Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 

North Dakota Limited-interest 

National Wildlife Refuges 

April 2006 

Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 


Division of Refuge Planning
 

PO Box 25486 DFC
 

Lakewood, CO 80225 


303/236 4370 


Approved by: 

__________________________________ _____ 

J. Mitch King Date 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, CO 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval
 

North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Submitted by: 

___________________________________4/6/06_ 

Kim Hanson Date 

Project Leader 

Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Pingree, ND 

___________________________________4/6/06_ 

Lloyd Jones Date 

Project Leader 

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Coleharbor, ND 

__________________________________4/11/06_ 

Roger Hollevoet Date 

Project Leader 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District 

Devils Lake, ND 

___________________________________4/6/06_ 

Tedd Gutzke Date 

Project Leader 

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Upham, ND 

___________________________________4/6/06_ 

Mick Erickson Date 

Project Leader 

Kulm Wetland Management District 

Kulm, ND 

Concurred with: 

__________________________________4/12/06_

 Rod Krey Date 

Refuge Program Supervisor (ND, SD) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
 

Lakewood, CO
 

__________________________________4/12/06_ 

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date 

Assistant Regional Director 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
 

Lakewood, CO
 

___________________________________4/6/06_ 

Paul Van Ningen Date 

Project Leader 

Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Moffit, ND 

North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 


Appert Lake 

Ardoch 

Bone Hill 

Brumba 

Buffalo Lake 

Camp Lake 

Canfield Lake 

Cottonwood Lake 

Dakota Lake 

Half Way Lake 

Hiddenwood

Hobart Lake 

Hutchinson Lake 

Johnson Lake 

Lake George 

Lake Otis 

Lake Patricia 

Lambs Lake 

Little Goose 

Lords Lake 

Lost Lake 

Maple River 

Pleasant Lake 

Pretty Rock 

Rabb Lake 

Rock Lake 

Rose Lake 

School Section Lake 

Sheyenne Lake 

Sibley Lake 

 Silver Lake 

Snyder Lake 

Springwater 

Stoney Slough 

Sunburst Lake 

Tomahawk 

Willow Lake 

Wintering River 

Wood Lake 
Abbreviations Used in this CCP 


BMPs best management practices 

BOR Bureau of Reclamation 

CCP comprehensive conservation plan 

EA environmental assessment 

EO executive order 

FmHA Lands Farmers Home Administration Lands 

FONSI finding of no significant impact 

HAPET “Habitat and Population Evaluation Team” 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

NDGF North Dakota Game and Fish Department 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NWR national wildlife refuge 

Program “North Dakota Limited-interest Refuge Program” 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

System National Wildlife Refuge System 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

WMA wildlife management area 

WMD wetland management district 

WPA waterfowl production area 

(See “Appendix B, Glossary of Terms” and “Appendix D, Key Legislation and Policies” 

for further terms and descriptions.) 
 

Contents 


Summary..............................................................S-1
 

Chapter 1. Introduction .........................................1
 

1.1 Purpose and Need for Plan.......................1
 

1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 


and the National Wildlife Refuge
 

System...............................................................2
 

1.3 National and Regional Mandates.............3
 

1.4 Ecosystem Descriptions and 


Threats ..............................................................4
 

1.5 The Planning Process................................5
 

Chapter 2. The North Dakota Limited-


interest Refuge Program.....................................11
 

2.1 Establishment of the Program...............11
 

2.2 Current Status of the Program..............11
 

2.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
 

Landowner Rights.........................................14
 

2.4 Purposes of the Limited-interest
 

Refuges ...........................................................15
 

2.5 Vision and Goals.......................................16
 

2.6 Special Values ..........................................20
 

2.7 Issues.........................................................20
 

Chapter 3. Alternatives .......................................25
 

3.1 Introduction..............................................25
 

3.2 Alternatives Development .....................25
 

3.3 Alternatives Considered but
 

Eliminated from Detailed Study .................25
 

3.4 Elements Common to all
 

Alternatives....................................................26
 

3.5 Description of Alternatives....................26
 

3.6 Comparison of Alternatives ...................27
 

Chapter 4. Affected Environment......................31
 

4.1 Physical Environment.............................31
 

4.2 Biological Resources................................44
 

4.3 Cultural Resources..................................51
 

4.4 Visitor Services........................................51
 

4.5 Socioeconomic Environment ..................51
 

Chapter 5. Environmental
 

Consequences ........................................................57
 

5.1 Effects Common to all Alternatives......57
 

5.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative......58
 

Chapter 6. Management Direction .....................63
 

6.1 Introduction..............................................63
 

6.2 Refuge Divestiture Proposals................63
 

6.3 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies..........75
 
 

 

 

 

6.4 Step-down Management Plans ..............82
 

6.5 Partnership Opportunities .....................83
 

6.6 Monitoring and Evaluation ....................83
 

6.7 CCP Amendment and Revision.............84
 

Appendix A. Consultation and
 

Coordination..........................................................85
 

Appendix B. Glossary of Terms..........................91
 

Appendix C. Decision Documents ......................97
 

Appendix D. Key Legislation and 


Policies .................................................................101
 

Appendix E. References....................................109
 

Appendix F. Section 7 Biological
 

Evaluation............................................................111
 

Appendix G. Divestiture Model........................121
 

Maps .....................................................................125
 

Tables 

Table 1. North Dakota counties and 

legislative districts by refuge ......................8
 

Table 2. North Dakota limited-interest
 

refuges planning process summary ............9
 

Table 3. List of refuges by managing station....13
 

Table 4. Acres, establishment date, 


legislation, and purpose(s) for each 

refuge ............................................................17
 

Table 5. Summary comparison of
 

alternatives ..................................................28
 

Table 6. Physiography of the ecoregions in 


which the limited-interest refuges 

reside.............................................................37
 

Table 7. Climate of the ecoregions in which 


the limited-interest refuges reside ...........42
 

Table 8. Limited-interest refuge agreements 


and landowner uses and developments ....45
 

Table 9. Upland habitat types.............................47
 

Table 10. Wetland habitat types.........................48
 

Table 11. Water rights filed with the state of
 

North Dakota...............................................50
 

Table 12. Acres of agricultural and Service-


controlled lands by county (% of total 

land for all listed counties) .........................53
 

Table 13. Demographics of the 23 counties 

within the planning area.............................55
 

Table 14. Employment data for counties in 


the Program area.........................................56
 

Table 15. Summary of environmental 


consequences for management 

alternatives ..................................................59
 

Table 16. Limited-interest refuge step-down 


management plans.......................................83
 

Figures 

Figure 1. The steps in the CCP process ..............6
 

Figure 2. Location Map........................................12
 

Figure 3. Glacial Lake Agassiz Basin 


Ecoregion......................................................31
 

Figure 4. Missouri Plateau Ecoregion ...............31
 

Figure 5. Ecoregion Map .....................................32
 

Figure 6. River Breaks Ecoregion .....................33
 

Figure 7. Drift Plains Ecoregion ........................33
 

Figure 8. End Moraine Complex Ecoregion .....33
 

Figure 9. Glacial Lake Basins Ecoregion ..........34
 

Figure 10. Glacial Outwash Ecoregion ..............34
 

Figure 11. Northern Black Prairie 


Ecoregion......................................................34
 

Figure 12. Turtle Mountains Ecoregion ............35
 

Figure 13. Missouri Coteau Ecoregion ..............35
 

Figure 14. Missouri Coteau Slope Ecoregion ...35
 

Figure 15. Glacial Lake Deltas Ecoregion.........36
 

Figure 16. Saline Area Ecoregion ......................36
 

Figure 17. Collapsed Glacial Outwash 


Ecoregion......................................................36
 

Figure 18. Bone Hill NWR..................................65
 

Figure 19. Camp Lake NWR ..............................67
 

Figure 20. Cottonwood Lake NWR ...................69
 

Figure 21. Lake Patricia NWR...........................71
 

Figure 22. School Section Lake NWR ...............73
 

Figure 23. Sheyenne Lake NWR .......................74
 

Figure 24. Adaptive Management......................84
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary 

What is this document? This is the 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment for the North 

Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife 

Refuges Program. This comprehensive 

conservation plan is based on the best available 

science (see “Appendix E, References”) and 

will guide the management of these 39 limitedinterest refuges for the next 15 years. 

What is a limited-interest refuge? The 

Service has limited capabilities on these 

refuges (see section 2.3). Most agreements 

include the right to manage water uses, 

hunting, and trapping on the refuges. 

Who completed this plan? The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the North Dakota Game 

and Fish Department, under the guidance of 

the Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region, 

Division of Refuge Planning. This 

interdisciplinary team (see appendix A) spent 

over a year and a half planning and meeting 

and listening to the public’s ideas and concerns 

prior to preparing this document. 

Why did the Service complete this 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment? In 1997, Congress 

passed the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act legislation, which provides 

clear guidance for the management of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. The act 

included a new statutory mission statement 

(see section 1.2) and directed the Service to 

manage the refuge system as a national system 

of lands and waters devoted to conserving 

wildlife and maintaining biological integrity of 

ecosystems. 

In order to support and fulfill this mission, this 

act also required that by 2012, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service will have developed a 

comprehensive conservation plan for each 

national wildlife refuge in the System at the 

time of the act. This includes these 39 refuges 

in this comprehensive conservation plan. 

Why did you address 39 refuges in one plan? 

These refuges are unique among all other 

national wildlife refuges. Even though the 

North Dakota Limited-interest Refuge 

Program began almost 70 years ago, today 99 

percent of the lands within the approved 

acquisition boundaries remain in private 

ownership. The Service has limited capabilities 

on these refuges (see section 2.3) and the 

habitat is similar amongst these refuges. In 

particular, most have a water feature, such as a 

lake, river, or impoundment, which was a major 

focus of the limited-interest refuge agreement 

and designated boundaries. No approved 

guidelines have been established for managing 

this program. Given these facts, the planning 

team felt it was more effective to address the 

issues and future of these refuges as a program 

through a programmatic comprehensive 

conservation plan rather than as individual 

plans. 

Where are these refuges located? All but two 

(Lake Patricia and Pretty Rock NWRs) of the 

39 refuges are located east of the Missouri 

River from the Canadian to South Dakota 

Borders (see figure 2). 

How large are these refuges? They range in 

size from 160 acres (Half Way Lake) to 5,500 

acres (Rock Lake). There are 47,296 acres of 

limited-interest refuge acres within the 54,140­

acre approved acquisition boundaries. The 

approved acquisition boundaries were 

established by executive order or other 

legislation in the 1930s and 1940s. Not all acres 

within this approved acquisition boundary are 

covered by a Service limited-interest refuge. 

What is the history and purpose of the North 

Dakota Limited-interest Refuge Program? 

The North Dakota Limited-interest Refuge 

Program began in the 1930s, in response to the 

many crises of the “Dust Bowl Era.” Working 

with states and private landowners, Roosevelt 

established the North Dakota Limited-interest 

Refuge Program for purpose of “drought relief, 

water conservation, and for migratory bird and 

wildlife conservation.” Hundreds of landowners 

agreed to place their lands under this program, 

most perpetual, for these conservation 

purposes. Dozens of easement agreements 

were signed by landowners in North Dakota. 

The economic crisis of this era was also 

addressed through this program. Local 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S-2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

communities were put back to work through 

the Works Progress/Project Administration 

and Civilian Conservation Corps, federal job 

programs used to build structures to impound 

and control water on these limited-interest 

refuge lands. This water provided landowners 

with critical stock water while migrating 

waterfowl and other waterbirds benefited from 

this reliable water source and sanctuary. 

Although most were perpetually protected, a 

new status was given to these lands in the late 

1930s and ‘40s. Refuge lands in close proximity 

were combined and designated as Migratory 

Bird Sanctuaries (later changed to national 

wildlife refuges) under the authorities of 

executive orders and conservation laws. 

What is the vision for the North 

DakotaLimited-interest Refuge Program? 

Since our Nation=s beginning, great flocks of 

wildfowl⎯ducks, geese and waterbirds⎯

provided sights and sounds, food and feather. 

These wings of migration not only inspired 

hunters but some of our greatest artists, 

photographers, and poets. In the 1930s, much of 

the United States, including North Dakota, was 

gripped by a devastating drought and 

depression. Hot winds that dried crops also 

dried wetlands. Wildfowl numbers plummeted, 

and the skies grew quiet. 

Americans took this crisis and saw opportunity 

and a great partnership was formed. 

Conservation leaders, the State of North 

Dakota, the federal government, and private 

landowners laid the foundation for what would 

become the North Dakota Limited-interest 

Refuge Program. This Program addressed both 

wildlife conservation and economic needs. The 

Works Progress/Program Administration and 

Civilian Conservation Corps brought jobs to 

the communities building dams and other 

structures to create water areas that now 

provide habitat and sanctuary for waterfowl 

and other migratory birds. 

Through cooperation with the current refuge 

landowners and other conservation partners, 

the Program will realize its full potential. It 

will become a premier example of private land 

partnerships promoting fish and wildlife 

conservation, supporting other conservation 

programs while continuing to serve as 

sanctuaries for international migratory birds. 

What goals does the Service hope to 

accomplish to achieve this vision? 

Goal 1. Wetland Habitat: Maintain and 

manage natural and created wetlands within 

the approved acquisition boundary to provide 

habitat for international populations of 

waterfowl and other migratory birds along 

with other wetland-dependent wildlife. 

Goal 2. Upland Habitat: Establish a land 

protection program within the approved 

acquisition boundary to maintain, restore, and 

enhance uplands to provide habitat for 

international populations of waterfowl, other 

migratory birds, and other wildlife. 

Goal 3. Partnerships: Foster beneficial 

landowner, community, and regional 

partnerships to assist in achieving the Program 

vision while ensuring 100 percent of all 

partners gain a greater understanding of the 

management and resources of the limitedinterest refuges. 

Goals 4. Visitor Services: Where compatible, 

and in cooperation with willing landowners, 

allow public fishing, hunting, trapping, and 

other high quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities that foster an 

appreciation and understanding of the 

management and resources of the North 

Dakota Limited-interest Refuge Program and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Goal 5. Administration: Secure and 

effectively utilize funding, staffing, and 

partnerships to ensure the Program meets its 

full potential of habitat protection and visitor 

use. 

Will any of the actions proposed in this plan 

be completed without landowner 

concurrence? No action outside the authority 

of the limited-interest refuge agreement as 

outlined in section 2.3 of this document will be 

conducted without full coordination and 

cooperation of willing landowners. If a 

landowner does not wish to participate in a 

program outside the authority of the limitedinterest refuge agreement, the landowner may 

do so without retribution and may, at any time, 

contact the Service should the landowner 

change his or her mind. 

What alternatives did the Service evaluate? 

The no-action alternative (current 

management) and the preferred alternative 
 

 

 

 

(enhance the program). Because there have 

never been any approved guidelines for this 

program and these refuges, the only viable 

action that could be considered in this 

programmatic CCP is some form of 

enhancement, as outlined below and in 

chapter 6. 

What are some of the key actions outlined in 

the preferred alternative? 

Q	 Divestiture of six refuges due to 

significant loss of biodiversity and 

ownership patterns (i.e., lands owned 

and/or managed for wildlife by another 

federal or state agency). These refuges 

include: 

•	 Bone Hill NWR—significant loss of 

biodiversity and development 

•	 Camp Lake NWR—significant loss 

of biodiversity and development 

•	 Cottonwood Lake NWR— 

significant loss of biodiversity and 

development 

•	 Lake Patricia—majority of lands 

owned/managed by the state 

•	 Sheyenne Lake NWR— 

owned/managed by Bureau of 

Reclamation 

•	 School Section Lake NWR— 

majority of lands owned/managed 

by the state 

Q	 Each managing station will actively 

share information and engage 

landowners in the management of these 

refuges and the implementation of the 

final comprehensive conservation plan. 

Q	 Evaluate all existing structures and 

determine the maintenance and 

replacement needs necessary to 

properly manage water levels on refuge 

impoundments. 

Q	 Each managing station will evaluate and 

prioritize its limited-interest refuges to 

ensure the most critical wetland and 

upland habitats are protected. 

•	 Highest priority will be given to 

those refuges with native prairie 

habitat 

Q	 Work with willing landowners to 

provide additional compensation for 

Summary S-3 

added habitat protections through 

various programs including 

conservation partner programs, 

compensated easement programs, and 

fee-title acquisitions. 

•	 Develop partnerships with other 

state, federal, and conservation 

organizations to achieve common 

goals that enhance and support the 

North Dakota Limited-interest 

Refuge Program. 

Q	 Continue existing visitor services 

programs, where appropriate, and work 

with willing landowners and the North 

Dakota Game and Fish Department to 

determine if there are additional 

opportunities to accommodate the six 

priority public uses. 

Q	 Recruit one state coordinator for the 

North Dakota Limited-interest Refuge 

Program to work with landowners and 

oversee the implementation this 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

Which alternative did the Service choose for 

the final CCP? 

Alternative B (enhance the program) was 

selected by the regional director because it 

best meets the purposes for which these 

refuges were established and is preferable to 

the no-action alternative in light of physical, 

biological, economic, and social factors. (See 

“Appendix C, Decision Documents.”) 

What happens next? 

The Service will now begin to implement the 

plan and continue to do so over the next 15 

years, when it will be revised. It is important to 

note that some of the objectives and strategies 

(see chapter 6) require a substantial increase in 

current funding. The Service will pursue these 

additional resources but there is no guarantee 

of funding increases and therefore no 

guarantee that all actions identified will be 

completed within the life of this plan. However, 

for the first time in 70 years, the issues that 

have impeded these limited-interest refuges 

have been elevated to all levels in the Service 

while giving managers the first long-term 

guidance for management decisions and setting 

priorities on these refuges. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1. Introduction
 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

has developed this comprehensive conservation 

plan (CCP) to provide a foundation for the 

management and use of 39 limited-interest 

national wildlife refuges located primarily 

throughout eastern North Dakota. The CCP is 

intended as a working guide for management 

programs and actions over the next 15 years. 

The CCP was developed in compliance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 

(National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The 

actions described within this CCP also meet 

the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 

Compliance with NEPA is being achieved 

through the involvement of the public and the 

inclusion of an integrated environmental 

assessment (EA). 

When fully implemented, this CCP will strive 

to achieve the North DakotaLimited-interest 

Refuge Program (Program) vision and the 

purposes of each refuge. Fish and wildlife are 

the first priority in refuge management, and 

public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) is 

allowed and encouraged as long as permission 

is granted by the affected landowners and it is 

compatible with, or does not detract from a 

refuge’s purpose(s). 

The CCP has been prepared by a planning 

team composed of representatives from various 

Service programs, including Refuges and 

Realty, and the North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department (NDGF). In developing this plan, 

the planning team has incorporated the input of 

the landowners who own most of these refuge 

lands and local citizens and organizations. This 

public involvement and the planning process 

itself are described in section 1.5, “The 

Planning Process.” 

After reviewing a wide range of public 

comments and management needs, the 

planning team developed the preferred 

alternative. This action will attempt to address 

all significant issues while determining how 

best to achieve the intent and purposes of the 

Program. The preferred alternative is the 

Service’s recommended course of action for the 

future management of these refuges, and is 

embodied in this CCP. 

1.1 Purpose and Need for Plan 

The purpose of this CCP is to identify the role 

that the Program will play in support of the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(System), and to provide long-term guidance 

for managing refuge programs and activities. 

The CCP is needed: 

Q	 To build relationships with the 

landowners and communicate with the 

general public and other partners in 

efforts to carry out the mission of the 

System. 

Q	 To provide a clear statement of 

direction for the future management of 

the Program; 

Q	 To provide landowners, neighbors, 

visitors, and government officials with 

an understanding of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s management actions 

on and around these refuges; 

Q	 To ensure that the Service’s 

management actions are consistent with 

the mandates of the Improvement Act; 

Q	 To ensure that the management of these 

refuges is consistent with federal, state, 

and county plans; and 

Q	 To provide a basis for the development 

of budget requests for the Program’s 

operation, maintenance, and capital 

improvement needs. 

Sustaining our Nation’s fish and wildlife 

resources is a task that can be accomplished 

only through the combined efforts of 

governments, businesses, and private citizens. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, working with others, is 

to conserve, protect, and enhance fish 

and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American 

people. 

Over a hundred years ago, America’s fish and 

wildlife resources were declining at an 

alarming rate. Concerned citizens, scientists, 

and hunting and angling groups joined together 

to restore and sustain our national wildlife 

heritage. This was the genesis of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife 

laws, manages migratory bird populations, 

restores nationally significant fisheries, 

conserves and restores vital wildlife habitat, 

protects and recovers endangered species, and 

helps other governments with conservation 

efforts. It also administers a federal aid 

program that distributes hundreds of millions 

of dollars to states for fish and wildlife 

restoration, boating access, hunter education, 

and related programs across America. 

The Service is the managing agency of the 

Program along with the rest of the System, 

thousands of waterfowl production areas 

(WPA), and other special management areas. It 

also operates 66 national fish hatcheries and 78 

ecological services field stations. 

Service Activities in North Dakota 

Service activities in North Dakota contribute 

to the state’s economy, ecosystems, and 

education programs. The following lists the 

Service’s presence and activities in North 

Dakota, reported in 2005: 

Q The Service employs 201 people. 

Q Over 14,245 hours were donated by 623 

volunteers to help Service projects. 

Q There are two national fish hatcheries 

and one fish and wildlife management 

assistance office. 

Q Sixty-five national wildlife refuges 

encompass 342,799 acres (0.8 percent of 

the state). 

Q	 There are 12 wetland management 

districts. 

•	 Fee waterfowl production areas 

cover 284,317 acres (0.6 percent of 

the state). 

•	 There are 1,046,358 wetland acres 

(2.4 percent of the state) under 

various leases or easements, 

including these limited-interest 

refuges. 

Q	 Service-managed lands hosted more 

than 394,063 visitors— 

•	 152,160 hunting visits 

•	 142,281 wildlife observation visits 

•	 83,650 fishing visits 

•	 2,360 trapping visits 

•	 Over 51,000 students participated in 

environmental education programs. 

Q	 The Service provided $3.3 million to 

NDGF for sport fish restoration and 

$3.4 million for wildlife restoration and 

hunter education. 

Q	 Since 1987, the Partners for Wildlife 

program has helped private landowners 

restore over 21,008 acres on 3,351 sites 

and 170,217 acres on 1,113 sites; and 

47.8 miles of river. 

•	 The Service employs 11 program 

managers for Partners for Wildlife 

in the state. 

Q	 The Service paid North Dakota 

counties more than $352,271 under the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act; funds 

were used for schools and roads. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt 

designated the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in 

Florida as the nation’s first wildlife refuge for 

the protection of brown pelicans and other 

native nesting birds. This was the first time the 

federal government set aside land for the sake 

of wildlife. This small but significant 

designation was the beginning of the System. 

One hundred years later, this System has 

become the largest collection of lands in the 

world specifically managed for wildlife, 

encompassing over 96 million acres within 544 

refuges and over 3,000 small areas for 

waterfowl breeding and nesting. Today, there 

is at least one refuge in every state in the 

nation including Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

In 1997, a clear mission was established for the 

System through the passage of the 

Improvement Act. That mission is: 

to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife and 

plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefit 

of present and future generations of 

Americans. 

The Improvement Act further states that each 

refuge shall be managed: 

Q to fulfill the mission of the System; 

Q to fulfill the individual purposes of each 

refuge; 

Q to consider the needs of fish and wildlife 

first; 

Q to fulfill the requirement of developing a 

CCP for each unit of the System, and 

fully involve the public in the 

preparation of these plans; 

Q to maintain the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of 

the System; 

Q to recognize that wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities including hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation, are 

legitimate and priority public uses; and 

Q to retain the authority of refuge 

managers to determine compatible 

public uses. 

In addition to the overall mission for the 

System, the wildlife and habitat vision for each 

national wildlife refuge stresses the following 

principles: 

Q Wildlife comes first. 

Q Ecosystems, biodiversity, and 

wilderness are vital concepts in refuge 

management. 

Q Refuges must be healthy. 

Q Growth of refuges must be strategic. 

Q The System serves as a model for 

habitat management with broad 

participation from others. 

Following passage of the Improvement Act, the 

Service immediately began efforts to carry out 

1⎯Introduction 3 

the direction of the new legislation, including 

the preparation of CCPs for all refuges. The 

development of these plans is now ongoing 

nationally. Consistent with the Improvement 

Act, all refuge CCPs are being prepared in 

conjunction with public involvement, and each 

refuge is required to complete its own CCP 

within the 15-year schedule (by 2012). 

People and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System 

Our fish and wildlife heritage contributes to the 

quality of our lives and is an integral part of 

our nation’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places 

have always given people special opportunities 

to have fun, relax, and appreciate our natural 

world. 

Whether through bird watching, fishing, 

hunting, photography, or other wildlife 

pursuits, wildlife recreation also contributes 

millions of dollars to local economies. In 2002, 

approximately 35.5 million people visited a 

national wildlife refuge, mostly to observe 

wildlife in their natural habitats. Visitors are 

most often accommodated through nature 

trails, auto tours, interpretive programs and 

hunting and fishing opportunities. Significant 

economic benefits are being generated to the 

local communities that surround the refuges. 

Economists have reported that national wildlife 

refuge visitors contribute more than $792 

million annually to local economies. 

1.3 National and Regional Mandates 

Refuges are managed to achieve the mission 

and goals of the System and the designated 

purpose of the refuge unit as described in 

establishing legislation or executive orders, or 

other establishing documents. Key concepts 

and guidance of the System are provided in the 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

(P.L. 87-714), Title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual and, most recently, through the 

Improvement Act. 

The Improvement Act amends the Refuge 

System Administration Act by providing a 

unifying mission for the System, a new process 

for determining compatible public uses on 

refuges, and a requirement that each refuge 

will be managed under a CCP. The 

Improvement Act states that wildlife 

conservation is the priority of System lands 

and that the Secretary of the Interior will 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

ensure that the biological integrity, diversity 

and environmental health of refuge lands are 

maintained. Each refuge must be managed to 

fulfill the System’s mission and the specific 

purposes for which it was established. The 

Improvement Act requires the Service to 

monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, 

and plants in each refuge. A list of other laws 

and executive orders that may affect the CCP 

or the Service’s implementation of the CCP is 

provided in “Appendix D, Key Legislation and 

Policies.” Service policies providing guidance 

on planning and the day-to-day management of 

a refuge are contained within the Refuge 

System Manual and the Service Manual. 

1.4 Ecosystem Descriptions and 

Threats 

Mississippi Headwaters–Tallgrass Prairie 

Ecosystem 

Thirty-three refuges in this Program are 

located east of the Missouri River within the 

Mississippi Headwaters–Tallgrass Prairie 

Ecosystem. This ecosystem is primarily located 

in Minnesota, South Dakota, and North Dakota 

with small sections extending into Wisconsin 

and Iowa. This ecosystem encompasses a major 

portion of the Prairie Pothole Region of North 

America. The Prairie Pothole Region produces 

20 percent of the continental waterfowl 

populations annually. 

Historically, this portion of North America was 

subject to periodic glaciation; glacial 

meltwaters were instrumental in forming the 

five major river systems located or partly 

located within this ecosystem. These river 

systems are: Mississippi, St. Croix, Red, 

Missouri, and Minnesota. Likewise, glacial 

moraines and other deposits resulted in a 

myriad of lakes and wetlands common 

throughout this area. Significant variation in 

the topography and soils of the area attest to 

the ecosystem’s dynamic glacial history. 

The three major ecological communities within 

this ecosystem are the tallgrass prairie, the 

northern boreal forest, and the eastern 

deciduous forest. Grasses common to the 

tallgrass prairie include big bluestem, little 

bluestem, Indian grass, sideoats grama, and 

switch grass. Native tallgrass prairie also 

supports ecologically important forbs such as 

prairie cone flower, purple prairie clover, and 

blazing star. The northern boreal forest 

ecological community comprises a variety of 

coniferous species such as jack pine, balsam fir, 

and spruce. Common tree species in the eastern 

deciduous forest ecological community include 

maple, basswood, red oak, white oak, and ash. 

Current land uses range from tourism and 

timber industries in the northern forests to 

intensive agriculture in the historic tallgrass 

prairie. Of the three major ecological 

communities, the tallgrass prairie is the most 

threatened with more than 99 percent of it 

having been converted for agricultural 

purposes. 

Due to its ecological and vegetative diversity, 

the Mississippi Headwaters–Tallgrass Prairie 

Ecosystem supports at least 121 species of 

neotropical migrants and other migratory 

birds. It provides breeding and migration 

habitat for significant populations of waterfowl 

plus a variety of other waterbirds. The 

ecosystem supports several species of 

candidate and federally listed threatened and 

endangered species including the bald eagle, 

piping plover, Higgins eye pearly mussel, 

Karner blue butterfly, prairie bush clover, 

Leedy’s roseroot, dwarf trout lily, and the 

western prairie fringed orchid. The 

increasingly rare paddlefish and lake sturgeon 

are also found in portions of this ecosystem. 

There has been no prior planning or 

establishment of headwaters focus areas in the 

Mississippi Headwaters–Tallgrass Prairie 

Ecosystem. 

Hudson Bay Ecosystem (part of the Missouri 

Main Stem River Ecosystem) 

Lake Patricia and Pretty Rock National 

Wildlife Refuges are located within a portion of 

the Missouri Main Stem River Ecosystem 

identified as the Hudson Bay Ecosystem. This 

ecosystem includes portions of the Missouri 

River and Hudson Bay watersheds. An initial 

Ecosystem Management Plan developed by the 

Ecosystem Team identified four focus areas 

needing the highest priority for protection and 

evaluation; wetlands, the Missouri River, 

native prairies, and riparian areas. Priorities 

were based on significance in the ecosystem, 

species diversity, risk and/or threat to the 

entire focus area, public benefits, international 

values, and trust resources. Although a 

detailed analysis of habitats, threats, and 

priorities for this ecosystem has not been 

completed, a vision and set of goals and 

objectives have been developed for each of 

these focus areas. The overall threats and 

visions for each focus area include: 
 

 

 

 

 

 

1⎯Introduction 5 

Wetlands 

Threats: The glaciated prairies on North and 

South Dakota and northeastern Montana cover 

approximately 60 million acres. Once a myriad 

of prairie pothole wetlands in a sea of native 

prairie, the area is now the “bread basket” of 

the country and intensively farmed. Drainage, 

for agricultural purposes has reduced 7.2 

million acres of wetlands by over 40 percent to 

3.9 million acres. 

Vision: Diverse, wetland habitats and 

watersheds that provide an abundance and 

diversity of native flora and fauna in the 

ecosystem for the benefit of the American 

public. 

Missouri River 

Threats: The Missouri River is vastly different 

from the “untamed” flood plain system of even 

50 years ago. Originating in the Rocky 

Mountains of south-central Montana, the river 

flows 2,300 miles, traversing seven states and 

passing through seven mainstem dams built 

and maintained by the federal government. 

Over 900 miles (nearly 60 percent) of the 

former upper river passing through Montana, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska 

now lie under permanent multi-purpose 

reservoirs. As the Missouri River changed, so 

did the wildlife communities that depend on it. 

Currently 8 fishes, 15 birds, 6 mammals, 4 

reptiles, 6 insects, 4 mollusks, and 7 plants 

native to the ecosystem are listed as either 

threatened or endangered or are under status 

review for possible listing. 

Vision: A healthy Missouri River capable of 

self-sustaining fish and wildlife resources. 

Native Prairie 

Threats: Native Prairie in the Missouri Main 

Stem River Ecosystem consists of tall grass, 

mid-grass, and short grass prairies from the 

eastern Dakotas to the west. Although the 

plant and wildlife species differ across the 

gradation from tall to short grass, the threats 

and issues remain the same⎯conversion of 

prairie to other uses. The west river area of 

North Dakota has lost approximately 60 

percent of the original 34 million acres of native 

prairie due to agricultural conversion. 

Vision: Protect, restore and maintain 

ecosystem native prairie and other grasslands 

to ensure its diversity and abundance of native 

flora and fauna. 

Riparian Areas 

Threats: Riparian areas make up a small 

portion of the habitat in the Hudson Bay 

(Missouri Main Stem River) Ecosystem. 

However, riparian and riverine wetland 

habitats are more important than other focus 

areas to fish and wildlife resources including 

migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, native fish, rare and declining fisheries, 

amphibians and many mammals. Riparian 

habitats provide for much of the biodiversity in 

the ecosystem. Many of the species currently 

occurring in the ecosystem would be eliminated 

without healthy riparian areas. Sedimentation, 

contamination, invasive species, and 

development threaten the health of this diverse 

habitat. 

Vision: Healthy riparian and flood plain 

ecosystems that provide an abundance and 

diversity of indigenous flora and fauna. 

1.5 The Planning Process 

This CCP and EA for the 39 limited-interest 

refuges and the Program are intended to 

comply with the Improvement Act, NEPA, and 

the implementing regulations of the acts. The 

Service issued a final refuge planning policy in 

2000 that established requirements and 

guidance for System planning, including CCPs 

and step-down management plans, ensuring 

that planning efforts comply with the 

provisions of the Improvement Act. The 

planning policy identified several steps of the 

CCP and EA process (see figure 1): 

Q	 Form a planning team and conduct preplanning (see “Appendix A, 

Consultation and Coordination”) 

Q	 Initiate public involvement and scoping 

Q	 Draft vision statement and goals 

Q	 Develop and analyze alternatives, 

including the preferred alternative 

Q Prepare draft CCP and EA 

Q Prepare and adopt final CCP and EA 

and issue a finding of no significant 

impact (FONSI) or determine if an 

environmental impact statement is 

needed. 

Q Implement CCP, monitor and evaluate 
 

 

6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 1. The steps in the CCP process 

Q	 Review every 5 years and revise CCP 

every 15 years 

This is a dynamic process that may require 

revisiting various steps. Nevertheless, the first 

step to developing this Program was 

determining the criteria for including limitedinterest refuges in this CCP. Although there 

are other limited-interest refuges in North 

Dakota and other states, including South 

Dakota and Montana, the 39 refuges covered in 

the CCP were selected based on the following 

criteria: 

Q Refuge is located within North Dakota 

Q Less than 15 percent of the refuge acres 

are fee-title national wildlife refuge 

acres, the remainder are in private 

ownership or are WPAs. 

Refuges with significant amounts of fee-title 

NWR acres were excluded from this CCP 

based on their significantly greater 

management capabilities. These refuges will be 

addressed in separate planning efforts. The 

WPAs within and adjacent to these refuge 

boundaries will be addressed in future WMD 

CCPs for the managing station. 

The Service began the pre-planning process in 

December 2003. A planning team of Service 

personnel from each of the six managing 

stations, Division of Realty and Refuges, and 

NDGF, was developed shortly after an initial 

kickoff meeting. Draft issues and qualities were 

developed and updated over a course of several 

meetings. During pre-planning, several items 

were addressed including developing a mailing 

list and determining the rights the Service 

purchased with the limited-interest refuge 

agreements. 
 

 

1⎯Introduction 7 

Over the course of pre-planning and scoping, 

the planning team collected available 

information about the resources of the limitedinterest refuges and the surrounding areas. 

This information is summarized under 

“Chapter 4, Affected Environment.” 

Due to the number of refuges in this planning 

effort, this CCP became more of a 

programmatic CCP than the more traditional 

management CCP. This CCP provides longterm guidance for management decisions; sets 

forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed 

to accomplish refuge purposes; and identifies 

the Service’s best estimate of future needs. 

This CCP details Program planning levels that 

are sometimes substantially above current 

budget allocations and, as such, are primarily 

for Service strategic planning purposes. This 

CCP does not constitute a commitment for 

staffing increases, operational and maintenance 

increases, or funding for future land 

acquisition. 

Public scoping began in March 2004 with the 

initial contact of the 225 refuge landowners. A 

Notice of Intent to prepare and EA was 

published in the Federal Register on July 2, 

2004. 

Coordination with the Landowners and Other 

Publics 

The planning team ensured that the first 

stakeholders to be contacted during scoping 

were landowners of limited-interest refuges. A 

mailing list of over 225 names was created and 

included private citizens, the North Dakota 

State Land and Game and Fish Departments, 

and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). In May 

2004, a personal letter was sent to each 

landowner introducing them to the CCP 

process and providing history on the Program. 

Each was invited to participate in the process 

and to offer comments. The initial response was 

minimal. In early July 2004, a newsletter was 

mailed to each landowner and over 460 

additional individuals and organizations (over 

700 total). Information was provided on the 

history of the Program and the CCP process 

along with a schedule of and invitation to 

upcoming open houses. Open houses also were 

announced in 37 local newspapers. 

A total of 19 open houses were held between 

July 14, 2004 and September 16, 2004. At the 

start of each meeting, the CCP planner or the 

refuge personnel gave a presentation on the 

history of the Program along with an overview 

of the CCP/NEPA process. Attendees were 

encouraged to ask questions and offer 

comments. Attendees were invited to submit 

additional thoughts or questions in writing and 

each was given a two-page comment form to 

complete. The turnout was mixed, from no 

attendees to 19 individuals at a single-refuge 

meeting. In addition to scoping meetings, 

postage-paid comment forms were sent to 

everyone on the mailing list (over 700 

individuals), with a September 30 response 

deadline. Forty-six written comments were 

received. Input obtained from all of these 

meetings and correspondence was considered 

in developing this CCP. 

State Coordination 

The North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department’s mission is to “protect, conserve, 

and enhance fish and wildlife populations and 

their habitats for sustained public consumptive 

and nonconsumptive uses.” Overall, the NDGF 

is responsible for managing natural resource 

lands owned by the state in addition to 

enforcement responsibilities for the state’s 

migratory birds and endangered species 

resources. The state currently manages over 

78,000 acres in support of wildlife, recreation, 

and fisheries. 

In January 2004, an invitation letter to 

participate in the CCP process was sent by the 

Region 6 regional director to the Director of 

the NDGF. Local NDGF wildlife managers and 

the refuge staffs maintain excellent and 

ongoing working relations that precede the 

start of the CCP process. An NDGF 

representative is part of the core CCP planning 

team and has been participating in most of the 

workshops. In addition to the NDGF, all 

relative federal, state (see below), and county 

representatives, including all county 

chairpersons, were provided a newsletter 

introducing them to this Program and 

welcoming their comments. 

Elected officials were initially contacted by the 

North Dakota Refuge Coordinator by 

telephone and mail about the CCP in January 

2004. They were contacted again through a 

newsletter that outlined the public scoping 

meeting schedule. 

The 39 refuges are dotted across 23 counties 

encompassing 26 state legislative districts (see 

table 1). In July 2004, district senators and 
 

 

 

 

 

8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

representatives were sent an informational 

newsletter inviting them to the open houses. In 

addition to these districts, an additional 15 

adjoining state districts were contacted and 

provided the same information, for a total of 42 

legislative districts represented by 42 senators 

and 84 representatives. 

Tribal Coordination 

On June 10, 2004, six Native American Tribal 

governments in North and South Dakota 

(Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux, Spirit Lake Tribal 

Council, Standing Rock Sioux, Three Affiliated 

Tribes, Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board, and 

the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa) were 

contacted through a letter signed by Service 

regional director. The letter gave information 

about the upcoming CCP and invited recipients 

to serve on the core team. The Service received 

one inquiry from the Chairman of the Turtle 

Mountain Band of Chippewas. After receiving 

clarification on the CCP, the Chairman wished 

to continue receiving correspondence, but felt 

the planning area would not be of interest to 

his tribal members. 

Results of Scoping 

Table 2 summarizes all scoping activities. 

Comments collected from scoping meetings and 

correspondence, including comment forms, 

were used in the development of a final list of 

issues that need to be addressed in the CCP. 

The planning team determined which 

alternatives could best address these issues. 

The preferred alternative formed the basis for 

the objective and strategies to achieve the 

goals developed by the planning team. This 

process ensures that those issues that have the 

greatest impact on the Program are resolved or 

given priority over the life of this plan. 

Identified issues along with some discussion of 

their impacts to the resource are summarized 

in chapter 2. 

Table 1. North Dakota counties and legislative districts by refuge 

Population County Legislative Districts Refuges in County/District (2002) 

Barnes 11,224 6 Hobart Lake, Stoney Slough, and Tomahawk NWRs 

Benson 6,873 7 and 23 Pleasant Lake, Silver Lake, and Wood Lake NWRs 

Bottineau 6,893 6 Lords Lake NWR (also Rolette County) 

Burleigh 70,937 8, 14, 30, 32, 35, and 47 Canfield Lake NWR 

Dickey 5,554 26 and 28 Dakota Lake and Maple River NWR 

Eddy 2,627 23 and 29 Johnson Lake NWR 

Emmons 4,087 28 Springwater, Sunburst Lake, and Appert Lake NWRs 

Grand Forks 64,929 17, 19, and 43 Little Goose NWR 

Grant 2,689 31 Pretty Rock NWR 

Griggs 2,599 23 Sibley Lake NWR 

Kidder 2,591 14 Hutchinson Lake and Lake George NWRs 

Lamoure 4,569 26, 28, and 29 Bone Hill NWR 

McHenry 5,739 7 Cottonwood Lake and Wintering River NWRs 

McLean 9,014 4 and 8 Camp Lake, Hiddenwood, Lake Otis, and Lost Lake NWRs 

Morton 25,181 31, 33, 34, and 36 Lake Patricia NWR 

Nelson 3,464 23 Lambs Lake, Rose Lake, and Johnson Lake (Eddy) NWRs 

Pierce 4,525 7 Buffalo Lake NWR 

Ramsey 11,746 15 Silver Lake NWR (also Benson County) 

Rolette 13,760 9 Rabb Lake, School Section Lake, and Willow Lake NWRs 

Sheridan 1,572 7 and 14 Sheyenne Lake NWR 

Stutsman 21,388 12 and 29 Half Way NWR 

Towner 2,712 10 and 15 Brumba, Rock Lake, and Snyder Lake NWRs 

Walsh 11,891 16 Ardoch NWR 

Source: Office of Social and Economic Trend Analysis 2002; North Dakota Legislative Branch 2005. 
1⎯Introduction 9 

Table 2. North Dakota limited-interest refuges planning process summary 

Date Event 	 Outcome 

Dec. 11–12, 2003	 Initial meeting with 

proposed planning team 

Feb. 10–11, 2004 	 Kickoff meeting 

Feb. 19, 2004 	 Service’s rights discussion 

with regional office 

leadership 

March 30, 2004	 Finalize rights position 

March–May 2004 	 Landowners contacted 

June 1, 2004 	 Public scoping planning 

June 29, 2004 	 Public scoping planning 

July 14, 2004 	 Maple River open house 

July 19, 2004 	 Bone Hill open house 

July 20, 2004 	 Silver Lake, Wood Lake, 

Pleasant Lake open house 

July 20, 2004 	 Rose Lake, Lambs Lake, 

and Little Goose open 

house 

July 20, 2004 	 Cottonwood Lake, 

Wintering River and 

Buffalo Lake open house 

July 21, 2004 	 Hobart Lake, Stoney 

Slough, and Tomahawk 

open house 

July 21, 2004 	 Hiddenwood open house 

July 22, 2204 	 Dakota Lake open house 

July 22, 2004 	 Lords Lake, Willow Lake, 

Rabb Lake, School Section 

Lake open house 

July 27, 2004 	 Brumba, Snyder Lake, and 

Rock Lake open house 

July 27, 2004 	 Sheyenne Lake open house 

July 27, 2004 	 Ardoch Lake open house 

July 27 and 28, 2004 	 Appert, Canfield, and 

Hutchinson Lakes, Lake 

George, Springwater, 

Sunburst Lake open house 

July 28, 2004 	 Johnson Lake and Sibley 

Lake open house 

July 29, 2004 	 Lost Lake open house 

Aug. 10, 2004 	 Halfway Lake meeting 

Aug. 11, 2004 	 Lake Patricia open house 

CCP overview, planning team finalized, purposes identified, 

initial issues and qualities list, initiate development of 

mailing list 

Initiate rights discussion, revise issues and qualities list, 

biological needs identified, plan public scoping 

Develop a position paper for the planning team to review on 

the Service rights on these limited-interest refuges 

Developed a management decision on which rights the 

Service will control based on the easement agreement and 

historical records 

Landowner newsletter, comment forms 

Open house model developed 

Finalize scoping meeting schedules and formats 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments 

Meet with Half Way Lake landowners, discuss CCP 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 
10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Da kota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Table 2. North Dakota limited-interest refuges planning process summary 

Date Event 	 Outcome 

Sept. 16, 2004 	 Second Dakota Lake open 

house 

Dec. 6–7, 2004 	 Vision, goals, and 

alternatives workshop 

Feb. 7–8, 2005 	 Objectives and strategies 

workshop 

March–April 2005 	 Prepare draft pl an 

May 2005 	 Planning team reviews plan 

July 2005 	 Internal review of CCP 

August—Sept. 2005 	 Prepare outreach plan 

September 23, 2005 	 Camp Lake landowners 

meeting 

October 4, 2005	 Publish NOA and release 

draft plan to the public 

October 12, 2005 	 Arrowwood District public 

meetings, Valley City, ND 

October 18, 2005 	 Devils Lake (Devils Lake, 

ND) and Arrowwood 

District (Henry, ND) public 

meetings 

October 25, 2005 	 Kulm District public 

meeting, Oakes, ND 

October 26, 2005 	 J.Clark Salyer District 

public meeting, Upham, ND 

October 27, 2005 	 Long Lake District public 

meeting, Moffitt, ND 

December 2, 2005 	 Public review ends 

December 7, 2005 	 Planning team reviews 

public comments 

December 12, 2005 	 Brief regional director 

January 2006 	 Brief Washington Office 

and edit document 

April 6, 2006 	 Final Internal Review 

Ends 

April 14, 2006 	 FONSI signed by regional 

director 

Second opportunity for the public to provide comments 

about Dakota Lake refuge and the CCP 

Developed a vision statement, goals, and discussed 

alternatives for the CCP 

Drafted a set of objectives and strategies for the proposed 

action 

Planning team prepared first draft of the combined 

environmental assessment and plan 

Planning team reviewed first draft of the CCP and provided 

comments 

Service staff from other divisions review draft CCP 

Conduct outreach with Service partners regarding various 

issues addressed in the draft CCP 

Update the Camp Lake NWR on the progress of the draft 

CCP to date 

Public began reviewing draft CCP 

Present draft CCP and collect public comments 

Present draft CCP and collect public comments 

Present draft CCP and collect public comments 

Present draft CCP and collect public comments 

Present draft CCP and collect public comments 

All comments are compiled and provided to planning team 

Planning team discussed public comments and recommended 

changes to the document 

Provide a summary of public comments for Directors review 

Respond to public comments in the document and make 

necessary changes. Provide Washington Office a briefing on 

the public’s response to the draft CCP and the Service’s 

response. 

Final one-week internal review for Service staff 

Preferred alternative is selected and became the 

management direction for the final CCP 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 2. The North Dakota Limited-interest 

Refuge Program 

2.1 Establishment of the Program 

In the 1930s, the United States was faced with 

a depression, a massive drought, and declining 

waterfowl and other wildlife populations. To 

address these crises, the federal government 

developed the Program. Working with states 

and private landowners, beginning in 1935, 

dozens of limited-interest refuge agreements 

were signed. These refuge and flowage 

easements (see section 2.4 for more 

information), most perpetual, were established 

for the purposes of 1) water conservation, 2) 

drought relief, 3) migratory bird and wildlife 

conservation purposes. 

The economic crisis was also addressed through 

this Program. The Works Progress/Programs 

Administration and Civilian Conservation 

Corps programs provided jobs in the local 

communities to build the structures needed to 

impound and control water levels. This reliable 

water source was not only critical to wildlife 

but to the livelihood of the landowners and 

their agricultural operations. 

Although most were perpetually protected, a 

new status was given to these lands in the late 

1930s and 1940s. Refuge lands in close 

proximity were combined, establishing an 

approved acquisition boundary, and designated 

as Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (later changed 

to national wildlife refuges) under the 

authorities of executive orders and 

conservation laws. To this day, 93 percent of 

these lands still remain in private ownership 

making them unique among the more than 540 

national wildlife refuges. 

Since this Program was established, it has 

played a vital role in the recovery and 

protection of water resources and the 

waterfowl and other wildlife that depend on 

these areas. However, these refuges need to be 

re-evaluated to determine which can truly 

function as national wildlife refuges as 

prescribed in the Improvement Act. This 

should be accomplished through this CCP and 

future planning efforts. 

2.2 Current Status of the Program 

The North Dakota Limited-interest National 

Wildlife Refuges encompass 47,296 limitedinterest refuge acres within the boundaries of 

39 individual refuges ranging in size from 160 

acres (Half Way Lake NWR) to 5,506 acres 

(Rock Lake NWR). The approved acquisition 

boundary for these refuges totals 54,140 acres 

(see figure 2 for locations of these refuges). 

Six different managing stations are responsible 

for this Program including Arrowwood NWR 

Complex, Audubon NWR Complex, Devils 

Lake WMD, J. Clark Salyer NWR Complex, 

Kulm WMD, and Long Lake NWR Complex. 

Table 3 provides a breakdown of refuges 

managed by station. Most of these refuges are 

located east of the Missouri River except for 

two, Lake Patricia NWR and Pretty Rock 

NWR. All refuges have an overriding purpose 

of providing habitat for migratory birds. 

No staff or funding is dedicated to this 

Program. Historically, management has been 

incidental to the station’s other funded 

programs. Currently no volunteers or Friends 

Groups assist the Program. 

The Limited-interest Refuge Program is 

not part of the more well-known grassland 

and wetland easement refuge programs. 
12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Da kota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 2. Location Map 

 

 

 

 

 

2⎯The Limited-interest Refuge Program 13 

Table 3. List of refuges by managing station 

WPA Acres 

Complex 

Headquarters 

Limited-interest 

Refuge 

Limitedinterest 

Refuge 

Acres 

NWR 

Fee 

Acres 

Total 

Acres 

Approved 

Acquisition 

Boundary 

Within 

Approved 

Acquisition 

Boundary Adjacent 

Arrowwood 

NWR Complex 

6 Refuges 

6,392 Total 

Limited-interest 

Refuge Acres 

7,445 Approved 

Acquisition 

Boundary Acres† 

Half Way Lake 

Hobart Lake 

Johnson Lake 

Sibley Lake 

Stoney Slough 

Tomahawk 

160.00 

1,831.21 

2,003.42 

1,077.40 

880.00 

440.00 

0 

245.89 

4.49 

0 

0 

0 

160.00 

2,077.10 

2,007.91 

1,077.40 

880.00 

440.00 

160.00 

1,840.00 

1,928.00 

1,077.00 

2,000.00 

440.00 

0 

0 

0 

81 

1,120 

0 

0 

0 

0 

496 

440 

0 

Audubon NWR 

Complex 

7 Refuges 

4,831 Total 

Limited-interest 

Refuge Acres 

6,888 Approved 

Acquisition 

Boundary Acres† 

Camp Lake 

Hiddenwood 

Lake Otis 

Lake Patricia 

Lost Lake 

Pretty Rock 

Sheyenne Lake 

584.70 

568.35 

320.00 

800.23 

960.21 

800.00 

797.30 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

584.70 

568.35 

320.00 

800.23 

960.21 

800.00 

797.30 

1,212.44 

568.00 

640.00 

1,434.23 

960.00 

800.00 

1,273.00 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Devils Lake 

WMD 

10 Refuges 

18,099 Total 

Limited-interest 

Refuge Acres 

19,700 Approved 

Acquisition 

Boundary Acres† 

Ardoch 

Brumba 

Lambs Lake 

Little Goose 

Pleasant Lake 

Rock Lake 

Rose Lake 

Silver Lake 

Snyder Lake 

Wood Lake 

2,388.50 

1,977.48 

1,026.67 

288.41 

897.80 

5,505.96 

836.30 

3,347.64 

1,550.18 

280.00 

307.63 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2,696.13 

1,977.48 

1,026.67 

288.41 

897.80 

5,505.96 

836.30 

3,347.64 

1,550.18 

280.00 

2,980.00 

1,977.48 

1,318.00 

359.04 

1,020.00 

5,587.00 

1,280.00 

3,348.00 

1,550.18 

280.00 

0 

0 

80 

71 

103 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

134 

0 

0 

0 

J. Clark Salyer Buffalo Lake 1,539.92 23.80 1,563.72 2,105.00 0 0 

NWR Complex Cottonwood 1,013.47 0 1,013.47 1,013.00 0 0 

7 Refuges Lake 

7,886 Total 

Limited-interest Lords Lake 1,915.29 0 1,915.29 1,915.22 0 0 

Refuge Acres Rabb Lake 260.80 0 260.80 261.00 0 0 

9,221 Approved School Section 297.30 0 297.30 680.00 0 0 

Acquisition Lake 

Boundary Acres† 

Willow Lake 

Wintering River 

2,619.69 

239.26 

0.69 

0 

2,620.38 

239.26 

2,848.00 

399.12 

227 

160 

19 

106 

Kulm WMD 

3 Refuges 

4,152 Total 

Limited-interest 

Refuge Acres 

4,544 Approved 

Acquisition 

Boundary Acres† 

Bone Hill 

Dakota Lake 

Maple River 

640.00 

2,799.78 

712.00 

0 

0 

0 

640.00 

2,799.78 

712.00 

640.00 

2,784.00 

1,120.00 

0 

0 

408 

0 

0 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

14 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Table 3. List of refuges by managing station 

WPA Acres 

Limited- Within 

interest NWR Approved Approved 

Complex Limited-interest Refuge Fee Total Acquisition Acquisition 

Headquarters Refuge Acres Acres Acres Boundary Boundary Adjacent 

Long Lake Appert Lake 907.75 0 907.75 1,162.76 251 0 

NWR Complex Canfield Lake 310.13 3.10 313.23 453.00 149 631 

6 Refuges 

5,754 Total 

Limited-interest 

Hutchinson 

Lake 

478.90 0 478.90 478.90 0 0 

Refuge Acres Lake George 3,089.61 29.20 3,118.81 3,113.00 0 0 

6,343 Approved 

Acquisition 

Boundary Acres† 

Springwater 

Sunburst Lake 

640.00 

327.51 

0 

0 

640.00 

327.51 

640.00 

494.96 

0 0 

178 403 

†

NWR = national wildlife refuge; WPA = Waterfowl Production Area. 

Rick Coleman, assistant regional director for 

refuges, examines a historical 1930s boundary 

sign found on Buffalo Lake NWR. 

2.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

Landowner Rights 

Since the Program was established, some have 

questioned what rights the government 

purchased from the landowners relative to the 

refuges. Overall, the variations in the limitedinterest refuge agreements are whether the 

agreement was perpetual or revocable, and 

whether it was a flowage and/or limitedinterest refuge. Most agreements include the 

following standard language: 

The exclusive (and perpetual) right and 

easement to flood with water, and to 

maintain and operate an artificial lake, 

and/or to raise the water level of a 

natural lake or stream, upon the land 

herein after described, by means of 

dams, dikes, fills, ditches, spillways, 

and other structures, for water 

conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and other wildlife 

conservation purposes, and/or upon 

said lands and waters to operate and 

maintain a wildlife conservation 

demonstration unit and a closed refuge 

and reservation for migratory birds and 

other wildlife. 

The planning team needed to determine which 

rights the Service would regulate prior to 

planning the future of the Program. To make 

this determination, the planning team 

examined dozens of historical documents, 

correspondence, and several solicitor’s opinions 

to better understand the intent of the Program 

and define such terms as “wildlife conservation 

demonstration unit” and “closed refuge and 

reservation for migratory birds.” 

The limited-interest refuge agreements with a 

flowage provision focus on the impoundment or 

main body of water. In the 1930s and 1940s, the 

federal government funded the installation of 

dams, dikes, spillways, and other structures to 

impound and manage water for water 

conservation and wildlife habitat. The Service 

also has a senior water right on 38 of the 

refuges. The Service’s water rights to the 

impoundment or main body of water may be 

through structures or an established water 

right, and provide authority to manage water 

uses. The Service manages water uses, 

including fishing, boating, and water skiing, to 

minimize or eliminate negative impacts on 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2⎯The Limited-interest Refuge Program 15 

migratory birds and other wetland-dependent 

wildlife. 

Hunting, especially market hunting, was an 

issue at the time the refuges were established. 

It was clear in the documentation that the 

Service was given the right to control hunting, 

including the right to allow it. Trapping was 

identified as an economic benefit of the limitedinterest refuges when the Program was 

established. Over time, trapping has become 

more a recreational use than an economic use. 

Today, trapping has become a management tool 

necessary to control unnaturally high 

populations of predators of nesting waterfowl 

and other grassland birds. The Service issues 

special use permits to each individual trapper. 

According to limited-interest refuge 

agreements and historical records, it appears 

the intent was not to control the uses that 

occur on the uplands or naturally occurring 

wetlands, apart from hunting. Many of these 

refuges are farmed, grazed, or have been 

developed. In some cases, development took 

place prior to the limited-interest refuge 

agreements, in particular, farmsteads and 

recreational cabins. 

There is no clearly defined Service right to 

control activities in uplands, even though the 

activities may impact upland-dependent 

wildlife. 

Some naturally occurring wetlands have a 

significant value to wetland-dependent wildlife. 

However, there appears to be no clearly 

defined right in the agreements or the 

historical records that the Service intended to 

control the management and uses that occur on 

wetlands. 

The planning team developed a final list of 

rights and uses they felt the Service should and 

should not regulate based on the authority of 

the limited-interest refuge agreement and the 

intent of the Program as described in historical 

documents: 

Uses the Service will regulate include: 

Q all hunting and trapping activities; 

Q water level management of 

impoundments; 

Q management/regulation of any activities 

that occur on the impoundments or main 

body of water to minimize or eliminate 

negative impacts on migratory birds and 

other wetland-dependent wildlife. 

Uses the Service will not regulate include: 

Q	 any development or other activities 

(other than hunting) that occur on the 

uplands; 

Q	 management of naturally occurring 

wetlands. 

If the Service wishes to control these uses it 

will work with willing landowners to provide 

additional compensation through other 

programs to acquire these rights (see chapter 6 

for more information). 

2.4 Purposes of the Limited-interest 

Refuges 

For this plan, the refuges are combined to 

evaluate them as a group and a Program. The 

purposes and management capabilities and 

challenges are similar for all 39 refuges. 

All limited-interest refuges were established 

and are regulated by the associated refuge 

and/or flowage easements. Where flowage 

easements were acquired, the Service also filed 

for water rights using the process established 

by North Dakota law existing at the time. 

Even though these lands became national 

wildlife refuges, the refuge and/or flowage 

easement language (see previous section) is the 

overriding purpose on lands that remain in 

private ownership. The language of the 

establishing legislation is relevant only to those 

lands owned by the government. Information, 

including the refuge purpose, for each of the 39 

refuges is summarized in table 4). 

Starting in 1939, approved acquisition 

boundaries were established around adjoining 

limited-interest refuges and designated as 

Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, later renamed 

national wildlife refuges. The overriding 

purpose of these refuges is management of 

migratory birds. 

Thirty-one refuges established under 

executive orders signed in 1939 by 

President F.D. Roosevelt: Aas a refuge 

and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.” 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Seven refuges established in 1948 under 

a precursor to the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (August 14, 1946, 60, 

Stat. 1080): Ashall be administered by 

him [Secretary of Interior] directly or 

in accordance with cooperative 

agreements ... and in accordance with 

such rules and regulations for the 

conservation, maintenance, and 

management of wildlife, resources 

thereof, and its habitat thereon.@

In 1971 the limited-interest refuge that 

covers what is now Lake Otis NWR was 

Arediscovered@ at which time the 

Director established it as a refuge under 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Act: 

Afor use as an inviolate sanctuary, or 

for any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds.@

All goals, objectives, and strategies are 

intended to support the individual purposes for 

which each refuge was established. 

2.5 Vision and Goals 

After public scoping, the Service developed a 

vision for the Program. A vision describes what 

will be different in the future as a result of the 

CCP and the essence of what the Service is 

trying to do for these refuges and its partners. 

The vision is a future-oriented statement 

designed to be achieved through refuge 

management by the end of the 15-year CCP 

planning horizon. 

Vision Statement 

Since our Nation’s beginning, great flocks of 

wildfowl⎯ducks, geese and waterbirds⎯provided sights and sounds, food and 

feather. These wings of migration not only 

inspired hunters but some of our greatest 

artists, photographers, and poets. In the 1930s, 

much of the United States, including North 

Dakota, was gripped by a devastating drought 

and depression. Hot winds that dried crops also 

dried wetlands. Wildfowl numbers plummeted, 

and the skies grew quiet. 

Americans took this crisis and saw opportunity 

and a great partnership was formed. 

Conservation leaders, the state of North 

Dakota, the federal government, and private 

landowners laid the foundation for what would 

become the North Dakota Limited-interest 

Program. This Program addressed both wildlife 

conservation and economic needs. The Works 

Progress/Program Administration and Civilian 

Conservation Corp brought jobs to the 

communities building dams and other 

structures to create water areas that now 

provide habitat and sanctuary for waterfowl 

and other migratory birds. 

Through cooperation with the current refuge 

landowners and other conservation partners, 

the Program will realize its full potential. It 

will become a premier example of private land 

partnerships promoting fish and wildlife 

conservation, supporting other conservation 

programs while continuing to serve as 

sanctuaries for international migratory birds. 

Goals 

The Service also developed a set of goals for 

the Program based on the Improvement Act 

and information gathered during CCP 

planning. Five goals were identified. 

Goal 1. Wetland Habitat: Maintain and 

manage natural and created wetlands within 

the approved acquisition boundary to provide 

habitat for international populations of 

waterfowl and other migratory birds along 

with other wetland-dependent wildlife. 

Goal 2. Upland Habitat: Establish a land 

protection program within the approved 

acquisition boundary to maintain, restore, and 

enhance uplands to provide habitat for 

international populations of waterfowl, other 

migratory birds, and other wildlife. 

Goal 3. Partnerships: Foster beneficial 

landowner, community, and regional 

partnerships to assist in achieving the Program 

vision while ensuring 100 percent of all 

partners gain a greater understanding of the 

management and resources of the limitedinterest refuges. 

Goals 4. Visitor Services: Where compatible, 

and in cooperation with willing landowners, 

allow public fishing, hunting, trapping, and 

other quality wildlife-dependent recreation 

opportunities that foster an appreciation and 

understanding of the management and 

resources of the Program and the System. 

Goal 5. Administration: Secure and 

effectively use funding, staffing, and 

partnerships to ensure the Program meets its 

full potential of habitat protection and visitor 

use. 
2⎯The Limited-interest Refuge Program 17 

Table 4. Acres, establishment date, legislation, and purpose(s) for each refuge 

Limited-	 Establishment Approved Establishment Date interest Fee-title 	 Legislation or Refuge Acquisition and Boundary	 Refuge Purpose(s) Refuge Acres 	 Executive Order Boundary Acres Approval Acres 	 (EO) 

Appert Lake 907.75 0 1,162.76 May 10, 1939 EO 8110 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Ardoch 2,388.50 307.63 2,980.00 June 12, 1939 EO 8147 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Bone Hill 640.00 0 640.00 May 10, 1939 EO 8162 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Brumba 1,977.48 0 1,977.48 June 12, 1939 EO 8148 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Buffalo Lake 1,539.92 23.80 2,105.00 May 10, 1939 EO 8113 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Camp Lake 584.70 0 1,212.44 May 10, 1939 EO 8114 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Canfield Lake 310.13 3.10 453.00 May 10, 1939 EO 8115 (limited-	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

interest refuge migratory birds and other wildlife acres) “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for Migratory Bird any other management purpose, for Conservation Act migratory birds.” (3.10 fee-title acres) 

Cottonwood Lake 1,013.47 0 1,013.00 June 12, 1939 EO 8149 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Dakota Lake 2,799.78 0 2,784.00 May 10, 1939 EO 8117 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Half Way Lake 160.00 0 160.00 May 10, 1939 EO 8120 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Hiddenwood 568.35 0 568.00 June 12, 1939 EO 8150 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Hobart Lake 1,831.21 245.89 1,840.00 June 12, 1939 EO 8151 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Hutchinson Lake 478.90 0 478.90 May 10, 1939 EO 8121 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Johnson Lake 2,003.42 4.49 1,928.00 May 10, 1939 EO 8120 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Lake George 3,089.61 29.20 3,113.00 June 12, 1939 EO 8153 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 
18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Table 4. Acres, establishment date, legislation, and purpose(s) for each refuge 

Limited-	 Establishment Approved Establishment Date interest Fee-title 	 Legislation or Refuge Acquisition and Boundary	 Refuge Purpose(s) Refuge Acres 	 Executive Order Boundary Acres Approval Acres 	 (EO) 

Lake Otis 320.00 0 640.00 Aug. 4, 1971 Migratory Bird “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for 

Conservation Act any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds.” 

Lake Patricia 800.23 0 1,434.23 June 12, 1939 EO 8156 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Lambs Lake 1,206.67 0 1,318.00 June 12, 1939 EO 8159 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Little Goose 288.41 0 359.04 May 10, 1939 EO 8125 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Lords Lake 1,915.29 0 1,915.22 May 10, 1939 EO 8127 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Lost Lake 960.21 0 960.00 May 10, 1939 EO 8128 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Maple River 712.00 0 1,120.00 June 12, 1939 EO 8162 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Pleasant Lake 897.80 0 1,020.00 June 12, 1939 EO 8164 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Pretty Rock 800.00 0 800.00 Feb. 3, 1941 EO 8659 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Rabb Lake 260.80 0 261.00 Dec. 21, 1948 	 Act of August 14, “shall be administered ... for the 

1946 (precursor to conservation, maintenance, and the Fish and Wildlife management of wildlife resources thereof, Coordination Act) and its habitat thereon.” 

Rock Lake 5,505.96 0 5,587.00 June 12, 1939 EO 8165 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Rose Lake 839.30 0 1,280.00 Dec. 21, 1948 	 Act of August 14, “shall be administered ... for the 

1946 (precursor to conservation, maintenance, and the Fish and Wildlife management of wildlife resources thereof, Coordination Act) and its habitat thereon.” 

School Section 297.30 0 680.00 Dec. 21, 1948 Act of August 14, “shall be administered ... for the Lake 1946 (precursor to conservation, maintenance, and 

the Fish and Wildlife management of wildlife resources thereof, Coordination Act) and its habitat thereon.” 
2⎯The Limited-interest Refuge Program 19 

Table 4. Acres, establishment date, legislation, and purpose(s) for each refuge 

Limited-	 Establishment Approved Establishment Date interest Fee-title 	 Legislation or Refuge Acquisition and Boundary	 Refuge Purpose(s) Refuge Acres 	 Executive Order Boundary Acres Approval Acres 	 (EO) 

Sheyenne Lake 797.30 0 1,273.00 Dec. 21, 1948 	 Act of August 14, “shall be administered ... for the 

1946 (precursor to conservation, maintenance, and the Fish and Wildlife management of wildlife resources thereof, Coordination Act) and its habitat thereon.” 

Sibley Lake 1,077.40 0 1,077.00 June 12, 1939 EO 8167 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Silver Lake 3,347.64 0 3,348.00 Dec. 21, 1948 	 Act of August 14, “shall be administered ... for the 

1946 (precursor to conservation, maintenance, and the Fish and Wildlife management of wildlife resources thereof, Coordination Act) and its habitat thereon.” 

Snyder Lake 1,550.18 0 1,550.18 Feb. 3, 1941 EO 8660 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Springwater 640.00 0 640.00 Feb. 3, 1941 EO 8661 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Stoney Slough 880.00 0 2,000.00 Feb. 3, 1941 EO 8663 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Sunburst Lake 327.51 0 494.96 Feb. 3, 1941 EO 8664 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Tomahawk 440.00 0 440.00 Feb. 3, 1941 EO 8665 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Willow Lake 2,619.69 0.69 2,848.00 Dec. 21, 1948 	 Act of August 14, “shall be administered ... for the 

1946 (precursor to conservation, maintenance, and the Fish and Wildlife management of wildlife resources thereof, Coordination Act) and its habitat thereon.” 

Wintering River 239.26 0 399.12 Feb. 3, 1941 EO 8667 	 “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Wood Lake 280.00 0 280.00 Dec. 21, 1948 	 Act of August 14, “shall be administered ... for the 

1946 (precursor to conservation, maintenance, and the Fish and Wildlife management of wildlife resources thereof, Coordination Act) and its habitat thereon.” 

Totals 47,296.17 614.8 54,140.33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

2.6 Special Values 

The planning team and public identified special 

values and qualities that make most of these 

refuges valuable for wildlife and the American 

people. The limited-interest refuges: 

Q contribute to a complex of habitats;
 

Q complement other conservation lands; 


Q provide nesting, staging, and resting
 

areas for waterfowl; 

Q provide habitat for other migratory 

birds; 

Q provide a reliable water source for 

migratory birds during critical 

migration periods; 

Q increase hunting opportunities in 

surrounding areas; 

Q maintain water quality and quantity; 

Q have secure senior water rights (38 of 39 

refuges); 


Q provide cultural value 


•	 historical value of the Program 

(dustbowl, waterfowl decline) 

•	 local history (Works 

Progress/Project Administration 

and Civilian Conservation Corps 

projects); 

Q	 provide wildlife observation 


opportunities; 


Q serve as wildlife sanctuaries. 


Yellowlegs 

Bob Hines/USFWS 

2.7 Issues 

A final list of issues was developed following an 

analysis of all comments collected from refuge 

staffs, public scoping activities, and a review of 

the requirements of the Improvement Act and 

NEPA. Substantive comments (i.e., those that 

could be addressed within the authority of the 

limited-interest refuge agreement and the 

management capabilities of the Service) were 

considered during the formulation of the 

alternatives for future management. Major 

issues are summarized below. 

Wetland Management 

The Service acquired the rights to “flood with 

water, and to maintain and operate an artificial 

lake, and/or to raise the water level of a natural 

lake or stream, upon the land ... for water 

conservation, drought relief, and for migratory 

bird and wildlife conservation purposes.” The 

Service also was granted the right to install 

structures necessary to achieve this purpose. 

Most of the work began in the 1930s through 

the Works Progress/Program Administration 

and Civilian Conservation Corps. Since that 

time, no funding or staffing has been committed 

for management and maintenance of created 

wetlands and structures. Structures have been 

replaced as funds become available; however, 

most structures are original and are in 

disrepair, or do not meet the standards 

necessary to effectively manage water for 

wildlife purposes. 

In addition, the Service has not had funding or 

staffing to manage naturally occurring 

wetlands, currently estimated at nearly 3,000 

acres. This is a significant resource for a 

variety of wildlife species, in particular 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. If the 

Service wishes to protect wetlands, it must 

work with willing landowners to determine 

adequate compensation for this added 

protection (see section 6.3). 

Upland Management 

The Service regulates hunting and trapping in 

uplands. Development, farming, and grazing 

existed and have expanded on many of the 

limited-interest refuges since this Program was 

initiated 70 years ago. In some cases, these 

activities have caused a complete loss of 

biodiversity and wildlife habitat. Most refuges 

have varying intensities of impacts including 

the loss of wetlands and native grasslands. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2⎯The Limited-interest Refuge Program 21 

According to “Habitat and Population 

Evaluation Team” (HAPET) data, about 14,060 

acres of native prairie occurs on the limitedinterest refuges. Most of this acreage is used 

for grazing and haying; however, farming and 

development patterns change and once this 

prairie is broken for farming or construction, it 

will be lost forever. The continued loss of 

upland habitat, in particular native prairie, will 

have the greatest impact to wildlife and the 

future of the Program. 

Partnerships 

Over 225 landowners own 93 percent of the 

lands within the boundaries of the limitedinterest refuges. Some landowners’ parents or 

other relatives signed the easement refuge 

agreements and current landowners have since 

inherited the properties. In some cases, 

landowners were unaware the easement refuge 

existed. There has never been an avenue or 

program that has allowed for consistent, 

quality dialogue between landowners and the 

Service. Some efforts have been made to work 

with landowners when maintenance or 

rehabilitation of structures has been completed, 

but overall there has been little contact. 

Several landowners prefer this lack of contact, 

while others wish to be more informed on 

management plans and opportunities to receive 

compensation for additional protections such as 

wetland and grassland easement refuges or fee 

title. Assistance has occasionally been 

requested for maintaining water level 

management structures. 

The Program will not succeed without the 

partnership of these landowners. While some of 

the limited-interest refuges have remained 

unchanged over the life of the limited-interest 

refuge, others have been developed 

extensively. Many landowners would like 

assistance or compensation for managing their 

uplands for wildlife. However, except for a few 

acquisitions including some additional limitedinterest refuges, no funding or staffing have 

been allocated for this Program since it was 

initiated. 

Some partners have shown interest in 

providing assistance in maintaining these 

refuges; however, because most limitedinterest refuges are on private lands, few 

incentives exist for national organizations to 

assist in maintenance and rehabilitation. The 

Service’s Private Lands Program has been 

successful in North Dakota; however, because 

the limited-interest refuges already have some 

protection, few attempts have been made to 

use this program’s limited resources for the 

limited-interest refuges. Most of the work 

accomplished on the limited-interest refuges, 

including boundary posting, structure 

maintenance, and law enforcement, is 

incidental to the managing stations’ other 

funded programs. 

Visitor Services 

The Improvement Act recognized that wildlifedependent recreational uses involving hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and 

interpretation, when determined to be 

compatible, are legitimate and appropriate 

public uses of the Refuge System. However, 

even if a use is found to be compatible on a 

refuge, it may not be permitted unless the 

resources are available to manage that use. 

The NDGF was particularly interested in 

determining the landowner’s willingness and 

compatibility of opening as many refuges as 

possible to provide increased recreational 

opportunities. 

No public use on any limited-interest refuge 

will be permitted without access being granted 

by willing landowners. The Service has never 

had the right to permit access to the public 

without the landowners’ permission. 

In addition, the Service cannot open refuges to 

any uses unless they are open to the general 

public. Restrictions may be placed on the 

number of users through permits and drawings; 

however, no restrictions can be placed on who 

may participate. The following summarizes the 

issues related to wildlife-dependent programs. 

Consumptive Uses (hunting, fishing, and 

trapping). The Service has the right to control 

all hunting, trapping, and fishing within the 

boundaries of the limited-interest refuges. This 

includes the right to allow these uses when 

found compatible with the purposes and 

funding and staffing are available to manage 

the program. 

Hunting and Trapping. Hunting and trapping 

are considered by many, including the Service, 

to be a legitimate, traditional recreational use 

of renewable natural resources. National 

wildlife refuges exist primarily to safeguard 

wildlife populations through habitat 

preservation. The word “refuge” includes the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

idea of providing a haven of safety for wildlife 

and, as such, hunting and trapping might seem 

an inconsistent use of the System. However, 

habitat that typically supports healthy wildlife 

populations produces harvestable surpluses 

that are a renewable resource. 

A number of landowners commented about 

crop and landscaping damage due to the 

concentration of white-tailed deer and geese. In 

particular, during hunting seasons, wildlife 

concentrate in protected areas and impact 

crops and landscaping due to this unnatural 

concentration of animals and lack of food. There 

is no concern that these wildlife species are in 

peril or declining in number. The populations 

are at harvestable levels. 

When historical records were examined, 

increased trapping opportunities was seen as a 

benefit to establishing these refuges. At that 

time this benefit was more economic than 

biological. Since established, trapping has been 

permitted on these refuges on a permit-only 

basis. The use today is minimal, less than one 

trapper per refuge. However, this trapping 

program has become vital to the success of 

nesting waterfowl and grassland birds, the 

purpose for which these refuges were 

established. Studies indicate that the major 

source of mortality for waterfowl during the 

breeding season is predation (Sargeant and 

Reveling 1992), with greater than 70% of nest 

failures attributed to predation (Sovada et. al. 

2001). The predator community of the prairie 

pothole region has drastically changed as 

habitat was modified by agriculture. The 

resulting highly cultivated and heavily 

fragmented landscape is more conducive to 

smaller predators such as fox, raccoon and 

skunk than it is for wolves and grizzlies. 

Smaller predators now occur at very high 

densities across the prairie breeding grounds. 

These smaller predators prey heavily on all 

ground nesting birds, including ducks. The 

result is that we now rarely observe nesting 

success in ducks over 15%, which is likely the 

break even point for most populations of 

waterfowl. This is a human-caused problem and 

without intervention, these small predator 

bases would continue to expand and devastate 

waterfowl and other ground nesting bird 

populations. 

Fishing. Fishing is currently permitted on only 

a few refuges. The Service does control this use 

but must receive permission for public access 

from the landowners. Although the Service 

controls fishing, it looks to the state to assist in 

managing those areas open to fishing. The state 

currently stocks several lakes open to the 

public with game fish. The landowners, the 

state, and the managing stations requested 

that we examine additional opportunities for 

fishing on other refuges in this project area. 

There was particular interest in ice fishing, a 

popular sport throughout the state. The 

Service will ensure that any current or 

proposed uses are compatible with the 

purposes of each refuge. 

Boy Fishing 

Paul Kerris/USFWS 

Nonconsumptive Uses (wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental education 

and interpretation). Wildlife-dependent 

nonconsumptive uses such as wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation, are priority 

public uses of the System. None of these 

activities are currently promoted on the 

limited-interest refuges. Public access must be 

granted by the landowners and the use must be 

found compatible before any public uses are 

permitted. It is not known what opportunities 

exist for these uses. However, there was some 

interest at public meetings and from a few 

landowners to develop trails and provide 

environmental education and interpretation 

opportunities, in particular for students. 

Administration 

Since it was established almost 70 years ago, 

only cursory attempts have been made to 

provide the guidance and resources necessary 

to properly manage the Program. Overall, this 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2⎯The Limited-interest Refuge Program 23 

Program is managed and funded incidental to 

the managing stations’ other funded programs, 

such as management of fee-title refuge lands 

and WPAs. Funding and staffing are already 

insufficient to manage the current fee-title and 

limited-interest refuge land bases. The 

managing stations spend an average of only 5 

days per year working on the limited-interest 

refuges, partly as a result of limited 

management abilities afforded by the limitedinterest refuge agreement. However, the lack 

of attention has equated to a loss of 

biodiversity and management capability as 

areas become developed and water 

management structures lose integrity. 

Divestiture 

The North Dakota Limited-interest Program 

was initiated to address a variety of issues 

relevant in the 1930s including a widespread 

depression and drought, market hunting, and 

wildlife preservation. This was also the era of 

one of the largest land conservation movements 

in history. Many of the national wildlife refuges 

in existence today were established during this 

era by such conservation leaders as J. Clark 

Salyer, Jr., Ding Darling, and Director M.O. 

Steen. This was also the time President 

Franklin Roosevelt introduced the “New Deal,” 

which created such programs as the Works 

Progress/Project Administration and the 

Civilian Conservation Corps. 

Representatives from the Bureau of Biological 

Survey (precursor the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service) traveled throughout North Dakota 

and other states meeting with landowners and 

securing refuge and/or flowage easements. 

Hundreds of these easements were signed 

followed by dozens of limited-interest refuges 

being established through executive order and 

other legislation. Local communities were 

provided jobs as water management structures 

were built to provide critical water for 

migratory birds and livestock. 

In the 1950s, there was an effort to re-evaluate 

each refuge to determine its ability to function 

as a refuge. A field team from the Service 

traveled to each refuge and habitats were 

evaluated at a cursory level. Many refuges 

were heavily impacted by development, while 

some easement agreements had been acquired 

on areas that possessed little or no wildlife 

habitat. Although the process is not well 

documented, it appears that dozens of limitedinterest refuges were divested based on this 

report. 

Following this effort, several limited-interest 

refuges began to receive greater attention. 

Some of them have since become fully 

functioning national wildlife refuges, primarily 

due to land acquisitions. 

The most recent divestiture of a limitedinterest refuge occurred in 1999 on Lake Elsie 

National Wildlife Refuge. Public Law 105-312, 

adopted October 30, 1998 (110 Stat. 2957), 

terminated the Service's easement on 634.7 

acres and repealed Executive Order 8152, thus 

abolishing the refuge. The Service requested 

the action, as all migratory bird values had 

been lost to development, which under the 

terms of the easement and EO creating the 

refuge, the Service had no authority to control. 

This same justification is being used for several 

of the limited-interest refuges proposed for 

divestiture in this document. 

This CCP process is only the second recorded 

attempt to comprehensively evaluate the 

limited-interest refuges and determine each 

refuge’s worthiness to be part of the System. It 

is critical to complete this evaluation. Any 

resources obtained for this Program must be 

used on those refuges that truly have the 

potential to meet the purposes for which they 

were established and the goals and mission of 

the System. Refuges that cannot meet this 

standard, or that have been or can be managed 

by the state of North Dakota, which owns many 

of these refuge lands, must be considered for 

divestiture. 
24 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Da kota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3. Alternatives
 

3.1 Introduction 

Alternatives are different approaches designed 

to achieve the refuge purpose(s), vision, and 

the goals identified in the CCP while helping to 

fulfill the System’s mission. 

This chapter describes the two alternatives 

analyzed in detail for the Program, including 

alternative A (current management—no action) 

and alternative B (enhance the program). The 

following sections describe how the 

alternatives were developed and how they 

addressed the substantive issues identified 

during the scoping process. 

This CCP and EA have been completed at the 

programmatic level, rather than as a 

management plan for each refuge. This was the 

most logical approach given the following 

circumstances: 

Q 39 limited-interest refuges in the CCP 

Q Private ownership of 93 percent of the 

limited-interest refuge lands 

Q Similarity of purposes, limited-interest 

refuge agreement language, and 

management history 

Q All but two are located east of the 

Missouri River, scattered from the 

Canadian to South Dakota borders 

Q No established guidelines or resources 

to manage the refuges or the Program 

3.2 Alternatives Development 

In 2004, the Service held several meetings with 

the landowners, public, and agencies to identify 

issues and concerns associated with the 

establishment and management of the 

Program. The public involvement process is 

summarized in greater detail in chapter 2. 

Based on public input, as well as guidance from 

the Improvement Act, NEPA, and Service 

planning policy, the planning team selected six 

substantive issues to be addressed in the 

alternatives: 

1. Wetland Management 

2. Upland Management 

3. Partnerships 

4. Visitor Services 

5. Administration 

6. Divestiture 

A more detailed description of each issue is in 

section 2.7. 

Once the decision was made to prepare a 

programmatic plan, it was discussed how to 

develop alternatives for meeting the goals 

while addressing these substantive issues. 

Given the circumstances mentioned previously, 

in particular, the fact that there were no 

current management guidelines, it was felt that 

the only alternative other than no action was to 

“enhance the program.” 

Any proposed actions beyond the uses the 

Service will regulate (see section 2.3) will 

not be conducted without the full support 

of the affected landowners. 

3.3 Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated from Detailed Study 

When the planning process began and the 

issues for these refuges and the program were 

identified, the planning team recognized that 

there was a great deal of similarity in purposes, 

habitats, issues, and limited management 

capabilities (see section 2.3) for all of 39 

refuges. Given these facts, there was no added 

value in developing individual goals, objectives, 

and strategies for each refuge. 
 

 

 

 

 

26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

3.4 Elements Common to All 

Alternatives 

This section identifies key elements included in 

the CCP regardless of which alternative was 

selected. Both alternatives would incorporate 

the following: 

Q	 No alternative would infringe on any 

landowner rights or commercial uses, 

beyond the uses the Service would 

regulate under the authority of the 

limited-interest refuge agreement (as 

described in section 2.3), without 

permission from willing landowners. 

Q	 Landowners would have the right to 

refuse receiving any additional 

compensation for added protections. 

Q	 Activities outside the authority of the 

limited-interest refuge agreement 

would not be conducted unless 

permission is granted from affected, 

willing landowners. 

Q	 Landowners would be provided with 

information on the Program annually. 

Q	 The Service would minimize negative 

impacts to migratory birds and other 

wildlife by regulating uses that occur on 

water. 

Q	 The Service would ensure that refuge 

management complies with all other 

federal laws and regulations that 

provide direction for managing units of 

the System. 

Chapter 6 outlines the Service’s plan for 

implementing the Enhancing the Program 

alternative in the form of goals, objectives, and 

strategies. 

3.5 Description of Alternatives 

The theme and general management direction 

for each alternative are described below. 

Alternative A—Current Management (No 

Action) 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, 

describes current and future management of 

the Program. It provides the baseline against 

which to compare the preferred alternative. It 

is also a requirement of NEPA that the noaction alternative be addressed. 

General Management Direction 

Management would continue to be incidental to 

other refuge programs. Visitor services would 

see few changes due to a lack of funding and 

staffing to manage additional uses. 

Upland and wetland habitat, in particular 

native prairie, would continue to be lost and 

landowners would not receive any further 

compensation for habitat protections. Water 

management structures would continue to 

deteriorate. Any repairs to water management 

structures would be funded through the 

maintenance and management program. 

Current hunting and trapping programs would 

continue if they are determined to be 

compatible with the refuge purposes. Only a 

few refuges are open to hunting while each 

refuge has been opened to permit-only trapping 

since they were established. The trapping 

program is limited, less than one trapper per 

refuge; however, this program is vital to 

increasing ground nesting bird survival by 

reducing unnaturally high populations of small 

predators (including raccoons and skunks). This 

permit-only trapping would continue. 

Contact with landowners and other partners 

would be incidental to issues and common 

interests. 

No limited-interest refuges would be divested, 

further straining limited resources and 

affecting the integrity of the System due to the 

retention of refuges that do not support the 

mission or goals of the System. 

Activities outside the authority of the limitedinterest refuge agreement would not be 

conducted unless permission is granted from 

willing landowners. 

Alternative B—Preferred Alternative 

(Enhance the Program) 

Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would 

address these refuges and their identified 

issues at a programmatic level while assisting 

the refuges to reach their full potential though 

greater cooperation and support. 

General Management Direction 

Highest priority would be given to ensuring 

that landowners become true partners in this 

Program and are involved in future 

management. A full-time Program manager 

would be recruited to oversee the Program and 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3⎯Alternatives 27 

implement this CCP. Landowners would be 

contacted at least annually through an 

informational newsletter providing updates on 

Program changes, opportunities, and limitedinterest refuge news. Partnerships with state 

agencies and other organizations would be 

actively pursued to achieve common goals that 

may support and enhance the Program. 

Using available habitat data, each managing 

station would work with the Habitat and 

Population Evaluation Team to develop a 

protection priority list for each refuge. Native 

prairie habitat would be given highest priority 

as areas are ranked, followed by natural 

wetlands. This would be the first critical 

evaluation of the value of each refuge and 

would assist managers in prioritizing the use of 

limited funding and staffing. 

With assistance from the Regional Engineering 

Office, existing impoundments would be 

evaluated to determine needed repairs or 

replacement of water management structures 

such as spillways, dams, and water control 

structures. Following evaluation, repairs, or 

replacement, impoundments would be managed 

for wetland-dependent migratory birds under 

the guidelines of an established water level 

management plan. 

Existing public use programs would continue if 

they remain compatible and there is a 

continued demand. Trapping would continue on 

a permit-only basis focusing efforts on 

maximizing waterfowl and other grassland 

nesting bird success through predator control. 

Public ice fishing would be permitted, where 

compatible. 

The Service would work with willing 

landowners to determine their interest in 

providing access to the public for additional 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education and 

interpretation programs. As new opportunities 

arise, each manager would determine the 

compatibility of such activities based on the 

refuge purposes and available resources to 

manage the proposed use. All programs must 

be made available to the public, but no public 

uses will occur unless the landowners grant 

access. Even though these refuges are 

primarily on private lands, any public programs 

are governed under the Code of Federal 

Regulations; therefore, public participation 

may not be restricted beyond such restrictions 

as limiting the number of users and seasons. 

Under this alternative, six refuges would be 

proposed for divestiture: Camp Lake, Lake 

Patricia, Sheyenne Lake, School Section Lake, 

Bone Hill, and Cottonwood Lake. These 

refuges are being considered for divestiture 

due to extensive loss of habitat and ownership 

patterns. In particular, the state currently 

owns and/or manages three of these refuges 

(Lake Patricia, Sheyenne Lake, and School 

Section Lake) and are willing to continue if 

they are divested. The state has also expressed 

an interest in the fisheries resources of the 

remaining three refuges although these refuges 

uplands have little value to wildlife due to 

extensive development and commercial 

operations. The Service does not control these 

upland uses under the limited-interest refuge 

agreement; therefore, the uses have expanded 

over the 70 years. These proposals would 

ensure that future resources are expended on 

the remaining refuges that still have the 

potential to support the mission and goals of 

the System. 

In all cases, activities outside the authority of 

the limited-interest refuge agreement would not 

be conducted unless permission is granted from 

the affected and willing landowners including, 

but not limited to: 

Q additional compensation for added 

protections of wildlife habitat; 

Q fee-title acquisitions; 

Q visitor services programs where access 

is needed from the landowner. 

3.6 Comparison of Alternatives 

The two alternatives evaluated are no action 

and enhance the program (the preferred 

alternative). A comparison of these alternatives 

is shown in table 5. 

Blue-winged Teal 

Tom Kelley/USFWS 
28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Da kota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Table 5. Summary comparison of alternatives 

Alternative B Alternative A Focus Area	 (Enhance the North Dakota Limited­ (Current Management—No Action) interest Program) 

Wetland Management 	 Retain current structures acquiring funds 

from the Maintenance Management System 

program for incidental repair/rehab 

Little to no water level management of 

existing impoundments 

No management or protection of natural 

wetlands. 

No actions would be conducted beyond the 

authority of the current limited-interest 

refuge agreement (see section 2.3). 

Evaluate existing structures, prioritize 

projects and repair or replace as needed 

to meet modern water level management 

standards while not exceeding current 

water right levels. 

Actively manage those impoundments 

with the ability to support migratory 

birds, particularly waterfowl. 

Work with willing landowners to protect 

and enhance naturally occurring 

wetlands. 

Monitor wildlife response to management 

actions. 

No actions would be conducted beyond 

the authority of the current limitedinterest refuge agreement (see section 

2.3) without the permission of willing 

landowners. 

Work with willing landowners to restore 

and enhance riparian habitats. 

Upland Management No management of upland habitat or uses. 

No actions would be conducted beyond the 

authority of the current limited-interest 

refuge agreement (see section 2.3). 

Managing stations will work with the 

HAPET office to prioritize refuges and 

upland habitat types for added 

protections, giving priority to native 

habitats. 

Provide assistance and compensation to 

willing landowners for added protections 

of upland habitat. 

Monitor wildlife response to management 

actions. 

Provide farmers with information 

through the Department of Agriculture 

on best management practices to reduce 

siltation and contaminants. 

No actions would be conducted beyond 

the authority of the current limitedinterest refuge agreement (see section 

2.3) without the permission of willing 

landowners. 
 

 

 

 

 

3⎯Alternatives 29 

Table 5. Summary comparison of alternatives 

Focus Area Alternative A 

(Current Management—No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Enhance the North Dakota Limitedinterest Program) 

Partnerships Annually update landowner mailing list. Same as alternative A except: 

Contact with landowners and other partners Prepare an annual newsletter for the 

would be incidental to issues and common landowners and other interested 

interests. partners providing information on the 

Program including compensated 

programs available to willing 

landowners and include a postage-paid 

comment form to provide feedback to 

the Service. 

Provide opportunities for landowners 

to record wildlife sightings on their 

properties. Highlight sightings in 

annual newsletters. 

Notify landowners when management 

actions have the potential to affect 

their lands. 

Work with NDGF to collaborate on 

refuge evaluations for habitat 

protection and visitor services 

programs. 

Actively develop partnerships to work 

on common interests that may benefit 

the Program. 

Visitor Services 

Hunting, Trapping, No new hunting or fishing opportunities Same as alternative A, except: 

and Fishing would be permitted unless compatible with 

the refuge purposes, resources are available, 

and landowners provide access. 

Managing stations would actively 

work with willing landowners and the 

NDGF to evaluate each refuge for 

No waterfowl (ducks) hunting would be hunting and fishing opportunities. 

permitted. Depredation issues would be 

Trapping would continue on a permit-only addressed through these programs. 

basis focusing all efforts on improving Four seasonal law enforcement 

nesting success of waterfowl and other officers would be recruited to ensure 

ground nesting birds through a predator the safety of visitors, landowners, and 

management program. Trappers will follow wildlife. 

state regulations and annually report species 

harvested. Ice fishing would be permitted, where 

appropriate and compatible. 

Wildlife Observation No active watchable wildlife programs. Managing stations would actively work 

 and Photography with landowners to determine their 

willingness to provide wildlife viewing 

opportunities. 

Develop wildlife observation programs. 

Environmental No environmental education programs. Managing stations would actively work 

Education with landowners to determine their 

willingness to provide environmental 

education opportunities. 

Work with the Service’s Visitor Services 

Division and local teachers to develop 

environmental education programs 

highlighting the Program and its 

resources. 
30 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Da kota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Table 5. Summary comparison of alternatives 

Focus Area Alternative A 

(Current Management—No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Enhance the North Dakota Limitedinterest Program) 

Administration No dedicated resources would be available Recruit one statewide Program manager. 

for the Program. Develop Maintenance Management 

System projects to repair or replace 

water management structures. 

Develop project proposals for 

compensating willing landowners for 

added protections. 

Divestiture No refuges would be divested. Six refuges would be divested due to 

habitat loss and opportunities for state 

management. 

Future resources available for the 

Program would be used on those refuges 

that have the ability and qualities needed 

to support the goals of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4. Affected Environment
 

4.1 Physical Environment 

The limited-interest refuges are scattered 

across North Dakota, primarily east of the 

Missouri River, from the Canadian border 

down to South Dakota. Because the refuges 

cover such a large geographic area, the physical 

environment and biological resources will be 

described in terms of the physiographic region 

or ecoregion in which each refuge or group of 

refuges is located. Thirteen ecoregions are 

found in the Program area (figure 5). These 

ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in 

ecosystems and the type, quality, and quantity 

of environmental resources. 

The text and graphics in this section are from a 

project completed in 1998 by the Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center in 

Jamestown, North Dakota and titled 

“Ecoregions of North and South Dakota.” 

Ecological regions are distinguished by the 

patterns of biotic and abiotic phenomena that 

reflect the differences in ecosystem quality. 

These phenomena include geology, 

physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land 

use, wildlife, and hydrology. Each ecoregion 

and its associated refuge(s) are summarized in 

tables 6 and 7. 

Glacial Lake Agassiz Basin 

From the Pembina Escarpment, the view of the 

Glacial Lake Agassiz Basin (figure 3) is of an 

extremely flat patchwork of cultivated 

farmland. Because the Red River of the North 

has a poorly defined flood plain and very low 

gradient, flooding can be a problem. Outside of 

channelized areas in the flood plain, turbid 

valley streams meander within narrow buffer 

strips of cottonwood, elm, ash, and willow. Soils 

range from silty to clayey in texture. Most 

areas have high water tables and are extremely 

productive. 

Refuge: Ardoch NWR (also Saline Area) 

Figure 3. Glacial Lake Agassiz Basin Ecoregion 

Missouri Plateau 

On the Missouri Plateau west of the Missouri 

River (figure 4), the landscape opens up to 

become the “wide open spaces” of the American 

West. The topography of this ecoregion was 

largely unaffected by glaciation and retains its 

original soils and complex stream drainage 

pattern. A mosaic of spring wheat, alfalfa, and 

grazing land covers the shortgrass prairie 

where herds of bison, pronghorn (antelope), 

and elk once grazed. 

Refuges: Lake Patricia and Pretty Rock NWRs 

Figure 4. Missouri Plateau Ecoregion 
32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Da kota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 5. Ecoregion Map 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4⎯Affected Environment 33 

River Breaks 

The River Breaks (figure 6) form broken 

terraces and uplands that descend to the 

Missouri River and its major tributaries. These 

terraces have formed particularly in soft, easily 

erodible strata, such as Pierre shale. The 

dissected topography, wooded draws, and 

uncultivated areas provide a haven for wildlife. 

Riparian gallery forests of cottonwood and 

green ash persist along major tributaries such 

as the Moreau and Cheyenne rivers, but have 

largely been eliminated along the Missouri 

River by impoundments. 

Refuges: Sunburst Lake and Springwater 

NWRs 

Figure 6. River Breaks Ecoregion 

Drift Plains 

On the Drift Plains (figure 7), the retreating 

Wisconsinan glaciers left a subtle undulating 

topography and a thick mantle of glacial till. A 

greater proportion of temporary and seasonal 

wetlands are found on the Drift Plains than in 

the Coteau areas, where semipermanent 

wetlands are numerous. Because of the 

productive soil and level topography, this 

ecoregion is almost entirely cultivated, with 

many wetlands drained or simply tilled and 

planted. However, valuable waterfowl habitat 

still remains, concentrated in state and 

federally sponsored duck production areas. The 

historic grassland on the Drift Plains was a 

transitional mix of tallgrass and shortgrass 

prairie. The prairie grasses have been largely 

replaced by fields of spring wheat, barley, 

sunflowers, and alfalfa. 

Refuges: Bone Hill (also Missouri Coteau), 

Buffalo Lake (also End Moraine Complex), 

Dakota Lake (also Glacial Lake Delta), Maple 

River, Hobart Lake, Tomahawk, Rose Lake, 

Lambs Lake, Little Goose, Wintering River, 

Cottonwood Lake, Sheyenne Lake, and Stoney 

Slough NWRs (also Glacial Outwash) 

Figure 7. Drift Plains Ecoregion 

End Moraine Complex 

The End Moraine Complex (figure 8) is a 

concentration of glacial features in east central 

North Dakota. Blue Mountain and Devils Lake 

Mountain are composed of blocks of surficial 

material scraped off and thrust up by the 

continental glacier at the south end of the 

Devils Lake basin. In the western part of the 

ecoregion, patches of stagnation moraine 

similar to the Missouri Coteau have high 

wetland densities. On the moraines south of 

Devils Lake basin, favorable precipitation, 

aspect, and slightly higher elevations result in 

wooded lake margins and morainal ridges. 

Refuges: Buffalo Lake (also Drift Plains), 

Johnson Lake (also Glacial Outwash), and Wood 

Lake NWRs 

Figure 8. End Moraine Complex Ecoregion 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Glacial Lake Basins 

The Glacial Lake Basins (figure 9) were once 

occupied by Lake Souris, Devils Lake, and 

Lake Dakota. These proglacial lakes were 

formed when major stream or river drainages 

were blocked by glacial ice during the 

Pleistocene. The smooth topography of the 

Glacial Lake Basins, even flatter than the 

surrounding Drift Plains, resulted from the 

slow buildup of water-laid sediments. The level, 

deep soils on the lake plains are intensively 

cultivated. In the north, the primary crops are 

spring wheat, other small grains, and 

sunflowers; in the Lake Dakota basin of South 

Dakota, corn and soybeans are more prevalent. 

Refuges: Pleasant Lake, Dakota Lake (also Drift 

Plains), Silver Lake, Rock Lake and Brumba 

(both also in Northern Black Prairie), and 

Snyder Lake NWRs 

Figure 9. Glacial Lake Basins Ecoregion 

Glacial Outwash 

The disjunct areas of Glacial Outwash (figure 

10) differ from outwash areas on the Missouri 

Coteau in that they generally have a smoother 

topography. The soils are highly permeable 

with low water holding capacity. Areas of 

excessive soil permeability have a poor to fair 

potential for dryland crop production. Some 

areas are used for irrigated agriculture. The 

risk for blowing soil in droughty areas is 

reduced by retaining native range grasses like 

little bluestem, needle-and-thread grass, and 

green needlegrass. 

Refuges: Sibley Lake, Johnson Lake (also End 

Moraine Complex), and Stoney Slough NWRs 

(also Drift Plains) 

Figure 10. Glacial Outwash Ecoregion 

Northern Black Prairie 

The Northern Black Prairie (figure 11) 

represents a broad phenological transition zone 

marking the introduction from the north of a 

boreal influence in climate. Aspen and birch 

appear in wooded areas, willows grow on 

wetland perimeters, and rough fescue, common 

to the Rocky Mountain foothills, becomes 

evident in grassland associations. This 

ecoregion has the shortest growing season and 

the lowest January temperatures of any other 

ecoregion in the Dakotas. Most of the area is 

used for growing small grains, with durum 

wheat being a major crop. 

Refuges: Rock Lake and Brumba NWRs (both 

also in Glacial Lake Basins) 

Figure 11. Northern Black Prairie Ecoregion 
 

 

 

 

4⎯Affected Environment 35 

Turtle Mountains 

The undulating landscape and abundant 

wetlands of the Turtle Mountains (figure 12) 

are similar to the Missouri Coteau. However, 

the Turtle Mountains contain larger, deeper, 

and more numerous lakes. Additionally, this 

ecoregion receives about 10 inches more 

precipitation than the surrounding Drift Plains; 

thus, it supports a forest cover of aspen, birch, 

burr oak, elm, and ash. The forest soils are 

erodible and poorly suited for cropland, though 

there is some clearing for pastureland. 

Refuges: Rabb Lake, Willow Lake, and School 

Section Lake NWRs 

Figure 12. Turtle Mountains Ecoregion 

Missouri Coteau 

Like closely spaced ocean swells, the rolling 

hummocks of the Missouri Coteau (figure 13) 

enclose countless wetland depressions or 

potholes. During its slow retreat, the 

Wisconsinan glacier stalled on the Missouri 

escarpment for thousands of years, melting 

slowly beneath a mantle of sediment to create 

the characteristic pothole topography of the 

Coteau. The wetlands of the Missouri Coteau 

and the neighboring prairie pothole regions are 

the major WPAs in North America. Land use 

on the Coteau is a mix of tilled agriculture in 

flatter areas and grazing land on steeper 

slopes. 

Refuges: Half Way Lake, Lake George, 

Hutchinson Lake, Canfield Lake, Camp Lake, 

Lake Otis, and Bone Hill NWRs (also Drift 

Plains) 

Figure 13. Missouri Coteau Ecoregion 

Missouri Coteau Slope 

The Missouri Coteau Slope ecoregion (figure 

14) declines in elevation from the Missouri 

Coteau to the Missouri River. Unlike the 

Missouri Coteau where there is a paucity of 

streams, the Missouri Coteau Slope has a 

simple drainage pattern and fewer wetland 

depressions. Due to the level to gently rolling 

topography, there is more cropland than on the 

Missouri Coteau. Cattle graze on the steeper 

land that occurs along drainages. 

Refuges: Appert Lake, Lost Lake, and 

Hiddenwood NWRs 

Figure 14. Missouri Coteau Slope Ecoregion 
 

 

36 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Glacial Lake Deltas 

The Glacial Lake Deltas (figure 15) were 

deposited by rivers entering glacial lake basins 

(e.g., Glacial Lake Souris, Devils Lake, and 

Lake Dakota). The heaviest sediments, mostly 

sand and fine gravel, formed delta fans at the 

river inlets. As the lake floors were exposed 

during withdrawal of the glacial ice, wind 

reworked the sand in some areas into dunes. In 

contrast to the highly productive, intensively 

tilled glacial lake plains, the dunes in the delta 

areas have a thin vegetative cover and a high 

risk for wind erosion. These areas are used 

mainly for grazing or irrigated agriculture. 

Refuges: Dakota Lake (also Drift Plains and 

Glacial Lake Basins), and Lords Lake NWRs 

Figure 15. Glacial Lake Deltas Ecoregion 

Saline Area 

In the Saline Area (figure 16) of the Lake 

Agassiz basin, salty artesian groundwater 

flows to the surface through glacial till and 

lacustrine sediments from the underlying beds 

of Cretaceous sandstone. The regional 

boundary of the Saline Area delineates an area 

where salt effects are most evident. Other 

saline areas occur along the tributaries of the 

Park, Forest, and Turtle rivers in northeast 

North Dakota. Salt-affected soils in the saline 

area reduce crop productivity. Many areas are 

not suitable for farming, but are used for range 

or wildlife habitat. 

Refuge: Ardoch NWR (also Glacial Lake 

Agassiz Basin) 

Figure 16. Saline Area Ecoregion 

Collapsed Glacial Outwash 

Areas of Collapsed Glacial Outwash (figure 17) 

formed from gravel and sand deposited by 

glacial meltwater and precipitation runoff over 

stagnant ice. Many large, shallow lakes are 

found in these areas; lakes and wetlands tend 

to be slightly to very alkaline depending upon 

the flowpath of groundwater moving through 

the permeable outwash deposits. They attract 

birds preferring large areas of open water, such 

as white pelicans, black terns, and Forster’s 

terns, as well as those living in brackish water, 

such as avocets and tundra swans. 

Refuge: Lake George NWR (also Missouri 

Coteau) 

Figure 17. Collapsed Glacial Outwash Ecoregion 
4⎯Affected Environment 37 

Table 6. Physiography of the ecoregions in which the limited-interest refuges reside 

Potential Limited-interest Area Elevation/ Local Soil Order Common Soil Land Use and Ecoregion Geology Natural Refuges in (mile2) Relief (feet) (Great Groups) Series Land Cover Vegetation Ecoregion 

Glacial 5,137 790–1,200/1–50 Lake Extremely flat glacial Agassiz lake plain. Streams Basin and rivers sluggish, 

meandering, and highly turbid with large sediment loads. Ditching and channelization common. 

Tertiary Mollisols Vebar, Chama, Blue grama, Dryland farming Ardoch NWR 

sandstone, (Haploborolls, Amor, Williams, wheatgrass/ and cattle (also Saline) 

shale and Calciborolls, Rhoades, needlegrass grazing. Spring 

some coal. Argiborolls, Belfield, Cabba, association, little wheat a 

Ludlow, Natriborolls) Flasher, Reeder, bluestem, prairie predominant 

Cannonball, Regent, sandreed crop with Slope, Parshall, Golva, acreage of Bullion Zahl barley, oats, and Creek, and sunflowers, Sentinel native areas Butte consist of mixed Formations. grasses. 

Missouri 20,000 1,750–3,300/50–500 Same as Entisols Same as above Same as above Same as above Lake Patricia and 

Plateau above (Ustorthents, Pretty Rock Unglaciated. Ustipsamments) NWRs Moderately dissected
 

level to rolling plains
 with isolated 
sandstone buttes.
 

River 10,517 1,300–2,700/200–500 Tertiary 

Breaks sandstone Unglaciated. Highly and shale. dissected hills and 

uplands bordering major rivers and associated alluvial plains. 

Mollisols (Calciborolls, Haploborolls) Entisols (Ustorthents, Ustipsamments, Flavaquents) Aridisols (Natrargids) Vertisols (Haplusterts) Inceptisols (Ustochrepts) 

Sansarc, Opal, Bullock, Cabba, Amor, Flasher, Vebar, Temvik, Mandan, Cherry, Chama, Zahl, Lallie, McKeen 

Blue grama, western wheatgrass, buffalograss, and some bluestem. Juniper and deciduous tress on north-facing slopes. cottonwood gallery forests on the flood plain 

Steep slopes restrict land use to cattle grazing. Land cover is mostly rangeland and native grasses. Remnant woodlands in draws and on existing alluvial flats. 

Sunburst Lake (also Missouri Coteau Slope) and Springwater NWRs 
38 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Table 6. Physiography of the ecoregions in which the limited-interest refuges reside 

Potential 	 Limited-interest Area Elevation/ Local Soil Order Common Soil 	 Land Use and Ecoregion Geology 	 Natural Refuges in (mile2) Relief (feet) (Great Groups) Series 	 Land Cover Vegetation 	 Ecoregion 

Drift Plains 15,609 1,080–2,000/0–200 	 Glacial till Mollisols Barnes, Svea, Western Extensively Bone Hill (also 

over (Haploborolls, Buse, Hamerly, wheatgrass, big tilled to spring Missouri Coteau), Glaciated. Generally Cretaceous Calciaquolls, Cresbard, and little wheat and other Dakota Lake (also flat, with occasional Pierre Shale Natriborolls, Parnell bluestem, small grains, Glacial Lake “washboard” 

and Fox Calciborolls,	 switchgrass, and sunflowers, and Delta and Basins), undulations. High Hills Argiaquolls) 	 indiangrass alfalfa Hobart Lake, concentrations of Formations 	 Tomahawk, Silver temporary and Lake (also Glacial seasonal wetlands. 

Lake Basins), Simple drainage Rose Lake, pattern. Lambs Lake, Little Goose, Stoney Slough (also Glacial Outwash), Cottonwood Lake, Sheyenne Lake, Maple River, Buffalo Lake (also End Moraine Complex) and Wintering River NWRs 

End 1,518 1,450–1,790/20–170 Wisconsin Mollisols Hemdal, 

Moraine glacial till (Haploborolls, Emrick, Glaciated. A diverse 

and outwash Argiborolls, Esmond, Complex area of hummocky Calciborolls, Barnes, Buse, stagnation moraine, Calciaquolls) Bottineau, parallel end moraine Aastad, ridges, and other Edgeley, glacial features such Hamerly as eskers, kames and 


thrust ridges.
 

Tallgrass/ Midgrass prairie; western wheatgrass, green needlegrass, big and bluestem, blue grama. Forest vegetation of burr oak and aspen associated with Devils Lake. 

Mixed range and cropland depending up slope and presence of rocks in soil. Spring wheat, oats, barley, flax, and hay. 

Buffalo Lake NWR (and Drift Plains) Johnson Lake NWR (also Glacial Outwash) Wood Lake NWR 
4⎯Affected Environment 39 

Table 6. Physiography of the ecoregions in which the limited-interest refuges reside 

Potential Limited-interest Area Elevation/ Local Soil Order Common Soil Land Use and Ecoregion Geology Natural Refuges in (mile2) Relief (feet) (Great Groups) Series Land Cover Vegetation Ecoregion 

Glacial 3,584 1,300–1,585/0–30 Glacial lake Mollisols 

Lake deposits (Calciaquolls, Glaciated. Very level Basins Endoaquolls, glacial lake floors. Haploborolls, Low wetland density. Natriborolls) 

Hegne, Fargo, Western Extensively Pleasant Lake, Bearden, wheatgrass, tilled for durum Dakota Lake (also Overly, needle-and- and spring Drift Plains and Embden, thread grass, wheat, Glacial Lake Gardena, blue grama, sunflowers, and Deltas), Silver Glyndon, Great green flax. Corn and Lake (also Drift Bend, Aberdeen needlegrass. soybeans south. Plains), Rock 

Lake and Brumba (both also in Northern Black Prairie), and Snyder Lake NWRs 

Glacial 890 1,300–1,550/0–50 Sand and Mollisols Brantford, Little bluestem, Cattle grazing Johnson Lake 

Outwash plane- (Haploborolls, Claire, Totten, needle-and- on droughtiest (also End Moraine Glaciated. Flat to 

bedded Natraquolls) Renshaw, thread grass, soils. Tillable Complex), Stoney slightly rolling. gravel, Arvilla, blue grama, land produces Slough (also Drift Ancient channel Entisols sediments of Fordville, Sioux prairie wheat, oats, Plains) and Sibley depressions, relict (Udipsamments) glacial junegrass. Elm, barley, rye, and Lake NWRs lakes. 

meltwater ash, burr oak in alfalfa. 

rivers river bottoms. 

Northern 5,040 1,500–1,970/5–200 Black Glaciated. Generally Prairie flat, with occasional 

“washboard” undulations. High concentrations of temporary and seasonal wetlands. Simple drainage pattern. 

Glacial till Molllisols Barnes, Svea, Northern 

over (Haploborolls, Cresbard, prairie: western Cretaceous Natriborolls, Hamerly, Buse, wheatgrass, 

Pierre Shale Calciaquolls, Parnell green 

and Tertiary Calciborolls, needlegrass, Ft. Union Argiaquolls) little bluestem, Formation. blue grama, and 

rough fescue. 

Extensively Rock Lake and tilled to durum Brumba Lake and spring NWRs (both also wheat, other in Glacial Lake small grains, Basins) sunflowers and alfalfa. 
Western 

wheatgrass, needle-andthread grass, prairie junegrass, green needlegrass. 

40 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges Table 6. Physiography of the ecoregions in which the limited-interest refuges reside 

Potential Limited-interest Area Elevation/ Local Soil Order Common Soil Land Use and Ecoregion Geology Natural Refuges in (mile2) Relief (feet) (Great Groups) Series Land Cover Vegetation Ecoregion 

Turtle 409 2,000–2,550/40–180 Glacial till Mollisols Bottineau, Buse, Burr oak Native woodland Rabb Lake, 

Mountains over (Haplororolls, Kelvin, dominant on side and pasture Willow Lake, and Glaciated. Platform of 

Tertiary Argiborolls, Metigoshe slopes, aspen on clearings. Some School Section hummocky, rolling sandstone Calciborolls) top. Other hay and small Lake NWRs terrain above 

and shale. species present: grains on surrounding drift Alfisols green ash, paper gentler soils. plains. Stream (Eutroboralfs) birch, boxelder, network lacking. 

sumac, High concentration of serviceberry, large lakes and and snowberry. wetlands. 

Missouri 9,122 1,650–2,100/10–300 Thick glacial Mollisols Barnes, Buse, Western 

Coteau till over (Haploborolls, Parnell, Svea wheatgrass, Glaciated. 

Tertiary Argiaquolls, Williams, bluestem, Hummocky, rolling sandstone Argibolorolls, Bowbells, Zahl needle-and­ stagnation moraine. and shale. Calciborolls) thread grass, Stream drainage 

green absent or uncommon. needlegrass. Numerous pothole Prairie wetlands between cordgrass, mounds of glacial till. northern reedgrass near wetlands. 

Cattle grazing on steeper land mixed with tilled agriculture of hay and spring wheat. Native prairie remaining on unbroken rangeland. Wetlands provide wildlife habitat. 

Half Way Lake, Lake George (also Collapsed Glacial Outwash), Bone Hill (also Drift Plains), Hutchinson Lake, Camp Lake, Canfield Lake, and Lake Otis NWRs 

Missouri 5,799 1,700–2,450/50–150 Coteau Glaciated. Level to Slope gently rolling plain 

sloping to Missouri River. Sparse drainage pattern; few wetlands. 

Wisconsin glacial till over Tertiary sandstone and shale in Cretaceous Pierre Shale. 

Mollisols (Haploborolls, Argiborolls, Argiaquolls, Calciborolls) 

Williams, Max, Zahl, Bowbells, Parnell 

Mainly tilled agriculture of spring wheat, barley, alfalfa, silage corn. Some grazing on steep and saline or wet areas. 

Appert Lake, Sunburst Lake (also River Breaks), Lost Lake, and Hiddenwood NWRs 
4⎯Affected Environment 41 

Table 6. Physiography of the ecoregions in which the limited-interest refuges reside 

Potential 	 Limited-interest Area Elevation/ Local Soil Order Common Soil 	 Land Use and Ecoregion Geology 	 Natural Refuges in (mile2) Relief (feet) (Great Groups) Series 	 Land Cover Vegetation 	 Ecoregion 

Glacial 1,877 1,290–1,595/6–85 Lake Delta Glaciated. Flat sheets 

of sand and gravel or rolling sand dunes. Paucity of stream channels. 

Sand and Mollisols Hecla, Ulen, Prairie sandreed, Droughty soils Dakota Lake (also 

gravel (Haploborolls, Arvilla, Sioux, little bluestem, mostly used for Glacial Lake 

deposited Calciaquolls, Serden, indiangrass, native pasture. Basins and Drift 

over glacial Endoaquolls) Rosewood, switchgrass, When tilled, Plains) and Lords 

lake floor Lohnes, Bantry, sand bluestem used for small Lake NWRs Entisols 

Hamar 	 grains, flax and (Udipsamments, fall planted rye Psammaquents) (north) or small 

grains, sunflowers, and corn (south). 

Saline Area 348 820–870/3–25 	 Silt and clay Mollisols Bearden, Antler, Tallgrass prairie, Grazing land on Ardoch NWR 

lacustrine (Calciaquolls) Ojata salt tolerant strongly saline (also Glacial Lake Glacial Lake plain deposits western soils. Where Agassiz Basin) with saline ground wheatgrass, salinity levels water welling to the over Cretaceous saltgrass are moderate, surface. 

shale and sunflowers, sandstone barley, 

sugarbeets, and potatoes are grown. Brackish wetland habitat 

Collapsed 1,771 1,650–2,100/30/120 Glacial Glaciated. Irregular Outwash plains left by glacial 

outwash deposited over stagnant ice. Broad, shallow, brackish wetlands and lakes. 

Late Mollisols Ruso, Bowdle, Needlethread, Small grains, Lake George 

Wisconsin (Natraquolls, Lehr, Wabek, plains muhly, sunflowers, NWR (also 

glacial Haploborolls, Telfer, Lihen, prairie muhly, alfalfa, and corn Missouri Coteau) 

outwash Calciaquolls, Sioux, Parshall, prairie on deeper soils. 

deposits Haplaquolls, Arvilla, junegrass, blue Grazing land on 

over Argiaquolls) Southam, grama. Saltgrass shallow soils 

Tertiary Divide, Harriet in alkaline areas. over gravel. sandstone Sand and gravel and shale quarries. and Wetlands Cretaceous provide wildlife Pierre Shale. habitat. 

Source: Bryce et al. 1998. 
42 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Table 7. Climate of the ecoregions in which the limited-interest refuges reside 

Frost-Free Mean Temperature Temperature/ Ecoregion Area (mile2) Precipitation Mean Annual January and July Limited-interest Refuges in Ecoregion Moisture Regimes (days) min/max (oF) 

Glacial Lake 5,137 Frigid/Ustic 15–17 95–130 -3/21;55/83 Ardoch NWR (also Saline) 

Agassiz Basin Missouri Plateau 20,000 Frigid/Ustic 15–17 95–130 -3/21;55/83 Lake Patricia and Pretty Rock NWRs 

River Breaks 10,517 Frigid/Ustic 16–18 80–125 -3/21;56/87 Sunburst Lake (also Missouri Coteau 

Slope) and Springwater NWRs 

Drift Plains 15,609 Frigid/Udic 17–19 95–125 -5/16;56/83 Bone Hill (also Missouri Coteau), 

Dakota Lake (also Glacial Lake Delta and Basins), Hobart Lake, Tomahawk, Silver Lake (also Glacial Lake Basins), Rose Lake, Lambs Lake, Little Goose, Stoney Slough (also Glacial Outwash), Cottonwood Lake, Sheyenne Lake, Maple River, Buffalo Lake (also End Moraine Complex) and Wintering River NWRs 

End Moraine 1,518 Frigid/Udic 18–20 90–120 -7/13;55/82 Buffalo Lake NWR (and Drift Plains) Complex Johnson Lake NWR (also Glacial 

Outwash) Wood Lake NWRs 

Glacial Lake 3,584 Frigid/Udic 16–19 95–120 -10/10;54/80 Pleasant Lake, Dakota Lake (also Drift Basins Plains and Glacial Lake Deltas), Silver 

Lake (also Drift Plains), Rock Lake and Brumba (both also in Northern Black Prairie), and Snyder Lake NWRs 

Glacial Outwash 890 Frigid/Udic 16–18 110–130 -6/14;55–81 Johnson Lake (also End Moraine 

Complex), Stoney Slough (also Drift Plains) and Sibley Lake NWRs 

Northern Black 5,040 Frigid/Udic 16–20 95–120 -10/10;54–80 Rock Lake and Brumba Lake NWRs Prairie (both also in Glacial Lake Basins) Turtle Mountains 409 Fridig/ Udic 16–22 95–120 -10/10;53/80 Rabb Lake, Willow Lake, and School 

Section Lake NWRs 
4⎯Affected Environment 43 

Table 7. Climate of the ecoregions in which the limited-interest refuges reside 

Frost-Free Mean Temperature Temperature/ Ecoregion Area (mile2) Precipitation Mean Annual January and July Limited-interest Refuges in Ecoregion Moisture Regimes (days) min/max (oF) 

Missouri Coteau 9,122 Frigid/ Udic, Ustic 15–19 110–130 -3/16;57/84 Half Way Lake, Lake George (also 

Collapsed Glacial Outwash), Bone Hill (also Drift Plains), Hutchinson Lake, Camp Lake, Canfield Lake, and Lake Otis NWRs 

Missouri Coteau 5,799 Frigid/ Ustic 15–18 110–130 -2/20;59/86 Appert Lake, Sunburst Lake (also Slope River Breaks), Lost Lake, and 

Hiddenwood NWRs 

Glacial Lake 1,877 Frigid/Udic 16–19 (north) 95–120 (north) -10/10;54/80 (north) Dakota Lake (also Glacial Lake Basins Delta 19–21 (south) 120–140 (south) 4/19;58/85 (south) and Drift Plains) and Lords Lake 

NWRs 

Saline Area 348 Frigid/Udic 18–21 95–125 -7/21;56/82 Ardoch NWR (also Glacial Lake 

Agassiz Basin) 

Collapsed Glacial 1,771 Frigid/Udic, Ustic 15–19 113–130 -2/20;59/86 Lake George NWR (also Missouri Outwash Coteau) 

Source: Bryce et al. 1998. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Most of the limited-interest refuges have had 

some form of development or use varying from 

livestock yards to dozens of recreational cabins 

(table 8). Currently, 189 landowners reside on 

these 39 refuges (149 reside on Camp Lake 

NWR). 

Several of the refuges have become popular 

recreational areas. Many of the refuges had 

some residential development at the time the 

limited-interest refuges were acquired, 

primarily in the form of farmsteads; however, 

development now includes commercial 

operations such as a fertilizer plant, 

recreational facilities, and an elk farm. The 

limited-interest refuges are scattered across 

North Dakota, primarily east of the Missouri 

River, from the Canadian border down to 

South Dakota. 

Travel from the managing station ranges from 

15 minutes to two hours. This travel time is 

relative to the station’s ability to conduct 

regular maintenance and management 

programs. 

4.2 Biological Resources 

Most limited-interest refuges are located east 

of the Missouri River in the area commonly 

known the “Prairie Pothole Region.” The two 

major categories of habitat types addressed in 

this CCP are upland (table 9) and wetland 

(table 10). The only available data relative to 

these refuges is from the HAPET office in 

partnership with Ducks Unlimited and the 

National Wetlands Inventory. To map upland 

habitat types, the HAPET office used Landsat 

Thematic Mapper Satellite Imagery (30 meter 

resolution) using a combination of unsupervised 

and supervised classification techniques. Image 

acquisition dates range from May 1992 to 

September 1996. Thematic Mapper scenes were 

processed individually and mosaiced to produce 

a state-wide coverage. The resulting classes of 

upland habitat are summarized in table 9. 

Five separate upland habitat types were 

mapped using the image classification process: 

grass/hay/undisturbed, cropland, forest, 

riparian, and urban. Most uplands within the 

refuges are classified as cropland, totaling 

14,296 acres. The grass/hay/undisturbed 

habitat type totals 14,060 acres and is used 

primarily for haying and grazing operations. 

These areas have the potential to be preserved 

as native prairie habitat because there is no 

indication this ground has ever been plowed or 

broken. Forested lands total 814 acres, while 

riparian areas total 96 acres for all refuges. 

Some refuges encompass sections of small 

communities, resulting in an urban 

classification that totals 218 acres. 

Currently, the Service only regulates hunting 

and trapping uses on the 29,483 acres of 

uplands (see section 2.3). 

Wetland mapping was acquired from the 

National Wetlands Inventory database and 

interpreted by the HAPET office. Wetland 

habitat types within the limited-interest 

refuges include: impoundments; seasonal, 

temporary, and semi-permanent wetlands; 

riverine; and lakes. The Service has a water 

right on each refuge except Lake Otis. Table 11 

summarizes those water rights filed with the 

state of North Dakota. 

The main body of water within the limitedinterest refuges was a major focus of the 

agreement, both from a wildlife preservation 

and water conservation perspective. Dozens of 

structures were built in the 1930s to impound 

and control water. Existing waterbodies, such 

as lakes and rivers, also were covered by this 

flowage limited-interest refuge and water 

right. The Service will regulate the uses that 

occur on these waters (see section 2.3). 

Most of the wetland habitat types within the 

limited-interest refuges are classified as lakes, 

totaling 12,867 acres. Impoundment habitat 

accounts for 3,850 acres, encompassing many 

other wetland habitat acres due to the 

characteristics of the impoundment habitats. 

Impoundment habitats vary from deepwater 

lakes to seasonal, temporary wetlands. 

Riverine habitat is limited, totaling 176 acres. 

These three habitat types are areas in which 

the Service has the right to control uses and 

manage for wildlife. Naturally occurring 

wetland habitats including semi-permanent, 

temporary, and seasonal wetlands, total 2,436 

acres. Information for wetlands on all refuges 

is provided in table 10. The Service does not 

control the uses and alterations of any of these 

naturally occurring wetlands not encumbered 

by a Service easement. Regulatory authority 

rests with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. As described in section 2.3, it appears 

from historical documentation that there was 

never any intent to regulate wetland uses even 

though these areas are critical habitat to 

wetland-dependent wildlife. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of the limited-interest refuges (30 of 39) 

have some sort of structure intended to either 

impound water or allow manipulation of that 

water for wildlife or flood control. Few of these 

structures have been updated since they were 

4⎯Affected Environment 45 

originally installed in the 1930s and 1940s. 

Some are in disrepair, while others are 

functioning but do not meet the standards for 

modern water level management practices used 

to enhance wildlife habitat production. 

Table 8. Limited-interest refuge agreements and landowner uses and developments
 

No. of Total Travel Time Landowners 

Refuge 

Limitedinterest 

Refuge 

Limitedinterest 

Refuge 

from 

Managing 

Station 

Residing on 

Limitedinterest 

Landowner Uses and/or 

Developments 

Agreements Acres (minutes) Refuge Lands 

Appert Lake 7 908 20 0 Farming 

Ardoch 4 2,389 75 1 3 farmsteads (2 abandoned) and 

outbuildings 

Bone Hill 3 640 30 2 2 residences, fertilizer plant, elk 

farm 

Brumba 12 1,978 65 3 3 farmsteads, farming 

Buffalo Lake 7 1,540 80 0 1 recreational cabin 

Camp Lake 8 585 60 149 238 cabins, boat docks, beach, 

livestock, and farming 

Canfield Lake 4 310 60 0 Cattle grazing 

Cottonwood 7 1,014 80 5 2 farmsteads, 3 residences, 1 

Lake mobile trailer, 2 boat docks 

Dakota Lake 20 2,800 60 1 2 residences, 1 cabin, boat dock 

and ramp 

Half Way Lake 1 160 30 0 Farming and cattle grazing 

Hiddenwood 6 568 80 0 Boat dock and ramp, storage, ball 

diamond, picnic shelter 

Hobart Lake 7 1,831 15 3 3 farmsteads, livestock yard 

Hutchinson Lake 2 479 60 0 Cattle grazing 

Johnson Lake 7 2,003 60 0 Livestock yard and hay land 

Lake George 8 3,090 40 1 1 residence, cattle grazing 

Lake Otis 1 320 60 0 Livestock 

Lake Patricia 5 800 120 0 Farming, recreation, wildlife 

habitat (state) 

Lambs Lake 11 1,207 60 0 2 abandoned residences, livestock 

yard 

Little Goose 3 288 70 0 None 

Lords Lake 10 1,915 45 2 2 farmsteads 
 

 

 

 

 

46 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Table 8. Limited-interest refuge agreements and landowner uses and developments
 

Refuge 

Lost Lake 

No. of 

Limitedinterest 

Refuge 

Agreements 

5 

Total 

Limitedinterest 

Refuge 

Acres 

960 

Travel Time 

from 

Managing 

Station 

(minutes) 

50 

Landowners 

Residing on 

Limitedinterest 

Refuge Lands 

0 

Landowner Uses and/or 

Developments 

Cattle grazing 

Maple River 4 712 45 0 Cattle grazing and farming 

Pleasant Lake 4 898 50 1 1 farmstead, livestock yard 

Pretty Rock 2 800 180 1 1 farmstead and livestock yard 

Rabb Lake 2 261 65 0 None 

Rock Lake 

Rose Lake 

37 

2 

5,506 

836 

70 

20 

3 

1 

3 farmsteads, farming and cattle 

grazing 

1 farmstead 

School Section 

Lake 

Sheyenne Lake 

Sibley Lake 

3 

7 

9 

297 

797 

1,077 

65 

60 

60 

1 

0 

1 

1 farmstead, cattle grazing 

1 boat dock and ramp, recreation, 

wildlife habitat (state) 

1 farmstead, livestock yard 

Silver Lake 

Snyder Lake 

17 

6 

3,348 

1,550 

50 

60 

5 

1 

7 farmsteads (2 abandoned), 

livestock yard and farming 

Boat ramp 

Springwater 2 640 40 0 Cattle grazing 

Stoney Slough 

Sunburst Lake 

9 

1 

880 

328 

30 

60 

1 

1 

1 farmstead, organic farm, cattle 

grazing, recreation 

1 farmstead, cattle grazing 

Tomahawk 4 440 20 2 2 farmsteads, livestock yard 

Willow Lake 

Wintering River 

17 

2 

2,620 

239 

60 

80 

3 

0 

3 farmsteads, farming, cattle 

grazing 

Abandoned farmstead 

Wood Lake 

Totals/Averages 

3 

269 

280 

47,294 

25 

Average 

= 58 

1 

189 

1 farmstead, cattle grazing, 

farming 
 

 

 

4⎯Affected Environment 47 

Table 9. Upland habitat types 

Refuge Grass/Hay/ 

Undisturbed 

Upland Habi

Cropland

tat Types (acr

 Forest 

es) 

Riparian Urban 

Total Upland 

Acres 

Appert Lake 79.53 742.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 821.98 

Ardoch 322.11 945.86 26.47 0.00 0.00 1,294.44 

Bone Hill 167.87 405.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 573.20 

Brumba 606.18 996.59 19.45 0.00 0.00 1,622.22 

Buffalo Lake 719.91 167.34 35.45 33.89 0.00 956.58 

Camp Lake 286.62 34.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 320.82 

Canfield Lake 89.05 0.23 0.00 1.83 0.00 91.10 

Cottonwood Lake 421.01 311.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 732.63 

Dakota Lake 555.88 922.60 16.98 18.85 0.00 1,514.30 

Half Way Lake 40.96 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.47 

Hiddenwood 91.42 469.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 561.22 

Hobart Lake 366.51 505.21 2.22 0.00 0.00 873.51 

Hutchinson Lake 91.67 1.43 0.00 8.95 0.00 102.06 

Johnson Lake 1,032.49 101.08 2.45 0.00 5.74 1,141.76 

Lake George 1,330.75 83.07 0.00 18.52 15.35 1,447.68 

Lake Otis 307.87 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 307.97 

Lake Patricia N.D. † N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 

Lambs Lake 75.73 2.87 0.18 0.00 0.00 78.78 

Little Goose 39.63 278.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 318.03 

Lords Lake 553.15 529.05 21.00 0.00 0.00 1,103.20 

Lost Lake 611.77 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 612.02 

Maple River 166.39 563.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 730.17 

Pleasant Lake 433.56 18.56 97.81 0.00 20.94 570.86 

Pretty Rock N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 

Rabb Lake 18.05 0.34 93.68 0.00 0.00 113.63 

Rock Lake 1,312.80 2,953.16 30.94 3.29 53.07 4,353.26 

Rose Lake 175.65 553.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 729.51 

School Section Lake 26.91 5.23 11.00 0.00 0.00 43.14 

Sheyenne Lake 187.68 7.48 0.55 7.31 9.12 212.13 

Sibley Lake 481.67 16.97 6.01 0.00 0.00 504.64 

Silver Lake 559.11 2,061.64 4.00 0.00 113.59 2,738.34 

Snyder Lake 664.80 564.22 0.89 0.00 0.00 1,229.91 

Springwater 569.26 44.20 6.23 0.00 0.00 619.70 

Stoney Slough 114.22 609.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 723.98 

Sunburst Lake 321.53 103.97 0.00 2.89 0.00 428.40 

Tomahawk 271.76 76.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 348.02 

Willow Lake 740.12 69.93 424.81 0.00 0.00 1,234.86 

Wintering River 87.76 76.96 3.43 0.00 0.00 168.15 

Wood Lake 138.26 71.30 10.41 0.00 0.00 219.97 

Total Acres 14,059.66 14,295.61 813.95 95.48 217.81 29,482.51 

†

N.D. = No landcover data available. 

Source: Service 1998. 
48 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Table 10. Wetland habitat types 

Wetlands (acres) Impoundments 	 Riverine Lake NWI Total Refuge	 Water Management Structure(s) Semi- (acres) 	 (acres) (acres) (acres) Seasonal Temporary permanent 

Appert Lake 71.91 7.43 3.17 72.27 0.00 0.00 82.28 	 Earthen levee Ardoch 1,091.00 23.4 12.55 0.79 9.43 1,143.16 1,189.33 	Steel screw gate, 2 spillways 

Bone Hill 15.03 15.87 0.82 9.12 0.00 43.15 68.95 	 Earthen dam Brumba 0.22 57.11 17.02 15.94 13.15 97.73 200.94 	 2 spillways (earthen and sheet pile) Buffalo Lake 535.65 16.40 7.66 16.60 3.08 538.98 582.72 	 Earthen dam, culvert, masonry spillway Camp Lake 157.36 2.54 0.52 21.04 0.00 143.45 167.55 	 Earth and rubble dike, concrete spillway, 

inoperable WCS 

Canfield Lake 0.00 11.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 204.33 216.25 	 None Cottonwood Lake 0.00 35.92 7.68 16.87 4.98 232.03 297.48 	 Ditch, concrete culvert 

Dakota Lake 549.65 48.98 80.76 64.55 13.16 823.15 1,030.59 	 Earthen/sheet pile dam with stop log 

Half Way Lake 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.19 0.00 116.31 117.41 	None Hiddenwood 0.00 1.50 7.52 0.00 0.00 121.71 130.72 	 Culvert Hobart Lake 63.88 4.34 10.14 9.24 0.00 849.79 873.51 	None Hutchinson Lake 0.00 1.74 14.33 36.78 0.00 290.94 343.38 	 None Johnson Lake 0.00 1.48 0.67 1.89 0.00 454.80 458.48 	 Earthen dam and spillway 

Lake George 0.00 28.68 30.64 76.55 0.00 1,441.51 1,577.37 	 2 Earthen dikes, metal spillway Lake Otis 0.00 12.20 0.11 0.00 0.00 6.29 18.60 	None Lake Patricia 316.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 339.86 339.83 	 Earthen dike, WCS, and spillway Lambs Lake 111.76 30.81 23.40 97.48 0.00 132.47 284.16 	 Earthen dam and concrete spillway Little Goose 31.56 0.39 1.11 0.00 0.00 38.80 40.30 	 Earthen dam and spillway, field crossing Lords Lake 0.00 32.35 5.45 82.04 0.00 669.50 789.33 	 2 ditches and 2 earthen dams 

Lost Lake 0.00 10.49 10.26 145.73 18.91 165.04 350.42 	 Dike, diversion ditch, and nesting island, 

concrete spillway, WCS 

Maple River 0.00 19.30 4.01 32.92 26.09 0.00 82.31 	 Earthen dam and sheet pile weir 

Pleasant Lake 0.00 7.69 0.00 11.91 0.00 471.98 491.58 	 Fence and masonry water control 

structure 

Pretty Rock 183.13 30.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 181.83 212.34 	 Dike and WCS 
4⎯Affected Environment 49 

Table 10. Wetland habitat types 

Wetlands (acres) Impoundments 	 Riverine Lake NWI Total Refuge	 Water Management Structure(s) Semi- (acres) 	 (acres) (acres) (acres) Seasonal Temporary permanent 

Rabb Lake 0.00 5.53 0.00 2.52 3.47 102.13 113.63 	 None Rock Lake 0.00 110.14 78.15 109.99 0.00 831.17 1,129.20 	Earthen dike, stop log, and sheet pile 

spillway 

Rose Lake 0.00 28.45 6.74 38.19 0.00 0.00 73.36 	 2 earthen dikes and 1 rubble spillway School Section Lake 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 312.56 312.56 	 Earthen dike and spillway Sheyenne Lake 564.35 5.06 1.51 0.00 0.00 564.30 570.00 	 Earthen dam and concrete spillway Sibley Lake 0.00 0.26 6.58 85.41 0.00 464.95 557.19 	None Silver Lake 0.00 33.26 61.54 36.20 65.19 428.07 624.26 	 None Snyder Lake 0.00 22.18 24.40 27.55 0.00 243.82 317.95 	 Sh eet pile spillway, earthen dike, stop log Springwater 2.83 15.25 0.00 9.59 14.21 0.00 39.05 	 Earthen dike Stoney Slough 0.00 57.79 36.40 0.00 0.00 58.01 152.19 	3 wate r control structures Sunburst Lake 55.78 3.63 8.40 16.57 3.25 49.51 81.35 	 Earthen dike, metal spillway Tomahawk 63.12 0.57 3.96 14.03 0.00 65.94 84.49 	 Earthen dike and spillway Willow Lake 0.00 81.67 9.47 70.09 0.65 1,164.78 1,326.65 	 Stop log structure Wintering River 0.00 9.20 0.09 67.31 0.00 0.00 76.57 	 4 earthen dikes and sheetpile spillway 

Wood Lake 35.52 4.00 6.26 7.12 0.00 40.41 57.78 	 Masonry water control structure, earthen 

dike 

Total Acres 3,849.57 782.32 484.82 1,169.25 175.57 12,867.03 15,426.06 

WCS = water control structure Source: Service 2004. 
50 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Table 11. Water rights filed with the state of North Dakota 

Water Storage Surface Area Refuge (acre-feet) (acres) 

38 

862 218 

1,600 

Appert Lake 365 Ardoch 5,347 1,150 Bone Hill 114 Brumba 375 150 Buffalo Lake 3,125 Camp Lake 706 216 

Canfield Lake 872 Cottonwood Lake 750 200 

Dakota Lake 3,200 Half Way Lake 90 30 

Hiddenwood 240 Hobart Lake 778 278 

Hutchinson Lake 90 Johnson Lake 2,590 740 Lake George 102 Lake Otis 0 0 Lake Patricia 906 Lambs Lake 269 111 

Little Goose 138 Lords Lake 5,252 

103 112 

778 

30 

156 278 

44 

Source: Service 2005. 

Water Storage Surface Area Refuge (acre-feet) (acres) 

Lost Lake 

Maple River 

Pleasant Lake 

Pretty Rock 

Rabb Lake Rock Lake Rose Lake 

School Section Lake 

Sheyenne Lake 

Sibley Lake 

Silver Lake 

Snyder Lake 

Springwater 

Stoney Slough 

Sunburst Lake 

Tomahawk 

Willow Lake 

Wintering River 

Wood Lake Total Acres 

52 61 

230 130 

1,166 480 

688 201 

251 98 

2,829 695 

225 85 

2,098 305 

628 178 

1,300 487 

1,530 355 

564 188 

64 16 

1,685 455 

66 33 

303 63 

7,200 1,200 

103 86 

100 46 

46,391 12,256 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.3 Cultural Resources 

This CCP is not subject to compliance with 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. Limited-interest refuges are 

the rental/lease of non-federally owned land for 

habitat purposes. The only exception would be 

if conditions of the agreement specifically 

identified the protection of cultural resources, 

which is not the case for the limited-interest 

refuges. 

However, if future federally funded projects on 

these limited-interest refuges have the 

potential to affect historic properties, then 106 

compliance is necessary. 

4.4 Visitor Services 

To provide visitor services on the limitedinterest refuges, access must be provided by 

the landowner. If any public activity is allowed, 

it must be open to the general public. There 

may be limitations as to the number of 

participants and seasons of use, but the general 

public must be given the opportunity to 

participate because national wildlife refuges 

are managed by the federal government. 

To date, most of the limited-interest refuges 

have remained closed to all public use. In 

particular, they historically have been closed to 

hunting. There has been little public interest in 

these refuges. Most of these refuges are now 

posted, but few have entrance signs identifying 

them by name as is typical on most other 

national wildlife refuges. 

Northern Pike 

Tom Kelley/USFWS 

4⎯Affected Environment 51 

During scoping, the state, general public, and 

some landowners requested opening some 

refuges to hunting. Increased hunting 

opportunities and overgrazing by deer and 

geese, resulting in loss of crops, prompted this 

request. Trapping has been allowed on a 

permit-only basis and has become a vital 

management tool to control unnatural 

populations of predators that have devastated 

waterfowl and other grassland nesting birds. 

Fishing occurs on several refuges and the state 

has stocked fish in some of the more popular 

impoundments. Only a few of the refuges have 

been officially open to public fishing. Numerous 

requests were made to open these refuges for 

ice fishing, an extremely popular winter 

activity in North Dakota. 

Other activities such as environmental 

education and interpretation opportunities, 

wildlife observation, and photography 

programs, are nonexistent on the limitedinterest refuges. Again, these are private lands 

so access must be granted by the landowner for 

an activity to occur. Some landowners 

expressed interest in establishing 

environmental education and interpretation 

programs targeting local schools. 

4.5 Socioeconomic Environment 

The limited-interest refuges are scattered 

across a 23-county area with a landbase of 

19,970,400 acres. Except for Morton and Grant 

counties, most counties are located east of the 

Missouri River. Areas surrounding the limitedinterest refuges are typically characterized as 

rural with an economy and land use based on 

agriculture. Currently, over 88 percent of the 

land in these counties is identified as 

agricultural (table 12). 

The state of North Dakota covers 44,156,200 

acres. Of this acreage, the Service currently 

owns 627,116 acres (1.4 percent of the entire 

state) and has an easement or lease (wetland, 

grassland, limited-interest) on an additional 

1,100,960 acres (3 percent of the entire state). 

North Dakota ranks 31 in the nation for overall 

federal land ownership (National Wilderness 

Institute 1995). Within the 23-county planning 

area, the Service currently owns 2 percent of 

the land in national wildlife refuges, WPAs, and 

National Fish Hatcheries and has various 

easements on 3.5 percent of lands in this 

planning area. 
 

 

 

 

 

52 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Race composition in most of the counties in the 

Program area is predominantly Caucasian 

ranging from 50.8 percent (Benson County) to 

99.5 percent (Kidder County) (table 13). The 

next largest group represented is Native 

American Indian ranging from 0 percent 

(Emmons) to 48 percent (Benson County). Most 

of the counties are sparsely populated 

excluding those with large urban areas such as 

Grand Forks County and Burleigh County, 

which encompass the cities of Grand Forks and 

Bismarck, respectively. Population sizes in 

2003 ranged from 2,591 (Kidder County) to 

70,937 (Burleigh County). The total population 

for all counties combined is 296,433, which is 46 

percent of North Dakota’s 2004 population of 

642,200. Population densities range from 

1.7/square mile (Grant County) to 42.5/square 

mile (Burleigh County). Overall, the population 

of the counties continued to decline between 

2000-2003. Population declines ranged from 0.7 

percent in Morton County to a decline of 9.9 

percent in Sheridan County. Only two counties 

increased population during this same period: 

Burleigh County (an increase of 3.3 percent) 

and Rolette County (an increase of 0.3 percent). 

The median age varies from 28.9 in Rolette 

County, to 48.1 in Sheridan County. 

The national unemployment rate is 5.0 percent 

(U.S. Department of Labor 2005). The state of 

North Dakota’s unemployment rate is below 

the national average at 3.2 percent. The largest 

employer in the state is the health care and 

social services (human services) industry 

employing over 14.1 percent of the state. In 

2004, this industry had the largest employment 

growth in the state (North Dakota Job Service 

2004), adding over 1,000 jobs (table 14). 

The counties surrounding the limited-interest 

refuges have an average of 3.1 percent 

unemployment rate, slightly below the state 

average. Grant County had the lowest 

unemployment rate at 1.3 percent, while 

Rolette County was the highest at 8.2 percent 

(U.S. Bureau of Census 2000). Human services 

was the leading industry in 16 of the 23 

counties, followed by agriculture (six counties). 

One county had “entertainment” as the 

primary industry. The median household 

income varied between $23,165 in Grant 

County to $41,309 in Burleigh County (U.S. 

Bureau of Census 2000). 
4⎯Affected Environment 53 

Table 12. Acres of agricultural and Service-controlled lands by county (% of total land for all listed counties) 

Limited- Limited- Agricultural FWS Fee-title (acres) FmHA Wetland Grassland Land 	 interest interest County Lands 	 Lands† Easements Easements (acres) 	 Refuges in Refuge (acres) 	 (acres) (acres) (acres) NWR WPA NFH 	 County (acres) 

Barnes 954,880 856,976 246 7,017 110 0 17,342 0 	 Hobart Lake, 3,151 

Stoney Slough, and Tomahawk 

Benson 883,840 732,870 1,674 7,216 0 1,703 35,195 2,982 	Pleasant Lake, 4,238 

Silver Lake (also Rolette), and Wood Lake 

Bottineau 1,068,160 948,475 21,563 2,589 0 471 29,183 0 	 Lords Lake 1,462 

(also Rolette Co.) 

Burleigh 1,045,120 865,524 11,801 11,256 0 2,187 26,063 12,844 	Canfield Lake 310 Dickey 723,840 599,450 0 10,042 0 2,584 26,817 9,333 	 Dakota Lake 3,512 

and Maple River 

Eddy 403,200 348,786 0 4,657 0 417 11,811 0 	 Johnson Lake 2,003 Emmons 966,400 838,075 0 3,615 0 309 11,492 0 	 Springwater, 1,876 

Sunburst Lake, and Appert Lake 

Grand 920,320 755,592 680 6,395 0 0 939 0 Little Goose 288 Forks Grant 1,061,760 1,056,729 0 5,363 0 0 5,821 10,331 	 Pretty Rock 800 

Griggs 453,120 379,022 0 3,228 0 101 16,677 0 	Sibley Lake 1,077 Kidder 864,640 794,465 6,609 7,404 0 1,222 63,955 9,887 	 Hutchinson 3,569 

Lake and Lake George 

Lamoure 734,080 676,966 0 5,435 0 955 13,121 0 	Bone Hill 640 McHenry 1,199,360 1,125,831 37,122 5,882 0 2,213 29,131 15,272 	 Cottonwood 1,253 

Lake and Wintering River 
54 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Table 12. Acres of agricultural and Service-controlled lands by county (% of total land for all listed counties) 

Limited- Limited- Agricultural FWS Fee-title (acres) FmHA Wetland Grassland Land 	 interest interest County Lands 	 Lands† Easements Easements (acres) 	 Refuges in Refuge (acres) 	 (acres) (acres) (acres) NWR WPA NFH 	 County (acres) 

McLean 1,350,400 1,094,748 17,504 12,343 186 73 22,280 7,945 	Camp Lake, 2,433 

Hiddenwood, Lake Otis, and Lost Lake 

Morton 1,232,640 1,276,269 0 0 0 375 0 0 	 Lake Patricia 

Nelson 628,480 531,591 32 3,544 0 439 37,881 0 	Lambs Lake, 2,043 

Johnson Lake, and Rose Lake 

Pierce 651,520 530,623 24 12,750 0 3,906 36,246 1,469 	 Buffalo Lake 1,540 Ramsey 758,400 636,109 7,710 9,477 0 386 28,730 0 	Silver Lake 313 

(also Benson Co.) 

Rolette 577,280 507,658 1 5,800 0 361 20,149 0 	 Rabb Lake, 3,616 

School Section Lake, Lords Lake and Willow Lake 

Sheridan 622,080 468,745 29,737 22,748 0 726 31,427 11,046 	Sheyenne Lake 797 Stutsman 1,421,440 1,215,190 17,690 28,277 0 1,259 41,927 11,834 	Half Way 160 Towner 656,000 548,774 802 7,241 0 865 24,213 398 	 Brumba, Rock 9,034 

Lake, and Snyder Lake 

Walsh 820,480 759,381 308 1,786 0 329 8,758 0 	Ardoch 2,389 Totals 19,997,440 17,547,848 153,503 184,065 396 20,881 539,158 93,341 39 limited- 47,304 

interest refuges 

Average % 88% 2% 	 0.1% 2.7% 0.5% 0.2% 

†Farmers Home Administration Lands. 


NWR=national wildlife refuge; WPA=waterfowl production area; NFH=national fish hatchery 


Source: USDA 2002; Service 2005. 


800 
4⎯Affected Environment 55 

Table 13. Demographics of the 23 counties within the planning area
 

Races (% of population) Population Population Persons per County Change Median Age American (2003) Square Mile Caucasian Black Asian (2000–2003) Indian 

Barnes 11,093 7.9 -5.9% 40.6 97.9 0.5 0.8 0.2 

Benson 6,873 5.0 -1.2% 31.4 50.8 0.1 48.0 0 Bottineau 6,893 4.3 -4.6% 43.4 97.2 0.2 1.5 0.2 

Burleigh 70,937 42.5 +3.3% 35.6 95.0 0.3 3.3 0.4 Dickey 5,554 5.1 -4.6% 40.7 97.8 0.1 0.3 0.5 

Eddy 2,627 4.4 -5.8% 43.8 96.4 0.1 2.4 0.1 Emmons 4,087 2.9 -7.5% 44.5 99.1 0 0.1 0.2 

Grand Forks 64,929 46.0 -2.1% 29.2 93.0 1.4 2.3 1.0 Grant 2,689 1.7 -6.2% 46.5 96.9 0 1.7 0.4 

Griggs 2,599 3.9 -6.4% 45.8 99.3 0 0.2 0.1 Kidder 2,591 2.0 -6.4% 44.5 99.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 

Lamoure 4,569 4.1 -4.0% 43.3 99.2 0 0.2 0.1 McHenry 5,739 3.2 -4.4% 43.0 98.7 0.1 0.4 0 McLean 9,014 4.4 -4.0% 44.1 92.5 0 5.9 0.1 Morton 25,181 13.1 -0.7% 37.4 95.8 0.2 2.4 0.3 

Nelson 3,464 3.8 -7.0% 47.2 98.6 0.1 0.3 0.3 Pierce 4,525 4.6 -4.2% 42.9 98.5 0.1 0.7 0.3 

Ramsey 11,746 10.2 -3.7% 39.5 92.3 0.2 5.4 0.3 Rolette 13,760 15.2 +0.4% 28.9 25.1 0.1 73.0 0.1 

Sheridan 1,572 1.8 -9.9% 48.1 99.2 0.1 0.4 0 Stutsman 21,388 9.9 -3.0% 39.6 97.5 0.3 0.9 0.4 

Towner 2,712 2.8 -7.3% 44.0 97.3 0.1 2.1 0.1 Walsh 11,891 9.7 -5.4% 40.9 94.9 0.3 1.0 0.2 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census 2000. 
56 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Table 14. Employment data for counties in the Program area 

Median % % % Household County Primary Industry Secondary Industry Unemployment Employment Employment Income (2000) ($/year) 

Barnes Human Services 27.4 Retail 11.9 2.9 31,166 Benson Human Services 23.4 Agriculture 15.8 7.4 26,688 Bottineau Human Services 23.8 Agriculture 16.1 2.7 29,853 Burleigh Human Services 23.2 Retail 13.0 2.5 41,309 Dickey Human Services 24.5 Agriculture 17.3 2.5 29,231 Eddy Human Services 27.4 Agriculture 19.6 2.7 28,642 Emmons Agriculture 28.0 Human Services 19.8 1.9 26,119 Grand Forks Human Services 29.8 Retail 13.6 2.9 35,785 

Grant Agriculture 33.5 Human Services 20.1 1.3 23,165 Griggs Human Services 20.4 Agriculture 16.0 1.9 29,572 Kidder Agriculture 30.1 Human Services 21.7 2.7 25,389 Lamoure Agriculture 23.3 Human Services 17.4 1.6 29,707 

McHenry Agriculture 20.5 Human Services 18.9 2.9 27,274 McLean Human Services 21.5 Agriculture 16.7 3.2 32,337 Morton Human Services 23.0 Retail 12.4 2.6 37,028 Nelson Human Services 27.7 Agriculture 16.3 1.8 28,892 Pierce Human Services 25.1 Agriculture 16.5 2.4 26,524 Ramsey Human Services 25.9 Retail 15.9 4.5 35,600 Rolette Human Services 34.7 Entertainment 9.8 8.2 26,232 Sheridan Agriculture 35.0 Human Services 16.0 3.9 24,450 

Stutsman Human Services 26.8 Manufacturing 11.4 2.2 33,848 Towner Entertainment 22.1 Agriculture 20.7 1.4 32,740 Walsh Human Services 27.1 Agriculture 15.1 4.0 33,845 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census 2000. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5. Environmental Consequences 


5.1 Effects Common to all Alternatives 

The following considerations apply to all future 

actions, regardless of the specific goals, 

objectives, and strategies that would be used to 

achieve the vision for the Program. 

Landowner Rights 

Landowners would always have the right to 

determine their level of participation, if any, in 

the activities and projects proposed outside the 

intent of the current flowage and/or refuge 

limited-interest refuge agreement (see section 

2.3 for discussion). 

Landowners would be provided information on 

available compensated programs for further 

protecting wildlife habitat, but no response 

would be required unless the landowner is 

willing to participate. For a discussion on feetitle actions, see the following information on 

the Service’s land acquisition policy. 

The Service would ensure that any activities 

associated with the Program would not 

adversely impact adjacent landowners 

including activities that would detract from the 

value of their property. Any landowners 

adjacent to lands owned or managed by the 

Service would retain all the rights, privileges, 

and responsibilities of private land ownership. 

Service Land Acquisition Policy 

The Service acquires lands and interests in 

lands consistent with legislation or other 

congressional guidelines and executive orders, 

for the conservation of fish and wildlife and to 

provide wildlife-dependent public use for 

education and recreational purposes. The 

Service policy is to acquire land only when 

other protective means, such as zoning and 

regulation, are not appropriate, available, or 

effective. When the Service acquires land, it 

acquires fee title (all property rights) only if 

lesser property interests (such as conservation 

easements, leases, or cooperative agreements) 

are not suitable to achieve resource objectives. 

It is Service policy to acquire the minimum 

interest necessary to reach Program goals and 

objectives. Any Service acquisition of lands, 

regardless of the type (easement or fee-title 

purchase) would be from willing sellers only. 

Written offers to willing sellers would be based 

on a professional appraisal of the property 

using recent sales of comparable properties in 

the area. Landowners would in no way be 

coerced into selling their land or any interest in 

their land. The Service recognizes that every 

landowner within or adjacent to an existing or 

proposed national wildlife refuge has the right: 

Q to retain all privileges and 

responsibilities of private ownership; 

Q to sell their land to anyone of their 

choice; 

Q not to sell their land; 

Q to receive a fair market value for any 

property sought for purchase by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

Q to control access to their land; 

Q to be heard and to provide input on 

management plans for neighboring 

refuge lands; 

Q to be informed on a regular basis about 

refuge management activities. 

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of June 15, 

1935, as amended, provides for annual 

payments to counties or the lowest unit of 

government that collects and distributes taxes 

based on acreage and value of national wildlife 

refuge lands located with the county. The 

monies for these payments come from two 

sources: (1) net receipts from the sale of 

products from national wildlife refuge 

appropriations; and (2) annual congressional 

appropriations, as authorized by the 1978 

amendment, which were intended to make up 

the difference between the net receipts from 

the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund and the 

total amount due to local units of government. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

58 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Maintenance of Roads and Existing Rightsof-Way 

State, county, and townships would retain 

maintenance obligations for roads and 

associated rights-of-way under their 

jurisdiction within refuge boundaries. Existing 

rights-of-way and terms of other easements 

would continue to be honored. New rights-ofway and easements would be considered in 

relation to the existing refuge and/or flowage 

limited-interest refuge agreements, System 

regulations, landowner compliance, and likely 

impacts to wildlife resources. 

Environmental Justice 

Environmental justice refers to the principle 

that all citizens and communities are entitled 

to: 

Q equal protection from environmental 

occupational health or safety hazards; 

Q	 equal access to natural resources and; 

Q	 equal participation in the environmental 

and natural resource policy formulation 

process. 

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued 

Executive Order (EO) 12898: “Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and low Income Populations.” The 

purpose of this Order was to focus attention of 

federal agencies on human environmental 

health and to address inequities that may occur 

in the distribution of costs/benefits, land use 

patterns, hazardous material transport or 

facility siting, allocation and consumption of 

resources, access to information, planning, and 

decision making, etc. 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is working with others to conserve, 

protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people. The environmental justice 

strategy of the Service extends this mission by 

seeking to ensure that all segments of the 

human population have equal access to 

America’s fish and wildlife resources, as well as 

equal access to information that would enable 

them to participate meaningfully in activities 

and policy shaping. 

Within the spirit and intent of EO 12898, no 

minority or low income populations would be 

impacted by any Service action under any 

alternative. 

5.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative 

The following section and table 15 provide an 

analysis of effects resulting from no action 

(alternative A) and the preferred alternative 

(alternative B). 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Existing Program management would be the 

focus of this alternative. As in the past, there 

would be no additional staff or funding 

provided to manage the limited-interest 

refuges. Any activities conducted on the 

refuges would continue to be incidental to other 

funded programs, or funding would be acquired 

through partnerships with conservation 

organizations. Hunting on the entire limitedinterest refuge and any activities that occur on 

the water would be controlled by the Service. 

There would be continual loss of upland 

habitats due to development. In particular, 

native prairie would be permanently lost as 

land uses change and areas become developed. 

Those refuges which contain any high hazard 

dams would be repaired or replaced to ensure 

public safety. However, most other water 

management structures would continue to 

deteriorate due to lack of available funding. 

There would be a continued loss of wetland 

management of impoundments, reducing the 

production of desirable wetland habitats 

needed for international migratory bird use. 

Natural wetlands would remain unprotected, 

potentially reducing the availability of 

nutritional food sources and habitats needed for 

nesting and migratory birds and other wetlanddependent wildlife. 

Current visitor services programs such as 

permit-only trapping, limited hunting and 

fishing, would continue if they remain 

compatible and resources are available to 

manage them. No additional public use 

activities would be pursued unless the Service 

was approached by a willing landowner. 

Additional uses would not be allowed unless it 

was determined to be compatible with the 

refuge purposes, and if funding is available to 

manage the use. 

No refuges would be divested, further 

straining available resources for the Program. 
 

 

5⎯Environmental Consequences 59 

Table 15. Summary of environmental consequences for management alternatives 

Alternative B Alternative A Issue (Enhance the North Dakota Limited­ (Current Management—No Action) interest Program) 

Wetland 

Management 

Biodiversity: Continued loss of 

biodiversity due to potential draining or 

siltation of wetlands. 

Water Level Management: Continued 

loss of ability to manage impoundments 

according to modern practices. 

Siltation: No program to actively work 

with farmers to reduce sedimentation. 

Wetlands would be lost as silt is 

deposited by runoff from surrounding 

agricultural uses. 

Waterfowl: Dominant focus; lack of 

management and protection of 

wetlands and nesting habitat. No 

guarantee of upland cover for nesting 

and continued loss of wetlands and 

water level management capabilities 

due to dilapidating structures; minimal 

production. 

Biodiversity: Work with willing landowners 

to restore and enhance biodiversity through 

the protection of over 2,500 acres of natural 

wetlands. 

Water Level Management: Properly manage 

impoundments for maximum production of 

waterfowl and other wetland-dependent 

birds. 

Siltation: Restore upland vegetation and 

capture and reduce siltation, preserving 

wetlands. 

Waterfowl: Dominant focus; increase ability 

to carry out proper water level 

management, protect natural wetlands, and 

provide quality nesting cover. Maximize 

success of nesting waterfowl and brood 

survival. 

Upland 

Management 

Biodiversity: No concerted effort to 

compensate landowners for upland 

protections. Impact: Continued loss of 

biodiversity, in particular native 

prairie, due to upland development and 

intense farming practices. 

Grassland-dependent Species: No 

habitat protection of upland vegetation. 

Little to no habitat available for nesting 

waterfowl or grassland-dependent 

birds; minimal production and 

recruitment. 

Native Prairie: No concerted effort to 

compensate landowners for native 

prairie protection. Continued and 

permanent loss of “true” native prairie 

habitat. 

Biodiversity: Work with willing landowners 

to negotiate added compensations for 

restoring and enhancing biodiversity 

through upland habitat protection. 

Grassland-dependent Species: Restore 

upland nesting bird habitat. Impact: 

Nesting success of waterfowl and grasslanddependent birds would increase ensuring 

greater success and survival. 

Native Prairie: Give highest priority to 

native prairie habitat protection through 

compensated programs. Potential to protect 

over 14,000 acres of native prairie. 
 

 

60 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Table 15. Summary of environmental consequences for management alternatives 

Alternative B Alternative A Issue 	 (Enhance the North Dakota Limited­ (Current Management—No Action) interest Program) 

Visitor Services	 Access: Little to no access would be 

provided on these privately owned 

refuges. Few visitor services programs 

would be provided. 

Hunting: No additional hunting would 

be permitted due to lack of resources; 

crop damage issues would not be 

addressed and this continued refuge 

status would continue to concentrate 

harvestable animal populations further 

damaging crops and costing landowners 

significant losses each year. 

Trapping: Trapping would continue on 

a permit-only basis focusing on 

predator management for the 

protection of migratory birds. 

Nonconsumptive Uses: No programs 

would be provided for wildlife viewing 

and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation. There 

would be a continued lack of 

understanding of the purposes of the 

Program along with a missed 

opportunity to further educate the 

public about the System. 

Natural Resources: No monitoring of 

the impacts of public disturbance to 

wildlife. 

Fishing: Additional fishing 

opportunities would not be actively 

pursued for the general public. 

Access: Negotiations with willing 

landowners to provide access for expanded 

public use activities and education of 

visitors about the Program and the System. 

Hunting: Determine compatibility and 

willingness of landowners to provide access 

for hunting (except ducks and certain geese 

species). Crop damage issue addressed 

while providing increased hunting 

opportunities for the general public. 

Trapping: Continuing the predator 

management program while ensuring 

trappers focus their future efforts on those 

refuges with habitat desired by nesting 

waterfowl and grassland birds will improve 

nesting success and production. The 

program will also address wildlife damage 

to water management structures and 

desirable habitats. Water level management 

will be enhanced and desirable habitat, such 

as riparian areas, will be protected. In 

addition, the trapping program will be 

reexamined when the International 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

makes its recommendations for Best 

Management Practices. Their research and 

resulting recommendations will only 

improve this program. 

Nonconsumptive Uses: Determine 

compatibility and willingness of landowners 

to provide access for wildlife viewing and 

photography, environmental education and 

interpretation, increasing public use while 

providing a widespread opportunity to 

educate the public about the Program and 

the System. 

Natural Resources: Monitor wildlife 

responses to changes in public uses to 

determine and modify negative impacts. 

Partnerships 	 Landowners: Little to no contact with 

limited-interest refuge landowners. The 

Program will never reach its full 

potential. 

Landowners: At a minimum, landowners 

would be provided annual updates on the 

Program and any opportunities for them to 

receive compensation for added protections 

of upland and wetland habitats. Landowners 

would become true partners in the Program. 

This would result in a greater chance of 

success if these landowners are fully 

engaged. Habitat would be maintained or 

restored. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5⎯Environmental Consequences 61 

Table 15. Summary of environmental consequences for management alternatives 

Alternative B Alternative A Issue (Enhance the North Dakota Limited­ (Current Management—No Action) interest Program) 

Other Partners: Partnerships would be Other Partners: Actively identify and 

developed incidental to needs and coordinate with potential partners to 

common interests. Loss of potential achieve common goals that enhance and 

funds and services support the Program. Extend existing 

resources, including funding and knowledge. 

Administration Continued loss of biodiversity and 

ability to manage impoundments for 

wildlife. 

Ability to partner with willing landowners 

to address management and maintenance 

issues and protection of natural resources 

for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Divestiture Even though some have no potential to 

ever support the goals of the System, 

all refuges would be retained. Program 

resources would be further strained 

with little to no gain of wildlife habitat. 

Integrity of the System would be 

affected by retaining lands that do no 

support the goal of the System. 

Six refuges would be divested based on loss 

of habitat and wildlife values due to 

development or the ability and willingness 

of the state to continue to manage limitedinterest refuge lands as state Wildlife 

Management Areas. This would support the 

integrity of the System and ensure the best 

use of available resources. 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B would emphasize taking a 

critical look at the needs and benefits of the 

limited-interest refuges. Relationships with 

landowners would be enhanced and 

programs would be available to willing 

landowners providing additional 

compensation and protection for those 

refuge lands identified as having the most 

critical habitats. 

All refuge water management structures 

would be evaluated for needed repairs and 

replacements. Necessary work would be 

completed by local contractors and supplies 

would be acquired locally providing 

economic benefits to the local communities. 

Several water management structures need 

repairs. 

Mike Goos/USFWS 

Managing stations would plan and initiate 

water level management programs on 

these impoundments to ensure maximum 

production of desirable aquatic plants and 

invertebrates utilized by nesting and 

migratory waterbirds, in particular, 

waterfowl. Maintaining water features on 

landowners’ properties would maintain or 

increase land value due to the aesthetics 

and opportunities for wildlife-dependent 

recreation, such as fishing and 

birdwatching, a more reliable source of 

stockwater for livestock. 

Landowners would be encouraged to use 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) for 

farming operations to reduce siltation and 

contamination of impoundments and 

natural wetlands. Managing stations would 

ensure landowners are provided the 

necessary BMP information provided by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Refuge staff would partner with willing 

landowners and the NDGF to evaluate 

many of the refuges for opportunities for 

public use. Affected landowners would 

need to provide access to the general 

public and the Service would monitor 

impacts to wildlife and landowners. 

Increased hunting, fishing, and other 

recreational opportunities would provide 

an economic benefit to the surrounding 

areas. Four seasonal law enforcement 

officers would be recruited for managing 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

62 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

and monitoring these new public uses, 

while ensuring visitor and landowner 

safety. 

Six refuges would be divested ensuring the 

existing and added program resources are 

utilized on those refuges with potential to 

become national wildlife refuges in more 

than name only. Refuges with extensive 

loss of biodiversity that no longer meet 

their purpose or the goals of National 

Wildlife Refuge System and those that are 

currently owned and/or managed by the 

state (easements revoked), would be 

divested. No wildlife habitat would be lost 

on those areas that would be managed by 

the NDGF. Recreational opportunities 

would continue or expand providing quality 

of life and economic benefits to the local 

communities. Some refuges would be 

divested giving all rights back to the 

landowners or a landowner designated 

managing interest excluding the water 

rights, which would be relinquished to the 

State. The Service would ensure that any 

water management structures meet federal 

and state safety standards prior to 

divestiture and transfer. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 6. Management Direction
 

Note: Comprehensive conservation plans 

provide long-term guidance for management 

decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and 

strategies needed to accomplish refuge 

purposes and identify the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future 

needs. These plans detail program planning 

levels that are sometimes substantially above 

current budget allocations, and, as such, are 

primarily for Service strategic planning and 

program prioritization purposes. The plans do 

not constitute a commitment for staffing 

increases, operational and maintenance 

increases, or funding for future land 

acquisition. 

6.1 Introduction 

During the next 15 years, the objectives and 

strategies presented below will guide the 

management of these refuges and future 

allocations. The Service will implement this 

CCP with assistance from willing landowners, 

existing and new partner agencies and 

organizations, and the public. No action taken 

in this plan will have any negative impacts on 

endangered species (see “Appendix F, Section 

7 Biological Evaluation”). 

Although a number of needs were identified 

during the planning process, there are no 

assurances that any projects would be fully or 

even partially funded. However, within every 

planning effort, there are opportunities to 

examine current allocations of funding and 

resources and determine the best available 

uses based on a more comprehensive planning 

evaluation of critical needs. 

6.2 Refuge Divestiture Proposals 

To date, over 93 percent of limited-interest 

refuge lands remain in private ownership. 

Within the approved acquisition boundary, 99 

percent of the acres remain in private 

ownership. For all practical purposes, after 70 

years, the Service is still at a starting point for 

attempting to give some assurance that these 

lands can retain the qualities desirable in a 

national wildlife refuge. To that end, the 

Service first examined each refuge to 

determine if it should be retained in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

A Regional Team of managers, planners, and 

regional directorate convened to develop a 

Region 6 model for determining, as part of the 

CCP process, whether a refuge should be 

retained in the System (see “Appendix G, 

Divestiture Model”). Factors were considered 

in evaluating each refuge for retention, such as 

(1) ability to meet the goals of the System, 

(2) ability to meet the refuge purpose(s), 

(3) existing biodiversity including native 

habitat, (4) associated conservation lands, and 

(5) current state and other federal management 

of these areas. The limited-interest refuges 

planning team utilized this model in their 

decision making. The entire team reviewed 

land status maps and listened to a presentation 

by each managing station describing the 

negative impacts and potential of each refuge. 

Land status maps displayed associated 

wetlands and other habitats as well as other 

Service and state interests adjacent to or 

surrounding each refuge. These included 

Service wetland or grassland easements, 

WPAs, NDGF Wildlife Management Areas, 

and other NWRs. 

Since the 1950s, when dozens of limitedinterest refuges were divested, no attempt has 

been made to evaluate each refuge 

comprehensively to determine its capability to 

meet the goals of the System. In addition to 

refuges lacking biodiversity due to negative 

impacts, the Service also examined refuges 

currently owned or managed by the state or 

another federal agency. Because there will be 

no opportunity for the Service to acquire any 

additional interests in these lands, there is no 

logical reason for the Service to continue to 

retain any interest, particularly on state-owned 

lands currently being managed for wildlife. 

Additionally, the limited-interest refuges 

cannot be equated to a similar fee-title refuge 

where the Service has full management control. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

64 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

In the past 70 years, the Service has acquired 

additional rights, primarily through acquisition, 

on only 1 percent of the approved acquisition 

boundaries. In addition, dozens of other 

limited-interest refuges have been divested 

since this Program was established. Most 

recently in 1999, Lake Elsie National Wildlife 

Refuge was divested due to habitat losses and 

issues similar to the following divestiture 

proposals. 

Six refuges are being proposed for 

consideration for divestiture: 

Q Bone Hill NWR 

Q Camp Lake NWR 

Q Cottonwood Lake NWR 

Q Lake Patricia NWR 

Q School Section Lake NWR 

Q Sheyenne Lake NWR 

During scoping, the Service received numerous 

requests from landowners to divest several of 

the limited-interest refuges. Each refuge was 

considered during discussions on divestiture. 

For example, the Service received requests to 

divest both Bone Hill and Sheyenne Lake 

NWRs, which are now on the divestiture list. 

Several meetings were held with the 

landowners of Camp Lake NWR in the past to 

discuss divestiture and there is support. 

Lake Patricia is primarily owned and managed 

by the state and has long supported 

divestiture. 

Sheyenne Lake NWR is owned by the BOR 

and managed by the state under a 1980s 

agreement. The Service is present in name only 

and there will be no loss of habitat for wildlife 

from what occurs there today. BOR and the 

state support divestiture of Sheyenne Lake. 

Cottonwood Lake received one comment 

against divestiture during scoping, but 

divestiture has been supported by the majority 

of the landowners in the past. The state also is 

interested in managing this popular fishery. 

No comments were received for School Section 

Lake during scoping. However, the state owns 

the upland areas surrounding the lake and 

supports divestiture and acquiring 

management. 

Each of these refuges were established either 

by executive order or other legislation. No 

approval from the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission was requested at the 

time these refuges were established. Although 

the specific details for divesting each of these 

refuges will be addressed when the CCP is 

implemented, the Service plans to provide the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission the 

proposals for divestiture and ask for its 

concurrence. The final approval for divestiture 

will require an act of Congress. 

The following proposals provide a brief history 

and justification for considering each of the six 

refuges for divestiture. 

Bone Hill NWR 

Proposal and Justification 

Three perpetual refuge and flowage easement 

agreements were signed by private landowners 

in LaMoure County in 1935. On May 10, 1939, 

an executive order was signed by President 

Roosevelt establishing these lands and waters 

as Bone Hill National Wildlife Refuge (figure 

18). An approved acquisition boundary was 

designated within and around these limitedinterest refuge lands totaling 640 acres to serve 

as a “refuge and breeding grounds for 

migratory birds.” Because the Service never 

acquired any of these lands fee title, the 

purpose of this limited-interest refuge land is 

contained in the easement agreements 

including (a) water conservation, (b) drought 

relief, (c) a wildlife demonstration unit, and (d) 

a closed refuge and reservation for migratory 

birds and other wildlife. 

The land use and activities surrounding the 

constructed and natural wetlands on the Bone 

Hill NWR make management of these wetlands 

for the benefit of migratory birds impractical. 

Most of the refuge habitat has been converted 

for tillage agriculture. Some of the refuge, 

including the area around the main, 

constructed impoundment, is currently being 

used as a feedlot to raise domestic elk. As a 

result, the remnant areas of grass or native 

vegetation are severely overgrazed. 

In addition, there is a farm house and 

associated outbuildings on the refuge along 

with a fertilizer plant. For this refuge to fulfill 

its intended purposes according to the 

executive order, the elk farm and the fertilizer 

plant would have to be removed and the grass 

areas restored, which is unrealistic to expect. 
6⎯Management Direction 65 
 

Figure 18. Bone Hill NWR 

 

 

 

66 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Additionally, the Service has no authority to 

restore these uplands under the current 

agreements. 

Recommendation: Divest this limited-interest 

refuge, revoke all the refuge and flowage 

easement agreements, and voluntary relinquish 

the water rights to the State. Negotiate with 

the state to manage the water resource. 

Camp Lake NWR 

Proposal and Justification 

In 1935 and 1936, seven perpetual and one 

revocable refuge and flowage easement 

agreements were signed by the state and 

private landowners in McLean County. On May 

10, 1939, an executive order was signed by 

President Roosevelt establishing these lands 

and waters as Camp Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge (figure 19). An approved acquisition 

boundary was designated within and around 

these limited-interest refuge lands totaling 

1,212 acres to serve as a “refuge and breeding 

grounds for migratory birds.” Because the 

Service never acquired any of these lands fee 

title, the purpose of this limited-interest refuge 

land is contained in the refuge and flowage 

easement agreements including (a) water 

conservation, (b) drought relief, (c) a wildlife 

demonstration unit, and (d) a closed refuge and 

reservation for migratory birds and other 

wildlife. 

In 1974 the limited-interest refuge for refuge 

rights contained in Section 36 of T150N and 

R80W and owned by the North Dakota State 

Land Commissioner, acting on behalf of the 

Board of University and School Lands, was 

revoked on the non-meandered acreage. This 

revocation reduced the limited-interest refuge 

acreage to approximately 585 acres. 

The current approximate boundary of the 

refuge consists of the E1⁄2 SE1⁄4 of Section 25, 

T150N and R80W, the waters of Camp and 

Strawberry lakes in Section 36, the SE1⁄4 of 

Section 35, T150N and R80W, and the E1⁄2 of 

Section 2, T149N and R80W. 

Camp and Strawberry lakes are controlled in 

elevation by a dam and water control structure 

located at the south end of Strawberry Lake. 

Currently, the uplands within the refuge 

boundary in Section 25 and the SE1⁄4 of Section 2 

Boat docks and 149 cabins surround the lake on 

Camp Lake NWR. 

are utilized for agriculture. The uplands in the 

NE1⁄4 of Section 2 and in Section 35 are 

dominated by cabins and recreational features. 

The lands and waters in and around Camp 

Lake NWR have always been a popular 

recreational area, even prior to establishment 

of the national wildlife refuge. Recreational 

development on Strawberry Lake increased in 

the 1950s. Today development consists of over 

149 cabins, a beach, resort, docks, boat ramp, a 

road system, and a recreational services 

district. The human impact of the cabins, boats, 

sewage, swimming, personal water craft, and 

recreational use on the refuge has greatly 

reduced or eliminated the ability of this area to 

meet its purpose and any goals of the System. 

In addition, with the revocation of the state’s 

limited-interest refuge, the Service no longer 

has any means to regulate human disturbance 

immediately adjacent to and around the entire 

periphery of the lakes in Section 36. 

The purpose for which this refuge was 

established was based on attributes it 

possessed and exhibited at the time of 

establishment. Those attributes were relative 

and conditionally linked to the original 

contiguous size and shape characteristics. The 

government’s interest in this refuge no longer 

retains those size and shape characteristics. 

Most importantly, the development of dozens of 

lakeside cabins and the supporting recreational 

facilities have rendered this refuge incapable of 

ever meeting the purpose for which it was 

originally established. 

Rod Krey/USFWS 
6⎯Management Direction 67 
 

Figure 19. Camp Lake NWR
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Recommendation: Divest the limited-interest 

refuge, revoke the refuge and flowage 

easements, and voluntarily relinquish the 

water rights. Transfer management of the dam 

to the McLean County Water Resource 

District or the Strawberry Lake Recreation 

District. 

Cottonwood Lake NWR 

Proposal and Justification 

Seven perpetual refuge and flowage easement 

agreements were signed in McHenry County 

by private landowners between 1936 and 1937. 

On June 12, 1939, an executive order was 

signed by President Roosevelt establishing 

these lands and waters as Cottonwood Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge (figure 20). An 

approved acquisition boundary was designated 

within and around these limited-interest refuge 

lands totaling 1,013 acres to serve as a “refuge 

and breeding grounds for migratory birds.” 

Because the Service never acquired any of 

these lands fee title, the purpose of this limitedinterest refuge land is contained in the refuge 

and flowage easement agreements including (a) 

water conservation, (b) drought relief, (c) a 

wildlife demonstration unit, and (d) a closed 

refuge and reservation for migratory birds and 

other wildlife. 

Cottonwood Lake is the principle water area on 

the refuge encompassing about 260 acres. It 

receives water from runoff to the west and a 

diversion ditch from the east. The boundary 

consists of over 500 acres of uplands in Section 

28 and parts of Section 21 and Section 33. Most 

Cottonwood Lake NWR
 

Laura King/USFWS 

of the Cottonwood Lake boundary is the high 

watermark on nearly two-thirds of the basin. 

The uplands are in poor condition for waterfowl 

and other migratory birds. Nearly all uplands 

have been cultivated at some time and all have 

planted tree lines and shelterbelts, as well as 

trees that escaped cultivation, dotting the 

landscape. Three roads either bisect the refuge 

or transverse its boundary. There are two large 

farmsteads within the boundary, two 

permanent homes, and a seasonal mobile home. 

The water control structure and spillway are in 

disrepair and do not function as originally 

planned. The diversion ditch to the east is filled 

with sediment, has become overgrown with 

brush and trees, and only functions under flood 

conditions. Local residents poured concrete 

into the water control structure and raised the 

lake level by 1 foot. The spillway in most years 

is nonfunctional and has blown out several 

times in the past. 

The NDGF completed repairs on the structure 

to maintain the fishery. It also constructed a 

boat ramp on the west shoreline on other 

private land and encouraged fishing. This is the 

main fishing area for the rural residents of the 

Butte area. Historically, the residents have 

worked to keep the lake deep so as to maintain 

the fishery. The state periodically stocks the 

lake with game fish. 

Some local anglers want the lake maintained 

for recreation. Attempts to plug the water 

control structure and spillway have occurred 

several times over the years. There also have 

been attempts to divert more water to the lake 

when possible. Any attempt to manage the lake 

for migratory bird use was abandoned in the 

1960s due to local resident hostilities. 

By keeping the lake deep, the habitat value for 

waterfowl has diminished. Little if any 

submerged vegetation has been noted over the 

years and little emergent vegetation has 

established itself along the shore. Previous 

managers have noted the area gets little use by 

waterfowl or other water birds except for small 

groups of birds during migration. Most times 

nesting birds are disturbed by the numerous 

boats using the area. 
6⎯Management Direction 69 
 

Figure 20. Cottonwood Lake NWR 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Wildlife use has been severely compromised 

leaving limited remaining biological values 

combined with long-standing law enforcement 

issues, which will undoubtedly increase as 

future developments (uses the Service does not 

regulate) continue. 

Recommendation: Divest the limited-interest 

refuge and revoke the refuge and flowage 

easement agreements. Voluntarily relinquish 

the water right to the State, which should be 

allowed to continue to operate the area as a 

recreational fishery. Negotiations should be 

initiated with the state to determine if a trade 

for management responsibilities for 

Cottonwood Lake NWR could be exchanged for 

management rights on another limited-interest 

refuge with greater wildlife values. The 

Service should concentrate its efforts on other 

neighboring Service interests with greater 

potential, including the Cottonwood WPA and 

the Wintering River NWR (another limitedinterest refuge). 

Lake Patricia NWR 

Proposal and Justification 

Five refuge and flowage easement agreements 

were signed by private landowners and the 

state in Morton County between 1936 and 1938. 

Two of these agreements with the state, 

totaling 800 acres, are revocable; the remaining 

four agreements are perpetual. On June 12, 

1939, an executive order was signed by 

President Roosevelt establishing these lands as 

Lake Patricia National Wildlife Refuge (figure 

21). An approved acquisition boundary was 

designated within and around these limitedinterest refuge lands totaling 1,434 acres to 

serve as a “...refuge and breeding grounds for 

migratory birds.” Because the Service never 

acquired any of these lands fee title, the 

purpose of this limited-interest refuge land is 

contained in the refuge easement agreements 

including (a) water conservation, (b) drought 

relief, (c) a wildlife demonstration unit, and (d) 

a closed refuge and reservation for migratory 

birds and other wildlife. 

In 1949, the state of North Dakota revoked one 

limited-interest refuge agreement for 640 

acres. These lands and waters are located in 

the center of the refuge in Section 36. The state 

has an additional 160 acre area in Section 26, 

where the easement has yet to be revoked. 

The major feature of this refuge as established 

was Lake Patricia. The majority of this lake is 

located in Section 36 and is no longer protected 

by a limited-interest refuge agreement. The 

revoked lands surrounding Lake Patricia in 

Section 36, are managed as wildlife habitat by 

the NDGF. The remaining uplands still covered 

by a limited-interest agreement, are used for 

agricultural purposes and are of marginal 

wildlife value. 

In 1955, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

entered into a management agreement with 

NDGF to manage the entire refuge. The longrange plan was for the state to work with the 

landowners within the refuge to acquire state 

agreements similar to the federal refuge and 

flowage easement agreements. This was 

necessary as the federal agreements could not 

be transferred to the state. The state has been 

unable to obtain these agreements; therefore, 

they requested the federal agreements remain 

in effect. Nevertheless, the state has continued 

to manage most of the refuge as a Wildlife 

Management Area. 

The purpose for which this refuge was 

originally established was based on attributes 

it possessed and exhibited at the time of 

establishment. Those attributes were relative 

and conditionally linked to the original size and 

features. This refuge no longer retains those 

characteristics. The majority of refuge and 

migratory bird breeding use exists or is 

associated with the part of Lake Patricia where 

the limited-interest refuge agreement was 

revoked. It would be more appropriate for the 

state, which owns and currently manages most 

of the lands within the refuge boundary, to take 

jurisdiction over the area. 

Recommendation: Divest the limited-interest 

refuge, revoke the refuge and flowage 

easement agreements, and voluntarily 

relinquish the water rights and transfer 

management of the structure to the State. 

Allow the State to continue to operate the area 

as a Wildlife Management Area. Negotiations 

with the State will include determining if these 

management responsibilities could be 

exchanged for management rights on another 

limited-interest refuge with greater wildlife 

values. 
6⎯Management Direction 71 
 

Figure 21. Lake Patricia NWR 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

School Section Lake NWR 

Proposal and Justification 

One revocable and two perpetual refuge and/or 

flowage easement agreements were signed 

between 1935 and 1937 in Rolette County by 

private landowners and the state. On 

December 21, 1948, these lands and waters 

became School Section Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge (figure 22) under the authority of the 

Act of August 14, 1946, a precursor the Fish 

and Wildlife Coordination Act. An approved 

acquisition boundary was designated within 

and around these limited-interest refuge lands 

totaling 680 acres. Because the Service never 

acquired any of these lands fee title, the 

purpose of this limited-interest refuge is 

contained in the refuge and/or flowage 

easement agreements including (a) water 

conservation, (b) drought relief, (c) a wildlife 

demonstration unit, and (d) a closed refuge and 

reservation for migratory birds and other 

wildlife. 

In 1996, the revocable refuge and flowage 

easement signed by the state was cancelled by 

them. The agreement covered the land 

described as T163N, R72W, Section 16, frac. 

ALL (also described as Gov. Lots 1 thru 9, 

S2SE3). This area (tract 2a) was about 383 

acres of upland surrounding the 261-acre lake 

in Section 16. The only remaining upland within 

the existing limited-interest refuge boundary is 

in another agreement described as T163N, 

R72W, Section 9, Lot 4 comprised of 37 acres. 

The original refuge consisting of 680 acres has 

been reduced to 297 acres. Of the remaining 

refuge, 88 percent is composed of the 261-acre 

lake. The government no longer has 

jurisdiction to prevent human disturbance 

immediately adjacent to and around the entire 

periphery of the lake. 

Within Section 16, the legal boundary of the 

lake is the now the legal boundary of the 

remaining limited-interest refuge. To enforce 

provisions of the limited-interest refuge, the 

legal boundary must be adequately signed. For 

the legal boundary to be signed, it must be 

identifiable on the landscape. The water levels 

in the lake fluctuate seasonally and from year 

to year. Thus, this legal boundary is not 

evident on the landscape. For this reason, 

management personnel responsible for 

enforcement of the limited-interest refuge 

provisions have been reluctant to place signs 

that would identify the modified boundary. In 

addition, a lake does not make a refuge. The 

diversity of habitats, found both on the lake 

and in the surrounding uplands are necessary 

for adequate protection, diversity, 

enhancement, and management of a balance of 

habitats necessary for healthy wildlife 

populations, in particular federal trust species 

such as nesting waterfowl and grassland birds. 

The purpose for which this refuge was 

originally established was based on attributes 

it possessed and exhibited at the time of 

establishment. Those attributes were relative 

and conditionally linked to the original size and 

features. This refuge no longer retains those 

characteristics. Thus, in its downsized state, it 

no longer meets the purpose for which it was 

originally established. 

Recommendation: Divest the limited-interest 

refuge and revoke the refuge and/or flowage 

easement agreements. Voluntarily relinquish 

the water rights to the State. 

Sheyenne Lake NWR 

Proposal and Justification 

In 1935, six separate perpetual refuge and 

flowage easement agreements were signed by 

private landowners in Sheridan County. On 

December 21, 1948, these lands became 

Sheyenne National Wildlife Refuge (figure 23) 

under the authority of the act of August 14, 

1946, a precursor the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act. An approved acquisition 

boundary was designated within and around 

these limited-interest refuge lands totaling 

1,273 acres. Because the Service never 

acquired any of these lands fee title, the 

purpose of this limited-interest refuge land is 

contained in the refuge and flowage easement 

agreements including (a) water conservation, 

(b) drought relief, (c) a wildlife demonstration 

unit, and (d) a closed refuge and reservation for 

migratory birds and other wildlife. 

The lands on which the limited-interest refuge 

is located have been purchased in fee title by 

the BOR for Garrison Diversion Unit purposes, 

a large irrigation project. As part of the 1986 

Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act, the 

area surrounding and containing the refuge 

became known as the Lonetree Wildlife 

Management Area. NDGF currently manages 

the area under an agreement with BOR. 
6⎯Management Direction 73 
 

Figure 22. School Section Lake NWR 

74 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Da kota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 23. Sheyenne Lake NWR 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6⎯Management Direction 75 

The refuge contains both Sheyenne and Coal 

Mine lakes, which are the principle water areas 

on the refuge. These lakes provide breeding 

and migration habitat for waterfowl and other 

waterbirds. A small amount of uplands 

surround Sheyenne Lake within the refuge 

boundary. The NDGF currently manages all 

lands and water as quality wildlife habitat for 

migratory birds and other wildlife. Because the 

wildlife values are being effectively protected 

and managed by the BOR and the NDGF by 

order of the 1986 Garrison Diversion 

Reformulation Act, there is no need for 

continuing the Service’s interest in the 

agreements or the refuge status. 

Recommendation: Divest the limited-interest 

refuge and revoke the refuge and flowage 

easement agreements, transferring 

management and voluntarily relinquishing the 

water rights to BOR or the State. 

Once this CCP is approved, the managing 

stations would work with the Division of 

Realty and Land Protection Planning to 

prepare a combined Program proposal to divest 

these refuges. As a courtesy, this proposal 

would be submitted to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission for concurrence and 

then submitted for congressional approval. This 

process could take some time as final 

divestiture will take an act of Congress. 

6.3 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

The following goals, objectives, and strategies 

outline the actions needed to achieve the 

Program vision for the refuges that are not 

being proposed for divestiture. 

The following objectives and 


strategies address the remaining 33 


refuges not proposed for divestiture. 


The Service will not implement any 


of the following actions, outside the 


authority of the limited-interest 


refuge agreement (see section 2.3), 


without the cooperation of willing 


landowners. 


Wetland Habitat 

Goal: Maintain and manage natural and created 

wetlands within the approved acquisition 

boundary to provide habitat for international 

populations of waterfowl and other migratory 

birds along with other wetland-dependent 

wildlife. 

Objective 1: Work with the Service’s Division 

of Engineering to evaluate the safety and 

integrity of all water management facilities; 

thereafter, annually manage water levels, 

protecting the Service’s water right while 

working cooperatively with willing landowners 

to reduce negative impacts from upland uses to 

ensure productive wetland habitat for wetlanddependant migratory birds. 

Completion Year: 2020 

Rationale: The structures that impound and 

control water bodies on the limited-interest 

refuges were built in the 1930s and 1940s. Some 

have been replaced or updated, while many 

others have been altered, removed, or are in 

disrepair and not fully functioning. Most of the 

impoundments have not been historically 

managed for maximum wetland habitat 

production, primarily due to a lack of staff, 

funding, and management capability to 

implement any water level management 

programs. Many areas have been kept at 

higher than desirable water levels for many 

years and several have become popular fishing 

and boating areas. This was not the intent of 

the Program as evidenced by the installation of 

the water level management structures and the 

agreements. Restoration of the management 

capability, supported by the necessary staff 

and funding, is essential to provide habitat to 

wetland-dependent migratory birds. 

Strategies: 

Priority 1 (initiate year 1 and thereafter) 

1) Refuge staff will work with the Division of 

Engineering to plan and conduct annual safety 

and maintenance inspections of water 

management structures until all have been 

inspected and maintenance needs have been 

identified. 

2) Install water elevation gauges on all 

impoundments that have the capability to 

manage water levels and record levels in the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

spring and late summer/early fall during the 

migration periods. 

3) Identify and protect the Service’s water 

rights (see table 10.) 

Priority 2 

1) Implement any necessary maintenance, 

repair and replacement to maximize 

management capabilities. Schedule projects 

based on safety needs and the habitat 

protection priorities established by each 

managing station. 

2) Use existing and updated water control 

structures to create optimum and stable 

wetland conditions during the nesting and 

migration seasons of wetland-dependent birds. 

Priority 3 

1) Develop standard protocol using GIS 

technologies for monitoring migratory bird 

response to management actions and make 

adjustments to maximize production, natural 

diversity, and survival. 

Objective 2: Restore and protect over 2,000 

seasonal, temporary, and semi-permanent 

wetlands, totaling nearly 2,500 acres, that exist 

within the approved refuge boundaries. 

Completion Year: 2020 

Rationale: The Service’s definition of 

wetlands states that, “Wetlands are land 

transitional between terrestrial and aquatic 

systems where the water table is usually at or 

near the surface or the land is covered by 

shallow water” (Cowardin et al. 1979). 

Wetlands are the link between land and water 

and serve not only as storage areas for water, 

preventing flooding, but also absorb excess 

nutrients, sediments, and other pollutants 

before they reach rivers, lakes, and other 

waterbodies. Nearly half of all wildlife species 

use wetlands at some point in their lives. Many 

of the U.S. breeding bird 

populations⎯including ducks, geese, hawks, 

wading birds, and songbirds⎯ feed, nest, and 

raise their young in wetlands. Nevertheless, 

the U.S. continues to lose over 60,000 acres of 

wetlands every year (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 2004). 

According to data provided by HAPET, almost 

2,500 acres of natural wetlands occur within the 

boundaries of the limited-interest refuges. 

Currently, the Service has little ability to 

manage or protect wetlands for wildlife, 

particularly for waterfowl and other migratory 

birds. The Service will need to work with 

willing landowners to provide additional 

compensation for critical protection. 

Strategies: 

Priority 1 

1) Provide information on available 

compensated programs to limited-interest 

refuge landowners owning lands within priority 

wetland habitat zones in order to determine 

their interest in receiving additional 

compensation for protecting natural wetlands. 

2) Each managing station will use HAPET data 

and other available information to develop a 

wetland habitat protection priority list for the 

limited-interest refuges. This list should be 

reviewed every 10 years, ensuring that the 

most critical habitat protection needs identified 

in both regional and national plans (including 

the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan, Shorebird Conservation Plan and others) 

are being adequately addressed. 

Priority 2 

1) Using the following programs and funding 

sources, work with willing landowners and 

partners to ensure the identified wetlands are 

restored and protected: 

Q Acquire wetland easements on natural 

wetlands in priority areas/counties. 

Q Refuge Inholding Fund. 

Mike Goos/USFWS 

Service staff inspects a structure at Sheyenne Lake NWR.
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6⎯Management Direction 77 

•	 Prioritize fee acquisition of limitedinterest refuges and compete for 

funding from the Refuge Inholding 

Fund. To compete for funding from 

this account, a copy of a signed 

option to purchase the property 

must be submitted with the request. 

The Washington Division of Realty 

limits funding from this account to 

tracts of $250,000 or less. 

Q Migratory Bird Conservation Funds 

•	 Use of Migratory Bird Conservation 

Funds would require lands to be 

managed as WPAs. To spend these 

funds to acquire land, the Service 

would need the approval of the 

Governor and the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission. 

Q	 Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Project 

•	 Limited-interest refuge lands within 

the approved acquisition boundary, 

as identified in the establishing 

authority, can be purchased from 

willing landowners using Land and 

Water Conservation Funds. 

Upland Habitat 

Goal: Establish a land protection program 

within the approved acquisition boundary to 

maintain, restore, and enhance uplands to 

provide habitat for international populations of 

waterfowl, other migratory birds, and other 

wildlife. 

Objective 1: Provide opportunity and 

incentives to all willing landowners to 

implement upland conservation measures, in 

particular for native prairie protection, to 

maintain, enhance, and preserve migratory 

bird breeding and nesting habitat while 

reducing negative impacts to the adjacent 

wetlands, rivers, lakes, and impoundments. 

Completion Year: 2020 

Rationale: Except for hunting, the Service 

does not control activities that occur in upland 

areas. Construction, farming, grazing, economic 

developments, have occurred on many of the 

refuges before and since they were established. 

The water feature of these refuges have made 

them attractive for residential and recreational 

development and for economic endeavors such 

Appert Lake NWR 


as farming, livestock rearing, fertilizer plants, 

and bait shops. Varying degrees of negative 

impacts from these activities include a loss of 

wildlife habitat and an increase in disturbance. 

Other upland areas remain intact, including 

large areas of native prairie; however, nothing 

protects this prairie habitat from plowing or 

other impacts except for the economic value 

the land has for grazing and haying. There is an 

urgent need to work with willing landowners to 

protect upland habitat from further impacts, 

particularly lands with intact native prairie 

habitat. Compensation would be provided and 

habitat would be restored for the use of 

migratory birds, waterfowl, and grassland 

birds. Resident wildlife also would benefit. 

Strategies 

Priority 1 

1) Contact all refuge landowners to provide 

information on upland habitat enhancement 

opportunities through the Service Partners 

Program, NDGF, USDA, and other Program 

possibilities. Continue to update landowners on 

program options through the annual 

newsletter. 

2) Each managing station will utilize HAPET 

data and other available information to develop 

an upland habitat protection priority list for the 

limited-interest refuges. This list will be 

reviewed every 10 years to incorporate any 

new information, ensuring that the most 

critical habitat protection needs continue to be 

addressed. Highest priority will be given to 

those lands containing native prairie habitat. 

Paul Van Ningen/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

78 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

3) Work through the Service’s Partners for 

Wildlife Program to offer landowners 

incentives for restoring and protecting upland 

habitat for wildlife. 

4) Work cooperatively with the USDA to 

provide information to landowners on BMPs for 

farming and grazing and other available 

conservation programs. 

Priority 2 

1) In cooperation with willing refuge 

landowners, develop and implement a 

conservation limited-interest refuge strategy 

to limit development within the refuge 

boundary and adjacent zone of influence. 

Priority 3 

1) Annually evaluate refuge uplands and record 

opportunities for habitat restoration, 

enhancement, creation or preservation. 

2) Determine which landowners would like 

their lands evaluated for additional 

compensation and protection and pursue one of 

the following methods and/or funding sources 

based on the landowner’s desires and the level 

of protection needed: 

Q	 Acquire grassland easements on upland 

areas, giving highest priority to lands 

supporting native prairie habitat. 

Q	 Refuge Inholding Fund 

•	 Prioritize fee acquisition of limitedinterest refuges and compete for 

funding from the Refuge Inholding 

Fund. To compete for funding from 

this account, a copy of a signed 

option to purchase the property 

must be submitted with the request. 

The Washington Division of Realty 

limits funding from this account to 

tracts of $250,000 or less. 

Q Migratory Bird Conservation Funds 

•	 Use of Migratory Bird Conservation 

Funds would that lands be managed 

as WPAs. To spend these funds to 

acquire land, the Service would 

need the approval of the Governor 

and the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission. 

Q	 Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Project 

•	 Limited-interest refuge lands within 

the approved acquisition boundary, 

as identified in the establishing 

authority, can be purchased from 

willing landowners using Land and 

Water Conservation Funds. 

Priority 4 

1) Using GIS technologies, annually monitor 

the effects of management actions and modify 

the Program as needed to provide habitat for 

nesting waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

Partnerships 

Goal: Foster landowner, community, and 

regional partnerships to assist in achieving the 

Program vision while ensuring that 100 percent 

of all partners gain a greater understanding of 

the management and resources of these 

limited-interest refuges. 

Objective 1: Landowners would be given the 

opportunity to participate as partners in 

managing their respective limited-interest 

refuge within the context of the refuge and/or 

flowage easement agreement. 

Completion Year: 2007 

Rationale: Although the limited-interest 

refuges are national wildlife refuges, over 93 

percent of the lands (44,285 acres) remain in 

private ownership. The Service owns the water 

rights (excluding Lake Otis) and can manage 

water levels on impoundments for migratory 

birds. The Service also can regulate public 

uses, including hunting, trapping, and fishing. 

Control of uplands and naturally occurring 

wetlands remains with the landowners. 

Nevertheless, there has never been a 

structured program where landowners had a 

regular avenue to provide feedback or gain 

information on this Program. Landowners must 

be kept informed and given opportunities to 

participate in this Program if the limitedinterest refuges are to have any future value 

for wildlife. 

Strategies: 

Priority 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

6⎯Management Direction 79 

1) Maintain a mailing list and legal descriptions 

for each landowner, updating it at least 

annually (county tax assessor offices can 

provide the most up-to-date ownership 

information). 

2) Contact each landowner prior to 

implementing a management practice that may 

have the potential to affect property or 

adjacent lands. 

3) Each refuge headquarters will contact its 

respective refuge landowners annually through 

an informational newsletter that includes 

Program highlights and information on 

compensation programs available to 

landowners to further protect and enhance 

their refuges. A postage-paid comment form 

will be included with each newsletter to receive 

any feedback from the landowners. 

Priority 2 

1) Provide landowners a wildlife observation 

reporting form in the annual newsletter to 

record unusual observations of wildlife on their 

property or other areas of the refuge. Solicit 

this observation information from willing 

landowners on a bi-annual basis and highlight 

unique sightings in the annual newsletter. 

Objective 2: Identify and coordinate with 

potential partners to achieve common goals 

that enhance and support the North Dakota 

Limited-interest Program. 

Rationale: There is a great potential and need 

to compensate the limited-interest refuge 

landowners willing to provide the necessary 

protections so that these refuge resources will 

remain protected and intact. It will be essential 

that all potential partners are informed and 

engaged in this opportunity to further protect 

and fulfill the intent of the Program. 

Completion Year: 2010 

Strategies: 

Priority 1 

1) Coordinate with all limited-interest refuge 

managers to develop a list of potential national 

and regional partners. Prepare an 

informational packet on the Program including 

a history of the Program and the need and 

opportunities for protection; provide this 

packet to all potential partners. 

2) Invite all interested landowners to meet 

with potential partners and learn about any 

programs available for compensating 

landowners for added wildlife habitat 

protections. 

Objective: On the current 607 NWR fee-title 

acres (and any future fee-title lands), utilize 

fire management to protect life, property, and 

other resources from wildfire while utilizing an 

ecosystem management approach to restore 

wildlife habitat. 

Priority 1 

1) Work cooperatively with affected 

landowners when planning any prescribed fire 

operations. 

2) Include all NWR fee-title lands within the 

limited-interest refuges in any managing 

station fire management plans. 

Visitor Services 

Goal: Where compatible, and in cooperation 

with willing landowners, allow public fishing, 

hunting, trapping, and other high quality 

wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities 

that foster an appreciation and understanding 

of the management and resources of the 

Program and the System. 

Objective 1: Where compatible and in 

cooperation with willing landowners, the 

Service’s fisheries management program, and 

the NDGF, evaluate each refuge for the 

potential to develop consumptive public use 

programs (hunting, sport fishing, and trapping) 

that will not negatively impact migratory birds. 

Completion Year: 2013 

Ring-necked Pheasant 

Bob Savannah/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

80 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Rationale: The Service acquired the right to 

control fishing, trapping, and hunting on all 

limited-interest refuges. Since the refuges 

were established in the 1930s and 1940s, all 

have been open to trapping, while only a few 

have been officially opened to hunting and 

fishing. When they were established, market 

hunting was rampant and there was a need for 

sanctuaries for migratory birds and other 

wildlife. Today, hunting, trapping, and fishing 

uses are strictly regulated and considered by 

many to be a legitimate, traditional 

recreational use of renewable natural 

resources. Healthy wildlife and fish populations 

produce harvestable surpluses that are a 

renewable resource. As practiced on refuges, 

hunting, trapping and fishing do not pose a 

threat to the wildlife populations and, in some 

instances, are actually necessary for sound 

wildlife management. In particular, trapping of 

smaller predators is essential to the future 

survival of waterfowl and other ground nesting 

birds. These small predators (such as raccoon 

and skunks) have responded favorably to the 

fragmented habitats that occur in North 

Dakota. This fragmentation is caused by 

development and agriculture. Larger 

predators, such as wolves and bears, have been 

extirpated from the landscape due their needs 

for unbroken large tracts of land. Smaller 

predators have thrived in this unnatural 

habitat, expanding their populations, which 

then feed on ground nesting birds, their eggs 

and young. This combined with habitat losses 

has imperiled many populations of ground 

nesting birds. Man created this situation and it 

is only man’s intervention that can correct it. 

The most effective means, short of acquiring 

very large tracts of intact habitats (rarely seen 

today) is to control these predators at more 

natural population level. This also benefits the 

predators themselves and the surrounding 

communities by reducing disease outbreaks 

amongst wildlife and domestic animals. It also 

reduces economic damage caused by these 

predators such as crop depredation. Trapping 

supports the purposes for which these refuges 

were established; protection of migratory 

birds. 

Several landowners asked the Service to 

address crop damage due to the concentration 

of white-tailed deer and geese within these 

protected areas. There were other requests to 

open these areas for additional recreational 

opportunities. The decision to permit hunting, 

trapping and fishing on the limited-interest 

refuges would be made on a case-by-case basis. 

Landowners must be willing to provide access 

to the public. Once access is granted, the final 

decision to open a refuge would be based on 

biological soundness, economic feasibility, 

effects on other refuge programs, resident 

landowner and visitor safety, and public 

demand. 

The limited-interest refuges are still in private 

ownership; if they are to be opened to any 

visitor services, they must be open to the 

public. The Service may restrict the number of 

users and the length of the seasons, but it may 

not exclude the public from the opportunity to 

participate. 

Strategies: 

Priority 1 

1) Working with the Service’s fisheries 

management program, develop a partnership 

with NDGF to develop hunting, fishing, and 

trapping programs and monitor the results. 

2) Meet with willing landowners to discuss the 

opportunities and need for a consumptive use 

program and determine how public access will 

be provided. 

3) Provide ice fishing opportunities on refuges 

where the use is compatible. 

4) Ensure the existing permit-only trapping 

programs focuses efforts on those habitats 

most suitable for ground nesting birds in order 

to improve survival rates. Implement the 

International Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies recommendations for Best 

Management Practices for trapping wildlife, 

when available. 

5) Ensure that existing hunting and fishing 

programs have been determined to be 

compatible and are open to the general public. 

Priority 2 

1) Do compatibility determinations on each 

refuge for every individual use being 

considered. 

2) Use the provisions and procedures outlined 

in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, 

part 32 to evaluate expanded hunting and 

fishing opportunities. 
 

 

 

 

6⎯Management Direction 81 

3) Determine the need for any restrictions on 

hunting, fishing, and trapping such as issuing a 

limited number of permits, shortened seasons, 

and closed areas. 

Priority 3 

1) Annually monitor migratory bird breeding 

and staging use at each refuge to determine the 

continued compatibility of fishing, hunting, and 

trapping. 

2) At a minimum, every 5 years, the Service 

will evaluate the Program with the landowner 

and the NDGF to determine the continued 

need for hunting, fishing, and trapping uses. 

Objective 2: Where compatible and in 

cooperation with willing landowners, evaluate 

each refuge for the potential to develop 

nonconsumptive wildlife-dependent public use 

programs (wildlife viewing and photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation) 

for the general public to better enjoy and 

understand the Program. 

Completion Year: 2013 

Rationale: No organized nonconsumptive 

activity occurs on the limited-interest refuges. 

In fact, most of the public is unaware these 

refuges exist. Most of the refuges have the 

boundaries posted, but few have entrance signs 

and none have information stations. The public 

and several landowners expressed some 

interest in providing opportunities for wildlife 

viewing and photography, interpretation and 

environmental education. On any lands not 

owned by the Service, the landowners have the 

right to deny access for nonconsumptive visitor 

services. Therefore, any development of these 

programs on private lands will only be with the 

permission of willing landowners. 

Strategies: 

Priority 1 

1) In cooperation with willing landowners, 

work with state agencies and other interested 

partners to develop nonconsumptive wildlifedependent recreational programs. 

Priority 2 

1) Use the provisions and procedures outlined 

in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, 

One of the few entrance signs. 


part 26, Subpart C, Public Use and Recreation, 

to evaluate and open the limited-interest 

refuges to any nonconsumptive visitor services. 

2) Do compatibility determinations on each 

refuge for every nonconsumptive use being 

considered. 

Priority 3 (initiate year 3) 

1) Work with willing landowners, area groups, 

and schools to promote awareness of key refuge 

resources. Look for opportunities to develop 

cooperative interpretive and environmental 

education programs for adults and students 

while promoting ecotourism opportunities for 

the general public. 

2) Place entrance signs and informational 

kiosks on refuges that provide these 

opportunities. 

Priority 4 (initiate year 3 and thereafter) 

1) Monitor migratory bird breeding and staging 

use at each refuge to determine the continued 

compatibility of wildlife viewing, photography, 

interpretation and environmental education. 

Objective 3: Provide for visitor safety and 

ensure adequate signage on all limited-interest 

refuges. 

Completion Year: 2008 

Rationale: Since these refuges were 

established, there has been some variation in 

the identification of the refuge boundaries and 

names of the limited-interest refuges. Most 

Mike Goos/USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

82 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

have posted boundaries using the common 

“blue goose” sign, but few have the traditional 

entrance sign identifying them as national 

wildlife refuges. There needs to be some 

consistency in identifying and posting, based on 

the public activities that are allowed by the 

landowners. At a minimum, all of the limitedinterest refuge boundaries need to be identified 

due to their restricted uses, such as hunting 

and fishing, and refuge purpose, to reduce 

disturbance to migratory birds. 

Strategies: 

Priority 1 

1) Develop a unique boundary sign for all 

limited-interest refuges so the public may 

distinguish these privately owned refuges and 

their restrictions from a traditional fee-title 

refuge. 

Priority 2 (initiate year 1 and thereafter) 

1) Inspect and replace boundary signs as 

needed on all limited-interest refuges. 

Priority 3 

1) As new wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities are established, identify unmet law 

enforcement and visitor services needs and 

develop a Refuge Operating Needs System and 

a Maintenance Management System to ensure a 

safe, quality experience for refuge visitors. 

Administration 

Goal: Secure and effectively use funding, 

staffing, and partnerships to ensure the 

Program meets its full potential of habitat 

protection and visitor use. 

Objective: Secure funding, staffing and 

develop partnerships to protect and manage 

the limited-interest refuges, their resources 

and values, and achieve all Program objectives. 

Rationale: Since the Program was established, 

no staff and little to no funding has been 

available to manage the refuges. In the past 70 

years, the Service has acquired 7 percent (3,443 

acres) of the total acres, 2,828 acres of which 

were acquired as WPAs. There have been a few 

attempts to review this Program and 

determine the resources needed to ensure 

these areas were adequately managed, 

enhanced, and protected. Most of these 

attempts have been unsuccessful, resulting in a 

continued altering or loss of wildlife habitat. It 

is imperative that resources and partnerships 

are sought to ensure adequate protection and 

management. 

Strategies: 

Priority 1 

1) Recruit one North Dakota Limited-interest 

Program Coordinator to facilitate the 

implementation of this plan. 

Priority 2 

1) Develop Cooperative Conservation 

Initiative, Challenge Cost Share, and North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act grants 

and other grants with available partners to 

obtain funding for habitat and other protection 

work. 

2) Incorporate management of limited-interest 

refuges into annual work plans. 

3) Use volunteers to assist with management, 

maintenance, and visitor use programs. 

4) Complete a Refuge Operating Needs System 

or a Maintenance Management System 

proposal to request dollars for any projects 

requiring Service funding. 

5) Recruit four seasonal law enforcement 

officers to ensure visitor safety and enforce 

established refuge regulations. 

6.4 Step-down Management Plans 

This strategic CCP will guide the future 

direction of the Program. Implementation of 

this CCP will require further strategies 

detailed in step-down management plans (see 

table 16). 

Most of the limited-interest refuges have been 

included in the managing stations management 

plans. Because these refuges are in private 

ownership, opportunities for management, 

beyond those described in section 2.3, are 

limited. This fact makes it difficult to complete 

many step-down plans until the future of these 

refuges is more certain. However, a significant 

part of implementing this CCP will be for each 

managing station to complete an evaluation and 

prioritization of their refuges identifying the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6⎯Management Direction 83 

Table 16. Limited-interest refuge step-down management plans 

Plan/Proposal Years 1–3 Years 4–6 As Related to Changes in 

Individual Refuge Status 

Limited-interest Refuge Habitat Priority List X 

Divestiture Proposals X 

Wildlife Management Plans (may be incorporated in Complex/WMD plans) 

Waterfowl X 

Shorebirds and Water Birds X 

Neotropical Migrant/Birds of Concern X 

Resident Game Species X 

Nongame Species X 

Fisheries X 

Wildlife Inventory X 

Integrated Pest Management Plan X 

Habitat Management Plans (may be incorporated in Complex/WMD plans) 

Moist Soil/Water 

Grassland 

Fire Management Plan 

Visitor Services Plans 

Hunting and Trapping 

Fishing 

Wildlife Observation and Photography, 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Sign 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Law Enforcement X 

most imperiled and critical habitat areas. This 

will assist in ranking future project 

opportunities. 

Step-down plans are primarily for those 

refuges where the Service will be able to 

secure additional protections from willing 

landowners. These step-down plans may 

continue to be incorporated into Complex or 

WMD plans, if appropriate. 

6.5 Partnership Opportunities 

A major objective of this CCP is to establish 

partnerships with landowners, volunteers, 

private organizations, and state and federal 

natural resource agencies. In particular, 

voluntary participation from limited-interest 

refuge landowners is essential to the success of 

this plan. Landowners will be informed of 

opportunities to participate in compensated 

habitat protection programs; it will be their 

option to participate. Opportunities exist near 

partnerships with sporting clubs, elementary 

and secondary schools, and community 

organizations. A strong partnership already 

exists between the Service and NDGF. At 

regional and state levels, partnerships might be 

established with organizations such as Ducks 

Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon 

Society, National Wild Turkey Federation, 

North Dakota Wildlife Federation and Wildlife 

Societies, and Delta Waterfowl. 

6.6 Monitoring and Evaluation 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to 

long-term management of biotic resources. 

Adaptive management is directed over time by 

the results of ongoing monitoring activities and 

other information. More specifically, adaptive 

management is a process by which projects are 

implemented within a framework of 

scientifically driven experiments to test the 

predictions and assumptions outlined within a 

plan (figure 24). 

the limited-interest refuges to establish 

 

 

 

 

 

84 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

To apply adaptive management, specific 

survey, inventory, and monitoring protocols 

will be adopted for the Complex. The habitat 

management strategies will be systematically 

evaluated to determine management effects on 

wildlife populations. This information will be 

used to refine approaches and determine how 

effectively the objectives are being 

accomplished. Evaluations will include 

HAPET, ecosystem team, and other 

appropriate partner participation. 

If monitoring and evaluation indicate 

undesirable effects for target and nontarget 

species or communities, alterations to the 

management projects will be made. 

Subsequently, the CCP will be revised. 

Specific monitoring and evaluation activities 

will be described in the step-down management 

plans (see section 6.4). 

6.7 CCP Amendment and Revision 

This CCP will be reviewed annually to 

determine the need for revision. A revision 

would occur if and when significant information 

becomes available, such as a change in 

ecological conditions or significant landowner 

interest in additional programs. The final CCP 

would be augmented by detailed step-down 

management plans to address the completion of 

specific strategies in support of the Program’s 

goals and objectives. The step-down 

management plans and revisions to the CCP 

would be subject to public review and NEPA 

compliance. 

At a minimum, this CCP will be evaluated 

every 5 years and revised after 15 years. 

Figure 24. Adaptive Management. 

 

 

Appendix A. Consultation and Coordination 

A planning team (see table A-1) composed of pertinent to the management of the Program. 

representatives from the six managing The team met on several occasions and 

stations, various other Service Divisions, and a participated in public scoping activities 

representative from NDGF was formed to throughout the state. During this period, the 

prepare this CCP and EA. Initially, the team team also sought the contributions of experts 

focused on identifying the issues and concerns (table A-2) from various fields of expertise. 

Table A-1. Planning team members 

Name Title Agency 

Laura King Planning Team Leader, Refuge Operations U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Specialist 

Randy Kreil Division Chief, Wildlife Division North Dakota Game and Fish Department 

Rod Krey Refuge Supervisor, ND/SD U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Bob Barrett Deputy Refuge Supervisor, ND/SD U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Sean Fields Wildlife Biologist/GIS Specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lloyd Jones Refuge Coordinator, North Dakota U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Ron Reynolds Project Leader, Region 6 HAPET Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Stu Wacker Supervisory Realty Specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Roger Hollevoet Project Leader, Devils Lake U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Kim Hanson Project Leader, Arrowwood U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Bob Vanden Berge Project Leader (retired 1/05), Kulm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Bob Howard Project Leader (retired 6/04), J. Clark U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Salyer 

Tedd Gutzke Project Leader, J. Clark Salyer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mike McEnroe Project Leader (retired 1/05), Audubon U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Paul Van Ningen Project Leader, Long Lake U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lee Albright Wetland District Manager, J. Clark Salyer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Dave Azure Deputy Project Leader, Kulm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Gary Williams Deputy Project Leader, Audubon U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Natoma (Tomi) Deputy Project Leader, Long Lake U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Buskness 

Jim Alfonso Deputy Project Leader, Devils Lake U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mark Vaniman Deputy Project Leader (transferred 2/04), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Arrowwood 

Stacy Adolf-Whipp Wetland District Manager, Arrowwood U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Stacy Hoehn Refuge Operations Specialist, Valley City U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Kory Richardson Wetland District Manager, Valley City U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mike Goos Wetland District Manager, Audubon U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Michael (Mick) Wetland District Manager, Arrowwood U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Erickson 

Paul Halko Wetland District Manager, Devils Lake U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Neil Shook Wetland District Manager, Devils Lake U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Kurt Tompkins Wetland District Manager, Devils Lake U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
 

 

 

86 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Table A-2. Other contributors to the Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges CCP and their area(s) of 

expertise 

Name Title Area of Expertise 

Ron Shupe Deputy Chief of Refuges Limited-interest refuge history 

Harvey Wittmier Realty Chief Limited-interest refuge history, realty policies 

and procedures 

Michael Spratt Planning Division Chief Planning processes and techniques 

Linda Kelly Chief, Comprehensive Conservation Planning processes and techniques 

Planning 

Bill Reffault President, Blue Goose Alliance Limited-interest refuge history 

Margo Zalen Regional Solicitor, Denver Legal guidance and opinion 

Alan Palisoul WO Solicitor Legal guidance and opinion 

Betty Adler Supv. Realty Specialist Realty history of limited-interest refuges and 

procedures 

James Eaglesome Paralegal Specialist (Realty) Legal guidance and opinion 

Cheryl Willis Water Resources Division Chief Water resources information; water rights 

Sandy Hutchcroft Supv. Information Technology Specialist Realty database 

David Redhorse Native American Liaison Native American interests 

Jane Fitzgerald Reference Archivist, Old Military and Civil Historical records related to limited-interest 

Records refuges 

John Esperance Chief, Land Protection Planning Land protection planning guidance 

Joyce Welch GIS Contractor Limited-interest refuge history and mapping 

Rhoda Lewis Regional Archaeologist Cultural and archeological resources guidance 

Sue Kvas GIS Specialist, HAPET GIS and related habitat data, HAPET 

Sean Furniss Refuge Roads Coordinator Refuge purposes 

Deb Parker Editor, Planning Editing 

Aleta Powers Natural Resource Specialist Editing (Contractor) 

Connie Young- Regional NEPA Coordinator NEPA compliance 

Dubovsky 

Eva Paredes Facility Management Coordinator Real property inventory 

Public Review of the Draft CCP/EA 

The public was given a 60-day period to review 

the public draft plan. The review period ended 

December 2, 2005. During the month of October 

2005, newsletters summarizing the draft plan 

and comment forms were sent to over 730 

individuals on the mailing list. In addition, over 

100 copies of the plan were sent to interested 

parties. A total of 6 public meetings were held 

to give the public an opportunity to discuss the 

public draft of the CCP. These meetings were 

held in October in the communities of Valley 

City, McHenry, Devils Lake, Upham, Oakes, 

and Moffitt, N.D. A presentation was given at 

each meeting summarizing the draft plan and 

comments were collected. We had a total of 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consultation and Coordination 87 

attendees. More than 20 news releases and 

articles were prepared regarding the draft plan 

and these public meetings. 

The following issues, concerns, and comments 

are a compilation and summary of those 

expressed during the draft CCP comment 

period. Comments were provided by the public, 

other Federal and State agencies, and 

individuals concerned about the natural 

resources of these refuges. The section is 

organized by topics and presents both the 

comment and the Service’s response. Only 

those substantive comments that are relative 

to this planning effort and within the 

jurisdiction of the Service are addressed and 

considered. 

Public Comments 

The refuge staff recognizes and appreciates all 

input received from the public throughout the 

planning process. In particular, the feedback, 

comments, and renewed interactions with the 

landowners of these refuges has been essential 

to this planning process. All comments were 

reviewed by the planning team. In many cases 

we received similar comments or questions 

from multiple persons or organizations. These 

comments have been combined and 

paraphrased. The following summarizes all 

substantive comments followed by the 

Service’s response. 

Divestiture 

Comment 1—The Service should retain all 

refuges proposed for divestiture and develop 

agreements with the state and acquire the 

uplands from the landowners. 

Response: Prior to divestiture, the Service will 

work closely with both the state and 

landowners to ensure there is not net loss of 

wildlife habitat (if any) that currently exists on 

these refuges. The state currently manages 

three of these refuges as Wildlife Management 

Areas (WMA) and owns all or most of the lands 

within two of these refuges. The Service is 

there in name only. The third refuge was 

acquired by the Bureau of Reclamation who has 

an agreement with the state to manage it as a 

WMA. The remaining three refuges either 

never had or have lost their wildlife values to 

the point that they no longer support the goals 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 

Service made these determinations based on 

discussions amongst managers, biologists, and 

the directorate. The resulting divestiture 

model used as a tool to examine each refuge in 

this project for divestiture has been added in 

appendix G. By divesting these refuges, any 

future funding will then be used to enhance and 

protect those lands and waters that can truly 

function as refuges as described in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. 

Comment 2—Concerned about the lack of 

procedure to consider proposed divestment of 

refuge lands. 

Response: An appendix has been added to the 

document describing the divestiture decision 

model developed by the Region and used as 

part of the process to determine which refuges 

should be considered for divestiture. 

Comment 3—The Service should have taken a 

more aggressive look at the divestiture issue 

and considered divesting additional refuges. 

Response: The Service used the divestiture 

model (as described in appendix G) as a tool to 

determine which refuges should be considered 

for divestiture. This was the first use of this 

model and it may be refined in the future. 

During a divestiture workshop, the information 

for analyzing these refuges was provided by a 

team of managers and biologists who currently 

manage these areas. Based on this information, 

only six of the 39 refuges met the current 

criteria for divestiture consideration. The 

Service recognizes that there has been little 

attention given to these refuges since they 

were established. No funding has even been 

earmarked for management of this program. 

However, this plan is the most effective tool for 

elevating issues and requesting funding to 

properly manage these refuges. There are no 

guarantees, but it is certain that if this plan had 

not been completed, the directorate, who 

makes decisions on budgeting, would remain 

unaware of the needs to properly managing 

these refuges. 

Hunting and Trapping 

Comment 1—A number of comments were 

received both for and against trapping on these 

refuges. Those opposed to trapping stated that 

it was cruel and that the EA failed to 

adequately justify continuing a trapping 

program. Those supporting trapping identified 

it as a valuable wildlife management tool for 

protecting ground nesting birds and 

endangered species. 

Response: The Service has expanded the 

sections in the document discussing the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

benefits of trapping to ground nesting bird 

survival. Predators (such as raccoons, skunks, 

and foxes) and habitat loss are the greatest 

threats to ground nesting birds. Small 

predators such as those mentioned have 

responded favorably to the fragmented 

habitats caused by development and 

agriculture. Their natural predators, such as 

wolves and grizzlies, have not. This has created 

an overabundant, unnatural population of 

these small predators which are effective 

hunters of ground nesting birds, in particular 

waterfowl, eggs, and young birds. Without this 

intervention, along with other methods, such as 

electrical fences and exclosures, nesting 

success would plummet. This would be 

devastating in this part of the country known 

as North America’s “Duck Factory”. 

Response: The Service will revisit this issue 

when the International Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies completes it’s research and 

develops a list of standard ‘Best Management 

Practices’ for trapping on public lands. 

Comment 2—A variety of comments were 

received regarding the Service’s proposal to 

work with willing landowners and the state to 

determine if any additional hunting 

opportunities are available. We heard from 

both those who oppose and support hunting on 

these refuges. 

Response: The National Wildlife Refuge 

Improvement Act lists hunting as a priority 

public use on refuges when deemed compatible. 

It is not certain at this time whether any 

additional refuges will be opened for hunting. 

This determination will be made as part of 

implementation. It will be essential that willing 

landowners agree to provide access, but this is 

their decision, not a decision by the Service. 

Once access is granted, a compatibility 

determination will be completed for each 

proposed use. The public will be permitted to 

see these compatibility determinations. The 

document emphasizes that no additional public 

uses will be permitted unless access is granted, 

the resources are available to manage the use, 

and the use is deemed compatible with the 

purposes of the refuge, i.e. the use does not 

negatively impact migratory birds, in 

particular migrating waterfowl. 

Comment 3—A few refuge landowners were 

concerned about opening their lands to public 

hunting due to the impacts to migrating 

waterfowl. 

Response: No additional activities, including 

hunting, will be permitted on any refuge unless 

it is found compatible with the purposes for 

which it was established. In the case of the 

limited-interest refuges, the purpose includes a 

refuge for migratory birds, particularly 

waterfowl. If a willing landowner would like to 

have their lands open to public hunting (for 

white-tailed deer and certain geese species), 

the Service will ensure that this use does not 

impact migrating ducks in the spring and fall. 

Shortened seasons, permit-only hunting, or 

limited access are some tools to accomplish this. 

First and foremost, a landowner must be 

willing to grant access before the Service will 

even consider allowing public uses, including 

hunting. No limited-interest refuge is 

“automatically” open to any public use unless 

access is granted by willing landowners and the 

use is found compatible with the purposes of 

that refuge. 

Fishing 

Comment 1—Concerned that fishing on the 

James River (Dakota NWR) impacts spawning 

fish in the spring. 

Response: The Service Fisheries Division will 

work closely with the state to ensure areas 

open to fishing are compatible with the 

purposes of the refuge while ensuring that the 

fishery is not negatively impacted and can 

sustain the use. 

Funding and Staffing 

Comment 1—It appears that the state 

coordinator would be essential to implementing 

this plan, how does the Service propose to get 

this position and other funding to implement 

this plan? 

Response: Once this plan is approved, the 

Service will pursue the staff and funding 

necessary to implement this plan. Although 

there is no guarantee of funding, submitting 

this plan has made the decision makers aware 

of the needs of this program, something that 

had not been done at such a comprehensive 

level. If funding does come available, the 

landowners, and other who wish to remain on 

the mailing list, will be given this information 

in the annual newsletter. 

Comment 2—The plan should address potential 

opportunities to examine current allocations of 

funding and resources a bit further. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consultation and Coordination 89 

Response: In the 70 year history of this 

program, there has never been any funds 

specifically earmarked for these refuges. This 

has lead to disrepair of water management 

structures and lack of interaction with refuge 

landowners. This planning process has renewed 

interest in these refuges and elevated the 

needs of this program. 

Impoundments 

Comment 1—There is no discussion on the 

Service’s ability to stop the draining of the 

impoundments. 

Response: The document does state that the 

Service controls the water level and uses that 

occur on the impoundments or main body of 

water over which it holds a water right. This 

includes the ability to stop any draining of this 

impoundment if that is not within water level 

management objectives. 

Incompatible Uses 

Comment 1—How will the Service 

communicate to the landowners which uses are 

compatible with the purposes of these refuges? 

Response: This planning process was the first 

attempt to review both historical records in 

combination with Solicitor’s opinions to 

pinpoint both the Service’s and landowner 

rights on these refuges. There is a discussion of 

this in section 2.3 of the document. Since this 

program began, there have been some 

inconsistencies in the uses permitted on these 

refuges. The Service recognized this and 

ensured this rights determination was made 

early in the planning process. This is essential 

to the future of these refuges and for building 

relationships with the landowners. Any use 

under the authority of the Service that is 

proposed for these refuges will have to have a 

compatibility determination made to determine 

if it is compatible with the purposes of that 

refuge. The Service will work with the affected 

landowners when completing this 

determination and will take necessary actions 

to allow or deny a proposed use based on an 

impact analysis. 

Signage 

Comment 1—The new boundary sign for these 

refuges should identify these refuges as private 

lands and identify the limited uses that may 

occur within the limited-interest refuge 

boundary, if any. 

Response: The proposed limited-interest 

boundary sign will provide this information. 

Wetland and Grassland Protection 

Comment 1—The Service should evaluate any 

wetlands and grasslands being considered for 

added protection using the same acquisition 

criteria used for wetland and native prairie 

grassland easements elsewhere in North 

Dakota. 

Response: The Service will use both the 

wetland and grassland easement programs to 

compensate willing landowners for added 

protections. Therefore, the current criteria for 

these programs will be used for evaluating each 

future proposal. 

Comment 2—The Service should work 

diligently to acquire the necessary upland 

habitat to prevent further loss of habitat. 

Response: The plan includes objectives for the 

Service to work with willing landowners to 

provide additional compensation for added 

protection of upland habitats. 

Crop Depredation 

Comment 1—There were numerous comments 

from landowners reiterating that they are 

losing significant amounts of crops to 

concentrated populations of geese (in particular 

snow and Canada’s) and white-tailed deer. 

Response: This was a frequent comment heard 

from landowners during the initial scoping 

process. The Service recognizes that crop 

depredation is an issue on these refuges. To 

address this issue, the Service has proposed in 

the plan to work with willing landowners and 

the state to open certain refuges to public 

hunting of certain geese species and whitetailed deer. 

Invasive Species 

Comment 1—The Service should control the 

invasive species that occur on the uplands of 

these limited-interest refuges. 

Response: The Service has determined that the 

easement did not give the government the 

right to control the uses that occur on the 

uplands. This means that landowners are able 

to farm, graze, build homes, etc., on these 

upland areas. This also means the Service is not 

responsible for such activities as controlling 
 

 

 

 

90 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

invasive plants that occur on these uplands. 

This is the responsibility of the landowners. 

Landowner Relations 

Comment 1—The Service should work more 

closely with the landowners and let them know 

when things are occurring on their respective 

refuges. 

Response: The plan includes a partnership goal 

and several objectives and strategies for 

interacting with landowners while keeping 

them informed about activities and programs 

that affect their respective refuges. At a 

minimum, each landowner and other interested 

parties will receive an annual newsletter 

updating them on the implementation of this 

plan and other opportunities for partnerships. 

The Service will also coordinate with 

landowners when any projects or 

enhancements are planned for their respective 

refuge. 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B. Glossary of Terms
 

adaptive management—a process in which 

projects are implemented within a framework 

of scientifically driven experiments to test 

predictions and assumptions outlined within 

the comprehensive conservation plan. The 

analysis of the outcome of project 

implementation helps managers determine 

whether current management should continue 

as is or whether it should be modified to 

achieve desired conditions. 

alternative—a reasonable way to fix the 

identified problem or satisfy the stated need 

(40 CFR 1500.2) [see also management 

alternative below]. 

approved acquisition boundary—a project 

boundary which the Director of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service approves upon completion of 

the detailed planning and environmental 

compliance process. 

biological integrity—composition, structure, 

and function at the genetic, organism, and 

community levels consistent with natural 

conditions, and the biological processes that 

shape genomes, organisms, and communities. 

biological or natural diversity—the 

abundance, variety, and genetic constitution of 

animals and plants in nature. Also referred to 

as Abiodiversity.@

boreal—describes a region that has a northern 

temperature climate, with cold winters and 

warm summers. 

breeding habitat—habitat used by migratory 

birds or other animals during the breeding 

season. 

buffer zone or buffer strip—protective land 

borders around critical habitats or water bodies 

that reduce runoff and nonpoint source 

pollution loading; areas created or sustained to 

lessen the negative effects of land development 

on animals and plants and their habitats. 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations. 

community—the area or locality in which a 

group of people resides and shares the same 

government. 

compatibility determination—a compatibility 

determination is required for a wildlifedependant recreational use or any other public 

use of a refuge. A compatible use is one which, 

in the sound professional judgment of the 

refuge manager, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from fulfillment of the Refuge 

System Mission or refuge purpose(s). 

compatible use—an allowed use that will not 

materially interfere with, or detract from, the 

purposes for which the unit was established 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) —a 

document that describes the desired future 

conditions of a refuge or planning unit and 

provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge, 

help fulfill the mission of the System, maintain 

and, where appropriate, restore the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health 

of each refuge and the System, and meet other 

mandates. 

concern—see issue. 

conservation—the management of natural 

resources to prevent loss or waste. 

Management actions may include preservation, 

recovery, restoration, and enhancement. 

cooperative agreement—the legal instrument 

used when the principal purpose of the 

transaction is the transfer of money, property, 

services or anything of value to a recipient in 

order to accomplish a public purpose authorized 

by federal statute and substantial involvement 

between the Service and the recipient is 

anticipated. 

coteau—a hilly upland or a divide between two 

valleys. 

cultural resources—evidence of historic or 

prehistoric human activity, such as buildings, 

artifacts, archaeological sites, documents, or 

oral or written history. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

92 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

database—a collection of data arranged for 

ease and speed of analysis and retrieval, 

usually computerized. 

easement—an agreement by which a 

landowner gives up or sells one of the rights on 

his/her property. 

ecosystem—a biological community together 

with its environment, functioning as a unit. For 

administrative purposes, the Service has 

designated 53 ecosystems covering the United 

States and its possessions. These ecosystems 

generally correspond with watershed 

boundaries and vary in their sizes and 

ecological complexity. 

ecotourism—a type of tourism that maintains 

and preserves natural resources as a basis for 

promoting economic growth and development 

resulting from visitation to an area. 

emergent vegetation—a vegetation type 

common in wetlands dominated by erect, 

rooted, herbaceous plants. 

endangered species—a federally protected 

species which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range. 

environmental assessment (EA)—a concise 

public document, prepared in compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act, that 

briefly discusses the purpose and need for an 

action, alternatives to such action, and provides 

sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to 

determine whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or finding of 

no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

environmental education—education aimed at 

producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable 

concerning the biophysical environment and its 

associated problems, aware of how to help solve 

these problems, and motivated to work toward 

their solution (Stapp et al. 1969). 

environmental health—the composition, 

structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, 

and other abiotic features comparable with 

historic conditions, including the natural abiotic 

processes that shape the environment. 

environmental impact statement (EIS)—a 

detailed written statement required by section 

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy 

Act, analyzing the environmental impacts of a 

preferred alternative, adverse effects of the 

project that cannot be avoided, alternative 

courses of action, short-term uses of the 

environment versus the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and 

any irreversible and irretrievable commitment 

of resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

fauna—all the vertebrae or invertebrate 

animals of an area. 

federal land—public land owned by the federal 

government, including lands such as national 

forests, national parks and national wildlife 

refuges. 

federally listed species—a species listed 

under the federal Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended, either as endangered, 

threatened or species at risk (formerly 

candidate species). 

fee title—the acquisition of most or all of the 

rights to a tract of land. 

Finding of no significant impact (FONSI)—a 

document prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, supported 

by an environmental assessment, that briefly 

presents why a federal action will have no 

significant effect on the human environment 

and for which an environmental impact 

statement, therefore, will not be prepared 

(40 CFR 1508.13). 

forbs—a flowering plant, excluding grasses, 

sedges, and rushes, that does not have a woody 

stem and dies back to the ground at the end of 

the growing season. 

forested land—land dominated by trees. For 

the purposes of the impacts analysis in this 

document, all forested land was assumed to 

have the potential to be occasionally harvested, 

and forested land owned by timber companies 

was assumed to be harvested on a more 

intensive, regular schedule. 

geographic information system (GIS) —a 

computerized system used to compile, store, 

analyze and display geographically referenced 

information. Can be used to overlay 

information layers containing the distributions 

of a variety of biological and physical features. 

goal—descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions that 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary of Terms 93 

conveys a purpose but does not define 

measurable units. 

habitat—the place where a particular type of 

plant or animal lives. An organism’s habitat 

must provide all of the basic requirements for 

life and should be free of harmful contaminants. 

habitat conservation—the protection of an 

animal or plant’s habitat to ensure that the use 

of that habitat by the animal or plant is not 

altered or reduced. 

inholding—privately owned land inside the 

boundary of a national wildlife refuge. 

integrated pest management (IPM)— 

sustainable approach to managing pests by 

combining biological, cultural, physical, and 

chemical tools in a way that minimizes 

economic, health, and environmental risks. 

invasive species—nonnative species which 

have been introduced into an ecosystem, and, 

because of their aggressive growth habits and 

lack of natural predators, displace native 

species. 

issue—any unsettled matter that requires a 

management decision; e.g., a Service initiative, 

an opportunity, a management problem, a 

threat to the resources of the unit, a conflict in 

uses, a public concerns, or the presence of an 

undesirable resource condition. Issues should 

be documented, described, and analyzed in the 

CCP even if resolution cannot be accomplished 

during the planning process (Service Manual 

602 FW 1.4). See also: key issue. 

limited-interest refuge landowner—a 

landowner who owns property that is covered 

by a refuge and/or flowage easement that is 

located within the approved acquisition 

boundary of a limited-interest national wildlife 

refuge. 

lacustrine—of, relating to, formed in, living in, 

or growing in lakes. 

local agencies—generally referring to 

municipal governments, regional planning 

commissions or conservation groups. 

long-term protection—mechanisms such as 

fee-title acquisition, conservation easements, or 

binding agreements with landowners that 

ensure land use and land management practices 

will remain compatible with maintenance of the 

species population at the site. 

main body of water—an impoundment, lake or 

river that occurs within the refuge boundary. 

management alternative—a set of objectives 

and the strategies needed to accomplish each 

objective (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

management concern—see issue. 

management opportunity—see issue. 

management plan—a plan that guides future 

land management practices on a tract of land. 

In the context of this environmental impact 

statement, management plans would be 

designed to produce additional wildlife habitat 

along with the primary products, such as 

timber or agricultural crops. See cooperative 

agreement. 

migratory—the seasonal movement from one 

area to another and back. 

migratory game birds—birds regulated under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and state laws, 

that are legally hunted, includes ducks, geese, 

woodcock, rails. 

monitoring—the process of collecting 

information to track changes of selected 

parameters over time. 

moraine—a mass of earth and rock debris 

carried by an advancing glacier and left at its 

front and side edges as it retreats. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)—requires all agencies, including the 

Service, to examine the environmental impacts 

of their actions, incorporate environmental 

information, and use public participation in the 

planning and implementation of all actions. 

Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with 

other planning requirements, and prepare 

appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate 

better environmental decision making (from 

40 CFR 1500). 

national wildlife refuge (refuge)—a 

designated area of land, water, or an interest in 

land or water within the System, but does not 

include Coordination Areas.@ Find a complete 

listing of all units of the System in the current 
 

 

 

 

 

 

94 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

National Wildlife Refuge System (System)— 

all lands and waters and interests therein 

administered by the Service as wildlife refuges, 

wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, 

WPAs, and other areas for the protection and 

conservation of fish and wildlife, including 

those that are threatened with extinction. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

(mission)— “The mission of the System is to 

administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management and, 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.” 

native plant—a plant that has grown in the 

region since the last glaciation and occurred 

before European settlement. 

native species—species that normally live and 

thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Neotropical migratory bird—a bird species 

that breeds north of the United States/Mexican 

border and winters primarily south of that 

border. 

nonconsumptive, wildlife-oriented 

recreation—photographing or observing 

plants, fish and other wildlife. 

notice of intent (NOI)—a notice that an 

environmental impact statement will be 

prepared and considered (40 CFR 1508.22). 

Published in the Federal Register. 

objective—a concise statement of what we 

want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, 

when and where we want to achieve it, and who 

is responsible for the work. Objectives derive 

from goals and provide the basis for 

determining strategies, monitoring refuge 

accomplishments, and evaluating the success of 

strategies. Make objectives attainable, 

time-specific, and measurable. 

Partners for Wildlife Program—a voluntary 

habitat restoration program undertaken by the 

Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with 

other governmental agencies, public and 

private organizations, and private landowners 

to improve and protect fish and wildlife habitat 

on private lands while leaving the land in 

private ownership. 

partnership—a contract or agreement entered 

into by two or more individuals, groups of 

individuals, organizations or agencies in which 

each agrees to furnish a part of the capital or 

some inBkind service, i.e., labor, for a mutually 

beneficial enterprise. 

phenological—periodic biological phenomena 

the are correlated with climatic conditions. 

planning area—a planning area may include 

lands outside existing planning unit boundaries 

that are being studied for inclusion in the unit 

and/or partnership planning efforts. It may also 

include watersheds or ecosystems that affect 

the planning area. 

planning team—a planning team prepares the 

comprehensive conservation plan. Planning 

teams are interdisciplinary in membership and 

function. A team generally consists of a 

planning team leader; refuge manager and staff 

biologist; staff specialists or other 

representatives of Service programs, 

ecosystems or regional offices; and state 

partnering wildlife agencies as appropriate. 

Preferred Alternative⎯the alternative that is 

preferred by the Service and that will become 

the management direction in the final 

document. 

priority public uses—see wildlife-dependant 

recreational uses. 

private land—land that is owned by a private 

individual, group of individuals, or nonB

governmental organization. 

private landowner—any individual, group of 

individuals or nongovernmental organization 

that owns land. 

private organization—any nongovernmental 

organization. 

proglacial—landforms and deposits just 

beyond the margin of glacial ice. 

proposed action—activities for which an 

environmental assessment is being written; the 

alternative containing the actions and 

strategies recommended by the planning team. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary of Terms 95 

The proposed action is, for all practical 

purposes, the draft CCP for the refuge. 

protection—mechanisms such as fee-title 

acquisition, conservation easements, or binding 

agreements with landowners that ensure land 

use and land management practices will remain 

compatible with maintenance of the species 

population at the site. 

public—individuals, organizations, and groups; 

officials of federal, state, and local government 

agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It 

may include anyone outside the core planning 

team. It includes those who may or may not 

have indicated an interest in the Service issues 

and those who do or do not realize that Service 

decisions may affect them. 

public involvement—a process that offers 

impacted and interested individuals and 

organizations an opportunity to become 

informed about, and to express their opinions 

on Service actions and policies. In the process, 

these views are studied thoroughly and 

thoughtful consideration of public views is 

given in shaping decisions for refuge 

management. 

public land—land that is owned by the local, 

state, or federal government. 

purpose of the refuge—the purpose of the 

refuge is specified in or derived from the law, 

proclamation, executive order, agreement, 

public land order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum establishing, 

authorizing, or expanding a refuge and refuge 

unit. 

refuge goals—descriptive, open-ended and 

often broad statements of desired future 

conditions that convey a purpose but do not 

define measurable units (Writing Refuge 

Management Goals and Objectives: A 

Handbook). 

refuge lands—those lands in which the Service 

holds full interest in fee title, or partial interest 

such as limited-interest refuges. 

Refuge Operating Needs System—the 

Refuge Operating Needs System is a national 

database, which contains the unfunded 

operational needs of each refuge. We include 

projects required to implement approved plans, 

and meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates. 

refuge purposes—the purposes specified in or 

derived from the law, proclamation, executive 

order, agreement, public land order, donation 

document, or administrative memorandum 

establishing, authorizing, or expanding a 

refuge, a refuge unit, or refuge subunit, and 

any subsequent modification of the original 

establishing authority for additional 

conservation purposes (Service Manual 602 FW 

1.4). 

restoration—the artificial manipulation of a 

habitat to restore it to something close to its 

natural state. 

runoff—water from rain, melted snow, or 

agricultural or landscape irrigation that flows 

over the land surface into a water body. 

Service presence—the existence of the 

Service through its programs and facilities 

which it directs or shares with other 

organizations; the public awareness of the 

Service as a sole or cooperative provider of 

programs and facilities. 

species of concern—species present in the 

watershed for whom the refuge has a special 

management interest. The following criteria 

were used to identify a species of concern: 

1.	 Federally listed as threatened or 

endangered; 

2.	 Migratory bird, especially declining 

species, Neotropical migrants, colonial 

waterbirds, shorebirds, or waterfowl; 

3.	 Marine mammal; 

4.	 Sea turtle; 

5.	 Interjurisdictional fish; 

6.	 State-listed as threatened, endangered, 

or special concern. 

state land—public land owned by a state such 

as state parks or state wildlife management 

areas. 

step-down management plans—step-down 

management plans describe management 

strategies and implementation schedules. Stepdown management plans are a series of plans 

dealing with specific management subjects 

(e.g., croplands, wilderness, and fire) (Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

strategy—a specific action, tool, technique, or 

combination of actions, tools, and techniques 

used to meet unit objectives. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

96 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

substantive issue—an issue meeting the 

following three criteria: 

Q Falls within the jurisdiction of the 

Service; 

Q Can be addressed by a reasonable range 

of alternatives; 

Q Influences the outcome of the project. 

surficial—relating to or occurring on the 

surface. 

threatened species—a federally protected 

species that is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range. 

trust resource—one that through law or 

administrative act is held in trust for the 

people by the government. A federal trust 

resource is one for which trust responsibility is 

given in part to the federal government 

through federal legislation or administrative 

act. Generally, federal trust resources are those 

considered to be of national or international 

importance no matter where they occur, such 

as endangered species and species such as 

migratory birds and fish that regularly move 

across state lines. In addition to species, trust 

resources include cultural resources protected 

through federal historic preservation laws, 

nationally important and threatened habitats, 

notably wetlands, navigable waters, and public 

lands such as state parks and rational wildlife 

refuges. 

upland—dry ground; other than wetlands. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission—our 

mission is to work with others to Aconserve, 

protect, and enhance fish and wildlife, and their 

habitat for the continuing benefit of the 

American people. 

vision statement—concise statement of what 

the unit could be in the next 10 to 15 years 

watchable wildlife—all wildlife is watchable. A 

watchable wildlife program is a strategy to 

help maintain viable populations of all native 

fish and wildlife species by building an 

effective, well- informed constituency for 

conservation. Watchable wildlife programs are 

tools by which wildlife conservation goals can 

be met while at the same time fulfilling public 

demand for wildlife recreational activities 

(other than sport hunting, trapping or sport 

fishing). 

watershed—the geographic area within which 

water drains into a particular river, stream or 

body of water. A watershed includes both the 

land and the body of water into which the land 

drains. 

wetlands—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s definition of wetlands states that 

“Wetlands are lands transitional between 

terrestrial and aquatic systems where the 

water table is usually at or near the surface or 

the land is covered by shallow water” 

(Cowardin et al. 1979). 

wilderness—The legal definition is found in the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 Section 2c (P.L. 88-577): 

AA wilderness, in contrast with those areas 

where man and his own works dominate the 

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area 

where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a 

visitor who does not remain.@ This legal 

definition places wilderness on the 

Auntrammeled@ or Aprimeval@ end of the 

environmental modification spectrum. 

Wilderness is roadless lands, legally classified 

as component areas of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, and managed so as to 

protect its qualities of naturalness, solitude and 

opportunity for primitive types of recreation 

(Hendee 1990). 

wildlife-dependent recreational use—a use of 

a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental 

education and interpretation. These are the six 

priority public uses of the System as 

established in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act, as amended. 

Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other 

than the six priority public uses, are those that 

depend on the presence of wildlife. We also will 

consider these other uses in the preparation of 

refuge CCPs, however, the six priority public 

uses always will take precedence. 

wildlife management—the practice of 

manipulating wildlife populations, either 

directly through regulating the numbers, ages, 

and sex ratios harvested, or indirectly by 

providing favorable habitat conditions and 

alleviating limiting factors. 
Appendix C. Decision Documents
 
98 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Da kota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decision Documents 99 

Environmental Action Statement 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife 

resources, I have established the following administrative record. 

I have determined that the action of implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the North 

Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges is found not to have significant environmental effects, as 

determined by the attached Finding of No Significant Impact and the environmental assessment as found 

with the draft comprehensive conservation plan. 

____________________________________________ 

J. Mitch King Date 

Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
 

Lakewood, CO
 

___________________________________4/12/06_ 

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date 

Assistant Regional Director, NWRS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

___________________________________4/12/06_ 

Rod Krey Date 

Refuge Program Supervisor (ND, SD) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

___________________________________4/6/06_ 

Kim Hanson Date 

Project Leader 

Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Pingree, ND 

 Date 

Coleharbor, ND 

___________________________________4/6/06_ 

Lloyd Jones

Project Leader 

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

 Date 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District 

Devils Lake, ND 

___________________________________4/11/06_ 

Roger Hollevoet 

Project Leader 

___________________________________4/6/06_ 

Tedd Gutzke Date 

Project Leader 

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Upham, ND 

___________________________________4/6/06_ 

Mick Erickson Date 

Project Leader 

Kulm Wetland Management District 

Kulm, ND 

___________________________________4/6/06_ 

Paul Van Ningen Date 

Project Leader 

Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Moffit, ND 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Two management alternatives for the 39 North Dakota limited-interest national wildlife refuges’ 

programmatic comprehensive conservation plan were assessed as to their effectiveness in achieving the 

refuges’ purposes and their impact on the human environment. Alternative A (the no-action alternative) 

would continue current management, which has been very minimal, of these refuges. Alternative B 

(“Enhance the Program,” the proposed action) first proposes to consider for divestiture six refuges, which 

have no potential to fully function as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The remaining 33 refuges 

would be managed in cooperation with willing landowners, the state, and other partners, to (1) evaluate and 

prioritize habitats for added protection, (2) improve relations and sharing of information with refuge 

landowners, (3) protect the Service’s rights acquired through the easement agreement, and (4) work with 

willing landowners and the state to determine if additional public use activities such as hunting, fishing, 

environmental education are feasible on some or all of these refuges. Based on this assessment and comments 

received, I have selected alternative B for implementation. 

The preferred alternative (alternative B) was selected because it best meets the purposes for which these 

refuges were established and is preferable to the no-action alternative in light of physical, biological, 

economic, and social factors. 

I find that the preferred alternative is not a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of 

the human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969. Accordingly, the preparation of an environmental impact statement on the proposed action is not 

required. 

The following is a summary of anticipated environmental effects from implementation of the preferred 

alternative: 

— The preferred alternative will not adversely impact endangered or threatened species or their habitat. 

— The preferred alternative will not adversely impact archaeological or historical resources. 

— The preferred alternative will not adversely impact wetlands nor does the plan call for structures that 

could be damaged by or that would significantly influence the movement of floodwater. 

— The preferred alternative will not have a disproportionately high or adverse human health or 

environmental effect on minority or low-income populations. 

— The State of North Dakota has been notified and given the opportunity to review the comprehensive 

conservation plan and associated environmental assessment. 

______________________________________________ 

J. Mitch King Date 

Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D. Key Legislation and Policies 


Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): 

Prohibits discrimination in public 

accommodations and services. 

Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431–433): The act 

of June 8, 1906, (34 Stat. 225) authorizes the 

President to designate as National Monuments 

objects or areas of historic or scientific interest 

on lands owned or controlled by the United 

States. The act required that a permit be 

obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of 

archaeological sites and the gathering of 

objects of antiquity on lands under the 

jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, 

Agriculture, and Army, and provided penalties 

for violations. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act 

(16 U.S.C. 469–469c): Public Law 86-523, 

approved June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220) as 

amended by Public Law 93-291, approved May 

24, 1974, (88 Stat. 174) to carry out the policy 

established by the Historic Sites Act (see 

below), directed federal agencies to notify the 

Secretary of the Interior whenever they find a 

federal or federally assisted, licensed or 

permitted project may cause loss or destruction 

of significant scientific, prehistoric or 

archaeologic data. The act authorizes use of 

appropriated, donated and/or transferred funds 

for the recovery, protection and preservation of 

such data. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 

U.S.C. 470aa–470ll): Public Law 96-95, 

approved October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721): 

Largely supplants the resource protection 

provisions of the Antiquities Act for 

archaeological items. 

This act establishes detailed requirements for 

issuance of permits for any excavation for or 

removal of archaeological resources from 

federal or Indian lands. It also establishes civil 

and criminal penalties for the unauthorized 

excavation, removal, or damage of any such 

resources; for any trafficking in such resources 

removed from federal or Indian land in 

violation of any provision of federal law; and for 

interstate and foreign commerce in such 

resources acquired, transported, or received in 

violation of any state or local law. 

Public Law 100-588, approved November 3, 

1988, (102 Stat. 2983): Lowers the threshold 

value of artifacts triggering the felony 

provisions of the act from $5,000 to $500, 

makes attempting to commit an action 

prohibited by the act a violation, and 

requires the land managing agencies to 

establish public awareness programs 

regarding the value of archaeological 

resources to the Nation. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires 

federally owned, leased, or funded buildings 

and facilities to be accessible to persons with 

disabilities. 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires 

consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers for major wetland modifications. 

Criminal Code of Provisions of 1940 as 

amended, (18 U.S.C. 41): States the intent of 

Congress to protect all wildlife within federal 

sanctuaries, refuges, fish hatcheries, and 

breeding grounds. Provides that anyone 

(except in compliance with rules and 

regulations promulgated by authority of law) 

who hunts, traps, or willfully disturbs any such 

wildlife, or willfully injures, molest, or destroys 

any property of the United States on such land 

or water, shall be fined up to $500 or 

imprisoned for not more than 6 months or both. 

Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986: 

Authorizes the purchase of wetlands from Land 

and Water Conservation Fund moneys, 

removing a prior prohibition on such 

acquisitions. The act also requires the 

Secretary to establish a National Wetlands 

Priority Conservation Plan, requires the states 

to include wetlands in their Comprehensive 

Outdoor Recreation Plans, and transfers to the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amount 

equal to import duties on arms and 

ammunition. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 and recent 

amendments (16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; 87 Stat. 

884) as amended (Establishing legislation.): 

Provides for conservation of threatened and 

endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

102 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

by federal action and by encouraging state 

programs. Specific provisions include: 

Q	 The listing and determination of critical 

habitat for endangered and threatened 

species and consultation with the 

Service on any federally funded or 

licensed project that could affect any of 

these agencies; 

Q	 Prohibition of unauthorized taking, 

possession, sale, transport, etc.., of 

endangered species; 

Q	 An expanded program of habitat 

acquisition; 

Q	 Establishment of cooperative 

agreements and grants-in-aid to states 

that establish and maintain an active, 

adequate program for endangered and 

threatened species; 

Q	 Assessment of civil and criminal 


penalties for violating the act or 


regulations.
 

Environmental Education Act of 1990 (20 

U.S.C. 5501–5510; 104 Stat. 3325): Public Law 

101-619, signed November 16, 1990, established 

the Office of Environmental Education within 

the Environmental Protection Agency to 

develop and administer a federal 

environmental education program. 

Responsibilities of the Office include 

developing and supporting programs to 

improve understanding of the natural and 

developed environment, and the relationships 

between humans and their environment; 

supporting the dissemination of educational 

materials; developing and supporting training 

programs and environmental education 

seminars; managing a federal grant program; 

and administering an environmental internship 

and fellowship program. The Office is required 

to develop and support environmental 

programs in consultation with other federal 

natural resource management agencies, 

including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road 

Vehicles on Public Lands (1972): Provides 

policy and procedures for regulating off-road 

vehicles. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain 

Management: This executive order, signed 

May 24, 1977, prevents federal agencies from 

contributing to the “adverse impacts associated 

with occupancy and modification of floodplains” 

and the “direct or indirect support of floodplain 

development.” In the course of fulfilling their 

respective authorities, federal agencies Ashall 

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to 

minimize the impact of floods on human safety, 

health and welfare, and to restore and preserve 

the natural and beneficial values served by 

floodplains. 

Executive Order 12996, Management and 

General Public Use of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (1996): Defines the mission, 

purpose, and priority public uses of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. It also 

presents four principles to guide management 

of the system. 

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites 

(1996): Directs federal land management 

agencies to accommodate access to and 

ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian 

religious practitioners, avoid adversely 

affecting the physical integrity of such sacred 

sites, and where appropriate, maintain the 

confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires 

the use of integrated management systems to 

control or contain undesirable plant species; 

and an interdisciplinary approach with the 

cooperation of other federal and state agencies. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1119; 

16 U.S.C. 742a–742J), as amended: 

Establishes a comprehensive fish and wildlife 

policy and directs the Secretary of the Interior 

to provide continuing research; extension and 

conservation of fish and wildlife resources. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 

(Public Law 96-366, September 29, 1980, 16 

U.S.C. 2901–2911, as amended 1986, 1988, 

1990 and 1992): Creates a mechanism for 

federal matching funding of the development of 

state conservation plans for nongame fish and 

wildlife. Subsequent amendments to this law 

require that the Secretary monitor and assess 

migratory nongame birds, determine the 

effects of environmental changes and human 

activities, identify birds likely to be candidates 

for endangered species listing, and identify 

conservation actions that would prevent this 

from being necessary. In 1989, Congress also 

directed the Secretary to identify lands and 

waters in the Western Hemisphere, the 

protection, management or acquisition of which 

would foster conservation of migratory 

nongame birds. All of these activities are 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key Legislation and Policies 103 

intended to assist the Secretary in fulfilling the 

Secretary=s responsibilities under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act, and provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act implementing the 

Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife 

Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978: 

Improves the administration of fish and wildlife 

programs and amends several earlier laws, 

including the Refuge Recreation Act, the 

National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, 

and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It 

authorizes the Secretary to accept gifts and 

bequests of real and personal property on 

behalf of the United States. It also authorizes 

the use of volunteers on Service projects and 

appropriations to carry out volunteer 

programs. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act 

(16 U.S.C. 461–462, 464–467): The act of 

August 21, 1935, (49 Stat. 666) popularly known 

as the Historic Sites Act, as amended by Public 

Law 89-249, approved October 9, 1965, (79 Stat. 

971) declares it a national policy to preserve 

historic sites and objects of national 

significance, including those located on refuges. 

It provides procedures for designation, 

acquisition, administration and protection of 

such sites. Among other things, National 

Historic and Natural Landmarks are 

designated under authority of this act. As of 

January 1989, 31 national wildlife refuges 

contained such sites. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

(LWCFA) of 1965: Provides funds from 

leasing bonuses, production royalties and rental 

revenues for offshore oil, gas, and sulphur 

extraction to the Bureau of Land Management, 

the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and state and local agencies 

for purchase of lands for parks, open space, and 

outdoor recreation. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 

U.S.C. 715–715d, 715e,715f–715r): 

Establishes the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission, which consists of the Secretaries 

of the Interior (chairman), Agriculture, and 

Transportation, two members from the House 

of Representatives, and an ex-officio member 

from the state in which a project is located. The 

Commission approves acquisition of land and 

water, or interests therein, and sets the 

priorities for acquisition of lands by the 

Secretary for sanctuaries or for other 

management purposes. Under this act, to 

acquire lands, or interests therein, the state 

concerned must consent to such acquisition by 

legislation. Such legislation has been enacted 

by most states. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 

U.S.C. 715-s, 45 Stat. 1222), as amended: 

Authorizes acquisition, development, and 

maintenance of migratory bird refuges; 

cooperation with other agencies, in 

conservation; and investigations and 

publications on North American birds. 

Authorizes payment of 25 percent of net 

receipts from administration of national wildlife 

refuges to the country or counties in which 

such refuges are located. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718–718h; 48 

Stat. 51), as amended: The “Duck Stamp Act,” 

as this March 16, 1934, authority is commonly 

called, requires each waterfowl hunter 16 years 

of age or older to possess a valid federal 

hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the 

stamp are deposited in a special Treasury 

account known as the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund and are not subject to 

appropriations. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 

U.S.C. 703–711; 50 CFR Subchapter B), as 

amended: Implements treaties with Great 

Britain (for Canada) and Mexico for protection 

of migratory birds whose welfare is a federal 

responsibility. Provides for regulations to 

control taking, possession, selling, 

transporting, and importing of migratory birds 

and provides penalties for violations. 

National and Community Service Act of 1990 

(42 U.S.C. 12401; 104 Stat. 3127): Public Law 

101-610, signed November 16, 1990, authorizes 

several programs to engage citizens of the U.S. 

in full- and/or part-time projects designed to 

combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job 

skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill 

environmental needs. Several provisions are of 

particular interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

American Conservation and Youth Service 

Corps: As a federal grant program 

established under Subtitle C of the law, the 

Corps offers an opportunity for young 

adults between the ages of 16–25, or in the 

case of summer programs, 15–21, to engage 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

in approved human and natural resources 

projects which benefit the public or are 

carried out on federal or Indian lands. 

To be eligible for assistance, natural 

resources programs will focus on 

improvement of wildlife habitat and 

recreational areas, fish culture, fishery 

assistance, erosion, wetlands protection, 

pollution control and similar projects. A 

stipend of not more than 100 percent of the 

poverty level will be paid to participants. A 

Commission established to administer the 

Youth Service Corps will make grants to 

states, the Secretaries of Agriculture and 

Interior and the Director of ACTION to 

carry out these responsibilities. 

Thousand Points of Light: Creates a 

nonprofit Points of Light Foundation to 

administer programs to encourage citizens 

and institutions to volunteer in order to 

solve critical social issues, and to discover 

new leaders and develop institutions 

committed to serving others. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

(16 U.S.C. 470–470b, 470c–470n): Public Law 

89-665, approved October 15, 1966, (80 Stat. 

915) and repeatedly amended, provides for 

preservation of significant historical features 

(buildings, objects and sites) through a 

grant-in-aid program to the states. It 

establishes a National Register of Historic 

Places and a program of matching grants under 

the existing National Trust for Historic 

Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468–468d). 

The act establishes an Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, which was made a 

permanent independent agency in Public Law 

94-422, approved September 28, 1976 (90 Stat. 

1319). That act also creates the Historic 

Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are 

directed to take into account the effects of their 

actions on items or sites listed or eligible for 

listing in the National Register. 

As of January 1989, 91 historic sites on national 

wildlife refuges have been placed on the 

National Register. There are various laws for 

the preservation of historic sites and objects: 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347, January 1, 

1970, 83 Stat. 852) as amended by P.L. 94-52, 

July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258, and P.L. 94-83, 

August 9, 1975, 89 Stat. 424): Declares 

national policy to encourage a productive and 

enjoyable harmony between humans and their 

environment. Section 102 of that act directs 

that “to the fullest extent possible: 

Q	 The policies, regulations, and public 

laws of the United States shall be 

interpreted and administered in 

accordance with the policies set forth in 

this act, and 

Q	 All agencies of the federal government 

shall ... insure that presently 

unquantified environmental amenities 

and values may be given appropriate 

consideration in decision making along 

with economic technical considerations.” 

Section 102(2)c of NEPA requires all federal 

agencies, with respect to major federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality the quality of 

the human environment, to submit to the 

Council on environmental Quality a detailed 

statement of: 

Q	 the environmental impact of the 


proposed action; 


Q	 any adverse environmental effect which 

cannot be avoided should the proposal 

be implemented; 

Q alternatives to the proposed action; 

Q the relationship between local shortterm uses of the environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity; 

Q any irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources which would 

be involved in the proposed action, 

should it be implemented. 

National Wildlife Refuge Regulations for the 

most recent fiscal year (50 CFR 25–35, 43 

CFR 3103.2 and 3120.3-3): Provides 

regulations for administration and management 

of national wildlife refuges including mineral 

leasing, exploration, and development. 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (Public Law 89­

669; 80 Stat. 929; 16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee), as 

amended: This act defines the National 

Wildlife Refuge System as including wildlife 

refuges, areas for protection and conservation 

of fish and wildlife which are threatened with 

extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, 

wildlife management areas, and WPAs. The 

Secretary is authorized to permit any use of an 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key Legislation and Policies 105 

area provided such use is compatible with the 

major purposes for which such area was 

established. The purchase consideration for 

rights-of-way go into the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund for the acquisition of lands. 

By regulation, up to 40 percent of an area 

acquired for a migratory bird sanctuary may be 

opened to migratory bird hunting unless the 

Secretary finds that the taking of any species 

of migratory game birds in more than 40 

percent of such area would be beneficial to the 

species. The act requires an act of Congress for 

the divestiture of lands in the system, except 

(1) lands acquired with Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission funds, and (2) lands 

can be removed from the system by land 

exchange, or if brought into the system by a 

cooperative agreement, then pursuant to the 

terms of the agreement. 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105­

57, October 9, 1997, Amendment to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966): This act defines 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System: 

“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.” 

Key provisions include the following: 

Q	 A requirement that the Secretary of the 

Interior ensures maintenance of the 

biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System; 

Q	 The definition of compatible wildlifedependent recreation as “legitimate and 

appropriate general public use of the 

[National Wildlife Refuge] System;” 

Q	 The establishment of hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and 

interpretation as “priority public uses” 

where compatible with the mission and 

purpose of individual national wildlife 

refuges; 

Q	 The refuge managers’ authority to use 

sound professional judgment in 

determining which public uses are 

compatible on national wildlife refuge 

and whether or not they will be allowed 

(a formal process for determining 

“compatible use” is currently being 

developed); 

Q	 The requirement of open public 

involvement in decisions to allow new 

uses of national wildlife refuges and 

renew existing ones, as well as in the 

development of comprehensive 

conservation plans for national wildlife 

refuges. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

(103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 4401–4412): Public 

Law 101-233, enacted December 13, 1989, 

provides funding and administrative direction 

for implementation of the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan and the 

Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between 

Canada, U.S. and Mexico. 

The act converts the Pittman–Robertson 

account into a trust fund, with the interest 

available without appropriation through the 

year 2006 to carry out the programs authorized 

by the act, along with an authorization for 

annual appropriation of $15 million plus an 

amount equal to the fines and forfeitures 

collected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Available funds may be expended, upon 

approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission, for payment of not to exceed 50 

percent of the United States share of the cost 

of wetlands conservation projects in Canada, 

Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of 

the cost of projects on federal lands). At least 

50 percent and no more than 70 percent of the 

funds received are to go to Canada and Mexico 

each year. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962: Authorizes 

the Secretary of the Interior to administer 

refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation 

areas for recreational use, when such uses do 

not interfere with the area=s primary purposes. 

It authorizes construction and maintenance of 

recreational facilities and the acquisition of 

land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented 

recreational development or protection of 

natural resources. It also authorizes the 

charging of fees for public uses. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1966 (Public Law 

87-714; 76 Stat. 653–654; 16 U.S.C. 460k et 

seq.): Authorizes appropriate, incidental, or 

secondary recreational use on conservation 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

106 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for fish and wildlife purposes. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 

715s): Section 401 of the act of June 15, 1935, 

(49 Stat. 383) provides for payments to counties 

in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from 

the sale of products from refuges. 

Public Law 88-523, approved August 30, 

1964, (78 Stat. 701): makes major revisions 

by requiring that all revenues received from 

refuge products, such as animals, timber 

and minerals, or from leases or other 

privileges, be deposited in a special 

Treasury account and net receipts 

distributed to counties for public schools 

and roads. 

Public Law 93-509, approved December 3, 

1974, (88 Stat. 1603): requires that moneys 

remaining in the fund after payments be 

transferred to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund for land acquisition 

under provisions of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act. 

Public Law 95-469, approved October 17, 

1978, (92 Stat. 1319): expands the revenue 

sharing system to include National Fish 

Hatcheries and Service research stations. It 

also includes in the Refuge Revenue 

Sharing Fund receipts from the sale of 

salmonid carcasses. Payments to counties 

were established as: 

1. On acquired land, the greatest amount 

calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, 

three-fourths of one percent of the 

appraised value, or 25 percent of the net 

receipts produced from the land; and 

2. On land withdrawn from the public 

domain, 25 percent of net receipts and 

basic payments under Public Law 94-565 

(31 U.S.C. 1601–1607, 90 Stat. 2662), 

payment in lieu of taxes on public lands. 

This amendment also authorizes 

appropriations to make up any difference 

between the amount in the Fund and the 

amount scheduled for payment in any 

year. The stipulation that payments be 

used for schools and roads was removed, 

but counties were required to pass 

payments along to other units of local 

government within the county which 

suffer losses in revenues due to the 

establishment of Service areas. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1978 (Public 

Law 95-469, October 17, 1978, [amended 16 

U.S.C. 715s]; 50 CFR, part 34): Changes the 

provisions for sharing revenues with counties 

in a number of ways. It makes revenue sharing 

applicable to all lands administered by the 

Service, whereas previously it was applicable 

only to areas in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The new law makes payments 

available for any governmental purpose, 

whereas the old law restricted the use of 

payments to roads and schools. For lands 

acquired in fee simple, the new law provides a 

payment of 75 cents per acre, 3/4 of 1 percent of 

fair market value or 25 percent of net receipts, 

whichever is greatest, whereas the old law 

provided a payment of 3/4 of 1 percent 

adjustment cost or 25 percent of net receipts, 

whichever was greater. The new law makes 

reserve (public domain) lands entitlement lands 

under Public Law 94-565 (16 U.S.C. 1601–1607, 

and provides for a payment of 25 percent of net 

receipts. 

The new law authorizes appropriations to make 

up any shortfall in net receipts, to make 

payments in the full amount for which counties 

are eligible. The old law provided that if net 

receipts were insufficient to make full payment, 

payment to each county would be reduced 

proportionality. 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 28, 1906 (18 

U.S.C. 41; 43 Stat. 98, 18 U.S.C. 145): 

Provides first federal protection for wildlife on 

national wildlife refuges. This act makes it 

unlawful to hunt, trap, capture, willfully 

disturb, or kill any bird or wild animal, or take 

or destroy the eggs of any such birds, on any 

lands of the United States set apart or 

reserved as refuges or breeding grounds for 

such birds or animals by any law, proclamation, 

or executive order, except under rules and 

regulations of the Secretary. The act also 

protects government property on such lands. 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 

U.S.C. 41. Stat 686)CSection 41 of the 

Criminal code, title 18: Consolidates the 

penalty provisions of various acts from January 

24, 1905 (16 U.S.C. 684–687; 33 Stat. 614), 

through March 10, 1934 (16 U.S.C. 694–694b; 48 

Stat. 400) and restates the intent of Congress 

to protect all wildlife within federal 

sanctuaries, refuges, fish hatcheries and 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key Legislation and Policies 107 

breeding grounds. The act provides that 

anyone (except in compliance with rules and 

regulations promulgated by authority of law) 

who hunts, traps or willfully disturbs any 

wildlife on such areas, or willfully injures, 

molest or destroys any property of the United 

States on such lands or waters, shall be fined, 

imprisoned, or both. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794 ), 

as amended: Title 5 of P.L. 93-112 (87 Stat. 

355), signed October 1, 1973, prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of handicap under 

any program or activity receiving federal 

financial assistance. 

Rights-of-Way General Regulations (50 CFR 

29.21; 34 fr 19907, December 19, 1969): 

Provides for procedures for filing applications. 

Provides terms and conditions under which 

rights-of-way over, above, and across lands 

administered by the Service may be granted. 

Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500; 86 

Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. 1411): Requires any 

applicant for a federal license or permit to 

conduct any activity which may result in a 

discharge into navigable waters to obtain a 

certification from the state in which the 

discharge originates or will originate, or, if 

appropriate, from the interstate water 

pollution control agency having jurisdiction 

over navigable waters at the point where the 

discharge originates or will originate, that the 

discharge will comply with applicable effluent 

limitations and water quality standards. A 

certification obtained for construction of any 

facility must also pertain to subsequent 

operation of the facility. 

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500, 86 

Stat. 816): Authorizes the Secretary of the 

Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 

to issue permits, after notice and opportunity 

for public hearing, for discharge of dredged or 

fill material into navigable waters of the United 

States, including wetlands, at specified disposal 

sites. Selection of disposal sites will be in 

accordance with guidelines developed by the 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency in conjunction with the Secretary of 

the Army. Furthermore, the Administrator can 

prohibit or restrict use of any defined area as a 

disposal site whenever she/he determines, after 

notice and opportunity for public hearings, that 

discharge of such materials into such areas will 

have an unacceptable adverse effect on 

municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, fishery 

areas, wildlife, or recreational areas. 

Transfer of Certain Real Property for 

Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948: 

Provides that upon determination by the 

Administrator of the General Services 

Administration, real property no longer needed 

by a federal agency can be transferred, without 

reimbursement, to the Secretary of the 

Interior if the land has particular value for 

migratory birds, or to a state agency for other 

wildlife conservation purposes. 

Wilderness Act of 1964: Public Law 88-577, 

approved September 3, 1964, directs the 

Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, to 

review every roadless area of 5,000 or more 

acres and every roadless island (regardless of 

size) within National Wildlife Refuge and 

National Park Systems for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Administration of national wildlife refuges is 

governed by bills passed by the United States 

Congress and signed into law by the President 

of the United States, and by regulations 

promulgated by the various branches of the 

government. Following is a brief description of 

some of the most pertinent laws and statues 

establishing legal parameters and policy 

direction for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System: 

Wilderness Preservation and Management] 

(50 CFR 35; 78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1131– 

1136; 43 U.S.C. 1201): Provides procedures for 

establishing wilderness units under the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 on units of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 
108 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Da kota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E. References
 

Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, 

W.H. (eds.). 1994. Ecoregions and subregions 

of the United States (map) (supplementary 

table of map unit descriptions compiled and 

edited by McNab, W.H. and Bailey, R.G.): 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, scale 1:7,500,000. 

Bryce, S., J.M. Omernik, D.E. Pater, M. Ulmer, 

J. Schaar, J. Freeouf, R. Johnson, P. Kuck, 

and S.H. Azevedo. 1998. Ecoregions of North 

Dakota and South Dakota. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource 

/1998/ndsdeco/ndsdeco.htm (Version 30NOV98). 

Bureau of Biological Survey. 1939. News 

release. Twenty Areas in North Dakota Made 

Refuges for Wildlife. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. 

LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

Online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource 

/1998/classwet/classwet.htm> (Version 04DEC98). 

Hendee, C.J. et al. 1990. Wilderness 

Management. Fulcrum Publishing, North 

American Press, CO. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 1941. 

Meeting Minutes. March 25, 1941. 

National Wilderness Institute. 1995. State by 

state government land ownership. 

<http://www.nwi.org/Maps/LandChart.html> 

North Dakota Job Service Data. 2004. 

Downloaded from: <http://www.jobsnd.com 

/data/index.html> 

North Dakota Legislative Branch. 2005. Maps of 

Legislative Districts. Downloaded from: 

<http://web.apps.state.nd.us/hubexplorer/legi 

slativedist/viewer.html> 

Office of Social and Economic Trend Analysis. 

2002. Population Estimates 2001–2003. 

Downloaded from: <http://www.seta.iastate 

.edu/county/index.aspx?state=ND> 

Reynolds, R.E., D.R. Cohan, and C.R. Loesch. 

1997. Wetlands of North and South Dakota. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Home Page. <http://www 

.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/wetstats/ 

wetstats.htm> (Version 01OCT97). 

Sargeant, A.B., S.H. Allen, and R.T. Eberhardt. 

1984. Red fox predation on breeding ducks in 

mid-continent North America. Wildlife 

Monographs No. 89, ISSN:0084–0173 

Sargeant, Alan B., Raymond J. Greenwood, 

Marsha A. Sovada, and Terry L. Shaffer. 

1993. Distribution and abundance of 

predators that affect duck production— 

Prairie Pothole Region. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 194. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Home Page. <http://www 

.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/others/predat 

or/predator.htm> 

Sargeant, A.B., M.A. Sovada, and R. J. 

Greenwood. 1998. Interpreting evidence of 

depredation of duck nests in the prairie 

pothole region. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 

Jamestown, N.D. and Ducks Unlimited, Inc., 

Memphis, TN. 72 p. 

Sargeant, A.B., and D.H. Raveling. 1992. 

Mortality during the breeding season. Pages 

396–422 in B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. 

Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D. H. Johnson, J.A. 

Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu, eds. Ecology and 

management of breeding waterfowl. Univ. of 

Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 635 p. 

Sovada, M.A., M.J. Burns, and J.E. Austin. 2001. 

Predation on waterfowl in arctic tundra and 

prairie breeding areas: a review. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 29(1): 6–15. 

Stapp, W.B., et al. (1969). The Concept of 

Environmental Education. Journal of 

Environmental Education 1(1): 30–31. 

Steen, M.O. Unknown Date (1930s). U.S. Bureau 

of Biological Survey. Submarginal Migratory 

Waterfowl Program, North Dakota Easement 

Projects. 

Steen, M.O. Unknown Date (mid-1930s). U.S. 

Bureau of Biological Survey. Development of 

Federal Refuges in the Great Plains Region 

with Emergency Relief Funds. 

U.S. Bureau of Census. 2000. United States 

Census 2000, North Dakota. Downloaded 
 

 

 

110 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

from: <http://www.census.gov/main/www 

/cen2000.html> 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. USDA 

Census of Agriculture. Downloaded from: 

<http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/v 

olume1/nd/st38_2_001_001.pdf> 

U.S. Department of Labor. 2005. U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics Report. Downloaded from: 

<http://www.bls.gov/> 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. 

Wetlands Overview. EPA 843-F-04-011a, 

Office of Water. Downloaded from: 

<http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/ove 

rview.pdf> 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. HAPET 

and Ducks Unlimited joint venture data. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Purposes of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Lands. 

September 27, 2000. Downloaded from: 

<http://refugedata.fws.gov/databases/purpose 

s.taf?function=form> 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Presence in North Dakota. 2000. 

Downloaded from: <http://mountain-prairie 

.fws.gov/reference/briefing_book_nd_2000.pdf> 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. National 

Wetlands Inventory Data. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Region 6 

Realty Database. 
 

 

 

 

Appendix F. Section 7 Biological Evaluation
 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Refuge Manager, Tewaukon NWR 

Cayuga, North Dakota (Attn: Laura King) 

From: Field Supervisor, Ecological Services 

 Bismarck, North Dakota 

Subject: Review of Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for 

the North Dakota Limited-Interest National Wildlife Refuges 

This responds to your recent request for our review of the “Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment (Plan) for the North Dakota Limited-Interest National Wildlife 

Refuges (NWR). The draft Plan describes the Refuges’ vision for the future, and management goals 

and objectives in the areas of habitat, wildlife, cultural resources, and wildlife-dependent recreation. 

The final Plan will guide management of the Refuges for the next 15 years. 

A list of federally endangered, threatened, and candidate species and designated critical habitat in 

North Dakota is enclosed, as requested. This list fulfills requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

If a Federal agency authorizes, funds, or carries out a proposed action, the responsible Federal agency, 

or its delegated agent, is required to evaluate whether the action “may affect” listed species or 

proposed or designated critical habitat. If the Federal agency determines the action “may affect” listed 

species or proposed or designated critical habitat, then the responsible Federal agency shall request 

formal section 7 consultation with this office. If the evaluation shows a “no effect” determination for 

listed species and “no adverse modification” of proposed or designated critical habitat, further 

consultation is not necessary. If a private entity receives Federal funding for a construction project, or 

if any Federal permit is required, the Federal agency may designate the fund recipient or permittee as 

its agent for purposes of section 7 consultation. 

A review of our records indicates that the threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodus) has been 

observed at Lake George NWR, which is one of the sites addressed in the draft Plan. A total of 2 piping 

plover pairs, 3 juveniles, and 1 adult were found at the site in 1993. No other observations have been 

recorded, likely due to lack of suitable habitat from high water conditions. Lake George NWR was not 

designated as piping plover critical habitat because it did not meet criteria established by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service (i.e., breeding piping plovers observed in more than 1 year for the period of survey 

record). No sites addressed in the draft Plan have been designated as piping plover critical habitat. 
 

 

112 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

Confirmed sightings of the endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) during spring or fall 

migration are known from 5 sites addressed in the draft Plan, as follows: 

Limited-Interest NWR Date Number of Adults Number of Juveniles Total 

Dakota Lake 10-16-90 2 0 2 

Lake Patricia 4-10-00 6 0 6 

Pretty Rock 10-28-85 6 1 7 

Pretty Rock 10-16-02 6 1 7 

Pretty Rock 11-2-04 2 0 2 

Sheyenne Lake 4-11-85 5 0 5 

Willow Lake 4-15-98 5 0 5 

Thank you for coordinating your draft Plan with our office. If additional information is required, please 

contact Karen Kreil of my staff or myself at 701-250-4481 or at the letterhead address. 

Attachments 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 7 Biological Evaluation 113 

FEDERAL THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES
 

AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT FOUND IN 


NORTH DAKOTA
 

December 2005
 

ENDANGERED SPECIES
 

Birds 


Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum): Nests along midstream sandbars of the Missouri and 


Yellowstone Rivers. 


Whooping crane (Grus Americana): Migrates through west and central counties during spring and fall.
 

Prefers to roost on wetlands and stockdams with good visibility. Young adult summered in North 

Dakota in 1989, 1990, and 1993. Total population 140–150 birds. 

Fish 

Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus): Known only from the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers. No 

reproduction has been documented in 15 years. 

Mammals 

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes): Exclusively associated with prairie dog towns. No records of 

occurrence in recent years, although there is potential for reintroduction in the future.
 

Gray wolf (Canis lupus): Occasional visitor in North Dakota. Most frequently observed in the Turtle 


Mountains area. 


THREATENED SPECIES 

Birds 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): Migrates spring and fall statewide but primarily along the 

major river courses. It concentrates along the Missouri River during winter and is known to nest in the 

floodplain forest.
 

Piping plover (Charadrius melodus): Nests on midstream sandbars of the Missouri and Yellowstone 


Rivers and along shorelines of saline wetlands. More nest in North Dakota than any other state.
 

Plants 


W. prairie-fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara): Locally common in moist swales on Sheyenne 

National Grasslands. Largest known U.S. population is on the Sheyenne. 
 

 

 

114 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

CANDIDATE SPECIES 

Invertebrates 

Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae): Found in native prairie containing a high diversity of wildflowers 

and grasses. Habitat includes two prairie types: 1) low (wet) prairie dominated by bluestem grasses, 

wood lily, harebell, and smooth camas; 2) upland (dry) prairie on ridges and hillsides dominated by 

bluestem grasses, needlegrass, pale purple and upright coneflowers and blanketflower. 

DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT 

Birds 

Piping Plover - Alkali Lakes and Wetlands - Critical habitat includes: (1) shallow, seasonally to 

permanently flooded, mixosaline to hypersaline wetlands with sandy to gravelly, sparsely vegetated 

beaches, salt-encrusted mud flats, and/or gravelly salt flats; (2) springs and fens along edges of alkali 

lakes and wetlands; and (3) adjacent uplands 200 feet (61 meters) above the high water mark of the 

alkali lake or wetland. 

Piping Plover - Missouri River - Critical habitat includes sparsely vegetated channel sandbars, sand 

and gravel beaches on islands, temporary pools on sandbars and islands, and the interface with the 

river. 

Piping Plover - Lake Sakakawea and Oahe - Critical habitat includes sparsely vegetated shoreline 

beaches, peninsulas, islands composed of sand, gravel, or shale, and their interface with the water 

bodies. 
Section 7 Biological Evaluation 115

County Occurrence of Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species and Designated Critical Habitat in North Dakota March 2005 through December 2005
Species 

Adams 


Barnes 


Benson 


Billings
 

Bottineau 


Bowman 


Burke 


Burleigh 


Cass 


Cavalier 


Dickey 


Divide 


Dunn 


Eddy 


Emmons 


Foster 


Go Valley 


Gr. Forks 


Grant 


Griggs
 

Hettinger 


Kidder
 

Lamoure 


Logan 


McHenry 


McIntosh
 

McKenzie 

Interior Least Tern - EWhooping Crane - E BlackfootedFerret - E Pallid Sturgeon - EGray Wolf -EBald Eagle- TPipingPlover - T Western Prairie Fringed Orchid - TDakotaSkipper - C 

X X X X 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
 X X X X X X X X
 

X X X X 

X X X X X X X X X X X 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

X X X X

 Designated Critical HabitatPiping X X X X X X X X X X X X Plover 

E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate
 
116 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

County Occurrence of Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species and Designated Critical Habitat in North Dakota March 2005 through December 2005


Species 

McLean 

Mercer 

Morton 

Mountrail 

Nelson 

Oliver 

Pembina 

Pierce 

Ramsey 

Ransom 

Renville 

Richland 

Rolette 

Sargent 

Sheridan 

Sioux 

Slope 

Stark 

Steele 

Stutsman 

Towner 

Trail 

Walsh 

Ward 

Wells 

Williams 

Interior Least X X X X X X X Tern – E Whooping Crane - X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EBlack-footed X X X X X X 

Ferret – E Pallid Sturgeon - X X X X X X X EGray Wolf – E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Bald Eagle - T X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Piping Plover - T X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

 P. Fringed W. X X 

Orchid – TDakota Skipper - X X X X X X 

CDesignated Critical Habitat Piping Plover X X X X X X X X X X X 

E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate
 

X 
Section 7 Biological Evaluation 117 

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 


Mountain-Prairie Region 


IN REPLY REFER TO: MAILING ADDRESS:

 Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge 

 9754 143 1⁄2 Ave. SE 

 Cayuga, ND 58013 

January 11, 2006 

To: 	 Jeffrey Towner, Field Supervisor, Ecological Services 

 Bismarck, North Dakota 

From: 	 Laura King, Planning Team Leader 

Cayuga, North Dakota 

Subject: Section 7 consultation for the North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

This memo is to request your concurrence of a ‘no effect’ determination for the actions proposed 

in the North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP). 

Based on the information provided by your office, we don’t feel that any action in this plan will 

affect endangered species or proposed or designated critical habitat. According to Service data, 

there is no suitable habitat on any of these 39 refuges for such federally listed species such as 

pallid sturgeon, black-footed ferret, or least tern. Our refuges located near the Turtle Mountain 

area, an area known for wolf dispersal, do not have the habitat needed to sustain wolf 

populations. Bald eagles may pass through these refuges during migration, but no refuge 

contains significant riparian habitat, the preferred habitat of bald eagles. The Dakota skipper is 

a candidate species known to occur in North Dakota; however there are no records of Dakota 

skipper on lands included in the ND Limited-interest CCP. Regardless, the activities proposed 

in this plan would not impact any of these species but rather are generally consistent with 

recovery of these candidate, threatened, and endangered animals. 

Piping plovers were identified on Lake George NWR. However, this occurrence was one year 

only and therefore is not designated as piping plover critical habitat. Even though the goals in 

this plan support piping plover recovery, the refuges will consult with Ecological Services on 

any future management at this site that may affect the piping plover. 

Migrating whooping cranes have been identified at five of the refuges in this project. However, 

these occurrences are sporadic with either single sightings or with two to seven years between 

occurrences. Although the actions proposed in this plan support whooping crane recovery, the 
118 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Da kota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

refuges will consult with Ecological Services on any future management actions that may affect 

whooping cranes. 

We appreciated you assistance in completing this consultation. If additional information is 

needed, please contact me at Tewaukon NWR at 701-724-3598 (ext. *814). 
Section 7 Biological Evaluation 119 
120 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Da kota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G. Divestiture Model
 

I. Introduction 

The divestiture model represents a set of criteria for measuring the value of a refuge. Designed as a preplanning tool, the model allows planners and refuge managers to determine whether or not a refuge 

should be considered for divestiture. If the model indicates that a refuge should be considered for 

divestiture, the process and consequences of divestiture will be studied further during the CCP process. 

Six of the 39 refuges were recommended for divestiture following these criteria. 

II. The Divestiture Model – Criteria and Rules 

Region 6’s divestiture model was developed during a two day workshop held December 14–15, 2004 by a 

team of refuge managers, biologists, planner, and the Regional Office directorate. The purpose of the 

workshop was to standardize policy in Region 6 for identifying which refuges to consider for divestiture. 

The Service recognizes that this is very significant decision and that divestiture will always be the 

exception and not the rule. However, in a 100 year history of establishing refuges, there may be 

instances, such as in the case of the North Dakota Limited-interest Program, where refuges no longer 

support the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These refuges may be draining 

resources from those areas with greater potential. 

The model consists of a set of eight questions that must be addressed when considering a refuge for 

divestiture. The questions were prioritized as primary and secondary criteria for evaluation. 

A. Primary Criteria 

1. Does the refuge achieve one or more of the NWRS goals? 

Explanation: Look beyond the purpose to see if the refuge is meeting NWRS goals. Refuge purpose is 

forever, but may become obsolete over time (e.g. recovery of T&E species). Obsolete purpose doesn’t 

necessarily mean we should get rid of the refuge. 

2. Does the refuge meet its purpose (fulfill the refuge’s intent and statutory purpose)? 

Explanation: Try to understand the intent of decision makers at the time the refuge was established. 

3. Does the refuge provide substantial support for migratory bird species, provide important 

sheltering habitat for threatened and endangered species, or support species identified in 

authorizing legislation? 

Explanation: The planning team that answers this question must define ‘substantial.’ Refuge context is 


the key consideration. Substantial is relative to species, location, region etc.
 

Example: Flocks of migratory birds (thousands) would be considered substantial. 


4A. Does the refuge have biological integrity; if not, is it feasible to restore the biological integrity 

of the converted or degraded habitat? 

Explanation: The presence of native habitat is not enough to meet NWRS standard; USFWS is not 

trying to save every remnant species. Identify what has changed from presettlement habitat conditions. 

Consider the contribution to regional biodiversity. 

4B. Does the Service have or can it reasonably acquire the right to restore the habitat? 

Biological integrity = native habitat and contribution to regional biodiversity. 

Degraded = Native vegetation exists but the value has been reduced due to nonnatives and loss of 

ecological functions. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

122 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 

*In order to answer “yes” on biological integrity need to answer yes on both “4A” and “4B” 

5. Does it contribute to landscape conservation, provide a stepping stone for migratory birds or 

serve as a unique habitat patch important to the conservation of a Trust species? 

B. Secondary Criteria 

6. Politics/Community – Is there such significant community interest in and support for the refuge 

that divesture would result in unacceptable long-term public relations? 

Explanation: Environmental education is a means to an end; not a purpose in itself; conservation must be 

broader than refuge. Public Use should be considered as criteria only when public use is legislated in the 

purpose. 

7. Jurisdiction – Do we have or can we acquire the jurisdiction to meet refuge’s purpose, NWRS 

mission and goals, and prevent incompatible uses? 

8. Other Land Manager - Can someone else achieve most or all of the purposes of the refuge 

without the Service having to incurring costs? 

(This question is very relative to these limited-interest refuges where the Service in essence remains in 

name only, e.g. Sheyenne Lake NWR. Three of the six refuges proposed for divestiture are either owned 

and/or being managed by the state) 

C. Additional Considerations 

9. Cost/Liability – Cost will never be a primary or secondary factor for divesting a refuge; cost (in 

itself) should not be a criterion for divesting land. 

 If cost is a consideration for divestiture, it is because some other factor is driving the decision. 

 Treat cost as a piece of information that can be used to justify decision 

 Liability is an additive to a decision to either keep or divest a refuge, but it is not a primary or 

secondary decision making criteria. 

D. Rules – The following five rules organize the responses to the above criteria questions and determine 

whether or not to consider a refuge for divestiture. 

Rule 1: IF the refuge cannot meet one or more NWRS goals, THEN it should be considered for 

divestiture. 

Rule 2: IF the answers to questions 1–4 are as follows, 

1. Yes – Meets a NWRS goal, but only the education goal 

2. No – Does not meet refuge purpose 

3. No – Does not substantially support trust species 

4. No – Does not possess biological integrity 

THEN the refuge should be considered for divestiture. 

Rule 3: IF the answers to questions 1–5 are as follows, 

1. Yes – Meets a NWRS goal, but only the education goal
 

2. Yes - Purpose 


3. No – Trust Species 


4. No – Biological Integrity 


5. No – Connectivity 


THEN the refuge should be considered for divestiture.
 

Rule 4: IF the answers to questions 1–6 are as follows, 

1. Yes – Goal 

2. Maybe – Purpose 

3. No – Trust Species 

4. Yes – Biological Integrity 

5. No – Connectivity 
Divestiture Model 123 

6. Yes – Jurisdiction
 

THEN keep the refuge (positive rule). 


Rule 5: IF the answers to questions 1–3 are as follows, 

1. Yes – Goal
 

2. Yes – Purpose 


3. Yes – Trust Species 


THEN keep the refuge (positive rule).