avoid adjacent ecological sites dominated by grassland vegetation when located in juxtaposition with woody vegetation. A reduction in nesting success by grassland nesting birds is likely to occur due to an increase in avian predation on adjacent herbaceous sites within or adjacent to Loamy Savanna ecological sites. These sites provide for many migratory passerines and year-round habitat for ruffed grouse and excellent winter cover for eastern screech owl, great horned owl, wild turkey, and non-migrating passerine birds such as black-capped chickadee and white-breasted nuthatch.

These forested sites provide excellent loafing, escape, and winter cover for small and large herbivores and excellent year-round habitat for American marten, snowshoe hare, elk, moose, and white-tailed deer.

Loamy Savanna ecological sites may be found in four plant community states (1.0 Reference State, 2.0 Invaded State, 3.0 Go-Back, and 4.0 Grassland state) within a local landscape. Multiple plant community phases exist within State 1.0 and 2.0. Today, these states occur primarily in response to precipitation (extended periods of above normal precipitation or drought), fire, grazing, clear cutting, hay or pasture plantings, non-use (lack of management), and other anthropogenic disturbances.

It is unlikely that plant communities with State 1.0 exist due to the invasion of exotic cool-season grasses. There is no known restoration pathway from any State back to State 1.0. Managers need to be aware of Community Pathways within State 2.0, if their goal is to maintain an oak savanna landscape.

Quaking aspen is generally not a major component of this site and is not typically managed for ruffed grouse.

1.0 Reference State – The Reference State no longer exists within MLRA 55A.

2.0 Invaded State:

Community Phase 2.1: Bur Oak-Green Ash/Wild Sarsaparilla/Sprengle’s Sedge: This plant community develops through Transition Pathway T1, due to introduction and establishment of exotic cool-season grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome and long-term elimination of fire. The transition to a bur oak dominated overstory with shade tolerant tree species such as green ash creates a closed canopy forest (80%-90%) with an understory of cool-season exotic grasses in conjunction with native wild sarsaparilla and Sprengle’s sedge. Shrub species such as chokecherry, American hazel, rose, Saskatoon serviceberry, and snowberry may be present but not prominent. Quaking aspen may still be present.

Invertebrates: Dense overstory of bur oak and green ash provide shade with little sunlight reaching flowering plants such as forbs and shrubs. Pollen and nectar sources are limited; day long shade limits use by pollinating insects. However, insects do play a role in maintaining the limited forb community and provide a forage base for woodland birds, reptiles, and rodents. Plant materials and dung in contact with mineral soil are used by lower trophic level consumers such as invertebrate decomposers, scavengers, shredders, predators, herbivores, dung beetles, and fungal feeders.

Loamy Savanna ecological sites provide habitat for a variety of butterflies. Forest openings are important areas for sunlight to reach the soil surface for forbs to produce pollen and nectar. Knutson and Post (1963) and Royer (2003) list several butterfly species associated with Turtle Mountain and found in Bottineau county, ND. Included are Arctic skipper, Hobomok skipper, roadside skipper, black swallowtail, tiger swallowtail, coral hairstreak, Edward’s hairstreak, banded hairstreak, stripped hairstreak, great spangled fritillary, Atlantis fritillary, mourning cloak, American painted lady, white admiral, Viceroy, northern pearly eye, and little wood satyr.

Birds: This plant community provides quality woodland edge and interior nesting, foraging, and escape habitats. The closed canopy provides excellent nesting opportunities for canopy nesters but limited habitat for shrub nesting birds. This site provides good hunting opportunities for woodland raptors and owls. The presence of woody plant species may increase mammalian and avian predation and may also increase brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds on adjacent grassland ecological sites.

Depending on the size of the plant community, bird species that occupy both woodland edge and interior habitats can benefit. These species include American crow, American goldfinch, American kestrel, American redstart, black-billed cuckoos, blacked-capped chickadee, blue jay, brown-headed cowbird, brown thrasher, eastern bluebird, eastern and western kingbird, eastern screech-owl, gray catbird, great horned owl, house wren, black-billed magpie, mourning dove, northern flicker, oven bird, red-eyed vireos, red-headed woodpecker red-tailed hawk, scarlet tanager, sharp-shinned hawk, wild turkey, and yellow warbler.

Older trees provide cavity nesting sites for forest birds. An increase in mast producing trees provide food for wild turkey, blue jays, and woodpeckers. Limited flowering shrubs provide insect populations for birds and their young and berries from late summer to early winter. Ruffed grouse use will be somewhat dependent upon the amount of shrub and sapling layer prevalent on the site.

Mammals: Trees and shrubs provide security and thermal cover used by elk and white-tailed deer for foraging, loafing, and rearing young-of-the-year. Multi-layer shrub/tree communities provide concealment protection from predators during parturition. Plant species provide highly nutritious forage during peak lactation, one of the most energy-demanding time periods of the year for female ungulates. Shrub and herbaceous cover may become limited, reducing thermal, protective, and escape cover for small and large herbivores including voles, mice, snowshoe hare, white-tailed deer, and elk. Hollow tree cavities provide denning and resting sites for American martens. Dead and mature trees provide cavities and loose bark for big brown bat, northern long-eared bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat. Dependent upon adjacency to permanent water, beaver will use these sites for foraging and woody material for lodge building.

Amphibians and Reptiles: This ecological site provides foraging opportunities for the northern leopard frog and Canadian toad since this site is frequently found adjacent to Wet Meadow and Shallow Marsh ecological sites.

Community Phase 2.2: Bur Oak-Green Ash/Hazel spp./Sprengle’s Sedge/Exotic Grasses: Long-term, light to moderate domestic livestock grazing leads to the decline in vigor and increased mortality of forest canopy species. Reduction in shade allows for an increased shrub component of American hazel, chokecherry, Saskatoon serviceberry, rose, and western snowberry and an increase in exotic cool-season grasses. Continued long-term grazing may cause eventual loss of taller shrubs. Western snowberry and rose may become dominant.

Invertebrates: The decrease in shade allows an increase in flowering shrubs providing pollen and nectar sources for pollinating insects. Pollinator insect diversity will be increased with an increase in flowering shrubs. However, early- and mid-season flowering shrubs will be the main source of nectar and pollen. Late season pollen sources may be limited. Fly population associated with livestock production increase in association with livestock dung.

Birds: This site mainly will be used by woodland edge bird species such as American robin, house sparrow, brown-headed cowbird, etc. Livestock grazing will reduce forest canopy, limiting use by forest interior and edge nesting birds but will not open-up the canopy for use by grassland nesting birds. Use by ruffed grouse is limited due to the lack of quaking aspen.

Mammals: This site provides limited cover for both small and large mammals. Extensive grazing limits tree regeneration, opening up the forest canopy for invasion of cool-season exotic grass and exotic forbs. Depending on the degree of grazing, limited small mammal habitat may be available. Winter thermal cover is beginning to become limited for large ungulates.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 2.1.

Fish and Mussels: Soil compaction and trailing increases bare soil and weakens tree roots leading to increased runoff and erosion. Nutrient and sediment loading increase to adjacent waterbodies.

Community Phase 2.3: Bur Oak-Green Ash/Exotic Grasses: Long-term, season-long livestock grazing eliminates recruitment of trees and shrubs and allows for cool-season exotic grasses to dominate the herbaceous component of the site. A sparse stand of bur oak and green ash allow for a forb community dominated by exotics such as black medic, white clover, red clover, common dandelion, and plantain.

Invertebrates: Pollen and nectar sources transition from flowering shrubs found in Community Phase 2.2 to exotic forbs. Exotic forbs early- and mid-season bloom periods provide pollinating insects ample pollen and nectar sources during that time. Clovers will provide nectar and pollen for a diverse pollinator insect population; however, nectar and pollen sources will be limited during late season bloom period. Fly populations associated with livestock production increase in association with livestock dung.

Birds: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 2.2. Ruffed grouse use will be limited due to long-term grazing removing the shrub and tree sapling layer within this plant community.

Mammals: Loss of shrub canopy limits cover for both small and large mammals. Extensive grazing eliminates tree and shrub regeneration opening the forest canopy for invasion of cool-season exotic grass and exotic forbs. Long-term, season-long grazing remove small mammal cover. Winter thermal cover is limited to nonexistent for large ungulates.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 2.2.

Fish and Mussels: Soil compaction and trailing increases bare soil and weakens tree roots leading to increased runoff and erosion. Sod forming exotic grasses contribute to increased runoff, increasing nutrient and sediment loading to adjacent waterbodies.

3.0 Grassland State:

Community Phase 3.1 Exotic Grasses-Native Grasses/Exotic Legumes/Native Forbs: Successful establishment of native or tame species along Transition Pathway R4B results in an herbaceous grass and forb community in State 3.0. Depending on distance to existing forested areas, tree and shrub seedlings may become established. The response by wildlife species will be dependent upon the success of the planted grasses and forbs, vegetative stature, patch size, and management activities (such as prescribed burning, inter-seeding, haying, grazing, or noxious weed control).

4.0 Go-Back State:

Community Phase 4.1: Annual/Pioneer-Perennial/Exotic Herbaceous Plants/Shrubs: This plant community phase can have a variety of herbaceous and shrub species. It is mainly derived from abandoned cropland or hayland; but clear-cutting and brush management can also result in this plant community phase. Following cessation of disturbances, the resulting plant community is dominated by early pioneer annual and perennial plant species. Plant species composition and production are highly variable. A sapling tree and shrub component may be present. Weedy plants can provide pollinator habitat along with spring and summer cover for many mammals and birds and their young. Dense weed cover can keep soils moist, increasing insect presence. Tall vegetative stature provided by weeds such as marsh elder and ragweed offer thermal cover and seeds throughout winter.

Through successful seeding and management of tame or native species along Transition Pathway R4b, this plant community can transition to a Grassland State 3.0.

Animal Community – Grazing Interpretations:

This site is not particularly well suited to managed grazing by cattle, mainly because the dense tree and shrub canopy limit light penetration necessary for forage production. Furthermore, the dense hazel underbrush discourages livestock access. However, in combination with grass dominated sites, tame pastures, or other areas of herbaceous vegetation, the site may provide important seasonal forage (i.e. early and late season), loafing areas, thermal protection, and the like.

As a result, various efforts to increase forage production have been explored. For example, to increase forage production, 100 feet along the pasture perimeter fence is cleared; not only does this clearing increase forage production this also helps to reduce fence maintenance. Once cleared, the area may be seeded (grasses/legumes), or simply allowed to grow back. Depending upon vegetation and pasture size, this perimeter clearing may produce a major portion of the forage for livestock. However, invasion of these cleared areas by exotic grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass or smooth brome may be expected. These clearings may also be colonized by noxious weeds such as Canada thistle, absinth wormwood, and leafy spurge. As a result, weed control efforts may be necessary.

Invaded State is best managed for livestock production when existing States 3.0 Go-Back State and 4.0 Grassland State or other existing non-wooded sites are incorporated into a prescribed grazing plan. It is strongly recommended that stocking rates, days of grazing, and season of use are based on site-specific inventory data since forage availability and quality varies greatly among all states on this ecological site.

NRCS defines prescribed grazing as “managing the harvest of vegetation with grazing and/or browsing animals with the intent to achieve specific ecological, economic, and management objectives.” As used in this site description, the term ‘prescribed grazing’ is intended to include multiple grazing management systems (e.g. rotational grazing, twice-over grazing, conservation grazing, targeted grazing, etc.) provided that, whatever management system is implemented, it meets the intent of prescribed grazing definition.

The basic grazing prescription addresses balancing forage demand (quality and quantity) with available forage, varying grazing and deferment periods from year-to-year, matching recovery/deferment periods to growing conditions when pastures are grazed more than once in a growing season, implementation of a contingency (e.g. drought) plan, and a monitoring plan. When the management goal is to facilitate change from one plant community phase or state to another, then the prescription needs to be designed to shift the competitive advantage to favor the native grass and forb species.

Grazing levels are noted within the plant community narratives and pathways in reference to prescribed grazing management. “Degree of utilization” is defined as the proportion of the current year’s forage production that is consumed and/or destroyed by grazing animals (may refer to a single plant species or a portion or all the vegetation). “Grazing utilization” is classified as slight, moderate, full, close, and severe (see the following table for description of each grazing use category). The following utilization levels are also described in the Ranchers Guide to Grassland Management IV. Utilization levels are determined by using the landscape appearance method as outlined in the Interagency Technical Reference “Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements” 1734-3.

Utilization Levels % Use Description
Slight (light) 0-20 Appears practically undisturbed when viewed obliquely. Only choice areas and forage utilized

Moderate 20-40 Almost all of accessible range shows' grazing. Little or no used of poor forage. Little evidence of trailing to grazing.

Full 40-60 All fully accessible areas are grazed. The major sites have key forage species properly utilized (about half taken, half left). Points of concentration with overuse limited to 5 to 10 percent of accessible area.

Close (Heavy) 60-80 All accessible range plainly shows use and major sections closely cropped. Livestock forced to use less desirable forage, considering seasonal preference.

Severe >80 Key forage species completely used. Low-value forages are dominant.

Hydrological functions

Available water is the principal factor limiting forage production on this site. This site is dominated by soils in hydrologic group B. Infiltration varies from moderately slow to moderately rapid; runoff potential varies from low to high depending upon surface texture, slope percent, slope shape, and ground cover. In many cases, areas with greater than 75% ground cover have the greatest potential for high infiltration and lower runoff. An exception would be where short grasses form a strong sod and dominate the herbaceous layer of the site. Areas where ground cover is less than 50% have the greatest potential to have reduced infiltration and higher runoff (refer to Section 4, NRCS National Engineering Handbook for runoff quantities and hydrologic curves).

Recreational uses

Over 113,000 acres of National Wildlife Refuges and over 77,000 acres of Waterfowl Production Areas owned and managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service are available for public hunting and bird watching. In addition, over 22,000 acres of North Dakota Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), approximately 8,000 acres of North Dakota Forest Service, and thousands of acres of Department of Trust Lands are scattered throughout the central and western portions of the MLRA; these areas are available for hunting and bird watching. MLRA 55A provides a unique ruffed grouse hunting opportunity in North Dakota on wildlife management areas managed by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and forest service lands managed by North Dakota Forest Service within the Turtle Mountain.

Camping: Three state parks are located within the MLRA including Lake Metigoshe State Park (Turtle Mt.), Grahams Island State Park (Devils Lake), and the newly designated Pembina Gorge State Park (formerly Pembina Gorge Recreation Area). These Parks provide hiking, biking, birding, canoeing, and wildlife viewing opportunities. Many local parks and private parks provide modern and primitive camping opportunities. The approximately 8,000 acres of North Dakota Forest Service provides primitive camping (no electric or water hookups) as well as fishing and canoeing access at various lakes. These forests and lakes provide access to swimming beaches, picnicking, and an extensive trail system open to hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, snowmobiling, and cross-country skiing (not groomed). Limited primitive camping is also available on North Dakota Game and Fish Department Wildlife Management Areas.

Hiking/Biking/Horseback Riding: Hiking is permitted on most state and federally owned lands. Developed hiking and biking trails can be found on North Dakota Forest Service lands (18.6 miles), Upper Souris NWR (4.25 miles), Des Lacs NWR (8.5 miles), J. Clark NWR (3.3 miles), White Horse Hill National Game Preserve (3.6 miles), Lake Metigoshe State Park (16 miles), and Grahams Island State Park (2.1 miles; 3 miles cross country skiing). In addition, extensive biking and walking trails are found in local county and city parks. The Turtle Mountain State Recreation Area (ND Forest Service) is located six miles northwest of Bottineau. This recreation area has over 12 miles of trails open to hiking, biking, snowshoeing, horseback riding, and OHV’s.

The Pembina Gorge State Park encompasses over 2,800 acres of public land in the Pembina River Gorge. Steep valley cliffs towering over small, isolated prairies and pocketed wetlands surrounded by the largest continuous, undisturbed forest in North Dakota provide opportunities for canoeing, kayaking, hiking, biking, horseback riding, hunting, wildlife observing, birding, and downhill and cross- country skiing. Thirty miles of trails provide snowmobiling, mountain biking, and off-highway vehicles (OHV) opportunities.

Canoeing/Kayaking: Designated canoe and kayaking trails are available within the MLRA. J. Clark Sayler NWR has 12.75 miles of designated trails on the Souris River and Pembina Gorge State Park has 14.25 miles on the Pembina River. The Pembina Gorge State Park offers kayak rentals along with kayak transportation. Lake Metigoshe State Park offers canoe and kayak rentals along with standup paddleboards, pontoons, cross country skis, snowshoes, etc.

Downhill Skiing: Downhill skiing is available at Bottineau Winter Park within Turtle Mountain and Frost Fire Park at the Pembina Gorge. Full-service rental shops are available along with alpine trails ranging from beginner to expert. Conveyor lifts on the beginner hills to chairlifts are available for skiers.

International Peace Garden: The only peace garden located on the United States/Canada border, the International Peace Garden is a 2,339-acre botanical garden commemorating peace between the United States and Canada along the world’s longest unfortified border. It blooms with more than 155,000 flowers and showcases the Peace Chapel, Peace Towers, and Floral Clock. The North American Game Wardens Museum if also located within the boundaries of the International Peace Garden.

Wood products

Several small commercial sawmills have operated in the area in the past, and limited harvesting of timber for personal use may occur (e.g. fence posts, firewood). However, at the present time commercial timber harvesting is generally considered to be uneconomical. Commercial harvesting of quaking aspen has not been economically viable largely due to heart rot (e.g. Phellinus igniarius) and distance to commercial sawmills.

Other products

Seed harvest of native plant species can provide additional income on this site.

Other information

• Additional documentation from areas of this site in the Pembina Gorge and Hills and in the moraine near Devils Lake (Spirit Lake Reservation, Graham’s Island, Camp Grafton, and Pembina Gorge areas) would be useful to confirm that all plant community states, phases, and transition pathways are adequately represented. All the required Tier 3 data has been collected in the Turtle Mountains. MLRA map units in these areas are:
 Hamerly-Wyard-Bottineau loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes (map unit 2q4g7)
 Bottineau loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (map unit 2q3wv)
 Bottineau loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes (map unit 2q3ww)
 Bottineau loam, 6 to 9 percent slopes (map unit 2q3wx)
 Bottineau loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes (map unit 2q3wy)
 Brantford-Bottineau-Buse loams, 15 to 60 percent slopes (map unit 2q5lr)
 Waukon loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (map unit 2q3x5)
 Waukon loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes (map unit 2q3x6)
 Waukon loam, 6 to 9 percent slopes (map unit 2q3x7)
• Further investigation is needed on the Waukon soils (fine-loamy, mixed, Mollic Hapludalfs). The soil has more highly developed ‘alfic properties’ than the Bottineau soils which are most representative of the Loamy Savannah ecological site. Areas of Waukon that have not been cleared should determine whether these soils would better fit the Upland Hardwood Forest ecological site.
• Further investigation is needed on the Metigoshe soils (coarse-loamy mixed, Alfic Argiudolls) which have been tentatively included in the Loamy Savannah site. They are of very limited extent. A few delineations are closely associated with Kelvin and Rolla soils on the higher elevations of Turtle Mountain. These delineations appear to have similar vegetation as the Upland Hardwood Forest site. MLRA map units to investigate are:
 Metigoshe coarse sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes (map unit 2q4vb)
 Metigoshe coarse sandy loam, 9 to 25 percent slopes (map unit 2q4vc)
• Further evaluation and refinement of the State-and-Transition model may be needed to identify disturbance driven dynamics. Additional states and/or phases may be required to address grazing response.
• Site concepts will be refined as above noted investigations are completed.
• The long-term goal is to complete an approved, correlated Ecological Site Description as defined by the National Ecological Site Handbook.

This ESD is the best available knowledge. The site concept and species composition table have been used in the field and tested for more than five years. It is expected that as additional information becomes available revisions may be required.

Inventory data references

Information presented here has been derived from NRCS and other federal/state agency clipping and inventory data. Also, field knowledge of range-trained personnel was used. All descriptions were peer reviewed and/or field-tested by various private, state, and federal agency specialists.

Other references

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.

Barker, W.T. and W. C. Whitman. 1988. Vegetation of the Northern Great Plains. Rangelands 10(6): 266-272.

Bluemle, J.P. 1985. Geology of Bottineau County, North Dakota. North Dakota Geological Survey Bulletin 78-Part I. 57 pages.

Bluemle. J.P. 2016. North Dakota’s geologic legacy. North Dakota State University Press. 382 pages.

Bluemle, J.P. 2015. Turtle Mountain. North Dakota Geology- the work of John Bluemle Ph.D. Available at http://johnbluemle.com/21-mountainous-areas-of-nd-turtle-mountain/

Briske, D.D. (editor). 2017. Rangeland systems – processes, management, and challenges. Springer Series on Environmental Management. 661 pages.

DeByle, N.V. and R.P. Winokur. 1985. Aspen: ecology and management in the western United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-119.

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 283 pages. Available at https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr119.pdf

DeKeyser, E.S., G. Clambey, K. Krabbenhoft, and J. Ostendorf. 2009. Are changes in species composition on central North Dakota rangelands due to non-use management? Rangelands 31:16-19

Dix, R.L. and F.E. Smeins. 1967. The prairie, meadow, and marsh vegetation of Nelson County, North Dakota. Canadian Journal of Botany 45:21-57.

Dornbusch, M.J., R.F. Limb, and C.K. Gasch. 2018. Facilitation of an exotic grass through nitrogen enrichment by an exotic legume. Rangeland Ecology & Management 71:691-694.

Dyke, S.R., S.K. Johnson, and P.T. Isakson. 2015. North Dakota state wildlife action plan. North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck, ND. 468 pages.

Ehrenfeld, Joan G. 2002. Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6:503-523.

Eilers, R.G., L.A. Hopkins, and R.E. Smith. 1978. Soils of the Boissevain-Melita area. Manitoba Soil Survey Report No. 20, Manitoba Department of Agriculture. Available at http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/surveys/mb/mb20/mb20_report.pdf

Ereth, C., J. Hendrickson, D. Kirby, E. DeKeyser, K. Sedevic, and M. West. Controlling Kentucky bluegrass with herbicide and burning is influenced by invasion level. Invasive Plant Science and Management 10: 80-89.

Ewing, J. 1924. Plant succession on the brush prairie in northwestern Minnesota. Journal of Ecology 12:228-266.

Gilgert, W. and S. Zack. 2010. Integrating multiple ecosystem services into ecological site descriptions. Rangelands: 32:49-54.

Grant, T.A. and R.K. Murphy. 2005. Changes on woodland cover on prairie refuges in North Dakota, USA. Natural Areas Journal 25:359-368.

Guinan, D.M, and C.S. Rewcastle. 1982. Trends of plant succession in Turtle Mountain Provincial Park. Manitoba Department Natural Resources MS Report No. 82-6. 40 pages.

Heitschmidt, R. K., K. D. Klement, and M. R. Haferkamp. 2005. Interactive effects of drought and grazing on northern great plains rangelands. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58:11-19.

Hendrickson, J.R., P. S. Johnson, M. A. Liebig, K. K. Sedivec, and G. A. Halvorson. 2016. Use of ecological sites in managing wildlife and livestock: an example with prairie dogs.

Hendrickson, J.R., S.L. Kronberg, and E.J. Scholljegerdes. 2020. Can targeted grazing reduce abundance of invasive perennial grass (Kentucky Bluegrass) on native mixed-grass prairie? Rangeland Ecology and Management, 73:547-551.

Higgins, K.F. 1984. Lightning fires in grasslands in North Dakota and in pine-savannah lands in nearby South Dakota and Montana. J. Range Manage. 37:100-103.

Higgins, K.F. 1986. Interpretation and compendium of historical fire accounts in the Northern Great Plains. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Resource Publication 161. 39 pages.

Higgins, K.F., A.D. Kruse, and J.L. Piehl. 1989. Effects of fire in the Northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Cooperative Extension Service South, Dakota State University. Extension Circular 761. 48 pages.

High Plains Regional Climate Center, University of Nebraska, 830728 Chase Hall, Lincoln, NE 68583- 0728. (http://hprcc.unl.edu)

Hoffman, G.R. and R.R. Alexander. 1987. Forest vegetation of the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming: a habitat type classification. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM- 276, 48 pages.

Johnson, Sandra. 2015. Reptiles and amphibians of North Dakota. North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 64 pages.

Jordan, N. R., D.L. Larson, and S.C. Huerd. 2008. Soil modification by invasive plants: effects on native and invasive species of mixed-grass prairies. Biological Invasions 10:177-190.

Knudson, W. and R. L. Post. 1963. Butterflies of Bottineau County. North Dakota State University Department of Agricultural Entomology. 29 pp.

Kurmis, V., and E. Sucoff. 1999. Population density and height distribution of Corylus cornuta in undisturbed forests of Minnesota: 1965-1984. Can. J. Bot. 67:2409-2413.

Lemke, Richard W., Geology of the Souris River area North Dakota Geological Survey, Professional Paper, 325 pp. Prepared as a part of a program of the Department of the Interior for development of the Missouri River Basin United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC:1960.

Mader, E., M. Shepherd, M. Vaughan, and S.H. Black. 2011. Attracting native pollinators: protecting North America's bees and butterflies. Accessed at https://xerces.org, May 1, 2017.

McCartney. D.H. 1993. History of grazing research in the aspen parkland. Canadian Journal of Botany 73:749-763.

Minnesota Department of natural Resources, Managing your woodland for ruffed grouse, Accessed on February 25, 2019; Available at https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/grouse/managing_woodland_ruffed_grouse_flat.pdf

North Dakota Division of Tourism, Accessed on February 25, 2019. Available at https://www.ndtourism.com/sports-recreation

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, Accessed on February 25, 2019. Available at http://www.parkrec.nd.gov/recreationareas/recreationareas.html

Palit, R., G. and E.S. DeKeyser. 2022. Impacts and drivers of smooth brome (Bromus inermis Leyes.) invasion in native ecosystems. Plants: 10,3390. https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/11/10/1340

Palit, R., G. Gramig, and E.S. DeKeyser. 2021. Kentucky bluegrass invasion in the Northern Great Plains and prospective management approaches to mitigate its spread. Plants: 10,817. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10040817

Potter, L.D. and D. R. Moir. 1961. Phytosociological study of burned deciduous woods, Turtle Mountains North Dakota. Ecology Vol 2, No. 3: 468-480.

Printz, J.L. and J.R. Hendrickson. 2015. Impacts of Kentucky bluegrass Invasion (Poa pratensis) on ecological processes in the Northern Great Plains. Rangelands 37(6):226-232.

Redmann, Robert E. 1975. Production ecology of grassland plant communities in western North Dakota. Ecological Monographs 45:83-106.

Reeves, J.L., J.D. Derner, M.A. Sanderson, J.R. Hendrickson, S.L. Kronberg, M.K. Petersen, and L.T. Vermeire. 2014. Seasonal weather influences on yearling beef steer production in C3-dominated Northern Great Plains rangeland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 183:110-117.

Renton, J. C. 2010. The impact of cattle grazing on aspen regeneration on crown lands in western Manitoba. M.S. thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. 130 pages.

Riffle, J.W. and G.W. Peterson. 1986. Diseases of trees in the Great Plains. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-129. 149 pages.

Royer, R. A., 2003. Butterflies of North Dakota: An Atlas and Guide. Minot State University, Minot, ND.

Schulz, J.W. 1984. Manipulation of habitat for ruffed grouse on the Wakopa Wildlife Management Area, North Dakota. Pages 109-121 In Robinson, W.L. editor. Ruffed Grouse Management, state of the art in the early 1980’s.

Proceedings of a Symposium, 45th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, St. Louis, MO. 181 pages. Available at http://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Robinson1984_RuffedGrouseManagement_300dpi.pdf

Seabloom, R. 2020. Mammals of North Dakota. North Dakota Institute for Regional Studies, Fargo, ND. 470 pages.

Sedivec, K.D., J.L. Printz. 2014. Ranchers guide to grassland management IV. NDSU Extension Service publication R1707.

Severson, K. E. and C. Hull Sieg. 2006. The nature of eastern North Dakota: pre-1880 historical ecology. North Dakota Institute for Regional Studies.

South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks. 2014. South Dakota wildlife action plan. Wildlife Division Report 2014-03.

Spaeth, K.E., Hayek, M.A., Toledo, D., and Hendrickson, J. 2019. Cool season grass impacts on native mixedgrass prairie species in the Northern Great Plains. America’s Grassland Conference: Working Across Boundaries. The Fifth Biennial Conference on the Conservation of America’s Grasslands. Bismarck, ND. 20-22 August.

Thorpe, J.P. 1978. Effects of cattle grazing on understory shrubs in Saskatchewan aspen forests. M.S. thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. 135 pages.

Tidwell, D., D.T. Fogarty, and J.R. Weir. 2021. Woody encroachment in grasslands, a guide for understanding risk and vulnerability. Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service publication E-1054. 32 pages.

Toledo, D., M. Sanderson, K. Spaeth, J. Hendrickson, and J. Printz. 2014. Extent of Kentucky bluegrass and its effect on native plant species diversity and ecosystem services in the northern great plains of the United State. Invasive Plant Science and Management 7(4): 543-552.

USDA, NRCS. 2021. National range and pasture handbook, (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb104 3084)

USDA, NRCS. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.

USDA, NRCS. National soil information system, 100 Centennial Mall North, Room 152, Lincoln, NE 68508-3866.
(https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/tools/?cid=nrcs142p2_053552)

USDA, NRCS. National water & climate center, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd, Suite 802, Portland, OR 97232- 1274. (https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/)

USDA, NRCS. 2001. The PLANTS database, version 3.1 (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA.

USDA, NRCS, Various published soil surveys.

USDI BLM.1999. Utilization studies and residual measurements. Interagency Technical Reference 1734-3.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for the Dakota skipper and Poweshiek skipperling; Vol. 79 No. Final Rule October 1, 2015, 50 CFR Part 17.

Vinton, M.A. and E.M. Goergen. 2006. Plant-soil feedbacks contribute to the persistence of Bromus inermis in tallgrass prairie. Ecosystems 9: 967-976.

Waddington, J., D.H. McCartney, and L.P. Lefkovitch. 1999. Effects of management on species dynamics of Canadian aspen parkland pastures. Journal of Range Management 52:60-67.

Weatherill, R.G., and L.B. Keith. 1969. The effect of livestock grazing on an aspen forest community. Utah State University. Department of Lands and Forests Fish and Wildlife Division Technical Bulletin No. 1. 31 pages.

Whitman, W.H., H. Hanson, and R. Peterson. 1943. Relation of drought and grazing to North Dakota range lands. North Dakota Agricultural Experimentation Bulletin 340.

Contributors

ND NRCS: David Dewald, Jonathan Fettig, Alan Gulsvig, Mark Hayek, Chuck Lura, Jeff Printz, Steve Sieler, and Hal Weiser.

Approval

Suzanne Mayne-Kinney, 5/08/2025

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Shawn Krance, Jason Sieler, Dustin Brodina, and Jody Forman for their help with data collection (ND NRCS), Henry “Chick” LaRocque NRCS tribal liaison for securing access to Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa tribal lands, and Ernie Azure and Ron Davis (Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa) for assistance with data collection and land-use history. We also gratefully acknowledge North Dakota State University: Joe Zeleznik, North Dakota Forest Service: Cody Clemenson, and Derek Lowstuter for their insight into forest management and tree and shrub species identification.

Print Options