Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 


and 


Environmental Assessment 


North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 


Appert Lake Lost Lake 

Ardoch Maple River 

Bone Hill Pleasant Lake 

Brumba Pretty Rock 

Buffalo Lake Rabb Lake 

Camp Lake Rock Lake 

Canfield Lake Rose Lake 

Cottonwood Lake School Section Lake 

Dakota Lake Sheyenne Lake 

Half Way Lake Sibley Lake 

Hiddenwood Silver Lake 

Hobart Lake Snyder Lake 

Hutchinson Lake Springwater 

Johnson Lake Stoney Slough 

Lake George Sunburst Lake 

Lake Otis Tomahawk 

Lake Patricia Willow Lake 

Lambs Lake Wintering River 

Little Goose Wood Lake 

Lords Lake 

Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Division of Refuge Planning, Region 6 


P.O. Box 25486 DFC 


Lakewood, CO 80225 


303/236 4365 


September 2005 


Acronyms and 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 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 Areas 

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 Limited-interest Refuge 


Program .................................................................10
 

2.1 Establishment of the Program ..............10
 

2.2 Current Status of the Program .............10
 

2.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 


Landowner Rights.........................................13
 

2.4 Purposes of the Limited-interest 


Refuges ...........................................................14
 

2.5 Vision and Goals.......................................15
 

2.6 Special Values ..........................................19
 

2.7 Issues.........................................................19
 

Chapter 3. Alternatives .......................................23
 

3.1 Introduction..............................................23
 

3.2 Alternatives Development.....................23
 

3.3 Alternatives Considered but 


Eliminated from Detailed Study .................23
 

3.4 Elements Common to all
 

Alternatives....................................................24
 

3.5 Description of Alternatives....................24
 

3.6 Comparison of Alternatives ...................25
 

Chapter 4. Affected Environment......................29
 

4.1 Physical Environment ............................29
 

4.2 Biological Resources ...............................42
 

4.3 Cultural Resources..................................49
 

4.4 Visitor Services........................................49
 

4.5 Socioeconomic Environment..................49
 

Chapter 5. Environmental
 

Consequences ........................................................55
 

5.1 Effects Common to all Alternatives .....55
 

5.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative......56
 

Chapter 6. Implementation of the 


Proposed Action....................................................60
 

6.1 Introduction..............................................60
 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment i 
 

6.2 Refuge Divestiture Proposals ...............60
 

6.3 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .........66
 

6.4 Step-Down Management Plans .............73
 

6.5 Partnership Opportunities .....................73
 

6.6 Monitoring and Evaluation ....................74
 

6.7 CCP Amendment and Revision.............75
 

Appendix A. Consultation and 


Coordination..........................................................76
 

Appendix B. Glossary of Terms.........................78
 

Appendix C. Key Legislation and 


Policies ...................................................................84
 

Appendix D. References.....................................92
 

Appendix E. Section 7 Biological 


Evaluation .............................................................94
 

Appendix F. Maps ...............................................95
 

Tables 

Table 1. North Dakota counties and 

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

Table 2. North Dakota limited-interest 


refuges planning process summary ............8
 

Table 3. List of refuges by managing 


station ...........................................................12
 

Table 4. Acres, establishment date, 


legislation, and purpose(s) for each 

refuge............................................................16
 

Table 5. Summary comparison of 


alternatives ..................................................26
 

Table 6. Physiography of the ecoregions in 


which the limited-interest refuges 

reside.............................................................35
 

Table 7. Climate of the ecoregions in which 


the limited-interest refuges reside ...........40
 

Table 8. Limited-interest refuge 


agreements and landowner uses and 

developments...............................................43
 

Table 9. Upland habitat types............................45
 

Table 10. Wetland habitat types........................46
 

Table 11. Water rights filed with the state 

of North Dakota...........................................48
 

Table 12. Acres of agricultural and Service-


controlled lands by county (% of total 

land for all listed counties) .........................51
 

Table 13. Demographics of the 23 counties 


within the planning area.............................53
 

Table 14. Employment data for counties in 


the Program area ........................................54
 

Table 15. Summary of environmental
 

consequences for management 

alternatives ..................................................57
 

Table 16. Limited-interest refuge step-


down management plans ............................74
 

Figures 

Figure 1. The Steps in the Comprehensive 

Conservation Planning Process...................6
 

Figure 2. Location Map.........................................1
 

Figure 3. Glacial Lake Agassiz Basin 


Ecoregion......................................................29
 

Figure 4. Ecoregion Map. .....................................1
 

Figure 5. Missouri Plateau Ecoregion ..............29
 

Figure 6. River Breaks Ecoregion....................31
 

Figure 7. Drift Plains Ecoregion .......................31
 

Figure 8. End Moraine Complex Ecoregion....31
 

Figure 9. Glacial Lake Basins Ecoregion .........32
 

Figure 10. Glacial Outwash Ecoregion .............32
 

Figure 11. Northern Black Prairie 


Ecoregion......................................................32
 

Figure 12. Turtle Mountains Ecoregion...........33
 

Figure 13. Missouri Coteau Ecoregion.............33
 

Figure 14. Missouri Coteau Slope 


Ecoregion......................................................33
 

Figure 15. Glacial Lake Deltas Ecoregion .......34
 

Figure 16. Saline Area Ecoregion .....................34
 

Figure 17. Collapsed Glacial Outwash 


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

Figure 18. Adaptive Management.....................74
 

ii North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
Summary 


What is this document? This is the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental 

assessment for the North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges Program. This 

comprehensive conservation plan will guide the management of these 39 limited-interest 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 (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 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 limited-interest refuge program? The 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 this 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. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment S-1 
The economic crisis of this era was also addressed through this program. Local 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 water birds 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 limited-interest refuge program? 

Since our Nation=s beginning, great flocks of wildfowl⎯ducks, geese and water birds⎯ 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 Limited-interest Refuge 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. 

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 limited-interest 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 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 limited-interest 

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 Proposed Action (Enhance the Program). Because there have never been any approved guidelines 

S-2 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
for this program and these refuges, the only viable proposed 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 proposed action? 

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 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 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 Limited-interest Refuge Program to work with landowners 

and oversee the implementation this comprehensive conservation plan. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment S-3 

Chapter 1. Introduction 


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

has developed this draft 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 Limited-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 a proposed action. 

This action will attempt to address all 

significant issues while determining how best 

to achieve the intent and purposes of the 

Program. The proposed action is the Service’s 

recommended course of action for the future 

management of these refuges, and is embodied 

in this draft. 

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. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1 
 

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 

activities reported in the 2000 briefing book 

titled “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Presence 

in North Dakota”: 

Q	 Employs 242 people in North Dakota 

Q	 Over 17,990 hours were donated by 497 

volunteers to help Service Projects 

Q Two National Fish Hatcheries and one 

Fish and Wildlife Management 

Assistance Office 

•	 Contribute 13.4 million fingerlings 

to North Dakota waters 

Q	 62 national wildlife refuges 

encompassing 296,000 acres (0.7 percent 

of the state) 

Q	 12 WMDs 

•	 254,000 acres of fee WPAs (0.6 

percent of the state) 

•	 1,100,960 wetland acres under 

various leases or easements 

(including these limited-interest 

refuges) (2.5 percent of the state) 

(Service 2003) 

Q	 More than 478,500 annual visitors to 

Service-managed lands in North Dakota 

•	 Over 17,000 school children 

participated in Service education 

programs 

Q	 Provided $2.7 million to NDGF for sport 

fish restoration and $2.1 million for 

wildlife restoration and hunter 

education 

Q	 Since 1987, helped over 2,500 

landowners enhance wildlife habitat on 

162,000 acres 

Q	 In 2000, paid North Dakota counties 

more than $427,400 under the Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Act; funds that are 

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. 

2 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
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 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 birdwatching, 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 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 3 
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 C. Service policies 

providing guidance on planning and the day-today 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 (37) 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 water birds. 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 Headquarters–Tallgrass Prairie 

Ecosystem. 

Missouri Main Stem River Ecosystem 

Lake Patricia and Pretty Rock National 

Wildlife Refuges are located within the 

Missouri Main Stem River Ecosystem. This 

ecosystem includes portions of the Missouri 

River and Hudson Bay watersheds. An initial 

Ecosystem Management Plan developed by the 

Missouri Main Stem River 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 

4 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
overall threats and visions for each focus area 

include: 

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 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 Draft CCP and EA for the 39 limitedinterest 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 

Q	 Initiate public involvement and scoping 

Q	 Draft Vision Statement and Goals 

Q	 Develop and analyze alternatives, 

including Proposed Action 

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 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 5 
Figure 1. The Steps in the Comprehensive Conservation 

Planning 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 limited-interest 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 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. 

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 

6 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
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 draft plan. 

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 non-consumptive 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 

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 proposed action formed the basis for the 

draft objective and strategies to achieve the 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 7 
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 NWR 

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

Bottineau 6,893 6 Lords Lake NWR (also Rolette Co.) 

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 NWR 

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 NWR 

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

McHenry 5,739 7 Cottonwood Lake and Wintering River NWR 

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

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

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

Pierce 4,525 7 Buffalo Lake NWR 

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

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

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 NWR 

Walsh 11,891 16 Ardoch NWR 

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

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

Date Event 	 Outcome 

Dec. 11-12, 2003 Initial meeting with CCP overview, planning team finalized, purposes identified, 

proposed planning team initial issues and qualities list, initiate development of 

mailing list 

Feb. 10-11, 2004 Kickoff meeting 	 Initiate rights discussion, revise issues and qualities list, 

biological needs identified, plan public scoping 

Feb. 19, 2004 	 Service’s Rights Discussion Develop a position paper for the planning team to review on 

with Regional Office the Service rights on these limited-interest refuges 

leadership 

March 30, 2004 Finalize Rights Position 	 Developed a management decision on which rights the 

Service will control based on the easement agreement and 

historical records 

8 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
Table 2. North Dakota limited-interest refuges planning process summary 

Date Event 	 Outcome 

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 Sibley Lake Open House 

July 29, 2004 Lost Lake Open House 

Aug. 10, 2004 Halfway Lake Meeting 

Aug. 11, 2004 Lake Patricia Open House 

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 

Landowner newsletter, comment forms 

Open house model developed 

Finalize scoping meeting schedules and formats 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 

Meet with Half Way Lake landowners, discuss CCP 

Opportunity for public to learn about the CCP 

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 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 9 
Chapter 2. The 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. 

10 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
 Figure 2. Location Map. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 11 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Suvice North Dakota Li mited-interest 

Refuges 

Mountain-Prairie Region 

NOl

L .lI'oblI 1..0 ... NWR ) Roc.t.Mr.HWR tMa"-bH_ . 'r-.-

i\ Stt)dtr ...... NWA 

" _. 

, 

wu.USTOH 

) 

I ) I T -

.... it. J I CHURCHS FERRY IWfrI"'*'t .... 

,-- -,.;....-=. 

- !';"'--- 

, ... , __ ,..,. 

-

_ _ -,-..• • ,-

NWR HWR umbs I.

-

-

..... ... 

-.,.--=- 

\ REE 

JAMESTOWN 

+ BELFIELD 

--

.. !' SlSMARCK 

--

r- uh' *-

- _W.,LeINo 

! - .... , ..... 

81 I 

..... 

. 

__ 

.,.--

.

--

- " \-

,

-

\ 

'-

_ __ __ ____________ -.;''' 

,. .. =,:-00=,,-________ ,,' ...... 

02000 80 Kulm 

Legend 

• Umited-inte

Devils LaKe * N\tVR 
Table 3. List of refuges by managing station 

WPA Acres 

Comples 

Headquarters 

Limited-interest 

Refuge 

Limitedinterest 

Refuge 

Acres 

NWR 

Fee 

Acres 

Total 

Acres 

Approved 

Acquisition 

Boundary 

Within 

Approved 

Acquisition 

Boundary Adjacent 

Arrowwood Half Way Lake 160.00 0 160.00 160.00 0 0 

NWR Complex Hobart Lake 1831.21 245.89 2077.10 1840.00 0 0 

6 Refuges Johnson Lake 2003.42 4.49 2007.91 1928.00 0 0 

6,392 Total 

Limited-interest Sibley Lake 1077.40 0 1077.40 1077.00 81 496 

Refuge Acres Stoney Slough 880.00 0 880.00 2000.00 1120 440 

7,445 Approved Tomahawk 440.00 0 440.00 440.00 0 0 

Acquisition 

Boundary Acres† 

Audubon NWR Camp Lake 584.70 0 584.70 1212.44 0 0 

Complex Hiddenwood 568.35 0 568.35 568.00 0 0 

7 Refuges Lake Otis 320.00 0 320.00 640.00 0 0 

4,831 Total 

Limited-interest Lake Patricia 800.23 0 800.23 1434.23 0 0 

Refuge Acres Lost Lake 960.21 0 960.21 960.00 0 0 

6,888 Approved Pretty Rock 800.00 0 800.00 800.00 0 0 

Acquisition 

Boundary Acres† Sheyenne Lake 797.30 0 797.30 1273.00 0 0 

Devils Lake Ardoch 2388.50 307.63 2696.13 2980.00 0 0 

WMD Brumba 1977.48 0 1977.48 1977.48 0 0 

10 Refuges Lambs Lake 1026.67 0 1026.67 1318.00 80 0 

18,099 Total 

Limited-interest Little Goose 288.41 0 288.41 359.04 71 0 

Refuge Acres Pleasant Lake 897.80 0 897.80 1020.00 103 0 

19,700 Approved Rock Lake 5505.96 0 5505.96 5587.00 0 0 

Acquisition 

Boundary Acres† Rose Lake 836.30 0 836.30 1280.00 0 134 

Silver Lake 3347.64 0 3347.64 3348.00 0 0 

Snyder Lake 1550.18 0 1550.18 1550.18 0 0 

Wood Lake 280.00 0 280.00 280.00 0 0 

J. Clark Salyer Buffalo Lake 1539.92 23.80 1563.72 2105.00 0 0 

NWR Complex Cottonwood 1013.47 0 1013.47 1013.00 0 0 

7 Refuges Lake 

7,886 Total Lords Lake 1915.29 0 1915.29 1915.22 0 0 

Limited-interest 

Refuge Acres Rabb Lake 260.80 0 260.80 261.00 0 0 

9,221 Approved 

Acquisition 

School Section 

Lake 

297.30 0 297.30 680.00 0 0 

Boundary Acres† Willow Lake 2619.69 0.69 2620.38 2848.00 227 19 

Wintering River 239.26 0 239.26 399.12 160 106 

Kulm WMD Bone Hill 640.00 0 640.00 640.00 0 0 

12 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
0 

Table 3. List of refuges by managing station 

WPA Acres 

Comples 

Headquarters 

Limited-interest 

Refuge 

Limitedinterest 

Refuge 

Acres 

NWR 

Fee 

Acres 

Total 

Acres 

Approved 

Acquisition 

Boundary 

Within 

Approved 

Acquisition 

Boundary Adjacent 

4,152 Total 712.00 0 712.00 1120.00 408 6 

Limited-interest 

Refuge Acres 

4,544 Approved 

Acquisition 

Boundary Acres† 

Long Lake 

NWR Complex 

6 Refuges 

5,754 Total 

Limited-interest 

Refuge Acres 

6,343 Approved 

Acquisition 

Boundary Acres† 

3 Refuges Dakota Lake 2799.78 0 2799.78 2784.00 0 

Maple River 

Appert Lake 

Canfield Lake 

Hutchinson 

Lake 

Lake George 

Springwater 

Sunburst Lake 

907.75 0 907.75 1162.76 251 0 

310.13 3.10 313.23 453.00 149 631 

478.90 0 478.90 478.90 0 0 

3089.61 29.20 3118.81 3113.00 0 0 

640.00 0 640.00 640.00 0 0 

327.51 0 327.51 494.96 178 403 

†

NWR = National Wildlife Refuge; WPA = Waterfowl Production Area. 

Rick Coleman, Assistant Regional Director for 

Refuges, examines an original refuge boundary 

sign. 

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 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 13 
 

 

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 

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. 

The Service has and will continue to control 

incidental trapping through the issuing of 

permits. 

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 

14 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
 

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. 

31 refuges established under Executive 

Orders signed in 1939 by President F.D. 

Roosevelt: A...as a refuge and breeding 

ground for migratory birds and other 

wildlife.@

Seven refuges established in 1948 under 

a precursor to the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (August 14, 1946, 60, 

Stat. 1080): A...shall 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: 

A...for 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 water birds⎯

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 Limited-interest Refuge 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. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 15 
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 	 (E.O.) 

Appert Lake 907.75 0 1,162.76 May 10, 1939 E.O. 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 E.O. 8147 	 “...as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

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

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

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

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Buffalo Lake 1,539.92 23.80 2105.00 May 10, 1939 E.O. 8113 	 “...as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Camp Lake 584.70 0 1212.44 May 10, 1939 E.O. 8114 	 “...as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Canfield Lake 310.13 3.10 453.00 May 10, 1939 E.O. 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 1013.00 June 12, 1939 E.O. 8149 	 “...as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Dakota Lake 2,799.78 0 2784.00 May 10, 1939 E.O. 8117 	 “...as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

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

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

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

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Hobart Lake 1,831.21 245.89 1840.00 June 12, 1939 E.O. 8151 	 “...as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Hutchinson Lake 478.90 0 478.90 May 10, 1939 E.O. 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 E.O. 8120 	 “...as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 16 
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 	 (E.O.) 

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

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

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 E.O. 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 E.O. 8159 	 “...as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Little Goose 288.41 0 359.04 May 10, 1939 E.O. 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 E.O. 8127 	 “...as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

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

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

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

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

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

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Pretty Rock 800.00 0 800.00 Feb. 3, 1941 E.O. 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 E.O. 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...” 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 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 	 (E.O.) 

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...” 

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 E.O. 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 E.O. 8660 	 “...as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

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

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

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

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

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

migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Tomahawk 440.00 0 440.00 Feb. 3, 1941 E.O. 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 E.O. 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 

North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 18 
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. 

2.6 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 Of the 39 refuges, 38 have secure senior 

water rights 


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 


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). 

Yellowlegs 

Bob Hines/USFWS 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 19 
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. 

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. 

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 wildlifedependent programs. 

Consumptive Uses (hunting, fishing, and 

trapping). The Service has the right to control 

all hunting and trapping within the boundaries 

of the limited-interest refuges. This includes 

the right to allow hunting when it is found 

compatible with the purposes and funding and 

staffing are available to manage the program. 

Hunting and trapping are considered by many 

to be a legitimate, traditional recreational use 

20 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
of renewable natural resources. National 

wildlife refuges exist primarily to safeguard 

wildlife populations through habitat 

preservation. The word “refuge” includes the 

idea of providing a haven of safety for wildlife 

and, as such, hunting 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. 

NDGF is also interested in determining the 

landowner’s willingness and compatibility of 

opening as many refuges as possible to provide 

increased recreational opportunities within the 

state including hunting, fishing, and wildlife 

observation. 

Boy Fishing 

 Paul Kerris/USFWS 

Non-consumptive 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 

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 Limited-Interest Refuge 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 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 21
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 E.O. 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. 

22 North Dakota 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 

address 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 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 23 
no added value in developing individual goals, 

objectives, and strategies for each refuge. 

3.4 Elements Common to all 

Alternatives 

This section identifies key elements included in 

the CCP regardless of the alternative 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 5 outlines the Service’s plan for 

implementing the proposed action of enhancing 

the Program 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 proposed action. It is 

also a requirement of NEPA that the No 

Action 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. 

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—Proposed Action (Enhance the 

Program) 

Alternative B, the Proposed Action, 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 

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 

24 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
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 basis and 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 Limited-interest Refuge 

Program (the Proposed Action). A comparison 

of these alternatives is shown in table 5. 

Blue-winged Teal 

Tom Kelley/USFWS 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 25 
Table 5. Summary comparison of alternatives 

Alternative B Alternative A Focus Area	 (Enhance the Limited-interest Refuge (Current Management—No Action) 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 limited-interest 

refuge agreement (see section 2.3) without 

the permission of willing landowners. 

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 limited-interest 

refuge agreement (see section 2.3) without 

the permission of willing landowners. 

26 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
 

 

Table 5. Summary comparison of alternatives 

Focus Area Alternative A 

(Current Management—No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Enhance the Limited-interest Refuge 

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, and No hunting or fishing would be permitted Same as alternative A, except: 

Fishing unless compatible with the refuge purposes, 

resources are available, and landowners 

provide access. 

Managing stations would actively work 

with landowners to evaluate each refuge 

for hunting and fishing opportunities. 

No waterfowl hunting, excluding certain 

species of geese (particularly when needed to 

address depredation issues). 

Four seasonal law enforcement officers 

would be recruited to ensure the safety 

of visitors, landowners, and wildlife. 

Trapping would continue on a permit-only 

basis. 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. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 27 
Table 5. Summary comparison of alternatives 

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

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

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. 

28 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
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 4.). 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. 

Figure 3. Glacial Lake Agassiz Basin Ecoregion 

Refuge: Ardoch NWR (also Saline Area) 

Missouri Plateau 

On the Missouri Plateau west of the Missouri 

River (figure 5), 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. 

Figure 4. Missouri Plateau Ecoregion 

Refuges: Lake Patricia and Pretty Rock NWRs 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 29 
 

Figure 5. Ecoregion Map. 


30 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
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. 

Figure 6. River Breaks Ecoregion 

Refuges: Sunburst Lake and Springwater 

NWRs 

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. 

Figure 8. Drift Plains Ecoregion 

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) 

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. 

Figure 7. End Moraine Complex Ecoregion 

Refuges: Buffalo Lake (also Drift Plains), 

Johnson Lake (also Glacial Outwash), and Wood 

Lake NWRs 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 31 
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. 

Figure 9. Glacial Lake Basins Ecoregion 

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 10. Glacial Outwash Ecoregion 

Refuges: Sibley Lake, Johnson Lake (also End 

Moraine Complex), and Stoney Slough NWRs 

(also Drift Plains) 

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. 

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. 

Figure 11. Northern Black Prairie Ecoregion 

Refuges: Rock Lake and Brumba NWRs (both 

also in Glacial Lake Basins) 

32 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
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. 

Figure 12. Turtle Mountains Ecoregion 

Refuges: Rabb Lake, Willow Lake, and School 

Section Lake NWRs 

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. 

Figure 13. Missouri Coteau Slope Ecoregion 

Refuges: Appert Lake, Lost Lake, and 

Hiddenwood NWRs 

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. 

Figure 14. Missouri Coteau Ecoregion 

Refuges: Half Way Lake, Lake George, 

Hutchinson Lake, Canfield Lake, Camp Lake, 

Lake Otis, and Bone Hill NWRs (also Drift 

Plains) 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 33 
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. 

Figure 15. Glacial Lake Deltas Ecoregion 

Refuges: Dakota Lake (also Drift Plains and 

Glacial Lake Basins), and Lords Lake NWRs 

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. 

Figure 16. Saline Area Ecoregion 

Refuge: Ardoch NWR (also Glacial Lake 

Agassiz Basin) 

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. 

Figure 17. Collapsed Glacial Outwash 

Ecoregion 

Refuge: Lake George NWR (also Missouri 

Coteau) 

34 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 

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 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 35 
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 Complex and outwash Argiborolls, Esmond, 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 

North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 36 
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. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 37 
Western 

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

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

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 Mollisols Williams, Max, Appert Lake, 

glacial till (Haploborolls, Zahl, Bowbells, Sunburst Lake 

over Argiborolls, Parnell (also River 

Tertiary Argiaquolls, Breaks), Lost sandstone Calciborolls) Lake, and and shale in Hiddenwood Cretaceous NWRs Pierre Shale. 

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

North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 38 
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 over wheatgrass, salinity levels water welling to the 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. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 39 
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 	Pleas ant 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 

North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 40 
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. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 41 
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, 275 landowners reside on 

these 39 refuges (238 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 11. The Service does not of 

the uses and alterations of any public or 

privately owned wetlands by 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 

42 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
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 

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 

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

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 

Lost Lake 5 960 50 0 Cattle grazing 

Farming, recreation, wildlife 

habitat (state) 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 43 
Table 8. Limited-interest refuge agreements and landowner uses and developments
 

Refuge 

No. of 

Limitedinterest 

Refuge 

Agreements 

Total 

Limitedinterest 

Refuge 

Acres 

Travel Time 

from 

Managing 

Station 

(minutes) 

Landowners 

Residing on 

Limitedinterest 

Refuge Lands 

Landowner Uses and/or 

Developments 

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 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 

Wood Lake 

Totals/Averages

17 

2 

3 

269 

2620 

239 

280 

47,294 

60 

80 

25 

Average 

= 58 

3 

0 

1 

189 

3 farmsteads, farming, cattle 

grazing 

Abandoned farmstead 

1 farmstead, cattle grazing, 

farming 

1 boat dock and ramp, recreation, 

wildlife habitat (state) 

44 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
 

Table 9. Upland habitat types 

Refuge Grass/Hay/ 

Undisturbed 

Upland Habitat Types (acres) 

Cropland Forest 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. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 45 
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 

Earth and rubble dike, concrete spillway, Camp Lake 157.36 2.54 0.52 21.04 0.00 143.45 167.55 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 

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

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

Pretty Rock 183.13 30.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 181.83 212.34 Dike and WCS 

North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 46 
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 

Earthen dike, stop log, and sheet pile Rock Lake 	 0.00 110.14 78.15 109.99 0.00 831.17 1,129.20 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 	 Sheet pile spillwa y, 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 	None 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 

Masonry water control structure, earthen Wood Lake 	 35.52 4.00 6.26 7.12 0.00 40.41 57.78 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. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 47 
Table 11. Water rights filed with the state of North Dakota 

Water Storage Surface Area Refuge 

103 

(acre-feet) (acres) 

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 5,252 778 

38 

862 218 

1,600 

112 

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 

21,082 5,162 

North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 48 
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 has 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 

During scoping, the 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 basis only. 

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 non-existent 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 495,225 acres (1 percent of the entire 

state) and has an easement or lease on an 

additional 1,100,960 acres (3 percent of the 

entire state) (Service 2003). North Dakota 

ranks 31 in the nation for overall federal land 

ownership (National Wilderness Institute 

1995). Within the 23-county area, the Service 

currently owns 2 percent of the land in national 

wildlife refuges, WPAs, and National Fish 

Hatcheries. In addition, the Service 

compensated landowners for wetland and 

grassland easements, and flowage and/or 

refuge limited-interest refuges on 3.5 percent 

of the 23-county area. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 49 
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 by from -0.7 percent in Morton 

County to -9.9 percent in Sheridan County. 

Only two counties increased population during 

this same period: Burleigh County (+3.3 

percent) and Rolette County (+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). 

50 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) 

Agricul- Fee Title (acres) 	 Limited- FmHA Wetland Grassland Land tural 	 Limited-interest interest County 	 Lands† Easements Easements (acres) Lands 	 Refuges in County Refuge NWR WPA NFH (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) 	 (acres) 

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

Pleasant Lake, Silver 

Benson 883,840 732,870 1,674 7,216 0 1,703 35,195 2,982 	 Lake (also Rolette), 4,238 

and Wood Lake Lords Lake (also Bottineau 1,068,160 948,475 21,563 2,589 0 471 29,183 0 1,462 Rolette Co.) 

Burleigh 1,045,120 865,524 11,801 11,256 0 2,187 26,063 12,844 	 Canfield Lake 310 

Dakota Lake and Dickey 723,840 599,450 0 10,042 0 2,584 26,817 9,333 3,512 Maple River 

Eddy 403,200 348,786 0 4,657 0 417 11,811 0 	 Johnson Lake 2,003 

Springwater, Sunburst Emmons 966,400 838,075 0 3,615 0 309 11,492 0 1,876 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 

Hutchinson Lake and Kidder 864,640 794,465 6,609 7,404 0 1,222 63,955 9,887 3,569 Lake George 

Lamoure 734,080 676,966 0 5,435 0 955 13,121 0 	Bone Hill 640 

Cottonwood Lake and McHenry 1,199,360 1,125,831 37,122 5,882 0 2,213 29,131 15,272 1,253 Wintering River 

Camp Lake, 

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

Otis, and Lost Lake 

Morton 1,232,640 1,276,269 0 0 0 375 0 0 	 Lake Patricia 800 

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

Pierce 651,520 530,623 24 12,750 0 3,906 36,246 1,469 	 Buffalo Lake 1,540 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 51 
Table 12. Acres of agricultural and Service-controlled lands by county (% of total land for all listed counties)
 

Agricul- Fee Title (acres) 	 Limited- FmHA Wetland Grassland Land tural 	 Limited-interest interest County 	 Lands† Easements Easements Lands 	 Refuges in County Refuge (acres) 	 NWR WPA NFH (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) 	 (acres) 

Silver Lake (also Ramsey 758,400 636,109 7,710 9,477 0 386 28,730 0 	 313 Benson Co.) 


Rabb Lake, School 


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

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 

Brumba, Rock Lake, Towner 656,000 548,774 802 7,241 0 865 24,213 398 	 9,034 and Snyder Lake 

Walsh 820,480 759,381 308 1,786 0 329 8,758 0 	 Ardoch 2,389 

39 limited-interest Totals 19,997,440 17,547,848 153,503 184,065 396 20,881 539,158 93,341 	 47,304 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. 


North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 52 
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. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 53 
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. 

North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 54 
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 fee 

title actions, see the following information on 

the Service 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 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 55 
the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund and the 

total amount due to local units of government. 

Maintenance of Roads and Existing Rights-of-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 Proposed Action 

(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 limited-interest 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 

wetland-dependent wildlife. 

No public use activities would be permitted 

unless the Service was approached by a willing 

landowner. The use 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. 

56 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
Table 15. Summary of environmental consequences for management alternatives 

Alternative B Alternative A Issue 	 (Enhance the Limited-interest Refuge (Current Management—No Action) 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 grassland-dependent 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. 

Partnerships 	 Landowners: Little to no contact with 

limited-interest refuge landowners. The 

Program will never reach its full potential. 

Other Partners: Partnerships would be 

developed incidental to needs and common 

interests. Loss of potential funds and 

services 

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. 

Other Partners: Actively identify and 

coordinate with potential partners to achieve 

common goals that enhance and support the 

Program. Extend existing resources, including 

funding and knowledge. 

Administration Continued loss of biodiversity and ability to Ability to partner with willing landowners to 

manage impoundments for wildlife. address management and maintenance issues 

and protection of natural resources for 

migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 57 
 

Table 15. Summary of environmental consequences for management alternatives 

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

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 limited-interest 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 (Proposed Action) 

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. 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 water birds, in 

particular, waterfowl. Maintaining water 

features on landowners’ properties would 

maintain or increase land value due to the 

aesthetics and opportunities for wildlifeSeveral water management structures need 

repairs. 

Mike Goos/USFWS 

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 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 

58 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
be divested giving all rights back to the 

landowners or a landowner designated 

managing interest, including the water rights. 

The Service would ensure that any water 

management structures meet federal and state 

safety standards prior to divestiture and 

transfer. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 59 
 

Chapter 6. Implementation of the Proposed Action 


6.1 Introduction 

Once a management alternative has been 

selected and finalized, the CCP has been 

approved, and the Service has notified the 

public of its decision, the implementation phase 

of the CCP process begins. During the next 15 

years, the objectives and strategies presented 

below would be realized. The CCP would serve 

as the primary management document for all 

limited-interest refuges until it is formally 

revised. The Service would implement the final 

CCP with assistance from willing landowners, 

existing and new partner agencies and 

organizations, and the public. 

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. In addition, if a 

comprehensive evaluation and identification of 

critical needs is never completed, issues will go 

unresolved due to a lack of public and 

administrative understanding and support. 

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. Factors such as 1) 

ability to meet the goals of the System, 2) and 

the refuge purpose(s), 3) existing biodiversity 

including native habitat, 4) associated 

conservation lands, 5) and current state and 

other federal management of these areas, were 

considered in evaluating each refuge for 

retention. 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 stateowned 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. 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. 

60 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
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. 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. An approved acquisition 

boundary was designated within and around 

these limited-interest 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. 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 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 61 
easement agreements, and forfeit or transfer 

the water rights. 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. 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 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 

Boat docks and 149 cabins surround the lake on 

Camp Lake NWR. 

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. 

Recommendation: Divest the limited-interest 

refuge, revoke the refuge and flowage 

easements, and transfer the dam and water 

right to the McLean County Water Resource 

District or the Strawberry Lake Recreation 

District. 

Rod Krey/USFWS 

62 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
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. 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 

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. 

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 

of the Cottonwood Lake boundary is the high 

water mark 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. 

Cottonwood Lake NWR 


Laura King/USFWS 

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 non-functional 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 gamefish. 

Some local fishermen 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. 

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. The water right should 

be transferred 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 right for another limitedDraft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 63 
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 

limited-interest 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. 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 transfer the water 

rights and structure to the state. Allow the 

state to continue to operate the area as a 

Wildlife Management Area. Negotiations with 

the state also could be initiated to determine if 

management responsibilities could be 

exchanged for management rights on an 

limited-interest refuge with greater wildlife 

values. 

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 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 

64 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
reservation for migratory birds and other Sheyenne Lake NWR

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. At 

the time this refuge was established, the 

Service never intended or assumed that as a 

result of revoked agreements, it would 

someday inherit the responsibility of enforcing 

a refuge boundary consisting of an unidentified 

legal lake boundary. 

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. Transfer the water 

rights to the state. 

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 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 limitedinterest 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. 

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 

water birds. 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 full control 

and water rights to BOR. 

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 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 65 
divest these refuges. This proposal would be 

submitted to the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission for concurrence and then 

submitted for Congressional approval. 

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 

spring and late summer/early fall during the 

migration periods. 

3) Identify and protect the Service’s water 

rights (see table 10.) 

Mike Goos/USFWS 

Service staff inspect a structure at Sheyenne Lake 

NWR. 

66 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
 

 

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 

•	 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. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 67 
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 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. 

Appert Lake NWR 


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. 

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. 

Paul Van Ningen/USFWS 

68 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
 

 

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 

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 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 69 
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 Limited-interest 

Refuge 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 

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, only a 

few have been officially opened to these uses. 

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 

 Ring-necked Pheasant

 Bob Savannah/USFWS 

70 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
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. 

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 and winter trapping 

opportunities on refuges where the use is 

compatible. 

4) 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 and open these refuges to 

hunting, fishing, and trapping uses. 

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 non-consumptive 

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 non-consumptive 

visitor services. Therefore, any development of 

these programs on private lands will only be 

with the permission of willing landowners. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 71 
 

Strategies: 

Priority 1 

1) In cooperation with willing landowners, 

work with state agencies and other interested 

partners to develop non-consumptive wildlifedependent recreational programs. 

Priority 2 

1) Use the provisions and procedures outlined 

in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, 

part 26, Subpart C, Public Use and Recreation, 

to evaluate and open the limited-interest 

refuges to any non-consumptive visitor 

services. 

2) Do compatibility determinations on each 

refuge for every non-consumptive 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 

have posted boundaries using the common 

“blue goose” sign, but few have the traditional 

entrance sign identifying them as national 

One of the few entrance signs. 


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. 

Mike Goos/USFWS 

72 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
 

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 Limited-interest Refuge 

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. These management plans will need to be 

revised once this document is approved and 

the status of these refuges is changed. 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 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 

the limited-interest refuges to establish 

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. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 73 
 

 

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

As Related to 

Plan/Proposal Years 1-3 Years 4-6 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 

Non-game 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 X 

Grassland X 

Fire Management Plan X 

Visitor Services Plans X 

Hunting and Trapping X 

Fishing X 

Wildlife Observation and Photography, Environmental X 

Education and Interpretation 

Sign X 

Law Enforcement X 

Figure 18. Adaptive Management. 


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 18). 

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 

74 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
accomplished. Evaluations will include 

HAPET, ecosystem team, and other 

appropriate partner participation. 

If monitoring and evaluation indicate 

undesirable effects for target and non-target 

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. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 75 
 

Appendix A. Consultation and Coordination 

A planning team (see table A-1) composed of representatives from the six managing stations, various 

other Service Divisions, and a representative from NDGF was formed to prepare the Draft CCP and 

EA. Initially, the team focused on identifying the issues and concerns pertinent to the management of 

the Program. The team met on several occasions from December 2004 to February 2005 and 

participated in public scoping activities throughout the state. During this period, the team also sought 

the contributions of experts (table A-2) from various fields. 

Table A-1. Planning team members 

Name Title 	 Agency 

Planning Team Leader, Refuge Operations Laura King 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 Specia list 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 (ret ired 6/04), J. Clark Salyer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

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. Clar k Salyer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

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

Gary Williams 	 Deputy Project Leader, A udubon 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 

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

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

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

Kory Richardson 	 Wetland District Manager, Valle y 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 

76 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 

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

Michael Spratt Planning Division Chief Planning processes and techniques 

Chief, Comprehensive Conservation Linda Kelly 	 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 

Realty history of limited-interest refuges and Betty Adler Supv. Realty Specialist 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 Liason Native American interests 

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

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 77 
 

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 non-point 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, 

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. 

78 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 

proposed action, adverse effects of the project 

that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of 

action, short-tern 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 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 79 
 

that 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—non-native 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. 

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)—AA 

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 Annual Report of Lands Under 

Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

80 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
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. 

non-consumptive, 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. 

phonological—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. 

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 nonBgovernmental organization 

that owns land. 

private organization—any nonBgovernmental 

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. 

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. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 81 
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 (RONS)— 

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. Involves taking a degraded 

grassland and re-establishing habitat for 

native plants and animals. Restoration usually 

involves the planting of native grasses and 

forbs, and may include shrub removal and 

prescribed burning. 

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 Aspecies of concern@: 

1. 	 Federally listed as threatened or 

endangered; 

2. 	 Migratory bird, especially declining 

species, Neotropical migrants, colonial 

water birds, 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. 

substantive issue—an issue meeting the 

following three criteria: 

82 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
 

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, wellB 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—AA 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. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 83 
 

Appendix C. Key Legislation and Policies 


Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and 

services. 

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 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; and 


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. 

84 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
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 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. 

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. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 85 
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 fulland/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 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 non-profit 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: 

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. 

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. 

86 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
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. 

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. 

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. 

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 short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and 


enhancement of long-term productivity; and 

Q any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the 

proposed action, should it be implemented. 

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 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, 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 87 
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 wildlife-dependent 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); and 

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 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. 

88 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife 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 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) B Section 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 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. 

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. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 89 
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: 

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 non-game 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 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. 

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. 

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. 

Regulations: 

90 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
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. 

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. 

Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 11644, Federal Reg. Vol. 37, No. 27, 

February 9, 1972): Provides policy and procedures for regulating off-road vehicles. 

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. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 91 
 

 

Appendix D. 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/legislativedist/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). 

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 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/volume1/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/overview.pdf> 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. HAPET and Ducks Unlimited joint venture data. 

92 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
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/purposes.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. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 93 
 Appendix E. Section 7 Biological Evaluation 


Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation will be completed prior to final approval of the plan. 

94 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges 
 

Appendix F. Maps 


Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 95 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Appert Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Emmons County. North Dakora 

• ." Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv "' W Dormr, Col",,,,,,, 

"., Dot.: 2003 i KiltIITlOlen; 

Pt .. " t"" tri M Zono 14, N~D 27 • • 25 ••• 

LOllg (fk e NflfiOllfif lVihffife Nefll,qe COII/pfex 

., legend 

Miles <:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv Waterfowl Production Area 

o USfWS Reluge Emmenl o USfWS Fee Refuge 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Ardoch National Wildlife Refuge 

Walsh County. North Dakota 

0 0.15 0.3 

Ploduo:od."ho [Mo.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv 

W' HI";rw R S2 W 

RS2 W 

0.6 

Mi1e$ W Dormr. Col",,,,,,, , Kiometers .,., Dot.: 2003 

Pl.,," iofI' lITM Zono 14. D 27 0 025 " 

{)I!vils Lat.-I! Nrlfifllwl lVifrlfi(c RdlllJe COII/plex 

Legend 

<:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv Waterfowl Produc[ion Area 

o USfWS Reluge Eaiemenl <Z:> USfWS fee Refuge 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Bone Hill National Wildlife Refuge 

LaMoure County, North Dakota 

R65W 

R<;OW 

• 0.125 ,Z; 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv W Dormr, Col",,,,,,, 

KiI(ntti lf$ .,., Dot.: 2003 

Pt." " ... , 111M Zono 14, D 27 • ,Z; " 

Kulrll NflfiflllflllVifrlfife Hefll,qe ('vmplex 

,.,._ ..... ____ .., .... _ \M' W tTW 

.. ,legend 

Mile$ o Refuge ApprDved Boundarv 

o USFWS Refuge Emmenl 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Brumba National Wildlife Refuge 

Towner County, North Dakota 

R67 W R66 W 

• ." .. ,Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv W Dormr, Col",,,,,,, ! Kiomelel$ .,., Dot.: 2003 

Pt.,,,t"" tri M Zono 14, D 27 • ." " 

{)I!vils Lat.-I! Nr/firllwl lVifrlfi(c RdlllJe COII/plex 

R67 W R66 W 

., Legend 

Miln <:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Eaiemenl o NO Game & fiih WMA 
US FIsh & WIldlife SO/VICO 

Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Pierce County, North Dakota 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv 

Dormr, Col",,,,,,, 

.,., Dot.: 2003 

Pt .. " ,."" 111M Zono 14, D 27 

""f/!,7J.,f' R 7 1 W 

o 0.15 " 0.' -;;::;:::-- ",", 7 Klometers o 0.1250.25 0.5 

.I ('{ark Sflfller Nt/lionaf lI'ifrffife Refuge ClJlllpfex 

legend 

o Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USFWS Refuge Euemenl @ USFWS Fee Refuge 

<2:) Walerfowl Production Area 0 ND Game & Fish WMA 
, 

, 

, 

U.S. Fish & Wlldille Service 

Camp Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Mclean County. Noah Dako(a 

, 0,1"-5 025 

Proo:U:.Iin tho Di~ .... ot RefUge "''"'''II W 0.. ... CoIorodo , Kio:nt18f'S ngolY Dol •. 2003 

f'rojoe1> .. , lIN Z_ H, NA(J 27 , 0.25 ,; 

,; 

Miles 

AlldllllOli Natiollal lI'il(flife Hefllge ('omplex 

R SOW R 79W 

~ 1: 

r M 

>1-

RSOW R 79W 

Legef1d 

/-r-I 

o Refuge Approved Boundary 

o USFWS Refuge Easement 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Canfield Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Burleigh Counry, NOith Datora 

I u-

!,.,...-l hI M 

71 

0 0.125 '" 0.5 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv W Dormr, Col",,,,,,, 

Kilo;mellf$ "., Dot.: 2003 

Pt .. " ,."" UT M Zono 14, N~D 27 0 02' 05 

LOllg (fk e NflfiOllfif !Vihffi(e Nefll,qe COII/pfex 

R77 W 

Legend 

Milts <:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv <22> USFWS Fee Refuge 

o USfWS Refuge Emmenl W~lerfowl Production Area 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Cohonwood Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

McHenry County, North Dakora 

!,v-l \ ~ 

r I':l. 

,7( 

0 0.125 '25 0.5 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv W Milts 

Dormr, Col",,,,,,, 

.,., Dot.: 2003 i(Jttnete", 

Pt",,,t"" 111M Zono 14, N~D 27 0 025 0.5 

.I ('{ark Sflfller Nt/lionaf lI'ifrffife Refuge ClJlllpfex 

legend 

o Reluge Appro~ed Boundary 

o USfWS Refuge Easemenl 
US FIsh & Wlldllfe ServIce 

Dakota lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Dickey County, Norrh Dakota 

o 0.25 0.5 

_001 .. tho ~ ... of RoiLV' ~ 

Dormr. Calor"" :;;:=="'" _ Kih;melt!$ b .... ' Dot •• 2003 

Ptojlct ... , lfTM Zono 14. C 27 o 0.250.5 

Klllm Na!ioflallVildlife Refuge Complex 

R60W R59W 

R60W R59W 

legend 

o Refuge Appro~ed Boundary 

6 USFWS Refuge Easement 

•. ~ 

.....---.- ND Game & j~h WM A 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Half-way Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Swrsman County. North Dakora 

" 0.. 125 0.25 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv 

Dormr. Col",,,,,,, ::;; :;::- ",", .,., Dot.: 2003 i ~omete " 

Pt .. "t"" UT M Zono 14. D 27 o 0..25 0.5 

Al'mWWOOfl N f/fill/wi lVilrlfifc Rd fllJe COII/piex 

Legend 

<:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Eaiemenl 
!,v-l 

r 

US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Hiddenwood National Wildlife Refuge 

Ward & McLean Counties. North Dakota 

~ 

':l 

,7( 

R81 W 

0 0.125 '" 0.5 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv W Milts Dormr. Col",,,,,,, Kilo;mellf$ "., Dot.: 2003 

Pt .. " ,."" 111M Zono 14. N~D 27 0 02' 05 

!III(llIhOIl Nal iOIl((IIVi/rlli fe Refuge O)/Ilplex 

legend 

o Reluge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Eaiemenl 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Hobart Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Barnes County. North Dakota 

" 0.15 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv "' W Dormr, Col",,,,,,, 

.,., Dot.: 2003 ~ome .n 

Pt.,,,t"" lITM Zono 14, D 27 " "" OS 

An'(Jwwli!)(1 N(f/;omlllViltllife Nefll,qe COlllplex 

R59 W 

"' Legend Mile$ 

0 Refuge A ppro~ed Boundarv 

0 USfWS Refuge Eaiemenl <Z2> USfWS Fee Refuge 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Hutchinson Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Kidder Counry. North Dakota 

ftkW R 74 W 

I 

u. 

!,.,...-l hI I'"l 

~J. 

• 0.125 ." .. ,Ptoduo:od ."hI [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv W Mile$ 

Dormr, Col",,,,,,, 

KiI(mIilf$ .,.,11010:2003 

Pt .. ,,, ... , UT M Zono 14, N~D 27 • '" " 

LOllg (fk e NflfiOllfif lVihffife Nefll,qe COII/pfex 

Legend 

<:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv <Z2> USfWS fee Refuge 

o USfWS Refuge Emmenl o NO Gamy & fi'ih WMA 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Johnson Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Eddy & Nelson Counties. North Dakota 

R 62 W R 61 W O&"3" ' TW 

• 0.125 0.25 ., Ptoduo:od ."hI [No.., <II RoILqI PI..-rirv W Milu Dormr. Col",,,,,,, ome n .,.,11010:2003 

Pt .. ,,, ... , tri M Zono 14. N~ D 27 • ." os 

A/'/'Owwvor/ I\'a/iorurl Wildlife flefugf! COlllp/rx 

~ Il ~ hr 1':1. 1 h'-r .. Y1 

R60WRS9W 

Legend 

<:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Eaiemenl <ZZ> USFWS Fey Refuge 
...,---

"'" US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

......... ·wr¥!~· Lake George National Wildlife Refuge 

Kidder Counry. North Dakota 

\ISi 'J1'WW R70W 

~ 11 rl 

Tr ~m..(C J, I 

)r1 1 

R70W 

• 0_15 ., ., Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI..-rirv W Dormr. Col",,,,,,, I(il<:mol.", .,., Dot.: 2003 

Pt .. ,,,.,,,, tri M Zono 14. N~D 27 • 02' •. , 

LOllg (f e NflfiOllfif lVihffife Nefll,qe COII/pfex 

~'~ -~

Legend 

Milu <:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Emmenl 0 USfWS Fee Refuge 
!,v-l 

r 

US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Lake Otis National Wildlife Refu ge 

McLean Couney. North Oakota 

\ ~ 

I':i 

,7( 

• 0.125 ." Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv 

"ro w 

•. S 

Mile$ W Dormr. Col",,,,,,, 

Kilo;mel<m "., Dot.: 2003 

Pt .. " ,."" 111M Zono 14. D 27 • '" " 

!III(llIhOIl Nal iOIl((IIVi/rlli fe Refuge O)/Ilplex 

Legend 

o Refuge Approved Boundar v Walerfowl ProduC1ion Area 

o USFWS Refuge Easement 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Lake Patricia National Wildlife Refuge 

Morton County. North Oakota 

' O,' ,,''6"W 

I u-

!,.,...-l hI I'"l 

"'i'f 

]'1 

00.0:.0.1 ., Ptoduo:od ."hI [No.., <II RoILqI PI...-irv W - Miles Dormr. Col",,,,,,, 

i(Jttnete", .,.,11010:2003 

Pt .. ,,, ... , 111M Zono 14. N~ D 27 • .25 .5 

Au(lubOIl NflfiOlwlWihllife Refuge COII/plex 

'Q",a'''.J 84 W R 83 W 

R84W R83W 

Legend 

<:) Refuge Appro ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Emmenl o ND Game & fish WM A 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Lambs Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Nelson County. North Dakora 

• 0.125 0.25 •. S 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv 

Dormr. Col",,,,,,, 

.,., Dot.: 2003 

Pt .. "t"" UT M Zono 14. D 27 

:=:- Kilo;mellf$ ",", 

o 0.25 0.5 

{)I!vils Lat.-I! Nrlfifllwl lVifrlfi(c Rdll,fJe COII/plex 

Legend 

<:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Eaiemenl 

-" NO Game & Fiih WMA 

Waterfowl Production Area 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Little Goose National Wildlife Refuge 

Grand Forks Counry, NOith Dakota 

• 0.125 0.25 •. S 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv 

Dormr. Col",,,,,,, 

.,., Dot.: 2003 

Pt .. "t"" UT M Zono 14. D 27 

:=Kilo;mellf$ :- ",", 

o 0.25 0.5 

{)I!vi ls Lat.-I! Nrlfifllwl lVifrlfi(c Rdll,fJe COII/plex 

Legend 

<:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Eaiemenl 

-" NO Game & Fiih WMA 

Waterfowl Production Area 
w US FIsh & WIldlife SO/VICO 

~ Lords IlIke National Wildlife Refuge 

Borrineau & Rolerre Counties. North Dakota 

!,v-l \ ~ 

r I':l. 

,7( 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv " " " W Dormr. Col",,,,,,, 

.,., Dot.: 2003 ome .n 

Pt",,,t"" t1T M Zono 14. D 27 " "" US 

.I ('{ark Sfllller Nt/lional lI'ilrllife Refuge ClJlllpiex 

R~~'Q ~73W 

" legend Mile , o Refuge Approved Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Emmenl \;;;.:;...;>' NO Game & fi'lh WMA 
...,---

"'" ......... ·wr¥!~· 

!,.,...-l I 

I M 

US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Lost Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

McLean Couney. North Oakota 

uh71 

0 0.125 '25 Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv W Dormr. Col",,,,,,, 

i(Jttnete", .,., Dot.: 2003 

Pt .. " t"" 111M Zono 14. D 27 0 025 0.5 

!III(llIhOIl Nal iOIl((IIVi/rlli fe Refuge O)/Ilplex 

0.5 Legend 

Milts <:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Emmenl W~lerfowl Production Area 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Maple River Natio nal Wildlife Refuge 

Dickey County. North Dakota 

~ 11 rl 

Tr ~ 

'" r'''! I 

)r 1 

R62W 

0 0.125 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv '" W Dormr, Col",,,,,,, I(jlo:mettrs .,.,Dot,' Pt .. "t."" 111M Zono 14, N~D 27 0 02' 

Kulrll Nflfiflllfll lVifrlfife Hefll,qe ('vmplex 

0.5 legend 

Mile $ o Reluge Appro~ed Boundary 

6 USFWS Refuge Easement Water/owl Produdion Area 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Pleasant Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Benson Counry. Norrh Oakora 

0 0.125 '" 0.5 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv W Dormr. Col",,,,,,, 

Kilo;mellf$ .,., Dot.: 2003 

Pt." " ... , 111M Zono 14. N~D 27 0 02' 05 

{)I!ui ls Lat.-I! Nrlfifllwl lVifrlfi(c Rd ll,fJe COII/plex 

Legend 

Mile$ <:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Eaiemenl Waterfowl Production Area 
...,---

"'" ......... ·wr¥!~· 

US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Pretty Rock Nationa l Wildlife Refuge 

Gram County, North Dakora 

0 0.125 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv '" W Dormr, Col",,,,,,, 

Kilo;mellf$ .,., Dot.: 2003 

Pt.,." ... , 111M Zono 14, D 27 0 02' 05 

Au(lubOIl NufiOlwllVihlli fe Refuge COII/plex 

0.5 Legend 

Milts <:) Refuge Approved Boundarv 

o USFWS Refuge Eaiemenl 
US FIsh & WIldlife SO/VICO 

Rabb Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Roferre County. North Oakora 

o 0.15 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv " " Dormr. Col",,,,,,, 

.,., Dot.: 2003 

Pt .. "t"" 111M Zono 14. D 27 ::

::;;;::;::-_ Mi>, l\iI(mllttfS 

o 0.125 0.25 0.5 

.I ('fark Sfl flle,. Nt/lion af lI'ifrffife Refuge ClJlllpfex 

<:> Refuge Appro~ed Boundary 

o USFWS Refuge a~menl 

o NO Forest Sel'lir:e 

o NO Game & Fish WMA 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Rock Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Towner County, North Dakota 

R61W R66W 

R67W R66W 

" 0.375 "" '.5 Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv 

Dormr, Col",,,,,,, 

"., Dot.: 2003 

Pt .. " ,."" UT M Zono 14, D 27 

::; _ ;:=::=,KiI<me::-ters ",", 

o 0.250.5 1.5 

{)I!vi ls Lat.-I! Nrlfifllwl lVi frlfi(c RdlllJe COII/plex 

W"170'W 

Legend 

<:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv Waterfowl Production Area 

o USfWS Refuge Eaiemenl 0 NO Gamy & fi'ih WMA 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Rose Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Nelson County. North Dakora 

• "' ., Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv • •• Milts W Dormr. Col",,,,,,, Kllarews .,., Dot.: 2003 

Pt.,,,t"" 111M Zono 14. D 27 • 0.25 

{)I!vils Lat.-I! Nrlfifllwl lVifrlfi(c Rdll,fJe COII/plex 

Legend 

<:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Eaiemenl Waterfowl Production Area 
US FIsh & WIldlife SO/VICO 

School Section Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Roferre County. North Oakora 

o '" " 0.' Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv 

Dormr. Col",,,,,,, ::;;;::~:::-- ",", .,., Dot.: 2003 omete " 

Pt .. "t"" 111M Zono 14. D 27 o 0.1250.25 o.S 

.I ('fark Sflflle,. Nt/lionaf lI'ifrffife Refuge ClJlllpfex 

<:> Refuge Appro~ed Boundary 

o USFWS Refuge a~ment 0 ND Game & Fish WMA 
...,---

"'" US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

......... ·wr¥!~· Sheyenne Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Sheridan County, North Dakota 

R7S W R74 W 

'(ll'".l1W 

• 0.15 ., • •• Ptoduo:od n ' hoI [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv W Mile$ 

Dormr, Col",,,,,,, ome .n .,.,11010:2003 

Pt .. " ,."" lITM Zono 14, N~D 27 • ." OS 

!III(llIhOIl Nal iOIl((IIVi/rlli fe Refuge O)/Ilplex 

R7S W R74 W 

Legend 

<:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Emmenl o ND Game & fish WMA 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Sibley Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Griggs Counry. North Dakota 

R61WR60W 

R60WRS9W 

0 0.125 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv '" W Dormr. Col",,,,,,, 

Kilo;mellf$ .,., Dot.: 2003 

Pt."" ... , 111M Zono 14. N~D 27 0 02' 05 

Armrvrvvor/ I\'a/iorurl Wildlife flefugf! ('olllp/rx 

0.5 Legend 

Mile $ <:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv Walerfowl ProduClion Area 

o USfWS Refuge Eaiemenl 0 NO Game & fiih WMA 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Silver Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Ramsey County. North Oakota 

W', .. , ;rw 

" 0.375 0.75 

W" Z$3"W 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI...-irv " Dormr. Col",,,,,,, 

.,., Dot.: 2003 

Pt .. " ,."" UT M Zono 14. N~D 27 ::;;::~::=:-_ Mi>. , Kilomelers 

o 0.25 0.5 1.5 

ev ~ /"flke Nfl/ ioml l !Vifrffi{f< Refuge COII/plex 

r---' n rli' 

II b( 

7jm " 

Legend 

<:> Refuge Appro~ed Boundary 

~ USfWS Refuge Eaiemenl 

\ 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Snyder lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Towner County. North Dakota 

........ \ISI., ... 'W 

R67 W R66 W 

• ., Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv "' W Dormr. Col",,,,,,, KiI<meters .,., Dot.: 2003 

Pt." " ... , tri M Zono 14. D 27 • 0.25 '.5 

{)I!vi ls Lat.-I! Nrlfifllwl lVifrlfi(c Rd lllJe COII/plex 

R06 W 

• •• Legend 

Mil" <:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Eaiemenl o ND Game & fish WMA 
...,---

"'" ......... ·wr¥!~· 

US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Springwater National Wildlife Refuge 

Emmons County. North Dakora 

~ 11 rl 

Tr ~ 

"i I 

1 

R75 W 

0 0.125 '25 Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv W Dormr, Col",,,,,,, 

i(Jttnete", "., Dot.: 2003 

Pt .. " t"" UT M Zono 14, D 27 0 025 0.5 

LOllg (fk e Nflfimlflf lVihffife Nefll,qe COII/pfex 

0.5 legend 

Milts <:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Emmenl o ND Game & fish WMA 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Stoney Slough Nationa l Wildlife Refuge 

Barnes County. North Dakota 

• 0.1 5 ' .3 Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI...-irv " W Mi1e$ Dormr. Col",,,,,,, 

.,., Dot.: 2003 ~ome .n 

Pt .. " t"" tri M Zono 14. N~D 27 • .>5 " 

Al'mWWOOfl N fffiflllffl lVilrlfifc Rd fl,qe COII/plex 

Legend 

<:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv Waterfowl Production Area 

o USfWS Refuge Eaiemenl ~ NO Game & fiih WMA 
...,---

"'" ......... ·wr¥!~· 

US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Sunburst Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Emmons County. North Dakora 

" 0.15 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv "' W Dormr, Col",,,,,,, 

Kilo;mellf$ "., Dot.: 2003 

Pt .. " ,."" tri M Zono 14, D 27 " '" 05 

LOllg (fk e Nflfimlflf lVihffife Nefll,qe COII/pfex 

"' legend 

Milts <:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Emmenl W~lerfowl Production Area 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Tomahawk National Wildlife Refuge 

Barnes County. North Dakota 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv 

Dormr, Col",,,,,,, 

.,., Dot.: 2003 

Pt .. "t"" UT M Zono 14, D 27 

" 

" 

0.125 0.25 0,5 

i(Jttnete", 

0.25 0.5 

An'(Jwwli!)(1 N(f/;omlllViltllife Nefll,qe COlllplex 

~ \"l 

T h-:1 .. '-

7i 

Legend 

<:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Eaiemenl 

;-

t::: IT 

<ZZ> USfWS Fee Refuge 
'OO"OU'W 

US FIsh & WIldlife SO/VICO 

Willow Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Roferre County. North Oakora 

'OO'II'O'VV ....... _ _ '.OO ~ 

" 0.375 "" ' .5 Ptoduo:od ."hI [No.., <II RoILqI PI.....nv W Dormr, Col",,,,,,, :::;;;: :--- ",", Kilometers .,.,11010:2003 

Pt .. " ,."" t1T M Zono t4, N~D 27 -

" 0,25 0.5 , 

.I ('fark Sflflle,. Nt/lionaf lI'ifrffife Refuge ClJlllpfex 

' OO'$lI'VI/ '(IN'O'VV R73 W,ltln 

legend 

o Refuge Approved Boundarv Waterfowl Production Area 

o USfWS Refuge Emmenl o NO Gam8& fi'lhWMA 
US FIsh & WIldlife SO/VICO 

Wintering River National Wildlife Refuge 

McHenry County. North Dakora 

!,v-l \ ~ 

r I':l. 

,7( 

• 0_ 125 ." .. , Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI..-rirv W Dormr. Col",,,,,,, 

.,., Dot.: 2003 K.i<mOlm 

Pt",,,t"" lITM Zono 14. D 27 • 0.25 OS 

.I ('{ark Sflfller Nt/lionaf lI'ifrffife Refuge ClJlllpfex 

R79W 

legood 

Miles o Refuge Approved Boundarv <Z> USFWS Fee Refuge 

o USFWS Refuge Emmenl <S) Walelfowl ProduC1ion Area 
US FIsh & WIldlife ServIce 

Wood Lake Nationa l Wildlife Refuge 

Benson Counry. Norrh Oakora 

o 0.12S 0.25 

R" W 

R" W 

0.5 

Ptoduo:od .. tho [No.., <II RoILqI PI.-oirv 

Dormr. Col",,,,,,, 

.,., Dot.: 2003 

Pt .. " ,."" UT M Zono 14. D 27 

:=:- Kilo;mellf$ ",", 

o 0.25 0.5 

{)I!uils Lat.-I! Nrlfifllwl lVifrlfi(c Rdll,fJe COII/plex 

Legend 

<:) Refuge Appro~ed Boundarv 

o USfWS Refuge Eaiemenl 

1lOj'4"'rw, __ _