Comprehensive Conservation Plan North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges

              Comprehensive Conservation Plan
North Dakota Limited-interest
National Wildlife Refuges
April 2006
Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Division of Refuge Planning
PO Box 25486 DFC
Lakewood, CO 80225
303/236 4370
Approved by:
__________________________________ _____
J. Mitch King Date
Regional Director, Region 6
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lakewood, CO
A planning team (see table A-1) composed of
representatives from the six managing
stations, various other Service Divisions, and a
representative from NDGF was formed to
prepare this CCP and EA. Initially, the team
focused on identifying the issues and concerns
pertinent to the management of the Program.
The team met on several occasions and
participated in public scoping activities
throughout the state. During this period, the
team also sought the contributions of experts
(table A-2) from various fields of expertise.
Table A-1. Planning team members
Name Title Agency
Laura King Planning Team Leader, Refuge Operations
Specialist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Randy Kreil Division Chief, Wildlife Division North Dakota Game and Fish Department
Rod Krey Refuge Supervisor, ND/SD U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bob Barrett Deputy Refuge Supervisor, ND/SD U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sean Fields Wildlife Biologist/GIS Specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lloyd Jones Refuge Coordinator, North Dakota U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ron Reynolds Project Leader, Region 6 HAPET Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Stu Wacker Supervisory Realty Specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Roger Hollevoet Project Leader, Devils Lake U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Kim Hanson Project Leader, Arrowwood U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bob Vanden Berge Project Leader (retired 1/05), Kulm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bob Howard Project Leader (retired 6/04), J. Clark
Salyer
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Tedd Gutzke Project Leader, J. Clark Salyer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mike McEnroe Project Leader (retired 1/05), Audubon U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Paul Van Ningen Project Leader, Long Lake U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lee Albright Wetland District Manager, J. Clark Salyer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dave Azure Deputy Project Leader, Kulm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Gary Williams Deputy Project Leader, Audubon U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Natoma (Tomi)
Buskness
Deputy Project Leader, Long Lake U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jim Alfonso Deputy Project Leader, Devils Lake U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mark Vaniman Deputy Project Leader (transferred 2/04),
Arrowwood
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Stacy Adolf-Whipp Wetland District Manager, Arrowwood U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Stacy Hoehn Refuge Operations Specialist, Valley City U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Kory Richardson Wetland District Manager, Valley City U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mike Goos Wetland District Manager, Audubon U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Michael (Mick)
Erickson
Wetland District Manager, Arrowwood U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Paul Halko Wetland District Manager, Devils Lake U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Neil Shook Wetland District Manager, Devils Lake U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Kurt Tompkins Wetland District Manager, Devils Lake U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Appendix A. Consultation and Coordination
86 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
Table A-2. Other contributors to the Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges CCP and their area(s) of
expertise
Name Title Area of Expertise
Ron Shupe Deputy Chief of Refuges Limited-interest refuge history
Harvey Wittmier Realty Chief Limited-interest refuge history, realty policies
and procedures
Michael Spratt Planning Division Chief Planning processes and techniques
Linda Kelly Chief, Comprehensive Conservation
Planning
Planning processes and techniques
Bill Reffault President, Blue Goose Alliance Limited-interest refuge history
Margo Zalen Regional Solicitor, Denver Legal guidance and opinion
Alan Palisoul WO Solicitor Legal guidance and opinion
Betty Adler Supv. Realty Specialist Realty history of limited-interest refuges and
procedures
James Eaglesome Paralegal Specialist (Realty) Legal guidance and opinion
Cheryl Willis Water Resources Division Chief Water resources information; water rights
Sandy Hutchcroft Supv. Information Technology Specialist Realty database
David Redhorse Native American Liaison Native American interests
Jane Fitzgerald Reference Archivist, Old Military and Civil
Records
Historical records related to limited-interest
refuges
John Esperance Chief, Land Protection Planning Land protection planning guidance
Joyce Welch GIS Contractor Limited-interest refuge history and mapping
Rhoda Lewis Regional Archaeologist Cultural and archeological resources guidance
Sue Kvas GIS Specialist, HAPET GIS and related habitat data, HAPET
Sean Furniss Refuge Roads Coordinator Refuge purposes
Deb Parker Editor, Planning Editing
Aleta Powers Natural Resource Specialist Editing (Contractor)
Connie Young-
Dubovsky
Regional NEPA Coordinator NEPA compliance
Eva Paredes Facility Management Coordinator Real property inventory
Public Review of the Draft CCP/EA
The public was given a 60-day period to review
the public draft plan. The review period ended
December 2, 2005. During the month of October
2005, newsletters summarizing the draft plan
and comment forms were sent to over 730
individuals on the mailing list. In addition, over
100 copies of the plan were sent to interested
parties. A total of 6 public meetings were held
to give the public an opportunity to discuss the
public draft of the CCP. These meetings were
held in October in the communities of Valley
City, McHenry, Devils Lake, Upham, Oakes,
and Moffitt, N.D. A presentation was given at
each meeting summarizing the draft plan and
comments were collected. We had a total of 19
Consultation and Coordination 87
attendees. More than 20 news releases and
articles were prepared regarding the draft plan
and these public meetings.
The following issues, concerns, and comments
are a compilation and summary of those
expressed during the draft CCP comment
period. Comments were provided by the public,
other Federal and State agencies, and
individuals concerned about the natural
resources of these refuges. The section is
organized by topics and presents both the
comment and the Service’s response. Only
those substantive comments that are relative
to this planning effort and within the
jurisdiction of the Service are addressed and
considered.
Public Comments
The refuge staff recognizes and appreciates all
input received from the public throughout the
planning process. In particular, the feedback,
comments, and renewed interactions with the
landowners of these refuges has been essential
to this planning process. All comments were
reviewed by the planning team. In many cases
we received similar comments or questions
from multiple persons or organizations. These
comments have been combined and
paraphrased. The following summarizes all
substantive comments followed by the
Service’s response.
Divestiture
Comment 1—The Service should retain all
refuges proposed for divestiture and develop
agreements with the state and acquire the
uplands from the landowners.
Response: Prior to divestiture, the Service will
work closely with both the state and
landowners to ensure there is not net loss of
wildlife habitat (if any) that currently exists on
these refuges. The state currently manages
three of these refuges as Wildlife Management
Areas (WMA) and owns all or most of the lands
within two of these refuges. The Service is
there in name only. The third refuge was
acquired by the Bureau of Reclamation who has
an agreement with the state to manage it as a
WMA. The remaining three refuges either
never had or have lost their wildlife values to
the point that they no longer support the goals
of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The
Service made these determinations based on
discussions amongst managers, biologists, and
the directorate. The resulting divestiture
model used as a tool to examine each refuge in
this project for divestiture has been added in
appendix G. By divesting these refuges, any
future funding will then be used to enhance and
protect those lands and waters that can truly
function as refuges as described in the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act.
Comment 2—Concerned about the lack of
procedure to consider proposed divestment of
refuge lands.
Response: An appendix has been added to the
document describing the divestiture decision
model developed by the Region and used as
part of the process to determine which refuges
should be considered for divestiture.
Comment 3—The Service should have taken a
more aggressive look at the divestiture issue
and considered divesting additional refuges.
Response: The Service used the divestiture
model (as described in appendix G) as a tool to
determine which refuges should be considered
for divestiture. This was the first use of this
model and it may be refined in the future.
During a divestiture workshop, the information
for analyzing these refuges was provided by a
team of managers and biologists who currently
manage these areas. Based on this information,
only six of the 39 refuges met the current
criteria for divestiture consideration. The
Service recognizes that there has been little
attention given to these refuges since they
were established. No funding has even been
earmarked for management of this program.
However, this plan is the most effective tool for
elevating issues and requesting funding to
properly manage these refuges. There are no
guarantees, but it is certain that if this plan had
not been completed, the directorate, who
makes decisions on budgeting, would remain
unaware of the needs to properly managing
these refuges.
Hunting and Trapping
Comment 1—A number of comments were
received both for and against trapping on these
refuges. Those opposed to trapping stated that
it was cruel and that the EA failed to
adequately justify continuing a trapping
program. Those supporting trapping identified
it as a valuable wildlife management tool for
protecting ground nesting birds and
endangered species.
Response: The Service has expanded the
sections in the document discussing the
88 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
benefits of trapping to ground nesting bird
survival. Predators (such as raccoons, skunks,
and foxes) and habitat loss are the greatest
threats to ground nesting birds. Small
predators such as those mentioned have
responded favorably to the fragmented
habitats caused by development and
agriculture. Their natural predators, such as
wolves and grizzlies, have not. This has created
an overabundant, unnatural population of
these small predators which are effective
hunters of ground nesting birds, in particular
waterfowl, eggs, and young birds. Without this
intervention, along with other methods, such as
electrical fences and exclosures, nesting
success would plummet. This would be
devastating in this part of the country known
as North America’s “Duck Factory”.
Response: The Service will revisit this issue
when the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies completes it’s research and
develops a list of standard ‘Best Management
Practices’ for trapping on public lands.
Comment 2—A variety of comments were
received regarding the Service’s proposal to
work with willing landowners and the state to
determine if any additional hunting
opportunities are available. We heard from
both those who oppose and support hunting on
these refuges.
Response: The National Wildlife Refuge
Improvement Act lists hunting as a priority
public use on refuges when deemed compatible.
It is not certain at this time whether any
additional refuges will be opened for hunting.
This determination will be made as part of
implementation. It will be essential that willing
landowners agree to provide access, but this is
their decision, not a decision by the Service.
Once access is granted, a compatibility
determination will be completed for each
proposed use. The public will be permitted to
see these compatibility determinations. The
document emphasizes that no additional public
uses will be permitted unless access is granted,
the resources are available to manage the use,
and the use is deemed compatible with the
purposes of the refuge, i.e. the use does not
negatively impact migratory birds, in
particular migrating waterfowl.
Comment 3—A few refuge landowners were
concerned about opening their lands to public
hunting due to the impacts to migrating
waterfowl.
Response: No additional activities, including
hunting, will be permitted on any refuge unless
it is found compatible with the purposes for
which it was established. In the case of the
limited-interest refuges, the purpose includes a
refuge for migratory birds, particularly
waterfowl. If a willing landowner would like to
have their lands open to public hunting (for
white-tailed deer and certain geese species),
the Service will ensure that this use does not
impact migrating ducks in the spring and fall.
Shortened seasons, permit-only hunting, or
limited access are some tools to accomplish this.
First and foremost, a landowner must be
willing to grant access before the Service will
even consider allowing public uses, including
hunting. No limited-interest refuge is
“automatically” open to any public use unless
access is granted by willing landowners and the
use is found compatible with the purposes of
that refuge.
Fishing
Comment 1—Concerned that fishing on the
James River (Dakota NWR) impacts spawning
fish in the spring.
Response: The Service Fisheries Division will
work closely with the state to ensure areas
open to fishing are compatible with the
purposes of the refuge while ensuring that the
fishery is not negatively impacted and can
sustain the use.
Funding and Staffing
Comment 1—It appears that the state
coordinator would be essential to implementing
this plan, how does the Service propose to get
this position and other funding to implement
this plan?
Response: Once this plan is approved, the
Service will pursue the staff and funding
necessary to implement this plan. Although
there is no guarantee of funding, submitting
this plan has made the decision makers aware
of the needs of this program, something that
had not been done at such a comprehensive
level. If funding does come available, the
landowners, and other who wish to remain on
the mailing list, will be given this information
in the annual newsletter.
Comment 2—The plan should address potential
opportunities to examine current allocations of
funding and resources a bit further.
Consultation and Coordination 89
Response: In the 70 year history of this
program, there has never been any funds
specifically earmarked for these refuges. This
has lead to disrepair of water management
structures and lack of interaction with refuge
landowners. This planning process has renewed
interest in these refuges and elevated the
needs of this program.
Impoundments
Comment 1—There is no discussion on the
Service’s ability to stop the draining of the
impoundments.
Response: The document does state that the
Service controls the water level and uses that
occur on the impoundments or main body of
water over which it holds a water right. This
includes the ability to stop any draining of this
impoundment if that is not within water level
management objectives.
Incompatible Uses
Comment 1—How will the Service
communicate to the landowners which uses are
compatible with the purposes of these refuges?
Response: This planning process was the first
attempt to review both historical records in
combination with Solicitor’s opinions to
pinpoint both the Service’s and landowner
rights on these refuges. There is a discussion of
this in section 2.3 of the document. Since this
program began, there have been some
inconsistencies in the uses permitted on these
refuges. The Service recognized this and
ensured this rights determination was made
early in the planning process. This is essential
to the future of these refuges and for building
relationships with the landowners. Any use
under the authority of the Service that is
proposed for these refuges will have to have a
compatibility determination made to determine
if it is compatible with the purposes of that
refuge. The Service will work with the affected
landowners when completing this
determination and will take necessary actions
to allow or deny a proposed use based on an
impact analysis.
Signage
Comment 1—The new boundary sign for these
refuges should identify these refuges as private
lands and identify the limited uses that may
occur within the limited-interest refuge
boundary, if any.
Response: The proposed limited-interest
boundary sign will provide this information.
Wetland and Grassland Protection
Comment 1—The Service should evaluate any
wetlands and grasslands being considered for
added protection using the same acquisition
criteria used for wetland and native prairie
grassland easements elsewhere in North
Dakota.
Response: The Service will use both the
wetland and grassland easement programs to
compensate willing landowners for added
protections. Therefore, the current criteria for
these programs will be used for evaluating each
future proposal.
Comment 2—The Service should work
diligently to acquire the necessary upland
habitat to prevent further loss of habitat.
Response: The plan includes objectives for the
Service to work with willing landowners to
provide additional compensation for added
protection of upland habitats.
Crop Depredation
Comment 1—There were numerous comments
from landowners reiterating that they are
losing significant amounts of crops to
concentrated populations of geese (in particular
snow and Canada’s) and white-tailed deer.
Response: This was a frequent comment heard
from landowners during the initial scoping
process. The Service recognizes that crop
depredation is an issue on these refuges. To
address this issue, the Service has proposed in
the plan to work with willing landowners and
the state to open certain refuges to public
hunting of certain geese species and white-tailed
deer.
Invasive Species
Comment 1—The Service should control the
invasive species that occur on the uplands of
these limited-interest refuges.
Response: The Service has determined that the
easement did not give the government the
right to control the uses that occur on the
uplands. This means that landowners are able
to farm, graze, build homes, etc., on these
upland areas. This also means the Service is not
responsible for such activities as controlling
90 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
invasive plants that occur on these uplands.
This is the responsibility of the landowners.
Landowner Relations
Comment 1—The Service should work more
closely with the landowners and let them know
when things are occurring on their respective
refuges.
Response: The plan includes a partnership goal
and several objectives and strategies for
interacting with landowners while keeping
them informed about activities and programs
that affect their respective refuges. At a
minimum, each landowner and other interested
parties will receive an annual newsletter
updating them on the implementation of this
plan and other opportunities for partnerships.
The Service will also coordinate with
landowners when any projects or
enhancements are planned for their respective
refuge.
adaptive management—a process in which
projects are implemented within a framework
of scientifically driven experiments to test
predictions and assumptions outlined within
the comprehensive conservation plan. The
analysis of the outcome of project
implementation helps managers determine
whether current management should continue
as is or whether it should be modified to
achieve desired conditions.
alternative—a reasonable way to fix the
identified problem or satisfy the stated need
(40 CFR 1500.2) [see also management
alternative below].
approved acquisition boundary—a project
boundary which the Director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service approves upon completion of
the detailed planning and environmental
compliance process.
biological integrity—composition, structure,
and function at the genetic, organism, and
community levels consistent with natural
conditions, and the biological processes that
shape genomes, organisms, and communities.
biological or natural diversity—the
abundance, variety, and genetic constitution of
animals and plants in nature. Also referred to
as Abiodiversity.@
boreal—describes a region that has a northern
temperature climate, with cold winters and
warm summers.
breeding habitat—habitat used by migratory
birds or other animals during the breeding
season.
buffer zone or buffer strip—protective land
borders around critical habitats or water bodies
that reduce runoff and nonpoint source
pollution loading; areas created or sustained to
lessen the negative effects of land development
on animals and plants and their habitats.
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations.
community—the area or locality in which a
group of people resides and shares the same
government.
compatibility determination—a compatibility
determination is required for a wildlife-dependant
recreational use or any other public
use of a refuge. A compatible use is one which,
in the sound professional judgment of the
refuge manager, will not materially interfere
with or detract from fulfillment of the Refuge
System Mission or refuge purpose(s).
compatible use—an allowed use that will not
materially interfere with, or detract from, the
purposes for which the unit was established
(Service Manual 602 FW 1.4).
comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) —a
document that describes the desired future
conditions of a refuge or planning unit and
provides long-range guidance and management
direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge,
help fulfill the mission of the System, maintain
and, where appropriate, restore the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health
of each refuge and the System, and meet other
mandates.
concern—see issue.
conservation—the management of natural
resources to prevent loss or waste.
Management actions may include preservation,
recovery, restoration, and enhancement.
cooperative agreement—the legal instrument
used when the principal purpose of the
transaction is the transfer of money, property,
services or anything of value to a recipient in
order to accomplish a public purpose authorized
by federal statute and substantial involvement
between the Service and the recipient is
anticipated.
coteau—a hilly upland or a divide between two
valleys.
cultural resources—evidence of historic or
prehistoric human activity, such as buildings,
artifacts, archaeological sites, documents, or
oral or written history.
Appendix B. Glossary of Terms
92 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
database—a collection of data arranged for
ease and speed of analysis and retrieval,
usually computerized.
easement—an agreement by which a
landowner gives up or sells one of the rights on
his/her property.
ecosystem—a biological community together
with its environment, functioning as a unit. For
administrative purposes, the Service has
designated 53 ecosystems covering the United
States and its possessions. These ecosystems
generally correspond with watershed
boundaries and vary in their sizes and
ecological complexity.
ecotourism—a type of tourism that maintains
and preserves natural resources as a basis for
promoting economic growth and development
resulting from visitation to an area.
emergent vegetation—a vegetation type
common in wetlands dominated by erect,
rooted, herbaceous plants.
endangered species—a federally protected
species which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
environmental assessment (EA)—a concise
public document, prepared in compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act, that
briefly discusses the purpose and need for an
action, alternatives to such action, and provides
sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to
determine whether to prepare an
environmental impact statement or finding of
no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9).
environmental education—education aimed at
producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable
concerning the biophysical environment and its
associated problems, aware of how to help solve
these problems, and motivated to work toward
their solution (Stapp et al. 1969).
environmental health—the composition,
structure, and functioning of soil, water, air,
and other abiotic features comparable with
historic conditions, including the natural abiotic
processes that shape the environment.
environmental impact statement (EIS)—a
detailed written statement required by section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy
Act, analyzing the environmental impacts of a
preferred alternative, adverse effects of the
project that cannot be avoided, alternative
courses of action, short-term uses of the
environment versus the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity, and
any irreversible and irretrievable commitment
of resources (40 CFR 1508.11).
fauna—all the vertebrae or invertebrate
animals of an area.
federal land—public land owned by the federal
government, including lands such as national
forests, national parks and national wildlife
refuges.
federally listed species—a species listed
under the federal Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended, either as endangered,
threatened or species at risk (formerly
candidate species).
fee title—the acquisition of most or all of the
rights to a tract of land.
Finding of no significant impact (FONSI)—a
document prepared in compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act, supported
by an environmental assessment, that briefly
presents why a federal action will have no
significant effect on the human environment
and for which an environmental impact
statement, therefore, will not be prepared
(40 CFR 1508.13).
forbs—a flowering plant, excluding grasses,
sedges, and rushes, that does not have a woody
stem and dies back to the ground at the end of
the growing season.
forested land—land dominated by trees. For
the purposes of the impacts analysis in this
document, all forested land was assumed to
have the potential to be occasionally harvested,
and forested land owned by timber companies
was assumed to be harvested on a more
intensive, regular schedule.
geographic information system (GIS) —a
computerized system used to compile, store,
analyze and display geographically referenced
information. Can be used to overlay
information layers containing the distributions
of a variety of biological and physical features.
goal—descriptive, open-ended, and often broad
statement of desired future conditions that
Glossary of Terms 93
conveys a purpose but does not define
measurable units.
habitat—the place where a particular type of
plant or animal lives. An organism’s habitat
must provide all of the basic requirements for
life and should be free of harmful contaminants.
habitat conservation—the protection of an
animal or plant’s habitat to ensure that the use
of that habitat by the animal or plant is not
altered or reduced.
inholding—privately owned land inside the
boundary of a national wildlife refuge.
integrated pest management (IPM)—
sustainable approach to managing pests by
combining biological, cultural, physical, and
chemical tools in a way that minimizes
economic, health, and environmental risks.
invasive species—nonnative species which
have been introduced into an ecosystem, and,
because of their aggressive growth habits and
lack of natural predators, displace native
species.
issue—any unsettled matter that requires a
management decision; e.g., a Service initiative,
an opportunity, a management problem, a
threat to the resources of the unit, a conflict in
uses, a public concerns, or the presence of an
undesirable resource condition. Issues should
be documented, described, and analyzed in the
CCP even if resolution cannot be accomplished
during the planning process (Service Manual
602 FW 1.4). See also: key issue.
limited-interest refuge landowner—a
landowner who owns property that is covered
by a refuge and/or flowage easement that is
located within the approved acquisition
boundary of a limited-interest national wildlife
refuge.
lacustrine—of, relating to, formed in, living in,
or growing in lakes.
local agencies—generally referring to
municipal governments, regional planning
commissions or conservation groups.
long-term protection—mechanisms such as
fee-title acquisition, conservation easements, or
binding agreements with landowners that
ensure land use and land management practices
will remain compatible with maintenance of the
species population at the site.
main body of water—an impoundment, lake or
river that occurs within the refuge boundary.
management alternative—a set of objectives
and the strategies needed to accomplish each
objective (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4).
management concern—see issue.
management opportunity—see issue.
management plan—a plan that guides future
land management practices on a tract of land.
In the context of this environmental impact
statement, management plans would be
designed to produce additional wildlife habitat
along with the primary products, such as
timber or agricultural crops. See cooperative
agreement.
migratory—the seasonal movement from one
area to another and back.
migratory game birds—birds regulated under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and state laws,
that are legally hunted, includes ducks, geese,
woodcock, rails.
monitoring—the process of collecting
information to track changes of selected
parameters over time.
moraine—a mass of earth and rock debris
carried by an advancing glacier and left at its
front and side edges as it retreats.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)—requires all agencies, including the
Service, to examine the environmental impacts
of their actions, incorporate environmental
information, and use public participation in the
planning and implementation of all actions.
Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with
other planning requirements, and prepare
appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate
better environmental decision making (from
40 CFR 1500).
national wildlife refuge (refuge)—a
designated area of land, water, or an interest in
land or water within the System, but does not
include Coordination Areas.@ Find a complete
listing of all units of the System in the current
94 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
National Wildlife Refuge System (System)—
all lands and waters and interests therein
administered by the Service as wildlife refuges,
wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas,
WPAs, and other areas for the protection and
conservation of fish and wildlife, including
those that are threatened with extinction.
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission
(mission)— “The mission of the System is to
administer a national network of lands and
waters for the conservation, management and,
where appropriate, restoration of the fish,
wildlife and plant resources and their habitats
within the United States for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans.”
native plant—a plant that has grown in the
region since the last glaciation and occurred
before European settlement.
native species—species that normally live and
thrive in a particular ecosystem.
Neotropical migratory bird—a bird species
that breeds north of the United States/Mexican
border and winters primarily south of that
border.
nonconsumptive, wildlife-oriented
recreation—photographing or observing
plants, fish and other wildlife.
notice of intent (NOI)—a notice that an
environmental impact statement will be
prepared and considered (40 CFR 1508.22).
Published in the Federal Register.
objective—a concise statement of what we
want to achieve, how much we want to achieve,
when and where we want to achieve it, and who
is responsible for the work. Objectives derive
from goals and provide the basis for
determining strategies, monitoring refuge
accomplishments, and evaluating the success of
strategies. Make objectives attainable,
time-specific, and measurable.
Partners for Wildlife Program—a voluntary
habitat restoration program undertaken by the
Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with
other governmental agencies, public and
private organizations, and private landowners
to improve and protect fish and wildlife habitat
on private lands while leaving the land in
private ownership.
partnership—a contract or agreement entered
into by two or more individuals, groups of
individuals, organizations or agencies in which
each agrees to furnish a part of the capital or
some inBkind service, i.e., labor, for a mutually
beneficial enterprise.
phenological—periodic biological phenomena
the are correlated with climatic conditions.
planning area—a planning area may include
lands outside existing planning unit boundaries
that are being studied for inclusion in the unit
and/or partnership planning efforts. It may also
include watersheds or ecosystems that affect
the planning area.
planning team—a planning team prepares the
comprehensive conservation plan. Planning
teams are interdisciplinary in membership and
function. A team generally consists of a
planning team leader; refuge manager and staff
biologist; staff specialists or other
representatives of Service programs,
ecosystems or regional offices; and state
partnering wildlife agencies as appropriate.
Preferred Alternative⎯the alternative that is
preferred by the Service and that will become
the management direction in the final
document.
priority public uses—see wildlife-dependant
recreational uses.
private land—land that is owned by a private
individual, group of individuals, or nonB
governmental organization.
private landowner—any individual, group of
individuals or nongovernmental organization
that owns land.
private organization—any nongovernmental
organization.
proglacial—landforms and deposits just
beyond the margin of glacial ice.
proposed action—activities for which an
environmental assessment is being written; the
alternative containing the actions and
strategies recommended by the planning team.
Glossary of Terms 95
The proposed action is, for all practical
purposes, the draft CCP for the refuge.
protection—mechanisms such as fee-title
acquisition, conservation easements, or binding
agreements with landowners that ensure land
use and land management practices will remain
compatible with maintenance of the species
population at the site.
public—individuals, organizations, and groups;
officials of federal, state, and local government
agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It
may include anyone outside the core planning
team. It includes those who may or may not
have indicated an interest in the Service issues
and those who do or do not realize that Service
decisions may affect them.
public involvement—a process that offers
impacted and interested individuals and
organizations an opportunity to become
informed about, and to express their opinions
on Service actions and policies. In the process,
these views are studied thoroughly and
thoughtful consideration of public views is
given in shaping decisions for refuge
management.
public land—land that is owned by the local,
state, or federal government.
purpose of the refuge—the purpose of the
refuge is specified in or derived from the law,
proclamation, executive order, agreement,
public land order, donation document, or
administrative memorandum establishing,
authorizing, or expanding a refuge and refuge
unit.
refuge goals—descriptive, open-ended and
often broad statements of desired future
conditions that convey a purpose but do not
define measurable units (Writing Refuge
Management Goals and Objectives: A
Handbook).
refuge lands—those lands in which the Service
holds full interest in fee title, or partial interest
such as limited-interest refuges.
Refuge Operating Needs System—the
Refuge Operating Needs System is a national
database, which contains the unfunded
operational needs of each refuge. We include
projects required to implement approved plans,
and meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates.
refuge purposes—the purposes specified in or
derived from the law, proclamation, executive
order, agreement, public land order, donation
document, or administrative memorandum
establishing, authorizing, or expanding a
refuge, a refuge unit, or refuge subunit, and
any subsequent modification of the original
establishing authority for additional
conservation purposes (Service Manual 602 FW
1.4).
restoration—the artificial manipulation of a
habitat to restore it to something close to its
natural state.
runoff—water from rain, melted snow, or
agricultural or landscape irrigation that flows
over the land surface into a water body.
Service presence—the existence of the
Service through its programs and facilities
which it directs or shares with other
organizations; the public awareness of the
Service as a sole or cooperative provider of
programs and facilities.
species of concern—species present in the
watershed for whom the refuge has a special
management interest. The following criteria
were used to identify a species of concern:
1. Federally listed as threatened or
endangered;
2. Migratory bird, especially declining
species, Neotropical migrants, colonial
waterbirds, shorebirds, or waterfowl;
3. Marine mammal;
4. Sea turtle;
5. Interjurisdictional fish;
6. State-listed as threatened, endangered,
or special concern.
state land—public land owned by a state such
as state parks or state wildlife management
areas.
step-down management plans—step-down
management plans describe management
strategies and implementation schedules. Step-down
management plans are a series of plans
dealing with specific management subjects
(e.g., croplands, wilderness, and fire) (Service
Manual 602 FW 1.4).
strategy—a specific action, tool, technique, or
combination of actions, tools, and techniques
used to meet unit objectives.
96 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
substantive issue—an issue meeting the
following three criteria:
􀁑􅅆 Falls within the jurisdiction of the
Service;
􀁑􅅃 Can be addressed by a reasonable range
of alternatives;
􀁑􅅉 Influences the outcome of the project.
surficial—relating to or occurring on the
surface.
threatened species—a federally protected
species that is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
trust resource—one that through law or
administrative act is held in trust for the
people by the government. A federal trust
resource is one for which trust responsibility is
given in part to the federal government
through federal legislation or administrative
act. Generally, federal trust resources are those
considered to be of national or international
importance no matter where they occur, such
as endangered species and species such as
migratory birds and fish that regularly move
across state lines. In addition to species, trust
resources include cultural resources protected
through federal historic preservation laws,
nationally important and threatened habitats,
notably wetlands, navigable waters, and public
lands such as state parks and rational wildlife
refuges.
upland—dry ground; other than wetlands.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission—our
mission is to work with others to Aconserve,
protect, and enhance fish and wildlife, and their
habitat for the continuing benefit of the
American people.
vision statement—concise statement of what
the unit could be in the next 10 to 15 years
watchable wildlife—all wildlife is watchable. A
watchable wildlife program is a strategy to
help maintain viable populations of all native
fish and wildlife species by building an
effective, well- informed constituency for
conservation. Watchable wildlife programs are
tools by which wildlife conservation goals can
be met while at the same time fulfilling public
demand for wildlife recreational activities
(other than sport hunting, trapping or sport
fishing).
watershed—the geographic area within which
water drains into a particular river, stream or
body of water. A watershed includes both the
land and the body of water into which the land
drains.
wetlands—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s definition of wetlands states that
“Wetlands are lands transitional between
terrestrial and aquatic systems where the
water table is usually at or near the surface or
the land is covered by shallow water”
(Cowardin et al. 1979).
wilderness—The legal definition is found in the
Wilderness Act of 1964 Section 2c (P.L. 88-577):
AA wilderness, in contrast with those areas
where man and his own works dominate the
landscape, is hereby recognized as an area
where the earth and its community of life are
untrammeled by man, where man himself is a
visitor who does not remain.@ This legal
definition places wilderness on the
Auntrammeled@ or Aprimeval@ end of the
environmental modification spectrum.
Wilderness is roadless lands, legally classified
as component areas of the National Wilderness
Preservation System, and managed so as to
protect its qualities of naturalness, solitude and
opportunity for primitive types of recreation
(Hendee 1990).
wildlife-dependent recreational use—a use of
a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, or environmental
education and interpretation. These are the six
priority public uses of the System as
established in the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act, as amended.
Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other
than the six priority public uses, are those that
depend on the presence of wildlife. We also will
consider these other uses in the preparation of
refuge CCPs, however, the six priority public
uses always will take precedence.
wildlife management—the practice of
manipulating wildlife populations, either
directly through regulating the numbers, ages,
and sex ratios harvested, or indirectly by
providing favorable habitat conditions and
alleviating limiting factors.
Appendix C. Decision Documents
98 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
Decision Documents 99
Environmental Action Statement
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Lakewood, Colorado
Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife
resources, I have established the following administrative record.
I have determined that the action of implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the North
Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges is found not to have significant environmental effects, as
determined by the attached Finding of No Significant Impact and the environmental assessment as found
with the draft comprehensive conservation plan.
____________________________________________
J. Mitch King Date
Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Lakewood, CO
___________________________________4/12/06_
Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date
Assistant Regional Director, NWRS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Lakewood, CO
___________________________________4/12/06_
Rod Krey Date
Refuge Program Supervisor (ND, SD)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Lakewood, CO
___________________________________4/6/06_
Kim Hanson Date
Project Leader
Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Pingree, ND
___________________________________4/6/06_
Lloyd Jones Date
Project Leader
Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Coleharbor, ND
___________________________________4/11/06_
Roger Hollevoet Date
Project Leader
Devils Lake Wetland Management District
Devils Lake, ND
___________________________________4/6/06_
Tedd Gutzke Date
Project Leader
J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Upham, ND
___________________________________4/6/06_
Mick Erickson Date
Project Leader
Kulm Wetland Management District
Kulm, ND
___________________________________4/6/06_
Paul Van Ningen Date
Project Leader
Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Moffit, ND
100 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
Finding of No Significant Impact
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Lakewood, Colorado
Two management alternatives for the 39 North Dakota limited-interest national wildlife refuges’
programmatic comprehensive conservation plan were assessed as to their effectiveness in achieving the
refuges’ purposes and their impact on the human environment. Alternative A (the no-action alternative)
would continue current management, which has been very minimal, of these refuges. Alternative B
(“Enhance the Program,” the proposed action) first proposes to consider for divestiture six refuges, which
have no potential to fully function as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The remaining 33 refuges
would be managed in cooperation with willing landowners, the state, and other partners, to (1) evaluate and
prioritize habitats for added protection, (2) improve relations and sharing of information with refuge
landowners, (3) protect the Service’s rights acquired through the easement agreement, and (4) work with
willing landowners and the state to determine if additional public use activities such as hunting, fishing,
environmental education are feasible on some or all of these refuges. Based on this assessment and comments
received, I have selected alternative B for implementation.
The preferred alternative (alternative B) was selected because it best meets the purposes for which these
refuges were established and is preferable to the no-action alternative in light of physical, biological,
economic, and social factors.
I find that the preferred alternative is not a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of
the human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969. Accordingly, the preparation of an environmental impact statement on the proposed action is not
required.
The following is a summary of anticipated environmental effects from implementation of the preferred
alternative:
— The preferred alternative will not adversely impact endangered or threatened species or their habitat.
— The preferred alternative will not adversely impact archaeological or historical resources.
— The preferred alternative will not adversely impact wetlands nor does the plan call for structures that
could be damaged by or that would significantly influence the movement of floodwater.
— The preferred alternative will not have a disproportionately high or adverse human health or
environmental effect on minority or low-income populations.
— The State of North Dakota has been notified and given the opportunity to review the comprehensive
conservation plan and associated environmental assessment.
______________________________________________
J. Mitch King Date
Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Lakewood, CO
Americans With Disabilities Act (1992):
Prohibits discrimination in public
accommodations and services.
Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431–433): The act
of June 8, 1906, (34 Stat. 225) authorizes the
President to designate as National Monuments
objects or areas of historic or scientific interest
on lands owned or controlled by the United
States. The act required that a permit be
obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of
archaeological sites and the gathering of
objects of antiquity on lands under the
jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior,
Agriculture, and Army, and provided penalties
for violations.
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act
(16 U.S.C. 469–469c): Public Law 86-523,
approved June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220) as
amended by Public Law 93-291, approved May
24, 1974, (88 Stat. 174) to carry out the policy
established by the Historic Sites Act (see
below), directed federal agencies to notify the
Secretary of the Interior whenever they find a
federal or federally assisted, licensed or
permitted project may cause loss or destruction
of significant scientific, prehistoric or
archaeologic data. The act authorizes use of
appropriated, donated and/or transferred funds
for the recovery, protection and preservation of
such data.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16
U.S.C. 470aa–470ll): Public Law 96-95,
approved October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721):
Largely supplants the resource protection
provisions of the Antiquities Act for
archaeological items.
This act establishes detailed requirements for
issuance of permits for any excavation for or
removal of archaeological resources from
federal or Indian lands. It also establishes civil
and criminal penalties for the unauthorized
excavation, removal, or damage of any such
resources; for any trafficking in such resources
removed from federal or Indian land in
violation of any provision of federal law; and for
interstate and foreign commerce in such
resources acquired, transported, or received in
violation of any state or local law.
Public Law 100-588, approved November 3,
1988, (102 Stat. 2983): Lowers the threshold
value of artifacts triggering the felony
provisions of the act from $5,000 to $500,
makes attempting to commit an action
prohibited by the act a violation, and
requires the land managing agencies to
establish public awareness programs
regarding the value of archaeological
resources to the Nation.
Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires
federally owned, leased, or funded buildings
and facilities to be accessible to persons with
disabilities.
Clean Water Act (1977): Requires
consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for major wetland modifications.
Criminal Code of Provisions of 1940 as
amended, (18 U.S.C. 41): States the intent of
Congress to protect all wildlife within federal
sanctuaries, refuges, fish hatcheries, and
breeding grounds. Provides that anyone
(except in compliance with rules and
regulations promulgated by authority of law)
who hunts, traps, or willfully disturbs any such
wildlife, or willfully injures, molest, or destroys
any property of the United States on such land
or water, shall be fined up to $500 or
imprisoned for not more than 6 months or both.
Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986:
Authorizes the purchase of wetlands from Land
and Water Conservation Fund moneys,
removing a prior prohibition on such
acquisitions. The act also requires the
Secretary to establish a National Wetlands
Priority Conservation Plan, requires the states
to include wetlands in their Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plans, and transfers to the
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amount
equal to import duties on arms and
ammunition.
Endangered Species Act of 1973 and recent
amendments (16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; 87 Stat.
884) as amended (Establishing legislation.):
Provides for conservation of threatened and
endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants
Appendix D. Key Legislation and Policies
102 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
by federal action and by encouraging state
programs. Specific provisions include:
􀁑􅅔 The listing and determination of critical
habitat for endangered and threatened
species and consultation with the
Service on any federally funded or
licensed project that could affect any of
these agencies;
􀁑􅅐 Prohibition of unauthorized taking,
possession, sale, transport, etc.., of
endangered species;
􀁑􅅁 An expanded program of habitat
acquisition;
􀁑􅅅 Establishment of cooperative
agreements and grants-in-aid to states
that establish and maintain an active,
adequate program for endangered and
threatened species;
􀁑􅅁 Assessment of civil and criminal
penalties for violating the act or
regulations.
Environmental Education Act of 1990 (20
U.S.C. 5501–5510; 104 Stat. 3325): Public Law
101-619, signed November 16, 1990, established
the Office of Environmental Education within
the Environmental Protection Agency to
develop and administer a federal
environmental education program.
Responsibilities of the Office include
developing and supporting programs to
improve understanding of the natural and
developed environment, and the relationships
between humans and their environment;
supporting the dissemination of educational
materials; developing and supporting training
programs and environmental education
seminars; managing a federal grant program;
and administering an environmental internship
and fellowship program. The Office is required
to develop and support environmental
programs in consultation with other federal
natural resource management agencies,
including the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road
Vehicles on Public Lands (1972): Provides
policy and procedures for regulating off-road
vehicles.
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain
Management: This executive order, signed
May 24, 1977, prevents federal agencies from
contributing to the “adverse impacts associated
with occupancy and modification of floodplains”
and the “direct or indirect support of floodplain
development.” In the course of fulfilling their
respective authorities, federal agencies Ashall
take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to
minimize the impact of floods on human safety,
health and welfare, and to restore and preserve
the natural and beneficial values served by
floodplains.
Executive Order 12996, Management and
General Public Use of the National Wildlife
Refuge System (1996): Defines the mission,
purpose, and priority public uses of the
National Wildlife Refuge System. It also
presents four principles to guide management
of the system.
Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites
(1996): Directs federal land management
agencies to accommodate access to and
ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian
religious practitioners, avoid adversely
affecting the physical integrity of such sacred
sites, and where appropriate, maintain the
confidentiality of sacred sites.
Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires
the use of integrated management systems to
control or contain undesirable plant species;
and an interdisciplinary approach with the
cooperation of other federal and state agencies.
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1119;
16 U.S.C. 742a–742J), as amended:
Establishes a comprehensive fish and wildlife
policy and directs the Secretary of the Interior
to provide continuing research; extension and
conservation of fish and wildlife resources.
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980
(Public Law 96-366, September 29, 1980, 16
U.S.C. 2901–2911, as amended 1986, 1988,
1990 and 1992): Creates a mechanism for
federal matching funding of the development of
state conservation plans for nongame fish and
wildlife. Subsequent amendments to this law
require that the Secretary monitor and assess
migratory nongame birds, determine the
effects of environmental changes and human
activities, identify birds likely to be candidates
for endangered species listing, and identify
conservation actions that would prevent this
from being necessary. In 1989, Congress also
directed the Secretary to identify lands and
waters in the Western Hemisphere, the
protection, management or acquisition of which
would foster conservation of migratory
nongame birds. All of these activities are
Key Legislation and Policies 103
intended to assist the Secretary in fulfilling the
Secretary=s responsibilities under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Migratory
Bird Conservation Act, and provisions of the
Endangered Species Act implementing the
Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife
Preservation in the Western Hemisphere.
Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978:
Improves the administration of fish and wildlife
programs and amends several earlier laws,
including the Refuge Recreation Act, the
National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act,
and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It
authorizes the Secretary to accept gifts and
bequests of real and personal property on
behalf of the United States. It also authorizes
the use of volunteers on Service projects and
appropriations to carry out volunteer
programs.
Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act
(16 U.S.C. 461–462, 464–467): The act of
August 21, 1935, (49 Stat. 666) popularly known
as the Historic Sites Act, as amended by Public
Law 89-249, approved October 9, 1965, (79 Stat.
971) declares it a national policy to preserve
historic sites and objects of national
significance, including those located on refuges.
It provides procedures for designation,
acquisition, administration and protection of
such sites. Among other things, National
Historic and Natural Landmarks are
designated under authority of this act. As of
January 1989, 31 national wildlife refuges
contained such sites.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
(LWCFA) of 1965: Provides funds from
leasing bonuses, production royalties and rental
revenues for offshore oil, gas, and sulphur
extraction to the Bureau of Land Management,
the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and state and local agencies
for purchase of lands for parks, open space, and
outdoor recreation.
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16
U.S.C. 715–715d, 715e,715f–715r):
Establishes the Migratory Bird Conservation
Commission, which consists of the Secretaries
of the Interior (chairman), Agriculture, and
Transportation, two members from the House
of Representatives, and an ex-officio member
from the state in which a project is located. The
Commission approves acquisition of land and
water, or interests therein, and sets the
priorities for acquisition of lands by the
Secretary for sanctuaries or for other
management purposes. Under this act, to
acquire lands, or interests therein, the state
concerned must consent to such acquisition by
legislation. Such legislation has been enacted
by most states.
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16
U.S.C. 715-s, 45 Stat. 1222), as amended:
Authorizes acquisition, development, and
maintenance of migratory bird refuges;
cooperation with other agencies, in
conservation; and investigations and
publications on North American birds.
Authorizes payment of 25 percent of net
receipts from administration of national wildlife
refuges to the country or counties in which
such refuges are located.
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation
Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718–718h; 48
Stat. 51), as amended: The “Duck Stamp Act,”
as this March 16, 1934, authority is commonly
called, requires each waterfowl hunter 16 years
of age or older to possess a valid federal
hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the
stamp are deposited in a special Treasury
account known as the Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund and are not subject to
appropriations.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16
U.S.C. 703–711; 50 CFR Subchapter B), as
amended: Implements treaties with Great
Britain (for Canada) and Mexico for protection
of migratory birds whose welfare is a federal
responsibility. Provides for regulations to
control taking, possession, selling,
transporting, and importing of migratory birds
and provides penalties for violations.
National and Community Service Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12401; 104 Stat. 3127): Public Law
101-610, signed November 16, 1990, authorizes
several programs to engage citizens of the U.S.
in full- and/or part-time projects designed to
combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job
skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill
environmental needs. Several provisions are of
particular interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
American Conservation and Youth Service
Corps: As a federal grant program
established under Subtitle C of the law, the
Corps offers an opportunity for young
adults between the ages of 16–25, or in the
case of summer programs, 15–21, to engage
104 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
in approved human and natural resources
projects which benefit the public or are
carried out on federal or Indian lands.
To be eligible for assistance, natural
resources programs will focus on
improvement of wildlife habitat and
recreational areas, fish culture, fishery
assistance, erosion, wetlands protection,
pollution control and similar projects. A
stipend of not more than 100 percent of the
poverty level will be paid to participants. A
Commission established to administer the
Youth Service Corps will make grants to
states, the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Interior and the Director of ACTION to
carry out these responsibilities.
Thousand Points of Light: Creates a
nonprofit Points of Light Foundation to
administer programs to encourage citizens
and institutions to volunteer in order to
solve critical social issues, and to discover
new leaders and develop institutions
committed to serving others.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
(16 U.S.C. 470–470b, 470c–470n): Public Law
89-665, approved October 15, 1966, (80 Stat.
915) and repeatedly amended, provides for
preservation of significant historical features
(buildings, objects and sites) through a
grant-in-aid program to the states. It
establishes a National Register of Historic
Places and a program of matching grants under
the existing National Trust for Historic
Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468–468d).
The act establishes an Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, which was made a
permanent independent agency in Public Law
94-422, approved September 28, 1976 (90 Stat.
1319). That act also creates the Historic
Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are
directed to take into account the effects of their
actions on items or sites listed or eligible for
listing in the National Register.
As of January 1989, 91 historic sites on national
wildlife refuges have been placed on the
National Register. There are various laws for
the preservation of historic sites and objects:
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347, January 1,
1970, 83 Stat. 852) as amended by P.L. 94-52,
July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258, and P.L. 94-83,
August 9, 1975, 89 Stat. 424): Declares
national policy to encourage a productive and
enjoyable harmony between humans and their
environment. Section 102 of that act directs
that “to the fullest extent possible:
􀁑􅅔 The policies, regulations, and public
laws of the United States shall be
interpreted and administered in
accordance with the policies set forth in
this act, and
􀁑􅅁 All agencies of the federal government
shall ... insure that presently
unquantified environmental amenities
and values may be given appropriate
consideration in decision making along
with economic technical considerations.”
Section 102(2)c of NEPA requires all federal
agencies, with respect to major federal actions
significantly affecting the quality the quality of
the human environment, to submit to the
Council on environmental Quality a detailed
statement of:
􀁑􅅴 the environmental impact of the
proposed action;
􀁑􅅡 any adverse environmental effect which
cannot be avoided should the proposal
be implemented;
􀁑􅅡 alternatives to the proposed action;
􀁑􅅴 the relationship between local short-term
uses of the environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity;
􀁑􅅡 any irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources which would
be involved in the proposed action,
should it be implemented.
National Wildlife Refuge Regulations for the
most recent fiscal year (50 CFR 25–35, 43
CFR 3103.2 and 3120.3-3): Provides
regulations for administration and management
of national wildlife refuges including mineral
leasing, exploration, and development.
National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-
669; 80 Stat. 929; 16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee), as
amended: This act defines the National
Wildlife Refuge System as including wildlife
refuges, areas for protection and conservation
of fish and wildlife which are threatened with
extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges,
wildlife management areas, and WPAs. The
Secretary is authorized to permit any use of an
Key Legislation and Policies 105
area provided such use is compatible with the
major purposes for which such area was
established. The purchase consideration for
rights-of-way go into the Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund for the acquisition of lands.
By regulation, up to 40 percent of an area
acquired for a migratory bird sanctuary may be
opened to migratory bird hunting unless the
Secretary finds that the taking of any species
of migratory game birds in more than 40
percent of such area would be beneficial to the
species. The act requires an act of Congress for
the divestiture of lands in the system, except
(1) lands acquired with Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission funds, and (2) lands
can be removed from the system by land
exchange, or if brought into the system by a
cooperative agreement, then pursuant to the
terms of the agreement.
National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-
57, October 9, 1997, Amendment to the
National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966): This act defines
the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System:
“To administer a national network of
lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate,
restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant
resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefit of present
and future generations of Americans.”
Key provisions include the following:
􀁑􅅁 A requirement that the Secretary of the
Interior ensures maintenance of the
biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the National
Wildlife Refuge System;
􀁑􅅔 The definition of compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation as “legitimate and
appropriate general public use of the
[National Wildlife Refuge] System;”
􀁑􅅔 The establishment of hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation and photography,
and environmental education and
interpretation as “priority public uses”
where compatible with the mission and
purpose of individual national wildlife
refuges;
􀁑􅅔 The refuge managers’ authority to use
sound professional judgment in
determining which public uses are
compatible on national wildlife refuge
and whether or not they will be allowed
(a formal process for determining
“compatible use” is currently being
developed);
􀁑􅅔 The requirement of open public
involvement in decisions to allow new
uses of national wildlife refuges and
renew existing ones, as well as in the
development of comprehensive
conservation plans for national wildlife
refuges.
North American Wetlands Conservation Act
(103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 4401–4412): Public
Law 101-233, enacted December 13, 1989,
provides funding and administrative direction
for implementation of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan and the
Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between
Canada, U.S. and Mexico.
The act converts the Pittman–Robertson
account into a trust fund, with the interest
available without appropriation through the
year 2006 to carry out the programs authorized
by the act, along with an authorization for
annual appropriation of $15 million plus an
amount equal to the fines and forfeitures
collected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Available funds may be expended, upon
approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation
Commission, for payment of not to exceed 50
percent of the United States share of the cost
of wetlands conservation projects in Canada,
Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of
the cost of projects on federal lands). At least
50 percent and no more than 70 percent of the
funds received are to go to Canada and Mexico
each year.
Refuge Recreation Act of 1962: Authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior to administer
refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation
areas for recreational use, when such uses do
not interfere with the area=s primary purposes.
It authorizes construction and maintenance of
recreational facilities and the acquisition of
land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented
recreational development or protection of
natural resources. It also authorizes the
charging of fees for public uses.
Refuge Recreation Act of 1966 (Public Law
87-714; 76 Stat. 653–654; 16 U.S.C. 460k et
seq.): Authorizes appropriate, incidental, or
secondary recreational use on conservation
106 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
areas administered by the Secretary of the
Interior for fish and wildlife purposes.
Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C.
715s): Section 401 of the act of June 15, 1935,
(49 Stat. 383) provides for payments to counties
in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from
the sale of products from refuges.
Public Law 88-523, approved August 30,
1964, (78 Stat. 701): makes major revisions
by requiring that all revenues received from
refuge products, such as animals, timber
and minerals, or from leases or other
privileges, be deposited in a special
Treasury account and net receipts
distributed to counties for public schools
and roads.
Public Law 93-509, approved December 3,
1974, (88 Stat. 1603): requires that moneys
remaining in the fund after payments be
transferred to the Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund for land acquisition
under provisions of the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act.
Public Law 95-469, approved October 17,
1978, (92 Stat. 1319): expands the revenue
sharing system to include National Fish
Hatcheries and Service research stations. It
also includes in the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Fund receipts from the sale of
salmonid carcasses. Payments to counties
were established as:
1. On acquired land, the greatest amount
calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre,
three-fourths of one percent of the
appraised value, or 25 percent of the net
receipts produced from the land; and
2. On land withdrawn from the public
domain, 25 percent of net receipts and
basic payments under Public Law 94-565
(31 U.S.C. 1601–1607, 90 Stat. 2662),
payment in lieu of taxes on public lands.
This amendment also authorizes
appropriations to make up any difference
between the amount in the Fund and the
amount scheduled for payment in any
year. The stipulation that payments be
used for schools and roads was removed,
but counties were required to pass
payments along to other units of local
government within the county which
suffer losses in revenues due to the
establishment of Service areas.
Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1978 (Public
Law 95-469, October 17, 1978, [amended 16
U.S.C. 715s]; 50 CFR, part 34): Changes the
provisions for sharing revenues with counties
in a number of ways. It makes revenue sharing
applicable to all lands administered by the
Service, whereas previously it was applicable
only to areas in the National Wildlife Refuge
System. The new law makes payments
available for any governmental purpose,
whereas the old law restricted the use of
payments to roads and schools. For lands
acquired in fee simple, the new law provides a
payment of 75 cents per acre, 3/4 of 1 percent of
fair market value or 25 percent of net receipts,
whichever is greatest, whereas the old law
provided a payment of 3/4 of 1 percent
adjustment cost or 25 percent of net receipts,
whichever was greater. The new law makes
reserve (public domain) lands entitlement lands
under Public Law 94-565 (16 U.S.C. 1601–1607,
and provides for a payment of 25 percent of net
receipts.
The new law authorizes appropriations to make
up any shortfall in net receipts, to make
payments in the full amount for which counties
are eligible. The old law provided that if net
receipts were insufficient to make full payment,
payment to each county would be reduced
proportionality.
Refuge Trespass Act of June 28, 1906 (18
U.S.C. 41; 43 Stat. 98, 18 U.S.C. 145):
Provides first federal protection for wildlife on
national wildlife refuges. This act makes it
unlawful to hunt, trap, capture, willfully
disturb, or kill any bird or wild animal, or take
or destroy the eggs of any such birds, on any
lands of the United States set apart or
reserved as refuges or breeding grounds for
such birds or animals by any law, proclamation,
or executive order, except under rules and
regulations of the Secretary. The act also
protects government property on such lands.
Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18
U.S.C. 41. Stat 686)CSection 41 of the
Criminal code, title 18: Consolidates the
penalty provisions of various acts from January
24, 1905 (16 U.S.C. 684–687; 33 Stat. 614),
through March 10, 1934 (16 U.S.C. 694–694b; 48
Stat. 400) and restates the intent of Congress
to protect all wildlife within federal
sanctuaries, refuges, fish hatcheries and
Key Legislation and Policies 107
breeding grounds. The act provides that
anyone (except in compliance with rules and
regulations promulgated by authority of law)
who hunts, traps or willfully disturbs any
wildlife on such areas, or willfully injures,
molest or destroys any property of the United
States on such lands or waters, shall be fined,
imprisoned, or both.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794 ),
as amended: Title 5 of P.L. 93-112 (87 Stat.
355), signed October 1, 1973, prohibits
discrimination on the basis of handicap under
any program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance.
Rights-of-Way General Regulations (50 CFR
29.21; 34 fr 19907, December 19, 1969):
Provides for procedures for filing applications.
Provides terms and conditions under which
rights-of-way over, above, and across lands
administered by the Service may be granted.
Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500; 86
Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. 1411): Requires any
applicant for a federal license or permit to
conduct any activity which may result in a
discharge into navigable waters to obtain a
certification from the state in which the
discharge originates or will originate, or, if
appropriate, from the interstate water
pollution control agency having jurisdiction
over navigable waters at the point where the
discharge originates or will originate, that the
discharge will comply with applicable effluent
limitations and water quality standards. A
certification obtained for construction of any
facility must also pertain to subsequent
operation of the facility.
Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500, 86
Stat. 816): Authorizes the Secretary of the
Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
to issue permits, after notice and opportunity
for public hearing, for discharge of dredged or
fill material into navigable waters of the United
States, including wetlands, at specified disposal
sites. Selection of disposal sites will be in
accordance with guidelines developed by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency in conjunction with the Secretary of
the Army. Furthermore, the Administrator can
prohibit or restrict use of any defined area as a
disposal site whenever she/he determines, after
notice and opportunity for public hearings, that
discharge of such materials into such areas will
have an unacceptable adverse effect on
municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, fishery
areas, wildlife, or recreational areas.
Transfer of Certain Real Property for
Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948:
Provides that upon determination by the
Administrator of the General Services
Administration, real property no longer needed
by a federal agency can be transferred, without
reimbursement, to the Secretary of the
Interior if the land has particular value for
migratory birds, or to a state agency for other
wildlife conservation purposes.
Wilderness Act of 1964: Public Law 88-577,
approved September 3, 1964, directs the
Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, to
review every roadless area of 5,000 or more
acres and every roadless island (regardless of
size) within National Wildlife Refuge and
National Park Systems for inclusion in the
National Wilderness Preservation System.
Administration of national wildlife refuges is
governed by bills passed by the United States
Congress and signed into law by the President
of the United States, and by regulations
promulgated by the various branches of the
government. Following is a brief description of
some of the most pertinent laws and statues
establishing legal parameters and policy
direction for the National Wildlife Refuge
System:
Wilderness Preservation and Management]
(50 CFR 35; 78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1131–
1136; 43 U.S.C. 1201): Provides procedures for
establishing wilderness units under the
Wilderness Act of 1964 on units of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
108 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab,
W.H. (eds.). 1994. Ecoregions and subregions
of the United States (map) (supplementary
table of map unit descriptions compiled and
edited by McNab, W.H. and Bailey, R.G.):
Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, scale 1:7,500,000.
Bryce, S., J.M. Omernik, D.E. Pater, M. Ulmer,
J. Schaar, J. Freeouf, R. Johnson, P. Kuck,
and S.H. Azevedo. 1998. Ecoregions of North
Dakota and South Dakota. Jamestown, ND:
Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center
Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource
/1998/ndsdeco/ndsdeco.htm (Version 30NOV98).
Bureau of Biological Survey. 1939. News
release. Twenty Areas in North Dakota Made
Refuges for Wildlife.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T.
LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND:
Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center
Online.  (Version 04DEC98).
Hendee, C.J. et al. 1990. Wilderness
Management. Fulcrum Publishing, North
American Press, CO.
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 1941.
Meeting Minutes. March 25, 1941.
National Wilderness Institute. 1995. State by
state government land ownership.

North Dakota Job Service Data. 2004.
Downloaded from: 
North Dakota Legislative Branch. 2005. Maps of
Legislative Districts. Downloaded from:

Office of Social and Economic Trend Analysis.
2002. Population Estimates 2001–2003.
Downloaded from: 
Reynolds, R.E., D.R. Cohan, and C.R. Loesch.
1997. Wetlands of North and South Dakota.
Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife
Research Center Home Page.  (Version 01OCT97).
Sargeant, A.B., S.H. Allen, and R.T. Eberhardt.
1984. Red fox predation on breeding ducks in
mid-continent North America. Wildlife
Monographs No. 89, ISSN:0084–0173
Sargeant, Alan B., Raymond J. Greenwood,
Marsha A. Sovada, and Terry L. Shaffer.
1993. Distribution and abundance of
predators that affect duck production—
Prairie Pothole Region. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 194.
Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife
Research Center Home Page. 
Sargeant, A.B., M.A. Sovada, and R. J.
Greenwood. 1998. Interpreting evidence of
depredation of duck nests in the prairie
pothole region. U.S. Geological Survey,
Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center,
Jamestown, N.D. and Ducks Unlimited, Inc.,
Memphis, TN. 72 p.
Sargeant, A.B., and D.H. Raveling. 1992.
Mortality during the breeding season. Pages
396–422 in B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G.
Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D. H. Johnson, J.A.
Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu, eds. Ecology and
management of breeding waterfowl. Univ. of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 635 p.
Sovada, M.A., M.J. Burns, and J.E. Austin. 2001.
Predation on waterfowl in arctic tundra and
prairie breeding areas: a review. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 29(1): 6–15.
Stapp, W.B., et al. (1969). The Concept of
Environmental Education. Journal of
Environmental Education 1(1): 30–31.
Steen, M.O. Unknown Date (1930s). U.S. Bureau
of Biological Survey. Submarginal Migratory
Waterfowl Program, North Dakota Easement
Projects.
Steen, M.O. Unknown Date (mid-1930s). U.S.
Bureau of Biological Survey. Development of
Federal Refuges in the Great Plains Region
with Emergency Relief Funds.
U.S. Bureau of Census. 2000. United States
Census 2000, North Dakota. Downloaded
Appendix E. References
110 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
from: 
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. USDA
Census of Agriculture. Downloaded from:

U.S. Department of Labor. 2005. U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics Report. Downloaded from:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004.
Wetlands Overview. EPA 843-F-04-011a,
Office of Water. Downloaded from:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. HAPET
and Ducks Unlimited joint venture data.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Purposes of
the National Wildlife Refuge System Lands.
September 27, 2000. Downloaded from:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Presence in North Dakota. 2000.
Downloaded from: 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. National
Wetlands Inventory Data.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Region 6
Realty Database.
MEMORANDUM
To: Refuge Manager, Tewaukon NWR
Cayuga, North Dakota (Attn: Laura King)
From: Field Supervisor, Ecological Services
Bismarck, North Dakota
Subject: Review of Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for
the North Dakota Limited-Interest National Wildlife Refuges
This responds to your recent request for our review of the “Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment (Plan) for the North Dakota Limited-Interest National Wildlife
Refuges (NWR). The draft Plan describes the Refuges’ vision for the future, and management goals
and objectives in the areas of habitat, wildlife, cultural resources, and wildlife-dependent recreation.
The final Plan will guide management of the Refuges for the next 15 years.
A list of federally endangered, threatened, and candidate species and designated critical habitat in
North Dakota is enclosed, as requested. This list fulfills requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Service
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
If a Federal agency authorizes, funds, or carries out a proposed action, the responsible Federal agency,
or its delegated agent, is required to evaluate whether the action “may affect” listed species or
proposed or designated critical habitat. If the Federal agency determines the action “may affect” listed
species or proposed or designated critical habitat, then the responsible Federal agency shall request
formal section 7 consultation with this office. If the evaluation shows a “no effect” determination for
listed species and “no adverse modification” of proposed or designated critical habitat, further
consultation is not necessary. If a private entity receives Federal funding for a construction project, or
if any Federal permit is required, the Federal agency may designate the fund recipient or permittee as
its agent for purposes of section 7 consultation.
A review of our records indicates that the threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodus) has been
observed at Lake George NWR, which is one of the sites addressed in the draft Plan. A total of 2 piping
plover pairs, 3 juveniles, and 1 adult were found at the site in 1993. No other observations have been
recorded, likely due to lack of suitable habitat from high water conditions. Lake George NWR was not
designated as piping plover critical habitat because it did not meet criteria established by the Fish and
Wildlife Service (i.e., breeding piping plovers observed in more than 1 year for the period of survey
record). No sites addressed in the draft Plan have been designated as piping plover critical habitat.
Appendix F. Section 7 Biological Evaluation
112 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
Confirmed sightings of the endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) during spring or fall
migration are known from 5 sites addressed in the draft Plan, as follows:
Limited-Interest NWR Date Number of Adults Number of Juveniles Total
Dakota Lake 10-16-90 2 0 2
Lake Patricia 4-10-00 6 0 6
Pretty Rock 10-28-85 6 1 7
Pretty Rock 10-16-02 6 1 7
Pretty Rock 11-2-04 2 0 2
Sheyenne Lake 4-11-85 5 0 5
Willow Lake 4-15-98 5 0 5
Thank you for coordinating your draft Plan with our office. If additional information is required, please
contact Karen Kreil of my staff or myself at 701-250-4481 or at the letterhead address.
Attachments
Section 7 Biological Evaluation 113
FEDERAL THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES
AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT FOUND IN
NORTH DAKOTA
December 2005
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Birds
Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum): Nests along midstream sandbars of the Missouri and
Yellowstone Rivers.
Whooping crane (Grus Americana): Migrates through west and central counties during spring and fall.
Prefers to roost on wetlands and stockdams with good visibility. Young adult summered in North
Dakota in 1989, 1990, and 1993. Total population 140–150 birds.
Fish
Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus): Known only from the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers. No
reproduction has been documented in 15 years.
Mammals
Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes): Exclusively associated with prairie dog towns. No records of
occurrence in recent years, although there is potential for reintroduction in the future.
Gray wolf (Canis lupus): Occasional visitor in North Dakota. Most frequently observed in the Turtle
Mountains area.
THREATENED SPECIES
Birds
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): Migrates spring and fall statewide but primarily along the
major river courses. It concentrates along the Missouri River during winter and is known to nest in the
floodplain forest.
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus): Nests on midstream sandbars of the Missouri and Yellowstone
Rivers and along shorelines of saline wetlands. More nest in North Dakota than any other state.
Plants
W. prairie-fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara): Locally common in moist swales on Sheyenne
National Grasslands. Largest known U.S. population is on the Sheyenne.
114 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
CANDIDATE SPECIES
Invertebrates
Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae): Found in native prairie containing a high diversity of wildflowers
and grasses. Habitat includes two prairie types: 1) low (wet) prairie dominated by bluestem grasses,
wood lily, harebell, and smooth camas; 2) upland (dry) prairie on ridges and hillsides dominated by
bluestem grasses, needlegrass, pale purple and upright coneflowers and blanketflower.
DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
Birds
Piping Plover - Alkali Lakes and Wetlands - Critical habitat includes: (1) shallow, seasonally to
permanently flooded, mixosaline to hypersaline wetlands with sandy to gravelly, sparsely vegetated
beaches, salt-encrusted mud flats, and/or gravelly salt flats; (2) springs and fens along edges of alkali
lakes and wetlands; and (3) adjacent uplands 200 feet (61 meters) above the high water mark of the
alkali lake or wetland.
Piping Plover - Missouri River - Critical habitat includes sparsely vegetated channel sandbars, sand
and gravel beaches on islands, temporary pools on sandbars and islands, and the interface with the
river.
Piping Plover - Lake Sakakawea and Oahe - Critical habitat includes sparsely vegetated shoreline
beaches, peninsulas, islands composed of sand, gravel, or shale, and their interface with the water
bodies.
Section 7 Biological Evaluation 115
County Occurrence of Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species and Designated Critical Habitat in North Dakota March 2005 through December 2005
Species
Adams
Barnes
Benson
Billings
Bottineau
Bowman
Burke
Burleigh
Cass
Cavalier
Dickey
Divide
Dunn
Eddy
Emmons
Foster
Go Valley
Gr. Forks
Grant
Griggs
Hettinger
Kidder
Lamoure
Logan
McHenry
McIntosh
McKenzie
Interior
Least Tern
- E
X X X X
Whooping
Crane - E
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Black-footed
Ferret - E
X X X X X X X X
Pallid
Sturgeon -
E
X X X X
Gray Wolf -
E
X X X X X X X X X X X
Bald Eagle
- T
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Piping
Plover - T
X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Western
Prairie
Fringed
Orchid - T
Dakota
Skipper - C
X X X X
Designated Critical Habitat
Piping
Plover
X X X X X X X X X X X X
E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate
116 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
County Occurrence of Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species and Designated Critical Habitat in North Dakota March 2005 through December 2005
Species
McLean
Mercer
Morton
Mountrail
Nelson
Oliver
Pembina
Pierce
Ramsey
Ransom
Renville
Richland
Rolette
Sargent
Sheridan
Sioux
Slope
Stark
Steele
Stutsman
Towner
Trail
Walsh
Ward
Wells
Williams
Interior Least
Tern – E
X X X X X X X
Whooping Crane -
E
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Black-footed
Ferret – E
X X X X X X
Pallid Sturgeon -
E
X X X X X X X
Gray Wolf – E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Bald Eagle - T X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Piping Plover - T X X X X X X X X X X X X X
W. P. Fringed
Orchid – T
X X
Dakota Skipper -
C
X X X X X X
Designated Critical Habitat
Piping Plover X X X X X X X X X X X X
E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate
Section 7 Biological Evaluation 117
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mountain-Prairie Region
IN REPLY REFER TO: MAILING ADDRESS:
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge
9754 143 ½ Ave. SE
Cayuga, ND 58013
January 11, 2006
To: Jeffrey Towner, Field Supervisor, Ecological Services
Bismarck, North Dakota
From: Laura King, Planning Team Leader
Cayuga, North Dakota
Subject: Section 7 consultation for the North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
This memo is to request your concurrence of a ‘no effect’ determination for the actions proposed
in the North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation
Plan (CCP).
Based on the information provided by your office, we don’t feel that any action in this plan will
affect endangered species or proposed or designated critical habitat. According to Service data,
there is no suitable habitat on any of these 39 refuges for such federally listed species such as
pallid sturgeon, black-footed ferret, or least tern. Our refuges located near the Turtle Mountain
area, an area known for wolf dispersal, do not have the habitat needed to sustain wolf
populations. Bald eagles may pass through these refuges during migration, but no refuge
contains significant riparian habitat, the preferred habitat of bald eagles. The Dakota skipper is
a candidate species known to occur in North Dakota; however there are no records of Dakota
skipper on lands included in the ND Limited-interest CCP. Regardless, the activities proposed
in this plan would not impact any of these species but rather are generally consistent with
recovery of these candidate, threatened, and endangered animals.
Piping plovers were identified on Lake George NWR. However, this occurrence was one year
only and therefore is not designated as piping plover critical habitat. Even though the goals in
this plan support piping plover recovery, the refuges will consult with Ecological Services on
any future management at this site that may affect the piping plover.
Migrating whooping cranes have been identified at five of the refuges in this project. However,
these occurrences are sporadic with either single sightings or with two to seven years between
occurrences. Although the actions proposed in this plan support whooping crane recovery, the
118 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
refuges will consult with Ecological Services on any future management actions that may affect
whooping cranes.
We appreciated you assistance in completing this consultation. If additional information is
needed, please contact me at Tewaukon NWR at 701-724-3598 (ext. *814).
Section 7 Biological Evaluation 119
120 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
I. Introduction
The divestiture model represents a set of criteria for measuring the value of a refuge. Designed as a pre-planning
tool, the model allows planners and refuge managers to determine whether or not a refuge
should be considered for divestiture. If the model indicates that a refuge should be considered for
divestiture, the process and consequences of divestiture will be studied further during the CCP process.
Six of the 39 refuges were recommended for divestiture following these criteria.
II. The Divestiture Model – Criteria and Rules
Region 6’s divestiture model was developed during a two day workshop held December 14–15, 2004 by a
team of refuge managers, biologists, planner, and the Regional Office directorate. The purpose of the
workshop was to standardize policy in Region 6 for identifying which refuges to consider for divestiture.
The Service recognizes that this is very significant decision and that divestiture will always be the
exception and not the rule. However, in a 100 year history of establishing refuges, there may be
instances, such as in the case of the North Dakota Limited-interest Program, where refuges no longer
support the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These refuges may be draining
resources from those areas with greater potential.
The model consists of a set of eight questions that must be addressed when considering a refuge for
divestiture. The questions were prioritized as primary and secondary criteria for evaluation.
A. Primary Criteria
1. Does the refuge achieve one or more of the NWRS goals?
Explanation: Look beyond the purpose to see if the refuge is meeting NWRS goals. Refuge purpose is
forever, but may become obsolete over time (e.g. recovery of T&E species). Obsolete purpose doesn’t
necessarily mean we should get rid of the refuge.
2. Does the refuge meet its purpose (fulfill the refuge’s intent and statutory purpose)?
Explanation: Try to understand the intent of decision makers at the time the refuge was established.
3. Does the refuge provide substantial support for migratory bird species, provide important
sheltering habitat for threatened and endangered species, or support species identified in
authorizing legislation?
Explanation: The planning team that answers this question must define ‘substantial.’ Refuge context is
the key consideration. Substantial is relative to species, location, region etc.
Example: Flocks of migratory birds (thousands) would be considered substantial.
4A. Does the refuge have biological integrity; if not, is it feasible to restore the biological integrity
of the converted or degraded habitat?
Explanation: The presence of native habitat is not enough to meet NWRS standard; USFWS is not
trying to save every remnant species. Identify what has changed from presettlement habitat conditions.
Consider the contribution to regional biodiversity.
4B. Does the Service have or can it reasonably acquire the right to restore the habitat?
Biological integrity = native habitat and contribution to regional biodiversity.
Degraded = Native vegetation exists but the value has been reduced due to nonnatives and loss of
ecological functions.
Appendix G. Divestiture Model
122 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
*In order to answer “yes” on biological integrity need to answer yes on both “4A” and “4B”
5. Does it contribute to landscape conservation, provide a stepping stone for migratory birds or
serve as a unique habitat patch important to the conservation of a Trust species?
B. Secondary Criteria
6. Politics/Community – Is there such significant community interest in and support for the refuge
that divesture would result in unacceptable long-term public relations?
Explanation: Environmental education is a means to an end; not a purpose in itself; conservation must be
broader than refuge. Public Use should be considered as criteria only when public use is legislated in the
purpose.
7. Jurisdiction – Do we have or can we acquire the jurisdiction to meet refuge’s purpose, NWRS
mission and goals, and prevent incompatible uses?
8. Other Land Manager - Can someone else achieve most or all of the purposes of the refuge
without the Service having to incurring costs?
(This question is very relative to these limited-interest refuges where the Service in essence remains in
name only, e.g. Sheyenne Lake NWR. Three of the six refuges proposed for divestiture are either owned
and/or being managed by the state)
C. Additional Considerations
9. Cost/Liability – Cost will never be a primary or secondary factor for divesting a refuge; cost (in
itself) should not be a criterion for divesting land.
􀂃􈍉 If cost is a consideration for divestiture, it is because some other factor is driving the decision.
􀂃􈍔 Treat cost as a piece of information that can be used to justify decision
􀂃􈍌 Liability is an additive to a decision to either keep or divest a refuge, but it is not a primary or
secondary decision making criteria.
D. Rules – The following five rules organize the responses to the above criteria questions and determine
whether or not to consider a refuge for divestiture.
Rule 1: IF the refuge cannot meet one or more NWRS goals, THEN it should be considered for
divestiture.
Rule 2: IF the answers to questions 1–4 are as follows,
1. Yes – Meets a NWRS goal, but only the education goal
2. No – Does not meet refuge purpose
3. No – Does not substantially support trust species
4. No – Does not possess biological integrity
THEN the refuge should be considered for divestiture.
Rule 3: IF the answers to questions 1–5 are as follows,
1. Yes – Meets a NWRS goal, but only the education goal
2. Yes - Purpose
3. No – Trust Species
4. No – Biological Integrity
5. No – Connectivity
THEN the refuge should be considered for divestiture.
Rule 4: IF the answers to questions 1–6 are as follows,
1. Yes – Goal
2. Maybe – Purpose
3. No – Trust Species
4. Yes – Biological Integrity
5. No – Connectivity
Divestiture Model 123
6. Yes – Jurisdiction
THEN keep the refuge (positive rule).
Rule 5: IF the answers to questions 1–3 are as follows,
1. Yes – Goal
2. Yes – Purpose
3. Yes – Trust Species
THEN keep the refuge (positive rule).
Note: Comprehensive conservation plans
provide long-term guidance for management
decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and
strategies needed to accomplish refuge
purposes and identify the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future
needs. These plans detail program planning
levels that are sometimes substantially above
current budget allocations, and, as such, are
primarily for Service strategic planning and
program prioritization purposes. The plans do
not constitute a commitment for staffing
increases, operational and maintenance
increases, or funding for future land
acquisition.
6.1 Introduction
During the next 15 years, the objectives and
strategies presented below will guide the
management of these refuges and future
allocations. The Service will implement this
CCP with assistance from willing landowners,
existing and new partner agencies and
organizations, and the public. No action taken
in this plan will have any negative impacts on
endangered species (see “Appendix F, Section
7 Biological Evaluation”).
Although a number of needs were identified
during the planning process, there are no
assurances that any projects would be fully or
even partially funded. However, within every
planning effort, there are opportunities to
examine current allocations of funding and
resources and determine the best available
uses based on a more comprehensive planning
evaluation of critical needs.
6.2 Refuge Divestiture Proposals
To date, over 93 percent of limited-interest
refuge lands remain in private ownership.
Within the approved acquisition boundary, 99
percent of the acres remain in private
ownership. For all practical purposes, after 70
years, the Service is still at a starting point for
attempting to give some assurance that these
lands can retain the qualities desirable in a
national wildlife refuge. To that end, the
Service first examined each refuge to
determine if it should be retained in the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
A Regional Team of managers, planners, and
regional directorate convened to develop a
Region 6 model for determining, as part of the
CCP process, whether a refuge should be
retained in the System (see “Appendix G,
Divestiture Model”). Factors were considered
in evaluating each refuge for retention, such as
(1) ability to meet the goals of the System,
(2) ability to meet the refuge purpose(s),
(3) existing biodiversity including native
habitat, (4) associated conservation lands, and
(5) current state and other federal management
of these areas. The limited-interest refuges
planning team utilized this model in their
decision making. The entire team reviewed
land status maps and listened to a presentation
by each managing station describing the
negative impacts and potential of each refuge.
Land status maps displayed associated
wetlands and other habitats as well as other
Service and state interests adjacent to or
surrounding each refuge. These included
Service wetland or grassland easements,
WPAs, NDGF Wildlife Management Areas,
and other NWRs.
Since the 1950s, when dozens of limited-interest
refuges were divested, no attempt has
been made to evaluate each refuge
comprehensively to determine its capability to
meet the goals of the System. In addition to
refuges lacking biodiversity due to negative
impacts, the Service also examined refuges
currently owned or managed by the state or
another federal agency. Because there will be
no opportunity for the Service to acquire any
additional interests in these lands, there is no
logical reason for the Service to continue to
retain any interest, particularly on state-owned
lands currently being managed for wildlife.
Additionally, the limited-interest refuges
cannot be equated to a similar fee-title refuge
where the Service has full management control.
Chapter 6. Management Direction
64 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
In the past 70 years, the Service has acquired
additional rights, primarily through acquisition,
on only 1 percent of the approved acquisition
boundaries. In addition, dozens of other
limited-interest refuges have been divested
since this Program was established. Most
recently in 1999, Lake Elsie National Wildlife
Refuge was divested due to habitat losses and
issues similar to the following divestiture
proposals.
Six refuges are being proposed for
consideration for divestiture:
􀁑􅅂 Bone Hill NWR
􀁑􅅃 Camp Lake NWR
􀁑􅅃 Cottonwood Lake NWR
􀁑􅅌 Lake Patricia NWR
􀁑􅅓 School Section Lake NWR
􀁑􅅓 Sheyenne Lake NWR
During scoping, the Service received numerous
requests from landowners to divest several of
the limited-interest refuges. Each refuge was
considered during discussions on divestiture.
For example, the Service received requests to
divest both Bone Hill and Sheyenne Lake
NWRs, which are now on the divestiture list.
Several meetings were held with the
landowners of Camp Lake NWR in the past to
discuss divestiture and there is support.
Lake Patricia is primarily owned and managed
by the state and has long supported
divestiture.
Sheyenne Lake NWR is owned by the BOR
and managed by the state under a 1980s
agreement. The Service is present in name only
and there will be no loss of habitat for wildlife
from what occurs there today. BOR and the
state support divestiture of Sheyenne Lake.
Cottonwood Lake received one comment
against divestiture during scoping, but
divestiture has been supported by the majority
of the landowners in the past. The state also is
interested in managing this popular fishery.
No comments were received for School Section
Lake during scoping. However, the state owns
the upland areas surrounding the lake and
supports divestiture and acquiring
management.
Each of these refuges were established either
by executive order or other legislation. No
approval from the Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission was requested at the
time these refuges were established. Although
the specific details for divesting each of these
refuges will be addressed when the CCP is
implemented, the Service plans to provide the
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission the
proposals for divestiture and ask for its
concurrence. The final approval for divestiture
will require an act of Congress.
The following proposals provide a brief history
and justification for considering each of the six
refuges for divestiture.
Bone Hill NWR
Proposal and Justification
Three perpetual refuge and flowage easement
agreements were signed by private landowners
in LaMoure County in 1935. On May 10, 1939,
an executive order was signed by President
Roosevelt establishing these lands and waters
as Bone Hill National Wildlife Refuge (figure
18). An approved acquisition boundary was
designated within and around these limited-interest
refuge lands totaling 640 acres to serve
as a “refuge and breeding grounds for
migratory birds.” Because the Service never
acquired any of these lands fee title, the
purpose of this limited-interest refuge land is
contained in the easement agreements
including (a) water conservation, (b) drought
relief, (c) a wildlife demonstration unit, and (d)
a closed refuge and reservation for migratory
birds and other wildlife.
The land use and activities surrounding the
constructed and natural wetlands on the Bone
Hill NWR make management of these wetlands
for the benefit of migratory birds impractical.
Most of the refuge habitat has been converted
for tillage agriculture. Some of the refuge,
including the area around the main,
constructed impoundment, is currently being
used as a feedlot to raise domestic elk. As a
result, the remnant areas of grass or native
vegetation are severely overgrazed.
In addition, there is a farm house and
associated outbuildings on the refuge along
with a fertilizer plant. For this refuge to fulfill
its intended purposes according to the
executive order, the elk farm and the fertilizer
plant would have to be removed and the grass
areas restored, which is unrealistic to expect.
6⎯Management Direction 65
Figure 18. Bone Hill NWR
66 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
Additionally, the Service has no authority to
restore these uplands under the current
agreements.
Recommendation: Divest this limited-interest
refuge, revoke all the refuge and flowage
easement agreements, and voluntary relinquish
the water rights to the State. Negotiate with
the state to manage the water resource.
Camp Lake NWR
Proposal and Justification
In 1935 and 1936, seven perpetual and one
revocable refuge and flowage easement
agreements were signed by the state and
private landowners in McLean County. On May
10, 1939, an executive order was signed by
President Roosevelt establishing these lands
and waters as Camp Lake National Wildlife
Refuge (figure 19). An approved acquisition
boundary was designated within and around
these limited-interest refuge lands totaling
1,212 acres to serve as a “refuge and breeding
grounds for migratory birds.” Because the
Service never acquired any of these lands fee
title, the purpose of this limited-interest refuge
land is contained in the refuge and flowage
easement agreements including (a) water
conservation, (b) drought relief, (c) a wildlife
demonstration unit, and (d) a closed refuge and
reservation for migratory birds and other
wildlife.
In 1974 the limited-interest refuge for refuge
rights contained in Section 36 of T150N and
R80W and owned by the North Dakota State
Land Commissioner, acting on behalf of the
Board of University and School Lands, was
revoked on the non-meandered acreage. This
revocation reduced the limited-interest refuge
acreage to approximately 585 acres.
The current approximate boundary of the
refuge consists of the E½ SE¼ of Section 25,
T150N and R80W, the waters of Camp and
Strawberry lakes in Section 36, the SE¼ of
Section 35, T150N and R80W, and the E½ of
Section 2, T149N and R80W.
Camp and Strawberry lakes are controlled in
elevation by a dam and water control structure
located at the south end of Strawberry Lake.
Currently, the uplands within the refuge
boundary in Section 25 and the SE¼ of Section 2
are utilized for agriculture. The uplands in the
NE¼ of Section 2 and in Section 35 are
dominated by cabins and recreational features.
The lands and waters in and around Camp
Lake NWR have always been a popular
recreational area, even prior to establishment
of the national wildlife refuge. Recreational
development on Strawberry Lake increased in
the 1950s. Today development consists of over
149 cabins, a beach, resort, docks, boat ramp, a
road system, and a recreational services
district. The human impact of the cabins, boats,
sewage, swimming, personal water craft, and
recreational use on the refuge has greatly
reduced or eliminated the ability of this area to
meet its purpose and any goals of the System.
In addition, with the revocation of the state’s
limited-interest refuge, the Service no longer
has any means to regulate human disturbance
immediately adjacent to and around the entire
periphery of the lakes in Section 36.
The purpose for which this refuge was
established was based on attributes it
possessed and exhibited at the time of
establishment. Those attributes were relative
and conditionally linked to the original
contiguous size and shape characteristics. The
government’s interest in this refuge no longer
retains those size and shape characteristics.
Most importantly, the development of dozens of
lakeside cabins and the supporting recreational
facilities have rendered this refuge incapable of
ever meeting the purpose for which it was
originally established.
Rod Krey/USFWS
Boat docks and 149 cabins surround the lake on
Camp Lake NWR.
6⎯Management Direction 67
Figure 19. Camp Lake NWR
68 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
Recommendation: Divest the limited-interest
refuge, revoke the refuge and flowage
easements, and voluntarily relinquish the
water rights. Transfer management of the dam
to the McLean County Water Resource
District or the Strawberry Lake Recreation
District.
Cottonwood Lake NWR
Proposal and Justification
Seven perpetual refuge and flowage easement
agreements were signed in McHenry County
by private landowners between 1936 and 1937.
On June 12, 1939, an executive order was
signed by President Roosevelt establishing
these lands and waters as Cottonwood Lake
National Wildlife Refuge (figure 20). An
approved acquisition boundary was designated
within and around these limited-interest refuge
lands totaling 1,013 acres to serve as a “refuge
and breeding grounds for migratory birds.”
Because the Service never acquired any of
these lands fee title, the purpose of this limited-interest
refuge land is contained in the refuge
and flowage easement agreements including (a)
water conservation, (b) drought relief, (c) a
wildlife demonstration unit, and (d) a closed
refuge and reservation for migratory birds and
other wildlife.
Cottonwood Lake is the principle water area on
the refuge encompassing about 260 acres. It
receives water from runoff to the west and a
diversion ditch from the east. The boundary
consists of over 500 acres of uplands in Section
28 and parts of Section 21 and Section 33. Most
of the Cottonwood Lake boundary is the high
watermark on nearly two-thirds of the basin.
The uplands are in poor condition for waterfowl
and other migratory birds. Nearly all uplands
have been cultivated at some time and all have
planted tree lines and shelterbelts, as well as
trees that escaped cultivation, dotting the
landscape. Three roads either bisect the refuge
or transverse its boundary. There are two large
farmsteads within the boundary, two
permanent homes, and a seasonal mobile home.
The water control structure and spillway are in
disrepair and do not function as originally
planned. The diversion ditch to the east is filled
with sediment, has become overgrown with
brush and trees, and only functions under flood
conditions. Local residents poured concrete
into the water control structure and raised the
lake level by 1 foot. The spillway in most years
is nonfunctional and has blown out several
times in the past.
The NDGF completed repairs on the structure
to maintain the fishery. It also constructed a
boat ramp on the west shoreline on other
private land and encouraged fishing. This is the
main fishing area for the rural residents of the
Butte area. Historically, the residents have
worked to keep the lake deep so as to maintain
the fishery. The state periodically stocks the
lake with game fish.
Some local anglers want the lake maintained
for recreation. Attempts to plug the water
control structure and spillway have occurred
several times over the years. There also have
been attempts to divert more water to the lake
when possible. Any attempt to manage the lake
for migratory bird use was abandoned in the
1960s due to local resident hostilities.
By keeping the lake deep, the habitat value for
waterfowl has diminished. Little if any
submerged vegetation has been noted over the
years and little emergent vegetation has
established itself along the shore. Previous
managers have noted the area gets little use by
waterfowl or other water birds except for small
groups of birds during migration. Most times
nesting birds are disturbed by the numerous
boats using the area.
Laura King/USFWS
Cottonwood Lake NWR
6⎯Management Direction 69
Figure 20. Cottonwood Lake NWR
70 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
Wildlife use has been severely compromised
leaving limited remaining biological values
combined with long-standing law enforcement
issues, which will undoubtedly increase as
future developments (uses the Service does not
regulate) continue.
Recommendation: Divest the limited-interest
refuge and revoke the refuge and flowage
easement agreements. Voluntarily relinquish
the water right to the State, which should be
allowed to continue to operate the area as a
recreational fishery. Negotiations should be
initiated with the state to determine if a trade
for management responsibilities for
Cottonwood Lake NWR could be exchanged for
management rights on another limited-interest
refuge with greater wildlife values. The
Service should concentrate its efforts on other
neighboring Service interests with greater
potential, including the Cottonwood WPA and
the Wintering River NWR (another limited-interest
refuge).
Lake Patricia NWR
Proposal and Justification
Five refuge and flowage easement agreements
were signed by private landowners and the
state in Morton County between 1936 and 1938.
Two of these agreements with the state,
totaling 800 acres, are revocable; the remaining
four agreements are perpetual. On June 12,
1939, an executive order was signed by
President Roosevelt establishing these lands as
Lake Patricia National Wildlife Refuge (figure
21). An approved acquisition boundary was
designated within and around these limited-interest
refuge lands totaling 1,434 acres to
serve as a “…refuge and breeding grounds for
migratory birds.” Because the Service never
acquired any of these lands fee title, the
purpose of this limited-interest refuge land is
contained in the refuge easement agreements
including (a) water conservation, (b) drought
relief, (c) a wildlife demonstration unit, and (d)
a closed refuge and reservation for migratory
birds and other wildlife.
In 1949, the state of North Dakota revoked one
limited-interest refuge agreement for 640
acres. These lands and waters are located in
the center of the refuge in Section 36. The state
has an additional 160 acre area in Section 26,
where the easement has yet to be revoked.
The major feature of this refuge as established
was Lake Patricia. The majority of this lake is
located in Section 36 and is no longer protected
by a limited-interest refuge agreement. The
revoked lands surrounding Lake Patricia in
Section 36, are managed as wildlife habitat by
the NDGF. The remaining uplands still covered
by a limited-interest agreement, are used for
agricultural purposes and are of marginal
wildlife value.
In 1955, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
entered into a management agreement with
NDGF to manage the entire refuge. The long-range
plan was for the state to work with the
landowners within the refuge to acquire state
agreements similar to the federal refuge and
flowage easement agreements. This was
necessary as the federal agreements could not
be transferred to the state. The state has been
unable to obtain these agreements; therefore,
they requested the federal agreements remain
in effect. Nevertheless, the state has continued
to manage most of the refuge as a Wildlife
Management Area.
The purpose for which this refuge was
originally established was based on attributes
it possessed and exhibited at the time of
establishment. Those attributes were relative
and conditionally linked to the original size and
features. This refuge no longer retains those
characteristics. The majority of refuge and
migratory bird breeding use exists or is
associated with the part of Lake Patricia where
the limited-interest refuge agreement was
revoked. It would be more appropriate for the
state, which owns and currently manages most
of the lands within the refuge boundary, to take
jurisdiction over the area.
Recommendation: Divest the limited-interest
refuge, revoke the refuge and flowage
easement agreements, and voluntarily
relinquish the water rights and transfer
management of the structure to the State.
Allow the State to continue to operate the area
as a Wildlife Management Area. Negotiations
with the State will include determining if these
management responsibilities could be
exchanged for management rights on another
limited-interest refuge with greater wildlife
values.
6⎯Management Direction 71
Figure 21. Lake Patricia NWR
72 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
School Section Lake NWR
Proposal and Justification
One revocable and two perpetual refuge and/or
flowage easement agreements were signed
between 1935 and 1937 in Rolette County by
private landowners and the state. On
December 21, 1948, these lands and waters
became School Section Lake National Wildlife
Refuge (figure 22) under the authority of the
Act of August 14, 1946, a precursor the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act. An approved
acquisition boundary was designated within
and around these limited-interest refuge lands
totaling 680 acres. Because the Service never
acquired any of these lands fee title, the
purpose of this limited-interest refuge is
contained in the refuge and/or flowage
easement agreements including (a) water
conservation, (b) drought relief, (c) a wildlife
demonstration unit, and (d) a closed refuge and
reservation for migratory birds and other
wildlife.
In 1996, the revocable refuge and flowage
easement signed by the state was cancelled by
them. The agreement covered the land
described as T163N, R72W, Section 16, frac.
ALL (also described as Gov. Lots 1 thru 9,
S2SE3). This area (tract 2a) was about 383
acres of upland surrounding the 261-acre lake
in Section 16. The only remaining upland within
the existing limited-interest refuge boundary is
in another agreement described as T163N,
R72W, Section 9, Lot 4 comprised of 37 acres.
The original refuge consisting of 680 acres has
been reduced to 297 acres. Of the remaining
refuge, 88 percent is composed of the 261-acre
lake. The government no longer has
jurisdiction to prevent human disturbance
immediately adjacent to and around the entire
periphery of the lake.
Within Section 16, the legal boundary of the
lake is the now the legal boundary of the
remaining limited-interest refuge. To enforce
provisions of the limited-interest refuge, the
legal boundary must be adequately signed. For
the legal boundary to be signed, it must be
identifiable on the landscape. The water levels
in the lake fluctuate seasonally and from year
to year. Thus, this legal boundary is not
evident on the landscape. For this reason,
management personnel responsible for
enforcement of the limited-interest refuge
provisions have been reluctant to place signs
that would identify the modified boundary. In
addition, a lake does not make a refuge. The
diversity of habitats, found both on the lake
and in the surrounding uplands are necessary
for adequate protection, diversity,
enhancement, and management of a balance of
habitats necessary for healthy wildlife
populations, in particular federal trust species
such as nesting waterfowl and grassland birds.
The purpose for which this refuge was
originally established was based on attributes
it possessed and exhibited at the time of
establishment. Those attributes were relative
and conditionally linked to the original size and
features. This refuge no longer retains those
characteristics. Thus, in its downsized state, it
no longer meets the purpose for which it was
originally established.
Recommendation: Divest the limited-interest
refuge and revoke the refuge and/or flowage
easement agreements. Voluntarily relinquish
the water rights to the State.
Sheyenne Lake NWR
Proposal and Justification
In 1935, six separate perpetual refuge and
flowage easement agreements were signed by
private landowners in Sheridan County. On
December 21, 1948, these lands became
Sheyenne National Wildlife Refuge (figure 23)
under the authority of the act of August 14,
1946, a precursor the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act. An approved acquisition
boundary was designated within and around
these limited-interest refuge lands totaling
1,273 acres. Because the Service never
acquired any of these lands fee title, the
purpose of this limited-interest refuge land is
contained in the refuge and flowage easement
agreements including (a) water conservation,
(b) drought relief, (c) a wildlife demonstration
unit, and (d) a closed refuge and reservation for
migratory birds and other wildlife.
The lands on which the limited-interest refuge
is located have been purchased in fee title by
the BOR for Garrison Diversion Unit purposes,
a large irrigation project. As part of the 1986
Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act, the
area surrounding and containing the refuge
became known as the Lonetree Wildlife
Management Area. NDGF currently manages
the area under an agreement with BOR.
6⎯Management Direction 73
Figure 22. School Section Lake NWR
74 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 23. Sheyenne Lake NWR
6⎯Management Direction 75
The following objectives and
strategies address the remaining 33
refuges not proposed for divestiture.
The Service will not implement any
of the following actions, outside the
authority of the limited-interest
refuge agreement (see section 2.3),
without the cooperation of willing
landowners.
The refuge contains both Sheyenne and Coal
Mine lakes, which are the principle water areas
on the refuge. These lakes provide breeding
and migration habitat for waterfowl and other
waterbirds. A small amount of uplands
surround Sheyenne Lake within the refuge
boundary. The NDGF currently manages all
lands and water as quality wildlife habitat for
migratory birds and other wildlife. Because the
wildlife values are being effectively protected
and managed by the BOR and the NDGF by
order of the 1986 Garrison Diversion
Reformulation Act, there is no need for
continuing the Service’s interest in the
agreements or the refuge status.
Recommendation: Divest the limited-interest
refuge and revoke the refuge and flowage
easement agreements, transferring
management and voluntarily relinquishing the
water rights to BOR or the State.
Once this CCP is approved, t