Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex

              Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Montana
August 2011
Approved by
Stephen D. Guertin, Regional Director Date
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Lakewood, Colorado
Prepared by
Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex
194 Bowdoin Auto Tour Road
Malta, Montana 59538
406 /654 2863
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region
Division of Refuge Planning
134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
303 /236 8145
CITATION
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Comprehensive conservation plan: Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakewood,
Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region. 276 p.
Comprehensive Conservation PlanBowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Montana
Submitted by
Carmen Luna Date
Refuge Manager
Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Malta, Montana
Concurred with by
W. Dean Rundle Date
Refuge Supervisor, Region 6
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lakewood, Colorado
Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date
Assistant Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
National Wildlife Refuge System
Lakewood, ColoradoContents
Summary .......................................................................................
XI
Abbreviations ....................................................................................
XV
CHAPTER 1–Introduction .......................................................................
1
1.1 The Comprehensive Conservation Plan .......................................................
3
Final Decision ................................................................................
3
Plan Development .............................................................................
4
Plan Amendment and Revision ....................................................................
4
1.2 Purpose and Need for the Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
1.3 North American Model of Wildlife Conservation ...............................................
4
1.4 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System ......................................
5
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ....................................................................
5
Service Activities in Montana ....................................................................
6
National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................
6
1.5 National and Regional Mandates ............................................................
7
1.6 Contributions to National and Regional Plans .................................................
8
Fulfilling the Promise ...........................................................................
8
Partners in Flight ..............................................................................
8
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan .........................................................
9
North American Waterfowl Management Plan ........................................................
10
Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan ......................................
10
Montana Piping Plover Management Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage-Grouse in Montana ..................................
11
State Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy .............................................
12
1.7 Strategic Habitat Conservation ..............................................................
12
Climate Change ..............................................................................
14
1.8 Planning Process ..........................................................................
14
Coordination with the Public .....................................................................
17
State Coordination ............................................................................
18
Tribal Coordination ............................................................................
18
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex ...............................................................
19
2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History ..........................................
19
Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................
20
Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................
22
Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................................
26
Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................
26
Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................
31
Bowdoin Wetland Management District .............................................................
34
Summary of Land Acquisition History ...............................................................
39
2.2 Purposes ..................................................................................
40
Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................
40
Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................
41
Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................................
41VI Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................Bowdoin Wetland Management District .............................................................
41 41 41
2.3 Vision .....................................................................................
42
2.4 Goals .....................................................................................
42
Goal for Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife ......................................................Goal for Wetland Habitat and Associated Wildlife .....................................................
42 42
Goal for Salinity and Blowing Salts ................................................................Goal for Visitor Services ........................................................................
42 42
Goal for Partnerships ...........................................................................Goal for Operations ............................................................................
42 42
2.5 Special Values .............................................................................Part of a National System .......................................................................Migratory Birds ...............................................................................Prairie Pothole Region ..........................................................................Special Designations ...........................................................................Native Prairie ................................................................................
43 43 43 44 45 45
Conservation Easements ........................................................................
45
Cultural History ...............................................................................Public Use ..................................................................................
45 45
2.6 Planning Issues ............................................................................Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife ............................................................Loss of Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks ..................................................................Water Resources and Wetland Management at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge .............................Salinity in Lake Bowdoin and Blowing Salts ..........................................................Water Resources and Wetland Management within Bowdoin Wetland Management District ......................Riparian Habitat and Associated Wildlife ...........................................................Wildlife Disease .............................................................................
45 45 46 47 48 49 49 49
Piping Plover ................................................................................Invasive Plants, Nonnative Plants, and Noxious Weeds .................................................Habitat Protection and Acquisition ................................................................Visitor Services ..............................................................................
50 50 52 53
Partnerships .................................................................................Operations ..................................................................................Natural Gas Development .......................................................................Prioritization of Refuge Complex Lands .............................................................Research, Inventory, and Monitoring ...............................................................Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................
53 53 54 54 5757
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Complex Resources and Description .......................................
59
3.1 Physical Environment ....................................................................... Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59 59
Climate Change ..............................................................................Physiography and Geology .......................................................................Soils .......................................................................................
62 63 63
Water Resources .............................................................................
63
Air Quality ..................................................................................
73
3.2 Biological Resources .......................................................................Uplands ....................................................................................Wetlands ...................................................................................
74 74 82
Riparian Areas ...............................................................................
93
3.3 Salinity Background ........................................................................Salt Basics ..................................................................................
94 94
Principal Salts at Bowdoin Refuge .................................................................
97CONTENTS VII
Presettlement Salt Balance ...................................................................... 97
Postsettlement Salt Balance ..................................................................... 99
Current Salt Balance ........................................................................... 105
Water Supply ................................................................................ 108
3.4 State and Federal Listed Species ............................................................ 112Piping Plover ................................................................................. 113Plant Species ................................................................................ 113Animal Species of Concern ...................................................................... 113
3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................... 114
Prehistoric Occupation .......................................................................... 114Protohistoric and Historic Native Americans .......................................................... 115
Historic Euro-Americans ........................................................................ 115
History of Bowdoin Refuge Complex ................................................................ 116
3.6 Special Management Areas ................................................................. 117Wilderness Review ............................................................................ 117
Important Bird Area ............................................................................ 118Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network ...................................................... 118
3.7 Visitor Services ............................................................................ 118
Hunting .................................................................................... 119Fishing ..................................................................................... 121Wildlife Observation and Photography .............................................................. 121Environmental Education ........................................................................ 122
Interpretation ................................................................................ 122
3.8 Management Uses ......................................................................... 122Cooperative Farming ........................................................................... 123Prescribed Burning , Haying, and Grazing ............................................................ 123
3.9 Socioeconomic Environment ................................................................ 125
Population and Employment ...................................................................... 125Public Use of the Refuge Complex ................................................................. 126Baseline Economic Activity ...................................................................... 126
3.10 Partnerships ............................................................................... 127
3.11 Operations ................................................................................ 127Staff ....................................................................................... 127
Facilities .................................................................................... 127
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction ............................................................
129
4.1 Management Focus ........................................................................Salinity and Blowing Salts .......................................................................Divestiture of Lake Thibadeau Refuge ..............................................................Refuge Complex Objectives and Strategies ...........................................................
130 130 130 131
4.2 Goal for Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife .............................................. 131Native Grassland ............................................................................. 131
Disturbed Grassland ........................................................................... 135
4.3 Goal for Wetland Habitat and Associated Wildlife ............................................. 136
Managed Wetlands ............................................................................ 137Target Waterbird Species ....................................................................... 137Wetland Habitat Objectives ...................................................................... 139Avian Disease ................................................................................ 144
Piping Plover ................................................................................. 145
4.4 Objectives that Support the Goals for Upland and Wetland Habitats .............................. 147Invasive and Nonnative Species ................................................................... 147Wildfire Management .......................................................................... 153VIII Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Habitat Protection and Acquisition ................................................................. 154
4.5 Goal for Salinity and Blowing Salts .......................................................... 161Salt and Water Management ..................................................................... 161Objectives for Salinity and Blowing Salts ............................................................ 165
4.6 Goal for Visitor Services and Cultural Resources .............................................. 170
Visitor Services ............................................................................... 170
Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 175
4.7 Goal for Partnerships ....................................................................... 176Public, Government, and Industry Partners ........................................................... 176
4.8 Goal for Operations ......................................................................... 177Staff ....................................................................................... 177
Facilities and Equipment ........................................................................ 179
4.9 Stepdown Management Plans ............................................................... 180
4.10 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation ........................................................ 181
4.11 Plan Amendment and Revision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Glossary ....................................................................................... 183
Appendixes
Appendix A–Environmental Compliance .............................................................. 191Appendix B–Compatibility Determinations ............................................................ 195Appendix C–Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ................................................ 209Appendix D–Divestiture Model Results for Lake Thibadeau Refuge ........................................ 215Appendix E–Public Involvement ..................................................................... 221Appendix F–Key Legislation and Policy ............................................................... 235Appendix G–Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination .................................................. 241Appendix H–Species Lists ......................................................................... 245Appendix I–Fire Management Program ............................................................... 259
Bibliography ................................................................................... 263
FIGURES
1 Map of refuges in the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex within the Prairie Pothole Region of North
America ...................................................................................
2
2 Vicinity map of the five refuges and one wetland management district in the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge
Complex, Montana ..........................................................................
3
3 Map of the five refuges and one wetland management district in the Bowdoin National Wildlife Complex within
Geographic Area 13–Plains and Prairie Potholes ...................................................
13
4 Process steps for comprehensive conservation planning and associated environmental analysis ..............
15
5 Base map of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ............................................
21
6 Map of habitat types at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ...................................
23
7 Base map of Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .........................................
25
8 Map of habitat types at Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ................................
27
9 Base map of Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .....................................
28
10 Map of habitat types at Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ............................
29
11 Base map of Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .........................................
30
12 Map of habitat types at Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ................................
32
13 Base map of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .......................................
33
14 Map of habitat types at Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ..............................
35CONTENTS IX
15 Map of conservation easements and waterfowl production areas in Bowdoin Wetland Management District,
Montana .................................................................................. 37
16 Map of waterfowl flyways in the United States ..................................................... 44
17 Map of critical habitat for piping plover at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ............. 51
18 Map of oil and gas activities in and around Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ............ 55
19 Graph of total annual precipitation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1905–2008) .............. 60
20 Graph of total February precipitation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1905–2008) ............ 60
21 Graph of total June precipitation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1905–2008) ............... 60
22 Graph of average maximum daily temperature for February at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
(1969–2008) ................................................................................ 61
23 Graph of average minimum daily temperature for February at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
(1969–2008) ................................................................................ 61
24 Graph of average maximum daily temperature for June at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
(1969–2008) ................................................................................ 61
25 Graph of average minimum daily temperature for June at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
(1969–2008) ................................................................................ 62
26 Map of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex within the Milk River watershed ...................... 64
27 Map of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex located between the Milk River and Beaver
Creek watersheds ........................................................................... 65
28 Map of wetlands, water management infrastructure, and monitoring sites on Bowdoin National Wildlife
Refuge, Montana ............................................................................ 69
29 Map of a historical survey showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge on the topographic features of
the landscape .............................................................................. 98
30 Map of the Milk River Project, Montana ........................................................... 103
31 Chart of sources of salts into Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ............................... 106
32 Graph of tons of salt in the lakes and wetlands at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
(1990–2007) ................................................................................ 107
33 Chart of sources of water into Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .............................. 108
34 Map of water levels and salinity for Lake Bowdoin, Montana (1975–2007) ............................... 109
35 Graph of water deliveries to Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1938–2008) ..................... 111
36 Map of current and planned public use sites and activities at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ..... 120
37 Graph of water depth and substrate preferences of shorebird foraging guilds ............................. 140
38 Map of Russian olive tree infestations in and around Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ............ 149
39 Map of Russian olive evaluation areas (Big Island) for grassland restoration at Bowdoin National Wildlife
Refuge, Montana ........................................................................... 150
40 Map of wetland density per square mile in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
41 Map of grassland density in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ........................ 159
42 Map of areas with high densities of wetlands and grasslands for use as a decision matrix to determine
protection priorities in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
43 Map of the extent of Lake Bowdoin at various water elevations ........................................ 163
44 Adaptive management process .................................................................. 181
45 Map of wetlands within 10 miles of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .................... 219
TABLES
1 Summary of the CCP planning process for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana .............
15
2 Land acquisition history for refuges in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana (1937��1989) ......
39
3 Land acquisition history for Bowdoin Wetland Management District, Montana (1977–2008) .................
40
4 Water rights for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Phillips County, Montana .............................
68
5 Water rights for the waterfowl production areas and satellite refuges of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge
Complex, Montana ..........................................................................
71
6 Salinity categories and the corresponding ranges of specific conductance values ..........................
96X Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
7 Base staff funded in fiscal year 2011 at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ...............
127
8 Conservation status of target species of upland birds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ....
132
9 Nesting habitat requirements for target species of upland birds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge
Complex, Montana ..........................................................................
132
10 Conservation status of target species of waterbirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ...........
138
11 Life history needs of target species of waterbirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana .....
139
12 Nest site and habitat characteristics of target, interior-nesting shorebirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife
Refuge Complex, Montana ....................................................................
139
13 Partner agencies and expertise for the injection well project at Lake Bowdoin, Montana ....................
167
14 Current and additional staff for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ......................
178
15 Stepdown management plans for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ....................
180Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a comprehensive conservation plan for the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex in Montana. The Regional Director of the Mountain–Prairie Region of the Service selected the following alternatives from the draft comprehensive conservation plan and envi­ronmental assessment as the preferred alternatives, which have been combined to compose the final CCP:
■■Alternative B—overall refuge complex manage­ment
■■Salinity Alternative 4—underground injection and flushing by Beaver Creek (addresses salinity)
■■Lake Thibadeau Refuge Alternative 2—divest Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge
The refuge complex covers 84,724 acres in north-central Montana, spread across Blaine, Hill, Phillips, and Valley Counties. With its headquarters near the town of Malta, the refuge complex comprises the following units:
■■Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge
■■Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt Lake, and Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuges (unstaffed satellite refuges)
■■Bowdoin Wetland Management District—nine waterfowl production areas, refuge and flowage easements, wetland conservation easements, and grassland conservation easements
The Refuge Complex
The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex is within the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains. While the five national wildlife refuges and the wet­land management district were established under different authorities, they all have the overriding purpose of providing migration, nesting, resting, and feeding habitat for migratory birds.
The Bowdoin Refuge and waterfowl production areas in the Bowdoin District provide opportunities for the public to enjoy compatible wildlife-dependent public use activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation.
Photo of white flowers.Photo of white flowers.Photo of white flowers.
© Gary A. Monroe / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database
Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta. Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta. Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta. Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta. Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta. Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta. Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta. Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta. Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta. Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta. Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta. Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta. Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta. Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta. Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta. Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta. Map of north-central Montana showing the refuge complex headquarters just east Malta.
Bowdoin
Refuge Complex
Headquarters
MONTANA
XII Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
The Future of the Refuge
Complex
The vision for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge
Complex is based on the establishing purposes of the
refuge complex, resource conditions and potential,
and the issues identified during the planning process.
The goals were developed to meet the vision for the
refuge complex.
Vision
Under seemingly limitless skies, Bowdoin
National Wildlife Refuge Complex
provides vast expanses of gently rolling
native mixed-grass prairie, dotted with an
array of diverse wetlands.
Recognized as one of the most
important migratory bird refuges in
the State of Montana, these habitats are
managed to ensure that grassland- and
wetland-dependent waterfowl, shorebirds,
songbirds, and native wildlife
species thrive.
Visitors recognize these unique and
wondrous qualities and experience a sense
of solitude and a connection to the land
that fosters a desire to conserve
this and other remnants of the
northern Great Plains.
Goal for Upland Habitat and
Associated Wildlife
Protect, enhance, and restore grassland habitat for
breeding and migratory birds and other wildlife while
maintaining the biological diversity and integrity of
native prairie grasslands.
Goal for Wetland Habitat and
Associated Wildlife
Provide, protect, and manage wetland habitat for
breeding and migratory birds and other wildlife that
maintains the biological diversity and integrity of
prairie pothole wetlands.
Goal for Salinity and Blowing
Salts
Develop a water management system on Bowdoin
National Wildlife Refuge that protects the environ-ment
and mitigates current and future blowing salt
concerns for neighboring properties, while providing
quality water and wildlife habitat for migratory birds
and other wetland-dependent wildlife.
Goal for Visitor Services
Provide visitors of all abilities with wildlife-depen-dent
recreation, interpretation, and environmental
education opportunities that foster an appreciation
and understanding of the unique wildlife, plant com-munities,
and cultural resources of the Montana Prai-rie
Pothole Region.
Goal for Partnerships
Maintain and expand partnerships that preserve,
restore, and enhance healthy and productive prairie-wetland
complexes on Bowdoin National Wildlife
Refuge and within Bowdoin Wetland Management
District.
Goal for Operations
Prioritize for wildlife first and emphasize the protec-tion
of trust resources in the use of staff, funding,
partnerships, and volunteer programs.
Marbled godwit and long-billed curlew are shorebirds
that nest in native prairie at the refuge complex.
© Michael Forsberg
SUMMARY XIII
Management of the Refuge Complex
The comprehensive conservation plan directs the management of the Bowdoin Refuge Complex to meet the purposes of the refuge complex and address issues.
The plan is intended to be a broad umbrella of gen­eral concepts and specific objectives for wildlife, habi­tat, visitor services, and partnerships over the next 15 years. As the plan is implemented, the Service will develop stepdown plans with details for carrying out the actions needed to achieve objectives.
Habitat and Wildlife
The Service will conserve natural resources within the Bowdoin Refuge Complex by restoring, protect­ing, and enhancing native mixed-grass prairie and by maintaining quality wetland habitat for target mi­gratory birds, such as northern pintail, and resident birds.
Uplands and Wetlands
Native prairie areas and wetlands are the most pro­ductive habitat types in Montana, particularly in the Prairie Pothole Region. Historically, the northern Great Plains was a grassland-dominated system. This large expanse of treeless prairie has been fragmented by cropland, shelterbelts, human settlement, and the uncontrolled spread of nonnative Russian olive. Na­tive mixed-grass prairie will be protected, restored, and enhanced to provide quality nesting habitat for targeted grassland-dependent birds.
Enhanced wetlands will be managed to mimic natural conditions for target wetland-dependent mi­gratory birds during migrations and breeding.
In addition, the Service has committed to work with willing landowners in Montana to compensate them for protecting these habitats, primarily through perpetual wetland or grassland conservation ease­ments.
Nonnative and Invasive Plants
Nonnative and invasive plants that are causing habitat losses and fragmentation will be controlled or eradicated. The refuge complex is constantly chal­lenged to maintain its native grassland—critical to migratory birds—unfragmented by nonnative trees and shrubs. One of the most damaging species, Rus­sian olive trees can take over and fragment native vegetation, interfere with nutrient cycling, damage water control structures and fences, and tax wa­ter reserves. These trees will be strategically re­moved and the treated sites will be monitored for reinvasion.
The Service will con­duct research to control crested wheatgrass, an
invasive grass, and re-
store treated areas. Leafy spurge, perennial pepperweed, and Canada thistle are the primary invasive forb species. Left unmanaged, these species can have a detrimen­tal effect on the diversity of native plants, wildlife, and habitat quality.
© Cindie Brunner
Lake Bowdoin Salinity Levels
The principle sources of water for the Bowdoin Na­tional Wildlife Refuge are precipitation, floodwater from Beaver Creek, ground water seepage, water deliveries from the Milk River Project, and irriga­tion return flows. The last three sources of water add dissolved solids (salinity) to the refuge. As water evaporates from Lake Bowdoin’s closed system, salts become concentrated and water salinity increases. The progressively increasing salinity levels in Lake Bowdoin and the blowing salts out of Dry Lake threaten migratory birds and other wildlife, wetland habitats, and, potentially, neighboring landowners and downstream irrigators.
Management of salts at Bowdoin Refuge is tied to water management. To survive as a viable migratory bird refuge, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge needs more water and the means to reduce and dispose of saline water.
Long-term water management will be a flow-through system where the refuge receives a sufficient quantity of water that could eventually spill into Bea­ver Creek, carrying (flushing) with it a quantity of salts equal to what has entered the refuge. This sys­tem will allow salts to pass through the refuge rather than accumulating in Lake Bowdoin, which will mini­mize blowing salt events and improve wildlife habitat. With the current salt concentrations, a flow-through system is not possible due to the potential environ­mental impacts to primarily downstream water users along Beaver Creek.
The short-term target for salt management is to use management action—an underground injection well to force saline water deep into the ground—to remove sufficient salts so the Service can release wa­XIV Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
ter to Beaver Creek without significantly increasing the salinity of the creek water or negatively affecting downstream users. This will also prevent the salts in Lake Bowdoin from becoming extremely concen­trated, which would negatively affect wetland habitat and wildlife.
Photo of a lake and flat shoreline covered with white deposits. Photo of a lake and flat shoreline covered with white deposits.
Mike Artmann / USFWS
Visitor Services
An estimated 25,000 visitors come to explore the Bowdoin Refuge Complex annually. A major attrac­tion for wildlife observers and hunters, the refuge complex is also popular with local school groups.
Enhanced visitor services programs will provide more opportunity for visitors to learn about migra­tory shorebirds, waterfowl, and other wildlife species that rely on so many aspects of the native prairie. For self-guided visitors, the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge’s auto tour route offers excellent opportuni­ties, including an upcoming new observation site, for viewing and photographing wildlife. These opportuni­ties will lead to a greater understanding of the impor­tance of conserving migratory birds and the unique mixed-grass prairie and wetlands.
A sanctuary area, closed to all foot traffic, will be created for waterfowl on the east half of the Bowdoin Refuge during the hunting season. The Service will work with the State to investigate the potential for offering a safe, compatible, and quality big-game hunt at Bowdoin Refuge.
Partnerships and Operations
The Bowdoin Refuge Complex manages or protects 84,724 acres. The success of the plan’s increased ef­forts and programs depends of the Service’s ability to add staff and infrastructure, accomplish monitoring and research, and develop partnerships. The large size of the management area (four counties) requires long travel times for a limited staff. This makes it difficult to monitor units and conduct an effective habitat man­agement program that can address challenging issues such as native grassland restoration.
Divestiture of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge
The Service will divest the Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge because of its lack of habitat. This limited-interest refuge offers little value to wildlife, and the purposes for which this area was first estab­lished in 1937 are no longer attainable. Native prairie areas are now farmed intensively. Due to upstream development, Lake Thibadeau, Grassy Lake, and Mud Lake are often dry and farmed in most years. The Service owns less than 1 percent of the lands within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary; the remaining private lands are encumbered by ease­ments that do not prohibit development, grazing, or agricultural uses. Abbreviations
ac
Acre
A.D.
Anno Domini or “in the year of the Lord”
BAER
Burned Area Emergency Response
BAR
Burned Area Rehabilitation
CCP
Comprehensive conservation plan
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
cfs
Cubic feet per second
cm
Centimeter
CO2
Carbon dioxide
Compact
Montana House Bill Number 717–Bill to Ratify Water Rights Compact
Compact Commission
Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission
district
Wetland management district
DEQ
Montana Department of Environmental Quality
DNC
Dense nesting cover
DNRC
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
EA
Environmental assessment
EC
Electrical conductivity
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESFO
Ecological Services Field Office
°F
Degrees Fahrenheit
FmHA
Farmers Home Administration
ft
Feet, foot
FWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GIS
Geographic Information System
GLO
General Land Office
gpm
Gallons per minute
GPS
Global Positioning System
GS
General Schedule (pay)
HAPET
Habitat and Population Evaluation Team
Improvement Act
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
MBOGC
Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation
mg/L
Milligrams per liter
mmhos/cm
Millimhos per centimeter
MOA
Memorandum of agreement
MOU
Memorandum of understanding
mS
MilliSiemens
MSGWG
Montana Sage Grouse Working Group
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NWR
National wildlife refuge
ppt
Parts per thousand
Reclamation
Bureau of ReclamationXVI Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
refuge
Refuge within the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex
refuge complex
Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Refuge System
National Wildlife Refuge System
RLGIS
Refuge Lands Geographic Information System
Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
TDS
Total dissolved solids
TSR
Township, section, range
μmhos/cm
Micromhos per centimeter
μS/cm
MicroSiemens per centimeter
U.S.
United States
U.S.C.
United States Code
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USRS
U.S. Reclamation Service
WG
Wage Grade (pay schedule)
WMD
Wetland management district
WPA
Waterfowl production area
Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary,
located after chapter 4.
CHAPTER 1–Introduction
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has de­veloped this final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) to provide a foundation for the management and use of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex (refuge complex) in Montana for at least the next 15 years.
This chapter provides an introduction to the CCP with descriptions of the steps in the CCP planning process; the involvement of the Service, the State of Montana, the tribes, the public, and others; and other plans that may be affected or supported by the future management of the refuge complex.
The remainder of the document contains the in­formation the Service used and the results of the Service’s analysis that are the foundation of this final plan:
■■Chapter 2 describes the refuge complex and plan­ning issues.
■■Chapter 3 describes the physical, biological, and social environments of the refuge complex.
■■Chapter 4 describes objectives and strategies for all aspects of management of the refuge complex.
■■The remaining document contains a glossary of terms, several appendixes, and a bibliography that support the information provided in the plan.
The Service manages the 84,724-acre refuge com-plex that is located in the mixed-grass prairie region of north-central Montana (Kuchler 1964) within an area known as the Prairie Pothole Region (figure 1).The refuge complex oversees management of 14 units and numerous easements (refuge, flowage, wet-land, and grassland) located in Blaine, Phillips, and Valley Counties and in the eastern half of Hill County. These counties are bordered by Canada to the north and the Missouri River to the south. The refuge com-plex’s units and easements are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System):■■Five national wildlife refuges: Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge and four unstaffed satellite refuges—Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt Lake, and Lake Thibadeau.■■Nine waterfowl production areas within the four-county Bowdoin Wetland Management District (district). These areas, along with conservation easements, protect approximately 67,712 acres of wetland and grassland (figure 2). The protection of habitat in the district continues to grow with the acquisition of additional easements annually.
Aerial photo showing low hills with scattered snow and many open waterbodies. Aerial photo showing low hills with scattered snow and many open waterbodies. Photo credit: 2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Map of the central United States showing Prairie Pothole Region extending from Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, North and Montana into Canada.Map of the central United States showing Prairie Pothole Region extending from Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, North and Montana into Canada.CHAPTER 1–Introduction 3
Map of Montana showing the 5 refuges in refuge complex and their locations 3 counties.Map of Montana showing the 5 refuges in refuge complex and their locations 3 counties.
1.1 The Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The CCP specifies the goals and objectives necessary to achieve the vision and purposes of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
Final Decision
The Regional Director of the Mountain–Prairie Re­gion of the Service selected the following alternatives from the draft CCP and environmental assessment (EA) as the preferred alternatives for the final CCP for the Bowdoin Refuge Complex:
■■Alternative B—overall refuge complex manage­ment, including visitor services programs
■■Salinity Alternative 4—underground injection and flushing by Beaver Creek (addresses the sa­line water and blowing salts issue)
■■Lake Thibadeau Refuge Alternative 2—divest Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge
Appendix A documents the Regional Director’s deci­sion in the environmental action statement and the finding of no significant action. The preferred alterna­tives have been combined to compose this final CCP, with specific objectives for all aspects of the Bowdoin Refuge Complex contained in “Chapter 4–Manage­ment Direction.”4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Appendix B contains the final compatibility de­terminations for public uses in the refuge complex. The section 7 biological evaluation (appendix C) docu­ments the effects of CCP actions on threatened and endangered species: a determination of no effect or may affect but not adversely, depending on the spe­cies. Appendix D contains the Region 6 divestiture model, which the Service used to evaluate Lake Thibadeau Refuge.
The CCP is a broad umbrella plan that provides general concepts and specific wildlife, habitat, visitor services, and partnership objectives over the next 15 years. Implementation begins with publication of the final CCP. The Service will carry out the plan with help from partner agencies, organizations, and the public. As the plan is implemented, stepdown man­agement plans will be developed to provide greater detail to managers and employees for carrying out specific actions and strategies authorized by the CCP. Table 15 in chapter 4 lists the stepdown plans needed for the refuge complex.
The CCP details program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget alloca­tions and, thus, are primarily for Service strategic planning purposes. The CCP does not constitute a commitment for staff increases, operation and main­tenance increases, or funding for future land acquisi­tion.
Plan Development
The CCP was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Improvement Act) and Service policy. The actions described in the CCP meet the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
Staff from several Montana State agencies pro­vided critical support in developing the CCP. The Service’s involvement of the public was another important aspect of planning and part of compliance with NEPA. In addition to the initial scoping with the public, there was a public review of the draft CCP and EA before the final CCP was completed.
The planning process is described in detail in sec­tion 1.8, and the public involvement portion is in ap­pendix E.
Plan Amendment and Revision
The Service will annually review the final CCP to determine the need for amendment. An amendment would occur if significant information became avail­able, such as a change in ecological conditions. The Service will evaluate the plan every 5 years and re­vise it after 15 years, as necessary.
1.2 Purpose and Need for the Plan
The purpose of this final CCP is to identify the role that the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex plays in support of the mission of the National Wild­life Refuge System and to provide long-term guid­ance for managing programs and activities. The CCP is needed to help the Service achieve the following:
■■Communication with the public and other partners in efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge System
■■A clear statement of direction for managing the refuge complex
■■Providing neighbors, visitors, and government of­ficials with an understanding of the Service’s man­agement actions on and around the refuge complex
■■Management actions by the Service that are con­sistent with the mandates of the Improvement Act (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997)
■■Management of the refuge complex that is con­sistent with Federal, State, and county plans, as appropriate.
■■A basis for development of budget requests for the refuge complex’s operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs
Sustaining the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources is a task that can be accomplished only through the com­bined efforts of governments, businesses, and private citizens.
1.3 North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
Wildlife conservation in North America evolved to take on a form unique to the world. In recent years, it has come to be known as the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (Geist et al. 2001). The wild­life conservation movement arose out of the conflict between market hunters and sport hunters in the CHAPTER 1–Introduction 5
mid- to late 19th century. Market hunting increased in response to the growth in urban population fueled by the Industrial Revolution. Between 1820 and 1860, the percentage of Americans who lived in cities in­creased from 5 percent to 20 percent; this four-fold increase is the greatest proportional increase in ur­ban population that ever occurred in America (Reiss 1995). The demand for meat and hides—along with feathers for the millinery trade—led to exploitation of game animals by market hunters. Along with the increase in the urban population came a new breed of hunter—one who hunted for the chase and the chal­lenge it provided. These sport hunters valued game animals more when they were alive, as opposed to market hunters who placed value on dead animals they could bring to market. The growing legion of sport hunters started a national movement that re­sulted in Federal and State governments taking re­sponsibility for regulating the take of wildlife.
The keystone concept of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and the bedrock that allowed the Government to exercise control is the Public Trust Doctrine (Geist and Organ 2004). Origi­nating in an 1842 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Martin v. Waddell case, its origins derive from Greek and Roman law and the Magna Carta. Simply stated, wildlife belongs to no one; it is held in trust for all by the Government.
The seven pillars of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation follow:
■■Wildlife as a public trust resource
■■Elimination of markets for game
■■Allocation of wildlife by law
■■Wildlife only killed for a legitimate purpose
■■Wildlife considered an international resource
■■Science as the proper tool to discharge wildlife policy
■■Democracy of hunting
These pillars have stood the test of time and have seen significant changes in approaches to wildlife conservation for more than 100 years. The original conservation movement championed by Theodore Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell, and others placed emphasis on stemming the decline, and programs restricting take and protecting lands were put in place. During the 1920s, conservationists realized that more was needed, and a committee comprised of Aldo
Leopold, A. Willis Robertson, and other leading conservationists of the time authored the 1930 American Game Policy. This policy called for a res­toration program for habitats and populations based on scientific research with stable, equitable funding to achieve this. Within a decade, landmark legislation fulfilled many of the needs identified including the Duck Stamp Act to fund land acquisition for national wildlife refuges. In addition, the Pittman–Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act shifted excise taxes imposed on firearms and ammunition to fund wildlife restora­tion through cooperation between the Service and State fish and wildlife agencies. For States to use this money, they were required to pass laws that pre­vented diversion of hunting license revenues to any purpose other than administration of the State fish and wildlife agency.
In recent decades, the importance of overall wild­life diversity has gained more emphasis in wildlife management. All wildlife have benefited from the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation pil­lars, not just game animals. The National Wildlife Refuge System has evolved along with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation—it today provides refuge for virtually all species found in America, recreation for all Americans, and science-based management of international wildlife resources held in trust for all. The importance of this system to American society can best be appreciated if we were to contemplate its loss. Wildlife connects us to the heritage of this country and our ancestors who built our society. It connects us as well to the natural world of which we are a part, but from which we have become so disconnected. To lose this connection is to lose the basis of our humanity.
1.4 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Refuge System is one of the Service’s major programs.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, America’s fish and wildlife resources were declining at an alarming rate, largely due to unrestricted market hunting. Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and angling groups joined together and generated the political will for the first significant conservation measures taken by the Federal Government. These actions included the establishment of the Bureau of Fisheries in the 1870s and, in 1900, passage of the first Federal wildlife law—the Lacey Act—which pro­hibited interstate transportation of wildlife taken in violation of State laws. Beginning in 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt created more than 50 wildlife refuges across the Nation.6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Over the next three decades, the United States
ratified the Migratory Bird Treaty with Great Britain,
and Congress passed laws to protect migratory birds,
establish new refuges, and create a funding source for
refuge land acquisition. In 1940, the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service was created within the Department
of the Interior, and existing Federal wildlife functions
including law enforcement, fish management, animal
damage control, and wildlife refuge management
were combined into a single organization for the first
time.
Today, the Service enforces Federal wildlife laws,
manages migratory bird populations, restores nation-ally
significant fisheries, conserves and restores vital
wildlife habitat, protects and recovers endangered
species, and helps other governments with conser-vation
efforts. In addition, the Service administers
a Federal aid program that distributes hundreds of
millions of dollars to States for fish and wildlife resto-ration,
boating access, hunter education, and related
programs across the United States.
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.
Service Activities in Montana
Service activities in Montana (2009) contribute to
the State’s economy, ecosystems, and education
programs. The following list highlights the Service’s
presence and activities:
■■Employed 220 people in Montana
■■ 446 volunteers donated more than 21,780 hours to
Service projects on refuge and district lands
■■Managed two national fish hatcheries, one fish and
wildlife management assistance office, six coordi-nation
areas, one fish health center, four ecological
services offices, and one fish technology center
■■Managed 23 national wildlife refuges encompass-ing
1,217,617 acres (1.29 percent of the State)
■■Managed five wetland management districts
❏❏Managed 48,026 acres of fee-title waterfowl pro-duction
areas
❏❏Managed 146,816 acres under leases or ease-ments
■■Hosted more than 690,173 annual visitors to Ser-vice-
managed lands
❏❏96,866 hunting visits
❏❏80,370 fishing visits
❏❏506,632 wildlife observation, photography, and
interpretation visits
❏❏6,305 students participated in environmental
education programs
■■ Provided $9.6 million to Montana Fish, Wildlife &
Parks for sport fish restoration and $17.4 million
for wildlife restoration and hunter education
■■ Since 1988, the Service’s
Partners for Fish and Wild-life
Program has helped
private landowners (1) re-store
more than 31,759 wet-land
acres; 360,826 upland
acres; and 1,263 miles of
river habitat; and (2) install
45 structures to open 502
river miles for fish passage.
■■ Paid Montana counties
$394,799 under the Ref-uge
Revenue Sharing Act
(money used for schools
and roads)
Arrowhead
© Cindie Brunner
National Wildlife Refuge System
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated
the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the Na-tion’s
first wildlife refuge for the protection of native
nesting birds. This was the first time the Federal
Government set aside land for wildlife. This small
but significant designation was the beginning of the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
One hundred years later, the Refuge System has
become the largest collection of lands in the world
specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more
than 150 million acres within 556 refuges and more
than 3,000 waterfowl production areas that provide
breeding and nesting habitat for migratory birds and
other wildlife. Today, there is at least one refuge in
every State including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
The Improvement Act established a clear mission
for the Refuge System.
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 7
The mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System is to administer a national
network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and where
appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife
and plant resources and their habitats
within the United States for
the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.
The Improvement Act states that each national wild-life
refuge (meaning every unit of the Refuge System,
which includes wetland management districts) shall
be managed to do the following:
■■Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System
■■Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge and
district
■■Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first
■■Fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP for
each unit of the Refuge System and fully involve
the public in preparation of these plans
■■Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System
■■Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreational
activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife obser-vation,
photography, environmental education, and
interpretation are legitimate and priority public
uses
■■Retain the authority of refuge managers to deter-mine
compatible public uses
In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, the
wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the Refuge
System maintains the following principles:
■■Wildlife comes first.
■■Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are
vital concepts in refuge and district management.
■■Habitats must be healthy.
■■Growth of refuges and districts 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 Ser-vice
immediately began to carry out the direction of
the new legislation including preparation of CCPs for
all national wildlife refuges and wetland management
districts. Consistent with the Improvement Act, the
Service prepares CCPs in conjunction with public in-volvement.
Each refuge and each district is required
to complete its CCP within the 15-year schedule (by
2012).
People and the Refuge System
The Nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to
the quality of American lives and is an integral part of
the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places have
always given people special opportunities to have fun,
relax, and appreciate the natural world.
Whether through birdwatching, fishing, hunt-ing,
photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife
recreation contributes millions of dollars to local
economies. In particular, money generated from the
taxing of sporting arms and ammunition and of fishing
equipment that is authorized by the Pittman–Rob-ertson
and Dingell–Johnson Acts, respectively, has
generated tens of millions of dollars. Distributed by
the Service, this money has been used by States to
increase wildlife and fish populations, expand habitat,
and train hunters across the Nation. Approximately
35 million people visited the Refuge System in 2006,
mostly to observe wildlife in their natural habitats
(Caudill and Henderson 2005). Visitors are most of-ten
accommodated through nature trails, auto tours,
interpretive programs, and hunting and fishing op-portunities.
Significant economic benefits are being
generated to the local communities that surround ref-uges
and wetland management districts. Economists
report that Refuge System visitors contribute more
than $1.7 billion annually to local economies.
1.5 National and Regional
Mandates
Refuge System units are managed to achieve the
mission and goals of the Refuge System along with
the designated purpose of the refuges and districts
(as described in establishing legislation, Executive
orders, or other establishing documents). The key
concepts and guidance for the Refuge System are in
the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act of 1966, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regula-tions
(CFR), The “Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,”
and the Improvement Act.
The Improvement Act amends the Refuge Sys-tem
Administration Act by providing (1) a unifying
8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
mission for the Refuge System, (2) a new process for determining compatible public uses on refuges and districts, and (3) a requirement that each refuge and district be managed under a CCP. The Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority of Refuge System lands and that the Secretary of the Interior will ensure that the biological integrity, di­versity, and environmental health of refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge and district must be man­aged to fulfill the Refuge System’s mission and the specific purposes for which the unit was established. The Improvement Act requires the Service to moni­tor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each national wildlife refuge and wetland manage­ment district.
A detailed description of these and other laws and Executive orders that may affect the CCP or the Service’s implementation of the CCP is in “Appendix F–Key Legislation and Policy.” Service policies for planning and day-to-day management of refuges and districts are in the “Refuge System Manual” and the “Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.”
1.6 Contributions to National and Regional Plans
Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex contrib­utes to the conservation efforts outlined in the vari­ous State and national plans described here.
Fulfilling the Promise
A 1999 report, Fulfilling the Promise, The National Wildlife Refuge System (USFWS 1999b), is the culmi­nation of a yearlong process by teams of Service em­ployees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. This report was the focus of the first national Refuge System conference (in 1998)—attended by refuge managers, other Service employees, and representa­tives from leading conservation organizations.
The report contains 42 recommendations packaged with three vision statements for wildlife and habitat, people, and leadership. This CCP deals with all three of these major topics. The planning team looked to the recommendations in the document for guidance during CCP planning.
Partners in Flight
The Partners in Flight program began in 1990 with the recognition of declining population levels of many migratory bird species. The challenge is to man­Black
Ternage human population growth while maintaining functional natural ecosystems in the face of human population growth. To meet this challenge, Partners in Flight worked to identify priorities for land bird species and habitat types. Partners in Flight activity has resulted in 52 bird conservation plans covering the continental United States.
The primary goal of Partners in Flight is to provide for the long-term health of bird life of this continent. The first priority is to prevent the rarest species from going extinct. The second priority is to prevent uncommon species from descending into threatened status. The third priority is to keep com­mon birds common.
Montana Partners in Flight considered 141 spe­cies for priority status. It identified 14 high-priority species in need of immediate conservation action (priority 1), 43 moderate-priority species with lesser threats but in need of better monitoring and conser­vation consideration (priority 2), and 51 species of local interest whose habitat needs may play a role in the design and selection of conservation strategies (priority 3). The highest priority species are common loon, trumpeter swan, harlequin duck, greater sage-grouse, piping plover, mountain plover, interior least tern, flammulated owl, burrowing owl, black-backed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, brown creeper, Sprague’s pipit, and Baird’s sparrow (Casey 2000).
The highest priority habitats in Montana are mixed grassland, sagebrush steppe, dry forest (pon­derosa pine and Douglas-fir), riparian deciduous forest, and prairie pothole wetlands. The primary ob­jectives in each priority habitat are to restore ecologi­cal processes necessary to provide suitable habitat for priority (target) species, identify and protect those remaining blocks of habitats that have undergone drastic declines, and develop management prescrip­tions that can be applied at all geographic scales. The Partners in Flight plan identified 58 of these areas.CHAPTER 1–Introduction 9
Northern Shortgrass Prairie Physiographic Region
The conservation unit chosen by Partners in Flight for planning purposes has been the physiographic area. These areas, which are not limited by state bor­ders, are based on the Breeding Bird Survey system, which was the first planning effort to reflect actual bird distributions.
There are 58 physiographic areas defined by simi­lar physical geographic features that are wholly or partially contained within the contiguous United States, and several others are wholly or partially in Alaska. The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Com­plex lies within physiographic area unit 39, known as the northern shortgrass prairie. It is a huge phys­iographic area, extending from northeastern Wyo­ming over all of eastern Montana and into southern Alberta. The area within the refuge complex is more of a mixed-grass prairie, which does include native shortgrasses. This physiographic region includes all of the area in Montana officially designated as the Prairie Pothole Region, one of the highest priority habitats identified in the Montana’s bird conservation plan (Casey 2000). The region also contains some of the last remnants of native grasslands including those found on the refuge complex. Although a plan has not yet been completed for this physiographic region, the Partners in Flight plan for Montana identifies this area as critical habitat to some of the priority 1 bird species, most of which reside on or visit the refuge complex, including piping plover, burrowing owl, Sprague’s pipit, Baird’s sparrow, and greater sage-grouse. There are also numerous priority 2 spe­cies that nest on and use the refuge complex includ­ing chestnut-collared longspur, long-billed curlew, marbled godwit, white-faced ibis, black tern, and Franklin’s gull. The actions in this plan focus on con­tinuing and expanding efforts to support these and other imperiled bird species.
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan provides a contiguous framework for conserving and managing colonial-nesting waterbirds including 209 species of seabirds, coastal waterbirds (gulls, terns, and pelicans), wading birds (herons and ibises), and marsh birds (certain grebes and bitterns). The overall goal of the plan is to ensure that the following are sus­tained or restored throughout the waterbirds’ ranges in North America: (1) the distribution, diversity, and abundance of waterbird populations; (2) waterbird habitats (breeding, migratory, and nonbreeding); and (3) important sites for waterbirds. The geographic scope of the plan covers 28 countries, from Canada to Panama, as well as islands and near-shore areas of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. This waterbird partner­ship includes Federal, State, and provincial wildlife agencies, individuals, and nonprofit conservation or­ganizations. The plan also calls for establishment of “practical units for planning” for terrestrial habitats. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex is located within the Northern Prairie and Parklands Region.
Aerial photo showing agricultural lands in Canada up to the United States' border, beyond which land has not been developed. Aerial photo showing agricultural lands in Canada up to the United States' border, beyond which land has not been developed.
Photo credit: 10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
The challenge for the Northern Prairie and Park­lands Regional Plan is operating in a landscape sig­nificantly affected by agriculture, oil, gas, and other human development activities that factor immensely in the region’s conservation issues. Wetland loss and deterioration tops the list, which is further influenced by the region’s natural cycles of drought and inunda­tion. The widespread and uncertain ramifications of global warming will affect the regional plan’s strate­gies to combat wetland loss and properly manage as­sociated upland habitats for the benefit of waterbirds and other bird species (Kushlan et al. 2002).
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Written in 1986, the North American Waterfowl Man­agement Plan envisioned a 15-year effort to achieve landscape conditions that could sustain waterfowl populations. Specific plan objectives are to increase and restore duck populations to the average levels of the 1970s—62 million breeding ducks and a fall flight of 100 million birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service 1986).
The plan is innovative because of its international partnerships and implementation at the regional level. Its success depends on the strength of the joint ventures, which involve Federal, State, provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; conserva­tion organizations; and individual citizens.
Joint ventures develop implementation plans that focus on areas of concern identified in the plan. Bow­doin National Wildlife Refuge Complex lies within the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. It encompasses prairie wetlands from Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota into Minnesota and Iowa. These prairie wetlands support more than 300 species of migratory birds, many of which are found within the refuge complex and are the primary breeding areas for the continent’s waterfowl. The most important activity of this joint venture is the protection, restoration, and enhancement of prairie wetlands and grasslands on private and public lands (USFWS 2008b).
Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan
The Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Region encom­passes two bird conservation regions—the Prairie Potholes and the Badlands and Prairies—and all or parts of seven States (eastern Montana, northeast­ern Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, western Minnesota, north-central Iowa, and northeastern Nebraska). The landscape is characterized by rolling hills of prairie grasses, millions of depressional wet­lands ranging in size from shallow temporary or sea­sonal wetlands to deeper semipermanent wetlands, and agricultural land.
Thirteen species of shorebirds breed within the Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Region and require a landscape of grassland and wetland habitats for nesting and brood rearing. One of the major migra­tion routes for Western Hemisphere shorebirds, es­pecially that of long-distance migrants, traverses this area. Because long-distance migrations are energeti­cally expensive, the availability of abundant habitat and food resources at migration stopovers within this region is critical. Shorebirds use a wide range of habi­tat types within the region including dry grasslands, sand and gravel beaches, natural freshwater and al­kaline wetlands, lake margins, and shallowly flooded agricultural fields. During migration, the unvegetated shallow waters and moist mudflats of freshwater or alkaline wetlands are especially important. Due to the dynamic nature of wetlands in this region, many shorebirds are opportunistic and dispersed across the changing landscape (Helmers 1992).
Three major shorebird issues have been identified for the Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Region:
1. Conservation of threatened and endangered
species, declining species, and species of special concern
2. Habitat loss including fragmentation and degrada­tion
3. The need for additional information to evaluate potential threats—such as contaminants, preda­tion, and invasion of exotic plants—to migrating and breeding shorebirds
Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex has been identified as part of the Western Hemisphere Shore­bird Reserve Network. Enrollment in this network requires that a site meet biological criteria and that site stakeholders agree to participate (Helmers 1992).
Montana Piping Plover Management Plan
Federal agencies are mandated by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to conserve federally listed threatened and endangered species under section 7(a)(1) of the act. In response to Federal listing of the Great Plains population of the piping plover as a CHAPTER 1–Introduction 11
threatened species in 1985, the Montana Piping Plo­ver Recovery Committee was formed. Beginning in 1986, members of several Federal and State agencies along with volunteers made an effort to monitor all historical and potential piping plover habitat within the State. The Montana Piping Plover Management Plan evolved from these efforts and was most re­cently updated in 2006.
The Service, along with the other agencies in­volved, consulted to determine the status of the popu­lation and habitat as well as the potential for increase. The committee set a goal within the management plan to “manage for and maintain approximately 60 breeding pairs of piping plovers, on a running 10-year average, distributed in appropriate habitats in Mon­tana” (Atkinson and Dood 2006).
Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge is an integral part of this joint effort because of its historical use by piping plovers. A portion of the refuge was desig­nated as critical habitat for the species in 2002.
Photo of a small gray-brown-white bird standing on sandy shoreline.
Mike Morel / USFWS
Photo of a male grouse, brown in color, with white neck collar and fanned tail feathers standing grass. Photo credit:
Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage-Grouse in Montana
Loss of sagebrush grasslands in some western States has approached or exceeded 50 percent. Such habitat loss in Montana, in terms of quality or quantity, may not have been as high as in other States although significant enough (at least in part of the State) to influence greater sage-grouse numbers and popula­tion trends. Growing concern about the status of sagebrush on western rangelands and declines in sage-grouse numbers have led to petitioning the Ser­vice to protect populations in some western States under provisions of the Endangered Species Act. After a thorough analysis of the best available scien­tific information, the Service has concluded that the greater sage-grouse warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act. However, the Service has determined that proposing the species for protection is precluded by the need to take action on other spe­cies facing immediate and severe extinction threats. As a result, the greater sage-grouse has been placed on the list of species that are candidates for Endan­gered Species Act protection. The Service will review the status of the species annually, as it does with all candidate species, and will propose the species for protection when funding and workload priorities for other listing actions allow.
The “Management Plan and Conservation Stra-tegies for Sage Grouse in Montana” is the product of the Montana Sage Grouse Working Group. Par­ticipants in the group include representatives of Fed­eral and State agencies, tribal representatives, and private organizations, along with several individuals from the public, all of whom have a stake in the is­sue. The overall goal of the plan is to “provide for the long-term conservation and enhancement of the sagebrush steppe/mixed-grass prairie complex within Montana in a manner that supports sage grouse and a healthy diversity and abundance of wildlife species and human uses” (MSGWG 2005). The plan estab­lishes a process to achieve sage-grouse management 12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
objectives and provides a framework to guide local management efforts.
The greater sage-grouse is a documented local breeder on the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex and is a target species for upland manage­ment.
State Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy
Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Con­servation Strategy (Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 2005) is for all vertebrate species known to exist in Montana including both game and nongame species, as well as some invertebrate species such as freshwa­ter mussels and crayfish.
Although game species are included in Mon­tana’s conservation strategy, the priority is species and their related habitats “in greatest conservation need.” This means focus areas, community types, and species that are significantly degraded or declining, federally listed, or where important distribution and occurrence information used to assess the status of in­dividuals and groups of species are lacking. The con­servation strategy uses five ecotypes to describe the broad areas of Montana’s landscape that have similar characteristics. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex is in the plains grassland and plains forest ecotype. Montana’s high eastern plains, which are part of America’s Great Plains, are generally found on high, rolling land and on some scattered hills and in wide river valleys.
Within each of the ecotypes, tier 1 geographic focus areas (greatest need of conservation) were identi­fied for all terrestrial and aquatic areas of the State. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex is located within the Montana glaciated plains focus area, which is dominated by level to rolling till plains covered by sagebrush grasslands and short, mixed-grass prairie and croplands. This area consists of plains, terraces, fans, and floodplains that formed in glacial till, gravel deposits, and alluvium over clay shale, sandstone, and siltstone. Land use is predominantly livestock grazing and dryland farming. The tier 1 priority (target) spe­cies for this area are the northern leopard frog, snap­ping turtle, spiny softshell, western hog-nosed snake, milksnake, common loon, bald eagle, greater sage-grouse, yellow rail, whooping crane, piping plover, mountain plover, long-billed curlew, interior least tern, black tern, burrowing owl, spotted bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, black-tailed prairie dog, black-footed ferret, and American bison.
The Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 2005) outlines five conservation concerns and strategies for the Montana glaciated plains focus area. The key concerns are:
■■Conversion of native prairie to small grain produc­tion
■■Petroleum exploration and development impacts
■■Invasive or exotic plant species
■■Disruption of natural fire disturbance processes and hydrologic regimes
■■Range management or forest management prac­tices
■■Loss of natural wetlands
1.7 Strategic Habitat Conservation
In the face of escalating challenges such as land use conversion, invasive species, water scarcity, and refuge complex issues that have been amplified by accelerating climate change, the Service has evolved from its ecosystem approach of thinking about con­servation to developing a broader vision.
A cooperative effort by the Service and U.S. Geological Survey culminated in a report by the Na­tional Ecological Assessment Team (U.S. Geological Survey 2006). The report outlines a unifying adaptive resource management approach for conservation at a landscape scale, the entire range of a target species or suite, or guild, of species. This is strategic habitat conservation: a way of thinking and doing business—by incorporating biological goals for target species populations—by making strategic decisions about the work needed—and by constantly reassessing.
Since 2006, the Service has taken significant steps to turn this vision into reality and has defined a framework of 21 geographic areas. Experts from the Service and U.S. Geological Survey developed this framework through an aggregation of bird conserva­tion regions. The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex lands and waters lie in Geographic Area 13–Plains and Prairie Potholes (figure 3). Key issues in this geographic area are conservation of paddlefish, pallid sturgeon, waterfowl, shorebirds, grassland birds, and black-footed ferret.
The Service is using the framework as the basis to locate the first generation of landscape conservation cooperatives. These cooperatives are conservation-science partnerships between the Service and other Federal agencies, States, tribes, nongovernmental CHAPTER 1–Introduction 13
Figure 3. Map of the five refuges and one wetland management district in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex within Geographic Area 13–Plains and Prairie Potholes.14 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
organizations, universities, and others. Designed as fundamental units for planning and science, the cooperatives have the capacity to help the Service carry out the elements of strategic habitat conserva­tion—biological planning, conservation design and delivery, and monitoring and research. Coordinated planning and scientific information will strengthen the Service’s strategic response to accelerating cli­mate change.
Climate Change
The Service expects that accelerating climate change will affect the Nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant re­sources in profound ways. While many species will continue to thrive, some may decline and in some instances go extinct. Others will survive in the wild only through direct and continuous intervention by managers. In 2010, the Service drafted a strategic plan to address climate change for the next 50 years titled, “Rising to the Challenge—Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change” (US­FWS 2010). The strategic plan employs three key strategies: adaptation, mitigation, and engagement. In addition, the plan acknowledges that no single organization or agency can address climate change without allying itself with others in partnership across the Nation and around the world (USFWS 2010). This plan is an integral part of the Depart­ment of the Interior’s strategy for addressing climate change as expressed in Secretarial Order 3289 (Sep­tember 14, 2009).
The Service will use the following guiding prin­ciples from the strategic plan (USFWS 2010) in re­sponding to climate change:
■■Priority Setting—Continually evaluate priorities and approaches, make difficult choices, take calcu­lated risks, and adapt to climate change.
■■Partnership—Commit to a new spirit of coordi­nation, collaboration, and interdependence with others.
■■Best Science—Reflect scientific excellence, profes­sionalism, and integrity in all the Service’s work.
■■Landscape Conservation—Emphasize the conser­vation of habitats within sustainable landscapes, applying the Service’s strategic habitat conserva­tion framework.
■■Technical Capacity—Assemble and use state-of-the-art technical capacity to meet the climate change challenge.
■■Global Approach—Be a leader in national and international efforts to meet the climate change challenge.
1.8 Planning Process
This final CCP was prepared in compliance with the Improvement Act, NEPA, and part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the “Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” Additional requirements and guidance are in the Refuge System’s planning policy, issued in 2000. This policy established require­ments and guidance for refuge and district plans (including CCPs and stepdown management plans) to ensure that planning efforts follow the Improvement Act. The planning policy identified several steps of the CCP and environmental analysis process (figure 4).
The Service began the pre-planning process in Oc­tober 2006 with the establishment of a planning team comprised primarily of Service staff from Bowdoin Refuge and staff from Montana Department of Natu­ral Resources and Conservation, Montana Depart­ment of Environmental Quality, and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Additional contributors included other Service divisions, U.S. Geological Survey, Mon­tana State University, Natural Resource Conserva­tion Service, and several other Federal and State agencies (refer to “Appendix G–Preparers, Consulta­tion, and Coordination”).
The planning team coordinated several opportuni­ties for public involvement throughout the planning process as summarized below under “Public Coor­dination” and detailed in appendix E. The planning team reviewed a wide range of public comments and management needs for the refuge complex. This guided the team’s development of a draft CCP and EA, which analyzed a set of alternatives for each of the following management aspects: (1) the manage­ment of the overall resources and uses at the refuge complex; (2) the salinity and blowing salts issue; and (3) the proposed divestiture of Lake Thibadeau Na­tional Wildlife Refuge.
Following public review of the “Draft Comprehen­sive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assess­ment–Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex,” the Service analyzed the comments received. After the Regional Director’s decision on which alternative to implement for each management aspect (refer to previous section 1.1), the planning team prepared the final CCP.
Table 1 lists the specific steps in the planning pro­cess for the preparation of this final CCP.CHAPTER 1–Introduction 15
Figure 4. Process steps for comprehensive conservation planning and associated environmental analysis.
Table 1. Summary of the CCP planning process for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.DateEventOutcome or purpose
October 25–26, 2006
Kickoff meeting
Service staff discussed the CCP overview, reviewed the refuge complex purposes, discussed the initial planning team list, devel-oped the first draft of the internal issues and the qualities list, started the mailing list, discussed the planning schedule, and dis-cussed the biological data needs.
February 15, 2007
Work plan
Service staff prepared the planning work plan.
March 6, 2007April 26, 2007
Biological review planning meeting
The planning team developed an agenda and objectives for the biological review workshops.
April 29, 2007
Vision and goals workshop
The planning team developed draft vision and goal statements for the refuge complex.
May 7, 2007
Planning update
The first planning update was sent to people and organizations on the mailing list. The update described the planning process and announced the upcoming public scoping meeting.
May 15, 2007
Notice of intent
The notice of intent to prepare a CCP was published in the Federal Register (volume 72, number 93, page 27325–27).
May 22–23, 2007
Water resources workshop
A panel of biologists and researchers gathered to discuss and propose options for managing the Bowdoin Refuge’s wetland resources and addressing the salinity issue. A salinity team was established.
May 22, 2007
Public scoping meeting
The public had an opportunity to learn about the CCP process and provide comments.16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Table 1. Summary of the CCP planning process for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.
Date
Event
Outcome or purpose
June 4, 2007
Visitor services review
Staff from the Service’s Division of Education and Visitor
Services evaluated the refuge complex’s visitor services programs and facilities.
June 14, 2007
End of public scoping period
Public scoping comments that would be considered had to be re­ceived or postmarked by this date.
June 17, 2007
Chamber of Commerce
presentation
Service staff gave a presentation to the Malta Chamber of Com­merce, describing the CCP process and answering questions.
July 10, 2007
Salinity team meeting
The salinity team reviewed water resources at the Bowdoin Ref­uge and evaluated nine modeling scenarios to address the salinity issue.
August 20, 2007
Salinity team meeting
The salinity team evaluated the revised modeling scenarios and narrowed the options down to four including no action.
October 3, 2007
Pre-planning for objectives
and strategies workshop
The planning team met with Rick Schroeder (U.S. Geological Sur­vey) and staff to discuss developing alternatives and the support­ing objectives and strategies for the proposed action.
October 16–17, 2007
Uplands biological
workshop
A panel of biologists and researchers gathered to discuss and propose options for future management of upland habitats in the refuge complex.
October 24–25, 2007
Alternatives workshop
The planning team developed and evaluated three alternatives for refuge complex management, excluding the salinity and blowing salts issue.
November 20, 2007
Followup to alternatives
workshop
The planning team reviewed the alternatives table and discussed environmental consequences.
December 4, 2007
Followup to alternatives
workshop
The planning team finalized the draft alternatives and environ­mental consequences table.
January 21–23, 2008
Objectives and strategies workshop
The planning team began writing objectives and strategies for the proposed action alternative.
February 4, 2008
Salinity team meeting
The salinity team discussed other options for addressing the salin­ity issue and prepared for a salinity workshop.
February 28, 2008
Salinity team meeting
The salinity team finalized plans for the salinity workshop.
March 12, 2008
Salinity team meeting
The salinity team discussed the salinity workshop agenda, meet­ing objectives, and needed presentations.
April 22–23, 2008
Salinity issue workshop
A panel of hydrologists, managers, and biologists evaluated the products of the salinity team and discussed alternatives. A pro­posal to hire a contractor to conduct further analysis was pre­sented and accepted.
May 1, 2008
Start of draft plan
preparation
The planning team began writing portions of the draft CCP and EA.
July 2008
Start of URS contract
The Denver-based contractor, URS, began analysis of four alter­natives proposed for addressing the salinity and blowing salts issue.
March 2, 2009
URS draft report review
Field and regional office staff met with URS to discuss their report and findings and found that additional data collection and analysis by State and Service staff was needed.
July 16, 2009
URS final report and Milk
River alternative review
State and Federal agencies discussed the final URS report and the alternative to pump water to the Milk River. A public meeting to present these findings was planned.
October 22, 2009
Public meeting
The Service invited the public to hear a presentation on the al­ternatives that have been developed and analyzed to address the salinity and blowing salts issue.
November 2009
Draft plan preparation
The planning team continued preparation of the chapters and maps for the draft CCP and EA.CHAPTER 1–Introduction 17
Table 1. Summary of the CCP planning process for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.
Date
Event
Outcome or purpose
April 14–15, 2010
Salinity chapter
The salinity team finalized the chapter summarizing alternatives to address the salinity and blowing salts issue on Bowdoin Na­tional Wildlife Refuge.
April–October 2010
Draft plan preparation
The planning team finished preparation of the draft CCP and EA for internal review, incorporating the results of the salinity and blowing salts analysis.
November–
December 2010
Draft plan internal review
The planning team and other Service staff reviewed the draft CCP and EA and provided comments to help clarify the analyses and provide consistency.
January–May 2011
Draft plan preparation
The planning team finalized the draft CCP and EA for distribution to the public for review.
June 22, 2011
Notice of availability
Draft plan public review
Planning update
The notice of availability of the draft CCP and EA was published in the Federal Register (volume 76, number 120, page 36571–73). The draft CCP and EA was made available on the project Web page, and hard copies were distributed per requests. The public was provided 34 days to review and comment on the draft CCP and EA. A planning update was sent to the mailing list; the update summarized the draft plan and announced upcoming public meet­ings.
June 29, 2011
Public meeting in Malta, Montana
The public had an opportunity to learn about and provide com­ments on the draft CCP and EA.
July 25, 2011
End of public review period
Public comments that would be considered had to be received or postmarked by this date.
August 2–3, 2011
Public comments review
The planning team reviews the public comments and determines needed changes for the final CCP.
August 30, 2011
Decision on preferred
alternatives
The Regional Director selected preferred alternatives for the three management aspects and signed the finding of no significant impact.
September 2011–April 2012
Final plan preparation
The planning team finished revising and editing the final CCP for printing and distribution.
Coordination with the Public
The Service prepared for public involvement by com­piling a project mailing list of more than 170 names during pre-planning. The mailing list includes private citizens; local, regional, and State government rep­resentatives and legislators; other Federal agencies; and interested organizations.
The Service coordinated the following efforts to provide information and request ideas and comments from the public:
■■Web site: The CCP Web page displayed back­ground information on the refuge complex, the CCP development schedule, public meeting infor­mation, planning contacts, and electronic versions of planning updates, the draft plan, and other plan­ning documents.
■■Three planning updates: These fact sheets were sent to everyone on the project mailing list. In­formation was provided on the history of the ref­uge complex, the CCP process, the salinity issue, and alternatives in the draft CCP and EA. The updates had invitations to public meetings and included comment forms.
■■Three public meetings: The Service presented information about the planning process; the re­sources and issues, in particular, the salinity and blowing salts issue; and the draft CCP and EA. Attendees were encouraged to offer comments and ask questions.
■■Public review of the draft CCP and EA: The pub­lic had 34 days to review and provide comments about the draft plan for the refuge complex.
The Service recorded all comments given at the public meetings. In addition to oral comments, the planning team received written comments via email, comment forms, and letters. Planning team members, individu­ally and as a team, reviewed all comments. Some modi­18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
fications, including clarifications, were made to this final document based on the public review. Appendix E has more detail about the Service’s involvement of the public, including responses to substantive public comments on the draft CCP and EA.
State Coordination
At the start of the planning process, the Regional Director (of the Service’s Mountain–Prairie Region, Region 6) sent a letter to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, inviting them to participate in the planning process. Numerous State biologists and hydrologists have since served on the planning team or been in­volved in the planning process including biological re­views of the refuge complex’s management program. At the start of the process, the offices of Montana’s United States congressional delegation (then-Senator John Tester, Senator Max Baucus, and Representa­tive Dennis Rehburg) were sent letters notifying them of the planning process and inviting them to comment on the plan. Seven other Montana State senators and representatives and Governor Brian Schweitzer were sent similar letters.
The State was particularly concerned about the sa­line water and blowing salts issue on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. A hydrologist from the Montana Re­served Water Rights Compact Commission, who asked the refuge to address this water quality issue, worked with Service staff to develop models for predicting the effectiveness of actions to resolve this issue. The sa­linity team also had representatives from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. The State par­ticipated in both the internal and public review of the draft plan. Numerous changes were made to the final CCP based on their comments. Overall the State has been supportive of the planning process to date.
Tribal Coordination
Early in the planning process, the Service’s Moun­tain–Prairie Regional Director sent a letter to tribes identified as possibly having a cultural and historical connection to the area in which the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex is located. Those contacted were the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux, the Fort Belknap Assiniboine and Gros Ventre, Crow, Chip­pewa Cree, and Blackfeet tribal councils. The tribal councils did not submit responses to the letter from the Regional Director.
During the release of the draft CCP and EA for public review, the Service made additional contacts with the affected tribes. There was some interest in assisting with future efforts to identify cultural sites throughout the refuge complex.CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex
This chapter explains the establishment, management history, purposes, and special values of Bowdoin Na­tional Wildlife Refuge Complex in north-central Mon­tana, along with the vision and goals and a discussion of the planning issues.
The refuge complex consists of 84,724 acres of lands and waters encompassing five refuges—Bow­doin, Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt Lake, and Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuges—and Bowdoin Wetland Management District. The Service is responsible for the protection of 10,635 acres of wetland easements, 7,806 acres of refuge and flow­age easements, 39,767 acres of grassland easements, 9,504 acres in fee-title waterfowl production areas, and 17,012 acres of refuge lands.
The Bowdoin Refuge Complex spreads across a four-county area in north-central Montana, totaling 17,183 square miles: Blaine County (4,226 square miles), Hill County (2,896 square miles), Phillips County (5,140 square miles), and Valley County (4,921 square miles) (National Association of Counties 2009). The refuge complex headquarters is near the town of Malta.
2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History
The following section describes the establishment, acquisition, and management history of the national wildlife refuges and wetland management district within the Bowdoin Refuge Complex. Tables 2 and 3 at the end of this section summarize the land acquisi­tion history.
Photo of ducks in an open-water marsh edged by tall plants with Russian olive the background. Photo of ducks in an open-water marsh edged by tall plants with Russian olive the background. Photo credit:
Bowdoin Refuge’s first entry sign, 1938.
USFWS20 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge
Before becoming a national wildlife refuge, the lands within Bowdoin were managed by the Bureau of Rec­lamation (Reclamation). Initially these 10,648.92 acres were reserved from public domain (public land placed into permanent reserved status, such as a national wildlife refuge, that is not held in private ownership).
When President Franklin D. Roosevelt estab­lished Bowdoin Migratory Waterfowl Refuge in 1936, the Bureau of Biological Survey (a precursor to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and Reclamation shared jurisdiction.
Refuge headquarters, 1938.
USFWS
On November 15, 1940, Executive Order 8592 changed the refuge name to Bowdoin National Wild­life Refuge and added an additional 1,398.16 acres of land to the area.
On March 22, 1971, a revocation of reclamation withdrawal was filed to give primary jurisdiction to the Service. This revocation was approved on Feb­ruary 7, 1972, under Public Land Order 5162. While under Reclamation jurisdiction, Lake Bowdoin was managed as a sump for irrigation return flows from the Milk River Project.
Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge lies approxi­mately 7 miles northeast of Malta in the Milk River Valley of Phillips County and today encompasses 15,551 acres (figure 5). The refuge consists of more than 6,000 acres of freshwater and saline wetlands. The remaining upland is typical mixed-grass prairie with a complex of western wheatgrass, needle and thread grass, sagebrush, and forbs. Greasewood and rabbitbrush are common on the heavier clay soils. The marsh areas are dominated by sedges, while excellent stands of emergent and aquatic veg­etation are found in the shallow, open-water areas. Plateaus and grassland benches surround the refuge with elevations varying from
Aerial photo of a lake, scattered trees, one-story buildings, and access roads to the buildings. Aerial photo of a lake, scattered trees, one-story buildings, and access roads to the buildings.
USFWSCHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 21
Aerial photo map showing boundaries of the refuge and 2 adjacent waterfowl production areas.22 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
2,400 to 2,600 feet (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 1973).
There are three major wetland types on the ref­uge: (1) permanent wetlands; (2) semipermanent wet­lands; and (3) seasonal or temporary wetlands. These wetlands are either freshwater or saline. Upland habitats include more than 5,000 acres of native prai­rie, 200 acres of DNC, 269 acres of planted grasses (primarily crested wheatgrass), and 850 acres of shrubland or woodland. The remaining acreage is in roads, parking lots, and developed areas (figure 6). The refuge serves as an important staging and nest­ing area for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, sand­hill cranes, and other migratory birds. A variety of refuge habitats are home for resident wildlife such as sharp-tailed grouse, pronghorn, and white-tailed deer.
Geologic history indicates that Lake Bowdoin was once an oxbow of the preglacial Missouri River chan­nel. Today, the Missouri River lies nearly 70 miles south of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. Histori­cally, Lake Bowdoin acted as a large catch basin for precipitation, early spring floods, and runoff events. The lands surrounding the lake were native prairie. Lake levels fluctuated from year to year, depending on runoff conditions and evaporation during the hot, dry summers.
In the 1800s, Lake Bowdoin was an important watering source for trailing cattle herds. Grasslands around the lake suffered extensive overgrazing from the watering herds, and it was not until the refuge was established in 1936 that the area received protec­tion and development for wildlife purposes (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 1973).
After establishment in 1936, an extensive system of dikes, ditches, and water control structures were constructed to better manage the available water supply. In 1937, the Service negotiated a memoran­dum of agreement (MOA) with Reclamation to re­ceive part of their water right, 3,500 acre-feet, from the Milk River Project. In return, the Service con­tributed $40,000 toward construction of the Fresno Reservoir storage facility near Havre, Montana. Wa­ter is the lifeline between management and waterfowl survival and is essential to wildlife management at Bowdoin Refuge. During years of normal runoff, Rec­lamation furnishes up to 3,500 acre-feet of water to the refuge. In years of below-normal runoff, Reclama­tion agrees to furnish the portion of 3,500 acre-feet that the natural conditions and Federal reclamation laws permit.
Water diverted to Bowdoin National Wildlife Ref­uge from the Milk River Project is used to manage ponds, lakes, and marshes ranging in size from 1 acre to 4,470 acres. The diverted water provides food and migrating and nesting habitat for migratory birds and wetland-related wildlife, as well as for resident wildlife. In addition, delivered water is used to attract piping plover (a threatened bird species that had used the refuge for nesting in the past) and to manage its habitat.
Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge
Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge totals 1,309 acres (figure 7): 639 acres of lands reserved from public domain and 840 acres of privately owned lands encumbered by three perpetual refuge and flowage easements. In 1982, 185 acres were purchased with Duck Stamp money as a waterfowl production area. The new addition included 170 acres of a previous 240-acre flowage easement. This land acquisition re­duced the easement area to 670 acres.
The Black Coulee Refuge is located about 10 miles south of the town of Turner in northeastern Blaine County, Montana. The general topography of the land is rolling mixed-grass prairie with major drainages running in a northeasterly direction.
Donna A. Dewhurst / USFWS
Photo of a tall brown bird with long legs and bright red forehead standing in grass.CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 23
Map showing location of 19 habitat types with western wheatgrass and open water being the most prevalent.
(4,055 ac (acres))(4,021 ac)(158 ac)(1,554 ac)(127 ac)(1,303 ac)(119 ac)(976 ac)(110 ac)(639 ac)(64 ac)(555 ac)(390 ac)(50 ac)(383 ac)(26 ac)(313 ac)(32 ac)(269 ac)CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 25
Aerial photo showing boundaries of the refuge, a waterfowl production area, and easement.
FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service)26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Black Coulee Reservoir provides water for mi­gratory birds as well as nesting and brood-rearing habitat (figure 8). The refuge has a dependable water source from the runoff in the west branch of Black Coulee drainage, which has a large watershed. The area influenced by the dam on the Black Coulee drain­age covers about 482 acres. In years when extreme runoff is observed, the upper most areas influenced by the dam are temporarily inundated by water. When average runoff occurs, the reservoir provides about 173 acres of wetland habitat.
The wetland total for the Service-owned land is 211 acres; wetland on the easement-controlled land is about 85 acres. Service-owned uplands protect 428 acres of native prairie. The remaining uplands, which are under easement, consist of both cropland and land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. Due to fluctuations in grain commodity prices, conversion of the Conservation Reserve Program land back to cropland has increased in the past several years.
Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge
The original Executive order designated 3,040 acres, consisting of 80 acres reserved from public domain and 2,960 acres of privately owned land encumbered by eight refuge and flowage easements (figure 9). The 80 acres owned by the Service are located in the southwest corner of the Executive boundary and con­tain native prairie habitat. Historical records docu­ment two other names for this drainage, Greedman Coulee or Greenman Coulee.
Creedman Coulee is in Hill County, about 33 miles north of Havre, Montana. One of the primary features of this refuge is the 181-acre Creedman Reservoir. The uplands are a mix of native prairie and agri­cultural land. The Service easements over these up­lands provide no author­ity over the surface use, except for hunting and trapping. Accurate acre­age of the upland habitat on these private lands is
difficult to estimate be­cause the landowners con-
vert the prairie to other uses more suitable to their farm and ranch op­eration needs (figure 10).
When full, Creed­man Reservoir attracts migrating waterfowl and provides habitat for hundreds of nesting birds. Es­tablished trees near the reservoir serve as a rookery for great blue herons and double-crested cormorants.
Water rights to Creedman Reservoir are owned by one downstream landowner and the Service. Before enlargement of the dam in 1938, Creedman Reservoir was usually dry by late June or early July, providing little to no nesting and brood-rearing habitat for wa­terfowl. The downstream landowner and the Service reached an agreement that benefits both parties. The existing dam height was increased, thereby increasing the storage capacity of the reservoir. To ensure that water was available for nesting waterfowl and broods, a gravity-flow outlet structure was installed in the dam so that water could not be drawn below the elevation of 90 feet. Under this arrangement, the downstream land­owner could still use all the water above this elevation for irrigation purposes without the need for pumping.
In recent years, natural gas exploration and ex­traction has increased within the refuge boundary and surrounding area. No drilling occurs on the 80-acre parcel of Service-owned land, but the presence of this activity contributes to habitat fragmentation and bird disturbance and affecting the aesthetics of the prairie portion of the refuge. The mineral rights were reserved by the landowner when the easement was acquired, and all of this activity is occurring on the privately owned refuge and flowage easement lands. The Service easements do not prohibit such activities.
Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge
The Executive order that established the Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge in 1938 described a 1,200-acre approved acquisition boundary. The early refuge consisted of 400 acres of land reserved from public domain and 800 acres under refuge and flow­age easements. An additional 160 acres, not included in the Executive order boundary, was added to the refuge through another easement agreement (tract 2, dated August 30, 1938), bringing the total number of refuge and flowage easements to three.
In 1959, Secretarial Order 2843 transferred 320 acres of public land for inclusion into Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge, increasing the size to 1,680 acres. In 1992, an existing 320-acre easement tract was purchased with Duck Stamp dollars as a wa­terfowl production area. The 320-acre Hewitt Lake waterfowl production area (WPA) is described in the below section on Bowdoin Wetland Management Dis­trict. The current acreage of this limited-interest ref­uge consists of 1,040 acres of refuge lands (including the 320-acre waterfowl production area) and 640 acres encumbered by easements on private lands (figure 11).
Photo of a black waterbird with long neck and yellow beak. Photo of a black waterbird with long neck and yellow beak.Photo of a black waterbird with long neck and yellow beak.Photo of a black waterbird with long neck and yellow beak. Photo credit: CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 27
Aerial photo of native vegetation, agricultural land, and wetland at the refuge.
(389 ac (acres))(629 ac)(478 ac)28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Aerial photo of refuge and easement boundaries.
FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service)CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 29
Aerial photo of native vegetation, agricultural land, and wetland at the refuge.
(188 ac (acres))(1,851 ac)(679 ac)30 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Aerial photo of boundaries the refuge, 2 easements, and 3 waterfowl production areas.
FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service)CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 31
The Hewitt Lake Refuge lies in Phillips County, about 25 miles northeast of Malta via U.S. Highway 2 and about 1.5 miles northwest of Nelson Reservoir (created by Reclamation). The general topography is rolling, mixed-grass prairie with the major drain­age running in an easterly direction. Hewitt Lake is located a short distance from the Milk River. The lake, enhanced by an earthen dam, creates a shallow 492-acre seasonal wetland. There are about 234 acres of wetland habitat on the Service-owned lands and another 156 wetland acres on private lands that are protected by Service easements. When the lake is full, it attracts migratory birds in the spring.
The uplands on both Service and private lands are primarily native prairie habitat (figure 12). The Hewitt Lake Refuge has one of two known black-tailed prairie dog towns in the refuge complex. Bur­rowing owls and mountain plovers have been known to nest within the prairie dog town. The uplands are also used by upland-nesting birds such as long-billed curlew, Sprague’s pipit, and waterfowl.
Natural gas exploration and extraction occurs within the refuge boundary and surrounding area, contributing to habitat fragmentation and bird dis­turbance and affecting the aesthetics of this prairie refuge. The refuge contains a large gas field in which the Federal Government owns much of the mineral rights. The Executive order establishing the refuge permitted oil and gas leasing. Specifically, the Execu­tive order noted that the refuge land was within the known geologic structure of a producing gas field and stated that, “nothing should affect the disposition of its oil and gas deposits under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.” In addition, at the time it was established, Interior regulations did not prohibit oil and gas leas­ing on refuge lands (General Accounting Office 2001).
Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, estab­lished in 1937, encompasses 3,868.48 acres: 19.42 acres reserved from public domain (originally by the Bu­reau of Land Management) and 3,849.06 acres encum­bered by 13 refuge and flowage easements (figure 13).
Photo of flat grassland where more than 100 black ibises are feeding, with wetland and rolling hills in the background. Photo of flat grassland where more than 100 black ibises are feeding, with wetland and rolling hills in the background. Photo credit: 32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Aerial photo of native vegetation and wetland in the refuge.
(520 ac (acres))(1,158 ac)CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 33
Aerial photo of boundaries the refuge and easement.
FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service)34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
The Lake Thibadeau Refuge is located about 15 miles north of the city Havre in central Hill County. The four main water units of this limited-interest ref­uge are Thibadeau Diversion Dam (16.4 acres), Lake Thibadeau (120.7 acres), Grassy Lake (152.4 acres), and Mud Lake (100 acres). These large wetland ba­sins are surrounded mostly by cropland and very little native prairie. When established as a refuge in 1937, there were only 480 acres of prairie left within the refuge boundary. Over the last 70 years, there has been additional conversion of the native prairie to cropland, resulting in a loss of about 140 acres of prairie. Current cropland totals about 3,139 acres (figure 14).
Of the four refuge wetlands, only Mud Lake and the diversion unit hold any significant amounts of wa­ter. The diversion dam diverts waters from Lehman Coulee. An unnamed drainage flows from the north and east into Mud Lake; when Mud Lake reaches capacity it overflows into Grassy Lake. Water de­velopment projects in these two drainages have sig­nificantly affected the watershed above these wetland units. Lake Thibadeau and Grassy Lake are farmed every season, and Mud Lake is farmed in most years. The refuge and flowage easement does not give the Service any rights to control the uses of these uplands, including farming activities, except for the control of hunting. Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge provides only marginal waterfowl habitat, except dur­ing the wettest years. Intensive agriculture in the area is probably contributing pesticides and fertilizers to the wetlands. There is no public access to this refuge.
Natural gas exploration and extraction occurs within the refuge boundary and surrounding area. All of this activity occurs on the private land portions within the refuge boundary. The refuge and flowage easements do not prohibit these activities on the uplands. The Service controls only hunting on the uplands.
Bowdoin Wetland Management District
The Bowdoin Wetland Management District, estab­lished in 1973, is spread over a four-county area con­sisting of Blaine, Hill, Phillips, and Valley Counties in north-central Montana (figure 15). There are several types of Refuge System lands within the wetland management district:
■■Waterfowl production areas, which are acquired in fee title
■■Perpetual wetland easements, which protect pri­vately owned wetlands from being drained, filled, or leveled, while the landowner retains control of all public access
■■Perpetual grassland easements, which protect pri­vately owned rangeland and hayland from conver­sion to cropland, and the landowner retains control of all public access
■■Perpetual conservation easements through the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) to help farmers reduce their debt load on farmland and protect wetlands and grasslands
More than a million acres of potholes in the prairie States were drained between 1943 and 1961 (Briggs 1964). The Prairie Pothole Region once produced up to 15 million ducks each year but now produces about one-third that amount. This loss of habitat is the main reason for the reduced production (Belrose 1976). Other causes include the destruction of upland nest cover by the cultivation of land adjacent to wetlands and sloughs (Belrose 1976). These two significant factors led to conservation movements by citizens and pressure from waterfowl-hunting interests to re­verse the loss of wetland habitat. In response to this pressure, the Service issued Duck Stamps to fund a program of wetland acquisition and the purchase of conservation easements (van der Valk 1989).
Waterfowl production areas and easements are purchased from willing sellers through the Small Wet­lands Acquisition Program authorized by Congress in 1958—an amendment to the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934. This program is funded by the sale of Federal Duck Stamps and loans against future Duck Stamp sales. The purpose of this important program is to ensure the long-term protec­tion of breeding habitat, primarily within the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States, for waterfowl and other migratory bird species.
The Service owns waterfowl production areas in fee title and manages them to provide breeding wa­terfowl with quality wetlands for courtship and brood rearing, as well as suitable grasslands for nesting. Habitats are managed using techniques such as pre­scribed grazing, haying, and fire; farming and reseed­ing of former cropland; and rest from crop production. These areas are open to hunting (with the exception of the Holm WPA), fishing, and trapping according to State seasons. Hunting opportunities attract hunters from across the United States and Canada.
Wetland easements are perpetual and prohibit filling, leveling, draining, and burning of wetlands un­der easement. Wetland easements are real-property interests that the Service buys from willing landown­ers and are permanent fixtures to land titles. The land remains in private ownership and the landowner controls public access. Since 1962 when the Small CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 35
Aerial photo of native vegetation, agricultural land, and wetland in the refuge.
(453 ac (acres))(521 ac)(3,083 ac)36 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Wetlands Acquisition Program began, the Service has acquired a perpetual, real-property interest in more than two million wetland acres for waterfowl produc­tion in the Great Plains States, which include Montana.
Conversion of grassland to cropland has generated a need for protection of upland habitat adjacent to wet­lands. The loss of upland-nesting cover and plant foods has reduced the value and productivity of wetlands for nesting waterfowl and their broods, other migratory birds, and other wildlife. Grassland easements, like wetland easements, are perpetual and protect both existing and restored habitat. The purposes of the per­petual grassland easement program are (1) to improve and protect the water quality of wetlands, (2) maintain upland-nesting habitat for ground-nesting birds, (3) protect highly erodible soils, and (4) provide an alter­native to the purchase of uplands in fee title, leaving land in private ownership. Grassland easements are real-property interests that the Service buys from willing landowners to prohibit a loss of grassland cover from cropland conversion, development, or other causes. This agreement also protects nesting birds by prohibiting haying or mowing until after July 15. The land remains in private ownership. Grazing is not prohibited or regulated under the grassland easement. Funding for grassland easements comes from a variety of sources including the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (with Governor approval), North American Wetland Conservation Act grants, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
FmHA conservation easements were developed by Congress under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1985 to establish easements for con­servation, recreation, and wildlife purposes on proper­ties that were foreclosed on by the Federal Government (“inventories” properties). The Service was designated as the easement manager on those easements worthy of inclusion into the National Wildlife Refuge System.
As of December 1, 2009, the Bowdoin Wetland Management District included nine waterfowl pro­duction areas totaling 9,504 acres: Beaver Creek, Black Coulee, Dyrdahl, Hewitt Lake