State Wildlife Action Plan - Threats and Actions

Identifying Threats and Actions | Threats and Actions Listings by Habitat Type

Includes information on the required elements:

Element 3: descriptions of problems which may adversely affect species of greatest conservation need or their habitats, and priority research and survey efforts needed to identify factors which may assist in restoration and improved conservation of those species and habitats.

Element 4: descriptions of conservation actions determined to be necessary to conserve the species of greatest conservation need and habitats and priorities for implementing such actions.

Identifying and Highlighting Threats and Actions

North Dakota State Wildlife Action Plan Summits

For the 2015 and 2025 State Wildlife Action Plan revision, North Dakota followed Best Practices for State Wildlife Action Plans Voluntary Guidance to States for Revision and Implementation produced by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (2012). This report’s best practices recommendation for creating consistency across SWAPs for classifying threats and conservation actions was to follow definitions and classifications in A Standard Lexicon for Biodiversity Conservation: United Classifications of Threats and Actions (Salafsky et al. 2008). The Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP), in collaboration with the IUCN Species Survival Commission, developed the unified classifications as a standard language for terms used by the conservation community. The classification has been revised several times, with revisions made available in 2015 (Version 2.0) and in late 2024 (Version 4.0). Note, the ND SWAP uses only the direct threats classifications from the CMP. The conservation actions identified in Tables 29 to 33 are either proven to be effective in North Dakota or represent practical solutions to help address the identified threats.

In 2014, during the revision of the 2015 SWAP, the NDGF hosted the first State Wildlife Action Plan Summit. The summit was held to inform/update interested agencies, groups, and individuals on the status of the SWAP review and to gather additional input on important issues. In total, 62 people attended the summit from 23 agencies/groups. The summit began with background information of the SWAP, a history of the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) program in North Dakota, and the process used to revise the Species of Conservation Priority list. The afternoon session was divided into five breakout habitat groups: Grasslands; Badlands; Woodlands; Rivers and Streams; and Wetlands and Lakes. Participants were instructed to join the habitat group for which they have the most expertise. The standard lexicon (Salafsky et al. 2008) was used to categorize direct threats for the habitat type. The unified direct-threats classification is structured in a hierarchical fashion, with first and second levels being comprehensive, consistent and exclusive. Some direct threats are not applicable to North Dakota (e.g. volcanoes) and those were excluded. Thirty-five direct threats were included. Conservation actions were identified to address the specific threats. A moderator of each group led the participants in a discussion and recorded all responses. At the conclusion of the afternoon session, participants were each given five “dot stickers” to place what they consider the greatest threats among the various habitat types.

On September 11, 2024, the NDGF hosted a second State Wildlife Action Plan Summit. The meeting was attended by 62 participants from 30 different state and federal agencies and NGOs, in addition to 14 NDGF staff members who were either running the event or participating in the sessions. Similar to 2014, the summit began with a SWAP overview, the process used to revise the species of greatest conservation need list, ideas for improving the SWAP for useability, and a presentation from the North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center on incorporating climate change in the SWAP. The afternoon session was divided into five breakout habitat groups: Grasslands; Badlands; Forest; Rivers, Streams and Riparian; and Wetlands and Lakes. Participants were instructed to join the habitat group for which they have the most expertise. The direct threats and conservation action tables from the 2015 SWAP were used as a baseline for adding, removing, or modifying threats and conservation actions. The CMP 2.0 revision was used (note: version 4.0 was not made available until after the summit). Each group’s moderator facilitated a discussion and recorded all responses. The voting process took place in two stages. First, at the end of the breakout session, group members were asked to vote on the greatest threats and conservation actions for the habitat group they had joined. Then, participants gathered as a large group to vote on the greatest threats and conservation actions among all habitats. The results of the voting are shown in Figures 30 to 34 and summarize participants' perceptions of the most significant habitat threats and their recommendations for focusing conservation efforts to address those threats. Tables 29 to 33 include all threats and actions identified by the habitat breakout groups. Note the threats and actions are not listed in order of priority in the tables.

The approach of using the CMP in a habitat-based approach versus species specific approach may differ from other state’s SWAPs. Since many SGCNs share the same habitat, the North Dakota SWAP focuses on threats and conservation actions at the habitat level. Species specific threats and management recommendations are identified in the Species Accounts (see Appendices A to F).

Threats and Actions Summary - All Habitats

For all habitat types, the following are the top recurring threats:

1. Conversion of habitat - The most frequent conversion occurs when grassland is broken and transformed to annual crop production. This process often includes the conversion of small, shallow wetlands embedded within grasslands. Urban, commercial and industrial development also results in the conversion of habitat, including forests and riparian areas.
2. Invasive non-native species - The spread and proliferation of invasive or detrimental plants, noxious weeds, woody vegetation, and aquatic nuisance species negatively impact the health and resilience of native habitats.
3. Fire suppression - The lack or removal of fire in the grassland ecosystem results in woody encroachment, succession, and loss of native diversity.
4. Underutilization of grazing - The grassland ecosystem needs large grazing herbivores. The absence or underutilization of grazing in the grassland ecosystem results in succession, loss of native diversity, and loss of landscape heterogeneity.
5. Energy development impacts - Increasing demand and development of North Dakota’s abundant energy resources may result in the direct conversion of habitat, fragmentation, displacement of wildlife, and anthropogenic disturbance.
6. Conservation awareness - Insufficient public recognition of the critical role resilient habitats and the important ecosystem services they provide for wildlife, water quality, and the well-being of North Dakota’s communities.

For all habitat types, the following are the top recurring actions:

1. Offer incentives and programs to protect, enhance, and restore habitat - The use of voluntary conservation programs is a common approach for landowners and partners to conserve habitat. Programs should encourage working lands, offer midterm conservation agreements for management and protection of habitat, and promote equal risk management for grassland-based agriculture.
2. Control or reduce invasive species - Remove or reduce invasive or detrimental plants, noxious weeds, and woody vegetation by using grazing, fire, chemical and mechanical treatments. Enforce aquatic nuisance species and invasive tree pest regulations and recommendations.
3. Offer incentives and programs to implement prescribed fire/controlled burns - Prescribed fire or controlled burns can improve the health of the ecosystem, reduce the intensity or risk of wildfires, and remove invasive plants.
4. Support grazing as a grassland management tool - Promote and support regenerative grazing management and work with grass-based agriculture groups.Incentivize good grazing management, build market and corporate support of grass-based livestock, and promote carbon and biodiversity credits.
5. Urge ecologically responsible energy development and suitable reclamation standards - Engage in early consultation and foster relationships with energy proponents, incentivize companies for implementing ecologically sound development, and urge requirements for prompt and proper reclamation.
6. Public education and outreach - Enhance public awareness, understanding, and appreciation of North Dakota’s diverse habitats and wildlife.

Threats and Actions by Habitat Type