Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex

              Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment
Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex
August 2007
Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex
223 North Shore Road
Medicine Lake, MT 59247
406/789 2305
and
Region 6, Mountain–Prairie Region
Division of Refuge Planning
134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300
Lakewood, CO 80228
303/236 4305
Contents
Summary .................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................5
1.1 Purpose and Need for Plan ............................................................................................................................5
1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System ....................................7
1.3 National and Regional Mandates .................................................................................................................8
1.4 Refuge Contributions to the National and Regional Plans ......................................................................9
1.5 Ecosystem Description and Threats ..........................................................................................................13
1.6 Planning Process ..........................................................................................................................................15
2 The Refuge Complex ..........................................................................................................................................19
2.1 Establishment and History of Medicine Lake NWR ..............................................................................19
2.2 Establishment and History of Lamesteer NWR................................................................................ .....20
2.3 Establishment and History of the Northeast Montana WMD...............................................................24
2.4 Visions for the Refuge Complex and WMD ..............................................................................................26
2.5 Goals ...............................................................................................................................................................26
2.6 Planning Issues ............................................................................................................................................26
2.7 Issues Not Addressed or Resolved during the CCP Process ................................................................29
3 Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................................31
3.1 Alternatives Development ..........................................................................................................................31
3.2 Elements Common to All Alternatives .....................................................................................................31
3.3 Uses Not Considered Further ....................................................................................................................31
3.4 Alternatives for Medicine Lake NWR and the Northeast Montana WMD .........................................32
3.5 Alternatives for Lamesteer NWR .............................................................................................................38
3.6 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................................38
4 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................................49
4.1 Geographic and Ecosystem Setting ...........................................................................................................49
4.2 Climate ...........................................................................................................................................................49
4.3 Global Warming ............................................................................................................................................50
4.4 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................................50
4.5 Geology and Soils .........................................................................................................................................50
4.6 Refuge Complex Resources ........................................................................................................................51
4.7 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................65
4.8 Visitor Services ............................................................................................................................................67
4.9 Current Socioeconomic Conditions ............................................................................................................71
4.10 Reasonably Foreseeable Activities ..........................................................................................................74
4.11 Lamesteer NWR ........................................................................................................................................75
5 Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................................85
5.1 Methods .........................................................................................................................................................85
5.2 Effects Common to all Alternatives ..........................................................................................................86
5.3 Environmental Consequences for Medicine Lake NWR ........................................................................87
5.4 Environmental Consequences for Lamesteer NWR ..............................................................................98
ii Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
6 Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) ....................................................................................... 99
6.1 Medicine Lake NWR and the Northeast Montana WMD .....................................................................99
6.2 Lamesteer NWR .........................................................................................................................................99
6.3 Medicine Lake NWR and Northeast Montana WMD—Goals, Objectives, Strategies ....................101
6.4 Personnel .....................................................................................................................................................115
6.5 Funding .......................................................................................................................................................115
6.6 Partnership Opportunities ........................................................................................................................115
6.7 Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................................................115
6.8 Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................................................................116
6.9 Plan Amendment and Revision ................................................................................................................117
Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................................................................119
Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies .........................................................................................................125
Appendix B—List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination ...................................................................129
Appendix C—Public Involvement........................................................................................................................131
Appendix D—Compatability Determinations .....................................................................................................133
Appendix E—Divestiture Consideration for Lamesteer National Wildlife Refuge .....................................139
Appendix F—Fire Management Plan ..................................................................................................................143
Appendix G—Draft Land Protection Plan...........................................................................................................147
Appendix H—List of Plant and Wildlife Species ................................................................................................153
Appendix I—Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ..................................................................................165
Appendix J—Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) ...................................................167
Bibliography ..........................................................................................................................................................171
Figures
1. Vicinity map for Medicine Lake refuges, Montana ...................................................................................6
2. Bird conservation regions of the United States .....................................................................................10
3. Prairie Pothole Region ...............................................................................................................................12
4. Ecosystem map ...........................................................................................................................................14
5. Planning process .........................................................................................................................................16
6. Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge map ........................................................................................21
7. Lamesteer National Widlife Refuge map ................................................................................................23
8. WMD map ....................................................................................................................................................27
9. Land status map .........................................................................................................................................35
10. Habitat disturbance on Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge .......................................................53
11. Duck pair density map, Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge .......................................................61
12. General public use ......................................................................................................................................69
13. Medicine Lake National Wildife Refuge and surrounding counties ....................................................72
14. Montana and 3-county study area by population age .............................................................................72
15. 3-county study area age composition ........................................................................................................73
16. Area employment distribution, 2004 ........................................................................................................73
17. Oil and gas development map for Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge ......................................77
18a. Oil and gas development map for Northeast Montana Wetland Management
District–western half ..................................................................................................................................78
18b. Oil and gas development map for Northeast Montana Wetland Management
District–eastern half ..................................................................................................................................79
19. Water within a 50-mile radius of Lamesteer NWR ................................................................................81
20. Adaptive management process ...............................................................................................................118
Tables
1. Planning Process Summary for Medicine Lake NWR Complex, 2006–2007 ........................................17
2. Timeline and Signifi cant Dates for Medicine Lake NWR........................................................................20
3. Timeline and Signifi cant Dates for Lamesteer NWR ..............................................................................20
4. Timeline and Signifi cant Dates for the Northeast Montana WMD ........................................................25
5. Comparison of Staffi ng Levels between Alternatives for Medicine Lake NWR and WMD..............40
6. Comparison of Alternatives for Medicine Lake NWR and Northeast Montana WMD......................41
7. Comparison of Alternatives for Lamesteer NWR....................................................................................48
8. Water Appropriations by Stream at Medicine Lake NWR.....................................................................55
9. Bird Species of Conservation Concern for the Medicine Lake NWR Complex...................................59
10. Landbirds of Regional Importance to USFWS in the Prairie Pothole Region....................................63
11. Mines, Oil and Gas Wells within Refuge Complex....................................................................................74
12. Summary of the Environmental Consequences for Medicine Lake NWR and Northeast
Montana WMD...............................................................................................................................................93
13. Description of Consequences by Alternative for Lamesteer NWR ....................................................98
14. Land Acquisition by Priority......................................................................................................................107
15. Current and Proposed Staffi ng..................................................................................................................116
16. Step-down Management Plans for Medicine Lake NWR Complex, Montana....................................117
Abbreviations
Administration Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966
ABC American Bird Conservancy
BBS breeding bird survey
BCR Bird Conservation Regions
CCC Civilian Conservation Corps
CCP comprehensive conservation plan
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
CRP conservation reserve program
CWCS comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy
DNC dense nesting cover
DU Ducks Unlimited
EA environmental assessment
EO executive order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMP fi re management plan
FONSI fi nding of no signifi cant impact
FTE full-time equivalent
GIS geographic information system
GPS global positioning system
GS general schedule (employment)
HAPET Habitat and Population Evaluation Team
HMP habitat management plan
IMPROVE interagency monitoring of protected visual environments
Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund
LPP land protection plan
main stem main stem Missouri River ecosystem
MT Montana
MFWP Montana Fish, Wildife, and Parks
MBCC Migratory Bird Conservation Commission
MOYOCO Ecosystem Upper Missouri/Yellowstone/Upper Columbia rivers ecosystem
NABCI North American Bird Conservation Initiative
NAWCA North American Wetlands Conservation Act
vi Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
Abbreviations
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOI notice of intent
NPPR Northern Prairie and Parkland Region
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI national wetland inventory
NWR national wildlife refuge
NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System
PFW Partners for Fish and Wildlife
PL public law
PPJV Prairie Pothole Joint Venture
PPR prairie pothole region
Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System
region 6 “Mountain–Prairie Region” of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
RONS “Refuge Operationg Needs System”
SAMMS “Service Asset Maintenance Management System”
Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SCCD Sheridan County Conservation District
SUP special use permit
SWG “State Wildlife Grant”
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TNC The Nature Conservancy
UGHEP Upland gamebird habitat enhancement program
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WG wage grade (employment)
WHIP Wildlife habitat incentive program
WPA Waterfowl Production Area
WMD wetland management district
WUI wildland–urban interface
Defi nitions of these and other terms are in the glossary, located after chapter 6.
Summary
Every spring and fall, the big sky country of
northeast Montana is fi lled with the clamor of bird
calls. Many migrating birds stop along the glaciated
rolling plains between the Missouri River and the
Canadian border, at the Medicine Lake National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR), the Northeast Montana
Wetland Management District (WMD), and the
Lamesteer National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), which
are managed together as one refuge complex. With
a bird list that includes some 283 species, the refuge
complex has been designated as one of the top 100
globally important bird areas in the United States
by the American Bird Conservancy (Chipley 2001).
The primary role of the Medicine Lake NWR
Complex is to conserve its diverse wetlands and
grasslands as a “refuge and breeding ground
for migratory birds and other wildlife.” This
draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)
and environmental assessment (EA) will guide
management of these lands for the next 15 years.
The Refuge Complex
The refuge complex is part of the National Wildlife
Refuge System (Refuge System) of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service). It covers portions of
Sheridan, Roosevelt, Daniels, and Wibaux counties
in Montana. The 31,660-acre Medicine Lake NWR
includes an 11,360-acre federal wilderness area. The
Northeast Montana WMD includes 44 waterfowl
production areas owned by the Service that protect
11,791 acres. Grassland and wetland easements
protect another 19,556 acres. Lamesteer NWR is
an 800-acre easement that is managed as a satellite
refuge.
Historically, the bird community of northeast
Montana was composed of prairie-nesting species,
such as the chestnut-collared longspur, Baird’s
sparrow, and Sprague’s pipit. The refuge complex
protects critical habitat for the threatened piping
plover. Its importance for breeding and migrating
waterfowl has long been recognized and was the
primary reason the refuge was established in 1935.
The density of breeding pairs of ducks is high in the
Missouri Couteau, and the density and diversity
of nesting waterfowl is outstanding. Common
nesting ducks are mallard, gadwall, northern pintail,
northern shoveler, blue-winged teal, and lesser
scaup. Refuge wetlands provide habitat for many
“colonial-nesting” waterbirds (or birds that nest
in colonies), including western and eared grebe,
California and ring-billed gulls, double-crested
cormorant, great blue heron, and American white
pelican. The refuge’s large pelican colony has been in
existence since at least 1939, and is one of the largest
colonies in the United States, with about 3,000 to
5,000 nests each year.
Although nonnative pheasants draw the most
hunters, nearly half of the refuge’s visitors (about
45 percent of an estimated 16,000 annual visitor
days) come for a variety of hunting opportunities,
including other upland birds like the plains sharp-tailed
grouse, as well as deer and waterfowl. Many
other visitors enjoy wildlife observation, fi shing,
and the education and interpretation programs the
refuge offers.
Medicine Lake NWR provides for most of the
visitor services and facilities. Interpretive exhibits
at the headquarters offi ce, an auto tour route, an
observation tower, and a pelican observation area
are just a few of the ways visitors can see and learn
about the refuge.
Medicine Lake NWR Complex Visions
and Goals
The vision for each refuge is based on the purposes
for which it was established, the conditions of and
potential for specifi c resources, its value as a natural
system, and other issues. The goals direct refuge
complex staff toward achieving the vision.
American white pelican.
Judy Wantulok/USFWS
2 Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
Medicine Lake NWR Vision
Visitors to Medicine Lake NWR, on the western
edge of the Missouri Coteau, experience wide-open
grasslands, vast lakes and marshes, and one-of-a-
kind sunsets. Diverse habitats for migratory
birds and native wildlife are managed to simulate
the natural processes that historically shaped the
prairie landscape. The spring and fall migrations
are awe-inspiring against the big Montana sky. The
refuge team works collaboratively with partners
and the community to conserve, protect, and restore
the wildness of the rolling prairie and its natural
solitude.
Northeast Montana WMD Vision
Waterfowl production areas and conservation
easements within the Northeast Montana WMD,
located in the glaciated Missouri Coteau, provide a
network of wetlands and grasslands that preserve
historic and vital waterfowl breeding grounds. Other
migratory birds, threatened and endangered species,
and resident wildlife also benefi t from these prairie
jewels of the Refuge System.
Our community and visitors value grasslands and
marshes as a benefi cial and important component of
a diverse, healthy, and productive prairie landscape.
Current and future generations enjoy wildlife-dependent
uses of these lands, and partners actively
support and encourage our habitat conservation
programs.
Goals for the Refuge Complex
The Service developed a set of goals for the refuge
based on the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act, the refuge purpose, current
conditions, and objectives for the refuge complex
that were discussed during the CCP planning
process. The goals direct work toward achieving
the vision and purpose of the refuge, and outline
approaches for managing refuge resources.
The Service established eight goals for refuge
management: Habitat and Wildlife Management;
Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species;
Wilderness Management; Visitor Services; Refuge
Operations; Partnerships; Cultural Resources; and
Research. These goals are described fully in chapter 2.
The Draft Plan
The Service has prepared this EA and draft CCP
with public participation and in cooperation with
the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Department.
After reviewing a wide range of public comments
and management issues and concerns, the Service
developed three alternatives for managing both the
Medicine Lake NWR and the Northeast Montana
WMD, and two alternatives for managing the
Lamesteer NWR. Alternative B is the proposed
action for both sets of alternatives and is presented
in chapter 6 as the draft comprehensive conservation
plan.
Medicine Lake NWR and Northeast
Montana WMD
Alternative A—Maintain Current Management (No
Action)
Current management programs and efforts would
continue. No signifi cant increases in funding or
personnel would take place. This alternative serves
as the baseline to which other alternatives will be
compared.
Alternative B—Increase Native Prairie Conservation and
Restoration (Proposed Action)
Alternative B for Medicine Lake NWR and the
Northeast Montana WMD would conserve natural
resources by restoring or protecting native
mixed-grass prairie and maintaining high-quality
nesting habitats within the refuge complex. This
alternative would focus funding for visitor services
on developing access for visitors of all abilities and
improving opportunities for wildlife-dependent uses
(hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation, photography,
environmental education, and interpretation). It
also would encourage a greater understanding and
appreciation for migratory birds and other native
wildlife, the mixed-grass prairie, the wilderness, and
the Refuge System.
Alternative C—Maximize Native Prairie Conservation
and Restoration
Alternative C would maximize staff resources for
the conservation of natural resources by restoring
or protecting native mixed-grass prairie and
maintaining high-quality nesting habitats within
the refuge complex. Visitor programs would be
improved but would focus primarily on encouraging
a greater understanding and appreciation
for the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem while
maintaining existing access and opportunities for
wildlife-dependent uses (hunting, fi shing, wildlife
observation, photography, environmental education,
and interpretation).
Lamesteer NWR
Alternative A—Current Management
Under this alternative, Lamesteer NWR would
continue to be an easement refuge superimposed
on privately owned lands and used primarily as a
resting place for migratory birds while on migration.
The Service would continue to maintain the dam and
spillway, including underwriting all maintenance
Summary 3
costs. The landowner would continue to control
access to the site, including all hunting access and
other public uses.
Alternative B—Divestiture (Proposed Action)
Alternative B would take Lamesteer NWR out of
the Refuge System and relinquish the easement to
the current landowners. Under this alternative, the
dam structure would be given up to the landowners
or destroyed. The Service’s easement requirements
would no longer exist. The Service would divest
its interest in the refuge. This would be carried
out within the 15-year life of this comprehensive
conservation plan.
The meadowlark is one of many grassland birds found at the refuge.
USFWS
1 Introduction
This document presents an environmental
assessment (EA) that evaluates alternatives for,
and expected consequences of, management of the
Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
Complex. Alternative B is the proposed action
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service,
USFWS), and is presented in chapter 6 as the
draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)
for the refuge complex. This chapter provides an
introduction to the CCP process and describes the
involvement of the Service, the State of Montana,
the public, and others, as well as conservation issues
and plans that affect the refuge complex.
The Service has developed this draft CCP to
provide a foundation for the management and use
of the Medicine Lake NWR Complex. The refuge
complex consists of Medicine Lake NWR, a Wetland
Management District (WMD), and Lamesteer
National Wildlife Refuge, located in northeast
Montana. The CCP is intended as a working guide
for management programs and actions over the next
15 years (see fi gure 1).
The CCP was developed in compliance with the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) (16 USC 668dd
et seq.) and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge
System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual (USFWS 2000a). The actions described
within this CCP also meet the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA). Compliance with NEPA is being achieved
by involving the public and including an integrated
environmental assessment (EA).
When fully implemented, this CCP will strive
to achieve the vision, goals, and purpose of each
refuge. Fish and wildlife are the fi rst priority
in refuge management, and public use (wildlife-dependent
recreation) is encouraged as long as it is
compatible with a refuge’s purpose.
The CCP has been prepared by a planning team
composed of representatives from various Service
programs and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
(MFWP). In developing this plan, the planning team
incorporated comments and suggestions from local
residents and organizations. Public involvement
and the planning process itself are described in
this chapter in a section entitled “The Planning
Process.”
After reviewing a wide range of public comments
and management needs, the planning team
developed a proposed alternative. This alternative
attempts to address all signifi cant issues while
determining how best to achieve the intent and
purpose of the refuge complex. The proposed
alternative is the Service’s recommended course of
action for the future management of these refuges,
and is embodied in this draft document.
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN
The purpose of this CCP is to identify the role the
refuge complex, including Medicine Lake NWR,
the Wetland Management District, and Lamesteer
NWR, will play to support the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System),
and to provide long-term guidance for managing
refuge programs and activities. The CCP is needed
􀁑􅄠 to provide a clear statement of direction
for the future management of the refuge
complex;
􀁑􅄠 to ensure that the Service’s management
actions are consistent with the mandates of
the Improvement Act;
􀁑􅄠 to ensure that the management of the refuge
complex is consistent with federal, state,
and county plans;
􀁑􅄠 to provide a basis for the development of
budget requests for the refuge complex’s
operation, maintenance, and capital
improvement needs; and
􀁑􅄠 to provide neighbors, visitors, and
government offi cials an understanding of the
Service’s management actions in and around
these refuges.
A new brood in the wetlands.
USFWS
6 Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
Figure 1. Vicinity map for Medicine Lake refuges, Montana.
Chapter 1—Introduction 7
Sustaining the nation’s fi sh and wildlife resources
can be accomplished only through the combined
efforts of governments, businesses, and private
citizens.
1.2 THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
AND THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The Service is the principal federal agency
responsible for fi sh, wildlife, and plant conservation.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
“The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
working with others, is to conserve, protect, and
enhance fi sh and wildlife and their habitats for the
continuing benefi t of the American people.”
Over a hundred years ago, America’s fi sh and
wildlife resources were declining at an alarming
rate. Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting
and angling groups joined together to restore and
sustain our national wildlife heritage. This was the
genesis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife laws,
manages migratory bird populations, restores
nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and
restores vital wildlife habitat, protects and recovers
endangered species, and helps other governments
with conservation efforts. It also administers a
federal aid program that distributes to states
hundreds of millions of dollars for fi sh and wildlife
restoration, boating access, hunter education, and
related programs across America.
The Service is the managing agency of the Medicine
Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, along
with the rest of the Refuge System, thousands
of waterfowl production areas, and other special
management areas. It also operates 66 national fi sh
hatcheries and 78 ecological services fi eld stations.
Service Activities in Montana
Service activities in Montana contribute to the
state’s economy, ecosystems, and education
programs. The Service and state-related services in
Montana (USFWS 2000b) provide the following:
􀁑􅄠 employment for 196 people
􀁑􅄠 over 25,246 hours donated by 432 volunteers
for Service projects
􀁑􅄠 management of two National Fish
Hatcheries, one Fisheries Technology
Center, one Fish Health Center, and one
Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance
Offi ce
􀁑􅄠 contribution of 700,000 fi sh for stocking
and 20 million eggs to other hatcheries to
support recreational fi shing
􀁑􅄠 management of 22 National Wildlife Refuges
encompassing 1,186,384 acres (USFWS
2006a)
􀁑􅄠 administration of 5 wetland management
districts totaling over 173,897 acres
(USFWS 2006a)
􀁑􅄠 more than 506,000 visitors annually to
Service-managed lands
􀁑􅄠 environmental education for more than 8,700
schoolchildren
􀁑􅄠 hunting access on refuges for 61,000 people
􀁑􅄠 43,000 people fi shing opportunities on
refuges
􀁑􅄠 $5.6 million for sport-fi shing restoration and
$5.6 million for wildlife restoration
􀁑􅄠 $336,726 (2006) in funds under the Refuge
Revenue Sharing Act for Montana schools
and roads (USFWS 2006b).
The National Wildlife Refuge System
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated
the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the nation’s
fi rst wildlife refuge for the protection of brown
pelicans and other native nesting birds. This was
the fi rst time the federal government set aside land
for the sake of wildlife. This small but signifi cant
designation was the beginning of the Refuge
System.
One hundred years later, the Refuge System has
become the largest collection of lands in the world
specifi cally managed for wildlife, encompassing over
96 million acres within 544 refuges and over 3,000
small areas for waterfowl breeding and nesting.
Today, there is at least one refuge in every state
in the nation, including Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands.
In 1997, the Improvement Act established a mission
for the Refuge System:
“... to administer a national network of lands and
waters for the conservation, management, and
where appropriate, restoration of the fi sh, wildlife,
and plant resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefi t of present and future
generations of Americans.”
8 Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
The Improvement Act states that each refuge shall
be managed:
􀁑􅄠 to fulfi ll the mission of the Refuge System;
􀁑􅄠 to fulfi ll the individual purpose of each
refuge;
􀁑􅄠 to consider the needs of fi sh and wildlife
fi rst;
􀁑􅄠 to fulfi ll the requirement of developing
a CCP for each unit of the Refuge
System, and fully involve the public in the
preparation of these plans;
􀁑􅄠 to maintain the biological integrity,
biological diversity, and environmental
health of the Refuge System;
􀁑􅄠 to recognize that wildlife-dependent
recreation activities, including hunting,
fi shing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental education
and interpretation, are legitimate and
priority public uses; and
􀁑􅄠 to retain the authority of refuge managers
to determine compatible public uses.
The wildlife and habitat vision for each national
wildlife refuge emphasizes the following principles:
􀁑􅄠 Wildlife comes fi rst.
􀁑􅄠 Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness
are vital concepts in refuge management.
􀁑􅄠 Refuges must be healthy.
􀁑􅄠 Growth of refuges must be strategic.
􀁑􅄠 The Refuge System serves as a model
for habitat management with broad
participation from others.
Following passage of the Improvement Act, the
Service began to implement the new legislation,
including preparing CCPs for all refuges. These
plans are now being developed nationwide.
Consistent with the Improvement Act, all refuge
CCPs are being prepared with public involvement.
Every refuge is required to complete a CCP by 2012.
People and the National Wildlife Refuge
System
The U.S. fi sh and wildlife heritage contributes to
the quality of peoples’ lives and is an integral part of
the nation’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places have
always given people special opportunities to have
fun, relax, and appreciate the natural world.
Wildlife recreation also contributes millions of
dollars to local economies through birdwatching,
fi shing, hunting, photography, and other wildlife
pursuits. In 2002, approximately 35.5 million people
visited a national wildlife refuge, mostly to observe
wildlife in their natural habitats. Visitors most often
are accommodated through nature trails, auto tours,
interpretive programs, and hunting and fi shing
opportunities. Signifi cant economic benefi ts are
generated for the communities that surround the
refuges. Economists have reported that national
wildlife refuge visitors contribute more than $792
million annually to local economies.
1.3 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL MANDATES
This section presents hierarchically, from the
national level to the local level, highlights of legal
mandates, Service policy, and existing resource
plans that directly infl uenced development of this
CCP.
Refuges are managed to achieve the mission and
goals of the Refuge System and the designated
purpose of the refuge unit as described in
establishing legislation or executive orders, or other
establishing documents. Key concepts and guidance
of the System are provided in the Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (P.L. 87-714), Title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Fish and
Wildlife Service Manual and, most recently, through
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57).
The Improvement Act amends the Refuge System
Administration Act by providing a unifying
mission for the Refuge System, a new process for
determining compatible public uses on refuges, and a
requirement that each refuge will be managed under
a CCP. The Improvement Act states that wildlife
conservation is the priority of Refuge System lands,
and that the Secretary of the Interior will ensure
that the biological integrity, biological diversity, and
environmental health of refuge lands are maintained.
Each refuge must be managed to fulfi ll the Refuge
System mission and the specifi c purposes for which
it was established. The Improvement Act requires
the Service to monitor the status and trends of fi sh,
wildlife, and plants in each refuge.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 declares that compatible wildlife-dependent
recreational uses are legitimate and
appropriate, priority, general public uses of the
Refuge System. Six uses (hunting, fi shing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, environmental
education, and environmental interpretation) are
to receive enhanced consideration, in planning and
management, over all other general public uses of
the Refuge System.
Chapter 1—Introduction 9
A list of other laws and executive orders that may
affect the Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Complex CCP or the Service’s implementation of
the CCP is provided in appendix A. Service policies
providing guidance on planning and the day-to-day
management of a refuge are contained within the
Refuge System Manual and the Service Manual.
1.4 REFUGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL
AND REGIONAL PLANS
Fulfi lling the Promise
A 1999 report entitled “Fulfi lling the Promise,
The National Wildlife Refuge System: Visions for
Wildlife, Habitat, People and Leadership” (Service
1999a) is the culmination of a year-long process by
teams of Service employees to evaluate the Refuge
System nationwide. This report was the focus of
the fi rst National Refuge System Conference, held
in October 1998 and attended by refuge managers,
other Service employees, and representatives from
leading conservation organizations. The report
contains 42 recommendations packaged with three
vision statements dealing with wildlife and habitat,
people, and leadership. This CCP deals with all three
major topics, and the recommendations in the report
provided guidance throughout the CCP process.
Bird Conservation
All bird conservation planning in North America is
being achieved through the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative (NABCI). Started in 1999,
the NABCI Committee is a coalition of government
agencies, private organizations, and bird initiatives
in the United States working to advance integrated
bird conservation. The committee’s conservation
work is based on sound science and cost-effective
management that will benefi t all birds in all habitats.
Conservation of all birds is being accomplished
under four planning initiatives: the North American
Landbird Conservation Plan (Partners in Flight),
the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, the North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
Partners in Flight
Partners in Flight began in 1990 with the
recognition of the decline of many migratory bird
species. The challenge, according to the Partners
in Flight (PIF) Program, is managing human
population growth while maintaining functional
natural ecosystems. To meet this challenge, PIF
began working to identify priority land-bird species
and habitat types. PIF activity has resulted in the
production of 52 bird conservation plans covering all
of the continental United States.
The primary goal of PIF is to provide for the
long-term health of the bird life on this continent.
The fi rst priority is to prevent the rarest species
from becoming extinct. The second is to prevent
uncommon species from declining to threatened
status. The third priority is to “keep common birds
common.”
PIF splits North America into seven avifaunal
biomes (birds of an ecological regional area) and
37 bird conservation regions (BCRs) for planning
purposes (fi gure 2). Medicine Lake NWR Complex
is within the prairie avifaunal biome in BCR 11, the
Prairie Pothole Region.
Twenty-nine land birds are considered “species
of regional importance” in the Prairie Pothole
BCR (table 10, chapter 4). Birds within the refuge
complex are discussed in greater detail in “Chapter
4, Affected Environment.” All of these species
breed in the refuge complex, except for greater sage
grouse. Nine of these species are on the PIF watch
list, considered the most imperiled land birds in
North America.
PIF conservation priorities in the prairie avifaunal
biome focus on protecting remaining prairies,
managing existing grasslands with fi re and
grazing, and controlling exotic and woody plant
encroachment. Regionally, the refuge complex falls
under the Montana PIF Bird Conservation Plan.
This plan calls for protecting remaining native
prairie from conversion to agriculture, improving
management of grasslands through grazing and
fi re, and using partnerships to improve habitat
conservation
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan
The refuge complex also lies within the Northern
Plains Prairie Pothole Region of the U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Plan (Skagen et al. 2006). Nine
shorebird species are identifi ed within the region
as species of conservation concern: piping plover,
mountain plover, American avocet, upland sandpiper,
long-billed curlew, Hudsonian godwit, marbled
godwit, American woodcock, and Wilson’s phalarope
(table 9, chapter 4). This region is also important to
10 shorebird species during migration.
North American Water Bird Conservation
Plan
Medicine Lake NWR Complex falls within the
Northern Prairie and Parkland Region (NPPR)
for purposes of waterbird conservation. Canadian
and U.S. partners developed the Northern Prairie
and Parkland Waterbird Conservation Plan
10 Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
(Beyersbergen et al. 2004) under the auspices of
the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
(Kushlan et al. 2002) to provide an overview of
the status and current knowledge of waterbirds
and waterbird habitat in the region and to outline
strategies and priorities for monitoring, research,
and management.
Much wetland and upland habitat in the NPPR has
been lost or degraded, primarily due to agriculture.
Populations of many species of waterbirds thus are
considered at risk. Least tern and whooping crane
are listed as endangered species, and the least
bittern is listed as threatened in portions of the
NPPR. The plan identifi es western grebe, Franklin’s
gull, black tern, horned grebe, American bittern,
yellow rail, and king rail as species of high concern
(table 9, chapter 4). All these species except king rail
and least bittern are found in the refuge complex.
North American Waterfowl Management
Plan
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
(NAWMP), written in 1986 and revised several
times (DOI and Environment Canada 1986),
envisioned a 15-year effort to achieve landscape
conditions that could sustain waterfowl populations.
Figure 2. Bird conservation regions of the United States.
Chapter 1—Introduction 11
In 1985, waterfowl populations had plummeted to
record lows. The habitat that waterfowl depend on
for survival was disappearing at a rate of 60 acres
per hour.
Recognizing the importance of waterfowl and
wetlands to North Americans, and the need for
international cooperation to help in the recovery
of a shared resource, the U.S. and Canadian
governments developed a strategy to restore
waterfowl populations through habitat protection,
restoration, and enhancement.
Specifi c NAWMP objectives are to increase and
restore duck populations to the average levels of
the 1970s—for examples, 62 million breeding ducks,
and a fall fl ight of 100 million birds. In 1994, Mexico
became a signatory of the plan.
Although the plan is international in scope, its
implementation functions at the regional level.
Its success is dependent upon the strength
of partnerships, called “joint ventures,”
involving federal, state, provincial, tribal, and
local governments, businesses, conservation
organizations, and individual citizens.
Joint ventures are regionally based, self-directed
partnerships that carry out science-based
conservation with extensive community
participation. Joint ventures develop
implementation plans focusing on areas of concern
identifi ed in the plan.
The NAWMP contains 11 habitat joint ventures in
the United States and two in Canada with a wide
variety of public and private partners. As of 2006,
plan partners had invested more than $4.5 billion to
protect, restore, and enhance more than 15.7 million
acres of habitat. The Medicine Lake NWR complex
lies within the “Prairie Pothole Joint Venture”
(PPJV). Lesser scaup, mallard, and northern pintail
are the highest-priority waterfowl species for the
PPJV.
Prairie Pothole Joint Venture
Implementation Plan
The Prairie Pothole Region remains the most
important waterfowl-producing region on the
continent, generating more than half of North
America’s ducks. Nearly 15 percent of the
continental waterfowl population comes from the
PPJV region (Montana, the Dakotas, Minnesota, and
Iowa) (see fi gure 3).
As many as 10 million ducks and 2 million geese use
the PPJV region during migration or for nesting.
The wetlands and associated grassland habitat in the
PPJV region provide breeding habitat to over 200
species of migratory birds. Bald eagles, peregrine
falcons, whooping cranes, piping plovers, and
interior least terns frequent the PPJV region during
migration and breeding periods.
The PPJV Implementation Plan (USFWS et. al,
2005) outlined a mission, goals, objectives, and
strategies for joint venture activities. State action
groups and steering committees prepared action
plans that “stepped down,” or offered more specifi c
direction, for joint venture activities at the state and
local level.
The goal of the PPJV is to increase waterfowl
populations through habitat conservation projects
that improve natural diversity across the Prairie
Pothole landscape of the United States. The joint
venture attempts to implement landscape-level
habitat projects so that waterfowl populations
increase during the wet years and stabilize under
moderate conditions. Since little can be done to
stabilize breeding populations across the Prairie
Pothole Region during extended drought, joint
venture strategies are designed to carry out actions
that take advantage of years when precipitation is at
least normal.
Recovery Plans for Federally Listed
Threatened or Endangered Species
Where federally listed threatened or endangered
species occur on the Medicine Lake NWR complex,
the management goals and strategies laid out in
their respective recovery plans will be followed. The
list of threatened or endangered species will change
as new species are listed, delisted (or removed from
the list), or discovered on refuge lands
At the time of plan approval, the refuge complex
follows the 1994 Piping Plover (Great Plains)
Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994a). It is currently
within the area designated critical habitat for the
federally listed piping plover.
State Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy
Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Strategy (CFWCS) includes all
vertebrate species known to exist in Montana,
including both game and nongame species, as well
as some invertebrate species, such as freshwater
mussels and crayfi sh. From the early years of fi sh
and wildlife management, the focus has been placed
on game animals and their related habitats because
most of the agency’s funding has been provided by
hunters and anglers.
MFWP does not intend to reduce its focus on
important game species, and maintains that
conserving particular types of habitats will benefi t
a variety of game and nongame species. With
this new funding mechanism and conservation
12 Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
Figure 3. Prairie Pothole Region.
Chapter 1—Introduction 13
Although game species are included in MFWP’s
conservation strategy, the priority is species and
their related habitats “in greatest conservation
need.” This means focus areas, community types,
and species that are signifi cantly degraded or
declining, federally listed, or where important
distribution and occurrence information used to
assess the status of individuals and groups of species
is lacking. Because management of game species
has been largely successful over the last 100 years,
most species have populations that are stable or
increasing, and fewer were identifi ed as in greatest
conservation need (49 nongame, 11 game).
MFWP’s conservation strategy uses 5 ecotypes to
describe the broad areas of Montana’s landscape
that have similar characteristics. Within each of
the ecotypes, Tier 1 (greatest need of conservation)
geographic focus areas were identifi ed for all
terrestrial and aquatic areas of the state. The
Missouri Coteau Focus Area is a Tier 1 area that
encompasses 5.3 million acres and includes the
refuge complex. This portion of Montana’s Prairie
Pothole Region contains the highest density
of natural wetlands. A total of 318 terrestrial
vertebrate species are found within the Missouri
Coteau Focus Area. Tier I wildlife species are:
northern leopard frog, snapping turtle, spiny
softshell, western hog-nosed snake, smooth
greensnake, common loon, trumpeter swan, bald
eagle, yellow rail, whooping crane, piping plover,
long-billed curlew, interior least tern, black tern,
burrowing owl, sedge wren, Nelson’s sharp-tailed
sparrow, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and meadow
jumping mouse.
The Montana CFWCS outlines 5 conservation
concerns and strategies for the Missouri Coteau
Focus Area. The key concerns are:
—loss of habitat due to conversion of native prairie
to small grain crops
—drainage of natural wetlands
—invasive or exotic plant species
—disruption of natural disturbance processes,
especially fi re
—fragmentation of habitat due to fossil fuel
exploration and development activities.
1.5 ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND THREATS
The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach
to natural resource management and has identifi ed
52 ecosystems in the United States. The refuge
complex lies within the main stem Missouri River
(main stem) ecosystem and the Upper Missouri/
Yellowstone/ Upper Columbia rivers (MOYOCO)
ecosystem (USFWS 2000c) (fi gure 4).
The main stem ecosystem is located primarily in
South Dakota, with sections extending into southern
North Dakota, northern Nebraska, northeastern
Wyoming, and eastern Montana. Prairie potholes,
a major land feature, were formed during the
Pleistocene glaciations, a period 2 million years
ago when glaciers swept through the region,
scraping the landscape and creating depressions, or
“potholes.” The glaciated prairies of North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Montana cover approximately 60
million acres.
Historically, the landscape of the main stem
consisted of a vast expanse of tall and mixed grass
prairie with numerous shallow and deep wetlands.
A rich assortment of native plants and wildlife
evolved with and were maintained by fi re, periodic
defoliation by large herds of grazing animals, and
climate.
Numerous wetland basins are a prominent feature
of this ecosystem, and are essential for producing
the majority of game ducks in the country. Four
fl yways throughout the area denote major migration
pathways that funnel waterfowl from wintering to
breeding habitat and back. Canada geese and snow
geese pass through the area every fall and spring, as
do many other migratory birds that use the Central
Flyway.
Native prairie and forests, woodlands, and savanna
are the ecosystem’s predominant vegetation
habitats. Native prairie plant communities are
dominated by grasses such as little bluestem,
porcupine grass, sideouts grama, and western
wheatgrass. Common forbs include leadplant, rigid
goldenrod, and purple and prairie conefl owers.
Prairie insectivores and native mice common to
prairie ecosystems are very abundant. Riparian
areas make up a small portion of the ecosystem,
but are more important than other focus areas
to fi sh and wildlife resources. Riparian habitats
provide for much of the biological diversity in the
ecosystem, and many species occurring here would
be eliminated without healthy riparian areas.
The original prairie grasslands have been rapidly
dwindling as agriculture has come to dominate the
landscape. Nonnative grasses were planted for
pastures and hay, large portions of native prairie
were plowed up for crop land, and wetlands were
drained to make farming operations easier and more
profi table.
Originating in the Rocky Mountains of south-central
Montana, the Missouri River is vastly different from
the “untamed” fl oodplain system of even 50 years
ago. The river fl ows 2,300 miles, passing through 7
strategy in place, MFWP believes that managing
fi sh and wildlife more comprehensively is a natural
progression in the effective conservation of
Montana’s remarkable fi sh and wildlife resources
(Montana CFWCS 2005).
14 Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
Figure 4. Ecosystem map.
Chapter 1—Introduction 15
As the Missouri River changed, so did the wildlife
communities that depend on it. Currently 8 fi shes,
15 birds, 6 mammals, 4 reptiles, 6 insects, 4 mollusks,
and 7 plants native to the ecosystem are listed as
either threatened or endangered. Sedimentation,
contamination, invasive species, and development
threaten the health of this diverse habitat.
The MOYOCO ecosystem encompasses parts of
Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota, and lies
within the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains
physiographic (or physical geographic) provinces.
As the name implies, the ecosystem includes the
Upper Missouri, Yellowstone, and Upper Columbia
River basins. To the east of the Continental Divide,
it encompasses the Upper Missouri and Yellowstone
River drainages from their headwaters in the high
mountains of western Montana and Wyoming to
their confl uence in western North Dakota. To the
west of the Continental Divide in western Montana
and northwestern Wyoming, the ecosystem includes
the Upper Columbia River drainage from the
mountain headwaters to the border with Idaho.
This ecosystem is bounded on the north by the
Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Alberta,
and Saskatchewan; on the east by North Dakota; on
the south by southern Wyoming and Idaho.
The proposed management vision and goals for
the main stem and MOYOCO ecosystems focus
on “national trust resources,” or endangered or
threatened species, migratory birds, and habitat for
trust species. Further, recreation is recognized as a
high priority where confl icts with native species and
their habitats do not occur.
A major priority for the main stem and MOYOCO
ecosystems will be to ensure that future economic
development complements environmental
protection. Another goal will be to create healthy
habitats that provide an abundance and diversity
of native fl ora and fauna in the ecosystems. Key
threats to the ecosystems include invasive species,
conversion of native prairie to agriculture, and
habitat fragmentation from development and
population growth.
1.6 THE PLANNING PROCESS
This draft CCP and EA for the Medicine Lake
National Wildlife Refuge Complex is intended
to comply with the Improvement Act and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The
Service issued a fi nal refuge planning policy in 2000
(USFWS 2000a) that established requirements and
guidance for Refuge System planning, including
CCPs and step-down (or more specifi c) management
plans, ensuring that planning efforts comply
with the provisions of the Improvement Act. The
planning policy identifi ed several steps of the CCP
and EA process (fi gure 5):
􀁑􅄠 Form a planning team and conduct pre-planning
activities such as creating a work
plan.
􀁑􅄠 Initiate public involvement and scoping.
􀁑􅄠 Draft a vision statement and goals.
􀁑􅄠 Develop and analyze alternatives, including
a proposed action.
􀁑􅄠 Prepare a draft CCP and EA.
􀁑􅄠 Prepare and adopt a fi nal CCP and EA, and
issue a “fi nding of no signifi cant impact”
(FONSI), or determine if an environmental
impact statement (EIS) is needed.
􀁑􅄠 Implement the CCP, and monitor and
evaluate the effectiveness of actions.
􀁑􅄠 Review the CCP every 5 years, and revise it
every 15 years.
Early Planning Process
In 1998, the Service began the planning process
for the Medicine Lake NWR Complex. A notice of
intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register
on August 6, 1998, with a public meeting held at
the refuge headquarters on October 17, 1998. In
2001, the process stalled for several years while the
Service considered a preliminary land-acquisition
proposal for the CCP. During the same time period,
there were several staff changes at the refuge,
including a new project leader who came on duty in
2005.
In October 2006, the planning process (see table 1)
was restarted, and a planning team consisting of
Service personnel from the refuge complex, the
Division of Refuge Planning, and Montana Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks was formed. Because of the
extensive delay in the planning process, the planning
effort essentially was started over. The planning
team developed a new draft vision and set of goals,
a planning schedule, and a public involvement
plan. The team began an internal scoping process
by identifying refuge qualities and issues over
the course of several meetings and electronic
correspondence.
Recent Planning Efforts
Prescoping and scoping began in November 2006. A
notice of intent (NOI) was published in the Federal
Register announcing the beginning of the CCP
process.
main stem dams. Nearly 60 percent of what formerly
was the upper river now lies under permanent
multipurpose reservoirs.
16 Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
During the planning process, the planning team
developed a mailing list of over 120 names that
included local residents, local, regional, and state
government representatives, other federal agencies,
and nonprofi t organizations. In November 2006,
a planning update was mailed to the public and
placed on the planning website. The planning update
provided a summary of the NWRS and the CCP
process, along with an invitation to a public meeting,
which was held at the Medicine Lake Fire Hall. The
meeting was announced in the local newspapers,
fl yers were posted at businesses throughout the
region, and announcements were made by refuge
staff at a variety of meetings and through personal
contact.
More than 20 people attended the meeting, despite
minus-zero, blustery weather. At the start of the
meeting, the CCP planner provided an overview
of the process, and the project leader talked about
the refuge and current management issues during
a presentation and question-and-answer period.
The overall response was very positive. People
who attended were invited to submit additional
comments or questions orally or in writing, and each
was given a two-page comment form to complete.
There was additional coverage about the planning
process in the local newspaper, and by the end of
the response deadline on February 8, 2007, the team
recorded over 60 comments.
Comments from approximately 15 letters and
comment sheets during the initial scoping process
in 1998 were combined with the comments received
during the fall and winter of 2006–2007 to create
a list of signifi cant issues to be addressed in this
document.
State Coordination
In October 2006, the Service’s region 6 director
invited the director of the MFWP to participate in
the CCP process. Local MFWP wildlife managers
and refuge staff have maintained excellent ongoing
working relations from before the CCP process. A
MFWP representative was part of the core CCP
planning team and participated in the planning
process.
Coordination with Local Communities
The project leader initially contacted local elected
offi cials in October 2006 and thereafter through
planning updates that provided information on the
CCP process, outlined the public meeting schedule,
and included a summary of public comments
received.
Tribal Coordination
In October 2006, the Service’s region 6 director sent
a letter to the Fort Peck Tribal Council (Assiniboine
and Sioux tribes). The letter provided information
about the upcoming CCP and invited recipients to
serve on the core planning team. The Service did
not receive a response from the tribe, but it sent the
tribal council planning updates and other documents
throughout the process.
Figure 5. The planning process.
4. DEVELOP AND ANALYZE
ALTERNATIVES
- Create a reasonable range
of alternatives including a no-action
alternative
5. PREPARE DRAFT PLAN
AND NEPA
DOCUMENT
- Public comment and review
1. PREPLANNING:
PLAN THE PLAN
2. INITIATE PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT AND SCOPING
- Involve the public
3. DRAFT VISION STATEMENT
AND GOALS AND DETERMINE
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
6. PREPARE AND ADOPT FINAL
PLAN
- Respond to public comment
- Select preferred alternative
7. IMPLEMENT PLAN,
MONITOR, AND EVALUATE
- Public involvement when
applicable
8. REVIEW AND REVISE PLAN
- Public involvement when
applicable
The
Comprehensive
Conservation
Planning Process and
NEPA Compliance
Chapter 1—Introduction 17
Results of Scoping
The comments collected from scoping meetings
and correspondence were used to develop a list
of key issues to address in the CCP. The team
developed goals, objectives, and strategies
and determined which alternatives would best
address these issues. A summary of the issues and
their impacts is discussed in chapter 2.
Selecting an Alternative
The Service’s region 6 director will consider the
environmental effects of each alternative and
will select an alternative to implement as the
Medicine Lake National Wildlife Complex CCP.
The decision will be disclosed in a fi nding of no
signifi cant impact (FONSI) included in the fi nal
CCP. Implementation of the CCP will begin with the
regional director’s signature and publication of the
fi nal CCP.
This CCP provides long-term guidance for
management decisions. It establishes goals,
objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish
refuge purposes, and identifi es the Service’s best
estimate of future needs. This CCP details program
planning levels that are sometimes substantially
above current budget allocations and thus are
primarily for Service strategic planning purposes.
This CCP does not constitute a commitment for
staffi ng increases, operation and maintenance
increases, or funding for future land acquisitions.
Table 1. Planning Process Summary for Medicine Lake NWR Complex, 2006–2007
Date Event Outcome
August 2006 Initial site meeting Tour refuge. Discuss CCP process. Set a date for
the project kickoff meeting and vision and goals
workshop.
October 31-
November 1, 2006
Kickoff meeting and
vision and goals
workshop
The Service develops a CCP overview, fi nalizes
a planning team, and identifi es a purposes, initial
issues, and qualities list. The Service’s regional
staff, planning team, and others begin to develop a
mailing list.
The Service’s regional staff, planning team, and
others update the issues and qualities list, identify
biological and mapping needs, and plan public
scoping.
They draft a vision statement and develop goals.
November 15, 2006 Scoping initiated The planning team issues a planning update
describing the CCP process, develops comment
forms, and mails postage-paid envelopes.
November 29, 2006 Public scoping meeting,
Medicine Lake,
Montana
The planning team offers the public the opportunity
to learn about the CCP and provide comments.
January 9, 2007 Notice of intent (NOI)
published
The Service publishes a NOI in the Federal
Register and extends scoping comments until
February 9, 2007.
February 7-8, 2007 Objectives and
strategies workshop
The Service’s regional staff, planning team, and
others draft objectives and strategies for the
proposed action.
March April 2007 Draft CCP and EA
preparation
The planning team prepares the fi rst draft of the
CCP and EA.
June 2007 Internal Service review
of the draft CCP and
EA
The Service’s regional offi ce staff, planning team,
and others conduct a review and receive comments
on the draft CCP and EA.
July 2007 Outreach plan
preparation
The planning team conducts outreach with partners
about issues in the draft CCP and EA.
August 2007 Public meeting,
Medicine Lake,
Montana
The planning team presents the draft CCP and EA
and collects public comments.
2 The Refuge Complex
This chapter explains the history, purpose, and
special values of the Medicine Lake NWR Complex,
as well as the CCP planning process, including the
development of a vision and goals and a discussion of
issues that were and were not addressed.
Every refuge has a purpose for which it was
established. This purpose is the foundation upon
which to build all refuge programs, from biology and
public use, to maintenance and facilities. No action
that the Service or public takes may confl ict with
this refuge purpose. The refuge purposes are found
in the legislative acts or administrative orders,
which provide for the authorities to either transfer
or acquire a piece of land for a refuge. Over time an
individual refuge may contain lands that have been
acquired under a variety of transfer and acquisition
authorities, giving a refuge more than one purpose.
The goals, objectives, and strategies identifi ed in the
CCP are intended to support the individual purpose
for which the refuge was established.
2.1 ESTABLISHMENT AND HISTORY OF
MEDICINE LAKE NWR
On August 19, 1935, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt signed Executive Order No. 7148,
authorized the establishment of the Medicine Lake
NWR. The order stated the purpose of the refuge
was “to effectuate further the purposes of the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act” (45 Stat. 1222)
in Sheridan and Roosevelt Counties, Montana. The
land was “reserved and set apart … as a refuge
and breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife.”
Originally known as “Medicine Lake Migratory
Waterfowl Refuge,” it is located on the glaciated
rolling plains of northeastern Montana and
contains 31,660 acres. The major portion of the
refuge (fi gure 4), with 19,953 acres, was acquired
through emergency funds of the U.S. Resettlement
Administration. Another 367 acres were acquired by
primary withdrawal from public domain; 2,500 acres
were acquired with Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp
Act funds; 4 acres were gift; and 8,634 acres were
“meandered lake” area (meaning the lake assumed a
natural pattern within its fl oodplain).
The refuge consists of two noncontiguous areas:
􀁑􅄠 the 28,396-acre Main Unit containing
the 8,218-acre Medicine Lake, as well as
17 smaller bodies of water and adjacent
grasslands
􀁑􅄠 the 3,264-acre Homestead Unit, including
1,280 acres of wetlands in 5 water units and
the rest in grassland habitat.
The refuge contains an 11,360-acre federal
wilderness area that was established in 1976. The
wilderness includes Medicine Lake with its natural
islands and the 2,300-acre Sandhills Unit. Four
research natural areas encompassing 762 acres were
designated in 1972 (fi gure 6).
The town of Medicine Lake is located near the
northwest boundary of the Medicine Lake NWR.
The Fort Peck Indian Reservation borders the west
boundary. The towns of Plentywood and Culbertson
are about 20 miles equidistant north and south,
respectively, along Montana State Highway 16.
Table 2 highlights signifi cant dates and events in the
refuge’s history.
Jerry Rodriquez/USFWS
Winter wetland environment at Medicine Lake.
20 Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
2.2 ESTABLISHMENT AND HISTORY OF
LAMESTEER NWR
Executive Order No. 9166, dated May 19, 1942,
authorized the establishment of the Lamesteer
NWR. Signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt,
the order stated the purpose for the 800 acres of
land in Wibaux County, Montana, was “as a refuge
and breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife.”
Located 160 miles south of Medicine Lake NWR,
and 20 miles southeast of Wibaux, Montana,
Lamesteer NWR (fi gure 7) is managed as a “satellite
refuge” through the Medicine Lake NWR Complex
offi ce, with no staff on site. Lamesteer NWR’s
800 acres comprise a conservation easement area
superimposed on privately owned lands. It is used
primarily as a resting place for migrating wildlife.
Waterfowl production both on the refuge and in
the general area is very limited. The Service has
no control of the uplands. Only water management
and facilities maintenance rights are covered by the
easement. Pumping for irrigation from the reservoir
is allowed when surplus water is available (fi gure 7).
Table 3 highlights signifi cant dates and events in
Lamesteer NWR’s history.
Table 3. Timeline of Signifi cant Events for Lamesteer NWR
Date Event
1938 The dam and spillway were constructed by the Works Progress Administration.
1944 The dam was damaged by water high fl ows and ice.
1953 The dam spillway was rebuilt.
1981 The refuge was opened to hunting, with landowners controlling access to the
site.
Date Event
1935 Medicine Lake NWR was established.
1936 The fi rst refuge manager, Paul T. Kreager, reported for duty April 24.
The lookout tower at headquarters was built.
1937 The refuge marked its fi rst full year of operation.
The Civilian Conservation Corps set up camp May 21, and 180 men began work.
Medicine Lake was completely dry in June. Locals reported this year as the
fi rst since about 1900 that the lake was dry.
Work began on constructing 42 nesting islands containing 220,000 cubic yards of
earth, gravel, and rock.
1942 The refuge experienced a 208 percent increase in waterfowl due to the fi lling of
all water areas.
The refuge fi rst documented nesting use by pelicans, cormorants, and great
blue herons.
1942 Wartime travel restrictions reduced the number of visitors.
1943 Medicine Lake Canada-goose restoration project was initiated.
Table 2. Timeline of Signifi cant Events for Medicine Lake NWR
Place Holder for
Figure 6 MDL
11x17 map
Chapter 2—The Refuge Complex 23
Figure 7. Lamesteer National Wildlife Refuge map.
24 Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
2.3 ESTABLISHMENT AND HISTORY OF THE
NORTHEAST MONTANA WMD
The Northeast Montana WMD, established in
1968, is located in Sheridan, Daniels, and Roosevelt
counties. The WMD is bounded on the north by the
Canadian province of Saskatchewan, on the east by
North Dakota, on the west by the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation, and on the south by the Missouri River.
Refuge System lands within the WMD include:
􀁑􅄠 waterfowl production areas, which are
acquired in fee title;
􀁑􅄠 wetland easements, which protect privately
owned wetlands from being drained, fi lled,
or leveled;
􀁑􅄠 grassland easements, which protect
privately owned rangeland and hay land
from conversion to cropland.
Early land acquisition efforts focused on purchasing
waterfowl production areas and wetland easements.
In recent years, more emphasis has been placed on
obtaining grassland and wetland easements. In 2006,
the WMD contained 44 waterfowl production areas
(11,791 acres), 8,588 wetland acres protected by
easements, and 10,968 grassland acres protected by
easements (fi gure 8).
The purpose of these acquired areas and easements
is to provide breeding habitat for migratory birds
and other wildlife. Hunting is allowed on these
areas.
Waterfowl production areas and easements are
purchased from willing sellers under the provisions
of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation
Stamp Act (16 USC 718) and are funded by the sale
of federal “duck stamps” and loans against future
duck stamp sales. Waterfowl production areas
are managed to provide breeding waterfowl high-quality
wetlands for courtship and brood rearing,
and suitable grasslands for nesting. Habitats are
managed using techniques such as prescribed
grazing, haying, prescribed burning, farming, and
reseeding (former croplands only), and rest from
crop production. These areas are open for public
hunting, fi shing, and trapping according to state
seasons. Every fall, hunting opportunities for
upland game birds, deer, and waterfowl attract
hunters from across the U.S. and Canada. Table 4
highlights signifi cant events in the development of
the Northeast Montana WMD.
Judy Wantulok/USFWS
Northern pintail is one of many breeding birds found in the refuge complex.
Chapter 2—The Refuge Complex 25
Table 4. Timeline of Signifi cant Events for the Northeast Montana WMD
Date Event
1968 The Northeast Montana WMD was established.
1969 Some 38 waterfowl protection area tracts totaling 4,464 acres were purchased,
and 2,280 wetland acres were protected by wetland easement.
1974 Over 20 miles of waterfowl protection area boundary fence was constructed to
prevent trespass grazing during fall “open range.”
1975 The WMD included 40 waterfowl production areas totaling 8,719 acres, and 68
wetland easement contracts totaling 4,698 wet acres.
1980 Over 36 miles of waterfowl protection area boundary fence was constructed by
refuge complex staff and contractors.
1980–5 An oil boom hit Williston Basin, and permits were issued for 3 new wells.
1983 The WMD participated in the Central Flyway duck recruitment study.
1985 Refuge staff constructed waterfowl nesting islands in Big Slough (10), Goose
Lake (12), and Rivers (3) waterfowl production areas.
1986 Piping plovers, designated as a federally threatened wildlife species, were fi rst
documented nesting in the WMD in the Dog Leg waterfowl production area.
1987 The WMD began using the standardized “4-square-mile” waterfowl breeding-pair
survey.
1988 The WMD began comprehensive breeding population surveys for piping
plovers.
1989 The WMD was identifi ed as a Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV) focus area
under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
1990 The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) technician position was
established, and 88 wetland restoration and creation projects were completed.
1991 The fi rst grassland easement was acquired.
The breeding piping plover population peaked at 181 adults.
Ducks Unlimited, Inc. (DU) constructed waterfowl nesting islands on the Parry,
Erickson, Dog Leg, and Northeast waterfowl production areas.
1994–5 The WMD participated in a study to evaluate the benefi ts of the USDA
conservation reserve program (CRP) for nesting waterfowl across the Prairie
Pothole Region.
1996 The WMD received $640,000 in a Northeast Montana II PPJV North American
Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) grant for continued habitat work on
private, tribal, and Service lands.
The WMD formed partnerships with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
(MFWP), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and private landowners to carry out
a piping plover recovery project.
A sustained period of oil exploration activity began.
1998 National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps were fi nalized and digitized for the
WMD.
A nontoxic shot was required for upland game bird hunting on WPAs.
2000 Private-lands habitat accomplishments included: 800 wetland acres restored,
1,200 wetland acres created, cost sharing arranged to establish 48,000 acres of
high-quality CRP stands, and 6,500 acres of grazing systems developed.
2001 The WMD became a partner in a $1million Montana Hi-Line North American
Wetlands Conservation Act grant that funded continued habitat work and the
acquisition of conservation easements.
26 Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
2.4 VISIONS FOR THE REFUGE COMPLEX AND
WMD
At the beginning of the planning process, the
Service developed two visions, one for the refuge
complex and another for the Northeast Montana
WMD. A vision is a concept, including desired
conditions for the future, that describes the essence
of what the Service is trying to accomplish at the
refuge. The vision for a refuge is a future-oriented
statement designed to be achieved through refuge
management by the end of the 15-year CCP
planning horizon.
Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex Vision
Statement
Visitors to Medicine Lake NWR, on the western
edge of the Missouri Coteau, experience wide-open
grasslands, vast lakes and marshes, and one-of-a-
kind sunsets. Diverse habitats for migratory
birds and native wildlife are managed to simulate
natural processes that historically shaped the
prairie landscape. The awe-inspiring spring and
fall migrations are wonders to see against the big
Montana sky. The refuge team works collaboratively
with partners and the community to conserve,
protect, and restore the wildness of the rolling
prairie and its natural solitude.
Northeast Montana Wetland Management District Vision
Statement
Waterfowl production areas and conservation
easements within the Northeast Montana Wetland
Management District, located in the glaciated
Missouri Coteau, provide a network of wetlands
and grasslands that preserve historic and vital
waterfowl breeding grounds. Other migratory birds,
threatened and endangered species, and resident
wildlife also benefi t from these prairie jewels of the
Refuge System.
Our community and visitors value grasslands and
marshes as a benefi cial and important component of
a diverse, health, and productive prairie landscape.
Current and future generations enjoy wildlife-dependent
uses of these lands, and partners actively
support and encourage our habitat conservation
programs.
2.5 GOALS
The Service also developed a set of goals for the
refuge complex based on the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act, the complex’s
purpose, and information developed during project
planning. The goals direct work toward achieving
the vision and purpose of the refuge complex, and
outline approaches for managing refuge resources.
The Service established eight goals for refuge
complex management.
Habitat and Wildlife Management
Conserve, restore, and enhance the ecological
diversity of grasslands and wetlands of the glaciated
mixed-grass prairie to support healthy populations
of native wildlife, with an emphasis on migratory
birds.
Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species
Contribute to the preservation and restoration of
endangered, threatened, rare, and unique plants and
wildlife that occur or have historically occurred in
the refuge complex.
Wilderness
Conserve the wilderness quality and associated
natural processes of the 11,360-acre Medicine Lake
Wilderness.
Visitor Services
Provide opportunities for visitors to enjoy
wildlife-dependent recreation and to help visitors
understand and appreciate the value of the mixed-grass
prairie and the National Wildlife Refuge
System.
Refuge Operations
Use staff, partnerships, volunteers, and funding
effi ciently through effective communication and
innovation, to support the Medicine Lake NWR
Complex and the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Partnerships
Develop partnerships to support research, conserve
habitat, and foster awareness and appreciation of
the mixed-grass prairie.
Cultural Resources
Preserve and value the cultural resources and
history of Medicine Lake NWR Complex to
connect staff, visitors, and the community to the
area’s past.
Research
Conduct innovative natural resource management
using sound science and applied research to advance
understanding of natural resource function and
management within the northern Great Plains.
2.6 PLANNING ISSUES
The signifi cant planning issues identifi ed by the
refuge staff and the public (chapter 1, Planning
Process, and appendix C), and a review of the
requirements of the Improvement Act and
NEPA are identifi ed below. These key issues
were considered during the formulation of the
alternatives for future management.
Place Holder for
Figure 8 WMD
11x17 map
Chapter 2—The Refuge Complex 29
Wildlife and Habitat Management
The refuge complex has outstanding ecological
features, particularly the unique landforms
such as the prairie potholes and sandhills that
should be preserved. While there are different
viewpoints expressed by the public as to how the
refuge complex should be managed (treatment
prescriptions), specifi c management practices—
prescribed grazing, native plant restoration,
preferences for specifi c wildlife and plant species,
invasive species management, and prescribed
burning—have ecologic and economic impacts that
affect the refuge, the local community, and the
region. At the same time, adjacent land practices,
including increased oil and gas production and use of
fertilizers for large-scale crop production, could have
major implications for protecting the grasslands,
lakes, and marshes on the refuge in the future.
Lamesteer NWR possesses minimal habitat value
and does not meet the mission and goals of the
Refuge System. The Service has no control over
the uplands. Upkeep of the dam structure could be
costly for the refuge in the future, and could drain
limited resources.
Visitor Services
The refuge complex has phenomenal bird watching
opportunities and is considered a hidden jewel
for hunting and for wildlife-oriented experiences
that draw visitors from many states and Canada.
There is a general lack of understanding about
what the refuge complex and system are about.
For example, pheasant hunting is popular, and
some people want the refuge to manage far more
pheasants, but pheasants are a nonnative species.
Many people would like to see hunting, fi shing, and
education opportunities expanded and enhanced for
the community and the region, including providing
universal access (access for people of all abilities),
and are concerned about how the wilderness
designation affects those opportunities.
Water Management
Medicine Lake NWR is part of a bigger ecosystem,
and the management of the refuge complex impacts
the quality and quantity of water on and off the
refuge, which has implications for the refuge and
areas downstream. Adjacent farming practices,
including increased use of fertilizers, ethanol
conversion, more crop production, use of center
pivots, and extraction of groundwater, could have
signifi cant environmental impacts to water quality
on the refuge in the future. At the same time, the
refuge complex has senior water rights, which
during periods of long drought can affect the
quantity and quality of water downstream.
Land Acquisition and Conservation
The Service’s policy and intent for future land
acquisition is of interest and concern to the local
community. Some people would like to see the refuge
complex pursue more conservation easements on
Prairie Pothole wetlands, with priority given to
wetlands surrounded by native prairie.
Communication and Partnerships
Communication was a common issue raised during
scoping. The community as a whole expressed
concerns that, while the refuge staff has reached out
more, the community would like to be kept better
informed. Effective communication and partnerships
are important for the refuge complex to be able to
meet habitat and conservation goals and objectives.
Wilderness Management
Medicine Lake is a designated wilderness area, and
some types of uses, particularly motorized access
or tools, are prohibited on Medicine Lake. The
community is concerned about the types of public
access and uses than can be accommodated within
the wilderness and the latitude the refuge has on
allowing motorized and other access on Medicine
Lake. Some people feel the Service should adopt
a strong non-degradation policy for wilderness,
with few, if any, signs or other structures. They
demand that the Service adhere closely to the
“minimum tool” philosophy (prohibiting mechanized
tools or equipment) in its management practices
in the wilderness area. How and why the Service
manages the wilderness area as it does needs to be
communicated to the community.
Refuge Operations
The Refuge staff remains below minimum
staffi ng levels prescribed in 2000, and restoring
funding levels is critical for implementing habitat
management projects. The local community and
visitors want to be informed about how the refuge
complex allocates resources. How the refuge
conducts daily operations and how the refuge
manager engages with the community will affect
the refuge complex’s ability to achieve habitat and
wildlife objectives.
2.7 ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED OR RESOLVED
DURING THE CCP PROCESS
Some issues cannot be addressed or resolved in the
draft CCP and EA because the authority to address
them does not lie with the Service or with this public
process. These issues are described below.
Use of Motorized Equipment on Medicine Lake for
Recreation
Medicine Lake was designated as wilderness by
public law on October 19, 1976. The text of the
law does not contain any special provision for
use of motorized equipment for recreation. To
remove wilderness designation would take an act
of Congress, which is beyond the scope of the CCP.
Prohibiting motorized boats and power augers for
recreational use protects the wilderness resource of
the lake.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 31
3 Alternatives
This chapter describes the management alternatives
considered for the Medicine Lake NWR Complex.
Alternatives are different approaches to planning
unit management that are designed to achieve
the refuge purpose(s), vision, and goals, the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System,
and the mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Alternatives are developed to address the
signifi cant issues, concerns, and problems identifi ed
by the Service, the public, and the government
partners during public scoping and throughout the
development of the draft plan. The alternatives for
Medicine Lake NWR and the WMD were separated
from the alternatives for Lamesteer NWR.
3.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
The alternatives—three for Medicine Lake NWR
and the WMD, and two for Lamesteer NWR—
represent different approaches for permanent
protection and restoration of fi sh, wildlife, plants,
habitats, and other resources. The planning team
assessed the planning issues identifi ed in chapter
2, the existing biological conditions, and external
relationships affecting the refuge complex. This
information contributed to the development of
alternatives. As a result, each alternative presents
different approaches to meet long-term goals. Each
alternative was evaluated according to how it will
advance the vision and goals of the refuge complex
and the Refuge System, and how it will address the
planning issues.
All of the alternatives incorporate concepts and
approaches intended to achieve the goals outlined
in chapter 2, and are discussed in terms of how they
would meet each goal. In each alternative, the fi rst
two CCP goals—Habitat and Wildlife Management,
and Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species—
are discussed together because their issues overlap.
Alternative A, the “no action” alternative, describes
ongoing refuge management activities. This
alternative might not meet all the CCP goals. It is
provided as a basis for comparison with the “action”
alternatives.
3.2 ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL
ALTERNATIVES
This section identifi es key elements included in the
CCP regardless of the alternative selected. Several
elements of refuge management are common to all
of the alternatives. All management activities that
could impact natural resources, including subsurface
mineral reservations, utility lines and easements,
soil, water, air, contaminants, and archaeological
and historical resources, will be managed to comply
with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies.
All alternatives would provide equal protection
and management of cultural resources. Individual
projects may require additional consultation with
the State of Montana’s Historic Preservation Offi ce.
Additional consultation, surveys, and clearance may
be required when project development would be
conducted on the refuges or when activities would
affect properties eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places.
3.3 USES NOT CONSIDERED FURTHERThe
The planning team considered two other uses for
the refuge complex, and determined that they would
not be considered further. Discussions of the two
uses—snowmobiling and overnight camping—follow
in this section.
Snowmobiles
The Improvement Act found that compatible,
wildlife-dependent uses are legitimate and
appropriate uses of the Refuge System. The
Improvement Act defi ned the priority public uses as
hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation, photography,
environmental education, and interpretation,
providing they are compatible with the purposes of
the refuge (USFWS 2000d). Refuge managers may
consider allowing other uses that are not wildlife-dependent
recreational uses, but these would be
lowest-priority because they are likely to divert
resources from priority general public uses or other
responsibilities. The refuge manager determines
whether a proposed use is appropriate (USFWS
2006c). Snowmobiling is not a wildlife-dependent
public use activity, nor is it an appropriate use
for Medicine Lake NWR, and thus will not be
considered for this CCP.
Overnight Camping
Similar to snowmobiling, camping may be
permitted only when required to assist an approved
wildlife-oriented recreational activity, providing
it is determined to be appropriate (603 FW1) and
compatible with refuge purposes (603 FW 2). The
refuge is designated as a “day use area only.” Most
32 Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
national wildlife refuges are day use only, with few
exceptions. The exceptions are those that are so
remote that visitors cannot use the refuge without
camping overnight. Camping facilities are available
near Medicine Lake. The staff makes off-site
camping information available upon request.
3.4 ALTERNATIVES FOR MEDICINE LAKE NWR
AND THE NORTHEAST MONTANA WMD
Three alternatives were developed for management
of the Medicine Lake NWR and the Northeast
Montana Wetland Management District.
Alternative A: No Action
(Current Management)
Under alternative A, current management programs
and efforts would continue throughout the refuge
and wetland management district, requiring
no signifi cant increases in funding or staff. This
alternative serves as the baseline to which other
alternatives will be compared.
Habitat and Wildlife Management
Prairie and grassland habitat management would
continue at the current level. Improvements of
native prairie and “tame” grassland (composed
of introduced but noninvasive pasture grasses)
would be undertaken when and where they were
feasible. Up to 5 percent of dense nesting cover
(DNC) would be treated and restored annually.
Control of nonnative plants would continue
when feasible. Protection of native prairie and
tame grasslands through easements and fee-title
purchase from willing sellers would continue at the
current approximate rate of 1,000 acres annually
with an additional 4,000 acres receiving enhanced
management through public outreach programs.
Wetlands management would continue to emphasize
providing enough water and variety of wetlands
conditions to sustain life requirements for
migratory birds and to provide for diverse wildlife
populations. Medicine Lake would be maintained in
a “deepwater” condition (or as consistently deep as
possible, rather than adjusting water levels). The
refuge staff would conduct routine assessments of
threats to wetlands and water tables.
Approximately 100 acres of privately-owned
wetlands would be protected annually through
easements or fee-title purchase from willing sellers.
Another 330 wetland acres on private land would
receive enhanced management through public
outreach programs.
The refuge staff would continue to manage wildlife
and maintain healthy populations of indigenous
fauna to the extent possible within the refuge
boundaries. This includes maintaining current
waterfowl nesting-success rates and population
levels for waterfowl, passerines, shorebirds, colonial
waterbirds (or waterbirds that nest in colonies), and
sharp-tailed grouse.
Baseline data and threat assessments would be
gathered on migratory birds, other birds of concern,
and other wildlife, including mammals, amphibians,
reptiles, and invertebrates.
A northern-pike sport fi shery would be maintained
at Medicine Lake. Some efforts would be made to
restrict the establishment and spread of harmful
nonnative species.
Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species
The refuge complex would continue to contribute to
preserving and restoring endangered, threatened,
rare, and unique fl ora and fauna in the refuge
complex. A breeding population of piping plover
would be supported through site-specifi c plover
habitat management plans, predator management,
and cooperation with private landowners. The
refuge hunting closure on sandhill cranes and tundra
swans would continue to protect the whooping crane
from accidental shootings.
Wilderness
Refuge staff would continue to preserve, manage,
and protect the 11,360-acre Medicine Lake
Wilderness. Management practices would continue
to mimic historical natural disturbances, protect
native plant communities, use the minimum tool
concept, ensure compliance with class I air-quality
standards, and protect the vista and aquatic
resources of Medicine Lake.
Visitor Services
Current wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities and management of them would
continue. Fishing on Medicine Lake and hunting for
deer, upland game birds, waterfowl, and terrestrial
furbearers would continue. Ice fi shing would be
continued only near the Highway 16 bridge or
adjacent to refuge headquarters using temporary
structures and no power equipment (structures
must be pushed or dragged onto the lake by hand).
All refuge programs for interpretation, wildlife
observation, outreach, and associated facilities
would continue to operate on a limited basis
(generally, there are no scheduled programs, but if
staff resources are available, interpretive tours are
provided), with no additional facilities or resources.
Environmental education opportunities would
continue for schools and tour groups when feasible
(these are conducted on a very limited basis, with
no regularly schedule programs), but the current
Chapter 3—Alternatives 33
environmental education area near the Highway 16
bridge would remain open.
Annual visitor numbers would be expected to
remain at approximately 16,000.
Refuge Operations
Staff levels would remain well below the minimum
levels defi ned by region 6 in 2000, and several
positions would remain vacant or be eliminated.
Partnerships
Existing partnerships would be maintained.
Cultural Resources
Cultural resources would continue to be minimally
protected, as required by law. Cultural resource
reviews, including possible inventories, would be
done only in response to activities that constitute
an undertaking under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and resources
that are eligible to be listed on the National Register
of Historic Places would be protected.
Research
Research projects would continue, but would not be
considered priorities, based on habitat management
objectives.
Alternative B: Increase Native Prairie
Conservation and Restoration
Alternative B for Medicine Lake NWR and the
Northeast Montana WMD would conserve natural
resources by restoring or protecting native
mixed-grass prairie and maintaining high-quality
nesting habitats within the refuge complex. This
alternative would focus funding for visitor services
on developing access for visitors of all abilities and
improving opportunities for wildlife-dependent uses
(hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation, photography,
environmental education, and interpretation), while
also encouraging a greater understanding and
appreciation for migratory birds and other native
wildlife, the mixed-grass prairie, the wilderness, and
the Refuge System.
Habitat and Wildlife Management
Prairie and grassland habitat improvements
would be increased moderately beyond current
levels with a focus on protecting, enhancing, and
restoring native species. The refuge staff would
reduce populations of selected species of nonnative
invasive plants and address crested wheatgrass, as a
management priority (up to 50 percent of the refuge
complex would be treated annually).
Wetlands management would emphasize maintaining
enough water and creating a variety of wetlands
conditions to sustain a maximum range of migratory
birds that use the refuge and wetland management
district and provide for diverse wildlife populations,
recognizing that many factors infl uencing bird
populations extend beyond refuge boundaries or
control.
Wildlife management would focus on habitat
improvement for healthy populations. Management
would include collecting baseline data and assessing
threats on migratory birds, endangered and
threatened species, and other birds of concern, as
well as other wildlife. Active predator management
would be continued as necessary.
The protection of native prairie, tame grasslands,
and wetlands would be increased through easements
and fee-title purchases. The approved refuge
administrative boundary (fi gure 9 and appendix G)
would be expanded through willing sellers or buyers,
emphasizing three priority areas (approximately
1,784 acres total). Also, technical assistance and
outreach programs would be expanded to enhance
the management of privately owned grasslands
(about 5,000 acres annually).
The refuge staff would continue baseline
assessments of threats to wetlands, water tables,
and water quality, and would expand water fl ow
monitoring and identifying water needs at specifi c
locations.
Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species
The refuge and wetland management district would
continue to contribute to preserving and restoring
endangered, threatened, rare, and unique fl ora and
fauna on the refuge complex. A breeding population
of piping plover would be supported through
site-specifi c plover habitat management plans,
predator management, and cooperation with private
landowners. The refuge hunting closure on sandhill
cranes and tundra swans would continue to protect
the whooping crane from accidental shootings, but
an evaluation of the effect and need for closure
would be made.
Wilderness
Similar to alternative A, refuge staff would continue
to preserve, manage, and protect the 11,360-
acre Medicine Lake Wilderness. Management
practices would continue to mimic historical natural
disturbances, protect native plant communities, use
the minimum tool concept, ensure compliance with
class I air-quality standards, and protect the vista
and aquatic resources of Medicine Lake. The Service
also would educate the community and visitors
about the importance of the wilderness designation
and how and why it is managed as it is (for example,
allowing only nonmotorized vehicles).
34 Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
Visitor Services
Management would emphasize improving and
maintaining high-quality public opportunities for
wildlife-dependent recreation for visitors of all
abilities.
In general, most visitor facilities and activities
would be limited to north of Medicine Lake except
for the existing activities, such as ice fi shing and
environmental education, that occur next to the
Highway 16 bridge. Closure of the road east of
Gaffney Lake would be considered.
Visitor education would be expanded to ensure
visitors are informed about existing rules and
regulations. Visitor education also would provide
more opportunities for visitors to learn about
migratory birds and other wildlife, the mixed-grass
prairie, the wilderness, and the Refuge System.
Similar to alternative A, hunting (deer, waterfowl,
pheasants and other upland birds, and terrestrial
furbearers) would continue.
Newly acquired land would be evaluated and, where
feasible, opened to hunting. Additional compatible
hunting opportunities would be evaluated. The
current closure on tundra swans and sandhill cranes
would continue.
The refuge staff would work collaboratively with
Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to maintain a
sport fi shery only on Medicine Lake for persons of
all abilities.
It would identify potential new areas to open to the
public for wildlife observation and photography.
The refuge staff also would re-establish regularly
scheduled environmental education for schools and
other groups (an average of between 15 and 20
programs would be offered annually).
A small-scale visitor contact station or other
interpretive facilities would be developed (the
location and size to be determined). Visitor
brochures or signs would be updated as needed.
The Service would initiate and foster a volunteer
program.
Refuge Operations
Staffi ng levels would be increased to the levels
approved by region 6, or approximately 20 full-time-equivalent
staff members, including seasonal staff
(table 5). Additional housing and offi ce space would
be developed to accommodate staff.
Habitat conservation would be a management
priority for staff.
Partnerships
Public outreach would be enhanced by developing
a refuge “friends group” and more volunteer
opportunities. Existing partnerships would be
strengthened, and new partners would be recruited
to collaborate on wildlife and habitat conservation
projects. Partnerships with private landowners,
neighbors, and the surrounding community would be
emphasized.
Cultural Resources
Similar to alternative A, cultural resources would
continue to comply with all pertinent cultural
resources laws, but would receive minimal attention.
Cultural resource review, including possible
inventories, would be done only in response to
activities that constitute an undertaking under
Section 106 of the NHPA. Resources that are
eligible to be listed on the National Register of
Historic Places would be protected.
Research
Applied research would be encouraged and would
be supported if feasible. Research and monitoring
would focus on measuring the effectiveness
of habitat and wildlife management practices.
Research on crested wheatgrass and other
nonnative infestations would remain a priority.
Alternative C: Maximize Native Prairie
Conservation and Restoration
Alternative C would maximize staff resources
for conserving natural resources by restoring
or protecting native mixed-grass prairie and
maintaining high-quality nesting habitats within
the refuge complex. Visitor programs would be
improved but would focus primarily on encouraging
a greater understanding of and appreciation for the
mixed-grass prairie ecosystem while maintaining
existing access and opportunities for wildlife-dependent
uses.
Habitat and Wildlife Management
Prairie and grassland-habitat improvement
and restoration activities would be increased
signifi cantly beyond current levels, using the latest
scientifi c methods, such as remote sensing and
satellite imaging. Reducing the populations of most
invasive and nonnative plants would be the primary
management priority (more than 50 percent of
the refuge complex would be treated or restored
annually).
Wetlands management would emphasize
maintaining enough water and creating a variety of
wetlands conditions to sustain migratory birds and
Place Holder for
Figure 9 land
11x17 map
Chapter 3—Alternatives 37
provide for diverse wildlife populations. Protected
diverse wetlands would be expanded, and technical
assistance and public outreach to improve wetlands
management on private lands would be increased.
Wildlife management would focus on improving
habitats for healthy populations. Waterfowl nesting
success rates would be increased through intensive
predator management techniques. Baseline
assessments would be more comprehensive than
in alternative B, and would include all colonial
waterbirds and breeding shorebirds.
The protection of native prairie, tame grasslands,
and wetlands would be increased beyond the level of
alternative B through additional easements and fee-title
purchases and more refuge staff. On the refuge,
the approved refuge administration boundary
would be expanded to allow purchasing up to 8,400
acres primarily in the Big Muddy Creek fl oodplain
corridor between the Medicine Lake and Homestead
units. Also, technical assistance and outreach
programs would be expanded signifi cantly to
enhance management of privately owned grasslands,
comprising about 10,000 acres annually.
The refuge staff would continue baseline
assessments of threats to wetlands, water tables,
and water quality, and expand water fl ow monitoring
and identifying water needs at specifi c locations.
Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species
The refuge and wetland management district would
continue to contribute to preserving and restoring
endangered, threatened, rare, and unique fl ora and
Fire management programs support habitat management plans and their implementation at the refuge.
Judy Wantulok/USFWS
fauna on the refuge complex. A breeding population
of piping plover would be supported through
site-specifi c plover habitat management plans,
predator management, and cooperation with private
landowners. The refuge hunting closure on sandhill
cranes and tundra swans would continue to protect
the whooping crane from accidental shootings.
Wilderness
Similar to Alternative A, refuge staff would
continue to preserve, manage, and protect the
11,360-acre Medicine Lake Wilderness. Management
practices would continue to mimic historical natural
disturbances, protect native plant communities, use
the minimum tool concept, ensure compliance with
class I air-quality standards, and protect the vista
and aquatic resources of Medicine Lake. The Service
also would educate the community and visitors
about the importance of the wilderness designation
and how and why it is managed as it is (for example,
allowing only nonmotorized vehicles).
Visitor Services
Management would emphasize promoting a greater
understanding of the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem
while maintaining the existing opportunities for
wildlife-dependent recreation.
The refuge staff would increase visitor education
to ensure visitors are informed about rules
and regulations, visitor services opportunities,
management activities, and the refuge complex’s
natural and cultural resources. The refuge staff
specifi cally would inform visitors about the
38 Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
importance of the native prairie restoration
efforts taking place within the refuge and wetland
management district.
In general, most visitor facilities and activities
would be limited to north of Medicine Lake except
for the existing activities, such as ice fi shing and
environmental education, that occur next to the
Highway 16 bridge. Closure of the road east of
Gaffney Lake would be considered.
Similar to alternatives A and B, hunting (deer,
waterfowl, pheasants and other upland birds, and
terrestrial furbearers) would continue.
Newly acquired land would be evaluated and, where
feasible, opened to hunting. Additional compatible
hunting opportunities would be evaluated.
Similar to alternative B, the refuge would work
collaboratively with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and
Parks to maintain a sport fi shery at Medicine Lake,
as long as it was not dependent on refuge resources.
Some opportunities for wildlife observation and
photography would be expanded. Environmental
education for schools and other groups would be
increased over alternative A, but would be less
than alternative B (averaging between fi ve and
10 programs annually). The primary focus of all
interpretive and environmental education programs
would be the refuge complex’s native prairie
restoration efforts.
Refuge Operations
Staffi ng levels would be increased above the
levels defi ned by region 6, to about 21 full-time
(permanent) staff members, plus additional seasonal
staff. Additional restoration staff would be added.
New housing and offi ce space would be developed to
accommodate staff. Habitat conservation would be a
management priority for staff.
Partnerships (same as alternative B)
Public outreach would be enhanced by developing
a refuge “friends group” and more volunteer
opportunities. Existing partnerships would be
strengthened, and new partners would be recruited
to collaborate on wildlife and habitat conservation
projects. Partnerships with private landowners,
neighbors, and the surrounding community would
be emphasized (see additional information under
Visitor Services).
Cultural Resources
Similar to alternatives A and B, all cultural
resources would be protected according to the
NHPA and other laws. In addition, a sensitivity
model indicating areas with a high potential for
cultural resources would be established, and those
areas would be surveyed.
Research (same as alternative B)
Applied research would become a priority and
supported as feasible. Research and monitoring
would focus on measuring the effectiveness
of habitat and wildlife management practices.
Research on crested wheatgrass and other
infestations would remain a priority.
3.5 ALTERNATIVES FOR LAMESTEER NWR
Two alternatives were developed for Lamesteer
NWR.
Alternative A: No Action
(Current Management)
Under this alternative, Lamesteer NWR would
continue to be an easement refuge superimposed
on privately owned lands and used primarily as a
resting place for wildlife while on migration. The
dam and spillway would continue to be maintained
by the Service, including all maintenance costs. The
landowner would continue to control access to the
site, including all hunting access or other visitor
services.
Alternative B: Divestiture
Alternative B would take Lamesteer NWR out of
the Refuge System and relinquish the easement to
the current landowners. Under this alternative, the
dam structure would be given up to the landowners
or destroyed. The Service’s easement requirements
would no longer exist. The Service would divest
its interest in the refuge. This would be carried
out within the life of the plan. Once the CCP is
approved, the managing station would work with
the Division of Realty and the Land Protection
Planning Branch within the Division of Planning to
prepare a program proposal to divest the refuge.
Appendix E identifi es the criteria used in making
the refuge analysis.
3.6 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
All of the alternatives outline courses for the future
that are consistent with the purposes of the refuges,
the Northeast Montana Wetland Management
District, and with the mission and goals of the
National Wildlife Refuge System. All alternatives
would pursue the goals outlined in this CCP. Where
alternatives are different is in the type and level of
land management and protection they would offer
to achieve long-term wildlife and habitat goals.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 39
Table 5 compares the staffi ng requirements under
each alternative for the Medicine Lake NWR
complex.
Table 6 identifi es and compares the management
actions under each alternative for Medicine Lake
NWR and the Northeast Montana WMD that would
respond to the issues raised by Service manager, the
public, and government partners.
Table 7 identifi es and compares the management
actions for two alternatives for Lamesteer NWR.
The management actions are summarized in the
three alternatives for Medicine Lake NWR and
the wetland management district (A, B, C) and the
two alternatives for Lanesteer NWR (A, B). Each
alternative column provides a summary of actions;
alternatives may be compared by reading across the
page for each set of provisions and action. “Same as
Alternative (A/B)” indicates management actions for
that item are the same as the indicated alternative.
For Medicine Lake NWR and the WMD, alternative
B and C are the action alternatives to be compared
with the no-action alternative A. In most cases,
management activities outlined in alternatives B and
C increase from those in alternative A. Alternative
B and C actions might be the same, similar, or quite
different from alternative A and from each other.
40 Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
Alternative A
No Action
Alternative B
Moderate
Alternative C
Enhanced
Project Leader (485) (GS-13) Project Leader (485) (GS-13) Project Leader (485) (GS-13)
Deputy Project Leader (485)
(GS-12)
Supervisory Resource
Operations Specialist (485)
(GS-12)
Supervisory Resource
Operations Specialist (485)
(GS-12)
Refuge Operations Specialist-
(485) (GS-7/9) VACANT
Refuge Operations Specialist-
(485) (GS-7/9) for WMD
Refuge Operations Specialist-
(485) (GS-7/9) for WMD
NONE Refuge Operations Specialist-
(485) (GS-5/7/9) for Refuge
Refuge Operations Specialist-
(485) (GS-5/7/9) for Refuge
Wildlife Biologist(486) (GS-11) Wildlife Biologist (486) (GS-11) Wildlife Biologist (486) (GS-12)
NONE NONE Wildlife Biologist (486) (GS-9/11)
NONE NONE Range Ecologist (455)(GS-11)
Biological Technician (404) (GS-
5/7) VACANT
Biological Technician (404) (GS-
5/7) WMD
Biological Technician (404) (GS-
5/7) WMD
NONE Biological Technician (404)(GS-
5/7) Refuge
Biological Technician (404) (GS-
5/7) Refuge
NONE Resource Specialist (GS-9)
Geographical Information
Systems (GIS)
Resource Specialist (GS-9)
Geographical Information
Systems (GIS)
Administrative Offi cer (341)
(GS-7/9)
Administrative Offi cer (341)
(GS-9)
Administrative Offi cer (341)
(GS-7/9)
NONE Offi ce Secretary (GS-5) Offi ce Secretary (GS-5)
VACANT Park Ranger (025)(GS-9) Law
Enforcement
Park Ranger (025)(GS-7/9) Law
Enforcement
NONE NONE Park Ranger (025) (GS-7/9) Law
Enforcement
NONE Outdoor Recreation Planner
(411)(GS-7/9)
Outdoor Recreation Planner
(411)(GS-7/9)
Prescribed Fire Specialist (401)
(GS-7/9)
Prescribed Fire Specialist
(401)(GS-9)
Prescribed Fire Specialist
(401)GS-7/9
VACANT Fire Program Technician (455)
(GS-5/7)
Fire Technician (455) (GS-5/6)
NONE NONE Fire Management Offi cer
(401)(GS-9/11)
Maintenance Mechanic (4749)
(WG-10)
Maintenance Mechanic
(4749)(WG-10)
Maintenance Mechanic
(4749((WG-10)
Maintenance Worker (4749)
(WG-8)
Maintenance Worker (4749)
(WG-8)
Maintenance Worker (4749)
(WG-8)
NONE NONE Seasonal Maintenance Worker
(WG-8)
Table 5. Comparison of Staffi ng Levels among Alternatives for Medicine Lake NWR and WMD
Chapter 3—Alternatives 41
Table 6. Comparison of Alternatives for Medicine Lake NWR and Northeast Montana WMD
p
Category
ALTERNATIVE A
No Action (Maintain
Current Management)
ALTERNATIVE B
Increase Native Prairie
Conservation and
Restoration
ALTERNATIVE C
Maximize Native Prairie
Conservation and
Restoration
Water Resources Emphasize providing
enough water and variety of
wetland conditions to meet
the needs of migratory
birds, and provide for
diversity of wildlife.
Same as alternative A Same as alternative A
Maintain Medicine Lake in
deepwater condition.
Routinely assess conditions.
Habitat--Native
Prairie
Protect and improve
existing native prairie
where feasible. Maintain
about 50% of native prairie
on refuge complex lands in
the desired plant
community.
Moderately increase
restoration and
enhancement efforts.
Develop a habitat
management plan (HMP) to
determine the best
prescriptions. Maintain
about 75% of native prairie
in the desired plant
community.
Greatly increase
restoration and
enhancement efforts.
Develop a habitat
management plan (HMP) to
determine the best
prescriptions. Maintain 80%
or more of the native prairie
in the desired plant
community.
Limit control of nonnatives
where possible. Focus on
reducing their spread across
boundary areas.
Continue control of all
nonnative species, and
emphasize crested
wheatgrass as the highest
priority.
Control all invasive species
and nonnative plants as a
management priority.
Use some treatments
(prescribed fire, rest) on up
to 25% of the refuge and
WMD annually. No grazing.
Increase treatments
(prescribed fire, prescribed
grazing, mowing, chemical
controls) on up to 50% of
refuge and WMD.
Increase treatments (fire,
grazing, mowing, cutting,
chemical controls) annually
on >50% of the refuge and
WMD.
Reduce nonnative species
only with staff availability,
not routinely
Reduce Canada thistle by
40%, leafy spurge by 70%,
crested wheatgrass by 15%,
smooth bromegrass by 30%,
and Russian olive by 70% on
refuge prairie.
Reduce Canada thistle by
>50%, leafy spurge by >80%,
crested wheatgrass by
>30%, smooth bromegrass by
>40%, and Russian olive by
>80%.
42 Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
Category
ALTERNATIVE A
No Action (Maintain
Current Management)
ALTERNATIVE B
Increase Native Prairie
Conservation and
Restoration
ALTERNATIVE C
Maximize Native Prairie
Conservation and
Restoration
Habitat--Native
Prairie, cont.
Protect at least 1,000
additional acres of native
prairie on private lands
through perpetual
easements or fee-title
purchases from willing
sellers. Conserve the
integrity of about 3,000
acres through technical
assistance, education, and
habitat improvement
projects.
Over the life of the plan,
protect at least 3,500
additional acres of native
prairie on private lands
through perpetual
easements or fee-title
purchases from willing
sellers on the WMD.
Through partnerships,
provide technical
assistance, education, and
habitat improvement
projects on an additional
5,000 acres.
Over the life of the plan,
protect at least 10,000
additional acres of native
prairie on private lands on
the WMD through perpetual
easements or fee-title
purchases from willing
sellers.
Through partnerships,
provide technical
assistance, education, and
habitat improvement
projects, and conserve the
integrity on an additional
10,000 acres throughout the
complex.
Habitat--Planted
Grasslands
Protect or restore up to 5%
of dense nesting cover
(DNC). Maintain high-quality
plantings of DNC
consisting of tall (>1 ft.),
tame (noninvasive,
introduced) wheat grasses
with 20 to 40% legumes on
at least 50% of previously
cultivated areas. Convert
about 100 acres annually to
native prairie plant species
when feasible.
Emphasize DNC plantings
less. Convert about 2,000
acres of land on the refuge
complex that had produced
crops to native prairie plant
species, including warm and
cool-season grasses and
forbs, giving priority to
areas that have become
decadent and overrun by
undesirable nonnative cool-season
grasses.
Emphasize DNC plantings
less. Take actions similar to
alternative B, but convert
about 3,000 acres of tame
grass plantings to native
prairie.
Assist in conserving the
integrity of 1,000+ acres of
tame grasslands on private
lands in the refuge complex
through outreach, technical
assistance, education, and
habitat improvement.
Annually conserve the
integrity of 2,500+ acres of
tame grasslands on private
lands in the complex
through outreach, technical
assistance, education, and
habitat improvement.
Annually conserve the
integrity of up to 10,000
acres of tame grasslands on
private lands through
outreach, technical
assistance, education, and
habitat improvement.
Wetlands Managed wetlands: Manage
water levels to provide a
variety of wetland
conditions.
Managed wetlands: Manage
water levels to provide a
variety of wetland
conditions.
Managed wetlands: Manage
water levels to provide a
variety of wetland
conditions.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 43
Category
ALTERNATIVE A
No Action (Maintain
Current Management)
ALTERNATIVE B
Increase Native Prairie
Conservation and
Restoration
ALTERNATIVE C
Maximize Native Prairie
Conservation and
Restoration
Wetlands, cont. Nonmanaged wetlands:
Protect 100 acres of
privately owned wetlands
annually through easements
or fee-title purchases from
willing sellers in the WMD
and approved acquisition
boundary. Enhance 330
acres by public outreach.
Nonmanaged wetlands:
annually conserve 500 acres
of wetlands on private land
through technical
assistance, outreach and
habitat-improvement
projects.
Nonmanaged wetlands:
Emphasize and expand
conservation on private
lands within the complex,
and provide technical
assistance and outreach to
improve wetlands
management on private
lands.
Within 5 years, begin
comprehensive monitoring
of wetlands within the
complex to assess threats
and impacts to water
quality and quantity.
Same as alternative B
Wildlife
Management
Emphasize maintenance of
healthy populations of
indigenous fauna. Maintain
current Mayfield waterfowl
nesting rates of 25% in
uplands, 50% on islands, and
70% in predator exclusion
areas.
Focus on improving habitat
conditions for native
wildlife and not species-specific
management.
Increase waterfowl nesting
success rates through
intensive predator
management techniques.
Gather baseline data on
other migratory birds and
birds of concern, as well as
other wildlife.
Work with others to
identify key species that
occupy native prairie, and
monitor other populations
of mammals, amphibians,
reptiles, and invertebrates
to evaluate the success of
habitat management
activities.
Conduct more
comprehensive baseline
surveys than alternative B,
and include all colonial
waterbirds and breeding
shorebirds.
Control predators as
necessary.
Same as alternative A
Same as alternative A
Continue to pick up dead
birds during botulism
outbreaks.
Pick up dead birds only if
determined necessary.
Same as alternative A
Threatened and
Endangered
Species
Continue to preserve and
restore threatened and
endangered flora and fauna
within the refuge complex,
including piping plovers.
Same as alternative A Same as alternative A
44 Draft CCP and EA, Medicine Lake NWR Complex, MT
Category
ALTERNATIVE A
No Action (Maintain
Current Management)
ALTERNATIVE B
Increase Native Prairie
Conservation and
Restoration
ALTERNATIVE C
Maximize Native Prairie
Conservation and
Restoration
Threatened and
Endangered
Species, cont.
Continue the hunting
closure on sandhill cranes
and tundra swans on the
refuge to protect whooping
cranes.
Same as alternative A
Same as alternative A
Land Acquisition
Continue to protect native
prairie and other grasslands
within the approved
acquisition boundary and
WMD (maximum 1,500 acres
annually) through
easements and fee-title
purchases from willing
sellers. Introduce other
enhancements through
public outreach.
Same as alternative A, plus
expand the administrative
boundary by about 1,784
acres, and emphasize
acquiring priority acres
with high-quality grasslands
or unbroken prairie (figure
9, table 14).
Same as alternative A, but
increase protection of
native prairie, tame
grasslands, and wetlands.
Expand administrative
boundary by about 8,400
acres. Connect the
Homestead area with the
main part of refuge in the
Muddy Creek floodplain
corridor.
Wilderness
Continue to protect 11,360-
acre Medicine Lake
Wilderness. Comply with
Class 1 air-quality
standards, and protect
vistas.
Same as alternative A
Same as alternative A
Use management practices
that mimic historic natural
disturbances, protect native
plant and aquatic
communities, and observe
minimum tool practices.
Same as alternative B
Evaluate all artificial
islands for migratory bird
production potential.
Remove artificial islands
not essential for habitat or
harmful to migratory birds.
Same as alternative B
Educate the public and
community about
differences and reasons for
management practices
within the designated
wilderness, including
nonmotorized uses.
Same as alternative B
Chapter 3—Alternatives 45
Category
ALTERNATIVE A
No Action (Maintain
Current Management)
ALTERNATIVE B
Increase Native Prairie
Conservation and
Restoration
ALTERNATIVE C
Maximize Native Prairie
Conservation and
Restoration
Visitor Services--
Hunting
Hunting opportunities for
deer, upland game birds,
waterfowl, and terrestrial
furbearers would continue
with the same access and
opportunities.
Any newly acquired land
would be evaluated and,
where feasible, opened to
hunting. Additional
compatible hunting
opportunities would be
evaluated.
Similar to alternative B
Visitor Services--
Fishing
Maintain a northern-pike
sport fishery. Restrict to
some extent the
establishment and spread of
harmful nonnative fish
species.
Provide a maximum of 10
months pe