Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge

              Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
February 2007
Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
29746 Bird Road
Martin, SD 57551
and
Division of Refuge Planning, Region 6
134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300
Lakewood, CO 80228
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
i
Contents
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-1
1 Introduction to Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Purpose and Need for Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Ecosystem Descriptions and Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
National and Regional Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
The Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
2 The Limited-interest Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Current Status of the Limited-interest Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Vision and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Refuge and Resource Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
3 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Description of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Comparison of Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
4 Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
General Overview of Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Special Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
5 Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Effects Common to All Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Effects of Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
6 Management Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Management Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Management Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
ii
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Appendix A. Planning Team and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
Appendix B. Key Legislation and Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
Appendix C. Public Involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Appendix D. Bird List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
Appendix E. Divestiture Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
1. The Steps in CCP Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Tables
1. Comparison of Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2. Description of Consequences by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
iii
Abbreviations
CCP comprehensive conservation plan
CD compatibility determination
EA environmental assessment
EO executive order
FONSI finding of no significant impact
Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
the refuge Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System
SDGFP South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department
Service or USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
State state of South Dakota
S-1
Summary
Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge was
established as a limited-interest refuge in the late
1930s with the acquisition of easements from private
landowners, the state of South Dakota, and the War
Department (now transferred to the Bureau of Land
Management at Ft. Meade) to maintain an area for
“migratory bird, wildlife conservation, and other
purposes.” The refuge is 374.20 easement acres and
has no fee title.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service entered into
a cooperative agreement with the state of South
Dakota on July 12, 1967, to administer, operate,
and maintain the refuge pursuant to the rights and
interests in real property acquired by the United
States, and more particularly described in the
easement agreement.
This draft comprehensive conservation plan has
been prepared by a planning team composed of
representatives from various U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service programs, including the refuge staff, and in
consultation with the South Dakota Game, Fish, and
Parks Department.
PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHMENT
The purposes of the refuge are as follows:
Executive Order, August 26, 1935 “as a refuge and
breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife.”
Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for use as an
inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management
purpose, for migratory birds.”
THE PLANNING PROCESS
This draft comprehensive conservation plan and
environmental assessment for the refuge was
mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997. Once an alternative is
selected, it will be carried out within the 15-year life
of the plan.
ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were evaluated during the
planning process. The no-action alternative,
describes the current and future management of the
refuge. Under the no-action alternative, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service would continue to manage
the refuge within the parameters of the cooperative
agreement. Existing habitat within the easement
and all public programs would continue to be
administered and maintained by the South Dakota
Game, Fish, and Parks Department.
American Avocet
© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
S-2
The proposed action is to relinquish the easement
to current landowners. Under this alterative, Bear
Butte National Wildlife Refuge would be taken
out of the National Wildlife Refuge System and
the easements would be transferred to the current
landowners. Under this alternative, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service’s requirements would no longer
exist. It would divest its interest in the refuge.
1 Introduction
Sandhill Crane
Bob Savannah/USFWS
1
1 Introduction
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has
developed this draft comprehensive conservation
plan (CCP) to use as a guide in analyzing whether
Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge (the refuge)
meets the intent of the National Wildlife Refuge
System (Refuge System) Improvement Act of 1997
(Improvement Act).
The plan was developed in compliance with
the Improvement Act and part 602 (Refuge
System Planning) of the Service manual. The
actions described within this plan also meet the
requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Compliance with this
act is being achieved through the involvement
of the public and the inclusion of an integrated
environmental assessment (EA).
The refuge was established as a limited-interest
refuge in the late 1930s with the acquisition of
easements from private landowners, the state of
South Dakota (State), and the War Department
(now transferred to Bureau of Land Management
at Ft. Meade) to maintain an area for “migratory
bird, wildlife conservation, and other purposes.”
The refuge is 374.20 easement acres and has no fee
title. The easement obtained from the State only
applies to lands below the ordinary high-water mark
of the lake. A cooperative agreement was entered
into with the State on July 12, 1967, to administer,
operate, and maintain the refuge pursuant to the
rights and interest in real property acquired by the
United States, and more particularly described in
the easement agreements.
The plan has been prepared by a planning team
composed of representatives from various Service
programs, including the refuge staff, and in
consultation with the South Dakota Game, Fish,
and Parks Department (SDGFP).
After reviewing public comments and
management needs, the planning team developed
a preferred alternative. This alternative will
attempt to address all significant issues while
determining how best to achieve the intent and
purposes of the refuge. The preferred alternative
is the Service’s recommended course of action
for the future management of this refuge, and is
embodied in this draft.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN
The purpose of this draft CCP is to identify the
role that the refuge will play in support of the
mission of the Refuge System, and to provide
long-term guidance to management programs
and activities. The plan is needed to:
􀂄􈐠 provide a clear statement of direction for
the future management of the program;
􀂄􈐠 provide landowners, neighbors, visitors,
and government offi cials with an
understanding of the Service’s management
actions on and around this refuge;
􀂄􈐠 ensure that the Service’s management
actions are consistent with the mandates of
the Improvement Act of 1997, and;
􀂄􈐠 ensure that the management of this refuge
is consistent with federal, state, and county
plans.
Bear Butte
Tom Koerner /USFWS
2
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND
THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
“The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
working with others, is to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the American people.”
Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife laws,
manages migratory bird populations, restores
nationally significant fisheries, conserves and
restores vital wildlife habitat, protects and recovers
endangered species, and helps other governments
with conservation efforts. It also administers a
federal aid program that distributes hundreds of
millions of dollars to states for fish and wildlife
restoration, boating access, hunter education, and
related projects across America.
THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
In 1903 President Theodore Roosevelt designated
the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the nation’s
first wildlife refuge for the protection of brown
pelicans and other native nesting birds. This was
the first time the federal government set aside land
for the sake of wildlife. This small but significant
designation was the beginning of the Refuge
System. One hundred years later, this system has
become the largest collection of lands in the world
specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing over
96 million acres within 544 refuges and over 3,000
small areas for waterfowl breeding and nesting.
Today, there is at least one refuge in every state in
the nation, as well as in Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands.
In 1997 a clear mission was established for the
Refuge System through the passage of the
Improvement Act. That mission is:
“... to administer a national network of lands and
waters for the conservation, management, and,
where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife,
and plant resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.” (Improvement Act)
The Improvement Act further states that each
refuge shall:
􀂄􈐠 fulfi ll the mission of the Refuge System;
􀂄􈐠 fulfi ll the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀂄􈐠 consider the needs of fi sh and wildlife fi rst;
􀂄􈐠 develop a CCP for each unit of the Refuge
System, and fully involve the public in the
preparation of these plans;
􀂄􈐠 maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System;
􀂄􈐠 recognize that wildlife-dependent recreational
activities, including hunting, fi shing,
wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation,
are legitimate and priority public uses;
􀂄􈐠 retain the authority of refuge managers to
determine compatible public uses.
In addition to the overall mission of the Refuge
System, the wildlife and habitat vision for each
refuge stresses the following principles:
􀂄􈐠 Fish and wildlife come fi rst.
􀂄􈐠 Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are
vital concepts in refuge management.
􀂄􈐠 Refuges must be healthy.
􀂄􈐠 Growth of refuges must be strategic.
􀂄􈐠 The Refuge System serves as a model for
habitat management with broad participation
from others.
Following passage of the Improvement Act, the
Service immediately began efforts to carry out
the direction of the new legislation, including
the preparation of CCPs for all refuges. The
development of these plans is now occurring
nationally. Consistent with the Improvement Act,
all refuge CCPs are being prepared in conjunction
with public involvement, and each refuge is required
to complete its own plan within the fifteen-year
schedule (by 2012).
DECISION TO BE MADE
The Mountain-Prairie regional director of the
Service will select the alternative that will be
implemented as the refuge’s CCP. This decision will
be made in recognition of the environmental effects
of each alternative considered. The decision will
be disclosed in a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) included in the final CCP. Implementation
of the CCP will begin once the regional director has
signed the FONSI.
PEOPLE AND THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
Our fish and wildlife heritage contributes to the
quality of our lives and is an integral part of our
Nation’s greatness. People and nature are linked
through spiritual, recreational, and cultural ties.
Wildlife and wild places have always given people
special opportunities to have fun, relax, and
appreciate our natural world.
ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS AND THREATS
MISSOURI RIVER MAIN STEM
The Service has adopted watersheds as the basic
building blocks for implementing ecosystem
conservation. The refuge is located in the Missouri
River Main Stem Ecosystem. This vast area covers
all of North Dakota and South Dakota and small
portions of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana. The
major threats identified for this ecosystem include
Chapter 1—Introduction
3
conversion of prairie to cropland, overgrazing,
invasive species, and aggressive prairie dog control.
The Service contributes to the accomplishment of
goals for this ecosystem through its Partners for
Fish and Wildlife Program.
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL MANDATES
The administration of the Refuge System is
guided by a variety of international treaties,
federal laws, and presidential executive orders
(EOs). Management options under each refuge’s
establishing authority and the Improvement Act are
contained in the documents and acts.
THE PLANNING PROCESS
This draft CCP and EA is intended to comply
with the Improvement Act and NEPA and
their implementing regulations. The Service
issued a final refuge planning policy in 2000 that
established requirements and guidance for Refuge
System planning, including CCPs, ensuring that
planning efforts comply with the provisions of the
Improvement Act. The planning policy identified
several steps of the CCP and EA process (see figure 1):
􀂄􈐠 Form a planning team and conduct pre-planning.
􀂄􈐠 Initiate public involvement and scoping.
􀂄􈐠 Draft vision statement and goals and determine
signifi cant issues.
􀂄􈐠 Develop and analyze alternatives, including
proposed action.
􀂄􈐠 Prepare draft CCP and EA.
􀂄􈐠 Prepare and adopt fi nal CCP and EA and
issue a FONSI (or determine whether an
environmental impact statement is needed).
􀂄􈐠 Implement plan, monitor and evaluate.
􀂄􈐠 Review plan (every 5 years) and revise (every
15 years).
Figure 1. The steps in the CCP process
4
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
The Service began the pre-planning process in
September 2004. A planning team comprised of
Service personnel from the Lacreek National
Wildlife Refuge (there are currently no Service
personnel at the Bear Butte National Wildlife
Refuge) was developed shortly after the initial
kickoff meeting. The planning team developed
issues and qualities lists. The refuge is part of
the Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge Complex,
headquartered near Martin, South Dakota.
A notice of intent was published in the “Federal
Register” on November 30, 2004. Notification of a
public open house was distributed through media
press releases.
In October 2004, the region 6 regional director
invited the director of the SDGFP to participate
in the CCP. The local SDGFP wildlife managers
and the Bear Butte State Park manager met
with the refuge staff and planning team in early
December to discuss the CCP process and the
state park operations. They held a public meeting
later that evening in Sturgis, South Dakota. The
refuge manager has contacted the Bureau of Land
Management and state park personnel throughout
the course of the project.
The regional director also sent letters to twenty-four
Native American tribal governments in the
northern plains informing them of the upcoming
CCP project and inviting them to serve on the core
team. Representatives from the Rosebud Sioux
and the Oglala Sioux tribes attended a public open
house in Martin, South Dakota, on November 30,
2004, and provided input for the CCP planning
team.
The refuge biologist attended a meeting in March
2005 that included all the tribal Game and Fish
Departments in the Dakotas and Montana. The
group had no objections to the state managing fish
and wildlife resources on the refuge.
On April 9, 2005, the refuge biologist attended an
annual meeting between the SDGFP and several
tribes to discuss issues related to Bear Butte State
Park and surrounding lands. At that meeting
the biologist informed the tribes of the easement
refuge that Lacreek has on Bear Butte Lake and
the CCP process. There were approximately forty
people in attendance representing three tribes
from South Dakota (Standing Rock, Rosebud,
and Pine Ridge) and the Northern Cheyenne
tribe of Montana. Also, in attendance were a state
legislator and four SDGFP representatives.
The biologist explained how the easement was
acquired, what the easement allows the Service to
do, and the cooperative agreement with the State.
The biologist then presented the alternatives and
asked for verbal and written comments, as part of
the public outreach process for the CCP.
During the discussion, the biologist was asked
how many acres around the lake, itself, are under
the easement and what the divestiture would
involve. Two individuals, representing distinct
constituencies, indicated that they would like the
Service to maintain the easement because they want
to protect the area from development and believed
retaining the easement could serve that purpose.
The biologist asked them to provide written
comments for the record.
Over the course of pre-planning and scoping, the
planning team collected information about the
resources of the refuge and the surrounding areas.
This information is summarized in “Chapter 4,
Affected Environment.”
© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Sandhill Crane
2 The Limited-interest Refuge
American Avocet
Bob Hines/USFWS
7
2 The Limited-interest Refuge
ESTABLISHMENT, ACQUISITION, AND
MANAGEMENT HISTORY
The easement refuge is almost identical to
other easements acquired during the 1930s that
established the right to impound water and close
the area to hunting. During this period, the United
States faced the Depression, a massive drought,
and declining waterfowl and wildlife populations.
To address this problem, the federal government
developed limited-interest refuges through
easement agreements with private landowners and
states. Originally, easements were purchased from
private landowners; however, almost the entire
refuge boundary under easement is now owned by
the State. A small area within the refuge boundary
is not owned by the State, but is also not under an
easement.
CURRENT STATUS OF THE LIMITED-INTEREST
REFUGE
The Bear Butte limited-interest refuge is currently
owned and operated by the State as part of the
Bear Butte State Park, which is part of the state
park system. The butte, itself, is sacred to many
American Indian tribes who come here to hold
religious ceremonies. Mato Paha or “Bear Mountain”
is the Lakota name for the site.
The butte is located on the east side of Highway
79. It is within the boundaries of Bear Butte State
Park, but is not on the refuge. Visitors can learn the
geological story of this almost-volcano, its role as a
pioneer landmark, and its continuing role as a holy
mountain and founding place of religion for several
plains tribes when visiting the Bear Butte Education
Center.
The butte has a 1.75-mile limestone-surface trail
which ascends from the foot of Bear Butte to its
4,426 foot summit. It is designated a National
Recreational Trail and is maintained by state park
personnel. Visitors can view four states from the
mountain’s peak. The summit of the mountain is also
the north end of the Centennial Trail that meanders
through the east-central Black Hills and extends 111
miles south to Wind Cave National Park.
Bear Butte Lake is in the limited-interest refuge and
is where the cooperative agreement is implemented.
At this location the State manages a campground
and picnic area. It provides opportunities for fishing,
hiking, and horseback riding as part of the state
park.
Bear Butte State Park is home to a small herd of
bison.
REFUGE PURPOSE
The purposes of the refuge are as follows:
Executive Order, August 26, 1935 “…as a refuge
and breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife…”.
Migratory Bird Conservation Act “…for use as an
inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management
purpose, for migratory birds.”
In addition to the legal drivers listed above, the
refuge was established because of the easement
agreement established in the late 1930s. As part
of the purpose of the refuge the easement reads,
“The exclusive and perpetual right and easement
to flood with water, and to maintain and operate a
natural or artificial lake thereon or in connection
with other land included in what is known as
the Bear Butte Lake Project, and to raise the
water level thereof by means of dams, dikes, fill,
ditches, spillways and other structures, for water
conservation, drought relief, and for migratory bird
and wildlife conservation purposes and to operate
upon said lands and waters and maintain a wildlife
conservation demonstration unit and a closed refuge
and reservation for migratory birds and other
wildlife.” It was stipulated that if the purposes for
which the easement was granted were abandoned,
the land would revert to the grantors or their
successors.
COMPATIBILITY POLICY
Lands within the Refuge System are different from
federal, multiple-use public lands, such as National
© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Red-winged Blackbird
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
8
Forest System lands, in that they are closed
to all public uses unless specifically and legally
opened. The Improvement Act clearly establishes
that wildlife conservation is the singular Refuge
System mission. To ensure the primacy of the
Refuge System’s wildlife conservation mission, a
compatibility policy was developed and placed into
effect on November 17, 2000, (http://policy.fws.gov
/library/00fr62457.pdf). The compatibility policy
states that the Service will not initiate or permit
a new use of a refuge or expand, renew, or extend
an existing use of a refuge, unless the Service has
determined that the use is a compatible use, and that
use is not inconsistent with public safety.
A refuge use is defi ned as any activity on a
refuge, except administrative or law enforcement
activity, carried out by or under the direction of an
authorized Service employee. Recreational uses,
including all actions associated with a recreational
use, refuge management, economic activities,
or other use by the public, are considered to be
refuge uses. Facilities and activities associated
with recreational public uses, or where there is
an economic benefi t associated with a use, require
compatibility determinations (CDs). Refuge
management activities, such as invasive species
control, prescribed fi re, scientifi c monitoring, as well
as the facilities for managing a refuge do not require
CDs.
A compatible use is a proposed or existing wildlife-dependent
recreational use, or any other use of a
refuge that, based on sound professional judgment,
will not materially interfere with, or detract from,
the fulfillment of the Refuge System mission or the
purposes of the refuge. Sound professional judgment
is further defined as a decision that is consistent
with principles of fish and wildlife management and
administration, available science and resources, and
adherence to law. The Service will secure public
input throughout the CCP and CD processes.
CDs are written determinations signed and dated
by the refuge manager and the refuge supervisor
stating that a proposed or existing use of a refuge
is, or is not, a compatible use. CDs are typically
completed as part of the CCP or step-down
management plan process. Draft CDs are open
to public input and comment. Once a final CD is
made by the refuge manager, it is not subject to
administrative appeal.
The determination of appropriateness is the first
step in deciding whether the Service will permit
a proposed or existing use on a refuge. After
the Service determines a use is appropriate, it
must then determine that it is compatible, before
allowing the use. The Improvement Act states
that six wildlife-dependent recreation uses are the
priority public uses of the Refuge System and, when
compatible, have been determined to be appropriate
by law. These six uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, and environmental
education and interpretation—are to receive
enhanced consideration in planning and management
over all other general public uses of the Refuge
System. Uses which are necessary for the safe,
practical, and effective conduct of a priority public
use are also appropriate.
Some recreational activities, while wholesome
and enjoyable, are not dependent on the presence
of fi sh and wildlife, nor are they dependent on
the expectation of encountering fi sh and wildlife.
Many of these nonwildlife-dependent recreational
activities are often disruptive or harmful to fi sh,
wildlife, or plants, or may interfere with the use
and enjoyment of a refuge by others engaged in
wildlife-dependent recreation. These uses may more
appropriately be conducted on private land or other
public lands not specifi cally dedicated for wildlife
conservation.
A CD is not required when the Service does not
have jurisdiction over the use. Jurisdiction is not
to be viewed as what type of law enforcement
Bridge
Tom Koerner /USFWS
9
Chapter 2—The Limited-interest Refuge
jurisdiction the Service has over the refuge (i.e.,
proprietary or concurrent); rather, it asks the
question of whether the Service has the legal
authority to prohibit a use.
Property rights that are not vested in the federal
government must be recognized and allowed
whether or not the use might be compatible. In
these cases CDs should not be done because the
fi nding is moot, and because the determination may
be misinterpreted to mean an activity that otherwise
would not be compatible is found to be compatible by
“circumstances.”
VISION AND GOALS
The planning team developed a vision and a set of
goals for the refuge. The vision describes what the
refuge will be, or what the Service hopes to do, and
is based on the Refuge System mission and purposes
of Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge.
VISION
The refuge is located in the foothills of the Black
Hills, adjacent to Bear Butte, a sacred site for
several Northern Plains tribes. Management
will work with partners to protect the cultural
signifi cance of the area and to maintain its natural
resource values. Opportunities to enjoy wildlife-dependent
recreation shall continue to be available
to all visitors.
GOALS
The goals are descriptive, broad statements of
desired future condition of the refuge. Four goals
were identifi ed for the refuge.
1. Wildlife and Habitat Management: Work with
partners to maintain habitat for migratory
birds and other wildlife.
2. Public Use: Work with partners to provide
opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent
recreation and to promote awareness of the
area’s resources.
3. Cultural Resources: Recognize the cultural
signifi cance and sacredness of the Bear Butte
area to plains tribes.
4. Partnerships: Support existing partnerships
that protect the cultural signifi cance of the
area, maintain natural resource values, and
manage visitor use.
REFUGE AND RESOURCE DESCRIPTION
SPECIAL VALUES
During the vision and goals workshop, the planning
team identified the outstanding qualities of the
refuge. Qualities are the characteristics and features
that are evident when a person visits the refuge.
The refuge is in a wide valley within the Black Hills
region of South Dakota. Its proximity to Bear Butte,
itself, and the associated view shed makes it an
appealing place to look at the butte from a distance.
Some of the structures at the refuge are part of the
Depression-era programs designed by President
Franklin D. Roosevelt to rebuild the country’s
resources. Remnants of that era can be found in the
campground, including a former bathhouse, a picnic
shelter, stone walls and the dam structure.
Bear Butte NWR
Tom Koerner /USFWS
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
10
Although no longer running, an artesian well fed the
Bear Butte Lake and was once a unique and special
value on the refuge.
ISSUES
Prior to writing the draft CCP, Service staff and
other planning team members met to identify any
significant issues that should be addressed in the
plan. A public open house, news releases in the local
and regional press, an announcement in the Federal
Register, and numerous mailings were conducted
to solicit public input on important issues to be
addressed. Following are the most significant issues
identified.
Habitat and Wildlife
The Service acquired a limited-interest easement
to flood with water and to maintain and operate
a natural or artificial lake for migratory birds
and conservation purposes. However, from the
beginning Bear Butte NWR was developed more as
a recreation area with many non-wildlife dependent
public use facilities such as a beach, swimming
pond, boat ramps and campground and picnic areas.
The inviolate sanctuary provisions of the refuge’s
purpose have never been enforced and, as a result, a
loss of biodiversity and wildlife habitat has occurred.
Therefore, the Service does not manage habitat
and wildlife because the refuge is used for other
recreation purposes.
Public Use
The Improvement Act recognized that wildlife-dependent
recreational uses—hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation—when
determined to be compatible are legitimate and
appropriate public uses of a refuge; however, the
Service believes that the types of public use that
occur at the refuge create too much disturbance to
provide a sanctuary for migratory birds.
From the beginning, one of the primary purposes
intended for the Bear Butte area was recreation.
As mentioned earlier, a number of facilities were
constructed at about the same time as the dam,
to encourage and support camping, swimming,
boating, and picnicking. There is little evidence that
the inviolate sanctuary provisions of the refuge’s
purpose were ever enforced.
The Service also has the right to close the area to
hunting and current state park regulations allow
hunting on the refuge.
Water Management
The Bear Butte Lake Project created an artificial
lake which raised water levels by means of an
earthen dam and spillway. Originally the lake
was filled by an artesian well; however, it stopped
flowing and was plugged by the State in May 1987.
The water levels are now completely dependent
on annual rainfall. The watershed for this lake
is relatively small compared to its size. Without
supplemental flows of the artesian well, the water
levels of the lake have remained low. The Service
does not perform any water management activities
on the refuge.
Cultural Resources
The refuge staff recognizes the importance of the
cultural resources at the refuge to the Native
American community. The Service does not manage
any cultural resources in the state park or refuge.
Administration
Limited management activities by the Service have
occurred at the refuge. As a limited-interest refuge,
the Service entered into a cooperative agreement
with the State, which made the State responsible for
administering, operating and maintaining the refuge.
Conflicting uses of the refuge as a state park versus
a national wildlife refuge creates a problem for the
Service to fully implement the refuge’s purpose.
11
Chapter 2—The Limited-interest Refuge
Figure 2. Location Map
3 Alternatives
Great Blue Heron
Tom Kelley/USFWS
15
3 Alternatives
INTRODUCTION
Alternatives are different approaches to
management of the refuge. They are designed to
resolve issues, achieve the refuge purpose, vision,
and goals as identified in the CCP, and fulfill the
mission of the Refuge System. They must also
comply with current laws, regulations, and policies.
NEPA requires an equal and full analysis of all
alternatives considered for implementation.
In fall 2004 the Service held a meeting with the
public to identify the issues and concerns that were
associated with the management of the refuge. The
public involvement process is summarized in greater
detail in chapter 2. Based on public input, as well as
guidelines from NEPA, the Improvement Act, and
Service planning policy, the planning team selected
the substantive issues that will be addressed in the
alternatives. Substantive issues identified for the
refuge are:
1. habitat and wildlife management
2. public use
3. water management
4. management activities
5. cultural resources
The planning team discussed alternatives for
management that will address the substantive
refuge issues and meet the goals of the Refuge
System. Each alternative described in the following
sections addresses the substantive issues somewhat
differently.
This chapter describes two management
alternatives for the refuge: Alternative A, Current
Management (no action); Alternative B, Relinquish
Easement to Current Landowners (Proposed
Action).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT
ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY
One alternative the planning team considered would
increase the Service’s management activities at
the refuge. This alternative was rejected because
current management of the refuge is provided by
the SDGFP, and the area is currently managed as
a state park. Increased management by Service
personnel would conflict with the State’s ability to
administer, operate, and maintain the area as they
have been doing under the cooperative agreement
since 1967.
This alternative was also eliminated from further
study because Service personnel determined that
it is not feasible to maintain the refuge’s habitat
alongside the recreational uses (e.g., camping and
picnicking) that occur at the park.
The other alternative considered but eliminated
from further study was to transfer the easement
to another entity. Under the provisions of the
easement agreements, however, the Service cannot
turn over the easement to any party except the
current landowners.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The theme and general management direction for
each alternative are described below.
ALTERNATIVE A—CURRENT MANAGEMENT
(NO ACTION)
Alternative A, the no-action alternative, describes
current and future management of the refuge. It
provides the baseline against which to compare the
proposed action. It is also a requirement of NEPA
that the no-action alternative be addressed.
Under the no-action alternative, the Service would
continue to manage the refuge within
the parameters of the cooperative agreement with
the SDGFP. Existing habitat within the easement
and all public programs would continue to be
administered and maintained by the State.
Current habitat and wildlife practices would be
carried out by park personnel and levels
of public use would remain the same. The park
facilities and activities—hiking, picnicking,
designated camping, fi shing, and a horse camp—that
are provided on the southeast side of Bear Butte
Lake would continue to be offered.
Refuge staff would support partnerships between
the State and the tribes for the ongoing protection
of cultural resources. The Service would continue
passive management and maintenance of facilities
(no refuge staff is currently assigned to the station).
ALTERNATIVE B—PROPOSED ACTION (RELINQUISH
EASEMENT TO CURRENT LANDOWNERS)
Alternative B, the proposed action, would take the
refuge out of the Refuge System and relinquish
the easement to the current landowners. Under
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
16
this alternative, the habitat, public use, cultural
resources and operations would be managed by the
landowners. The Service’s easement requirements
would no longer exist.
The Service would divest its interest in the refuge.
This would be carried out within the life of the plan.
Once the CCP is approved, the managing station
would work with the division of realty and the land
protection planning branch within the division of
refuge planning to prepare a combined program
proposal to divest this refuge. The proposal would
be submitted to the Migratory Bird Conservation
Commission for concurrence and then submitted for
congressional approval.
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
The two alternatives evaluated in this planning
process are (1) no action and (2) relinquish the
Services interest to current landowners. A
comparison of the alternatives is shown in table 1.
Bear Butte State Park
Tom Koerner /USFWS
17
Chapter 3—Alternatives
4 Affected Environment
Sandhill Cranes
Tom Kelley/USFWS
21
4 Affected Environment
GENERAL OVERVIEW OF REFUGE
The refuge is six miles northeast of Sturgis, South
Dakota and is part of the Lacreek National Wildlife
Refuge Complex headquartered in Martin, South
Dakota. The refuge is within the boundary of Bear
Butte State Park and is managed by the SDGFP.
Sacred to the plains Indian tribes, the butte, itself, is
the place where the god, Maheo imparted to Sweet
Medicine (a mythical hero) the knowledge from
which the Cheyenne derive their religious, political,
social, and economic customs. The butte site is a
national natural and historic landmark. It is within
the boundaries of Bear Butte State Park but is not
on the refuge.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
AIR QUALITY
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards
include maximum allowable pollution levels for
particulate matter (a measure of microscopic liquid
or solid particles that is respirable in the lungs),
ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and
carbon dioxide.
Air quality in the area of the refuge is considered
good, with no nearby manufacturing sites or major
air pollution sources. Carbon from automobiles
and diesel engines, prescribed fi re activities on the
refuge, and dust associated with wind-blown sand
and dirt from the roadways and fi elds contribute to
particulate matter.
CLIMATE
January and February are the coldest months of
winter. Late winter and early spring is western
South Dakota’s snow season. March is typically the
snowiest month of the year.
Late spring is western South Dakota’s rainy season,
when the area receives over a third of its annual
moisture. Precipitation in May comes mostly in
showers. By June, thunderstorms are a common
occurrence. June marks the peak of severe weather
season.
Mid-summer around the Black Hills is warm and dry
with plenty of sunshine. Sporadic thunderstorms
are an almost-daily summertime occurrence over
the Black Hills during the afternoon and evening.
They usually produce only brief showers. Rainfall
decreases as summer draws to a close.
Sunny, mild days and cool nights are typical during
the months of September and October. The average
first freeze occurs sometime between late August
and September in the Black Hills. Winter weather
starts sometime between November and December
in the Black Hills. Snowfall averages about 5 inches
each month, but most snow is light, as a typical
month has only 2 days when more than 1 inch of
snow falls.
PHYSIOGRAPHIC, GEOGRAPHY, AND SOILS
Bear Butte is a laccolith located in the Black Hills,
an area of uplifted Precambrian on the Wyoming–
South Dakota state line. Bear Butte is made of
magma that never reached the surface to generate
an eruption. The magma intruded to a shallow level
and then stopped, cooled, crystallized, and solidified.
Erosion then stripped the overlying layers of rock
away. Bear Butte is at the east end of a linear belt of
volcanic centers that continues westward about 60
miles to Devils Tower. The rock is called a trachyte
based on its mineral composition, which includes
alkali feldspar, with small amounts of biotite,
hornblende, and pyroxene. Bear Butte rises 1,253
feet above the surrounding plain.
WATER RESOURCES
The Bear Butte Lake Project created the limited-interest
refuge around Bear Butte Lake. It was a
natural lake enhanced through the construction of a
dam to capture runoff. An easement was established
for the use of all water from an artesian well which
has since stopped flowing, and was abandoned by the
State in May 1987. The SDGFP holds Water License
#844-1 for 520 cubic feet-per-second from dry draws
to stabilize Bear Butte Lake levels for recreational
purposes (priority date 4/12/1968).
© 2005 Laura Crawford Williams
Mink
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
22
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes the existing and potential
plant and animal communities in the refuge.
HABITATS
The refuge’s habitats are comprised of mixed-grass
prairie in the uplands with a very rapid
transition to a lacustrine, or lake habitat, in the
permanently impounded area within the high-water
mark behind the dam. The plant community
of the mixed-grass prairie is greatly influenced
by precipitation and the great annual variability
that occurs here. The tall-grass prairies to the
east receive greater annual precipitation while the
short-grass prairies to the west receive less. The
plant community of the mixed-grass prairie reflects
this, with species from both the tall- and short-grass
prairies found here. Grasses dominate the
uplands, including the native, cool season species
of western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii),
green needlegrass (Stipa viridula), and needle and
thread grass (Stipa comata). Exotic cool-season
grasses, including smooth bromegrass (Bromus
inermis), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and
crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) have
invaded the site, and make up a significant portion
of the plant community. The remainder of the plant
community is made up of smaller percentages of
the following: slender wheatgrass (Agropyron
caninum), bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron
spicatum), barnyard grass (Echinochloa
crusgalli), little bluestem (Schizachyrium
scoparium), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum),
June grass (Koeleria pyramidata), marsh muhly
(Muhlenbergia racemosa), roughleaf ricegrass
(Oryzopsis asperifolia), Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis
hymenoides), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum
smithii), Timothy (Phleum pratense), Canada
bluegrass (Poa compressa), Canby’s bluegrass (Poa
canbyi), inland bluegrass (Poa interior), squirreltail
(Sitanion hystrix), needle-and-thread grass (Stipa
comata), and porcupine grass (Stipa spartea).
The lake portion is primarily a deep-water habitat,
supporting little to no emergent wetland vegetation.
AQUATIC HABITAT
The refuge provides aquatic habitat for a range
of plants and animals. Western painted turtles,
blotched tiger salamander, and the upland chorus
frog are found on the refuge. A variety of snakes
including the western plains and wandering garter
snake are found near water. The eastern yellow-bellied
racer, bullsnake, and prairie rattlesnake are
abundant.
BIRDS
Bird populations on the refuge are dependent
on the use and availability of natural resources,
including water levels on the lake. Documentation
of bird occurrence and use is not well-developed
for this refuge. Water birds seen on the refuge
include: American white pelicans, western grebes,
double-crested cormorants, Canada and snow geese,
mallards, blue-winged and green-winged teals. Birds
of prey seen on the refuge include Swainson’s and
red-tailed hawks and American kestrel. Shorebirds
include kildeer, lesser yellowlegs, and upland
sandpipers. Sharp-tailed grouse, American coot,
burrowing owls, and black-billed magpie are also
seen on the refuge. A complete list of birds that
occur on the refuge is in appendix B.
FISH
Bear Butte Lake has a surface area of 180 acres and
a maximum depth of 13 feet. The lake is owned and
managed by the SDGFP. Currently there are four
primary game and forage and four secondary species
of fish that occur in the lake. Primary game fish are
largemouth bass, yellow perch, black crappie and
Canada Geese Taking Flight
Tom Koerner /USFWS
23
Chapter 4 —Affected Environment
northern pike. Secondary species are green sunfish,
fathead minnow rock bass and black bullhead.
MAMMALS
Mammals that occur on the refuge include the
common raccoon, black-tailed prairie dog, northern
pocket gopher, deer mouse, eastern cottontail and
whitetail deer, and bison.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Bald eagles are common winter residents on the
refuge and within the state park. Previously listed
as endangered, their status was upgraded to
threatened in July 1995. The bald eagle is also listed
as a state-threatened species. Whooping cranes
occur in Meade County, but because of boating on
the lake and other uses in the campground, they are
not likely to be found on the refuge.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The region is sacred to Native Americans of the
plains who consider The Black Hills to be the Axis
Mundi, the center of the world.
Bear Butte’s geological feature was an important
landmark and religious site for plains Indian tribes
dating back 10,000 years, well before Europeans
reached South Dakota, and it continues to be today.
Bear Butte is called Mato Paha or “Bear Mountain”
by the Lakota. To the Cheyenne, it is Noahvose. The
mountain is sacred to many indigenous peoples, who
make pilgrimages to pray and leave prayer ties on
the branches of trees along the trail that leads to the
top of the butte.
Notable leaders including, Red Cloud, Crazy
Horse and Sitting Bull, have all visited Bear Butte.
These visits culminated with an 1857 gathering
of many Native American nations to discuss the
advancement of white settlers into the Black Hills.
George A. Custer, who led an expedition of 1,000
men into the region, camped near the mountain.
Custer verified the rumors of gold in the Black Hills.
Bear Butte then served as a landmark that helped
guide the rush of invading prospectors and settlers
into the region.
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS
WILDERNESS
To be designated a wilderness area, lands must meet
certain criteria as outlined in the Wilderness Act of
1964:
􀂄􈐠 Generally appear to have been affected
primarily by the forces of nature, with
the imprint of human work substantially
unnoticeable;
􀂄􈐠 Have outstanding opportunities for solitude, or
a primitive and unconfi ned type of recreation;
􀂄􈐠 Have at least 5,000 acres of land, or be of
suffi cient size as to make practicable its
preservation and use in an unimpaired
condition, and;
􀂄􈐠 May also contain ecological, geological, or other
features of scientifi c, educational, scenic, or
historical value.
Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge does not meet
the criteria for a wilderness area.
The butte, itself, was placed on the National
Register of Historic Places in 1973 and became a
national natural landmark in 1965. The National
Natural Landmarks Program recognizes and
encourages the conservation of outstanding
examples of our country's natural history. It is
the only natural areas program of national scope
that identifies and recognizes the best examples of
biological and geological features in both public and
private ownership.
The trail leading to the summit is designated a
national recreation trail. As part of the George S.
Mickelson Trail which spans 114 miles across four
counties, this “crown jewel” of the state park system
provides a unique educational and recreational
experience for visitors of all ages. Winding through
the heart of the Black Hills utilizing numerous
bridges and tunnels, this rail-trail brings to life the
area’s rich history with stories of American Indians,
miners, railroad workers, and many others.
Due to the configuration of the refuge within the
state park, it does not have these designations
as a national register property, national natural
landmark, or a national recreation trail.
VISITOR SERVICES
Because the refuge is located within Bear Butte
State Park, a number of park facilities exist. The
park offers a hiking trail around Bear Butte Lake,
sixteen nonelectric campsites, fishing for bullheads,
crappies and northern pike, and the use of boats
with 25-horsepower or smaller motors. There is a
wheelchair-accessible fishing dock. A horse camp
is provided on the southeast side of the lake. Two
miles of natural trail exists around Bear Butte Lake;
however, horseback riding is only allowed west
of Highway 79. The trail connects to Centennial
Trail, which leads riders through the Black Hills.
The horse camp with primitive sites, water, and
corral is available on a first-come, first-served basis
only. Hunting, especially deer and waterfowl, is
very popular in the area. The State does not allow
hunting in some sections of the park. Uncased
firearms and bows are prohibited year-round in the
designated campground and within the park east of
Highway 79.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
24
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
This section characterizes current socioeconomic
conditions in Meade County, South Dakota.
Bear Butte is located in Meade County, South
Dakota. According to the 2000 census, the county
has a population of 24,253—8,805 households and
6,700 families. The average household size is 2.66
and the average family size is 3.05. The racial
makeup of the county is 92.65% white, 2.10%
Hispanic or Latino, 2.04% Native American, 1.48%
black or African American, 0.63% Asian, 0.07%
Pacific Islander, 0.61% from other races, and 2.52%
from two or more races. According to the 2000
census, educational, health and social services are
the largest industries, followed by retail-trade arts,
entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food
services. The median family income is $40,537 per
year.
Hard-surfaced state and federal highways bisect the
county in both north-south and east-west directions.
Sturgis is the nearest city to the state park and
the refuge. As of the 2000 census, the city had a
total population of 6,442. The median income for
a household in the city is $30,253 and the median
income for a family is $38,698. The racial make up is
similar to the rest of the county.
Every August the city hosts one of the largest
annual motorcycle events in the world. The
campground at Bear Butte State Park is used by
motorcycle enthusiast during the motorcycle rally.
The number of campground and state park users
increase during this period.
Picnic Shelter Tom Koerner /USFWS
5 Environmental Consequences
Flax
Shapins Associates
27
5 Environmental Consequences
This section analyzes and discusses the potential
environmental effects or consequences that
can be expected by the implementation of each
management alternative described in chapter 3.
Table 2 gives a comparison of the environmental
consequences of each alternative.
EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Environmental justice refers to the principle that all
citizens and communities are entitled to:
􀂄􈐠 equal protection from environmental,
occupational health, or safety hazards;
􀂄􈐠 equal access to natural resources, and;
􀂄􈐠 equal participation in the environmental and
natural resource policy formulation process.
On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued EO
12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Income
Populations. The purpose of this order is to
focus the attention of federal agencies on human
environmental health and to address inequities that
may occur in the distribution of: costs and benefits,
land-use patterns, hazardous material transport
or facility siting, allocation and consumption of
resources, access to information, planning, and
decision making.
Within the spirit and intent of EO 12898, no minority
or low-income populations would be impacted by any
Service action under the two alternatives presented
in this document.
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
Economic impacts are typically measured in terms
of number of jobs lost or gained and the associated
result on income. Neither alternative would
significantly impact the economics of the local area.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts are the potential effects of the
action or no-action alternatives in combination with
past, present, and future actions. NEPA regulations
define cumulative effects “as the impact on the
environment which results from the incremental
impact of the action when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or
person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative
impacts can result from individually minor, but
collectively significant, actions taking place over
time.” (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.7.)
The cumulative effects analysis for this project is
based on reasonably foreseeable future actions that,
if implemented, would contribute to the effects of
the action or no-action alternative. No reasonably
foreseeable actions are anticipated.
EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE A
Under the no-action alternative, the Service
would continue to manage the refuge within the
parameters of the cooperative agreement with
the SDGFP. Existing habitat within the easement
and all public programs would continue to be
administered and maintained by the State.
HABITATS AND WILDLIFE
Under alternative A, the refuge would maintain the
current habitat management program administered
through the cooperative agreement with the State.
The uplands and wetlands would be managed as part
of the state park, and passive management of the
existing habitat within the easement would continue
giving the refuge staff little ability to promote
species diversity.
Because of multiple uses and alterations of the
landscape and the size and connectivity of habitat
patches, which makes movement of wildlife or
genetic information between parcels of land difficult
or impossible, the habitat can no longer support
species diversity.
WATER MANAGEMENT
The water cycle on Bear Butte Lake under both
alternatives would continue to be dependent on
spring runoff and annual rainfall. The ability to hold
water levels and wetland conditions through water
management would continue to be dependent on
annual precipitation. Water cycle conditions will
have little to no effect on current bird populations.
There would be no change in existing water-quality
conditions and sedimentation trends.
PUBLIC USE
All public programs are administered by the State
under alternative A. Conflicting purposes of the
State and the Service do not allow the Service to
provide opportunities for the six priority public-use
activities. The state, for example, provides
campgrounds within the refuge boundary.
Campgrounds are not a priority use on refuges nor
are they wildlife compatible or wildlife dependent,
and as such are generally not allowed. In a few
situations they are allowed to support priority public
uses, but in this case camping does not support these
uses.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
28
Current on- and off-refuge opportunities for wildlife
viewing, education, and interpretation would
be retained. This includes informational kiosks,
hiking trails, day-use areas, a fishing platform,
and educational programs. These programs would
continue to place an emphasis on the state park and
its programs. Visitors would not be aware that they
are visiting a refuge.
Under alternative A, there would be no change
in current management of hunting and fishing
opportunities.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Under alternative A, there would be no changes
to cultural resource management. Current
management activities would continue to be carried
out solely by the State under the cooperative
agreement.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Under alternative A, there would be no change in
current operations and maintenance activities.
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
Under alternative A, there would be no change in
socioeconomic climate.
EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE B
Under alternative B, the proposed action would
take the refuge out of the Refuge System and the
easement would be transferred to the State. Under
this alternative, the habitat, public use, cultural
resources, and operations would be managed by the
landowners. The Service’s easement requirements
would no longer exist. The Service would divest its
interest in the refuge.
HABITATS AND WILDLIFE
Since the State currently maintains habitats and
wildlife, there would be no change. The cooperative
agreement would no longer be in place and easement
would be removed.
WATER MANAGEMENT
Since the State is currently responsible for water
issues, there would be no change. The cooperative
agreement would no longer be in place and easement
would be removed.
PUBLIC USE
Since the State is currently responsible for issues
relating to public use, there would be no change. The
cooperative agreement would no longer be in place
and easement would be removed.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Since the State is currently responsible for issues
relating to cultural resources, there would be no
change. The cooperative agreement would no longer
be in place and easement would be removed.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Since the State is currently responsible for
operations and maintenance, there would be no
change. The cooperative agreement would no longer
be in place and easement would be removed.
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
Since there will be no change to the aforementioned
categories, there should not be any change to the
socioeconomic impact.
29
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences
6 Management Direction
Prairie Dog
Bob Savannah/USFWS
33
6 Management Direction
Bear Butte Lake
Tom Koerner /USFWS
It is the responsibility of the planning team to
recommend a proposed action that best achieves
the planning unit purposes, vision, and goals and
helps fulfill the Refuge System mission. Once the
preferred management alternative has been selected
and finalized, the CCP has been approved, and the
Service has notified the public of its decision, the
implementation phase of the CCP begins.
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Alternative B, the proposed action, would take
the refuge out of the Refuge System and transfer
the easement to the current landowner. Under
this alternative, the landowners would manage
the habitat, public use, cultural resources, and
operations. The Service would divest its interest in
the refuge. This would be carried out within the 15-
year life of the plan.
MANAGEMENT DIRECTION
Within 5 years of CCP approval, the Service would
relinquish the refuge to the current landowners to
provide all services and activities related to habitat,
public use, cultural resources and partnerships.
The Service would work with the State to divest
the Service’s interest. It would revoke the refuge
and flowage easement agreements, transferring full
control to the current landowners.
Because the interests of the State and the Refuge
System are not compatible, and because the State
has maintained the refuge since 1967, the Service
believes it makes sense to divest itself.
The refuge was established in 1937 as an easement
refuge on and around Bear Butte Lake. The
refuge was established for the purpose of water
conservation, drought relief, and migratory bird
and wildlife conservation purposes. Following
establishment, however, incompatible uses such as
boating, camping, picnicking have been permitted
and supported. During the period when the dam was
constructed, the CCC and WPA also built recreation
facilities to support these and other uses.
The Service believes that some recreational
activities, while wholesome and enjoyable, are not
dependent on the presence of fish and wildlife, nor
dependent on the expectation of encountering fish
and wildlife. Many of these nonwildlife-dependent
recreational activities are often disruptive or
harmful to fish, wildlife, or plants, or may interfere
with the use and enjoyment of a refuge by others
engaged in wildlife-dependent recreation. These
uses may more appropriately be conducted on
private land, or other public lands not specifically
dedicated for wildlife conservation. Because wildlife
conservation is the singular Refuge System mission,
the Service believes it is both feasible and necessary
to turn over its interest in the resource to the
current landowners.
Through the CCP process the Service evaluated
the level of trust-resource value to determine if
those values and associated risks to those values are
sufficient to justify continuation of the easement.
Trust resources are resources that through law or
administrative act are held in trust for the people
by the government. The Service recognizes that
because the refuge is operated by the State as a
state park, many actions that may be enforced
for wildlife conservation cannot be implemented.
Almost all of the subject lands and waters would
be provided some protection without the Services
easement and the State would continue to manage
the habitat, public use, cultural resources and
operate the refuge as part of Bear Butte State Park.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
34
Partnerships with state, tribal and local entities
would continue.
The planning division of the Service’s regional office
brought together refuge managers, supervisors,
a regional biologist, planners, realty staff, and
the senior management team to develop a model
that asks a series of questions to help the Service
determine whether or not a refuge should remain
part of the Refuge System. The model was designed
for field-level refuge staff to use during the
preplanning process for a CCP. The Bear Butte
National Wildlife Refuge did not pass the test
to remain as a refuge in the Refuge System. The
results are in appendix E.
Glossary
Canada Goose
Bob Savannah/USFWS
37
Glossary
alternative: (1) A reasonable way to solve an
identified problem or satisfy the stated need (40
CFR 1500.2). (2) Alternatives are different means
of accomplishing refuge purposes and goals and
contributing to the Refuge System mission (Draft
Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).
CCP: See comprehensive conservation plan.
biological integrity: Biotic composition, structure
and function at genetic, organism and community
levels comparable with historic conditions, including
the natural biological processes that shape the
genomes, organisms, and communities.
compatible use: A wildlife-dependent recreational
use or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound
professional judgment of the director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, will not materially
interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the
mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of
the refuge (Draft Service Manual 603 FW 3.6). A
compatibility determination supports the selection of
compatible uses and identified stipulations or limits
necessary to ensure compatibility.
comprehensive conservation plan (CCP): A
document that describes the desired future
conditions of the refuge; and provides long-range
guidance and management direction for the refuge
manager to accomplish the purposes of the refuge,
contribute to the mission of the Refuge System,
and to meet other relevant mandates (Draft Service
Manual 602 FW 1.5).
cultural resources: The remains of sites, structures,
or objects used by people in the past.
easement refuge: See limited-interest national
wildlife refuge.
ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelating complex of
plant and animal communities and their associated
non-living environment. A biological community,
together with its environment, functioning as a
unit. For administrative purposes, the Service has
designated fifty-three ecosystems covering the
United States and its possessions. These ecosystems
generally correspond with watershed boundaries
and their sizes and ecological complexity vary.
endangered species (federal): A plant or animal
species listed under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (as amended) that is in danger of extinction
throughout all, or a significant portion of, its range.
endangered species (state): A plant or animal
species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated
in a particular state within the near future if factors
contributing to its decline continue. Populations
of these species are at critically low levels or their
habitats have been degraded or depleted to a
significant degree.
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).
fragmentation: The alteration of a large block of
habitat which creates isolated patches of the original
habitat that are interspersed with a variety of
other habitat types (Koford et al. 1994); the process
of reducing the size and connectivity of habitat
patches, making movement of individuals or genetic
information between parcels difficult or impossible.
goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad
statement of desired future conditions that conveys
a purpose but does not define measurable units
(Draft Service Manual 620 FW 1.5).
habitat: Suite of existing environmental
conditions required by an organism for survival
and reproductions. The place where an organism
typically lives and grows.
habitat disturbance: Significant alteration of
habitat structure or composition. Event may be
natural (e.g., fire) or human-caused (e.g., timber
harvest, disking).
habitat type (vegetation type, cover type): A land
classification system based on the concept of distinct
plant associations.
impoundment: A body of water created by
collection and confinement within a series of levees
or dikes thus creating separate management units
although not always independent of one another.
inviolate sanctuary: A place of refuge or protection
where animals and birds may not be hunted.
invasive plant: a species that is non-native to
the ecosystem under consideration and whose
introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or
environmental harm or harm to human health.
issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a
management decision; e.g., a Service initiative,
opportunity, resource management problem, a threat
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
38
to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public
concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource
condition (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).
limited-interest national wildlife refuge: a
national wildlife refuge which has more than 85% of
its approved boundary covered by a 1930s flowage
easement and/or refuge easement, giving the
Service limited management capabilities.
management alternative: See alternative.
migration: Regular extensive, seasonal movements
of birds between their breeding regions and their
“wintering” regions (Koford et al. 1994); to pass
periodically from one region or climate to another
for feeding or breeding.
migratory birds: Birds which follow a seasonal
movement from their breeding grounds to their
“wintering” grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds,
raptors, and song birds are all migratory birds.
mission: Succinct statement of purpose and/or
reason for being.
mixed-grass prairie: A transition zone between
the tall-grass prairie and the short-grass prairie
dominated by grasses of medium height that are
approximately 2–4 feet tall. Soils are not as rich as
the tall-grass prairie and moisture levels are less.
national wildlife refuge: “A designated area
of land, water, or an interest in land or water
within the Refuge System, but does not include
coordination areas.” Find a complete listing of all
units of the Refuge System in the current Annual
Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
National Wildlife Refuge System: Various
categories of areas administered by the Secretary of
the Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife,
including species threatened with extinction, all
lands, waters, and interests therein administered
by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, areas for the
protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that
are threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges,
game ranges, wildlife management areas, or
waterfowl production areas.
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997: Sets the mission and the administrative
policy for all refuges in the Refuge System. Clearly
defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System;
establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of
the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, and environmental
education and interpretation); establishes a
formal process for determining appropriateness
and compatibility; establish the responsibilities
of the Secretary of the Interior for managing and
protecting the Refuge System; and requires a
comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge
by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of the
Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966.
native species: A species that occurred or currently
occurs in that ecosystem and is not the result of
human introduction into that ecosystem.
nongovernmental organization: Any group that is
not composed of federal, state, tribal, county, city,
town, local or other governmental entities.
objective: An objective is a concise target statement
of what will be achieved, how much will be achieved,
when and where it will be achieved, and who is
responsible for the work. Objectives are derived
from goals and provide the basis for determining
management strategies. Objectives should be
attainable and time-specific and should be stated
quantitatively to the extent possible. If objectives
cannot be stated quantitatively, they may be stated
qualitatively (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).
plant community: An assemblage of plant species
unique in its composition; occurs in particular
locations under particular influences; a reflection
or integration of the environmental influences on
the site -- such as soil, temperature, elevation,
solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes
a general kind of climax plant community, i.e.,
ponderosa pine or bunchgrass.
proposed action: The alternative proposed by
the Service to best achieve the refuge purpose,
vision, and goals; contributes to the Refuge System
mission, addresses the significant issues; and is
consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife
management.
priority public use: One of six uses authorized by
the Improvement Act of 1997 to have priority if
found to be compatible with a refuge’s purposes.
This includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
and photography, environmental education and
interpretation.
public: Individuals, organizations, and groups;
officials of federal, state, and local government
agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may
include anyone outside the core planning team. It
includes those who may or may not have indicated
an interest in Service issues and those who do or do
not realize that Service decisions may affect them.
public involvement: A process that offers affected
and interested individuals and organizations an
opportunity to learn about Service actions and
policies and to express their opinions. The Service
gives thoughtful consideration to public opinions
when shaping decisions for refuge management.
purpose of the refuge: The purpose of a refuge is
specified in, or derived from, the law, proclamation,
executive order, agreement, public land order,
donation document, or administrative memorandum
establishing, authorization, or expanding a refuge,
39
Glossary
refuge unit, or refuge subunit. (Draft Service
Manual 602 FW 1.5).
refuge purpose: See purpose of the refuge.
refuge use: Any activity on a refuge, except for an
administrative or law enforcement activity, carried
out by, or under the direction of, an authorized
Service employee.
restoration: Management emphasis designed
to move ecosystems to desired conditions and
processes, and/or to healthy upland habitats and
aquatic systems.
riparian area or zone: An area or habitat that
is transitional from a terrestrial to an aquatic
ecosystem—includes streams, lakes wet areas, and
adjacent plant communities and their associated
soils which have free water at or near the surface;
an area whose components are directly or indirectly
attributed to the influence of water; of or relating
to a river; specifically applied to ecology, “riparian”
describes the land immediately adjoining and
directly influenced by streams. For example,
riparian vegetation includes any and all plant-life
growing on the land adjoining a stream and directly
influenced by the stream.
scoping: The process of obtaining information from
the public for input into the planning process.
Service: See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
shorebird: Any of a suborder (Charadrii) of birds
(such as a plover or a snipe) that frequents the
seashore or mud flat areas.
strategy: A specific action, tool, or technique—or
combination of actions, tools, and techniques—used
to meet unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 602
FW 1.5).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (service, USFWS):
The principal federal agency responsible for
conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and
wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit
of the American people. The Service manages
the 93-million-acre Refuge System comprised of
more than 530 refuges and thousands of waterfowl
production areas. It also operates 65 national fish
hatcheries and 78 ecological service field stations,
the agency enforces federal wildlife laws, manages
migratory bird populations, restores national
significant fisheries, conserves and restores
wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers
the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign
governments with their conservation efforts. It also
oversees the Federal Aid program which distributes
millions of dollars collected from excise taxes on
fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife
agencies.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mission: The
mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
working with others to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and plants and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people.
USFWS: See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
vision statement: A concise statement of the
desired future condition of the planning unit, based
primarily on the Refuge System mission, specific
refuge purposes, and other relevant mandates (Draft
Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).
warm-season grasses: Grasses that begin growth
later in the season (early June). These grasses
require warmer soil temperatures to germinate
and actively grow when temperatures are warmer.
Examples of warm season grasses are Indiangrass,
switchgrass, and big bluestem.
waterfowl: A category of birds that includes ducks,
geese, and swans.
watershed: The region draining into a river, river
system, or body of water.
wildlife-dependent recreational use: The six
priority public uses of the Refuge System as
established in the Improvement Act are: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation.” The
Service also considers other wildlife-dependent uses
in the preparation of CCPs; however, the six priority
public uses always take precedence.
Appendices
Black-capped Chickadee
Tom Kelley/USFWS
43
Appendix A
Planning Team and Contributors
This plan is the result of the efforts by members of the planning team for Bear Butte NWR. The draft CCP
and EA were written by refuge staff and the refuge planning team with input from other team members.
PLANNING TEAM
Name Title Agency
Linda Kelly Planning Team Leader USFWS
Tom Koerner Project Leader USFWS
Shilo Comeau Refuge Biologist USFWS
OTHER CONTRIBUTORS
Name Title Agency
Mimi Mather Planner Shapins and Associates
Tom Gibney Planner Shapins and Associates
45
Appendix B
Key Legislation and Policies
􀂄􈐠 Partnerships. America’s sportsmen and women
were the fi rst partners who insisted on
protecting valuable wildlife habitat within
wildlife refuges. Conservation partnerships
with other Federal agencies, State agencies,
Tribes, organizations, industry, and the general
public can make signifi cant contributions to the
growth and management of the refuge System.
􀂄􈐠 Public Involvement. The public should be given
a full and open opportunity to participate
in decisions regarding acquisition and
management of our national wildlife refuges.
LEGAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE
Management actions on national wildlife refuges are
circumscribed by many mandates (laws, Executive
Orders, etc.), the latest of which is the Volunteer
and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of
1998. Regulations that affect refuge management
the most are listed below.
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997: Sets the mission and administrative policy
for all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge
System; mandates comprehensive conservation
planning for all units of the National Wildlife Refuge
System.
Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all Federal
agencies to carry out programs for the conservation
of endangered and threatened species.
National Environmental Policy Act (1969): 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
this Act with other planning requirements, and
prepare appropriate documents to facilitate better
environmental decision making (from 40 CFR 1500).
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act (1966): Defines the National Wildlife Refuge
System and authorizes the Secretary to permit any
use of a refuge, provided such use is compatible
with the major purposes for which the refuge was
established.
Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use
of refuges for recreation when such uses are
compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and
when sufficient funds are available to manage the
uses.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the
Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into agreements
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE MISSION,
GOALS, AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
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” (National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997).
GOALS OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM ARE:
A. To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge
purpose(s) and further the System mission.
B. Conserve, restore where appropriate, and
enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants
that are endangered or threatened with becoming
endangered.
C. Perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional
fish, and marine mammal populations.
D. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants.
E. Conserve and restore, where appropriate,
representative ecosystems of the United States,
including the ecological processes characteristic of
those ecosystems.
F. To foster understanding and instill appreciation
of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation,
by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and
compatible wildlife-dependent public use. Such
use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation.
There are four guiding principles for management
and general public use of the refuge System
established by Executive Order 12996 (3/25/96):
􀂄􈐠 Public Use. The Refuge System provides
important opportunities for compatible
wildlife-dependent recreational activities
involving hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation
and photography, and environmental education
and interpretation.
􀂄􈐠 Habitat. Fish and wildlife will not prosper
without high quality habitat, and without
fi sh and wildlife, traditional uses of refuge
cannot be sustained. The Refuge System will
continue to conserve and enhance the quality
and diversity of fi sh and wildlife habitat within
refuges.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
46
with private landowners for wildlife management
purposes.
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes
procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental,
or gifts of areas approved by the Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates
the protection of migratory birds as a Federal
responsibility. This Act enables the setting of
seasons and other regulations, including the closing
of areas, Federal or non-Federal, to the hunting of
migratory birds.
47
Appendix C
Public Involvement
Public scoping was completed in December 2004. A
public meeting was held in Sturgis, South Dakota on
December 2, 2004. Two people attended this meeting
and in addition five written comments were received
during the open-comment period. Comments
received identified biological, social, and economic
concerns regarding management.
MAILING LIST
The following mailing list was developed for this
CCP.
FEDERAL OFFICIALS
U.S. Representative Stephanie Herseth,
Washington DC; Rapid City, SD, Area Director
U.S. Senator Tim Johnson, Washington DC; Rapid
City, SD, Area Director
U.S. Senator John Thune, Washington DC; Rapid
City, SD, Area Director
FEDERAL AGENCIES LOCATED IN SOUTH DAKOTA
Bureau of Land Management, South Dakota Field
Office, Belle Fourche
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services,
Pierre
Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland
Management District
Huron Wetland Management District
Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland
Management District
Karl Mundt National Wildlife Refuge
Madison Wetland Management District
Waubay Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management
District
USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest,
Custer
TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONS
Arapaho Business Council, Fort Washakie, WY
Black Feet Tribal Business Council, Browning, MT
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Eagle Butte, SD
Chippewa Cree Business Committee, Box Elder, MT
Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Council, Fort Thompson,
SD
Crow Tribal Council, Crow Agency, MT
Flandreau Santee Sioux Executive Committee,
Flandreau, SD
Fort Belknap Community Council, Harlem, MT
Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board, Popular, MT
Lower Bruele Sioux Tribal Council, Lower Brule,
SD
Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council, Lame Deer, MT
Oglala Sioux Tribal Council, Pine Ridge, SD
Omaha Tribal Council, Macy, NE
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, Niobrara, NE
Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council, Rosebud, SD
Santee Sioux Tribal Council, Niobrara, NE
Shoshone Business Council, Fort Washakie, WY
Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, Agency Village, SD
Spirit Lake Tribal Council, Fort Totten, ND
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Fort Yates, ND
Three Affiliated Tribes, New Town, ND
Tribal Preservation Office, Standing Rock Sioux
Tribe, Fort Yates, ND
Winnebago Tribal Council, Winnebago, NE
Yankton Sioux Tribe, Marty, SD
SOUTH DAKOTA STATE OFFICIALS
Senator Eric Bogue, Faith
Senator Kenneth McNenny, Sturgis
Senator J.P. Duniphan, Rapid City
Representative Thomas Brunner, Nisland
Representative Larry Rhoden, Union Center
Representative Michael Buckingham, Rapid City
Representative Don Can Etten, Rapid City
SOUTH DAKOTA STATE AGENCIES
Department of Agriculture, Pierre
Department of Emergency Management, Pierre
Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Pierre
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
48
Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre and
Lead
Division of Water Rights, Pierre
State Historic Preservation Officer, Pierre
State Conservationist, Pierre
Farm Bureau Federation, Huron
SOUTH DAKOTA LOCAL AGENCIES
City of Sturgis, South Dakota
Meade County Conservation District, Sturgis
Meade County Government, Sturgis
INDIVIDUALS
(10 people)
49
Appendix D
Bird List
Loons & Grebes
Common Loon
Western Grebe
Horned Grebe
Eared Grebe
Pied-billed Grebe
Pelicans & Cormorants
American White Pelican
Double-crested Cormorant
Geese & Ducks
Canada Goose
Greater White-fronted Goose
Snow Goose
Mallard
Northern Pintail
Gadwall
American Wigeon
Northern Shoveler
Blue-winged Teal
Cinnamon Teal
Green-winged Teal
Wood Duck
Redhead
Canvasback
Ring-necked Duck
Lesser Scaup
Common Goldeneye
Bufflehead
Old Squaw
White-winged Scoter
Hooded Merganser
Red-breasted Merganser
Common Merganser
Ruddy Duck
Vultures, Hawks & Eagles
Turkey Vulture
Cooper’s Hawk
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Northern Harrier
Rough-legged Hawk
Ferruginous Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Swainson’s Hawk
Broad-winged Hawk
Bald Eagle
Golden Eagle
Osprey
Prairie Falcon
American Kestrel
Merlin
Gallinaceous Birds
Wild Turkey
Sharp-tailed Grouse
Ring-necked Pheasant
Gray Partridge
Herons
Great Blue Heron
Green-backed Heron
Yellow-crowned Night-heron
Cranes, Rails & Coots
Sandhill Crane
Sora Rail
American Coot
Shorebirds
American Avocet
Black-bellied Plover
Piping Plover
Killdeer
Marbled Godwit
Long-billed Curlew
Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs
Solitary Sandpiper
Upland Sandpiper
Willet
Spotted Sandpiper
Short-billed Dowitcher
BIRDS
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
50
Long-billed Dowitcher
Wilson’s Phalarope
Common Snipe
Least Sandpiper
Semi-palmated Sandpiper
Western Sandpiper
Gulls & Terns
Ring-billed Gull
Franklin Gull
Common Tern
Forster’s Tern
Black Tern
Pigeons & Doves
Rock Dove
Mourning Dove
Cuckoos
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Black-billed Cuckoo
Owls
Screech Owl
Great Horned Owl
Long-eared Owl
Short-eared Owl
Snow Owl
Northern Saw-whet
Goatsuckers, Swifts & Kingfi shers
Common Nighthawk
Chimney Swift
Belted Kingfisher
Woodpeckers
Lewis’ Woodpecker
Red-headed Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Northern Flicker
Flycatchers
Eastern Kingbird
Western Kingbird
Say’s Phoebe
Least Flycatcher
Western Flycatcher
Trail’s Flycatcher
Western Wood Pewee
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Larks
Horned Lark
Swallows
Barn Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Violet-green Swallow
Tree Swallow
Bank Swallow
Northern Rough-winged Swallow
Corvids
Blue Jay
Gray Jay
Black-billed Magpie
American Crow
Chickadees, Nuthatches & Creepers
Black-capped Chickadee
White-breasted Nuthatch
Red-breasted Nuthatch
Brown Creeper
Wrens
House Wren
Rock Wren
Canyon Wren
Marsh Wren
Thrashers & Thrushes
Gray Catbird
Brown Thrasher
American Robin
Townsend’s Solitaire
Veery
Eastern Bluebird
Mountain Bluebird
51
Appendix D—Bird List
Kinglets, Pipits & Waxwings
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Water Pipit
Bohemian Waxwing
Cedar Waxwing
Shrikes & Starlings
Northern Shrike
Loggerhead Shrike
European Starling
Vireos & Warblers
Solitary Vireo
Red-eyed Vireo
Warbling Vireo
Black and White Warbler
Orange-crowned Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Myrtle race
Audubon race
Ovenbird
Common Yellowthroat
Yellow-breasted Chat
American Redstart
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Blue-winged Warbler
Weaver Finches
House Sparrow
Blackbirds & Orioles
Bobolink
Western Meadowlark
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Red-winged Blackbird
Brewer’s Blackbird
Common Grackle
Brown-headed Cowbird
Orchard Oriole
Northern Oriole
Tanagers, Grosbeaks & Others
Western Tanager
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Black-headed Grosbeak
Evening Grosbeak
Blue Grosbeak
Indigo Bunting
Lazuli Bunting
Rosy Finch
Common Redpoll
Pine Siskin
American Goldfinch
Red Crossbill
Rufous-sided Towhee
Sparrows & Longspurs
Savannah Sparrow
Grasshopper Sparrow
Lark Bunting
Vesper Sparrow
Lark Sparrow
Junco, Dark-eyed
Slate-colored race
White-winged race
Oregon race
American Tree Sparrow
Chipping Sparrow
Clay-colored Sparrow
Field Sparrow
Harris’ Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Chestnut-collared Longspur
53
Appendix E
Divestiture Model
DIVESTITURE MODEL DISCUSSION
The planning team ran the divestiture model to
determine whether Bear Butte National Wildlife
Refuge should be considered for divestiture. The
results are below.
Date: March 30, 2005
Place: Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
Attendance
Service personnel and Shapins Associates
Summary
Although the refuge has supported migratory bird
and fi sh populations, the level of support has not
been substantial. The State’s recreational goals have
confl icted with Refuge System goals. Restoration of
the refuge’s biological integrity would necessitate
removal of state park facilities. The Service has not
maintained the refuge since 1967 and, therefore, its
rights to the land would probably not be upheld in
court.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
1. Does the refuge achieve one or more of the Refuge
System goals?
Yes. The refuge achieves some of the Refuge
System goals by providing a resting and watering
spot for migrating birds, supporting native plants,
and by fostering an understanding and instilling
appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their
conservation.
2. 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?
Partially. The refuge contains a body of water in an
arid part of the State. Therefore, it is somewhat of a
“stepping stone for migratory birds.” The rest of the
statement does not apply with regard to this refuge.
3. Does the refuge provide substantial support
for migratory bird species, provide important
sheltering, feeding and breeding habitat for
threatened and endangered species, or support
species identifi ed in authorizing legislation?
No. The support the refuge provides does not meet
the defi nition of “substantial.” One-day estimates
at Bear Butte Lake rarely exceed 200 birds. By
comparison one day estimates at Lacreek National
Wildlife Refuge have documented 60,000 birds.
The refuge does not substantially contribute to the
survival of threatened or endangered plant or animal
species.
4. Does the refuge fulfi ll its mission as stated in the
Improvement Act?
No. The refuge has probably never fulfi lled its
mission because its purpose was to provide a
recreational area for the surrounding communities.
Because of this public-use disturbance, the refuge is
not an inviolate sanctuary. The confl icting purposes
of the Service and the State have been discussed
as far back as the 1950s. The Service’s answer to
this dilemma was to allow the State to maintain the
refuge under the cooperative agreement of 1967.
5. Does the refuge have biological integrity; if not,
is it feasible to restore the biological integrity of the
converted or degraded habitat?
No. Bear Butte Lake is a natural wetland increased
in size with a dam and diverted fl ows and it is not
feasible to remove it. The habitat is not “degraded”
but the recreational uses do not allow for the land to
be an inviolate habitat for plant and animal species.
6. Does the Service have, or can it reasonably
acquire, the right to restore the habitat?
No. The Service has not enforced the rights
contained in the easement for many years; neither
has it made its rights known. For these reasons, the
Service’s rights to the land would probably not stand
up in court.
Bibliography
57
Bibliography
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of
conservation concern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, division of migratory bird management.
Arlington, VA. 
Encyclopedia entry for the Black Hills of South
Dakota:  1/15/05
Encyclopedia entry for Sturgis, South Dakota:
 11/16/05
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
entry for the climate of South Dakota:  11/16/05
National Park Service entry for Wind Cave National
Park:  2/15/06
State park entry for Bear Butte State Park in South
Dakota:  11/15/05
State website entry for the air quality statistics in
South Dakota: 
Green, J.; and Short, N.M. 1971. Volcanic landforms
and surface features: a photographic atlas and
glossary. NY: Springer Verlag. 519 p.
Karner, F.R.; and Halvorson, D.L. 1987. The Devils
Tower, Bear Lodge Mountains: cenozoic igneous
complex. In Beus, S.S., ed., Centennial Field Guide.
Volume 2. Geological Society of America, Rocky
Mountain Section. p. 161–164.
Bureau of Land Management and South Dakota
Game, Fish and Parks Department. 1991. Birds of
the Fort Meade Recreation Area and Bear Butte
State Park. Bear Butte State Park, SD.
Chief, division of realty, region 6, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Memo dated May 26, 2004. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department.
2003. South Dakota Statewide Fisheries Survey
2102-F21-R-36. Pierre, SD.
U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts. 2002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Draft
comprehensive conservation plan and environmental
assessment, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge.
Denver, CO.