Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex

              Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental AssessmentBowdoin National Wildlife Refuge ComplexMontana
June 2011
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. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region. 336 p.Contents
Summary .......................................................................................
XI
Abbreviations ....................................................................................
XIX
CHAPTER 1–Introduction .......................................................................
1
1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
1.2 Early History of Conservation ................................................................
4
1.3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System ......................................U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ....................................................................
5 5
Service Activities in Montana ....................................................................
6
National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................
6
1.4 National and Regional Mandates ............................................................
7
1.5 Contributions to National and Regional Plans .................................................Fulfilling the Promise ...........................................................................Partners in Flight ..............................................................................North American Waterbird Conservation Plan .........................................................
8 8 8 9
North American Waterfowl Management Plan ........................................................Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan ......................................Montana Piping Plover Management Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse in Montana ..................................State Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy .............................................
9 10 10 10 11
1.6 Strategic Habitat Conservation ..............................................................Climate Change ..............................................................................
12 12
1.7 Planning Process ..........................................................................Coordination with the Public .....................................................................
14 17
State Coordination ............................................................................
17
Tribal Coordination ............................................................................
17
Results of Scoping ............................................................................Selecting an Alternative ........................................................................
18 18
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex ...............................................................
19
2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History .......................................... Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................................Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................Bowdoin Wetland Management District .............................................................Summary of Land Acquisition History ...............................................................
19 20 22 26 26 33 33 39
2.2 Purposes ..................................................................................Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................................Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................Bowdoin Wetland Management District .............................................................
41 41 42 42 42 42 42IV Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
2.3 Vision .....................................................................................
43
2.4 Goals .....................................................................................
43
Goal for Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife ......................................................Goal for Wetland Habitat and Associated Wildlife .....................................................
43 43
Goal for Visitor Services ........................................................................
43
Goal for Partnerships ...........................................................................Goal for Operations ............................................................................
43 43
2.5 Special Values .............................................................................Part of a National System .......................................................................Migratory Birds ...............................................................................Prairie Pothole Region ..........................................................................Special Designations ...........................................................................Native Prairie ................................................................................
44 44 44 44 45 45
Conservation Easements ........................................................................
46
Cultural History ...............................................................................Public Use ..................................................................................
46 46
2.6 Planning Issues ............................................................................Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife ............................................................Loss of Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks ..................................................................Wetland Management at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge .............................................Lake Bowdoin Salinity Concentrations ..............................................................Water Resources within Bowdoin Wetland Management District ..........................................Riparian Habitat and Associated Wildlife ...........................................................Wildlife Disease .............................................................................
46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49
Piping Plover ................................................................................Invasive Plants, Nonnative Plants, and Noxious Weeds .................................................Habitat Protection and Acquisition ................................................................Visitor Services ..............................................................................
49 51 52 52
Partnerships .................................................................................Operations ..................................................................................Natural Gas Development .......................................................................Prioritization of Refuge Complex Lands .............................................................Research, Inventory, and Monitoring ...............................................................Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................
53 53 54 54 5457
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives .......................................................................
59
3.1 Divestiture of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge ........................................Lake Thibadeau Refuge Alternative 1 (Current Management–No Action) .....................................Lake Thibadeau Refuge Alternative 2 (Divestiture–Proposed Action) ........................................Summary ...................................................................................
59 59 60 60
3.2 Development of Alternatives for the Refuge Complex ...........................................Alternatives Considered but Eliminated .............................................................
63 63
3.3 Description of Alternatives for the Refuge Complex ............................................ Elements Common to All Alternatives ...............................................................
63 64
Alternative A (Current Management–No Action) .......................................................Alternative B (Proposed Action) ...................................................................Alternative C .................................................................................
64 68 73
3.4 Summary of Alternatives and Consequences ..................................................
74
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment ..............................................................
95
4.1 Physical Environment ....................................................................... Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
95 95
Climate Change ..............................................................................Physiography and Geology .......................................................................
98 99CONTENTS V
Soils ....................................................................................... 99
Water Resources ............................................................................. 99
Air Quality .................................................................................. 109
4.2 Biological Resources ....................................................................... 109Uplands .................................................................................... 110Wetlands ................................................................................... 117
Riparian Areas ............................................................................... 127
4.3 Federally and State-listed Species ........................................................... 128Piping Plover ................................................................................. 129Plant Species ................................................................................ 129Animal Species of Concern ...................................................................... 129
4.4 Cultural Resources ......................................................................... 130
Prehistoric Occupation .......................................................................... 130Protohistoric and Historic Native Americans .......................................................... 130
Historic Euro-Americans ........................................................................ 130
History of Bowdoin Refuge Complex ................................................................ 131
4.5 Special Management Areas ................................................................. 133Wilderness Review ............................................................................ 133
Important Bird Area ............................................................................ 133Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network ...................................................... 134
4.6 Visitor Services ............................................................................ 134
Hunting .................................................................................... 134Fishing ..................................................................................... 137Wildlife Observation and Photography .............................................................. 137Environmental Education ........................................................................ 137
Interpretation ................................................................................ 138
4.7 Management Uses ......................................................................... 138Cooperative Farming ........................................................................... 138Prescribed Burning , Haying, and Grazing ............................................................ 139
4.8 Socioeconomic Environment ................................................................ 141
Population and Employment ...................................................................... 141Public Use of the Refuge Complex ................................................................. 141Baseline Economic Activity ...................................................................... 142
4.9 Partnerships ............................................................................... 142
4.10 Operations ................................................................................ 142Staff ....................................................................................... 143
Facilities .................................................................................... 143
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences ......................................................
145
5.1 Analysis Methods ..........................................................................
145
5.2 Effects Common to All Alternatives ...........................................................
146
Regulatory Effects .............................................................................Environmental Justice ..........................................................................
146 146
Cultural Resources ............................................................................
146
Climate Change ..............................................................................Geology and Soils .............................................................................
146 147
5.3 Description of Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife ............................................................. 147Wetland Habitat and Associated Wildlife ............................................................ 150
Visitor Services ............................................................................... 153
Partnerships ................................................................................. 155Operations .................................................................................. 156VI Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Socioeconomics .............................................................................. 157
5.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................ 158
CHAPTER 6–Analysis of Salinity ................................................................
159
6.1 Salinity Issues .............................................................................Salinity for Lake Bowdoin .......................................................................Water Quantity, Delivery, and Cost .................................................................
160 160 160
6.2 Background ...............................................................................Salt Basics ..................................................................................
160 160
Principal Salts at Bowdoin Refuge .................................................................Presettlement Salt Balance ......................................................................
163 164
Postsettlement Salt Balance .....................................................................
164
Current Salt Balance ...........................................................................
173
Water Supply ................................................................................
176
6.3 Salt and Water Management ................................................................Salt Management .............................................................................Water Management ...........................................................................Salt and Water Objectives .......................................................................
181 181 181 185
6.4 Planning Process ..........................................................................Development of Alternatives .....................................................................Public Involvement ............................................................................
185 185 186
Plan Completion ..............................................................................
186
6.5 Salinity Alternatives Analysis ...............................................................Elements Common to All Alternatives ...............................................................
187 187
Salinity Alternative 1–Current Management (No Action) .................................................Salinity Alternative 2–Evaporation Ponds and Removal of Saline Residue .....................................Salinity Alternative 3–Flushing by Beaver Creek .......................................................Salinity Alternative 4–Underground Injection Well and Flushing by Beaver Creek (Proposed Action) ..................Salinity Alternative 5–Pumping to Milk River .........................................................Summary of Alternatives Actions and Consequences ....................................................
188 191 194 197 200 202
6.6 Implementation of the Proposed Action (Salinity Alternative 4) ..................................Salinity Alternative 4–Underground Injection Well and Flushing by Beaver Creek ...............................Goal and Objectives for Salinity and Blowing Salts .....................................................
207 207 208
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP ..............................
215
7.1 Divestiture of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge ........................................
215
7.2 Salinity and Blowing Salts ..................................................................
216
7.3 Summary of the Draft CCP ...................................................................
217
7.4 Goal for Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife .............................................. 217Native Grassland ............................................................................. 217
Disturbed Grassland ........................................................................... 221
7.5 Goal for Wetland Habitat and Associated Wildlife ............................................. 223
Managed Wetlands ............................................................................ 224Target Waterbird Species ....................................................................... 224Wetland Habitat Objectives ...................................................................... 225Avian Disease ................................................................................ 231
Piping Plover ................................................................................. 232
7.6 Objectives that Support the Goals for Upland and Wetland Habitats .............................. 234Invasive and Nonnative Species ................................................................... 234Wildfire Management .......................................................................... 240Habitat Protection and Acquisition ................................................................. 241CONTENTS VII
7.7 Goal for Visitor Services and Cultural Resources .............................................. 248Visitor Services ............................................................................... 248Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 253 7.8 Goal for Partnerships ....................................................................... 254Public, Government, and Industry Partners ........................................................... 254 7.9 Goal for Operations ......................................................................... 256Staff ....................................................................................... 256Facilities and Equipment ........................................................................ 2587.10 Stepdown Management Plans ............................................................... 2597.11 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation ........................................................ 2607.12 Plan Amendment and Revision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260Glossary ....................................................................................... 261AppendixesAppendix A–Key Legislation and Policy ............................................................... 269Appendix B–List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275Appendix C–Public Involvement ..................................................................... 279Appendix D–Draft Compatibility Determinations ....................................................... 283Appendix E–Divestiture Model Results for Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge .......................... 297Appendix F–Species Lists .......................................................................... 303Appendix G–Fire Management Program .............................................................. 319Bibliography ................................................................................... 323
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 ..............
14
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 .........................................
31
12 Map of habitat types at Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ................................
32
13 Base map of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .......................................
34
14 Map of habitat types at Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ..............................
35
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 .....................................................
45
17 Map of critical habitat for piping plover at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana .............
50
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) ..............
96
20 Graph of total February precipitation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1905–2008) ............
96VIII Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
FIGURES (continued)
21 Graph of total June precipitation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1905–2008) ............... 96
22 Graph of average maximum daily temperature for February at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
(1969–2008) ................................................................................ 97
23 Graph of average minimum daily temperature for February at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
(1969–2008) ................................................................................ 97
24 Graph of average maximum daily temperature for June at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
(1969–2008) ................................................................................ 97
25 Graph of average minimum daily temperature for June at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
(1969–2008) ................................................................................ 98
26 Map of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex within the Milk River watershed ...................... 100
27 Map of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex located between the Milk River and Beaver
Creek watersheds ........................................................................... 101
28 Map of current and proposed public use sites and activities at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .... 136
29 Map of wetlands, water management infrastructure, and monitoring sites on Bowdoin National Wildlife
Refuge, Montana ............................................................................ 165
30 Map of a historical survey showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge on the topographic features of
the landscape .............................................................................. 167
31 Map of the Milk River Project, Montana ........................................................... 171
32 Chart of sources of salts into Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ............................... 173
33 Graph of tons of salt in the lakes and wetlands at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
(1990–2007) ................................................................................ 174
34 Chart of sources of water into Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .............................. 175
35 Map of water levels and salinity for Lake Bowdoin, Montana (1975–2007) ............................... 177
36 Graph of water deliveries to Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1938–2008) ..................... 179
37 Map of the extent of Lake Bowdoin at various water elevations ........................................ 183
38 Graph of tons of salt in Lake Bowdoin with salinity alternative 1, no action 188
39 Graphs of the relationship of pH and salinity to avian botulism outbreaks ................................ 191
40 Graph of tons of salt in Lake Bowdoin with salinity alternative 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
41 Graph of tons of salt in Lake Bowdoin with salinity alternative 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
42 Graph of water depth and substrate preferences of shorebird foraging guilds ............................. 227
43 Map of Russian olive tree infestations in and around Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ............ 237
44 Map of Russian olive evaluation areas (Big Island) for grassland restoration at Bowdoin National Wildlife
Refuge, Montana ........................................................................... 238
45 Map of wetland density per square mile in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
46 Map of grassland density in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ........................ 246
47 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
48 Adaptive management process .................................................................. 260
49 Map of wetlands within 10 miles of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .................... 299CONTENTS IX
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) ...... 40
3 Land acquisition history for Bowdoin Wetland Management District, Montana (1977–2008) ................. 41
4 Comparison of alternatives and environmental consequences for keeping or divesting Lake Thibadeau National
Wildlife Refuge, Montana ..................................................................... 61
5 Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana .................... 75
6 Water rights for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Phillips County, Montana ............................. 105
7 Water rights for the waterfowl production areas and satellite refuges of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge
Complex, Montana .......................................................................... 106
8 Base staff funded in fiscal year 2011 at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ............... 143
9 Salinity categories and the corresponding ranges of specific conductance values .......................... 163
10 Pipeline size and cost estimates for western and eastern pipeline options for pumping to the Milk River. . . . . . . . 201
11 Summary of alternatives and consequences considered to address the elevated salinity and blowing salts
issue at Lake Bowdoin, Montana ............................................................... 202
12 Partner agencies and expertise for the injection well project at Lake Bowdoin, Montana .................... 209
13 Conservation status of target species of upland birds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana .... 218
14 Nesting habitat requirements for target species of upland birds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge
Complex, Montana .......................................................................... 219
15 Conservation status of target species of waterbirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ........... 225
16 Life history needs of target species of waterbirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ..... 226
17 Nest site and habitat characteristics of target, interior-nesting shorebirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife
Refuge Complex, Montana .................................................................... 226
18 Current and proposed staff for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
19 Stepdown management plans for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana .................... 259Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which covers 84,724 acres in north-central Montana. The refuge complex is 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
This is a summary of the draft comprehensive con­servation plan and environmental assessment that the Service has prepared for the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The full document con­tains background information and the Service’s analyses of alternatives for managing the refuge complex.
The Refuge Complex
The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex is located 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.
A picture of the chokecherry shrub with white flowers. A picture of the chokecherry shrub with white flowers. Photo credit: A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana. A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.A vicinity map showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge Complex Headquarters east Malta, Montana.
Bowdoin Refuge Complex
HeadquartersXII Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
The refuge complex provides opportunities for the public to enjoy compatible wildlife-dependent public use activities including hunting, fishing, wild­life observation, photography, environmental educa­tion, and interpretation.
The Planning Process
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser­vice to develop a comprehensive conservation plan by 2012 for each national wildlife refuge. The final plan for the Bowdoin Refuge Complex is scheduled for completion in 2011 and will guide the manage­ment of the refuge complex for the next 15 years.
The planning process for a comprehensive con­servation plan is a series of steps including envi­ronmental analysis. The Service encourages and values the involvement of the public and partners throughout the process. The Service’s planning team compiled a list of issues to consider and analyzed management alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan that would not only address these issues but also meet the purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge complex.
There are three separate alternatives’ analyses within the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment for the refuge com­plex that are summarized under the “Alternatives” section of this summary:
■■Divestiture (the selling or release of Service interests) of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge
■■Salinity and blowing salts at Lake Bowdoin
■■Management of the remaining programs through­out the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Com­plex
Chapter 7 contains the draft plan for the refuge complex. After the public reviews and provides comments on the draft plan and environmental as­sessment, the Regional Director will consider the environmental effects of each alternative includ­ing information gathered during public review. The Service’s Regional Director of the Mountain–Prairie Region will select a preferred alternative for each of the three analyses.
After the planning team prepares the final CCP for publication, a notice of availability will be pub­lished in the Federal Register, and copies of the final CCP or accompanying summary will be sent to in­dividuals on the mailing list. Subsequently, the Ser­vice will implement the CCP with help from partner agencies, organizations, and the public.
Issues
Substantive issues were identified following an in­ternal review of refuge information and through public scoping, which was begun in 2007. The follow­ing are summaries of the issues detailed in chapter 2.
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. In addi­tion, the refuge and adjoining lands are underlain by glacial till and shale containing high concentrations of soluble salts. The Milk River Project water sup­ply on Bowdoin Refuge is limited and insufficient to improve wetland water quality. As water evaporates from Lake Bowdoin’s closed system, salts have be­come concentrated and water salinity has increased. Historically, two methods have been used to im­prove Lake Bowdoin’s water quality and reduce salinity levels: (1) discharges of saline water into Beaver Creek; and (2) managing Dry Lake as an evaporation basin for Lake Bowdoin’s water. Nei­ther of these methods is an environmentally feasible option for removing salts. If no action is taken to improve water quality on the refuge, the progres­sively increasing salinity levels in Lake Bowdoin and the blowing salts out of Dry Lake will continue to threaten migratory birds, other wildlife, wetland habitats, and, potentially, neighboring landowners and downstream irrigators.
Water Quantity, Delivery, and Cost for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge
The current water delivery of 3,500 acre-feet and natural sources of water have been insufficient to supply the necessary water for wildlife habitat man­agement and for improving water quality. If the ref­uge is to survive as a viable migratory bird refuge, it will require additional supplies of water and the means to reduce and dispose of saline water, primar­ily from Lake Bowdoin.
Water Resources within Bowdoin Wetland Management District
In the wetland management district, the Korsbeck and Holm WPAs and the satellite refuges have SUMMARY XIII
reservoirs that rely on the runoff from precipita­tion events to fill them. Since the satellite refuges were established, there has been extensive water development in the watersheds, in particular, Lake Thibadeau. Runoff is being captured or diverted upstream of these wetlands. This has decreased waterbird habitat on some of these refuges, chang­ing some from semipermanent to seasonal wetland habitat.
Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife
Historically, the northern Great Plains was a grass­land-dominated system where fire, relatively low precipitation, and native grazers restricted natural tree growth to riparian floodplains, wooded draws, islands within lakes, and small patches downwind of wetland edges (Higgins 1986). These large expanses of treeless prairies have been fragmented by crop­land, shelterbelts, and human settlement, as well as from the uncontrolled spread of nonnative Russian olive trees.
Grassland bird populations are declining faster and more consistently than any other group of North American birds (Samson and Knopf 1994) due to habitat fragmentation and loss of native grasslands.
Marbled godwit and long-billed curlew are shorebirds that nest in native prairie at the refuge complex.
Photo credit:
Piping Plover
Approximately 3,325 acres of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge has been designated as critical habi­tat for the threatened Great Plains population of piping plover. However, there have been no known piping plover nests on the refuge since 1999, primar­ily due to insufficient water supplies necessary to create attractive nesting habitat.
Invasive Plants, Nonnative Plants, and Noxious Weeds
The refuge complex is constantly challenged to maintain its native grassland habitat—critical to
migratory birds—unfragmented by nonnative trees and shrubs. One of the most damaging nonnative plant species throughout the refuge complex is Rus­sian olive. Although this tree is not designated as an invasive species in Montana, its ability to outcom­pete native species and fragment habitat is well doc­umented. Russian olive trees can take over native vegetation, interfere with natural plant succession and nutrient cycling, damage water management facilities and fences, and tax water reserves. The largest infestations are on the Bowdoin Refuge and the Pearce WPA.
Crested wheatgrass is the primary invasive grass species and leafy spurge, perennial pepperweed, and Canada thistle are the primary invasive forb species. Left unmanaged these invasive plant species can have a detrimental effect on the diversity of native plants, wildlife species, and habitat quality.
Habitat Protection and Acquisition
Native prairie areas and wetlands are the most productive habitat types in Montana, particularly in the Prairie Pothole Region. Although there are laws that protect these areas, particularly wetlands, these vital habitats continue to be lost. Most of these habitat types occur on private lands. 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. Habitat protec­tion needs to be evaluated through a priority system so that critical areas are identified and the most ef­fective means of protection, through either fee title or easement, can be determined.
Visitor Services
An estimated 25,000 visitors come to explore the refuge complex annually. The refuge complex is lo­cated in north-central Montana, an area with one of the smallest population densities in the State. A major attraction for wildlife observers and hunt­ers, the refuge complex is also popular with local school groups. For self-guided visitors, the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge’s auto tour route offers the excellent opportunities for viewing and photograph­ing wildlife.
There are few programs and no staff assigned to work with these visitors and students, many of whom do not know they are on a national wildlife refuge. This often results in a general lack of un­derstanding about the mission and purposes the National Wildlife Refuge System and the refuge complex.XIV Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Operations
The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex manages or protects 84,724 acres within a four-county area. Due to the large size of the manage­ment area, limited staff and funding, and long travel times, some lands can only be inspected once a year for maintenance and management needs. In addition, the lack of a full maintenance and biological staff limits opportunities to develop an effective habitat management program that could address some of the more challenging management issues including native grassland restoration.
Oil and Gas Development
Extraction of oil and natural gas within the Bowdoin Wetland Management District has occurred since the 1940s. When the Service acquired most refuge complex lands, the mineral rights were reserved or excepted by the landowner or the Bureau of Land Management. Hewitt Lake’s establishing purposes permit oil and gas extraction.
There are currently 104 natural gas wells in pro­duction status on Service-interest lands. Annual activities on these lands include mineral exploration, well drilling and maintenance, pipeline construction and maintenance, road building, and hauling off­site of produced water. Many of these activities can fragment habitats and disturb wildlife. Production companies operating within the Bowdoin natural gas dome estimate that drilling is expected to last about 10–15 years, with a project life of 30–50 years.
Research, Inventory, and Monitoring
Research throughout the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex has been minimal and sporadic, and some past projects have not adequately addressed management issues. As a result, some current man­agement actions are based on outside research, not necessarily designed to address critical refuge is­sues, and may not follow an established management plan.
Spring water conditions in the glaciated pothole region of Phillips County, Montana (1986).
Photo credit:
Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge was es­tablished in 1937 as what the Service now calls a limited-interest refuge. Except for the 19.4 acres reserved from public domain, the remaining refuge is private lands that are encumbered by refuge and flowage easements. These easements give the Ser­vice the right to control hunting and trapping and SUMMARY XV
the uses of the main bodies of water including the
impoundment, lakes, and streams. The Service did
not buy the right to control uses of the upland areas
including farming, grazing, and development.
Habitat loss has been significant over the de-cades.
The refuge currently offers little value to
wildlife, and the purposes for which this area was
first established are no longer attainable. Native
prairie areas that once existed are now farmed
intensively. Due to upstream development, Lake
Thibadeau, Grassy Lake, and Mud Lake are often
dry and farmed in most years, offering no value for
migratory birds.
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 pro-cess.
The goals were developed to meet the vision
for the refuge complex.
Vision for the Refuge Complex
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 integ-rity
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 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
Prairie 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.
Alternatives
This section summarizes the three analyses within
the draft comprehensive conservation plan and envi-ronmental
assessment.
XVI Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Salinity and Blowing Salts at Lake Bowdoin
The following goal is what the Service hopes to achieve by addressing the salinity and blowing salts issue, so it can manage the refuge to meet its es­tablishment purposes and the overall vision for the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
Goal: Develop a water management system on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge that would protect the environment and mitigate current and future salt-dust-blowing concerns for neighboring properties while providing quality water and wildlife habitat for migra­tory birds.
A major aspect of achieving this goal would be to meet the Service’s salinity objective of sustaining a brackish water quality level of approximately 7,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids (salts) in Lake Bow­doin.
The Service developed and analyzed five alterna­tives to address the salinity and blowing salts issue for Lake Bowdoin in the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge:
■■Salinity alternative 1—current management (no action)
■■Salinity alternative 2—evaporation ponds and removal of salt residue
■■Salinity alternative 3—flushing by Beaver Creek
■■Salinity alternative 4—underground injection and flushing by Beaver Creek (proposed action)
■■Salinity alternative 5—pumping to Milk River
The Service is proposing alternative 4 as the best option for meeting the salinity objective for Lake Bowdoin and for achieving the salinity goal for the Bowdoin Refuge. The Service expects this proposed treatment would be highly effective in meeting the salinity goal, which would result in beneficial envi­ronmental and social consequences at a reasonable cost for addressing this persistent problem.
Salt residue covers the shoreline on the southeastern edge of Lake Bowdoin in late summer.
Photo credit:
Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge
The Service completed an environmental analysis of two alternatives to address the situation at the Lake Thibadeau Refuge (section 3.1 in chapter 3):
■■Lake Thibadeau Refuge alternative 1–current management (no action)
■■Lake Thibadeau Refuge alternative 2–divestiture (proposed action)
Using the divestiture model for the Mountain–Prai­rie Region, the Service evaluated the habitat quality and ability of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Ref­uge to meet its purposes and support the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Service owns less than 1 percent of the lands within the 3,868-acre approved acquisition boundary; the remaining area SUMMARY XVII
is private land encumbered by refuge and flowage easements.
The easements give the Service the right to man­age the impoundments and the uses that occur on that water and to control hunting and trapping, but these easements do not prohibit development, graz­ing, or agricultural uses. Due to upstream develop­ment in the watershed, the impoundments do not receive adequate water supplies and are often dry enough to be farmed. The surrounding uplands are also farmed or heavily grazed. This loss or lack of habitat is the basis for the Service’s proposed action to divest this refuge.
Alternatives for the Remaining Refuge Complex Programs
The Service developed and analyzed three alterna­tives as options for managing habitats and public use at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex (chapters 3 and 5):
■■Alternative A–current management (no action)
■■Alternative B (proposed action)
■■Alternative C
Alternative B would likely have the most effective management for providing wetland and upland habi­tat for migratory birds. While meeting this over­riding purpose of the refuge complex by mimicking natural conditions, there would be benefits to many other wildlife species. In addition, there would be increased opportunities for visitors to learn about the migratory shorebirds and waterfowl, along with other wildlife species, that rely on so many aspects of the native prairie.
Alternative A–Current Management (No Action)
The current staff of five Service employ-ees would continue to manage Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex pri-marily for migratory birds. The Service would continue to manipulate native grasslands using various management techniques including prescribed fire and grazing. Approximately 10 percent of the uplands would be grazed annually, and there would be minimal monitor-ing of response. As resources become available, cropland on waterfowl produc-tion areas would be restored to native grasses and forbs; however, dense nest-ing cover would continue to be seeded
on highly erodible lands in the wetland management district. The Service would continue to use mechani­cal and chemical methods to control existing and new infestations of Russian olive. Larger infesta­tions of invasive species such as crested wheatgrass would continue to be given little to no attention due to the extent of infestation and the lack of resources and staff.
The Service would continue to attempt to mimic natural conditions on managed wetlands to meet the needs of migratory water birds. The 19 ground water wells on and around Bowdoin Refuge would be monitored to collect water quality data for the refuge and the Beaver Creek Waterfowl Production Area. Lake Bowdoin and Dry Lake would continue to be managed as closed basins.
Visitor services programs including hunting, fish­ing, wildlife observation, photography, environmen­tal education, and interpretation would remain at current levels.Photo credit:
Alternative B (Proposed Action)
The Service would conserve natural resources by restoring, protecting, and enhancing native mixed-grass prairie and maintaining quality wetland habi­tat for target migratory and resident birds within the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Invasive and nonnative plants that are causing habi­tat losses and fragmentation would be controlled or eradicated. Research would be conducted to control crested wheatgrass and restore treated areas. En­hanced wetlands would be managed to mimic natural conditions for wetland-dependent migratory birds during spring and fall migrations and during the breeding and nesting season.
Visitor services pro­grams would be enhanced, providing additional op­portunities for staff- and volunteer-led programs to provide a greater under­standing of the purposes of the refuge complex, importance of conserving migratory birds and the unique mixed-grass prai­rie and wetlands, and an awareness of the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System. A sanctuary area would be created for waterfowl on the east half of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge during the hunting season, XVIII Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
closing this to all foot traffic. A new wildlife observa­tion site would be added on the auto tour route. The Service would work with the State to investigate the potential for offering a safe, compatible, and quality big-game hunt at Bowdoin Refuge.
The success of these additional efforts and pro­grams would depend on added staff, research, and monitoring programs, including additional opera­tions funding, infrastructure, and new and expanded partnerships.
Alternative C
This alternative includes most of the elements in al­ternative B. In addition, the Service would improve the water management infrastructure (for example, water delivery systems, dikes, and levees to manipu­late individual wetland) to create a more diverse and productive wetland complex. Biological staff would monitor the level of sedimentation occurring in natu­ral wetlands and plan for its removal to restore the biological integrity of these wetlands.
Through partnerships, the Service would in­crease the acres of invasive species treated annually with an emphasis on preventing further encroach­ment of crested wheatgrass and Russian olive trees into native grassland. The refuge complex would serve as a conservation-learning center for the area. Public access would be improved to Creedman Cou­lee Refuge.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
CompactCompact Commission
Montana House Bill Number 717–Bill to Ratify Water Rights Com-pactMontana 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
°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 Assessment 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 Reclamation
refuge
Refuge within the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge ComplexXX Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
refuge complexRefuge SystemRLGISService
Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge ComplexNational Wildlife Refuge SystemRefuge Lands Geographic Information SystemU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
TDS
Total dissolved solids
μmhos/cmμS/cmU.S.
Micromhos per centimeterMicroSiemens per centimeterUnited States
U.S.C.
United States Code
USDAUSFWS
U.S. Department of AgricultureU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USRS
U.S. Reclamation Service
WGWPA
Wage Grade (pay schedule)Waterfowl production area
Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary, located after chapter 7.CHAPTER 1–Introduction
The Service (United States Fish and Wildlife Ser­vice) manages the 84,724-acre Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The refuge complex is 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 refuge, flowage, wetland, and grassland easements 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 complex’s units and easements are part of the Refuge System (National Wildlife Refuge System):
■■Five national wildlife refuges: Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge and four unstaffed satellite
refuges—Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt Lake, and Lake Thibadeau National
Wildlife Refuges.
■■Nine waterfowl production areas within the four-county Bowdoin Wetland Management District (Blaine, Hill, Phillips, and Valley Coun­ties). These nine 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.
To address the long-term management of the refuge complex, the Service has developed a draft CCP (comprehensive conservation plan) and EA (envi­ronmental assessment). This document presents the EA, which evaluates alternatives for, and expected consequences of, managing the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. There are three separate alternatives’ analyses in this document: (1) whether to divest Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge; (2) addressing the salinity and blowing salts issue at Bowdoin Refuge; and (3) an analysis of manage­ment alternatives for the remaining refuge complex programs. The Service has identified the following alternatives as its proposed actions:
An aerial photo showing an area of the prairie pothole in Bowdoin WMD late spring when there is still snow on ground. An aerial photo showing an area of the prairie pothole in Bowdoin WMD late spring when there is still snow on ground. Photo credit: 2 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
A map showing the locations of Bowdoin Refguge Complex in relation to Prairie Pothole Region.A map showing the locations of Bowdoin Refguge Complex in relation to Prairie Pothole Region.CHAPTER 1–Introduction 3
■■Lake Thibadeau Refuge alternative 2 (divesti­ture); described in chapter 3 and appendix E
■■Salinity and blowing salts alternative 4 (under­ground injection and flushing by Beaver Creek); described in chapter 6
■■Alternative B for the remaining refuge pro­grams; described in chapter 7
Chapter 1 introduces the process for development of the Bowdoin Refuge Complex’s CCP, including descriptions of the involvement of the Service, the State of Montana, the public, and others. This chap­ter also describes the conservation issues and plans that affect the refuge complex.
A vicinity map showing the 5 national wildlife refuges in Bowdoin WMD.A vicinity map showing the 5 national wildlife refuges in Bowdoin WMD.
The remaining chapters contain information the Service used and results of the Service’s analysis that is the foundation of the draft plan:
■■Chapter 2 describes the refuge complex and plan­ning issues.
■■Chapter 3 sets out the alternatives for manage­ment of the refuge complex.
■■Chapter 4 describes the physical, biological, and social environment that the alternatives would affect.
■■Chapter 5 explains the expected consequences of carrying out each of the alternatives.4 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
■■Chapter 6 documents the analysis of salinity and blowing salts.
■■Chapter 7 describes objectives and strategies for the proposed action (alternative B), which comprises the draft CCP.
The Service has developed this draft CCP to pro­vide a foundation for the management and use of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The CCP specifies the necessary actions to achieve the vision and purposes of the refuge complex. Wildlife is the first priority in refuge and district manage­ment, and public use (including wildlife-dependent recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with the purposes of each management unit. When finalized, the CCP will serve as a work­ing guide for management programs and activities throughout the refuge complex over the next 15 years. Although this document contains manage­ment direction for the refuge complex, greater detail would be provided in stepdown management plans as part of implementing the final CCP (refer to sec­tion 7.10 in chapter 7).
1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan
The purpose of this draft CCP is to identify the role that the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex would play 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
■■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.
1.2 Early History of 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 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 United States (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:CHAPTER 1–Introduction 5
■■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 re-stricting
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 lead-ing
conservationists of the time authored the 1930
American Game Policy. This policy called for a res-toration
program for habitats and populations based
on scientific research with stable, equitable funding
to achieve this. Within a decade, landmark legisla-tion
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 wild-life
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. However, the vast
majority of funding for wildlife conservation at Fed-eral
and State levels comes from Pittman–Robertson
excise taxes, Duck Stamp revenues, and hunting li-cense
sales. We owe the origins of the National Wild-life
Refuge System to the hunters who articulated
the need and provided the money (Grinnell 1913).
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 and recreation for all
Americans. It is a realization of the North Ameri-can
Model of Wildlife Conservation to provide for
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 con-nection
is to lose the basis of our humanity.
1.3 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
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.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Ameri-ca’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, Presi-dent
Theodore Roosevelt created more than 50 wild-life
refuges across the Nation.
Over the next three decades, the United States
ratified the Migratory Bird Treaty with Great Brit-ain,
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
nationally significant fisheries, conserves and re-
6 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
stores vital wildlife habitat, protects and recovers
endangered species, and helps other governments
with conservation efforts. In addition, the Service
administers a Federal aid program that distributes
hundreds of millions of dollars to States for fish and
wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter educa-tion,
and related programs across the United States.
Service Activities in Montana
Service activities in Montana (2009) contribute to
the State’s economy, ecosystems, and education pro-grams.
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
coordination 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
production 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
Wildlife Program has helped private landown-ers
(1) restore more than 31,759 wetland 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
Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (money used for
schools and roads)
National Wildlife Refuge System
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated
the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the 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 553 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.
The mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System is to administer a national
network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and where
appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife
and plant resources and their habitats
within the United States for
the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.
The Improvement Act states that each national
wildlife refuge (meaning every unit of the Refuge
System, which includes wetland management dis-tricts)
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
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 7
■■Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System
■■Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreational activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife ob­servation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation are legitimate and priority public uses
■■Retain the authority of refuge managers to de­termine compatible public uses
In addition to the 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 Service 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 involvement. 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, hunt­ing, 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–Robertson 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 often accommodated through nature trails, auto tours, interpretive programs, and hunt­ing and fishing opportunities. Significant economic benefits are being generated to the local communi­ties that surround refuges and wetland management districts. Economists report that Refuge System visitors contribute more than $1.7 billion annually to local economies.
1.4 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 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), The “Fish and Wildlife Service Man­ual,” and the Improvement Act.
The Improvement Act amends the Refuge Sys­tem Administration Act by providing (1) a unifying 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 A–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.”8 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
1.5 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 manage 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.
Black Tern
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 CHAPTER 1–Introduction 9
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 I 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 II 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 proposed actions in this plan would 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.
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).
International Border contrast in 1994—Blaine County, Montana, United States (left); Saskatchewan, Canada (right).
Photo credit:
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).10 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
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 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.
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 CHAPTER 1–Introduction 11
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 Strate­gies 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 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.
Piping Plover
Photo credit: A picture of a male greater sage-grouse in breeding plumage. Photo credit:
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, 12 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
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
1.6 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 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: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 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
■■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 con��servation 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.
Figure 4. Process steps for comprehensive conservation planning and associated environmental analysis.
1.7 Planning Process
The Service prepared this draft CCP and EA in compliance with the Improvement Act and part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the “Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described in the draft CCP and EA meet the re­quirements of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations that implement the National Environ­mental Policy Act of 1969. Additional requirements and guidance are contained 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 CHAPTER 1–Introduction 15
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 partners (refer to “Appendix B–List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination”). During pre-planning, the team de­veloped a mailing list, internal issues, and identified the unique qualities of the refuge complex (refer to section 2.2 in chapter 2). The planning team identi­fied and reviewed current programs, compiled and analyzed relevant data, and determined the pur­poses of the refuge complex.
Public scoping started with a notice of intent to prepare the draft CCP and EA that was published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2007. Information was distributed through news releases, issuance of the first planning update, and holding a public scoping meeting in Malta on May 22, 2007. Pub­lic scoping concluded on June 14, 2007, when the comment period closed. This project complies with public involvement requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, and the planning team incorporated public input throughout the planning process. Over the course of pre-planning and public scoping, the planning team collected available infor­mation about the resources of the refuge complex units and the surrounding areas. This information is summarized in “Chapter 4–Affected Environment.”
Table 1 lists the specific steps in the planning process to date for the preparation of this draft CCP and EA.
Table 1. Summary of the CCP planning process for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.
Date
Event
Outcome 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, de­veloped the first draft of the internal issues and the qualities list, started the mailing list, discussed the planning schedule, and discussed the biological data needs.
February 15, 2007
Work plan
Service staff prepared the planning work plan.
March 6, 2007
April 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.
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
Public scoping period ends
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.16 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Table 1. Summary of the CCP planning process for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.DateEventOutcome or purpose
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 sup-porting 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 environ-mental 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, meet-ing 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 alter-natives 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 meet-ing 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.
April 14–15, 2010
Salinity chapter
The salinity team finalized the chapter summarizing alternatives to address the salinity and blowing salts issue on Bowdoin Na-tional 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 plan for distribution to the public for review.CHAPTER 1–Introduction 17
Coordination with the Public
A mailing list of more than 170 names was prepared during pre-planning. The mailing list includes pri­vate citizens; local, regional, and State government representatives and legislators; other Federal agen­cies; and interested organizations (refer to “Appen­dix C–Public Involvement”).
The first planning update was sent in May 2007 to everyone on the mailing list. Information was provided on the history of the refuge and the CCP process and included an invitation to a public scoping meeting. The planning update included a comment form to give the public an opportunity to provide written comments. Emails were also accepted at the refuge’s email address: bowdoin@fws.gov.
The Service held one public scoping meeting at the Great Northern Motel in Malta, Montana, on May 22, 2007. There were 25 attendees, primarily lo­cal citizens, including surrounding ranchers. Follow­ing a presentation about the refuge complex and an overview of the CCP and National Environmental Policy Act processes, attendees were encouraged to ask questions and offer comments. Verbal com­ments were recorded and each attendee was given a comment form to submit additional thoughts or questions in writing.
All written comments were due June 14, 2007. Fifteen written comments, additional to those re­ceived orally at the public scoping meeting, were received throughout the scoping process. All com­ments were shared with the planning team and con­sidered throughout the planning process.
One of the most significant issues identified by both the public and the planning team was the blow­ing salts and salinity issue on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. The planning team developed a salinity team that worked for more than 2 years to study this issue and develop alternatives (refer to “Chapter 6–Analysis of Salinity”). On October 22, 2009, the planning team held a public meeting to pro­vide information about the results of this effort. The public had the opportunity to ask questions and offer suggestions about the various aspects of the alterna­tives. This meeting was announced in the local media and more than 170 meeting announcements were mailed out to the planning mailing list. The staff also provided interviews to statewide newspapers about this meeting and the analysis. Many people helped the refuge staff organize and lead this meet­ing and answer questions—Service staff from the Division of Refuge Planning and Division of Water Resources and the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and Department of Environmental Quality, including members of the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commis­sion. Thirty people attended this meeting and pro­vided comments, which the Service recorded. These comments were considered by the planning team in preparation of this draft CCP and EA, particularly chapter 6, which addresses this issue in detail.
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. Hydrologists 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 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; nevertheless, the councils were provided opportuni­ties to comment.18 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana
Results of Scoping
Comments collected from scoping meetings and cor­respondence were used in the development of a final list of issues to be addressed in this draft CCP and EA. The Service determined which alternatives could best address these issues. The planning pro­cess ensures that issues with the greatest effect on the refuge complex resources and programs are resolved or given priority over the life of the final CCP. Identified issues, along with a discussion of effects on resources, are summarized in chapter 2. In addition, the Service considered suggested changes to current refuge management presented by the public and other groups.
Selecting an Alternative
After the public reviews and provides comments on the draft CCP and EA, the planning team will present this document along with a summary of all substantive public comments to the Service’s Moun­tain–Prairie Regional Director. The Regional Direc­tor will consider the environmental effects of each alternative including information gathered during public review.
The Regional Director will select a preferred alternative for each of the three analyses in the draft CCP and EA: (1) divestiture of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge; (2) management of salinity and blowing salts at Lake Bowdoin; and (3) all other management aspects of the refuge complex. The Regional Director’s decision will be disclosed in a finding of no significant impact included in the final CCP. Once approved, the actions in the preferred alternatives will compose the final CCP.
After the planning team prepares the final CCP for publication, a notice of availability will be pub­lished in the Federal Register, and copies of the final CCP, summary of the CCP, or both will be sent to in­dividuals on the mailing list. Subsequently, the Ser­vice will implement the CCP with help from partner agencies, organizations, and the public.
The CCP will provide long-term guidance for management decisions; support achievement of the goals, objectives, and strategies needed to ac­complish the purposes of the Bowdoin Refuge and the Bowdoin District; and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. The CCP will detail program-planning levels that may be substantially above budget allocations and, thus, are primarily for strategic planning purposes. The CCP does not con­stitute a commitment for staff increases, operation and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisitions.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 proposed 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 o