Comprehensive Conservation Plan

North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

September 2008

Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge

Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge

Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge

Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge

Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge

Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge

McLean National Wildlife Refuge

Shell Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Stump Lake National Wildlife Refuge

White Lake National Wildlife Refuge

and

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region

Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, CO 80228

Approved by

Stephen D. Guertin Date

Regional Director, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Submitted by 

Kim Hanson Date

Project Leader

Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex

(Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge)

Pingree, ND

Lloyd Jones Date

Project Leader

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex

(Audubon, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, McLean, Stewart 

Lake, and White Lake national wildlife refuges)

Coleharbor, ND

Roger Hollevoet Date

Project Leader

Devils Lake Wetland Management District Complex

(Kellys Slough, Lake Alice, and Stump Lake national 

wildlife refuges)

Devils Lake, ND

David Gillund Date

Project Leader

Lostwood Wetland Management District Complex

(Lake Zahl and Shell Lake national wildlife refuges)

Kenmare, ND

Concurred with by

Richard A. Coleman, PhD Date

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6

National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO 

Paul Cornes Date

Refuge Supervisor

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, CO

Contents

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.3 National and Regional Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.4 Refuge Contributions to National and Regional Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.5 Ecosystem Description and Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.6 Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2 The Refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.2 Special Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.3 Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.4 Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2.5 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2.6 Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3 Refuge Resources and Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.1 Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.2 Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

3.3 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

3.4 Chase Lake Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

3.5 Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

3.6 Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

3.7 Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

3.8 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4 Management Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.1 Management Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.2 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Habitat and Wildlife Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Monitoring and Research Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Cultural Resources Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Visitor Services Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Partnerships Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Operations Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

4.3 Funding and Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

4.4 Step-down Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

4.5 Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

4.6 Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
vi Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Appendixes

Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Appendix B—Preparers and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Appendix C—Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Appendix D—Section 7 Biological Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Appendix E—Environmental Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Appendix F—Fire Management Program for National Wildlife Refuges within the Eastern 

North Dakota Fire District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Appendix G—Fire Management Program for National Wildlife Refuges within the Western 

North Dakota Fire District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Appendix H—Bird Species of the Refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Appendix I—Primary and Secondary Bird Species of the North Dakota Prairie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Appendix J—North Dakota’s Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Appendix K—Priority-setting Example for Native Prairie Portions of Fee-title Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Appendix L—Compatibility Determinations for Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses, 

Grazing, Haying, and Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
 vii

Figures

 1 Vicinity map for the 12 refuges, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

 2 Map of the bird conservation regions of North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

 3 Map of the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States and Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 4 Map of ecosystems in region 6 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

 5 Steps in the planning process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

 6 Map of Audubon National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

 7 Map of Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

 8 Map of Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

 9 Map of Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

10 Map of Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

11 Map of Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

12 Map of Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

13 Map of McLean National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

14 Map of Shell Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

15 Map of Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

16 Map of Stump Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

17 Map of White Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

18 Map of the physiographic regions in North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

19 Map of the level 4 ecoregions in North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

20 Map of the predicted duck-pair concentrations in North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

21 Map of the seven-county core area for piping plover in North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

22 Map of the whooping crane sightings in North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

23 The adaptive management process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Tables

 1 Planning Process Summary for the 12 Refuges, North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 2 Land Information for the 12 Refuges, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

 3 Ecoregions of the 12 Refuges, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

 4 Conditional Water Permits for Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

 5 Prairie Decline in North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

 6 State-listed Noxious Weeds Found at National Wildlife Refuges in North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

 7 Step-down Management Plans for Audubon National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

 8 Step-down Management Plans for Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

 9 Step-down Management Plans for Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . 91

10 Step-down Management Plans for Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

11 Step-down Management Plans for Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

12 Step-down Management Plans for Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

13 Step-down Management Plans for Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

14 Step-down Management Plans for McLean National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

15 Step-down Management Plans for Shell Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 

16 Step-down Management Plans for Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . 94

17 Step-down Management Plans for White Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Abbreviations

Administration Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

BCR bird conservation region

CCP comprehensive conservation plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

CWCS comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy

CWD chronic wasting disease

district wetland management district

DNC dense nesting cover

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

EA environmental assessment

EO executive order

F Fahrenheit

FMP fire management plan

FTE full-time equivalent

GIS Geographic Information System

gpm gallons per minute

GPS Global Positioning System

GS General Schedule (employment)

HAPET Habitat and Population Evaluation Team

HPAI highly pathogenic avian influenza

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

IPM integrated pest management

ISST invasive species strike team

msl mean sea level

NABCI North American Bird Conservation Initiative

ND North Dakota

NDGF North Dakota Game and Fish Department

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

PIF Partners in Flight program

PL public law

PPJV Prairie Pothole Joint Venture

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

region 6 Mountain–Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

RLGIS Refuge Lands Geographic Information System

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
x Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

SWG state wildlife grant

USC United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOR visual obstruction reading

WG Wage Grade schedule (employment)

WUI wildland–urban interface
Summary

Newly Hatched Mallard Ducklings

USFWS

This is a summary of the comprehensive conservation 

plan for 12 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

national wildlife refuges in North Dakota: 

Audubon Lake Ilo Shell Lake

Chase Lake Lake Nettie Stewart Lake

Kellys Slough Lake Zahl Stump Lake

Lake Alice McLean White Lake

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

develop a comprehensive conservation plan by 2012 for 

each national wildlife refuge. In September 2008, the 

Service approved the plan for the 12 national wildlife 

refuges, which will guide management of the refuges 

for the next 15 years.

The Refuges

The 12 national wildlife refuges were established under 

different authorities:

QQ Audubon National Wildlife Refuge was established 

under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act. 

QQ Under executive order, President Theodore 

Roosevelt established 2 of the 12 refuges as 

preserves and breeding grounds for native birds: 

Chase Lake and Stump Lake national wildlife 

refuges. 

QQ Under executive order, President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt established 8 of the 12 refuges as 

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other 

wildlife: Kellys Slough, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, 

Lake Zahl, McLean, Shell Lake, Stewart Lake, 

and White Lake national wildlife refuges.

QQ Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge was 

established under the authority of the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act.

To secure lands for migratory birds, the United States 

Congress established the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Fund to acquire lands for conservation, to maintain 

acquired lands for habitat preservation, and to fund 

expenses necessary for the administration, development, 

and maintenance of such areas. Associated activities 

include construction of dams, dikes, ditches, spillways, 

and flumes for improving habitat and mitigation of 

pollution threats to waterfowl and migratory birds. 

The refuges protect habitat with primarily two tools: 

fee-title ownership and conservation easements.

The prairies of North Dakota have become an 

ecological treasure of biological importance for 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. The prairie 

potholes of North Dakota support a wide diversity 

of wildlife, but they are most famous for their role 

in waterfowl production. Although the Prairie 

Pothole Region occupies only 10% of North America’s 

waterfowl breeding range, it produces approximately 

50% of the continent’s waterfowl population.

Complexes of wetlands scattered throughout the 

refuges and surrounding areas attract breeding duck 

pairs. The refuges provide northern staging areas and 

habitat for migrating waterfowl. Semipermanent and 

permanent wetlands provide brood-rearing habitat 

and migratory stopover habitat, respectively. However, 

it is the smaller temporary and seasonal wetlands that 

draw breeding duck pairs to the North Dakota prairies, 

including the refuges, and other parts of the Prairie 

Pothole Region. 

The Planning Process

The planning process, which included an environmental 

analysis, began in February 2007 with the issuance of 

a notice of intent in the Federal Register. Public and 

partner involvement were encouraged and valued 

throughout the process. The refuge staffs and the 

public identified the primary issues for the refuges, 

which the plan addresses. The Service’s planning team 

developed and evaluated management alternatives to 

meet the purposes, vision, and goals of the refuges. 

With the selection of alternative B as the preferred 

alternative, the Service finalized the comprehensive 

conservation plan in September 2008.
xii Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Issues

Information from the public scoping, which the Service 

began in 2007, along with refuge information, identified 

five major areas of concern about management of the 

refuges.

Wetland and Upland Habitats

Aggressive management of wetland and upland habitats 

must be conducted to achieve the goals and objectives 

of the refuges. Habitat protection needs to be evaluated 

through a priority system so that different means of 

protection, through either fee title or conservation 

easement, can be evaluated. Most of the refuges’ 

uplands that were previously farmed and since restored 

have the native vegetation character, but have been 

compromised by invading species such as leafy spurge, 

Canada thistle, and Kentucky bluegrass. Invasive 

plants substantially diminish the suitability of upland 

habitat for many native wildlife species.

While the Service works to minimize the negative 

effects of energy development, the demand for 

energy is an increasing factor in habitat quality and 

preservation at the refuges. The production of biofuels, 

coal, oil, gas, and wind energy has the potential to 

impact effectiveness of many refuge programs. The 

loss of native prairie is occurring at an alarming rate. 

Prairie is being converted for corn production to 

produce ethanol, which also has additional needs for 

irrigation water.

Wildlife Management

Priority species, predators, and wildlife disease require 

specific management strategies that the refuges need 

to adopt. Of importance for priority species is monitoring 

and the provision of essential habitat that promotes 

increased recruitment or population protection. Several 

predatory species including the red fox are found at 

higher than historical levels due to modifications of 

habitat. These species can adversely affect migratory 

bird populations. There is an ongoing issue of striking 

a balance between managing botulism, providing 

optimal habitats, and maintaining other refuge 

programs.

Monitoring and Research

The Service needs basic data about recruitment, 

mortality, and habitat use for representative groups 

of species. It is important to collect and analyze these 

data on a regular basis so the Service can make 

appropriate decisions about the habitats on which 

these species depend.

Visitor Services

A growing demand for public recreation in North 

Dakota and the nation makes these refuge uses 

primary issues of interest: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation.

Operations

The efficient use of staff, partnerships, volunteers, 

and funding—through effective communication and 

innovation—is needed to support each of the refuges. 

Facilities at the refuges need to be evaluated and 

upgraded.

The Future of the Refuges

The issues, along with resource conditions, were 

important considerations during the development of 

the vision and goals for the 12 refuges.

VIsIon

This collection of unique and diverse refuges 

encompasses a broad range of North Dakota 

habitat types and landscapes. 

These refuges provide vital resting and breeding 

habitat for waterfowl, other migratory birds, 

and resident fish and wildlife species. 

Visitors to these prairie refuges experience 

wide-open spaces, skies filled with migratory 

birds, places to learn, and welcome solitude. 

The responsible management of these 

special places requires adequate funding, 

dedicated personnel, and 

successful partnerships. 

Achievement of this vision ensures 

that the American people retain a legacy 

of wildlife and prairie habitats 

for future generations.

Goals

The Service developed the following goals to meet 

the vision for the refuges.

Habitat and Wildlife Goal

Conserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity 

of grasslands and wetlands of the North Dakota 

prairie to support healthy populations of ducks and 

geese, other migratory birds, native species, and 

other wildlife.

Monitoring and Research Goal

Use science, monitoring, and applied research to 

advance the understanding of natural resources 

and management within the North Dakota national 

wildlife refuges.
Summary xiii

Cultural Resources Goal

Identify and evaluate cultural resources that are 

on Service-owned lands or are affected by Service 

undertakings. Protect resources determined to be 

significant and, when appropriate, interpret resources 

to connect staff, visitors, and communities to the 

area’s past.

Visitor Services Goal

Provide visitors with opportunities to enjoy wildlifedependent recreation where compatible and expand 

their knowledge and appreciation of the prairie 

landscape and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Partnerships Goal

A diverse network of partners join with the North 

Dakota national wildlife refuges to support research, 

accomplish habitat conservation, and foster awareness 

and appreciation of the prairie landscape.

Operations Goal

Efficiently employ staff, partnerships, and volunteers 

and secure funding in support of the Refuge System’s 

mission. ManaGeMent DIrectIon

Management objectives for habitat types are based 

on the habitat preferences of groups of target species 

such as waterfowl, migratory shorebirds, grassland 

birds, and priority species. 

The Service will focus on management of high- and 

medium-priority habitats, and will identify and 

restore other degraded habitat tracts to native species. 

Invasive species management will be limited to 

legally listed species and those of ecological concern 

that occur on high- and medium-priority tracts. 

The refuges’ staffs and partners will expand biological 

surveys on high- and medium-priority tracts.

The Service will document and protect cultural 

resources, and will maintain and preserve historical 

sites. In addition, the Service will conduct educational 

programs and partner research and inventories on a 

limited basis.

Refuge staffs will improve and expand programs for 

youth and conservation groups, and will develop 

“friends groups.” The Service will start or expand 

environmental education programs for Kellys Slough 

and Lake Alice national wildlife refuges. A new 

environmental learning center is planned for Audubon 

National Wildlife Refuge.

Refuge staffs will expand existing partnerships to 

address improvement of habitat for migratory birds, 

and will work with local, state, and federal agencies 

to promote and protect migratory bird habitat within 

the refuges. Great Blue Heron

© Cindie Brunner

1 Introduction

The mallard is one of the featured waterfowl species at the North Dakota refuges.

© Mike Artmann

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

this comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) to provide 

the foundation for the management and use of 12 

national wildlife refuges in North Dakota (see figure 1, 

vicinity map):

QQ Audubon National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge

QQ McLean National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Shell Lake National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Stump Lake National Wildlife Refuge

QQ White Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Based on the results of an environmental analysis and 

public involvement, the Service’s director of region 6 

made the decision, on September 30, 2008, to implement 

this CCP to guide the 12 refuges for the next 15 years. 

Chapter 4, Management Direction, specifies the actions 

necessary to achieve the purposes and vision for the 

12 national wildlife refuges. Wildlife is the first priority 

in refuge management, and the Service allows and 

encourages wildlife-dependent recreational use as 

long as it is compatible with the refuges’ purposes. 

The Service developed the CCP 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 in 

this CCP meet the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Compliance 

with NEPA included the involvement of the public. 

The planning process and public involvement are 

further described in this chapter, under 1.6, The 

Planning Process.

1.1 Purpose and Need for the 

Plan

The purpose of this CCP is to identify the role that the 

refuges play in support of the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) and to provide 

long-term guidance for management of the refuges’ 

programs and activities. 
2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Figure 1. Vicinity map for the 12 refuges, North Dakota.
Chapter 1—Introduction 3

The CCP is needed

to communicate with the public and other 

partners in efforts to carry out the mission of 

the Refuge System;

to provide a clear statement of direction for 

management of the refuges;

to provide neighbors, visitors, and government 

officials with an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions on and around the refuges;

to ensure that the Service’s management 

actions are consistent with the mandates of the 

Improvement Act;

to ensure that management of the refuges is 

consistent with federal, state, and county plans;

to provide a basis for development of budget 

requests for the refuges’ operation, maintenance, 

and capital improvement needs.

Sustaining the nation’s fish and wildlife resources 

is a task that can be accomplished only through the 

combined efforts of governments, businesses, and 

private citizens.

1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Refuge System

The Service is the principal federal agency responsible 

for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Refuge 

System is one of the Service’s major programs.

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 century 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 America’s 

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. In addition, the Service 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.

S

Service activities in North Dakota contribute to the 

state’s economy, ecosystems, and education programs. 

The following list describes the Service’s presence 

and activities:

QQ Employs 170 people in North Dakota.

QQ Helped by 539 volunteers who donated more 

than 10,200 hours with Service projects.

QQ Manages two national fish hatcheries and one 

fish and wildlife management assistance office.

QQ Manages 65 national wildlife refuges encompassing 

343,145 acres (0.8% of the state).

QQ Manages 11 wetland management districts.

— 284,660 acres of fee waterfowl production areas 

(0.6% of the state)

— 1,080,636 wetland acres under various leases 

or easements (2.4% of the state)

QQ Hosts more than 385,300 annual visitors to 

Service-managed lands.

— 166,908 hunting visits

— 59,500 fishing visits

— 26,346 photography visits

QQ Provided $3.8 million to the NDGF for sport fish 

restoration and $3.9 million for wildlife restoration 

and hunter education.

QQ Helped private landowners restore, create, and 

enhance more than 214,000 acres on 8,400 sites 

and restore 17 miles of river since 1987 through 

the Partners for Wildlife Program.

QQ Employs 11 Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program biologists.

QQ Paid North Dakota counties $435,325 under the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (funds used for 

schools and roads).

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 wildlife. This 

small but significant designation was the beginning of 

the Refuge System.

One hundred years later, the Refuge System has 

become the largest collection of lands in the world 

specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more 

than 96 million acres within 546 refuges and more than 

3,000 small areas for waterfowl breeding and nesting. 

Today, there is at least one refuge in every state 

including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

In 1997, the Improvement Act established a clear 

mission for the Refuge System.
4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

The mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge 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.

The Improvement Act states that each national wildlife 

refuge shall be managed

to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;

to fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;

to consider the needs of fish and wildlife first;

to fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP for 

each unit of the Refuge System and fully involve 

the public in the preparation of these plans;

to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the Refuge System;

to recognize that wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation are legitimate and priority public 

uses;

to retain the authority of refuge managers to 

determine compatible public uses.

In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, the 

wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the Refuge 

System stresses the following principles:

QQ Wildlife comes first.

QQ Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are 

vital concepts in refuge management.

QQ Habitats must be healthy.

QQ Growth of refuges must be strategic.

QQ The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others.

Following passage of the Improvement Act, the 

Service immediately began to carry out the direction 

of the new legislation, including preparation of CCPs 

for all national wildlife refuges. Consistent with the 

Improvement Act, the Service prepares CCPs in 

conjunction with public involvement. Each refuge 

is required to complete its CCP within the 15-year 

schedule (by 2012).

People and the Refuge System

The nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to 

the quality of American lives and is an integral part 

of the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places 

have always given people special opportunities to 

have fun, relax, and appreciate the natural world.

Whether through bird watching, fishing, hunting, 

photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife 

recreation contributes millions of dollars to local 

economies. In 2002, approximately 35.5 million 

people visited the Refuge System, 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 

generated in the local communities that surround 

refuges. Economists report that Refuge System 

visitors contribute more than $792 million annually 

to local economies.

1.3 National and Regional 

Mandates

Refuge System units are managed to achieve the 

mission and goals of the Refuge System, along with 

the designated purpose of the refuges (as described 

in establishing legislation, executive orders, or other 

establishing documents). Key concepts and guidance 

of the Refuge System are in the Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act), 

Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs), 

The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, and the 

Improvement Act.

The Improvement Act amends the Administration 

Act by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System, a new process for determining compatible 

public uses at refuges, and a requirement that each 

refuge be managed under a CCP. The Improvement 

Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority 

for Refuge System lands and that the Secretary of 

the Interior will ensure that the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands 

are maintained. Each refuge must be managed 

to fulfill the Refuge 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 detailed description of these and other laws and 

executive orders that may affect the CCP or the 

Service’s implementation of the CCP is in Appendix A, 

Key Legislation and Policy. Service policies on planning 

and day-to-day management of refuges are in the 

Refuge System Manual and The Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual.

1.4 Refuge Contributions to 

National and Regional Plans

The North Dakota refuges contribute to the 

conservation efforts described in this section.
Chapter 1—Introduction 5

FulFIllInG the ProMIse

A 1999 report, Fulfilling the Promise—The National 

Wildlife Refuge System (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service [USFWS] 1999a), is the culmination of a 

yearlong process by teams of Service employees to 

evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. This report 

was the focus of the first national Refuge System 

conference (in 1998)—attended by refuge managers, 

other Service employees, and representatives from 

leading conservation organizations.

The report contains 42 recommendations packaged 

with three vision statements dealing with wildlife 

and habitat, people, and leadership. This CCP deals 

with all three of these major topics. The planning 

team looked to the recommendations in the document 

for guidance during CCP planning.

Partners In FlIGht

The Partners in Flight program (PIF) began in 1990 

with the recognition of declining population levels of 

many migratory bird species. The challenge, according 

to the program, is managing human population growth 

while maintaining functional natural ecosystems. To 

meet this challenge, PIF worked to identify priority, 

land bird species and habitat types. PIF activity has 

resulted in 52 bird conservation plans covering the 

continental United States.

The primary goal of PIF is to provide for the longterm health of the bird life of this continent. The first 

priority is to prevent the rarest species from going 

extinct. The second priority is to prevent uncommon 

species from descending into threatened status. The 

third priority is to “keep common birds common.”

PIF splits North America into seven avifaunal 

biomes (birds of an ecological regional area) and 

37 bird conservation regions (BCRs) for planning 

purposes (see figure 2, map of BCRs). The 12 national 

wildlife refuges are within the prairie avifaunal 

biome in BCRs 11 and 17.

BCR 11 is the most important waterfowl production 

area on the North American continent, despite 

extensive wetland drainage and tillage of native 

grasslands. The density of breeding dabbling ducks 

commonly exceeds 100 pairs per square mile in some 

areas during years with favorable wetland conditions. 

The area comprises the core of the breeding range of 

most dabbling duck and several diving duck species. 

BCR 11 provides critical breeding and migration 

habitat for more than 200 other bird species, including 

such species of concern as Franklin’s gull and yellow 

rail and a threatened species, the piping plover. In 

addition, Baird’s sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, chestnutcollared longspur, Wilson’s phalarope, marbled godwit, 

and American avocet are among the many priority 

nonwaterfowl species that breed in BCR 11. According 

to the NABCI, wetland areas also provide key spring 

migration sites for Hudsonian godwit, American 

golden-plover, white-rumped sandpiper, and buffbreasted sandpiper (NABCI 2007).

Baird’s sparrow is a priority species that breeds in BCR 11.

© Bob Gress

BCR 17 is dominated by mixed-grass prairie that lies 

west and south of the glaciated Prairie Pothole Region 

(see figure 3, map of the Prairie Pothole Region), east 

of the Rocky Mountains, and north of the true shortgrass prairie. Mostly due to the continued dominance 

of ranching, many contiguous grassland tracts of 

significant size persist. As a result, this area is habitat 

for some of the healthiest populations of high-priority, 

dry-grassland birds on the continent including 

mountain plover, McCown’s longspur, and long-billed 

curlew. The relatively small number of wetlands—

including small impoundments created to serve as 

livestock water sources—receives intensive use by 

upland-nesting waterfowl and broods (NABCI 2007).

PIF conservation priorities in the prairie avifaunal 

biome focus on protection of remaining prairies, 

management of existing grasslands with fire and 

grazing, and control of invasive plants including 

woody plant encroachment.

N

Written in 1986, the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan envisioned a 15-year effort to 

achieve landscape conditions that could sustain 

waterfowl populations. Specific objectives of the plan 

are to increase and restore duck populations to the 

average levels of the 1970s—62 million breeding ducks 

and a fall flight of 100 million birds.
6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Figure 2. Map of the bird conservation regions of North America.

By 1985, waterfowl populations had plummeted to 

record lows. Habitat that waterfowl depend on was 

disappearing at a rate of 60 acres per hour. Recognizing 

the importance of waterfowl and wetlands to North 

Americans and the need for international cooperation 

to help in the recovery of a shared resource, the United 

States and Canada governments developed a strategy 

to restore waterfowl populations through habitat 

protection, restoration, and enhancement. Mexico 

became a signatory to the plan in 1994.

The plan is innovative because of its international 

scope, plus its implementation at the regional level. 

Its success depends on the strength of partnerships 

called joint ventures, which involve federal, state, 

provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; 

conservation organizations; and individual citizens.

Joint ventures are regional, self-directed partnerships 

that carry out science-based conservation through 

community participation. Joint ventures develop 

implementation plans that focus on areas of concern 

identified in the plan.

The 9 of the 12 refuges lie within the Prairie Pothole 

Joint Venture (PPJV), which covers the Prairie 

Pothole Region of Montana, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa:

QQ Audubon National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge

QQ McLean National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Shell Lake National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Stump Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Established in 1987, the PPJV is one of the original 

six priority joint ventures under the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan. The joint venture 

protects, restores, and enhances high-priority wetland 

and grassland habitat to help sustain populations of 
Chapter 1—Introduction 7

Figure 3. Map of the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States and Canada.
8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and prairie land 

birds. The PPJV includes one-third (100,000 square 

miles) of North America’s Prairie Pothole Region. 

The remaining 200,000 acres is located in the Canadian 

provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. 

This unique area contains millions of depressional 

wetlands (potholes) that constitute one of the richest 

wetland systems in the world. These glacially formed 

prairie potholes and their surrounding grasslands are 

highly productive and support an incredible diversity 

of bird life.

PPJV IMPleMentatIon Plan

The Prairie Pothole Region remains the most important 

waterfowl-producing region on the continent, generating 

more than half of North America’s ducks. Nearly 15% 

of the continental waterfowl population comes from 

the PPJV region (Montana, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa). As many as 10 million 

ducks and 2 million geese use the PPJV region during 

migration or for nesting. The wetlands and associated 

grassland habitat in the PPJV region provide breeding 

habitat to more than 200 species of migratory birds. 

Bald eagles, peregrine falcons, whooping cranes, piping 

plovers, and interior least terns frequent the PPJV 

region during migration and breeding periods.

The PPJV implementation plan was prepared in 2005 

and outlined a mission, goals, objectives, and strategies 

for joint venture activities. Individual state action 

groups and steering committees prepared state action 

plans that “stepped down” joint venture activities to 

the state and local level.

The goal of the PPJV is to increase waterfowl 

populations through habitat conservation projects that 

improve natural diversity across the prairie pothole 

landscape of the United States. The joint venture 

attempts to carry out landscape-level habitat projects 

so that waterfowl populations increase during the 

wet years and stabilize under moderate conditions. 

Since little can be done to stabilize the breeding 

populations across the Prairie Pothole Region during 

extended drought, joint venture strategies are designed 

to carry out actions that take advantage of years when 

precipitation is at least normal.

N

The Northern Great Plains Joint Venture (NGPJV) 

project area lies between the Missouri River on the 

east and north, the foothills of the Rocky Mountains 

on the west, and the sand hills and playa lakes of 

Wyoming and Nebraska on the south. Three of the 

12 refuges are in the NGPJV:

QQ Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge

QQ Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge

QQ White Lake National Wildlife Refuge

The primary purpose of the NGPJV is to contribute 

to the attainment of continental population goals 

(developed under the NABCI) by strategically 

conserving habitat within the northern Great Plains 

ecosystem. The NGPJV partnership embraces the 

goals of NABCI “to deliver the full spectrum of bird 

conservation through regionally based, biologically 

driven, landscape-oriented partnerships.” The goal of 

the NGPJV is to maintain and increase populations 

of the high-priority bird species in the grassland, 

wetland, riparian, and forest habitats within the NGPJV.

The uniqueness of the northern Great Plains is its arid 

climate and relatively intact, grassland-dominated 

landscape. Within this landscape are habitats that 

have significant value to species of the northern 

Great Plains; these habitats include big sagebrush 

areas in Wyoming and Montana, short-grass prairie 

of the Conata Basin in South Dakota, and riparian 

corridors in the badlands of North Dakota and South 

Dakota. It is this variety of habitat types within the 

larger grassland context that supports such a diversity 

of birds—from raptors such as the ferruginous hawk 

and golden eagle, to waterfowl and shorebirds like 

the northern pintail and piping plover, and declining 

grassland birds such as Baird’s sparrow and McCown’s 

longspur.

The NGPJV implementation plan (Pool and Austin 

2006) has a mission to seek new opportunities and 

foster new partnerships while strengthening existing 

alliances for the protection, enhancement, and 

restoration of prairie, wetland, riparian, and forest 

ecosystems. These conservation actions will place an 

emphasis on sustaining and increasing populations of 

migratory birds and resident birds, consistent with 

bird conservation objectives in regional, national, and 

international plans.

R

Where federally listed threatened or endangered 

species occur at the 12 refuges, the Service will follow 

management goals and strategies in the species’ 

recovery plans. The list of threatened or endangered 

species that occur at the refuges will change as species 

are listed or delisted, or as listed species are discovered 

on refuge lands.

The refuges are following the recovery plans for the 

following species:

QQ piping plover (threatened) in the northern 

Great Plains (USFWS 1994a)

QQ whooping crane (endangered) (USFWS 1994b)

QQ interior least tern (endangered) (USFWS 1990)

QQ western prairie fringed orchid (threatened) 

(USFWS 1996)
Chapter 1—Introduction 9

Marbled Godwit

S

Over the past several decades, documented declines 

of wildlife populations have occurred nationwide. 

Congress created the state wildlife grant (SWG) 

program in 2001. This program provides states and 

territories with federal dollars to support conservation 

aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered 

and in need of protection under the Endangered Species 

Act. The SWG program represents an ambitious 

endeavor to take an active hand in keeping species 

from becoming threatened or endangered in the future.

According to the SWG program, each state, territory, 

and the District of Columbia must complete a 

comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy 

(CWCS) by October 1, 2005, to receive future funding.

These strategies will help define an integrated 

approach to the stewardship of all wildlife species, 

with additional emphasis on species of concern and 

habitats at risk. The goal is to shift focus from singlespecies management and highly specialized individual 

efforts to a geographically based, landscape-oriented, 

fish and wildlife conservation effort. The Service 

approves these plans and administers SWG program 

funding.

North Dakota’s CWCS is a strategic vision with the 

goal of preserving the state’s wildlife diversity. It is 

intended to identify species of greatest conservation 

need, provide fundamental background information, 

strategic guidance, and a framework for developing 

and coordinating conservation actions to safeguard 

all fish and wildlife resources.

The state of North Dakota has taken a landscape 

approach to conservation planning, which has numerous 

advantages. It allows the state to link species requiring 

conservation to a key landscape and habitat, often 

within a specific geographic area. This approach also 

provides a comprehensive listing of all other fish and 

wildlife using the landscape, while providing relative 

plant and soil conditions applicable to the landscape. 

A landscape approach helps to identify corresponding 

conservation actions needed across the landscape, 

along with the potential partners who are or could 

be addressing them. Three tools are used to identify 

landscape components: land cover information, 

ecoregions, and statistical models. Ecoregions were 

defined based on general similarity of geology, 

physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, 

wildlife, and hydrology. The CWCS recognizes four 

ecoregions commonly referred to as the Red River 

Valley, Drift Prairie, Missouri Coteau, and Missouri 

Slope.

The CWCS identified conservation problems 

encountered in North Dakota that apply to all four 

of the ecoregions. Direct loss of habitat is a key issue 

because very little, native, tall-grass prairie remains 

in the state. The conservation action will be to protect 

native tall-grass prairie where possible.

Habitat fragmentation is occurring throughout the 

state due to construction of roads, shelterbelts, and 

agricultural practices. Actions will include the removal 

of dilapidated shelterbelts or stands of trees within 

grasslands. Habitat degradation occurring from 

improper grazing practices and loss of the historical 

fire regime can be fixed by carrying out grazing 

systems to benefit tall-grass species and promoting 

the use of fire. Other actions include extending the 

time between haying and grazing, promoting mid-term 

required management, and providing incentives to 

defer or idle cutting of tame grass (cultivated, nonnative 

grass such as smooth brome). Invasive plants, including 

noxious weeds such as leafy spurge, will be controlled 

through biological and chemical methods.

The CWCS for the state of North Dakota was reviewed 

and information was used during development of the 

CCP. Carrying out CCP habitat goals and objectives 

will support the goals and objectives of the CWCS.

1.5 Ecosystem Description and 

Threats

The Service has adopted watersheds as the basic 

building blocks for carrying out ecosystem conservation. 

The refuges span two Service-designated ecosystems 

—the Missouri River main stem ecosystem and the 

Hudson Bay ecosystem—with the majority falling 

within the former (see figure 4, map of ecosystems).

Major threats identified for these ecosystems include 

native prairie conversion to cropland, expansion 

of invasive plant species, and wetland drainage 

and degradation. The refuges play a major role in 

(1) continued leadership and support of regional 

initiatives such as the PPJV, and (2) continued support 

of our conservation partners including the NDGF 

and private organizations such as Ducks Unlimited. 
10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Figure 4. Map of ecosystems in region 6 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Chapter 1—Introduction 11

In addition, the Service is continually working with 

private landowners through the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program to restore and improve grassland 

and wetland habitats on private lands.

1.6 Planning Process

This CCP for the refuges is intended to comply with 

the Improvement Act, NEPA, and the implementing 

regulations of these acts. 

The Service issued its Refuge System planning policy 

in 2000. This policy established requirements and 

guidance for refuge plans—including CCPs and stepdown management plans—to ensure that planning 

efforts comply with the Improvement Act. The 

planning policy identified several steps of the CCP 

and environmental analysis process (see figure 5, 

steps in the planning process). Table 1 summarizes 

accomplishment of the main planning steps for this 

CCP effort.

The Service began “preplanning” in August 2006. The 

planning team was Service personnel from the affected 

North Dakota refuges; the regional divisions of refuge 

planning, realty, and education and visitor services; 

and the NDGF (see Appendix B, Preparers and 

Contributors). During preplanning, the team developed 

a mailing list, internal issues, and a special qualities 

list. The planning team identified the current status 

of refuge programs, compiled and analyzed relevant 

data, and determined the purposes of the refuges.

A notice of intent to prepare the CCP was published 

in the Federal Register on February 28, 2007. Public 

scoping began in April 2007, after a planning update 

and comment form was mailed to interested parties 

in March 2007. 

The Service complied with NEPA through public 

involvement and environmental analysis (see 

Appendix C, Public Involvement).

S

The notice of intent started scoping for the CCP. 

Scoping is the process of obtaining information from 

the public for input into the planning process. Table 1 

summarizes all scoping activities. 

The Service received 25 written comments 

throughout the scoping process. The planning team 

used the comments collected from scoping meetings 

and correspondence in the development of a final list 

of issues addressed in this CCP (see chapter 2, 2.6, 

Planning Issues). In addition, over the course of 

preplanning and scoping, the planning team collected 

available information about the resources of the refuges 

and surrounding areas. Chapter 3, Refuge Resources 

and Descriptions, summarizes this information.

Comprehensive 

Conservation Planning Process

and 

Compliance with the 

National Environmental 

Policy Act

3. Draft Vision Statement

 and Goals 

 Determine Substantive

 Issues

4. Develop and Analyze 

Alternatives

Create a reasonable range 

of alternatives including 

a “no-action” alternative.

1. Preplanning

 Plan the plan. 2. Initiate Public 

 Involvement 

 and Scoping

Involve the public.

8. Review and Revise

 Plan

Public involvement when

applicable.

7. Implement Plan

 Monitor and Evaluate

Public involvement when

applicable.

6. Prepare and Adopt

 Final Plan

Respond to public comments.

Select preferred alternative.

5. Prepare Draft Plan and 

 National Environmental 

 Policy Act Document

Public comment and 

review.

➠

➠

➠

➠

➠

➠

➠

➠

Figure 5. Steps in the planning process.
12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Table 1. Planning Process Summary for the 12 Refuges, North Dakota.

Date Event Outcome

May 2006 Initial Service meeting. The project leaders for the North Dakota 

refuges and other Service staff completed an 

overview of the CCP process.

August 2006 Service field review. The Service finalized the planning team. The 

planning team reviewed biological and visitor 

services issues.

December 2006 Service kick-off meeting. The planning team identified the refuge 

purposes; developed a list of initial issues and 

qualities; started the mailing list; identified 

biological and mapping needs; and planned public 

scoping activities.

February 2007 Publication in the Federal 

Register of the notice of intent 

to prepare a CCP.

The Service officially notified the public about 

the CCP to be developed for the refuges.

March 2007 Initial public contact: mailing 

of planning updates, comment 

forms, and postage-paid return 

envelopes.

The planning team offered the public an 

opportunity to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments.

March–April 2007 Six public meetings. The planning team offered the public an 

opportunity to learn about the CCP and provide 

comments.

March–April 2007 Development of alternatives. The planning team developed alternatives for 

management of the refuges.

February–May 2007 Development of biological 

objectives.

The planning team developed objectives 

and strategies for the biological aspects of 

management at the refuges.

June–July 2007 Development of visitor services 

objectives.

The planning team developed objectives and 

strategies for visitor services at the refuges.

May 2008 Service review of the draft CCP 

and EA.

The Service’s regional staff reviewed the draft 

CCP and EA and provided comments to the 

planning team.

August 2008 Draft CCP and EA release to 

the public.

The Service published and distributed the draft 

CCP and EA. The public had 30 days to review 

and comment on the document.

September 2008 Nine public meetings. Refuge staffs presented the draft CCP and EA 

and collected public comments.

September 2008 Final plan approval. The planning team addressed the public 

comments and finalized the CCP. The regional 

director determined a “finding of no significant 

impact” and approved the final plan.

PublIc coorDInatIon

A mailing list of more than 1,025 names includes 

private citizens; local, regional, and state government 

representatives and legislators; other federal agencies; 

and interested organizations (see Appendix C, Public 

Involvement).

In April 2007, the Service sent the first planning 

update issue to everyone on the mailing list. The 

planning update provided information about the 

history of the refuges and the CCP process, along 

with an invitation to public scoping meetings. A 

comment form and postage-paid envelope to gave the 

public an opportunity to easily provide comments. 
Chapter 1—Introduction 13

In addition, the local media announced the public 

meetings.

The Service held six public scoping meetings during 

March–April 2007 (see table 1 for details). Each attendee 

received a comment form to submit questions or 

comments in writing.

S

On September 12, 2006, an invitation letter to 

participate in the CCP process was sent by the 

Service’s director of region 6 to the director of the 

NDGF. Two representatives from the NDGF were 

part of the CCP planning team. Local NDGF wildlife 

managers and the refuge staffs maintain excellent 

and ongoing working relations, which preceded the 

start of the CCP process.

The NDGF’s mission is to “protect, conserve, and 

enhance fish and wildlife populations and their habitats 

for sustained public consumptive and nonconsumptive 

uses.” 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. The state manages more 

than 78,000 acres in support of wildlife, recreation, 

and fisheries.

T

On October 19, 2006, the Service’s director of region 6

sent a letter to six Native American tribal governments 

in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota:

QQ Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate

QQ Spirit Lake Tribal Council

QQ Standing Rock Sioux

QQ Three Affiliated Tribes

QQ White Earth Band of Chippewa

QQ Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa

With information about the upcoming CCP, the letter 

invited tribal recipients to serve on the planning team. 

None of the tribes expressed interest in participating 

in the process.

DraFt Plan

The Service considered all input during development 

of the draft CCP and environmental assessment (EA). 

This included changes to the refuges’ current 

management that were suggested by the public and 

other groups. The planning process ensured that 

issues with the greatest effects on the refuges were 

resolved or given priority.

After scoping and detailed analysis, the planning 

team developed three management alternatives that 

best addressed the issues. The Service identified 

alternative B as the proposed action.

On August 28, 2008, the Service published a notice 

of availability in the Federal Register to announce 

that the draft CCP and EA document was available 

for a 30-day public review. A summary of written 

comments gathered during the review period, along 

with the Service’s responses, is in Appendix C, Public 

Involvement.

FInal Plan

After an analysis of the public comments, the 

Service’s director of region 6 selected alternative B 

as the preferred alternative. Subsequently, the 

planning team produced this final CCP, based on 

the draft CCP with minor changes. The biological 

evaluation for the final CCP determined that there 

would likely be no adverse effect on threatened or 

endangered species or critical habitats as a result of 

the actions of the CCP (see Appendix D, Section 7 

Biological Evaluation).

The regional director approved the final CCP in 

September 2008 after a “finding of no significant 

impact” (see Appendix E, Environmental Compliance).

Chapter 4, Management Direction, outlines the longterm guidance for management decisions, sets forth 

objectives and strategies to address the purposes for 

the refuges and meet goals, and identifies the Service’s 

best estimate of future needs. The CCP details program 

levels that are sometimes substantially above current 

budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for 

strategic planning purposes.

2 The Refuges

The North Dakota refuges provide environmental education opportunities for school children.

© Craig Bihrle

This chapter describes the establishment, special values, 

purposes, vision, goals, and planning issues for the 12 

North Dakota refuges.

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and 

Management History

The 12 national wildlife refuges are located throughout 

the state of North Dakota. All 12 refuges are managed 

toward a common primary purpose to provide habitat 

and breeding ground for migrating waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and other wildlife. The refuges were 

established under several different authorities:

QQ Audubon National Wildlife Refuge was 

established under the authority of the Fish 

and Wildlife Coordination Act. 

QQ Under executive order, President Theodore 

Roosevelt established 2 of the 12 refuges as 

preserves and breeding grounds for native 

birds: Chase Lake and Stump Lake national 

wildlife refuges. 

QQ Under executive order, President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt established 8 of the 12 refuges as 

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other 

wildlife: Kellys Slough, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, 

Lake Zahl, McLean, Shell Lake, Stewart Lake, 

and White Lake national wildlife refuges.

QQ Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge was 

established under the authority of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

A brief description of each refuge follows. Maps for 

each refuge (figures 6–17) are after the description of 

White Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

auDubon natIonal WIlDlIFe reFuGe

Established as Snake Creek National Wildlife Refuge 

in 1955 under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 

the refuge provides habitat for a wide variety of wildlife. 

Developed to compensate for habitat lost when 

Garrison Dam flooded Missouri River bottomlands, 

the refuge was renamed in 1967 in honor of John James 

Audubon. A 19th century naturalist and wildlife artist, 

Audubon spent the summer of 1843 in what is now 

northwestern North Dakota collecting and painting 

wildlife of the northern plains. 
16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

The Service manages the Audubon National Wildlife 

Refuge (figure 6); the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

owns the land. The refuge is in McLean County in 

west-central North Dakota; its headquarters are in 

Coleharbor, North Dakota, from where it is administered 

as part of the Audubon National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex.

Much of the 14,739-acre refuge is comprised of Lake 

Audubon (10,421 acres). The refuge is an important 

feeding and resting area for waterfowl migrating in 

the Central Flyway. More than 3,000 acres of grassland 

are habitat for upland wildlife of all sizes including 

Baird’s and Le Conte’s sparrows, sharp-tailed grouse,

fox, coyote, and white-tailed deer. The refuge also has

cropland and several large-tree plantings. The 370 

acres of wetland provide habitat for shorebirds, gulls,

terns, rails, and cranes. Almost 100 islands dot Lake 

Audubon—enough for 450 acres of giant Canada goose 

and duck-nesting habitat. 

Visitor activities include a 7.5-mile interpretive 

auto tour route for exploring (1) the area’s history, 

(2) agriculture’s role in benefiting wildlife, (3) wetlands 

and native prairie, and (4) the refuge’s contribution 

in restoration of the giant Canada goose—a bird once 

on the verge of extinction on North Dakota’s prairies. 

A 1-mile interpretive hiking trail offers a first-hand 

look at prairie and wetlands. The Service allows 

fishing during winter and hunters have opportunities 

for upland birds and deer during special seasons.

chase lake natIonal WIlDlIFe reFuGe

Large numbers of American white pelicans nested at 

Chase Lake in 1863 when General Sibley was active 

in the area. In 1872, the Northern Pacific Railroad 

reached Jamestown, North Dakota, and brought a 

flood of settlers to the area. Market hunting and 

indiscriminate killing had drastic effects on wildlife 

populations before the establishment of laws protecting 

wildlife. In 1905, local resident H.H. McCumber 

reported about 500 pelicans were left on the lake. By 

the time the government investigated the area, only 

50 pelicans remained. On August 28, 1908, President 

Theodore Roosevelt established Chase Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge as a “reserve and breeding area for 

native birds,” making it one of the oldest refuges in 

the country. 

Found in south-central North Dakota, the 4,440-acre 

refuge is in Stutsman County and has its headquarters 

in Woodworth, North Dakota (see figure 7). The refuge 

is part of the Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex.

The refuge and surrounding area provide breeding 

and resting habitat for more than 293 bird species, 

including the largest breeding colony of American 

white pelicans in North America. The American Bird 

Conservancy has designated Chase Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge as one of America’s top 100 globally 

important bird areas. The refuge includes Chase 

Lake, along with native prairie, dense nesting cover, 

and an amazing density of wetlands. Most of this land 

has not been altered since Euro-American settlement 

times. Thus, Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

was also designated as Chase Lake Wilderness in 1975. 

This is one of only two refuges in North Dakota with 

designated wildernesses. 

The refuge offers opportunities for hunting and wildlife 

observation.

Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge and the surrounding 

area support North America’s largest breeding colony of 

the American white pelican.

© Michael Mauro

K

In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established 

Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge 

and breeding ground for migratory birds and other 

wildlife.” The refuge was established to develop and 

manage a system of wetlands and grasslands that is 

unique to the Red River Valley of North Dakota. 

The 1,270-acre refuge (figure 8) is in Grand Forks 

County in northeastern North Dakota; its headquarters 

are in Devils Lake, North Dakota, from where it is 

administered as part of the Devils Lake Wetland 

Management District Complex.

The refuge contains an intermittent stream that flows 

into the Turtle River, a tributary of the Red River. 

Since the 1960s, the Service has been purchasing 

lands around the original refuge with federal Duck 

Stamp money and developing these into waterfowl 

production areas. In 1991, the Service, with the help 

of Ducks Unlimited, began constructing several dikes 

and water control structures with funding from two 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan grants. 
Chapter 2—The Refuges 17

Recent and future land purchases are aimed at 

acquiring land needed to develop more managed pools 

for waterfowl on the refuge. 

Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge supports a 

diversity of wetland and grassland wildlife, while 

providing for wildlife-dependent recreation including 

environmental education and interpretation. The 

Service does not allow hunting or fishing at the refuge.

Although waterfowl production areas are open to public 

hunting and other wildlife-dependent recreational 

use by regulation, several of these areas within and 

surrounding the original refuge were formally closed 

to the public through administrative procedures and 

published in 50 CFR 32.53 (see figure 8). Several other 

waterfowl production areas near the refuge remain 

open to public hunting and other recreational activities 

(see figure 8).

L

Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge (figure 9) 

was established in 1935 under the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act as a sanctuary for migratory 

birds. The refuge is a point of major waterfowl 

concentration during spring and fall migrations, 

as well as a significant breeding area for wetland 

wildlife.

The 12,096-acre refuge is in Ramsey County in 

northeastern North Dakota; its headquarters are 

in Devils Lake, North Dakota, from where it is 

administered as part of the Devils Lake Wetland 

Management District Complex.

The relatively flat landscape of the area is intertwined 

with wetlands and marshes. Often called prairie 

potholes, these wetlands were created by large 

continental glaciers during the last ice age and provide 

excellent habitat for a variety of wetland wildlife. Tens 

of thousands of snow geese, Canada geese, sandhill 

cranes, and ducks use the lake and surrounding lands 

each year. Most of the area within the refuge was 

farmed at one time, so very little native prairie remains. 

A mixture of grasses and legumes have been planted 

throughout most of the refuge to provide cover for 

a variety of ground-nesting birds, as well as winter 

cover and food for many species of resident wildlife.

The refuge provides many photography and wildlifeviewing opportunities, an auto tour, and hiking trails 

and serves as an outdoor classroom for local schools. 

The Service allows hunting, but no fishing, at Lake 

Alice National Wildlife Refuge.

L

Newspaper accounts in the early 1930s indicate Dunn 

County citizens envisioned creating a lake to enrich 

their lives. Circumstances became reality in 1936 when 

a dam was constructed near the confluence of Spring 

and Murphy creeks. The federal government built the 

dam as a water conservation project through the Works 

Progress Administration during the Depression years. 

Several hundred local citizens were hired during dam 

construction in 1936 and 1937. The new dam created 

the Lake Ilo, the first major lake in western North 

Dakota.

In 1939, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the executive 

order establishing Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge 

(figure 10) as a breeding ground for migratory birds 

and other wildlife. Other refuge purposes include 

fish- and wildlife-oriented recreation, environmental 

education, interpretation, conservation of endangered 

species, and protection of cultural and natural resources. 

The 4,033-acre refuge is in Dunn County and has its 

headquarters in Coleharbor, North Dakota, where it is 

administered as part of the Audubon National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex.

Over the years, the Service developed wetlands, 

shelterbelts, and grassland habitats that created an 

oasis for both migratory birds and resident wildlife. 

Lake Ilo covers 1,240 acres with a maximum depth 

of 15 feet. Refuge uplands, amounting to 2,650 acres, 

are comprised of native prairie, introduced grasses, 

cropland, and tree plantings. Refuge management is 

directed at preserving native plants 

and animals and creating as much 

species diversity as possible. 

The refuge is unique for its archeological 

sites dating back 11,000 years. The 

refuge offers fishing opportunities, but 

hunting is not allowed.

Northern pintail is a common duck at the refuges.

© Craig Bihrle

L

President Franklin D. Roosevelt 

established Lake Nettie National 

Wildlife Refuge (figure 11) in 1935 as 

an easement refuge, where there now 

are fee-title lands and conservation 

easements. The Service purchased 
18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

easements on privately owned land and maintains 

them as breeding grounds for migratory birds and 

other wildlife.

Located 5 miles east of Lake Audubon in west-central 

North Dakota, the 3,055-acre refuge is in McLean 

County and has its headquarters in Coleharbor, 

North Dakota, from where it is administered as part 

of the Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Half of the refuge is made up of diverse wetlands. The 

wetlands are influenced by the water flows of Turtle 

Creek and agricultural drainage. Uplands, with both 

native and introduced grass species, make up the other 

half of Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge. In 1962, 

the Service was authorized to acquire easement lands 

from private landowners for the purpose of wetland 

protection, water management, and waterfowl and 

other wildlife management. In 1966, the Migratory 

Bird Commission approved acquisition of additional 

acreage within the meander line of Lake Nettie. In 

1997, the Service bought additional acreage under the 

Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986. 

This act required mitigation for Service lands flooded 

at Audubon National Wildlife Refuge. 

The refuge offers opportunities for hunting whitetailed deer. The Service does not allow fishing.

L

Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge (figure 12) was 

established on June 15, 1939 as a “breeding ground 

for migratory birds and other wildlife.”

The 3,823-acre refuge is in Williams County in 

northwestern North Dakota; its headquarters are in 

Crosby, North Dakota, from where it is administered 

by the Crosby Wetland Management District.

Encompassing 3,219 acres in fee title and 604 acres 

in easements, the refuge includes two large wetland 

pools totaling 1,226 acres and 350 acres of seasonal 

wetlands. A dam constructed by the Civilian 

Conservation Crops in the 1940s maintains the two 

pools; Ducks Unlimited repaired and upgraded the 

dam in the 1990s. The wetlands are used by all species 

of prairie waterfowl, as well as Wilson’s phalarope; 

ring-billed and California gulls; and common, Forster’s, 

and black terns. Lake Zahl was one of the original 

release sites for the giant Canada goose reintroduction 

program. Refuge wetlands are important feeding and 

resting areas for waterfowl migrating in the Central 

Flyway. Ten artificial islands constructed by Ducks 

Unlimited provide secure nesting habitat for waterfowl.

Upland habitat includes more than 1,200 acres of 

native prairie grassland, plus 400 acres of areas 

seeded with tame grass. The grasslands provide for 

a wide variety of songbirds including Le Conte’s 

sparrow, Baird’s sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, Nelson’s 

sharp-tailed sparrow, and chestnut-collared longspur. 

The uplands are also home to red fox, gray coyote, 

white-tailed deer, sharp-tailed grouse, and ring-necked 

pheasant. In an attempt to curtail winter depredation

in the area, 50 acres of cropland provide feed for a large, 

overwintering population of white-tailed deer.

Visitors use Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge for 

bird watching and hunting. Lake Zahl is open annually 

for hunting white-tailed deer and upland game birds. 

The Service does not allow fishing at the refuge.

Mclean natIonal WIlDlIFe reFuGe

Originally established as Lake Susie Migratory 

Waterfowl Refuge by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, 

the refuge changed its name to McLean National 

Wildlife Refuge with the same purpose of protecting 

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife.

The 760-acre refuge (figure 13) is in McLean 

County in western North Dakota; its headquarters 

are in Coleharbor, North Dakota, from where it 

is administered as part of the Audubon National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. This refuge has fee-title 

lands and conservation easements.

The refuge includes acreage owned by the North 

Dakota State Land Department as an easement. 

A dam built in the 1930s and reconstructed in 2003 

creates the large wetland that is locally known as 

Lake Susie and provides excellent wetland habitat 

for migratory birds. 

The Service does not allow hunting or fishing at the 

refuge.

Grasslands across the refuges are habitat to many 

songbirds including the Sprague’s pipit.

© Bob Gress
Chapter 2—The Refuges 19

S

President Franklin D. Roosevelt established Shell 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge (figure 14) on June 12, 

1939, as a refuge for breeding migratory birds and 

other wildlife.

Found in northwestern North Dakota, the 1,835-acre 

refuge is in Mountrail County; its headquarters are in 

Kenmare, North Dakota, from where it is administered 

as part of the Lostwood Wetland Management District 

Complex. This refuge has fee-title lands and 

conservation easements.

The refuge comprises 785 acres in fee-title and 1,050 

acres in easements. The refuge includes Shell Lake, a 

450-acre area of open water and wetland that provides 

excellent habitat for all species of prairie waterfowl, 

as well as Wilson’s phalarope; ring-billed and California 

gulls; and common, Forster’s, and black terns. In many 

years, especially in the fall, Shell Lake is the only 

wetland in the immediate area that provides a critical 

resting area for migratory waterfowl.

Uplands, comprised of native prairie and introduced 

grasses, provide for a wide variety of breeding 

songbirds including Le Conte’s sparrow, Baird’s 

sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, Nelson’s sharp-tailed 

sparrow, and chestnut-collared longspur. Other 

common wildlife species are red fox, coyote, whitetailed deer, sharp-tailed grouse, and ring-necked 

pheasant.

Public use is restricted to protect the integrity of Shell 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge as a sanctuary for 

breeding and migratory birds. However, opportunities 

for wildlife viewing of large concentrations of migratory 

waterfowl exist from adjacent public roads. The Service 

does not allow hunting or fishing at the refuge.

S

By executive order in 1941, President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt established Stewart Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge (figure 15) as a breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.

The 2,230-acre refuge is in Slope County in 

southwestern North Dakota; its headquarters 

are in Coleharbor, North Dakota, from where it 

is administered as part of the Audubon National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. This refuge has fee-title 

lands and conservation easements.

The centerpiece of the refuge is a 197-acre 

impoundment constructed in 1936. This impoundment 

wetland serves as breeding, brooding, and migration 

habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. Large 

wetlands are not typical in western North Dakota 

and Stewart Lake serves as an oasis in a generally 

well-drained landscape. The uplands surrounding 

the impoundment are characterized by short- to 

midgrass prairie and planted wildlife cover. 

The Service does not allow hunting or fishing at 

Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

S

By executive order in 1905, President Theodore 

Roosevelt established Stump Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge (figure 16), the third national wildlife refuge 

in the nation and the first in North Dakota. Roosevelt 

established the refuge as a preserve and breeding 

ground for native birds; the refuge originally consisted 

of four small islands. Historically, Stump Lake was 

a nationally significant staging area for canvasbacks 

and tundra swans due to the uniquely large beds of 

sago pondweed.

Found in eastern North Dakota, the 27-acre refuge 

is in Nelson County; its headquarters are in Devils 

Lake, North Dakota, from where it is administered 

as part of the Devils Lake Wetland Management 

District Complex. This refuge has fee-title lands.

At the time of refuge establishment in 1905, the 

elevation of Stump Lake was 1,411.75 feet at mean 

sea level (msl). In 1990, the elevation of the lake was 

approximately 1,400 feet msl. In 1993, the levels of 

Stump Lake and adjacent Devils Lake began rising. 

By 2005, the original refuge islands were completely 

inundated. Stump and Devils lakes equalized at 

1,447 feet msl in 2007, effectively placing the highest 

elevation of the original islands under 15 feet of water. 

The Service has closed this refuge to the public.

WhIte lake natIonal WIlDlIFe reFuGe

By executive order in 1941, President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt established White Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge (figure 17) as a breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife. 

The 1,040-acre refuge is in Slope County in 

southwestern North Dakota, 4 miles east of Amidon. 

Refuge headquarters are in Coleharbor, North Dakota, 

from where it is administered as part of the Audubon 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. This refuge has 

fee-title lands.

Development of the refuge began in 1936 as a 

cooperative venture between the Bureau of Biological 

Survey and the Works Projects Administration: a 

dam, primary spillway, and emergency spillway were 

constructed and a 190-acre impoundment wetland 

was created. This wetland serves as valuable wildlife 

habitat in a landscape that is generally well drained 

and contains few natural wetlands. Refuge uplands 

are characterized by short- to midgrass prairie. 

The Service has closed this refuge to the public.

L

Figures 6–17 are maps of each refuge and show the 

refuges’ boundaries and ownership.
20 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Figure 6. Map of Audubon National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.
Chapter 2—The Refuges 21

Figure 7. Map of Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.
22 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Figure 8. Map of Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.
Chapter 2—The Refuges 23

Figure 9. Map of Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.
24 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Figure 10. Map of Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.
Chapter 2—The Refuges 25

Figure 11. Map of Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.
26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Figure 12. Map of Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.
Chapter 2—The Refuges 27

Figure 13. Map of McLean National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.
28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Figure 14. Map of Shell Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.
Chapter 2—The Refuges 29

Figure 15. Map of Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.
30 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Figure 16. Map of Stump Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.
Chapter 2—The Refuges 31

Figure 17. Map of White Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.
32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Refuge Summary

Table 2 provides a summary of acreages of protected 

habitat managed by each refuge. 

2.2 Special Values

Early in the planning process, the planning team and 

public identified the outstanding qualities of the 12 

refuges. Refuge qualities are the characteristics and 

features of each refuge that makes it special, valuable 

for wildlife, and worthy of refuge status. It was important 

to identify the special values of each refuge to recognize 

its worth and to ensure that the special values of the 

refuges are preserved, protected, and enhanced through 

the planning process. Refuge qualities can be unique 

biological values, as well as something as simple as, “a 

quiet place to see a variety of birds and enjoy nature.” 

The following summarizes the qualities that make the 

refuges unique and valued:

Q The refuges provide critical spring breeding 

grounds and staging areas for millions of 

migratory birds that gather from Mexico and 

South America.

Q The refuges are comprised of and provide 

protection to two ecosystems: tall- and mixedgrass prairie with an abundance of permanent 

and seasonal wetlands.

Q Wildlife is abundant and highly visible because 

of varied habitat types and relatively low 

disturbance levels.

Q Visitors can still find wide-open spaces that 

remain relatively undisturbed.

Q Refuges provide for high-quality environmental 

education.

2.3 Purposes

For this CCP process, the Service combined the 12 

national wildlife refuges for evaluation as a group and 

program. The purposes and management capabilities 

and challenges are similar for all 12 refuges. The refuges 

were established under several authorities to provide 

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 

1934, and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 

February 18, 1929, have been used to increase the 

acreage of the refuges for migratory bird habitat 

protection:

Q The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act provides 

for the conservation, protection, and propagation 

of native species of fish and wildlife, including 

migratory birds threatened with extinction. 

Q The Migratory Bird Conservation Act provides 

for meeting the obligations of the United States 

under a migratory bird treaty with Great Britain 

by the following:

— lessening the dangers threatening migratory 

game birds from drainage and other causes

— acquisition of areas of land and water for the 

adequate protection of migratory birds

— authorizing appropriations for the 

establishment of such areas, their maintenance 

and improvement, and for other purposes

In addition, Audubon and Lake Nettie national wildlife 

refuges increased their area for migratory bird habitat 

protection through the Garrison Diversion Unit 

Reformulation Act of 1986. This act required mitigation 

for Service lands flooded as a result of the construction 

of the Garrison Dam and Audubon Lake.

Table 2. Land Information for the 12 Refuges, North Dakota.

National 

Wildlife Refuge

Acres Reserved 

from the 

Public Domain

Fee-title Acres from 

Other Agencies

Gift 

Acres

Purchased 

Fee-title Acres

Easement 

Acres

Total 

Acres

Audubon 0 14,739.19 0 0 0 14,739.19

Chase Lake 0 0 0 4,449.47 0 4,449.47

Kellys Slough 0 680.00 0 0 589.50 1,269.50

Lake Alice 0 160.00 2.18 8,349.86 3,583.50 12,095.54

Lake Ilo 0 0 10.71 3,186.50 835.91 4,033.12

Lake Nettie 0 0 0 2,420.60 634.30 3,054.90

Lake Zahl 40.00 0 0 3,178.98 604.21 3,823.19

McLean 0 0 0 344.00 416.00 760.00

Shell Lake 0 0 0 785.20 1,049.90 1,835.10

Stewart Lake 0 0 3.99 636.01 1,590.40 2,230.40

Stump Lake 27.39 0 0 0 0 27.39

White Lake 0 0 0 1,040.00 0 1,040.00
Chapter 2—The Refuges 33

2.4 Vision

At the beginning of the planning process, the Service 

developed a vision for the refuges. The vision describes 

the focus of refuge management, including what will 

be different in the future, and is the essence of what 

the Service is trying to accomplish by the end of the 

15-year CCP period. The vision for the refuges follows.

This collection of 

unique and diverse refuges 

encompasses a broad range of 

North Dakota habitat types 

and landscapes.

These refuges provide 

vital resting and breeding habitat 

for waterfowl, other migratory birds, 

and resident fish and wildlife species. 

Visitors to these prairie refuges 

experience wide-open spaces, 

skies filled with migratory birds, 

places to learn, and 

welcome solitude. 

The responsible management 

of these special places 

requires adequate funding, 

dedicated personnel, and 

successful partnerships. 

Achievement of this vision 

ensures that the American people 

retain a legacy of 

wildlife and prairie habitats 

for future generations.

Several thousand sandhill cranes stage in the refuges 

each spring and fall.

John and Karen Hollingsworth/USFWS

2.5 Goals

The Service developed six goals for the refuges based 

on the Improvement Act and information developed 

during planning. The goals direct work toward 

achieving the vision and purposes of the refuges and 

outline approaches for managing refuge resources.

H

Conserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity 

of grasslands and wetlands of the North Dakota prairie 

to support healthy populations of ducks and geese, 

other migratory birds, native species, and other wildlife.

MonItorInG anD research Goal

Use science, monitoring, and applied research to 

advance the understanding of natural resources 

and management within the North Dakota national 

wildlife refuges.

C

Identify and evaluate cultural resources that are 

on Service-owned lands or are affected by Service 

undertakings. Protect resources determined to be 

significant and, when appropriate, interpret resources 

to connect staff, visitors, and communities to the 

area’s past.

VIsItor serVIces Goal

Provide visitors with opportunities to enjoy wildlifedependent recreation where compatible and expand 

their knowledge and appreciation of the prairie 

landscape and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

PartnershIPs Goal

A diverse network of partners join with the North 

Dakota national wildlife refuges to support research, 

accomplish habitat conservation, and foster awareness 

and appreciation of the prairie landscape.

O

Efficiently employ staff, partnerships, and volunteers 

and secure funding in support of the Refuge System’s 

mission.

2.6 Planning Issues

Several key issues were identified following the 

analysis of comments collected from Service staff and 

the public and a review of the requirements of the 

Improvement Act and NEPA. Substantive comments 

(those that could be addressed within the authority 

and management capabilities of the Service) were 

considered during the formulation of the alternatives 

for future management. These key issues are 

summarized below.
34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

WetlanD anD uPlanD habItats

All of the refuges have a primary purpose to provide 

optimal habitat conditions for the needs of a suite of 

waterfowl, shorebirds and other migratory birds, and, 

to a lesser extent native, resident wildlife. Wetland 

and upland habitats need to be protected and enhanced 

through management to achieve goals and objectives. 

Habitat protection needs to be evaluated through a 

priority system so that different means of protection, 

through either fee title or easement, can be evaluated.

Invasive Species

The refuges include uplands, which were previously 

farmed. Farmed uplands have since been restored to 

mixes of tame and native grasses and are interspersed 

with native uplands, the bulk of which have the native 

vegetation character but are compromised by invading 

species. The primary invasive plants are leafy spurge, 

Canada thistle, and absinth wormwood. Kentucky 

bluegrass and smooth brome are primary invasive 

grass species. These nonnative grasses and forbs, 

and potentially invasive native woody species, 

substantially diminish the quality and suitability 

of upland habitat for many native wildlife species. 

Western snowberry and silverberry are native shrubs 

that have greatly expanded their coverage in some 

areas where natural regimes of fire and grazing have 

been altered.

Canada thistle is one of the primary invasive plants at 

the refuges.

© Al Schneider/USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Energy Development

While the Service works to minimize the negative 

effects of energy development, the demand for 

energy is an increasing factor in habitat quality 

and preservation at the refuges. The production 

of biofuels, coal, oil, gas, and wind energy has the 

potential to impact effectiveness of many refuge 

programs. The Service supports research that helps 

to understand the effects on wildlife of such energy 

projects as wind towers and conversion of grassland 

to cropland to support production of ethanol. It is a 

high priority for the Service to work in partnership 

with conservation and agricultural groups to support 

conservation programs such as the following: federal 

Farm Bill legislation, NDGF projects, water quality 

and watershed projects, and private conservation 

efforts. 

The physical structure of wind power turbines has 

unknown effects on birds. Through studies and 

analysis, the Service is currently evaluating wind 

towers to determine their effect on wildlife. In 

addition, it is unknown if wind power would affect 

the potential for future habitat protection through 

conservation easements. 

The Service needs to evaluate oil and gas 

development. Effects on some refuges—including 

salt-water contamination, filling of wetlands, and 

road development—have increased as increasing 

exploration takes place in North Dakota.

Prairie Conversion

The loss of native prairie is occurring at an alarming 

rate. Prairie is being converted for corn production to 

produce ethanol, which also has additional needs for 

irrigation water. An active role by the agricultural 

community, in partnership with conservation groups, 

will need to be taken to protect the federal Farm 

Bill and its conservation provisions, such as the 

Conservation Reserve Program and swampbuster 

and sodsaver provisions in the Farm Bill.

WIlDlIFe ManaGeMent

Priority species, predators, and wildlife disease are 

issues for the refuges.

Priority Species

The piper plover is a federally listed, threatened, 

shorebird. Breeding piping plovers occur in small 

numbers on numerous alkali wetlands in the 

northwestern part of the state. Endangered whooping 

cranes can be observed in refuge marshes. Chase 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge is home to the largest 

population of breeding American white pelican in 

North America. The primary issues related to these 

and other priority species center on the following: 

(1) monitoring populations; (2) monitoring habitat use; 

(3) identifying, securing, and maintaining essential 

habitat; and (4) developing habitat conditions in areas 

with potential for these species and that will promote 

increased recruitment or population protection to 

secure and increase their populations.

Predator Management

Several species including red fox, coyote, striped 

skunk, Franklin’s ground squirrel, mink, badger, and 
Chapter 2—The Refuges 35

raccoon are found at higher than historical levels due 

to modifications of habitat and other factors. These 

species can adversely affect—primarily by predation 

on nests of grassland-nesting bird species—waterfowl 

and other migratory bird populations and reduce the 

likelihood of reaching wildlife population goals and 

objectives. 

The woody vegetation has a negative influence on 

grassland songbirds because it provides habitat for 

predators and attracts forest-edge bird species that 

may displace grassland species.

Wildlife Disease

The refuges administer migratory bird programs 

and have the lead role in addressing wildlife and, 

in particular, bird disease issues. National wildlife 

refuges in North Dakota have a history of botulism 

outbreaks. Success in combating botulism occurs at 

the expense of other resources. There is the ongoing 

issue of striking a balance between providing optimal 

habitats, maintaining other refuge programs, and 

managing botulism.

MonItorInG anD research

Monitoring habitat and wildlife populations is an 

essential element in achieving the primary goals and 

objectives of the refuges. The Service needs basic 

data about recruitment, mortality, and habitat use 

for representative groups of species. It is important 

to collect and analyze these data on a regular basis 

so the Service can make appropriate decisions about 

the habitats on which these species depend. The use 

of the refuges as research field stations could make 

valuable strides in development of new directions in 

management and expansion of the knowledge of field 

biologists.

VIsItor serVIces

The Service allows hunting only at Audubon, Chase 

Lake, Lake Alice, Lake Nettie, and Lake Zahl 

national wildlife refuges. Fishing is allowed only 

at Audubon and Lake Ilo national wildlife refuges. 

Wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation are wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses at 10 of the refuges, with the 

exception of White Lake and Stump Lake national 

wildlife refuges, which are closed to all public use. 

A growing demand for public recreation in North 

Dakota and the nation makes the six wildlifedependent recreational uses, as specified in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 

a primary issue of interest. Some of the commenting 

public want more opportunity to participate in these 

activities.

O

Funding and staff are not sufficient to fulfill 

the purposes and meet the goals of the refuges. 

Identification of priorities and direction of resources 

efficiently will always be an issue for the refuges. 

Refuge staffs need to identify and describe unfunded 

needs to be able to compete effectively for additional 

money from within the Service and from partners 

and other sources. Refuge facilities need to be 

evaluated and upgraded.

3 Refuge Resources and Description 

A Female Canvasback with Her Brood

USFWS

The prairies of North Dakota have become an ecological 

treasure of biological importance for waterfowl and 

other migratory birds. The prairie potholes of North 

Dakota and South Dakota support a wide diversity of 

wildlife, but they are most famous for their role in 

waterfowl production. Although the Prairie Pothole 

Region occupies only 10% of North America’s waterfowlbreeding range, it produces approximately 50% of 

the continent’s waterfowl population.

This chapter describes the physical environment and 

biological resources of lands within the 12 national 

wildlife refuges. In addition, this chapter addresses the 

fire and grazing history, cultural resources, visitor 

services, socioeconomic environment, and operations 

of the refuges.

3.1 Physical Environment

The refuges are located across North Dakota from 

the Canadian border south to the state line of South 

Dakota. 

Global WarMInG

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) issued 

an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies 

under its direction that have land management 

responsibilities to consider potential climate change 

effects as part of long-range planning endeavors.

The Department of Energy’s report, “Carbon 

Sequestration Research and Development,” concluded 

that ecosystem protection is important to carbon 

sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon 

currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. The 

report defines carbon sequestration as “the capture 

and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be 

emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”

The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the earth’s 

atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in 

surface temperature commonly referred to as global 

warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation 

planning for Refuge System units, carbon sequestration 

constitutes the primary climate-related effect to be 

considered in planning.
38 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon 

sequestration. Large, naturally occurring communities 

of plants and animals that occupy major habitats—

grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert—

are effective both in preventing carbon emission and 

in acting as biological “scrubbers” of atmospheric CO2.

One Service activity in particular—prescribed burning

—releases CO2 directly to the atmosphere from the 

biomass consumed during combustion yet results in 

no net loss of carbon because new vegetation quickly 

germinates and sprouts to replace the burned-up 

biomass. This vegetation sequesters an approximately 

equal amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Dai et al. 

2006). Several other effects of climate change may need 

to be considered in the future:

QQ Habitat available in lakes and streams for coldwater fish such as trout and salmon could be 

reduced.

QQ Forests may change, with some plant species 

shifting their range northward or dying out and 

other trees moving in to take their place.

QQ Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding 

habitat because of stronger and more frequent 

droughts.

QQ Changes in the timing of migration and nesting 

could put some birds out of synchronization with 

the life cycles of their prey.

clIMate

The normal average annual temperature in North 

Dakota ranges from 37o Fahrenheit (F) in the 

northeast to 43oF along the southern border. January 

is the coldest month with average temperatures 

ranging from 2oF in the northeast to 17oF in the 

southwest. July is the warmest month with 

temperatures averaging 67oF in the northeast to 

73oF in parts of the south. The range of normal 

average monthly temperatures between the coldest 

and warmest months is 54oF in the southwest and 

65oF in the northeast. These large annual ranges 

attest to the continental nature of North Dakota’s 

climate (Jensen, no date).

The highest temperature ever recorded in North 

Dakota was 121oF at Steele on July 6, 1936, and the 

lowest temperature measured was –60oF at Parshall 

on February 15, 1936. Temperatures of 100oF or higher 

occur nearly every year somewhere in North Dakota. 

Chances of this occurring are greatest in the southcentral area where in about 85% of the years maximum 

temperature will equal or exceed 100oF. These 

temperatures of 100oF or more last only for a day or 

two. In the northeast, temperatures reach 100oF or 

higher in only 3 years out of 10 (Jensen, no date).

Annual precipitation ranges from less than 13 inches 

in the northwest to more than 20 inches in parts of 

the Red River Valley and southeast. The lines of equal 

precipitation, although subject to some meandering, 

are oriented north–south; as a generalization, 

precipitation increases about 1 inch for every 50 

miles of eastward movement.

There are two areas where the general increase of 

precipitation in an easterly direction does not apply:

QQ One area is located in the southwest where the 

annual precipitation of more than 16 inches is 

higher than the surrounding area. This area 

of higher precipitation is largely a result of 

topographic uplift.

QQ The other area is in the north-central part of the 

state, where the annual precipitation of less than 

16 inches is lower than surrounding areas. This 

area is caused primarily by air moving downhill 

from all but a southerly direction, which works 

against the precipitation process (Jensen, no date).

Annual snowfall in North Dakota ranges from less than 

26 inches in parts of Mountrail and McLean counties 

(west-central part of the state) to about 38 inches in a 

belt extending diagonally across the state northeast–

southwest (Jensen, no date).

PhysIoGraPhy, GeoGraPhy, anD soIls

Because the refuges cover such a large geographic 

area, the physical environment and biological resources 

are described in terms of physiographic region (or 

level 3 and level 4 ecoregions) (Bryce et al. 1996) in 

which each refuge is located. Five physiographic 

regions occur in the 12-refuge area: Red River Valley, 

glaciated plains, Missouri Coteau, and coteau slope 

(see figure 18, map of physiographic regions). These 

physiographic regions correspond closely to the level 3 

ecoregions described below.

Ecoregions

Four level 3 ecoregions cover the 12 refuges: Lake 

Agassiz basin, northern glaciated plains, northwestern 

glaciated plains, and northwestern Great Plains. The 

differences in ecosystem properties and functions in 

the level 3 ecoregions are distinguished by the patterns 

of biotic and abiotic phenomena: vegetation, climate, 

soils, land use, wildlife use, and hydrology. Local biotic 

and abiotic factors have further refined the ecoregions. 

Each level 3 ecoregion is subdivided into several 

level 4 ecoregions (see figure 19); level 4 ecoregions 

are the finest level in the hierarchy (Bryce et al. 1996). 

Table 3 displays the level 3 ecoregions in which each 

refuge occurs.

Descriptions of each of the four level 3 ecoregions 

follow (see figure 19), along with their level 4 ecoregions 

relevant to the refuges. Most text and graphics in this 

section are from “Ecoregions of North Dakota and 

South Dakota” (USGS 2006).

Northwestern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 42 (Level 3)

Audubon, Chase Lake, Lake Nettie, Lake Zahl, McLean, 

and Shell Lake national wildlife refuges occur within 

this ecoregion.
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 39

Figure 18. Map of the physiographic regions in North Dakota.
40 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Figure 19. Map of the level 4 ecoregions in North Dakota.
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 41

Table 3. Ecoregions of the 12 Refuges, North Dakota.

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge Level 3 Ecoregion Name and Number

Audubon Northwestern glaciated plains, 42

Chase Lake Northwestern glaciated plains, 42

Kellys Slough Lake Agassiz basin, 48

Lake Alice Northern glaciated plains, 46

Lake Ilo Northwestern Great Plains, 43

Lake Nettie Northwestern glaciated plains, 42

Lake Zahl Northwestern glaciated plains, 42

McLean Northwestern glaciated plains, 42

Shell Lake Northwestern glaciated plains, 42

Stewart Lake Northwestern Great Plains, 43

Stump Lake Northern glaciated plains, 46

White Lake Northwestern Great Plains, 43

The northwestern glaciated plains ecoregion marks 

the westernmost extent of continental glaciation. The 

youthful morainal (ridges of rock debris at the margins 

of glaciers) landscape has significant surface irregularity 

and high concentrations of wetlands. The rise in 

elevation along the eastern boundary defines the 

beginning of the Great Plains. Land use is transitional 

between the intensive dryland farming in Drift Plains 

ecoregion 46i (below) to the east and the predominance 

of cattle ranching and farming to the west in the 

northwestern Great Plains ecoregion 43 (below).

Collapsed Glacial Outwash Ecoregion 42b (Level 4)

Areas of collapsed glacial outwash formed from gravel 

and sand that was deposited by glacial meltwater and 

precipitation runoff over stagnant ice. Many large, 

shallow lakes are found in these areas; these lakes and 

wetlands tend to be slightly to very alkaline depending 

on the flow path of groundwater moving through the 

permeable outwash deposits. They attract birds 

preferring large areas of open water such as American 

white pelican, black tern, and Forster's tern, as well 

as those living in brackish water such as American 

avocet and tundra swan.

Glaciated Dark Brown Prairie Ecoregion 42i (Level 4)

The boundary of the glaciated dark brown prairie 

marks a transition to drier conditions. This ecoregion 

has a well-defined drainage system and fewer 

wetlands compared with the more recently glaciated 

Missouri Coteau slope ecoregion 42c to the east. 

Land use is a mosaic of cropland and rangeland.

Lake Ilo, Stewart Lake, and White Lake national 

wildlife refuges occur within this ecoregion.

Northwestern Great Plains Ecoregion 43 (Level 3)

The northwestern Great Plains ecoregion encompasses 

the Missouri Plateau section of the Great Plains. It is 

a semiarid rolling plain of shale, siltstone, and sandstone 

punctuated by occasional buttes and badlands. Native 

grasslands persist in areas of steep or broken 

topography, but they have been largely replaced by 

spring wheat and alfalfa over most of the ecoregion. 

Agriculture is limited by erratic precipitation patterns 

and limited opportunities for irrigation.

Missouri Plateau Ecoregion 43a (Level 4)

On the Missouri Plateau west of the Missouri River, 

the landscape displays 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 short-grass prairie where herds of bison, 

pronghorn, and elk once grazed.

Northern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion 46 (Level 3)

Lake Alice and Stump Lake national wildlife refuges 

occur within this ecoregion. Also commonly referred 

to as the Drift Plains or Drift Prairie, this area was 

subject to scouring and deposition due to prolonged 

glacier activity between 70,000 and 10,000 years ago.

A flat to gently rolling landscape of glacial drift 

characterizes the northern glaciated plains ecoregion. 

The subhumid conditions foster a grassland transition 

between the tall- and short-grass prairies. High 

concentrations of temporary and seasonal wetlands 

create favorable conditions for duck nesting and 

migration. Although the tilled soil is very fertile, 

agricultural success is subject to annual climatic 

fluctuations.

Glacial Lake Basins Ecoregion 46c (Level 4)

Lake Souris, Devils Lake, and Lake Dakota once 

occupied the glacial lake basins. These proglacial 

(adjacent to a glacier) lakes were formed when 

major stream or river drainages were blocked by 

glacial ice during the Pleistocene era. The smooth 

topography of the glacial lake basins—even flatter 

than the surrounding Drift Plains (ecoregions 46g, 

46i, and 46n)—resulted from the slow buildup of 

water-laid sediments. The level, deep soils in 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.

Lake Agassiz Basin Ecoregion 48 (Level 3)

Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge occurs in this 

ecoregion.

Glacial Lake Agassiz was the last in a series of proglacial 

lakes to fill the Red River Valley since the beginning 

of the Pleistocene era. The Lake Agassiz plain is 

comprised of thick lacustrine (formed in lakes) sediments 

underlain by glacial till. It is extremely flat and has 

fewer lakes and pothole wetlands than neighboring 

ecoregions. The historical tall-grass prairie has been 

replaced by intensive agriculture. The preferred crops 
42 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

in the northern half of the region are potatoes, beans 

and wheat; soybeans and corn dominate in the south. 

Sugar beets are grown throughout the ecoregion.

Saline Area of the Lake Agassiz Ecoregion 48c (Level 4)

In the saline area 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 of the Lake Agassiz basin delineates 

an area where salt effects are most evident. Other 

saline areas occur along the tributaries of the Park, 

Forest, and Turtle rivers in northeastern 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.

Soils

Data for soil temperature and frost penetration in 

North Dakota are scarce. Dr. Guy Wilkinson of the 

department of soils at North Dakota State University 

did the most complete study of soil temperatures. 

Wilkinson measured soil temperature at Fargo, 

North Dakota, continuously over a 4-year period 

(Jensen, no date).

At Fargo, the average date of soil surface freezing was 

November 26. Freezing progressed to greater depths 

throughout the winter until the average maximum 

frost penetration depth of 4.5 feet was reached April 1. 

Surface thawing in the spring began on March 26, a 

few days earlier than the occurrence of maximum 

frost penetration. After April 1, soil thawing proceeded 

both downward from the surface and upward toward 

the surface from the deeper unfrozen soil until May 1, 

when the last of the frozen soil at about the 3-foot level 

was thawed (Jensen, no date).

The lowest average soil temperature of 8.2°F was 

found at a depth of 0.25 inch on January 17. The 

time of minimum soil temperature for deeper soil 

depths was progressively later, with minimum soil 

temperatures at the 4.5-foot depth occurring on April 1. 

Highest average soil temperature at the 0.25-inch 

depth reached the low 80s during the third week in 

July. As in winter, soil temperatures at greater depths 

reached their highest levels later in the season. For 

instance, soil temperatures at the 2-foot depth did 

not reach their highest levels until about August 6, 

while 3-feet deep maximum temperatures were 

reached August 15 (Jensen, no date).

Water resources

This section has descriptions of the drainages in 

which the refuges occur (North Dakota State Water 

Commission 2005), water quality of the area, and water 

rights for each refuge.

North Dakota is separated into two major drainage 

basins by a continental divide running from the 

northwest and through the central and southeastern 

part of the state. The northeastern portion of the 

state falls generally within the Hudson Bay drainage 

basin, while the southwestern part is drained by the 

Missouri River into the Gulf of Mexico.

Hudson Bay Drainage Basin

The Hudson Bay drainage basin includes the Souris 

and Red river systems plus the large, currently 

noncontributing, Devils Lake basin. Of the 12 refuges, 

Kellys Slough, Lake Alice, and Stump Lake national 

wildlife refuges fall within these basins.

The Souris River originates in Saskatchewan, Canada, 

and forms a 357-mile loop through North Dakota 

before it reenters Canada west of the Turtle Mountains. 

The Souris River drains portions of Saskatchewan, 

Manitoba, Montana, and North Dakota. There are 

seven major tributaries in North Dakota; the principal 

tributary is the Des Lacs River. Annual mean 

precipitation ranges from 13 inches in the west to 17 

inches in the east.

The Red River is the principal river of the basin. From 

its origin at the confluence of the Ottertail and Bois 

de Sioux rivers at Wahpeton, North Dakota, and 

Breckenridge, Minnesota, the Red River winds 

northerly almost 400 river miles, forming the boundary 

between North Dakota and Minnesota. From the 

International Boundary, the Red River flows about 

155 river miles to Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba. The 

valley through which the river flows is actually the 

bed of glacial Lake Agassiz. The lake bed is very flat 

and accounts for the meandering course and low gradient 

of the river. The headwaters of most of the eight major 

tributaries in North Dakota begin in the drift prairie 

in the western part of the basin where valleys are 

narrow and steep-sided. As the tributaries enter the 

lowlands of the lake bed, the river slopes become very 

flat, with poorly-defined watershed boundaries. 

The Devils Lake basin is currently a noncontributing 

subbasin within the Red River basin. This basin became 

a closed basin after the last continental ice sheets 

receded and southerly drainage to the Sheyenne River 

ceased. The drainage system of the Devils Lake basin 

is formed by chains of waterways and connecting lakes, 

with the majority of the basin’s water reaching its 

ultimate collection point at Devils Lake. Because of the 

poorly-defined drainage system, approximately 1,300 

square miles do not contribute runoff to Devils Lake.

Missouri River Drainage Basin

The Missouri River drainage basin includes the 

Missouri and James rivers. Nine of the 12 refuges are 

within this basin: Audubon, Chase Lake, Lake Ilo, 

Lake Nettie, Lake Zahl, McLean, Shell Lake, Stewart 

Lake, and White Lake national wildlife refuges.

The Missouri River basin is the largest in the state, 

draining approximately 48% of North Dakota’s total 

area. The basin coincides roughly with the part of the 

state having a semiarid climate. The tributaries on the 

south and west sides of the Missouri River typically 

occupy small but sharply defined valleys. This area 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 43

is well drained with very few natural lakes. The 

topography is characterized by numerous flat-topped, 

steep-sided buttes and hills. The area east of the 

Missouri River is characterized by numerous small 

lakes and wetlands. Annual mean precipitation in the 

basin ranges from 13 inches in the northwest to 17 

inches in the east. 

The James River, a major tributary of the Missouri 

River, begins in central North Dakota but does not 

join the Missouri River until it reaches Yankton, 

South Dakota. The James River in North Dakota is 

260 miles long. Ninety-two percent of the James River 

basin is used for agricultural purposes.

Watershed drainage is the primary source of water 

supply for the refuges. Water levels in refuge 

impoundments depend on spring runoff. Impoundments 

range from natural depressions to those that have 

structures to control the water level within a lake or 

pond. Impoundments with control structures function 

as artificial freshwater wetlands. By varying the water 

levels in the impoundments, refuge staffs can influence 

the types of plant and animal communities living in or 

near the impoundments. Through the change in water 

level, refuge staffs can also reduce the occurrence of 

botulism in waterfowl. All surface water control occurs 

under the jurisdiction of a state permit issued to the 

refuges.

Wetland Sunset

USFWS

Water Quality

Some wetland basins function as groundwater recharge 

areas; such basins tend to be temporarily or seasonally 

flooded. These basins hold water for only a few months 

each year, and the water is generally low in dissolved 

solids. Some basins are through-flow systems with 

respect to groundwater; that is, groundwater flows in 

through parts of their bed while other parts recharge 

groundwater. Through-flow basins hold water over 

longer periods and the water tends to have higher 

concentrations of dissolved solids. Some basins serve 

only as discharge areas for groundwater. Lakes that 

receive discharge from both regional and local 

groundwater flow systems and do not lose water to 

seepage or surface outflow are highly saline (Kantrud 

et al. 1989).

Human-related disturbance such as drainage and 

cultivation are the most extreme disturbances seen 

in most prairie wetlands in North Dakota and South 

Dakota. In some instances, fill (earth or rocks) or use 

for solid waste disposal has also destroyed the basins 

(Kantrud et al. 1989).

Water Rights

During the 1930s, the U.S. Bureau of Biological 

Survey on behalf of the federal government submitted 

declarations of filing in North Dakota for many 

impoundments on national wildlife refuges. Such filing 

applies for and documents the claim of ownership of 

the right to use water for current purposes. In 1930, 

there was a fire at the state capitol that destroyed 

most of these early filings, and, subsequently, new 

legislation was introduced to alter the way in which 

water rights were applied for and processed. As a 

result, there are many old declarations of filing that 

have not been entered into the state’s water rights 

database and have never been perfected (described 

in the following paragraph) in the same manner as 

the newer water right permits.

The state of North Dakota currently issues a 

conditional water permit when an application for a 

water right is made. This permit grants the claimant 

the right to develop the structure or structures 

necessary to put the water to beneficial use. After 

the claimant has developed the necessary structures 

and put the water to beneficial use, the North Dakota 

State Water Commission has to inspect the project 

and verify that the water as claimed is being put to 

beneficial use. The North Dakota State Engineer then 

issues a perfected water permit.

Early water rights usually included a storage amount 

as well as an amount for seasonal use. The seasonal 

use is the water needed to offset evaporation and is 

generally seen only in connection with a reservoir. 

The state instituted a one-time fill rule, eliminating 

the ability to offset evaporation. This rule was waived 

in some cases, but many of the later water rights only 

list a storage volume.

Some water rights—particularly groundwater rights, 

but also some surface water rights—have an associated 

flow rate. If there is a decreed flow rate, this is the 

maximum rate at which water can be pumped or 

diverted.

The following section is a summary of water rights 

for each of the 12 refuges.

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge

A letter of understanding between the Bureau of 

Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NDGF, 

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers outlines the 
44 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

operation, including water levels, of Lake Audubon. 

The Bureau of Reclamation secured Conditional 

Water Permit Number 1416, which includes 230,000 

acre-feet for fish, wildlife, and recreation purposes.

The Service holds four perfected water permits, all 

for fish and wildlife purposes, for the Audubon National 

Wildlife Refuge as follows:

Q Perfected Water Permit Number 3804, priority 

date June 27, 1985—325.0 acre-feet for storage 

plus 52.0 acre-feet to offset evaporative losses.

Q Perfected Water Permit Number 3805, priority 

date June 27, 1985—5.7 acre-feet for storage 

plus 4.8 acre-feet to offset evaporative losses.

Q Perfected Water Permit Number 3378, priority 

date January 29, 1981—17.1 acre-feet to offset 

evaporative losses in a 5.7-acre impoundment.

Q Perfected Water Permit Number 3379, priority 

date January 29, 1981—26.9 acre-feet for storage 

plus 100.0 acre-feet to offset evaporative losses.

Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge

A water right claim was filed by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture on May 25, 1938. The water right is for 

all creeks, intermittent streams, and other watersheds 

and their tributaries that empty into Chase Lake, 

sufficient to maintain the water level at its meander 

line, which includes approximately 2,576 acres of water 

surface.

The Service recorded a declaration of filing with the 

North Dakota State Engineer, priority date September 1, 

1934. Records need to be updated and water rights 

perfected.

Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge

A water right claim was filed by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture on August 30, 1937, priority date 

September 1, 1934. The 585.0-acre-foot claim was for 

195.0 acre-feet for storage plus 390.0 acre-feet for 

seasonal use. Inadvertently, the state issued Perfected 

Water Permit Number 169-59 on August 12, 1992, for 

190.0 acre-feet for storage plus 90.0 acre-feet for annual 

use for fish and wildlife purposes, which abandoned 

and voided the additional amount of water the Service 

had claimed.

The Service holds four perfected water permits, all 

for fish and wildlife purposes, for the Kellys Slough 

National Wildlife Refuge as follows:

Q Perfected Water Permit Number 4761, priority 

date March 4, 1994, Upper Pool 1—1,228.0 acrefeet for storage minus 266.0 acre-feet to offset 

evaporative losses.

Q Perfected Water Permit Number 4471, priority 

date May 14, 1991, Lower Pool 1—404.0 acrefeet for storage minus 100.7 acre-feet to offset 

evaporative losses.

Q Perfected Water Permit Number 4309, priority 

date October 22, 1990, Pool 5—21.0 acre-feet for 

storage minus 5.3 acre-feet to offset evaporative 

losses.

Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge

The Service recorded a declaration of filing with the 

North Dakota State Engineer February 21, 1935, 

claiming use of unappropriated water in the Mauvais 

Coulee watershed to be used on six projects including 

Lac Aux Mortes (Lake Alice). The right was filed for 

record on May 12, 1938, claiming 23,940.0 acre-feet 

(10,260.0 acre-feet for seasonal use and 13,680.0 acrefeet for storage). Perfected Water Permit Number169A 

(Lake Alice control structure)—dated November 21, 

1967—recognized a priority date of May 25, 1938, for 

the refuge’s water right. However, it established the 

right for 10,260.0 acre-feet for annual use and 9,200.0 

acre-feet for storage, the amounts indicated on the 

Service’s application for a permit (169A) filed in 1966. 

The purposes stated on the permit are waterfowl 

wetlands and flood control.

In addition to the declaration of filing, table 4 lists the 

conditional water permits that Lake Alice National 

Wildlife Refuge has for fish and wildlife purposes.

Table 4. Conditional Water Permits for Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.

Permit Number Structure Name Priority Date Water Flow Rate

Storage 

(acre-feet)

Seasonal Use1

(acre-feet)

4565 Outlet Marsh March 9, 1992 24 cfs2 229.0 126.0

5060 Pintail Marsh September 30, 1996 10,000 gpm3 243.0 93.0

5075 Jerome Marsh November 21, 1996 — 45.2 25.0

5076 Kenner Marsh November 21, 1996 — 87.1 42.0

5077 Redhead Slough November 21, 1996 — 77.0 39.0

5142 Elsperger Marsh July 28, 1997 10,000 gpm 175.0 175.0

5143 West Chain Lake July 28, 1997 10,000 gpm 357.6 270.0

5493 Hansen Marsh April 2, 2001 10,000 gpm 270.6 96.1

1

To offset evaporative losses. 

2

cfs=cubic feet per second.

3

gpm=gallons per minute.
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 45

Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge

The Service recorded a declaration of filing with 

the North Dakota State Engineer, priority date 

September 1, 1934, for 10,850.0 acre-feet from Spring 

Creek: 7,130.0 acre-feet for storage and 3,720.0 acrefeet for seasonal use as a refuge and breeding ground 

for migratory birds and other wildlife. Spring Creek is 

a tributary to the Knife River in the Missouri River 

watershed. A 1994 review of the original filing 

documents, more recent survey information, and a 

more accurate net evaporation calculation resulted in 

an updated surface acreage, capacity at spillway, and 

seasonal use. Records should be updated to reflect a 

total of 6,850.0 acre-feet: 5,157.0 acre-feet for storage 

and 1,693.0 acre-feet for seasonal use. Records need 

to be updated and water rights perfected with the 

North Dakota State Engineer.

Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge has Perfected 

Water Permit Number 4746, priority date January 18, 

1994, for 15.9 acre-feet from Spring Creek for storage. 

For fish and wildlife use, 7.0 acre-feet will be used to 

offset evaporative losses in borrow areas created 

during repair and reconstruction of the Lake Ilo dam.

Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge

For Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge, the 

Service recorded a declaration of filing with the North 

Dakota State Engineer, priority date September 1, 

1934, for 3,528.0 acre-feet from Turtle Creek in the 

Missouri River watershed: 2,268.0 acre-feet for storage 

and 1,260.0 acre-feet for seasonal use. Records need 

to be updated and water rights perfected with the 

North Dakota State Engineer.

Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge

For Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge, the Service 

recorded a declaration of filing with the North Dakota 

State Engineer, priority date September 1, 1934, for 

6,903.0 acre-feet from the Little Muddy Creek in the 

Missouri River watershed as a refuge and breeding 

ground for migratory birds and other wildlife: 3,003.0 

acre-feet for storage and 3,900.0 acre-feet for seasonal 

use. Records need to be updated and water rights 

perfected with the North Dakota State Engineer.

McLean National Wildlife Refuge

For McLean National Wildlife Refuge, the Service 

recorded a declaration of filing with the North Dakota 

State Engineer, priority date September 1, 1934, for 

358.0 acre-feet from Deep Water Creek in the Missouri 

River watershed: 148.0 acre-feet for storage and 

210.0 acre-feet for seasonal use. Records need to be 

updated and water rights perfected with the North 

Dakota State Engineer.

Shell Lake National Wildlife Refuge

For Shell Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the Service 

recorded a declaration of filing with the North Dakota 

State Engineer, priority date September 1, 1934, for 

3,096.0 acre-feet from Shell Creek in the Missouri 

River watershed as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife: 1,500.0 acre-feet for 

storage and 1,596.0 acre-feet for seasonal use. Records 

need to be updated and water rights perfected with 

the North Dakota State Engineer.

Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge

For Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the 

Service recorded a declaration of filing with the 

North Dakota State Engineer, priority date 

September 1, 1934, for 1,393.0 acre-feet from Deep 

Creek, tributary to the Little Missouri River, as a 

refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and 

other wildlife: 802.0 acre-feet for storage and 591.0 

acre-feet for seasonal use. Records need to be 

updated and water rights perfected with the North 

Dakota State Engineer.

The Service acquired Perfected Water Permit 

Number 4891, priority date April 17, 1995, for 5.0 

acre-feet for storage from an unnamed tributary to 

Deep Creek. For fish, wildlife, and livestock use, 5.0 

acre-feet will be used to offset evaporative losses.

Stump Lake National Wildlife Refuge

The Service has not secured any water rights for 

the Stump Lake National Wildlife Refuge. There are 

conflicts with the Bureau of Reclamation and state of 

North Dakota about the operating level for the lake.

White Lake National Wildlife Refuge

For White Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the Service 

recorded a declaration of filing with the North Dakota 

State Engineer, priority date September 1, 1934, for 

1,315.0 acre-feet from an unnamed tributary to the 

Cannonball River in the Missouri River watershed as 

a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and 

other wildlife: 760.0 acre-feet for storage and 555.0 acrefeet for seasonal use. Records need to be updated and 

water rights perfected with the North Dakota State 

Engineer.

This pied-billed grebe—one of many migratory birds that 

use the refuges—makes a courtship display.

© Craig Bihrle
46 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

A

Air quality receives protection under several provisions 

of the Clean Air Act, including the national ambient 

air quality standards and the prevention of significant 

deterioration program. The standards include maximum 

allowable pollution levels for particulate matter, ozone, 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and carbon dioxide.

North Dakota is one of only a handful of states that 

meets all the NAAQS and has been given attainment 

status. Attainment status is based on data collected 

through an ambient air-monitoring network, which 

has various sites throughout the state. North Dakota 

is rural, with monitoring data stations throughout the 

state. Although the data is not on a county-by-county 

basis, data collected in one county is representative 

of other areas. North Dakota has energy facilities 

operating in the central part of the state and oil and 

gas activity in the western portion of the state. Even 

with the influence of the energy production activity, 

North Dakota still has some of the cleanest air in the 

nation. Some of the monitoring locations are in North 

Dakota's class 1 area, which includes the three units 

of Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the Service’s 

Lostwood Wilderness (Terry O’Clair, director, Division 

of Air Quality, North Dakota Department of Health, 

personal communication; August 10, 2007).

Prescribed burning is the management activity that has 

the greatest effect on air quality (find more information 

in the description of the fire management programs in 

appendixes F and G). Planning for use of prescribed 

fire incorporates the management of smoke. To the 

extent possible, suppression of wildfires also addresses 

smoke management. The Service identifies sensitive 

areas and takes precautions to safeguard visitors and 

local residents. Smoke dispersal is a consideration 

in determining whether a prescribed burn is within 

prescription. Generally, the fine-grass fuels and small 

burn size (80–600 acres) generate low volumes of smoke 

for short durations (4–5 hours).

3.2 Biological Resources

This section contains descriptions of the vegetative 

communities and wildlife at the refuges. The vegetation 

section includes discussions about invasive plants, fire, 

and grazing, each of which has a major influence on 

native vegetative communities.

VeGetatIVe coMMunItIes

Prairies, or grasslands, in North Dakota and throughout 

the Great Plains have been gaining public interest 

over the last few years as more people become aware 

of their decline (see table 5). Before the 1870s, prairies 

covered more than a third of the United States and 

almost all of North Dakota. What once was a mosaic 

of grasses and forbs (flowering plants) where bison 

roamed is now predominantly agricultural land. With 

the arrival of increasing numbers of settlers in the late 

1800s, the landscape started to change and continued 

to change at such a great extent that now only 0.5% of 

those areas in the United States remain.

Table 5. Prairie Decline in North Dakota.

Prairie Type

Historical 

Acreage

Present 

Acreage

% 

Decline

Mixed grass 35,088,200 11,119,500 68.3

Tall grass 321,230 297 99.9

Source: National Wildlife Federation (2001).

Big bluestem is the predominant native grass of the tallgrass prairie.

Jennifer Anderson/USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

A combination of factors is to blame for this loss. 

Large-scale agriculture and intensive grazing are 

often criticized but fire suppression, introduction 

of invasive plants, altered hydrology, and modified 

animal communities have contributed. The loss of 

diversity and distribution of prairie grass and forbs 

are of great concern, but it is not just plants that 

have suffered. Grasslands not only provide primary 

nesting habitat for a variety of bird species, but also 

are very important staging and feeding areas for 

waterfowl and shorebirds during long migratory 

flights. In addition, prairies provide an important 

food source for small mammals and insects that, in 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 47

turn, support larger wildlife species. From a human 

standpoint, prairies can help to maintain clean air and 

water, control erosion, provide rich soil, are rich in 

history and folklore, and provide community income 

from wildlife-related recreation and tourism. All 

this combined makes it easy to see why prairies are 

considered the most endangered ecosystems.

Historically, North Dakota was predominantly mixedgrass prairie in the southwest and tall-grass prairie 

in the northeast. As the total annual precipitation 

increases eastward across the state, conditions allow 

for taller, more robust grasses. Today, some of the 

best places to find prairie plants in North Dakota are 

federal grassland refuges, state-owned land, railway 

rights-of-way, ditches, old cemeteries, pastures, and 

private property throughout the Missouri Coteau in 

the central and western parts of the state (Grondahl 

and Evelsizer 2002).

Many prairie birds currently show population declines. 

The western prairie fringed orchid is now a rare 

flower of the tall-grass prairie. The Dakota skipper 

butterfly is another prairie inhabitant whose numbers 

are decreasing. Each of these declines is directly 

related to the loss of prairie.

Prairie provides important values to people. It contains 

dozens of wildlife species, hundreds of different plants, 

and thousands of insects. These species provide genetic 

diversity important to agriculture and medicine. 

Planted grasslands do not begin to match the diversity 

found in native prairie.

In addition to its importance to wildlife, prairie is also 

crucial for soil and water conservation. Prairie provides 

a reminder of the nation’s rural and pioneer heritage; 

it provides recreational activities such as hunting, 

hiking, and bird watching; and it offers living laboratories 

for scientific research. Prairie also provides economic 

benefits through cattle grazing, haying, and native 

seed harvesting. When prairie is lost, the nation’s 

natural heritage is lost, along with a valuable resource 

(North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, no 

date).

Mixed-grass Prairie

The mixed-grass prairie is one of the largest ecosystems 

in North America, with significant areas preserved 

for natural values in national wildlife refuges, waterfowl 

production areas, state game management areas, and 

nature preserves (Johnson 2006a). The predominant 

grassland vegetation within the mixed-grass prairie 

is prairie Junegrass, little bluestem, needle and thread, 

blue grama, green needlegrass, porcupine grass, prairie 

cordgrass, northern reedgrass, plains muhly, western 

wheatgrass, and Kentucky bluegrass (NDGF 2005).

One can envision the short-grass and tall-grass prairies 

intergrading just east of an irregular line that runs 

from northern Texas through Oklahoma, Kansas, and 

Nebraska, and then northwestward into west-central 

North Dakota and South Dakota. The perimeter is 

not well defined because of the array of short-stature, 

intermediate, and tall-grass species that make up an 

ecotone between the short-grass and tall-grass prairies 

(Bragg and Steuter 1996). In general, the mixed-grass 

prairie is characterized by the warm-season grasses 

of the short-grass prairie to the west and the cool- and 

warm-season grasses (which grow much taller) to the 

east. Because of this ecotonal mixing, the number of 

plant species found in mixed-grass prairies exceeds 

that in other prairie types. Estimated declines in area 

of native mixed-grass prairie, although less than those 

of the tall-grass prairie, range from 30.5% in Texas to 

more than 99.9% in Manitoba (Austin 1998).

The landscape component across the refuges includes 

the mixed-grass prairie of the Missouri Coteau and 

associated wetlands. This area marks the boundary 

of the western limits of glaciation in North Dakota. 

The hummocky, rolling hills of the Missouri Coteau 

dramatically rise 150–500 feet above the Drift Prairie. 

A high concentration of wetlands are present, roughly 

800,000 basin acres. Alkaline lakes are also more 

prevalent here. Streams and rivers are nearly absent 

as are upland deciduous forests, but tracts of aspen 

parkland occur in the north. A considerable amount of 

native prairie remains, and this area provides primarily 

for cattle grazing. Areas of reduced slope, particularly 

the western edge, have been converted to cropland 

for small grains, sunflowers, corn, and alfalfa hay land. 

The coteau is known for supporting some of the highest 

numbers of breeding ducks in North America. Due to 

the large amount of grassland and wetland that remain 

or have been restored, this area is especially crucial 

to many other species and constitutes the focus area, 

Missouri Coteau breaks. Much of the coteau is classified 

as good to outstanding for wind energy potential, 

which could pose the threat of habitat fragmentation. 

Irrigation and new advances in cropland could allow 

farming of native prairie. There is established oil and 

gas activity in the extreme northwest.

Tall-grass Prairie

Tall-grass prairie is the wettest of the grassland types 

and predominantly contains sod-forming bunchgrasses. 

Like other grasslands, the tall-grass prairie has species 

originally from different geographical sources (Sims 

1988). Grassland groupings of the tall-grass prairie 

are (1) the bluestem prairie from southern Manitoba 

through eastern North Dakota and western Minnesota 

south to eastern Oklahoma, and (2) the wheatgrass, 

bluestem, and needlegrass area from south-central 

Canada through east-central North Dakota and South 

Dakota to southern Nebraska. The predominant grass 

vegetation within this area is big bluestem, little 

bluestem, switchgrass, Indiangrass, prairie dropseed, 

slender wheatgrass, porcupine grass, mat muhly, 

fescue sedge, and meadow sedge.

Since 1830, there have been estimated declines of 

82.6%–99% in tall-grass prairie within specific states 

and provinces. These declines exceed those reported 

for any other major ecological community in North 

America (Austin 1998).
48 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Less than one-tenth of 1% of all tall-grass prairie in 

North Dakota lies intact. Nationwide, just 1% remains. 

No other major ecosystem on the North American 

continent—not Pacific Northwest old-growth forest, 

not tundra, not southwestern desert, not eastern 

deciduous forest—has been so fully altered by people 

(Domek 1998).

Located in southeastern North Dakota (Richland and 

Ransom counties), the 70,000-acre Sheyenne grassland 

straddles the ancient Sheyenne River Delta, where 

prehistoric meanders of the river flowed into the 

glacial Lake Agassiz forerunner to the Red River 

Valley. Just a century ago, this area hosted native 

grasses, some as high as a human: big bluestem, 

switchgrass, Indiangrass, and prairie cordgrass 

(Domek 1998).

Prairie landscapes are shaped by disturbance regimes 

such as drought, fire, and grazing. That meant wildland 

fire and bison 130 years ago. On the tall-grass prairie, 

fire probably played a larger role than did bison in 

shaping the vegetative mosaic. Fire swept through 

the area every 3–5 years, burning plant material, and 

thus recycling nutrients into the soil and setting the 

stage for diverse, healthy plant growth (Domek 1998).

The tall-grass prairie and associated wetlands within 

the refuges were historically found predominantly in 

the eastern fourth of North Dakota. The Red River 

of the North forms the state line between North 

Dakota and Minnesota. This area is referred to as the 

Red River Valley. Until just 10,000 years ago, a large 

glacial lake named Lake Agassiz covered this area. 

The flat topography and rich soil of the glacial Lake 

Agassiz basin provides for excellent but intensive 

agricultural production including potatoes, beans, 

sugar beets, corn, and wheat. By the 20th century, 

much of the tall-grass prairie had been converted to 

farmland. Few tracts of native vegetation remain; 

places where small natural areas remain intact are 

remnants of Lake Agassiz. The shoreline of Lake 

Agassiz created diagonal striations of sand and gravel 

a few feet high that are visible in aerial and satellite 

imagery. The Red River Valley has few wetlands 

compared with the mixed-grass prairie to the west, 

with roughly 150,000 total wetland basin acres. 

Farmland with woodlot and shelterbelt plantings is 

now prevalent, particularly in Grand Forks County 

(NDGF 2005).

Wetland Habitat

Wetlands once covered about 4.9 million acres of North 

Dakota—11% of the state. By the 1980s, the acreage 

had decreased to about 2.7 million acres, a loss of about 

45%. Most of the losses have been caused by drainage 

for agricultural development. The rate of agricultural 

conversions in the future will likely depend on crop 

prices and other economic factors. Most of North 

Dakota’s wetlands are prairie potholes, which provide 

nesting and feeding habitat for migratory waterfowl 

and wading birds. About one-half the nation’s duck 

population originates in the Prairie Pothole Region of 

North Dakota and other prairie states.

Prairie potholes, or sloughs, are water-holding 

depressions of glacial origin that occur in 300,000 square 

miles of prairies in north-central United States and 

south-central Canada. These potholes provide the most 

productive wetland habitat for waterfowl in North 

America. Although comprising only 10% of the 

continental waterfowl breeding, the Prairie Pothole 

Region produces about 50% of the duck crop in an 

average year and much more in bumper years. Potholes 

also furnish water for other wildlife and livestock 

(USGS 2007).

Invasive Plants

North Dakota has designated the invasive plants in 

table 6 as noxious weeds because they pose serious 

threats to agriculture and the environment. The 

North Dakota Weed and Pest Control Commission 

has designated certain weeds as noxious because of 

their difficulty to control and the costs associated with 

loss of agricultural production. All of the state-listed 

noxious weeds were introduced from other ecosystems 

and have flourished in the absence of natural controls.

The Service considers state-listed noxious weeds as 

a priority for control efforts. However, many other 

invasive plants are threatening wildlife habitat and 

interfering with the Service’s management objectives. 

Refuge staffs deal with these species on a case-bycase basis, depending on available money, time, and 

resources.

Dalmatian toadflax is a state-listed noxious weed.

G.A. Cooper/USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 49

Table 6. State-listed Noxious Weeds Found at National Wildlife Refuges in North Dakota.

Common Name Scientific Name

State-listed 

Noxious Weed

Invasive 

Characteristics

Present on 

Service Lands

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Yes Yes Yes

musk thistle Carduus nutans Yes Yes Yes

absinth wormwood Artemisia absinthium Yes Yes Yes

leafy spurge Euphorbia esula Yes Yes Yes

purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Yes Yes No

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria genistifolia ssp. 

dalmatica Yes Yes No

diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa Yes Yes No

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens Yes Yes No

saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima Yes Yes Yes

spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa Yes Yes Yes

yellow star-thistle Centaurea solstitialis Yes Yes No

field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Yes Yes Yes

The “North Dakota Department of Agriculture 

Cooperative Weed Management Plan–January 2004” 

identifies nine goals:

1. Prevent the introduction, reproduction, and 

spread of designated noxious and invasive 

nonnative plants into North Dakota.

2. Develop cooperative weed management 

partnerships with public and private partners 

to attack shared weed problems.

3. Carry out the most effective, economical, and 

environmentally appropriate weed control 

methods for the target weeds.

4. Carry out an early detection and rapid response 

system; this will include mapping and control of 

infestations.

5. Reduce the extent and density of established 

weed infestations to the point that economic 

and environmental impacts are minimized or 

eliminated.

6. Educate and inform the public, private 

landowners, public land managers, and decision 

makers about invasive weeds and their economic 

and environmental impacts.

7. Coordinate and standardize the mapping of 

infestations of all noxious and invasive weeds 

in North Dakota, and develop and maintain 

a database of noxious and invasive weed 

infestations.

8. Seek voluntary compliance with North Dakota 

weed laws. When necessary, apply enforcement 

of these laws in a fair and consistent manner.

9. Develop a system to determine the invasiveness 

of weeds in North Dakota.

The state-listed noxious weed, field bindweed, is present 

on Service lands.

© Patrick J. Alexander/USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database
50 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

The Service’s “North Dakota Integrated Pest 

Management Plan” will be reviewed for possible 

modification to incorporate the state’s goals that fit 

with Service policy, goals, and objectives of habitat 

management.

Invasive plants on Service lands have reduced wildlife 

habitat and biodiversity. The presence of invasive 

plants can alter the functioning of ecosystems by loss 

of wildlife habitat, displacement of native species, 

change in carrying capacity from reduced forage 

production, lower plant diversity, and increased soil 

erosion and sedimentation. These plants are not only 

problematic on the Service’s fee-title lands, but invasive 

plants infest rangelands and croplands across North 

Dakota. The spread of invasive plants occurs by root 

spread or by seed dispersal via wind, water, refuge 

visitors, humans, equipment, or animals.

Fire

Historically, grasslands in the northern Great Plains 

co-evolved with various disturbance regimes such as 

fire and large-mammal grazing. Whether lightninginduced or deliberately set by Native Americans, 

historical fires have influenced the composition of the 

plant communities. A handful of fire-tolerant shrubs 

such as chokecherry, American plum, and leadplant 

were present, while other fire-sensitive woody species 

were restricted to areas that were protected from 

fire. A number of grass and forb species dominated 

the plant communities.

It is estimated that the historical wildland fire frequency 

for the North Dakota prairie was 5–7 years (Bragg 

1995), although little information is available on the 

occurrence of fire during the early years on each of 

the refuges. Potential exists for large wildland fires 

to occur; however, this has generally not been the case.

Local fire departments and area ranchers aggressively 

suppress wildfire. It is also the refuges’ policy to control 

all wildfires occurring on Service lands.

The refuge staffs use prescribed fire to simulate the 

historical influence wildland fire had on plant 

communities. Historically, wildfires likely occurred 

during the summer and fall. Most prescribed fires 

are applied in spring through early summer or in 

early fall to allow for some recovery of vegetation 

before winter. These periods present opportunities 

to use fire for management of invasive cool-season 

grasses, to open up shorelines and vegetation-choked 

wetlands, and to provide areas of green browse 

attractive to migratory waterfowl. During the last 15 

years, prescribed fire has been increasingly used.

The combination of prescribed burning and grazing is 

a practice used to reduce the accumulation of organic 

litter. A fire creates a “flush” growth of new vegetation, 

which is then grazed to extend treatment of problem 

plants such as Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome. 

Invasive plants including Canada thistle, absinth 

wormwood, and leafy spurge can be managed similarly. 

The refuges have occasionally used this management 

strategy; however, the strategy shows promise for 

more frequent use in the future. Overall guidance for 

use of prescribed fire and management of wildland fire 

is in the description of the fire management programs 

(appendixes F and G).

Grazing

Grazing greatly influences the structure and composition 

of grassland communities. Herbivores such as bison, 

elk, deer, pronghorn, and black-tailed prairie dog 

interact with soils, plants, other animals, and other 

processes to produce unique successional patterns in 

the northern Great Plains landscape at multiple scales.

Refuge staffs use prescribed fire to simulate the historical fire regime.

USFWS
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 51

Most plant species have growing points located at or 

near the ground surface, which allows the plant to be 

clipped off without killing it. Some contain bitter or 

toxic substances that cause animals to avoid grazing 

on them. Some species have spines to cause injury to 

grazing animals’ mouths. It is likely that herds of bison 

historically spent a considerable amount of time grazing 

native prairie found in the refuges. Their grazing, 

trampling, trailing, and related activities likely had a 

significant effect on the development and maintenance 

of certain plant communities.

Free-ranging bison and elk are no longer present 

within the refuges. Instead, refuge staffs work with 

local ranchers to mimic natural disturbances through 

livestock grazing. Seasonal grazing of the uplands 

stresses the invasive cool-season grasses and favors 

native grasses and forbs. The timing of grazing is 

also used to stress invasive plants and is prescribed 

seasonally during periods when specific plants are 

most palatable to livestock.

Wetland grazing reduces accumulations of organic 

litter at the surface. A large amount of organic litter 

often favors invasive plants such as Canada thistle. 

Grazing can also be used as part of an integrated pest 

management (IPM) program. Follow-up treatments 

tend to be easier to complete and are more effective 

after grazing. Grazing and prescribed burning are 

practices used to reduce the accumulation of organic 

litter.

Prescribed grazing can mimic the natural disturbance 

that historically occurred.

USFWS

WIlDlIFe

This section describes the birds and mammals that are 

common within refuge lands, as well as the threatened 

and endangered species that occur in North Dakota and 

have habitats in refuge lands. Strategic planning for 

waterfowl is also described.

Birds

Lush, pristine, grasslands and wetlands that are 

dominated by a rich assortment of native grasses and 

sedges occur throughout the refuges. This diverse 

grassland landscape holds an impressive concentration 

of waterfowl, shorebirds, and other open-water bird 

species. Within the upland prairie grassland, many 

species of raptors and songbirds breed and are widely 

distributed on protected refuge lands—making North 

Dakota a primary destination for outdoor enthusiasts. 

Bird species that occur at the refuges are listed in 

appendix H.

Complexes of wetlands scattered throughout the refuges 

attract breeding duck pairs. While semipermanent and 

permanent wetlands provide brood-rearing habitat 

and migratory stopover habitat, respectively, it is the 

smaller temporary and seasonal wetlands that draw 

breeding duck pairs to the North Dakota prairies and 

other parts of the Prairie Pothole Region.

Two vegetative groups distinguish the refuges—mixedgrass prairie and tall-grass prairie—and embrace a 

suite of primary and secondary bird species that are 

associated with each area (see appendix I). These 

areas are defined primarily based on major proportional 

differences in prominence of plant and animal groups. 

The following text is from “Breeding Birds of North 

Dakota” (Stewart 1975).

Mixed-grass Prairie

Bird habitats of the mixed-grass prairie include a 

variety of shallow basin wetland, constructed wetlands, 

isolated small tracts of deciduous forest, and residential 

areas. Fluviatile (of river origin) wetlands include 

permanent and intermittent streams and their 

associated oxbows. Constructed wetlands are 

represented by stock ponds, dugouts, large shallowstream impoundments, reservoirs, and sewage lagoons. 

Deciduous forests include (1) narrow bands of floodplain 

forest along the Sheyenne, James, and Mouse rivers 

and their tributaries, (2) local upland forests on river 

bluffs and high moraines and along margins of 

permanent lakes, (3) scattered thickets of small trees 

or aspen groves on the prairie, and (4) tree claims, 

shelterbelts, and other wooded habitats established 

by humans. Farmsteads, towns, and city suburbs 

commonly represent the partially wooded residential 

areas.

The breeding birds are mostly upland and wetland 

species that are characteristic of the north-central 

avifauna (bird species found in a particular geographic 

region), including endemic (restricted to a geographic 

region) and pandemic (prevalent over a region) species. 

Species typical of the eastern avifauna are common 

along permanent streams and in other wooded habitats 

on the northeastern and southern Drift Plains, but 

occur more sparingly elsewhere. Small local populations 

of a few species that belong to the western and northern 

avifaunas also occur in this area.

The characteristic breeding birds of this area include 

16 primary species, 52 secondary species, and 79 

tertiary species. The primary and secondary species 

in mixed-grass prairie are listed in appendix I.
52 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Tall-grass Prairie

Because of the high fertility of the soils, agricultural 

development has modified nearly all of the cultivable 

land within the tall-grass prairie. Only a few, small, 

remnant tracts of the original, climax, tall-grass prairie 

remains. Large expanses of cropland are common 

throughout. The principal crops are small grains 

(chiefly wheat), corn, potatoes, sugar beets, soybeans, 

and sunflowers. Occasional narrow bands of floodplain 

forest along some of the larger streams break up the 

monotypic habitat. Brushy open woodlands that adjoin 

tracts of a distinct, sparsely vegetated type of prairie 

also occur on the limited areas of deltaic sand. In 

addition, wooded habitats established by people—

including tree claims, shelterbelts, and landscaped 

yards—are found near farmsteads, towns, and city 

suburbs. Wetland habitats in this area include streams 

and associated oxbows, and a few widely scattered 

ponds and marshes.

The breeding birds are dominated by upland, pandemic 

species of the north-central avifauna in association 

with many species of the eastern avifauna. In addition, 

a few species of the northern avifauna and two species 

of the western avifauna (western kingbird and Brewer's 

blackbird) are common.

The characteristic breeding birds are categorized 

according to relative abundance and include 6 primary 

species that are often common or abundant, 29 

secondary species that are fairly common, and 78 

tertiary (minor) species that are uncommon or rare. 

The primary and secondary species for tall-grass 

prairie are listed in appendix I.

Strategic Planning for Waterfowl

Waterfowl habitat protection and restoration are the 

primary emphases of the national wildlife refuges. 

With strategic planning, the Service can make decisions 

on what habitats need protection and what landscapes 

have the greatest value to the health of waterfowl 

populations.

The HAPET in Bismarck, North Dakota, conducts 

research and develops predictive models. Through 

HAPET’s research and modeling of the Prairie 

Pothole Region of North Dakota, the Service can 

predict duck pair density. This modeling tool provides 

the Service with information needed to conserve and 

restore wetland and grassland landscapes that will 

benefit waterfowl and other bird species. The Service 

bases its protection priority for wetland and grassland 

habitat on this modeling effort.

The Service’s goal is to protect habitat capable of 

supporting 25 or more breeding duck pairs per square 

mile. Figure 20 shows the predicted concentrations of 

duck pairs throughout the refuges within the Prairie 

Pothole Region. The coteau across North Dakota has 

the highest predicted concentrations, with up to 100 

or more duck pairs per square mile. Consequently, 

refuge staffs can prioritize habitat protection and 

management for refuge lands.

Strategic planning increases the likelihood of making 

cost-effective decisions by avoiding misapplications 

of management treatments or investing in areas with 

limited potential to affect populations.

Mammals

There can be little doubt that the activities of the wild 

bison, which was extirpated (exterminated) from the 

Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota and South 

Dakota in the 19th century, had a major influence on 

prairie wetlands in pristine times. Unfortunately, 

there is no documentation of how wetlands were 

affected by the feeding, drinking, dusting, or other 

activities of millions of bison as they roamed the 

prairies. Other grassland mammals extirpated from 

the area are the grizzly bear, kit fox, and plains wolf. 

These carnivores probably made only minor use of 

prairie wetlands (Kantrud et al. 1989).

Today at the refuges, the representative group of 

mammal species includes coyote, red fox, white-tailed 

jackrabbit, eastern cottontail, deer mouse, badger, 

raccoon, muskrat, white-tailed deer, mule deer, thirteenlined ground squirrel, striped skunk, mink, long-tailed 

weasel, prairie vole, and meadow vole.

In addition to these common mammal species, 

occasionally there are confirmed sightings of moose, 

elk, and pronghorn on or adjacent to refuge lands. 

Additionally, the refuge staffs have received 

unconfirmed reports of mountain lion and gray wolf 

on Service lands.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Habitats for five federally listed species occur within 

one or more refuges—piping plover, whooping crane, 

interior least tern, western fringed prairie orchid, 

and Dakota skipper (butterfly).

Laws passed in the late 1960s gave limited attention 

to endangered species; however, it was not until the 

Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973 that 

significant protection was granted to rare species. 

This landmark law, considered by some the most 

significant environmental law ever passed, has been 

amended and reauthorized by Congress on numerous 

occasions, most recently in 1988. The Service 

administers the law for all inland species and certain 

marine species.

When Congress authorized the Endangered Species 

Act they declared that species of “fish, wildlife, and 

plants are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, 

historical, recreational, and scientific value to the 

nation and its people.” The purpose of the act is to 

provide a means whereby endangered species and 

their ecosystems may be conserved. The intent of the 

Endangered Species Act is not to just list species as 

endangered or threatened, but rather, to recover the 

populations of these species to a point where they can 

be removed from the list.
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 53

Figure 20. Map of the predicted duck-pair concentrations in North Dakota.
54 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Appendix J shows the federally listed threatened and 

endangered species found in North Dakota.

Piping Plover (Threatened)

In any given year, 50%–80% of the piping plovers 

that nest in the United States portion of the northern 

Great Plains do so in a seven-county area in central 

North Dakota and extending into northeastern 

Montana (see figure 21, map of the core area for piping 

plover in North Dakota). Plovers in this core area 

breed on barren shorelines associated with alkali 

lakes and wetlands. Piping plovers use these habitats 

at nine of the refuges: Audubon, Chase Lake, Lake 

Ilo, Lake Nettie, Lake Zahl, McLean, Shell Lake, 

Stewart Lake, and White Lake.

Of the roughly 6,000 piping plovers left in the world, 

about half breed in the northern Great Plains. This 

population is declining between 6% and 12% annually 

(Larson et al. 2002, Plissner and Haig 2000, Ryan et al. 

1993), and is expected to go extinct in 50–100 years 

unless significant conservation activities are started. 

The decline and poor prognosis led to the 1980s’ listing 

of this population as threatened in the United States 

and endangered in Canada.

Whooping Crane

Ryan Hagerty/USFWS

Whooping Crane (Endangered)

The whooping crane is one of the most endangered 

birds in North America. The only naturally occurring 

wild, migratory population in the world now numbers 

fewer than 266 individuals (Martha Tacha, USFWS, 

personal communication; May 22, 2008).

Each spring and fall, whooping cranes use wetlands 

and agricultural fields in and around the 12 refuges as 

migratory stopover areas en route to their summer 

and winter grounds (see figure 22, map of whooping 

crane sightings).

Interior Least Tern (Endangered)

The interior least tern occurs in open-water habitat 

and on shorelines of all 12 refuges. This tern, the 

smallest member of the tern family, arrives on its 

breeding grounds in early May. The interior least 

tern nests in small, loosely defined groups on barren 

beaches of sand, gravel or shells, on dry mudflats and 

salt-encrusted soils (salt flats), and at sand and gravel 

pits along rivers. Nesting success depends on the 

presence of bare or nearly barren sandbars, favorable 

water levels during nesting and abundant food.

The terns nest in small colonies. The chicks leave the 

nest only a few days after hatching, but the adults 

continue to care for them, leading them to shelter in 

nearby grasses and bringing them food. The terns 

hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to 

catch small fish.

The interior least tern was federally listed as 

endangered in 1985, primarily due to the loss of 

nesting habitat as a result of dramatic alterations 

(channelization and impoundment) of important 

river systems. Water level fluctuations, vegetation 

of nesting habitat, and disturbance (from people, 

pets, predators, and livestock) continue to jeopardize 

nesting success.

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Threatened)

Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge is the only 1 of 

the 12 refuges within the range of and having suitable 

habitat for the western prairie fringed orchid, an 

endangered flower of the tall-grass prairie. However, 

there are no records of this orchid occurring in refuge 

lands. This orchid species is restricted to mostly west 

of the Mississippi River and currently occurs in Iowa, 

Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Dakota in 

the United States and in Manitoba, Canada.

The orchids occur most often in wet, unplowed, tallgrass prairies and meadows but have been found in 

old fields and roadside ditches. The nocturnally fragrant 

flowers of these perennial orchids attract hawkmoths 

that feed on nectar 

and transfer pollen 

from plant to plant.

The greatest threat 

to the fringed orchid 

is habitat loss, mostly 

through conversion 

to cropland. 

Competition with 

invasive plants, 

filling of wetlands, 

intensive hay mowing, 

fire suppression, and 

overgrazing threatens 

these species.

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid

USFWS
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 55

Figure 21. Map of the seven-county core area for piping plover in North Dakota.
56 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Figure 22. Map of the whooping crane sightings in North Dakota.
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 57

Dakota Skipper (Candidate)

Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge is the only 1 of 

the 12 refuges within the range of and having suitable 

habitat for the Dakota skipper. The skipper is a prairie 

inhabitant whose numbers have decreased. The skipper 

is a small butterfly with a 1-inch wingspan. It has a 

thick body and a faster and more powerful flight than 

most butterflies.

The skipper is likely to occur throughout a relatively 

unbroken and vast area of grassland in the northcentral United States and south-central Canada, 

occurring only in scattered remnants of high-quality 

native prairie. The most significant remaining 

populations of Dakota skipper occur in western 

Minnesota, northeastern South Dakota, north-central 

North Dakota, and southern Manitoba. The skipper’s 

current distribution straddles the border between tallgrass and mixed-grass prairie; it occurs in two types 

of habitat (USFWS 2002):

QQ Flat, moist, native bluestem prairie in which 

three species of wildflowers are usually present—

stage-wood lily, harebell, and smooth camas.

QQ Upland (dry) prairie that is often on ridges and 

hillsides; bluestem grasses and needlegrasses 

dominate these habitats and three wildflowers 

are typically present in quality sites—pale purple, 

upright coneflowers, and blanketflower.

Dakota skipper populations have declined due to 

widespread conversion of native prairie for agriculture 

and other uses. This has left the remaining skipper 

populations isolated from one another in relatively 

small areas of remnant native prairie. In addition, 

many of the habitats where the species persists are 

threatened by overgrazing, conversion to cultivated 

agriculture, inappropriate fire management and 

herbicide use, woody plant invasion, road construction, 

gravel mining, invasive plant species, and historically 

high water levels in some areas.

3.3 Cultural Resources

This section is based on the cultural resource overview 

of the refuges developed for the Service in 2007 by 

RMC Consultants, Inc.

PrehIstorIc resources

The cultural history of North Dakota spans over 

10,000 years and has been divided into several 

cultural traditions. From earliest to most recent, 

these traditions are as follows:

QQ Paleo-Indian tradition

QQ Plains Archaic tradition

QQ Plains Woodland tradition

QQ Plains Village tradition

QQ Equestrian Nomadic tradition (Horse Culture)

The Equestrian Nomadic tradition is the most recent 

tradition and represents protohistoric (initial European 

contact) and early historic times. Each of these traditions 

is a way of life that is relatively distinct in terms of 

variation in technology and subsistence practices.

Perhaps the most dramatic cultural changes in North 

Dakota prehistory are associated with the Plains 

Village tradition. This period began at approximately 

AD 1000 and lasted until 1780, when disease introduced 

by Europeans decimated village populations. The onset 

of the Plains Village tradition marks the incorporation 

of horticultural production into the hunting and 

gathering subsistence base. Horticultural production 

allowed for the creation of food surpluses, primarily 

of corn, and facilitated the aggregation of households 

into larger, more sedentary earth lodge villages. In 

North Dakota, these earth lodge villages were most 

common in the southwestern and northwestern areas 

of North Dakota. Elsewhere in the state, settlement 

patterns were characterized by a combination of traits 

characteristic of the Plains Village tradition and the 

preceding Plains Woodland tradition. The generic 

term, Late Prehistoric, is used to describe postArchaic resources that can be ascribed to neither the 

Plains Woodland nor Plains Village traditions.

H

Before it was settled by Euro-Americans in the early 

1800s, North Dakota was inhabited by several Native 

American tribes including Arikara, Assiniboine, 

Cheyenne, Hidatsa, Lakota, and Mandan.

Early Settlement

Scottish and Irish families along the Red River 

established the first community, Pembina, in the early 

1800s (Info Please 2007). The location was originally 

that of trader Alexander Henry’s Fort Pembina, a 

trading post that competed with the Hudson Bay 

Company (Robinson 1966). The area would eventually 

become northeastern North Dakota, but at the time 

was owned by Great Britain.

Trading posts were established at Fort Union and Fort 

Clark and at other lesser-known forts (Remele 1988). 

At these posts, meat and furs were exchanged for 

guns, metal, cloth, beads, and other trade goods. It 

was not long before the presence of the white traders 

was made evident in other ways; a high number of 

French-Canadian, Scottish, and English traders took 

Native American wives (mostly Chippewa, Cree, 

and Assiniboine). In time, a number of North Dakota 

trading posts and neighboring communities became 

predominantly populated by the offspring of these 

marriages, people referred to by the French as bois

brules or métis (Robinson 1966).

Activity and settlement of European and EuroAmerican people had been consistent for some time 

in the North Dakota area, but was limited to discreet 

locations at and around military forts and trading posts. 

Increased settlement started in the late 1850s and 
58 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

early 1860s when a concerted effort was undertaken 

to link St. Paul with trading posts in eastern North 

Dakota (Robinson 1966).

History of Development

The St. Paul and Pacific Railroad reached the Red 

River in 1871 and brought growing numbers of 

people looking toward the Red River Valley as a 

desirable location to settle. The Northern Pacific 

Railroad reached the Missouri River shortly after 

(Remele 1988, Robinson 1966). These two major 

events—as well as increased boat traffic on the 

Red River, new stage lines in the area, plus the 

establishment of a land office in Pembina—opened 

the door for major settlement.

Numerous towns and settlements sprang up along 

the new railroad routes. Between 1879 and 1886, 

the state underwent a settlement boom, mostly 

by homesteaders, with the formation of some 

large, organized, mechanized (“bonanza”) farms 

(Remele 1988). The population of North Dakota 

increased more than 1,000% between 1878 and 1890, 

and a second boom occurred after 1905 (Remele 

1988, Robinson 1966). Many of the settlers were 

immigrants of Scandinavian or Germanic origin 

as well as Norwegian, Russian, and Scotch-IrishEnglish (Remele 1988). In 1915, more than 79% of 

the population was immigrants or the children of 

immigrants (Remele 1988). North Dakota achieved 

statehood on November 2, 1889 (Remele 1988).

Improved weather conditions, a wartime economy, 

and federal construction projects related to flood 

control and irrigation resulted in another economic 

boom during the 1940s (Remele 1988). Crop yields 

increased, America entered World War 2, and several 

large-scale construction projects were carried out 

along the Missouri, James, and Sheyenne rivers, 

including the Garrison Dam in the Missouri River.

The development of the state’s natural resources 

began in the 1950s. Oil was discovered near Tioga 

in the Williston basin in 1951, and coal resources 

were mined for use in newly constructed plants 

to generate electricity (Remele 1988). The 

communications and transportation networks were 

also expanded and improved throughout the 1950s 

(Remele 1988). North Dakota is “the most rural of 

all the states,” and today 90% of the land is used for 

(1) farming including cultivation of crops such as 

wheat, barley, rye, sunflowers, beans, oats, flaxseed, 

sugar beets, and hay, and (2) for raising beef cattle, 

sheep, and hogs (Info Please 2007). The state also 

produces other resources including lignite, clay, sand, 

and gravel. Outdoor recreation is popular in North 

Dakota, particularly fishing and hunting.

3.4 Chase Lake Wilderness

In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 

Wilderness Act (Public Law [PL] 88-577) establishing 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. The 

Wilderness Act mandates that wilderness areas 

be “administered for the use and enjoyment of the 

American people in such a manner as will leave 

them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as 

wilderness.”

The Wilderness Act required the Secretary of the 

Interior to review federal lands to determine if they 

contained areas that were suitable for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. A review 

of Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge was done, and 

it was determined that, because of its unique “roadless 

prairie” habitat and natural beauty, the area should 

be designated as a wilderness. In 1975, 4,185 acres of 

the 4,440-acre refuge were designated as Chase Lake 

Wilderness. Chase Lake Wilderness is one of only two 

wildernesses in the Refuge System in North Dakota; 

the other is Lostwood Wilderness.

The Chase Lake Wilderness receives very little public 

use, with about 300 visits per year. To preserve the 

integrity of the wilderness, no motorized vehicles or 

mechanical equipment are allowed in the wilderness 

portion of Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Due 

to the American white pelican colony, visitors to Chase 

Lake Wilderness need a special use permit issued by 

the refuge staff. Deer hunting is permitted during 

the late fall, state firearm season. However, no other 

public use is permitted.

3.5 Visitor Services

The Improvement Act emphasizes the importance of 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation. The act 

identifies these six wildlife-dependent recreational uses: 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation.

huntInG

Centuries ago, the Missouri Coteau was considered a 

prominent landmark to the Plains Indians and early 

European settlers who camped and hunted waterfowl 

and other game species within the wetland and pothole 

areas. With the settlement of the prairie states, certain 

hunting restrictions were established for the protection 

and propagation of wildlife.

Of the 12 refuges, hunting is permitted at Audubon, 

Chase Lake, Lake Alice, Lake Nettie, and Lake Zahl 

national wildlife refuges. Special regulations apply 

to each refuge and all federal and state regulations 

apply. Visitors wanting to hunt on one of these refuges 

should contact the particular refuge for species of take, 

open and closed areas, seasons of use, and regulations. 

A map showing areas open to hunting and regulatory 

text is available at refuge headquarters.

Areas open to hunting are generally open to bow, gun, 

and muzzleloader deer hunting in accordance with state 

regulations during state seasons. To reduce hunting 

group conflicts and migratory bird disturbance, these 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 59

seasons do not open until late November. Nontoxic 

shot is required on all refuge lands. No lead shot may 

be used at or carried onto a refuge.

Duck hunters get an early start on a peaceful morning.

© Craig Bihrle

FIshInG

Winter fishing only is allowed at Audubon National 

Wildlife Refuge. Fishing is permitted year-round at 

Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge: summer boat fishing 

and winter ice fishing. Permanent lakes at the refuges 

offer fishing for northern pike, walleye, yellow perch, 

and a few other species. The NDGF stocks the two 

refuge lakes, where anglers commonly seek yellow 

perch and northern pike. Due to the abundance of 

aquatic life in the permanent wetlands, growth rates 

of fish are often very high. During the winter months, 

ice fishing seems to be the most popular.

Vehicle access to the lakes at both refuges is limited 

to designated access points. There is no restriction to 

types of vehicles that may access Lake Audubon during 

the winter for ice fishing. Lake Ilo has an accessible 

boat ramp and a fishing pier.

Fishing at the refuges requires the angler to follow 

both state fishing regulations and special refuge 

regulations.

Ice houses dot Audubon Lake for ice fishing at Audubon 

National Wildlife Refuge.

USFWS

WIlDlIFe obserVatIon anD PhotoGraPhy

The refuges provide outstanding opportunities for 

viewing wildlife. They offer optimal viewing for 

waterfowl, grassland birds, and shorebirds from April 

through early June and from late August through 

October. Seasonal highlights include the spring 

courtship dances of sharp-tailed grouse and western 

grebe, spring and fall shorebird migrations, daily fall 

movements of thousands of waterfowl, and winter 

activities of various bird and mammal species.

Many wildlife species can be observed from public 

roads. In addition, bird watchers and photographers 

can access the refuges by designated refuge roads 

and trails. In some areas, viewing blinds are available 

in the spring for visitors to observe wildlife in their 

native habitat. Highlights for bird watchers occur in 

the spring when breeding grassland birds—such as 

Baird’s sparrow, Le Conte’s sparrow, and Sprague’s 

pipit—can often be seen.

enVIronMental DucatIon anD

InterPretatIon

 e 

Each refuge headquarters facility has interpretative 

information associated with its visitor contact area. 

The visitor contact area includes exhibits and a variety 

of informational pamphlets about the Service, refuge, 

Refuge System, and other natural resources-related 

information. There are generally kiosks located in 

front of each headquarters facility; kiosks contain 

information about prairie wetlands and wildlife 

species found throughout the refuge.
60 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Refuge staffs provide educational talks and tours 

for schools and other groups, on request. The 

environmental education and outreach programs 

expand beyond the boundaries of the refuges, and 

refuge staffs are involved in local, regional, and 

statewide programs.

traPPInG

Each of the refuges has developed a predator 

management plan. These plans authorize predator 

control, performed by refuge staffs and their authorized 

agents, outside the normal trapping season. Trapping 

targets predators and maintenance of infrastructure. 

Recreational trapping is not allowed at the refuges.

3.6 Partnerships

The refuge staffs have established partnerships with 

local, state, and national groups in efforts to achieve 

habitat objectives and to improve and expand 

environmental education. Most refuges have local 

partnerships with the following groups for projects 

ranging from control of invasive plants to protection 

of piping plover nests:

weed boards

water resource boards

rural volunteer fire departments

law enforcement departments

Scouts

4-H clubs

private landowners

The refuges have worked closely with NDGF and 

North Dakota’s health and agriculture departments 

on projects such as hunting and fishing opportunities, 

disease issues, and management of habitat and 

invasive plants.

The refuge staffs have partnerships with the following 

groups and agencies for habitat management, research, 

and environmental education:

Army Corps of Engineers

Bureau of Reclamation 

Delta Waterfowl 

Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

The Nature Conservancy

National Audubon Society

National Turkey Federation

National Wildlife Federation

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

North Dakota Natural Resources Trust

North Dakota Wildlife Federation

USGS

The refuges have also developed working relationships 

with various oil and wind industry companies.

Visitors to Audubon National Wildlife Refuge have opportunities to view sharp-tailed grouse.

USFWS

3.7 Socioeconomic Environment

This section is based on the socioeconomic impact 

analysis for the refuges that was completed for the 

Service in 2007 by BBC Research and Consultants.

The 12 national wildlife refuges cover an area of about 

46,500 acres and vary in type of public use. Stump 

Lake and White Lake national wildlife refuges are 

closed to the public. Related visitor activity—such 

as spending on food, gasoline, and overnight lodging 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 61

in the local area—provides local businesses with 

supplemental income and increases the local tax base. 

Management decisions about visitor services, expansion 

of services, and habitat improvements at the refuges 

may either increase or decrease visitation and, thus, 

affect the amount of visitor spending in the local 

economy.

PoPulatIon anD DeMoGraPhIcs

The population of North Dakota has declined over 

the past 25 years, reaching a peak of about 677,000 in 

1985 and declining to 634,600 in 2005, a decrease of 

6.3%. This overall population decrease has been in 

nonmetropolitan areas of the state, while metropolitan 

areas have experienced steady growth (an average of 

1.2% per year).

North Dakota has a rapidly aging population—a trend 

that is expected to become more marked in coming 

decades and have important policy implications as 

the baby boomer generation enters retirement.

eMPloyMent

The civilian labor force in North Dakota grew from 

345,820 to 357,960 between 2001 and 2006. The 

government (federal, state and local) claimed the 

largest portion of employment (17%) in North Dakota, 

followed by health care (12%), retail trade (11%), and 

farming (8%). 

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

unemployment in North Dakota fell from a high of 

3.6% in 2003 to 3.2% in 2006. Local unemployment 

rates ranged from 2.1% in Williams County to 9.3 in 

Rolette County.

oPeratIons anD actIVItIes

The 12 refuges in North Dakota are scattered 

throughout the state; only Audubon, Kellys Slough, 

and Lake Alice national wildlife refuges have field 

offices.

In 2000, the total budget for all Service activities in 

North Dakota totaled more than $11,508,000. The 

Service employs about 170 people throughout the state, 

48 of which are involved with management of the 12 

refuges. Because many refuge employees work for both 

national wildlife refuges and wetland management 

districts, they cannot be considered full-time 

equivalents (FTEs) when examining the socioeconomic 

impact of refuges alone. (A full-time equivalent is 

one or more job positions with tours of duty that, 

when combined, equate to one person employed for 

the standard government work-year). The 12 refuges 

alone support 22.4 FTEs in North Dakota.

The refuges offer many recreational and educational 

opportunities, which include hunting, fishing, and 

nonconsumptive activities such as hiking, photography, 

and wildlife observation. No camping is permitted at 

refuges in North Dakota. 

Hunting is popular at some areas, especially at 

Audubon, Chase Lake, Lake Alice, Lake Nettie, and 

Lake Zahl national wildlife refuges. At most refuges, 

only hunting of deer and upland game birds (pheasant, 

grouse, and partridge) is permitted but, at Lake Alice 

National Wildlife Refuge and some other refuges, 

hunting of waterfowl is permitted as well.

Fishing is one of the most popular activities at the 

refuges. Audubon National Wildlife Refuge is a popular 

destination for ice fishing in the winter, and Lake Ilo 

National Wildlife Refuge is popular for fishing yearround. The most popular game fish at these refuges 

are walleye, perch and northern pike.

Nonconsumptive activities such as hiking and wildlife 

observation draw casual visitors, outdoor enthusiasts, 

educational tours, photographers, and others to the 

refuges. The array of songbirds and waterfowl at the 

refuges makes them popular for bird watching. Some 

areas offer auto tour routes, hiking trails, and picnic 

tables including Audubon and Lake Alice national 

wildlife refuges. 

The 12 refuges welcomed 79 volunteers for a total of 

814 volunteer hours in 2007. 

VIsItor leVels anD sPenDInG

The most popular areas in terms of total visitation 

are Audubon, Kellys Slough, and Lake Ilo national 

wildlife refuges.

As part of the Refuge Annual Performance Plan, 

North Dakota refuges track the number of visitors by 

purpose of visit (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

or photography). For 2007, refuge staffs estimate 

total visitation to the 12 refuges to be almost 37,000 

visitor days. Of these 37,000 visitor days, about 3,700 

(10%) are for hunting, 18,900 (51%) are for fishing and 

14,400 (39%) are for recreational activities. The 2004 

“Banking on Nature” (Caudill and Henderson 2005) 

study estimates total visitation for eight national 

wildlife refuges in region 6, two of which are located 

in North Dakota (Arrowwood and Audubon national 

wildlife refuges). According to the study, about 44% of 

visitors are nonresidents of the local areas surrounding 

the refuges visited. Applying this rate to visitation 

statistics at the 12 refuges, 16,400 visitor days were 

from nonresidents (1,600 for hunting, 8,400 for fishing 

and 6,400 for nonconsumptive recreation).

The “Banking on Nature” study also breaks down 

visitor expenditure by activity (hunting, fishing or 

nonconsumptive). Among all region 6 refuges profiled 

in the study, average expenditure per nonresident 

visitor day is $55 for hunting, $34 for fishing and $18 

for nonconsumptive recreation. Hunters and anglers 

have higher daily expenditures due to costs of supplies 

related to their activities.

Only nonresident visitor spending can be considered 

when calculating the socioeconomic impact of refuges 

on North Dakota’s economy. The money spent by 
62 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

North Dakota residents on visitation to a local refuge 

would likely be spent on other local recreational 

activities if the refuge did not exist, so it cannot be 

considered new expenditure in the local economy.

baselIne econoMIc actIVIty

Combining the effects of Service employment and 

visitor spending, the total economic activity generated 

by the 12 refuges on their local economies is 

approximately $1,483,000 per year (Caudill and 

Henderson 2005):

QQ The refuges affect their local economies 

through the visitor spending they generate and 

the employment they support. The 12 refuges 

support 22.4 FTEs in North Dakota. Based on 

data from federal wage and salary tables for 

each position, refuge employment accounts 

for $1,270,000 in employee compensation, or 

roughly $56,800 per FTE. Using the Bureau 

of Labor Statistic’s Consumer Expenditure 

Survey data for individuals in these income 

categories, roughly 79% of annual income is 

spent locally. Under this assumption, the 12 

refuges contribute about $998,000 to their local 

economies through employee spending.

QQ The 12 refuges currently experience total 

visitation of approximately 16,400 nonresident 

visitor days per year. Of these, roughly 

1,600 are for hunting, 8,400 for fishing and 

6,400 (39%) for nonconsumptive recreational 

activities. Combing these visitation numbers 

with nonresident spending averages from 

the “Banking on Nature” study, total visitor 

expenditure generated by the 12 refuges is 

estimated to be $485,000 per year. Of this 

total, approximately $89,000 (18%) comes 

from hunting, $282,000 (24%) from fishing 

and $115,000 (58%) from nonconsumptive 

recreational activity.

3.8 Operations

Funding for operations at the refuges is for the 

staff, facilities, and equipment needed to carry out 

management activities to meet the purposes, goals, 

and objectives for the refuges.

All refuges have staff and facilities that are shared to 

manage all the units in a complex (a complex is one 

or more refuges and one or more districts that are 

administratively grouped for management efficiency).

Because in most cases facilities are shared with complex 

staff and for administrative duties, office working 

conditions are tight and not conducive for conducting 

business. In addition, visitor centers and interpretive 

displays are inadequate and do not provide visitors 

an adequate space to learn about the benefits of the 

refuges and their resources.
4 Management Direction

An American avocet searches for food along a wetland shore.

© Craig Bihrle

The Service decided to carry out the management 

direction in this chapter, based on a determination 

that it does the following:

QQ Best achieves the refuges’ purposes, vision, and 

goals and helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge 

System.

QQ Maintains, and where appropriate, restores 

the ecological integrity of each refuge and the 

Refuge System and addresses the significant 

issues and mandates.

QQ Is consistent with principles of sound fish and 

wildlife management.

This chapter describes the overall management focus 

for the refuges, as well as the objectives and strategies 

that will be carried out to help refuge staffs achieve 

the goals. In addition, this chapter includes descriptions 

of the funding, staff, and step-down plans needed to 

meet the goals and objectives. Finally, this chapter 

briefly describes the monitoring and evaluation of 

both the refuge resources and this CCP, along with 

the process to amend or revise the plan.

4.1 Management Focus 

The refuge staffs will manage wetland and upland 

habitats to meet the refuges’ vision and goals by 

carrying out the objectives described in this chapter. 

Management objectives for habitat types are based on 

the habitat preferences of groups of target (indicator) 

species, which consist of members of taxonomic groups 

such as waterfowl, shorebird, grassland species, and 

upland species. Refuge staffs will emphasize adaptive 

management, including monitoring the effects of 

habitat management practices and using research 

results to direct ongoing management. Upland and 

wetland management will benefit migratory birds, 

particularly waterfowl species; management efforts 

will be expanded to benefit species of the Central 

Flyway.

The national wildlife refuges and wetland management 

districts in North Dakota received more than 385,000 

visitors during fiscal year 2007. It is a high priority for 

the refuge staffs to foster an appreciation, support, 

and understanding of the refuges’ vision and provide 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge will construct an 

administrative and learning center to facilitate refuge 

visitors and provide for a safe, quality visit. Kellys 

Slough and Lake Alice national wildlife refuges will 

enhance trails, kiosks, and interpretive displays to 

provide the public with an awareness of the refuges’ 

resources. Fishing and hunting will be maintained 

at refuges that are currently open to these uses to 

provide good-quality experiences for the public.
64 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

4.2 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, 

and Rationale

This section has objectives, strategies, and rationale 

following each goal to describe how the Service will 

manage the refuges to meet the goal.

A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of 

desired future conditions that conveys a 

purpose, but does not define measurable units.

An objective is a concise statement that 

indicates what is to be achieved, the extent 

of the achievement, who is responsible, and 

when and where the objective should be 

achieved.

Strategies provide ways to achieve objectives.

The rationale for each objective provides 

context such as background information, 

assumptions, and technical details.

Note: Although the Service identified needs during 

the planning process, there are no assurances that 

any projects or staff positions will be fully or partially 

funded. Implementation of some objectives in this 

chapter will be subject to future increases in staff or 

funding, or both. However, there are opportunities to 

examine current allocations of funds and resources 

and determine the best uses based on a comprehensive 

evaluation of critical needs.

habItat anD WIlDlIFe Goal

Conserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity 

of grasslands and wetlands of the North Dakota prairie 

to support healthy populations of ducks and geese, 

other migratory birds, native species, and other wildlife.

Wetlands

A developed wetland has a water control structure or 

some other capability for managers to manipulate the 

water level. Developed wetlands generally are managed 

impoundments. Their relatively shallow depths and 

periodic flooding and drying nature make for highly 

productive systems with respect to invertebrates and 

wetland vegetation. Corresponding bird use is diverse.

Meeting objectives for developed wetlands will require 

that water level management is carried out in a timely 

and appropriate manner. Ideally, impoundments will 

provide a mosaic of wetland habitat types to a wide 

variety of wetland-dependent birds such as waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and wading birds. This mosaic of habitat 

types will satisfy the needs of nesting, molting, and 

migrant waterbirds, as well as waterfowl broods and 

other fledgling waterbirds.

Flooding that began in the mid-1990s within the Devils 

Lake area has affected about 6,000 acres of developed 

wetlands at the 12,000-acre Lake Alice National 

Wildlife Refuge, including refuge structures and 

facilities. Sixteen water control structures and 

associated dikes are currently underwater and will 

likely need major repairs when the water recedes, at 

which time the refuge staff will evaluate vegetation 

conditions for reclamation.

Two developed wetlands, Lake Audubon and Lake Ilo, 

will not be addressed within this CCP. Although they 

occur within refuges covered by this CCP, these two 

wetlands have unique management plans, objectives, 

and purposes. Management of Lake Audubon and 

Lake Ilo is discussed in a step-down plans located at 

the headquarters of Audubon National Wildlife Refuge.

Wetlands Objective 1

Provide between 30% and 70% coverage of emergent 

vegetation (over water) on average, over 11 of 15 years.

Strategies

— Estimate the percent coverage of emergent 

vegetation through either visual estimation 

or GIS area determination using aerial photos 

taken annually in early July.

— Adjust water control structures and management 

plans to achieve hemi-marsh (see a description 

under rationale below).

— Review all water management structures for 

improvements or repairs that will enhance 

management capability and seek money 

necessary to carry out the improvements or 

repairs.

Rationale

Previous research has indicated that wetlands with an 

approximate 50:50 ratio of open water and emergent 

vegetation such as cattails and bulrushes, often termed 

hemi-marshes, attract the highest densities and 

diversities of wetland birds (Weller and Spatcher 1965).

Open water to emergent vegetation ratios will likely 

be close to the 50:50 ratio (that is, 30:70 ratio, 70:30 

ratio) in most developed wetlands, as recommended 

by Weller and Spatcher (1965), in most years (about 

11 of 15), through targeted water level management.

Because of the dynamics involved with prairie–wetland 

conditions over time, in certain years the coverage of 

emergent vegetation may fall well outside of the target 

range (30%–70% coverage). During years of extreme 

drought, emergent vegetative cover may exceed the 

upper-end target of 70%; during extremely wet periods, 

wetlands may revert to a more open-water state, 

supporting far less than 30% coverage by emergent 

vegetation.

Growing-season drawdowns can effectively manipulate 

plant community composition. Drawdowns and, more 

specifically, drawdown intervals can influence plant 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 65

species composition, structure, and seed production 

(Frederickson 1991).

A sharp increase in invertebrate populations when 

wetlands reflood following a dry phase is an important 

reason for artificially flooding and draining wetlands 

to enhance waterfowl habitat (Cook and Powers 1958, 

Kadlec and Smith 1992).

A mix of open water and emergent vegetation attracts high densities of different wetland birds.

© Craig Bihrle

Wetlands Objective 2

Within 10 years of CCP approval, establish a 

monitoring plan for high-priority wetlands for water 

quality, aquatic invertebrates, and emergent and 

submergent aquatic vegetation. Include monitoring 

the changes in species diversity at a minimum of 

3-year intervals for vegetation and 5-year intervals 

for water quality and aquatic invertebrates.

Strategies

— Randomly sample vegetative zones (wet meadow, 

shallow marsh, deep marsh, and open water) 

(Stewart and Kantrud 1971) along transects, 

using a 2.7-square-foot plot frame (Daubenmire 

1959). Measure percent cover of different plant 

species.

— Randomly sample invertebrate abundance and 

biomass in all major vegetative zones.

— Sample water quality for salinity and total 

dissolved solids.

Rationale

Understanding how water management actions alter 

developed wetlands is critical to ensuring long-term 

health and sustainability. The composition of aquatic 

plant and invertebrate communities supported is 

directly related to hydrology and water chemistry 

and, in turn, affects habitat. For example, salinity can 

negatively influence invertebrate composition directly 

by affecting physiology (Williams and Crawford 1989, 

Euliss et al. 1999) or indirectly by affecting habitat 

structure and foods (Krull 1970, Wollheim and Lovvorn 

1996). Other examples include documented reports 

that high concentrations of suspended silt and clay 

are toxic to zooplankton, and agrichemicals can 

cause significant mortality of aquatic invertebrates 

(Borthwick 1988).

Overall productivity in both the short term and the 

long term could be negatively affected, because plant 

community structure and composition influences use by 

invertebrates and vertebrates such as birds (Laubhan 

and Roelle 2001). Both plants and invertebrates play 

significant roles in nutrient cycling and are integral 

to components in the food chains of a wide variety of 

vertebrates (Murkin and Batt 1987).

The vegetative community of a wetland is one of the 

most significant driving forces in the makeup of that 

wetland’s other biotic components (for example, 

invertebrates and birds). Wetland vegetative structure 

and floristic composition is important to nearly all 

waterbirds from the standpoint of nesting, brood 

rearing, foraging, and migration stopover habitat 

(Laubhan and Roelle 2001). The same vegetative 

factors influence invertebrate community composition 

(Voigts 1976). Managing for a diversity of wetland 

flora in a wetland community generally equates to 

a corresponding diversity of waterbirds. Decreased 

waterbird use generally equates to decreased 

heterogeneity of a wetland’s floral community. 

Variability in a wetland’s floral community is driven 

in part by the temporal influence of climate (Euliss et 

al. 2004), but may also be tied to alterations that affect 

fundamental processes (for example, hydrology, water 

chemistry, and sediment dynamics) and might alter 
66 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

system tolerance with respect to the germination and 

growth of certain wetland plant species (Laubhan et al. 

2006).

The importance of invertebrates is substantial for a 

number of bird groups. Invertebrates are a key food 

resource for shorebirds (Helmers 1993, Laubhan and 

Roelle 2001), cranes, grebes, herons, rails, and ibis 

(Laubhan and Roelle 2001), as well as a number of duck 

species (Bartonek 1968, 1972; Krapu and Swanson 1975; 

Swanson et al. 1979; Meyer and Swanson 1982; Swanson 

et al. 1984). According to Skagen and Oman (1996), 

more than 400 genera of invertebrate prey are consumed 

by 43 species of shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere 

alone. A diversity of invertebrates is a critical 

supporting factor of a wetland bird community, not 

only with respect to various bird groups, but also 

concerning various foraging guilds (groups of species 

that use a common resource in a similar fashion, for 

example, birds that glean and birds that probe) within 

a specific group (for example, shorebirds). Differences 

in foraging technique, as well as bill length and body 

size, allow birds to partition themselves and use 

different invertebrate species to avoid overlap in 

habitat use (Recher 1966).

In addition to their obvious role in the feeding ecology 

of various waterbirds, invertebrates provide critical 

food chain support for many other organisms and play 

substantial roles in overall wetland productivity and 

nutrient cycling (Murkin and Batt 1987). Rosenberg 

and Danks (1987) point out that invertebrates of 

freshwater wetlands are poorly studied and there is 

little existing information.

Invertebrates that inhabit prairie wetlands are well 

suited to cope with the highly dynamic and harsh 

environmental conditions of this region (Euliss et al. 

1999). The invertebrate community of the Prairie 

Pothole Region is comprised mostly of ecological 

generalists that have the necessary adaptations to 

tolerate environmental extremes. However, 

invertebrates are sensitive to agrichemicals that can 

accumulate in wetlands (Borthwick 1988, Grue et al. 

1989), and there is strong interest in their use as 

indicators of wetland and landscape condition in the 

Prairie Pothole Region (Adamus 1996).

Invertebrate sampling data could be tied to water 

quality data to determine if salinity levels are affecting 

invertebrate composition directly via physiology 

(Newcombe and McDonald 1991, Euliss et al. 1999), 

or indirectly by affecting habitat structure and foods 

(Krull 1970). Eventually, the Service will gain an 

improved understanding of the invertebrates that 

developed wetlands support across space and time, 

through the acquisition of initial baseline data and 

subsequent periodic monitoring.

Uplands

Native prairie is defined as native (“unbroken”) sod 

and exists in the refuges in various acreages and with 

broad management histories. Most of the northern 

mixed-grass prairie and tall-grass prairie have been 

destroyed through conversion to agriculture, and 

remnant tracts appear to be particularly vulnerable 

to invasion by smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass 

(Murphy and Grant 2005). Losses are more severe in 

the Drift Plain physiographic region than the Missouri 

Coteau physiographic region.

Key roles of the Refuge System include contribution 

to ecosystem integrity and the conservation of biological 

integrity. Thus, the refuges should contribute to the 

conservation of native prairies unique to North Dakota.

Prairie Smoke

USFWS

Uplands Objective 1

Within 2 years of completion of CCP, each national 

wildlife refuge will identify native prairie tracts and 

establish permanent vegetation monitoring transects 

to collect baseline floristic composition data.

Within 2 years of CCP approval, each refuge will 

identify native prairie tracts and establish permanent 

vegetation monitoring transects to collect baseline 

floristic composition data.

Strategies

— Use current vegetation inventory data and 

landscape characteristics to identify native 

prairie tracts. Enter tract boundaries into 

RLGIS.

— Establish permanent transects to collect baseline 

data about plant species composition, following 

procedures of the belt transect methodology 

(Grant et al. 2004).

Rationale

A prerequisite to setting detailed objectives for native 

prairies is to complete a basic inventory of existing 

native prairie. Thus, this objective calls for such an 

inventory, and the next objective states that once the 

inventory is complete, each refuge will develop 

a system to prioritize native prairies and subsequently 

develop detailed objectives for desired vegetation 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 67

conditions. The third objective notes that, for units 

designated as lower priority, the management 

emphasis will be on providing appropriate structural 

diversity to meet the needs of a broad array of 

waterfowl and other grassland bird species.

Uplands Objective 2

Within 2 years of completing the basic inventory of 

native grasslands (objective 1, above), each refuge 

will (1) develop a specific and detailed method to 

prioritize native prairie units, (2) develop detailed 

objectives describing the desired vegetation conditions 

in these prairies, and (3) carry out the appropriate 

management strategies necessary to achieve these 

conditions.

Strategies

— Following the example from J. Clark Salyer 

Wetland Management District provided in 

appendix K (priority-setting example for native 

prairie), develop a method to prioritize native 

prairie units and describe desired vegetation 

conditions.

— Manage tracts or portions of tracts with 

prescribed fire, grazing (see appendix L, 

compatibility determinations), “interseeding,” 

herbicide application, or appropriate 

combinations of these tools.

Rationale

Recent inventory data suggest that relatively intact 

native herbaceous flora is uncommon in North Dakota, 

with few remaining large tracts dominated by native 

grasses and forbs. Native warm-season grasses are 

especially uncommon. This objective focuses on the 

restoration and maintenance of floristic composition. 

Smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and other 

introduced plants are prevalent in native prairie across 

North Dakota. Kentucky bluegrass tends to increase 

under prolonged rest or with grazing but decreases 

with fire, especially when burning occurs during stem 

elongation or in dry years. Smooth brome also increases 

under rest but, in contrast to Kentucky bluegrass, 

appears sensitive to repeated grazing but unaffected 

or variably affected by prescribed fire. A strategy to 

improve competitive abilities of native herbaceous 

plants should match the types, timing, and frequencies 

of disturbances under which these plants evolved.

Smooth brome generally is more difficult to control 

once established than Kentucky bluegrass and more 

significantly alters the quality and structure of native 

prairie. Therefore, restoration management focuses 

more on strategies to reduce brome. Although the 

focus of this objective is on the restoration and 

maintenance of floristic composition in native prairie, 

wildlife such as prairie birds and butterflies will also 

benefit.

Examples of objectives to prioritize native prairies 

and describe desired vegetation conditions were 

developed for J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management 

District and are provided in appendix K (prioritysetting example for native prairie). However, each 

refuge staff needs to develop objectives specific to 

their area and situation.

Smooth brome, an invasive species, is difficult to control 

once established and significantly alters the quality of 

native prairie.

Larry Allain/USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Uplands Objective 3

Each refuge will identify native prairie units that are 

of high and low priority for native prairie restoration, 

as described in objective 2. Manage low-priority native 

prairie tracts to provide a mosaic of vegetative structure 

across a broad landscape to satisfy the habitat needs of 

grassland-dependent bird species, primarily waterfowl: 

a minimum of 40% in a high visual obstruction reading 

(VOR) category (>8 inches), a minimum of 25% in a 

medium VOR category (4–8 inches), and a minimum 

of 5% in a low VOR category (<4 inches).

Strategies

— Manage tracts or portions of tracts with 

prescribed fire, grazing (see appendix L, 

compatibility determinations), or a combination 

of both.

— Manage tracts with select chemical herbicides 

(imazapic-based).

Rationale

By 2 years after CCP approval, refuges will identify 

high-priority native prairie tracts to manage for floristic 

quality, floristic composition, and landscape 

characteristics that underlie the quality of nesting 

habitat of grassland-dependent birds. This will improve 
68 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

the chances of restoring at least some native prairie 

by more intensively managing these areas. For the 

remaining native prairie tracts, it is likely most of the 

prairie has passed a threshold such that restoration 

of a modestly diverse, native herbaceous flora is an 

unrealistic and impractical goal. With modest effort, 

the prevalent, introduced cool-season grasses and 

scattered low shrubs can be managed to provide a 

mix of postdisturbance structural types attractive to 

a broad array of native grassland bird species, with a 

focus on waterfowl.

This objective focuses on providing vegetation 

structural diversity, emphasizing structure that 

is moderate- to tall-dense for nesting waterfowl. 

Structural habitat preferences of bird species vary 

widely (for example, VORs, Robel et al. 1970). It 

is assumed that the needs of all species will not be 

met on a single tract or management unit, but rather 

the needs of various species groups will be met by 

providing a mosaic of vegetative structures (high, 

medium, and low) across many tracts of land in the 

refuges. Native prairies will be managed for a higher 

percentage of high and medium VOR acres (≥40% 

and ≥25%, respectively) and lower percentage of low 

VOR acres (≥5%). In addition to mallards, several 

other upland-nesting duck species (northern shoveler, 

gadwall, northern pintail, and blue-winged teal) prefer 

VORs in the medium (4–8 inches) and high (>8 inches) 

categories (Laubhan et al. 2006).

Invasive Plants

Significant infestations on Service lands have resulted 

in more than a loss of habitat for wildlife and a decline 

in species diversity in prairie grasslands. Control of 

invasive plants is costly in time and money. Control 

requires careful planning, implementation, and 

monitoring as defined by an integrated approach to 

management of invasive plants designed to meet a 

habitat objective.

Yellow star-thistle is a state-listed noxious weed.

Alfred Brousseau/USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Invasive Plants Objective 1

Within 1 year after CCP approval, develop an IPM 

plan for control of invasive plants, including noxious 

weeds.

Strategies

— Review and update the IPM plan every 5 years.

— Prepare annual progress reports or have 

meetings to share current treatment techniques 

and results. In annual updates, include 

information on what treatment protocols may 

or may not have been successful in achieving 

stated objectives and any future plans.

Rationale

The Service has developed an IPM plan for each 

refuge. These plans detail strategies (1) for control 

or elimination of key invasive plants affecting 

Service resources, and (2) to comply with state and 

federal noxious weed and invasive plant laws. The 

Service will use an integrated approach for pest 

management to treat infestations of invasive plants 

on Service lands. The plans identify the current 

extent of encroachment by all species of concern 

and suitable control methods and monitoring needs. 

The plans document infestations and provide an 

index to effectiveness of management actions. A 

surveillance program will be designed and carried 

out to document the spread and introduction of 

invasive plants. The implementation of an early 

detection and rapid response system will require 

coordination with North Dakota Department of 

Agriculture, weed boards, weed management areas, 

and other state, federal and local partners. During 

annual coordination, all parties will share information 

and discuss the most effective, economical, and 

environmentally appropriate control strategies for 

priority invasive plant species.

Invasive Plants Objective 2

Within 5 years of CCP approval, establish a baseline 

inventory of all invasive plants, including noxious 

weeds, on Service lands.

Strategies

— Conduct inventories following the USFWS 

Strike Team operational guidelines, when 

completed, which will include mapping criteria.

— Store all inventory data in RLGIS.

— Repeat inventories at a minimum of 10-year 

intervals.

Rationale

Invasive plants are a major threat to native 

ecosystems in the United States, considered second 

only to habitat destruction in significance. Invasive 

plants have infested approximately 2 million acres of 

Refuge System lands. Infestations of invasive plants 

have a direct effect on the ability of the refuges to 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 69

fulfill their wildlife conservation mission including 

species recovery and maintenance and restoration of 

biological diversity, biological integrity, and natural 

functions.

Recognizing the need for a rapid response to invasive 

plant control, the Service sought increased funding in 

the fiscal year 2004 budget to support invasive species 

strike teams for the Refuge System. Specifically the 

Service sought to “Develop ‘Refuge Invasive Species 

Strike Teams [ISSTs]’ (similar in organizational 

structure and responsiveness to ‘hot shot’ crews 

used in interagency fire fighting). Strike teams 

will respond rapidly to invasive species problems 

identified by a refuge, or a grouping of refuges” 

(USFWS 1999). This strategy clarifies the intent 

to create a set of unique teams, ISSTs, to address 

primarily new infestations of invasive plants. The 

idea behind ISSTs is to attack invasive infestations 

in a more effective and cost-effective way. The ISSTs 

represent a new way of doing business in dealing 

with invasive plants.

The Service’s budget documentation for fiscal year 

2004 stated, “The program goal is to increase the rapid 

response capability for invasive plant management, 

using a highly trained, equipped, and mobile response 

force that refuge managers can call on to support 

control efforts on newly discovered and satellite (‘spot 

fire’) infestations. The teams will provide an emergency 

rapid response initial attack force for a set of refuges 

within a wide geographic area. The design of the ISST 

program is based upon models developed for the 

National Park Service’s Exotic Plant Management 

Teams and interagency firefighter ‘Hot Shot’ crews.” 

(DOI 2004)

Through these initial efforts, the Service established 

three geographic ISSTs: Everglades Focus Area based 

at J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Florida; 

Columbia-Yellowstone-Missouri Rivers Focus Area 

based at the Great Falls, Montana; and Southwest 

Focus Area (Arizona, California, New Mexico, and 

west Texas) based at Imperial National Wildlife Refuge, 

Arizona. In fiscal year 2006, the Service sought and 

acquired funding for two additional ISSTs: Hawaiian 

and Pacific Islands Focus Area and the North Dakota 

Refuges Focus Area.

The ISST program is based on models developed for 

the National Park Service’s “Exotic Plant Management 

Teams” and interagency firefighter hotshot crews. The 

Service will develop working relationships with other 

federal and state agencies to share and incorporate 

successful and unsuccessful strategies where 

appropriate, including centralized coordination at a 

national level. Individual ISSTs must evaluate their 

programs annually and make adjustments depending 

on their individual needs and consultation with the 

Service’s invasive species coordinator.

As of July 2007, the Service’s ISSTs have operational 

guidelines in a draft form. The draft mission statement 

is as follows: “To protect the natural resources of the 

Refuge System from the impacts caused by invasive 

plants, primarily through early detection and rapid 

response principals, which may include prevention, 

control, monitoring, restoration and education.”

The North Dakota ISST first received full funding in 

fiscal year 2006. North Dakota refuges had recognized 

the need to fight invasive plants many years ago and 

were conducting IPM strategies throughout the state. 

The rapid spread of invasive plants and declining 

budgets hampered this effort. The focus of the ISST 

was to provide funding to each refuge to hire and train 

individuals to identify and treat invasive plants. Many 

Service lands in the refuges did not have any digital 

information recorded for invasive plants. One goal of 

the ISST was to hire and train an inventory crew to 

traverse all Service-owned lands in North Dakota and 

collect invasive plant inventory information to be saved 

in RLGIS. This information will provide managers 

a starting point in the prioritization of areas to be 

treated for invasive plants.

Trying to manage an infestation of invasive plants 

without any idea of the size, canopy cover, or rate of 

spread jeopardizes the efficiency of the control efforts 

and wastes precious time and money. An inventory 

will help prioritize the strategies used to eliminate 

new and isolated infestations and contain or reduce 

larger infestations by attacking the perimeter and 

working toward the center. Inventory maps are an 

invaluable planning tool for management as well as 

critical to monitoring efforts. These inventory maps 

will play a critical role in monitoring the effectiveness 

of control methods and ensuring the area is not 

reinfested after several years by dormant viable seed.

The Service, the state of North Dakota, and other 

partners have not yet developed and universally 

adopted criteria for mapping invasive plants. Regional 

invasive species and IPM coordinators in region 6 are 

in the process of drafting protocols for field mapping of 

invasive plants for entry and storage in RLGIS. 

This document will provide guidelines for (1) mapping 

new and old infestations, (2) minimum mapping units, 

and (3) the use of a point versus a polygon and canopy 

cover. These guidelines will incorporate the minimum 

standards outlined in “The North American Invasive 

Plant Mapping Standards,” approved by North 

American Weed Management Association, May 7, 2002.

Once a baseline inventory has been completed for 

Service lands in North Dakota, the focus shifts to 

more scientific surveys to provide quantifiable data. 

The Service will conduct surveys every 3–5 years 

on priority areas to provide information about 

effectiveness of treatment, response to an IPM 

strategy, or results of grassland restoration.

Invasive Plants Objective 3

For the next 15 years, annually restore 3% of refuge 

lands to grasslands that are more resilient to invasive 

plants.
70 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Strategies

— Apply early detection, rapid response strategies 

to attack new infestations before they become 

large and costly to treat.

— Use the GIS to predict areas at greatest risk of 

new infestations.

— Conduct a surveillance program for new 

infestations of invasive plants every 2 years.

— Every 5 years, complete surveys for invasive 

plants, Global Positioning System (GPS)-map 

locations, create a baseline map, and collaborate 

with partners to map records for neighboring 

lands.

— Monitor change over time by collecting RLGIS 

cover-type data for all invasive plant species.

— GPS-map and store in RLGIS the anecdotal 

observations of infestations made by Service 

staffs while conducting other work activities.

— Respond promptly to all landowner or other 

public complaints.

— Map sites of invasive plant treatment each year 

in RLGIS.

— Monitor infestation rates and effectiveness of 

control efforts.

— Share GIS layers of invasive plant infestations 

with partners.

— Attain help with invasive plants (applications 

and monitoring) by pursuing additional money 

through partnerships, grants, and invasive plant 

programs.

— Communicate with and educate local, state, and 

federal agencies and the public about invasive 

plant issues. In a timely manner, make known 

information about new infestations, effective 

or ineffective treatment methods, and new 

treatment options.

— Coordinate invasive plant control by meeting 

at least once per year with county weed boards, 

representatives from weed management areas, 

and other partners to share information and 

discuss control strategies.

— Address public complaints about invasive 

plants on Service-owned lands, while using IPM 

strategies.

— Ensure all seed used to restore habitat is 

certified weed-free. Avoid purchasing seed from 

sources known to have violated the weed-free 

seed regulation.

— Begin habitat management treatments to 

develop habitat that will be more resilient to 

invasive plants.

Rationale

Leafy spurge (993,644 acres), Canada thistle (956,335 

acres), and absinth wormwood (452,594 acres) are the 

most widespread and common species infesting lands 

across North Dakota, as reported by county and city 

weed boards (North Dakota Department of 

Agriculture 2006). These problem plants can displace 

native vegetation over large areas and have the 

ability to form nearly monotypic stands in the absence 

of management actions and, therefore, threaten native 

biodiversity (Watson 1985, Bedunah 1992, Trammell 

and Butler 1995, Svedarsky and Van Amburg 1996, 

Hutchison 1992). Due to the large acreage of infestation, 

these three species have been the priority invasive 

plants on Service lands.

The first step to control is to prevent the 

introduction, reproduction, and spread of invasive 

plants. Many of the newer invasive plant and “watch” 

species were introduced via seed imported from 

states and countries that have invasive plants. The 

most common sources are the states of California, 

Oregon, and Washington and the country of 

Argentina (Ken Eraas, North Dakota Department 

of Agriculture, personal communication, 2007); seed 

from these locations should be avoided. Wherever 

possible, all grass seed should be bought from seed 

grown in North Dakota to minimize the introduction 

or spread of new invasive plant species.

Farming can be used to rejuvenate DNC and other 

old cropland areas, fight colonization of invasive 

plants, prepare ground for grass seeding, and reduce 

use of nonselective broadleaf herbicides over the long 

term. Old cropland areas that are heavily infested 

with Canada thistle or other invasive plants may be 

completely renovated by temporarily converting these 

areas to cropland. The crop rotation may include the 

use of genetically modified varieties of Roundup®-

ready corn or soybeans that are sprayed with the 

nonselective herbicide, glyphosate. By maintaining 

these fields in crop production for several years, 

the percentage of viable invasive plant seed in the 

upper soil layer should be significantly depleted 

and the germination potential reduced. The Service 

will replant these fields to a grass and forb mixture 

designed to meet habitat objectives for individual 

tracts of land.

Mowing or haying may be used to remove the 

aboveground growth of invasive plants before 

flowering and seed production in areas where 

other treatments may not be available or practical. 

Neighboring landowners are usually interested in 

additional forage. Heavily infested areas can often 

be hayed early to prepare the site for other control 

practices (for example, biological control agents and 

chemical control). Two common obstacles to haying 

for control of invasive plants is (1) excessively rough 

and uneven ground usually due to pocket gopher 

activity, and (2) potential to spread the invasive plants 

via hay transported off Service lands to private lands. 

(See appendix L, compatibility determinations.)

Grazing by sheep or goats can be used to maintain an 

invasive plant population at a level that the plant no 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 71

longer presents an economic hardship. Grazing may 

also be used as a pretreatment to prepare for herbicide 

application. (See appendix L, compatibility 

determinations.)

The use of biological control agents—flea beetles 

(Apthona spp.)—for leafy spurge control has shown 

excellent results. Widespread use of these insects 

needs to be made by monitoring insectaries for 

Apthona spp. beetles, with redistribution of beetles 

among leafy spurge patches as needed. The use of 

other biological control for other invasive plant 

species needs to be investigated. Releases of the 

Canada thistle stem mining weevil, seed head weevil, 

and stem gall fly have shown mixed results. Biocontrol 

is commercially available for musk thistle, yellow and 

Dalmatian toadflax, yellow star-thistle, knapweeds, 

and purple loosestrife.

Old Cropland

This section provides descriptions of declining 

grassland bird species, old cropland areas, restoration 

efforts, priority refuge tracts, and the integrity policy.

Declining Grassland Bird Species

According to Conner et al. (2001), the human 

impacts to the diversity of the biota of the North 

American grasslands are likely the most significant 

of all terrestrial ecosystems on the continent. 

Specifically, the bird species that use grasslands 

have shown dramatic and consistent declines (Knopf 

1994). According to Knopf (1995) and Rich et al. 

(2004), as an overall group, grassland birds show 

higher declines than birds of other North American 

vegetative associations. Breeding Bird Survey 

data from 1966–96 indicates that populations of 13 

species of North American grassland birds declined 

significantly and, conversely, populations of only 2 

species increased 

(Peterjohn and Sauer 

1999). It is hypothesized 

that major contributing 

factors to this decline are 

grassland fragmentation 

and habitat loss. The 

native sod conversion 

to cropland directly 

impacted wetland 

and grassland birds 

by reducing and 

fragmenting the 

available breeding 

cover for grasslandnesting species 

(Sugden and 

Beyersbergen 1984, 

Batt et al. 1989). 

Further, many 

grassland- and 

wetland-dependent 

birds have few 

alternatives to the 

Great Plains (Igl and Johnson 1995), whereas birds 

associated with woody vegetation appear to have 

larger distributions across the continent (Johnson 

et al. 1994).

Another proposed cause for declines of grassland birds 

is the degradation of existing prairie and wetlands. 

Current day grazing regimes often do not imitate the 

processes that were in place 200 years ago, which 

presents the birds with a different structure and, often, 

a different vegetative composition. In addition, some 

areas of native sod have been under a management 

regime of idleness, which appears to have given an 

advantage to invasive plant species such as smooth 

brome and Kentucky bluegrass. These species tend to 

dominate and overtake native species and degrade the 

habitat. Wilson and Belcher (1989) found that Eurasian 

plant species in the North American prairie not only 

replace the native plant community, but also impact 

the species composition of wildlife communities that 

use these plant communities. The woody vegetation 

now commonplace across the formerly open grasslands 

also negatively influences grassland songbirds by 

fragmenting the grasslands, which provides habitat 

for predator species and attracts forest-edge bird 

species that may displace the grassland species 

(Johnson 2006b).

Native Bluestem Grass

Old Cropland Areas

Many of the uplands in the refuges were previously 

cultivated and are referred to as old cropland. 

Traditionally, these areas were reseeded to herbaceous 

mixtures that included species such as cool-season 

introduced grasses and legumes (intermediate 

wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, alfalfa, or sweetclover) 

and primarily provided nesting cover for mallards 

and other ducks. This seed mixture has been referred 

to as DNC (dense nesting cover). Although a viable 

mixture that is beneficial on multiple levels, this 

mixture requires intensive inputs to maintain over 

the long term. First, DNC has a limited lifespan 

and provides attractive cover to nesting ducks for 

perhaps only 6–8 years after seeding and up to 15 

years with certain management (Higgins and Barker 

1982, Lokemoen 1984). At the end of the DNC life 

cycle, a field is typically cultivated and farmed for 

2–3 years, and then reseeded. This leads to a rotation 

of seeding–managing–farming–seeding into perpetuity. 

Oftentimes, fields are not reseeded at the prescribed 

frequencies, which leave decadent, invasive plantinfested uplands across the landscape that are limited 

in attractiveness to migratory birds. Further, the 

need to repeat this rotation on a regular basis 

negatively affects other ecological factors in the 

surrounding environment. For example, cultivation 

increases soil erosion, and herbicide use is increased 

to prepare the seedbed for each new seeding.

Restoration Efforts

As part of this CCP, the 12 national wildlife refuges 

will restore priority tracts of old cropland back to 

native vegetation. The Service will revegetate these 
72 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

areas with a diversity of native vegetation that, 

with modest management, is relatively resistant 

to infestation by invasive species including noxious 

weeds. This will benefit grassland and wetland birds, 

because providing habitat that is most similar to the 

historical vegetative condition likely provides habitat 

for more grassland-dependent wildlife. According 

to Howell (1988), re-creating the elements found in 

the original communities may be the optimal method 

for ensuring continued species interactions and 

natural selection. As an example, Baird’s sparrow 

and Sprague’s pipit appear to use short, sparse 

grass structure and mostly associate with native 

bunchgrasses, rather than the broad-leaved, 

introduced species used for DNC mixes (Madden 

et al. 2000). Further, according to Stewart (1975), 

and Kantrud and Higgins (1992), marbled godwit 

and willet typically select native grass cover over 

tame grass cover.

Native prairie areas that have not been cultivated, 

typically (dependent on management) have a diversity 

of plant forms including short, rhizomatous grasses, 

taller bunchgrasses, a low shrub component, and a 

variety of forbs. This structural diversity is usually 

lower in fields dominated by introduced vegetation 

(most commonly, smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, 

and invasive plants such as wormwood or leafy spurge) 

that have a more homogeneous height across a field 

(Wilson and Belcher 1989). Grassland-dependent birds 

adapted to the diverse structure the native prairie 

provided, whereas DNC-type mixtures limit this 

diversity and likely attract only bird species that key 

in on this tall, dense cover.

Another benefit of using native seed mixtures to 

restore old cropland, as compared with using a 

DNC mixture, is the longevity. In theory, native 

seed mixtures should persist into perpetuity under 

appropriate management including disturbances that 

imitate the natural regimes that sustained wildlife 

populations before human intervention. Management 

of refuges in North Dakota typically involves 

various tools to imitate the defoliation activities 

through which prairie plants evolved, including 

prescribed fire and rotational grazing (see appendix L, 

compatibility determinations). The frequency of 

certain activities depends on the particular habitat 

components, for example, a pristine, native prairie 

tract may require a burn every 3–5 years and 

intermittent, rotational grazing of domestic cattle. 

This is much less activity over time than the rotation 

required to sustain DNC-seeded fields.

Experimentation with native seeding that took place 

10–20 years ago in the Drift Prairie and Red River 

Valley areas of North Dakota usually included three 

to five, native warm-season grasses. Current research 

indicates that this may not be an optimal mixture for 

success of establishment and management. Tilman 

(1996) states that biological diversity is dependent on 

the functionality and sustainability of the ecosystem, 

lending to the thought that grassland restorations 

should attempt to include diverse seed mixtures. Guo 

and Shaffer (2006) completed their research in North

Dakota, which indicated that the saturation rate for 

one of their study sites was between 16 and 32 species 

of native plants.

Seeding Refuge Land to Native Grass

USFWS

Inclusion of forbs in native mixtures appears to be 

necessary in attempts to restore variables such as 

nutrient cycling and energy flow (Pokorny et al. 2005). 

Sheley and Half (2006) indicate that seeding a wide 

range of forbs increases the likelihood that more 

niches will be filled and facilitates overall survival 

of the forbs. The use of multiple forbs may help to 

overcome the temporal weather variations because at 

least certain species should germinate and respond to 

the dynamic weather conditions that annually persist 

(Sheley and Half 2006). More specifically, varying 

numbers and combinations of species in differing 

developmental phases may be a requirement for a 

native seeded area to achieve the best possible results. 

It is likely too that, as a stand matures, a diverse 

mixture may play an important role in the belowground 

community by providing a well-developed root system 

for sustainability over time (Guo and Shaffer 2006). 

Further, another benefit to establishment of native 

vegetation is the suggestion that species-rich seed 

mixtures may reduce infestation of invasive plants 

in restored grasslands (Blumenthal et al. 2003, 

Carpinelli 2001, Pokorny 2002, Sheley and Half 2006, 

Tilman 1996). In a study by Pokorny et al. (2005), 

they determined that native forbs resisted invasion 

by spotted knapweed better than grasses. The overall 

theory in the literature indicates that seeding a diverse 

seed mixture increases the inclusion of various 

functional groups among plant species. With extremely 

limited data on the reestablishment of native flora 

mixtures in North Dakota, there is a need to begin 

long-term research in this area. Ensuring sciencebased management for reseeding these areas is of 

chief importance to the perpetuation of the grassland 

resources.

Priority Refuge Tracts

Based on data in federal, regional, and state plans and 

several literature sources, the approximate midrange 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 73

of habitat requirements for several grassland bird 

species is 125 acres. Therefore, refuge tracts that are 

at least 125 acres in size or part of existing habitat 

blocks greater than 125 acres will be a priority for 

restoration. For restoration of grasslands, the amount 

of edge needs to be minimized by designing circular 

or square fields (Wyoming Partners in Flight 2002). 

The literature provides evidence that even such 

smaller areas provide benefits to grassland birds. One 

study indicated that landscape-level effects are not 

strong; rather that local habitat management is 

important for reproduction of ducks and songbirds 

(Koper and Schmiegelow 2006). Further, Davis et al. 

(2006) indicate that patch size effects on reproductive 

success of songbirds of the mixed-grass prairie were 

relatively small and variable. These studies may 

indicate variations in regional abundance or landscape 

composition among species. Regardless, patterns of 

area sensitivity probably vary for grassland birds 

(Davis et al. 2006) and likely restoration efforts will 

provide appropriate habitat size and composition 

for certain grassland-dependent birds including 

grasshopper sparrow, Savannah sparrow, bobolink, 

Le Conte’s sparrow, sedge wren, upland-nesting 

shorebirds, and various waterfowl.

Integrity Policy

The focus on using native plants to restore refuges 

is in line with the Improvement Act, which includes 

an integrity policy that states that Refuge System 

units are to promote biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health and attempt the restoration 

of historical conditions on Refuge System lands 

(Schroeder et al. 2004).

Old Cropland Objective

In an attempt to restore grasslands that resemble 

presettlement conditions, over the next 15 years reseed 

a total of 100 acres to native herbaceous mixtures in 

priority refuge tracts that, 10 years postestablishment, 

will be comprised of ≥60% native grasses and forbs.

(For this objective, planning team members used their 

knowledge and expertise to obtain an acreage estimate. 

This acreage seems achievable based on the adequacy 

of funding and staff levels included in the CCP. The 

level of 60% presence of native grasses and forbs 

across seeded areas considers the management 

challenges associated with control of invasive 

plants, while targeting a reasonable percentage for 

maintaining dominance of seeded species. Monitoring 

these seeded sites is critical for measuring the 

acreage and percentage listed in the objective.)

Strategies

— Use appropriate site preparation techniques to 

ensure a weed-free seedbed, which may include 

a combination of cropping and chemical fallowing 

using glyphosate-based herbicide.

— Identify priority restoration sites in refuges 

based on block sizes ≥125 acres.

— Develop a seed mixture with a nearly equal coolseason to warm-season grass and forb component.

— Drill or broadcast the native seed mixture.

— Use a variety of tools in postseeding management 

including clipping, prescribed fire, prescribed 

grazing (see appendix L, compatibility 

determinations), and necessary IPM strategies.

— Monitor results of vegetation establishment.

— To ensure that grassland restoration efforts are 

science-based, conduct research on selected newly 

seeded sites to determine the establishment 

success of species included in the mixtures. From 

this data, within 15 years of CCP approval, 

develop a decision matrix to help with selecting 

optimal species to use in grassland restorations.

— To ensure effectiveness of native seed mixes 

containing grasses and forbs, conduct research 

on wildlife response that focuses on Lepidoptera 

and grassland-dependent migratory birds 

(waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds) within 

10 years of CCP approval.

Rationale

According to Klett et al. (1984), nest initiation rates 

for mallard, gadwall, and blue-winged teal in North 

Dakota and South Dakota were as high or higher in 

native-seeded fields than in seeded fields that lacked 

natives. In addition, nest success was not significantly 

different in native-seeded versus tame-grass-seeded 

study fields (Klett et al. 1984). Therefore, the Service 

will seed old cropland to a mix of cool-season and 

warm-season native grasses over time. The number 

of species in seed mixes is, in part, dependent on 

annual budgets; however, more important seed mix 

considerations concern the ratio of cool-season to 

warm-season species, with a target cool-season to 

warm-season grass ratio close to 1:1.

Dense Nesting Cover

As described under old cropland, certain refuge 

tracts of old cropland were seeded back to an 

herbaceous cover of introduced vegetation known 

as DNC. Traditionally, these seed mixtures included 

cool-season introduced grasses and legumes 

(intermediate wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, alfalfa, 

or sweetclover) that establish well under a wide 

variety of soil, moisture, and climatic conditions that 

exist across the Prairie Pothole Region (Duebbert 

et al. 1981). Such a mixture provides nesting cover 

for generalist birds including upland-nesting ducks 

(Duebbert et al. 1981), northern harrier, and sedge 

wren (Johnson et al. 2004). DNC provides attractive 

nesting cover for about 6–8 years after seeding and 

up to 15 years with certain management (Duebbert 

and Frank 1984, Higgins and Barker 1982, Lokemoen 

1984). At the end of the DNC life cycle, a field is 

typically cultivated and farmed for 2–3 years, and 

then reseeded. This leads to a rotation of seeding–

managing–farming–seeding into perpetuity to 

maintain the intended cover.
74 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Canvasback

USFWS

The refuge tracts included in the following objective 

are a lower management priority than native prairie 

and seeded native tracts. Ideally, the Service will 

seed back these tracts to a native mixture; however, 

certain situations may limit this opportunity. Often, 

newly acquired refuge lands have been under a 

regime of conventional cropland tillage and wetland 

drainage for decades. Such areas often have varying 

challenges in terms of soil quality, especially with 

salinity. Potentially, a cycle or two of a DNC mixture 

on these sites may improve the soils to a point where 

seeding a native mixture is more viable. In addition, 

several logistics must be considered in the decision 

to seed DNC versus native mixtures. If a site is such 

a distance from refuge headquarters that adequate 

management (especially in the establishment phase) 

of native species is not possible, a DNC mixture may 

be more appropriate. Further, DNC mixtures are 

significantly cheaper than native mixtures at least 

in the short term and, therefore, may be a more 

appropriate choice simply based on funding 

availability. If a DNC mixture is used, intermediate 

wheatgrass and tall wheatgrass are viable grasses 

to use and alfalfa an appropriate legume. Under no 

circumstances should smooth brome or sweetclover 

be used in DNC mixtures.

DNC tracts must also be managed to maintain 

optimal vigor throughout the seeding’s life cycle. 

Especially within cropland-dominated areas, 

invasive plant problems will persist and require 

appropriate treatments to control (see the invasive 

plant objective). Other management methods 

such as grazing (see appendix L, compatibility 

determinations) and fire may also be used in certain 

situations to stimulate the height and density of DNC 

mixtures. Additionally, mechanical methods such 

as haying may also benefit 

seedings by removing the 

litter layer. Finally, the 

most productive stands of 

DNC are those that are 

reseeded approximately 

every 10–15 years, including 

appropriate crop rotation 

frequency as seedbed 

preparation (Duebbert et al. 

1981).

Dense Nesting Cover 

Objective

Over 15 years, maintain 

perennial cover (DNC and 

tame grass) on refuge tracts 

of old cropland that are in 

preparation for reseeding 

to native cover or are 

considered low priority for 

management in comparison 

to native sod and native 

seeded tracts at the refuges.

Strategies

— Use farming activities (see appendix L, 

compatibility determinations) to provide an 

appropriate seedbed for seeding.

— Manage seeded areas using tools such as fire, 

haying and grazing (see appendix L, compatibility 

determinations), and idling.

— Control invasive plants using IPM strategies 

(see the invasive plants objective).

Rationale

Old cropland tracts that have not begun the seedbed 

preparation process will be maintained in an idle 

state that generally has a predominance of introduced, 

cool-season grass species. Before seedbed preparation 

for seeding to native grass, these sites are of relatively 

low priority. Management efforts can be better 

directed toward higher priority upland areas such as 

native prairie, tracts already reseeded to native grass, 

and tracts being prepared for native reseeding. Some 

studies have indicated that, despite the presence of 

introduced, cool-season perennial grass cover, DNC 

will likely support multiple plant species and 

generalist birds including upland-nesting ducks 

(Mark Sherfy, USGS, unpublished data).

Invasive and Planted Woody Vegetation

The plants and animals of the North Dakota grasslands 

evolved simultaneously and were influenced by fire, 

climate, and herbivory (animals eating plants) (Weaver 

1954, Weaver and Albertson 1956, Milchunas et al. 

1988, Vallentine 1990, Flannery 2001). These factors 

maintained a predominantly grassland ecosystem, 

with a limited occurrence of woody plants.
Chapter 4—Management Direction 75

North Dakota’s grasslands burned frequently, 

providing an inhospitable environment to trees 

(Higgins 1986, Severson and Sieg 2006). The growing 

points of most grassland vegetation are usually 

protected at the base of the plant, compared with 

woody vegetation that has elevated growing points 

that are more vulnerable to injury or fatality from 

fire. Grassland plants persist and expand with 

frequent and repetitive burns, whereas woody 

plants tend to decrease (Vogl 1974). The tall-grass 

and mixed-grass prairie types that cover North 

Dakota produce large quantities of fuel that dry 

quickly and easily burn (Steuter and McPherson 

1995). Specifically, Bragg (1982) states that bluestem 

prairies recover quickly postfire and can even 

provide enough fuel for multiple burns in a single 

growing season.

The climate also played a pivotal role in the 

development of the grasslands, especially considering 

that periodic droughts would have limited growth 

and expansion of trees (Weaver and Albertson 1936). 

Transeau (1935) states that it is important to consider 

the climatic extremes in North Dakota to understand 

the distribution of grasslands, rather than focus on 

the long-term averages. As an example, the drought of 

the 1930s likely played a significant role in reducing 

current trees and eliminating the establishment of 

new woody vegetation. While it is interesting that 

the recent climate of the area has been capable of 

supporting trees (Anderson 1990), that could easily 

change with the onset of a drought.

Finally, records indicate that the two primary grazing 

animals, bison and elk, likely negatively affected woody 

vegetation. Considering that heavy and consistent 

use by bison occurred across eastern North Dakota, 

activities such as grazing, trampling, and rubbing 

suppressed tree growth at some level across the 

grasslands (Severson and Sieg 2006). Elk, although 

considered primary grazers, shift to eating woody 

materials as grasses dry and become less available 

in the winter (Nelson and Leege 1982). In addition, 

documentation also exists that elk damaged woody 

vegetation by other behavioral activities, especially 

associated with the rut (Severson and Sieg 2006). 

Considering the cumulative damages occurring from 

ungulates, fire, and drought, it is evident that tree 

growth and expansion were limited across the 

grasslands of North Dakota.

Recent research in North Dakota determined that the 

probability of occurrence of breeding grassland birds 

decreased notably for 11 of 15 species as the percent of 

woody vegetation increased. Further, negative effects 

on grassland birds increased as the height of woody 

plants increased: brush→tall shrubs→trees. By most 

accounts, the grasslands became unsuitable for nine 

grassland bird species as woodland cover exceeded 25% 

(Grant et al. 2004). Results of a recent experimental 

study in North Dakota determined that the bobolink, 

Savannah sparrow, and sedge wren specifically 

avoided tree plantings (Naugle and Quamen 2007).

It is apparent that nest predators and nest parasites 

increase near woody habitat edges (Johnson and 

Temple 1990, Burger et al. 1994); therefore, planting 

woody vegetation in these formerly treeless 

grasslands magnifies these problems. Tree plantings 

in grasslands are important den and foraging sites 

for grassland bird and egg predators historically 

uncommon to grasslands (Sargeant 1972, Sargeant 

et al. 1987, Pedlar et al. 1997, Kuehl and Clark 2002). 

Gazda et al. (2002) indicate that duck nest success 

decreases near planted woodlands, mainly because 

of increased predation by mammal and bird species 

associated with trees and shrubs. In addition, other 

sources state that waterfowl and waterbirds actually 

avoid wetlands where trees and shrubs occur along 

wetland margins, presumably to evade predation 

(Rumble and Flake 1983, Shutler et al. 2000). In their 

study, Johnson and Temple (1990) determined that 

nest predation rates were lower for five species of 

grassland songbirds in large grassland areas where 

nests were more than 148 feet from woody vegetation.

The brown-headed cowbird is a nest parasite whose 

numbers have increased in recent decades to the 

detriment of other birds (Shaffer et al. 2003). A cowbird 

will lay its eggs in the nest of another bird, and the 

other bird will act as a foster parent to the cowbird 

young, thus reducing survival of the host bird’s young 

(Lorenzana and Sealy 1999). Studies in the mixedgrass prairie and tall-grass prairie determined that 

grassland birds nesting close (less than 541 feet [165 

meters]) to wooded edges incur higher rates of brood 

parasitism from cowbirds than nests further away 

(Johnson and Temple 1990, Romig and Crawford 1995, 

Patten et al. 2006). Shaffer et al. (2003) documented 

that brown-headed cowbird parasitizes 24 of the 36 

North American grassland birds.

Historically, most of the national wildlife refuges 

in the state were part of a grassland-dominated 

system, where fire, grazing, and drought restricted 

natural tree growth to limited areas (Higgins 1986). 

Now, planted trees and shrubs occur at many refuges. 

Although most woody plantings existed before 

Service ownership of these lands, the Service did some 

planting after acquisition. Planted trees and shrubs 

such as green ash, cottonwood, and buffaloberry 

are native to North America; however, many others 

are nonnative species such as caragana, Russian 

olive, and Siberian elm. Most of these plantings 

are considered unnatural components of historical 

habitat. Additionally, nonnative species of woody 

vegetation such as Russian olive and Siberian elm are 

invasive and readily spread from both Service-owned 

and non-Service-owned plantings into new areas.

Preventing the encroachment and planting of woody 

vegetation into grassland systems contributes 

significantly to the recovery of grassland bird 

populations (Herkert 1994). Several sources indicate 

that the elimination and reduction of existing invasive 

and planted woody vegetation benefits most 

grassland-dependent bird species (Bakker 2003, Grant 
76 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

et al. 2004, Patten et al. 2006, Shaffer et al. 2003, 

Naugle and Quamen 2007, Johnson and Temple 1990, 

Sovada et al. 2005). Although many woodland bird 

species might nest in planted woodlands, few are of 

management concern. This suggests that the loss of 

planted woodlands will have negligible effects on 

these species whose populations are stable or 

expanding. In addition, tree plantings on the prairie 

fail to provide habitat for forest birds that are of 

management concern (Kelsey et al. 2006).

Considering all of this data, systematic removal of 

invasive and planted woody vegetation from Service 

lands is central to improvement of habitat for 

grassland-dependent birds. As described in the 

objective, HAPET developed a matrix of grassland 

bird conservation areas (Niemuth et al. 2005), which 

highlights significant blocks of grassland. Sites for tree 

removal at the refuges are prioritized based on this 

matrix, with the majority of removal acres existing 

in the areas with the largest blocks of grass. Reducing 

fragmentation in these core areas has the potential 

to provide the most benefit to grassland-dependent 

birds. In addition, the removal of woody species >3.3 

feet tall should target the removal of larger shrubs 

and trees that are problematic across Service lands, 

rather than the native, small shrubs such as prairie 

rose, lead plant, and western snowberry that are an 

important component of grassland composition.

Invasive and Planted Woody Vegetation Objective

Over a 15-year period, remove ≥10 acres of invasive 

or planted woody vegetation (Russian olive, Siberian 

elm, saltcedar, and caragana) >3.3 feet tall.

Strategies

— Cut standing trees and shrubs and remove 

belowground woody material (stumps and 

roots) using chain saws and a variety of heavy 

equipment. Where removal of stumps and 

roots is not viable, treat them with appropriate 

herbicide.

— Apply herbicides in situations where suckering 

occurs or is anticipated.

— Pile and burn down woody material.

— Use high-intensity spring or fall fires to 

initially kill trees within 4 years. Then use fire 

or herbicides to reduce viability of recurring 

growth. Continue control of trees and tall 

shrubs with periodic fire (every 3–6 years) 

applied from March to November.

— Restore bare areas resulting from woody 

vegetation removal to perennial grass cover.

— Due to the potential controversial nature of this 

management, conduct outreach and appropriate 

education to the associated local communities, 

politicians, media, and other interested 

individuals.

— Use appropriate bird survey methods to monitor 

bird response to removal of woody vegetation.

Saltcedar is an invasive species that occurs on refuge 

lands in North Dakota.

Steven Perkins/USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Rationale

Prior to Euro-American settlement in North Dakota, 

woody vegetation primarily occurred in riparian or 

streamside areas, in broken topography occurring in 

the upper drainages of streams, and in escarpments 

and sandhills. These areas often had increased soil and 

foliar moisture, standing water, and relatively steep 

topography that would have provided protection from 

fires (Severson and Sieg 2006).

Today, although numerous patches of native 

woodlands still exist in the northern Great Plains, 

once large expanses of nearly treeless prairie 

are now intermixed with cropland and scattered 

small (less than 5 acres) linear and block-shaped 

tree plantings (also referred to as windbreaks, 

shelterbelts, and tree belts). Baer (1989) estimated 

that these plantings cover 3% of the land area in 

the state. Tree plantings are designed to reduce 

soil erosion from croplands (Baer 1989) and are 

viewed by many as striking landscape features 

that symbolize settlement of the western United 

States. However, they further fragment remaining 

grasslands by creating abrupt boundaries that 

increase edge effects (O’Leary and Nyberg 

2000, Winter et al. 2000, Ribic and Sample 2001). 

Additionally, the suppression of ecological processes 

such as fire and grazing has allowed an increase in 

the encroachment of woody plants into grasslands 

(Bakker 2003). These factors have been linked to the 

deterioration of grassland bird populations, which are 

declining faster and more consistently than any other 

group of North American birds (Samson and Knopf 

1994, Herkert 1995). Research indicates that native 

grassland birds need large, uninterrupted tracts of 

treeless grasslands (Herkert 1994, Winter et al. 1999, 

Bakker et al. 2002). The literature overwhelmingly 

indicates that invasive and planted trees in prairie 

landscapes often negatively affect a variety of bird 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 77

groups (Bakker 2003). Specifically, trees on the 

prairie are correlated with negative consequences 

to ducks (Rumble and Flake 1983), wetland birds 

other than ducks (Naugle et al. 1999), prairie grouse 

(Hanowski et al. 2000, Niemuth 2000), grassland 

songbirds (Winter et al. 2000, Grant et al. 2004), and 

ring-necked pheasant (Snyder 1984, Schmitz and 

Clark 1999).

Piping Plover (Priority Species)

Piping plovers (federal threatened species) use 

habitats at nine of the refuges: Audubon, Chase 

Lake, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, Lake Zahl, McLean, 

Shell Lake, Stewart Lake, and White Lake.

The piping plover occurs in three distinct 

populations: Atlantic Coast, Great Lakes, and 

northern Great Plains. Of the roughly 6,000 piping 

plovers left in the world, about half breed in the 

northern Great Plains. Unlike the Atlantic Coast and 

Great Lakes populations, the northern Great Plains 

population is declining somewhere between 6% and 

12% annually (Larson et al. 2002, Plissner and Haig 

2000, Ryan et al. 1993), and is expected to go extinct 

in 50–100 years unless significant conservation 

activities are started. The decline and poor prognosis 

led to the listing of this population as threatened in the 

U. S. and endangered in Canada in the mid-1980s.

In any given year, 50%–80% of the piping plovers 

that nest in the United States’ portion of the 

northern Great Plains do so in an eight-county 

area that stretches from central North Dakota to 

northeastern Montana (see figure 21, map of the 

core area for piping plover, in Chapter 3, Refuge 

Resources and Description). Plovers in this core area 

breed on barren shorelines associated with alkali 

lakes and wetlands. Unlike the Missouri River, alkali 

lake habitat is relatively more stable within and 

between years and it is free of the social, political, 

and economic conflicts that plague piping plover 

recovery along the river. In addition, piping plover 

productivity is more stable from year to year on 

alkali lakes, whereas the Missouri River is a “boom 

or bust” environment for plovers (Adam Ryba, piping 

plover coordinator, USFWS, North Dakota, personal 

communication).

Depending on water levels and availability, occasional 

plover use may occur outside of the core area in the 

northern Great Plains. However, these occurrences 

have been rare and no active management has been 

pursued in these other areas, with the exception of 

taking part in the International Piping Plover Census.

Piping Plover Objective 1

Over a 15-year period, annually protect piping plover 

nests found within the refuges and monitor the 

success of protected nests and hatched young. Strive 

for fledging rates of >1.24 per pair in the Alkali Lake 

core area to stabilize the northern Great Plains 

population (Larson et al. 2002), in an attempt to reach 

a population goal of 2,300 breeding pairs in the United 

States (USFWS 1994a).

Strategies

— Erect wire mesh cages with netted tops over 

piping plover nests or provide nest protection 

by electric fence exclosures, or both.

— Monitor the success of protected nests by 

searching for pip chips in or near the nest 

bowl; or timing nest visits based on known or 

suspected nest initiation date, laying rate, and 

mean incubation period; or both.

— Monitor hatched young to fledging.

— Identify lands sensitive to piping plover nesting 

for consideration of added protection through 

land acquisition.

Rationale

The Service listed the northern Great Plains 

population of piping plovers as threatened in the 

United States due to a poorly understood decline 

in abundance. Mabee and Estelle (2000) suggested 

that nest predation is a major problem limiting 

piping plover nest success throughout their range. 

USFWS

The piping plover (top) makes its nest (bottom) on 

open shoreline.

USFWS
78 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

However, according to Murphy et al. (2003), 

predators can successfully be deterred from 

depredation of eggs of piping plovers by placing 

large (10-foot diameter) mesh exclosures (cages) over 

individual nests. Recruitment has improved with 

these cages in the northern Great Plains (Murphy 

et al. 2003). Service staffs plan to erect these 

exclosures over piping plover nests that are 

encountered within the boundaries of the Alkali 

Lake core area, not limited to Service lands, 

when permission is granted on private property. 

Exclosures placed after one or more eggs have 

been laid in the nest bowl have resulted in <2% nest 

abandonment in the northwestern portion of the 

state and northeastern Montana (Adam Ryba, piping 

plover coordinator, USFWS, North Dakota, personal 

communication).

Piping Plover Objective 2

Over a 15-year period, annually use a variety of 

vegetation control methods to eliminate vegetation 

on known plover beaches in the Alkali Lake core area. 

Do not conduct vegetation control between May 15 

and August 7 (Stewart 1975) or any time that piping 

plovers are present on the beaches.

Strategies

— Determine percent coverage of vegetation by 

visual estimation.

— Apply herbicides, mechanical disturbance, or 

other means to remove upland vegetation.

Rationale

Piping plovers do not generally nest in areas of dense 

vegetation (Prindiville-Gaines and Ryan 1988). 

Additionally, Espie et al. (1996) found that depredated 

piping plover nests in Saskatchewan were closer to 

vegetation than successful nests. Although many 

sandy beaches in the refuges are suitable for plover 

nesting, the beaches will revegetate periodically. 

Without intervention (herbicide application, prescribed 

fire, mechanical disturbance), vegetation may expand 

to become the predominant cover type on these 

beaches. The refuge staffs will remove (when needed) 

as much of this vegetation as possible, before and 

after the piping plover nesting season, to continue to 

provide quality breeding habitat for piping plover.

Piping Plover Objective 3

Over a 15-year period, continue the International 

Piping Plover Census for the presence of piping plovers 

in 100% of the wetland basins across the nine refuges 

with historical nesting habitat for piping plovers.

Strategies

— Survey wetlands for piping plovers by the most 

appropriate means (for example, boat, walk the 

shoreline, view from a vehicle with a spotting 

scope). 

— Conduct surveys between early and mid-June.

Rationale

Beginning in 1991, biologists throughout North 

America collaborated in a monumental effort known 

as the International Piping Plover Census (Haig and 

Plissner 1993). Plovers nest on open gravel patches 

and avoid areas dominated by mud, heavy cobbles, or 

dense vegetation (Prindiville-Gaines and Ryan 1988). 

Both breeding and wintering habitats are censused 

in an effort to (1) establish benchmark population 

levels for all known piping plover sites, (2) survey 

additional potential breeding and wintering sites, and 

(3) assess the current status of the species relative to 

past population estimates.

Since 1991, the International Piping Plover Census 

has been conducted at 5-year intervals (1996, 2001, 

and 2006) at sites censused in 1991 and a limited 

number of new sites (Plissner and Haig 2000). In 

the 2006 census, a total of 1,481 pairs were counted 

in the United States (Adam Ryba, piping plover 

coordinator, USFWS, North Dakota, personal 

communication); the recovery plan goal is 2,300 pairs 

(USFWS 1994a). Continuation of this effort allows 

refuge staffs to develop a better understanding of 

where to use nest protection measures (see piping 

plover objective 1) in a given year, as well as 

determine wetlands in need of protection through 

acquisition (fee title or wetland easement) or 

designation as piping plover critical habitat.

Whooping Crane (Priority Species)

Each spring and fall, endangered (federally listed) 

whooping cranes use wetlands and agricultural fields 

within all the refuges as migratory stopover areas 

en route to their summer and winter grounds (see 

figure 22, map of whooping crane sightings, in 

Chapter 3, Refuge Resources and Description).

Whooping Crane Objective

Over a 15-year period, annually inform the public of 

migrant whooping cranes stopping in the refuges, in 

an effort to reduce the risk of an accidental shooting 

or other disturbances.

Strategies

— Post warning signs in the areas being used by 

whooping cranes.

— Contact the local media (radio, television, 

newspapers), upon confirmed observations, 

where it appears that whooping cranes will stay 

in the area for multiple days and where hunting 

activity exists or is likely.

— Actively patrol areas being used by whooping 

cranes to periodically monitor their whereabouts 

and inform the public of their presence.

— On a case-by-case basis for each individual 

occurrence of a whooping crane, consider the 

merits of a possible voluntary hunting closure 

on private lands where whooping crane use is 

occurring regularly. If this is deemed appropriate, 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 79

contact the necessary landowner(s) to discuss 

a possible voluntary closure in accordance with 

the whooping crane contingency plan (USFWS 

2001).

Rationale

The whooping crane is one of the most endangered 

birds in North America. This species’ current 

population has increased to 509, of which 360 

individuals are part of the wild population of 

whooping cranes.

In addition to occasional whooping cranes, several 

thousand sandhill cranes stage in the refuges each fall, 

where they are a relatively popular game species. 

Because of the often-close interaction between sandhill 

cranes and whooping cranes and their use of similar 

habitats, potential exists for a whooping crane to be 

mistaken for a sandhill crane. In 2004, sandhill crane 

hunters in Kansas mistakenly shot and killed two 

whooping cranes near Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.

Since 1968, there have been other shooting incidents 

involving the whooping crane—four in Texas and one 

in Saskatchewan, Canada (Richard Hinton, Bismarck 

Tribune, personal communication, 2003). The Service 

hopes that by informing and educating area hunters 

about whooping cranes’ use of the refuges, it can 

greatly reduce any risk of an accidental shooting. The 

Service will consult the whooping crane contingency 

plan (USFWS 2001) for appropriate actions when 

dealing with migrant whooping cranes that show 

potential for remaining in the refuges for multiple days.

Dakota Skipper (Priority Species)

Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge is the only 

1 of the 12 refuges that is within the range of and 

has suitable habitat for the Dakota skipper butterfly 

(federal candidate species). The skipper is a species 

of concern whose numbers have decreased. Its current

distribution straddles the border between tall-grass 

prairie and mixed-grass prairie. The Dakota skipper 

occurs in two types of habitat (USFWS 2002):

QQ Flat, moist, native bluestem prairie in which 

three species of wildflowers are usually present—

stage-wood lily, harebell, and smooth camas.

QQ Upland (dry) prairie that is often on ridges and 

hillsides; bluestem grasses and needlegrasses 

dominate these habitats and three wildflowers 

are typically present in quality sites—pale purple, 

upright coneflowers, and blanketflower.

The Dakota skipper’s historical range is not known 

precisely, because extensive destruction of native 

prairie preceded widespread biological surveys in 

central North America. Although this butterfly likely 

occurred throughout a relatively unbroken and vast 

area of grassland in the north-central United States 

and south-central Canada, it now occurs only in 

scattered blanketflower remnants of high-quality 

native prairie.

Scientists have recorded Dakota skippers from 

northeastern Illinois to southern Saskatchewan. 

Dakota skippers now occur no further east than 

western Minnesota and scientists presume that the 

species no longer exists in Illinois and Iowa. The most 

significant remaining populations of Dakota skipper 

occur in western Minnesota, northeastern South 

Dakota, north-central North Dakota, and southern 

Manitoba. Its current distribution straddles the border 

between tall-grass and mixed-grass prairie ecoregions.

Dakota Skipper Butterfly

Robert Dana/USFWS

Dakota Skipper Objective

At 5-year intervals, reevaluate native prairie 

portions >80 acres for suitability as Dakota skipper 

habitat, based on new vegetative species composition 

data. Manage sites deemed suitable for Dakota 

skipper (tier 2, after Murphy 2005) in accordance 

with its habitat needs. Within 5 years of classification, 

survey sites one or more times to document Dakota 

skipper presence or absence.

Strategies

— Use data from new belt transects (Grant et 

al. 2004) to reevaluate vegetative species 

composition.

— Systematically survey for Dakota skipper using 

either the checklist or Pollard Walk methods 

(Royer et al. 1998).

— Contract survey work to qualified lepidopterists.

Rationale

Dakota skipper populations have declined due to 

widespread conversion of native prairie for agriculture 

and other uses. This has left the remaining skipper 

populations isolated from one another in relatively 

small areas of remnant native prairie. In addition, 

many of the habitats where the species persists are 

threatened by overgrazing, conversion to cultivated 

agriculture, inappropriate fire management and 

herbicide use, woody plant invasion, road construction, 

gravel mining, invasive plant species, and historically 

high water levels (in some areas).
80 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

All refuges that have habitat capable of supporting 

Dakota skippers need to be systematically surveyed 

in an attempt to document the presence or absence 

of this species. Periodic reevaluation (every 5 years) 

of native prairie tracts must be completed to capture 

changes in vegetative species composition that occur 

over time as a result of management, climatic changes, 

or other factors (such as new infestations by invasive 

plants).

Predator Management

This section describes predator–prey dynamics, related 

waterfowl nest success, and predator management.

Predator–Prey Dynamics

Across the prairie landscape, grassland and wetland 

conversions changed the predator–prey relationships 

and actually bolstered the populations of several 

waterfowl predators (Sovada et al. 2005). Before 

settlement, the highest-ranking predator across the 

landscape was the gray wolf and an occasional grizzly 

bear. Less abundant were coyote and red fox, while 

swift fox populations were high.

After settlement, the near elimination of the gray 

wolf from this area had a profound effect on 

mesopredators (intermediate predators), especially 

 canids such as the 

 red fox and coyote. 

 Wolves are 

 territorial and 

 intolerant of other 

 canids; thus, fox and 

 coyote abundance was 

 limited and somewhat 

 controlled by wolves. 

 However, after the 

 extermination of gray 

 wolves from the prairie, 

 fox and coyote 

 populations grew. 

 Subsequently, the 

 coyote was targeted with 

a bounty and populations were driven down. This 

increased the abundance and distribution of the red 

fox, which adversely affected waterfowl populations 

because red fox are a primary predator of nesting 

waterfowl and eggs (Sargeant et al. 1993, Sovada 

et al. 1995). Populations of other species that were 

scarce and narrowly distributed expanded greatly as 

well, including raccoon and American crow.

Predator species composition is noteworthy because 

of the impacts on waterfowl survival (Greenwood 

et al. 1995, Sovada et al. 1995). Franklin’s ground 

squirrel and six carnivores (raccoon, mink, striped 

skunk, badger, red fox, and coyote) cause most 

waterfowl depredation (Sargeant and Arnold 1984). 

Sargeant et al. (1993) determined that predation 

rates on waterfowl nests early in the nesting season 

increased simultaneously with the increase in the 

abundance of red fox, badger, and American crow; 

whereas, late in the nesting season, predation 

increased with the abundance of red fox and striped 

skunk.

Additionally, fragmentation of the landscape caused 

by loss of wetland and grassland created edge effect 

that negatively affected many native species and 

increased predation. Predators live in areas where 

their needs are met at a more efficient level than by 

the surrounding landscape (Charnov 1976, Stephens 

and Krebs 1986). Relating this to the prairie, patchy 

grassland habitats that are interspersed throughout 

agricultural lands provide attractive food sources to 

predators as compared with the surrounding cropland 

(Greenwood et al. 1999). Charnov (1976) indicates 

that predators will spend more time in these isolated 

grassland patches, even considering the increased 

effort required to access these areas (for example, 

predators must traverse crop fields, roads, and 

human dwellings to get to grasslands).

 The red fox is a primary predator 

of nesting waterfowl.

Waterfowl Nest Success

In the Prairie Pothole Region, nest success of uplandnesting waterfowl declined between 1935 and 1992: 

nest success in 1935 averaged 30% and by the early 

1990s it was around 10%. Likely reasons for the decline 

include habitat alteration, drought, farming practices, 

nest predation, overhunting, environmental 

contaminants, and disease (Beauchamp et al. 1996).

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, this area experienced 

widespread drought, which reduced the already limited 

wetland habitat available to waterfowl and caused 

significant reductions in productivity (Samson et al. 

1998). Such conditions resulted in poor nesting efforts 

and success and low survival rates of young (Austin 

1998). Varying precipitation characteristic of the area 

greatly influenced the number and distribution of 

waterfowl despite restoration and regulatory practices 

that were becoming more prominent across the 

landscape (Batt et al. 1989). As an example, before the 

drought years, most of the area encountered a wet 

cycle that began in late 1993 and continued through 

the 1990s. Most populations of waterfowl appeared to 

recover quickly at the onset of the wet years, with 

obvious reasons being (1) the increased quality of 

readily available wetland habitat (Austin 1998), and 

(2) the large number of cropland acres (about 4.8 

million acres in the Prairie Pothole Region) that were 

converted to perennial grass through the Conservation 

Reserve Program (Kantrud 1993). Greenwood and 

Sovada (1996) indicate that other factors likely 

contributed to the large and rapid recovery of 

waterfowl following the drought years. Specifically, 

low red fox populations likely were a significant 

factor in the increased nest success in ducks, while 

duck survival was also enhanced by the low mink 

numbers (Austin 1998). The landscape conditions 

were ideal for a boom in waterfowl populations—

favorable water conditions, reduced predator 

pressure, and increased availability of upland cover. 

However, these conditions that favor increased 

duck numbers appear to be in synchronization 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 81

for only a short time following the drought years. 

Habitats highly dominated by agriculture, which 

are commonplace across the Prairie Pothole Region 

of North Dakota, may only generate high duck 

production for 2–3 years out of 10 (Lynch et al. 1963).

A mallard hen and her brood head for water.

© Craig Bihrle

Predator Management

In breeding grounds of cropland-dominated 

landscapes, wildlife managers must deal with 

predation issues. The major source of mortality for 

North American waterfowl during the breeding 

season is predation (Sargeant and Raveling 1992), 

with greater than 70% of nest failures attributed 

to predation (Sovada et al. 2001). Various studies 

indicate that predator removal increases waterfowl 

nest success (Mense 1996, Garrettson et al. 1996, 

Zimmer 1996, Hoff 1999, Garrettson and Rohwer 

2001). Sovada et al. (2001) state that extensive 

predator removal will improve waterfowl 

productivity. Several other studies document 

intensive predator removal that can increase duck 

nest success and brood production (Balser et al. 

1968, Duebbert and Lokemoen 1980, Sargeant et 

al. 1995, Garrettson et al. 1996). In situations where 

habitat protection and management is not enough 

to maintain and enhance waterfowl nest success, 

predator management is an acceptable and viable 

alternative (Sovada et al. 2005).

In addition to predation of waterfowl, predation of 

songbirds and other nongame birds is an important 

cause of nest failure (Martin 1988, 1995). Predator 

communities in fragmented landscapes such as the 

Prairie Pothole Region do not provide safe nesting 

sites for songbirds (Dion et al. 2000). An independent 

group of ornithologists (Berkey et al. 1993) stated that 

the following species would benefit from predator 

fence exclosures designed to reduce the impact of 

medium- to large-sized mammals: sedge wren, common 

yellowthroat, dickcissel, clay-colored sparrow, lark 

bunting, Savannah sparrow, song sparrow, bobolink, 

and red-winged blackbird. Berkey et al. (1993) 

concluded that predator barriers (fences) are very 

beneficial to larger nongame migratory birds such 

as northern harrier, short-eared owl, and American 

bittern. Additionally, Helmers and Gratto-Trevor 

(1996) determined that predation causes a significant 

impact on shorebird nest success, especially in 

southern areas of their breeding range. Witmer et 

al. (1996) indicate that two factors—protection and 

restoration of habitat and predator management—

may curtail listing and extinction rates of bird species.

Predator Management Objective

Annually use at least one predator management 

technique that, in areas where carried out, will achieve 

a Mayfield nest success of ≥40% for waterfowl, to help 

increase recruitment of ground-nesting birds at refuges 

in cropland-dominated areas of North Dakota.

(Several predator management techniques are 

available for use in North Dakota; therefore, it is 

reasonable for each refuge to carry out at least one on 

an annual basis. Details and background on techniques 

are documented in Dixon and Hollevoet (2005). In 

addition, most techniques for predator management 

are intended to provide a significant benefit to many 

ground-nesting birds. Therefore, ≥40% Mayfield nest 

success is intended; this is well above maintenance 

levels of dabbling ducks that nest in the area.)

Strategies

— Hire professional trappers to trap selected 

36-square-mile predator management blocks.

— Carry out predator management activities in 

the spring on islands associated with refuges.

— Annually maintain established predator 

exclosures.

— Install and maintain nesting structures.

— Remove artificial microhabitats such as rock 

piles, abandoned buildings, downed fences, and 

miscellaneous junk. Remove invasive and planted 

trees.

Rationale

Wildlife managers in North Dakota are well aware 

that management of ground-nesting birds requires 

the protection and restoration of prairie grasslands 

and wetlands. However, there has been recent 

emphasis on identification of effective methods that 

reduce the negative effects of predation on waterfowl 

and other grassland-nesting birds. The refuges 

intend to carry out science-based management that 

will reduce the effects of predation on grasslandnesting birds.

The Red River Valley, Drift Prairie, and eastern 

portions of the Missouri Coteau lie within a croplanddominated landscape. The cropland-dominated 

landscape is an area altered to such a degree that, 

despite perpetual habitat protection of refuge lands, 

consistently maintaining recruitment of migratory 

birds above maintenance levels is not possible. It is 

likely that this area consists of less than 20%–40% 

grassland cover, with the majority of the landscape 

in agricultural commodity production. 
82 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Wildlife Disease

There is a wildlife disease contingency plan specific 

to each refuge (completed in 2006). Each staff will 

annually review the refuge plan and update it as new 

information becomes available. Because of emerging 

disease threats, Service staffs can no longer rely on 

past informal disease protocols. Two new diseases that 

have the potential to affect management at the refuges 

are highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and 

chronic wasting disease (CWD).

Wildlife Disease Objective

Annually review and update disease contingency plans.

Strategies

— Follow the monitoring and response protocols 

outlined in disease contingency plans.

— Maintain a supply of personnel protective 

equipment on hand for emergency cleanup 

operations.

— Cooperate with USDA’s Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) wildlife 

services for HPAI, where possible.

— Continue to support the NDGF with CWD 

surveillance.

Rationale

Bird disease response is a readily evolving process. 

Prior to 2006 and the present threat level of HPAI in 

North American migratory birds, most refuges dealt 

primarily with two diseases in bird communities: 

botulism and West Nile virus. Although safe handling 

practices such as rubber gloves have always been 

used, human health threats are relatively minor from 

handling birds with botulism (Friend and Franson 

1999) and West Nile virus (Domek 1998). However, 

the highly pathogenic H5N1 strain of HPAI presents 

Service staffs and other wildlife resource personnel 

with unknowns, including possibly serious human 

health threats.

HPAI (bird flu) is a disease caused by a virus that 

infects both wild birds (such as shorebirds and 

waterfowl) and domestic poultry. Each year, there 

is a bird flu season just as there is an influenza 

season for humans. As with people, some forms of 

the influenza are worse than others (USGS 2006). 

Recently, the H5N1 strain of HPAI has been found 

in an increasing number of countries in Europe, Asia, 

and Africa. This strain is not present in the United 

States, but is likely to spread to this country 

(Dr. Thomas Roffe, veterinarian, USFWS, Montana, 

personal communication). There are a number of 

ways that the H5N1 strain could potentially reach 

the United States including (1) wild bird migration, 

(2) illegal smuggling of birds or poultry products, and 

(3) travel by infected people or people traveling with 

virus-contaminated articles from areas where H5N1 

already exists (USGS 2006).

CWD is a disease of the nervous system in deer and 

elk that results in distinctive brain lesions. CWD 

has not been detected in either wild or captive 

white-tailed deer, mule deer, or elk in North Dakota 

(Dorothy Fecske, furbearer biologist, NDGF, 

personal communication). The NDGF has conducted 

surveillance for this disease since 2002, testing tissue 

samples from more than 8,500 deer heads (mostly 

hunter-harvested). Through 2006, all samples were 

negative (NDGF, news release; April 16, 2007).

CWD has been documented in captive deer and elk in 

the surrounding states (Minnesota and Montana) and 

Saskatchewan, Canada (Samson et al. 1998). There 

is potential for CWD to be present, but undetected, 

or eventually infect deer and elk in the state. Service 

staff helped NDGF with CWD surveillance efforts 

by establishing drop-off sites for white-tailed deer 

(heads) harvested on or near Service lands during 

the state’s firearm deer season. Service staffs will 

adhere to protocols in the “Chronic Wasting Plan for 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in the Dakotas” 

(USFWS 2004) for all future CWD-related work. 

This plan acknowledges the NDGF as the lead in all 

CWD efforts in the state and describes the Service’s 

role as a supporting partner.

MonItorInG anD research Goal

Use science, monitoring, and applied research to 

advance the understanding of natural resources and 

management within the North Dakota national wildlife 

refuges.

The refuge staff monitors grassland and restoration efforts.

USFWS
Chapter 4—Management Direction 83

Monitoring and Research

Habitat goals and objectives are the basis for 

monitoring and research priorities for the refuges. 

Goals and objectives emphasize management of 

vegetative communities as habitat for wildlife. 

Monitoring and research should be used to predict 

and validate wildlife response to management. Too 

often, biological needs of wildlife species and their 

habitats receive less consideration than socioeconomic 

and political factors in the decision-making process. 

Biology should guide management decisions for the 

Refuge System.

Most factors that influence the dynamics of wildlife 

populations, especially those of migratory birds, may 

not be directly influenced at an individual refuge, but 

can be influenced indirectly through appropriate or 

inappropriate management of habitat. Because the 

CCP is a broad umbrella plan that provides general 

concepts and specific management and operational 

objectives for Service lands, it is imperative that stepdown plans such as inventory and monitoring plans 

and habitat management plans are produced. The 

purpose of step-down plans is to provide detail and 

clear direction to Service managers and other 

employees who will carry out the strategies 

described in the CCP. A habitat management plan 

provides staff with detailed information about 

various management practices. An inventory and 

monitoring plan outlines activities for habitat and 

wildlife and provides detailed information on 

methodology and analysis.

Monitoring and Research Objective 1

Within 2 years of CCP approval, establish permanent 

vegetation monitoring transects to collect baseline 

floristic composition data for all major plant 

communities in all refuges.

Strategies

— Establish permanent transects to collect baseline 

data about plant species composition following 

standardized methodologies (belt transects 

[Grant et al. 2004]).

— Conduct periodic (every 5 years) surveys to 

assess vegetative composition and structure of 

habitats.

— Enter all inventory and survey mapping into 

RLGIS.

Rationale

A basic inventory of habitats is the first step in 

development of detailed objectives describing the 

desired future vegetation conditions. Permanent 

vegetation transects, following standardized 

methodologies across all refuges and that can be 

repeated periodically, are needed to help assess 

change over time.

Monitoring and Research Objective 2

Within 2 years of gathering baseline floristic 

composition data (see monitoring and research 

objective 1), each refuge will complete a habitat 

management plan.

Strategy

— Refuge staffs will develop specific habitat goals 

and objects for priority management units 

based on data from baseline surveys.

Rationale

Following completion of baseline floristic surveys, 

managers will be able to identify high- and lowpriority native prairie tracts, invasive plant 

infestations, and wetland vegetation composition. 

The habitat management plans will identify specific 

habitat objectives for each refuge. Each plan will 

also provide detailed information about various 

management practices (such as timing of prescribed 

fire; timing and intensity of grazing; timing, 

application rate, and pesticide type for chemical 

applications; and water level manipulations). If a 

separate water management plan is not needed, the 

habitat management plan will provide guidance for 

management of wetlands and uplands.

Monitoring and Research Objective 3

Within 1 year of CCP approval, identify and 

prioritize research needs required to meet the goals 

and objectives.

Strategies

— Develop a research team with responsibility to 

identify and prioritize research needs within 

North Dakota or the northern Great Plains.

— Compile annual progress reports that describe 

current monitoring and research, results to date, 

and future projects. Include information on 

what treatment protocols may or may not have 

been successful in achieving stated objectives 

and include plans for future treatments.

Rationale

In 2005, the Dakota Working Group’s grasslands 

monitoring team put together a grassland habitat 

management/monitoring survey to assess 

management issues and threats to grasslands in 

Service lands. The survey resulted in identification of 

smooth brome invasion as the most common threat to 

native prairie. Following a 2-day technical meeting, 

the Brome Summit, to discuss the ecology and 

control strategies for smooth brome, the grasslands 

monitoring team started the smooth brome research 

project. This project is a large-scale investigation of 

the efficacy and effectiveness of various management 

treatments used to promote recolonization by native 

species. The project has the potential to involve all 

refuges and districts in North Dakota and South 

Dakota that have intact native prairie or native sod 
84 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

never broken and cropped. The monitoring team 

successfully competed for USGS Science Support 

Program funding to complete vegetation inventories 

of plant communities on native prairie tracts for 

most refuges and districts in North Dakota and 

South Dakota during the 2007 and 2008 field seasons. 

Completion of all inventories will provide a baseline 

for monitoring changes and evaluating success of 

management actions, as well as be used to develop a 

monitoring plan.

Research needs include information about treatment 

tools, response to various treatments, and wildlife 

response as a result of treatments. Wildlife population 

research should focus on assessments of species–

habitat relationships.

Monitoring and Research Objective 4

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, begin at least one 

monitoring or research project every 2 years that 

investigates needs identified in monitoring and 

research objective 3, and apply resulting information 

in efforts to achieve habitat and wildlife goals and 

objectives.

Strategies

— Develop a research team with responsibility to 

develop study plans, apply for funding, and 

begin the selected research.

— Participate in large-scale monitoring and 

research projects by providing on-the-ground 

study plots or indirectly by providing equipment 

or staff for data collection.

— Design and conduct issue-driven research.

— Focus wildlife population research on assessments 

of species–habitat relationships.

— Promote research and science priorities within 

the broader scientific community. Ensure that 

cooperative research addresses information needs 

identified in habitat management goals and 

objectives.

— Annually complete progress reports that 

summarize the current year’s monitoring and 

research efforts. If applicable, include discussion 

on past and current techniques that did or did 

not produce expected results.

Rationale

Knowledge gaps regarding natural resources are 

many and varied. Investigations must be sufficiently 

designed, funded, and carried out to reliably address 

proposed hypotheses or questions. All research needs 

will need to be prioritized because resources (funding, 

staff, and equipment) are always limited and oftentimes 

insufficient. Partnerships will need to be developed 

for a variety of disciplines from various state and 

federal agencies and institutions to meet the research 

goal and objectives. Cooperative efforts will be 

supported with shared funding, lodging, vehicles, 

equipment, knowledge, and expertise.

Examples of specific research needs identified during 

the CCP process include the following:

QQ Ensure that predator management in blocks 

does not negatively affect nongame migratory 

birds: research will determine the nest success 

of breeding shorebirds and ground-nesting 

songbirds on controlled and trapped sites within 

15 years of CCP approval.

QQ Ensure functionality of restored temporary and 

seasonal wetlands: conduct research on appropriate 

levels of sediment removal in wetlands.

QQ Ensure that grassland restoration efforts are 

science based—conduct research on newly 

seeded sites that focuses on the establishment 

success of species included in the mixtures. From 

these data, within 15 years of CCP approval, 

develop a decision matrix for selection of optimal 

species to use in grassland restorations.

QQ Ensure the effectiveness of native seed mixes 

that contain grasses and forbs—conduct research 

on wildlife response, focusing on Lepidoptera 

and grassland-dependent migratory birds 

(waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds) within 

10 years of CCP approval.

QQ Identify restorable prairie tracts using objective 

criteria that focuses on (1) contemporary 

composition, emphasizing diversity and 

prevalence of native plants, and (2) landscape 

area and connectivity to adjacent grasslands, 

especially native prairies (large tracts of highquality native prairie provide the most suitable 

habitat for grassland birds, especially those 

species of significant conservation concern)—

conduct research in the next decade that 

investigates threshold levels for infestation of 

invasive plants.

QQ Review the list of seven current research needs 

identified by Naugle et al. (2000), which provides 

ideas for development of a prioritized research 

list.

cultural resources Goal

Identify and evaluate cultural resources that are 

on Service-owned lands or are affected by Service 

undertakings. Protect resources determined to be 

significant and, when appropriate, interpret 

resources to connect staff, visitors, and communities 

to the area’s past.

Cultural Resources Objective 1

Avoid, or when necessary mitigate, adverse effects 

to significant cultural resources in compliance with 

section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 

at all times.

Strategy

— Continue cultural resource review of the 

refuges’ projects to identify concerns.
Chapter 4—Management Direction 85

Cultural Resources Objective 2

Always successfully integrate the process for section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act into all 

applicable refuge projects by notifying the Service’s 

cultural resource staff early in the planning process 

and, whenever possible, completing the review without 

delay to the project.

Strategies

— Incorporate the section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act review in project 

design as early as possible and complete the 

process, as applicable.

— Complete a programmatic agreement with the 

State Historic Preservation Office to expedite 

project review.

Cultural Resources Objective 3

Within 3 years of CCP approval, rehabilitate the 

historic stone bathhouse and two stone outhouses at 

Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge.

Strategies

— Find an architectural student to do the research 

as an independent study.

— Apply for grants to fund construction.

Rationale

The protection and interpretation of cultural 

resources is important to the public and the Service. 

Federal laws and policies mandate the consideration 

and often the protection of significant cultural 

resources.

VIsItor serVIces Goal

Provide visitors with opportunities to enjoy wildlifedependent recreation where compatible and expand 

their knowledge and appreciation of the prairie 

landscape and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Hunting

Since the late 19th century, hunters concerned about 

the future of wildlife and outdoor tradition have 

made countless contributions to the conservation 

of the nation's wildlife resources. Today, millions 

of Americans deepen their appreciation and 

understanding of the land and its wildlife through 

hunting. Hunting organizations contribute millions 

of dollars and countless hours of labor to various 

conservation causes each year.

The Service recognizes that, in many cases, hunting 

is an important tool for wildlife management. Hunting 

gives resource managers a valuable tool to control 

populations of some species that might otherwise 

exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and 

threaten the well-being of other wildlife species and, 

in some instances, that of human health and safety.

The Improvement Act identifies hunting as one of the six 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses of Refuge System 

lands.

© Craig Bihrle

Hunting Objective 1

Where hunting is allowed at Audubon, Chase Lake, 

Lake Alice, Lake Nettie, and Lake Zahl national 

wildlife refuges (per refuge and state regulations), 

provide information about current opportunities and 

maintain a good-quality experience for hunters of 

waterfowl and other resident species. Within 5 years 

of CCP approval, increase hunting opportunities by 

opening new areas if determined compatible.

Strategies

— Limit driving access for hunting by closing 

some roads. Through visitor contact and 

hunting information, encourage hunters to walk 

in to hunt.

— Identify new lands where quality hunts could 

take place and where hunting is compatible 

with habitat management objectives.

— Work with the state of North Dakota to 

determine appropriate hunting levels and 

evaluate the need to limit the number of 

hunters.

— If deemed necessary due to increasing hunting 

pressure and crowds, implement a refuge 

permit system to control the number of hunters.

— Seek out partners (such as Wheeling Sportsmen 

and Wilderness on Wheels) to help fund 

universally accessible visitor service facilities 

such as blinds and trails.
86 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

— Work with the state to establish and coordinate 

hunter days or events for hunters with special 

needs.

— Identify areas that are suitable for hunters with 

special needs and provide universal access to 

select hunting areas.

— Establish criteria for eligibility to use the 

special needs hunter privileges such as drive-in 

access.

— Work cooperatively with the NDGF to conduct 

law enforcement patrols at the refuges to 

ensure compliance.

Rationale

Hunting currently occurs at Audubon, Chase Lake, 

Lake Alice, Lake Nettie, and Lake Zahl national 

wildlife refuges. The popularity of hunting at these 

refuges is increasing and, as a result, crowding is 

becoming an issue that affects the quality of the 

hunting experience. Crowds of hunters lead to unsafe 

hunting conditions and compromised harvest 

opportunities. It is important to disperse hunters 

to avoid crowded hunting areas. Opening day 

for pheasant hunting is already very crowded at 

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge; after the first 

morning, the hunting pressure lessens.

With a growing number of private property acres off 

limits to hunting, pressure is intensifying on Service 

lands. The number of nonresident hunters is also 

increasing. To ensure a good-quality hunting 

experience, it will be essential to maintain healthy 

populations of resident wildlife and migratory birds 

through habitat management. There is a growing 

demand for hunting opportunities accessible to 

hunters with special needs, such as hunters with 

mobility impairments. 

Hunting Objective 2

Within 4 years, expand hunting opportunities 

for youths to include at least one youth hunt in 

conjunction with NDGF.

Strategies

— Determine which refuges do not have a youth 

hunt and which could support a youth hunt.

— Only open areas where hunting is deemed 

compatible.

— Work with the state of North Dakota to establish 

a refuge weekend youth hunt in conjunction with 

the NDGF youth hunts for deer and pheasant.

Rationale

It is important to engage young people in wildlifedependent recreation and engender enthusiasm and 

support for hunting, wildlife conservation, and the 

Refuge System to build a conservation ethic. Early 

season or preseason hunts are best suited for youth 

since they provide the best harvest opportunities.

Fishing

The Audubon and Lake Ilo national wildlife refuges 

offer abundant fishing opportunities. Fishing generates 

tremendous economic benefit through federal taxes 

on fishing equipment. Revenues paid by anglers are 

distributed by the Service to North Dakota’s state 

government and spent by state resource agencies 

on aquatic habitat enhancement, fishing and boating 

access, education, and invasive species eradication.

Fishing Objective 1

Within 5 years of CCP approval, evaluate the potential 

effects of open-water fishing on waterfowl and other 

wildlife and, where compatible, open new areas to 

open-water fishing.

Strategies

— Determine if there are times of the year when 

open-water fishing will not conflict with migratory 

birds and what types of fishing (such as shoreline 

fishing) will not impact other wildlife.

— Work with the state to maintain healthy fish 

populations.

— Seek out partnerships to develop facilities such 

as piers that accommodate anglers with 

disabilities.

Rationale

Fishing is available summer and winter. Fishing on the 

ice in winter is far more popular than fishing during 

warmer weather. Permanent lakes at Audubon and 

Lake Ilo national wildlife refuges offer fishing for 

northern pike, perch, walleye and a few other species. 

These areas are open to fishing according to state 

regulations and special refuge regulations.

Fishing Objective 2

Within 5 years of CCP approval, establish clear access 

points for ice fishing to minimize impacts on upland 

habitat from vehicles and explore opportunities for 

opening new areas to ice fishing.

Strategies

— Seek partnerships or alternative funding for 

establishment of access points. Analyze the area 

to determine which access points will provide 

convenient access to the ice while minimizing 

impacts on uplands and wildlife.

— Follow state regulations for establishment of 

permanent and portable fishing houses.

— Work with the state to maintain healthy fish 

populations.

Rationale

Ice fishing is currently permitted at Audubon and 

Lake Ilo national wildlife refuges. Lake Alice National 

Wildlife Refuge is interested in exploring opportunities 

for opening the lake to ice fishing.
Chapter 4—Management Direction 87

Fishing Objective 3

Within 5 years of CCP approval, evaluate opportunities 

for establishing a youth fishing day at additional 

refuges in cooperation with the North Dakota’s free 

fishing weekend.

Strategy

— Work with the state to establish a youth fishing 

day in conjunction with the NDGF’s youth 

program.

Rationale

North Dakota has a statewide free fishing weekend and 

Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge participates in 

cooperation with the state. The opportunity to expand 

and develop a closer partnership with the state and 

its fishing outreach to youth will benefit the refuges’ 

goal to introduce youth to the Refuge System.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Wildlife observation and photography is available to 

visitors all year at the 12 refuges. Due to the vast 

distribution of the refuges throughout North Dakota, 

the public from major cities of the state and Canada 

seize on the tremendous opportunities for viewing 

wildlife resources. Because of the relatively small size 

of many refuges, wildlife observation and photography 

can usually be done from rural roads or refuge tour 

routes. Appendix L contains the compatibility 

determinations for wildlife observation and 

photography.

Wildlife Observation and Photography Objective

Throughout the life of the CCP, increase opportunities 

for wildlife observation and photography by expanding 

the number of observation facilities such as blinds, 

tour routes, and trails at the refuges.

Strategies

— Host bird identification events in conjunction 

with International Migratory Bird Day in May 

and other special events.

— Recruit volunteers for the Christmas bird count 

and other birding-related events.

— Incorporate refuges as stops into the North 

Dakota and regional birding drives. Seek out 

partners to establish and promote birding 

drives. Provide support materials to guide 

visitors through the state and direct them to 

key birding spots.

— Explore new areas to open to wildlife 

observation and photography where compatible. 

Where possible, establish universally accessible 

observation blinds.

— Identify open observation areas to the public 

through signage and maps.

— Develop website-based observation materials 

such as bird lists and information, maps, and 

web cams.

— Where feasible, develop a simple map for each 

visitor center where visitors can record what 

they saw and where (for example, a laminated 

map that people can write on with a dry-erase 

marker or magnet board).

— Where feasible, provide a computer kiosk 

where visitors can access birding information 

(for example, songs, using Thayer birding 

software).

Rationale

Wildlife observation and photography are wildlifedependent recreational uses listed in the Improvement 

Act. In fiscal year 2007, wildlife photography alone 

accounted for more than 26,000 visits to North Dakota’s 

refuges and districts. Facilities that support these 

activities include visitor centers, interpretive displays, 

auto routes, overlooks and observation platforms, and 

informational kiosks.

Phalarope Chicks Nesting in Wetland Grasses

USFWS

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Parents, educators and civic groups have been visiting 

refuges for an educational outdoor experience for many 

years. Special use permits are available in support of 

education, and educators are encouraged to use refuges 

as outdoor classrooms. Educational opportunities are 

available to public and private schools and homeschools, as well as Scout groups and other interested 

parties. Appendix L contains the compatibility 

determinations for environmental education and 

interpretation.

Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective

Throughout the life of the CCP, develop exhibits, 

pamphlets, and expanded programming where 

appropriate to promote public awareness of and 

advocacy for the Refuge System, refuge resources, 

and refuge management activities that conserve 

habitat and wildlife.
88 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Monarch Butterfly on Switchgrass

Gary Eslinger/USFWS

Strategies

— Develop materials such as exhibits and pamphlets,

as well as educational programs, that explain the

region’s conservation priorities and the refuges’ 

resources.

— At refuges without any visitor use infrastructure, 

develop at least minimal information such as 

signage and an information kiosk. For some 

refuges, information kiosks off-site in outlying 

communities may be a viable option.

— Ensure refuges are signed and that directional 

signage is in place. Collaborate with the highway 

department to develop and position signage.

— Complete annual reviews and, if necessary, 

updates of informational and educational 

products for the refuges.

— Promote programming that incorporates the 

Children in Nature initiative in both structured 

and unstructured ways. Encourage family visits 

and family awareness of the refuges.

— Work with the North Dakota tourism department 

to promote the refuges and their resources.

— Keep each refuge website up-to-date.

— Conduct information sharing with the media 

(for example, local newspapers), chambers 

of commerce, congressional contacts, and 

tourism outlets. Focus outreach on wildlife, 

conservation, and community groups.

— Educate educators, Scout leaders, and others 

so they can educate their students and group 

members.

— Seek out partnerships with the Department of 

Public Instruction to encourage expansion of 

environmental education programs among local 

schools. Build on existing relationships with 

schools for both on-site and off-site programming. 

Promote education at an early age about natural 

resources and national wildlife refuges.

— Build on the state’s Outdoor Wildlife Learning 

Site program (Audubon National Wildlife Refuge 

has an Outdoor Wildlife Learning Site).

— Expand educational and interpretive 

programming to foster greater visitor 

awareness and appreciation of refuge habitats.

— Continue to coordinate and promote the junior 

Duck Stamp program.

Rationale

Targeting teachers within the commuting areas of the 

refuges is an efficient means of promoting awareness 

of the refuges and developing support for the Refuge 

System. The teachers educate the students who, in 

turn, explain to their families about intact ecosystems 

and the refuges.

The internet is an increasingly popular source of 

information and can serve as an excellent and efficient 

tool for keeping the public informed about programs 

 and resources at the refuges.

 Visitor Service Facilities

Environmental education and interpretation are two 

of the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses listed 

in the Improvement Act. The refuges and districts 

in North Dakota received more than 385,000 visitors 

during fiscal year 2007. Interpretative programs and 

special events help foster an appreciation, support, 

and understanding of refuge-specific topics and the 

Refuge System. 

Some refuges have self-guided exhibits, interpretive 

panels, and brochures to provide educational and 

interpretive information. Facilities used to support 

visitor services include visitor center exhibits. 

However, some contact stations are ill-equipped to 

handle any exhibits or provide for in-house educational 

opportunities. 

Visitor Service Facilities Objective

Establish a minimum level of visitor use facilities and 

information: within 10 years of CCP approval, all 

refuges should have, at a minimum, an entrance sign 

and information kiosk.

QQ At Audubon National Wildlife Refuge, within 5 

years of CCP approval, design and construct an 

education center to house exhibits, classrooms, 

visitor information, and office space.

QQ At Audubon National Wildlife Refuge, within 

3 years of CCP approval, design and construct 

an amphitheater adjacent to the current 

educational classroom, construct two observation 

decks along the auto tour route, and upgrade 

the Outdoor Wildlife Learning site’s trail and 

interpretive facilities.
Chapter 4—Management Direction 89

QQ At Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge, within 

5 years of CCP approval, replace or upgrade 

visitor facilities.

QQ At Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge, within 

5 years of CCP approval, replace or upgrade 

visitor service facilities such as information 

kiosks.

QQ At Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge, within 2 

years of CCP approval, replace the fishing pier 

with an accessible pier and replace the courtesy 

dock for anglers.

Strategies

— Inventory all refuges to determine the type and 

location of existing facilities.

— Identify appropriate locations to provide 

facilities such as hook-ups and amenities to 

support volunteers.

Rationale

Spread throughout the state, many of the refuges are 

accessible from metropolitan areas such as Bismarck, 

Fargo, Grand Forks, and Minot. In addition, the refuges 

have numerous visitors from the Canadian provinces 

of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. 

The refuges have potential for outreach and education 

through establishment of new facilities and update 

of existing facilities. An education center will draw 

a broader visitor base to Audubon National Wildlife 

Refuge and expand opportunities to educate people 

about refuges and resources.

PartnershIPs Goal

A diverse network of partners join with the North 

Dakota national wildlife refuges to support research, 

accomplish habitat conservation, and foster awareness 

and appreciation of the prairie landscape.

Partnerships

The 12 national wildlife refuges reach across much of 

the North Dakota landscape and have the potential 

to affect neighbors and communities. Communication 

is vital through various outlets, as well as on an 

individual basis. Refuge staffs participate in local 

events and activities that maintain and support the 

refuges’ programs.

The Service assigns personnel to the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program (Partners Program), 

which is an internal Service partner that works 

with neighboring private landowners. This program 

helps with restoration and enhancement of habitat 

to benefit federal trust species, while also helping 

Refuge System units through a landscape-scale 

approach to conservation. The Partners Program 

provides technical assistance to private landowners 

to give them the information they need to apply for 

other habitat improvement programs. In addition, 

program personnel work with private landowners 

interested in perpetual conservation easements 

with the Service to maintain wetland and grassland 

ecosystems for future generations. Private lands 

adjacent to Refuge System lands benefit species that 

require larger landscapes for their survival. These 

partnerships benefit many sensitive fish and wildlife 

species.

Partnerships Objective

Join a wide range of partners to support and 

promote awareness of the Refuge System and foster 

an appreciation of the grassland, prairie pothole 

ecosystem. Maintain and, where appropriate, build 

the North Dakota Education Team, a statewide 

approach to environmental education.

Strategies

— Work with partners to develop and maintain a 

statewide approach to environmental education 

(North Dakota Education Team). If possible, 

increase the number of Service representatives 

on the team within 5 years.

— Maintain and build on partnerships with county 

wildlife clubs. Work with these clubs to maintain 

trails and interpretive sites.

— Maintain and build on partnerships with county 

sporting groups. Work with these groups to help 

with improvements.

Rationale

Many of the refuges’ wildlife, habitat, and visitor 

service programs will not continue without the 

support from partners. Without partners, many of 

the habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement 

projects will go unfunded. Over time, the diversity 

of wildlife species will begin to decline as habitat 

became degraded.

oPeratIons Goal

Efficiently employ staff, partnerships, and volunteers 

and secure funding in support of the Refuge System’s 

mission.

Staff and Volunteers

Operations and visitor services staffs maintain, 

enhance, and monitor wildlife-dependent operations 

and recreational opportunities for a diverse audience. 

Within the 12 refuges, staffs are limited and often 

shared with other units such as wetland management 

districts. The demand on the refuges’ wildlife 

resources is increasing through such visitor activities 

as bird watching, photography, educational activities, 

and general outdoor appreciation.

Those that volunteer for the Service generally do so in 

the area of visitor services. Visitor services require 

extensive Service staff time to coordinate, develop, 

and maintain. Volunteers ease some of those time 

requirements.
90 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Volunteers for the refuges are

individuals who want to give back to their 

communities;

parents who want to be good stewards of the 

land and set examples for their children;

retired people willing to share their wealth of 

knowledge;

concerned citizens of all ages who want to learn 

more about conservation;

passionate people who enjoy the outdoors and 

want to spread the word about America's 

greatest natural treasures.

Staff and Volunteers Objective

Within 3 years of CCP approval, identify strategic 

locations to station outdoor recreation planners to 

coordinate programming among North Dakota’s 

national wildlife refuges and wetland management 

districts.

Within 5 years of CCP approval, increase law 

enforcement staffing to oversee the expanded 

programs and continue to work with NDGF to 

enforce regulations.

Within 2 years of CCP approval, recruit volunteers to 

help with annual events, visitor services, and biological, 

maintenance and administrative programs.

Strategies

— Work with the North Dakota working group 

to locate the strategic locations for positioning 

additional staff.

— Research methods for recruiting volunteers. 

Determine what other refuges have done to 

attract and retain volunteers. If possible, tap 

into existing volunteer networks to recruit 

volunteers. Determine incentives or benefits 

for volunteers (for example, privileged access, 

amenities, and interagency annual parks pass).

— Develop “friends of the refuge” groups to help 

the refuges (except Audubon and Chase Lake 

national wildlife refuges, which already have 

friends groups).

Rationale

The Improvement Act identifies six wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation—that receive enhanced consideration 

over other general public uses in planning and 

management of the refuges. Other uses can occur 

but must support a wildlife-dependent recreational 

use or not conflict with these uses. No use of a refuge 

can detract from accomplishing the purposes of the 

refuge or the mission of the Refuge System. North 

Dakota’s refuges and districts received more than 

385,000 visitors that enjoyed the some of the wildlifedependent recreational uses the Refuge System 

offered.

4.3 Funding and Staff

Goals, objectives, and strategies described in this 

chapter are based on full, adequate funding and 

staff. The Service is currently reviewing a staffing 

model that will revise the basis by which a refuge 

determines its needed staff. The Service anticipates 

that, by the time of CCP implementation, the new 

staffing model will be in effect and all refuges will 

have a new staff level goal.

A national team of Refuge System professionals 

developed this staffing model to determine the level of 

staff needed to most effectively operate and manage 

the variety of field stations in the Refuge System. The 

staffing model uses 15 factors that drive workload, 

including the following: total number of acres, number 

of easement contracts, number of acres actively 

managed, level of invasive species, endangered species, 

biological management and monitoring, wilderness 

management, visitor services, and maintenance needs. 

Data for the model was drawn from the Service’s 

“Annual Report of Lands,” “Refuge Annual 

Performance Plan,” “Real Property Inventory,” and 

other Service data sources.

4.4 Step-down Management Plans

The CCP for the 12 refuges is intended to be a broad 

umbrella plan (1) that outlines general concepts and 

objectives for habitat, wildlife, visitor services, cultural 

resources, and partnership; and (2) that guides refuge 

management for the next 15 years. Step-down 

management plans provide detail needed to carry out 

specific actions authorized by the CCP. Tables 7–17 

list the step-down management plans associated with 

each refuge (except for Stump Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, which is currently under water).

USFWS
Chapter 4—Management Direction 91

4.5 Monitoring and Evaluation

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to longterm management of biotic resources. The results of 

ongoing monitoring activities and other information 

are evaluated to guide adaptive management over time. 

Adaptive management is a process by which projects 

are carried out within a framework of scientifically 

driven experiments to test the predictions and 

assumptions outlined in the final CCP (see figure 23, 

the adaptive management process).

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, 

inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted 

for each of the 12 refuges. The habitat management 

strategies will be systematically evaluated to 

determine management effects on wildlife populations. 

This information will be used to refine approaches 

and determine how effectively the objectives are being 

accomplished. If monitoring and evaluation indicate 

undesirable effects for target and nontarget species 

or communities, the management projects will be 

altered accordingly. Subsequently, the CCP will be 

revised.

Table 7. Step-down Management Plans for Audubon 

National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.

Plan Type

Completion 

Year

Revision 

Year

Fire management plan 1999 2008

Fishing plan 1960 —

Grassland management 

plan 1981 —

Habitat work plan 

(annual) 2007 2008

Hunting plan 1992 —

IPM plan 2002 2008

Law enforcement plan — 2013

Predator management 

plan 1988 2010

Safety plan 2006 2011

Sign plan 1984 —

Visitor services plan 2006 2009

Water management plan 

(annual) 2007 2008

Water management plan 

(long range) 1983 —

Table 8. Step-down Management Plans for Chase 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.

Plan Type

Completion 

Year

Revision 

Year

Fire management plan 2001 2008

Grassland management 

plan — 2011

Habitat work plan 

(annual) 2008 2009

IPM plan 2005 2010

Law enforcement plan — 2013

Predator management 

plan 2004 2010

Safety plan 2006 2011

Visitor services plan 2005 2015

Water management plan 

(annual) 2007 2008

Table 9. Step-down Management Plans for Kellys 

Slough National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.

Plan Type

Completion 

Year

Revision 

Year

Fire management plan 2002 2008

Grassland management 

plan — 2010

Habitat work plan 

(annual) 2007 2008

IPM plan 2005 2010

Law enforcement plan — 2012

Predator management 

plan 2004 2010

Safety plan 1986 2010

Sign plan — 2010

Visitor services plan 1993 2015

Water management plan 

(annual) — 2015

Water management plan 

(long range) — 2015
92 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Table 10. Step-down Management Plans for Lake 

Alice National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.

Completion Revision 

Plan Type Year Year

Fire management plan

Grassland management 

plan

Habitat work plan 

(annual)

Hunting plan

IPM plan

Law enforcement plan

Predator management 

plan

Safety plan

Sign plan

Visitor services plan

Water management plan 

(annual)

Water management plan 

(long range)

2002

—

2007

—

2005

—

2004

1986

—

1993

—

—

2008

2010

2008

2010

2010

2012

2010

2010

2010

2015

2015

2015

Table 11. Step-down Management Plans for Lake Ilo 

National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.

Completion Revision 

Plan Type Year Year

Fire management plan

Fishing plan

Grassland management 

plan

Habitat work plan 

(annual)

IPM plan

Law enforcement plan

Predator management 

plan

Safety plan

Sign plan

Visitor services plan

Water management plan 

(annual)

Water management plan 

(long range)

1999

1969

1981

2007

2002

—

1988

2006

1984

2006

2007

1983

2008

—

—

2008

2008

2013

2010

2011

—

2009

2008

—
Chapter 4—Management Direction 93

Table 12. Step-down Management Plans for Lake 

Nettie National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.

Plan Type

Completion 

Year

Revision 

Year

Fire management plan 1999 2008

Grassland management 

plan 1981 —

Habitat work plan 

(annual) 2007 2008

Hunting plan 1979 —

IPM plan 2002 2008

Law enforcement plan — 2013

Predator management 

plan 1988 2010

Safety plan 2006 2011

Sign plan 1984 —

Visitor services plan 2004 2009

Water management plan 

(annual) 2007 2008

Water management plan 

(long range) 1983 —

Table 13. Step-down Management Plans for Lake 

Zahl National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.

Plan Type

Completion 

Year

Revision 

Year

Fire management plan 2000 2008

Grassland management 

plan 2007 2008

Habitat work plan 

(annual) 2007 2008

Hunting plan 2000 —

IPM plan — 2008

Law enforcement plan — 2013

Predator management 

plan 2004 2010

Safety plan 1995 2011

Sign plan 1987 —

Visitor services plan — 2012

Table 14. Step-down Management Plans for McLean 

National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.

Plan Type

Completion 

Year

Revision 

Year

Fire management plan 1999 2008

Grassland management 

plan 1981 —

Habitat work plan 

(annual) 2007 2008

IPM plan 2002 2008

Law enforcement plan — 2013

Predator management 

plan 1988 2010

Safety plan 2006 2011

Sign plan 1984 —

Visitor services plan 2004 2009

Water management plan 

(annual) 2007 2008

Water management plan 

(long range) 1983 —
94 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Table 15. Step-down Management Plans for Shell 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.

Plan Type

Completion 

Year

Revision 

Year

Fire management plan 2000 2008

Grassland management 

plan 2007 2008

Habitat work plan 

(annual) 2007 2008

IPM plan — 2008

Law enforcement plan — 2013

Predator management 

plan 2004 2010

Safety plan 1995 2011

Sign plan 1987 —

Visitor services plan 1999 2012

Table 16. Step-down Management Plans for Stewart 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.

Plan Type

Completion 

Year

Revision 

Year

Fire management plan 1999 2008

Grassland management 

plan 1981 —

Habitat work plan 

(annual) 2007 2008

IPM plan 2002 2008

Law enforcement plan — 2013

Predator management 

plan 1988 2010

Safety plan 2006 2011

Sign plan 1984 —

Visitor services plan 2004 2009

Water management plan 

(annual) 2007 2008

Water management plan 

(long range) 1983 —

Table 17. Step-down Management Plans for White 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota.

Plan Type

Completion 

Year

Revision 

Year

Fire management plan 1999 2008

Grassland management 

plan 1981 —

Habitat work plan 

(annual) 2007 2008

IPM plan 2002 2008

Law enforcement plan — 2013

Predator management 

plan 1988 2010

Safety plan 2006 2011

Sign plan 1984 —

Visitor services plan 2004 2009

Water management plan 

(annual) 2007 2008

Water management plan 

(long range) 1983 —

Marsh Wren

© Cindie Brunner
Chapter 4—Management Direction 95

4.6 Plan Amendment and Revision

The Service will annually review the final CCP to 

determine the need for revision. A revision will occur 

if and when significant information becomes available. 

The final CCP will be supported by detailed step-down 

management plans to address the completion of 

specific strategies in support of the refuges’ goals and 

objectives. Revisions to the CCP and the step-down 

management plans will be subject to public review 

and NEPA compliance.

At a minimum, the Service will evaluate the final CCP 

every 5 years and revise it after 15 years.

Figure 23. The adaptive management process.

Glossary

abiotic—Pertaining to nonliving things.

accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas 

and activities for people of different abilities, especially 

those with physical impairments.

adaptive management—Rigorous application of 

management, research, and monitoring to gain 

information and experience necessary to assess and 

modify management activities; a process that uses 

feedback from research, monitoring, and evaluation 

of management actions to support or modify objectives 

and strategies at all planning levels; a process in 

which policy decisions are carried out within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments 

to test predictions and assumptions inherent in a 

management plan. Analysis of results helps managers 

determine whether current management should 

continue as is or whether it should be modified to 

achieve desired conditions.

Administration Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966.

alternatives—Different sets of objectives and 

strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and 

goals, helping fulfill the Refuge System mission and 

resolving issues.

amphibian—Class of cold-blooded vertebrates 

including frogs, toads or salamanders.

APHIS—Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; 

agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

avifauna or avifaunal biome—A physiographic area 

defined by the Partners in Flight program that 

represents all the living components needed by a 

group of birds.

baseline—Set of critical observations, data, or 

information used for comparison or a control.

biological control, also biocontrol—Reduction in 

numbers or elimination of unwanted species by 

the introduction of natural predators, parasites, or 

diseases.

biological diversity, also biodiversity—Variety of 

life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, 

and the communities and ecosystems in which they 

occur (“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 052 

FW 1.12B). The National Wildlife Refuge System’s 

focus is on endemic species, biotic communities, and 

ecological processes.

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.

biomass—Total amount of living material, plants and 

animals, above and below the ground in a particular 

habitat or area.

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms.

breeding habitat—Habitat used by migratory birds or 

other animals during the breeding season.

canopy—Layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or understory 

vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy closure

(also canopy cover) is an estimate of the amount of 

overhead vegetative cover.

CAR—Community at risk.

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan.

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations.

cfs—Cubic feet per second.

climax—Community that has reached a steady state 

under a particular set of environmental conditions; a 

relatively stable plant community; the final stage in 

ecological succession.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—Codification of the 

general and permanent rules published in the Federal 

Register by the executive departments and agencies 

of the federal government. Each volume of the CFR 

is updated once each calendar year.

community—Area or locality in which a group of 

people lives and shares the same government.

compatible use—Wildlife-dependent recreational 

use or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound 

professional judgment of the director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of 

the refuge (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility determination 

supports the selection of compatible uses and 

identified stipulations or limits necessary to ensure 

compatibility.
98 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—A document 

that describes the desired future conditions of 

the refuge and provides long-range guidance and 

management direction for the refuge manager to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute 

to the mission of the Refuge System, and to meet 

other relevant mandates (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5).

concern—See issue.

conservation—Management of natural resources 

to prevent loss or waste. Management actions may 

include preservation, restoration, and enhancement.

conservation easement—Perpetual agreement 

entered into by a landowner and the Service by 

which a landowner gives up or sells one or more 

of the rights on their property for conservation 

purposes, with terms set by the Service. In return 

for a single lump-sum payment, the landowner 

agrees not to drain, burn, level, or fill habitats 

covered by the easement. Conservation easements 

generally prohibit the cultivation of grassland 

and wetland habitats while still permitting the 

landowner traditional grazing uses. A single-habitat 

conservation easement is often referred to as either a 

wetland easement or a grassland easement.

conspecific—An individual belonging to the same 

species as another.

cool-season grass—Grass that begins growth earlier in 

the season and often become dormant in the summer; 

will germinate at lower temperatures (65–85°F). 

Examples are western wheatgrass, needle and 

thread, and green needlegrass.

cooperative agreement—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.

coordination area—Wildlife management area made 

available to a state, by “(A) cooperative agreement 

between the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the state fish and game agency pursuant to 

Section 4 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

(16 USC 664); of (B) by long-term leases or agreements 

pursuant to the Bankhead–Jones Farm Tenant Act 

(50 Stat. 525; 7 USC 1010 et seq.).” States manage 

coordination areas, but they are part of the Refuge 

System. CCPs are not required for coordination areas.

coteau—A hilly upland including the divide between 

two valleys; a divide; the side of a valley.

coulee—A deep ravine or gulch with sloping sides, 

often dry, that has been formed by running water.

cover, also cover type, canopy cover—Present 

vegetation of an area.

cultural resources—Sites, buildings, structures, and 

objects that are the result of human activities and 

are more than 50 years old: prehistoric, historic, and 

architectural sites, artifacts, historic records, and 

traditional cultural properties including traditional 

use areas for Native Americans that may or may not 

have material evidence.

cultural resource inventory—Professionally conducted 

study designed to locate and evaluate evidence of 

cultural resources present within a defined area. 

Inventories may involve various levels including 

background literature search (class 1), sample 

inventory of project site distribution and density 

over a larger area (class 2), or comprehensive field 

examination to identify all exposed physical 

manifestation of cultural resources (class 3).

CWCS—Comprehensive wildlife conservation 

strategy.

CWD—Chronic wasting disease.

CWPP—Community wildfire protection plan.

database—Collection of data arranged for ease and 

speed of analysis and retrieval, usually computerized.

deciduous—Pertaining to any plant organ or group 

of organs that is shed annually; perennial plants that 

are leafless for sometime during the year.

defoliation—Removing of vegetative parts; to strip 

vegetation of leaves; removal can be caused by 

weather, mechanical, animals, and fire.

demography—Quantitative analysis of population 

structure and trend.

dense nesting cover (DNC)—Composition of grasses 

and forbs that allows for a dense stand of vegetation 

that protects nesting birds from the view of predators, 

usually consisting of one to two species of wheatgrass, 

alfalfa, and sweetclover.

district—See wetland management district.

disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat 

structure or composition. May be natural (for example, 

fire) or human-caused events (for example, timber 

harvest).

DNC—See dense nesting cover.

DOI—U.S. Department of the Interior.

drawdown—Manipulating water levels in an 

impoundment to allow for the natural drying-out cycle 

of a wetland.

duck, dabbling—Duck that mainly feeds on vegetable 

matter by upending on the water surface, or by 

grazing, and only rarely dives.

duck, diving—Duck that mainly feeds by diving 

through the water.
Glossary 99

EA—See environmental assessment.

ecological succession—Orderly progression of an 

area through time from one vegetative community to 

another in the absence of disturbance. For example, 

an area may proceed from grass–forb through aspen 

forest to mixed-conifer forest.

ecosystem—Dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated 

nonliving environment; 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 their 

sizes and ecological complexity vary.

emergent—Plant rooted in shallow water and having 

most of the vegetative growth above water such as 

cattail and hardstem bulrush.

endangered species, federal—Plant or animal species 

listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, that is in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range.

endangered species, state—Plant or animal species 

in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in a 

particular state within the near future if factors 

contributing to its decline continue. Populations 

of these species are at critically low levels or their 

habitats have been degraded or depleted to a 

significant degree.

endemic species—A plant or animal that occurs 

naturally in a certain geographic region and whose 

distribution is relatively limited to a particular area.

environmental assessment (EA)—Concise public 

document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses 

the purpose and need for an action and 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.

environmental health—Natural composition, structure, 

and functioning of the physical, chemical, and other 

abiotic elements, and the abiotic processes that shape 

the physical environment.

EO—Executive order.

extinction—Complete disappearance of a species 

from the earth; no longer existing.

fauna—All the vertebrate and 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—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—Acquisition of most or all of the rights to a 

tract of land.

finding of no significant impact (FONSI)—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 effects on the 

human environment and for which an environmental 

impact statement will not be prepared (40 CFR 

1508.13).

fire regime—Description of the frequency, severity, 

and extent of fire that typically occurs in an area or 

vegetative type.

flora—All the plant species of an area.

FMP—Fire management plan.

FONSI—See finding of no significant impact.

forb—A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; a seedproducing annual, biennial, or perennial plant that 

does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies 

down at the end of the growing season.

forest—Group of trees with their crown overlapping 

(generally forming 60%–100% cover).

fragmentation—The alteration of a large block of 

habitat that creates isolated patches of the original 

habitat that are interspersed with a variety of other 

habitat types; the process of reducing the size and 

connectivity of habitat patches, making movement 

of individuals or genetic information between parcels 

difficult or impossible.

FTE—See full-time equivalent.

full-time equivalent (FTE)—One or more job positions 

with tours of duty that, when combined, equate to 

one person employed for the standard government 

work-year.

Geographic Information System (GIS)—Computer 

system capable of storing and manipulating 

spatial data; a set of computer hardware and 

software for analyzing and displaying spatially 

referenced features (points, lines and polygons) with 

nongeographic attributes such as species and age.

GIS—See Geographic Information System.
100 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

glacial till—Unstratified sediment (clay, sand, and 

rocks) deposited by melting glaciers or ice sheets.

Global Positioning System (GPS)—System that, by 

using satellite telemetry, can pinpoint exact locations of 

places on the ground.

goal—Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions that conveys a 

purpose but does not define measurable units (“Draft 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 620 FW 1.5).

GPS—See Global Positioning System.

GS—General Schedule (pay rate schedule for certain 

federal positions).

guild—A group of species that use a common resource 

base in a similar fashion within an ecological 

community. A guild can be generally defined (for 

example, grassland birds) or specifically defined (for 

example, seed-eating small mammals).

habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and 

reproduction; the place where an organism typically 

lives and grows.

habitat conservation—Protection of animal or plant 

habitat to ensure that the use of that habitat by the 

animal or plant is not altered or reduced.

habitat disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat 

structure or composition; may be natural (for example, 

wildland fire) or human-caused events (for example, 

timber harvest and disking).

habitat type, also vegetation type, cover type—Land 

classification system based on the concept of distinct 

plant associations.

HAPET—Habitat and Population Evaluation Team.

hemi-marsh—The emergent phase of a seasonal or 

semipermanent wetland where the ratio of open-water 

area to emergent vegetation cover is about 50:50, 

and vegetation and open-water areas are highly 

interspersed.

herbivore—Animal feeding on plants.

herbivory—The eating of plants, especially ones that 

are still living.

HPAI—Highly pathogenic avian influenza.

impoundment—A body of water created by collection 

and confinement within a series of levees or dikes, 

creating separate management units although not 

always independent of one another.

Improvement Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997.

integrated pest management (IPM)—Methods of 

managing undesirable species such as invasive plants; 

education, prevention, physical or mechanical methods 

of control, biological control, responsible chemical use, 

and cultural methods.

“interseed”—Mechanical seeding of one or several 

plant species into existing stands of established 

vegetation.

introduced species—A nonnative plant or animal 

species that is intentionally or accidentally released 

into an ecosystem where it was not previously 

adapted.

introduction—Intentional or unintentional escape, 

release, dissemination, or placement of a species into 

an ecosystem as a result of human activity.

invasive plant, also noxious weed—Species that is 

nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration 

and whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, 

economic or environmental harm or harm to human 

health.

inviolate sanctuary—Place of refuge or protection 

where animals and birds may not be hunted.

IPM—See integrated pest management.

ISST—Invasive species strike team.

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a 

management decision; for example, a Service 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, 

a threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable 

resource condition (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5).

lacustrine—Relating to, formed in, living in, or 

growing in lakes.

local agencies—Municipal governments, regional 

planning commissions, or conservation groups.

macrophyte—Plant, especially a marine plant, that is 

large enough to be visible to the naked eye.

management alternatives—See alternatives.

management plan—Plan that guides future land 

management practices on a tract of land. See 

cooperative agreement.

mechanical control—Reduction in numbers or 

elimination of unwanted species through the use of 

mechanical equipment such as mowers and clippers.

microhabitat—Habitat features at a fine scale; often 

identifies a unique set of local habitat features.

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of birds between their breeding regions and their 

wintering regions; to pass usually periodically from 

one region or climate to another for feeding or breeding.

migratory bird—Bird species that follow a seasonal 

movement from their breeding grounds to their 

wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, 

and songbirds are all migratory birds.
Glossary 101

migratory game bird—Bird species, regulated under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and state laws (legally 

hunted, including ducks, geese, woodcock, and rails).

mission—Succinct statement of purpose or reason for 

being.

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an 

environmental impact or to make an impact less 

severe.

mixed-grass prairie—Transition zone between 

the tall-grass prairie and the short-grass prairie 

dominated by grasses of medium height that are 

approximately 2–4 feet tall. Soils are not as rich as 

the tall-grass prairie and moisture levels are less.

monitoring—Process of collecting information to 

track changes of selected parameters over time.

monotypic—Having only one type or representative.

moraine—Mass of earth and rock debris carried by an 

advancing glacier and left at its front and side edges 

as it retreats.

NABCI—North American Bird Conservation Initiative.

national wildlife refuge—Designated area of land, 

water, or an interest in land or water within the 

Refuge System, but does not include coordination 

areas; a complete listing of all units of the Refuge 

System is in the current “Annual Report of Lands 

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

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)—

Various categories of areas administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior for the conservation of 

fish and wildlife including species threatened with 

extinction, all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, 

areas for the protection and conservation of fish and 

wildlife that are threatened with extinction, wildlife 

ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, and 

waterfowl production areas.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Improvement Act)—Sets the mission and 

the administrative policy for all refuges in the 

Refuge System; defines a unifying mission for the 

Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy and 

appropriateness of the six priority public uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation); 

establishes a formal process for determining 

appropriateness and compatibility; establish the 

responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior 

for managing and protecting the Refuge System; 

requires a comprehensive conservation plan for each 

refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions 

of the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

native species—Species that, other than as a result 

of an introduction, historically occurred or currently 

occurs in that ecosystem.

NDGF—North Dakota Game and Fish Department.

Neotropical migrant, also Neotropical migratory 

bird—Bird species that breeds north of the United 

States–Mexico border and winters primarily south of 

this border.

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act.

nest success—Percentage of nests that successfully 

hatch one or more eggs of the total number of nests 

started in an area.

NHPA—National Historic Preservation Act.

nongovernmental organization—Any group that does 

not include federal, state, tribal, county, city, town, 

local, or other governmental entities.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan—North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan, signed in 

1986, recognizes that the recovery and perpetuation 

of waterfowl populations depends on restoring 

wetlands and associated ecosystems throughout the 

United States and Canada. It established cooperative 

international efforts and joint ventures comprised of 

individuals; corporations; conservation organizations; 

and local, state, provincial, and federal agencies drawn 

together by common conservation objectives.

notice of intent—Notice that an environmental impact 

statement will be prepared and considered (40 CFR 

1508.22); published in the Federal Register.

noxious weed, also invasive plant—Any living stage 

(including seeds and reproductive parts) of a parasitic 

or other plant of a kind that is of foreign origin 

(new to or not widely prevalent in the U.S.) and can 

directly or indirectly injure crops, other useful plants, 

livestock, poultry, other interests of agriculture, 

including irrigation, navigation, fish and wildlife 

resources, or public health. According to the Federal 

Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious weed 

(invasive plant) is one that causes disease or has 

adverse effects on humans or the human environment 

and, therefore, is detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the United States and to public health.

NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Service; 

agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

objective—Concise statement of what is to be 

achieved, when and where it is to be achieved, 

and who is responsible for the work. Objectives 

are derived from goals and provide the basis for 

determining management strategies. Objectives 

should be attainable, time-specific, and measurable.

Partners in Flight (PIF) program—Western Hemisphere 

program designed to conserve Neotropical migratory 

birds and officially endorsed by numerous federal and 

state agencies and nongovernmental organizations; 

also known as the Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Program.
102 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

partnership—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 in-kind service, 

such as labor, for a mutually beneficial enterprise.

patch—Area distinct from that around it; an area 

distinguished from its surroundings by environmental 

conditions.

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; a plant species that has a life 

span of more than 2 years.

phenology—The relationship between plant or animal 

development and climatic conditions.

PIF—See Partners in Flight program.

PL—Public law.

planning team—Team that 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 partner 

wildlife agencies as appropriate.

planning team leader—Typically a professional 

planner or natural resource specialist knowledgeable of 

the requirements of National Environmental Policy 

Act and who has planning experience. The planning 

team leader manages the refuge planning process 

and ensures compliance with applicable regulatory 

and policy requirements.

planning unit—Single refuge, an ecologically or 

administratively related refuge complex, or distinct 

unit of a refuge. The planning unit also may include 

lands currently outside refuge boundaries.

plant association—Classification of plant communities 

based on the similarity in dominants of all layers of 

vascular species in a climax community.

plant community—Assemblage of plant species unique 

in its composition; occurs in particular locations under 

particular influences; a reflection or integration of the 

environmental influences on the site such as soil, 

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, 

and rainfall; denotes a general kind of climax plant 

community (ponderosa pine or bunchgrass).

PPJV—Prairie Pothole Joint Venture.

predation—Mode of life in which food is primarily 

obtained by the killing or consuming of animals.

prescribed fire—Skillful application of fire to natural 

fuels under conditions such as weather, fuel moisture, 

and soil moisture that allow confinement of the 

fire to a predetermined area and produces the 

intensity of heat and rate of spread to accomplish 

planned benefits to one or more objectives of habitat 

management, wildlife management, or hazard 

reduction.

priority public use—See wildlife-dependent 

recreational use.

pristine—Typical of original conditions.

private land—Land that is owned by a private 

individual, a group of individuals, or a nongovernmental 

organization.

private landowner—Any individual, group of 

individuals, or nongovernmental organization that 

owns land.

private organization—Any nongovernmental 

organization.

proposed action—Alternative proposed to best 

achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge 

(contributes to the Refuge System mission, addresses 

the significant issues, and is consistent with principles 

of sound fish and wildlife management). The draft 

comprehensive conservation plan.

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 Service issues and those who do or do not 

realize that Service decisions may affect them.

public involvement—Process that offers affected 

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—Purpose specified in or derived 

from the law, proclamation, executive order, 

agreement, public land order, donation document, 

or administrative memorandum establishing 

authorization or expanding a refuge or district 

subunit (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 

602 FW 1.5).

recruitment—The process of bringing hatch-year 

young into the adult population.

Refuge Operations Needs System—National database 

that contains the unfunded operational needs of each 

refuge. Projects included are those required to carry 

out approved plans and meet goals, objectives, and 

legal mandates.

refuge purpose—See purpose of the refuge.

Refuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge System.
Glossary 103

region 6—Mountain–Prairie Region of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers Service 

programs in Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Utah.

rest—Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation, in reference to refuge lands.

restoration—Artificial manipulation of a habitat 

to restore it to something close to its natural 

state. Involves taking a degraded grassland and 

reestablishing habitat for native plants and animals. 

Restoration usually involves the planting of native 

grasses and forbs, and may include shrub removal 

and the use of prescribed fire.

rhizomatous—A plant having rhizomes.

rhizome—A continuously growing, horizontal, 

underground stem that produces roots and sends 

shoots upward at intervals (for example, many iris 

species).

riparian area or riparian zone—Area or habitat that 

is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems 

including streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent 

plant communities and their associated soils that have 

free water at or near the surface; an area whose 

components are directly or indirectly attributed 

to the influence of water; of or relating to a river; 

specifically applied to ecology, riparian describes the 

land immediately adjoining and directly influenced by 

streams. For example, riparian vegetation includes all 

plant life growing on the land adjoining a stream and 

directly influenced by the stream.

RLGIS—Refuge Lands Geographic Information System.

“roundouts”—Odd shapes in boundaries of Refuge 

System lands that are straightened by the purchase 

of land tracts.

runoff—Water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural or 

landscape irrigation that flows over the land surface 

into a waterbody.

sandhills—Sand dunes created by wind and wave 

action following the melting of large glaciers about 

8,000–10,000 years ago. Soils are sand and silt. Local 

relief exceeds 80 feet in some places.

scoping—Process of obtaining information from the 

public for input into the planning process.

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers.

Service—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Service Asset Maintenance Management System—

National database that contains the unfunded 

maintenance needs of each refuge; projects include 

those required to maintain existing equipment 

and buildings, correct safety deficiencies for the 

implementation of approved plans, and meet goals, 

objectives, and legal mandates.

shelterbelt—Single to multiple rows of trees and 

shrubs planted around cropland or buildings to block 

or slow down the wind.

shorebird—Any of a suborder (Charadrii) of birds 

such as a plover or a snipe that frequent the seashore or 

mud flat areas.

sound professional judgment—Finding, determination, 

or decision that is consistent with principles of sound 

fish and wildlife management and administration, 

available science and resources, and adherence to the 

requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act and other applicable laws.

spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the 

character of space.

special status species—Plants or animals that 

have been identified through federal law, state law, 

or agency policy as requiring special protection 

of monitoring. Examples include federally listed 

endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate 

species; state-listed endangered, threatened, 

candidate, or monitor species; the Service’s species 

of management concern; and species identified by the 

Partners in Flight program as being of extreme or 

moderately high conservation concern.

special use permit—Permit for special authorization 

from the refuge manager required for any refuge 

service, facility, privilege, or product of the soil 

provided at refuge expense and not usually available 

to the general public through authorizations in Title 

50 CFR or other public regulations (“National Wildlife 

Refuge System Manual” 5 RM 17.6).

species of concern—Those plant and animal species, 

while not falling under the definition of special status 

species, that are of management interest by virtue of 

being federal trust species such as migratory birds, 

important game species, or significant keystone 

species; species that have documented or apparent 

populations declines, small or restricted populations, 

or dependence on restricted or vulnerable habitats. 

Species that: (1) are documented or have apparent 

population declines; (2) are small or restricted 

populations; or (3) depend on restricted or vulnerable 

habitats.

stand—Any homogenous area of vegetation with 

more or less uniform soils, landform, and vegetation. 

Typically used to refer to forested areas.

step-down management plan—Plan that provides the 

details necessary to carry out management strategies 

identified in the comprehensive conservation plan 

(“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 

FW 1.5).

strategy—Specific action, tool, or technique or 

combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (“Draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5).
104 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

submergent—Vascular or nonvascular hydrophyte, 

either rooted or nonrooted, that lies entirely beneath the 

water surface, except for flowering parts in some species.

succession—See ecological succession.

SWG—state wildlife grant.

threatened species, federal—Species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that are 

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of their 

range.

threatened species, state—Plant or animal species 

likely to become endangered in a particular state 

within the near future if factors contributing to 

population decline or habitat degradation or loss 

continue.

trust resource—Resource 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 national wildlife refuges.

trust species—See trust resource.

understory—Any vegetation whose canopy (foliage) is 

below, or closer to the ground than canopies of other 

plants.

upland—Dry ground; other than wetlands.

USC—United States Code.

USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS)—

Principal federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people. The Service manages the 93-million-acre 

National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more 

than 530 national wildlife refuges and thousands 

of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 

national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological service 

field stations, the agency enforces federal wildlife 

laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores 

national significant fisheries, conserves and restores 

wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers 

the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign 

governments with their conservation efforts. It also 

oversees the federal aid program that distributes 

millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and 

hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mission—The mission 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with 

others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, 

and plants and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of the American people.

USFWS—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—Federal agency 

whose mission is to provide reliable scientific 

information to describe and understand the earth; 

minimize loss of life and property from natural 

disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and 

mineral resources; and enhance and protect our 

quality of life.

USGS—See U.S. Geological Survey.

vision statement—Concise statement of what the 

planning unit should be, or what the Service hopes 

to do, based primarily on the Refuge System mission, 

specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. 

In addition, the vision statement is tied to the 

maintenance and restoration of biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of each refuge 

and the Refuge System.

visual obstruction—Pertaining to the density of a 

plant community; the height of vegetation that blocks 

the view of predators and conspecifics to a nest.

visual obstruction reading (VOR)—Measurement of the 

density of a plant community; the height of vegetation 

that blocks the view of predators to a nest.

VOR—See visual obstruction reading.

wading birds—Birds having long legs that enable 

them to wade in shallow water. Includes egrets, 

great blue herons, black-crowned night-herons, and 

bitterns.

warm-season grass—Grass that begins growth 

later in the season (early June); require warmer soil 

temperatures to germinate and actively grow when 

temperatures are warmer (85–95°F). Examples are 

Indiangrass, switchgrass, and big bluestem.

waterfowl—Category of birds that includes ducks, 

geese, and swans.

watershed—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.

wetland—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.

wetland management district (district)—

Administrative unit that provides oversight in a 

multicounty area for all of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s small land tracts.
Glossary 105

WG—Wage Grade schedule (pay rate schedule for 

certain federal positions).

wilderness—“A 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” (Wilderness Act of 1964 Section 2c [PL 88- 

577)]). This legal definition places wilderness in the 

untrammeled or primeval end of the environmental 

modification spectrum. Wilderness is roadless lands, 

legally classified as component areas of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System, and managed to 

protect its qualities of naturalness, solitude, and 

opportunity for primitive types of recreation.

wildfire—Free-burning fire requiring a suppression 

response; all fire other than prescribed fire that 

occurs in wildlands (“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 621 FW 1.7).

wildland fire—Every wildland fire is either a wildfire 

or a prescribed fire (“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 621 FW 1.3).

wildlife-dependent recreational use—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 Refuge 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.

wildlife management—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.

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not 

usually touching, generally forming 25%–60% cover.

WUI—Wildland–urban interface.

Appendix A

Key Legislation and Policies

Administration of units of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is governed by (1) bills passed by the U.S. 

Congress and signed into law by the president of the 

United States, and (2) by regulations developed by 

the various branches of the government. Following 

are brief descriptions of some of the most pertinent 

laws and statutes establishing legal parameters and 

policy direction for the Refuge System.

In alphabetical order of the name of the act, order, or 

regulation.

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits 

discrimination in public accommodations and services.

Antiquities Act (June 8, 1906; 16 USC 431–3; 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. Requires 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 (Public 

Law [PL] 96-95; October 31, 1979; 16 USC 470aa–ll; 93 

Stat. 721): Largely supplants the resource protection 

provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological 

items. Establishes detailed requirements for issuance 

of permits for any excavation for or removal of 

archaeological resources from federal or Indian 

lands. 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. In addition, PL 100-588 (November 3, 1988; 

102 Stat. 2983) lowers the threshold value of artifacts 

triggering the felony provisions of the act from 

$5,000 to $500, makes attempting to commit an action 

prohibited by the act a violation, and requires the 

land managing agencies to establish public awareness 

programs regarding the value of archaeological 

resources to the nation.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally 

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be 

accessible to persons with disabilities.

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (PL 

86-523; June 27, 1960; 16 USC 469–469c; 74 Stat. 

220 [as amended by PL 93-291; May 24, 1974; 88 

Stat. 174]): Carries out the policy established by 

the Historic Sites Act; directs 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 archaeological 

data. Authorizes use of appropriated, donated, and 

transferred money for the recovery, protection, and 

preservation of such data. 

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 USC 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, molests, 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 buy of wetlands from Land and 

Water Conservation Fund monies, removing a 

prior prohibition on such acquisitions. 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 USC 1531–43, 87 Stat. 884; as 

amended): Provides for conservation of threatened 

and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and 

plants by federal action and by encouraging state 

programs. Specific provisions include 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; prohibition 

of unauthorized taking, possession, sale, transport, 

etc., of endangered species; an expanded program 
108 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

of habitat acquisition; establishment of cooperative 

agreements and grants-in-aid to states that establish 

and maintain an active, adequate program for 

endangered and threatened species; assessment of 

civil and criminal penalties for violating the act or 

regulations.

Environmental Education Act of 1990 (PL 101-619; 

November 16, 1990; 20 USC 5501–10; 104 Stat. 3325):

Establishes 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. Requires the office to develop 

and support environmental programs in consultation 

with other federal natural resource management 

agencies including the Service.

EO 11644—Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands 

(1972): Provides policy and procedures for regulating 

off-road vehicles.

EO 11988—Floodplain Management (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 

“shall 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.”

EO 11990—Protection of Wetlands.

EO 12996—Management and General Public Use of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System (1996): Defines 

the mission, purpose, and priority public uses of the 

Refuge System; presents four principles to guide 

management of the system.

EO 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.

Federal Records Act (1950): Requires the 

preservation of evidence of the government’s 

organization, functions, policies, decisions, 

operations, and activities, as well as basic historical 

and other information.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 

401 (PL 92-500, USC 1411, 86 Stat. 816.33): Requires 

any applicant for a federal license or permit to 

conduct any activity that 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. Requires that a certification 

obtained for construction of any facility must also 

pertain to subsequent operation of the facility.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, 

Section 404 (PL 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. Requires that selection of disposal 

sites be in accordance with guidelines developed by 

the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency in conjunction with the Secretary of the 

Army. States that 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.

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 USC 742a–742j, 70 

Stat. 1119; as amended): Establishes a comprehensive 

fish and wildlife policy and directs the Secretary 

of the Interior to provide continuing research and 

extension and conservation of fish and wildlife 

resources.

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (PL 96366; 

September 29, 1980; 16 USC 2901–11; as amended 

1986, 1988, 1990, and 1992): Creates a mechanism 

for federal matching funding of the development 

of state conservation plans for nongame fish and 

wildlife. States that 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 
Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies 109

in fulfilling the Secretary’s responsibilities under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, and provisions of the Endangered 

Species Act implementing the Convention on Nature 

Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western 

Hemisphere.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into 

agreements with private landowners for wildlife 

management purposes.

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 System 

Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act 

of 1956. Authorizes the Secretary to accept gifts and 

bequests of real and personal property on behalf of 

the United States. Authorizes the use of volunteers 

for Service projects and appropriations to carry out 

volunteer programs.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act 

(August 21, 1935; 16 USC 461–2, 464–7; 49 Stat. 666; 

known as the Historic Sites Act [as amended by 

PL 89-249; October 9, 1965; 79 Stat. 971]): Declares 

it a national policy to preserve historic sites and 

objects of national significance, including those 

located at refuges and districts. Provides procedures 

for designation, acquisition, administration, and 

protection of such sites. Provides for designation of 

National Historic and Natural Landmarks.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965:

Provides money from leasing bonuses, production 

royalties, and rental revenues for offshore oil, 

gas, and sulphur extraction to the Bureau of Land 

Management, the USDA Forest Service, 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 USC 

715–715d, 715e, 715f–r): Establishes the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Commission, which consists of 

the Secretaries of the Interior (chair), Agriculture, 

and Transportation; two members from the House 

of Representatives; and an ex-officio member from 

the state in which a project is located. States that 

the commission approves acquisition of land and 

water, or interests therein, and sets the priorities for 

acquisition of lands by the Secretary of the Interior 

for sanctuaries or for other management purposes. 

Requires that, 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 USC 

715s, 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% 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 (March 16, 1934; 16 USC 718–718h; 48 Stat. 51; 

known as the Duck Stamp Act; as amended):

Requires each waterfowl hunter 16 years of age 

or older to possess a valid federal hunting stamp. 

Authorizes the requirement of an annual stamp for 

the hunting of waterfowl; proceeds go toward the 

purchase of habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. 

Duck stamps are also bought (1) for entry into some 

refuges, (2) by conservationists, and (3) for stamp 

collections. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are 

deposited in a special Treasury account known as 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not 

subject to appropriations.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 USC 703–11; 

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. Enables the setting of seasons and 

other regulations (including the closing of areas, 

federal or nonfederal) related to the hunting of 

migratory birds.

National and Community Service Act of 1990 (PL 

101-610; November 16, 1990; 42 USC 12401; 104 

Stat. 3127): Authorizes several programs to engage 

citizens of the United States in full and part-time 

projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, 

provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and 

fulfill environmental needs. Provides for grants 

to states for the creation of programs for citizens 

over 17 years of age. Programs must be designed to 

fill unmet educational, human, environmental, and 

public safety needs. Initially, participants will receive 

postemployment benefits of up to $1,000 per year 

for part-time participants and $2,500 for full-time 

participants.

Several provisions are of particular interest to the 

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 and 25, or in the case of summer 

programs, between 15 and 21, to engage 

in approved human and natural resources 

projects that 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 
110 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

stipend of not more than 100% of the poverty 

level will be paid to participants. A commission 

established to administer the Youth Service 

Corps will make grants to states, the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, and 

the Director of ACTION to carry out these 

responsibilities.

Thousand Points of Light: Creates a nonprofit 

Points of Light Foundation to administer 

programs to encourage citizens and institutions 

to volunteer to solve critical social issues, 

discover new leaders, and develop institutions 

committed to serving others.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190; 

January 1, 1970; 42 USC 4321–47; 83 Stat. 852 [as 

amended by PL 94-52; July 3, 1975; 89 Stat. 258] [as 

amended by PL 94-83; August 9, 1975; 89 Stat. 424]):

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 the 

implementation of all actions, federal agencies must 

integrate the act with other planning requirements, 

and to prepare appropriate documents to facilitate 

better environmental decision making (40 CFR 1500). 

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 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 

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 the environmental impact of the 

proposed action; any adverse environmental 

effect that cannot be avoided should the 

proposal be carried out; alternatives to the 

proposed action; the relationship between local 

short-term uses of the environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity; any irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources that would be 

involved in the proposed action, should it be 

carried out.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

(PL 89-665; October 15, 1966; 16 USC 470–470b, 

470c–n; 80 Stat. 915; and repeatedly amended):

Provides for preservation of significant historical 

features (buildings, objects, and sites) through a 

grants-in-aid program to the states. Establishes 

the National Register of Historic Places and a 

program of matching grants under the existing 

National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 USC 

468–468d). Establishes the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, which was made a permanent 

independent agency in PL 94-422 (September 28, 

1976; 90 Stat. 1319). That act creates the Historic 

Preservation Fund. Directs federal agencies to take 

into account the effects of their actions on items 

or sites listed or eligible for listing in the National 

Register.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

of 1966 (PL 89-669; 16 USC 668dd–ee; 80 Stat. 929; 

as amended): Defines the Refuge System as 

including wildlife refuges, areas for protection and 

conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened 

with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife 

management areas, and waterfowl production areas. 

Authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of an 

area provided such use is compatible with the major 

purposes for which such area was established. States 

that purchase considerations for rights-of-way go 

into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the 

acquisition of lands. By regulation, up to 40% 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% of such area 

would be beneficial to the species. Requires an act of 

Congress for the divestiture of lands in the system, 

except for (1) lands acquired with Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission money, and (2) lands that 

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 (PL 105-57; October 9, 1997; Amendment to 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966): Sets the mission and the administrative 

policy for all units in the Refuge System. Clearly 

defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; 

establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of 

the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation); establishes a formal process 

for determining appropriateness and compatibility; 

establishes the responsibilities of the Secretary of 

the Interior for managing and protecting the Refuge 

System; and requires a CCP for each refuge by the 

year 2012. Also amended portions of the Refuge 

Recreation Act and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966.

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 Refuge System.
Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies 111

QQ The definition of compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation as “legitimate and appropriate 

general public use of the [National Wildlife 

Refuge] System.”

QQ The establishment of hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation as “priority public 

uses” where compatible with the mission and 

purpose of individual national wildlife refuges.

QQ The refuge managers’ authority to use sound 

professional judgment in determining which 

public uses are compatible at national wildlife 

refuges and whether or not they will be allowed 

(a formal process for determining “compatible 

use” is currently being developed).

QQ 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 CCPs for national wildlife 

refuges.

National Wildlife Refuge Regulations (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.

Wilderness Preservation and Management (50 

CFR 35; 16 USC 1131-1136; 43 USC 1201; 78 

Stat. 890): Provides procedures for establishing 

wilderness units under the Wilderness Act of 

1964 at units of the Refuge System.

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and 

Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 

(PL 105-242, 112 Stat. 1575): Encourages the use of 

volunteers to assist the Service in the management 

of refuges within the Refuge System. Facilitates 

partnerships between the Refuge System and 

nonfederal entities to promote public awareness 

of the resources of the Refuge System and public 

participation in the conservation of those resources. 

Encourages donations and other contributions by 

persons and organizations to the Refuge System. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (PL 

101-233; December 13, 1989; 16 USC 4401–12; 103 

Stat. 1968): Provides for the conservation of North 

American wetland ecosystems, waterfowl and other 

migratory birds, fish, and wildlife that depend on 

such habitats. Establishes a council to review project 

proposals and provided funding for the projects. 

Provides funding and administrative direction for 

implementation of the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement 

on wetlands between Canada, United States, and 

Mexico. 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 money may be expended, upon approval 

of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, for 

payment of not to exceed 50% of the United States 

share of the cost of wetlands conservation projects in 

Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100% of the 

cost of projects on federal lands). At least 50% and 

no more than 70% of the money received is 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 areas’ primary purposes. 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. Authorizes the 

charging of fees for public uses.

Refuge Recreation Act of 1966 (PL 87-714, 16 USC 

460k et seq., 76 Stat. 653–4): Authorizes appropriate, 

incidental, or secondary recreational use at 

conservation areas administered by the Secretary of 

the Interior for fish and wildlife purposes.

Refuge Recreation Act of 1969 [16 USC 460k–k4], as 

amended.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, Section 401 (June 15, 

1935; 16 USC 715s; 49 Stat. 383): Provides for 

payments to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues 

derived from the sale of products from refuges. 

Related legislation follows:

PL 88-523 (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.

PL 93-509 (December 3, 1974; 88 Stat. 1603):

Requires that monies 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.

PL 95-469 (October 17, 1978; 92 Stat. 1319):

Expands the revenue-sharing system to include 

national fish hatcheries and Service research 

stations. Includes in the Refuge Revenue 

Sharing Fund receipts from the sale of salmonid 

carcasses. Establishes payments to counties as 

follows: 
112 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

On acquired land, the greatest amount 

calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, 

3⁄4 of 1% of the appraised value, or 25% of the 

net receipts produced from the land.

On land withdrawn from the public domain, 

25% of net receipts and basic payments 

under PL 94-565 (31 USC 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 that suffer losses in revenues due to 

the establishment of Service areas.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1978 (PL 95-469; 

October 17, 1978; amended 16 USC 715s; 50 CFR, part 34): 

Changes the provisions for sharing revenues with 

counties in a number of ways. Makes revenue sharing 

applicable to all lands administered by the Service, 

whereas previously it was applicable only to areas 

in the Refuge System. 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, provides a 

payment of 75 cents per acre, 3⁄4 of 1% of fair market 

value or 25% of net receipts, whichever is greatest, 

whereas the old law provided a payment of 3⁄4 of 1% 

adjustment cost or 25% of net receipts, whichever 

was greater. Makes reserve (public domain) lands 

entitlement lands under PL 94-565 (16 USC 1601–

1607) and provides for a payment of 25% of net 

receipts. Authorizes appropriations to make up any 

shortfall in net receipts, to make payments in the 

full amount for which counties are eligible. The old 

law provided that if net receipts were insufficient to 

make full payment, payment to each county would be 

reduced proportionality.

Refuge Trespass Act of June 28, 1906 (18 USC 41, 

43 Stat. 98; 18 USC 145): Provides the first federal 

protection for wildlife at national wildlife refuges. 

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 USC 41, 

Stat. 686; Section 41 of the Criminal Code, Title 18):

Consolidates the penalty provisions of various acts 

from January 24, 1905 (16 USC 684–687, 33 Stat. 614) 

through March 10, 1934 (16 USC 694–694b, 48 Stat. 

400) and restates 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 wildlife on 

such areas, or willfully injures, molests, or destroys 

any property of the United States on such lands or 

waters, shall be fined, imprisoned, or both.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (October 1, 1973; 29 USC 

794 [as amended by PL 93-112, Title 5; 87 Stat. 355]):

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.

U.S. Department of the Interior Order No. 3226 

(January 19, 2001): Directs bureaus and offices of 

the Department to analyze the potential effects 

on climate change when undertaking long-range 

planning, when setting priorities for scientific 

research, and when making major decisions about 

use of resources.

Wilderness Act of 1964 (PL 88-577; 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 the Refuge System and National Park Service 

for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System.
Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies 113

Laws and Executive Orders that Regulate Recreational Use on the Refuge System

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 USC 410 hh3233 and 43 USC 1602–1784)

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 USC 1601–24)

Antiques Act of 1906 (16 USC 431–3)

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1960 (16 USC 469–469c), as amended

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470aa–mm)

Comprehensive Environmental Responses, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531–44), as amended

Executive Order 11593—Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 

Executive Order 11593—Protection of Historical, Archaeological, and Scientific Properties 

Executive Order 11644—Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands

Executive Order 11988—Floodplain Management

Executive Order 11990—Protection of Wetlands

Executive Order 12372—Intergovernmental Review of Federal Program

Executive Order 12962—Recreational Fisheries

Executive Order 12996—Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System

Executive Order 13006—Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our Nation’s Central Cities

Executive Order 13007—Indian Sacred Sites

Executive Order 13287—Preserve America

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 USC 742f [a] [4]), as amended

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (16 USC 2901–11), as amended

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661[1]–662[c])

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 USC 7421)

Historic Sites, Building and Antiquities Act of 1935 (16 USC 461–2, 464–7)

Land and Water Conservation Fund (16 USC 460[l–4]–[l–11]), as amended

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 USC 715–715d, 715e, 715f–r), as amended

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 USC 668dd–669ee), as amended

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

Natural Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470–470b, 470c–n), as amended

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 USC 460k–k4), as amended

Refuge Recreation Act of 1969 (16 USC 460k–k4), as amended

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 USC 1271–87), as amended

Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 USC 1131–6)

Appendix B

Preparers and Contributors

This document is the result of extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by the members of the 

planning team for the 12 North Dakota national wildlife refuges. Many others contributed insight and 

support.

Planning Team

The planning team comprises the project leaders for the Refuge System units that administer the refuges, a 

biology subteam, a visitor services subteam, and extended team members—all listed below.

reFuGe systeM ProJect leaDers

Team Member Position Work Unit

David Gillund Project leader Lostwood Wetland Management District Complex

Kim Hanson

Roger Hollevoet

Project leader

Project leader

Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Devils Lake Wetland Management District 

Complex 

Lloyd Jones Project leader Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Biology Subteam

Team Member Position Work Unit

Dave Azure Deputy project leader Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Cami Dixon Wildlife biologist Devils Lake Wetland Management District 

Complex 

Mike Goos Wetland management district 

manager Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Tim Kessler Wetland management district 

manager Crosby Wetland Management District

Paulette Scherr Wildlife biologist Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Richard 

Schroeder Wildlife biologist, retired USGS–Biological Survey, Fort Collins, CO
116 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

VIsItor serVIces subteaM

Team Member Position Work Unit

Travis Carpenter

Stacy Hoehn

Jackie Jacobson

Shapins 

Associates

Cindy Souders

Chad Zorn

Deputy wetland management 

district manager

Refuge operations specialist

Outdoor recreation planner

Consultants

Outdoor recreational program 

specialist

Wetland management district 

manager

Kulm Wetland Management District

Valley City Wetland Management District

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Boulder, CO

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO

Valley City Wetland Management District

Team Member Position Work Unit

Jim Alfonso

Mike Artmann

Natoma 

Buskness

John Esperance

Mike Estey

Paul Halko

Randy Kreil

Greg Link

Chuck Loesch

Neil Niemuth

Ron Reynolds

Neil Shook

Kurt Tompkins

Deputy project leader

Wildlife biologist and GIS specialist

Refuge manager

Planning team leader

Wildlife biologist and GIS specialist

Refuge manager

Division chief

Assistant division chief

Wildlife biologist and GIS specialist

Wildlife biologist and GIS specialist

Project leader

Refuge manager

Refuge manager

Devils Lake Wetland Management District 

Complex 

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO

Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge

USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO

USFWS HAPET, Bismarck, ND

Devils Lake Wetland Management District 

(south unit)

NDGF

NDGF

USFWS HAPET, Bismarck, ND

USFWS HAPET, Bismarck, ND

USFWS HAPET, Bismarck, ND

Devils Lake Wetland Management District 

(north unit)

Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Appendix B—Preparers and Contributors 117

Team Member Position Work Unit

Brian Vose Refuge manager Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge

Stu Wacker Realty field supervisor (retired) Wetland acquisition office, Bismarck, ND

Gary Williams Deputy project leader Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Kevin Willis State coordinator Partners for Fish and Wildlife, Bismarck, ND

Contributors

The Service acknowledges the efforts of the following individuals and organizations toward the completion 

of this CCP. The diversity, talents, and knowledge they contributed dramatically improved the vision and 

completeness of this document.

Team Member Position Work Unit

Richard Coleman Assistant regional director, Refuge 

System USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO

Paul Cornes Refuge supervisor USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO

Megan Estep Chief hydrologist USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO

Sheri Fetherman Chief, division of education and 

visitor services USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO

Wayne King Refuge biologist USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO

Rod Krey Refuge supervisor (retired) USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO

David Linehan Deputy refuge supervisor USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO

Bud Oliveira Deputy assistant regional director, 

Refuge System USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO

Deb Parker Writer–editor, division of refuge 

planning USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO

Ron Shupe Deputy assistant regional director, 

Refuge System (retired) USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO

Michael Spratt Chief, division of refuge planning USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO

Richard Sterry Regional fire planner USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO

Meg VanNess Regional archaeologist USFWS regional office, Lakewood, CO

Appendix C

Public Involvement

Public scoping was started for the 12 North Dakota 

national wildlife refuges with a notice of intent published 

in the Federal Register on February 28, 2007. The 

notice announced the Service’s intent to prepare a CCP 

for the refuges and obtain suggestions and information 

on the scope of issues to be considered in the planning 

process.

Public Scoping 

In April 2007, the Service sent the first planning update 

to interested parties. The update provided information 

about the refuges’ history and resources and the CCP 

process. In addition, the update invited the public to 

attend scoping meetings, which the local media also 

announced. The planning update included a comment 

form and postage-paid envelope to give the public an 

opportunity to easily provide written comments.

The Service held public meetings in various locations 

throughout North Dakota starting on March 26, 2007, 

and ending on April 11, 2007. After a presentation 

about the refuges, along with an overview of the CCP 

and NEPA processes, the refuge staff encouraged the 

attendees to ask questions and offer comments. Service 

employees were available after the presentation to 

answer individuals’ questions about the CCP process 

and refuge management. The public identified biological, 

social, and economic concerns about refuge management. 

Throughout the planning process, the planning team 

developed a mailing list of interested parties (find the 

mailing list at the end of this appendix). 

Public Review of the

Draft CCP and EA

The Service considered all input obtained from meetings 

and correspondence, including emails, in development 

of the draft CCP and EA. In addition, the Service 

considered changes to the refuges’ current management 

that were suggested by the public and other groups.

On August 28, 2008, the Service published in the Federal 

Register a notice of availability announcing that the 

draft CCP and EA was available for a 30-day public 

review. The Service mailed 94 hard copies of the draft 

CCP and EA to individuals and groups on the mailing 

list. In addition, the Service posted the draft plan on 

the region 6 website and sent out news releases and a 

planning update. 

During the review period, the Service held five public

meetings in various locations throughout North 

Dakota. The public, agencies, and groups commented 

on the draft CCP and EA in writing and at the public 

meetings; the Service received three comment letters. 

The comments helped the Service develop the final 

CCP, and summaries of these comments and the 

Service’s responses follow. 

Public Comments and 

Service Responses

Comment 1: The Service needs to ensure that national 

wildlife refuges are managed for all birds, not just 

waterfowl. 

Response 1: Congress passed the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 to ensure 

that the Refuge System is managed as a national 

system of lands, waters, and interests for the 

protection and conservation of the nation’s wildlife 

resources. Two main components of the Improvement 

Act are a strong and singular wildlife conservation 

mission and the recognition that wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation are legitimate and appropriate 

public uses of the Refuge System.

The Service manages national wildlife refuges 

to benefit migratory birds; however many of the 

habitat management strategies provide habitat for 

other species of birds, mammals, insects, and animals. 

The CCP calls for habitats to be managed for target 

species—waterfowl, migratory shorebirds, grassland 

birds, and other priority species.

Comment 2: The Service needs to carefully consider 

the risks associated with the introduction of biological 

controls. Release of biological controls, such as 

predatory insects or genetically engineered plant 

pathogens, has the potential to increase rather than 

control the spread of invasive species. For example, 

an unanticipated spread of a biological control agent 

might cause undesirable effects that require 

additional measures to reduce the spread of the 

original control agent so it did not itself become an 

invasive species.

Response 2: The Service endorses the 

recommendation to proceed with caution; integrated 

pest management is crucial and includes control 
120 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

measures that balance effectiveness and least risk. 

Ultimately, the Service considers the control of 

invasive species through application of a risk–reward 

model, with emphasis on safeguarding the ecosystem. 

Using the best information and science available, 

the Service will thoroughly analyze which agents 

to use. Refuge staffs will release biological control 

agents only after careful consideration and not 

without the formal approval of the Plant Protection 

and Quarantine office of the USDA–APHIS. This 

office identifies potential biological agents, studies 

them for effectiveness, and screens the agents for 

host specificity to target and nontarget species. 

Comment 3: Additional steps proposed for visitor 

services under alternative C should be added to the 

preferred alternative B. This could provide long-term 

benefits to all North Dakota refuges by increasing 

public awareness about, and appreciation and 

support for, national wildlife refuges.

Response 3: The Service agrees that adding the 

steps outlined in alternative C would be beneficial, 

and they were given serious consideration. However, 

this final plan retains the same visitor services steps 

as described for alternative B in the draft CCP. The 

visitor services goal, considered attainable over 

the next 15 years, has achievable objectives that 

incorporate moderate enhancements of visitor 

services. Given the opportunity and funding, the 

Service may consider exceeding the expectations 

associated with this goal. 

Comment 4: The Lewis and Clark National Historic 

Trail is adjacent to the Audubon National Wildlife 

Refuge near Coleharbor, North Dakota, and needs to 

be considered during management of this refuge. The 

National Park Service administers this trail, which 

follows the routes of the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

Response 4: The Service recognizes the value of 

the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and 

other nearby sites that the National Park Service 

administers: Knife River Indian Village Historic 

Site, Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center, and 

Fort Mandan Interpretive Site. The staff at Audubon 

National Wildlife Refuge has a history of coordinating 

refuge activities to make sure they do not conflict 

with the mission of the National Park Service at 

the trail and nearby sites. Furthermore, the refuge 

will continue to seek opportunities to work 

cooperatively with the National Park Service and 

provide interpretation of the trail and the Lewis 

and Clark Expedition.

The refuge has a self-guided auto tour route that 

includes an interpretive station about the Lewis 

and Clark Expedition at the second stop along the 

route. In addition, the refuge staff has cooperated 

with others on Challenge Cost Share projects such 

as the following: provision of viewing binoculars, 

interpretive panels, and native shrubs; joining with 

the Missouri River Interpreters group that is 

associated with the above-mentioned sites; and 

conducting an active brochure exchange program. 

Comment 5: There was no mention of enhancing 

visitor services or facilities at Chase Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge.

Response 5: This was an oversight and improvements 

to the Chase Lake facilities are incorporated in this 

final version of the CCP. 

Mailing List

The mailing list the Service used throughout the 

planning process follows.

FeDeral oFFIcIals

U.S. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Washington DC 

Sen. Dorgan’s area director, Bismarck, ND

U.S. Senator Kent Conrad, Washington DC 

Sen. Conrad’s area director, Bismarck, ND

U.S. Representative Earl Pomeroy, Washington DC 

Rep. Pomeroy’s area director, Bismarck, ND

FeDeral aGencIes

Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck, ND

National Park Service, Omaha, NE

USDA–APHIS, Bismarck, ND

USDA–Farm Service Agency, Bottineau, ND

USDA–Farm Service Agency, Rugby, ND

USDA–Farm Service Agency, Towner, ND

USDA–Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), Bismarck, ND

USDA–NRCS, Bottineau, ND

USDA–NRCS, Copperstown, ND

USDA–NRCS, Linton, ND

USDA–NRCS, Mohall, ND

USDA–NRCS, Rolla, ND

USDA–NRCS, Rugby, ND

USDA–NRCS, Steel, ND

USDA–NRCS, Valley City, ND

USFWS, Ecological Services, Bismarck, ND

USFWS, National Wildlife Refuge System—

Albuquerque, NM; Anchorage, AK; Arlington, VA; 

Atlanta, GA; Fort Snelling, MN; Hadley, MA; 

Portland, OR; Rawlins, WY; Sacramento, CA; 

Shepherdstown, WV; Washington DC

USGS–Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, CO

trIbes

Three Affiliated Tribes, New Town, ND

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Fort Yates, ND

Spirit Lake Tribal Council, Fort Totten, ND

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, Agency Village, SD

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Belcourt, ND

White Earth Band of Chippewa, White Earth, MN

state oFFIcIals

Governor John Hoeven, Bismarck, ND

North Dakota state representatives and senators 

(139)
Appendix C—Public Involvement 121

state aGencIes

North Dakota Forest Service, Bismarck, ND

NDGF, Bismarck, ND

North Dakota State Historical Preservation Office, 

Bismarck, ND

North Dakota State Land Board, Bismarck, ND

North Dakota State University Extension Service, 

Bismarck, ND

North Dakota State University Extension Service, 

Linton, ND

North Dakota State University Extension Service, 

Steele, ND

North Dakota State Water Commission

local GoVernMent

County commissioners (33)

Mayors (7)

Resource conservation districts (8)

Weed board offices (19)

orGanIZatIons

American Bird Conservancy, Plains, VA

American Rivers, Washington DC

Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento, CA

Beyond Pesticides, Washington DC

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington DC

Duck Unlimited, Great Plains Office, Bismarck, ND

Fund for Animals, Silver Springs, MD

Izaak Walton League, Gaithersburg, MD

Murie Audubon Society, Casper, WY

National Audubon Society, Fargo, ND

National Audubon Society—Washington DC; New 

York, NY

National Trappers Association, New Martinsville, WV

National Wildlife Federation, Reston, VA

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington DC

National Wild Turkey Federation, Bismarck, ND

The Nature Conservancy, Minneapolis, MN

Sierra Club—San Francisco, CA; Sheridan, WY

Union Pacific Railroad, Omaha, NE

The U.S. Humane Society, Washington DC

The Wilderness Society, Washington DC

Wildlife Management Institute—Fort Collins, CO;

Corvallis, OR; Washington DC

unIVersItIes anD colleGes

Bismarck State College

Minot State University

Northwestern University

MeDIa

Newspapers (57) 

Radio stations (4) 

TV stations (2)

InDIVIDuals

Individuals (631)

Appendix D

Section 7 Biological Evaluation

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM

Originating Person: 

John Esperance, Region 6, Division of Planning

Telephone Number: 

Planning 303/236 4369

Date: August 1, 2008

I. Region: 6

II. Service Activity (Program): Refuges

III. Pertinent Species and Habitat

A. Federally listed species and/or their critical habitat within the action area:

County

Interior 

Least Tern:

E

Whooping 

Crane:

E

Black-footed 

Ferret:

E

Gray Wolf:

E

Piping 

Plover:

T

Dakota 

Skipper:

C

Designated 

Critical

Habitat: 

Piping 

Plover

Dunn X X X X X X X

Grand Forks

McLean X X X X X X

Mountrail X X X X X X

Nelson

Ramsey

Slope X X X

Stutsman X X X X

Towner

Williams X X X X X

B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat within the action area: 

Critical habitat for the piping plover

C. Candidate species within the action area: 

None

IV. Station Name, Geographic Area, and Action

A. Stations: 

Audubon, Chase Lake, Kellys Slough, Lake Alice, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, Lake Zahl, McLean, Shell Lake, 

Stewart Lake, Stump Lake, and White Lake national wildlife refuges

B. Geographic area: 

Twelve national wildlife refuges throughout North Dakota

C. Action: 

Issuance and implementation of 12 national wildlife refuge comprehensive conservation plan 
124 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

V. Location

A. Ecoregion number and name: 

The 12 refuges are located within the USFWS Mountain–Prairie Region 6, and specifically in the Hudson Bay 

and Missouri main stem ecosystems.

B. Counties and state: 

See above; within North Dakota 

VI. Description of Proposed Action

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

to develop a comprehensive conservation plan by 2012 for each national wildlife refuge. The CCP will guide 

management of the refuges for the next 15 years.

Eleven of the 12 refuges within the CCP were established under an executive order by President Theodore 

Roosevelt as a breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. One refuge, Lake Alice National 

Wildlife Refuge, was established under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

VII. Determination of Effects

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in items III. A, B, and C:

The CCP process consisted of a series of steps including environmental analysis. Public and partner 

involvement were encouraged and valued throughout the process. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

planning team developed management alternatives to meet the purposes, vision, and goals of the refuges. 

Implementation of the CCP will be monitored throughout its 15-year effective period.

All 12 refuges have a primary purpose to provide optimal habitat conditions for the needs of a suite of 

waterfowl and other migratory birds, native species, and to a lesser extent resident wildlife. To achieve goals 

and objectives, aggressive wetland and upland habitat management must be conducted. Wetland and upland 

habitats need to be protected and enhanced through management. Habitat protection needs to be evaluated 

through a priority system so that different means of protection, either through fee title or easements, can be 

evaluated.

The species listed in III occur in various numbers and can be observed on the marshes and open water on a 

number of the refuges described in the CCP. The primary issues related to these species of concern center on: 

monitoring their populations; monitoring habitat use; identifying, securing, and maintaining essential habitat; 

and developing habitat conditions in areas that hold potential for these species and that will promote increased 

recruitment or population protection to secure and increase their populations.

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

The actions of the CCP implementation on the 12 refuges are not expected to create adverse effects. The 

implementation of a more defined management at the refuges may create more suitable habitat for listed 

species and through monitoring enhance the potential of increasing their populations. 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested

A. Listed species/designated critical habitat:

Determination Response Requested 

No effect/no adverse modification _____ Concurrence

May affect, but is not likely to adversely _____ Concurrence 

affect species/adversely modify critical habitat 

May affect, and is likely to adversely _____ Formal 

affect species/modify critical habitat Consultation
Appendix D—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 125

B. Proposed species/proposed critical habitat:

Determination Response Requested

No effect on proposed species/no adverse _____ Concurrence 

modification of proposed critical habitat 

(species: none)

Is likely to jeopardize proposed species or _____ Conference 

adversely modify proposed critical habitat 

(species: none)

________________________________________________

John Esperance 

Supervisory Fish and Wildlife Biologist

Division of Planning

National Wildlife Refuge System

Region 6

Date

IX. Reviewing ESO Evaluation

_____ Concurrence 

_____ Non-Concurrence

_____ Formal Consultation Required

_____ Conference Required

_____ Informal Conference Required

________________________________________________

Jeffrey Towner Date

Field Supervisor

Ecological Services

Bismarck, ND

Appendix E

Environmental Compliance

Environmental Action Statement

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act and other 

statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and 

wildlife resources, I have established the following 

administrative record.

I have determined that the action of implementing the 

“Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota 

National Wildlife Refuges” is found not to have 

significant environmental effects, as determined by 

the attached “Finding of No Significant Impact” and 

the environmental assessment as found with the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan.

Approved by

Stephen D. Guertin 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

 Date

Concurred with by

Richard A. Coleman, PhD 

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6

National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

 Date

Paul Cornes 

Refuge Supervisor, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

 Date
128 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

 Date

 Date

Submitted by 

Kim Hanson 

Project Leader

Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex

(Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge)

Pingree, ND

Date

Lloyd Jones 

Project Leader

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex

(Audubon, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, McLean, 

Stewart Lake, and White Lake national wildlife 

refuges)

Coleharbor, ND

Date

Roger Hollevoet 

Project Leader

Devils Lake Wetland Management District Complex

(Kellys Slough, Lake Alice, and Stump Lake 

national wildlife refuges)

Devils Lake, ND

David Gillund 

Project Leader

Lostwood Wetland Management District Complex

(Lake Zahl and Shell Lake national wildlife refuges)

Kenmare, ND
Appendix E—Environmental Compliance 129

Finding of No Significant Impact

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assessed three 

management alternatives for 12 national wildlife 

refuges (Audubon, Chase Lake, Kellys Slough, Lake 

Alice, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, Lake Zahl, McLean, 

Shell Lake, Stewart Lake, Stump Lake, and White 

Lake) in North Dakota as to their effectiveness in 

achieving the refuges’ purposes and their impacts on 

the human environment. 

Q Alternative A, the no-action alternative. The 

Service would continue current management.

Q Alternative B, the proposed action. Wildlife habitat 

management would enhance wetlands and 

uplands. The Service would base management 

objectives for habitat types on the habitat 

preferences of groups of target species such 

as waterfowl, migratory shorebirds, grassland 

birds, and priority species. The Service would 

set priorities for refuge habitats and would 

manage high- and medium-priority habitats. 

Native species would be restored within 

additional degraded habitats. Invasive species 

management would be limited to legally listed 

species and those of ecological concern that 

occur in high- and medium- priority tracts. 

Refuge staffs and partners would expand 

biological surveys and baseline monitoring on 

high- and medium-priority tracts. 

The Service would document and protect cultural 

resources. Refuge staffs would protect known 

resources from vandalism, theft, and destruction. 

The Service would maintain and preserve 

historical sites. 

Educational programs and partner research 

and inventories would be conducted on a limited 

basis. Refuge staffs would improve and expand 

programs for youth and conservation groups. 

The Service would start or expand environmental 

education programs for Lake Alice and Kellys 

Slough national wildlife refuges, and an 

environmental learning center is planned for 

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge. 

Refuge staffs would develop “friends” groups 

and expand existing partnerships to address 

improvement of migratory bird habitat. The 

refuge staffs would work with local, state, 

and federal agencies to promote and protect 

migratory bird habitat within the refuges. 

Q Alternative C. Wildlife habitat management by 

the refuge staffs would target native prairie 

and wetland complexes and be more intensive 

and widespread. The Service would intensively 

manage all of the refuges’ habitats, with an 

emphasis on migratory birds. Refuge staffs 

would do restoration that expands and returns 

native grasslands to quality native prairie. 

In addition to waterfowl surveys, the Service 

would do surveys of other migratory birds and 

conduct baseline surveys for all of the refuges’ 

habitats. The Service would seek graduate 

students to do research and monitoring. 

The Service would document and protect 

cultural resources. Refuge staffs would protect 

known resources from vandalism, theft, and 

destruction. The Service would maintain and 

preserve historical sites. 

Educational programs and partner research and 

inventories would be conducted on a limited basis. 

Refuge staffs would improve and expand programs 

for youth and conservation groups. The Service 

would start or expand environmental education 

programs for Lake Alice and Kellys Slough 

national wildlife refuges, and an environmental 

learning center is planned for Audubon National 

Wildlife Refuge. The Service would develop and 

expand the level and quality of environmental 

education and interpretation opportunities to 

meet a wide range of target audiences. There 

would be outdoor classroom activities, interpretive 

exhibits, and displays. The focus on waterfowl 

and other migratory birds would increase 

wildlife-viewing opportunities. 

The Service would seek new partners to 

accomplish collaborative programs. Refuge staffs 

would expand partnerships with universities, 

develop “friends” groups, and develop partnerships 

with communities and neighbors to enhance 

appreciation of and interest in the refuges. 

Increased staffs, equipment, and funding would be 

needed to accomplish the actions in this alternative.

Based on the assessment and comments received, 

I have selected alternative B as the preferred 

alternative for implementation.

I selected the preferred alternative because it best 

meets the purposes for which the twelve, previously 

listed national wildlife refuges in North Dakota 

were established and is preferable to alternatives A 

and C in light of physical, biological, economic, and 

social factors. The preferred alternative will continue 

to provide public access for wildlife-dependent 

recreation at refuges that are open to the public. 
130 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

I find that the preferred alternative is not a major 

federal action that would significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment within the 

meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, the 

preparation of an environmental impact statement 

for the proposed action is not required. 

The following is a summary of anticipated 

environmental effects from implementation of the 

preferred alternative:

Q The preferred alternative will not adversely 

impact endangered or threatened species or 

their habitat.

Q The preferred alternative will not adversely 

impact archaeological or historical resources.

Q The preferred alternative will not adversely impact 

wetlands nor does the plan call for structures that 

could be damaged by or that would significantly 

influence the movement of floodwater.

Q The preferred alternative will not have a 

disproportionately high or adverse human health 

or environmental effect on minority or low-income 

populations.

Steve Guertin 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

 Date
Appendix F

Fire Management Program for National Wildlife Refuges

Within the Eastern North Dakota Fire District

The Service has administrative and fire management 

responsibility for approximately 15,322 acres in fee 

title in the Chase Lake, Kellys Slough, Lake Alice, 

Stewart Lake, Stump Lake, and White Lake national 

wildlife refuges, which are within the Eastern North 

Dakota Fire District.

The Role of Fire

In ecosystems of the Great Plains, vegetation has 

evolved under periodic disturbance and defoliation 

from grazing, fire, drought, and floods. This periodic 

disturbance is what kept the ecosystem diverse and 

healthy while maintaining significant biodiversity for 

thousands of years.

Historically, natural fire and Native American 

ignitions played an important disturbance role in 

many ecosystems by removing fuel accumulations, 

decreasing the impacts of insects and disease, 

stimulating regeneration, cycling nutrients, and 

providing a diversity of habitats for plants and wildlife.

When fire or grazing is excluded from prairie landscapes,

the fuel loadings increase quickly due to a build-up of 

thatch and invasion of woody vegetation. This increase 

in fuel loadings leads to a significant increase in a fire’s 

resistance to control, which threatens firefighter and 

public safety as well as private and federal properties.

However, properly used fire can

reduce hazardous fuels buildup in both 

wildland –urban interface (WUI) and non-WUI 

environments;

improve wildlife habitats by reducing the 

density of vegetation and changing plant 

species composition;

sustain or increase biological diversity;

improve woodland and shrub land by reducing 

plant density;

reduce susceptibility of plants to insect and 

disease outbreaks;

improve the quality and quantity of livestock 

forage;

improve the quantity of water available for 

municipalities and activities dependent on 

wetlands for their water supply.

Wildland Fire Management 

Policy and Guidance

In 2001, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture 

approved an update of the 1995 “Federal Fire Policy.” 

The 2001 “Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy” 

directs federal agencies to achieve a balance between 

fire suppression to protect life, property, and resources 

and fire use to regulate fuels and maintain healthy 

ecosystems. In addition, it directs agencies to use the 

appropriate management response for all wildland 

fire regardless of the ignition source. This policy 

provides nine guiding principles that are fundamental 

to the success of the fire management program:

QQ Firefighter and public safety is the first priority 

in every fire management activity.

QQ The role of wildland fire as an ecological process 

and natural change agent will be incorporated 

into the planning process.

QQ Fire management plans (FMPs), programs, and 

activities support land and resource management 

plans and their implementation.

QQ Sound risk management is a foundation for all 

fire management activities.

QQ Fire management programs and activities 

are economically viable based on values to 

be protected, costs, and land and resource 

management objectives.

QQ FMPs and activities are based on the best 

available science.

QQ FMPs and activities incorporate public health 

and environmental quality consideration.

QQ Federal, state, tribal, local, interagency, and 

international coordination and cooperation are 

essential.

QQ Standardization of policies and procedures 

among federal agencies is an ongoing objective.

Land use resource plans such as CCPs should 

address fire management considerations, guidance, 

and direction. FMPs are step-down processes from 

the land use and habitat management plans, with 

more detail on fire suppression, fire use, and fire 

management activities.
132 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Management Direction

The Eastern North Dakota Fire District will protect 

life, property, and other resources from wildland fire 

by safely suppressing all wildfires. The Service will 

use prescribed fire as well as manual and mechanical 

fuel treatments in an ecosystem context to protect 

federal and private property and for habitat 

management. The Service will apply fuels reduction 

activities in collaboration with federal, state, private, 

and nongovernmental partners. In addition, the 

Service will set priorities for fuels treatment based on 

the guidance for prioritization established in the goals 

and strategies outlined in the “U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service National Wildlife Refuge System Wildland 

Fire Management Program Strategic Plan 2003–2010” 

and the “R6 Refuges Regional Priorities FY07–11.”

For WUI treatments, areas with community wildfire 

protection plans (CWPPs) and communities at risk 

(CARs) will be the primary focus. The following CARs 

located near the refuges were identified in the Federal 

Register (August 17, 2001):

QQ Fort Totten

QQ St. Michels

QQ Crow Hill

QQ Tokio

The development of CWPPs is an ongoing process; 

Griggs and Traill counties are currently undergoing 

the process. As of February 2008, the following 

counties with Service fee-title land have developed 

CWPPs:

QQ Barnes County

QQ Burleigh County

QQ Kidder County

QQ Stutsman County

The Service will conduct all aspects of the fire 

management program in compliance with applicable 

laws, policies, and regulations. The refuges and 

wetland management districts within the Eastern 

North Dakota Fire District will maintain an FMP 

to accomplish the fire management goals described 

below. The Service will apply prescribed fire and 

manual and mechanical fuel treatments in a scientific 

way under selected weather and environmental 

conditions.

FIre ManaGeMent Goals

The goals and strategies of the “U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service National Wildlife Refuge System Wildland 

Fire Management Program Strategic Plan” are 

consistent with policies of the U.S. Department of 

the Interior and the Service, “National Fire Plan” 

direction, the “President’s Healthy Forest 

Initiative,” the “10-Year Comprehensive Strategy 

and Implementation Plan,” guidelines of the National 

Wildfire Coordinating Group, initiatives of the Wildland 

Fire Leadership Council, and “Interagency Standards 

for Fire and Aviation Operations.”

The “R6 Refuges Regional Priorities FY07–11” are 

consistent with the refuges’ vision statement for 

region 6: “To maintain and improve the biological 

integrity of the region, ensure the ecological condition 

of the region’s public and private lands are better 

understood, and endorse sustainable use of habitats 

that support native wildlife and people’s livelihoods.” 

The fire management goals for the refuges and districts 

in the Eastern North Dakota Fire District are to use 

prescribed fire and manual and mechanical treatments 

to (1) reduce the threat to life and property through 

hazardous fuels reduction treatments, and (2) meet 

the habitat goals and objectives identified in this CCP.

FIre ManaGeMent obJectIVe

The objective of the fire management program is 

to use prescribed fire and manual and mechanical 

treatment methods to treat between 4,000 and 8,000 

acres, on average, per year.

strateGIes

The Service will use strategies and tactics that consider 

public and firefighter safety as well as resource values 

at risk. Wildland fire suppression, prescribed fire 

methods, manual and mechanical means, timing, and 

monitoring are described in more detail within the 

step-down FMP(s).

All management actions will use prescribed fire and 

manual or mechanical means to reduce hazardous 

fuels, restore and maintain desired habitat conditions, 

control nonnative vegetation, and control the spread 

of woody vegetation within the diverse ecosystem 

habitats. 

The FMPs will outline the fuels treatment program 

for the refuges. The Service will develop site-specific 

prescribed fire burn plans, following the “Interagency 

Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation 

Procedures Reference Guide” (2006) template.

Prescribed fire temporarily reduces air quality by 

reducing visibility and releasing components through 

combustion. The refuges will meet the Clean Air 

Act emission standards by adhering to the “North 

Dakota State Implementation Plan” requirements 

during all prescribed fire activities.

Fire Management Organization, 

Contacts, and Cooperation

Region 6 of the Service, using the approach of fire 

management districts, will establish qualified fire 

management technical oversight for the refuges. 

Under this approach, fire management staff will 

be determined by established modeling systems 
Appendix F—Fire Management Program for National Wildlife Refuges Within the Eastern North Dakota Fire District 133

based on the fire management workload of a group 

of Service lands (such as refuges and waterfowl 

production areas) and possibly that of interagency 

partners. The fire management workload consists 

of historical wildland fire suppression as well as 

historical and planned fuels treatments.

Dependent on budgets, fire management staff and 

support equipment may be located at the administrative 

station or at other locations within the fire management 

district and shared between all units. The Service will 

conduct fire management activities in a coordinated 

and collaborative manner with federal and nonfederal 

partners.

A new FMP will be developed for the entire Eastern 

North Dakota Fire District, which includes the six 

refuges listed above, as well as the other refuges and 

districts within this fire district.

Appendix G

Fire Management Program for National Wildlife Refuges

Within the Western North Dakota Fire District

The Service has administrative and fire management 

responsibility for approximately 24,665 acres in fee 

title in the Audubon, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, Lake 

Zahl, McLean, and Shell Lake national wildlife 

refuges, which are within the Western North Dakota 

Fire District. The Service has no fire management 

responsibility for the approximate 292,440 acres of 

wetland and grassland easements it administers.

The Role of Fire

In ecosystems of the Great Plains, vegetation has 

evolved under periodic disturbance and defoliation 

from grazing, fire, drought, and floods. This periodic 

disturbance is what kept the ecosystem diverse and 

healthy while maintaining significant biodiversity for 

thousands of years.

Historically, natural fire and Native American 

ignitions played an important disturbance role in 

many ecosystems by removing fuel accumulations, 

decreasing the impacts of insects and disease, 

stimulating regeneration, cycling nutrients, and 

providing a diversity of habitats for plants and wildlife.

When fire or grazing is excluded from prairie landscapes,

the fuel loadings increase quickly due to a build-up of 

thatch and invasion of woody vegetation. This increase 

in fuel loadings leads to a significant increase in a fire’s 

resistance to control, which threatens firefighter and 

public safety as well as private and federal properties.

However, properly used fire can

reduce hazardous fuels buildup in both WUI 

and non-WUI environments;

improve firefighter ability to suppress 

unwanted wildfire;

improve native prairie habitats by reducing 

competition from invasive plant species and 

maintaining native vegetative composition;

reduce the encroachment of woody vegetation 

in prairie ecosystems;

sustain or increase biological diversity;

reduce susceptibility of plants to insect and 

disease outbreaks.

Wildland Fire Management 

Policy and Guidance

In 2001, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture 

approved an update of the 1995 “Federal Fire Policy.” 

The 2001 “Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy” 

directs federal agencies to achieve a balance between 

fire suppression to protect life, property, and resources 

and fire use to regulate fuels and maintain healthy 

ecosystems. In addition, it directs agencies to use the 

appropriate management response for all wildland 

fire regardless of the ignition source. This policy 

provides nine guiding principles that are fundamental 

to the success of the fire management program:

QQ Firefighter and public safety is the first priority 

in every fire management activity.

QQ The role of wildland fire as an ecological process 

and natural change agent will be incorporated 

into the planning process.

QQ FMPs, programs, and activities support land 

and resource management plans and their 

implementation.

QQ Sound risk management is a foundation for all 

fire management activities.

QQ Fire management programs and activities 

are economically viable based on values to 

be protected, costs, and land and resource 

management objectives.

QQ FMPs and activities are based on the best 

available science.

QQ FMPs and activities incorporate public health 

and environmental quality consideration.

QQ Federal, state, tribal, local, interagency, and 

international coordination and cooperation are 

essential.

QQ Standardization of policies and procedures 

among federal agencies is an ongoing objective.

Land use resource plans such as CCPs should 

address fire management considerations, guidance, 

and direction. FMPs are step-down processes from 

the land use and habitat management plans, with 

more detail on fire suppression, fire use, and fire 

management activities.
136 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Management Direction

The fire management goal for the national 

wildlife refuges is to use prescribed fire 

and manual, biological, and mechanical 

treatments to (1) reduce the threat to life and 

property through hazardous fuels reduction 

treatments, and (2) meet the habitat goals 

and objectives identified in this CCP.

The refuges will protect life, property, and other 

resources from wildland fire by reducing the threat 

and severity of wildland fires through fuels reduction 

projects and safely suppressing all wildfires on Service 

lands. The Service will use prescribed fire as well as 

manual, biological, and mechanical fuel treatments 

to protect federal and private property by reducing 

hazardous fuels and to manage wildlife habitat. 

The Service will apply fuels reduction activities 

in collaboration with federal, state, private, and 

nongovernmental partners. In addition, the Service 

will set priorities for fuels treatment based on the 

guidance for prioritization established in the goals 

and strategies outlined in the “U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service National Wildlife Refuge System Wildland 

Fire Management Program Strategic Plan 2003–2010” 

and the “R6 Refuges Regional Priorities FY07–11.”

For WUI treatments, areas with CWPPs and CARs 

will be the primary focus. As of February 2008, no 

CARs as identified in the Federal Register are 

located within the Western North Dakota Fire District. 

Any additions or deletions to the CAR list are the 

responsibility of the state through coordination with 

interagency partners. The development of CWPPs 

is an ongoing process. As of February 2008, the 

following counties located within the Western North 

Dakota Fire District have developed CWPPs:

QQ Bottineau County

QQ McHenry County

QQ Mountrail County

QQ Williams County

The Service will conduct all aspects of the fire 

management program in compliance with applicable 

laws, policies, and regulations. On approval of the 

final CCP, the Service will develop an FMP for all 

refuge lands covered by the CCP. The FMP may 

require a separate EA if refuge managers deem 

necessary. The FMP may be done as (1) an FMP 

that covers the national wildlife refuges, (2) an FMP 

that covers the fire management district, or (3) an 

interagency FMP.

The Service will apply prescribed fire and manual, 

biological, and mechanical fuel treatments using the 

best available scientific guidance, given the existing 

weather and environmental conditions.

FIre ManaGeMent ratIonale anD

consIDeratIons

Fire frequency in western and central North Dakota 

has been estimated to historically occur every 5–7 years 

(Barker and Whitman 1988). European settlement of 

North Dakota led to fire suppression or exclusion across 

the landscape. With this fire suppression and exclusion, 

woody vegetation encroached into both wetland and 

upland habitats.

The long-term goal of fire management across the 

Western North Dakota Fire District is to apply fire to 

the landscape at an interval that will maintain healthy 

native plant communities that are naturally resistant 

to catastrophic wildfire. Due to the suppression and 

exclusion of fire over the past several decades, a more 

aggressive approach is needed to address the buildup 

of hazardous fuel across the prairie.

Current fire occurrence at the refuges has not been 

frequent enough to completely control invading shrubs 

and trees and reduce accumulated thatch. Monitoring 

of vegetation on Service lands in the Great Plains has 

shown that three to four prescribed fire treatments are 

usually needed to successfully reduce woody plant 

encroachment. Experience has shown prescribed fire 

to be much more efficient than mechanical or biological 

methods for reducing and removing woody plant 

encroachment and accumulated thatch. In addition 

to initial restoration, continued maintenance through 

periodic prescribed fires (once every 5–7 years) and 

biological treatments are needed on remaining areas.

A significant problem facing the refuges in achieving 

fire management goals is the limited amount of qualified 

personnel available to plan and conduct prescribed fire 

and other fuels treatments. With additional staff and 

funding, the desired application of prescribed fire is 

to treat 15%–20% of the total burnable acreage with 

fire each year, which will return the historical fire 

regime to the landscape.

Prescribed fire temporarily reduces air quality by 

reducing visibility and releasing components through 

combustion. The Western North Dakota Fire District 

will meet the Clean Air Act emission standards by 

adhering to North Dakota Department of Health 

requirements during all prescribed fire activities.

The refuge staffs will work with partners to develop 

demonstrations, written information, and other methods 

of communicating to the public the benefits of prescribed 

fire. The Service will seek additional cooperative 

ventures for firefighter training and development of 

interagency agreements.

Fire Management Organization

and Coordination

Region 6 of the Service, using the approach of fire 

management districts, will establish qualified fire 
Appendix G—Fire Management Program for National Wildlife Refuges Within the Western North Dakota Fire District 137

management technical oversight for the refuges. 

Under this approach, fire management staff will be 

determined by established modeling systems (such as 

Firebase), based on the fire management workload 

of a group of Service lands (such as refuges, waterfowl 

production areas, and fish hatcheries) and possibly 

that of interagency partners. The fire management 

workload consists of historical wildland fire suppression 

as well as historical and planned fuels treatments.

Dependent on budgets, fire management staff and 

support equipment may be located at the administrative 

station or at other locations within the fire management 

district and shared between all units. The Service will 

conduct fire management activities in a coordinated 

and collaborative manner with federal and nonfederal 

partners.

Appendix H

Bird Species of the Refuges

Appendix H—Bird Species of the Refuges 141

SpeciesUSFWS Endangered Species ListNorth Dakota Species of Conservation PriorityRare North Dakota Species

C

Bird

onser

Con

s of 

vatio

cern

n 

Species of Management Concern in Region 6Game Birds Below Desired ConditionUSFWS Migratory Bird Management Focal SpeciesPPJV Implementation PlanPIF North American Landbird Conservation PlanPIF Physiographic Area (PA) 37 Mixedgrass Prairie PlanPIF PA 38 West River ES (No Plan)PIF PA 40 Tall-grass Prairie PlanNorth American Waterbird Conservation PlanNorthern Prairie and Parklands Waterbird PlanU.S. Shorebird Plan, Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes National and Regional BCR 11 BCR 17Region 6NationalPriorityBreeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in North Dakota (1980–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in “Black” Prairie (1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in Drift Prairie (1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in Glaciated Missouri Plate (1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in Great Plains Roughlands (1966–2005)National Audubon Society Watch List for North DakotaBirds of the Prairie Pothole Region That Warrant Attention

Citation Number 

(See end of table.*) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

horned grebe

eared grebe

1 m 4 H

M

pied-billed grebe

western grebe m

4 5

H

X

American white 

pelican

double-crested 

cormorant

1

X X

M

American bittern

great blue heron

snowy egret

1 X X m 2 7

H

H

M X

X

green heron

black-crowned 

night-heron

white-faced ibis

S3

X L

M

trumpeter swan X X 1

wood duck

American wigeon

mallard

gadwall

X

X

X

X

X

X w

w

2

northern pintail

northern shoveler

2 X X w

w

cinnamon teal

blue-winged teal

S3

w X

canvasback 2 X X

redhead

lesser scaup

ringneck

2 X

X

X

X

common goldeneye S3

hooded merganser S3 1

northern harrier 2 X X X X l 2 X

Swainson’s hawk 1 X X X X l l

ferruginous hawk 1 X X X X X l 6 X

golden eagle 2 S3 X X

bald eagle 2 S1 X l 5 6

merlin

American kestrel

S2

X
142 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Species

USFWS Endangered Species ListNorth Dakota Species of Conservation PriorityRare North Dakota

Species

C

Bird

onser

Con

s of 

vati

cern

on 

Species of Management Concern in Region 6Game Birds Below Desired ConditionUSFWS Migratory Bird Management Focal SpeciesPPJV Implementation PlanPIF North American Landbird Conservation PlanPIF Physiographic Area (PA) 37 Mixedgrass Prairie PlanPIF PA 38 West River ES (No Plan)PIF PA 40 Tall-grass Prairie PlanNorth American Waterbird Conservation PlanNorthern Prairie and Parklands Waterbird PlanU.S. Shorebird Plan, Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes National and Regional PriorityBreeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in North Dakota (1980–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in “Black” Prairie (1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in Drift Prairie (1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in Glaciated Missouri Plate (1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in Great Plains Roughlands (1966–2005)National Audubon Society Watch List for North DakotaBirds of the Prairie Pothole Region That Warrant AttentionBCR 11 BCR 17Region 6National

Citation Number 

(See end of table.*) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

prairie falcon 2 S3 X X X X

peregrine falcon E 3 S1 X X X X X

sharp-tailed grouse 2 l l 4

greater prairiechicken 2 S2 l l 1 1

greater sage grouse 2 X

American coot 4 X

Virginia rail 4 7 M X

sora 4 7 X

yellow rail 1 S2 X X X X X m 1 1 H X X

whooping crane

sandhill crane

American goldenplover

E 3 G1

X X X

X

X

X s X

G3 

piping plover T 2 S1 X X s 1 X X

S2

American avocet

solitary sandpiper

2

X X X

s X

willet 1 X 2 X

upland sandpiper

whimbrel

1 X X X X

X

X s 4 X

long-billed curlew

Hudsonian godwit

1 S2 X

X

X X X

X

X

X s

X X

X

X

marbled godwit

ruddy turnstone

red knot

sanderling

dunlin

semipalmated 

sandpiper

white-rumped 

sandpiper

stilt sandpiper

short-billed 

dowitcher

buff-breasted 

sandpiper

American woodcock

1 X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

1 3 X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X
Appendix H—Bird Species of the Refuges 143

Species

USFWS Endangered Species ListNorth Dakota Species of Conservation PriorityRare North Dakota Species

C

Bird

onser

Con

s of 

vati

cern

on 

Species of Management Concern in Region 6Game Birds Below Desired ConditionUSFWS Migratory Bird Management Focal SpeciesPPJV Implementation PlanPIF North American Landbird Conservation PlanPIF Physiographic Area (PA) 37 Mixedgrass Prairie PlanPIF PA 38 West River ES (No Plan)PIF PA 40 Tall-grass Prairie PlanNorth American Waterbird Conservation PlanNorthern Prairie and Parklands Waterbird PlanU.S. Shorebird Plan, Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes National and Regional PriorityBreeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in North Dakota (1980–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in “Black” Prairie (1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in Drift Prairie (1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in Glaciated Missouri Plate (1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in Great Plains Roughlands (1966–2005)National Audubon Society Watch List for North DakotaBirds of the Prairie Pothole Region That Warrant AttentionBCR 11 BCR 17Region 6National

Citation Number 

(See end of table.*) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

common snipe X

Wilson’s phalarope

Bonaparte’s gull

1 X X X X X X s 2 7

M

X X X

Franklin’s gull

Caspian tern

common tern

1

X

X

X

m 3 3 M H

M

M

X

least tern E 2 S1 X X X 5 H X

black tern

mourning dove

1 X X

X

m 4 7 H X X

black-billed cuckoo 1 X X X X X X l 4 1 X X X

short-eared owl 2 X X X X X l l 3 X

burrowing owl

northern saw-whet 

owl

2 X X X X X

X

l 6 X X

red-headed 

woodpecker

yellow-bellied 

sapsucker

2 X X X X

X

l l 3 2 X X

northern flicker l 4 X X X X

pileated woodpecker

olive-sided flycatcher

willow flycatcher

eastern kingbird

western kingbird

S3

X X

l

l

l 4

4

4

loggerhead shrike

warbling vireo

2 X X X X l 6

4

7 X

Philadephia vireo S3

Bell’s vireo

American crow

horned lark

northern roughwinged swallow

bank swallow

S3 X X

X

l

l

l

l I

X

X

X

X X X

X

house wren l 5

sedge wren 2 X X l 4 1 X

marsh wren

veery X

l 4 2 X

X
144 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Species

USFWS Endangered Species ListNorth Dakota Species of Conservation PriorityRare North Dakota Species

C

Bird

onser

Con

s of 

vati

cern

on 

Species of Management Concern in Region 6Game Birds Below Desired ConditionUSFWS Migratory Bird Management Focal SpeciesPPJV Implementation PlanPIF North American Landbird Conservation PlanPIF Physiographic Area (PA) 37 Mixedgrass Prairie PlanPIF PA 38 West River ES (No Plan)PIF PA 40 Tall-grass Prairie PlanNorth American Waterbird Conservation PlanNorthern Prairie and Parklands Waterbird PlanU.S. Shorebird Plan, Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes National and Regional PriorityBreeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in North Dakota (1980–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in “Black” Prairie (1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in Drift Prairie (1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in Glaciated Missouri Plate (1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in Great Plains Roughlands (1966–2005)National Audubon Society Watch List for North DakotaBirds of the Prairie Pothole Region That Warrant AttentionBCR 11 BCR 17Region 6National

Citation Number 

(See end of table.*) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

wood thrush X X X

Sprague’s pipit 1 S3 X X X X X X l l 1 X X X

chestnut-sided 

warbler

ovenbird

S3

X

dickcissel

American tree 

sparrow

2 X X X l

(l)

l

l

3 3 X X

clay-colored 

sparrow

l 4 7 X

Brewer’s sparrow 3 S3 X X X X

Baird’s sparrow 1 X X X X X X l l 1 X X X X X

grasshopper sparrow 1 X X X X X X l l 2 2 X X X X

Le Conte’s sparrow

Henslow’s sparrow

2 X

X

X X X

X

X

X

l

l

1 X

Nelson’s sharptailed sparrow1 X X X l l 1 1 X X

vesper sparrow l 4 5 X X

lark bunting

Harris’ sparrow

1

X

X l

(l)

l

l

3 X X X

white-throated 

sparrow

S3

swamp sparrow S3

McCown’s longspur 3 S2 X X X X X l l 1 X X X

chestnut-collared 

longspur

Smith’s longspur

Lapland longspur

western meadowlark

1 X X X X

X

X X

X

l

(l)

(l)

l

l

l

l

4 X X

X

X

X

X

bobolink

brown-headed 

cowbird

yellow-headed 

blackbird

red-winged 

blackbird

rusty blackbird

2 X X X

X

l

l

l

(l) l

3 1

X

X

X

X

Total Number of Species 5 45 24 29 21 32 41 25 10 45 64 22 44 5 27 5 13 16 10 16 7 2 9 9 28
Appendix H—Bird Species of the Refuges 145

 

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern

Species

Citation Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 USFWS Endangered 

(See end of table.*)

Species List

*Citations 1 USFWS Endangered Species List <http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/StateListing.do?state=ND&status=listed> 

 E=endangered, T=threatened North Dakota Species 

2 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy of Conservation 

 Table 1. North Dakota’s 100 Species of Conservation Priority: Priority

 Level 1=Species having a high level of conservation priority in North Dakota or across their range, or a high rate of constituting the core of the species’ breeding range, but non-state-wildlife-grant funding is not 

 readily available to them. Rare North Dakota 

 Level 2=Species having a moderate level of conservation priority or a high level of conservation priority, but a substantial amount of non-state-wildlife-grant funding is available to them. Species

 Level 3=Species having a moderate level of conservation priority, or a high level of conservation priority, but a substantial amount of non-state-wildlife-grant funding is available to them. BCR 11 

3 Rare North Dakota Species (North Dakota Natural Heritage Inventory 2002) 

 Natural Heritage Global Ranks: BCR 17

 G1=Critically imperiled. Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or because of some factor of its biology making it especially vulnerable to extinction. 

 G2=Imperiled. Imperiled globally because of rarity or because of other factors demonstrably making it very vulnerable to extinction or elimination throughout its range. Region 6

 G3=Vulnerable. Vulnerable globally either because it is very rare and local throughout its range, found only in a restricted range (even if abundant at some locations), or because of other factors making it vulnerable to 

 extinction or elimination throughout its range. National

 Natural Heritage State Ranks: 

 S1=Critically imperiled. Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity or because of some factor of its biology making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. Species of Management 

 S2=Imperiled. Imperiled in the state because of rarity or because of other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. Concern in Region 6

 S3=Vulnerable. Vulnerable in the state either because it is rare and uncommon, or found only in a restricted range (even if abundant at some locations), or because of other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. Game Birds Below 

4 Birds of Conservation Concern USFWS 2002.

Desired Condition

5 USFWS Species of Management Concern 2005 <http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/speccon/tblconts.html> USFWS Migratory 

6 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 2005 Implementation Plans 

Bird Management 

 Waterfowl Plan: Focal species=w 

Focal Species

 Shorebird Plan: Conservation priority of regularly occurring shorebird species where the region is highly important to the population=s 

 Waterbird Plan: Conservation assessment of high in BCR 11=m 

PPJV 

 Landbird Plan: Native landbird species for which >25% of the continental population occurs in BCR 11 and Watch List=l or (l) for wintering Implementation Plan

7 PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan 

 Part 1, Table 1. PIF Species of Continental Importance for the United States and Canada PIF North American 

 Part 2, Table 7. Species of Continental Importance in the Prairie Avifaunal Biome Landbird Conservation 

8 PIF Bird Conservation Plan for the Northern Mixed-grass Prairie (Physiographic Area 37)—June 25, 1999 Plan

 Table 1. Partners in Flight Priority Species

PIF Physiographic 

9 PIF Bird Conservation Plan for the Northern Tallgrass Prairie (Physiographic Area 40)—August 4, 1998 Area (PA) 37 Mixed-

 Table 1. Partners in Flight Priority Species

grass Prairie Plan

10 PIF West River Executive Summary (Physiographic Area 38) (no plan) 

 List of priority bird populations

PIF PA 38 West River ES (No Plan)

11 North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, version 1 

 Table 2. Conservation Status and Distribution of Colonial Waterbirds

PIF PA 40 Tall-grass 

12 Northern Prairie and Parklands Waterbird Conservation Plan—2004 

Prairie Plan

 Table 7. Conservation Vulnerability Rankings (High [H] and Moderate [M] Concern)

North American 

13 U.S. Shorebird Plan and Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird Plan 

Waterbird 

 Table 2. National and Regional Priority Score ≥4

Conservation Plan

14 USGS North American Breeding Bird Survey Trend Results <http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/reglist05.html>

Northern Prairie and 

15 National Audubon Society Watch List for North Dakota <http://audubon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewWatchlist.jsp>

Parklands Waterbird 

16 Conservation Planning in the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States: Integration Between an Existing Waterfowl Plan and an Emerging Non-game Bird Model (David N. Pashley and Rick Warhurst) Plan

 Table 1. Birds of the Prairie Pothole Region That Warrant Conservation Attention

U.S. Shorebird Plan, Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes National and Regional PriorityBreeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in North Dakota (1980–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in “Black” Prairie (1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in Drift Prairie (1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in Glaciated Missouri Plate (1966–2005)Breeding Bird SurveyDeclining Species in Great Plains Roughlands (1966–2005)National Audubon Society Watch List for North DakotaBirds of the Prairie Pothole Region That Warrant Attention

Appendix I

Primary and Secondary Bird Species of the North Dakota Prairie

The characteristic breeding birds are categorized 

according to relative abundance, as follows:

QQ Primary species that are often common or 

abundant.

QQ Secondary species that are usually fairly 

common.

QQ Tertiary, or minor, species that are uncommon 

or rare.

The primary and secondary bird species in North 

Dakota are listed by habitat type below.

Mixed-grass Prairie

PrIMary sPecIes

gadwall

mallard

northern pintail

blue-winged teal

northern shoveler

American coot

black tern

mourning dove

horned lark

western meadowlark

red-winged blackbird

yellow-headed blackbird

brown-headed cowbird

Savannah sparrow

clay-colored sparrow

chestnut-collared longspur

seconDary sPecIes

eared grebe

pied-billed grebe

American bittern

black-crowned night-heron

American wigeon

green-winged teal

canvasback

redhead

ruddy duck

Swainson’s hawk

red-tailed hawk

northern harrier

sharp-tailed grouse

ring-necked pheasant

gray partridge

sora

killdeer

upland plover

willet

marbled godwit

American avocet

Wilson’s phalarope

Franklin’s gull

ring-billed gull

black-billed cuckoo

northern flicker

eastern kingbird

western kingbird

willow flycatcher

bank swallow

barn swallow

cliff swallow

common crow

house wren

marsh wren

brown thrasher

gray catbird

American robin

cedar waxwing

yellow warbler

common yellowthroat

house sparrow

bobolink

common grackle

American goldfinch

lark bunting

Baird’s sparrow

grasshopper sparrow

vesper sparrow

song sparrow

great horned owl

Tall-grass Prairie

PrIMary sPecIes

mourning dove

horned lark

common crow

western meadowlark

common grackle

brown-headed cowbird

seconDary sPecIes

red-tailed hawk

American kestrel

killdeer
148 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

black-billed cuckoo

great horned owl

northern flicker

eastern kingbird

western kingbird

barn swallow

blue jay

house wren

brown thrasher

gray catbird

American robin

cedar waxwing

starling

warbling vireo

yellow warbler

common yellowthroat

house sparrow

bobolink

red-winged blackbird

Baltimore oriole

American goldfinch

dickcissel

Savannah sparrow

vesper sparrow

clay-colored sparrow

song sparrow

Turtle Mountains

PrIMary sPecIes

mallard

blue-winged teal

broad-winged hawk

red-tailed hawk

ruffed grouse

yellow-bellied sapsucker

northern flicker

least flycatcher

common crow

American robin

veery

red-eyed vireo

yellow warbler

American redstart

red-winged blackbird

brown-headed cowbird

Baltimore oriole

rose-breasted grosbeak

clay-colored sparrow

seconDary sPecIes

common loon

red-necked grebe

eared grebe

horned grebe

pied-billed grebe

double-crested cormorant

American bittern

American wigeon

green-winged teal

northern shoveler

canvasback

redhead

ring-necked duck

ruddy duck

Cooper’s hawk

northern harrier

sora

American coot

killdeer

spotted sandpiper

Wilson’s phalarope

black tern

mourning dove

black-billed cuckoo

great horned owl

common nighthawk

belted kingfisher

ruby-throated hummingbird

hairy woodpecker

eastern kingbird

willow flycatcher

tree swallow

purple martin

barn swallow

black-capped chickadee

house wren

long-billed marsh wren

short-billed marsh wren

brown thrasher

gray catbird

cedar waxwing

warbling vireo

northern waterthrush

common yellowthroat

mourning warbler

bobolink

western meadowlark

yellow-headed blackbird

common grackle

American goldfinch

Savannah sparrow

vesper sparrow

chipping sparrow

song sparrow
Appendix J

North Dakota’s Threatened and Endangered Species

Group Common Name Scientific Name Status

Plants western prairie fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara threatened

Insects Dakota skipper Hesperia dacotae candidate

Birds interior least tern Sterna antillarum endangered

whooping crane Grus americana endangered

piping plover Charadrius melodus threatened

Fishes pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus endangered

Mammals black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes endangered

gray wolf Canis lupus endangered

Appendix K

Priority-setting Example for

Native Prairie Portions of Fee-title Lands

The following is an example of a refuge-specific stepdown plan (from J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management 

District) for setting priorities for native prairie portions 

of fee-title lands. The example is based on vegetative 

data collected by the district staff using the belt-transect 

method.

(Example) Grassland Objective 1

By 3 years after CCP approval, use current vegetation 

inventory data and landscape considerations to 

prioritize each grassland tract with ≥55 acres of native 

prairie as either high or low management priority. 

Identify areas that are in the most pristine condition 

and areas with the highest restoration potential.

crIterIa For hIGh-PrIorIty unIts

Floristic composition: Vegetation is characterized by 

>30% mean frequency of pristine, native herbaceous 

types (plant groups 41–43, and 46–48 (Grant et al. 

2004), plus native herbaceous-dominated vegetation 

with Kentucky bluegrass as the main subdominant 

(plant group 53).

Floristic potential: Vegetation is characterized by 

<30% mean frequency of smooth brome-dominated 

vegetation (plant groups 61–62).

Landscape context: (1) The unit is contiguous with the 

best examples of local native prairie habitat; or (2) the 

unit is adjacent to other high-priority, prairie tracts or 

tracts of native prairie adjacent to district lands under 

non-Service ownership (especially important if the unit 

has relatively little native prairie, that is <40 acres).

crIterIa For loW-PrIorIty unIts

Floristic composition: Vegetation is characterized by 

<30% mean frequency of pristine, native herbaceous 

types (plant groups 41–43 and 46–48 (Grant et al. 

2004), plus native herbaceous-dominated vegetation 

with Kentucky bluegrass as the main subdominant 

(plant group 53).

Floristic potential: Vegetation is characterized by 

>30% mean frequency of smooth brome-dominated 

vegetation (plant groups 61–62).

Landscape context: The unit is small (<100 acres) and/or 

is not contiguous with significant native prairie habitat.
152 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

districts in North Dakota. Smooth brome may be less 

competitive than native plants or Kentucky bluegrass 

in the relatively poor sandy soils of McHenry and 

Pierce counties, where the majority of the waterfowl 

production areas are located within J. Clark Salyer 

Wetland Management District. Of the two invasive 

grass species, smooth brome generally seems more 

difficult to control once established and more 

significantly alters the quality and structure of native 

prairie. Therefore, restoration management should 

focus on strategies to reduce brome.

(Example) Grassland Objective 3

On low-priority prairie units, apply disturbance 

(principally fire or grazing) every 5–8 years to remove 

plant litter, restore plant vigor, reverse woody plant 

expansion, and provide a mix of structural types 

that include (1) relatively short–sparse vegetation 

for species such as northern pintail, killdeer, horned 

lark, and Brewer’s blackbird, (2) moderately short 

vegetation for species such as blue-winged teal and 

upland sandpiper, and (3) tall–dense vegetation for 

species such as mallard, short-eared owl, Le Conte’s 

sparrow, and bobolink. 

Although varying widely across units, total area (the sum 

of all units) should have the following characteristics:

QQ One-fourth of the area in 0- to 1-year 

postdisturbance, one-fourth in 2–3 years 

postdisturbance, and one-half in 4–6+ years 

postdisturbance—corresponding roughly to a 

structure of <2 inches VOR, 2–3.9 inches VOR, 

and >3.9 inches VOR (mean VORs in early 

spring, per Robel et al. 1970).

QQ Native trees and tall shrubs compose <0.2% 

land cover on each tract and all nonnative 

woody vegetation and planted, native woody 

vegetation is eliminated from at least half of 

the units.

QQ Leafy spurge frequency is maintained at <2% 

frequency, absinth wormwood is actively 

controlled and yellow toadflax and other newly 

appearing species of noxious weed that pose a 

threat to native prairie are eliminated within 

5 years of initial detection.

ratIonale

This objective focuses on providing vegetation 

structural diversity, emphasizing structure that is 

moderately short to tall–dense. Given current and 

projected staff and funding, low-priority native prairie 

tracts are unlikely to be restored to a state where 

native herbaceous vegetation is a widely noticeable 

or otherwise common vegetative component. However, 

with modest effort, the prevalent, introduced coolseason grasses and scattered low shrub can be managed 

to provide a mix of postdisturbance structural types 

attractive to a broad array of waterfowl and other 

grassland bird species.
Appendix K—Priority-setting Example for Native Prairie Portions of Fee-title Lands 153

These units can provide structural diversity in 

vegetative height and density, while preserving 

extensive grasslands used by species of birds that 

require large undisturbed grassland patches. Effects 

associated with edge-dominated, highly fragmented 

grassland are also reduced.

Appendix L

Compatibility Determinations for 

Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses, Grazing, Haying, and Farming

Refuge Names

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge

Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge

Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge

Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge

Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge

McLean National Wildlife Refuge

Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge

Shell Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition 

Authorities

QQ Audubon National Wildlife Refuge (USC 664—

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

QQ Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge (EO 932)

QQ Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge (USC 715d—

Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

QQ Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge (EO 8154)

QQ Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge (EO 8155)

QQ Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge (EO 8158)

QQ McLean National Wildlife Refuge (USC 715d—

Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

QQ Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge (EO 8650)

QQ Shell Lake National Wildlife Refuge (EO 8166)

QQ Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge (EO 8662)

Purposes

“As a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds 

and other wildlife.” Executive Orders

“For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other 

management purpose, for migratory birds.”

 USC 715d—Migratory Bird Conservation Act

“Shall be administered by [Secretary of the 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.”

 16 USC 664—Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

National Wildlife Refuge System 

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.

Description of Use:

Recreational Hunting

The Service will continue to provide recreational 

hunting and expand programs at Audubon, Chase 

Lake, Lake Alice, Lake Nettie, and Lake Zahl national 

wildlife refuges. These five refuges are open to 

recreational public hunting in accordance with state 

seasons and regulations established for each refuge. 

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge—The Service will 

continue to allow recreational hunting of deer, ringnecked pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, and partridge.

Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge—The Service 

will continue to allow recreational hunting of deer.

Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge—The Service 

will continue to allow recreational hunting of deer, 

ring-necked pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, partridge, 

and waterfowl.

Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge—The Service 

will continue to allow recreational hunting of deer.

Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge—The Service will 

continue to allow recreational hunting of deer, ringnecked pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, and partridge.

Availability of Resources

Sufficient resources are available to maintain the 

existing recreational hunting program. The NDGF 

helps the refuges with law enforcement coverage.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

During annual reviews of hunting programs, the refuge 

staffs evaluate what effect the diversion of funding and 

staff has on their abilities to manage habitat. Because 

the Service will direct the limited funding and staff 
156 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

first toward habitat management, there may be a 

resulting decrease in hunting opportunities or facilities. 

Restrictions on the timing of seasons and areas open to 

hunting ensures that hunting activities do not interfere 

with the purposes of the refuges or attainment of 

Refuge System objectives.

Temporary disturbance to wildlife will occur near the 

activity. Hunting will remove animals that are surplus 

to populations. A temporary decrease in populations 

of wild animals may help ensure that carrying capacity 

(especially for big-game species) is not exceeded. 

There will be no negative effects on threatened and 

endangered species.

The restriction of vehicle use to designated purposes, 

times, and established roads, trails, and parking lots 

will protect habitats from damage and minimizes 

disturbance to wildlife. Closed areas will provide 

sanctuary for game and nongame species, minimize 

conflicts between hunters and other visitors, and 

provide safety zones around communities and 

administrative areas.

There will be no negative effects on cultural resources.

Determination

Recreational hunting is a compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational use at Audubon, Chase Lake, Lake Alice, 

Lake Nettie, and Lake Zahl national wildlife refuges.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

— Require the use of nontoxic shot, in accordance 

with current regulations for hunting migratory 

birds and upland game.

— Limit use of motorized vehicles to designated 

parking areas, access trails, and public roads.

— Prohibit all-terrain vehicles.

— Prohibit camping, overnight use, and fires.

— Require that hunting be conducted in accordance 

with federal and state regulations.

— Promote sound hunting practices for hunter 

safety and quality experiences.

— Prohibit collecting, injuring, disturbing, 

destroying, or harming any animal or plant 

except legally taken game animals.

— Prohibit search for or disturbance or collection 

of prehistoric or historic artifacts.

— Require that trash, including shell casings, be 

packed out so the areas remain clean, natural, 

and enjoyable.

Justification

The Improvement Act identified hunting at national 

wildlife refuges as a wildlife-dependent recreational use. 

Hunting is a legitimate wildlife management tool that 

can be used to manage populations. Hunting harvests 

a small percentage of the renewable resources, which 

is in accordance with wildlife objectives and principles.

Based on the biological impacts anticipated above and 

in the EA, it is determined that recreational hunting 

at Audubon, Chase Lake, Lake Alice, Lake Nettie, 

and Lake Zahl national wildlife refuges will not detract 

from the purposes for which these refuges were 

established or their habitat goals and objectives.

There will be no negative effects on cultural resources 

or threatened and endangered species.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2023

Description of Use:

Recreational Fishing 

The Service will continue to provide recreational fishing 

at designated areas at Lake Audubon and Lake Ilo 

national wildlife refuges. The primary game fish found 

at both refuges are northern pike, walleye, and perch. 

Fishing visitation is dependent on success, which 

weather cycles influence. Generally, fishing is good 

during wet cycles and poor during extended dry periods 

due to the marginal nature of the wetlands and lakes 

involved (shallow depths and harsh winters subject 

wetlands of marginal depths to frequent winterkill of 

fish resources).

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge—The Service 

permits only ice fishing at the refuge, when ice covers 

the water. Anglers must remove fish houses from the 

refuge by March 15; however, anglers can continue 

to use portable fish houses if they are removed daily. 

The refuge closes to ice fishing March 31. All vehicles, 

including snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles, must 

stay on public roads and use designated ice access 

points only. There are six designated points where 

vehicles may access the ice; ice access points are marked 

with brown signs.

Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge—Portions of Lake 

Ilo are open to fishing and boating in accordance with 

state and refuge regulations. The Service allows fishing 

and wildlife-oriented boating from May 1 through 

September 30. Signs, marker buoys, and the refuge 

map designate areas open to fishing and boating. 

Fishing from the shoreline is open year-round in areas 

open to public fishing on Lake Ilo. Ice fishing is open 

from October 1 through March 31. Boat motors are 

restricted to idle speed only. An accessible fishing pier 

is located in Lake Ilo Park, and a boat ramp and 

courtesy dock are available on the north shore. The 

Lake Ilo dam spillway, emergency spillway, and islands 

are closed to all public use.

Availability of Resources

Both refuges have adequate administrative and 

managerial staffs to maintain their fishing programs. 

The refuges need annual funding for seasonal workforce 

salaries and for supplies to maintain fishing facilities 

(including mowing, painting, repair, litter pickup, 

restroom cleaning, and periodic pumping of vaulted 

toilets). In addition, funding is needed for a maintenance 
Appendix L—Compatibility Determinations for Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses, Grazing, Haying, and Farming 157

worker’s salary and equipment to maintain fishing 

areas and facilities. 

Funding is needed for law enforcement staff salaries, 

fuel costs, repair and maintenance of patrol vehicles, 

and associated costs to support the law enforcement 

program. Routine law enforcement patrols occur yearround. Both refuges also receive assistance from local, 

state district wardens.

To carry out improvements or expand fishing 

opportunities, refuge staffs will describe the details 

in step-down management plans and address these 

activities through future funding requests.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Fishing and other human activities cause disturbance 

to wildlife. Restriction of fishing to designated areas 

will minimize disturbance to migratory birds and other 

wildlife. In areas of relatively low use by migratory 

birds, such as large permanent lakes, fishing programs 

can provide recreation and have relatively little effect 

on the refuges’ other objectives and programs. There 

will be no negative effects on cultural resources or 

threatened and endangered species.

Determination 

Recreational fishing is a compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational use at Audubon and Lake Ilo national 

wildlife refuges.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

— Require that fishing follow state and federal 

regulations.

— Confine fishing to designated areas.

— Monitor existing use to ensure that facilities are 

adequate and disturbance to wildlife continues 

to be minimal.

Justification

The Improvement Act identified fishing at national 

wildlife refuges as a wildlife-dependent recreational 

use. Based on the biological impacts anticipated above 

and in the EA, it is determined that recreational fishing 

at Audubon and Lake Ilo national wildlife refuges will 

not detract from the purposes for which these refuges 

were established or their habitat goals and objectives.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2023

Description of Use:

Wildlife Observation and Photography

The Service will continue to provide opportunities that 

support wildlife-dependent recreation at Audubon, Chase 

Lake, Lake Alice, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, Lake Zahl, 

McLean, Kellys Slough, Shell Lake, and Stewart Lake 

national wildlife refuges. Auto tour routes, hiking trails, 

and wildlife observation pullouts facilitate wildlife 

observation and photography at these refuges. In 

addition, the CCP includes placement of portable 

blinds to improve the viewing access at areas with 

exceptional wildlife-viewing opportunities.

Availability of Resources 

The Service will update existing program aspects, 

such as refuge signs and brochures, with available 

resources. Implementation of new facilities will 

be closely tied to funding requests through the 

Refuge Operation Needs System and Service Asset 

Maintenance Management System. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Wildlife observation and photography can cause 

disturbance to wildlife; however, restricted access 

to designated areas will minimize the disturbance to 

migratory birds and other wildlife. In areas of low 

use by migratory birds, nonconsumptive recreation 

can have little effect on the refuges’ other objectives 

and programs. There will be no negative effects on 

cultural resources or threatened and endangered species.

Determination 

Wildlife observation and photography are compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses at Audubon, 

Chase Lake, Lake Alice, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, Lake 

Zahl, McLean, Kellys Slough, Shell Lake, and Stewart 

Lake national wildlife refuges.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

— Restrict vehicles to designated roads and trails.

— Monitor use, regulate access, and maintain 

necessary facilities to prevent habitat 

degradation and minimize wildlife disturbance.

Justification

Wildlife observation and photography are wildlifedependent recreational uses listed in the Improvement 

Act. Through these uses, visitors will gain knowledge 

and an appreciation of fish and wildlife, which will lead 

to increased public stewardship of wildlife and their 

habitats. Increased public stewardship will support 

and complement the Service’s actions in achieving the 

purposes of the refuges and the mission of the Refuge 

System.

Based on the biological impacts anticipated above and 

in the EA, it is determined that wildlife observation 

and photography at the ten refuges listed above will 

not detract from the purposes for which these refuges 

were established or their habitat goals and objectives.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation date: 2023

Description of Use:

Environmental Education and Interpretation

The Service will continue to provide opportunities for 

environmental education and interpretation at Audubon, 

Chase Lake, Lake Alice, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, Lake 
158 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Zahl, McLean, Kellys Slough, Shell Lake, and Stewart 

Lake national wildlife refuges. Environmental education 

consists of activities conducted by refuge staffs, 

volunteers, and teachers. Interpretation occurs in 

less formal activities with refuge staffs and volunteers 

or through exhibits, educational trunks, signs, programs, 

and brochures. Currently, environmental education 

and interpretation activities are conducted at refuge 

offices and off-site locations where activities and 

programs are presented. 

The CCP continues current uses as well as improves 

environmental education and interpretation for all 

visitors through the following improvements:

QQ Conduct visitor services events such as teacher 

workshops and waterfowl identification on a 

3-year rotation among the refuges.

QQ Develop “friends of the refuge” groups.

QQ Improve and expand programs for youth and 

conservation groups on a 3-year rotation among 

the refuges.

QQ Conduct limited outreach to wildlife groups, 

conservation and community groups, and 

teachers and students.

QQ Annually conduct media outreach.

QQ Annually review brochures and publications; 

complete updates as needed.

QQ Construct a new administration and learning 

center for Audubon National Wildlife Refuge.

QQ Initiate and expand environmental education 

programs for Kellys Slough and Lake Alice 

national wildlife refuges.

QQ Restore public use facilities and construct new 

kiosks and interpretive panels at Lake Alice 

National Wildlife Refuge.

Availability of Resources

The Service will update existing program aspects, 

such as refuge signs and brochures, with available 

resources. Implementation of new facilities will 

be closely tied to funding requests through the 

Refuge Operation Needs System and Service Asset 

Maintenance Management System. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Minimal disturbance to wildlife and habitat will result 

from these uses at the current and CCP levels. Some 

disturbance to wildlife will occur in areas frequented 

by visitors. There will be littering and minor damage 

to vegetation; increased maintenance will be necessary. 

Location and time limitations placed on environmental 

education and interpretation activities ensures that 

these activities have only minor impacts on wildlife 

and do not detract from the primary purposes of the 

refuges. There will be no negative effects on cultural 

resources or threatened and endangered species.

Determination

Environmental education and interpretation are 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses at 

Audubon, Chase Lake, Lake Alice, Lake Ilo, Lake 

Nettie, Lake Zahl, McLean, Kellys Slough, Shell 

Lake, and Stewart Lake national wildlife refuges.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

— Allow environmental education and 

interpretation only in designated areas or under 

the guidance of refuge personnel, volunteers, or 

trained teachers to ensure minimal disturbance 

to wildlife, minimal damage to vegetation, and 

minimal conflicts between groups.

— Annually review environmental education and 

interpretation programs to ensure related 

activities are compatible.

Justification

Environmental education and interpretation are 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses listed in the 

Improvement Act. Through environmental education 

and interpretation, visitors will gain knowledge and 

an appreciation of fish, wildlife, and their habitats, 

which will lead to increased public awareness 

and stewardship of natural resources. Increased 

appreciation for natural resources will support and 

complement the Service’s actions in achieving the 

purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge 

System. 

Based on the biological impacts anticipated above 

and in the EA, it is determined that environmental 

education and interpretation the ten refuges listed 

above will not detract from the purposes for which 

these refuges were established or their habitat goals 

and objectives.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation date: 2023

Description of Use:

Research

The Service will continue to provide opportunities for 

research at Audubon, Chase Lake, Lake Alice, Lake 

Ilo, Lake Nettie, Lake Zahl, McLean, Kellys Slough, 

Shell Lake, and Stewart Lake national wildlife refuges.

The refuges receive periodic requests to conduct 

scientific research. Some requests are specific to an 

individual refuge and others are part of landscapelevel projects that require authorization from 

multiple refuges. In addition, the refuges often 

collaborate with other agencies and private partners 

to conduct field research and studies that advance 

the attainment of the refuges’ goals and objectives.

Other than situations that involve emerging threats 

to human health and safety (which will be addressed 

in a separate disease contingency plan), priority will 
Appendix L—Compatibility Determinations for Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses, Grazing, Haying, and Farming 159

be given to research proposals that support a refuge’s 

purposes, goals, and objectives. This includes, for 

example, studies that contribute to the enhancement, 

protection, use, preservation, and management of 

native wildlife populations and their habitats; studies 

will include cultural resources. Research applicants 

will submit proposals that outline the following:

QQ objectives of the study

QQ justification for the study

QQ detailed methodology and schedule

QQ potential effects on refuge wildlife and habitat, 

including short- and long-term disturbance, 

injury, or mortality

QQ personnel required

QQ costs to the refuge, if any

QQ end products such as reports and publications 

Refuge staffs, the regional office branch of refuge 

biology, and others will review research proposals as 

appropriate. Evaluation criteria include, but are not 

limited to, the following:

QQ Research that will contribute to priority 

management activities has higher priority than 

other requests.

QQ The Service may not grant research that will 

conflict with higher priority research, monitoring, 

or management.

QQ The Service will be less likely to approve 

research projects that can be done off-site.

QQ The Service will likely not grant research that 

causes undue disturbance or is intrusive; the 

Service will weigh the level and type of disturbance 

when evaluating a request.

QQ The Service will determine if any effort has 

been made to minimize disturbance through 

study design, including considering adjusting 

location, timing, scope, number of permittees, 

study methods, and number of study sites.

QQ The Service may deny a proposal when it 

is impossible for the refuge staff to monitor 

researcher activity.

QQ The Service will consider and agree with the 

length of the project before approval. Projects 

will not be open-ended, and the Service will do 

annual reviews (as a minimum).

As more and more health threats arise (for example, 

West Nile virus, CWD, and bird flu) research may 

be essential to prevent, or at least manage, disease 

outbreaks. Access to researchers and partners may 

be mandated in order to monitor and assess the 

prevalence, transmission, control, and specific 

characteristics of these and other potential threats 

to human health. In some cases, the refuge staffs 

may become involved in the research and monitoring. 

In other cases, other agency personnel may take 

the lead to develop and follow standard operating 

procedures, which will reduce the role of a refuge’s 

staff. However, close coordination will assure that 

any operation minimizes the impact to trust resources 

and their habitats.

In general, the Dakota Working Group coordinates 

proposals that involve multiple refuges. The Service 

reviews and authorizes proposals with one of the 

following:

QQ Letter—if studies are simple, shorter than 1 year, 

and only require access.

QQ Special use permit—if studies are more complex, 

will take longer than 1 year, and have the potential 

to disturb, stress, or remove vegetation or 

individuals of a wildlife population.

Refuge staff will coordinate all operations essential 

to maintenance of human health and safety through 

an approved disease contingency plan. These threats 

are an exception to the normal process of authorization 

of research at refuges.

Availability of Resources

Direct costs to administer research activities are 

primarily in the form of staff time and transportation. 

Current staffs will likely be adequate to manage small 

and short-term research projects. The Service will 

only accept proposals if funding and personnel are 

available to adequately monitor all research activities.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Minimal impact to wildlife and habitats is expected 

with research studies, because most researchers need 

to enter areas that are normally closed to the public 

and may collect samples or handle wildlife. A special 

use permit will include conditions to ensure that 

impact to wildlife and habitats are kept to a minimum. 

There will be no negative effects on cultural resources 

or threatened and endangered species.

Determination

Research is a compatible use at Audubon, Chase Lake, 

Lake Alice, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, Lake Zahl, McLean, 

Kellys Slough, Shell Lake, and Stewart Lake national 

wildlife refuges.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

— Demonstrate that the research is necessary 

(critical to survival of a species, enhance 

restoration activities of native species, help in 

control of invasive species, or provide valuable 

information to guide future refuge activities) 

if proposed research methods will negatively 

affect refuge resources (habitat or wildlife). The 

researcher identifies the issues in advance of 

the effect.

— Do not permit highly intrusive or manipulative 

research in order to protect native wildlife 

populations and habitats in which they live.
160 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

— Conduct research that does not involve birds 

outside of the breeding season of bird species in 

all possible circumstances.

— Suspend or modify conditions or terminate onrefuge research that is permitted and in progress, 

should unacceptable impacts or issues arise or 

be noted.

Justification

Research projects will contribute to the enhancement, 

protection, use, preservation, and management of 

native wildlife populations and their habitats at the 

refuges. Because of the potential negative effects 

that research activities can have on the Service’s 

ability to achieve the refuges’ purposes, there will 

be sufficient restrictions on the researcher to ensure 

that disturbance is kept to a minimum.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2023

Description of Use:

Prescribed Grazing

The Service will continue to use prescribed grazing 

at Audubon, Chase Lake, Lake Alice, Lake Ilo, Lake 

Nettie, Lake Zahl, McLean, Kellys Slough, Shell 

Lake, and Stewart Lake national wildlife refuges.

Prescribed grazing is the use of livestock, usually 

cattle, to remove standing vegetation, reduce 

vegetative litter, suppress woody vegetation or 

invasive plants, open up vegetation-choked wetlands, 

and open up areas to sunlight and encourage native 

grass seeding and growth.

Prescribed grazing is carefully timed and usually of 

short duration (2–4 weeks) to target certain species 

for grazing impacts in order to benefit other species 

for growth after the competing vegetation has been 

removed. The frequency and duration of prescribed 

grazing at any refuge will be based on site-specific 

evaluations of the grassland under management. The 

prescribed grazing period generally will take place 

between April and September. Early spring grazing 

(mid-April through late May) targets cool-season 

invasive species and encourages warm-season native 

grasses and forbs. Midseason grazing (June and July), 

especially on nonnative grasslands, stimulates fall 

regrowth. Late-season grazing (August and September) 

removes litter and encourages spring growth of coolseason natives or other cool-season species.

Fence construction and maintenance (often, temporary 

electric fence) and control and rotation of the livestock 

are the responsibility of cooperating private party. 

The regional office determines the market rate grazing 

fees, but may include standard deductions for fence 

construction and maintenance, frequent livestock 

rotations, construction of water gaps, and hauling or 

providing additional water in dry pastures.

Availability of Resources

Developing grazing plans and special use permits and 

monitoring compliance and biological effects requires 

some Service resources. Most grazing management 

costs—fencing labor, monitoring and moving the 

livestock, and hauling water—are provided by the 

cooperator or permittee. Evaluation of the grasslands 

for grazing prescriptions and grassland response is 

part of each refuge’s grassland management 

responsibilities. 

The Service may use some alternative form of 

grassland management such as prescribed burning or 

haying where areas are not treated with prescribed 

grazing. Management of grasslands through permitted 

haying has comparable costs to management through 

a prescribed grazing program. Managed mowing is 

more expensive since the Service assumes all labor 

costs. Prescribed fire can be an effective grassland 

management tool, but there are personnel and 

weather limitations on a burning program, as well 

as the fact that some tracts are not suited to use of 

prescribed fire. In addition, there is an ecological 

benefit to rotation of grassland management techniques 

such as grazing, burning, and haying, at different 

seasons, rather than reliance on one technique.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Grazing by domestic livestock has the short-term 

effect of removing some or much of the standing 

vegetation from a tract of grassland. Properly 

prescribed, the effect of this vegetation removal 

increases the vigor of the grassland, stimulates 

growth of desired species of grass and forbs, and 

reduces the abundance of targeted species such as 

cool-season invasive plants, noxious weeds and other 

invasive plants, woody species, and cattails. 

Grazing in the spring may cause the loss of some bird 

nests due to trampling, and may cause some birds not 

to nest in grazed areas. Prescribed grazing is usually 

of short duration with the result of enhanced, more 

diverse, and vigorous grassland habitats. Grazing 

livestock may create a minor and temporary disturbance 

to wildlife, but generally does no harm.

Grazing on public wildlife lands can create an aesthetic 

issue of concern for some people, including visitors, 

who do not understand grassland management. There 

is a slight potential for conflict between the visiting 

public and the livestock or the permittee, particularly 

during fall hunting seasons. These situations can be 

limited by having livestock removed by the anticipated 

beginning of fall hunting seasons. 

To eliminate any appearance of favoritism or 

impropriety, managers follow “Refuge Manual” 

procedures for cooperator or permittee selection.

There will be no negative effects on cultural resources 

or threatened and endangered species.
Appendix L—Compatibility Determinations for Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses, Grazing, Haying, and Farming 161

Determination

The use of prescribed grazing is compatible at Audubon, 

Chase Lake, Lake Alice, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, Lake 

Zahl, McLean, Kellys Slough, Shell Lake, and Stewart 

Lake national wildlife refuges.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

— Monitor vegetation and wildlife to assess the 

effects of the management tool.

— Require general and special conditions for each 

permit to ensure consistency with management 

objectives.

— Restrict the use of vehicles and motorized 

equipment to the minimum necessary to conduct 

operations to meet management objectives.

Justification

Upland and wetland habitat conditions will deteriorate 

without the use of a full range of management tools. 

Migratory bird habitat and ecological diversity will 

decrease as habitat suitability declined. Invasive 

plant species will increase and habitat diversity will 

decrease if grazing practices did not continue at the 

refuges. To maintain and enhance habitat for migratory 

birds and other wildlife, habitat manipulation such as 

grazing needs to occur. Grazing will provide a means 

to restore degraded grasslands for the benefit of 

grassland-dependent species.

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2018

Description of Use:

Prescribed Haying of Grasslands

The Service will continue to use prescribed haying 

of grasslands at Audubon, Chase Lake, Lake Alice, 

Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, Lake Zahl, McLean, Kellys 

Slough, Shell Lake, and Stewart Lake national 

wildlife refuges.

Haying is the cutting and removal, by baling and 

transport to an off-site location, of grass or other 

upland vegetation for the production of livestock 

forage. Haying for this purpose is typically done by 

a cooperating farmer acting under authority of a 

cooperative farming agreement or special use permit 

issued by the project leader or refuge manager. 

Prescribed haying in North Dakota averaged about 

13,500 acres per year from 1996 to 2000.

Haying is an effective management tool as part of an 

overall grassland management plan to improve and 

maintain Service-managed grasslands for the benefit 

of migratory birds and other wildlife. Grasslands 

require periodic renovation to maintain vigor, diversity, 

and the structure necessary for migratory bird nesting. 

Haying can be an alternative to prescribed burning 

or grazing, which are the two other methods used to 

manage grassland habitats. If local conditions preclude 

the use of prescribed fire or livestock numbers are 

not available, removal of biomass through haying 

reduces unwanted overstory, including woody plants, 

and opens up the soil surface to sunlight. Such removal 

of vegetation allows for more vigorous regrowth 

of desirable species following the haying, although 

results are neither as dramatic nor positive as with 

fire or grazing.

Haying can be part of a strategy to seed native grass 

on newly acquired lands or on tame grass stands that 

need restoration. To reduce competition from invasive 

plants and minimize herbicide applications, the 

Service may use a cooperating farmer to apply the 

native grass seed mix and “interseed” with a cover 

crop. As a requirement of the special use permit, the 

Service will require the cooperator to cut, bale, and 

remove the cover crop before it matures and goes to 

seed. The resultant hay will be used for livestock feed. 

In addition, haying serves the biological purpose of 

releasing young native grass and forb seedlings for 

growth with minimal competition.

A third possible use of haying on Service-managed 

grasslands involves the initial steps of removing 

unwanted vegetation prior to seeding the tract to 

native grasses. Haying of a nonnative cool-season 

stand of grass is an effective step before spraying 

the field with herbicide to kill all existing vegetation. 

Removal of the heavy grass overstory by haying 

allows herbicide to more effectively reach and treat 

the remaining target plants. Better removal of 

unwanted grasses, in turn, will ensure better success 

of planted grasses and forbs whether they are 

“interseeded” into the sod or into the soil turned and 

leveled prior to seeding.

Haying is sometimes used prior to treatment of 

invasive plants: the tract is hayed and after a period, 

the flush of invasive plants is treated with an 

herbicide application. Removal of vegetation through 

haying allows the herbicide to more effectively reach 

and treat the target plants.

A more limited application of haying on Servicemanaged lands involves its use to establish firebreaks 

for prescribed burns. The Service will permit a 

cooperating farmer to hay firebreak strips in the fall. 

Those areas will then have little standing dead 

vegetation in early spring, or will green up earlier in 

the spring, and allow use as a firebreak.

Availability of Resources

Funding and staff resources are sufficient at each field 

station to administer prescribed haying. Staff time 

will be needed to evaluate the use, prepare site-specific 

special use permits, and ensure compliance with the 

permit authorization and stipulations necessary to 

ensure compatibility. To lessen any appearance of 

favoritism or impropriety, managers follow “Refuge 

Manual” procedures for establishing rental rates and 

cooperator selection.
162 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Haying will result in short-term disturbances to 

wildlife and long-term benefits to grasslands and the 

wildlife species that use these grasslands. Short-term 

impacts include disturbance and displacement of 

wildlife typical of any noisy heavy-equipment operation. 

Cutting and removal of standing grass will result in 

the short-term loss (late summer to midsummer the 

following year) of habitat for those species requiring 

taller grass for feeding and perching. The Service will 

typically schedule prescribed haying after July 31 to 

avoid impacts to most nesting birds. Long-term benefits 

will accrue due to the increased vigor of regrown 

grasses or the establishment of highly desirable native 

grass and forb species, which will improve habitat 

conditions for the same species affected by the shortterm removal of cover.

Long-term negative effects may occur to some 

resident wildlife species such as pheasant, which 

may lose overwinter habitat in hayed areas. Strict 

time constraints and limiting grass stands to no more 

than 50% being hayed at any one time will limit the 

anticipated effects on these species.

There will be no negative effects on cultural resources 

or threatened and endangered species.

Determination

The use of prescribed haying is compatible at Audubon, 

Chase Lake, Lake Alice, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, Lake 

Zahl, McLean, Kellys Slough, Shell Lake, and Stewart 

Lake national wildlife refuges.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

— Schedule prescribed haying to occur after July 31 

in any given year, unless there are documented 

management reasons for prescribing an earlier 

hay date.

— Issue the permit subject to the revocation and 

appeals procedure contained in Title 50, Part 25 

of the Code of Federal Regulations.

— Allow haying on no more than 50% of a tract in 

any one year, unless size restrictions or habitat 

conditions warrant haying more than half of the 

area.

— Couple prescribed haying with a light disking 

or dragging operation or an “interseeding” of 

desirable species of grass or legumes to further 

increase the vigor of the grass stand.

— Require removal of bales or stacks by 

September 10.

Justification

Upland habitat conditions will deteriorate without 

the use of a full range of management tools. Migratory 

bird habitat and ecological diversity will decrease as 

habitat suitability declines. Invasive plant species will 

increase and habitat diversity will decrease if haying 

practices do not continue at the refuges. To maintain 

and enhance the habitat for migratory birds and other 

wildlife, habitat manipulation such as haying needs 

to occur. Haying will provide a means to restore 

degraded grasslands for the benefit of grasslanddependent species.

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2018

Description of Use:

Cooperative Farming

The Service will continue to use cooperative farming 

at Audubon, Chase Lake, Lake Alice, Lake Ilo, Lake 

Nettie, Lake Zahl, McLean, Kellys Slough, Shell 

Lake, and Stewart Lake national wildlife refuges.

Cooperative farming is the term used for cropping 

activities done by a third party on lands that the 

Service owns in fee title or controls through a 

conservation easement. This activity is usually done 

on a short-term basis (3–4 years or less) to provide 

an optimal seedbed for establishment of native 

grasses and forbs or other desirable planted cover for 

wildlife. Cooperative farming on certain tracts can 

provide a fall food source for migratory waterfowl or 

a winter food source for resident wildlife. A farmer 

acts under authority of a cooperative farming 

agreement or special use permit issued by the project 

leader or refuge manager. Terms of the agreement 

ensure that the farmer follows all current Service 

and refuge restrictions. North Dakota refuges and 

waterfowl production areas permitted an average of 

6,400 acres of cooperative farming during 1996–2000.

Cooperative farming activities are generally limited 

to areas of former cropland or poor quality stands of 

tame or cool-season invasive grasses. Service policies 

do not allow tilling or cropping of highly erodible soils 

without an approved NRCS conservation plan. 

Generally, farmed areas (before reseeding to more 

desirable plant species) will not cover more than 50% 

of the tract. Areas at the refuges that are planted 

for food plots will be limited to the size needed to 

provide sufficient food for the targeted wildlife species.

Availability of Resources

Staff time is available for development and 

administration of cooperative farming agreements. 

Most of the needed fieldwork to prepare and plan 

for this use will be done as part of routine grassland 

management duties. The decision to use a cooperating 

farmer will be part of the overall strategy for managing 

lands within a refuge. The additional time needed to 

coordinate issuance of the special use permit or 

cooperative farming agreement and oversight of the 

permit or agreement is relatively minor and within 

the refuges’ resources. In addition, the use of a 

cooperating farmer will free up Service employees who 

would otherwise have to conduct the farming operation.
Appendix L—Compatibility Determinations for Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses, Grazing, Haying, and Farming 163

In most cases, farmers conduct cooperative farming 

operations on Service lands on a share basis rather 

than for a fee. The Service typically receives its share 

as (1) harvested grain used for other management 

purposes such as standing grain left for wildlife food, 

(2) additional work such as control of invasive plants, 

cultivation, or additional seedbed preparation, or 

(3) supplies such as herbicide or grass seed to be used 

on the same tract of land. The Service deposits any 

fees or cash income related to the farming into the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Account. The Service receives 

fair-market value consideration from cooperating 

farmers, but the generation of income is a secondary 

consideration when developing the terms and conditions 

of a special use permit or cooperative farming 

agreement. To lessen any appearance of favoritism 

or impropriety, managers follow “Refuge Manual” 

procedures for establishing rental rates and 

cooperator selection.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Cooperative farming to prepare suitable seedbeds for 

planting better cover and habitat will result in shortterm disturbances and long-term benefits to both 

resident and migratory wildlife using the refuges. 

Short-term effects include disturbance and displacement 

of wildlife typical of any noisy heavy-equipment 

operation, and the loss of poor quality cover while 

the tract is farmed. Wildlife may use farmed areas as 

additional food sources during the farming period. 

There will be long-term benefits due to the establishment 

of diverse or more desirable habitat for nesting, escape 

cover, perching, or noncrop feeding activities. The 

resulting habitat will generally improve conditions for 

most of the species negatively affected by the short 

period of farming activity.

There will be no negative effects on cultural resources 

or threatened and endangered species.

Determination

The use of cooperative farming is compatible at 

Audubon, Chase Lake, Lake Alice, Lake Ilo, Lake 

Nettie, Lake Zahl, McLean, Kellys Slough, Shell 

Lake, and Stewart Lake national wildlife refuges.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

— Monitor vegetation and wildlife to assess the 

effects of the management tool.

— Require general and special conditions for each 

permit to ensure consistency with management 

objectives.

— Restrict the use of vehicles and motorized 

equipment to the minimum necessary to conduct 

operations to meet management objectives.

— Restrict farming permittees to use of approved 

chemicals that are less detrimental to wildlife 

and the environment.

Justification

Habitat conditions will deteriorate without the use 

of a full range of management tools. Migratory bird 

habitat and ecological diversity would decrease as 

habitat suitability declined. Invasive plant species 

would increase and habitat diversity would decrease 

if farming practices did not continue at the refuges. 

To maintain and enhance habitat for migratory birds 

and other wildlife, habitat manipulation such as 

farming needs to occur.

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2018
164 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Signatures

Kim Hanson 

Project Leader

Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge)

Lloyd Jones 

Project Leader

Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex

cLean, and 

ges)

(Audubon, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, M

Stewart Lake national wildlife refu

Roger Hollevoet 

Project Leader 

Devils Lake Wetland Management District Complex

(Kellys Slough and Lake Alice national wildlife refuges)

David Gillund 

Project Leader

Lostwood Wetland Management District Complex 

(Lake Zahl and Shell Lake national wildlife refuges) 

Reviewed

_______________________________________________

Paul Cornes 

Refuge Supervisor

Region 6, National Wildlife Refuge System

Date

Approved

_______________________________________________

Richard A. Coleman, PhD 

Assistant Regional Director

Region 6, National Wildlife Refuge System

Date

_______________________________________________

Date

_______________________________________________

Date

_______________________________________________

Date

_______________________________________________

Date
Bibliography

Adamus P.R. 1996. Bioindicators for assessing 

ecological integrity of prairie wetlands. EPA/600/ 

R-96/082. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Health and 

Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, 

Western Ecology Division. [Pages unknown.]

Anderson, R.C. 1990. The historic role of fire in 

the North American grassland. In: Collins, S.L.; 

Wallace, L.L.; editors. Fire in North American 

tallgrass prairies. Norman, OK: University of 

Oklahoma Press. 8–18.

Austin, J.E. 1998. Highlight box: waterfowl in the 

Prairie Pothole Region. In: Mac, M.J.; Opler, P.A.; 

Puckett Haecker, C.E.; Doran, P.D.; editors. Status 

and trends of the nation’s biological resources, 

vol. 2. [Internet]. Version 21JAN2000. Jamestown, 

ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/

grlands/grlands.htm> 456–7.

Baer, N.W. 1989. Shelterbelts and windbreaks in the 

Great Plains. Journal of Forestry 87:32–6.

Bakker, K.K. 2003. A synthesis of the effect of 

woody vegetation on grassland-nesting birds. 

In: Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of 

Science; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location 

of conference unknown]. [Location of publisher 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 119–41.

Bakker, K.K.; Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F. 2002. 

Incorporating landscape attributes into models 

for migratory grassland bird conservation. 

Conservation Biology 16:1638–46.

Balser, D.S.; Dil, H.H.; Nelson, H.K. 1968. Effect of 

predator reduction on waterfowl nesting success. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 32:669–82.

Bartonek, J.C. 1968. Summer foods and feeding habits 

of diving ducks in Manitoba [PhD dissertation]. 

Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison. 

[Pages unknown].

Bartonek, J.C. 1972. Summer foods of American 

wigeon, mallards, and a green-winged teal near 

Great Slave Lake, N.W.T. Canadian Field-Naturalist 

86:373–6.

Batt, B.D.; Anderson, M.G.; Anderson, C.D.; Caswell, 

F.D. 1989. The use of prairie potholes by North 

American ducks. In: van der Valk, A.; editor. 

Northern prairie wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa State 

University Press. 204–27.

Beauchamp, W.D.; Koford, R.R.; Nudds, T.D. [et al.] 

1996. Long-term declines in nest success of prairie 

ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:247–57.

Bedunah, D.J. 1992. The complex ecology of weeds, 

grazing, and wildlife. Western Wildlands 18:6–11.

Berkey, G.; Crawford, R.; Galipeau, S.; Johnson, D.H. 

[et al.] 1993. A review of wildlife management 

practices in North Dakota [unpublished report]. 

On file at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Lakewood, CO. 51 p.

Blumenthal, D.M.; Jordan, N.R.; Svenson, E.L. 2003. 

Weed control as a rationale for restoration: the 

example of tallgrass prairie. Conservation Ecology 

7(1):6.

Borthwick, S.M. 1988. Impacts of agricultural 

pesticides on aquatic invertebrates inhabiting 

prairie wetlands [master’s thesis]. Fort Collins, 

CO: Colorado State University. [Pages unknown].

Bragg, T.B. 1982. Seasonal variations in fuel and 

fuel consumption by fires in a bluestem prairie. 

Ecology 63(10):7–11.

Bragg, T.B. 1995. The physical environment of Great 

Plains grasslands. In: Keeler, K.; Joern, A.; editors. 

The changing prairie. New York: Oxford University 

Press. 49–81. 

Bragg, T.B.; Steuter, A.A. 1996. Prairie ecology—the 

mixed prairie. In: Samson, F.B.; Knopf, F.L.; editors. 

Prairie Conservation. Washington DC: Island Press. 

53–65.

Bryce, S.A.; Omernik, J.M.; Pater, D.A. [et al.] 1996. 

Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota 

[color poster with map, descriptive text, summary 

tables, and photographs]. Reston, VA: U.S. 

Geological Survey. [Map scale 1:1,500,000].

Burger, L.D.; Burger, L.W., Jr.; Faaborg, J. 1994. 

Effects of prairie fragmentation on predation on 

artificial nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 

58:249–54.

Carpinellil. M.F. 2001. Designing weed-resistant 

plant communities by maximizing niche occupation 

and resource capture [PhD dissertation]. Bozeman, 

MT: Montana State University. [Pages unknown].

Caudill, James; Henderson, Eric. 2005. Banking 

on nature 2004: the economic benefits to local 

communities of national wildlife refuge visitation. 

[Location of publisher unknown]: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, division of economics. [Pages 

unknown].

Charnov, E.L. 1976. Optimal foraging, the marginal 

value theorem. Theoretical Population Biology 

9:129–36.
166 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Conner, R.; Seidl, A.; VanTassell, L.; Wilkins, N. 2001. 

U.S. grasslands and related resources: an economic 

and biological trends assessment. Texas Cooperative 

Extension Reports and Publications. [Location of 

publisher unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 153 p.

Cook, H.H.; Powers, C.F. 1958. Early biochemical 

changes in the soils and waters of artificially 

created marshes in New York. New York Game 

and Fish Journal 5:9–65.

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States 

1780s to 1980s. Washington DC: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 13 p.

Dai, X.; Boutton, T.W.; Hailemichael, M. [et al.] 2006. 

Soil carbon and nitrogen storage in response to 

fire in a temperate mixed-grass savanna. Journal 

of Environmental Quality 35:1620–8.

Daubenmire R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of 

vegetational analysis. Northwest Science 33:43–64.

Davis, S.; Brigham, R.M.; Shaffer, T.L.; James, P.C. 

2006. Mixed-grass prairie passerines exhibit weak 

and variable responses to patch size. The Auk 

123(3):807–21.

Dion, N.; Hobson, K.A.; Lariviere, S. 2000. Interactive 

effects of vegetation and predators on the success 

of natural and simulated nests of grassland songbirds. 

The Condor 102:629–34.

Dixon, C.; Hollevoet, R. 2005. Ground-nesting bird 

management on cropland dominated landscapes 

within the prairie pothole region of North and 

South Dakota: a step-down plan from the Prairie 

Pothole Joint Venture [unpublished report]. 

[Location where on file unknown]. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages 

unknown].

Domek, Tom. 1998. Last call for tallgrass in North 

Dakota. [Internet]. Version 02OCT1998. Jamestown, 

ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

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

plants/tallgras/lastcall.htm> North Dakota Outdoors 

60(10):14–19.

Dornfeld, R. 1988. Wetland restoration; a mid-continent 

waterfowl management project final activity report. 

Twin Cities, MN: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 36 p.

Duebbert, H.F.; Frank, A.M. 1984. Value of prairie 

wetlands to duck broods. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

12:27–34.

Duebbert, H.F.; Jacobson, E.T.; Higgins, K.F.; Podoll, 

E.B. 1981. Establishment of seeded grasslands 

for wildlife habitat in the prairie pothole region. 

Special Scientific Report—Wildlife No. 234. 

Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown].

Duebbert, H.F.; Lokemoen, J.T. 1980. High duck 

nesting success in a predator-reduced environment. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 44:428–37.

Espie, R.H.M.; Brigham, R.M.; James, Paul C. 1996. 

Habitat selection and clutch fate of piping plovers 

(Charadrius melodus) breeding at Lake Diefenbaker, 

Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

74:1069–75.

Estey, Mike. 2007. [Title of unpublished report unknown].

 [Location where on file unknown]. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat 

and Population Evaluation Team. [Pages unknown].

Euliss, N.H., Jr.; LaBaugh, J.W.; Fredrickson, L.H. 

[et al.] 2004. The wetland continuum: a conceptual 

framework for interpreting biological studies. 

Wetlands 24:448–58.

Euliss, N.H., Jr.; Wrubleski, D.A.; Mushet, D.M. 1999. 

Wetlands of the prairie pothole region: invertebrate 

species composition, ecology, and management. In: 

Batzer, D.; Rader, R.B.; Wissinger, S.A.; editors. 

Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North 

America—ecology and management. New York: 

John Wiley and Sons. 471–514.

Flannery, T. 2001. The eternal frontier. [Location 

of publisher unknown]: Atlantic Monthly Press. 

[Pages unknown].

Fredrickson, L.H. 1991. Strategies for water level 

manipulations in moist-soil systems. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Waterfowl Management 

Handbook, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.4.6. 

Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Friend M.; Franson, J.C. 1999. Field manual of 

wildlife diseases, general field procedures and 

diseases of birds. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Geological Survey, Information and Technology 

Report 1999-001. [Pages unknown].

Garrettson, P.R.; Rohwer, F.C. 2001. Effects of 

mammalian predator removal on production of 

upland-nesting ducks in North Dakota. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 65:398–405.

Garrettson, P.R.; Rohwer, F.C.; Zimmer, J.M. [et al.] 

1996. Effects of mammalian predator removal on 

waterfowl and non-game birds in North Dakota. 

In: Transactions of the North American Wildlife 

and Natural Resources Conference; [Date of 

conference unknown]; [Location of conference 

unknown]. [Location of publisher unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 61:94–101.

Gazda, R.J.; Meidinger, R.R.; Ball, I.J.; Connelly, J.W. 

2002. Relationships between Russian olive and 

duck nest success in southeastern Idaho. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 30:337–44.

Grant, T.A.; Madden, E.; Berkey, G.B. 2004. Tree and 

shrub invasion in northern mixed-grass prairie: 

implications for breeding grassland birds. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 32:807–18.

Greenwood, R.J.; Sargeant, A.B.; Johnson, D.H. [et al.] 

1995. Factors associated with duck nest success 

in the Prairie Pothole Region of Canada. Wildlife 

Monograph 128. [Pages unknown].

Greenwood, R.J.; Sargeant, A.B.; Piehl, J.L. [et al.] 

1999. Foods and foraging of prairie striped skunks 
Bibliography 167

during the avian nesting season. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 27:823–32.

Greenwood, R.J.; Sovada, M.A. 1996. Prairie duck 

populations and predation management. In: 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife 

and Natural Resources Conference; [Date of 

conference unknown]; [Location of conference 

unknown]. [Location of publisher unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 61:31–42.

Grondahl, C.; Evelsizer, A. 2002. Prairie wildflowers 

and grasses of North Dakota. Jamestown, ND: 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department–

Bismarck, ND.

Grue, C.E.; Tome, M.W.; Messmer, T.A. [et al.] 1989. 

Agricultural chemicals and prairie pothole wetlands: 

meeting the needs of the resource and the farmer—

U.S. perspective. In: Transactions of the North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference; [Date of conference unknown]; 

[Location of conference unknown]. [Location of 

publisher unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 54:43–58.

Guo, Q.; Shaffer, T. 2006. Community maturity, species 

saturation and the variant diversity–productivity 

relationships in grasslands. Ecology Letters 9:1–9.

Haig, S.M.; Plissner, J.H. 1993. Population status of 

the threatened/endangered piping plover in 1991. 

In: Higgins, K.F.; Brashier, M.R.; editors. Proceedings, 

the Missouri River and its tributaries: piping plover 

and least tern symposium; [Date of symposium 

unknown]; Brookings, SD. Brookings, SD: South 

Dakota State University. 32–5.

Hanowski, J.M.; Christian, D.P.; Niemi, G.J. 2000. 

Landscape requirements of prairie sharp-tailed 

grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus campestris in 

Minnesota, USA. Wildlife Biology 6:257–63.

Helmers, D.L. 1993. Shorebird management manual. 

Manomet, MA: Western Hemisphere Shorebird 

Reserve Network. [Pages unknown].

Helmers, D.L.; Gratto-Trevor, C.L. 1996. Effects of 

predation on migratory shorebird recruitment. 

In: Transactions of the North American Wildlife 

and Natural Resources Conference; [Date of 

conference unknown]; [Location of conference 

unknown]. [Location of publisher unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 61:50–61.

Herkert, J.R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation 

on Midwestern grassland bird communities. 

Ecological Applications 4:461–71.

Herkert, J.R. 1995. An analysis of Midwestern breeding 

bird population trends: 1966–1993. American 

Midland Naturalist 134:41–50.

Higgins, K.F. 1986. Interpretation and compendium 

of historical fire accounts in the northern Great 

Plains. Resource Publication 161. Washington DC: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. [Pages unknown].

Higgins, K.F.; Barker, W.T. 1982. Changes in vegetation 

structure in seeded nesting cover in the prairie 

pothole region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Special Science Report—Wildlife 242. Washington 

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown].

Hoff, M.J. 1999. Predator trapping on township-sized 

blocks: does duck nesting success increase? [master’s 

thesis]. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University. 

[Pages unknown].

Howell, E.A. 1988. The role of restoration in 

conservation biology. Endangered Species 5:1–4.

Hutchinson, M. 1992. Vegetation management 

guideline: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense [L.] 

Scop.). Natural Areas Journal 12:160–1.

Igl, L.D.; Johnson, D.H. 1995. Migratory bird 

population changes in North Dakota. In: LaRoe, 

E.T.; Farris, G.S.; Puckett, C.E. [et al.]; editors. 

Our living resources. [Location of publisher 

unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior. 298–300.

Info Please. 2007. North Dakota almanac. [Internet]. 

<http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108256.html> 

[access date unknown].

Jensen, Ray E. [No date]. Climate of North Dakota. 

[Internet]. Version 02APR98. Fargo, ND: National 

Weather Service, North Dakota State University. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/ 

habitat/climate/index.htm>

Johnson, D.H.; Igl, L.D. 2001. Area requirements 

of grassland birds: a regional perspective. Auk 

118:24–34.

Johnson, Douglas H. 2006a. Terrestrial bird 

communities on the Woodworth study area. 

[Internet]. Revised August 3, 2006. Jamestown, 

ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

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

habitat/woodwort/johnson.htm>

Johnson, Douglas H. 2006b. Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) grassland bird use of conservation 

reserve program fields in the Great Plains. In: 

Farm Bill Contributions to Wildlife Conservation. 

[Internet]. Wildlife Habitat Management Institute 

online. <ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WHMI/WEB/

CompRev/Johnson19-34.pdf> 19–33.

Johnson, Douglas H.; Haseltin, Susan S.D.; Cowardin, 

Lewis M. 1994. Wildlife habitat management on 

the northern prairie landscape. [Internet]. Version 

30APR2001. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center online. <http://www.

npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/whabmgt/index.

htm> Landscape and Urban Planning 28:5–21.

Johnson, Douglas H.; Igl, Lawrence D.; Dechant 

Shaffer, Jill A. [series coordinators]. 2004. Effects 

of management practices on grassland birds. 

[Internet]. Version 12AUG2004. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center online. 

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

grasbird/index.htm>

Johnson, R.G.; Temple, S.A. 1990. Nest predation and 

brood parasitism of tall grass prairie birds. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 54(1):106–11.
168 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Kadlec, J.A.; Smith, L.M. 1992. Habitat management 

for breeding areas. In: Batt, B.D.J.; Afton, A.D.; 

Anderson, M.G. [et al.]; editors. Ecology and 

management of breeding waterfowl. Minneapolis: 

University of Minnesota. [Pages unknown].

Kantrud, H.A. 1993. Duck nest success on Conservation 

Reserve Program land in the prairie pothole region. 

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 48:238–42.

Kantrud, Harold A. 1983. An environmental overview 

of North Dakota: past and present. [Internet]. 

Version 16JUL97. Jamestown, ND: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center online. <www.

npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/envovrvw/index.htm>

Kantrud, H.A.; Higgins, K.F. 1992. Nest and nest 

site characteristics of some ground-nesting nonpasserine birds of northern grasslands. Prairie 

Naturalist 24:67–84.

Kantrud, Harold A.; Krapu, Gary L.; Swanson, 

George A.; Allen, James A. 1989. Prairie basin 

wetlands of the Dakotas: a community profile. 

[Internet]. Version 16JUL97. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center online. 

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

basinwet/index.htm>

Kelsey, K.W.; Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F.; Bakker, 

K.K. 2006. Planting trees in prairie landscapes: do 

the ecological costs outweigh the benefits? Natural 

Areas Journal 26(3):254–60.

Klett, A.T.; Duebbert, H.F.; Heismeyer, G.L. 1984. 

Use of seeded native grasses as nesting cover by 

ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:134–8.

Knopf, F.L. 1994. Avian assemblages on altered 

grasslands. Studies in Avian Biology. 15:247–57.

Knopf, F.L. 1995. Declining grassland birds. In: LaRoe, 

E.T.; Farris, G.S.; Puckett, C.E. [et al.]; editors. 

Our living resources. [Location of publisher unknown]: 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 296–98.

Knutsen, G.A.; Euliss, N.H. 2001. Wetland restoration 

in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America: 

a literature review. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Biological Science Report. [Location of publisher 

unknown]: U.S. Geological Survey. 55 p.

Koper, N.; Schmiegelow, F. 2006. A multi-scaled 

analysis of avian response to habitat amount and 

fragmentation in the Canadian dry mixed-grass 

prairie. Landscape Ecology 21:1045–59.

Krapu, G.L.; Swanson, G.A. 1975. Some nutritional 

aspects of reproduction in prairie nesting pintails. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 39:156–62.

Krull, J.N. 1970. Aquatic plant–macroinvertebrate 

associations and waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 34:707–18.

Kuehl, A.K.; Clark, W.R. 2002. Predator activity 

related to landscape features in northern Iowa. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 66:1224–34.

Larson, M.A.; Ryan, M.R.; Murphy, R.K. 2002. 

Population viability of piping plovers: effects 

of predator exclusion. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 66:361–71.

Laubhan, M.K.; Gleason, R.A.; Euliss, N.H., Jr. [et al.] 

2006. A preliminary biological assessment of Long 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Biological Technical Publication, FWS/

BTP-R6006-2006. Washington DC. [Pages unknown].

Laubhan, M.K.; Roelle, J.E. 2001. Managing wetlands 

for waterbirds. In: Rader, R.B.; Batzer, D.P.; 

Wissinger, S.; editors. Biomonitoring and 

management of North American freshwater 

wetlands. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 387–411.

Lokemoen, J.T. 1984. Examining economic efficiency 

of management practices that enhance waterfowl 

production. In: Transactions of the North American 

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference; [Date 

of conference unknown]; [Location of conference 

unknown]. [Location of publisher unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 49:584–607.

Lorenzana, J.C.; Sealy, S.G. 1999. A meta-analysis 

of the impact of parasitism by the brown-headed 

cowbird on its hosts. Studies in Avian Biology 

18:241–53.

Lynch, J.; Evans, C.D.; Conover, V.C. 1963. Inventory 

of waterfowl environments of the prairie Canada. 

In: Transactions of the North American Wildlife 

and Natural Resources Conference; [Date of 

conference unknown]; [Location of conference 

unknown]. [Location of publisher unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 28:93–109.

Mabee, T.J.; Estelle, V.B. 2000. Assessing the 

effectiveness of predator exclosures for plovers. 

Wilson Bulletin 112:14–20.

Madden, E.M.; Murphy, R.K.; Hansen, A.J.; Murray, 

L. 2000. Models for guiding management of prairie 

birds habitat in northwestern North Dakota. The 

American Midland Naturalist 144(2):377–92.

Martin, T.E. 1988. Processes organizing open-nesting 

bird assemblages: competition or nest predation? 

Evolutionary Ecology 2:37–50.

Martin, T.E. 1995. Avian life history evolution in 

relation to nest sites, nest predation and food. 

Ecological Monographs 65:101–27.

Mense, B. 1996. The effects of predator removal and 

nest-site selection on productivity of overwater 

nesting birds in North Dakota [master’s thesis]. 

Pittsburg, KS: Pittsburg State University. [Pages 

unknown].

Meyer, M.I.; Swanson, G.A. 1982. Mosquitoes (Diptera: 

Culicidae) consumed by breeding Anatidae in south 

central North Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 14:27–31.

Milchunas, D.G.; Sala, O.E.; Lauenroth, W.K. 1988. 

A generalized model of the effects of grazing by 

large herbivores on grassland community structure. 

American Midland Naturalist 132(1):87–106.

Murkin, H.R.; Batt, B.D.J. 1987. The interactions of 

vertebrates and invertebrates in peatlands and 

marshes. Memoirs of the Entomological Society 

of Canada 140:15–30.
Bibliography 169

Murphy, R.K.; editor. 2005. Conservation strategy and 

guidelines for Dakota skippers on Service lands in 

the Dakotas [unpublished report]. Bismarck, ND: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, refuges and wildlife and ecological services, 

Dakota skipper committee. 23 p.

Murphy, R.K.; Grant, T.A. 2005. Land management 

history and floristics in mixed-grass prairie, North 

Dakota, USA. Natural Areas Journal 25:351–8.

Murphy, R.K.; Michaud, I.M.G.; Prescott, D.R.C. [et al.] 

2003. Predation on adult piping plovers at predator 

exclosure cages. Waterbirds 26:150–5.

National Wildlife Federation. 2001. The American 

prairie: going, going, gone? A Status Report on the 

American Prairie. [Location of publisher unknown]: 

National Wildlife Federation. [Pages unknown].

Naugle, David E.; Higgins, Kenneth F.; Bakker, Kristel 

K. 2000. A synthesis of the effects of upland 

management practices on waterfowl and other birds 

in the northern Great Plains of the United States 

and Canada. University of Wisconsin–Stevens 

Point, College of Natural Resources, Wildlife 

Technical Report No. 1. Stevens Point, WI. 39 p.

Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F.; Nusser, S.M. 1999. 

Effects of woody vegetation on prairie wetland 

birds. Canadian Field-Naturalist 113:487–92.

Naugle, D.E.; Quamen, F. 2007. Assessing the impacts 

of tree plantings on grassland birds in North and 

South Dakota. Completion Report for North Dakota 

State Wildlife Grant #T19. [Location where on file 

unknown]. 25 p.

Nelson, J.G.; Leege, T.A. 1982. Nutritional requirements 

and food habitats. In: Thomas, J.W.; Toweill, D.E.; 

editors. Elk of North America. Harrisburg, PA: 

Stackpole Books. [Pages unknown].

Newcombe, C.P.; MacDonald, D.D. 1991. Effects of 

suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:72–82.

Niemuth, N.D. 2000. Land use and vegetation 

associated with greater prairie chicken leks in 

an agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 64:278–86.

Niemuth, N.D.; Estey, M.E.; Loesch, C.R. 2005. 

Developing spatially explicit habitat models for 

grassland bird conservation planning in the Prairie 

Pothole Region of North Dakota. In: Ralph, C.J.; 

Rich, T.D.; editors. Bird conservation implementation 

and integration in the Americas: proceedings of the 

third international Partners in Flight conference 

2002; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location of 

conference unknown]. PSW-GTR-191. Albany, CA: 

USDA Forest Service. 469–77.

Niemuth, N.D.; Estey, M.E.; Reynolds, R.E. [et al.] 

2006. Use of wetlands by spring-migrant shorebirds 

in agricultural landscapes of North Dakota’s Drift 

Prairie. Wetlands 26:30–9.

North Dakota Department of Agriculture. 2006. 

2005 Noxious weed list survey: reported acres. 

[Location where on file unknown].

North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 2005. 

Mixed-grass prairie (Missouri Coteau). In: North 

Dakota comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. 

[Internet]. <http://gf.nd.gov/conservation/docs/

section%205.3%20mixed-grass%20prairie-missouri

%20coteau.pdf> 54–7.

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. 

[No date]. North Dakota prairie—our natural 

heritage. [Internet]. Version 05MAY99. Jamestown, 

ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

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

habitat/heritage/index.htm>

North Dakota State Water Commission. 2005. A 

reference guide: water in North Dakota. Bismarck, 

ND. 20 p.

O’Leary, C.H.; Nyberg, D.W. 2000. Treelines between 

fields reduce the density of grassland birds. Natural 

Areas Journal 20:243–9.

Patten, M.A.; Shochat, E.; Reinking, D.L. [et al.] 2006. 

Habitat edge, land management, and rates of brood 

parasitism in tallgrass prairie. Ecological Applications 

16:687–95.

Pedlar, J.H.; Fahrig, L.; Merriam, G.H. 1997. Raccoon 

habitat use at 2 spatial scales. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 61:102–12.

Peterjohn, B.G.; Sauer, J.R. 1999. Population status of 

North American grassland birds. Studies in Avian 

Biology 19:27–44.

Plissner, J.H.; Haig, S.M. 2000. Status of a broadly 

distributed endangered species: results and 

implications of the second International Piping 

Plover Census. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

78:128–39.

Pokorny, M.L. 2002. Plant functional group diversity 

as a mechanism for invasion resistance [master’s 

thesis]. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 

[Pages unknown].

Pokorny, M.L.; Sheley, R.L.; Zabinski, C.A. [et al.] 

2005. Plant functional group diversity as a 

mechanism for invasion resistance. Restoration 

Ecology 13(3):448–59.

Pool, Duane B.; Austin, Jane E.; editors. 2006. 

Migratory bird management for the Northern 

Great Plains Joint Venture: implementation plan. 

General Technical Report TC-01. Bismarck, ND: 

Northern Great Plains Joint Venture. 171 p. 

Prindiville-Gaines, E.; Ryan, M.R. 1988. Piping plover 

habitat use and reproductive success in North 

Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:266–73.

Recher, H.F. 1966. Some aspects of the ecology of 

migrating shorebirds. Ecology 47:393–407.

Remele, Larry. 1988. North Dakota history: overview 

and summary. In: North Dakota Blue Book. Bismarck, 

ND: North Dakota Secretary of State’s Office. 2–5.

Ribic, C.A.; Sample, D.W. 2001. Associations of 

grassland birds with landscape factors in southern 

Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 146:105–21.
170 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Rich, T.D.; Beardmore, C.J.; Berlanga, H. [et al.] 

2004. Partners in Flight North American landbird 

conservation plan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology. [Pages unknown].

Robel, R.J.; Briggs, J.N.; Dayton, A.D.; Hulbert, L.C. 

1970. Relationships between visual obstruction 

measurements and weight of grassland vegetation. 

Journal of Range Management 23:295–7.

Robinson, Elwyn B. 1966. History of North Dakota. 

Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 58, 

67–8, 113–5, 129, 134.

Romig, G.P.; Crawford, R.D. 1995. Clay-colored 

sparrows in North Dakota parasitized brownheaded cowbirds. Prairie Naturalist 27:193–205.

Rosenberg, D.M.; Danks, H.V. 1987. Aquatic insects 

of peatlands and marshes in Canada: introduction. 

Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 

140:1–4.

Royer, R.A.; Austin, J.E.; Newton, W.E. 1998. Checklist 

and “pollard walk” butterfly survey methods on 

public lands. American Midland Naturalist 140:358–71.

Rumble, M.A.; Flake, L.D. 1983. Management 

considerations to enhance use of stock ponds by 

waterfowl broods. Journal of Range Management 

36:691–4.

Ryan, M.R.; Root, B.G.; Mayer, P.M. 1993. Status of 

piping plovers in the Great Plains of North America: 

a demographic simulation model. Conservation 

Biology 7:581–5.

Samson, F.; Knopf, F. 1994. Prairie conservation in 

North America. BioScience 44:418–21.

Samson, Fred B., Knopf, Fritz L.; Ostlie, Wayne R. 

1998. Grasslands. In: Mac, M.J.; Opler, P.A.; Puckett 

Haecker, C.E.; Doran, P.D.; editors. Status and 

trends of the nation’s biological resources, vol. 2. 

[Internet]. Version 21JAN2000. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center online. 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/grlands/ 

grlands.htm> 437–72. 

Sargeant, A.B. 1972. Red fox spatial characteristics in 

relation to waterfowl predation. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 36:225–36.

Sargeant, A.B.; Allen, S.H.; Hastings, J.O. 1987. Spatial 

relations between sympatric coyotes and red foxes 

in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 

51:285–93.

Sargeant, A.B.; Arnold, P.M. 1984. Predator management 

for ducks on waterfowl production areas in the 

northern plains. In: Proceedings of the Vertebrate 

Conference; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location 

of conference unknown]. [Location of publisher 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 11:161–7.

Sargeant, A.B.; Greenwood, R.J.; Sovada, M.A.; 

Shaffer, T.L. 1993. Distribution and abundance 

of predators that affect duck production in the 

Prairie Pothole Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Resource Publication 194. [Location of 

publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown].

Sargeant, A.B.; Raveling, D.G. 1992. Mortality during 

the breeding season. In: Batt, B.D.J.; Afton, A.D.; 

Anderson, M.G. [et al.]; editors. Ecology and 

management of breeding waterfowl. Minneapolis: 

University of Minnesota Press. 396–422.

Sargeant, A.B.; Sovada, M.A.; Shaffer, T.L. 1995. 

Seasonal predator removal relative to hatch rate 

of duck nests in waterfowl production areas. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(3):507–13.

Schmitz, R.A.; Clark, W.R. 1999. Survival of ringnecked pheasant hens during spring in relation to 

landscape features. Journal of Wildlife Management 

63:147–54.

Schroeder, R.L.; Holler, J.I.; Taylor, J.P. 2004. 

Managing national wildlife refuges for historic or 

non-historic conditions: determining the role of 

the refuge in the ecosystem. Natural Resources 

Journal 44(4):1183–1210.

Severson, K.E.; Sieg, C.H. 2006. The nature of 

eastern North Dakota: pre-1880 historical ecology. 

Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, North 

Dakota Institute for Regional Studies. 308 p.

Shaffer, J.A.; Goldade, C.M.; Dinkins, M.F. [et al.] 

2003. Brown-headed cowbirds in grasslands: their 

habitat, hosts, and response to management. 

Prairie Naturalist 35(3):145–186.

Sheley R.L.; Half, M.L. 2006. Enhancing native forb 

establishment and persistence using a rich seed 

mixture. Restoration Ecology 12(4):627–35.

Shutler, D.; Mullie, A.; Clark, R.G. 2000. Bird 

communities of prairie uplands and wetlands in 

relation to farming practices in Saskatchewan. 

Conservation Biology 14:1441–51.

Sims, P.I. 1988. Grasslands. In: Barbour, M.G.; Billings, 

W.D.; editors. North American terrestrial vegetation. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 266–86. 

Skagen, S.K.; Oman, H.D. 1996. Dietary flexibility of 

shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere. Canadian 

Field-Naturalist 10:419–44.

Snyder, W.D. 1984. Ring-necked pheasant nesting 

ecology and wheat farming on the high plains. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 48:878–88.

Sovada, M.A.; Anthony, R.M.; Batt, B.D. J. 2001. 

Predation on waterfowl in arctic tundra and prairie 

breeding areas: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

29(1):6–15.

Sovada, M.A.; Burns, M.J.; Austin, J.E. 2005. Predation 

of waterfowl in prairie breeding areas. Jamestown, 

ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 70 p.

Sovada, M.A.; Sargeant, A.B.; Grier, J.W. 1995. 

Differential effects of coyotes and red foxes on duck 

nest success. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:1–9.

Stephens, D.W.; Krebs, J.R. 1986. Foraging theory. 

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Pages 

unknown].

Steuter, A.A.; McPherson, G.R. 1995. Fire as a 

physical stress. In: Bedunah, D.J.; Sosebee, R.E.; 
Bibliography 171

editors. Wildland plants: physiological ecology and 

developmental morphology. 550–79.

Stewart, R.E.; Kantrud, H.A. 1971. Classification of 

natural ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie 

region. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 

Resource Publication 92. Washington DC. [Pages 

unknown].

Stewart, Robert E. 1975. Breeding birds of North 

Dakota. [Internet]. Version 06JUL2000. Fargo, ND: 

Tri-College Center for Environmental Studies. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/ 

birds/bbofnd/biog.htm> 295 p.

Sugden, L.G.; Beyersbergen, G.W. 1984. Farming 

intensity on waterfowl breeding grounds in 

Saskatchewan parklands. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

12:22–6.

Svedarsky, D.; Van Amburg, G. 1996. Integrated 

management of the greater prairie chicken and 

livestock on the Sheyenne National grassland. 

Bismarck, ND: North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department. [Pages unknown].

Swanson, G.A. 1978. A water column sampler for 

invertebrates in shallow wetlands. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 42:670–2.

Swanson, G.A.; Adomaitis, V.A.; Lee, F.B. [et al.] 1984. 

Limnological conditions influencing duckling use of 

saline lakes in south-central, North Dakota. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 48:340–9.

Swanson, G.A.; Krapu, G.L.; Serie, J.R. 1979. Foods 

of laying female dabbling ducks on the breeding 

grounds. In: Bookhout, T.A.; editor. Proceedings 

of a 1977 symposium waterfowl and wetlands—an 

integrated review; [Date of symposium unknown]; 

[Location of symposium unknown]. Madison, WI: 

North-central Section of the Wildlife Society. 47–57.

Tilman, D. 1996. Community invisibility, recruitment 

limitations, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 

78(1):81–92.

Trammell, M.A.; Butler, J.L. 1995. Effects of exotic 

plants on native ungulate use of habitat. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 59:808–16.

Transeau, E. 1935. The prairie peninsula. Ecology 

16(3):423–7.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Interior 

population of the least tern recovery plan. [Location 

of publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown].

———. 1994a. Draft revised recovery plan for piping 

plovers breeding on the Great Lakes and northern 

Great Plains of the U.S. [Location of publisher 

unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown].

———. 1994b. Whooping crane recovery plan. [Location 

of publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown].

———. 1996. Western prairie fringed orchid 

(Plantanthera praeclara) recovery plan. [Location 

of publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 101 p.

———. 1999a. Fulfilling the promise. Arlington, VA: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 94 p.

———. 1999b. National strategy for management of 

invasive species, WH-7. In: Fulfilling the promise. 

Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 94 p.

———. 2001. 2000–2001 contingency plan: federal–

state cooperative protection of whooping cranes 

[unpublished report]. On file at U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in Albuquerque, NM. 42 p.

———. 2002. Status assessment and conservation 

guidelines, Dakota skipper. [Location of publisher 

unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown].

———. 2004. Chronic wasting disease plan for U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service lands in the Dakotas 

[unpublished report]. [Location where on file 

unknown]. 17 p.

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Ecoregions 

of North Dakota and South Dakota. [Internet]. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.

gov/resource/habitat/ndsdeco/ecotext.htm> [Date 

accessed unknown].

———. 2007. Wetlands of North Dakota. [Internet]. 

Water Science Center. <http://nd.water.usgs.gov/

wetlands/index.html> [accessed March 2007].

[NABCI] U.S. North American Bird Conservation 

Initiative Committee. 2007. Bird conservation 

region 11. [Internet]. <http://www.nabci-us.org/

bcr11.html> [Date accessed unknown].

Vallentine, J.F. 1990. Grazing management. New 

York: Academic Press. [Pages unknown].

Vogl, R.J. 1974. Effect of fire on grasslands. In: 

Kozlowski, T.T.; Ahlgren, C.E.; editors. Fire and 

ecosystems. New York: Academic Press. [Pages 

unknown].

Voigts, D.K. 1976. Aquatic invertebrates abundance 

in relation to changing marsh vegetation. American 

Midland Naturalist 95:313–22.

Watson, A.K. 1985. Introduction: the leafy spurge 

problem. In: Watson, A.K.; editor. Leafy spurge. 

Weed Science Society of America Monograph 3:1–6.

Weaver, J.E. 1954. North American prairie. Lincoln, 

NE: Johnsen Publishing Company. [Pages unknown].

Weaver, J.E.; Albertson, F.W. 1936. Effects of the 

great drought on the prairies of Iowa, Nebraska 

and Kansas. Ecology 17(4):567–639.

Weaver, J.E.; Albertson, F.W. 1956. Grasslands of the 

Great Plains: their nature and use. Lincoln, NE: 

Johnsen Publishing Company. [Pages unknown].

Weller, M.W.; Spatcher, C.S. 1965. Role of habitat in 

the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. 

Department of Zoology and Entomology Special 

Report Number 43. Ames, IA: Iowa State University, 
172 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges

Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment 

Station. [Pages unknown].

Williams, M.A.; Crawford, R.D. 1989. Use of earthen 

islands by nesting ducks in North Dakota. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 53:411–7.

Wilson, S.D.; Belcher, J.W. 1989. Plant and bird 

communities of native prairie and introduced 

Eurasian vegetation in Manitoba, Canada. 

Conservation Biology 3(1):39–44.

Winter, M.; Johnson, D.H.; Faaborg, J. 1999. Patterns 

of area sensitivity in grassland nesting birds. 

Conservation Biology 13:1424–36.

Winter, M.; Johnson, D.H.; Faaborg, J. 2000. Evidence 

for edge effects on multiple levels: artificial nests, 

natural nests, and distribution of nest predators 

in Missouri tallgrass prairie fragments. Condor 

102:256–66.

Witmer, G.W.; Bucknall, J.L.; Fritts, T.H.; Moreno, D.G. 

1996. Predator management to protect endangered 

avian species. In: Transactions of the North American 

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference; [Date 

of conference unknown]; [Location of conference 

unknown]. [Location of publisher unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 61:102–8.

Wollheim, W.M.; Lovvorn, J.R. 1996. Effects of 

macrophyte growth forms on invertebrates 

communities in saline lakes of the Wyoming High 

Plains. Hydrobiolgia 323:83–96.

Wyoming Partners in Flight. 2002. Growing grassland 

birds: best management practices for grasslands to 

benefit birds in Wyoming. Lander, WY: Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department. [Pages unknown].

Zimmer, J.M. 1996. Effects of predator reduction on the 

survival and movements of northern shoveler broods 

[master’s thesis]. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State 

University. [Pages unknown].