U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Big Stone

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive

Conservation Plan
The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with 

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

habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.

The 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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for 

management decisions; set forth goals, objectives and strategies needed 

to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and Wildlife 

Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program 

planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget 

allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and 

program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a 

commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance 

increases, or funding for future land acquisition.

(This page intentionally left blank)
Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

Big Stone

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ................................................................... 1

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

Brief History of Refuge Establishment and Acquisition .............................................. 3

Purpose of and Need for the Plan.............................................................................. 5

Refuge Purposes.................................................................................................. 5

Refuge Vision ....................................................................................................... 6

National Wildlife Refuge System .......................................................................... 6

Ecological Integrity ............................................................................................... 7

National Wilderness Preservation System............................................................ 7

Legal, Policy, and Administrative Guidelines........................................................ 8

Goals and Objectives for other Landscape Level Plans ....................................... 8

Plains and Prairie Potholes Landscape Conservation Cooperative ................ 8

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives............................................................ 9

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities........................................ 10

Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy................................................. 10

Existing Partnerships .................................................................................... 10

Other Recreation and Conservation Lands in the Area ...................................... 11

Fish and Wildlife Areas ................................................................................. 11

Other Recreation and Conservation Lands ................................................... 11

Chapter 2: The Planning Process .............................................................................. 13

Overview of the Planning Process ........................................................................... 13

1 – Pre-planning: Plan the Plan.......................................................................... 13

2 – Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping ....................................................... 13

3 – Review Vision Statement and Goals, and Determine Significant Issues ...... 14

Planning Issues............................................................................................. 14

Other Issues Considered............................................................................... 16

4 – Develop and Analyze Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action............... 17

5 – Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA Document..................................................... 18

6 – Prepare and Adopt Final Plan....................................................................... 18

7 – Implement Plan, Monitor, and Evaluate........................................................ 18

8 – Review and Revise Plan............................................................................... 18

Wilderness Review .................................................................................................. 18

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management .................................................. 19

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 19

Ecosystem Setting ................................................................................................... 19

Historic Vegetation and Processes..................................................................... 20
Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

Physical Environment .............................................................................................. 22

Geology .............................................................................................................. 22

Climate ............................................................................................................... 23

Climate Change ............................................................................................ 24

Soils.................................................................................................................... 29

Hydrology and Water Quality.............................................................................. 29

Biological Environment ............................................................................................ 32

Wetlands ............................................................................................................ 32

Grasslands ......................................................................................................... 33

Wet Meadow ................................................................................................. 33

Remnant Prairie ............................................................................................ 35

Restored Grasslands .................................................................................... 35

Partially Restored Grasslands....................................................................... 37

Non-native Grasslands.................................................................................. 37

Cropland........................................................................................................ 37

Granite Outcrops ................................................................................................ 37

Forests and Shrubs ............................................................................................ 37

Birds ................................................................................................................... 38

Waterfowl and Waterbirds............................................................................. 38

Shorebirds..................................................................................................... 39

Landbirds ...................................................................................................... 39

Fish and Other Aquatic Species ......................................................................... 40

Butterflies ........................................................................................................... 40

Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................ 40

Threatened and Endangered Flora ............................................................... 40

Threatened and Endangered Fauna ............................................................. 41

Invasive and Nuisance Species.......................................................................... 41

Mammals............................................................................................................ 42

Amphibians and Reptiles.................................................................................... 42

Socioeconomic Environment ................................................................................... 42

Socioeconomic Setting....................................................................................... 42

Population ..................................................................................................... 43

Employment .................................................................................................. 43

Income and Education .................................................................................. 43

Demand and Supply for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation .................................... 43

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation........................................................................... 44

Hunting.......................................................................................................... 44

Fishing........................................................................................................... 46

Wildlife Observation and Photography .......................................................... 46

Interpretation................................................................................................. 46

Environmental Education .............................................................................. 47

Other Recreation ................................................................................................ 47

Canoeing and Kayaking ................................................................................ 47

Administrative Facilities ...................................................................................... 47

Volunteers .......................................................................................................... 47

Archeological and Cultural Values...................................................................... 47
Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

Cultural Resource Management......................................................................... 48

Chapter 4: Management Direction ............................................................................. 50

Goals, Objectives, Rationale, and Strategies........................................................... 50

Habitat Goal........................................................................................................ 50

Objective 1-1 Riverine Habitat....................................................................... 50

Objective 1-2 Water Quality .......................................................................... 51

Objective 1-3 Riparian Habitats..................................................................... 51

Objective 1-4 Shallow Lake Habitat (impoundments).................................... 52

Objective 1-5 Wetland Natural Depression ................................................... 53

Objective 1-6 Remnant Prairie (dry, mesic, and wet).................................... 53

Objective 1-7 Restored Grassland (native grasses and forbs of local 

ecotypes)....................................................................................................... 54

Objective 1-8 Partially Restored Grassland (native grasses of local ecotypes)

...................................................................................................................... 55

Objective 1-9 Non-native Grassland ............................................................. 55

Objective 1-10 Rock Outcrop ........................................................................ 56

Wildlife Goal ....................................................................................................... 58

Objective 2-1: Mallard Production ................................................................. 58

Objective 2-2: Bobolink Production ............................................................... 59

People Goal........................................................................................................ 60

Objective 3-1: Wildlife Observation and Photography ................................... 61

Objective 3-2: Environmental Education and Interpretation .......................... 61

Objective 3-3 Hunting.................................................................................... 62

Objective 3-4 Fishing .................................................................................... 62

Objective 3-5 Community Support and Outreach.......................................... 63

Objective 3-6 Welcoming and Orienting Visitors ........................................... 64

Potential Strategy.......................................................................................... 64

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ................................................................................ 65

New and Existing Projects ....................................................................................... 65

Staffing..................................................................................................................... 65

Partnership Opportunities ........................................................................................ 66

Step-Down Management Plans ............................................................................... 66

Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................................................... 66

Plan Review and Revision ....................................................................................... 66

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact ......................................................... 68

Appendix B: Glossary................................................................................................. 69

Appendix C: Species Lists ......................................................................................... 79

Big Stone NWR Bird Checklist................................................................................. 79

Big Stone NWR Butterflies....................................................................................... 89

Big Stone NWR Fish Species .................................................................................. 90

Big Stone NWR Mammal Species ........................................................................... 91

Big Stone NWR Plants............................................................................................. 92

Big Stone NWR Reptiles and Amphibians ............................................................... 97

Appendix D: Focal Species ........................................................................................ 98

Appendix E: Literature Cited.................................................................................... 106

Appendix F: Priority Projects................................................................................... 111
Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

Appendix G: Compliance Requirements................................................................. 112

Appendix H: Mailing List .......................................................................................... 125

Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations .............................................................. 127

Appendix J: Appropriate Use Determinations........................................................ 186

Appendix K: List of Preparers and Contributors.................................................... 195

Appendix L: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA.......... 196
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

In this chapter:

Introduction

Brief History of Refuge Establishment and Acquisition

Purpose of and Need for the Plan

Introduction

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) will guide the administration and management 

of Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge) for the next 15 years. Comprehensive 

conservation plans are completed to ensure that refuges are managed in accordance with their 

purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge 

System), which is part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service). 

The Refuge is located along the Minnesota River in west-central Minnesota near Odessa and 

Ortonville and includes portions of the river and its floodplain (figure 1-1). Present Refuge 

management is focused on maintaining and restoring native prairie, wetland management, and 

providing a variety of wildlife-dependent recreation.

A unique visual and geological feature of the Refuge is the lichen covered granite outcrops for 

which the Refuge was named. Most of the granite outcrops are highly visible from the entrance 

to and along the Auto Tour Route near Ortonville, MN. Another unique feature is the ball cactus. 

The only known population of this cactus in Minnesota is located in the Minnesota River Valley 

of Big Stone and Lac qui Parle Counties. Big Stone NWR is primarily a grassland system with 

an interesting prairie-floodplain woodland transition. Riparian woodlands dominate along the 

Minnesota River corridor within the northwest portion of the Refuge as well as along the Yellow 

Bank River corridor, with scattered trees found in prairie coulees and surrounding wetlands. 

Beyond the river corridor, upland prairie is the dominant habitat.

Refuge staff members also oversee land acquisition and management of the Big Stone Wetland 

Management District (WMD). WMDs are areas where the Service places increased attention on 

the conservation and restoration of small wetlands important to migratory birds. The Big Stone 

WMD encompasses Lyon and Lincoln 

Counties. The Refuge works with 

landowners within the WMD boundary 

to conserve or restore small wetlands 

and their surrounding uplands. These 

sites, widely distributed throughout the 

WMD, are called Waterfowl Production 

Areas (WPAs). The Service maintains 

WPAs in perpetuity through fee title 

acquisition and the purchase of

easements where the land is protected 

but stays in private ownership. Although 

managed by the same staff, Big Stone 

WMD and Big Stone NWR are distinct 

units of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Lichen covered granite and ball cactus
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2

Figure 1-1: Location of Big Stone NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3

The CCP for Big Stone WMD was completed in 2003 and is available online at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Planning/. 

The Big Stone NWR Project Leader is also responsible for the coordination of the Northern 

Tallgrass Prairie NWR, which was established in 2000 with the goal of one day preserving 

77,000 acres of native prairie and buffer lands at widespread locations within the historic range 

of the northern tallgrass region of Minnesota and northwest Iowa.

Brief History of Refuge Establishment and Acquisition

Big Stone NWR was officially established May 21, 1975 when 10,540 acres of land purchased 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) were transferred to the Service. The USACE 

acquired the lands as part of the Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River Project authorized by the 

Flood Control Act of 1965. The purposes of the project were: to reduce sedimentation in Big 

Stone Lake by redirecting the Whetstone River into the Minnesota River, to provide flood control 

for lands downstream, and to provide habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. The project 

included construction of the Highway 75 Dam, which the USACE completed in 1974. Originally, 

the intent was to have the Service manage the lands under a cooperative agreement, but the 

agreement was never finalized, and the lands were transferred to the Service, except for lands 

that hold the dam and related water control structures. The approved boundary for the Refuge 

encompasses 14,728 acres, of which 11,585 acres are currently acquired. (figure 1-2).

The original Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River project was undertaken by the State of Minnesota 

in the mid-1930s primarily as a measure to restore Big Stone Lake levels, which had receded 

because of drought. A water control structure was constructed just downstream of the outlet of 

the lake. In addition, the Whetstone River was diverted into Big Stone Lake to assist in 

maintaining the lake level. The original Whetstone River channel joined the Minnesota River 

about two miles downstream of the lake. The project was also planned to serve as flood control 

by storing surplus floodwaters in the lake and discharging regulated flows from the lake after 

flood conditions had subsided. However the State of Minnesota was unable to acquire 

necessary flowage rights on Big Stone Lake and was required to pay claims for damages 

brought about by the storage of flood flows in the lake. In 1947 the State stopped any attempts 

to regulate levels on Big Stone Lake. Local interests then claimed that the Big Stone LakeWhetstone project had resulted in acceleration of silt deposition in the lower end of Big Stone 

Lake and with no operation of the stoplog control structure, still caused undesirably high lake 

levels without adequately providing for maintenance of lake levels during drought periods. 

To alleviate this problem, the USACE was asked to conduct an investigation that verified the 

existence of several flood and related problems on Big Stone Lake and in the immediate vicinity. 

These problems included unsatisfactory fluctuations of water levels and excessive silting in the 

Big Stone Lake, both attributable to the diversion of the Whetstone River in the lake; and they 

included flooding in the Minnesota River Valley in the reach immediately below the lake, which 

was aggravated by prolonged periods of high discharges from the lake. 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

Figure 1-2: Aerial View of Big Stone NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5

Many plans were discussed to solve the problem. The plan selected included a new reservoir 

located immediately upstream of U.S. Highway 75 combined with modifying the Big Stone Lake 

outlet structure. Modifications included the replacement of the stoplog structure with a gated 

spillway, raising the silt barrier by one foot, channel improvements on the Minnesota River 

below the outlet structure, and constructing erosion control works on the Whetstone River. The 

dam would create a water storage area capable of holding runoff from the Minnesota River and 

thus, provide flood protection to lands further downstream. It would also help alleviate the 

siltation and pollution problems in the lake by allowing some of the runoff to go directly into the 

storage area. 

Purpose of and Need for the Plan

The purpose of the plan is to describe the desired future conditions of the Refuge and to provide 

guidance and management direction for a 15-year period for the conservation of fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their related habitats, while providing opportunities for compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses, which are defined as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, and environmental education and interpretation (FWS, 2000). The plan is 

needed to provide long-term management direction for the Refuge, to address management 

issues and opportunities, and to satisfy the legislative mandate of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, which requires the preparation of a CCP for each national 

wildlife refuge. The CCP also helps: 

• achieve Refuge purposes and the Refuge vision; 

• fulfill the Refuge System mission;

• maintain and where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of the Refuge; 

• achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), and

• meet other mandates including the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretarial 

Orders 3289 and 3226, which direct all DOI agencies to consider and analyze potential 

climate change impacts as part of any long-range planning effort.

The following sections expand on each of these items.

Refuge Purposes

Big Stone NWR is part of a national network of lands administered by the Service as the Refuge 

System. Each unit of the Refuge System has one or more purposes specified in or derived from 

the legal instrument that established, authorized, or expanded it. Our first obligation is to fulfill 

and carry out the purposes of each refuge (FWS, 2006). Big Stone NWR gets it purposes from 

five different legal authorities that collectively provide broad direction regarding conservation of 

fish and wildlife and their habitats with specific mention of migratory birds. The specific purposes 

follow:

. . . shall be administered by him [Secretary of Interior] directly or in accordance with 

cooperative agreements . . . and in accordance with such rules and regulations for the 

conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat 

thereon, . . . 6 16 U.S.C. l:l 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

. . . suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . . 6 16 U.S.C. l:l 460k-1 0 . . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . 

property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors . . . 6 16 U.S.C. l:l 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. l:l 

460k-460k-4), as amended)

. . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties 

and conventions . . . 6 16 U.S.C. l:l 3901 (b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act of 1986)

. . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . . 6 16 U.S.C. l:l 742f(a)(4) 0 . . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the 

terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude . . . 6 16 U.S.C. l:l 

742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds . 

. . 6 16 U.S.C. l:l 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

Refuge Vision

As part of the comprehensive conservation planning process the Refuge staff crafted a vision 

statement. The vision focuses on what will be different in the future and captures the essence of 

what we are trying to do and why.

The Refuge is a rich mosaic of native grasses and wildflowers, prairie wetlands, granite 

outcrops, and wooded river bottoms where wildlife abounds and visitors experience and 

treasure native tallgrass prairie heritage.

National Wildlife Refuge System

The Refuge System is a network of lands and waters established to conserve America's fish, 

wildlife and plants. The Refuge System is part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the primary 

federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the nation’s fish and 

wildlife populations and their habitats. In addition to managing the Refuge System, the Service 

oversees the enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management and protection of migratory bird 

populations, restoration of nationally significant fisheries, administration of the Endangered 

Species Act, and the restoration of wildlife habitat such as wetlands.

The mission of the 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 goals of the Refuge System are:

• Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that 

are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

7

• Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and 

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed 

and carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their 

ranges.

• Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or 

underrepresented in existing protection efforts.

• Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation).

• Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of 

fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

Ecological Integrity

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 directs the Service to ensure 

that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained for 

the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. In response to this direction, the 

Service, through a public process, developed policy that provides more specific guidance on the 

maintenance of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health—collectively referred to 

as ecological integrity. The policy contains a process to evaluate each refuge and identify the 

best management direction to prevent degradation of environmental conditions; and where 

appropriate and in concert with refuge purposes and the Refuge System mission, restore lost or 

severely degraded components of ecological integrity as compared to those found under historic 

conditions (see definitions below).

The complete policy is available at http://www.fws.gov/policy/601fw3.html.

Biological Integrity—Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and community 

levels comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape genomes, 

organisms, and communities. 

Biological Diversity—The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the 

genetic differences among them, and communities and ecosystems in which they occur. 

Environmental Health—Composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic 

features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

environment. 

Historic Conditions—Composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems resulting from natural 

processes that we believe, based on sound professional judgment, were present prior to substantial 

human-related changes to the landscape. 

National Wilderness Preservation System

NWPS is the network of federally owned areas designated by Congress as wilderness and 

managed by one of four federal agencies: the Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

National Park Service, or the U.S. Forest Service. The NWPS includes over 600 areas and 

more than 105 million acres. The Refuge System includes over 20 million acres of wilderness in 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

more than 60 refuges. Lands within the NWPS are devoted to the public purposes of 

recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use and are 

administered in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as 

wilderness.

Legal, Policy, and Administrative Guidelines

Laws, Executive Orders, and DOI and Service policies guide administration of refuges. A list of 

pertinent statutes and policy guidance can be found in Appendix G: Compliance Requirements.

Goals and Objectives for other Landscape Level Plans

Plains and Prairie Potholes Landscape Conservation Cooperative

The Service, with support and cooperation from the U.S. Geological Survey, has developed a 

national geographic framework for “putting science in the right places” to conserve our nation’s 

fish and wildlife resources. Just as flyways provided an effective spatial frame of reference to 

build capacity and partnerships for international, national, state, and local waterfowl 

conservation, the national geographic framework provides a continental platform upon which the 

Service can work with state and other partners to connect project- and site-specific efforts to 

larger biological goals and outcomes. By providing visual context for conservation at 

“landscape” scales—the entire range of a priority species or suite of species—the framework 

helps ensure that resource managers have the information and decisionmaking tools they need 

to conserve fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats in the most efficient and effective way 

possible.

The Service is using the framework as a basis for locating Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives (LCCs). Facilitated by the DOI as part of its collaborative, science-based response 

to climate change, LCCs complement and build upon existing science and conservation 

efforts—such as fish habitat partnerships and migratory bird joint ventures—as well as water 

resources, land, and cultural partnerships. Big Stone NWR is within the boundary of the Plains 

and Prairie Potholes LCC, which is one of a network of partnerships working in unison to ensure 

the sustainability of America’s land, water, wildlife, and cultural resources.

The Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC is dedicated to the conservation of a landscape 

unparalleled in importance to a vast array of unique species whose populations are in steep 

decline. The LCC boundary transcends existing Service regional boundaries and the 

international border with Canada (figure 1-3) Currently, the Service and our partners are 

working to develop and apply the scientific tools necessary to determine how climate change—

coupled with existing stressors such as the conversion of native prairie for agricultural 

purposes—may affect the health and productivity of shared natural resources in this landscape. 

The actions of the Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC will support and supplement state Wildlife 

Action Plans and enhance protection for fish and wildlife resources in the region.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

9

Figure 1-3: Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

Several migratory bird conservation plans have been published over the last decade that can be 

used to help guide management decisions on refuges. Bird conservation planning efforts have 

evolved from a largely local, site-based orientation to a more regional, even inter-continental, 

landscape-oriented perspective. Several transnational migratory bird conservation initiatives 

have emerged to help guide the planning and implementation process. Each of the bird 

conservation initiatives has a process for 

designating priority species, modeled to 

a large extent on the Partners in Flight 

method of computing scores based on 

independent assessments of global 

relative abundance, breeding and 

wintering distribution, vulnerability to 

threats, area importance, and population 

trends. These scores are often used by 

agencies in developing lists of priority 

bird species. The Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture implementation plan draws on 

the information from the larger 

conservation initiatives and contains 

direction relevant to Big Stone NWR. Waterfowl in flight
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities

Every species is important; however, the number of species in need of attention exceeds the 

resources of the Service. To focus effort effectively, Region 3 (Midwest Region) of the Service 

compiled a list of Resource Conservation Priorities. The list includes: 

• All federally listed threatened and endangered species and proposed and candidate 

species that occur in the Region.

• Migratory bird species derived from Service-wide and international conservation 

planning efforts. 

• Rare and declining terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals that represent an 

abbreviation of the Endangered Species program’s preliminary draft “Species of 

Concern” list for the Region. 

Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy

In 2005, Minnesota completed the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, a strategic 

plan to better manage populations of “species in greatest conservation need” in Minnesota. The 

plan was developed with the support of funding from the State Wildlife Grant Program created 

by Congress in 2001. The heart of the strategic plan is for a partnership of conservation 

organizations across Minnesota to work together to sustain the populations of the identified 

species. Members of the partnership include the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 

the Service, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Minnesota, and the University of Minnesota, as 

well as many other agencies and conservation organizations. The plan outlines priority 

conservation actions that might be undertaken by partners.

Existing Partnerships

Working with others via intra- and interagency partnerships is important in accomplishing the 

mission of the Service as well as assisting the Refuge in meeting its objectives. Partnerships 

with other federal and state agencies and with a diversity of other public and private 

organizations are increasingly important. Other agencies can provide invaluable assistance in 

research and maintenance. Private groups and non-profit organizations greatly enhance public 

involvement in the Refuge, building enthusiasm and support for its mission.

Besides the partnerships that the Service holds on a national level, the Refuge maintains 

informal partnerships with several organizations:

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• Natural Resources Conservation Service

• Ducks Unlimited

• Upper Minnesota River Watershed District

• Pheasants Forever

• The Nature Conservancy
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

11

Other Recreation and Conservation Lands in the Area

Fish and Wildlife Areas

Big Stone NWR serves essentially as a “hub” within a dynamic four-county area including Big 

Stone and Lac qui Parle Counties in Minnesota and Grant and Robert Counties in South Dakota 

(figure 1-4). This four-county area has an abundance of state- and federal-owned and managed 

natural resource lands, most being opened to the public and provide hunting and other wildlifeoriented recreational opportunities. All areas combined complement each other in terms of 

waterfowl production and migration needs as well as providing a wide variety of recreational 

opportunities, within a variety of different habitats, and all within reasonable travel distances 

from each other.

Within the two Minnesota counties there are 84 state-owned Wildlife Management Areas 

containing 14,366 acres and 76 Federal Waterfowl Production Areas containing 15,811 acres. 

Most notable is the Lac qui Parle Wildlife Management Area complex managed by the MN DNR, 

which contains 24,274 acres of additional fish and wildlife habitat most of which is open to the 

public. This WMA is directly downstream of the Refuge and includes Marsh Lake and Lac qui 

Parle Lake.

In the two adjoining South Dakota counties, there are 41 state-managed Game Production 

Areas containing 7675 acres and 52 Federal Waterfowl Production Areas containing 10,425 

acres of wildlife habitat open to the public.

Other Recreation and Conservation Lands

In addition to wildlife-oriented recreational areas there are several state parks within this fourcounty area (figure 1-4). They include: Lac qui Parle State Park and Big Stone State Park in 

Minnesota and Hartford Beach State Park in South Dakota. They all offer camping facilities, 

swimming, hiking trails, historic and prehistoric points of interest, and wildlife observation 

opportunities. 

A fourth park known as Big Island is a 100 acre undeveloped island in Big Stone Lake within 

South Dakota. There are no facilities available there, and it is accessible only by boat. Hiking, 

fishing and wildlife observation opportunities exist there.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

Figure 1-4 Conservation Lands in the Area of Big Stone NWR
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

13

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

In this chapter:

Overview of the Planning Process

Wilderness Review

This chapter describes key points in planning, public involvement, issues, and opportunities 

identified for Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge), the publication of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA), and the public 

review and comment period for the Draft CCP and EA. Note that steps 7 (Implement Plan, 

Monitor, and Evaluate) and 8 (Review and Revise Plan) are listed in this chapter, but the details 

for each are provided in chapter 5.

Overview of the Planning Process

Below is a brief overview of each of the eight steps of the comprehensive conservation planning 

process as they played out for Big Stone NWR.

1 – Pre-planning: Plan the Plan

The Refuge began pre-planning for the CCP in 2008. At an October 2008 meeting Regional 

Office planners and Refuge staff met to discuss likely planning issues, data needs, and to 

develop a draft version of the Refuge vision and goals for public review. We formed a planning 

team comprised of Refuge staff, Regional Office planning staff, representatives from other 

programs within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service), and representatives from the 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). We also assembled and organized 

Geographic Information System (GIS) data.

2 – Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping

In December 2008 scoping and public involvement officially began. Scoping is a term used in 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to describe the process for determining the scope 

of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action, 

in this case developing a CCP for the Refuge. In late January 2009, the planning team met with 

invited representatives from the Service and the Minnesota DNR to discuss Refuge 

management concerns and opportunities. In February 2009, the Refuge held an open house 

meeting to collect public input. The sequence of scoping events and other planning milestones 

are summarized in table 2-1; additional scoping information is included in the planning record.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

Table 2-1: Summary of Scoping and Planning Events

Date Event

October 7, 2008 The planning team held a meeting with Refuge staff to kick off the CCP process and 

collect comments on known issues and opportunities and develop a draft version of 

the Refuge vision and goals.

December 17, 

2008

A Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP was published in the Federal Register marking 

the official start of the scoping process.

December 30, 

2008

An invitation letter was sent to local elected officials inviting them to attend a 

January open house meeting.

December 31, 

2008

A news release was sent to eight local media outlets announcing the date, time, and 

location of an open house to gather public comments.

January 8, 2009 The website for the Refuge CCP planning effort, with planning information such as 

the date and location of the scoping meeting and online comment submission, was 

made available.

January 13, 

2009

An open house meeting scheduled for this date was postponed because of 

inclement weather.

January 27-29, 

2009

The planning team met with invited representatives from the Service and Minnesota

DNR to discuss Refuge management concerns and opportunities.

February 24, 

2009

An open house meeting was held at Odessa City Hall from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

attended by about 25 people who submitted 15 response sheets collectively 

containing dozens of comments.

March 19, 2009 The planning team held a meeting in the Midwest Regional Office at Fort Snelling, 

MN to collect additional comments from regional staff on issues and opportunities 

associated with the Refuge.

December 1–3, 

2009

The planning team met to develop alternatives.

May 9, 2012 The Draft CCP and EA is made available for public comment

May 23, 2012 An open house meeting was held at Odessa City Hall from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

attended by about 10 people.

June 8, 2012 Close of the comment period on the Draft CCP and EA.

3 – Review Vision Statement and Goals, and Determine Significant 

Issues

The Refuge vision is presented in chapter 1 and the Refuge goals are included in chapter 3. We 

determined significant issues by grouping and summarizing the comments received from the 

public as well as by Service and Minnesota DNR staff into nine planning issues that describe 

problems or opportunities associated with the Refuge. Two of the nine issues were not 

considered in detail. A summary of each issue and an explanation for the two not addressed in 

detail follows. 

Planning Issues

An issue is any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, such as an initiative, 

opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition. Issues arise from both 

within and outside of the Service. Public scoping as well as scoping of Refuge and Region 

Service staff and other agencies produced nine issues, with seven presented immediately below 

and two more detailed later in this chapter under “Other Issues Considered.”
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

15

Minnesota River Channel Flow

The course of the Minnesota River within the Refuge changed in 1985. That year marked the 

completion of a diversion channel built to serve as an additional water pathway during high 

flows. The diversion channel never worked as intended. Instead of handling excess water during 

high flows, it shifted the course of the Minnesota River, displacing five miles of meandering river 

with less than a mile of straight channel. The redirected flow increased water supply and 

sediment deposition and decreased the quality of waters in Refuge wetlands. Cattails flourished 

atop accumulated sediment. The expanding cattail mats further slowed waterflow leading to yet 

more sedimentation. This ongoing process continues to cause water to spread out and move as 

sheet flow overland instead of within a defined channel. Combined with poor drainage, this 

hampers water level management of West Pool impoundment, which in turn affects the amount 

and quality of habitat available to migratory birds.

Refuge Integrity

Some activities beyond the Refuge boundary affect the ecological integrity and aesthetic 

qualities within the Refuge boundary. Land use and activity on lands adjacent to the Refuge, 

within the Upper Minnesota River Watershed and beyond, affect the water, air, and solitude 

within the Refuge. The Service is also emphasizing the conservation challenge posed by global 

climate change. The local consequences of global climate change are uncertain but could 

profoundly impact Refuge resources.

Abandoned Quarries

Abandoned quarries on the Refuge offer potential recreation opportunities and hazards. There 

are three abandoned quarries, now filled with water, within the Refuge boundary. In the past, 

access was permitted at the three quarry sites. Access was discontinued and the sites fenced 

because of the hazards posed by cables, metal plates, and other remnants left behind from the 

quarry operation.

Invasive and/or Nuisance Species

Certain plants and animals increase in number or extent to the point that they diminish species 

diversity, often displacing other species of greater conservation concern. Whether native to the 

local area—such as cattails, or non-native—such as common carp or reed canarygrass, all are 

prone to dominate and alter habitats in a way that adversely affects the ability of the Refuge to 

meet its management objectives.

Maintenance

The amount of maintenance associated with Refuge habitats and facilities exceeds existing 

workforce capacity. Roads, dikes, water control structures, administrative buildings, and public 

access facilities on the Refuge and within the Big Stone Wetland Management District are 

maintained by Refuge staff. In the past, two workers, one full-time and one half-time, were 

devoted to these duties. Today the Refuge has only one full-time maintenance worker position.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

Law Enforcement

The Refuge System is guided by a policy of wildlife first, but it also encourages providing 

wildlife-dependent recreation at suitable levels. Refuge regulations set the boundaries for visitor 

activities, and enforcing those regulations plays an important role in helping the Refuge fulfill its 

purposes as well as the mission of the agency. Formerly, enforcement duties were carried out 

by Refuge staff with training and collateral responsibilities in law enforcement. The Service now 

relies on fewer full-time law enforcement officers that provide services to one or more Refuge 

System units. Currently, under this model, the Refuge has less onsite law enforcement 

presence than in the past.

Visitor Services

Demand for visitor services, facilities, and information exceeds existing supply and/or the 

capacity of existing staff and budgets. Annual visitation is estimated at approximately 30,000, 

and the Refuge currently offers opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, hunting, 

fishing, environmental education, and interpretation. There is interest in increasing or enhancing 

existing opportunities as well as for offering new opportunities. Most often this is expressed as 

requests for additional services or facilities. The cumulative effect of these actions must be 

balanced against the wildlife first policy of the Refuge System.

Other Issues Considered

The public identified some additional issues and concerns during scoping. The planning team 

considered these issues but did not address them in detail. The issues along with explanations 

of why they were not addressed in detail are described below. 

Wildlife Abundance and Visibility

Some Refuge visitors who drive the Auto Tour Route report seeing less wildlife than in past 

years, especially deer, and attribute this to various causes including inadequate food resources 

or high coyote numbers. Some support planting more crops to provide food for wildlife while 

others believe coyote numbers should be reduced on the Refuge through hunting and trapping. 

Explanation

The planning team considered this issue but chose not to include a specific response within the 

range of alternatives, because the abundance of white-tailed deer, coyotes, and other 

commonly viewed wildlife occur on the Refuge within expected levels. Wildlife abundance is 

closely correlated with habitat quality. The alternatives do address management of Refuge 

habitats.

Wildlife food sources vary seasonally and annually in response to a number of factors. Many 

who enjoy viewing white-tailed deer and other wildlife are alarmed when these animals are not 

concentrated and easily visible. Native habitats, like those on the Refuge, offer a variety of 

widely available food sources that both sustain wildlife and distribute it, making it less visible. 

Crops and food plots do attract deer and other wildlife making them more visible. But cropland is 

not native habitat, it requires intensive management, and it has less value to many wildlife 

species, including those in decline such as grassland birds. A greater number of wildlife species 

benefit from native habitat, especially habitats that are scarce such as prairie and wetlands. 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

17

However, cropping is used on the Refuge as an initial stage in grassland restoration, and a 

portion of the Refuge is likely to be in cropland for years to come as part of such restoration.

Coyotes do occur on the Refuge but not in high numbers. Although coyotes may occasionally 

prey upon white-tailed deer, deer are not a primary food source. White-tailed deer numbers are 

at or above population goals set by the Minnesota DNR for the management zone where the 

Refuge is located. Also, coyotes prey upon and displace smaller predators, such as red fox, 

which otherwise would occur in higher numbers. Red fox and other small predators commonly 

prey on waterfowl and other birds.

Tree Removal for Habitat Restoration

There is opposition to removing trees as part of habitat restoration. People object to removing 

trees for various reasons including that trees provide cover for hunters, nostalgia associated 

with former homesteads, loss of trees as wildlife habitat, and concern about resource waste if 

the trees are not utilized for other purposes. 

Explanation

The planning team considered this issue but did not include tree retention within the range of 

alternatives, because Service policy calls for maintaining or restoring Refuge habitats to historic 

conditions if doing so does not conflict with Refuge purposes. The Refuge is located in an area 

that was historically prairie with few trees. Through the years people increased the amount of 

trees through plantings and suppression of wildfire. Prairie restoration includes removing many 

of these trees. Leaving trees within prairies and other grasslands diminishes their value to 

grassland-associated wildlife, including some, such as grassland birds, that are declining in 

number.

4 – Develop and Analyze Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

The planning team met in early December 2009 to develop a range of alternatives created to 

address the planning issues and adhere to Refuge management direction. The planning team 

developed five alternatives in addition to the No Action alternative using the following process.

• The team considered the issues, current Refuge management, existing policies and 

guidance, and other information regarding biological resources and visitor services.

• Next, the team identified the aspects of Refuge management associated with each 

issue; that is, the elements of management likely to change in response to the issue.

• For each issue, the team identified a range of potential changes for the associated 

elements of Refuge management.

• The team broke into two groups, each drawing from the range of potential changes, to 

develop two alternatives.

• The two groups reconvened, deliberated, and ultimately developed an additional 

alternative that became the preferred alternative. 

The six alternatives represented different approaches to the protection, restoration, and 

management of the Refuge’s fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources as well as to 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

5 – Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA Document

We submitted the Draft CCP and EA for a 30-day public review from May 9 to June 8, 2012. 

The EA described, compared, and analyzed the six alternatives including the proposed action, 

which is also referred to as the Draft CCP. We notified the public with a notice in the Federal 

Register as well as through local media outlets. We mailed 135 copies of a summary of the 

Draft CCP and EA to individuals, organizations, elected officials, and local, state, and federal 

agencies; mailed copies of the complete document to local libraries; and posted a digital copy 

on the Service’s website. Approximately ten individuals attended an open house meeting held 

during the comment period. We received four written comments about the Draft CCP and EA.

6 – Prepare and Adopt Final Plan

We responded to each of the comments received (see appendix L) and finalized the plan. The 

CCP will guide management on the Refuge over a 15-year period providing general direction for 

managing habitat, wildlife, and visitor services at Big Stone NWR. It will also guide preparation 

of more detailed step-down management plans for specific resource areas.

7 – Implement Plan, Monitor, and Evaluate

See chapter 5.

8 – Review and Revise Plan

See chapter 5.

Wilderness Review

Refuge planning policy mandates that wilderness reviews be conducted through the 

comprehensive conservation planning process (FWS, 2000). The wilderness review process 

consists of three phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. In the inventory phase we look 

at Service-owned lands and waters within the Refuge that are not currently designated 

wilderness and identify those areas that meet the criteria for wilderness established by 

Congress. The criteria are size, naturalness, opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation, 

and supplemental values. Areas that meet the criteria are called Wilderness Study Areas 

(WSAs). In the study phase we develop and evaluate a range of management alternatives for 

the WSAs to determine if they are suitable for recommendation for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. In the recommendation phase we forward the 

suitable recommendations in a Wilderness Study Report that moves from the Director of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the Secretary of the Interior and the President to 

Congress.

No lands within Big Stone NWR meet the criteria for wilderness established by Congress and 

described in Service policy (FWS, 2008). Big Stone NWR does not contain 5,000 contiguous 

acres of roadless, natural lands, nor does the Refuge possess any units of sufficient size to 

make their preservation practicable as wilderness. Refuge lands and waters have been 

substantially altered by humans, especially by agriculture, dam construction, river channel 

modifications, and road building.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

19

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

In this chapter:

Introduction

Ecosystem Setting

Physical Environment

Biological Environment

Socioeconomic Environment

Introduction

The Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge) straddles the Minnesota River near its 

headwaters in west-central Minnesota, encompassing more than 11,500 acres of wetlands and 

grasslands dotted with granite outcrops that give the Refuge its name. Most of the Refuge is 

within Lac Qui Parle County with a little more than 1,000 acres in Big Stone County (see figure 

1-1 in chapter 1). This chapter describes the environmental resources of the Refuge and its 

surrounding ecosystem. 

Ecosystem Setting

An Ecological Classification System was developed by the Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) and the U.S. Forest Service for ecological landscape classification in 

Minnesota following the National Hierarchical Framework for Ecological Units. Four provinces 

(ecoregions) are identified for Minnesota. Provinces are units of land defined using major 

climate zones, native vegetation, and biomes. Big Stone NWR is within the Prairie Parkland 

Province (figure 3-1). The province traverses western Minnesota, extending northwest into 

Manitoba, west into North Dakota and South Dakota; south into Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, 

Oklahoma, and Missouri; and east into Illinois and Indiana. In Minnesota, the province covers 

just over 16 million acres (6.5 million hectares), coinciding with the part of the State historically

dominated by tallgrass prairie. Low winter precipitation, short duration of snow cover, and 

desiccating westerly winds promote severe spring fire seasons that favor grassland over forest 

vegetation. The land surface of the province was heavily influenced by glaciation. Ice sheets 

crossed the province several times during the Wisconsin glaciation. The last lobe of ice, the 

Des Moines Lobe, deposited calcareous drift in the southern part of the province.

The province is divided into two sections (Red River Valley and North Central Glaciated Plains). 

The Red River Valley lies in the north end of the province. The Refuge is in the North Central 

Glaciated Plains section (figure 3-1). The largest portion of this section is a level-to-rolling 

region of calcareous till deposited by the Des Moines Lobe. This region is bisected by the 

deeply incised Minnesota River Valley. The section also contains a highland region known as 

the Prairie Coteau, which flanks the southwestern edge of the Des Moines Lobe in Minnesota, 

South Dakota, and Iowa. The Prairie Coteau is covered with glacial till and loess predating the 

Wisconsin glaciation. Level-to-rolling till plains, moraines, lake plains, and outwash plains cover 

much of the section and supports mainly treeless fire-dependent communities, with upland 

prairie communities by far the most common, covering 82 percent of the section. These 

landforms also support smaller amounts of marsh, wetland prairie, and wet meadow 

communities. Rugged terrain and lands deeply dissected by rivers support a mosaic of prairie 

and wooded communities.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20

Figure 3-1: Ecoregions—North Central Glaciated Plains Section

The North Central Glaciated Plains section is further subdivided into three subsections (Coteau 

Moraines, Inner Coteau, and Minnesota River Prairie). The Refuge is located within the 

Minnesota River Prairie subsection, which consists of a gently rolling ground moraine about 60 

miles wide. Most of this subsection is covered by 100 to 400 feet of glacial drift (Olsen and 

Mossler, 1982). Cretaceous shales, sandstones, and clays are the most common kinds of 

bedrock. The Minnesota River Prairie is drained by the Minnesota River, which splits the 

subsection in half. Smaller rivers and streams eventually empty into the Minnesota River or the 

Upper Iowa River. The subsection drainage network is poorly developed due to thousands of 

wet depressions or potholes that dot the landscape. Wetlands were very common before 

settlement. Most have been drained for cropland.

Historic Vegetation and Processes

The presettlement vegetation was primarily tallgrass prairie, with many islands of wet prairie 

(Kratz and Jensen, 1983; Marschner, 1974). Portions of the Big Stone Moraine supported dry 

and dry-mesic prairie (Wheeler et al., 1992). There were also dry gravel prairies. At the time of 

European settlement, the region was covered with dry mixed-grass and mesic tallgrass prairie. 

Trees were uncommon in the region, but there were narrow river-bottom forests and oak woods 

along the major river valleys and small patches of woodland in fire-protected areas (peninsulas, 

islands, isthmuses) at major lakes like Big Stone Lake and Lake Traverse. Only two wooded 

locations on the lands that now make up Big Stone NWR were identified and mapped during 

1853-1874 (Marschner, 1974). These included a small wooded area near the Refuge 

headquarters and along the Yellow Bank River south of Lac qui Parle County Highway 40. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

21

Grasslands were maintained by periodic drought, fires, and grazing by large herds of herbivores 

such as bison. Fires were ignited by both lightning and Native Americans. Lightning-set fires 

occurred primarily in July and August (Higgins, 1984), while Native American-set fires occurred 

both in the spring and the fall, with peaks in April and October (Higgins, 1986). Native 

Americans used fire for the purposes of hunting, signaling and communicating, threats, 

warnings, warfare, aiding theft, improving pasturage, attracting and herding wild animals, 

enhancing travel, masking and eliminating personal signs at camps and along trails, 

ceremonies, and pleasure (Higgins, 1986). The amount of vegetation available to burn was 

heavily influenced by bison (Higgins, 1986). Umbanhowar (1996) postulates how the elimination 

of bison prior to European settlement resulted in high fuel loadings, which is reflected in the 

peak of microscopic charcoal found in lake sediments dating to the period immediately 

preceding settlement. Regardless of the ignition source and the amount of fuel available, 

numerous personal accounts exist dating from the French exploration period of the late 1600s to 

the settlement era of the late 1800s/early 1900s telling of very frequent or even annual prairie 

fires (Higgins, 1986; Sparrow, 1981; Wulff, 1959; Dale, 1916). The same sources that described

the frequency of the fires also told of the impact the fires had on vegetation composition, 

specifically how frequently occurring fires would prevent the growth of trees in the grassland. 

These forces created mosaics of habitat ranging from heavily disturbed to undisturbed (England 

and DeVos, 1969). 

Innumerable depressions were left 

when the glaciers retreated. These 

wetland basins, called prairie potholes, 

contain water for various lengths of 

time in most years (Stewart and

Kantrud, 1971). The most ephemeral 

wetlands hold spring runoff or summer 

rains for only a few days. At the other 

extreme are lakes, which almost never 

go dry. In between are seasonal 

wetlands, which in a typical year 

contain water from early spring until 

mid-to-late summer, and semipermanent wetlands, which in most 

years are wet throughout the frost-free 

season. Less common are alkali 

wetlands—large, shallow basins with such high alkalinity that salts are blown out when the 

wetland is dry, and where no emergent plants grow when it is wet. Another unusual wetland 

type is the fen, characterized by floating or quaking mats of vegetation caused by groundwater 

seepage. Different wetland types support different kinds of vegetation and, in turn, different 

animal communities (Johnson, 1996). 

Critical to understanding the prairie is recognizing its dynamic nature, particularly as driven by 

recurring droughts. Prairie occurs primarily under semi-arid conditions. Precipitation is generally 

inadequate for growth of most woody vegetation, and the herbaceous vegetation favored fires 

and supported large herds of grazing herbivores, both features that further discouraged woody 

growth. Drought is essential to wetlands as well as uplands. The periodic drying of wetland 

basins facilitates nutrient cycling and results in high productivity when water returns (Murkin, 

1989). 

Aerial view of the region
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

Since settlement much of the grassland habitats have been cultivated for crops. Less than one 

percent of the native tallgrass prairie remains in scattered fragments across the region (Samson 

and Knopf, 1994; Noss et al., 1995). Less mixed-grass prairie has been cultivated for crops. 

This is largely because the terrain is rougher and precipitation is lower and less predictable 

where mixed-grass prairie is found. However, irrigation has in many places rendered lands more 

suitable to cultivation. Corn, soybeans, sunflowers, and potatoes are the dominant crops.

European settlement brought major increases of woodlands. Tree claims were planted to 

protect farmsteads from the ever-present winds, and shelterbelts were established along field 

borders to reduce soil erosion, especially after the drought of the 1930s. Also, inadvertent 

increases of woody vegetation resulted from fire suppression by settlers (McNicholl, 1988). 

Prairie wetlands, likewise, have been altered in a number of ways. Prairie wetlands may have 

fared better than uplands in the early stages of European settlement, but as population density 

increased and drainage techniques were improved and encouraged, many potholes were 

incorporated into the agricultural effort. In general, prairie wetlands were seen as undesirable, 

unproductive wastelands that needed to be reclaimed and improved. In the late 1800s it was still 

believed that wetlands released disease-causing gases, a belief that persisted into the twentieth 

century. Wet prairie regions were desirable for settlement, as they were flat, generally did not 

need to be cleared, and, once drained, could be agriculturally valuable. Drainage of basins to 

facilitate cultivation was very common. Sometimes several small wetlands were drained into a 

larger one, which eliminated the smaller wetlands and altered the hydrology of the receiving 

wetland. The Minnesota DNR estimates that over 90 percent of the wetlands in the prairie have 

been lost since settlement times. Smaller, more temporary wetlands were more susceptible to 

drainage than were the larger, more permanent basins. Since European settlement the 

landscape has become highly altered and fragmented to the detriment of prairie habitats and 

the wildlife populations that depend on them. The prairie wetlands that remain, like the remnant 

prairie grasslands, are tiny islands in a sea of agriculture and are invariably influenced by the 

surrounding land management practices.

Physical Environment

Geology

The upper reaches of the Minnesota River Valley have an interesting geological history. Glacial 

activity was the vector for landform creations in this geographic area.

The last ice age ended about 20,000 years ago, but during its peak, the massive Laurentide ice 

sheet covered over 5 million square miles of North America and stretched from the Arctic 

through eastern Canada to the northern half of the United States. One of the lobes of the ice 

sheet called the Des Moines Lobe blanketed portions of western Minnesota and extended down 

to Des Moines, Iowa. As temperatures warmed, the ice sheet began to melt, and as it receded a 

huge lake was formed, called Lake Agassiz. Lake Agassiz may have been the largest 

freshwater lake to ever have existed. 

When the lake levels rose, Lake Agassiz would overtop the glacial moraine at its south 

boundary and flow southward. Approximately 9,000 years ago, these torrents of water called the 

Glacial River Warren eroded down through the landscape and created the Minnesota River 

Valley. At maximum size and depth, the River Warren was 2 miles wide and 130 feet deep. As 

the river cut down through the landscape three terraces were created. These terraces are better 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

23

developed on the north side of the river valley. As waters receded, sediment dropped out and 

large granite boulders were left behind. The lowest terrace has the most spectacular boulder 

field. Over time water elevations in Lake Agassiz diminished, and the flows were cut off near 

Browns Valley, MN. Only a remnant of this great glacial river remains and is now called the 

Minnesota River. The river valley is 1.5 miles wide on the west end of the Refuge and 4 miles 

wide on the east end.

The extensive erosion also exposed the granite bedrock in several areas. The granite bedrock 

“granite outcrops” in this valley is of Precambrian origin and is estimated to be approximately 

2.7 billion years old. These “crystalline” rocks first formed as igneous rocks from molten magma 

that cooled very slowly deep below the earth’s surface billions of years ago (Grant, 1972). Once 

formed, these early rocks underwent extreme heat and pressure over the next 1 to 1.5 billion 

years, which altered their crystalline structure and transformed them into metamorphic “gneiss 

and biotite” rock (Minnesota County Biological Survey, 2007).

Lichens quickly covered the exposed granite outcrops. Over time thin layers of soil formed on 

portions of the granite outcrops, which created conditions for the establishment of plants. 

However, because of the thin soils (0.5 to 3 inches), only certain types of plants can grow in this 

unique habitat. The vegetation on the outcrops consists of remnant native shortgrass prairie 

plant species.

On both sides of the river valley vast plateaus existed that were reshaped. Thousands of small 

wetlands (prairie potholes) were created as the glaciers receded. The small wetlands were 

highly productive and helped sustain the historic migratory bird populations. 

Climate

The climate in Big Stone and Lac qui 

Parle Counties is temperate and is 

characterized by warm-to-hot summers 

and cold winters. Average annual 

precipitation is 24.08 inches, with 

about 63 percent falling during the 

growing season. The annual average 

snow fall is approximately 40 inches. 

Summer temperatures average 81.6 oF

with occasional highs above 100 oF

(maximum recorded temperature of 

108 oF). Daylight winter temperatures 

average 20 oF with occasional lows 

below -30 oF (minimum recorded 

temperature of -36 oF). Winds average 

about 12 miles per hour but have been 

noted greater than 40 miles per hour in any month of the year. The growing season varies 

annually from 110 days to 140 days. The first killing frosts occur in late September to midOctober, and the soils usually freeze in late November.

Winter on the Refuge
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

Climate Change

The increase of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the earth’s atmosphere 

resulting from the burning of fossil fuels has been linked to the gradual rise in surface 

temperature, commonly referred to as global warming. In addition to rising air and water 

temperatures, there are a number of other effects associated with a changing global climate 

including intense heat waves; shrinking permafrost zones, winter snow cover, sea ice, and 

glaciers; ocean acidification; changing precipitation patterns and associated effects on water 

availability (drought, flooding); a general decrease in open water areas and soil moisture levels; 

increasing fire severity—intensity, extent, and frequency; migrating plant productivity and 

agricultural zones; habitat shifts at all scales from ecosystems and biomes to specific sites; 

dislocation of species as habitat ranges experience shifts, reductions, and/or expansions; 

increasing issues with plant and animal pathogens and pests—both exotic and endemic; and 

more. 

Several examples of potential climate change impacts on wildlife have been identified. The 

following are just a few issues that may require further attention as climate change progresses 

(Green et al., 2000; Schneider and Root, 2002).

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

be reduced.

• Forest distributions and compositions may change, with some species shifting their 

range northward, higher in altitude, or being replaced as other tree species move in to 

take their place.

• Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding habitat due to more severe and frequent 

drought events.

• Changes in the seasonality of life cycle stages such as migration and nesting could put 

some animals out of sync with the life cycles of their prey species.

• Herpetofauna may have trouble meeting the moisture conditions required for 

reproduction and respiration in their local habitats, and they may have difficulty 

dispersing through inhospitable environments. 

• Animal and plant species, including invasive or pest species, shift their ranges north in 

latitude as winter climatic conditions become more moderate and the warm seasons 

lengthen.

The resiliency of natural systems is tied to biodiversity. The diversity of organisms may be one 

of our greatest weapons against climate change; each organism will react and respond 

differently (Scott et al., 2009). Biological communities will not shift or remain intact because of 

the variability in each organism’s sensitivity to climate change, size, mobility, lifespan, and the 

availability of food, shelter, and other resources it requires (Karl, Melillo, and Peterson; 2009). In 

response, we must assess and provide for increased representation and redundancy across 

seasonal, geographic, and ecologic thresholds. Initial prioritization of action should be directed 

to those species for which climate change poses the greatest threat, namely those with limited 

distributions, highly specific ecological niches, and/or limited mobility. These include plants and 

animals that are highly temperature-sensitive or are confined to high altitudes or polar areas 

(Scott et al., 2009).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

25

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) issued Secretarial Order Number 3226 in January 

2001 requiring all federal agencies with land management responsibilities within the DOI to 

consider potential climate change impacts as part of long-range planning efforts. This report 

was amended in January of 2009 to further expand and define bureau climate change, carbon 

sequestration, and energy conservation responsibilities. 

In its strategic plan, Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to

Accelerating Climate Change, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) calls for bold 

and strategic action to address climate change through three broad, over-arching strategies: 

adaptation, mitigation, and engagement (FWS, 2010b). Despite considerable uncertainty 

regarding the magnitude, extent, and timing of changes, the Service vision includes measures 

to “ . . . sustain diverse, distributed, and abundant populations of fish and wildlife through 

conservation of healthy habitats in a network of interconnected, ecologically functioning 

landscapes (p.5).” The plan also describes six principles deemed essential to achieving this 

vision: priority setting, partnership, best science, landscape conservation, technical capacity, 

and global approach. Climate change is a key consideration in the discussions and 

decisionmaking for the future management proposed in Big Stone NWR’s Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. Climate change is likely to have major impacts on larger river systems like 

the Missouri River through altered flow cycles, groundwater recharge within the watershed, 

water availability, land cover change, habitat availability, effects to infrastructure, and so forth.

Mitigation and Adaptation

According to the 2009 report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States there are two 

broad categories of responses to global climate change: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation 

refers to actions taken before change occurs—efforts to reduce climate change as we move 

forward from the present and curb its effects before they increase in severity or reach critical 

thresholds. Adaptation measures can be applied both before (anticipatory) and after (reactive) 

climate changes have occurred and are actions aimed at avoiding or coping with harmful 

impacts and taking advantage of new opportunities presented by new climatic and 

environmental conditions (Karl, Melillo, and Peterson, 2009; FWS, 2009b). 

There are many ways that refuges help mitigate the onset of climate change by increasing our 

ecological resiliency and reducing environmental stressors. Refuges will also play a critical role 

in adaptation strategies in the future. The table below (3-1) lists a number of examples in which 

refuges may contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26

Table 3-1: Refuge Contributions to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

Challenge Associated with Climate 

Change Refuge Mitigation/Adaptation Potential 

Rising ambient air temperatures caused by 

increasing greenhouse gasses

Sequester carbon in vegetative biomass and serve as 

‘sinks’ for greenhouse gasses. Move towards agencywide carbon neutrality. Contribute to renewable energy 

development efforts. 

Increased water temperatures from solar 

radiation

Manage for forest canopy adjacent to waterways.

Changing precipitation frequency and 

intensity, leading to flooding or drought

Provide floodplains as protection against surges and 

reservoirs to buffer periods of drought. Enhance wetland 

and bottomland habitats for groundwater recharge and to 

filter waterborne pollutants (fertilizers, pesticides, 

excessive sediment). 

Disrupted ecological processes that 

sustain basic life support functions

Tailor refuge management to protect or, if necessary, 

restore essential ecological processes and services such 

as pollination, seed dispersal, soil formation and 

stabilization, primary production, photosynthesis, and air, 

water, and nutrient cycling.

Rising sea levels and increasing tropical 

storm intensities

Buffer coastal areas with natural cover-types to minimize 

socioeconomic losses as waters advance inland and 

storms pass from the oceans onto land.

Changes in wildfire frequency and intensity Use controlled burn programs to reduce fuel loads on the 

refuge, and provide trained fire professionals to off-refuge 

areas in need.

Loss of species and their required habitats Protect lands with a diversity of habitats for declining 

species and spearhead efforts to protect species of 

concern. Protect genetic diversity and serve as a source 

area for repopulation efforts.

Geographical shifts in biomes and species’ 

ranges

Serve as large ecological hubs in a greater network of 

conservation lands allowing for species migration.

Altered species phenologies and 

interactions (competition, predations, 

parasitism, and disease)

Provide natural, minimally-altered settings for the 

evolutionary process and wildlife interaction.

Advancement of exotic invasives, pest 

species, pathogens, and contaminants

Manage to control and eradicate invasives on refuge 

lands, providing habitat for endemic species. Direct 

efforts to reduce species susceptibility to disease, 

pathogens, pests, and contaminants.

Limited scientific understanding of longterm climate change implicationsDevelop inventory and monitoring sites for ecological and 

climatic variables. Conduct directed research to address 

climate change topics. Continue to build scientific 

capacities and expertise in the agency. Foster 

collaboration among conservation science community. 

General lack of knowledge and 

understanding regarding climate change

Increase climate change education, training, and 

outreach both within the agency, and to external 

audiences. Tailor environmental education and 

interpretation programs to climate change topics. Provide 

conservation support to partners and other interested 

parties. Collaborate and share information and resources 

both internally and externally. 

Inadequate legal, regulatory, and policy 

framework to address climate change

Assist in the review and revision of environmental laws, 

regulations, policies, guidance, and protocols to increase 

incentives and eliminate barriers to conservation actions 

addressing climate change. Revise grant programs to 

direct funding to projects that address climate change.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27

A report, titled Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of 

Climate Variability and Change, was produced in 2001 by the National Assessment Synthesis 

Team (NAST), an advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to 

help the U.S. Global Change Research Program fulfill its mandate under the Global Change 

Research Act of 1990. The following excerpts and summaries are from the portion of the report 

that outlines issues faced by the eight-state Midwest Region.

Climate Trends of the Past Century

Over the 20th century, the northern portion of the Midwest, including the upper Great Lakes, has 

warmed by almost 4 oF (2 oC), while the southern portion, along the Ohio River Valley, has 

cooled by about 1 oF (0.5 oC). Annual precipitation has increased, up to 20 percent in some 

areas, with much of this coming from more heavy precipitation events (NAST, 2001).

Climate Projections for the Next Century

During the 21st century, it is highly likely that temperatures will increase throughout the region, 

likely at a rate faster than that observed in the 20th century, with models projecting a warming 

trend of 5 to 10 °F (3 to 6 oC) over 100 years. Precipitation is likely to continue its upward trend, 

with 10 to 30 percent increases across much of the region. Increases in the frequency and 

intensity of heavy precipitation events are likely to continue in the 21st century. Despite the 

increase in precipitation, rising air temperatures and other meteorological factors are likely to 

lead to a substantial increase in evaporation, causing a soil moisture deficit, reduction in lake 

and river levels, and more drought-like conditions in many areas (NAST, 2001).

Midwest Region Key Issues

Water Resources

Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based transportation and recreation are all climatesensitive issues affecting the Midwest Region. Despite the projected increase in precipitation, 

increased evaporation due to higher summer air temperatures is likely to lead to reduced water 

levels in the Great Lakes. Lower lake levels will cause reduced hydropower generation downstream, with reductions of up to 15 percent by 2050. The projected increase in demand for 

water across the region while there is a simultaneous decrease in net flows is of particular 

concern. For smaller lakes and rivers, reduced flows are likely to make water quality issues 

more acute. In addition, the projected increase in very heavy precipitation events will likely lead 

to an increase in flash flooding and, thus, worsen agricultural and other non-point source 

pollution as more frequent heavy rains wash pollutants into rivers and lakes. Lower water levels 

are likely to make water-based transportation more difficult, with increases in navigation costs 

from 5 to 40 percent. Some of this increase may be offset as reduced ice cover extends the 

navigation season and the geography of navigable waters changes. Reduced water levels may 

also decrease shoreline damage resulting from high lake levels by 40 to 80 percent. 

Adaptations: A reduction in lake and river levels would require adaptations such as reengineering of ship docks and locks for transportation and recreation. If flows decrease while 

demand increases, commissions focusing water issues will become even more important in the 

future. Improved forecasting of extreme precipitation events could help reduce some related 

impacts.

Agriculture

Agriculture is of vital importance to this region, the nation, and the world. Agricultural systems 

have exhibited a capacity to adapt to moderate differences in growing season climate, and it is 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

likely that agriculture will be able to continue to adapt. With an increase in the length of the 

growing season, double cropping—the practice of planting a second crop in a single year after 

the first is harvested—is likely to become more prevalent. The fertilization effects of CO2 are 

likely to enhance plant growth and contribute to generally higher yields. The largest increases 

are projected to occur in the northern areas of the region, where crop yields are currently limited 

by the length of the cold season and correspondingly short annual growing period. However, 

yields are not likely to increase in all parts of the region. Consumers may pay lower prices due 

to increased yields, while producers are likely to suffer reduced profits because of declining 

prices. Increased use of pesticides and herbicides are very likely to be required, presenting 

additional challenges. 

Adaptations: Plant breeding programs can use climate prediction models to direct research to 

breeding new varieties for new growing conditions. Farmers can then choose varieties better 

suited to the expected climate. It is likely that plant breeders will need to use all tools available 

in adapting to climate change including genetic engineering. Modifying planting and harvest 

dates, changing planting densities, and using integrated pest management, conservation tillage, 

and new farm technologies are additional options. There may be opportunities to shift or expand 

the area where certain crops are grown if climate conditions become more favorable. Weather 

conditions during the growing season are the primary factor in year-to-year differences in corn 

and soybean yields. Droughts and floods result in large yield reductions. Severe droughts like 

the drought of 1988 cause yield reductions of over 30 percent. Reliable seasonal forecasts 

would help farmers adjust their practices from year-to-year to respond to such events.

Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems

Forests: Different United States forest types are expected to expand (oak-hickory), contract 

(maple-beech-birch), or disappear altogether (spruce-fir) (Ryan et al., 2008). The Upper 

Midwest has a unique combination of soil and climate conditions that favor the growth of conifer 

forests. Higher temperatures and increased evaporation will likely reduce boreal forest acreage 

and make current forestlands more susceptible to pests and diseases. It is likely that the 

southern transition zone of the boreal forest will be susceptible to expansion of temperate 

forests, not to mention increased competition from other land use pressures. However, warmer 

weather (coupled with beneficial effects of increased CO2 on vegetation), are likely to lead to an 

increase in tree growth rates on marginal forestlands that are currently temperature-limited. 

Most climate models indicate that higher air temperatures will cause greater evaporation and 

hence, reduce soil moisture, a situation conducive to forest fires. Increased temperatures and 

longer growing seasons may also speed up decomposition rates and nutrient cycling, 

depending on water availability. As the 21st century progresses, there will be an increased 

likelihood and intensity of environmental stress on both deciduous and coniferous trees, making 

them susceptible to disease, pest infestation, and ultimately, mortality. 

Water Habitats: As lake water temperatures increase, major changes in freshwater ecosystems 

will very likely occur. For example, a shift may occur from coldwater fish species such as trout, 

to warmer water species such as bass and catfish. Warmer water is also likely to create an 

environment more susceptible to invasive, non-native species. Runoff of excess nutrients (such 

as nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer) into lakes and rivers is likely to increase due to an 

increase in heavy precipitation events. This, coupled with warmer lake temperatures, is likely to 

stimulate the growth of algae, depleting dissolved oxygen content in the water to the detriment 

of other living organisms. Reduced lake levels will likely impact the current distribution of 

wetlands. There is a chance that some wetlands could migrate gradually over time, but they 

would disappear in areas where their migration is limited by the topography or anthropogenic 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

land change. Changes in bird populations and other native wildlife have already been linked to 

increasing temperatures, and more changes are likely in the future. 

Outdoor Recreation

The climate change impacts on environmental systems will have direct consequences to 

humans. In the context of Service management responsibilities, this may result in effects on 

appropriate and compatible Refuge uses. Popular winter activities such as cross-country skiing, 

snow-shoeing, and ice fishing may have shorter seasons and have the potential to be 

compromised by thinner ice and reduced snow cover. However, opportunities for warm-season 

activities can be expected to see an equal and opposite changes. Not only may warm-weather 

recreation seasons lengthen, but changing life cycles and distributions of wildlife may alter 

opportunities for hunting, wildlife viewing, and photography. Changes in activities not only affect 

Refuge management, but the local and regional economy.

Soils

The highly fertile soils in western Minnesota are a result of glacial till, glacial windblown 

sediment, and centuries of decomposed, deep rooted, tallgrass prairie plants. These soils were 

created over the past 10,000 years as the minerals in the glacial sediment were broken down. 

Ten thousand years’ worth of root activity, frost, fire, burrowing, and acid leaching from leaf litter 

have all played a role in forming the soils in the Minnesota River watershed.

The various soil types have characteristic properties that determine their potential and 

limitations for specific land uses. Most of the Refuge soils are loams formed from calcareous 

glacial drift. Although some soils are clayey and sandy and gravelly, these are localized and 

account for only a small percentage of the Refuge soils.

Soils in the upland ridgelines range from loam to sandy and gravelly loam; these soils are wellto-excessively drained. Loam soil characteristics vary greatly in the upland plateaus ranging 

from well drained to poorly drained. This soil diversity exemplifies the “Prairie Pothole Region” 

with thousands of temporary and seasonal wetlands that are interspersed throughout the prairie. 

Soil diversity is also prevalent in the river bottoms. The most prevalent features in the river 

bottoms are the granite outcroppings. Most of the floodplain soils are rich fertile loams and are 

moderate-to-well drained. The wetland soils are primarily silt and clay loams, which are poorly 

drained soils. However, there are gravel and sand lenses inter-laced throughout these soils. 

Thirty-seven soil series have been identified on the Refuge.

Hydrology and Water Quality

The Refuge receives drainage from multiple river systems including: the Minnesota River, the 

Little Minnesota River (into Big Stone Lake), the Whetstone River and Yellow Bank River 

originating from South Dakota, and Stony Run Creek. The combined drainage area covers a 

total of 1,356 square miles. Most of these water bodies are listed as impaired by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for water quality impairments, including bacteria, 

dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and mercury. Land use practices within the Refuge’s watershed, as 

well as stream alterations and dam construction both within and beyond the Refuge boundary 

strongly influence hydrology and water quality within the Refuge. The following description is 

focused on the drainage from Big Stone Lake and Whetstone River.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

The origins of Refuge hydrology—like area’s geological formations—go back to the end of the 

last ice age, more than 9,000 years ago, when the River Warren began draining Lake Agassiz, 

an immense body of meltwater produced by the retreating ice sheet. The force and volume of 

the Glacial River Warren carved a wide, flat valley that today is known as the Minnesota River 

Valley. After the retreat of the glaciers, Glacial Lake Agassiz and Glacial River Warren ceased 

to exist and the Minnesota River watershed was formed. With less drainage area and a greatly 

reduced source of water, the Minnesota River has historically occupied a portion of the valley 

floor in the form of meandering braided channels. Hydrology and water distribution was dictated 

by runoff induced streamflow, which likely ranged from shallow flows across much of the valley 

during flood events to a single meandering channel during dry periods. This variation in 

hydrology helped to drive morphological processes, such as scour and fill, which in turn resulted 

in channel formation and abandonment. 

Areas just upstream and downstream 

of the Refuge were the sites of tributary 

confluences with the Minnesota River 

where sediment deposition and scour 

would have created alluvial fans and 

ever-dynamic channel morphology. 

Snowmelt-driven flood events in the 

spring months typically produced the 

highest flows, which pushed water 

levels over banks, filling abandoned 

channels and low lying areas of the 

valley. These riverine processes 

resulted in a wide riparian corridor 

comprised of a myriad of habitats, 

including bottomland woodlands, 

wetlands, and wet prairies. Vegetation 

within these habitats was dependent upon topography (depth of water) and frequency of 

inundation (duration). Flooding recharged wetlands and oxbow lakes providing important spring 

habitat for migrating waterbirds and spawning areas for fish species, while dry periods helped to 

sustain prairie habitats and species within the valley.

Today the river and many of its processes have been altered. Minnesota River streamflow 

entering what is now the Refuge has been regulated by the Big Stone Lake Dam since 1937, 

while all streamflow exiting the Refuge has been regulated by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 

(USACE) Highway 75 Dam at the downstream end of the Refuge since 1974. Refuge staff 

works with the USACE to meet Refuge management objectives, but flood control remains the 

purpose of the dam and the highest priority for the USACE. During high flows much of the 

Refuge is inundated for extended periods, often for weeks at a time. The purpose of the Big 

Stone Lake Dam is to regulate the level of Big Stone Lake within a relatively narrow range of 

water levels to meet the recreational, industrial, and residential water use needs of the local 

area. These strict requirements result in maximum discharge from the dam during wet periods 

to prevent flooding along the lake and a near shutdown of the dam during dry periods to ensure 

adequate water levels for the above uses. The Upper Minnesota River Watershed District, 

which operates the Big Stone Lake Dam, is obligated to maintain a minimum flow rate of 5 cubic 

feet per second (cfs) if there is sufficient water within the lake. In combination, the two dams 

strongly influence water delivery, storage, and movement within the Refuge, altering many of 

the river’s natural cycles, processes, and historical interaction with valley habitats. Hydrographs 

of streamflow entering the Refuge display sharp fluctuations, as well as prolonged periods of 

Streamflow on the Refuge
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

low and high streamflow, which may negatively impact species dependent upon gradual 

variations and inconsistency in water levels.

Water impoundment on the Refuge reduces velocity, sediment transport and distribution, and 

dynamic channel morphology; and it increases the depth and duration of inundated areas under 

many streamflow scenarios. Additionally, land use changes within the watershed that converted 

forest and prairie to agriculture, increased surface runoff, erosion, and contaminant 

concentrations in the Minnesota River and many of its tributaries. Three tributary streams 

(South Fork Whetstone River, Yellow Bank River, and Stony Run Creek) entering the Minnesota 

River on or upstream of the Refuge, along with the Minnesota River itself, have been listed as 

an impaired water by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the EPA because of high levels of 

mercury, turbidity, and bacteria. 

Historically the Minnesota River occupied numerous channels within the river corridor. Since 

construction of the Big Stone Dam in 1937, streamflow immediately downstream has been 

confined to a single ditched channel under most flow conditions. Due to water shortages and a 

desire to regulate levels on Big Stone Lake more intensively, the Whetstone River was diverted 

into the outlet of the lake, just upstream of the dam. The sediment-laden waters of the 

Whetstone River accelerated silt deposition in the lower end of Big Stone Lake. To alleviate this 

problem the USACE conducted an investigation that verified several flood-related problems on 

Big Stone Lake and in the immediate vicinity. The Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River Project of 

Minnesota and South Dakota was authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1965 (Public Law 

89-298). The project was designed to improve conditions on Big Stone Lake by severing inflows 

from the Whetstone River and redirecting those flows into the Minnesota River; provide flood 

control benefits to lands downstream on the Minnesota River; create a siltation barrier 

downstream; and provide a major national wildlife refuge for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

The Highway 75 Dam was completed in 1974, and the USACE transferred the project lands to 

the Service in 1975 creating Big Stone NWR. Refuge lands serve as the siltation barrier for 

downstream flows. 

The Minnesota River was straightened and widened (ditched) from Big Stone Lake to the 

Refuge to facilitate downstream flows. As part of these efforts, a series of structures were 

installed at the present day Refuge boundary and approximately 1.2 miles upstream with the 

intended purpose of deflecting low flows up to 400 cfs into the historic channel of the Minnesota 

River. During highwater events the excess flows would overtop the weir and flow through Pool 

10 into West Pool on the Refuge via a diversion channel that extends the ditch system onto the 

Refuge. Due to sedimentation and design limitations these structures have failed to operate as 

intended, and all but the highest of flows are confined to the diversion channel.

These hydrologic alterations resulted in the segregation of over 6 miles of the historic Minnesota 

River channel, 4.5 miles of which is now part of the Refuge, due to a lack of streamflow and a 

degradation of riverine habitats. Dynamic riverine processes that once balanced streamflow, 

sediment transport, and erosion were replaced with the linear and static conditions typical of a 

ditch system. The loss of these processes likely impacted downstream habitats dependent upon 

the variability of the Minnesota River. However the most significant impact to the hydrology and 

habitats to this portion of the Minnesota River occurred with the construction of the Highway 75 

Dam in 1974. The large flood retention dam, along with smaller scale impediments to flow such 

as levees, roads, and water control structures impounded large portions of the Minnesota River 

reducing flow velocity, while increasing water depth, duration, and extent under most conditions.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

The diversion channel system intended to expedite flows downstream of Big Stone Dam now 

empties into the impounded waters resulting from Refuge water control and the Highway 75 

Dam. These areas are depositional zones that are prone to sediment and contaminant 

accumulation. Other impacts associated with the failure of these structures are the continuous 

delivery of flow into West Pool and the direct transport pathway for water quality contaminants 

to enter the wetland, most noticeable of which is an apparent high concentration of sediments. 

Sedimentation within wetlands increases turbidity, decreases native plant and invertebrate 

growth, increases the production of undesirable or invasive plant species (such as hybrid 

cattail), and decreases wetland volume. In addition to sedimentation, other water quality 

contaminants, such as high concentrations of nutrients and heavy metals, are suspected to be 

impacting one or more wetlands on the Refuge. The Minnesota River, upstream of the Refuge, 

was listed by the MPCA in 2010 as impaired due to mercury contamination. 

Within this framework, the Refuge manages several smaller impoundments that are strongly 

influenced by streamflow into the Refuge and the path water takes through the Refuge. 

Numerous dikes, levees, and roads exist on the Refuge, many of which that have been 

constructed perpendicular to the river corridor with the purpose of water impoundment.

Biological Environment

Wetlands

There are about 4,500 acres of wetlands within the Refuge, mostly within the floodplain of the 

Minnesota River (figure 3-2). Typically, floodplain wetlands are strongly influenced by both 

seasonal and annual wet and dry cycles coupled to streamflow, in this case the Minnesota River 

and its tributaries. In natural systems the interplay of these long- and short-term wet/dry cycles 

in turn affects the amount and types of vegetation within the wetlands. The construction of dams 

along the Minnesota River as well as land use changes within the watershed altered numerous 

factors including: water delivery and storage within the floodplain; frequency, duration and 

extent of inundation; water chemistry; and composition of wetland vegetation.

Within the Refuge, several dikes with water control structures allow water level manipulations on 

about 3,500 acres of wetlands. Varying water levels helps produce optimum conditions for the 

growth of aquatic invertebrates and vegetation used as food and cover by migrating birds in the 

spring and fall. Throughout the rest of the year, wetlands serve as production and maintenance 

habitat for waterfowl, other migratory birds, and resident wildlife. In addition to water level 

management, prescribed fire is used as a disturbance agent within a number of Refuge 

wetlands to set back vegetative succession. The ability to meet Refuge objectives related to 

wetlands is strongly influenced by water management of Big Stone Lake Dam and the Highway 

75 Dam as well as water movement patterns across the Refuge. The impoundments (managed 

wetlands) average two to five feet in depth and are identified as West Pool, East Pool, and 

Pools 3, 4, 4a, 5, and 6. 

The two main impoundments, West Pool and East Pool, total 3,200 acres. The two pools, once 

interconnected, are now separated by a dike and water control structure built in 2007 to allow 

water management of each pool independently. West Pool is about 1,400 acres; much of it 

covered by a dense stand of cattail and willow with some moist soil plants along the backwater 

edges. East Pool contains 1,800 acres of open water and emergent marsh over a gravel and 

boulder substrate that, when exposed, provides high quality feeding habitat for shorebirds. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

Available open water within each pool is used as roosting habitat by migrating waterfowl and 

waterbirds. 

The other five impoundments are much smaller in size and collectively encompass 

approximately 285 acres of primarily emergent marsh habitats. They were constructed in 1988–

89 with funding provided by Ducks Unlimited for the purpose of increasing the amount of 

available nesting, brood-rearing, and foraging habitat for waterfowl. Pools 3, 4, 4a, 5, and 6 are 

located within the Minnesota River floodplain and are greatly influenced by the water levels and 

conditions of the river. Most of the water that fills these impoundments occurs from rainfall. All of 

these impoundments have stoplog water control structures located within their dikes that have 

been strategically located in a manner that connects them to the Minnesota River, Yellow Bank 

River, or East Pool. Water levels are increased within these impoundments primarily by 

backflow through these structures during highwater events. The impoundments are drained by 

releasing water into the rivers or West and East Pools. This system does not provide 

consistency or precision in managing the water levels within these pools. Supplemental water 

can be added to Pools 3 and 4 by pumping water out of the Yellow Bank and Minnesota Rivers. 

There are also approximately 270 temporary and/or seasonally flooded depressions totaling 

approximately 260 acres. Most of these are shallow sedge meadow basins or depressions 

ranging from 0.1 to 1.5 acres in size. Some depressions stay wet into the growing season while 

others are only temporarily wet. The presence of these temporary wetlands promotes waterfowl 

production by providing greater area for the establishment of territories by breeding pairs. 

Substantial emergent and submergent vegetation occur in wetlands on the Refuge. Other water 

features on the Refuge include three abandoned quarry ponds. No active management occurs 

with them.

Grasslands

Based on soil conditions and floristic composition, the 5,500 acres of Refuge grasslands are 

categorized as wet meadow, remnant prairie, restored and partially restored grasslands, and 

areas dominated by non-native grasses (figure 3-2). Historically, fire and grazing influenced the 

structure, function, and composition of prairie. Currently, the Refuge relies on prescribed 

burning, haying, chemicals, and more recently grazing to manage Refuge grasslands. Many 

unwanted species are encroaching on Refuge grasslands, notably: Kentucky bluegrass, smooth 

brome, Canada thistle, leafy spurge, sweet clover, and reed canarygrass. 

Wet Meadow

Wet meadows occur on poorly drained soils and are treeless areas dominated by broadleaved 

herbaceous plants including sedges and grasses. There are about 1,000 acres of wet meadow 

habitat across the Refuge that serves as a transition from wetlands to grass-dominated upland 

habitats (figure 3-2). Areas dominated by sedges and prairie cordgrass are still intact in some 

areas of the Refuge, but most of the wet meadows have been invaded by reed canarygrass.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

Figure 3-2: Current Land Cover, Big Stone NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

Remnant Prairie

Sites dominated by native grasses and with untilled intact soils are considered remnants of the 

once expansive tallgrass prairie. About 1,700 acres of these remnants are within the Refuge 

(figure 3-3). Remnant prairie sites were intact prior to establishing the Refuge and were 

primarily used as pastureland. Remnant prairie is dominated by short- to mid-height, native 

prairie grasses with scattered clumps and pockets of tallgrass species and a suite of forbs. The 

wide range of species found with remnant prairie makes it the most floristically and structurally 

diverse Refuge grasslands.

Remnant prairie is dominated by short- to mid-height, native prairie grasses with scattered 

clumps and pockets of tallgrass species and a suite of forbs such as yellow coneflower 

(Ratibida columnifera), purple coneflower (Echinacea angustifolia), beardtongues (Penstemon 

spp.), false gromwell (Onosmodium molle), purple prairie clover (Dalea purpureum), wild 

bergamot (Monarda fistulosa), blazing star (Liatris spp.), and leadplant (Amorpha canescens). 

The native cool season grasses include Junegrass (Koeleria pyramidata), needle and thread 

(Stipa comata, porcupine grass (Stipa spartea), and western wheatgrass (Elytrigia smithii). The 

warm season grass component consists of side oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), little 

bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), indiangrass 

(Sorgahstrum nutans), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa 

longifolia), prairie and tall dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis, Sporobolus asper, respectively), 

plains muhly grass (Muhlenbergia cuspidata), and blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis). Many 

unwanted species are encroaching on Refuge grasslands. Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, 

Canada thistle, leafy spurge, and reed canarygrass are the primary exotic species. The wide 

range of species found with remnant prairie makes it the most floristically and structurally 

diverse Refuge grasslands.

Restored Grasslands

Restored grasslands, presently about 500 acres, are located on sites that at one time were 

prairie, but that had been converted to agriculture or some other cover type. Although they lack 

the intact soils of the remnant prairies, restored grasslands include many of the native grasses 

and forbs found in the remnants. Up to 11 cool and warm season grass species and 40 forb 

species exist in these grasslands. Dominant grass and forbs species include big bluestem, little 

bluestem, switchgrass, Canada wildrye (Elymus canadensis), sideoats grama, prairie and tall 

dropseed, yellow and purple coneflowers, purple prairie clover, thimbleweed (Anemone 

cylindrical), blazing star, and goldenrods (Solidago spp).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

Figure 3-3: Remnant Prairie in Big Stone NWR and Surrounding Minnesota Counties
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

Partially Restored Grasslands

Partially restored grasslands are an intermediate stage dominated by grasses but that lack 

many or all of the forbs found in fully restored grasslands. These grasslands are dominated with 

tall (up to six feet) warm season native grasses including big bluestem, Indian grass, 

switchgrass, and Canada wildrye. The lack of forbs makes these areas less floristically and 

structurally diverse than either restored grasslands or remnant prairie. At present there are 

about 1,300 acres of partially restored grasslands on the Refuge.

Non-native Grasslands

There are about 800 acres dominated by non-native grasses. Much of this persists from 

plantings of non-native grasses done in the 1970s to increase the amount of dense nesting 

cover available for waterfowl. About 500 acres of this grassland type were planted with nonindigenous Nebraska origin cultivars. Species include big bluestem, Indian grass, and 

switchgrass. These grasses produce significant amounts of biomass but are infertile. Some 

fields were planted to non-native Dense Nesting Cover and include species such as alfalfa 

(Medicago sativa), red clover (Trifolium pretense), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), 

intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), and smooth brome. These areas are the 

least floristically and structurally diverse of Refuge grasslands.

Cropland

Presently, there is about 280 acres of cropland on the Refuge; it is the first stage in grassland 

restoration. Farming future grassland sites for three to four consecutive years helps prepare a 

favorable seed bed. Corn and soybeans are the primary crops. The amount and location of 

cropland changes as sites ready for restoration are planted with native grasses and additional 

restoration sites are planted to crops.

Granite Outcrops

The most unique habitat on the Refuge is the lichen-covered granite outcrops. The Refuge has 

approximately 100 acres of granite outcrop habitat, which contains shallow fragile soils that can 

be easily disturbed. Several of the granite outcrops have become covered with trees and shrubs 

and have an open grass understory. Some native tree and shrub species like oak exist on the 

outcrops; however, most of the trees are exotic species. The only population of ball cactus in 

the State of Minnesota is located on the outcrops that lie in the upper portion of the Minnesota 

River Valley. Approximately 2,000 ball cacti exist on Refuge outcrops. The cacti are monitored 

by Refuge staff. The primary threat for this species is from human poachers that collect the 

cacti, typically for use in home landscaping. Several other interesting species include brittle 

cactus (Opuntia fragilis), mudworts, ferns, fameflower (Talinum parviflorum), and mousetail 

(Myosurus minimus). Most of the native vegetation found on the outcrops is reflective of 

shortgrass prairie and is rich in forb diversity. 

Forests and Shrubs

Approximately 1,050 acres of forest-shrub habitat exist on the Refuge (figure 3-2). Riparian 

woodlands concentrated along the Minnesota River and Yellow Bank River corridors account for 

about 660 acres. Much of this area is not formally managed although some areas have been 

included in past prescribed burns. Seasonal and at times prolonged flooding hamper the growth 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

of understory vegetation including young trees. The remainder of the forest and shrub habitat is 

scattered trees and lowland shrubs found in the prairie coulees, old farmstead sites, wetlands, 

and grasslands. Primary bottomland and upland forest-tree species include plains cottonwood 

(Populus deltoids), elm (Ulmus spp.), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), green ash (Fraxinus 

pennsylvanica), willow (Salix spp.), boxelder (Acer negundo), and oak (Quercus spp.). Tree 

invasion is a major threat to remnant prairie and grasslands on the Refuge. 

Birds

More than 250 species of birds have been recorded at the Refuge. The full range of passerine 

and other birds common to the Plains states are found on the Refuge at some time during the 

year. The Refuge serves as an important migration stopover. Refuge habitats are managed for 

the benefit of migratory bird species. Upland and wet meadow habitats are managed to provide 

nesting and brood rearing cover for waterfowl, some shorebird species, and grasslanddependent passerine species. Wetlands are managed through drawdowns, fire treatments, and 

disking (site dependent) to create quality habitat for waterfowl, marshbirds, shorebirds, wetland 

dependent passerines, and raptors. The only active management for tree nesting raptor species 

occurs with bald eagle nest tree protection. 

In 2007, Audubon Minnesota designated the Upper Minnesota River Valley from Montevideo, 

MN to Big Stone Lake as an Important Birding Area (IBA) under the name Lac qui Parle – Big 

Stone IBA. The entire Refuge is included in this designated area.

Waterfowl and Waterbirds

Forty-six species of waterfowl and waterbirds use the Refuge for migration and/or nesting. 

During the spring and fall migrations waterfowl numbers have peaked at 75,000 ducks and 

84,000 geese (2006). The Refuge provides habitat for more than 7 percent of the eastern prairie 

population of Canada Geese during fall migration. It also provides habitat for large numbers of 

Mallards during fall migration. Because the Refuge is positioned between the Mississippi flyway 

and Central flyway, it hosts western and eastern bird species. 

Breeding waterfowl pair counts are conducted every spring on the Refuge. The pair count data 

is used to generate waterfowl production estimates. Waterfowl are monitored weekly during the 

spring and fall migrations. Over 20 

species of ducks, geese, and swans 

are surveyed to evaluate migration 

progress and population estimates. 

The fall migration data are provided to 

the Minnesota DNR to be incorporated 

into their state-wide migration reports. 

Dominant species include Canada 

Geese, Mallards, Blue-winged Teal, 

Gadwall, Green-winged Teal, Lesser 

Scaup, and Ring-necked Ducks. 

Marshbird and other waterbird species 

are monitored during the spring and fall 

migration periods at the same time as 

waterfowl. Refuge staff conducts Gadwall pair; photo by John Jave
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

weekly surveys during these timeframes and records presence/absence and numbers of birds 

by species. Although there is much variation and many missing species in these counts due to 

the secretive nature of many of these birds, documentation of species occurrence is still 

considered important. Throughout the summer months the waterbird species are monitored by 

casual observations. The most frequently observed waterbird species include American White 

Pelican, Great Egret, Great Blue Heron, Double-crested Cormorant, American Coot, Pied-billed 

and Western Grebes, Black-crowned Night-heron, Sora, Virginia Rail, and American Bittern.

Shorebirds

Shorebirds are very common during the migration periods in the spring and fall. Forty-six 

species of rails, plovers, sandpipers, terns, and gulls have been documented on the Refuge. 

Sandpipers, terns, and gulls are the most prominent during the migration periods. Although rare 

in most parts of the State, Black Terns nest on the Refuge and are easily observed during the 

summer. Based on the availability of highly qualified volunteer birders, weekly shorebird 

migration monitoring is done during spring and fall migration periods. Woodcock are not 

surveyed on the Refuge but are present around the wetland complex and occasionally 

observed.

Landbirds

Twenty-three species of raptors use the Refuge. Of those, seven species of owls and seven 

hawk species have been documented at the Refuge. Red-tailed Hawk, Swainson’s Hawk, 

Northern Harrier, American Kestrel, Great-horned Owl, and Eastern Screech-owl are some of 

the more common species seen on the Refuge. Four Bald Eagle nests are located on the 

Refuge. Two Bald Eagle pairs nest on the Refuge and are commonly observed from February 

through November each year. Peregrine and Prairie Falcons are occasionally observed during 

fall migration. Raptor species are monitored weekly in the spring and fall while conducting the 

waterfowl migration surveys. Species and numbers of birds are recorded. Bald Eagle nests are 

monitored during the breeding season to evaluate eaglet production. 

Approximately 50 species of passerines have been documented from point count surveys on 

the Refuge. Point count surveys were conducted on the Refuge from 1994–1999, 2001, and 

2007. The point count transects were focused on the remnant native prairie portions of the 

Refuge and designed to evaluate songbird species presence and abundance.

Several species of non-migratory birds are found at the Refuge. Ring-necked Pheasants, 

though an introduced species, have a stable population. Gray Partridge can be observed during 

the winter months. Eastern Wild Turkeys were reintroduced to the Refuge in 1995. The 

population has been slowly growing since then, and turkey sightings are now common on the 

Refuge. The Greater Prairie-Chicken was reintroduced into west-central Minnesota in 1999–

2005. A total of 58 prairie-chickens have been released on the Refuge. Most of the birds settled 

off the Refuge; however, prairie-chickens are occasionally observed. Sharp-tailed Grouse were 

documented on the Refuge during the winter of 2006. During the spring of 2007 a Sharp-tailed 

Grouse lek was located in the Lee Habitat Unit on the south side of the Refuge. See appendix C 

for a complete Refuge bird list.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

Fish and Other Aquatic Species

Refuge marshes are natural spawning areas for northern pike and European carp. Ruby Red 

Quarry is a spawning area for bass, crappie, and bluegill. Catfish, bullhead, northern pike, 

walleye, white bass, and carp are the predominant river species. The Minnesota River is a 

common travel lane for numerous species that originate in Big Stone Lake. A fishery survey 

conducted shortly after the Refuge was established documented 36 species of fish in Refuge 

waters. Test nettings have shown that a viable fishery exists on the Refuge in the major 

wetlands and river systems. It appears that water level fluctuations through management 

manipulations have been instrumental in controlling rough fish populations such as European 

carp. 

Currently, there is no active management of fish or other aquatic species on the Refuge. The 

Minnesota DNR Fisheries personnel and Service Fisheries Biologists conduct formal surveys 

approximately every four years to assess the current fish populations. These surveys are 

usually done in the Minnesota River and East Pool using electrofishing, hoop netting, and gill 

netting techniques. The Refuge annually coordinates with the Minnesota DNR to stock fish in 

the Ice-Block pond also known as the “Fishing Pond.” Fish are stocked in preparation for 

“Youth Fishing Day” a special event held each May. See appendix C for a complete fish list for 

the Refuge.

Fifteen species of freshwater mussels have been identified on the Refuge. Surveys in 1999 

revealed the most common species to be the fat mucket. Most of the species exist in the 

wetlands and rivers on the Refuge. However, three of the species—Wabash pig-toe, pink 

papershell, and creek heel-splitter—were found only in the Yellow Bank River. See appendix C 

for a complete list of mollusks documented on the Refuge.

Butterflies

Butterfly surveys conducted in 1988, 1999, and 2000 documented a total of 46 species. See 

appendix C for a complete list of butterflies documented on the Refuge.

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Threatened and Endangered Flora 

No federally threatened and endangered plant species have been found on the Refuge. The 

state endangered ball cactus (Escobaria vivipara) exists on the Refuge. Approximately, 2,000 

cacti are in the population and doing well. Mud plantain (Heteranthera limosa) is a state 

threatened species. Species of special concern for the State include brittle cactus (Opuntia 

fragilis), disk waterhyssop (Bacopa rotundifolia), and water mudwort (Limosella aquatica). 

Threestamen waterwort (Elatine triandra) is not currently listed but has been proposed for state 

threatened status. All of these species exist on and are confined to the granite outcrops. 

Management actions around the granite outcrops have focused on minimizing negative impacts 

to all of these species. The greatest threat to these species on the Refuge is the encroachment 

of woody species on the outcrops. Efforts have been made to remove the woody vegetation.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

Threatened and Endangered Fauna

The Dakota skipper butterfly is a candidate species for federal listing. Candidate species are 

plants and animals for which the Service has sufficient information on their biological status and 

threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 but for which development of a listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing 

activities. The Dakota skipper was identified during butterfly surveys in 1988, 1999, and 2000. It 

was found in one remnant native prairie habitat unit on the northwest end of the Refuge. Two 

state species of concern have been found on the Refuge during the surveys: the poweshiek 

skipperling and regal fritillary. A 2009 butterfly survey found no occurrences of Dakota skipper 

or poweshiek skipperling and one occurrence of regal fritilliary.

Management actions in the remnant prairie have focused on minimizing negative impacts to 

prairie-obligate butterfly species. The Dakota skipper butterfly is the species of greatest concern 

for management. Prescribed burns are used to treat skipper habitat. A number of mitigation 

measures are used to reduce adverse impacts to butterfly populations. The poweshiek 

skipperling and regal fritillary are managed under the Dakota skipper management guidelines. 

Invasive and Nuisance Species 

Exotic and invasive plant species pose one of the greatest threats to the maintenance and 

restoration of the diverse habitats found on the Refuge. They threaten biological diversity by 

causing population declines of native species and by altering key ecosystem processes such as 

hydrology, nitrogen fixation, and fire regimes. Left unchecked, these plants have come to 

dominate areas on some habitat units and have reduced the value of the land as wildlife habitat.

The primary invasive exotic species include smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, reed 

canarygrass, Canada thistle, and leafy spurge. Fire is currently used to set back the cool

season exotic grasses. Late spring burns during the bolt stage of growth on Kentucky bluegrass 

and smooth brome injure the grasses and delay seed head development. Setting back these 

species at the right time benefits the native warm season grasses and forbs. Occasionally, 

areas dominated by these species are hayed to prevent seed maturation. Reed canarygrass is 

another exotic cool season grass that is associated with wetlands. Currently the only means of 

controlling this species is to flood the plants for an extended period of time. 

The encroachment of invasive woody species, namely trees, also has negative impacts on the 

prairie landscape. Very few trees were present prior to European settlement. As settlers 

homesteaded the area, they planted trees around their houses and created shelterbelts. 

Shelterbelts dotted the landscape. Over time the trees gradually spread throughout the prairie. 

Most of the species were not native to this area. Granite outcrops have shallow fragile soils and 

were too dry to support trees. However, over time boxelder and exotic elm trees became 

established and have continued to invade the outcrops. They threaten the endemic shortgrass 

plant species on the outcrops by shading them out. 

European carp is the primary pest species invading and degrading Refuge wetlands. Carp 

retard the growth of aquatic vegetation by consuming it and by causing turbidity in the water, 

which reduces photosynthetic efficiency, an essential component of wetland food chains. Pools 

are occasionally drawn down to provide waterfowl and shorebird habitat, an action that 

temporarily reduces carp abundance. Once water levels within Refuge wetlands are restored, 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

carp numbers are restocked from the population in the adjoining Minnesota River. No other 

active management occurs for this species.

On occasion, beaver dams obstruct waterflow through water control structures. Beaver have 

also constructed lodges beside Refuge interior dike roads, which can jeopardize dike integrity. 

Beaver are removed under these circumstances by a trapping permit and the dams and lodges 

removed by Refuge staff. Muskrat can become a pest species when it burrows into the 

impoundment dikes. The burrows jeopardize dike integrity. Muskrats are trapped as a part of the 

Refuge’s trapping program. 

Mammals 

A variety of mammal species inhabit 

the Refuge. White-tailed deer, coyotes, 

rabbits, squirrels, and chipmunks are 

the most visible mammals of the 

Refuge’s 45 species. Beaver, muskrat, 

mink, and raccoon are observable 

along river corridors and cattail 

marshes. The prairie supports the 

greatest wildlife diversity, and less 

observable but common species 

include: shrews, moles, weasels, 

ground squirrels, pocket gopher, mice, 

and voles. River otters were 

reintroduced to the Refuge in 1981, 

and a viable population continues to 

thrive today. Refuge grasslands and 

marshes are important for all of these species for forage and cover. See appendix C for a 

complete list of mammals documented on the Refuge. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Seventeen species of amphibians and reptiles have been documented on the Refuge. The most 

commonly observed species are western painted turtle, western plains garter snake, bull snake, 

and northern leopard frog. Five-lined skinks are occasionally seen on the granite outcrops, and 

western spiny softshell and snapping turtles can be observed along the banks of the Minnesota 

River and Yellow Bank River. See appendix C for a complete list of amphibians and reptiles 

documented on the Refuge. 

Socioeconomic Environment

Socioeconomic Setting

Big Stone NWR is located in Big Stone and Lac qui Parle Counties, Minnesota. Other nearby 

Minnesota counties are Chippewa, Stevens, Swift, Traverse, and Yellow Medicine. Each of the 

seven counties within this region decreased in population from 2000 to 2009. During this same 

time the population of the State of Minnesota grew. On average, the area’s population has a 

lower median household income and less high school and college education than the State’s 

Muskrat
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

population.

Population

The 2009 estimated total population of the seven counties was 58,574. Compared to 2000 

estimates, the population decreased 9.6 percent while the State’s population increased 7 

percent. Traverse County decreased the most at minus 13.6 percent, and Stevens County the 

least at minus 4.2 percent. Table 3-2 compares the racial composition of the seven-county area 

with that of Minnesota as a whole. In Minnesota, 8.5 percent of people five years and older 

speak a language other than English at home; in the seven-county area the figure is 4.3 percent 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

Table 3-2: Percentage of Population by Race for Seven-county Area and Minnesota (2009)

Race Seven-County Area Minnesota

White persons 95.3 88.60

Black persons 1.0 4.70

American Indian and Alaska Native persons 1.6 1.30

Asian persons 0.8 3.80

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.5 0.10

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin 2.5 4.30

Persons reporting two or more races 1.0 1.60

Employment

In the period from 2005 to 2009, the educational services, health care, and social assistance 

industry was the largest economic and employment sector in the seven-county area, accounting 

for 27.1 percent of employment. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining accounted 

for about 12 percent of the jobs across the area. Retail trade, manufacturing, and construction 

were also important economic sectors (U.S. Census Bureau, undated).

Income and Education

Average per-capita income in the seven-county area was $22,809 in 2009; in Minnesota it was 

$29,431. The median household income of the seven-county area was $42,581 in 2009; in the 

State it was $57,007 (U.S. Census Bureau, undated). 

In the seven-county area, 16.1 percent of persons over 25 years of age hold a bachelor’s 

degree or higher. The comparable figure in the State is 31.2 percent. This discrepancy is typical 

of the difference between largely rural areas like these seven counties and entire state 

populations, which include large numbers of more urban residents who are professionals and 

have higher educational attainment on average (U.S. Census Bureau, undated).

Demand and Supply for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation 

In order to estimate the potential market for visitors to the Refuge, we looked at 2007 consumer 

behavior data within approximately 30- and 60-mile drives of the Refuge. The data were 

organized by ZIP CodeTM areas. The 30-mile area extended beyond the communities of 

Ortonville and Appleton, MN and Milbank, SD. The 60-mile area included Montevideo, Benson, 

and Morris, MN and Watertown, SD. The consumer behavior data that we used in the analysis 

are derived from Mediamark Research, Inc. data. The company collects and analyzes data on 

consumer demographics, product and brand usage, and exposure to all forms of advertising 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

media. The consumer behavior data were projected by Tetrad Computer Applications, Inc. to 

new populations using Mosaic data. Mosaic is a methodology that classifies neighborhoods into 

segments based on their demographic and socioeconomic composition. The basic assumption 

in the analysis is that people in demographically similar neighborhoods will tend to have similar 

consumption, ownership, and lifestyle preferences. Because of the assumptions made in the 

analysis, the data should be considered as relative indicators of potential not actual 

participation.

We looked at potential participants in birdwatching, fishing, and hunting with shotgun. In order to 

estimate the general environmental orientation of the population, we also looked at the number 

of people who might contribute to an environmental organization. The consumer behavior data 

apply to persons more than 18 years old. Table 3-3 displays the consumer behavior numbers 

for two distances to the Refuge. The projections represent the maximum audience that we might 

expect to make a trip to the Refuge for approximate drives of half-hour (30 miles), and 1 hour 

(60 miles). Actual visitors will be fewer, because the estimate is a maximum, and we expect less 

than that will travel to the Refuge. 

Table 3-3: Maximum Adult Audiences Within 30 and 60 Miles of Big Stone NWR for 

Activities and Environmental Contributions

Activities Population within 30 miles Population within 60 miles

Birdwatching 5,986 19,196

Hunting 6,856 20,661

Fishing 13,019 41,119

Contribute to 

Environmental 

Organization

1,743 6,060

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation

Hunting 

The Refuge maintains hunting programs for small, upland, and big game species in accordance 

with state seasons and regulations. No special permits are needed to participate in any of the 

hunting seasons other than what may be required by the State, such as a turkey permit. 

Currently, species that can be hunted include rabbits, squirrels, fox, raccoon, skunk, Ringnecked Pheasant, Gray Partridge, turkey, and deer. Deer hunting is permitted during archery, 

shotgun, and muzzleloader seasons. No migratory game bird hunting is allowed on the Refuge.

The Refuge maintains a zone, approximately 2,850 acres, where all hunting is prohibited (figure 

3-4). The zone is not closed to other uses, such as hiking and wildlife observation. In the past 

the zone was temporarily opened to deer hunting. This was done for deer herd management 

purposes and may be applied again in the future if excessive deer numbers cause depredation 

problems outside the Refuge and no other viable alternative exists. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

45

Figure 3-4: Current Visitor Services Facilities Big Stone NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

Fishing

The entire Refuge is open to fishing wherever foot access is possible (figure 3-4). Boating is 

limited to the natural channel of the Minnesota River. The quarries, once popular local fishing 

sites, are currently closed to public access due to safety issues.

Game fish such as walleye, northern pike, largemouth bass, white bass, drum, perch, crappie, 

catfish, sunfish, and bullheads are all abundant and sought throughout the year by local 

fishermen. The Minnesota River and Yellow Bank River are both fished frequently during the 

open water seasons. Ice fishing also occurs on the Refuge, but access, quality of fishing, and 

available water usually limit it to East Pool.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Wildlife observation activities account for a majority of the visitation that occurs on the Refuge 

each year. Four developed facilities enhance this use: the Auto Tour Route, Granite Outcrop 

Hiking Trail, Highway 75 Dam Drive, and Minnesota River Headwaters Trail (figure 3-4).

The Auto Tour Route is a 5-mile paved roadway that winds through an interior portion of the 

Refuge. Visitors can view wildlife and plant life associated with riparian woodlands, native and 

restored prairie grasslands, granite outcrops, and prairie floodplain-associated pothole wetlands 

and managed wetlands. White-tailed deer as well as a variety of waterfowl and waterbirds are 

commonly seen. Associated with the Auto Tour Route is a hiking trail that winds along the 

granite outcrops offering visitors a close up experience with outcrop plant and animal life as well 

as a scenic view of the Minnesota River corridor.

The Highway 75 Dam Drive is a 1-mile 

paved road found on top of the 

Highway 75 Dam. This drive offers a 

view of East Pool, flood control 

facilities, and the remains of a historic 

granite quarry operation. Seasonally, 

visitors can view large concentrations 

of migrating waterfowl from this site. 

The Minnesota River Headwaters Trail 

links the foot of Big Stone Lake in 

Ortonville to the Auto Tour Route. The 

Refuge portion of this multi-use trail is 

1.3 miles and unpaved. It offers a trip 

through riparian woodland and 

floodplain wetland habitats. 

Interpretation 

The Auto Tour Route and Granite Outcrop Trail include interpretation of the Refuge’s habitats, 

wildlife, management, and unique features. The renovated Refuge headquarters also will 

include an expanded area of interpretive displays.

Wildlife observation and photography
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

Environmental Education

There are no facilities specifically designed for environmental education purposes nor are there 

any staff dedicated to full-time outreach or environmental education activities. Refuge personnel 

provide tours on request and occasionally assist teachers onsite with outdoor classroom 

activities. Various Refuge locations are available for independent environmental education 

programs and projects.

Other Recreation

Canoeing and Kayaking

Approximately 11.5 miles of the Minnesota River wind through the Refuge. A portion of this river 

is accessible to canoes and kayaks and offers a scenic river experience. There is a developed 

boat ramp located near the Refuge headquarters that provides access. The upper portion of the 

river is inaccessible due to the extensive log jams, while the mid and lower portions provide 

good canoeing and kayaking conditions during times when river flows are higher.

Administrative Facilities

The administrative facilities are located approximately one-half mile west of Odessa, MN on Big 

Stone County Highway 19. The compound consists of the Refuge office and attached shop; two 

large pole shed buildings used for equipment storage; and a pole shed used for seed cleaning 

purposes. Several smaller storage buildings are also on the compound grounds. The office 

portion of the building was added on to the existing shop building in 1997. The 

office/maintenance shop building is currently going through an energy retrofit to install a 

geothermal heating/cooling system. Other renovations planned as part of this project include a 

new roof, new windows, an enlarged visitor contact area and multipurpose room, the 

redesign/realignment of current office space, and the redesign of the visitor and staff parking 

areas. The existing shop area will be incorporated into the design and become part of the staff 

office space. A new shop building will be constructed as part of this energy retrofit project.

Volunteers

Volunteers have always been an important part of the Refuge workforce. Individuals, more than 

organized groups, have come forward to offer their time and services for Refuge needs. 

Projects where volunteers have been involved include: wildlife surveys, monitoring, wildlife 

research projects, seed collecting, assisting with public events, and even routine maintenance 

duties.

Archeological and Cultural Values

Much of what is known about the prehistoric human occupations or visitations of the Refuge and 

surrounding area is drawn from a 1987 cultural resources survey report (Roetzel et al., 1987). 

Human activity is documented in the present day Minnesota River Valley in Western Minnesota 

to at least 9,000 years ago. Early peoples, called “Paleoindians” by archaeologists, were highly 

mobile and followed the migratory habits of the big game animals present at the end of the last 

ice age, such as mammoths and ancient bison. This cultural group is largely known by the large, 

chipped stone spearpoints used to kill and butcher these animals. One such spearpoint, 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

identified as an Agate Basin type, was recovered in nearby Clay County, and chalcedony knives 

and fluted projectiles were recovered from the Browns Valley burial site in Traverse County. 

Although Paleoindians did occur in the area, the low amount of recovered artifacts suggests the 

population density was low. To date, no evidence of Paleoindian sites have been found within 

the Refuge boundary.

As the climate became closer to today’s range, the ice age big game animals became extinct 

and, as such, humans adapted and became less mobile and used a much broader range of 

plant and animals resources. These people, called “Archaic” by archaeologists, were foragers 

that while still somewhat nomadic, returned year after year to favorite hunting and gathering 

spots. As such, they left behind a wide range of stone tools including smaller spearpoints and 

plant grinding implements. The archaeological sites for this time period are more numerous 

suggesting the human population began to increase and expand. A broken spearpoint, likely 

from this time period, was found on the Refuge.

By around 2,000 years ago, the introduction of new technologies from the east such as clay 

pottery and the bow and arrow set off a change in the subsistence and social structure of the 

people in the area. These peoples, called “Plains Woodland” by archaeologists, settled down in 

year-around residences in small villages exploiting local resources. Pottery has been found in 

and around the Refuge which suggests occupations by or contact with other Post-Archaic 

peoples such as Mississippian, Plains Village, Cambria, and Oneota. To date, no evidence of 

Plains Woodland sites have been found within the Refuge boundary.

Cultural Resource Management

Cultural resources (archaeological sites, historic structures, and Native American traditional 

cultural properties) are important parts of the nation’s heritage. The Service strives to preserve 

evidence of these human occupations, which can provide valuable information regarding not 

only human interactions with each other, but also with the natural environment. Protection of 

cultural resources is accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to protect fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources.

The Service is charged with the responsibility, under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, of identifying historic properties (cultural resources that are potentially 

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places) that may be affected by our 

actions. The Service is also required to coordinate these actions with the State Historic 

Preservation Office, Native American tribal governments, local governments, and other 

interested parties. Cultural resource management in the Service is the responsibility of the 

Regional Director and is not delegated for the Section 106 process when historic properties 

could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archaeological permits, and for Indian 

tribal involvement. 

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) Section 14 requires plans to 

survey lands and a schedule for surveying lands with “the most scientifically valuable 

archaeological resources.” This Act also affords protection to all archeological and historic sites 

more than 100 years old (not just sites meeting the criteria for the National Register) on federal 

land, and requires archeological investigations on federal land be performed in the public 

interest by qualified persons. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

The Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) advises the Regional Director about 

procedures, compliance, and implementation of these and other cultural resource laws. The 

actual determinations relating to cultural resources are to be made by the RHPO for 

undertakings on Service fee title lands and for undertakings funded in whole or in part under the 

direct or indirect jurisdiction of the Service, including those carried out by or on behalf of the 

Service, those carried out with federal financial assistance, and those requiring a federal permit, 

license, or approval.

The responsibility of the Refuge Manager is to identify undertakings that could affect cultural 

resources and coordinate the subsequent review process as early as possible with the RHPO 

and state, tribal, and local officials. Also, the Refuge Manager assists the RHPO by protecting 

archeological sites and historic properties on Service managed and administered lands, by 

monitoring archaeological investigations by contractors and permittees, and by reporting ARPA 

violations.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50

Chapter 4: Management Direction

In this chapter:

Goals, Objectives, Rationale, and Strategies

This chapter presents the goals, objectives, and potential strategies that will guide management 

and administration of Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge) over the next 15 years. 

This management direction represents the plan for the Refuge and mirrors Alternative 6 in the 

Environmental Assessment, which was prepared as part of the planning process.

Goals, Objectives, Rationale, and Strategies

Goals, objectives, and strategies comprise the future management direction. Goals are 

descriptive broad statements of desired future conditions that convey a purpose. There are 

three goals for Big Stone NWR, one each for habitat, wildlife, and people. Goals are followed by 

objectives, which are specific statements describing management intent. Objectives provide 

detail and are supported by rationale statements that describe background, history, 

assumptions, and technical details to help clarify how the objective was formulated. 

Finally, beneath each objective there is a list of potential strategies, the specific actions, tools, 

and techniques required to fulfill the objective. The strategies may be refined or amended as 

specific tasks are completed or new research and information come to light. When a time in 

number of years is noted in an objective or strategy, it refers to the number of years from 

approval of this CCP. If no time is given, the objective is to be accomplished within the 15 years 

of the life of the plan. 

Habitat Goal

Big Stone NWR will actively restore, manage, and protect diverse native communities of 

tallgrass prairie, wetland, riparian, and granite outcrop habitats to enhance the vitality and health 

of the natural environment. See figure 4-1 for future land cover at Big Stone NWR.

Objective 1-1 Riverine Habitat

Over the life of the plan, improve riverine habitat for plants, wildlife, and fish by restoring natural 

alignment, channel capacity, and meander relationships on approximately five miles of the 

upper portion of the Minnesota River within the Refuge. This will improve habitat diversity and 

redistribute the timing and delivery of waters and sediments within the Refuge.

Performance Measure

Miles of Minnesota River restored.

Rationale

Service policy calls for maintaining or, where feasible and consistent with Refuge purposes, 

restoring the composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic features 

comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

environment (FWS, 2001). Alterations to hydrologic conditions—water movement, distribution, 

and quality—within the Minnesota River watershed over the past 150 years make it infeasible to 

fully restore historic hydrologic conditions, but it is possible to mimic some components of 

historic hydrology within the Refuge. Reintroducing these elements of historic hydrologic 

conditions is consistent with Service policy and would continue to meet the purposes of the 

Refuge by providing habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Potential Strategy

• Work in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Upper 

Minnesota River Watershed District to assess restoration of the Minnesota River channel 

within the Refuge.

Objective 1-2 Water Quality

Within 15 years of plan approval, improve water quality within the Minnesota River and 

tributaries on or immediately upstream of the Refuge to move towards compliance with 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 

standards. The long-term goal is to have the streams removed from the list of impaired waters.

Performance Measure

Number of impaired stream reaches and number of impairment types compared to those 

identified by the MPCA in 2012.

Rationale

Three tributary streams (South Fork Whetstone River, Yellow Bank River, and Stony Run 

Creek) entering the Minnesota River on or upstream of the Refuge, along with the Minnesota 

River itself, have been listed as an impaired water by the MPCA, South Dakota Department of

Environment and Natural Resources, and the EPA because of high levels of mercury, turbidity, 

and bacteria. Improving water quality will help restore the biological integrity and environmental 

health within these streams and is consistent with current Service policy (FWS, 2001).

Potential Strategy

• Work in conjunction with Morris Wetland Management District to focus efforts of Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife program within the portion of Minnesota River watershed upstream 

of the Refuge.

Objective 1-3 Riparian Habitats

Over the life of the plan, maintain approximately 200 acres as riparian woodlands with a 

structurally diverse native plant community with canopy cover ranging from 50 to 100 percent, 

subcanopy ranging from 0 to 50 percent areal coverage, and a ground layer ranging from 0 to 

25 percent areal coverage in spring up to 50 percent areal coverage in midsummer. Over the 

life of the plan, maintain approximately 400 acres as riparian grassland habitat with a 

structurally diverse native plant community (ranging from 30 cm to 1.5 m in height) composed of 

native grasses and forbs with up to 70 percent areal coverage of shrubs and trees.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

Performance Measure

Acres of riparian woodlands and riparian grasslands.

Rationale

Service policy calls for maintaining or restoring refuge habitats to historic conditions if doing so 

is feasible and does not conflict with refuge purposes (FWS, 2001). The riparian woodlands 

provide habitat for several species of woodpeckers, raptors, tree nesting waterfowl (Wood Duck 

and Hooded Merganser), passerines, and resident wildlife, such as, white-tailed deer, mink, 

raccoon, and squirrels. Due to wet soil conditions and severely limited machinery access, 

management options for this habitat are limited. Riparian grasslands serve as a transitional 

zone between riparian woodlands and other habitats such as wet meadow or granite outcrops. 

The soils are slightly drier than the riparian woodlands and are grass-dominated with trees, 

shrubs, and forbs. Several areas of the riparian woodlands/grasslands have become dominated 

with reed canarygrass. Controlling this species is very difficult due to the limitations mentioned 

above. Over time, reed canarygrass may serve to suppress the establishment and recruitment 

of young trees in canopy gaps such that eventually the riparian forest may ultimately succeed to 

monotypic stands of reed canarygrass. Management emphasis will be to maintain the riparian 

woodland/grassland habitat and evaluate ways to reduce reed canarygrass and restore the 

native plant diversity.

Objective 1-4 Shallow Lake Habitat (impoundments)

Over the life of the plan, continue to manage 3,500 acres of shallow lake habitat within West 

Pool, East Pool, and Pools 3, 4, 4a, 5, and 6 to increase the amount of food and cover for 

migratory birds and other wildlife. Contingent on Minnesota River channel restoration (Objective 

1-1), increase the distribution, amount, and diversity of submerged vegetation within West Pool 

(as compared to an average of amounts and distributions available in years prior to plan 

approval) through increased variability in water level management and improved water quality 

within the unit. Management will continue to be affected by periodic releases of high volumes of 

water from upstream and the impoundment of these waters on the Refuge to meet USACE flood 

control objectives.

Performance Measure

Amount and distribution of submerged vegetation in West Pool relative to the average of 

amounts and distributions in years prior to 2012.

Rationale

Big Stone NWR gets it purposes from five different legal authorities that collectively provide 

broad direction regarding conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats with specific 

mention of migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and wetlands. Hemi-marsh 

conditions are well accepted as ideal conditions for breeding waterfowl. The interspersion of 

water and vegetation allow for pair isolation, provide escape cover for broods, and encourages 

an abundant and accessible invertebrate food source. However, prairie wetlands historically 

existed under dynamic climatic (and thus hydrologic) conditions. Prolonged static water levels 

can create anaerobic conditions that limit decomposition and nutrient cycling. High water levels 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

can also adversely influence the growth and development of aquatic vegetation by limiting light 

penetration and oxygen availability and allowing water temperatures to remain cool. Continuous 

high-level water management also causes increased rates of erosion to shores and islands. 

Appropriate water-level manipulations can create habitats that provide open water areas with 

submerged vegetation and shallow areas with emergent food resources and cover for many 

wetland-dependent species. The exposure of wetland sediments to the atmosphere increases 

decomposition of organic material and improves the overall biological production potential. 

Refuge wetlands would be managed to emulate the natural wet-dry cycles of the Great Plains. 

These natural water cycles provide a mosaic of habitats for shorebirds, amphibians, reptiles, 

waterfowl, invertebrates, waterbirds, and other wildlife, and they also help recycle nutrients.

Potential Strategy

• Develop a water management regime as part of a Habitat Management Plan to meet 

wildlife and habitat objectives.

Objective 1-5 Wetland Natural Depression

Over the life of the plan, maintain approximately 260 acres of natural depressional wetland 

habitat with a diverse aquatic plant community consisting on average of 50 percent open water 

and 50 percent aquatic vegetation (hemi-marsh) with water depth ranging from of 5 to 20 

inches. 

Performance Measure

Acres of natural depression wetlands.

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 50:50 (that is, 30:70 ratio, 70:30 ratio) in most 

natural wetlands. Because of the dynamics involved with prairie – wetland conditions over time, 

in certain years the coverage of emergent vegetation may fall well outside the target range (30 

to 70 percent coverage). During years of extreme drought, emergent vegetative cover may 

exceed the upper-end target of 70 percent; during extremely wet periods, wetlands may revert 

to a more open water state, supporting far less than 30 percent coverage by emergent 

vegetation. 

Potential Strategy

• Periodically employ disturbance such as fire, grazing, or mowing to retard growth of 

cattails and woody vegetation.

Objective 1-6 Remnant Prairie (dry, mesic, and wet)

Over the life of the plan, maintain the existing amount (about 1,700 acres) of remnant prairie 

with a structurally diverse native plant community having less than 5 percent areal coverage of 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

woody vegetation. It is comprised of dry prairie 20 to 40 cm in height with litter depths from 1 to 

2 cm; mesic prairie 30 cm to 1.5 m in height with litter depths from 5 to 7.5 cm; and wet prairie 

60 to 1.5 m in height with litter depths from 5 to 7.5 cm.

Performance Measure

Acres of remnant prairie.

Rationale

Service policy calls for maintaining or restoring refuge habitats to historic conditions if doing so 

is feasible and does not conflict with refuge purposes (FWS, 2001). Big Stone NWR purposes 

derive from five different legal authorities that collectively provide broad direction regarding 

conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats with specific mention of migratory birds, 

threatened and endangered species, and wetlands. The Refuge is within the range of the 

historic tallgrass prairie, which once stretched from Canada to Oklahoma including an estimated 

18 million acres in Minnesota (Samson et al., 1998). Most of the tallgrass prairie was converted 

to agriculture leaving scattered remnants. Today the amount of remnant tallgrass prairie in 

Minnesota is estimated at 37,000 acres, a 99 percent decrease from its former extent, with 

much of it occurring in small scattered parcels. The 1,700 acres of remnant prairie on the 

Refuge provides habitat for grassland associated wildlife, including many that are declining in 

number. It also provides the public with an important environmental education opportunity as to 

the importance of this habitat and its history in the area.

Potential Strategy

• Periodically employ disturbance such as fire, grazing, or mowing to retard growth of 

invasive species and woody vegetation.

Objective 1-7 Restored Grassland (native grasses and forbs of local ecotypes)

Over the life of the plan, maintain the existing amount of restored grassland (about 500 acres), 

and increase it by 1,100 acres. Manage the total amount, about 1,600 acres, to have a minimum 

floristic quality that contains at least eight grass species and 25 forb species.

Performance Measure

Acres of restored grassland.

Rationale

Service policy calls for maintaining or restoring refuge habitats to historic conditions if doing so 

is feasible and does not conflict with refuge purposes (FWS, 2001). Most of the lands within the 

Refuge were once covered with tallgrass prairie but were converted to agriculture or other land 

cover types prior to Refuge establishment. Restored grasslands, which contain native grasses 

and forbs, provide some of the functions of more diverse remnant prairie and may one day 

develop soils capable of supporting a full range of prairie plants and wildlife.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

Potential Strategies

• Periodically employ disturbance such as fire, grazing, or mowing to retard growth of 

invasive species and woody vegetation.

• Based on site conditions, plant forbs, or grasses and forbs.

Objective 1-8 Partially Restored Grassland (native grasses of local ecotypes)

Over the 15-year life of the plan, reduce the amount of partially restored grassland from 1,300 

acres to approximately 700 acres. Over the long term, convert all partially restored grasslands 

acres to fully restored grasslands.

Performance Measure

Acres of partially restored grassland.

Rationale

Service policy calls for maintaining or restoring refuge habitats to historic conditions if doing so 

is feasible and does not conflict with refuge purposes (FWS, 2001). Most of the lands within the 

Refuge were once covered with tallgrass prairie but were converted to agriculture or other land 

cover types prior to Refuge establishment. Partially restored grasslands—sites which contain 

native grasses but no forbs—provide some of the functions of more diverse remnant prairie or 

restored grasslands. Of the 1,300 acres of partially restored grasslands on the Refuge, about 

1,100 acres occur on sites suitable for seeding forbs. Site suitability is determined by soils, 

drainage, hydrology, and their expected effects on vegetation. Suitable sites must also 

accommodate access and operation of equipment necessary to complete restoration. This 

planning period at least 600 acres would be restored, but eventually (beyond the present 15-

year planning period) all accessible acres would be seeded with forbs and converted to restored 

grasslands.

Potential Strategy

• Periodically employ disturbance such as fire, grazing, or mowing to retard growth of 

invasive species and woody vegetation.

Objective 1-9 Non-native Grassland

Over the life of the plan, eliminate non-native grassland on all accessible areas, reducing the 

total amount from 800 acres to approximately 300 acres. If future conditions or methods allow, 

eliminate all remaining (presently inaccessible) non-native grassland acres.

Performance Measure

Acres of non-native grassland.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

Rationale

Service policy calls for maintaining or restoring refuge habitats to historic conditions if doing so 

is feasible and does not conflict with refuge purposes (FWS, 2001). About 800 acres of the 

Refuge are covered by non-native grasses. Converting 500 acres to native grasses and forbs 

increases floristic and structural diversity and makes the sites suitable for a greater number of 

wildlife species. The remaining 300 acres were excluded because the sites are not accessible to 

the equipment required to complete the work.

Potential Strategy

• Disturb sites, typically done through farming, for several consecutive years to eliminate 

unwanted vegetation and prepare the seedbed for planting of native grasses and forbs. 

Objective 1-10 Rock Outcrop

Over the life of the plan, maintain approximately 100 acres of shortgrass prairie (flora and 

fauna) on the granite outcrops to achieve a structurally diverse native plant community (ranging 

from 20 to 40 cm in height). This community will be composed of native grass, forb, and sedge 

species with a small (0 to 20 percent areal coverage) native shrub component. Management will 

focus on control of exotic/invasive species.

Performance Measure

Acres of rock outcrop with shortgrass prairie.

Rationale

The soils on the granite outcrops are fragile and shallow ranging from 0.5 cm to 7.5 cm. The 

shortgrass obligate prairie species depend on these soils. State threatened and endangered 

plant species are found only in these areas of the Refuge. Other species such as the 5-lined 

skink live on the outcrops. Over time trees invaded several of the outcrops. The shading 

created by the presence of trees is detrimental to plant species that exist. The Refuge will make 

a concerted effort to remove trees from the outcrops to preserve the flora and fauna unique to 

this habitat. The Refuge will take the necessary actions to preserve the outcrop habitat. 

Potential Strategy

• Periodically remove unwanted vegetation by using fire, chemicals, or hand removal.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

Figure 4-1: 15-Year Future Land Cover, Big Stone NWR
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

Wildlife Goal

Big Stone NWR will enhance and maintain habitats for biologically diverse and abundant 

populations of native fish and wildlife associated with healthy refuge environments.

Objective 2-1: Mallard Production

Over the life of the plan, annually provide waterfowl production habitat to support up to 120 

Mallard breeding pairs on Refuge wetlands.

Performance Measure

Breeding pairs of Mallards.

Rationale

Hemi-marsh conditions are well accepted as ideal conditions for breeding waterfowl (Weller and 

Spatcher, 1965; Murkin et al., 1982; Murkin et al., 1997). The interspersion of water and 

vegetation allow for pair isolation, provide escape cover for broods, and encourages an 

abundant and accessible invertebrate food source. High quality, naturally occurring wetland 

basins considered to be benchmarks for evaluating biotic integrity typically have very diverse 

plant communities. Invasive species such as cattail, reed canarygrass, and willows can form 

monocultures that can change the function of the wetlands.

Ten years of Refuge waterfowl pair count data were analyzed, which revealed on average the 

Refuge provides habitat for 90 pairs of Mallards. In order to evaluate the Refuge’s potential for 

supporting Mallard pairs under hemi-marsh conditions we used waterfowl pair count models 

(“thunderstorm map”) developed by the Habitat Population and Evaluation Team (HAPET) in 

Fergus Falls, MN. Under ideal wetland habitat conditions the Refuge could provide habitat for 

145 breeding pairs of Mallards. However, the Refuge wetlands are located in a riverine system 

that is prone to erratic high water events, i.e., flooding. Refuge impoundments have water 

control structures but constricted water management capability due to the sheer volume of 

water that flows through the system. This in turn has an effect on the Refuge’s ability to create 

optimal habitat conditions (hemi-marsh). Some areas that under ideal conditions could be hemimarsh are not feasible. Some of the wetlands are prone to cattail domination. Therefore, these 

factors were taken into account when using the HAPET models. 

With the planned increase in grassland restoration and water management capability as 

outlined in this plan, greater vegetative and structural diversity would be created and provide 

better nesting habitat for not only waterfowl but also a variety of grassland nesting birds. 

Realizing the limitation to water management capability in this riverine system and the 

enhanced habitat condition the HAPET models predict, habitat could be provided for up to 120 

Mallard breeding pairs.

Potential Strategy

• Annually monitor Mallard breeding pairs within Refuge wetlands.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

Objective 2-2: Bobolink Production

Increase the Bobolink breeding population of 194 pairs (current estimate) within the Refuge 

grassland habitats by 20 percent throughout the life of the plan.

Performance Measure:

Bobolink breeding pairs.

Rationale

In order to obtain an estimate of the number of breeding Bobolink pairs that the Refuge currently 

supports, 10 years of data were analyzed from the Refuge’s Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). The 

10 year (2002–2011) average for Bobolink was 28.2 males/BBS route. The breeding population 

estimate was derived from formulas that were used in Rosenberg, 2004. This study focused on 

setting Partners in Flight (PIF) priorities and objectives at the State and Bird Conservation 

Region (BCR) level for landbird species. 

http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/MN_PIF_OBJ_PRIO.pdf

BBS-based estimate of abundance was calculated according to the following steps:

1. Annual Bobolink numbers per BBS route were averaged over a ten year period to 

develop a single average number of birds/route.

2. An index of abundance was calculated for the geographic polygon (1781 ha = 4,400 

acres of grassland) by multiplying the average count per BBS route times area of the 

geographic polygon, and dividing by the theoretical area covered by a BBS route (2510 

ha, assuming 400-m radius around each of the 50 count circles). For example, the index 

of abundance for Bobolink in the grasslands on the Refuge equals 28.2 birds/route x 

1781 ha (4,400 acres of grassland)/ 2510 ha (area per BBS route) equals approximately 

20 birds.

(ha = hectare)

3. The index of abundance was converted to a population estimate by applying three

correction factors (see Rosenberg and Blancher, 2005).

Pair correction: The index (20 birds) was multiplied by two on the assumption that 

typically a single member of a breeding pair is observed during BBS tallies.

Detection area correction: Species have been placed into one of five detection 

distance categories, based on presumed effective detection during 3-minute BBS 

counts: 80m, 125m, 200m, 400m and 800m. Because area of detection increases as the 

square of detection distance, the detection area correction is then simply the square of 

the ratio between 400m (theoretical BBS count circle) and species-specific effective 

distance. For example for Bobolink, placed in the 200m class, the population index is 

multiplied by a detection area correction of 4 (square of 400/200). Note that effective 

detection distances are intended to incorporate not only the distance at which a species 

is normally heard and seen, but also the distance the species moves during a 3-min 

count period – this is why some wide-ranging species have been assigned an 800-m 

detection distance despite being counted within a 400-m BBS circle.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

Time of day correction: Almost all species show a temporal change in detection across 

the 50 BBS stops, some declining from a dawn chorus, others peaking after sunrise or 

later in the morning. A time of day correction is applied to the population index to adjust 

counts to the maximum time of detection. This adjusts for birds not detected at other 

times of the morning. The correction factor is the ratio of counts at the peak of detection 

(calculated using a polynomial curve fit to smooth out stop-by-stop variance) relative to 

the average count over whole BBS routes. Time of day correction factors were 

calculated from survey-wide BBS stop-by-stop data. For Bobolink, the time of day 

correction is 1.21. 

4. Calculation for population estimate: BBS abundance index number of birds, pair 

correction, detection area correction, and time of day correction factors. For Bobolink: 20 

males X 2 (pair correction) X 4 (detection area correction) X 1.21 (time of day correction) 

= 194 pairs. 

When evaluating datasets to develop a population objective for Bobolink, the habitat model for 

Bobolink developed and provided by HAPET was used. Refuge data was clipped out of the 

regional data layer of Bobolink pairs. The data indicates that approximately 3,000 pairs of 

Bobolink should occur on the Refuge. This model is a large landscape level model developed 

to assist managers with prioritizing land acquisition sites. However, it has not been used on a 

fine scale such as the Refuge. The density estimates in the model have not been verified on 

the ground which is why the BBS method was selected. There will be opportunities for the 

Refuge to conduct surveys to verify the validity of the model in the future.

In order to increase populations, two requirements must be met. First, adequate habitat must be 

provided to breeding individuals in the population base as well as the increasing number of

individuals produced by population growth. Second, birds in those habitats must produce 

enough offspring to maintain the targeted growth rate. Providing adequate habitat requires 

meeting minimum area requirements as well as microhabitat needs. Minimum area 

requirements may vary among areas in any planning unit. Several habitat modifications via 

grassland restoration and enhancement efforts are described in this plan. By increasing species 

and structural diversity in the grasslands more habitat will be available for Bobolinks, other 

grassland nesting bird species and resident wildlife. 

Habitat enhancements are planned on 1,100 acres (445 ha) of the Refuge grasslands. Using 

the BBS method calculations the Refuge could expect a 20 percent increase (48 pairs) in 

breeding Bobolink population. The enhanced habitat conditions could provide suitable habitat 

for an estimated 242 Bobolink pairs.

Potential Strategy

• Annually monitor Bobolink breeding pairs within Refuge grasslands.

People Goal

Big Stone NWR will provide a variety of wildlife-dependent recreational and educational 

opportunities for visitors to experience and treasure native tallgrass prairie heritage, ecological 

processes, and cultural resources.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

Objective 3-1: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Within five years of plan approval, increase public understanding of currently available access 

for wildlife observation and photography.

Performance Measure

Number of contacts with visitors, media, or at events.

Rationale

Service policy supports providing opportunities for wildlife observation and photography when it 

is compatible with refuge purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(NWRS, Refuge System) (FWS, 2006d). Wildlife observation can promote understanding and 

appreciation of natural resources and their management on all lands and waters in the Refuge 

System. Providing opportunities to observe wildlife fosters a sense of stewardship for the 

Refuge System, wildlife, and habitat resources through direct experience. Wildlife observation is 

a popular activity at the Refuge and increasing public understanding of existing access and 

opportunities for this activity accommodates this use while also minimizing disturbance to 

wildlife.

Potential Strategy

• Incorporate information on available opportunities in routine contacts with visitors, 

media, and at events.

Objective 3-2: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Within five years of plan approval, at least 70 percent of elementary and secondary educators 

within a 30-mile radius of the Refuge recognize the Refuge as a source for environmental 

education curriculum materials and as an outdoor destination to help reinforce environmental 

education concepts.

Performance Measure

Email inquiry to environmental educators.

Rationale

Providing and promoting environmental education helps develop a citizenry that has the 

awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, motivation, and commitment to work cooperatively 

towards the conservation of our nation’s environmental resources. Environmental education is a 

priority for general public use of the Refuge, and Service policy directs refuges to provide 

environmental education programs when they are compatible with refuge purposes and the 

mission of the Refuge System. Well-designed interpretive programs can be effective resource 

management tools that provide us an opportunity to influence visitor attitudes about natural 

resources, refuges, the Refuge System, and the Service to influence visitor behavior when 

visiting units of the Refuge System. Interpretation is a priority for general public use of the 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

Refuge System, and Service policy directs that refuges provide interpretation when it is 

compatible with refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System (FWS, 2006g).

Potential Strategies

• Conduct teacher workshops.

• Distribute information to educators regarding availability of Refuge environmental 

education materials.

Objective 3-3 Hunting

Within five years of plan approval, review existing hunting opportunities and, where appropriate, 

increase and/or improve access and hunting opportunities with emphasis on youth and hunters 

with disabilities. Existing (baseline) levels include approximately 15 access points and 

opportunities to hunt turkey, Gray Partridge, Ring-necked Pheasant, rabbit, squirrel, white-tailed 

deer, raccoon, fox, and striped skunk. 

Performance Measure

Visitor Services Program Evaluation (annual self-evaluation and periodic [at least every 10 

years] formal evaluation).

Rationale

Hunting is an important wildlife management tool that the Service recognizes as a healthy, 

traditional outdoor pastime, deeply rooted in the American heritage. Hunting can instill a unique 

understanding and appreciation of wildlife, their behavior, and their habitat needs. Hunting 

programs help promote understanding and appreciation of natural resources and their 

management on all lands and waters in the Refuge System. Hunting is a priority general public 

use of the Refuge System, and Service policy directs us to provide hunting opportunities when 

compatible (FWS, 2006b). 

Potential Strategy

• Complete a Visitor Services Step-down Management Plan including an evaluation of 

current hunting opportunities.

Objective 3-4 Fishing

Within five years of plan approval, where appropriate, increase and/or improve fishing access 

and opportunities above that available in the year the plan is approved. Existing (baseline) 

levels include: approximately six access points, three fishing platforms, boat fishing on the 

Minnesota River channel (non-motorized or electric motors only), seasonal bank and ice fishing 

on all Refuge waters with suitable access, and all fishing opportunities confined to daylight 

hours.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

Performance Measure

Visitor Services Program Evaluation (annual self-evaluation and periodic [at least every 10 

years] formal evaluation).

Rationale

Fishing programs help promote understanding and appreciation of natural resources and their 

management on all lands and waters in the Refuge System. Fishing is a priority general public 

use of the Refuge System, and Service policy directs us to provide fishing opportunities when 

compatible (FWS, 2006c).

Potential Strategy

• Complete a Visitor Services Step-down Management Plan including an evaluation of 

current fishing opportunities.

Objective 3-5 Community Support and Outreach

Within five years of plan approval, develop a core group of volunteers that support the Refuge 

goals and management objectives through active participation and by serving as Refuge 

ambassadors within and beyond local communities.

Performance Measure

Amount of volunteer hours.

Rationale

The Service recognizes the value of time and expertise contributed by individuals, groups, and 

students. Volunteers help the Service achieve agency goals. Developing a volunteer program: 

1) provides people with opportunities to assist in the accomplishment of the Refuge System 

mission, 2) enhances our performance through the creativity and innovations, labor, and 

expertise contributed by volunteers, 3) provides opportunities for students and others to gain 

experience in areas of interest for future careers, 4) completes work that we would not 

otherwise accomplish without the use of volunteers, and 5) encourages stewardship of 

wildlands, wildlife, and other natural and cultural resources through public participation in, and 

contribution to, Service programs and operations.

Potential Strategies

• Over the life of the plan, work with visitors and local communities to generate support for 

the Refuge that results in the donation of at least 200 volunteer hours annually.

• Work with citizens interested in forming a Friends group.

• Throughout the life of the plan, continue to provide appropriate and compatible public 

use opportunities.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

Objective 3-6 Welcoming and Orienting Visitors

Annually, provide visitors with clear information so they can easily determine where they can go, 

what they can do, and how to safely and ethically engage in recreational and educational 

activities on the Refuge. 

Performance Measure

Visitor Services Program Evaluation (annual self-evaluation and periodic [at least every 10 

years] formal evaluation).

Rationale

Welcoming and orienting Refuge visitors contributes to several of the criteria defining a quality 

wildlife-dependent recreation program (FWS, 2006a). Providing clear information including signs 

and brochures is recognized as an important aspect in making visitors feel welcome and safe at 

national wildlife refuges (FWS, 2011).

Potential Strategy

• Maintain updated brochures, signage, and social media to provide current information to

visitors.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

65

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

In this chapter:

New and Existing Projects

Staffing

Partnership Opportunities

Step-Down Management Plans

Monitoring and Evaluation

Plan Review and Revision 

This chapter summarizes the actions, funding, coordination, and monitoring to implement the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). As noted on the inside cover of this document, this 

plan does not constitute a commitment for staffing increases or operational and maintenance 

increases. These decisions are at the discretion of Congress in overall appropriations and in 

budget allocation decisions made at the Washington and Regional levels of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS, Service). 

New and Existing Projects 

This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action for the future management of Big Stone 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge). It will require considerable staff commitment as well as 

funding commitment to actively manage the wildlife habitats and to add, improve, and maintain 

public use facilities. The Refuge will continually need appropriate operational and maintenance 

funding to implement the objectives in this plan. A full listing of unfunded Refuge projects and 

operational needs can be found in appendix F along with a brief description of the highest 

priority Refuge projects. 

Staffing 

Implementing the vision set forth in this CCP will require changes in the organizational structure 

of the Refuge. Existing staff will direct their time and energy in new directions, and new staff

members will be added to assist in these efforts. Table 5-1 presents current staffing and the 

increases proposed for the Refuge in this plan.

Table 5-1: Current and Proposed Staffing Under the CCP

Current Staff Proposed Additions

Project Leader Law Enforcement Officer

Wildlife Refuge Specialist Park Ranger

Wildlife Refuge Specialist Maintenance Worker

Wildlife Biologist Tractor Operator

Administrative Technician

Prescribed Fire Specialist

Range Technician (Fire)

Maintenance Mechanic
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

66

Partnership Opportunities

Partnerships are an essential element for the successful accomplishment of goals, objectives, 

and strategies at Big Stone NWR. The objectives outlined in this CCP need the support and the 

partnerships of federal, state and local agencies, non-governmental organizations, and 

individual citizens. Refuge staff will continue to seek creative partnership opportunities to 

achieve the vision of the Refuge.

We expect to continue to work with the following notable partners, while developing new 

partnerships:

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

• Ducks Unlimited

• Upper Minnesota River Watershed District

• Pheasants Forever

• The Nature Conservancy

Step-Down Management Plans

The CCP is a plan that provides general concepts and specific wildlife, habitat, and peoplerelated objectives. Step-down management plans provide greater detail to managers and 

employees who will carry out the strategies described in the CCP. The Refuge staff will revise 

or develop the following step-down plans:

Step-down Management Plan Estimated time of completion after CCP 

approval

Habitat Management Plan 1 year

Visitor Services Plan 2 years

Inventory and Monitoring Plan 2 years

Monitoring and Evaluation

The direction set forth in this CCP and specifically-identified strategies and projects will be 

monitored throughout the life of this plan. On a periodic basis, the Regional Office will assemble 

a station review team whose purpose will be to visit the Refuge and evaluate current activities in 

light of this plan. The team will review all aspects of Refuge management, including direction, 

accomplishments, and funding. The goals and objectives presented in this CCP will provide the 

baseline for evaluation of this field station.

Plan Review and Revision

The CCP is meant to provide guidance to the Refuge Manager and staff over the next 15 years. 

However, the CCP is also a dynamic and flexible document, and several of the strategies 

contained in this plan are subject to uncontrollable events of nature. Likewise, many of the 

strategies are dependent upon Service funding for staff and projects. Because of all these 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67

factors, the recommendations in the CCP will be reviewed periodically and, if necessary, revised 

to meet new circumstances. If any revisions are major, the review and revision process will 

include the public.
Appendix A: Finding of No significant Impact

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact
Appendix B: Glossary

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

Appendix B: Glossary

Adaptation: Adjustment in natural or human systems to a new or changing environment. 

Adaptation to climate change refers to adjustment in natural or human systems in response to 

actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial 

opportunities. Various types of adaptation can be distinguished, including anticipatory and 

reactive adaptation, private and public adaptation, and autonomous and planned adaptation.

Adaptive Management: The 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 refuge research and monitoring and evaluation of 

management actions to support or modify objectives and strategies at all planning levels (FWS, 

602 FW1 1.6).

Alternatives: Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes 

and goals, helping fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, and resolving issues 

(FWS, 602 FW1 1.6). 

Appropriate Use: A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the 

following four conditions (FWS, 603 FW1 1.6):

• The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Fish and Wildlife 

Improvement Act of 1978.

• The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission, or goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan 

approved after October 9, 1997, the date the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 was signed into law.

• The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under state regulations.

• The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11.

Approved Acquisition Boundary: A project boundary that the Director of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service approves upon completion of the planning and environmental compliance 

process. An approved acquisition boundary only designates those lands that the Service has 

authority to acquire and/or manage through various agreements. Approval of an acquisition 

boundary does not grant the Service jurisdiction or control over lands within the boundary, and it 

does not make lands within the refuge boundary part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Lands do not become part of the Refuge System until they are purchased or are placed under 

an agreement that provides for management as part of the refuge system. 

Biological Control: The use of organisms or viruses to control weeds or other pests. 

Biological Diversity: The variety of life, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic 

differences among them, and the communities in which they occur (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6). 

Biological Integrity: Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at the genetic, organism, 

and community levels consistent with natural conditions, including the natural biological 

processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).
Appendix B: Glossary

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

Candidate Species: Plants and animals for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but for which development of a proposed listing 

regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities.

Carbon Sequestration: The uptake and storage of carbon. Trees and plants, for example, 

absorb carbon dioxide, release the oxygen, and store the carbon. Fossil fuels were at one time 

biomass and continue to store the carbon until burned.

Climate Change: Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such 

as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). 

Climate change may result from 1) natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or 

slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun; 2) natural processes within the climate system 

(e.g., changes in ocean circulation); 3) human activities that change the atmosphere's 

composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, 

reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.).

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The codification of the general and permanent rules 

published in the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government. 

It is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation. The 50 subject 

matter titles contain one or more individual volumes, which are updated once each calendar 

year, on a staggered basis. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An Executive Office of the President whose 

members are appointed by the President. CEQ recommends national policies to promote the 

improvement of the quality of the environment.

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of 

a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the 

purposes of the national wildlife refuge (FWS, 603 FW 2 2.6). 

Compatibility Determination (CD): A written determination signed and dated by the Refuge 

Manager and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Chief signifying that a proposed or 

existing use of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible use or is not a compatible use. The 

director of the Service makes this delegation through the Regional Director (FWS, 603 FW 2 

2.6).

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP): A document that describes the desired future 

conditions of a refuge or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

maintains and, where appropriate, restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System; helps achieve the goals of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System; and meets other mandates (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Consumptive Use: Use of a refuge resource that removes the resource from the refuge (e.g., 

killing an animal to eat, catching and keeping fish, harvesting berries or plants, or removal of 

mineral or other specimens).

Cultural Resource Inventory: A professionally conducted study designed to locate and 

evaluate evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. Inventories 
Appendix B: Glossary

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

may involve various levels, including background literature search, comprehensive field 

examination to identify all exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of identified 

cultural resources to determine eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places follows the 

criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4. 

Cultural Resources: “Those parts of the physical environment—natural and built—that have 

cultural value to some kind of sociocultural group . . . [and] those non-material human social 

institutions . . . .” Cultural resources include historic sites, archeological sites and associated 

artifacts, sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, cultural items (human remains, funerary 

objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony), and buildings and structures.

Easement: A privilege or right that is held by one person or other entity in land owned by 

another. 

Ecological Integrity: The integration of biological integrity, natural biological diversity, and 

environmental health; the replication of natural conditions (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Ecosystem: A biological community together with its environment, functioning as a unit. For 

administrative purposes, 53 ecosystems covering the United States and its possessions have 

been designated. These ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries, and their 

sizes and ecological complexity vary (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6). 

Effects (Impacts): Effects include:

• Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

• Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed 

in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growthinducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural 

systems, including ecosystems.

• Cumulative effects, which result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that, collectively, become significant over time.

Effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous. Effects includes ecological 

(such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of 

affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, 

indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions that may have both 

beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effect will be 

beneficial (40 CFR 1508.8).

Endangered Species: Any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered Species 

Act as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and 

published in the Federal Register.

Endangered Species Act (ESA): Through federal action and by encouraging the establishment 

of state programs, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 provided for the conservation of 

ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend. 

The Act authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened; 
Appendix B: Glossary

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

72

prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; provides 

authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water 

conservation funds; authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to 

states that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for 

violating the Act or regulations; and authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing 

information leading to arrest and conviction for any violation of the Act or any regulation issued 

thereunder. 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to insure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

listed species or modify their critical habitat. 

Environmental Action Statement (EAS): The decision document for an environmental 

assessment for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The EAS will consist of a one-page 

document indicating the proposal, the Service decision, references to supporting documents (if 

any), and a signature block. The purposes of the EAS are to establish a process for internal 

review of National Environmental Policy Act-related decision documents and to provide an 

appropriate administrative record of NEPA-related decisions at all management levels of the 

Service (FWS, 550 FW3 3.3 C).

Environmental Analysis: The process associated with preparing documents such as 

environmental assessments and environmental impact statements and the decision whether to 

prepare an environmental impact statement. It is an analysis of alternative actions and their 

predictable short-term and long-term effects, which include physical, biological, economic, and 

social factors and their interactions.

Environmental Assessment (EA): A systematic analysis to determine if proposed actions 

would result in a significant effect on the quality of the environment.

Environmental Consequences: The scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of 

alternatives. The environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any 

adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the 

relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

resources that would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented (40 CFR 1502.16). 

Environmental Health: Abiotic composition, structure, and functioning of the environment 

consistent with natural conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

environment (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed written statement, required by section 

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts of a 

proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of 

action, short-term uses of the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 

1508.11).

Environmental Justice: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the 

development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income.
Appendix B: Glossary

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

Extirpation: The local extinction of a species that is no longer found in a locality or country but 

exists elsewhere in the world.

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): A document prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act and 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).

Global Warming: Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere 

near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global 

climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human 

induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a 

result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

Goal: A descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that 

conveys purposes but does not define measurable units (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Greenhouse Gas (GHG): Any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere. 

Greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane 

(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), 

ozone (O3 ), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride 

(SF6).

Habitat: The physical and biological resources required by an organism for its survival and 

reproduction; these requirements are species-specific. Food and cover are major components 

of habitat and must extend beyond the requirements of the individual to include a sufficient area 

capable of supporting a viable population.

Incompatible: Any use (recreational or nonrecreational) of a refuge that, in the sound 

professional judgment of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

or the purposes of the refuge. Incompatible uses are not allowed to occur on Service areas.

Indicator: In effects analysis, a way for measuring effects from management alternatives on a 

particular resource or issue.

Interjurisdictional Fish: Fish that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of one or more states, 

for which there is an interstate fishery management plan or which migrates between the waters 

under the jurisdiction of two or more states bordering on the Great Lakes.

Invasive Species: Invasive species are organisms that are introduced into a non-native 

ecosystem and that cause, or are likely to cause, harm to the economy, environment, or human 

health.

Inventory: Accepted biological methods to determine the presence, relative abundance, and/or 

distribution of species (FWS, 702 FW2 2.6).

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision—that is, a U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, a threat to the resources 
Appendix B: Glossary

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition 

(FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Major Federal Action: Includes action with effects that may be major and that are potentially 

subject to federal control and responsibility. “Major” reinforces but does not have a meaning 

independent of significantly. “Actions” include new and continuing activities. Federal actions 

include adoption of official policy, formal plans, programs, and approval of specific projects (40 

CFR 1508.18).

Memorandum of Understanding or Agreement (MOU or MOA): A legal document outlining 

the terms and details of an agreement between parties (often U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

a state natural resource agency), including each party’s requirements and responsibilities. It 

sets forth the basic principles and guidelines under which the parties will work together to 

accomplish their goals. A memorandum of understanding or agreement are generally 

recognized as binding, even if no legal claim could be based on the rights and obligations laid 

down in them. 

Migratory Birds: Birds that follow a seasonal movement from their breeding grounds to their 

wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and songbirds are all migratory birds.

Monitoring: Accepted biological methods to determine the status and/or demographics of 

species over time (FWS, 702 FW2 2.6). 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): This act, promulgated in 1969, requires all 

federal agencies to disclose the environmental effects of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all 

actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements and must 

prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decisionmaking (40 

CFR 1500). The law also established the Council on Environmental Quality to implement the 

law and to monitor compliance with the law.

National Wilderness Preservation System: A network of federally owned areas designated by 

Congress as wilderness and managed by one of four federal agencies: the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, or the U.S. Forest 

Service. Includes over 600 areas and more than 105 million acres. The National Wildlife 

Refuge System includes over 20 million acres of wilderness in more than 60 refuges (FWS, 610 

FW1 1.9).

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge): A designated area of land, water, or an interest in 

land or water within the National Wildlife Refuge System, but does not include Coordination 

Areas. A complete listing of all units of the Refuge System is located in the current Report of 

Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System): All lands, waters, and interests 

therein administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, 

wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas, and other areas for the protection and 

conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act): Sets the 

mission and administrative policy for all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Clearly 

defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy and 
Appendix B: Glossary

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation); establishes a formal process for 

determining compatibility; establishes the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for 

managing and protecting the Refuge System; and 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: A species, subspecies, or distinct population that occurs within its natural

range or natural zone of potential dispersal (i.e., the geographic area the species occupies 

naturally or would occupy in the absence of direct or indirect human activity or an environmental 

catastrophe). 

No-Action Alternative: In the context of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, this refers to the 

current management direction. With this alternative, no change from the current CCP would be 

implemented.

Non-consumptive Uses: Recreational activities (e.g., hiking, photography, and wildlife 

observation) that do not involve the taking or catching of fish, wildlife, or other natural resources.

Non-native Species: A species, subspecies, or distinct population that has been introduced by 

humans (intentionally or unintentionally) outside its natural range or natural zone of potential 

dispersal.

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, 

when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives derive 

from goals and provide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge 

accomplishments, and evaluating the success of strategies. Objectives are to be attainable, 

time-specific, and measurable (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Ozone (O3): Ozone, the triatomic form of oxygen (O3), is a gaseous atmospheric constituent. In 

the troposphere, it is created both naturally and by photochemical reactions involving gases 

resulting from human activities (photochemical smog). In high concentrations, tropospheric 

ozone can be harmful to a wide range of living organisms. Tropospheric ozone acts as a 

greenhouse gas. In the stratosphere, ozone is created by the interaction between solar 

ultraviolet radiation and molecular oxygen (O2). Stratospheric ozone plays a decisive role in the 

stratospheric radiative balance. Depletion of stratospheric ozone, due to chemical reactions that 

may be enhanced by climate change, results in an increased ground-level flux of ultraviolet (UV) 

B radiation. 

Planning Area: The area upon which the planning effort will focus. A planning area may include 

lands outside existing planning unit boundaries currently studied for inclusion in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and/or partnership planning efforts. It also may include watersheds or 

ecosystems outside of our jurisdiction that affect the planning unit. At a minimum, the planning 

area includes all lands within the authorized boundary of the refuge (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Planning Team: A planning team is interdisciplinary in membership and function. A team 

generally consist of a Planning Team Leader, Refuge Manager, staff biologists, a state natural 

resource agency representative, and other appropriate program specialists (e.g., social 

scientist, ecologist, recreation specialist). Other federal and Tribal natural resource agencies 

may also be asked to provide team members, as appropriate. The planning team prepares the 
Appendix B: Glossary

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and appropriate National Environmental Policy Act 

documentation (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Prescribed Burning: Controlled application of fire to the landscape that allows the fire to be 

confined to a predetermined area while producing the intensity of heat and rate of spread 

required to achieve planned management objectives.

Preferred Alternative: A proposed action in the National Environmental Policy Act document 

for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan identifying the alternative that the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service believes best achieves planning unit purposes, vision, and goals; helps fulfill the 

National Wildlife Refuge System mission; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; addresses the significant issues and 

mandates; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management.

Priority Public Uses: Six uses authorized by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 to have priority and are found to be compatible with the refuge purposes. This 

includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation.

Proposed Action: In the context of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, this is the same as 

the Preferred Alternative.

Public Involvement: A process that offers affected and interested individuals and organizations 

opportunities to become informed about, and to express their opinions on, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service actions and policies. In the process, these public views are studied thoroughly and are 

thoughtfully considered in shaping decisions for refuge management.

Purposes of the Refuge: The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative 

memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. 

For refuges that encompass congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the 

Wilderness Act are additional purposes of the refuge (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Record of Decision (ROD): A concise public record of a decision prepared by the federal 

agency, pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act, that contains a statement of the 

decision, identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the environmentally 

preferable alternative, a statement whether all practical means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were 

not), and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable for any mitigation (40 

CFR 1505.2). 

Resident Species: A nonmigratory species inhabiting a given locality throughout the year. 

Examples include white-tailed deer, muskrat, raccoon, mink, and fox.

Scoping: A process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed by a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and for identifying the significant issues. Involved in the scoping process are 

federal, state, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals.

Shorebird: Long-legged birds, also known as waders, belonging to the order Charadriiformes 

that use shallow wetlands and mud flats for foraging and nesting. 
Appendix B: Glossary

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

77

Significant Issue: A significant issue is typically: within Service jurisdiction, suggests different 

actions or alternatives, and will influence the decision (FWS, 602 FW3 3.4 3b). 

Species: A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable characteristics, and that 

can interbreed and produce young. A category of biological classification.

Sound Professional Judgment: A 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. 

Stakeholder: A person or group who has an interest in activities within the Planning Area.

Step-down Management Plan: A plan that provides specific guidance on management 

subjects (e.g., habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It describes 

strategies and implementation schedules for meeting Comprehensive Conservation Plan goals 

and objectives (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC): A structured, science-driven approach for making 

efficient, transparent decisions about where and how to expend Service resources for species, 

or groups of species, that are limited by the amount or quality of habitat. It is an adaptive 

management framework integrating planning, design, delivery, and evaluation.

Strategy: A specific action, tool or technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques 

used to meet unit objectives (FWS, 602 FW 1.6).

Threatened Species: Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered species 

throughout all of or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable future. A plant or 

animal identified and defined in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and 

published in the Federal Register.

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be or hope to do, 

based primarily upon the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, specific refuge purposes, 

and other mandates. The vision statement for the refuge should be tied to the mission of the

Refuge System; the purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the ecological 

integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other mandates (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Waterfowl: A group of birds that include ducks, geese, and swans (belonging to the order 

Anseriformes). 

Waterfowl Production Area (WPA): Prairie wetlands with associated uplands managed to 

provide nesting areas for waterfowl and owned in fee title by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

These lands are purchased from willing sellers with funds from Federal Duck Stamp sales. They 

are open to public hunting, fishing, and trapping according to state and federal regulations.

Watershed: The entire land area that collects and drains water into a river/stream or 

river/stream system.

Wetland: A wetland is 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. For the purposes 

of this classification a wetland must have one or more of the following three attributes: 1) at 
Appendix B: Glossary

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

78

least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; 2) the substrate is 

predominantly undrained hydric soil; and 3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water 

or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year (Cowardin et 

al., 1979).

Wetland Management District (WMD): An area covering several counties that acquires (with 

Federal Duck Stamp funds), restores, and manages prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl 

and other wetland birds. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use: A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation. These are the six 

priority public uses of the National Wildlife 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. These other 

uses will also be considered in the preparation of refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans; 

however, the six priority public uses always will take precedence (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Wildlife Diversity: A measure of the number of wildlife species in an area and their relative 

abundance.

Waterbirds: This general category includes all birds that inhabit lakes, marshes, streams and 

other wetlands at some point during the year. The group includes all waterfowl, such as ducks, 

geese, and swans and other birds such as loons, rails, cranes, herons, egrets, ibis, cormorants, 

pelicans, shorebirds, and passerines that nest and rely on wetland vegetation. 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

Appendix C: Species Lists

In this appendix

Big Stone NWR Bird Checklist

Big Stone NWR Butterflies

Big Stone NWR Fish Species

Big Stone NWR Mammal Species

Big Stone NWR Plants

Big Stone NWR Reptiles and Amphibians

Big Stone NWR Bird Checklist

Common Name

Scientific name

Spring

(March–May)

Summer

(June–August)

Fall

(Sept.–Nov.)

Winter

(Dec.–Feb.)

Greater White-fronted 

Goose 

Anser albifrons

uncommon uncommon

Snow Goose

Chen caerulescens

uncommon rare common rare

Ross’ Goose

Chen rossii

rare rare

Canada Goose* 

Branta canadensis

abundant common abundant rare

Tundra Swan

Cygnus columbianus

occasional occasional

Wood Duck*

Aix sponsa

common common common

Gadwall*

Anas strepera

abundant uncommon abundant

American Wigeon*

Anas americana

common occasional uncommon

American Black Duck

Anas rubripes

rare rare rare

Mallard* 

Anas platyrhynchos

abundant common abundant occasional

Blue-winged Teal*

Anas discors

common common common

Northern Shoveler*

Anas clypeata

common uncommon common

Northern Pintail* 

Anas acuta

common occasional common

American Green-winged 

Teal*

Anas crecca

common uncommon common

Canvasback* 

Aythya valisineria

uncommon occasional common

Redhead*

Aythya americana

uncommon uncommon common

Ring-necked Duck*

Aythya collaris

common rare common rare

Lesser Scaup

Aythya affinis

common rare common rare
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

80

Common Name

Scientific name

Spring

(March–May)

Summer

(June–August)

Fall

(Sept.–Nov.)

Winter

(Dec.–Feb.)

Bufflehead

Bucephala albeola

uncommon uncommon

Common Goldeneye

Bucephala clangula

uncommon uncommon rare

Barrow’s Goldeneye

Bucephala islandica

rare rare

Hooded Merganser*

Lophodytes cucullatus

common uncommon common rare

Common Merganser

Mergus merganser

occasional occasional rare

Red-breasted Merganser

Mergus serrator

rare rare

Ruddy Duck*

Oxyura jamaicensis

uncommon uncommon uncommon

Gray Partridge*

Perdix perdix

uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Ring-necked Pheasant*

Phasianus colchicus

abundant abundant abundant abundant

Sharp-tailed Grouse

Tympanuchus phasianellus

occasional occasional occasional occasional

Greater Prairie Chicken*

Tympanuchus cupido

rare rare rare rare

Wild Turkey*

Meleagris gallopavo

common common common common

Common Loon 

Gavia immer

rare rare

Pied-billed Grebe*

Podilymbus podiceps

common common common

Horned Grebe 

Podiceps auritus

occasional occasional

Red-necked Grebe

Podiceps grisegena

occasional occasional occasional

Eared Grebe*

Podiceps nigricollis

uncommon uncommon

Western Grebe*

Aechmophorus occidentals

occasional rare occasional

Clark’s Grebe*

Aechmophorus clarkii

rare rare

American White Pelican 

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

common common common

Double-crested Cormorant* 

Phalacrocorax auritus

common common common

Neotropic Cormorant

Phalacrocorax brasilianus

rare

American Bittern* 

Botaurus lentiginosus

uncommon uncommon uncommon

Least Bittern*

Ixobrychus exilis

uncommon uncommon uncommon

Great Blue Heron*

Ardea herodias

common common common

Great Egret*

Ardea alba

common common common

Snowy Egret rare rare rare
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81

Common Name

Scientific name

Spring

(March–May)

Summer

(June–August)

Fall

(Sept.–Nov.)

Winter

(Dec.–Feb.)

Egretta thula

Little Blue Heron

Egretta caerulea

rare rare rare

Cattle Egret

Bubulcus ibis

rare rare rare

Green Heron*

Butorides virescens

uncommon uncommon occasional

Black-crowned Night-Heron

Nycticorax nycticorax

uncommon uncommon uncommon

Yellow-crowned NightHeron

Nyctanassa violaceus

rare rare rare

White-faced Ibis

Plegadis chihi

occasional occasional occasional

Turkey Vulture*

Cathartes aura

common common common

Osprey

Pandion haliaetus

rare rare rare

Bald Eagle* 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

uncommon uncommon uncommon

Northern Harrier* 

Circus cyaneus

common common common rare

Sharp-shinned Hawk

Accipiter striatus

occasional rare occasional rare

Cooper’s Hawk

Accipiter cooperii

occasional occasional occasional rare

Northern Goshawk

Accipiter gentilis

rare rare

Broad-winged Hawk

Buteo platypterus

occasional occasional

Swainson’s Hawk*

Buteo swainsoni

occasional occasional occasional

Red-tailed Hawk*

Buteo jamaicensis

common common common rare

Rough-legged Hawk

Buteo lagopus

occasional occasional occasional

Golden Eagle 

Aquila chrysaetos

occasional occasional rare

American Kestrel*

Falco spawverius

uncommon uncommon uncommon rare

Merlin

Falco columbarius

rare rare rare rare

Peregrine Falcon

Falco peregrinus

rare rare

Prairie Falcon 

Falco mexicanus

rare rare

King Rail

Rallus elegans

rare rare rare

Virginia Rail*

Rallus limicola

common common common

Sora*

Porzana carolina

common common common

Common Moorhen rare
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

Common Name

Scientific name

Spring

(March–May)

Summer

(June–August)

Fall

(Sept.–Nov.)

Winter

(Dec.–Feb.)

Gallinula chloropus

American Coot*

Fulica Americana

abundant common abundant

Sandhill Crane

Grus canadensis

rare

Black-bellied Plover

Pluvialis squatarola

uncommon uncommon rare

American Golden-plover

Pluvialis dominica

uncommon uncommon rare

Snowy Plover*

Charadrius alexandrinus

rare rare

Semipalmated Plover

Charadrius semipalmatus

rare common rare

Piping Plover

Charadrius melodus

rare rare

Killdeer*

Charadrius vociferus

common common common

American Avocet*

Recurvirostra americana

occasional occasional occasional

Spotted Sandpiper*

Actitis macularius

uncommon uncommon common

Solitary Sandpiper

Tringa solitaria

uncommon uncommon rare

Greater Yellowlegs*

Tringa melanoleuca

common common uncommon

Willet

Tringa semipalmata

rare rare

Lesser Yellowlegs*

Tringa flavipes

common common rare

Upland Sandpiper*

Bartramia longicauda

uncommon uncommon rare

Hudsonian Godwit

Limosa haemastica

occasional occasional occasional

Marbled Godwit*

Limosa fedoa

uncommon uncommon uncommon

Ruddy Turnstone

Arenaria interpres

rare rare

Sanderling

Calidris alba

rare rare

Semipalmated Sandpiper*

Calidris pusilla

common common uncommon

Western Sandpiper

Calidris mauri

rare rare

Least Sandpiper

Calidris minutilla

common common uncommon

White-rumped Sandpiper

Calidris fuscicollis

common rare rare

Baird’s Sandpiper

Calidris bairdii

uncommon occasional rare

Pectoral Sandpiper

Calidris melanotos

common common rare

Dunlin

Calidris alpina

uncommon uncommon
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

Common Name

Scientific name

Spring

(March–May)

Summer

(June–August)

Fall

(Sept.–Nov.)

Winter

(Dec.–Feb.)

Stilt Sandpiper

Calidris himantopus

rare common rare

Buff-breasted Sandpiper

Tryngites subruficollis

occasional occasional

Ruff

Philomachus pugnax

rare

Short-billed Dowitcher

Limnodromus griseus

rare common rare

Long-billed Dowitcher

Limnodromus scolopaceus

rare uncommon occasional

Wilson’s Snipe*

Gallinago delicata

common common common

American Woodcock*

Scolopax minor

uncommon uncommon uncommon

Wilson’s Phalarope

Phalaropus tricolor

common uncommon

Sabine’s Gull

Xema sabini

rare rare

Bonaparte’s Gull

Leucophaeus philadelphia

uncommon rare uncommon

Franklin’s Gull*

Leucophaeus pipixcan

common common common

Ring-billed Gull

Larus delawarensis

common common common rare

Herring Gull

Larus argentatus

uncommon uncommon uncommon rare

Caspian Tern

Sterna caspia

rare rare rare

Black Tern*

Chlidonias niger

common common rare

Common Tern*

Sterna hirundo

occasional rare rare

Forster’s Tern*

Sterna forsteri

common uncommon occasional

Rock Pigeon*

Columbia livia

uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Mourning Dove*

Zenaida macroura

common common common rare

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus

uncommon uncommon uncommon

Black-billed Cuckoo

Coccyzus erythropthalmus

uncommon uncommon uncommon

Eastern Screech-owl*

Otus asio

rare rare rare rare

Great Horned Owl*

Bubo virginianus

uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Snowy Owl

Nyctea scandiaca

rare rare

Barred Owl

Strix varia

occasional occasional occasional occasional

Long-eared Owl

Asio otus

rare rare rare

Short-eared Owl occasional occasional occasional occasional
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

84

Common Name

Scientific name

Spring

(March–May)

Summer

(June–August)

Fall

(Sept.–Nov.)

Winter

(Dec.–Feb.)

Asio flammeus

Northern Saw-whet Owl

Aegolius acadicus

rare rare

Common Nighthawk*

Chordeiles minor

common common common

Chimney Swift*

Chaetura pelagica

uncommon occasional uncommon

Ruby-throated 

Hummingbird*

Archilochus colubris

uncommon uncommon rare

Belted Kingfisher*

Megaceryle alcyon

uncommon uncommon uncommon rare

Red-headed Woodpecker*

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus

uncommon uncommon rare

Red-bellied Woodpecker*

Melanerpes carolinus

occasional occasional occasional occasional

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker*

Sphyrapicus varius

uncommon uncommon occasional

Downy Woodpecker*

Picoides pubescens

common common common common

Hairy Woodpecker*

Picoides villosus

common common common common

Northern Flicker*

Colaptes auratus

common common common rare

Pileated Woodpecker

Dryocopus pileatus

uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Eastern Wood-pewee*

Contopus virens

uncommon uncommon

Willow Flycatcher

Empidonax traillii

uncommon uncommon uncommon

Least Flycatcher

Empidonax minimus

uncommon uncommon uncommon

Eastern Phoebe*

Sayornis phoebe

uncommon uncommon occasional

Say’s Phoebe

Sayornis saya

rare rare

Great Crested Flycatcher

Myiarchus crinitus

uncommon uncommon rare

Western Kingbird*

Tyrannus verticalis

uncommon uncommon uncommon

Eastern Kingbird*

Tyrannus tyrannus

common common uncommon

Loggerhead Shrike

Lanius ludovicianus

rare rare

Northern Shrike

Lauius excubitor

occasional occasional occasional

Yellow-throated Vireo*

Vireo flavifrons

uncommon uncommon occasional

Blue-headed Vireo

Vireo solitarius

occasional occasional

Warbling Vireo*

Vireo gilvus

common uncommon occasional
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

Common Name

Scientific name

Spring

(March–May)

Summer

(June–August)

Fall

(Sept.–Nov.)

Winter

(Dec.–Feb.)

Philadelphia Vireo

Vireo philadelphicus

rare rare

Red-eyed Vireo

Vireo olivaceus

uncommon common occasional

Blue Jay*

Cyanocitta cristata

uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Back-billed Magpie

Pica hudsonia

rare rare rare

American Crow*

Corvus brachyrhynchos

common common common uncommon

Horned Lark*

Eremophila alpestris

common uncommon common common

Purple Martin*

Progne subis

uncommon uncommon rare

Tree Swallow*

Tachycineta bicolor

common common common

Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow*

Stelgidopteryx serripennis

common uncommon uncommon

Bank Swallow*

Riparia riparia

common common uncommon

Cliff Swallow*

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

common common rare

Barn Swallow*

Hirundo rustica

common common uncommon

Black-capped Chickadee*

Poecile atricapillus

common common common common

Red-breasted Nuthatch

Sitta canadensis

rare rare

White-breasted Nuthatch*

Sitta carolinensis

common common common common

Brown Creeper

Certhia americana

uncommon uncommon rare

House Wren*

Troglodytes aedon

common common uncommon

Winter Wren

Troglodytes troglodytes

rare rare

Sedge Wren*

Cistothorus platensis

common common common

Marsh Wren*

Cistothorus palustris

common common common

Golden-crowned Kinglet

Regulus satrapa

uncommon uncommon rare

Ruby-crowned Kinglet

Regulus calendula

common common

Eastern Bluebird*

Sialia sialis

uncommon uncommon uncommon

Veery

Catharus fuscescens

occasional occasional

Gray-cheeked Thrush

Catharus minimus

rare rare

Swainson’s Thrush

Catharus ustulatus

uncommon uncommon
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

86

Common Name

Scientific name

Spring

(March–May)

Summer

(June–August)

Fall

(Sept.–Nov.)

Winter

(Dec.–Feb.)

Hermit Thrush

Catharus guttatus

uncommon uncommon

Wood Thrush

Hylocichla mustelina

rare rare

American Robin*

Turdus migratorius

common common common occasional

Gray Catbird*

Dumetella carolinensis

common common uncommon

Brown Thrasher*

Toxostoma rufum

common common uncommon

European Starling*

Sturnus vulgaris

common common common common

Cedar Waxwing

Bombycilla cedrorum

common uncommon common occasional

Lapland Longspur

Calcarius lapponicus

occasional occasional rare

Snow Bunting

Plectrophenax nivalis

rare uncommon uncommon

Golden-winged Warbler

Vermivora chrysoptera

rare

Tennessee Warbler

Oreothlypis peregrina

uncommon uncommon

Orange-crowned Warbler

Oreothlypis celata

uncommon common

Nashville Warbler

Oreothlypis ruficapilla

uncommon uncommon

Yellow Warbler*

Dendroica petechia

common common common

Chestnut-sided Warbler

Dendroica pensylvanica

occasional occasional

Magnolia Warbler

Dendroica magnolia

occasional occasional

Cape May Warbler

Dendroica tigrina

occasional occasional

Black-throated Green 

Warbler

Dendroica virens

occasional occasional

Yellow-rumped Warbler

Dendroica coronata

common common

Pine Warbler

Dendroica pinus

rare

Palm Warbler

Dendroica palmarum

rare rare

Blackpoll Warbler

Dendroica striata

rare rare

Black-and-white Warbler

Mniotilta varia

common rare uncommon

American Redstart*

Setophaga ruticilla

uncommon uncommon uncommon

Ovenbird*

Seiurus aurocapillus

uncommon occasional occasional

Northern Waterthrush

Parkesia noveboracensis

occasional occasional
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

Common Name

Scientific name

Spring

(March–May)

Summer

(June–August)

Fall

(Sept.–Nov.)

Winter

(Dec.–Feb.)

Mourning Warbler

Oporornis philadelphia

rare rare

Common Yellowthroat*

Geothlypis trichas

common common common

Wilson’s Warbler

Wilsonia pusilla

occasional occasional

Canada Warbler

Wilsonia canadensis

uncommon uncommon

Yellow-breasted Chat

Icteria virens

rare rare rare

Eastern Towhee

Pipilo erythrophthalmus

rare rare rare

American Tree Sparrow

Spizella arborea

uncommon uncommon rare

Chipping Sparrow*

Spizella passerina

common common common

Clay-colored Sparrow*

Spizella pallida

common uncommon uncommon

Field Sparrow*

Spizella pusilla

occasional occasional occasional

Vesper Sparrow*

Pooecetes gramineus

common common common

Lark Sparrow

Chondestes grammacus

occasional occasional

Savannah Sparrow*

Passerculus sandwichensis

uncommon common uncommon

Grasshopper Sparrow*

Ammodramus savannarum

uncommon uncommon uncommon

Henslow’s Sparrow

Ammodramus henslowii

rare rare

Le Conte’s Sparrow

Ammodramus leconteii

occasional rare occasional

Fox Sparrow

Passerelia iliaca

uncommon uncommon

Song Sparrow*

Melospiza melodia

common common common rare

Lincoln’s Sparrow

Melospiza lincolnii

uncommon uncommon

Swamp Sparrow*

Melospiza georgiana

common common common

White-throated Sparrow

Zonotrichia albicollis

common common

Harris’ Sparrow

Zonotrichia querula

uncommon common rare

White-crowned Sparrow

Zonotrichia leucophrys

uncommon uncommon

Dark-eyed Junco

Junco hyemalis

uncommon uncommon occasional

Summer Tanager

Piranga rubra

occasional

Scarlet Tanager

Piranga olivacea

occasional rare

Northern Cardinal* occasional occasional occasional occasional
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

88

Common Name

Scientific name

Spring

(March–May)

Summer

(June–August)

Fall

(Sept.–Nov.)

Winter

(Dec.–Feb.)

Cardinalis cardinalis

Rose-breasted Grosbeak*

Pheucticus ludovicianus

uncommon uncommon rare

Indigo Bunting*

Passerina cyanea

occasional occasional rare

Dickcissel*

Spiza americana

uncommon common occasional

Bobolink*

Dolichonyx oryzivorus

common common common

Red-winged Blackbird*

Agelaius phoeniceus

abundant abundant abundant rare

Western Meadowlark*

Stumella neglecta

uncommon uncommon uncommon rare

Yellow-headed Blackbird*

Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus

common common common rare

Rusty Blackbird

Euphagus carolinus

uncommon uncommon rare

Brewer’s Blackbird

Euphagus cyanocephalus

uncommon uncommon uncommon rare

Common Grackle*

Quiscalus quiscula

common common common rare

Brown-headed Cowbird*

Molothrus ater

common common common rare

Orchard Oriole*

Icterus spurius

uncommon uncommon

Baltimore Oriole*

Icterus galbula

uncommon uncommon occasional

Pine Grosbeak

Pinicola enucleator

rare

Purple Finch

Carpodacus purpureus

occasional uncommon uncommon

Red Crossbill

Loxia curvirostra

rare rare rare

White-winged Crossbill

Loxia leucoptera

rare rare

Common Redpoll

Acanthis flammea

uncommon rare uncommon

Hoary Redpoll

Acanthis hornemanni

rare

Pine Siskin

Spinus pinus

occasional rare occasional occasional

American Goldfinch

Spinus tristis

common common common uncommon

Evening Grosbeak

Coccothraustes vespertinus

rare rare rare

House Sparrow*

Passer domesticus

common common common common

Note: * - nests locally
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

Big Stone NWR Butterflies

Common Name

Scientific name

Dakota Long Dash

Polites mystic dacotah

Great Spangled Fritillary

Speyeria cybele

Eastern-tailed Blue

Everes comyntas

Tawny-edged Skipper

Polites themistocles

Buckeye

Junonia coenia

European Cabbage Butterfly

Artogela rapae

Dakota Skipper

Hesperia dacotae

Alfalfa Sulfur

Colias eurytheme

Arge Tiger Moth

Grammia arge

Poweshiek Skipperling

Oarisma poweshiek

American Painted Lady

Vanessa virginiensis

Eyed Brown

Lethe eurydice

Lagus Skipper

Atrytone logan lagus

Variegated Fritillary

Euptoieta claudia

Mulberry Wing

Poanes massasoit massasoit

Least Skipper

Ancyloxypha numitor

Little Yellow

Eurema lisa

Tiger Swallowtail

Pterourus glaucus glaucus

Checkered Skipper

Pyrgus communis

Common Wood Nymph

Cercyonis pegala

Grey-veined White

Pieris napi oleracea

Silver-spotted Skipper

Epargyreus clarus clarus

Bronze Copper

Hyllolycaena hyllus

Cabbage Butterfly

Pieris rapae

Pearl Crescent Skipper

Phyclodes tharos

Eight-spotted Forester

Alypia octomaculata

Clouded Sulphur

Colias philodice

Regal Fritillary

Speyeria idalia

Coral Hairstreak

Harkenclenus titus

Spring Azure

Celastrina argiolus

Mourning Cloak

Nymphalis antiopa

Todd’s Meadow Fritillary

Clossiana bellona toddi

Question Mark

Polygonia interrogationis

Black Swallowtail

Papilio polyxenes asterius

Little Wood Satyr

Megisto cymela

Red Admiral

Vanessa atalanta rubia

Melissa Blue

Lycaeides melissa

Northern Broken Dash

Wallengrenia egeremet

Northern Pearly Eye

Enodia anthedon

Viceroy

Basilarchia archippus

Monarch Butterfly

Danaus plexippus

Eyed Brown

Satyrode eurydice

Northern Pearl Crescent

Phyciodes pascoensis

Red-spotted Purple

Basilarchia arthemis

Ringlet

Coenonympha tullia

Carlota Checkerspot

Charidryas gorgone carlota
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

90

Big Stone NWR Fish Species

Common Name

Scientific name

Bowfin

Amia calva

Largemouth Buffalofish

Ictiobus cypinellus

Largemouth Bass

Micropterus salmoides

Shortnose Gar

Lepisosteus platostomus

Quillback Carpsucker

Carpiodes cyprinus

Smallmouth Bass

Micropterus dolomieui

Northern Pike

Esox lucius

Northern Redhorse

Moxostoma macrolepidotum

Black Crappie

Pomoxis nigro maculates

Central Mudminnow

Umbra limi

White Sucker

Catostomus commersoni

Rockbass

Ambloplites rupestris

European Carp

Cyprinus carpio

Channel Catfish

Ictalurus punctatus

Bluegill

Leopomis macrochirus

Flathead Minnow

Pimephales promelas

Yellow Bullhead

Ictalurus natalis

Orange-spotted Sunfish

Leopomis humilis

Bluntnose Minnow

Pimephales notatus

Brown Bullhead

Ictalurus nebulosus

Yellow Perch

Perca flavescens

Northern Lake Chub

Couesius plumbea

Black Bullhead

Ictalurus melas

Walleye

Stizostedion vitreum

Hornyhead Chub

Hybopsis biguttata

Banded Killifish

Fundulus diaphanus

Johnny Darter

Etheostoma nigrum

Common Shiner

Notropis cornutus

Ninespine Stickleback

Pungitius pungitius

Iowa Darter

Etheostoma exile

Spottail Shiner

Notropis procne

Brook Stickleback

Culaea inconstans

Freshwater Drum

Aplodinotus grunniens

Emerald Shiner

Notropis atherinoides

White Bass

Roccus chrysops
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

Big Stone NWR Mammal Species

Common Name

Scientific name

Masked Shrew

Sorex cinereus

Meadow Jumping Mouse

Zapus hudsonius

Muskrat

Ondatra zibethicus

Short-tailed Shrew

Blarina brevicauda

Meadow Vole

Microtus pennsylvanicus

Long-tailed Weasel

Mustela frenata

Eastern Mole

Scalopus aquaticus

Prairie Vole

Microtus ochrogaster

Short-tailed weasel

Mustela erminea

Little Brown Bat

Myotis myotis lucifugus

Plains Pocket Gopher

Geomys bursarius

Mink

Mustela vison

Silver-haired Bat

Lasionycteris noctivagans

Richardson Ground Squirrel

Spermophilus richardsoni

River Otter

Lutra canadensis

Eastern Pipistrel

Pipistrellus subflavus

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus

Raccoon

Procyon lotor

Big Brown Bat

Eptesicus fuscus

Franklin’s Ground Squirrel

Spermophilus franklinii

Striped Skunk

Mephitis mephitis

Red Bat

Lasiurus borealis

Eastern Chipmunk

Tamias striatus

Spotted Skunk

Spilogale putorius

Hoary Bat

Lasiurus cinereus

Eastern Fox Squirrel

Sciurus niger

Virginia Opossum

Didelphis virginiana

White-footed Mouse

Peromyscus leucopus

Eastern Gray Squirrel

Sciurus carolinensis

Badger

Taxidea taxus

Deer Mouse

Peromyscus maniculatus

Red Squirrel

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

Red fox

Vulpes vulpes

House Mouse

Mus musculus

Woodchuck

Marmota monax

Gray Fox

Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Plains Pocket Mouse

Perognathus flavescens

Eastern Cottontail

Sylvilagus floridanus

Coyote

Canis latrans

Western Harvest Mouse

Reithrodontomys megalotis

Whitetail Jackrabbit

Lepus townsendii

Bobcat

Lynx rufus

Northern Grasshopper Mouse

Onychomys leucogaster

Beaver

Castor canadensis

White-tailed deer

Odocoileus virginianus

Mountain Lion 

Puma concolor

Moose

Alces alces
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

92

Big Stone NWR Plants

Grasses

Alkali grass

Puccinella nuttaliana

Kentucky bluegrass

Poa pratensis

Reed canarygrass

Phalaris arundinacea

Big bluestem

Andropogon gerardii

Large Crab-grass

Digitaria sanguinalis

Rice cutgrass

Leersia oryzoides

Blue grama

Bouteloua gracilis

Little barley

Hordeum pusillum

Salt grass

Distichlis stricta

Bluejoint

Calamagrostis canadensis

Little bluestem

Schizachyrium scoparium

Sand dropseed

Sporobolus cryptandrus

Northern reedgrass 

Calamagrostis stricta inexpansa

Mat muhly

Muhlenbergia richardsonis

Sand reedgrass

Calamovilfa longifolia

Canada bluegrass

Poa compressa

Needle and Thread

Stipa comata

Side-oats grama

Bouteloua curtipendula

Canada wild rye

Elymus canadensis

Pale/Torrey’s Manna-grass

Torreyochloa pallida

Slender wheatgrass

Elymus trachycaulus

Creeping bent

Agrostis stolonifera var. palustris

Plains bluegrass

Poa arida

Small Rush-grass

Sporobolus neglectus

Carolina foxtail

Alopecurus carolinianus

Plains muhly

Muhlenbergia cuspidata

Smooth brome grass

Bromus inermus

Foxtail barley

Hordeum jubatum

Common reed

Phragmites australis

Stinkgrass

Eragrostis cilianensis

Green foxtail

Setaria viridis

Porcupine grass

Stipa spartea

Switchgrass

Panicum virgatum

Green needlegrass

Stipa viridula

Prairie cordgrass

Spartina pectinata

Tall dropseed

Sporobolus asper

Hairy chess

Bromus commutatus

Prairie dropseed

Sporobolus heterolepis

Timothy

Phleum pratense

Hairy grama

Bouteloua hirsuta

Quackgrass

Agropyron repens

Tufted hairgrass

Deschampsia caespitosa

Indiangrass

Sorghastrum nutans

Red threeawn

Aristida purpurea

Virginia wild-rye

Elymus virginicus

Junegrass

Koeleria macrantha

Red top

Agrostis alba

Witchgrass

Panicum capillare

Kalm’s Brome/Prairie Brome

Bromus kalmii

Bearded wheatgrass

Elymus caninus

Aquatic Monocots

American lotus

Nelumbo lutea

Hardstem bulrush

Scirpus acutus

Slender sedge

Carex tenera

Arrowhead/Duck potato

Sagittaria latifolia

Marsh marigold

Caltha palustris

Slough sedge

Carex atherodes

Blunt spikerush 

Eleocharis obtusa

Mudwort

Limosella aquatica

Softstem bulrush

Scirpus validus

Broad-leaved cattail

Typha latifolia

Narrow-leaved cattail

Typha angustifolia

Sun sedge

Carex inops subs. heliophila

Common duckweed

Lemna minor

Needle spikerush

Eleocharis acicularis

Three-square bulrush

Scirpus americanus

Coon’s tail

Ceratophyllum demersum

Needleleaf sedge

Carex elocharis

Three-stamened waterwort

Elatine triandra

Cypresslike sedge

Carex pseudocyperus

Pondweeds

Potamogeton spp.

White water lily

Nympyhae spp.
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

93

Aquatic Monocots

Dudley rush

Juncus tenuis var. 

dudley/interior

River bulrush

Scirpus fluviatalus

Wild celery

Vallisneria americana

Giant bur-reed

Sparganium eurycarpum.

Round-leaved hedge-hyssop

Bacopa rotundifolia

Wild rice

Zizania aquatica

Greater bladderwort

Utricularia vulgaris var. 

americana

Baltic Rush

Juncus arcticus var. balticus

Yellow nutsedge

Cyperus odoratus

Disk hyssop

Gratiola neglecta

Field sedge

Carex brevior

Flatstem spikerush

Eleocharis compressa

Inland rush

Juncus interior

Spikerush sedge

Carex stenophylla

Trees and Shrubs

Alder

Alnus spp.

Common prickly-ash

Zanthoxylum americanum

River birch

Betula nigra

American basswood

Tilia americana

Common red raspberry

Rubus idaeus var. strigosus

Round-leaf serviceberry

Amelanchier sanguinea 

American elm

Ulmus americana

American black currant

Ribes americanum

Russian olive

Elaeagnus angustifolia

American hazel

Corylus americana

False indigo

Amorpha fruticosa

Sand cherry

Prunus pumila

Bitternut hickory

Carya cordiformis

Frosted hawthorne

Crataegus priunoso

Sandbar willow

Salix exigua

Black walnut

Juglans niger

Green ash

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Siberian elm

Ulmus pumila

Black willow

Salix nigra

Grey-stemmed dogwood

Cornus racemosa

Silver maple

Acer saccharinum

Bog birch

Betula pumila

Lead plant

Amorpha canescens

Smooth sumac

Rhus glabra

Box elder

Acer negundo

Northern pin oak 

Quercus ellipsoidalis

Trembling aspen

Populus tremuloides

Buckthorn

Rhamnus cathartica

Northern red oak

Quercus rubra

Western snowberry

Symphoricarpos occidentalis

Bur oak

Quercus macrocarpa

Peach-leaved willow

Salix amygdaloides

Wild plum

Prunus americana

Buttonbrush

Cephalanthus occidentalis

Plains cottonwood

Populus deltoides

Wild rose

Rosa arkansana

Chokecherry

Prunus virginiana

Red-osier dogwood

Cornus stolonifera

Eastern red cedar

Juniperus virginiana

Vines

Canada moonseed

Menispermum canadense

Riverbank grape

Vitus riparia

Virgin’s bower

Clematis virginiana

Forbs

Absinth wormwood

Artemisia absinthium

Gray-headed coneflower

Ratibida pinnata

Riddell’s goldenrod

Solidago ridellii

Alfalfa

Medicago sativa

Green milkweed

Asclepias viridflora

Rough blazing star

Liatris aspera
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

94

Forbs

American deervetch

Lotus purshianus

Green sagewort

Artemisia dracunculus

Rough false pennyroyal

Hedeoma hispida

American vetch

Vicia americana

Green-headed coneflower

Rudbeckia laciniata var. 

laciniata

Round-headed bush clover

Lespedeza capitata

Annual sunflower

Helianthus annus

Groundplum milkvetch

Astragalus crassicarpus

Rush skeleton plant 

Lygodesmia juncea

Aromatic aster

Aster oblongifolius

Hairy goldaster

Chrysopsis villosa

Saw-toothed sunflower

Helianthus grosseserratus

Asparagus

Asparagus officinalis

Hairy Solomon’s seal

Polygonatum pubescens

Scarlet gaura

Gaura coccinea

Balsam ragwort

Packera paupercula

Hard-leaved goldenrod

Solidago rigida

Scouring rush

Equisetum hyemale

Bastard toadflax

Commandra umbellata

Heartleaf Alexander

Zizia aptera

Sharp-lobed hepatica

Hepatica acutiloba

Beggarticks

Bidens cernua

Heath aster

Aster ericoides

Showy milkweed

Asclepias speciosa

Bird’s foot violet

Viola pedata

Hedge bindweed

Calystegia sepium

Silky aster

Aster sericeus

Black medic

Medicago lupulina

Hoary puccoon

Lithospermum canescens

Silverleaf scurfpea

Psoralea argophylla

Black nightshade

Solanum nigrum

Hoary vervain

Verbena stricta

Silverweed

Potentilla anserina

Black-eyed susan

Rudbeckia hirta

Horseweed

Conyza canadensis

Slender beardtongue

Penstemon gracilis

Bladder campion

Silene vulgaris

Prairie turnip

Psoralea esculenta

Slim knotweed

Polygonum tenue

Bloodroot

Sanguinaria canadensis

Indian hemp

Apocynum cannabinum

Small-flowered fame flower

Talinum parviflorum

Blue lettuce

Lactuca pulchella

Woolly plantain

Plantago patagonica

Small-leaf pussytoes

Antennaria neglecta

Blue vervain

Verbena hastata

Ironweed

Veronia fasiculata

Smooth horsetail

Equisetum laevigatum

Bouncing bet

Saponaria officinalis

Jerusalem Artichoke

Helianthus tuberosus

Smooth Solomon’s seal

Polygonatum biflorum

Buffalo bur

Solanum rostratum

Lance-leaved ground cherry

Physalis virginiana

Spiny-leaved sow-thistle

Sonchus asper 

Bushy cinquefoil

Potentilla paradoxa

Large-flowered beardtongue

Penstemon grandiflorus

Spotted joe pye weed

Eupatorium maculatum

Buttercup

Ranunculus spp. 

Late goldenrod

Solidago gigantea

Spring cress

Cardamine bulbosa

Butterflyweed

Asclepias tuberosa

Leafy spurge

Euphorbia esula

Square-stemmed monkey flower

Mimulus ringens

Canada goldenrod

Solidago canadensis

Long-leaved Houstonia/bluets

Hedyotis longifolia

Star-flowered Solomon’s seal

Smilacina stellate

Canada milkvetch

Astragalus canadensis

Marsh vetchling

Lathyrus palustris

Stiff sunflower

Helianthus rigidus

Canada thistle

Cirsium arvense

Maximilian sunflower

Helianthus maximiliani

Stinging nettle

Urtica dioica

Carolina crane’s-bill

Geranium carolinianum

Meadow anemone

Anemone canadensis

Swamp lousewort

Pedicularis lanceolata

Carrion flower

Smilax herbacea

Meadow garlic

Allium canadense

Swamp milkweed

Asclepias incarnata

Clammy ground cherry Meadow goat’s beard Tall bellflower
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

95

Forbs

Physalis heterophylla Tragopogon dubius Campanula americana

Closed/Bottle gentian

Gentiana andrewsii

Missouri goldenrod

Solidago missouriensis

Tall cinquefoil

Potentilla arguta

Cocklebur

Xanthium strumarian

Motherwort

Leonurus cardiaca

Textile onion

Allium textile

Columbine

Aquilegia canadensis

Mousetail

Myosurus minimus

Thimbleweed

Anemone cylindrica

Common dandelion

Taraxacum officinale

Mustard

Brassica nigra

Toothed/Yellow evening 

primrose

Calylophus serrulatus

Common mullein

Verbascum thapsus

New England aster

Aster novae-angliae

Tumble mustard

Sisymbrium altissimum

Common ragweed

Ambrosia artemisiifolia

Nodding wild onion

Allium cernuum

Violet wood-sorrel

Oxalis violacea

Common yarrow

Achillea millefolium

Northern bedstraw

Galium boreale

Virginia waterleaf

Hydrophyllum virginicum

Common/Tall boneset

Eupatorium 

perfoliatum/altissimum

Oldfield goldenrod

Solidago nemoralis

Water mouse-ear chickweed

Stachys aquatica

Cup plant

Silphium perfoliatum

Ox-eye sunflower

Heliopsis helianthoides

Water parsnip

Sium suave

Curly dock

Rumex crispus

Pale-spiked lobelia

Lobelia spicata

Western ragweed

Ambrosia psilostachya

Curlycup Gumweed

Grindelia squarrosa

Panicled aster

Aster lanceolatus (simplex)

Western water-horehound

Lycopus asper

Cutleaf ironplant

Haplopappus spinulosus

Pasque flower

Anemone patens

White beardtongue

Penstemon albidus

Cut-leaved water-horehound

Lycopus americanus

Perennial sow-thistle

Sonchus arvensis 

White camass

Zigadenus elegans

Daisy fleabane

Erigeron strigosus

Pinkweed

Polygonum pensylvanicum

White Canada violet

Viola canadensis

Dame’s rocket

Hesperis matronalis

Poison ivy

Rhus radicans

White clover

Trifolium repens

Ditch stonecrop

Penthorum sedoides

Prairie dodder

Cuscuta gronovii or pentagona

White lady’s slipper

Cypripedium candidum

Dotted blazing star

Liatris punctata

Prairie alum-root

Heuchera richardsonii

White lettuce

Prenanthes alba

Downy gentian

Gentiana puberulenta

Prairie blazing star

Liatris pycnostachya

White prairie clover

Dalea candida

Downy painted cup

Castilleja sessiliflora

Prairie blue-eyed grass

Sisyrinchium campestre

White sage

Artemisia ludoviciana

Downy yellow violet

Viola pubescens

Prairie chickweed

Cerastium arvense

White smartweed

Polygonum punctatum

Early goldenrod

Solidago juncea

Prairie cinquefoil

Potentilla pensylvanica

White snakeroot

Eupatorium rugosum

Evening primrose

Oenothera biennis

Prairie dandelion

Agoseris glauca

White sweet-clover

Melilotus alba

False boneset

Kuhnia eupatorioides 

Prairie larkspur

Delphinium virescens

White wild parsley

Lomatium orientale

False gromwell

Onosmodium molle

Prairie moonwort

Botrychium campestre

Whorled milkweed

Asclepias verticillata

Field bindweed

Convolvulus arvensis

Prairie onion

Allium stellatum

Wild bergamot

Monarda fistulosa

Field milkvetch Prairie phlox Wild lettuce
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

96

Forbs

Astragalus agrestris Phlox pilosa Lactuca canadensis

Field pennycress

Thlaspi arvense

Prairie ragwort

Senecio plattensis

Wild licorice

Glycycrrhiza lepidota

Field thistle

Cirsium discolor

Prairie smoke

Geum triflorum

Wild mint

Mentha arvensis

Floodman’s thistle

Cirsium flodmani

Western spiderwort

Tradescantia occidentalis

Wild pepper-grass

Lepidium virginicum

Four-O’clock

Mirabilis nyctaginea

Prairie tick trefoil

Desmodium illinoense

Wild sarsaparilla

Aralia nudicaulis

Fringed puccoon

Lithospermum incisum

Prairie violet

Viola pedatifida

Wild strawberry

Fragaria virginiana

Fringed sagewort

Artemisia frigida

Purple coneflower

Echinacea angustifolia

Wood betony

Pedicularis canadensis

Giant sunflower

Helianthus giganteus

Purple meadow rue

Thalictrum dasycarpum

Wood lily

Lilium philadelphicum var. 

andinum

Gill over the ground

Glechoma hederacea

Purple prairie clover

Dalea purpureum

Woolly blue violet

Viola soroia

Golden Alexander

Zizia aurea

Purslane

Portulacea oleracea

Woundwort

Stachys palustris

Golden corydalis

Corydalis aurea

Purslane speedwell

Veronica peregrina

Yellow coneflower 

Ratibida columnifera

Golden ragwort 

Senecio aereus

Rattlesnake root

Prenanthes racemosa

Yellow star grass

Hypoxis hirsuta

Goosefoot

Chenopodium album

Red clover

Trifolium pratense

Yellow sweet-clover

Melilotus officinalis

False pennyroyal

Isanthus brachiatus

Sleepy catchfly

Silene antirrhina

Rock spikemoss

Selaginella rupestris

Small touch-me-not

Myosotis verna

Western androsace

Androsace occidentalis

Cacti

Ball cactus

Escobaria vivipara

Brittle pricklypear

Opuntia fragilis

Ferns

Fragile fern

Cystopteris fragilis

Hairy-lip fern

Cheilanthes llanosa

Rusty woodsia fern

Woodsia ilvensis

Oregon woodsia

Woodsia oregana

Mosses

Lycopidium spp. Sphagnum moss

Sphagnum spp.
Appendix C: Species Lists

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

97

Big Stone NWR Reptiles and Amphibians

Common Name

Scientific name

Snapping turtle

Chelydra serpentina

Western Plains Garter Snake

Thamnophis radix haydeni

American Toad

Bufo americanus

Western Painted Turtle

Chrysemys picta belii

Red-sided Garter Snake

Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis

Great Plains Toad

Bufo cognatus

Western Spiny Softshell Turtle

Trionyx spinifer hartwegi

Fox Snake

Elaphe vulpina

Canadian Toad

Bufo hemiophrys

Smooth Softshell Turtle

Apalone mutica

Western Hognose Snake

Heterodon nasicus

Western Chorus Frog

Pseudacris triseriata triseriata

Bluetailed or Five-lined Skink

Eumeces fasciatus

Bull Snake

Pituophis melanoleucus sayi

Upland Chorus Frog

Pseudacris triseriata feriarum

Northern Prairie Skink

Eumeces serptentrionalis 

septentrionalis

Mudpuppy

Necturus maculosus

Northern Leopard Frog

Rana pipiens pipiens

Northern Red-bellied Snake

Storeria occipitomaculata 

occipitomaculata

Eastern Tiger salamander

Ambystoma tigrinum trigrinum
Appendix D: Focal Species

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

98

Appendix D: Focal Species

The planning team identified 17 focal species from a larger set of Resource Conservation 

Priorities identified for the Midwest Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service). 

The process used to identify focal species is described in Identifying Refuge Resources and 

Management Priorities (FWS, 2010). Focal species are highly associated with important habitat 

attributes or conditions that represent the needs of larger guilds of species and that use habitats 

and respond to management similarly. The individual Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge focal 

species, their habitat associations, and other considerations are summarized in table D-1 below.

(ha = hectare)

Table D-1: Focal Species Summary

Species Conservation

Focus

Key Habitat Relationships

Vegetative 

Composition

Vegetative 

Structure

Patch Size Special 

Considerations

Mallard Grassland and 

wetland 

complexes

Grasses and 

forbs, emergent 

and submergent 

wetland 

vegetation

Forage in 

open to 

interspersed 

emergent 

cover, nest in 

dense upland 

vegetation 

about 60 cm 

high

Wetlandupland 

complex >240 

ha is best for 

waterfowl 

production

Tolerates less 

crowding than 

other dabblers

Breeding 

populations 

closely tied to 

wetland 

conditions

Blue-winged 

Teal

Grassland and 

wetland 

complexes

Grasses and 

forbs, emergent 

and submergent 

wetland 

vegetation

Forage in 

open to 

interspersed 

emergent 

cover, nest in 

moderate to 

dense upland 

grassland 

vegetation, 

heightdensity >50 

cm

Wetlandupland 

complex >240 

ha is best for 

waterfowl 

production

Nesting cover is 

more important 

than availability 

of water in 

limiting the size 

of breeding 

populations 

Redhead Wetlands 

(semipermanent 

and 

permanent)

Hardstem 

bulrush, with 

cattail a second 

choice and 

sedges a third 

for nesting; 

submergent 

aquatic 

vegetation also 

important

Nest over 

open water in 

interspersed 

dense stands 

of persistent 

emergent 

vegetation; 

also nest on 

islands and 

waterside 

vegetation 

within 2 m of 

water’s edge

Wetlandupland 

complex >240 

ha is best for 

waterfowl 

production

Water levels 

should be kept 

constant during 

laying and 

incubation

Access to 

deeper water is 

important for 

maturing broods 

and molting

Increase in 

redhead 

numbers may be 

at the expense 

of other species 
Appendix D: Focal Species

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

99

Species Conservation

Focus

Key Habitat Relationships

Vegetative 

Composition

Vegetative 

Structure

Patch Size Special 

Considerations

due to their 

parasitic nature

Pied-billed 

Grebe

Wetlands 

(semipermanent 

and 

permanent)

Open water and 

emergent 

vegetation in 

shallow water

Nests on 

marshy 

ponds with 

nest attached 

to reeds in 

shallow water

Open water 

provides 

cover for the 

grebe; they 

dive and can 

remain 

concealed 

just below 

the water 

surface

Feeds in 

open water

or in 

emergent 

vegetationopportunistic 

feeder 

crustaceans, 

frogs, fish, 

insects

Aggressively 

territorial will 

chase off 

grebes and 

other birds; 

both parents 

involved with 

nest building, 

incubation, 

and young 

rearing

5–15 ha in 

semi-perm 

and seasonal 

wetlands

Susceptible to 

pesticide toxins

Preservation of 

relatively large 

(>10 ha) 

wetlands with a 

mixture of 

dense, robust 

emergents, 

submergent

vegetation, and 

open

American 

Bittern

Wetlands Tall dense 

grasslands, 

semi-permanent

and permanent 

wetlands

Prefer dense 

upland 

vegetation 

>60 cm high 

or floating 

platforms in 

shallow (5–

20 cm) water 

for nesting

Prefer 

Wetland/uplan

d complex 

with

wetlands > 15 

ha

Maintain water 

levels < 61 cm 

(April–August)

Sensitive to 

grazing tend to 

avoid grazed 

areas

Avoid quick 

drawdowns
Appendix D: Focal Species

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

100

Species Conservation

Focus

Key Habitat Relationships

Vegetative 

Composition

Vegetative 

Structure

Patch Size Special 

Considerations

vegetation 

fringes and 

shorelines for 

foraging; may 

avoid evenaged stands 

of older, 

dense or dry 

vegetation

During 

molting, 

bitterns need 

relatively 

deep, stable 

waters to 

provide 

adequate 

food and 

protection 

from 

predators

Western 

Meadowlark

Grasslands >90% 

herbaceous 

cover comprised 

of a mix of 

grasses (25–

75% cover) and 

forbs

Use a wide 

range of 

vegetation 

heights and 

densities, but 

avoid 

extremely 

sparse or tall 

cover

Only a limited 

amount (<5% 

cover) of 

scattered 

woody 

vegetation 

above 1 m 

tall is 

tolerated; 

fencelines, 

forbs, and 

posts, etc. 

used for 

perches

Low to 

moderate 

litter cover

Male territory 

size 3–13 ha

Responds 

positively to light 

to moderate 

grazing and 

negatively to 

heavy grazing

Marbled 

Godwit

Wetland 

complexes, 

native 

Native grasses 

and variety of 

wetland types

Short/sparse 

to moderately 

vegetated; 

Mean territory 

size >90 ha of 

contiguous 

Grazing, fall 

burning or 

haying could 
Appendix D: Focal Species

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

101

Species Conservation

Focus

Key Habitat Relationships

Vegetative 

Composition

Vegetative 

Structure

Patch Size Special 

Considerations

grasslands tall, dense 

cover is 

avoided; 

heightdensity at 

nests lower 

(<10–15 cm) 

than broods 

(15–60 cm)

Avoid dense 

emergent 

wetland 

vegetation, 

prefer 

shallow water 

areas with 

short, sparse 

to moderately 

dense 

shoreline 

vegetation

Forage in 5–

13 cm water 

depths

Prefer 

minimal 

shrub cover

Moderate to 

high litter 

(3.8–9.1 cm)

grassland, 

with high 

percentage of 

grass cover, 

many 

wetlands, and 

high wetland 

diversity

provide nesting 

habitat the 

following spring, 

and the denser, 

taller regrowth 

(15–60 cm) 

could provide 

suitable brood 

habitat

Prefer 

temporary and 

seasonal 

wetlands during 

breeding season 

and move 

toward semipermanent 

wetlands in 

summer

Sedge Wren Grasslands 

and wetlands

Grasses and 

forbs

Tall, dense 

grasslands 

and wetland 

edges with 

vegetation 

20–150 cm, 

dry land or 

over shallow 

water

Abundant 

litter cover 

with little 

bare ground

Will use small 

areas, but 

favors large 

prairies

Vegetation 

structure seems 

to be more 

important than 

patch size in 

predicting 

occurrence

Grasshopper 

Sparrow

Grasslands Grasses and 

forbs

Short to 

intermediate 

vegetation 

(20–60 cm 

vegetative 

8 ha Susceptible to 

Brown-headed 

Cowbird nest 

parasitism
Appendix D: Focal Species

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

102

Species Conservation

Focus

Key Habitat Relationships

Vegetative 

Composition

Vegetative 

Structure

Patch Size Special 

Considerations

height) with 

diverse 

structure and 

clumped 

vegetation; 

will use taller 

grass if 

vegetation is 

patchy and 

not overly 

dense

Stiffstemmed 

forbs used 

for song 

perches

Sparse 

woody cover, 

and avoid 

woody edges

Moderately 

deep litter, 

but areas 

with bare soil 

required

Vulnerable to 

early mowing; 

light to moderate 

grazing, 

infrequent and 

post-season 

burning or 

mowing can be 

beneficial

Low abundance 

following a burn, 

increasing 2–4 

years post-burn

Bobolink Grasslands Grasses and 

forbs

Prefer habitat 

with 

moderate to 

tall 

vegetation 

(vegetation 

height 25–45 

cm), 

moderate to 

dense 

vegetation, 

and 

moderately 

deep litter 

(3–5 cm) 

without the 

presence of 

woody 

vegetation; 

stiff-stemmed 

forbs used 

for song 

perches

Typically 

30 ha Nest productivity 

increase with 

distance from 

trees; minimal 

distance from 

trees 45 meters

Graze at 

moderate levels 

to provide 

diverse grass 

heights and 

densities
Appendix D: Focal Species

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

103

Species Conservation

Focus

Key Habitat Relationships

Vegetative 

Composition

Vegetative 

Structure

Patch Size Special 

Considerations

uses areas 

with a higher 

ratio of grass 

to forb cover

Northern 

Harrier

Extensive 

emergent 

wetlands or 

grasslands

Herbaceous 

vegetation and 

low shrubs such 

as western 

snowberry, with 

abundant 

residual 

vegetation

Dense 

vegetation 

with much 

residual 

cover and a 

height 25–80 

cm tall

Most nests 

are in 

vegetation

>60 cm tall

Large (>40 

ha), with 

extensive 

wetlands and 

grassland

Prefer 

undisturbed 

areas 

Frequently nest 

over water on 

platforms built 

from nearby 

vegetation

Upland 

Sandpiper

Grasslands Grasses Vegetation 

height at 

nests ranges 

from 10–65 

cm (rarely 

uses 

vegetation 

>70 cm tall) 

but feed in 

vegetation 

<10 cm tall

Minimal 

woody cover

Moderate to 

high litter 

depth (4-9 

cm)

100 ha Will forage in 

recently burned 

areas

Yellowthroated 

Vireo

Riparian 

woodlands

Trees, 

bottomland 

woodlands

Woodland 

habitat with 

large trees 

closed 

canopy 

(>10m) and 

open subcanopy (3–10 

m) with forbs 

and shrubs 

(0-0.5m)

Gleans prey 

off tree bark 

on branches 

located on 

upper 2/3 of 

tree

7.8 ha Prefers on 

average 60% 

canopy cover

Tendency to 

forage on dead 

trees or large 

trees with dead 

branches, such 

as oaks
Appendix D: Focal Species

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

Species Conservation

Focus

Key Habitat Relationships

Vegetative 

Composition

Vegetative 

Structure

Patch Size Special 

Considerations

Searches for 

prey in 

central 

portion of 

trees

Average nest 

height 13 m

Willow 

Flycatcher

Wet, shrubby 

grasslands 

and wetlands

Willow, 

dogwoods

Prefer moist, 

shrubby 

areas, often 

with standing 

or running 

water; high 

foliagevolume 

willow cover 

preferred but 

with willow 

clumps 

separated by 

openings

0.7 ha Susceptible to 

Brown-headed 

Cowbird nest 

parasitism, will 

make efforts to 

avoid incubating 

cowbird eggs

Habitat 

destruction and 

degradation and 

overgrazing by 

livestock are 

major causes of 

decline

Fire during 

nesting season 

can destroy nest 

sites and 

residual willow 

habitat

Dakota 

Skipper

Dry to mesic 

native prairie

High forb 

diversity, 

especially purple 

coneflower, 

blanketflower, 

ground plum

Fine stemmed, 

short stature 

bunchgrasses, 

especially little 

bluestem

Stubble 

heights ≥20 

cm in 

tallgrass 

prairies

Low to 

moderate 

litter

Unknown, but 

the need to 

break suitable 

habitat into 

management 

units makes it 

difficult to 

sustain the 

species on 

small, isolated 

patches

Needs native 

grass; smooth 

brome and 

Kentucky 

bluegrass not 

adequate larval 

habitat (because 

of phenology 

and structure of 

stems)

Management 

prescriptions 

(timing, 

configuration) 

must account for 

vulnerable life 

stages

Poweshiek 

Skipperling

Dry to wet 

native prairie, 

but not sand 

prairie

High forb 

diversity, 

especially false 

sunflower/purple 

coneflower (dry 

Unknown, but 

the need to 

break suitable 

habitat into 

management 

Less known 

about primary 

larval food 

sources than 

other species, 
Appendix D: Focal Species

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

105

Species Conservation

Focus

Key Habitat Relationships

Vegetative 

Composition

Vegetative 

Structure

Patch Size Special 

Considerations

sites) or blackeyed 

Susan/spike 

lobelia (wet 

sites)

Fine stemmed, 

short stature 

bunchgrasses: 

prairie 

dropseed/little 

bluestem (dry 

sites) or 

Carex/spikerush 

(wet sites)

units makes it 

difficult to 

sustain the 

species on 

small, isolated 

patches

but appears to 

need finestemmed native 

bunchgrasses

Management 

prescriptions 

(timing, 

configuration) 

must account for 

vulnerable life 

stages

Overwinters as 

larva on ground 

surface or in 

litter

Granite 

Outcrop

Granite 

outcrops

Short grass 

prairie, high forb 

diversity

Granite 

bedrock, 

lichen 

covered, 

shallow 0-3 

inch soils, 

short grass 

vegetation, 

high in forb 

diversity

State 

endangered 

and 

threatened 

species

Only habitat 

available for 

ball cactus 

(Escobaria 

vivipara)

Woody species 

encroachment 

and exotic cool 

season grasses

Human 

disturbance, 

threat for ball 

cactus theft
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106

Appendix E: Literature Cited

Blumstein, D.T. 2003. “Flight initiation distance in birds is dependent on intruder starting 

distance.” J. Wildl. Manage, 67; pp. 852–857.

Blumstein, D.T., L.L. Anthony, R.G. Harcourt, and G. Ross. 2003. “Testing a key assumption of 

wildlife buffer zones: Is flight initiation distance a species-specific trait?” Biological Conservation,

110; pp. 97–100.

Carver, Erin, and James Caudill. 2007. “Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to 

Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation.” Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Caudill, James, and Erin Henderson. 2005. “Banking on Nature 2004: The Economic Benefits to 

Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation.” Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Washington, DC; p. 435.

Dale, M. 1916. “History of Chippewa and Lac Qui Parle Counties, Minnesota.” B. F. Bowen 

and Company, Inc. Vol. 1, p. 481.

Department of Energy (DOE). 1999. “Carbon Sequestration Research and Development.”

Washington, DC; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science and Office of Fossil Energy.

Easterling, D.R., and T.R. Karl. 2000. “Potential consequences of climate variability and change 

for the Midwestern United States.” In Climate Change Impacts on the US: The Potential 

Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. National Assessment Synthesis Team, US 

Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; pp.167–188. 

http://www.gcrio.org/NationalAssessment/6MW.pdf

Elmqvist, T., C. Folke, M. Nystrom, G. Peterson, J. Bengtsson, B. Walker, and J. Norberg. 2003. 

“Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience.” Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment, 1; pp. 488–494.

England, R. E., and A. DeVos. 1969. “Influence of animals on pristine conditions on the 

Canadian grasslands.” J. Range Manage, 22; pp. 87–94.

Galatowitsch, S., L. Frelich, and L. Phillips-Mao. 2009. “Regional climate change adaptation 

strategies for biodiversity conservation in a midcontinental region of North America.” Biological 

Conservation, 142; pp. 2012–2022.

Grant, J.A. 1972. “Minnesota River valley, south-western Minnesota” Geology of Minnesota: A 

centennial volume, ed. Sims P.K. and G.B. Morey, 177-96. St. Paul: Minnesota Geological 

Survey, University of Minnesota.

Green, R., Harley, M., Spalding, and M., Zockler, C. 2000. “Impacts of Climate Change on 

Wildlife.” Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Available online at: 

http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/UserFiles/Files/cc1.pdf

Higgins, K. F. 1984. “Lightning fires in grasslands in North Dakota and in pine-savanna lands in 

nearby South Dakota and Montana.” Journal of Range Management, 37; pp. 100–103.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

107

Higgins, K. F. 1986. “Interpretation and compendium of historical fire accounts in the northern 

Great Plains.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 161, p. 39.

IPCC 2007. “Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.” Contribution of 

working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Johnson, Douglas H. 1996. “Management of northern prairies and wetlands for the 

conservation of neotropical migratory birds,” Management of Midwestern Landscapes for the 

Conservation of Neotropical Migratory Birds, ed. F. R. Thompson, III, pp. 53–67. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report NC-187. North Central 

Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/neobird/index.htm (Version 17NOV2000).

Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson. 2009. “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States: A State of Knowledge Report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program.”

Cambridge University Press: New York, NY. Available at: 

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/downloadthe-report

Kratz, T.K., and G.L. Jensen. 1983. “Minnesota’s landscape regions.” Nat. Areas J. 3:33–44.

Magness, Dawn R., John M. Morton, Falk Huettmann, F. Stuart Chapin, and A. David McGuire. 

2011. “A climate-change adaptation framework to reduce continental-scale vulnerability across 

conservation reserves.” Ecosphere 2, art 112.

Marschner, F.J. 1974. “The Original Vegetation of Minnesota.” Compiled from U.S. General 

Land Office Survey Notes. United States Department of Agriculture, North Central Forest 

Experiment Station, St. Paul. 

McNicholl, M. K. 1988. “Ecological and human influences on Canadian populations of 

grasslands.” Ecology and conservation of grassland birds. Internat. Council Bird Preserv. Tech. 

Pub. 7, ed. P. D. Goriup. Norfolk, England; pp. 1–25.

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. “Influence of Recreational Trails on Breeding 

Bird Communities.” Ecological Applications Vol. 8, No. 1 (Feb., 1998), pp. 162–169. Available 

URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2641318

Minnesota County Biological Survey. 2007. “Native plant communities and rare species of the 

Minnesota River valley counties.” Biological Report No. 89. St. Paul: Division of Ecological 

Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Murkin, H. R. 1989. “The basis for food chains in prairie wetlands.” Northern prairie wetlands, 

A. van der Valk, ed., Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames; pp. 316–338.

National Assessment Synthesis Team. 2001. “Climate Change Impacts on the United States: 

The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change.” Cambridge University Press: 

Cambridge, U.K. Available at: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

Noss, R. F., E. T. LaRoe III, and J. M. Scott. 1995. “Endangered ecosystems of the United 

States: A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation.” Biol. Rep. 28. Natl. Biol. Serv., 

Washington, DC; p. 58.

Olsen, B.M., and J.H. Mossler. 1982, “Geological map of Minnesota—Depth to bedrocks: 

Minnesota Geological Survey State map series S-12.”

Roetzel, K. A., R. A. Strachan, and J.A. O’Gorman. 1987. “A Cultural Resources Survey of 

Selected Areas Within The Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge, Big Stone and Lac Qui Parle 

Counties, Minnesota.” U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Ryan, M. G., S.R. Archer, R.A. Birdsey, C.N. Dahm, L.S. Heath, J.A. Hicke, D.Y. Hollinger, T.E. 

Huxman, G.S. Okin, R. Oren, J.T. Randerson, and W. H. Schlesinger. 2008. “Chapter 3 – Land 

resources: Forest and arid lands” in Backlund, Peter; Anthony Janetos, and David Schimel. 

2008. “The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and 

biodiversity in the United States.” Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Science Program, pp.75–120.

Samson, F., and F. Knopf. 1994. “Prairie conservation in North America.” BioScience 44, pp. 

418–421.

Samson, F.B., F.L. Knopf, and W.R. Ostlie. 1998. “Grasslands,” pp. 437–472 in Status and 

trends of the nation’s biological resources, Volume 2. Mac M.J., P.A. Opler, C.E. PuckettHaecker, and P.D. Doran, eds. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

Schneider, S.H., and T.L. Root. 2002. “Wildlife Responses to Climate Change: North American 

Case Studies.” Island Press. Washington, DC.

Scott, M., B. Griffith, B. Adamcik, D. Ashe, B. Czech, R. Fischman, P. Gonzales, and A.

Pidgorna. 2009. “Managing to Accommodate Change: Climate Change and the National Wildlife

Refuge System.” A PowerPoint presentation given at the 2009 FWS National Planners 

Conference. 

Sparrow, M. R. 1981. “Big Stone County, Minnesota 1881-1981.” Big Stone County Historical 

Society, p. 104. 

Stewart, R. E., and H.A. Kantrud. 1971. “Classification of natural ponds and lakes in the 

glaciated prairie region.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 92.

Umbanhowar, C. E. Jr. 1996. “Recent fire history of the northern Great Plains.” American 

Midland Naturalist, 135; pp.115–121.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010, November 4. State and county Quickfacts: Big Stone, Chippewa, 

Lac qui Parle, Stevens, Swift, Traverse, and Yellow Medicine Counties, Minn. Retrieved May 5, 

2011 from http://quickfacts.census.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau. Undated. 2005–2009 American Community Survey. Big Stone, Chippewa, 

Lac qui Parle, Stevens, Swift, Traverse, and Yellow Medicine Counties, Minn. Retrieved May 5, 

2011 from http://factfinder.census.gov.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. “Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process.” 602 

FW 3. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of the Interior. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/602fw3.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. “Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health.”

601 FW 3. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of the Interior. Available URL: 

http://policy.fws.gov/601fw3.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. “National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals and 

Refuge Purposes.” 601 FW 1. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of the Interior. 

Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/policy/601fw1.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. “General Guidelines for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation.”

605 FW 1. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of the Interior. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw1.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006b. “Wildlife-Dependent Recreation: Hunting.” 605 FW 2. 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of the Interior. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw2.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006c. “Wildlife-Dependent Recreation: Fishing.” 605 FW 3. 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of the Interior. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw3.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006d. “Wildlife-Dependent Recreation: Wildlife Observation.”

605 FW 4. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of the Interior. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw4.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006g. “Wildlife-Dependent Recreation: Interpretation.” 605 FW 

7. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of the Interior. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw7.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. “General Overview of Wilderness Stewardship Policy.”

610 FW 1. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of the Interior. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/610fw1.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. “Identifying Refuge Resources of Concern and 

Management Priorities: A Handbook.”

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. “Rising to the Urgent Challenges of a Changing Climate: 

Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change in the 21st Century.”

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. “Visitor Service Standards: A Handbook for Evaluating 

Visitor Services Programs.”

Weller, M. W., and C. S. Spatcher. 1965. “Role of habitat in the distribution and abundance of 

marshbirds.” Special Report Number 43, Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment 

Station, Ames, Iowa, USA.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

110

Wheeler, G.A., E.J. Cushing, W. Gorham, T. Morley, and G.B. Ownbey. 1992. “A major floristic 

boundary in Minnesota: an analysis of 280 taxa occurring in the western and southern portions 

of the state.” Canadian Journal of Botany. 70, pp. 319–333. 

Wulff, L. 1959. “Big Stone County History.” Minnesota Centennial Publication, p. 122.
Appendix F: Priority Projects

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

111

Appendix F: Priority Projects

Demolition of Boundary Fence

Reconstruct Quarry/Ruby Red Fence

Reconstruct Fence LaCombe Quarry

Reconstruct Fence Chain Link – around Highway 75 Quarry

Replace Paved Trail Highway 75 Overlook

Repair WCS Diversion Channel

Big Stone Repair Erosion on Hunter Access Road

Big Stone Road Service Koch Road General Rehab

Repair Erosion on Gravel Pit Service Road

Big Stone WCS Pool 4 General Rehab

Big Stone WCS Pool 4/4A General Rehab

Big Stone WCS Pool 4A General Rehab

Big Stone Road Service Mews Driveway

Big Stone Road Service Yellow Bank General Rehab

Big Stone WCS Banding Site General Rehab

Big Stone Road Service Klepel Road General Rehab

Big Stone Road Service Syndicate General Rehab

Big Stone Parking HQ Gravel Lot General Rehab

Big Stone Construct Yellow Bank River Moist Soil Unit

Big Stone Construct Sellin Moist Soil Unit

Repairs to Building Tool/Fuel Storage

Upgrade Lighting and Replace Door Seal on Seed Cleaning Facility

Repairs on Bridge with Stoplog Water Control – Pool 7 Dike, Double 10' x 8' Concrete Box 

Replace Steel Frame Gate

Rehab Kiosk Single Panel

Replace Signs Boundary

Big Stone Parking Public FHWA Route 926 General Rehab
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112

Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Administrative Procedures Act of 1946

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by federal agencies with respect to 

identification of information to be made public; publication of material in the Federal Register; 

maintenance of records; attendance and notification requirements for specific meetings and 

hearings; issuance of licenses; and review of agency actions. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

Establishes as policy of the United States the protection and preservation for American Indians 

of their inherent right to freedom to believe, express, and practice their traditional religions. The 

Act directs federal agencies to evaluate their policies and procedures, in consultation with native 

traditional religious leaders, in order to determine changes required to protect and preserve 

Native American religious cultural rights and practices. 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 

2008

Prohibits discrimination of individuals based on disability. It requires that public transportation 

services be accessible to individuals with disabilities and prohibits discrimination in employment 

of qualified individuals with disabilities. It requires the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission to issue regulations relating to discrimination of disabled individuals, and requires 

the National Council on Disability to conduct a study of areas designated as wilderness to 

determine the effect of the designation on the ability of individuals to enjoy such areas. The ADA 

Amendments Act of 2008 restored the intent and protections of the original act.

Antiquities Act of 1906

Authorizes the President to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or 

scientific interest on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The Act 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 provides penalties for violations.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Largely supplanted the resource protection provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological 

items. This Act established detailed requirements for issuance of permits for any excavation for 

or removal of archaeological resources from federal or Indian lands. It also established 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. This act also required the land 

managing agencies to establish public awareness programs regarding the value of 

archaeological resources to the Nation. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1960, as amended

This act carries out the policy established by the Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 

1935 (known as the Historic Sites Act). It 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. The Act 

authorizes use of appropriated, donated, and/or transferred funds for the recovery, protection, 

and preservation of such data. 
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data in federal construction projects.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1969 

Ensures that certain buildings financed or leased by federal agencies are constructed (or 

renovated) so that they will be accessible to the physically handicapped.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale, or transport of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, or part, 

nest, or egg except as permitted by the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition 

purposes or for the religious purposes of Indians.

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land conservation and utilization in 

order to correct maladjustments in land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil 

erosion, reforestation, preservation of natural resources, and protection of fish and wildlife. 

Some early refuges and hatcheries were established under authority of this Act.

Clean Air Act of 1970 

Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. The Act and its 

amendments charge federal land managers with direct responsibility to protect the “air quality 

and related values” of land under their control. These values include fish, wildlife, and their 

habitats.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986

Authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water Conservation Fund moneys, 

removing a prior prohibition on such acquisitions. Requires the Secretary of the Interior 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 amounts equal to import duties on arms and ammunition. It established 

entrance fees at national wildlife refuges. It also extended the Wetlands Loan Act authorization 

through 1988 and required the Secretary to report to Congress on wetlands loss. 

In addition, it directed the Secretary, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to continue the 

National Wetlands Inventory; to complete mapping of the contiguous United States; and to 

produce at ten-year intervals reports to update and improve in the September 1982 "Status and 

Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat in the Coterminous United States, 1950s to 1970s." 

This act also increased the price of duck stamps.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

Directs federal agencies to take actions that would further the purposes of the Act and to ensure 

that actions they carry out, authorize, or fund do not jeopardize endangered species or their 

critical habitat. The Act also provides authority for land acquisition. Conservation of threatened 

and endangered species has become a major objective of both land acquisition and refuge 

management programs. 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969

This act expanded the provisions of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 to 

include the listing of species in danger world-wide and added mollusks and crustaceans to the 

animals that could be listed.
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966

This act was the predecessor to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and directed the 

Secretary of the Interior to produce a list of native U.S. vertebrate species in danger of 

extinction for the limited protection of those animals. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990

Established the Office of Environmental Education within the Environmental Protection Agency 

to develop and administer a federal environmental education program in consultation with other 

federal natural resource management agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (1971)

States that if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes any development activities that may 

affect the archaeological or historic sites, the Service will consult with federal and state Historic 

Preservation Officers to comply with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended.

Executive Order 11644: Use of Off-road Vehicles on the Public Lands (1972)

Established policies and procedures to ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands 

will be controlled and directed to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of 

all users of those lands, and minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. EO 

11989 (1977) amends section 2 of EO 11644 and directs agencies to close areas negatively 

impacted by off-road vehicles.

Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management (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, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.

Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands (1977)

Directs federal agencies to: (1) minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands; and (2) 

preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alternative 

exists.

Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (1982)

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by requiring federal agencies to use the state 

process to determine and address concerns of state and local elected officials with proposed 

federal assistance and development programs.

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (1994 )

Mandates that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations. This order also creates an Interagency Working Group on Environmental 

Justice to provide guidance to federal agencies in overcoming these issues. 

Executive Order 12906: Coordinating Geographical Data Acquisition and Access: The 

National Spatial Data Infrastructure (1994), as amended by Executive Order 13286:
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

Amendment of Executive Orders, and Other Actions, in Connection With the Transfer of 

Certain Functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security (2003)

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in cooperation with state, local, and tribal 

governments, and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial Data Infrastructure to 

support public and private sector applications of geospatial data. Of particular importance to 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans is the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS), 

which is the adopted standard for vegetation mapping. Using NVCS facilitates the compilation of 

regional and national summaries, which, in turn, can provide an ecosystem context for individual 

refuges.

Executive Order 12962: Recreational Fisheries (1995)

Directs federal agencies to improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and 

distribution of United States aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities in 

cooperation with states and tribes.

Executive Order 12996: Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (1996)

Defines a conservation mission for the National Wildlife Refuge System, six compatible wildlifedependent recreational activities, and four guiding principles for management of the Refuge 

System. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to undertake several actions in support of 

management and public use and to ensure the maintenance of the biological integrity and 

environmental health of the Refuge System. It also provides for the identification of existing 

wildlife-dependent uses that will continue to occur as lands are added to the Refuge System.

Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites (1996)

Directs federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of 

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the physical 

integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Executive Order 13061: Federal Support of Community Efforts Along American Heritage 

Rivers (1997)

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for the purpose of natural resource and 

environmental protection, economic revitalization, and historic and cultural preservation. The Act 

directs federal agencies to preserve, protect, and restore rivers and their associated resources 

important to our history, culture, and natural heritage.

Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 

(2000)

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration 

with tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications.

Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species (1999)

Directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species, detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost effective and environmentally sound 

manner, accurately monitor invasive species, provide for restoration of native species and 

habitat conditions, conduct research to prevent introductions, to control invasive species, and to 

promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them. This EO 

replaces and rescinds EO 11987: Exotic Organisms (1977).

Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 

(2001)
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

116

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds by several means, including the 

incorporation of strategies and recommendations found in Partners in Flight Bird Conservation 

plans, the North American Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, 

and the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, into agency management plans and 

guidance documents.

Executive Order 13443: Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (2007)

Directs federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on 

public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the 

Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and 

enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, as amended

Minimizes the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of 

farmland to nonagricultural uses. Federal programs include construction projects and the 

management of federal lands.

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, as amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that provide advice to the federal 

government. Advisory committees may be established only if they will serve a necessary, 

nonduplicative function. Committees must be strictly advisory unless otherwise specified and 

meetings must be open to the public.

Federal-Aid Highways Act of 1968

Establishes requirements for approval of federal highways through wildlife refuges and other 

designated areas to preserve the natural beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation 

is directed to consult with the Secretary of the Interior and other federal agencies before 

approving any program or project requiring the use of land under their jurisdiction.

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act) of 1950

Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance for state fish restoration 

and management plans and projects. It is financed by excise taxes paid by manufacturers of 

rods, reels, and other fishing tackle. 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act) of 1937

Taxes the purchase of ammunition and firearms and earmarks the proceeds to be distributed to 

the states for wildlife restoration. 

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988

Established requirements for the management and protection of caves and their resources on 

federal lands, including allowing the land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves 

from the public and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities in caves on federal 

lands.

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) of 2004

Allows the government to charge a fee for recreational use of public lands managed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies. The recreation fee program is a program by which 

fees paid by visitors to certain federal recreation sites are retained by the collecting site and 

used to improve the quality of the visitor experiences at those sites. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1975, as amended
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to designate plants as noxious weeds and 

to cooperate with other federal, state, and local agencies; farmers associations, and private 

individuals in measures to control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of such weeds. The 

Act requires each federal land-managing agency, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to 

designate an office or person to coordinate a program to control such plants on the agency’s 

land and implement cooperative agreements with the states, including integrated management 

systems to control undesirable plants.

Federal Records Act of 1950

Directs 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 1948, as frequently amended particularly by the 

Clean Water Act of 1977 

This Act and its amendments have as their objectives the restoration and maintenance of the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters and, therefore, regulates the 

discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. The act protects fish and wildlife, 

establishes operation permits for all major sources of water pollution, limits the discharge of 

pollutants or toxins into water, and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant 

from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit is obtained under the Clean Water 

Act. Section 404 charges the U.S. Corps of Engineers with regulating discharge of dredge or fill 

materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The "Clean Water Act" became 

the common name with amendments in 1977.

Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, as amended

Declares the intent of Congress that recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement be given full 

consideration as purposes of federal water development projects. The Act also authorizes the 

use of federal water project funds for land acquisition in order to establish refuges for migratory 

waterfowl when recommended by the Secretary of the Interior, and authorizes the Secretary to 

provide facilities for outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife at all reservoirs under his control, 

except those within national wildlife refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as frequently amended 

Establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources policy with emphasis 

on the commercial fishing industry but also with a direction to administer the Act with regard to 

the inherent right of every citizen and resident to fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment 

and to maintain and increase public opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife 

resources. The 1998 amendments to the Act modified the powers of the Secretary of the Interior 

in regard to volunteer service, community partnerships, and education programs. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, as amended

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, identify species of management 

concern, and implement conservation measures to preclude the need for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife conservation with other water 

resource development programs by requiring consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the state fish and wildlife agencies where the “waters of a stream or other body of 

water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted...or 

otherwise controlled or modified” by any agency under federal permit or license. This act also 
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

118

authorized use of surplus federal property for wildlife conservation purposes and authorized the 

Secretary of the Interior to provide public fishing areas and accept donations of lands and funds. 

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. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept gifts 

and bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the United States. It also authorizes the 

use of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out a volunteer program.

Food Security Act of 1985 (Farm Bill), as amended

Known as the Farm Bill, this act contains several provisions that contribute to wetland 

conservation. The Swampbuster provisions state that farmers who convert wetlands for the 

purpose of planting after enactment of the law are ineligible for most farm program subsidies. 

The Act also established the Wetlands Reserve Program to restore and protect wetlands 

through easements and restoration of the functions and values of wetlands on such easement 

areas.

Freedom of Information Act of 1966

Requires all federal agencies to make available to the public for inspection and copying 

administrative staff manuals and staff instructions; official, published and unpublished policy 

statements; final orders deciding case adjudication; and other documents. Special exemptions 

have been reserved for nine categories of privileged material. The Act requires the party 

seeking the information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs.

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended 

Authorizes and governs the lease of geothermal steam and related resources on public lands. 

Section 15(c) of the Act prohibits issuing geothermal leases on virtually all U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service-administered lands.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935 

Popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended in 1965, declared it a national policy to 

preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. It 

provided procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites. 

Among other things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under authority of 

this Act. 

Lacey Act of 1900, as amended

Originally designed to help states protect their native game animals and to safeguard U.S. crop 

production from harmful foreign species. The Act prohibits interstate and international transport 

and commerce of fish, wildlife, or plants taken in violation of domestic or foreign laws. It 

regulates the introduction to the United States of foreign species into new locations.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

Provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus federal land, appropriations from oil 

and gas receipts from the outer continental shelf, and other sources for land acquisition under 

several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be used for matching grants to states for 

outdoor recreation projects and for land acquisition by various federal agencies including the 

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

119

Establishes a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve areas recommended by the 

Secretary of the Interior for acquisition with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. Authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with local authorities in wildlife conservation and to 

conduct investigations, to publish documents related to North American birds, and to maintain 

and develop refuges. The Act provides for cooperation with states in enforcement. It establishes 

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the Commission for 

migratory birds. This act includes acquisition authority for purchase or rental of a partial interest 

in land or waters and requires the Secretary of the Interior to consult with the appropriate units 

of local government and with the governor of the state concerned, or the appropriate state 

agency, before recommending an area for purchase or rental. This provision was subsequently 

amended in 1983, 1984, and 1986 to require that either the governor or the state agency 

approve each proposed acquisition. The role of the Commission was expanded by the North 

American Wetland Conservation Act to include approving wetlands acquisition, restoration, and 

enhancement proposals recommended by the North American Wetlands Conservation Council.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp Act) of 1934

Known as the Duck Stamp Act, this act requires every waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older 

to carry a stamp, and earmarks proceeds of Duck Stamps to buy or lease waterfowl habitat. A 

1958 amendment authorizes the acquisition of small wetland and pothole areas to be 

designated as “Waterfowl Production Areas,” which may be acquired without the limitations and 

requirements of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

Implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, 

Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by 

special regulations, the Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, possess, buy, sell, 

purchase, barter, export, or import any migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product. 

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public lands.

Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, as amended

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of deposits of coal, oil, gas, and 

other hydrocarbons, sulphur, phosphate, potassium, and sodium. Section 185 of this act 

contains provisions relating to granting rights-of-way over federal lands for pipelines.

Mining Act of 1872, as amended

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called “hardrock” minerals (such as 

gold and silver) on public lands.

National and Community Service Act of 1990

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the United States in full and/or part-time 

projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job skills, enhance educational skills, 

and fulfill environmental needs. Among other things, this law established the American 

Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young adults in approved human and natural 

resource projects, which will benefit the public or are carried out on federal or tribal lands.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended

This act and the implementing regulations developed by the Council on Environmental Quality 

(40 CFR 1500–1508) require federal agencies to integrate the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process with other planning at the earliest possible time to provide a systematic 
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

120

interdisciplinary approach to decisionmaking; to identify and analyze the environmental effects 

of their actions; to describe appropriate alternatives to the proposed actions; and to involve the 

affected state and federal agencies, tribal governments, and public in the planning and 

decisionmaking process. This act requires the disclosure of the environmental impacts of any 

major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

Repeatedly amended, the Act provides for preservation of significant historical features 

(buildings, objects, and sites) through a grant-in-aid program to the states. It established a 

National Register of Historic Places and a program of matching grants under the existing 

National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468-468d). The Act established an Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, which was made a permanent independent agency in 1976 

(90 Stat. 1319). That Act also created the Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are 

directed to take into account the effects of their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for 

listing in the National Register. Section 110 requires federal agencies to manage historic 

properties, e.g., to document historic properties prior to destruction or damage; section 101 

requires federal agencies consider Indian tribal values in historic preservation programs and 

requires each federal agency to establish a program leading to inventory of all historic 

properties on its land.

National Trails System Act of 1968

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, scenic, and historic values of 

some important trails. National Recreation Trails may be established by the Secretaries of the 

Interior or Agriculture on land wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with the consent of the 

involved state(s) and other land managing agencies, if any. National scenic and national historic 

trails may only be designated by an Act of Congress. Several national trails cross units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997)

This act consolidates the authorities relating to the various categories of lands for the 

conservation of fish and wildlife administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the U.S 

Fish and Wildlife Service by designating all such areas part of a single National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Areas include wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and 

wildlife threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, 

and waterfowl production areas. The law also prohibits knowingly disturbing any area within the 

system or the take of Refuge System wildlife without a permit. The Act addresses the growing 

need for recreational opportunities by providing a decision framework for allowing appropriate 

and compatible uses of the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act of 2000

Establishes a commission to promote awareness by the public to develop a long-term plan to 

meet priority needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System, require an annual report on the 

needs, and improve public use programs and facilities. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

This act, which amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, serves 

as the "organic act" for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act states first and foremost 

that the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is focused singularly on wildlife 

conservation. It establishes a unifying mission for the Refuge System, reinforces the importance 

of refuge purposes to guide management direction, articulates a process for determining 
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

121

compatible uses of refuges, identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreation uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation), 

and adds a requirement for preparing comprehensive conservation plans through a public 

planning process. The Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

Act of 1998 

Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to encourage the use of volunteers to help in the 

management of refuges within the National Wildlife 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 the resources; 

and encourages donations and other contributions.

National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Improvement Act of 2010 

Maintains the current funding authorization level for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

volunteer and community partnerships programs that are vital to national wildlife refuges but 

makes a number of important amendments. The law amends the National Wildlife Refuge 

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 to direct the Service to carry 

out a National Volunteer Coordination Program within the National Wildlife Refuge System. It 

also requires the Director of the Service to publish a national strategy for the coordination and 

utilization of volunteers within the Refuge System and provide at least one regional volunteer 

coordinator for each Service region to implement the strategy. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession. This act imposes serious delays on a project 

when human remains or other cultural items are encountered in the absence of a plan.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 2000

Establishes a matching grants program to fund projects that promote the conservation of 

neotropical migratory birds in the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico. North American Wetlands Conservation Council is created to 

recommend projects to be funded under the Act to the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission. Available funds may be expended for up to 50 percent of the United States’ share 

cost of wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent 

of the cost of projects on federal lands).

Partnerships for Wildlife Act of 1992

Established a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund to receive appropriated funds and 

donations from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist the 

state fish and game agencies in carrying out their responsibilities for conservation of non-game 

species. The funding formula is no more than 1/3 federal funds, at least 1/3 foundation funds, 

and at least 1/3 state funds. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

122

Requires that any recreational use on areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System be 

"compatible" with the primary purpose(s) for which the area was acquired or established. This 

Act also requires that sufficient funding be available for the development, operation and 

maintenance of recreational uses that are not directly related to the area's primary purpose(s). 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935

Provides for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of 

products from refuges. A major revision in 1964 requires all revenues received from refuge 

products be distributed to counties for public schools and roads (this stipulation later removed). 

Another revision in 1974 requires that any remaining funds be transferred to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund for land acquisition. A 1978 amendment stated payments to counties were 

established as: 

on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, threefourths of one percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent of the net receipts produced from 

the land, and

on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25 percent of net receipts and basic payments.

This amendment also required counties to pass payments along to other units of local 

government within the county that suffer losses in revenues due to the establishment of U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service areas.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability under any program or activity receiving federal 

financial assistance. 

Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899, as amended

Requires the authorization by the Chief of Engineers prior to any work in, on, over, or under 

navigable waters of the United States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides authority 

for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to review and comment on the effects on fish and wildlife 

activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted by the COE. Service concerns include 

contaminated sediments associated with dredge or fill projects in navigable waters.

Secretarial Order 3289 Amendment 1: Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on 

America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources (2010)

Secretarial Order 3285, issued in March of 2009, made production and transmission of 

renewable energy on public lands a priority for the Department of the Interior. This Secretarial 

Order, 3289A1, issued in February of 2010 establishes a Department-wide approach for 

applying scientific tools to increase understanding of climate change and to coordinate an 

effective response to its impacts on tribes and on the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and 

cultural resources that the Department manages.

Sikes Act of 1960, as amended

Provides for the cooperation by the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Defense with state 

agencies in planning, development, and maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor 

recreation facilities on military reservations throughout the United States. It requires the 

Secretary of each military department to use trained professionals to manage the wildlife and 

fishery resource under his jurisdiction and requires federal and state fish and wildlife agencies 

be given priority in management of fish and wildlife activities on military reservations.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

Regulates surface mining activities and reclamation of coal-mined lands. Further regulates the 

coal industry by designating certain areas as unsuitable for coal mining operations.
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

123

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948

Provides that upon a 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.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation planning that includes public 

involvement, and provides funding for approved public use roads and trails and associated 

parking lots, comfort stations, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2000

In December 2002, Congress required federal agencies to publish their own guidelines for 

ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that they 

disseminate to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502). The amended language is included in section 

515(a). The Office of Budget and Management directed agencies to develop their own 

guidelines to address the requirements of the law. The Department of the Interior instructed 

bureaus to prepare separate guidelines on how they would apply the Act. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service has developed “Information Quality Guidelines” to address the law.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell their homes, businesses, or 

farms to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Act requires that any purchase offer be no less 

than the fair market value of the property.

Water Resources Planning Act of 1965

Established the Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet representatives, including 

the Secretary of the Interior. The Council reviews river basin plans with respect to agricultural, 

urban, energy, industrial, recreational, and fish and wildlife needs. The Act also established a 

grant program to assist states in participating in the development of related comprehensive 

water and land use plans.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968

Established a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and prescribes the methods and 

standards through which additional rivers may be identified and added to the system. Section 

5(d)(1) requires that in all planning by federal agencies for the use and development of water 

and related land resources, consideration be given to potential wild, scenic, and recreation 

rivers. Rivers are added to the national system based on their free-flowing character and their 

outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreation, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, 

ecological, or other values. Rivers in the system are managed to maintain and protect these 

outstandingly remarkable values for present and future generations. 

Wilderness Act of 1964

Defined the Wilderness resource and established the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

It directed the Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 

or more acres and every roadless island (regardless of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and 

National Park Systems and to recommend to the President the suitability of each such area or 

island for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, with final decisions made 

by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was directed to study and recommend suitable areas 
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

124

in the National Forest System. This act also prescribes the management of new inclusions as 

wilderness. 

Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps program within the Departments of the 

Interior and Agriculture. Within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, YCC participants perform 

many tasks on refuges, fish hatcheries, and research stations.
Appendix H: Mailing List

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

125

Appendix H: Mailing List

The following is an initial list of government offices, private organizations, and individuals who 

will receive notice of the availability of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Federal Officials

• U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar

• U.S. Senator Al Franken

• U.S. Representative Collin Peterson

Federal Agencies

• U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

State Officials

• Senator Lyle Koenen

• Representative Andrew Falk

State Agencies

• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

City/County/Local Governments

• Lac Qui Parle County Commissioners

• Big Stone County Commissioners

• City of Ortonville

• City of Odessa

Libraries

• Grant County Public Library

• Madison Public Library

• Ortonville Public Library

Organizations

• Appleton Sportsman’s Club

• Big Stone County Soil and Water Conservation District

• Big Stone Historical Society

• Big Stone Lake Chamber of Commerce

• Bonanza Education Center

• Citizens for Big Stone Lake

• Clean Up the River Environment (CURE)
Appendix H: Mailing List

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

126

• Ducks Unlimited

• Lac Qui Parle Chamber of Commerce

• Lac Qui Parle Historical Society

• Lac Qui Parle River/Yellow Bank River Watershed Districts

• Minkota Archery Club

• Minnesota Ornithologist Union

• Minnesota Deer Hunters Association

• Minnesota Trappers Association

• Minnesota Waterfowl Hunters Association

• Moose Lodge 407

• The Nature Conservancy

• Pheasants Forever

• Upper Minnesota Valley Regional Development Commission

• Upper Minnesota River Watershed District

• Wild Turkey Federation

• Wildlife Forever

Media

• Local radio and TV stations; Refuge media contacts

Individuals

• Individuals who participated in open house sessions or who requested to be on the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan mailing list
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

127

Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

In this Appendix

Collection of Edible Wild Plant Foods for Personal Use

Environmental Education

Farming

Firewood Cutting and Timber Removal

Fishing

Grazing

Haying

Hunting

Interpretation

Non-Refuge Sponsored Events

Scientific Studies and Research Projects by Third Parties

Trapping of Furbearers

Wildlife Observation and Photography
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

128

Compatibility Determination

Use: Collection of Edible Wild Plant Foods for Personal Use

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Big Stone NWR was established on May 21, 1975 when the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

transferred 10,540.43 acres to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service). Legal 

authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 

U.S.C. 661-667e), Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901), Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), 

and Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r).

Refuge Purposes: 

“ . . . shall be administered by him [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 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

" . . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 " . . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . 

property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 

460k-460k-4), as amended)

" . . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties 

and conventions . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act of 1986)

" . . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)

" . . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

" . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 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.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

129

Description of Use: 

Allow visitors to collect various plant food products such as wild berries and nuts on Refuge land 

for personal use.

Is the use a priority public use?

No, this is not a priority public use of the Refuge System.

Where would the use be conducted?

Harvest would occur throughout the Refuge in the uplands and along river and wetland edges. 

Areas where edible plants are found are a small percentage of the total upland acreage and are 

often found at abandoned building sites, which have been reclaimed by the Service. 

When would the use be conducted?

Collection would occur during daylight hours and be of short duration in the spring for asparagus 

and mushrooms, and in the late summer and fall for berries, plums, and nuts. 

How would the use be conducted?

These foods are hand-harvested by picking the products from the plant or gathering what has 

fallen to the ground. Mushrooms, asparagus, and wild mint are examples of plants that are 

collected and consumed or used as tea. These are cut by hand during harvest.

Access to harvest sites is by walking from a designated parking area or public roadway. 

Collection of these foods is not a wildlife-dependent recreational use and occurs infrequently. 

For a small number of people, this is a traditional, family-oriented activity, which provides an 

opportunity for those participating to collect wholesome, healthy foods while enjoying the beauty 

of the natural environment. 

Why is this use being proposed?

This use has historically been allowed on the Refuge and has become a custom of the local 

community. The Refuge is open to the public during the time periods that the use is allowed so 

no additional disturbance is created by allowing this use. Gathering allows the public to build a 

connection to the Refuge through personal outdoor experiences that engage the senses and 

foster an appreciation of the outdoors. 

There is a paucity of other public lands in west-central Minnesota, which could provide this 

opportunity for the public. Private lands located in this area are intensively managed for row 

crop production. Due to farming practices, these areas typically do not contain any edible wild 

plants.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly (considering quality and compatibility) and safely 

administer use?

Access trails, parking lots, informational signs, and other facilities, as well as staff to enforce 

regulations and maintain these facilities have been provided by the Service. These facilities will 

be maintained to meet the needs of the public and will be used incidentally by those who are 

collecting edible wild plant foods. This use will not require any increase in additional 

maintenance, enforcement staff, or administrative expenditures. There will be no Special Use 

Permits issued for this use, and the Service will not have to provide any special equipment or 

services.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130

Are existing Refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Existing Refuge resources are adequate to ensure this activity is safely administered and 

carried out according to compatibility requirements. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does the collection of edible wild plant foods affect Refuge purposes and the NWRS 

mission?

The Refuge was established to provide for the needs of migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Gathering does not adversely affect the ability of the Refuge to fulfill this purpose. 

How does the collection of edible wild plant foods affect fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats; and the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

Refuge/NWRS?

Disturbance

Managing Visitor Use and Disturbance of Waterbirds: A Literature Review of Impacts and 

Mitigations (DeLong, 2002) includes a summary of effects on wildlife from disturbance from 

various forms of recreation. The author documents that disturbance can alter behavior (e.g., 

foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife. It is probable that 

gathering would cause some or all of these effects to some degree on Refuge wildlife, but 

present and expected future levels are not expected to adversely affect wildlife populations on 

the Refuge. A number of measures mitigate these effects. 

Habitat

No adverse impacts to Refuge habitats are expected from this activity. Presently, the level of 

this use is estimated at 25 visits annually and is not expected to increase much above present 

rates in the future. The use occurs for short durations during spring and late summer/fall when 

nuts, berries, and mushrooms are most likely available. Gathering occurs in the same areas as 

other public uses, and practiced at prescribed levels is not expected to harm Refuge habitats. 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health

Gathering of nuts, berries, and mushrooms conducted in accordance with Refuge regulations is 

not expected to adversely affect fish and wildlife populations or the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the Refuge as it is defined in Service policy (FWS, 2001). 

Historically, public participation in the collection of nuts, berries, and mushrooms on the Refuge 

is estimated at about 25 visits per year, and future participation is also expected to be at or 

slightly above the current level. This is not anticipated to adversely impact the biological 

integrity, diversity, or environmental health of the Refuge. 

Other Uses and Public Safety

Gathering is not expected to adversely affect other Refuge uses or public safety. Experience on 

many national wildlife refuges has proven that time and space zoning (e.g., establishment of 

separate use areas, use periods, and restrictions on the number of users) is an effective tool in 

eliminating conflicts between user groups. Overall, the cumulative impact of gathering on 

priority wildlife-dependent recreation activities or public safety at Big Stone NWR is expected to 

be minor. 
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

131

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was available for public review as part of the Big Stone NWR 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and environmental assessment from May 9, 2012 to 

June 8, 2012. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final version of 

the Big Stone NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Collection of Edible Wild Food Plants for Personal Use

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Motor vehicle is restricted to designated roads.

2. Camping, overnight use, and fires will be prohibited.

3. Digging, destruction, and/or removal of plants or their roots are prohibited. 

4. Collection is for personal use only, and wild food products cannot be sold commercially. 

Justification: 

In view of the above and with the stipulations previously described, gathering wild edible plant 

foods will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes of the Refuge or the mission 

of the Refuge System. This use also fosters an appreciation of our natural resources by the 

public and is a means of allowing the Refuge to more effectively connect people to nature as 

per the Service’s “Let’s Go Outside-Connecting People With Nature” initiative.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Alice Hanley/ 7/2/12

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Rick Schultz/ 8/27/12

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: June 2022

DeLong, A. K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds—a literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures—prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix L 

(114 pp.) in Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact statement 

for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision (Vol. II). Dept. of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

132

Compatibility Determination

Use: Environmental Education

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Big Stone NWR was established on May 21, 1975 when the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

transferred 10,540.43 acres to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service). Legal 

authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 

U.S.C. 661-667e), Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901), Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), 

and Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r).

Refuge Purposes: 

“ . . . shall be administered by him [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 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

" . . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 " . . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . 

property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 

460k-460k-4), as amended)

" . . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties 

and conventions . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act of 1986)

" . . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)

" . . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

" . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 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.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

133

Description of Use: 

Is the use a priority public use?

Environmental education is a priority use of the Refuge System.

Where would the use be conducted?

Environmental education activities occur in various habitats within the Refuge based upon the 

request.

When would the use be conducted?

Assistance to teachers for environmental education is provided upon request if staff time is 

available.

How would the use be conducted?

Refuge staff provides assistance to teachers for environmental education upon request. 

Teacher-led school groups, youth groups, or other organized groups involved in learning 

activities visit the Refuge and may visit one or more habitats to conduct small studies, make 

observations, or other activities in support of educational objectives.

Why is this use being proposed?

Environmental education is a priority general public use of the Refuge System. Environmental 

education programs promote understanding and appreciation of natural and cultural resources 

and their management on all lands and waters of the Refuge System.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly (considering quality and compatibility) and safely 

administer use?

The present Refuge environmental education program requires minimal Refuge resources. It is 

provided upon request and as time allows. 

Are existing Refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

At the present level of use there are adequate Refuge resources to implement the 

environmental education program.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does environmental education affect Refuge purposes and the NWRS mission?

No adverse impacts on Refuge resources are expected from implementation of the Refuge 

environmental education program. 

How does environmental education affect fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats; and the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge/NWRS?

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Managing Visitor Use and Disturbance of Waterbirds: A Literature Review of Impacts and 

Mitigations (DeLong, 2002) includes a summary of effects on wildlife from disturbance from 

various forms of recreation. The author documents that disturbance can alter behavior (e.g., 

foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife. It is probable that 

environmental education could cause some or all of these effects to some degree on Refuge 

wildlife. However, due to the extremely small amount of environmental education activity, this 
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

134

disturbance would be minimal and the affects would not last much longer than the visit. Much of 

the Refuge is not affected, because environmental education is concentrated along the Wildlife 

Drive, roads and trails and at observation facilities. These areas have been established areas of 

use. Damage to habitat by walking is minimal and temporary. Large groups typically use 

established foot trails or the local roads with little to no impact on vegetation. There is some 

temporary disturbance to wildlife due to human activities on trails; however, the disturbance is 

generally localized and would not adversely impact overall populations. Environmental 

education use is not expected to increase substantially over time. 

The cumulative disturbance caused by environmental education and all other public uses 

occurring on the Refuge is not expected to adversely affect fish and wildlife populations or their 

habitats. A number of factors including: suitable site conditions, presence of facilities, access 

limitations, and seasonal restrictions or other regulations tend to concentrate uses. At any one 

time, much of the Refuge is unaffected by these uses and is free of disturbance. 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health

Environmental education activities, conducted in accordance with Refuge regulations, are not 

expected to adversely affect fish and wildlife populations or the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge as it is defined in Service policy (FWS, 2001).

Other Uses and Public Safety

Environmental education is not expected to adversely affect other Refuge uses or public safety. 

The Refuge’s Visitor Services programs will be adjusted as needed to eliminate or minimize any 

future problems and provide quality wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, which include 

promoting public safety. Experience on many national wildlife refuges has proven that time and 

space zoning (e.g., establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restrictions on the 

number of users) is an effective tool in eliminating conflicts between user groups. Overall, the 

cumulative impact of environmental education on other wildlife-dependent recreation or public 

safety at Big Stone NWR is expected to be minor. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was available for public review as part of the Big Stone NWR 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and environmental assessment from May 9, 2012 to 

June 8, 2012. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final version of 

the Big Stone NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Environmental Education

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. The Refuge Manager will monitor use patterns and densities and make adjustments in 

timing, location, and duration as needed to limit disturbance.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

135

2. Use will be directed to public use facilities (both existing and in the future), which are not 

in or near sensitive areas.

3. Use is limited to daylight hours only.

Justification:

In view of the above and with the stipulations previously described, environmental education will 

not materially interfere with or detract from the Refuge System mission or purposes of the 

Refuge. Environmental education is a priority public use of the Refuge System and providing 

this program contributes to achieving one of the Refuge goals. Well-designed environmental 

education programs can be effective resource management tools that provide an opportunity to 

influence visitor attitudes about natural resources, refuges, the Refuge System, and the Service 

and to influence visitor behavior when visiting units of the Refuge System.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Alice Hanley/ 7/2/12

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Rick Schultz/ 8/27/12

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: June 2027

DeLong, A. K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds—a literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures — prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix L 

(114 pp.) in Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact statement 

for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision (Vol. II). Dept. of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

601 FW 3. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: 

http://policy.fws.gov/601fw3.html
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

136

Compatibility Determination

Use: Farming

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Big Stone NWR was established on May 21, 1975 when the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

transferred 10,540.43 acres to the USFWS. Legal authorities used for establishment of the 

Refuge include Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), Refuge Recreation Act 

(16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901), Fish 

and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), and Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r).

Refuge Purposes: 

“ . . . shall be administered by him [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 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

" . . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 " . . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . 

property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 

460k-460k-4), as amended)

" . . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties 

and conventions . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act of 1986)

" . . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)

" . . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

" . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

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.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

137

Description of Use:

Use Cooperative farming as a habitat management tool to enhance and restore refuge 

grasslands.

Is the use a priority public use?

Farming is not a priority public use in the National Wildlife Refuge System

Where would the use be conducted?

Farming occurs on approximately 2-4 percent of refuge lands annually.

When would the use be conducted?

Spring planting typically begins in early April and harvest typically concludes by November of 

each year.

How would the use be conducted?

The Refuge will allow farming by private individuals for the purpose of habitat management. 

Cooperative farming is the term used for cropping activities (growing agricultural products) 

conducted by a third party on land that is owned by or managed as part of the Refuge. This 

activity is implemented to prepare a quality seed bed for the establishment of native prairie 

species. 

Cooperative farming activities will only be performed on previously disturbed areas such as 

previously farmed land which have unacceptable levels of chemical residue, noxious weeds, or 

non-native plant species or ecotypes or to honor the land use clauses of a purchase agreement. 

To ensure that all Service policies are met, all such land use clauses must be approved by the 

Refuge Manager prior to Service acceptance of the purchase agreement.

Cooperative farming is conducted through a sealed bid process. The highest bidder receives 

the contract for that area. Cooperative farming is conducted under the terms and conditions of 

a Cooperative Farming Agreement or Special Use Permit issued by the Refuge Manager. The 

terms of the Agreement or Permit ensure compliance with Service policy and area-specific 

stipulations to meet management objectives and safeguard resources. 

Contracts are typically written for 3-4 years. The cooperator breaks up the ground the first year 

and then farms it for the remaining 2-3 years. The last year of the contract requires the 

cooperator to seed the field to soybeans. Soybean stubble is the preferred substrate for the 

refuge to seed native grasses and forbs into. 

Farming entails the use of mechanical equipment such as tractors, disks, and seeders. Each 

site is tilled prior to spring planting, once ground conditions permit the use of heavy equipment 

without damage to the soil. Tilling requires 1-2 days per site. Some sites may also be treated 

with herbicide prior to planting. Crops such as corn and soybeans are planted. Typically, 

planting is completed in one day or less on any individual site and planting on all sites usually 

begins as early as mid April and is completed as late as early June depending on soil conditions 

and type of crop planted. Cooperators are limited to using only FWS approved herbicides. The 

use of Genetically Modified Crops (GMO crops), specifically Glyphosate-tolerant corn and 

soybeans, will be authorized on refuge lands consistent with current Regional Policy. 

Beginning in calendar year 2012, the use of genetically-modified, glyphosate-tolerant corn and 

soybeans will be used only for the purpose of habitat restoration. 
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

138

Harvest techniques are the same for both no-till and traditional farming practices. Harvest 

begins in the fall, using a self propelled harvesting implement such as a combine, and usually 

takes about one day per site and is complete on all sites by late October.

Why is this use being proposed?

Farming is used to prepare seed beds for the Refuge’s grassland restoration program. 

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly (considering quality and compatibility) and safely 

administer use?

Most of the needed work to prepare for this use would be done as part of routine management 

duties. The decision to use cooperative farming as a management tool would occur as part of 

strategies developed under specific program or unit habitat management planning. The 

additional time needed to coordinate issuance and oversight of the needed Special Use Permit 

or Agreements is relatively minor and within existing Refuge resources.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

The needed staff time for development and administration of a cooperative farming program is 

available. The additional time needed to coordinate issuance and oversight of the needed 

Special Use Permit or Agreements is relatively minor and within existing Refuge resources.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does farming affect Refuge purposes and the NWRS mission?

The use of farming provides Refuge staff with a management tool that allows the refuge staff to 

meet the habitat goals and objectives. Service policy calls for maintaining or restoring refuge 

habitats to historic conditions if doing so does not conflict with refuge purposes (U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2001). 

How does farming affect Fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats; and the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge/NWRS?

Cooperative farming to prepare suitable seed beds for native prairie plantings will result in shortterm disturbances and long-term benefits to both resident and migratory wildlife using Refuge 

lands. Short-term impacts will include disturbance and displacement typical of any noisy heavy 

equipment operation. Cropping activities in old fields or abandoned croplands will also result in 

short-term loss of habitat for any animal or insect species using those areas for nesting, feeding, 

or resting. Long-term benefits are extremely positive due to establishment of diverse nesting 

cover utilizing local eco-type Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem plant species. The resulting 

habitat will greatly improve conditions for most of the same species affected by the short-term 

negative impacts. Strict time constraints placed on this use will limit anticipated impacts to 

these relatively minor areas. Farming and any associated impacts are expected to occur on 

approximately 2-4 percent of Refuge lands annually.

Public Review and Comment:

This Compatibility Determination was available for public review from February 10, 2011 

through March 4, 2011. No comments were received.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

139

Determination:

Farming

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Farming activity will only take place on previously altered tracts of land within the refuge 

and must meet specific habitat and related wildlife objectives and contribute to the 

purposes of the Refuge.

2. Cooperating farmers will be subject to Service policy and regulation regarding use of 

chemicals. Herbicide and pesticide use is restricted by type and to the minimum 

necessary amount applied.

3. Special conditions of Cooperative Farming Agreements will address unique local 

conditions as applicable.

4. Planting and harvest activities are restricted to minimize disturbance of wildlife species. 

5. The use of GMO crops is limited to Glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybeans.

6. Beginning in calendar year 2012, the use of genetically-modified, glyphosate-tolerant 

corn and soybeans will be used only for the purpose of habitat restoration. 

Justification: In view of the above and with the stipulations previously described, farming will 

not materially interfere with or detract from the NWRS mission or purposes of the Refuge. As 

practiced at Big Stone NWR, farming, both conventional and with the use of Glyphosate-tolerant 

corn and soybeans, contributes to the achievement of Refuges purposes and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System mission because it helps enhance and restore grassland habitat for 

migratory birds and resident wildlife. 

Signature: Refuge Manager /Alice Hanley/ 4/14/11

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Rick Schultz/ 4/20/11

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: March 2021
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

140

Compatibility Determination

Use: Firewood Cutting and Timber Removal

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Big Stone NWR was established on May 21, 1975 when the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

transferred 10,540.43 acres to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service). Legal 

authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 

U.S.C. 661-667e), Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901), Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), 

and Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r).

Refuge Purposes: 

“ . . . shall be administered by him [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 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

" . . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 " . . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . 

property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 

460k-460k-4), as amended)

" . . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties 

and conventions . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act of 1986)

" . . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and

wildlife resources . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)

" . . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

" . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 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.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

141

Description of Use:

The removal of standing or fallen trees by private individuals and contractors. This covers all 

wood removal activities regardless of the ultimate use of the wood (e.g., firewood, pulp, etc.). 

Is the use a priority public use?

Wood cutting and timber removal are not priority public uses of the Refuge System.

Where would the use be conducted?

The scope of the activity will be determined by the management objective for the area and by 

the quantity and quality of available wood. Harvest sites will vary in size from a portion of an 

acre up to several hundred acres depending on the site and management objectives. 

When would the use be conducted?

Wood removal activities may be authorized throughout most of the year. Wood cutting will not 

be allowed during times when the activity will cause damage to roads and grasslands. The 

scope of the activity will be determined by the management objective for the area and by the 

quantity and quality of available wood. Most often, wood removal activities for the purposes of 

firewood will occur September through December, while commercial harvest activities occur 

during the winter months when frozen ground will facilitate access and afford protection to 

underlying soils and vegetation. 

How would the use be conducted?

Equipment used for harvest may range from chainsaws and axes to more traditional logging 

equipment such as feller-bunchers, log skidders, and intensive hydro-ax (grinding-pulverizing). 

Access may be by car and trailer, pick-up truck, farm tractor, or larger traditional logging 

equipment. Differences in scope and necessary equipment will occur depending on the amount 

and type of wood available for removal. 

Why is this use being proposed?

This activity will only occur where the Service has determined that a management need exists to 

remove wood. Wood removal may be done where trees are encroaching on the open marshes, 

grassland areas, granite outcrops, or degrading earthen water impoundment structures. 

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly (considering quality and compatibility) and safely 

administer use?

Planning, issuing permits, and monitoring a wood product harvest program would require a 

minimal commitment of staff hours. In the past, the Refuge has issued approximately 10 Special 

Use Permits annually to private individuals for this activity and one Purchase Order/Task Order 

for contracted timber removal. All harvest sites are marked on maps by Refuge staff. By 

permitting a wood products harvest, the manager has identified a management need and will 

have secured and prioritized the necessary station resources. 

Are existing Refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

No additional fiscal resources are needed to conduct this use. The needed staff time is already 

committed and available. Most of the needed work to prepare for this use would be done as 

part of routine management duties. The decision to allow firewood cutting or a timber removal 

contractor will be determined as part of strategies developed under habitat management 

discussions. The additional time needed to coordinate issuance and oversight of the needed 
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

142

Special Use Permit for purchase order is within existing Refuge resources. Monitoring timber 

removal effects will be a part of the existing grassland monitoring program.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does firewood cutting and timber removal affect Refuge purposes and the NWRS 

mission?

The use of firewood cutting/timber harvest provides a management tool that allows the Refuge 

staff to meet the habitat goals and objectives. Service policy calls for maintaining or restoring 

refuge habitats to historic conditions if doing so does not conflict with refuge purposes (FWS, 

2001). 

How does firewood cutting and timber removal affect fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats; and the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

Refuge/NWRS?

In permitting this type of activity, the potential exists to directly impact wildlife by displacement of 

animals from localized areas due to disturbance, or crushing of nests as a result of access for 

this activity. These impacts are easily avoided by timing of the activity in accordance with site 

specific characteristics. 

Indirect impacts to waterfowl production and Refuge goals will occur as a result of removing 

woody vegetation. In nearly every instance, these impacts will be positive. The removal of 

woody vegetation from historic grassland or wet meadow habitats impacts waterfowl production 

and the Refuge System mission by increasing the amount of nesting habitat and reducing 

predator habitat. In some cases, the removal of trees along roads, trails, and dikes is necessary 

because of the hazard to users from dead trees. For some people, there will be a temporary 

reduction in aesthetic quality on timber harvesting sites. 

Access for the purpose of removing wood may impact habitat by rutting soils, destroying 

groundcover, creating weed seedbeds, introducing invasive species, and increasing 

sedimentation due to runoff in nearby wetlands. These impacts can again be avoided by timing 

of the activity and requiring equipment be cleaned prior to entering the Refuge. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was available for public review as part of the Big Stone NWR 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and environmental assessment from May 9, 2012 to 

June 8, 2012. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final version of 

the Big Stone NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Firewood Cutting and Timber Removal

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

143

1. Work generally will be restricted to areas where soil types indicate that habitat was 

historically comprised of native prairie vegetation, on granite outcrops and associated 

habitats, or in existing non-native woodlots associated with abandoned farm sites.

2. If work is in an area where waterfowl nesting is likely, no cutting operations will be 

permitted from April through July 15.

3. Vehicle access for wood removal will be limited to existing trails or restricted to periods 

when the ground is frozen or dry to limit rutting and damage to growing vegetation.

4. A Special Use Permit will be issued to private individuals so special conditions can be 

developed in order to reduce or eliminate site specific impacts and ensure Service 

management goals are met.

5. Purchase Orders/Task Orders will be issued to commercial operations to ensure site 

specific impacts and Service management goals are met.

Justification:

In view of the above and with the stipulations previously described, firewood cutting and timber 

removal will not materially interfere with or detract from the Refuge System mission or purposes 

of the Refuge. As practiced at Big Stone NWR, tree cutting and removal contributes to the 

achievement of Refuges purposes and the Refuge System mission. It helps maintain prairie 

habitat, which is the historic condition within the Refuge and provides habitat for migratory birds.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Alice Hanley/ 7/2/12

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Rick Schultz/ 8/27/12

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: June 2022

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

601 FW 3. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: 

http://policy.fws.gov/601fw3.html
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

144

Compatibility Determination

Use: Fishing

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Big Stone NWR was established on May 21, 1975 when the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

transferred 10,540.43 acres to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service). Legal 

authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 

U.S.C. 661-667e), Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901), Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), 

and Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r).

Refuge Purposes: 

“ . . . shall be administered by him [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 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

" . . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 " . . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . 

property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 

460k-460k-4), as amended)

" . . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties 

and conventions . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act of 1986)

" . . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)

" . . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

" . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 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.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

145

Description of Use: 

Is the use a priority public use?

Fishing is a priority public use of the Refuge System. The State of Minnesota manages and 

regulates the taking of game fish species throughout the State, maintaining healthy populations.

Where would the use be conducted?

Fishing is allowed on all waters within Big Stone NWR. Boat fishing is only allowed in the 

Minnesota River channel with non-motorized boats or boats using electric motors. Bank fishing 

and ice fishing are allowed throughout the rest of the Refuge; however, due to suitable habitat 

and access constraints, ice fishing is typically limited to the Minnesota River and the East Pool 

impoundment.

When would the use be conducted?

Minnesota fishing regulations allow fishing year round for many species, but most fishing activity 

on the Refuge occurs from May through October. Ice fishing activity increases when the water 

level in East Pool is high in the winter. Refuge regulations limit all public use activities, including 

fishing, to daylight hours. 

How would the use be conducted?

Fishing on Refuge waters is in accordance with state seasons and regulations as well as 

Refuge regulations, which in some cases may be more restrictive than State regulations. One 

example is that state regulations allow night time fishing, where Refuge regulations limit fishing 

to daylight hours. Several fishing platforms, parking lots, a boat access, and walk in access 

points allow visitors access to Refuge fishing sites. Ice fishing is allowed; however, access 

using ATVs/UTVs, snowmobiles, and off road travel is prohibited.

Why is this use being proposed?

Fishing is a priority general public use of the Refuge System. The Service recognizes fishing as 

a traditional outdoor pastime, deeply rooted in the American heritage (FWS, 2006b). Fishing 

programs promote understanding and appreciation of natural resources and their management 

on all lands and waters in the Refuge System.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly (considering quality and compatibility) and safely 

administer use?

The present Refuge fishing program is designed to be administered with minimal Refuge 

resources. Refuge regulations mirror state regulations in large part, which allows Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) Conservation Officers to assist in law 

enforcement. Several fishing access areas were recently rehabilitated and are now accessible. 

There is a small amount of maintenance, mowing, and other upkeep at boat launching facilities 

that is funded as part of regular Refuge management activities. Approximately $3,000 annually 

is required for labor and materials to update and print maps and maintain signs. The Refuge 

staff does not remove snow on any access points or parking lots.

Are existing Refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

At the present level of fishing use there are adequate Refuge resources to implement the fishing 

program. Law enforcement is the primary tool necessary to ensure proper and safe 

administration of this use, and although there is no Law Enforcement Officer stationed at the 

Refuge, law enforcement services are available through the Regional Law Enforcement 
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

146

Program. Additionally, the local State Conservation Officer and Big Stone County Sheriff’s 

Office provide additional assistance when requested.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

How does fishing affect Refuge purposes and the NWRS mission?

The fishing program on the Refuge helps fulfill the Refuge System mission and does not detract 

from the ability to fulfill Refuge purposes. The Refuge was established under several purposes, 

but primarily to conserve, manage, maintain, and protect wildlife and habitat resources. Fishing 

will not detract from these purposes. Fishing is a priority public use of the Refuge System and 

allowing fishing on the Refuge helps fulfill the System mission.

How does fishing affect fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats; and the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge/NWRS?

Fishing is not expected to adversely affect fish populations and fish habitat within the Refuge. 

Conserving a diversity of fish and their habitat is included in one the goals of the Refuge System 

(FWS, 2006a). But the focus is on maintaining populations not individuals (FWS, 1992). Fishing 

does cause mortality and wounding of individuals within a fish population, but fishing is 

regulated so it does not threaten the perpetuation of fish populations. The effects of fishing on 

fish populations are monitored by the MN DNR and are considered in setting annual limits.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Managing Visitor Use and Disturbance of Waterbirds: A Literature Review of Impacts and 

Mitigations (DeLong, 2002) includes a summary of effects on wildlife from disturbance from 

fishing and other forms of recreation. The author documents that disturbance can alter behavior 

(e.g., foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife. It is probable that 

fishing would cause some or all of these effects to some degree on Refuge wildlife. A number of 

measures mitigate these effects. Although fishing is allowed throughout the Refuge, the majority 

of the fishing takes places along the Minnesota River, the East Pool impoundment, and where 

there are facilities to accommodate fishing. Fishing activity is estimated at 1,000 visits annually 

on the Refuge and is not expected to increase substantially over time. 

The cumulative disturbance caused by fishing activity and all other public uses occurring on the 

Refuge is not expected to adversely affect fish and wildlife populations or their habitats. A 

number of factors including: suitable site conditions, presence of facilities, access limitations, 

and seasonal restrictions or other regulations tend to concentrate uses. At any one time, much 

of the Refuge is unaffected by these uses and is free of disturbance.

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health

Fishing conducted in accordance with state and Refuge regulations is not expected to adversely 

affect fish and wildlife populations or the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health 

of the Refuge as it is defined in Service policy (FWS, 2001).

Other Uses and Public Safety

Fishing is not expected to adversely affect other Refuge uses or public safety.

If public use levels on Big Stone NWR expand over time, unanticipated conflicts between user 

groups may occur. The Refuge’s Visitor Services programs would be adjusted as needed to 

eliminate or minimize each problem and provide a quality wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunity, which includes promoting public safety. Experience on many national wildlife 

refuges has proven that time and space zoning (e.g., establishment of separate use areas, use 

periods, and restrictions on the number of users) is an effective tool in eliminating conflicts 
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

147

between user groups. Overall, the cumulative impact of fishing on other wildlife-dependent 

recreation or public safety at Big Stone NWR is expected to be minor. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was available for public review as part of the Big Stone NWR 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and environmental assessment from May 9, 2012 to 

June 8, 2012. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final version of 

the Big Stone NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Fishing

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Fishing must be conducted according to state-, federal- and Refuge-specific regulations.

2. Boat fishing will be restricted to the Minnesota River channel. Only non-motorized boats 

and boats using electric motors are allowed.

3. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

4. The use of snowmobiles and all terrain and utility terrain vehicles (ATV/UTV) are 

prohibited.

5. Ice fishing structures, devices, and personal property must be removed from the Refuge 

daily.

Justification:

In view of the above and with the stipulations previously described, fishing will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the Refuge System mission or purposes of the Refuge. Fishing is a 

priority public use of the Refuge System and providing a fishing program contributes to 

achieving one of the Refuge goals. Fishing is not expected to adversely affect the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge or the Refuge System.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Alice Hanley/ 7/2/12

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Rick Schultz/ 8/27/12

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: June 2027

DeLong, A. K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds—a literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures—prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix L 

(114 pp.) in Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact statement 
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

148

for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision (Vol. II). Dept. of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/stillwater/litreview.pdf

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Population Management at Field Stations: General. 701 

FW 1. Department of Interior. Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/policy/701fw1.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

601 FW 3. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: 

http://policy.fws.gov/601fw3.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals and 

Refuge Purposes. 601 FW 1. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available 

URL: http://www.fws.gov/policy/601fw1.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006b. Wildlife-Dependent Recreation: Fishing. 605 FW 3. 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw3.html
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

149

Compatibility Determination

Use: Grazing

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Big Stone NWR was established on May 21, 1975 when the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

transferred 10,540.43 acres to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service). Legal 

authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 

U.S.C. 661-667e), Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901), Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), 

and Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r).

Refuge Purposes: 

“ . . . shall be administered by him [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 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

" . . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 " . . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . 

property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 

460k-460k-4), as amended)

" . . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties 

and conventions . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act of 1986)

" . . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)

" . . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

" . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 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.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

150

Description of Use:

The Refuge will allow limited grazing by privately owned domestic livestock for the purpose of 

habitat management. Livestock will be chiefly cattle but may include other domestic livestock.

Is the use a priority public use?

Grazing is not a priority public use of the Refuge System.

Where would the use be conducted?

Grazing will occur on specified areas to improve or maintain grassland and wet meadow habitat. 

The decision to use grazing as a management tool would occur as part of strategies developed 

under specific program or unit habitat management planning. For example, grazing may be 

used to stimulate growth of desirable grass species or reduce woody vegetation or other 

undesirable invasive plant species. 

When would the use be conducted?

Grazing may take place anytime from April through November. Most commonly, we will use 

short duration grazing periods, lasting four to eight weeks. The time period and frequency of 

grazing will depend on desired outcome as established in unit grazing management plans. 

How would the use be conducted?

Grazing will be conducted using privately owned domestic livestock. Grazing unit fencing and 

other measures required to manage livestock will be the responsibility of the cooperating private 

party. Grazing fees will be charged based on annual review of local market rates conducted by 

the Refuge Manager, in consultation with area U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

specialists or reports; or as determined by permittee selection using a best bid basis. Grazing 

fees will typically be assessed using the Animal Unit Month (AUM) method. Grazing fees may 

include market rate deductions for special circumstances, such as: atypical fencing or water 

requirements, required cattle movement, or other factors limiting economic return for permittees. 

Frequency of grazing on any unit will be based on site-specific evaluation of the grassland unit 

being managed. 

Administration of grazing programs will be conducted in accordance with a Habitat Management 

Plan. Grazing activities will be subject to the terms and conditions of a Special Use Permit 

issued by the Refuge Manager. The terms of the permit ensure compliance with Service policy 

and achieving habitat objectives while safeguarding Refuge resources.

Why is this use being proposed?

Grazing is a needed management tool to maintain and restore Refuge grasslands.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly (considering quality and compatibility) and safely 

administer use?

Most of the needed work to prepare for this use would be done as part of routine management 

duties. The decision to use grazing as a management tool would occur as part of strategies 

developed under specific program or unit habitat management planning. The additional time 

needed to coordinate issuance and oversight of the needed Special Use Permits is relatively 

minor and within existing Refuge resources. The need to monitor grazing effects will take 

additional time; however, it will be incorporated into the already existing grassland monitoring 

program.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

151

Are existing Refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

The needed staff time for development and administration of a grazing program is available. 

The additional time needed to coordinate issuance and oversight of the needed Special Use 

Permits is relatively minor and within existing Refuge resources. Monitoring of grazing effects 

will be easily incorporated into the grassland monitoring program. Most grazing costs (fencing, 

monitoring herd health, etc.) are assumed by the permittee.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does grazing affect Refuge purposes and the NWRS mission?

The use of grazing provides a management tool that allows the Refuge staff to meet the habitat 

goals and objectives. Service policy calls for maintaining or restoring refuge habitats to historic 

conditions if doing so does not conflict with refuge purposes (FWS, 2001). 

How does grazing affect fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats; and the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge/NWRS?

Grazing by domestic livestock has severe short-term effects on grassland communities. Many of 

these effects are desirable and are designed to maintain and improve healthy grassland/wet 

meadow communities. Some of these effects include removing standing vegetation, trampling of 

other vegetation, and reducing populations of pioneering woody plants. Other effects, such as 

areas where livestock may frequently concentrate, are more harmful but generally short-lived. 

Grazing in the spring can cause direct loss of grassland bird nests due to trampling and loss of 

standing vegetation. Grazing at any time of year creates an aesthetic issue of concern for some 

people who enjoy using the Refuge; seeing public land being grazed by domestic livestock 

reduces the appeal of the visit for many people.

Grazing livestock can create minor direct disturbance of wildlife, such as causing nearby birds to 

take flight. There is a slight potential for conflict between members of the public and livestock or 

the permittee.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was available for public review as part of the Big Stone NWR 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and environmental assessment from May 9, 2012 to 

June 8, 2012. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final version of 

the Big Stone NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Grazing

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Grazing must meet specific habitat and related wildlife objectives and contribute to the 

purposes of the Refuge.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

152

2. Grazing will not occur more frequently than three out of every five years on any tract 

without the preparation of a site-specific compatibility determination. 

3. Control and maintenance of the livestock will be the responsibility of the permittee. 

4. All livestock grazing will be conducted under strict control of a Special Use Permit.

5. All fencing, water supply, and other livestock management costs will be borne by the 

permittee. 

6. No insecticides will be used. 

7. No supplemental feeding will be allowed. 

Justification:

In view of the above and with the stipulations previously described, grazing will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the Refuge System mission or purposes of the Refuge. As 

practiced at Big Stone NWR, grazing contributes to the achievement of Refuges purposes and 

the Refuge System mission because it is used to maintain native habitat.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Alice Hanley/ 7/2/12

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Rick Schultz/ 8/27/12

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: June 2022

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

601 FW 3. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: 

http://policy.fws.gov/601fw3.html
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

153

Compatibility Determination

Use: Haying

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Big Stone NWR was established on May 21, 1975 when the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

transferred 10,540.43 acres to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service). Legal 

authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 

U.S.C. 661-667e), Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901), Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), 

and Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r).

Refuge Purposes: 

“ . . . shall be administered by him [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 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

" . . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 " . . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . 

property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 

460k-460k-4), as amended)

" . . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties 

and conventions . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act of 1986)

" . . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)

" . . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

" . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 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.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

154

Description of Use: 

The Refuge will allow haying by private individuals for the purpose of habitat management. 

Is the use a priority public use?

Haying is not a priority public use of the Refuge System.

Where would the use be conducted?

The decision to use haying as a management tool on the Refuge would occur as part of 

strategies developed under specific program or unit habitat management planning. The total 

area on which haying will be permitted during any one year will likely be less than 500 acres. 

When would the use be conducted?

Haying operations typically occur between July 15–August 1 and bales being removed by 

August 15. In some cases where sweet clover or noxious weeds have invaded an area, earlier 

haying would be allowed. 

How would the use be conducted?

The Refuge will allow haying by private individuals for the purpose of habitat management. 

Permittee selection will be determined using a best bid basis. Haying is the cutting and 

processing (typically baling) of grass and forbs, with subsequent removal to an off-Refuge 

location. Haying of any area is usually conducted as a single event during any one year but may 

be repeated periodically to: remove undesirable grasses and forbs, remove accumulated plant 

biomass, remove or reduce woody vegetation, provide a desired vegetative condition (such as 

short grass browse), reduce vegetation fuel levels where wildfires are a concern, or prepare 

sites for establishment of desired vegetation, including prairie or wetland communities. 

Haying activities will be subject to the terms and conditions of a Special Use Permit issued by 

the Refuge Manager. The terms of the agreement or permit ensure compatibility through 

implementation of Service policy and Refuge specific stipulations.

The haying process typically requires 3–4 visits to each site with heavy equipment over a period 

of 7–10 days. Haying begins in July when standing grasses and forbs are cut and gathered into 

windrows using a tractor, mower, and rake; or a swather—a self-propelled mowing machine. 

The hay cures for 3–7 days to reduce moisture content and is usually turned once with a tractordrawn rake to speed and even drying. Once cured a tractor-drawn baler is used to package the 

windrows into bales of hay. A tractor-drawn wagon is used to collect the bales and remove them 

from the site. 

Why is this use being proposed?

Haying is a needed management tool to maintain and restore Refuge grasslands.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly (considering quality and compatibility) and safely 

administer use?

Most of the needed work to prepare for this use would be done as part of routine management 

duties. The decision to use haying as a management tool would occur as part of strategies 

developed under specific program or unit habitat management planning. The additional time 

needed to coordinate issuance and oversight of the needed Special Use Permits is relatively 

minor and within existing Refuge resources. The need to monitor haying effects will take 
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

155

additional time; however, it will be incorporated into the already existing grassland monitoring 

program.

Are existing Refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

No additional fiscal resources are needed to conduct this use. The needed staff time is already 

committed and available. Most of the needed work to prepare for this use would be done as 

part of routine grassland management duties. The decision to use a private operator for haying 

would only follow as part of strategies developed under grassland management discussions. 

The additional time needed to coordinate issuance and oversight of the needed Special Use 

Permit for haying is relatively minor and within existing Refuge resources. Monitoring haying 

effects will be a part of the existing grassland monitoring program.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does haying affect Refuge purposes and the NWRS mission?

The use of haying provides a management tool that allows the Refuge staff to meet the habitat 

goals and objectives. Service policy calls for maintaining or restoring refuge habitats to historic 

conditions if doing so does not conflict with refuge purposes (FWS, 2001). 

How does haying affect fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats; and the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge/NWRS?

Haying will result in short-term disturbances and long-term benefits to both resident and 

migratory wildlife. Short-term impacts will include disturbance and displacement typical of any 

noisy heavy equipment operation. Cutting and removal of standing grasses will also result in 

short-term loss of habitat for those species requiring tall grasses for feeding and perching such 

as obligatory grassland bird species like the bobolink or dickcissel.

Long-term benefits will accrue due to the increased vigor of newly established grasses or the 

establishment of highly desirable native tallgrass prairie species, which will improve conditions 

for those same species affected by the short-term negative impacts. Longer-term negative 

impacts may occur to resident wildlife species such as pheasant that would lose over-wintering 

habitat in the hayed areas. 

This is offset by the close proximity of large unhayed blocks containing suitable winter habitat 

near any area that will be hayed. Some nest destruction or nesting hen mortality may occur. 

Strict time constraints such as delaying most haying until after July 15th will limit the potential for 

these types of negative effects to occur within areas hayed. National wildlife refuges are 

managed first and foremost for wildlife (FWS, 2001). But the focus is on wildlife populations not 

individuals (FWS, 1992). Haying is likely to cause mortality of some individual animals, but is not 

expected to affect the perpetuation of wildlife populations.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was available for public review as part of the Big Stone NWR 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and environmental assessment from May 9, 2012 to 

June 8, 2012. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final version of 

the Big Stone NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

156

Determination:

Haying

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Haying must meet specific habitat and related wildlife objectives and contribute to the 

purposes of the Refuge.

2. Most haying will begin after July 15 to minimize disturbance to nesting migratory birds. In 

some years it may be necessary for haying to occur before July 15 to prevent seed 

dispersal of undesirable plant species. 

3. Windrowed grass left lying to dry prior to baling must be raked and moved every two 

days if left on newly seeded native grass and in no cases should remain on the ground 

more than six days prior to baling.

4. Bales must be removed from the Refuge within seven days of baling. 

Justification:

In view of the above and with the stipulations previously described, haying will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the Refuge System mission or purposes of the Refuge. As 

practiced at Big Stone NWR, haying contributes to the achievement of Refuges purposes and 

the Refuge System mission because it is used to manage native habitat.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Alice Hanley/ 7/2/12

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Rick Schultz/ 8/27/12

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: June 2022

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Population Management at Field Stations: General. 701 

FW 1. Department of Interior. Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/policy/701fw1.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

601 FW 3. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: 

http://policy.fws.gov/601fw3.html
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

157

Compatibility Determination

Use: Hunting

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Big Stone NWR was established on May 21, 1975 when the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

transferred 10,540.43 acres to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service). Legal 

authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 

U.S.C. 661-667e), Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901), Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), 

and Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r).

Refuge Purposes: 

“ . . . shall be administered by him [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 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

" . . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 " . . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . 

property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 

460k-460k-4), as amended)

" . . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties 

and conventions . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act of 1986)

" . . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)

" . . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

" . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 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.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

158

Description of Use: 

Is the use a priority public use?

Hunting is a priority public use of the Refuge System. Hunting was originally opened on Big 

Stone NWR in 1976 and is conducted in accordance with the Refuge Hunting Plan (1992).

Where would the use be conducted?

The hunting of certain species is an existing use that occurs on designated areas of the Refuge. 

Approximately 8,000 acres are currently open to hunting. Hunting is prohibited on 

approximately 3,500 acres that surround the Headquarters Complex and the Auto Tour Route. 

When would the use be conducted?

Season dates for authorized species are consistent with Minnesota State regulations, except 

when more restrictive Refuge regulations apply. More restrictive Refuge regulations include, but 

are not limited to the Refuge being closed to all hunting from March 1 through August 30 and 

reduced season dates and hours when hunting fox, raccoon, and striped skunk. Specific dates 

for hunting seasons vary annually. The following table show the dates for the 2010 seasons.

Authorized Species Refuge Season Dates

Wild turkey - spring April 14–May 27, 2010

Wild turkey - fall Oct. 14–24, 2010

Gray partridge Sept. 19, 2010 – Jan. 2, 2011

Ring-necked pheasant Oct. 16, 2010 – Jan. 2, 2011

Rabbit (cottontail and jack) Sept. 18, 2010 – Feb. 28, 2011

Squirrel (fox and gray) Sept. 18, 2010 – Feb. 28, 2011

Deer Nov. 6–14, 2010

Deer Nov. 27 – Dec. 12, 2010

Deer Sept. 18 – Dec. 31, 2010

Raccoon Oct. 23, 2010 – Feb. 28, 2011*

Fox (gray and red) Oct. 23, 2010 – Feb. 28, 2011*

Striped skunk Sept. 18, 2010 – Feb. 28, 2011*

* season dates differ from Minnesota State season

How would the use be conducted?

Bag limits and harvest methods for authorized species are consistent with Minnesota State 

regulations, except when more restrictive Refuge regulations apply. Hunting is allowed for the 

following species: wild turkey, ring-necked pheasant, gray partridge, cottontail rabbit, jack rabbit, 

gray squirrel, fox squirrel, white-tailed deer, red fox, gray fox, raccoon, and striped skunk. More 

restrictive Refuge regulations include, but are not limited to prohibiting the use of dogs to hunt 

furbearers and requiring the use of nontoxic shot for turkey hunting. Migratory bird hunting is not 

authorized on Refuge-owned lands. 

Firearms, muzzleloader, and archery hunting all occur on the Refuge. Hunters make use of boat 

ramps and parking lots at various locations on the Refuge, and also park along existing 

roadways. There are no facilities provided specifically for hunters. 

Why is this use being proposed?

Hunting is a priority general public use of the Refuge System that is also an important wildlife 

management tool. The Service recognizes hunting as a healthy, traditional outdoor pastime, 

deeply rooted in the American heritage (FWS, 2006). Hunting can instill a unique understanding 

and appreciation of wildlife, their behavior, and their habitat needs. Hunting programs can 
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

159

promote understanding and appreciation of natural resources and their management on lands 

and waters in the Refuge System. Public hunting opportunities are also available nearby on 

Waterfowl Production Areas administered by the Morris Wetland Management District and on 

the Lac qui Parle Wildlife Management Area administered by the Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources (MN DNR).

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly (considering quality and compatibility) and safely 

administer use?

The present Refuge hunting program is designed to be administered with minimal Refuge 

resources. Refuge regulations mirror state regulations in large part, which allows MN DNR 

Conservation Officers to assist in law enforcement. There is a small amount of road 

maintenance, mowing, and other upkeep performed that is funded as part of regular Refuge 

management activities. Approximately $5,000 annually is required for labor and materials to 

update and print maps, and maintain signs.

Are existing Refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

At the present level of hunting use there are adequate Refuge resources to implement the 

hunting program. Law enforcement is the primary tool necessary to ensure proper and safe 

administration of this use, and although there is no Law Enforcement Officer stationed at the 

Refuge, law enforcement services are available through the Regional Law Enforcement 

Program. Additionally, the local State Conservation Officer and Big Stone County Sheriff’s 

Office provide additional assistance when requested.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does hunting affect Refuge purposes and the NWRS mission?

The Refuge was established to conserve, manage, maintain, and protect wildlife resources and 

their habitat. Hunting does not adversely affect the ability of the Refuge to fulfill this purpose. 

National wildlife refuges are managed first and foremost for wildlife (FWS, 2001). But the focus 

is on wildlife populations not individuals (FWS, 1992). Hunting causes mortality and wounding of 

individual animals, but is regulated so it does not threaten the perpetuation of wildlife 

populations. The effects of hunting on wildlife populations are monitored within the State and 

across the nation and are considered in setting annual hunting bag limits. Hunting is a priority 

public use of the Refuge System, and allowing hunting on the Refuge helps fulfill the Refuge 

System mission.

How does hunting affect fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats; and the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge/NWRS?

Resident Game Species

The MN DNR annually reviews hunting seasons and bag limits and modifies them to avoid any 

long-term population declines. Hunting is not expected to adversely impact game populations.

Disturbance

Managing Visitor Use and Disturbance of Waterbirds: A Literature Review of Impacts and 

Mitigations (DeLong, 2002) includes a summary of effects on wildlife from disturbance from 

hunting and other forms of recreation. The author documents that disturbance can alter 

behavior (e.g., foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife. It is 

probable that hunting would cause some or all of these effects to some degree on Refuge 
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

160

wildlife. A number of measures mitigate these effects. Hunting seasons occur outside the times 

when most wildlife species are raising offspring and are most sensitive to disturbance. Also, 

hunting is prohibited year round within the “Closed Area.” Motor vehicle use is limited to 

designated road and parking areas that were designed in a manner that effectively reduces 

disturbance to wildlife. Hunting activity has averaged approximately 2,500 visits annually since 

2005. Although this number may increase slightly over time, it is expected that wildlife 

disturbance will remain at acceptable levels. 

Habitat

Hunting is not expected to adversely affect Refuge habitat. 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health

Hunting conducted in accordance with state and federal regulations is not expected to adversely 

affect wildlife populations that occur on the Refuge and likely assists in maintaining the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge. Some species, such as 

white-tailed deer, today occur at levels well above those thought to occur under historic 

conditions. Left unchecked high numbers of such species could adversely affect biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health. Hunting is a closely monitored tool that helps 

regulate wildlife populations.

Other Uses and Public Safety

Hunting is not expected to adversely affect other Refuge uses or public safety. Dogs are 

permitted for hunting for retrieving and trailing. At present, levels of use dogs used for these 

purposes are not expected to adversely impact non-target species or conflict with other uses. If 

public use levels on Big Stone NWR expand across time, unanticipated conflicts between user 

groups may occur. The Refuge’s Visitor Services programs would be adjusted as needed to 

eliminate or minimize each problem and provide a quality wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunity, which includes promoting public safety. Experience on many national wildlife 

refuges has proven that time and space zoning (e.g., establishment of separate use areas, use 

periods, and restrictions on the number of users) is an effective tool in eliminating conflicts

between user groups. Overall, the cumulative impacts of hunting on other wildlife-dependent 

recreation or public safety at Big Stone NWR are expected to be minor. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was available for public review as part of the Big Stone NWR 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and environmental assessment from May 9, 2012 to 

June 8, 2012. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final version of 

the Big Stone NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Hunting

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

161

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Hunting must be conducted according to state-, federal-, and Refuge-specific 

regulations.

2. Hunting may be more restrictive than State seasons and regulations to ensure 

compliance with visitor safety and to reduce wildlife disturbance.

3. Hunting is prohibited within identified areas.

4. The retrieval of game is prohibited in areas closed to hunting. 

5. All shotgun hunters (including turkey) may only possess approved nontoxic shot while in 

the field.

6. Dogs may be used only for ring-necked pheasant and gray partridge hunting.

7. Boats will be restricted to the Minnesota River channel. Only non-motorized boats and 

boats using electric motors are allowed.

8. Motor vehicles access is limited to designated roads and parking areas.

9. The use of snowmobiles and all terrain and utility terrain vehicles (ATV/UTV) are 

prohibited.

10. The construction or use of permanent binds, stands, or scaffolds is prohibited.

11. All personal property, including but not limited to stands, temporary blinds, platforms, 

and ladders must be removed at the end of each day’s hunt.

Justification:

In view of the above and with the stipulations previously described, hunting will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the Refuge System mission or purposes of the Refuge. Hunting is 

a priority public use of the Refuge System, and providing a hunting program contributes to 

achieving one of the Refuge goals. Disturbance of wildlife will occur, but limitations on hunting 

mean areas of the Refuge would be free of disturbance. Hunting is not expected to adversely 

affect the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge or the Refuge 

System. 

Signature: Refuge Manager /Alice Hanley/ 7/2/12

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Rick Schultz/ 8/27/12

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: June 2027

Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Plan. 1992.

DeLong, A. K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds—a literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures — prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix L 

(114 pp.) in Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact statement 

for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision (Vol. II). Dept. of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/stillwater/litreview.pdf
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

162

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Population Management at Field Stations: General. 701 

FW 1. Department of Interior. Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/policy/701fw1.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Migratory Game Bird Hunting: Regulations Development 

Process. 723 FW 3. Department of Interior. Available URL:

http://www.fws.gov/policy/723fw3.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

601 FW 3. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: 

http://policy.fws.gov/601fw3.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Wildlife-Dependent Recreation: Hunting. 605 FW 2. 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw2.html
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

163

Compatibility Determination

Use: Interpretation

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Big Stone NWR was established on May 21, 1975 when the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

transferred 10,540.43 acres to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service). Legal 

authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 

U.S.C. 661-667e), Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901), Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), 

and Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r).

Refuge Purposes: 

“ . . . shall be administered by him [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 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

" . . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 " . . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . 

property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 

460k-460k-4), as amended)

" . . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties 

and conventions . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act of 1986)

" . . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)

" . . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

" . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 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.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164

Description of Use:

Providing interpretive materials and programs to Refuge visitors.

Is the use a priority public use?

Interpretation is a priority public use of the Refuge System.

Where would the use be conducted?

Interpretation is conducted at the Refuge office, the 5–mile Wildlife Drive and its associated 

facilities, the Riverview and Low Flow Public Access points, and at numerous visitor contact 

sites throughout the Refuge.

When would the use be conducted?

The Refuge office and most of the public use areas are open throughout the year. The Wildlife 

Drive is closed during the winter months.

How would the use be conducted?

In addition to interpretive facilities, Refuge staff provide guided tours and programs upon 

request.

Why is this use being proposed?

Interpretation is a priority general public use of the Refuge System. Interpretative programs 

promote understanding and appreciation of natural and cultural resources and their 

management on all lands and waters of the Refuge System.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly (considering quality and compatibility) and safely 

administer use?

Refuge staff is currently updating all interpretive signs for the existing Refuge facilities. When 

completed, the Refuge interpretation program is designed to be administered with minimal 

Refuge resources. There will be some maintenance and other upkeep of facilities that are 

funded as part of regular Refuge management activities. 

Are existing Refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

At the present level of use there are adequate Refuge resources to implement the interpretation 

program. Any future increase in programming would be designed to fit within the capacity of 

existing or projected future staffing as identified in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP).

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does interpretation affect Refuge purposes and the NWRS mission?

Interpretation does not adversely affect Refuge purposes, and they help fulfill the mission of the 

Refuge System.

How does interpretation affect fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats; and the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge/NWRS?

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

165

Interpretation is expected to have similar impacts to Refuge wildlife and wildlife habitat as those 

impacts from similar uses, such as wildlife observation and photography. Much of the Refuge is 

not affected because the majority of the interpreted sites are concentrated along the Wildlife 

Drive and its trails and observation facilities. These areas have been established areas of use. 

Damage to habitat by walking is minimal and temporary. Large groups typically use established 

foot trails or the local roads with little to no impact on vegetation. There is some temporary 

disturbance to wildlife due to human activities on trails; however, the disturbance is generally 

localized and would not adversely impact overall populations. Self-guided interpretation would 

be sporadic use by small groups of people at established trails and kiosks. This may cause 

short term disturbance as well, but again would have minimal impact.

The cumulative disturbance caused by interpretation and all other public uses occurring on the 

Refuge is not expected to adversely affect fish and wildlife populations or their habitats. A 

number of factors including: suitable site conditions, presence of facilities, access limitations, 

and seasonal restrictions or other regulations tend to concentrate uses. At any one time, much 

of the Refuge is unaffected by these uses and is free of disturbance. However, the addition of 

new facilities will have to be examined to determine need and disturbance factors before being 

approved.

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health

Interpretation conducted in accordance with Refuge regulations is not expected to adversely 

affect fish and wildlife populations or the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health 

of the Refuge as it is defined in Service policy (FWS, 2001).

Other Uses and Public Safety

Interpretation is not expected to adversely affect other Refuge uses or public safety. The

Refuge’s Visitor Services programs will be adjusted as needed to eliminate or minimize any 

future problems and provide quality wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, which include 

promoting public safety. Experience on many national wildlife refuges has proven that time and 

space zoning (e.g., establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restrictions on the 

number of users) is an effective tool in eliminating conflicts between user groups. Overall, the 

cumulative impact of wildlife observation and photography on other wildlife-dependent 

recreation or public safety at Big Stone NWR is expected to be minor. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was available for public review as part of the Big Stone NWR 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and environmental assessment from May 9, 2012 to 

June 8, 2012. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final version of 

the Big Stone NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Interpretation

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

166

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Use of motorized vehicles is limited to maintained roads and parking areas.

2. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

3. Environmental education and interpretation activities not led by Refuge staff would 

require verbal approval or a Special Use Permit by the Refuge Manager to minimize 

conflicts with other groups, safeguard students and resources, and to allow tracking of 

use levels.

4. Interpretive signs will include messages on minimizing disturbance to wildlife.

5. Harassment of wildlife or excessive damage to vegetation are prohibited.

Justification:

In view of the above and with the stipulations previously described, interpretation will not 

materially interfere with or detract from the Refuge System mission or purposes of the Refuge. 

Interpretation is a priority public uses of the Refuge System, and providing these programs 

contributes to achieving one of the Refuge goals. Well-designed interpretation programs can be 

effective resource management tools that provide an opportunity to influence visitor attitudes 

about natural resources, refuges, the Refuge System, and the Service and to influence visitor 

behavior when visiting units of the Refuge System.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Alice Hanley/ 7/2/12

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Rick Schultz/ 8/27/12

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: June 2027

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

601 FW 3. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: 

http://policy.fws.gov/601fw3.html
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

167

Compatibility Determination

Use: Non-Refuge Sponsored Special Events

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Big Stone NWR was established on May 21, 1975 when the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

transferred 10,540.43 acres to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service). Legal 

authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 

U.S.C. 661-667e), Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901), Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), 

and Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r).

Refuge Purposes: 

“ . . . shall be administered by him [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 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

" . . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 " . . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . 

property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 

460k-460k-4), as amended)

" . . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties 

and conventions . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act of 1986)

" . . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)

" . . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

" . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 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.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

168

Description of Use:

This use is for special events sponsored by charitable and other non-profit clubs or groups. 

These events primarily include community-sponsored events including the CornFest 5/10K 

walk/run but may include other activities such as bicycle rides, runs, photography/art 

workshops, and scouting events. Other possible events would include river clean-up days and 

scouting activities. Events are held one to three times annually and would occur at different 

times throughout the year. Events may have up to 100 participants, although the number is 

generally less than 50. Participants use established roads, trails, and boat landings that are 

already open to the public. Clean-up events may include all portions of the Refuge generally 

accessible by boat. 

Is the use a priority public use?

No, non-Refuge sponsored special events are not a priority public use of the Refuge System.

Where would the use be conducted?

Most events will take place along the 5–mile Auto Tour Route, but events could take place at 

other public use facilities or in the interior portion of the Refuge. Events will only be authorized 

when the Auto Tour Route or other public use facilities or portions of the Refuge are open to the 

public. 

When would the use be conducted?

These events could possibly take place throughout the year, but most likely will occur during the 

spring, summer, and fall time periods. Care will be taken so these events do not conflict with 

priority public uses such as during hunting seasons. 

How would the use be conducted?

The events will be conducted as per the sponsors.

Why is this use being proposed?

The Refuge is open to the public during the time periods that the use is allowed so no additional 

disturbance is created by allowing this use. These special events allow the public to build a 

connection to the Refuge through personal outdoor experiences that engage the senses and 

foster an appreciation of the outdoors. 

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly (considering quality and compatibility) and safely 

administer use?

These events generally involve staff time for meeting with sponsors, explaining Refuge 

regulations, issuing a Special Use Permit, and providing some level of oversight during portions 

or the entire event. 

Are existing Refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Existing staff are adequate to administer this use depending on number of requests received 

and the size and scope of the event. Since events are held or based on existing roads, trails, or 

landings, facilities are deemed adequate. Sponsors are required to furnish any additional 

facilities needed, such as portable toilets.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

169

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How do non-Refuge sponsored special events affect Refuge purposes and the NWRS 

mission?

These special events do not adversely affect Refuge purposes and help fulfill the mission of the 

Refuge System by allowing visitors to build a connection to the Refuge through personal 

outdoor experiences that engage the sense and foster an appreciation of the outdoors. 

How do non-Refuge sponsored special events affect fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats; and the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

Refuge/NWRS?

The short term impact associated with these events is human disturbance to wildlife occupying 

habitat on the Refuge. Most events occur on established trails or areas that already support a 

moderate level of human activity. Wildlife that occupy habitat in these areas are accustomed to 

a higher degree of human disturbance. Any alteration of behavior or bird flight would be 

temporary and localized with wildlife quickly resuming normal activities. 

There will be some short term impact to other visitors engaged in wildlife-dependent recreation 

during the event. Visitors, not engaged in the event, will be permitted to continue their activity. 

With an increase of public use during walks or runs, an increase of litter is expected. Event

coordinators will be required to clean the area when the event is complete. Clean-up events 

actually reduce litter and debris and thus have a positive impact on the visual character of the 

Refuge. 

Other than the potential for some increase in future visitation to the Refuge, no long-term 

impacts associated with these events are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was available for public review as part of the Big Stone NWR 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and environmental assessment from May 9, 2012 to 

June 8, 2012. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final version of 

the Big Stone NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Non-Refuge Sponsored Special Events

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Events must include an educational message that helps further the understanding of the 

purposes of the Refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. 

2. Event sponsors will furnish complete information on event description, date, time, 

preferred location, number of participants, and logistics for health and safety, so that the 

Refuge Manager can make a determination of best area and timing of events when 

issuing a Special Use Permit. Management reserves the right to deny any proposal that 
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

170

will cause an undue demand on staff or resources, is not related to a charitable or nonprofit organization, or does not promote the goals of the “Healthier US” initiative 

designed to get Americans outdoors and active on their public lands.

3. Except for clean-ups, events will be scheduled only in areas open to public use and at 

appropriate times of the year to avoid significant wildlife and visitor disturbance. Events 

will be scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis, with no more than one event in the 

same area and time. All activities will be limited to the designated routes on established 

trails. Collection of money for the fund raising aspect of the event will be conducted 

offsite. 

4. Water or rest stations will be approved by Refuge staff in advance of the event and will 

be located to avoid any sensitive sites (e.g., areas with high densities of foraging 

shorebirds, areas where waterbirds, waterfowl, raptors, or passerines are nesting, etc.) 

and to minimize disturbance to wildlife foraging/perching/loafing in adjacent wetlands 

and woodlands. 

5. Event sponsors will be required to provide all personnel, materials, and supplies 

necessary to run the event. This requirement applies to any tables, chairs, displays, 

signs, traffic aids, law enforcement, litter receptacles, portable toilets, etc. that are 

needed. 

Justification: 

In view of the above and with the stipulations previously described, non-Refuge sponsored 

special events will not materially interfere with or detract from the Refuge System mission or 

purposes of the Refuge. 

Signature: Refuge Manager /Alice Hanley/ 7/2/12

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Rick Schultz/ 8/27/12

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: June 2022
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

171

Compatibility Determination

Use: Scientific Studies and Research Projects by Third Parties

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Big Stone NWR was established on May 21, 1975 when the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

transferred 10,540.43 acres to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service). Legal 

authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 

U.S.C. 661-667e), Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901), Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), 

and Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r).

Refuge Purposes: 

“ . . . shall be administered by him [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 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

" . . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 " . . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . 

property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 

460k-460k-4), as amended)

" . . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties 

and conventions . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act of 1986)

" . . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)

" . . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

" . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 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.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

172

Description of Use:

The Refuge allows research investigations on a variety of biological, physical, archeological, 

and social components to address Refuge management information needs or other issues not 

related to Refuge management. Studies are or may be conducted by federal, state, and private 

entities, including the U.S. Geological Survey, state department of natural resources, state and 

private universities, and independent researchers and contractors. This is not a wildlifedependent use.

Is the use a priority public use?

No, this is not a priority public use of the Refuge System.

Where would the use be conducted?

Sites for this use would depend on the particular study being conducted and could occur in a 

variety of habitat types. Access would be restricted by Special Use Permit to only the study 

sites needed to meet the objectives of the research.

When would the use be conducted?

The timing of research activities would depend on the individual project, but currently most 

research occurs during the growing season. The entire Refuge is open for allowed research 

activities throughout the year in conjunction with the issuance of a Special Use Permit. The 

timing and number of visits by researchers may be restricted by Special Use Permit.

How would the use be conducted?

Research projects and scientific studies will be conducted via a specific protocol. Any research 

study sites, sampling locations, and transects can be temporarily marked by highly visible 

wooden or metal posts and must be removed when research ceases. Access to study sites is by 

foot, truck, all-terrain vehicle, boat, airboat, canoe, and other watercraft. Vehicle use is allowed 

on Refuge roads, trails, and parking lots normally open to the public. 

Why is this use being proposed?

Most research by third parties is done to address Refuge management information needs or to 

contribute to a larger knowledge base about resources of concern to the Refuge.

Availability of Resources: 

Facilities and staff are currently available to provide access, maintain roads, parking lots, and 

secondary access roads, as well as to issue Special Use Permits for research projects. Staff 

resources are deemed adequate to manage this use at anticipated use levels.

Access points and limited logistical support are available on the Refuge. Housing is not 

available. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How do scientific studies and research projects affect Refuge purposes and the NWRS

mission?

Most research by third parties is done to address Refuge management information needs or to 

contribute to a larger knowledge base about resources of concern to the Refuge.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

173

How do scientific studies and research projects affect fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats; and the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

Refuge/NWRS?

Short-term impacts:

Research activities may disturb fish and wildlife and their habitats. For example, the presence of 

researchers can cause waterfowl to flush from resting and feeding areas, cause disruption of 

birds and turtles on nests or breeding territories, or increase predation on nests and individual 

animals as predators follow human scent or trails. Efforts to capture animals can cause 

disturbance, injury, or death to groups of wildlife or to individuals. To wildlife, the energy cost of 

disturbance may be appreciable in terms of disruption of feeding, displacement from preferred 

habitat, and the added energy expended to avoid disturbance.

Sampling activities can cause compaction of soils and the trampling of vegetation, the 

establishment of temporary foot trails and boat trails through vegetation beds, disruption of 

bottom sediments, and minor tree damage when temporary observation platforms are built or 

when tree climbers access bird nests.

The removal of vegetation or sediments by core sampling methods can cause increased 

localized turbidity and disrupt non-target plants and animals. Installation of posts, equipment 

platforms, collection devices and other research equipment in open water may present a hazard 

if said items are not adequately marked and/or removed at appropriate times or upon 

completion of the project.

Long-term impacts:

Long-term effects should generally be beneficial by gaining information valuable to Refuge 

management. No long-term negative impacts are expected, and the Refuge Manager can 

control the potential for long-term impacts through Special Use Permits.

Cumulative impacts:

Cumulative impacts would occur if multiple research projects were occurring on the same 

resources at the same time or the duration of the research is excessive. No cumulative impacts 

are expected, and the Refuge Manager can control the potential for cumulative impacts through 

Special Use Permits. Refuge Managers retain the option to prohibit research on the Refuge, 

which does not contribute to the purposes of the Refuge or the mission of the Refuge System, 

or causes undo resource disturbance or harm.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was available for public review as part of the Big Stone NWR 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and environmental assessment from May 9, 2012 to 

June 8, 2012. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final version of 

the Big Stone NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Scientific Studies and Research Projects by Third Parties

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

174

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Prior to conducting investigations, researchers will obtain Special Use Permits from the 

Refuge that make specific stipulations related to when, where, and how the research will 

be conducted. Refuge Managers retain the option to prohibit research on the Refuge, 

which does not contribute to the purposes of the Refuge or the mission of the Refuge 

System, or causes undo resource disturbance or harm.

2. Researchers must possess all applicable state and federal permits for the capture and 

possession of protected species, for conducting regulated activities in wetlands, and for 

other regulated activities. Researchers must demonstrate they have approval from the 

Animal Care and Use Committee, if such approval is required by their research 

institution.

3. Archeological researchers must obtain an Archeological Resources Protection Act 

permit from the Regional Director prior to obtaining a special use permit from the Refuge 

Manager.

4. Researchers will submit annual status reports and a final report concerning Refuge 

research to the Refuge Manager.

5. Researchers will submit an electronic copy of all raw data collected on national wildlife 

refuge lands to the Refuge Manager with the understanding that the researcher will have 

the opportunity to produce publications based on the data.

Justification: 

In view of the above and with the stipulations previously described, research by third parties will 

not materially interfere with or detract from the Refuge System mission or purposes of the 

Refuge. Research by third parties may play an integral role in Refuge management by providing 

information needed to manage the Refuge on a sound scientific basis. Investigations into the 

biological, physical, archeological, and social components of the Refuge provide a means to 

analyze management actions, impacts from internal and outside forces, and ongoing natural 

processes on the Refuge environment. 

Signature: Refuge Manager /Alice Hanley/ 7/2/12

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Rick Schultz/ 8/27/12

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: June 2022
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

175

Compatibility Determination

Use: Trapping of Furbearers

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Big Stone NWR was established on May 21, 1975, when the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

transferred 10,540.43 acres to the USFWS. Legal authorities used for establishment of the 

Refuge include Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), Refuge Recreation Act 

(16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901), Fish 

and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), and Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r).

Refuge Purposes: 

“ . . . shall be administered by him [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 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

" . . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 " . . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . 

property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 

460k-460k-4), as amended)

" . . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties 

and conventions . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act of 1986)

" . . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)

" . . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

" . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System) is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

176

Description of Use:

The Big Stone NWR will maintain a trapping program to:

a) Allow trapping of selected furbearing mammals following Minnesota State and Refuge 

regulations; 

b) Minimize furbearer damage to physical facilities including dikes, Refuge water control 

structures, roads, and other facilities;

c) Minimize the occurrence of high animal population densities, which have the potential to 

transmit disease to humans, the larger furbearer population, other wildlife species, or 

domestic animals. 

The species of furbearers that are permitted to be taken by way of trapping on Big Stone NWR 

are muskrat, mink, badger, raccoon, opossum, and striped skunk. The trapping of beaver, 

coyote, and river otter is prohibited on Big Stone NWR. Trapping of beaver is conducted only in 

nuisance situations by contracted trappers.

This compatibility determination does not apply to commercial trapping activities where the 

Service awards a contract for the removal of a species to facilitate management.

Is the use a priority public use?

Trapping is not a priority wildlife-dependent public use, as defined by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Trapping has been an authorized use of Big Stone 

NWR since 1975.

Where would the use be conducted?

Trapping would primarily occur in aquatic habitats and associated grasslands on Big Stone 

NWR. 

When would the use be conducted?

Trapping will occur during the State furbearer trapping season, generally from mid-October 

through mid-March, each year. However, there may be situations requiring trapping outside of 

these state seasons when necessary to protect public health and safety or significant Refuge 

structures. The Refuge will coordinate with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

(MN DNR) prior to allowing trapping outside of the normal state trapping seasons. 

How would the use be conducted?

Big Stone NWR has been divided into six furbearer management units. The Refuge publicly 

announces (i.e., newspapers, bulletins, and personal contacts) the availability of these units for 

trapping and accepts applications from interested trappers on an annual basis. Trapping units 

are awarded through a lottery system. Each trapper that is awarded a unit is allowed one helper 

to assist them with their trapping activities. Therefore, a maximum of twelve individuals (up to 

two individuals per trapping unit) will be implementing trapping activities on Big Stone NWR 

during any given year. All awarded trappers are issued a Special Use Permit, which covers 

trapping activities for that specific year or trapping season only. Permits will not be issued for 

multiple trapping seasons or years. 

Approved trapping methods, specific certificates, and license requirements are issued under 

Minnesota State regulation as well as information concerning trap size and types of allowable 

sets in order to protect non-target species and provide for the safe use of the area by others.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

177

All trappers must submit a Harvest Report at the end of the trapping season. Failure to do so 

renders the trapper ineligible for a trapping permit on Big Stone NWR the subsequent season. 

These reports provide data on the number and distribution of animals harvested, distribution of 

trappers, and rudimentary catch per unit effort (efficiency) estimates on the Refuge.

Factors affecting furbearer harvest on Big Stone NWR include length of the trapping season, fur 

prices, weather conditions, habitat changes, extent of aquatic vegetation coverage, and trapping 

effort.

Why is this use being proposed?

Trapping is a management tool to control furbearers on Big Stone NWR. Annually, furbearers 

cause damage to dikes and water control structures requiring staff and equipment resource 

commitment. Additionally, furbearers are the predominant predators of waterfowl and other 

ground and low nesting birds. While this activity is a non-priority public use, it is an activity that 

is a valued form of recreation for local visitors to Big Stone NWR.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly (considering quality and compatibility) and safely 

administer use?

Administrative costs to implement the trapping program are insignificant. Sufficient staff exists to 

issue the required permits, collect data (Harvest Reports), and oversee the program. Facilities 

and staff are currently available to provide access, maintain roads, parking lots, and secondary 

access roads. The absence of a Refuge law enforcement officer is not vital to the program. 

Are existing Refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

At the present level of trapping use there are adequate Refuge resources to implement the 

trapping program. There is no special equipment, facilities, or improvements needed to maintain 

the trapping program. Some staff time may be devoted to contacting trappers, writing permits, 

inspecting permits, and monitoring trapping results. It has been the norm, and is expected to 

continue, that these activities will require significantly less than one-tenth of a work-week for one 

staff member. Law enforcement is the primary tool necessary to ensure proper and safe 

administration of this use, and although there is no law enforcement officer stationed at Big 

Stone NWR, law enforcement services is available through the Regional Law Enforcement 

Program. Additionally, the local State Conservation Officer can provide additional assistance 

when requested.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

How does trapping affect Refuge purposes and the NWRS mission?

The Refuge was established to conserve, manage, maintain and protect wildlife resources and 

their habitat. Trapping does not adversely affect the ability of Big Stone NWR to fulfill this 

purpose. National wildlife refuges are managed first and foremost for wildlife (FWS, 2001). But 

the focus is on wildlife populations not individuals (FWS, 1992). Trapping causes mortality and 

wounding of individual animals but is regulated so it does not threaten the perpetuation of 

wildlife populations. 
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

178

How does trapping affect Fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats; and the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge/NWRS?

Resident Game Species

The MN DNR annually reviews trapping seasons and bag limits and modifies them to avoid any 

long-term population declines. Trapping is not expected to impact game populations.

Disturbance

Short-term impacts:

Because of the temporal separation of trapping activities and breeding wildlife using the Refuge, 

direct impacts to these resources by trappers is negligible. Trappers using the Refuge in March, 

may potentially disturb individual early nesting waterfowl on occasion, and cause temporary 

displacement from specific and limited areas. Impacts may include displacing migratory birds 

during the pair bonding/nesting season or destruction of nests by trampling. These impacts are 

occasional, temporary, and isolated to small geographic areas. Indirect impacts may include 

catch of target and non-target species that are predators on migratory birds and/or nests, or 

removal of species that induce habitat change (i.e., beaver). Bald eagles initiate nesting activity 

on the Refuge as early as February, but there is no evidence that trapping has impacted bald 

eagle nest success. 

Long-term impacts:

Trapping may provide the long-term impact of controlling animals that cause damage to Big 

Stone NWR infrastructure and impact nesting waterfowl and other birds. There are expected to 

be no long-term population impacts from trapping on Big Stone NWR. While Minnesota has a 

regulated beaver trapping season, MN DNR indicates that there are not enough trappers to 

keep some beaver populations small enough to prevent problems. In Minnesota, mink have 

been one of the most valued furbearers for two centuries, and while thousands are trapped 

throughout the State each autumn, mink populations remain at healthy sustained levels. 

Habitat

Trapping is not expected to adversely affect Big Stone NWR habitat. There are potential 

impacts on habitat by trappers walking through vegetation or using willow cuttings to mark their 

trap locations. It is, however, undetectable and insignificant. The creation of openings in heavy 

stands of aquatic vegetation can potentially enhance habitat use by fish and wildlife.

The removal of plant-eating species such as beaver and muskrat can have both positive and 

negative impacts on Refuge resources. Muskrats will dig dens into dikes of water management 

facilities causing considerable damage and add costs to operations for Big Stone NWR. Beaver 

will sometimes plug water control structures causing damage, limiting access, and

compromising Big Stone NWR habitat and water level management capabilities. Managing 

beaver and muskrat populations at reasonable levels through a public trapping program can 

reduce costs to the Big Stone NWR in wildlife management activities.

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health

Trapping conducted in accordance with state and federal regulations is not expected to 

adversely affect wildlife populations that occur on the Refuge and likely assists in maintaining 

the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Big Stone NWR. 
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

179

Indirect impacts to wildlife nesting and breeding success can result from the removal of animals 

under a trapping program. In many instances, these impacts are positive. Reductions in 

populations of nest predators such as raccoon, skunk, and mink have a limited positive impact 

on nesting birds. The degree to which predator management, through a public trapping 

program, benefits migratory bird production can vary widely depending on the timing of the 

removal of predators, size of the habitat block, habitat isolation (for example islands), and 

adjacent land use.

Other Uses and Public Safety

Trapping is not expected to adversely affect other Refuge uses or public safety. If public use 

levels on Big Stone NWR increase through time, unanticipated conflicts between user groups 

may occur. If trapping results in conflicts, then the program will be reevaluated and either 

include more limitations or be eliminated as it is not a priority public use. Similar experiences 

from many national wildlife refuges have proven that time and space zoning (e.g., establishment 

of separate use areas, use periods, and restrictions on the number of users) is an effective tool 

in eliminating conflicts between user groups. Overall, the cumulative impacts of trapping on 

other wildlife-dependent recreation or public safety at Big Stone NWR are expected to be minor. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was available for public review as part of the Big Stone NWR 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and environmental assessment from May 9, 2012 to 

June 8, 2012. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final version of 

the Big Stone NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Trapping

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Trapping must be conducted according to state-, federal-, and Refuge-specific 

regulations.

2. Trapping may be more restrictive than State seasons and regulations to ensure 

compliance with visitor safety and to reduce wildlife disturbance.

3. Boats will be restricted to the Minnesota River channel. Only non-motorized boats and 

boats using electric motors are allowed.

4. Motor vehicles access is limited to designated roads and parking areas.

5. The use of snowmobiles and all terrain and utility terrain vehicles (ATV/UTV) are 

prohibited.

6. Permittee trappers must submit a Harvest Report at the end of each season.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

180

Justification: 

Furbearer trapping on Big Stone NWR is a useful tool in maintaining balance between 

furbearers and habitat and safeguarding Refuge infrastructure. Trapping raccoon, badger, 

striped skunk, and mink benefits migratory birds including waterfowl. Trapping benefits Big 

Stone NWR management programs by providing additional data on furbearer populations. 

Trapping also benefits management programs by reducing beaver and muskrat populations,

which sometimes cause problems with water management activities and damage roads and 

water management facilities by burrowing associated with flooding. 

Trapping supports the purpose of providing incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreation. 

Allowing this use furthers the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System by providing 

renewable resources for the benefit of the American public while conserving fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources on the Refuge.

Overall, managed furbearer trapping contributes to the purposes of Big Stone NWR by 

maintaining vigor and health of furbearer populations and by safeguarding Refuge infrastructure 

critical to habitat for scores of fish and wildlife species.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Alice Hanley/ 7/2/12

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Rick Schultz/ 8/27/12

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: June 2022

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Population Management at Field Stations: General. 701 

FW 1. Department of Interior. Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/policy/701fw1.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

601 FW 3. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: 

http://policy.fws.gov/601fw3.html
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

181

Compatibility Determination

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography (including the means of access such as automobile 

driving, hiking, biking, canoeing, kayaking, boating, snowshoeing, and cross country skiing)

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Big Stone NWR was established on May 21, 1975 when the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

transferred 10,540.43 acres to the USFWS. Legal authorities used for establishment of the 

Refuge include Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), Refuge Recreation Act 

(16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901), Fish 

and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), and Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r).

Refuge Purposes: 

“ . . . shall be administered by him [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 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

" . . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 " . . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . 

property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 

460k-460k-4), as amended)

" . . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties 

and conventions . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act of 1986)

" . . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . . "; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)

" . . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . . “; 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

" . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System) is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

182

Description of Use:

Allow Refuge visitors to observe and photograph Refuge wildlife, habitat, and scenery.

Is the use a priority public use?

Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses of the Refuge System.

Where would the use be conducted?

Although the entire Refuge is open for these activities, wildlife observation and photography 

occur primarily along the Refuge’s 5-mile Wildlife Drive in the northwestern portion of the 

Refuge. The Wildlife Drive has several observation decks/overlooks, a fishing dock, and three 

trails that are used for wildlife observation and photography. The ‘Riverview Public Access’ and 

‘Low Flow Public Access’ areas and the Minnesota River are also used for both activities. 

Refuge visitors are also encouraged to walk along Refuge service roads and dikes for wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities. 

When would the use be conducted?

Wildlife observation and photography occurs year round. The Refuge limits wildlife observation 

and photography use to daylight hours only.

How would the use be conducted?

Wildlife observation and photography account for the majority of the Refuge’s annual visitation 

with an average of 15,500 visits annually. Visitors observe and photograph wildlife from vehicles 

along roads, by hiking, biking, boating, and snowshoeing and cross country skiing into areas 

throughout the Refuge. 

Entry on all or portions of individual areas may be temporarily suspended by posting upon 

occasions of unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, 

or public safety. 

Why is this use being proposed?

Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses of the Refuge System. Wildlife 

observation and photography programs can promote understanding and appreciation of natural 

resources and their management on lands and waters in the Refuge System.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly (considering quality and compatibility) and safely 

administer use?

Facilities and staff are currently available to provide access, maintain roads, parking lots, 

secondary access roads, and signage. Maintaining the public use facilities is part of routine 

management duties and staff and funding is available. Kiosks and interpretive trail signs may 

be added to improve visitor information but are not necessary to support the use.

Are existing Refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

At the present level of wildlife observation and photography use there are adequate Refuge 

resources to implement these activities. Several Refuge facilities have been upgraded recently 

and offer numerous accessible opportunities for visitors to enjoy both wildlife observation and 

photography.
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

183

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does wildlife observation and photography affect Refuge purposes and the NWRS

mission?

Wildlife observation and photography do not adversely affect Refuge purposes, and they help 

fulfill the mission of the Refuge System.

How does wildlife observation and photography affect fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats; and the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

Refuge/NWRS?

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Managing Visitor Use and Disturbance of Waterbirds: A Literature Review of Impacts and 

Mitigations (DeLong, 2002) includes a summary of effects on wildlife from disturbance from 

various forms of recreation. The author documents that disturbance can alter behavior (e.g., 

foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife. It is probable that 

wildlife observation and photography would cause some or all of these effects to some degree 

on Refuge wildlife. Much of the Refuge is not affected, because wildlife observation and 

photography tend to be concentrated along the Wildlife Drive, roads and trails, and at 

observation facilities. These areas have been established areas of use. Damage to habitat by 

walking is minimal and temporary. Large groups typically use established foot trails or the local 

roads with little to no impact on vegetation. There is some temporary disturbance to wildlife due 

to boating and human activities on trails; however, the disturbance is generally localized and 

would not adversely impact overall populations. Wildlife observation and photography use is 

expected to stay stable over time. 

The cumulative disturbance caused by wildlife observation and photography and all other public 

uses occurring on the Refuge is not expected to adversely affect fish and wildlife populations or 

their habitats. A number of factors including: suitable site conditions, presence of facilities, 

access limitations, and seasonal restrictions or other regulations tend to concentrate uses. At 

any one time, much of the Refuge is unaffected by these uses and is free of disturbance. 

However, the addition of new facilities will have to be examined to determine need and 

disturbance factors before being approved.

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health

Wildlife observation and photography conducted in accordance with Refuge regulations is not 

expected to adversely affect fish and wildlife populations or the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge as it is defined in Service policy (FWS, 2001).

Other Uses and Public Safety

Wildlife observation and photography is not expected to adversely affect other Refuge uses or 

public safety. The Refuge’s Visitor Services programs will be adjusted as needed to eliminate or 

minimize any future problems and provide quality wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, 

which include promoting public safety. Experience on many national wildlife refuges has proven 

that time and space zoning (e.g., establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and 

restrictions on the number of users) is an effective tool in eliminating conflicts between user 

groups. Overall, the cumulative impact of wildlife observation and photography on other wildlifedependent recreation or public safety at Big Stone NWR is expected to be minor. 
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

184

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was available for public review as part of the Big Stone NWR 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and environmental assessment from May 9, 2012 to 

June 8, 2012. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final version of 

the Big Stone NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Wildlife Observation and Photography

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. The Refuge Manager will monitor use patterns and densities and make adjustments in 

timing, location, and duration as needed to limit disturbance.

2. Use will be directed to public use facilities (both existing and in the future), which are not 

in or near sensitive areas.

3. Use is limited to daylight hours only.

4. Personal portable photo or viewing blinds must be removed by sunset each day.

5. Interpretive signs will include messages on minimizing disturbance to wildlife.

6. Certain modes of access such as motorized vehicles and bicycles will be limited to 

designated trails, public roads, and parking lots. 

7. Boats will be restricted to the Minnesota River channel. Only non-motorized boats and 

boats using electric motors are allowed.

Justification:

In view of the above and with the stipulations previously described, wildlife observation and 

photography will not materially interfere with or detract from the Refuge System mission or 

purposes of the Refuge. Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses of the 

Refuge System, and providing opportunities for these activities contributes to achieving one of 

the Refuge goals. 

Signature: Refuge Manager /Alice Hanley/ 7/2/12

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Rick Schultz/ 8/27/12

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: June 2027

DeLong, A. K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds—a literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures — prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix L 
Appendix I: Compatibility Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

185

(114 pp.) in Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact statement 

for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision (Vol. II). Dept. of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/stillwater/litreview.pdf

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

601 FW 3. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: 

http://policy.fws.gov/601fw3.html
Appendix J: Appropriate Use Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

186

Appendix J: Appropriate Use Determinations

In this appendix

Collection of Edible Wild Food Plants for Personal Use

Farming

Firewood Cutting and Timber Removal

Grazing

Haying

Non-Refuge Sponsored Special Events

Scientific Studies and Research Projects

Trapping of Furbearers
Appendix J: Appropriate Use Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

187

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Collection of Edible Wild Food Plants for Personal Use

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a Refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the Refuge Manager has consulted with state fish and wildlife agencies: Yes No 

When the Refuge Manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the Refuge Manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the Refuge Supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate Appropriate

Refuge Manager: /Alice Hanley/ Date: 7/2/12 .

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: /James T. Leach/ Date: 8/27/12 .

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and 

local)? x

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? x

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or 

other document? x

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use 

has been proposed? x

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

x

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x
Appendix J: Appropriate Use Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

188

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Farming

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a Refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the Refuge Manager has consulted with state fish and wildlife agencies: Yes No 

When the Refuge Manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the Refuge Manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the Refuge Supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate Appropriate

Refuge Manager: /Alice Hanley/ Date: 7/2/12 .

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: /James T. Leach/ Date: 8/27/12 .

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and 

local)? x

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? x

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or 

other document? x

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use 

has been proposed? x

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

x

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x
Appendix J: Appropriate Use Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

189

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Firewood Cutting and Timber Removal

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a Refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the Refuge Manager has consulted with state fish and wildlife agencies: Yes No 

When the Refuge Manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the Refuge Manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the Refuge Supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate Appropriate

Refuge Manager: /Alice Hanley/ Date: 7/2/12 .

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: /James T. Leach/ Date: 8/27/12 .

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and 

local)? x

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? x

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or 

other document? x

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use 

has been proposed? x

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

x

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x
Appendix J: Appropriate Use Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

190

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Grazing

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a Refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the Refuge Manager has consulted with state fish and wildlife agencies: Yes No 

When the Refuge Manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the Refuge Manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the Refuge Supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate Appropriate

Refuge Manager: /Alice Hanley/ Date: 7/2/12 .

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: /James T. Leach/ Date: 8/27/12 .

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and 

local)? x

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? x

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or 

other document? x

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use 

has been proposed? x

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

x

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x
Appendix J: Appropriate Use Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

191

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Haying

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a Refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the Refuge Manager has consulted with state fish and wildlife agencies: Yes No 

When the Refuge Manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the Refuge Manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the Refuge Supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate Appropriate

Refuge Manager: /Alice Hanley/ Date: 7/2/12 .

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: /James T. Leach/ Date: 8/27/12 .

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and 

local)? x

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? x

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or 

other document? x

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use 

has been proposed? x

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

x

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x
Appendix J: Appropriate Use Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

192

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Non-Refuge Sponsored Special Events

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a Refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the Refuge Manager has consulted with state fish and wildlife agencies: Yes No 

When the Refuge Manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the Refuge Manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the Refuge Supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate Appropriate

Refuge Manager: /Alice Hanley/ Date: 7/2/12 .

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: /James T. Leach/ Date: 8/27/12 .

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and 

local)? x

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? x

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or 

other document? x

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use 

has been proposed? x

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

x

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x
Appendix J: Appropriate Use Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

193

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Scientific Studies and Research Projects

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a Refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the Refuge Manager has consulted with state fish and wildlife agencies: Yes No 

When the Refuge Manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the Refuge Manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the Refuge Supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate Appropriate

Refuge Manager: /Alice Hanley/ Date: 7/2/12 .

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: /James T. Leach/ Date: 8/27/12 .

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and 

local)? x

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? x

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or 

other document? x

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use 

has been proposed? x

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

x

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x
Appendix J: Appropriate Use Determinations

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

194

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Trapping of Furbearers

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a Refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the Refuge Manager has consulted with state fish and wildlife agencies: Yes No 

When the Refuge Manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the Refuge Manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the Refuge Supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate Appropriate

Refuge Manager: /Alice Hanley/ Date: 7/2/12 .

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: /James T. Leach/ Date: 8/27/12 .

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and 

local)? x

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? x

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or 

other document? x

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use 

has been proposed? x

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

x

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x
Appendix K: List of Preparers and Contributors

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

195

Appendix K: List of Preparers and Contributors

Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge Staff

Alice Hanley, Wildlife Refuge Manager

Jihadda Govan, Wildlife Refuge Specialist 

Kim Bousquet, Wildlife Biologist

Dan Angelo, Prescribed Fire Specialist

Lisa Coomes, Administrative Support Assistant

Richard Papasso, Wildlife Refuge Specialist (retired)

Branch of Conservation Planning Staff: 

Dean Granholm, Refuge Planner, Region 3 USFWS

Jared Bowman, Region 3 USFWS

Gabe DeAlessio, GIS Specialist, Region 3 USFWS

Mark Hogeboom, Writer/Editor, Region 3 USFWS

Regional Office Staff

Josh Eash, Regional Hydrology, Region 3, USFWS

Patricia Heglund, Regional Biologist, Region 3 USFWS

James Myster, Regional Archaeologist, Region 3 USFWS
Appendix L: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA

Big Stone NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

196

Appendix L: Response to Comments Received on the 

Draft CCP and EA

The Midwest Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received four responses that 

contained five comments. Two of the comments indicated support for the proposed action and 

one indicated no comment. Two comments made mention of the Big Stone National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR, Refuge) but were not specific comments on the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. The comments and responses follow.

Surface the road between the paved Bike Trail and the Refuge to allow bikers to continue 

through the Refuge.

The Minnesota River Headwaters Trail connects the Auto Tour Route with the headwaters of 

the Minnesota River at Big Stone Lake. The 1.3-mile segment of the trail that traverses the 

Refuge is gravel-surfaced, but unpaved. There are no plans to pave the Refuge trail segment at 

this time primarily because it is prone to flooding and often requires repair. Surfacing the trail 

with asphalt would increase repair costs.

The Minnesota River through the refuge needs to be cleaned up.

This comment most likely references downed trees within the upstream portion of the Minnesota 

River that is within the Refuge. There are no plans to manually clear the river primarily because 

of the associated cost. But riverine habitat improvements included as part of Objective 1-1 in 

chapter 4 would increase flows and may help clear some fallen trees from the Minnesota River 

channel. Also, increases in the amount and frequency of flows through the channel may change 

growing conditions and prevent trees from growing as large as at present.

Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge

44843 County Road 19

Odessa, MN 56276

http://www.fws.gov/refuge/big_stone

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

Region 3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov/midwest