Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge

              Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Montana
September 2010
Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
Airport Road
Lewistown, Montana 59457
406 /538 8706
and
Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region
Division of Refuge Planning
134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
303 /236 8145
Abstract
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact StatementCharles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
Type of Action:
Administrative
Lead Agency:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Responsible Official:
Steve Guertin, regional director, region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Abstract:
This draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement identifies the pur­pose and need for a management plan, outlines the legal foundation for management of two refuges in Montana, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, and describes and eval­uates four alternative plans for managing wildlife, habi­tat, and wildlife-dependent public use. This process has involved the development of a vision, goals, objectives, and strategies that meet the legal directives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and has considered the input of interested groups and the public.
Under the no-action alternative (A), few changes would occur in managing existing wildlife populations and habitat. The habitat regime would be maintained mostly through a fire suppression program with little
use of prescribed fire. There would be continued empha­sis on big game management, annual livestock grazing, fencing, invasive species control, and water develop­ment. Habitats would continue to be managed in 65 units, and residual cover would be measured. Wildlife-dependent public use would occur at current levels, which includes hunting, fishing, and limited interpreta­tion and environmental education programs. About 670 miles of road would remain open. The Service would con­tinue to manage the 20,819-acre UL Bend Wilderness
and 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness in the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.
Under alternative B’s wildlife population emphasis,
the Service would manage the landscape in cooper­ation
with partners to emphasize abundant wildlife populations using both (1) natural ecological processes such as fire and wildlife ungulate herbivory (grazing) and (2) responsible synthetic methods such as farming practices or tree planting. Wildlife-dependent public use would be encouraged, but economic uses would be limited when they compete for habitat resources. About 106 miles of road would be closed.
Under alternative C’s public use and economic use
emphasis, the Service would manage the landscape in cooperation with partners to emphasize and promote maximum levels of compatible, wildlife-dependent public use and economic use. Wildlife populations and
habitats would be protected with various manage­ment tools that would minimize damaging effects to wildlife and habitats while enhancing and diversify­ing public and economic opportunities.
Under the Service’s proposed action—alterna­tive D’s ecological processes emphasis—the Service would work with partners to use natural, dynamic, ecological processes along with active management in a balanced, responsible manner to restore and main-
tain biological diversity, biological integrity, and en-
vironmental health. Once natural processes were restored, more passive approaches would be favored.
The Service would provide for quality wildlife-dependent public use and experiences and would limit economic uses when they were injurious to eco­logical processes. About 23 miles of road would be closed.
Commenting:
Comments are due 60 days after the notice of availability of this document is published in the Fed­eral Register. Comments should be mailed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attention: Laurie Shannon, Plan­ning Team Leader, Division of Refuge Planning, P.O. Box 25486, Denver, Colorado 80225. In addition, comments can be delivered to 134 Union Boulevard, Lakewood, Colorado 80228. Comments may also be sent by email to cmrplanning@fws.gov. All comments received from the public and interested groups will be placed in the agency’s record for this planning process. Comments will be made available for inspection by the public, and copies may also be provided to the public. For further information, contact Laurie Shannon at 303/236 4317.
Cooperating Agencies:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Bureau of Land Management; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; Montana Department of
Natural Resources; Fergus, Garfield, McCone, Petro-
leum, Phillips, and Valley Counties; and Missouri River
Council of Conservation Districts (for the previously listed counties).Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxviii
CHAPTER 1–Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Purpose and Need for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Decision to Be Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
National Wildlife Refuge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 National and Regional Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Refuge Contributions to National and Regional Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Fulfilling the Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Bird Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Recovery Plans for Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
State Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.5 Strategic Habitat Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.6 Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.7 Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Cooperating Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Tribal Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Involvement of Interested Groups and the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.8 Significant Issues to Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Habitat and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Public Use and Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Partnerships and Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Cultural Values, Traditions, and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.9 Issues Not Addressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Enhancement Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Exercise of Private Property Rights for Mineral Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Fort Peck Lake Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Livestock Grazing Fees, Transfer of Grazing Permits, and Animal Unit Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Refuge Revenue-sharing Payments and Payments in Lieu of Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Roads under Revised Statute 2477 and Petitioned Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Military Overflights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.10 Scope of the Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Decision Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Analysis Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
CHAPTER 2–Refuge History and Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Existing Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
vi Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
2.2 Special Values ...........................................................................28
2.3 Vision ...................................................................................29
2.4 Goals ...................................................................................29
Goal for Habitat and Wildlife Management .........................................................30Goal for Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern ......................................30 Goal for Research and Science ..................................................................30
Goal for Fire Management .....................................................................30Goal for Public Use and Education ................................................................30
Goal for Wilderness ..........................................................................30
Goal for Cultural and Paleontological Resources ......................................................30Goal for Refuge Operations and Partnerships ........................................................30
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives .......................................................................31
3.1 Criteria for Alternatives Development .......................................................31
3.2 Elements Common to All Alternatives .......................................................31
3.3 Structure of the Alternative Descriptions ....................................................32
3.4 Summary of Alternative A—No Action ......................................................33Habitat and Wildlife Management, Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern, Research and Science, and Fire Management .....................................................33Public Use and Education ......................................................................34
Wilderness ................................................................................34
Cultural and Paleontological Resources ............................................................34Refuge Operations and Partnerships ..............................................................34
3.5 Summary of Alternative B—Wildlife Population Emphasis .....................................39Habitat and Wildlife Management, Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern, Research and Science, and Fire Management .....................................................39Public Use and Education ......................................................................40
Wilderness ................................................................................45
Cultural and Paleontological Resources ............................................................45Refuge Operations and Partnerships ..............................................................45
3.6 Summary of Alternative C—Public Use and Economic Use Emphasis ............................46Habitat and Wildlife Management, Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern, Research and Science, and Fire Management .....................................................46Public Use and Education ......................................................................51
Wilderness ................................................................................52
Cultural and Paleontological Resources ............................................................52Refuge Operations and Partnerships ..............................................................52
3.7 Summary of Alternative D—Ecological Processes Emphasis (Proposed Action) ..................52Habitat and Wildlife Management, Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern, Research and Science, and Fire Management .....................................................52Public Use and Education ......................................................................58
Wilderness ................................................................................58
Cultural and Paleontological Resources ............................................................59Refuge Operations and Partnerships ..............................................................59
3.8 Objectives and Strategies .................................................................59OBJECTIVES for Goals—Habitat and Wildlife Management, Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern, Research and Science, and Fire Management ...................................60Habitat–Upland ...........................................................................60Habitat–River Bottom ......................................................................69
Habitat–Riparian Area and Wetland ............................................................72Habitat–Shoreline .........................................................................75
Habitat–Fire Management ...................................................................77Habitat–Invasive Species ....................................................................82vii
Habitat–Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Wildlife–Big Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Wildlife–Furbearers and Small Predators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Wildlife–American Bison Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Wildlife–Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Wildlife–Other Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
OBJECTIVES for Goal—Public Use and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Public Use–Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Public Use–Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Public Use–Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Public Use–Environmental Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Public Use–Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Public Use–Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Public Use–Recreation Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Public Use–Commercial Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
OBJECTIVES for Goal—Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
OBJECTIVES for Goal—Cultural and Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
OBJECTIVES for Goal—Refuge Operations and Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Refuge Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Research and Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
OBJECTIVES for Goal—Research and Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3.9 Foreseeable Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Federal Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
State Wildlife Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Nongovernmental Conservation Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Livestock Grazing Lease Acquisitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Regional Demographic and Economic Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Infrastructure Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
3.10 Elements Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Developing Goals for Livestock Grazing and Socioeconomic Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Eliminating All Livestock Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Managing Only for Sharp-tailed Grouse, Pronghorn, and Livestock Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Developing a Memorandum of Understanding for Livestock Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Opening Roads in Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
3.11 Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
3.12 Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
3.13 Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
3.14 Funding and Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
3.15 Comparison of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
4.1 Topics Not Analyzed Further . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Moose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Black Bear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
4.2 Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Soundscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
viii Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana Land Features, Soils, and Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
4.3 Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Disturbance Factors Affecting Major Ecological Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Uplands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
River Bottoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Riparian Areas and Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Shoreline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Big Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Furbearers and Small Predators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
American Bison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Other Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
4.4 Special Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Hell Creek and Bug Creek National Natural Landmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Research Natural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Upper Missouri Breaks Wild and Scenic River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Missouri River Breaks Back Country Byway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Lands Where USACE has Primary Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
4.5 Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Wildlife Observation and Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Environmental Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Recreation Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Commercial Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Refuge Headquarters and Field Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
4.6 Human History and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Prehistoric History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Historical Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Known Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Refuge Resources Important to Tribes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
4.7 Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
4.8 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Regional Economic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Population and Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Employment and Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Key Refuge Activities that Affect the Local Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Land Use and Ownership Changes Surrounding the Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
5.1 Analysis Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
5.2 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
5.3 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
ix
5.4 Environmental Consequences for the Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Effects on Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Effects on Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Effects on Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
Effects on Soundscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Effects on Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
Effects on Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
Cumulative Impacts on the Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
5.5 Environmental Consequences for Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Effects on Uplands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Effects on River Bottoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Effects on Riparian Areas and Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
Effects on Shoreline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Effects on Big Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Effects on Furbearers and Small Predators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Effects on Bison Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
Effects on Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Effects on Other Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
5.6 Environmental Consequences for Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
Effects on Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
Effects on Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
Effects on Wildlife Observation and Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Effects on Environmental Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Effects on Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
Effects on Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
Effects on Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Effects on Recreation Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
Effects on Commercial Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
Cumulative Impacts on Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
5.7 Environmental Consequences for Special Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
Effects on Special Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
Effects on Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Cumulative Impacts on Special Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
5.8 Environmental Consequences for Cultural and Historical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
Effects Common to All Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
Effects of Alternatives B, C, and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
Cumulative Impacts on Cultural and Historical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
5.9 Environmental Consequences for Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Effects Common to All Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Effects of Alternatives B, C, and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Cumulative Impacts on Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
5.10 Environmental Consequences for the Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
Method for the Regional Economic Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
Economic Impacts of Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Economic Impacts of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
Economic Impacts of Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Economic Impacts of Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
Impacts on Livestock Permittees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
x Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana Impacts on State Grazing Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Effects on Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Cumulative Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
5.11 Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
5.12 Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance of Long-term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
5.13 Adherence to Planning Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Habitat and Wildlife Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
Research and Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Public Use and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Cultural and Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Refuge Operations and Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
5.14 Unavoidable Adverse Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
5.15 Conflicts with Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
5.16 Comparison of Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
Appendixes
Appendix A–List of Preparers and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
Appendix B–Public Involvement Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Appendix C–Draft Compatibility Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
Appendix D–Key Legislation and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
Appendix E–Wilderness Review and Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
Appendix F–List of Plant and Animal Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
TABLES
1. Planning process summary for the CCP for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. History of significant land authorizations for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3. Step-down management plans for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
4. Costs over 15 years to carry out the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . 141
5. Cost analysis for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6. Personnel to carry out the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
7. Comparison of actions for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
8. Average daily discharge and peak flows for six USGS water stations on or near the Charles M. Russell
and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
9. Historical fire data for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
10. Comparison of riparian health of 82 streams across the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . 198
11. Acreage of treated weeds at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
12. MFWP’s elk population objectives, estimates, and needed herd-size reductions for hunting districts
covering the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
13. Bird species of concern on the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
14. Least tern nest success at Fort Peck Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
15. History of stocking pallid sturgeon in the Middle Missouri River, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
16. Piping plover nest success at Fort Peck Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
xi
17. Population estimates for the Nation and the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . 242
18. Employment by type for Montana and the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . 243
19. Employment by industry for the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
20. Income, earnings, and unemployment for the nation, Montana, and counties surrounding the Charles M.
Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
21. Farm operators whose primary employment is farming in Montana and the counties surrounding the
Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
22. Animal inventory and AUMs of feed needed for the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and
UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
23. Total AUMs for the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
24. Seasonal housing in the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
25. Wildlife value orientations and proportions in western States and Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
26. Comparison of access, visitation, and facilities between the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell
and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
27. Wilderness protection under the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
28. Full fee-simple acquisition acreage and refuge revenue-sharing payments for the Charles M. Russell
and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
29. Annual economic impacts from refuge revenue-sharing payments by the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
refuges for CCP alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
30. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by employees at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
refuges for CCP alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
31. Local economic impacts of work-related purchases by the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges for
CCP alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
32. Estimated annual visitation of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges for CCP alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
33. Annual economic impacts of spending by nonlocal visitors to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges
for CCP alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
34. Grazing permits and AUMs for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
35. Economic impact of grazing on the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
36. Summary of economic impacts of all management activities at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges
for CCP alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
37. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by employees at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
refuges for CCP alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
38. Local economic impacts of work-related purchases by the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges for
CCP alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
39. Estimated annual visitation of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges for CCP alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
40. Annual economic impacts of spending by nonlocal visitors to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges for
CCP alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
41. Summary of economic impacts of all management activities at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges
for CCP alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
42. Change in economic impacts for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges under CCP alternative B compared
with CCP alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
43. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by employees at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
refuges for CCP alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
44. Local economic impacts of work-related purchases by the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges for
CCP alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
45. Estimated annual visitation of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges for CCP alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
46. Annual economic impacts of spending by nonlocal visitors to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges
for CCP alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
47. Summary of economic impacts of all management activities at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges
for CCP alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
48. Change in economic impacts for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges under CCP alternative C compared
with CCP alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
xii Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana 49. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by employees at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
refuges for CCP alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
50. Estimated annual visitation of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges for CCP alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
51. Annual economic impacts of spending by nonlocal visitors to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges
for CCP alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
52. Summary of economic impacts of all management activities at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges
for CCP alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
53. Change in economic impacts for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges under CCP alternative D compared
with CCP alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
54. Acres of grazing lands available under the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges. . . . . . 328
55. Ratings for how well the actions in the CCP alternatives meet the goals for the Charles M. Russell and
UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
56. Summary of the environmental consequences for actions of the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell
and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
Appendix Tables
A. Original 13 proposed wilderness units for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
B. Current proposed wilderness units for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382
C. Evaluation of how well the current proposed wilderness units for the Charles M. Russell and
UL Bend refuges meet wilderness criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
D. Additions to proposed wilderness units at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges under
CCP alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
E. Reductions to proposed wilderness units at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges under
CCP alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
F. Reductions and additions to proposed wilderness units at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
refuges under CCP alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
G. Areas excluded from consideration for wilderness designation at the Charles M. Russell and
UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
FIGURES
1. Vicinity map for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Map of the bird conservation regions in North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Map of the Plains and Prairie Potholes Geographic Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. The process for comprehensive conservation planning and environmental analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Map of the decision and analysis areas for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Topographic base map of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. Map of management under CCP alternative A for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8. Map of management under CCP alternative B for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
9. Map of management under CCP alternative C for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
10. Map of management under CCP alternative D for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
11. Adaptive management process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
12. Map of potential visibility of roads at 1 mile along the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
13. Map of potential visibility of roads at 3 miles along the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
14. Chart of the number of road segments visible across the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges
and from proposed wilderness units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
15. Map of water and geographic features in the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
16. Map of habitat units (grazing) in the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
xiii
17. Map of habitat types for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
18. Map of fire frequency for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
19. Graph of residual cover after grazing in the East Indian Butte Habitat Unit of the Charles M. Russell
National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
20. Map of river bottoms in need of restoration at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
21. Map of Riparian and Wetland Research Program survey locations at the Charles M. Russell and
UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
22. Map of invasive species occurrence at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
23. Chart of mule deer densities within six counties covering the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . 204
24. Map of the aerial survey blocks for mule deer and elk at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . 205
25. Chart of the ratios of adult bucks to does within the six counties covering the Charles M. Russell and
UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
26. Chart of the number of mule deer harvested in hunting districts on and adjacent to the Charles M. Russell
and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
27. Map of the aerial bighorn sheep survey at the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
28. Map of areas within 328 yards (300 meters) of escape cover for bighorn sheep at and around the Charles M.
Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
29. Map of lek locations for sharp-tailed grouse on the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
30. Chart of survey results for the listening route for sharp-tailed grouse on the Charles M. Russell and
UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
31. Graph of data for the black-footed ferret population at the UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
32. Map of critical habitat for piping plover at Fort Peck Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
33. Map of the maximum extent of black-tailed prairie dogs at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . 221
34. Map of lek locations for greater sage-grouse on and near the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . 223
35. Map of leopard frog locations on the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
36. Map of areas in Montana that are valued by hunters and anglers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
37. Graph of the total employment index for Montana and counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell
and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
38. Chart of agriculture employment in the six counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
39. Chart of trends in gross revenues from agriculture in the area surrounding the Charles M. Russell and
UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
40. Chart of the breakdown of gross revenues from agriculture for the six counties surrounding the
Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
41. Chart of the cattle inventory for the six counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
42. Chart of animal unit months by agency for the six counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and
UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
43. Chart of the visibility of roads from proposed wilderness units in the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
refuges by CCP alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
44. Chart of the visibility of roads refugewide by CCP alternative for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . 241
45. Graph of the proportion of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges within the corresponding travel
time of the nearest road, by CCP alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
46. Graph of the proportion of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges to the nearest road at 30 minutes . . . . . 305
47. Map of accessibility by foot to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges under CCP alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Appendix Figure
A. Map of the wilderness review areas for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
Summary
Low clouds hang over the Missouri river on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.
Photograph credit:
Encompassing nearly 1.1 million acres including Fort Peck Reservoir and the UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuge, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
is one of the largest refuges in the lower 48 States. This refuge in north-central Montana extends west about 125 air miles along the Missouri River from Fort Peck Dam to the refuge’s western edge at the boundary of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. A portion of the Missouri River
along the refuge’s western boundary is part of Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River. This expan­sive refuge covers portions of six counties: Fergus, Petroleum, Garfield, McCone, Valley, and Phillips.
Refuge habitat includes native prairie, forested coulees, river bottoms, and badlands. Wildlife is as diverse as the topography and includes Rocky Moun­tain elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, sharp-tailed grouse, prairie dogs, and more than 236 species of birds.
More than 250,000 visitors participate in a vari­ety of wildlife-dependent recreational activities every year. In particular, the refuge is renowned for its out­standing hunting opportunities. Other visitors enjoy viewing and photographing wildlife along the refuge’s extensive network of roads. The Fort Peck Inter­pretive Center showcases an aquarium of native and game fish, other wildlife, and several casts of dino­saur fossils including a Tyrannosaurus rex. Still oth­ers enjoy fishing along the Missouri River or on Fort Peck Reservoir.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement (draft CCP and EIS) to provide alternatives and identify consequences for the management and use of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and the UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge. The alternatives are the result of exten­sive public input and working closely with several coop­erating agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Bureau of Land Management; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP); Montana Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation; counties of Fer­gus, Petroleum, Garfield, McCone, Valley, and Phillips; and Missouri River Conservation Districts Council.
Other tribal governments, governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and pri­vate citizens contributed substantial input to the plan._____________________________________________________________________________
Refuge Background
In 1805, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark first detailed accounts of the abundant wildlife resources they found in the area now known as Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge (Moulton 2002). One hundred-thirty years later, Olaus J. Murie, a renowned wildlife biologist for the U.S. Biological
Survey, made the first biological assessment of plant and wildlife species for the proposed Fort Peck Mig-ratory Bird Refuge (Murie 1935).xvi Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana The refuge was established in 1936 as the Fort
Peck Game Range for sustaining large numbers of
sharp-tailed grouse, pronghorn, and other wildlife.
In 1963, it was designated as the Charles M. Russell
National Wildlife Range in honor of famous western
painter Charlie Russell, and this “range” became a
“refuge” in 1976. UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge
was established in 1969 and lies within the bound-ary
of Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge;
these two Refuge System units are managed cohe-sively
as one refuge. As part of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, the refuge is managed for wildlife
conservation above all else. UL Bend National Wild-life
Refuge contains the 20,819-acre UL Bend Wil-derness,
and Charles M. Russell National Wildlife
Refuge has 15 proposed wilderness units totaling
155,288 acres.
________________
The Bullock’s oriole is a “sentinel species” (one of the first to
respond to changed conditions) for the refuge’s river bottoms.
© Cornell Lab of Ornithology
______________________________________________ _ _____________________________
Purpose and Need
for the Plan
The purpose of this draft CCP and EIS is to iden-tify
actions necessary to accomplish the purposes of
the refuges, identify the role the refuges will play in
support of the mission of the National Wildlife Ref-uge
System and to provide long-term guidance for
management of refuge programs and activities. The
CCP is needed
■■ to communicate with the public and other part-ners
in efforts to carry out the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System;
■■ to provide a clear statement of direction for man-agement
of the refuge;
■■ to provide neighbors, visitors, and government
officials with an understanding of the Service’s
management actions on and around the refuge;
■■ to ensure that the Service’s management actions
are consistent with the mandates of the National
Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997;
■■ to ensure that management of the refuge consid-ers
other Federal, State, and county plans;
■■ to provide a basis for development of budget
requests for the operation, maintenance, and cap-ital
improvement needs of the refuge.
The Service is committed to sustaining the Nation’s
fish and wildlife resources together through the com-bined
efforts of governments, businesses, and private
citizens.
_____________________________________________________________
National Wildlife
Refuge System
Like all national wildlife refuges, Charles M. Russell
and UL Bend refuges are administered under the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
of 1966, as amended in 1997.
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.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Refuge Purposes
Each national wildlife refuge is managed to fulfill the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as
well as the specific purposes for which that refuge
was established.
The purpose for a national wildlife refuge comes
from one or more authorities—law, proclamation,
executive order, agreement, or other document—that
establish or expand a refuge. In 1936, Charles M.
Russell National Wildlife Refuge was established by
Executive Order 7509 for the following purpose:
“That the natural forage resources therein shall
be first utilized for the purpose of sustaining in
a healthy condition a maximum of four hundred
thousand (400,000) sharp-tailed grouse, and
one thousand five hundred (1,500) antelope,
the primary species, and such nonpredatory
secondary species in such numbers as may be
necessary to maintain a balanced wildlife pop-ulation,
but in no case shall the consumption
of the forage by the combined population of
Summary xvii
the wildlife species be allowed to increase the
burden of the range dedicated to the primary
species: Provided further, That all the forage
resources within this range or preserve shall be
available, except as herein otherwise provided
with respect to wildlife, for domestic livestock
... And provided further, That land within the
exterior limits of the area herein described ...
may be utilized for public grazing purposes only
to the extent as may be determined by the said
Secretary (Agriculture) to be compatible with
the utilization of said lands for the purposes for
which they were acquired.”
UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge was established in
1969 “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other
management purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C.
715d, Migratory Bird Conservation Act).
Other lands within both refuges subsequently have
been acquired under a variety of transfer and acquisi-tion
authorities or have different designations, giving
the refuges more than one purpose.
___________________________________________________________________
Public Involvement
__________
In fall 2007, the Service initiated the public scoping
for this project with the publication of a public involve-ment
summary and a planning update that described
the CCP process and anticipated schedule (FWS
2007a). The Service published a notice of intent to pre-pare
the draft CCP and EIS in the Federal Register
on December 4, 2007. Since then, the Service has con-ducted
14 public meetings during scoping and devel-opment
of the draft alternatives, mailed four planning
updates, posted information on the web page for the
CCP, and coordinated with Federal, State, and local
agencies, and Native American tribes.
________
The scoping process identified the qualities of the refuge
and issues of concern.
USFWS
_____________________________________________________________________
Significant Issues
The scoping process identified many qualities of the
refuge along with issues and recommendations. Based
on this information as well as guidance from the
Improvement Act, National Environmental Policy
Act, and planning policy, the Service identified seven
significant issues to address in the draft CCP and EIS:
■■ Habitat and wildlife
■■ Water resources
■■ Public use and access
■■ Wilderness
■■ Socioeconomics
■■ Partnerships and collaboration
■■ Cultural values, traditions, and resources
HABITAT and WILDLIFE
The draft CCP and EIS addresses the following hab-itat
and wildlife issues:
■■ The use and role of wildfire, livestock grazing (in-cluding
water resources needed to support live-stock),
hunting, fencing, and other management
tools for the preservation and restoration of habi-tat
conditions on the refuge.
■■ Habitat and wildlife management in the context
of the larger landscape that includes adjacent pri-vate,
State, tribal, and Federal lands.
■■ Species reintroductions and management of species
that could move onto the refuge: American bison,
gray wolf, grizzly bear, and Rocky Mountain big-horn
sheep.
■■ Special consideration of threatened and endan-gered
species and species of concern.
■■ Invasive species and noxious weed management
including the management tools used to combat
invasive species.
■■ Predator management.
WATER RESOURCES
Wildlife populations, both on and off the refuge, are
affected by water quality and access to water. Live-stock
grazing has degraded habitat, particularly near
water sources. Furthermore, stock watering ponds
can affect stream flow, fish, and riparian areas cond-itions.
The draft CCP and EIS addresses the following
important water issues:
■■ Water quality and quantity
■■ Water development
■■ Missouri River riparian ecosystem
■■ Water rights
xviii Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana PUBLIC USE and ACCESS
The Service allows the public uses of hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and
environmental education. In addition, the Service sup-ports
these uses by providing associated access and
facilities such as roads, motorized access, and camp-ing.
The draft CCP and EIS addresses the following
public use and access issues:
■■ Priority public uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, interpretation, and en-vironmental
education.
■■ Motorized and nonmotorized access and law en-forcement.
■■ Roads including number, location, types, and main-tenance.
■■ Nonpriority uses such as camping and bicycling.
■■ Facilities, programs, and infrastructure to support
public uses and access.
■■ Permitted uses such as livestock grazing or other
commercial recreation or uses.
WILDERNESS
Planning policy requires refuges to review special
designation areas such as wilderness and address the
potential for any new designations. Concurrent with
the comprehensive conservation planning and envi-ronmental
analysis process, the Service is conducting
a wilderness review and will make final recommen-dations
in the final environmental impact statement.
The draft CCP and EIS addresses the following wil-derness
issues:
■■ Existing proposed wilderness units—consolidation,
addition, or reduction.
■■ Identification of potential for any new designations.
■■ Access, infrastructure, and use of management tools.
SOCIOECONOMICS
It is important to manage refuge resources and public
use in ways that protect the resources, that are finan-cially
responsible, and that are integrated with the
economic viability of the surrounding communities.
The draft CCP and EIS addresses the following socio-economics
issues:
■■ Benefits of the refuge and promotion of refuge
values.
■■ Range of alternatives and effects of those alter-natives
on the local economy and community.
PARTNERSHIPS and COLLABORATION
Because of the long, narrow extent of the refuge
boundary, the subsequent amount and variety of ad-jacent
land uses not only affect, but also are inter-related
with, refuge resources. Therefore, it is crucial
for the Service to collaborate with refuge neighbors
and to establish partnerships with interested agen-cies
and groups. Wildlife populations and movements
are greatly affected by conditions both outside and
inside the refuge. Similarly, invasive species are one
of the biggest threats facing State, Federal, and
private landowners. Changes in the ownership of
private lands adjacent to the refuge may change
conditions for habitat, wildlife, and public access.
Privately owned mineral rights, future energy devel-opment,
and rights-of-way influence the future con-ditions
and use of the refuge and adjacent lands. The
draft CCP and EIS addresses the following partner-ship
and collaboration issues:
■■ Adjacent land management related to habitat,
wildlife, and public use
■■ Consultation and coordination with Federal, State,
and local partners
■■ Climate change and development of minerals, in-cluding
recommendations for reducing effects on
refuge resources
■■ Priorities for future land acquisition
CULTURAL VALUES,
TRADITIONS, and RESOURCES
The refuge has significant archaeological resources
and rich prehistoric and historic values to the local
and regional community. The western traditions and
practices of livestock grazing have affected the lives
of ranchers and their families for many generations.
Of unique value are the significant paleontological
resources (fossilized plants and animals). The draft
CCP and EIS addresses the following cultural, tra-ditions,
and resource issues:
■■ Refuge values and qualities
■■ Land management designations
■■ Traditions and lifestyles
■■ Cultural and paleontological resources
Dotted Gayfeather
USFWS
Summary xix
_____________________________________________________
Vision
________________________
The Service developed a vision for the refuge at the
beginning of the planning process. The vision describes
the focus of refuge management and portrays a picture
of the refuge in 15 years.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge’s
expansive badlands, cottonwood river bottoms,
old-growth forested coulees, sagebrush steppes,
and mixed-grass prairies appear out of the sea
that is the northern Great Plains.
Encompassing more than a million acres,
the refuge affords visitors solitude, serenity,
and unique opportunities to experience natu-ral
settings and wildlife similar to what Native
Americans and, later, Lewis and Clark observed.
The diversity of plant and animal commu-nities
found on the refuge stretch from the high
prairie through the rugged breaks, along the
Missouri River, and across Fort Peck Reser-voir.
The refuge is an outstanding example
of a functioning, intact landscape in an ever-changing
West.
Working together with our neighbors and
partners, the Service employs adaptive manage-ment
rooted in science to protect and improve
the biological integrity, biological diversity,
and environmental health of the refuge’s
wildlife and habitat resources.
Goals
The Service developed eight goals for the refuge
based on the Improvement Act, the refuge purposes,
and information developed during planning. The
goals direct work toward achieving the vision and
purposes of the refuge and outline approaches for
managing refuge resources.
HABITAT and WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Conserve, restore, and improve the biological integ-rity,
environmental health, and ecological diversity
of the refuge’s plant and animal communities of the
Missouri River breaks and surrounding prairies to
support healthy populations of native plants and wild-life.
Working with others, reduce and control the
spread of nondesirable, nonnative, invasive plant and
aquatic species for the benefit of native communities
on and off the refuge.
THREATENED and ENDANGERED
SPECIES and SPECIES OF CONCERN
Contribute to the identification, preservation, and
recovery of threatened and endangered species and
species of concern that occur or have historically
occurred in the northern Great Plains.
RESEARCH and SCIENCE
Advance the understanding of natural resources, eco-logical
processes, and the effectiveness of manage-ment
actions in the northern Great Plains through
compatible scientific investigations, monitoring, and
applied research.
FIRE MANAGEMENT
Manage wildland fire using a management response
that promotes fire’s natural role in shaping the land-scape
while protecting values at risk.
PUBLIC USE and EDUCATION
Provide all visitors quality education, recreation, and
outreach opportunities that are appropriate and com-patible
with the purpose and goals of the refuge and
the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
while maintaining the remote and primitive experi-ence
unique to Charles M. Russell National Wildlife
Refuge.
WILDERNESS
Conserve, improve, and promote the wilderness qual-ity
and associated natural processes of designated
and proposed wilderness areas within Charles M.
Russell National Wildlife Refuge for all generations.
CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
Identify, value, and preserve the significant paleon-tological
and cultural resources of Charles M. Russell
National Wildlife Refuge to connect refuge staff, vis-itors,
and the community to the area’s prehistoric
and historic past.
REFUGE OPERATIONS and
PARTNERSHIPS
Through effective communication and innovative use
of technology and resources, the refuge uses funding,
personnel, partnerships, and volunteer programs for
the benefit of natural resources while recognizing the
social and economic connection of the refuge to adja-cent
communities.
xx Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana A range of alternatives was identified for managing the 1.1 million-acre refuge.
© Rick and Susie Graetz
____________________________________________________________________________
Alternatives
Following the initial scoping process in 2007 and 2008,
the Service held meetings and workshops with the
cooperating agencies and the public and identified
a reasonable range of preliminary alternatives. The
Service carried forward the following four alterna-tives
and analyzed them in detail in this environmen-tal
impact statement:
■■ Alternative A–No Action
■■ Alternative B–Wildlife Population Emphasis
■■ Alternative C–Public Use and Economic Use
Emphasis
■■ Alternative D–Ecological Processes Emphasis
(Proposed Action)
These alternatives examine different ways for pro-viding
permanent protection and restoration of fish,
wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources and for
providing opportunities for the public to engage in
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Each al-ternative
incorporates specific actions intended to
achieve the goals. However, the no-action alterna-tive
represents the current, unchanged refuge man-agement
and may not meet every aspect of every
goal. The no-action alternative provides a basis for
comparison of the action alternatives B–D.
ELEMENTS COMMON
to all ALTERNATIVES
The Service will manage the 20,819-acre UL Bend
Wilderness as a class 1 air shed. Roads in proposed
wilderness units will remain closed except for roads
that provide access to private land within the refuge.
The Service will manage public use to provide
opportunities for a variety of wildlife-dependent rec-reation
and programs.
ALTERNATIVE A–NO ACTION
Few changes would occur in the management of exist-ing
wildlife populations and habitat. Wildlife-depen-dent
public uses and economic uses would continue at
current levels. Key actions of alternative A include
the following:
■■ There would be a continued emphasis on big game
management, annual livestock grazing, use of
fencing for pastures, invasive species control,
and water development. Habitat would continue
to be managed in the 65 habitat units that were
established by Bureau of Land Management for
grazing purposes. Prescriptive grazing would be
implemented gradually as units became available
and habitat evaluations were completed.
■■ Big game would be managed to achieve target lev-els
in the 1986 environmental impact statement
record of decision: 160 bighorn sheep, 10 mule deer
per square mile, and 2.5 elk per square mile. This
would include a more restrictive rifle season for
mule deer in some State hunting districts as com-pared
with the State season.
■■ Select stock ponds would be maintained and re-habilitated.
Riparian habitat would be restored
where possible and standard watershed manage-ment
practices would be enforced. Water rights
would be adjudicated and defined.
■■ Access would be allowed on 670 miles of refuge
roads.
■■ About 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness within
15 units of the Charles M. Russell refuge would
be managed in accordance with Service policy.
Summary xxi
ALTERNATIVE B–WILDLIFE
POPULATION EMPHASIS
The Service would manage the landscape, in cooper-ation
with our partners, to emphasize the abundance
of wildlife populations using balanced natural eco-logical
processes such as fire and herbivory by wild
ungulates and responsible synthetic methods such as
farming and tree planting. Wildlife-dependent public
use would be encouraged, and economic uses would
be limited when they compete for habitat resources.
Key actions of alternative B include the following:
■■ The Service would actively manage and manipu-late
habitat, thus creating a diverse plant commu-nity
of highly productive wildlife food and cover
plants. The management emphasis would be on
habitat for target species of wildlife in separate
parts of the refuge. The Service would consolidate
the 65 habitat units. Subsequently, the refuge
staff would write new habitat management plans
based on field station boundaries and habitat eval-uation
for target species. The Service would work
with others to develop methods to monitor and
evaluate target species and habitat needs.
■■ Desired habitat conditions may be created using
natural ecological processes (such as fire, grazing
by wildlife, or flooding) or through management
practices (such as prescriptive livestock grazing,
agricultural plantings or managed fire).
■■ An aggressive approach to reduction of invasive
plants in the river bottoms would be based on
funding and other staffing priorities. Work would
include use of prescribed fire, spraying with her-bicides,
and planting of wildlife food crops to clear
invasive plants. In addition, the Service would
collaborate with others to combat invasive plants
in shoreline habitat. Where feasible and combined
with research, the Service would restore the func-tioning
condition of riparian areas and preserve
fire refugia (places where fire rarely burns).
■■ Through cooperation and collaboration with the
MFWP and adjoining landowners, the Service
would use wildlife- and habitat-based objectives
and strategies that consider natural densities,
social structures, and population dynamics at the
landscape level. The Service and cooperators
would mutually agree on population levels that
can be tolerated by adjoining landowners and
provide quality recreational experiences without
negatively affecting habitat or other wildlife. The
Service would collaborate with others to manage
wildlife to benefit all species in and around the
refuge; actions could include conservation ease-ments
or other incentives.
■■ The Service would identify habitat suitable for big-horn
sheep and establish new populations based
on the MFWP’s modeling and transplant criteria.
The Service would work with MFWP to provide
quality hunting opportunities as a management
tool that maintains both sustainable populations
of big game and habitat for nongame species.
■■ In managing the hunting program, the Service
would seek to benefit wildlife populations and
promote harvest experiences that are not always
achieved on other public lands. An example would
be providing opportunities to hunt big game ani-mals
with all age classes represented (i.e., mule
deer in the 8- to 10-year class).
■■ The Service would close about 106 miles of road
and would work with partners to develop a travel
plan and secure access to the refuge through
other lands. Nonmotorized access would be pro-moted,
but the Service would consider allowing
motorized access on existing roads only for game
retrieval and restricting access on a seasonal
basis to sensitive areas by the river and roads.
■■ Opportunities for expanding hunting programs
would be considered to encourage and facilitate
young hunters and mobility-impaired hunters.
Limited hunts for furbearers or other predators
would be considered only if monitoring verified
that population levels could be sustained.
■■ The Service would expand the acreage of proposed
wilderness by 25,037 acres in six existing units.
The alternatives address the management of big game
such as mule deer.
USFWS
ALTERNATIVE C–PUBLIC USE and
ECONOMIC USE EMPHASIS
The Service would manage the landscape, in cooper-ation
with our partners, to emphasize and promote
the maximum, compatible, wildlife-dependent public
use and economic uses while protecting wildlife pop-ulations
and habitats to the extent possible. Damaging
effects on wildlife habitats would be minimized while
using a variety of management tools to enhance and
xxii Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana diversify public and economic opportunities. Key
actions of alternative C include the following:
■■ In addition to the habitat elements in alternative A,
the Service would generally manage habitats to
provide more opportunities for wildlife-dependent
recreation. In places, the refuge staff would man-age
for plant communities that could necessitate a
compromise between providing wildlife food and
cover and livestock forage needs. Where needed,
fencing and water gaps would be used to manage
livestock use and prevent further degradation of
riparian habitat. Camping areas would be man-aged
to limit expansion and further degradation
of riparian habitat.
■■ Through collaboration with MFWP and others, the
Service would maintain a balance between num-bers
of big game and livestock to sustain habitats
and populations of big game and sharp-tailed
grouse. Similar balancing could be necessary when
managing populations of nongame or migratory
birds and livestock needs. For example, it could be
necessary to balance prairie dog needs with public
and economic uses such as livestock grazing or
with needs of other wildlife.
■■ Working with MFWP, the Service would expand
and maximize the following hunting opportunities:
(1) programs to include new species and traditional
or niche (primitive weapon) hunting; (2) mule
deer season; (3) predator hunting; (4) trapping;
and (5) opportunities for young hunters.
■■ Refuge access would be managed to benefit public
and economic uses. The Service would improve
access to boat ramps and consider establishing new
roads in some areas and seasonally closing other
areas, such as those around Fort Peck, to protect
habitat and to provide for a diversity of experience.
■■ The Service would recommend eliminating four
proposed wilderness units of about 35,881 acres
in the East Beauchamp Creek, West Beauchamp
Creek, East Hell Creek, and Burnt Lodge units.
ALTERNATIVE D–ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES
EMPHASIS (Proposed Action)
In cooperation with our partners, the Service would
use natural, dynamic, ecological processes and man-agement
activities in a balanced, responsible manner
to restore and maintain the biological diversity, bio-logical
integrity, and environmental health of the
refuge. Once natural processes are restored, a more
passive approach (less human assistance) would be
favored. There would be quality wildlife-dependent
public uses and experiences. Economic uses would
be limited when they are injurious to ecological pro-cesses.
Key actions of alternative D include the fol-lowing:
■■ Where feasible, the Service would apply manage-ment
practices that mimic and restore natural
processes on the refuge, managing for a diversity
of plant species in upland and riparian areas. This
would include a concerted manipulation of habitats
or wildlife populations (using prescribed fire and
grazing and hunting) through coordinated objec-tives.
Management would evolve toward more
passive approaches—allowing natural processes
such as fire, grazing, and flooding—to occur with
less human assistance or funding.
The alternatives address several recommendations on
proposed wilderness areas and the use of handcarts.
USFWS
The alternatives address a variety of public uses
including hunting and access.
USFWS
Summary xxiii
■■ The Service would maintain plant diversity and
health using fire in combination with wild ungu-late
herbivory (wildlife feeding on plants) or pre-scriptive
livestock grazing, or both, to ensure the
viability of populations of sentinel plants (those
plant species that decline first when management
practices are injurious; see appendix F).
■■ In collaboration with MFWP and others, the
Service would maintain the health and diversity
of all species’ populations including game, non-game,
and migratory bird species by restoring and
maintaining balanced, self-sustaining populations.
This could include manipulating livestock grazing
and wildlife numbers, or both, if habitat monitoring
determined conditions were declining or plant
species were being affected by overuse. Preda-tors
would be managed to benefit the ecological
integrity of the refuge. Limited hunting for moun-tain
lion or other furbearers or predators would
be considered only after monitoring verified that
population levels could be sustained with a hunt.
■■ The Service would cooperate with MFWP to pro-vide
hunting experiences that maintain game
species at levels that sustain ecological health but
that also provide opportunities not found on other
public lands. For example, the Service and MFWP
would manage for natural sex and age ratios of
big game species and provide reasonable oppor-tunities
for hunting success in a remote setting.
■■ Refuge access would be managed to benefit natural
processes and habitat. The Service would evalu-ate
roads and implement permanent or seasonal
road closures on 23 miles of road as needed to
encourage free movement of animals, permit pre-scribed
fire activities, harvest wild ungulates, or
allow other activities that contribute to ecological
health.
■■ In addition to the wilderness elements in alterna-tive
A, the Service would recommend expanding
six of the proposed wilderness units—a total of
18,559 acres in the Antelope Creek, Crooked Creek,
Alkali Creek, Wagon Coulee, West Hell Creek, and
Sheep Creek units—and eliminating three units
for a reduction of 26,744 acres in the East Beau-champ
Creek, West Beauchamp Creek, and East
Hell Creek units. This would accommodate more
public access in some areas and increase protec-tion
of wilderness values in other areas.
The use of prescribed fire and grazing by wild ungulates and livestock is addressed in the draft CCP and EIS. USFWS
xxiv Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana OBJECTIVES and STRATEGIES
Based on the vision and goals for the refuge, the
Service has developed objectives and strategies for
each alternative. An objective is a general statement
about what the Service wants to achieve on the ref-uge,
while a strategy is a specific action or tool that
is used to achieve an objective. Because each alter-native
has a different emphasis, objectives vary by
alternative. The following summarizes key objective
topics addressed for each alternative in the draft
CCP and EIS:
■■ Management of four broad categories of vegeta-tion
found on the refuge: uplands, river bottoms,
riparian areas, and shoreline vegetation.
■■ Use of fire (both prescribed and wildfire), grazing
by wildlife and livestock, restoration, predation,
and hunting in managing refuge’s uplands, river
bottoms, riparian areas, and shoreline.
■■ Managing for climate change and controlling in-vasive
species.
■■ Management of big game; furbearers; small pred-ators;
threatened and endangered species or spe-cies
of concern; and other fish, reptiles, amphib-ians,
mammals, and birds.
■■ Public uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife ob-servation,
photography, and interpretation. Man-agement
of commercial outfitting, recreation acres,
and public access.
■■ Management of wilderness, other special area des-ignations;
protection of significant cultural and
paleontological resources.
■■ Refuge operations and partnerships.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Affected Environment
The draft CCP and EIS describes the characteristics
and resources of the refuge and how existing or past
management or other influences have affected these
resources. The affected environment addresses the
physical, biological, and social aspects of the refuge
that could be affected by management under the
four alternatives. These aspects include the physi-cal
and biological environment, special management
areas, visitor services, cultural and paleontological
resources, and the socioeconomic environment. The
Service used published and unpublished data, as
noted in the bibliography, to quantify what is known
about the refuge.
______________________________
The affected environment in the draft CCP and EIS
describes the characteristics of resources at the refuge,
including the sage-grouse.
© Judy Wantulok
_______________________________________________
Environmental
Consequences
The alternatives for refuge management would pro-vide
a variety of positive effects (benefits) and negative
effects (impacts) to resources at Charles M. Russell
National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National
Wildlife Refuge. Some of the greatest benefits would
come from consolidating habitat units and managing
the upland vegetation to create a mosaic of habitats
using prescribed fire, naturally occurring wildfires,
and prescriptive grazing to support a diversity of
species and improve the overall health of the refuge.
The Service would restore numerous former agri-cultural
river bottoms by reducing invasive plant
infestations and planting native species. Another sig-nificant
benefit would be the improved function and
quality of riparian areas for wildlife using prescrip-tive
grazing, possible water impoundment removal
or modification, and restoration projects.
The greatest impact to refuge resources would be
the continuation of current fire suppression strate-gies
and constant grazing pressure over large por-tions
of the refuge under alternative A. While the
overall economic effects of any alternative would be
positive, implementation of new grazing and habi-tat
management approaches in alternatives B or D
would result in impacts to individual livestock per-mittees.
From a habitat perspective, action alterna-tives
(B, C, and D) would benefit upland and riparian
habitats, with alternatives B and D resulting in mod-erate
to major long-term benefits to both habitat
and wildlife. These and other effects, including a
description of the context, intensity, and duration
are described in detail in Chapter 5–Environmental
Consequences of the draft CCP and EIS. The degree
of effect was quantified using known numeric or
modeled estimates or where extensive monitoring or
Summary xxv
research provided the information. Where sufficient
numeric information was not available, qualitative
or relative assessments were made using scientific
literature or professional field experience.
The 670 miles of roads that crisscross the refuge result in
effects to the physical, biological, and public environment.
USFWS
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The use of prescribed fire in any alternative would
generally result in short-term negligible impacts on
air quality, visual resources, and soils. The effects of
large wildfires on these resources would be major
under alternative A and have minor to moderate
effects under alternatives B, C, and D.
Livestock grazing in some areas would result in
moderate to major impacts on soils under alterna-tives
A and C, while prescriptive grazing in alter-natives
B and D would reduce those effects over the
long term. The aesthetic effects of livestock graz-ing
and prescribed fire on visual resources for some
refuge visitors would be negligible to minor under
alternatives A and C, with alternatives B and D hav-ing
moderate benefits.
The overall effects of motorized use on sound-scapes
would be negligible to minor under all alter-natives.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
The continuation of current management of uplands
under alternative A would have minor short-term
impacts, with moderate to major long-term impacts.
The localized effects of alternative B on upland habitat
would be variable but overall would result in moder-ate
long-term benefits. Increased prescriptive graz-ing
and balanced ungulate use under alternative C
would result in minor long-term benefits. Efforts to
restore natural processes under alternative D would
result in major long-term benefits to uplands.
Ongoing habitat protection and water impound-ment
removal or improvement would benefit ripar-ian
areas and wetlands. Over the long term, these
benefits would be minor under alternative A, mod-erate
under alternative B, minor to moderate under
alternative C, and moderate to major under alterna-tive
D. In all alternatives, localized moderate impacts
from grazing on riparian habitat would persist in some
areas. While the approaches and timeframe would
vary, river bottom restoration in all alternatives
would result in minor to moderate long-term benefits.
Effects of the alternatives on shoreline habitat
would be negligible.
While the big game management emphases and ap-proaches
would vary, all alternatives would benefit
big game populations. Over the long term, these ben-efits
would be minor under alternative A, minor to
moderate under alternative B, and moderate under
alternatives C and D. As the Service is required to
manage for the benefit of special status species,
alternative A, with no specific objectives, would have
negligible effects. More active management of threat-ened
and endangered species and species of concern
under the action alternatives (B–D) would have mod-erate
to major long-term benefits to those species.
Continued management of furbearers and small
predators would have negligible effects. Alternative B
would have major long-term benefits to furbearers
and small predators due to reintroductions, while
alternative C would have minor to major impacts due
to increased harvest. The effects of alternative D
would be negligible.
Under alternative A, continued impacts to bird
habitat would generally offset the benefits of protec-tion
and enhancement efforts, resulting in negligible
effects. Habitat protection and management efforts
in the action alternatives (B–D) would benefit birds
on the refuge. These long-term benefits would be
moderate to major under alternatives B and D, and
minor under alternative C. In all alternatives, mod-erate
to major localized impacts would continue to
occur in some areas due to grazing.
Implementation of the action alternatives (B–D) would
benefit riparian areas, although the amount would vary
by alternative.
USFWS
xxvi Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana Continued habitat degradation under alterna-tive
A would have minor incremental impacts on
small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and fish, while
habitat improvements under the action alternatives
would benefit those species. Benefits would be mod-erate
under alternative B, minor under alternative C,
and moderate to major under alternative D.
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS
Alternative A would keep the current and proposed
wilderness configurations. Expansion of proposed
wilderness units under alternative B would result in
minor benefits, while reduced units in alternative C
would have minor impacts. Although alternative D
would reduce the overall area of proposed wilder-ness,
it would have an overall minor beneficial effect
due to consolidated units that are more logical and
efficient for management. None of the alternatives
would affect the designation or management of other
special management areas.
VISITOR SERVICES
Continuation of current hunting opportunities and
management under alternative A would have negligi-ble
effects, while the action alternatives (B–D) would
have varying benefits to hunting. Expanded hunting
opportunities under alternative B would have negli-gible
to minor benefits, while an expanded emphasis
on hunting opportunities and harvest under alterna-tive
C would have minor to moderate benefits. The
benefits of higher quality hunting opportunities under
alternative D would be minor to moderate, depend-ing
on the preferences of individual hunters. None of
the alternatives would affect fishing.
Alternative A would have negligible effects on
wildlife observation and photography. Increases in
personnel, facilities, and programs would result in
negligible to minor benefits under alternative B and
moderate benefits under alternatives C and D. Lim-ited
environmental education, interpretation, and out-reach
under alternative A would have negligible
effects. Alternative B would have negligible benefits
due to additional staff and program and facility im-provements.
Alternatives C and D would have minor
benefits due to expanded staff and facilities. Effects
on commercial uses would be negligible under all
alternatives except for alternative C, which would
have minor benefits due to additional permits and
efforts to reduce conflicts.
Under alternative A, access would remain as it
is currently with 670 miles of road open to visitors.
Alternative B would result in minor impacts to vehi-cle
access, with 106 miles of road closures, while the
23 miles of closed road in alternative D would have
negligible impacts. The effects of specific road clo-sures
would be greater for individuals who prefer to
access the refuge by those particular routes. Road
improvements in alternative C would result in minor
benefits.
Fishing would continue to be a popular activity under all alternatives.
Brett Billings/USFWS
Summary xxvii
CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
While alternative A would have negligible effects, all
of the action alternatives (B–D) would have negligi-ble
to minor benefits on cultural and paleontological
resources due to improved resource identification,
protection, law enforcement, and interpretation.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
The regional economic impacts of refuge manage-ment
activities, including local economic output and
jobs, would be negligible under alternatives A and B.
Alternatives C and D would result in minor benefits:
alternative C would generate $3.9 million in local out-put
and 48 additional jobs, and alternative D would
generate $2.1 million in local output and 25 additional
jobs.
As the refuge currently supplies less than 1 per-cent
of total animal unit months in the six-county
area, any changes in grazing management would
have negligible economic effects. However, refuge
management changes would affect individual live-stock
permittees. The impacts on permittees would
be negligible to minor under alternatives A and C
and potentially moderate to major impacts under
alternatives B and D.
__________________________________________________________________
What Happens Next
__________
The draft CCP and EIS will be available for a 60-day
public review. The Service may change the alterna-tives,
the impact analysis, or other features as a result
of the comments received during the review. The
Service will then select a preferred alternative for
management of the refuge. The selected alternative’s
goals, objectives, and strategies will become the pri-mary
components of a stand-alone CCP.
Revision of the draft document will produce the
final CCP and EIS, which will identify the preferred
alternative. The Service’s final decision will be doc-umented
in a record of decision that is published in
the Federal Register, no sooner than 30 days after
filing the final CCP and EIS with the U.S. Envi-ronmental
Protection Agency and distributing it to
the public. The Service will begin to implement the
final CCP immediately on publication of the deci-sion
in the Federal Register. Selected management
activities and projects will be implemented as funds
become available. The final plan does not constitute
a commitment for funding, and future budgets could
influence implementation priorities.
Abbreviations
AUM
animal unit month
BLM
Bureau of Land Management
CCP
comprehensive conservation plan
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
DNRC
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
DOI
U.S. Department of the Interior
EIS
environmental impact statement
Enhancement Act
Title VIII of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
FWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GIS
Geographic Information System
GPS
Global Positioning System
GS
General Schedule (employment type)
HDP
height-density plot
HMP
Habitat Management Plan
IMPLAN
Impact Analysis for Planning
Improvement Act
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
MFWP
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Refuge System
National Wildlife Refuge System
region 6
Mountain–Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
RLGIS
refuge land Geographic Information System
Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
TEA–21
1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TES
threatened and endangered species
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C.
United States Code
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFS
USDA Forest Service
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
WG
wage grade (employment type)
Definitions of these and other terms are
in the glossary, located after chapter 5.1—Introduction
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has de-veloped this draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and environmental impact statement (EIS) to provide alternatives and identify consequences for the management and use of Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, located in north-central Montana. Located within the boundary of the Charles M. Rus­sell refuge, UL Bend is, in essence, a refuge within a refuge (see vicinity map in figure 1). The Service manages these refuges as one refuge. Together, they encompass an area of 1.1 million acres that span about 125 air miles along the Missouri River, from the Fort Peck Dam west to the boundary with the Upper Mis­souri River Breaks National Monument. Through­out this document, the two refuges are referred to as “the refuge” unless individually named.
In preparing this document, the Service complied with the National Wildlife Refuge System Adminis­tration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), also known as the Improvement Act and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (FWS 2000c). Additionally, the actions described meet the require­ments of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Wildlife conservation is the first priority in manag­ing national wildlife refuges. Public uses, specifically wildlife-dependent recreational uses, are allowed and encouraged as long as they are compatible with the refuge’s purposes.
This draft CCP and EIS discusses program levels that are sometimes substantially above current bud­get allocations and, as such, are primarily for Ser­vice strategic planning purposes. Once finalized, the CCP will specify the necessary actions to achieve the vision and goals of the refuge. The plan will guide the management, programs, and actions for 15 years after CCP approval.
The Service has formulated four draft alterna­tives that are the result of extensive public input and working closely with agencies and local governments that have close ties to the refuge. The core planning team of representatives from several Service pro­grams prepared this draft CCP and EIS (refer to Appendix A–Preparers and Contributors). In addi­tion, the following cooperating agencies participated on the planning team:
■■U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
■■Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
■■Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)
■■Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC)
■■Counties of Fergus, Petroleum, Garfield, McCone, Valley, and Phillips
■■Missouri River Conservation Districts Council, representing the six conservation districts adja­cent to the refuge
Photograph of four young burrowing owls standing in low vegetation. Copyright Diane Hargreaves.2 Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
Figure 1. Vicinity map for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend refuges.
Public involvement in the planning process is dis-cussed
in 1.6–The Planning Process (below) and in
detail in Appendix B–Public Involvement.
After reviewing a wide range of management
needs and public comments during two public com-ment
periods (scoping and draft alternatives), the
planning team developed four sets of alternatives,
objectives, and strategies for management of the ref-uge.
Details on the no-action alternative and three
action alternatives and are in Chapter 3–Alterna-tives,
and the predicted effects of the alternatives
are described in Chapter 5–Environmental Conse-quences.
The Service has identified one alternative
as the proposed action.
_____________________________________________________________________________
1.1 Purpose and Need
for Action
The purpose of this draft CCP and EIS is to identify
the role the refuge will play in support of the mission
of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge Sys-tem)
and to provide long-term guidance for manage-ment
of refuge programs and activities. The CCP is
needed
■■ to communicate with the public and other partners
in efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge
System;
■■ to provide a clear statement of direction for man-agement
of the refuge;
■■ to provide neighbors, visitors, and government
officials with an understanding of the Service’s
management actions on and around the refuge;
■■ to ensure that the Service’s management actions
are consistent with the mandates of the Improve-ment
Act;
■■ to ensure that management of the refuge considers
other Federal, State, and local government plans;
■■ to provide a basis for development of budget re-quests
for the operation, maintenance, and capi-tal
improvement needs of the refuge.
The Service is committed to sustaining the Nation’s
fish and wildlife resources together through the com-bined
efforts of governments, businesses, and pri-vate
citizens.
DECISION to BE MADE
The regional director of region 6 of the Service will
make the final decision on the selection of a preferred
alternative for the CCP. The regional director’s deci-sion
will be based on the legal responsibility of the
Service including the mission of the Service and the
Refuge System, other legal and policy mandates, the
purposes of Charles M. Russell and UL Bend ref-uges,
and the vision and goals in this draft CCP. In
addition, the regional director will consider public
Chapter 1—Introduction 3
input from the cooperating agencies, Native Amer-ican
tribes, and the public about the draft CCP and
EIS. Other considerations are land uses in the sur-rounding
area and other parts of the ecosystem, the
environmental effects of the alternatives, and future
budget projections.
The Service’s final decision will be documented in
a record of decision that is published in the Federal
Register, no sooner than 30 days after filing the final
CCP and EIS with the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion
Agency and distributing it to the public. The
Service will begin to carry out the final CCP imme-diately
on publication of the decision in the Federal
Register.
_____________________________________________________________________________
1.2 The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and
the Refuge System
The Service is the principal Federal agency responsi-ble
for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Ref-uge
System is one of the Service’s major programs.
U.S. FISH and WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service was established in the Department of the
Interior in 1940, through the consolidation of bureaus
then operating in several Federal departments. The
primary precursor agency was the Bureau of Bio-logical
Survey in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Today, the Service enforces Federal wildlife laws,
manages migratory bird populations, restores nation-ally
significant fisheries, conserves and restores vital
wildlife habitat, protects and recovers
endangered species, and helps other
governments with conservation
efforts. In addition, the Service
administers a Federal aid
program that distri-butes
hundreds
of millions of
dollars to
States for
fish and wild-life
restoration,
boating access,
hunter education,
and related programs.
Our mission is working with others to
conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife,
and plants and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the American people.
Service Activities in Montana
Service activities in Montana contribute to the State’s
economy, ecosystems, and education programs. The
following list describes the Service’s presence and
activities:
■■ Manages two national fish hatcheries, one fish
health center, one fish technology center, four eco-logical
services field offices, and one fish and wild-life
management assistance office (FWS 2009a)
■■ Manages 23 national wildlife refuges encompassing
1,214,890 acres (1.29 percent of the State) (FWS
2008a)
■■ Manages five wetland management districts (FWS
2008a)
■■ Manages 184,462 acres of fee-title waterfowl pro-duction
areas (FWS 2008a)
■■ Manages 235,219 acres under lease or easement
(FWS 2008a)
■■ In 2008, provided almost $9.5 million to MFWP
for sport fish restoration and $8.24 million for
wildlife restoration and hunter education (FWS
2009h)
■■ For more than 20 years, the Service’s Partners
for Fish and Wildlife program has helped private
landowners restore about 30,000 wetland acres
on 2,167 sites; 343,314 upland acres on 321 sites,
and 1,220 miles of river and stream channel habi-tat
(FWS 2008b)
■■ In 2008, paid Montana counties $488,543 under the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Act for use in schools
and roads (FWS 2009d)
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated
the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the Nation’s
first wildlife refuge for the protection of brown pel-icans
and other native, nesting birds. This was the
first time the Federal Government had set aside
land for wildlife. This small but significant designa-tion
was the beginning of the National Wildlife Ref-uge
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 550 units that total 150 million acres (FWS
2009e). Today, there is at least one refuge in every
State and in five U.S. territories and Commonwealths.
4 Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
In 1997, 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 (or associated regulations)
states that each national wildlife refuge shall be
managed
■■ to ‘‘fulfill the mission of the System, as well as the
specific purposes for which that refuge was estab-lished”
■■ to consider “wildlife conservation … [as] the sin-gular
National Wildlife Refuge System mission”
(Final Compatibility Regulations Pursuant to the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997)
■■ to ‘‘ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Syste