Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge Volume 1

              Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Volume 1
Montana
April 2012
Prepared by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
Airport Road
Lewistown, Montana 59457
406 /538 8706
and
Region 6, Mountain–Prairie Region
Division of Refuge Planning
134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
303 / 236 8145
CITATION
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Final comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement: Charles M.
Russell National Wildlife Refuge, UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge. Volume 1. Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region. 468 p.
Abstract
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact StatementCharles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, Montana
Type of Action:
Administrative
Lead Agency:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Responsible Official:
Steve Guertin, Regional Director, region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Abstract:
This final comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement (final CCP and EIS) identifies the purpose and need for a management plan, outlines the legal foundation for management of two refuges in Montana, Charles M. Russell National Wild­life Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, and describes and evaluates four alternative plans includ­ing the no-action alternative, for managing wildlife, hab­itat, and wildlife-dependent public use. This process has involved the development of a vision, goals, objectives, and strategies that meet the legal directives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and has considered the input of interested groups and the public.
Under the no-action alternative (A), few changes would occur in managing existing wildlife populations and habitat. The habitat regime would be maintained mostly through a fire suppression program with lit­tle use of prescribed fire. There would be continued emphasis on big game management, annual livestock grazing, fencing, invasive species control, and water development. Habitats would continue to be man­aged in 65 units, and residual cover would be mea­sured. Wildlife-dependent public use would occur at current levels, which includes hunting, fishing, wild­life observation, photography, and limited interpreta­tion and environmental education programs. About 670 miles of road would remain open. The Service would continue to manage the 20,819-acre UL Bend Wilder­ness and 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness within the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.
Under alternative B’s wildlife population empha­sis, the Service would manage the landscape in coop­eration with partners to emphasize abundant wildlife populations using both (1) natural ecological processes
such as fire and wildlife ungulate herbivory (grazing) and (2) responsible farming practices or tree planting. Wildlife-dependent public use would be encouraged, but economic uses would be limited when they com­pete for habitat resources. About 106 miles of road would be closed. The Service would expand the acre­age of existing proposed wilderness by 25,869 acres.
Under alternative C’s public use and economic use emphasis, the Service would manage the land­scape in cooperation with partners to emphasize and promote maximum levels of compatible, wild­life-dependent public use and economic use. Wildlife populations and habitats would be protected with various management tools that would minimize dam­aging effects to wildlife and habitats while enhancing and diversifying public and economic opportunities. None of the existing, proposed wilderness units would be expanded.
Under the Service’s preferred alternative (alternative D’s ecological processes emphasis), the Service would work with partners to use natu­ral, dynamic, ecological processes along with active management in a balanced, responsible manner to restore and maintain biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health. Once natural processes were restored, more passive approaches would be favored. The Service would provide for quality wildlife-dependent public use and experi­ences and would limit economic uses when they were injurious to ecological processes. About 21 miles of road would be permanently closed, and 15 miles of road would be seasonally closed. The Service would expand the acreage of existing, proposed wilderness units by 19,942 acres.
Public Review and Distribution.
The draft CCP and EIS was available for public review from September 7, 2010, to December 10, 2010. The Service received 53 letters from Federal, State, and local government agencies and nearly 20,600 letters, emails, and verbal comments from individuals. The final CCP and EIS can be viewed at  and is presented in two volumes: volume 1 is the final CCP and EIS and volume 2 contains comments on the draft CCP and EIS along with the Service’s responses to substantive comments. The Service will issue a record of decision no sooner than 30 days after publication of the notice of availability of the final CCP and EIS in the Federal Register. For further information, contact Laurie Shannon at 303 / 236 4317.
Cooperating Agencies:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Bureau of Land Management; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; Fergus, Garfield, McCone, Petroleum, Phillips, and Valley Counties; and Missouri River Conservation Districts Council (for the six districts that surround the refuge).Contents
Abstract. . III
Summary. . XV
Abbreviations. . XXXI
CHAPTER 1—Introduction. . 1
1.1 Purpose and Need for Action. . 2
Decision to Be Made. . 2
1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System. . 3
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. . 3
National Wildlife Refuge System. . 3
1.3 National and Regional Mandates. . 5
1.4 Refuge Contributions to National and Regional Plans. . 5
Fulfilling the Promise. . 6
Bird Conservation. . 6
Recovery Plans for Threatened and Endangered Species. . 7
State Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy. . 8
1.5 Strategic Habitat Conservation. . 8
Climate Change. . 8
1.6 Planning Process. . .. 9
1.7 Public Involvement. . 10
Cooperating Agencies. . 12
Tribal Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Involvement of Interested Groups and the Public. . 12
1.8 Significant Issues to Address. . 12
Habitat and Wildlife. . 13
Water Resources . 13
Public Use and Access. . 13
Wilderness. . 13
Socioeconomics. . 14
Partnerships and Collaboration. . 14
Cultural Values, Traditions, and Resources. . .. 14
1.9 Issues Not Addressed. . .. 14
Enhancement Act. . 14
Exercise of Private Property Rights for Mineral Extraction. . 15
Fort Peck Lake Levels. . 15
Livestock Grazing Fees, Transfer of Grazing Permits, and Animal Unit Months. . 15
Refuge Revenue-Sharing Payments and Payments in Lieu of Taxes. . 15
Roads under Revised Statute 2477 and Petitioned Roads. . 15
Federal Reserved Water Rights. . 16
Military Overflights. . 16
1.10 Scope of the Document. . 16
Decision Area. . 16
Analysis Area. . 16
CHAPTER 2—Refuge History and Vision. . 19
2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History. . 19
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. . 20
UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge. . 26VI Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
Existing Management ....................................................................... 27 2.2 Special Values .......................................................................... 28 2.3 Vision .................................................................................. 29 2.4 Goals .................................................................................. 29Goal for Habitat and Wildlife Management ........................................................ 29Goal for Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern ..................................... 30 Goal for Research and Science ................................................................. 30 Goal for Fire Management .................................................................... 30Goal for Public Use and Education ............................................................... 30Goal for Wilderness ......................................................................... 30Goal for Cultural and Paleontological Resources ..................................................... 30Goal for Refuge Operations and Partnerships ....................................................... 30CHAPTER 3—Alternatives .................................................................... 31 3.1 Criteria for Alternatives Development ...................................................... 31 3.2 Elements Common to All Alternatives ...................................................... 31 3.3 Structure of the Alternative Descriptions ................................................... 33 3.4 Summary of Alternative A—No Action ..................................................... 33Habitat and Wildlife Management, Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern, Research and Science, and Fire Management .................................................... 33Public Use and Education ..................................................................... 34Wilderness ............................................................................... 34Cultural and Paleontological Resources ........................................................... 39Refuge Operations and Partnerships ............................................................. 39 3.5 Summary of Alternative B—Wildlife Population Emphasis .................................... 39Habitat and Wildlife Management, Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern, Research and Science, and Fire Management .................................................... 39Public Use and Education ..................................................................... 45Wilderness ............................................................................... 45Cultural and Paleontological Resources ........................................................... 46Refuge Operations and Partnerships ............................................................. 46 3.6 Summary of Alternative C—Public Use and Economic Use Emphasis ........................... 46Habitat and Wildlife Management, Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern, Research and Science, and Fire Management .................................................... 46Public Use and Education ..................................................................... 51Wilderness ............................................................................... 52Cultural and Paleontological Resources ........................................................... 52Refuge Operations and Partnerships ............................................................. 52 3.7 Summary of Alternative D—Ecological Processes Emphasis (Preferred Alternative) ............. 53Habitat and Wildlife Management, Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern, Research and Science, and Fire Management .................................................... 53Public Use and Education ..................................................................... 54Wilderness ............................................................................... 59Cultural and Paleontological Resources ........................................................... 59Refuge Operations and Partnerships ............................................................. 60 3.8 Objectives and Strategies ................................................................ 60Organization of the Objectives and Strategies ...................................................... 60Focal, Target, and Sentinel Species .............................................................. 60OBJECTIVES for HABITAT and WILDLIFE .......................................................... 62Habitat—Upland ......................................................................... 62Habitat—River Bottom .................................................................... 72VII
Habitat—Riparian Area and Wetland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Habitat—Shoreline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Habitat—Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Habitat—Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Habitat—Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Wildlife—Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Wildlife—Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Wildlife—Furbearers and Small Predators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Wildlife—American Bison Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Wildlife—Northern Gray Wolf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Wildlife—Big Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Wildlife—Other Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
OBJECTIVES FOR PUBLIC USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Public Use—Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Public Use—Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Public Use—Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Public Use—Environmental Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Public Use—Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Public Use��Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Public Use—Recreation Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Public Use—Commercial Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
OBJECTIVES for WILDERNESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
OBJECTIVES for CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
OBJECTIVES for REFUGE OPERATIONS, PARTNERSHIPS, and RESEARCH and SCIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Refuge Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Research and Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
3.9 Foreseeable Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Federal Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
State Wildlife Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Nongovernmental Conservation Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Livestock Grazing Lease Acquisitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Regional Demographic and Economic Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Infrastructure Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
3.10 Elements Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Developing Goals for Livestock Grazing and Socioeconomic Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Eliminating All Livestock Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Managing Only for Sharp-tailed Grouse, Pronghorn, and Livestock Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Developing a Memorandum of Understanding for Livestock Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Opening Roads in Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Reduction of Proposed Wilderness Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
3.11 Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
3.12 Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
3.13 Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
3.14 Funding and Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
3.15 Comparison of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.1 Topics Not Analyzed Further . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Moose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Black Bear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
VIII Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
4.2 Physical Environment. . .170
Climate. . .170
Air Quality . .170
Visual Resources. . .171
Soundscapes. . .181
Land Features, Soils, and Geology. . .182
Water Resources. . .183
4.3 Biological Resources. . .187
Disturbance Factors Affecting Major Ecological Processes . .188
Uplands . .197
River Bottoms . .206
Riparian Areas and Wetlands. . .207
Shoreline. . .211
Invasive Species . .211
Birds . .214
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern . .219
Furbearers and Small Predators . .228
American Bison. . .229
Northern Gray Wolf. . .229
Big Game . .229
Other Wildlife . .235
4.4 Special Management Areas . .238
Wilderness. . .238
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Hell Creek and Bug Creek National Natural Landmarks. . .239
Research Natural Areas. . .239
Upper Missouri Breaks Wild and Scenic River . .239
Missouri Breaks Back Country Byway . .239
Lands Where USACE has Primary Jurisdiction. . .239
Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument.  .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   . . 240
4.5 Visitor Services. . .246
Hunting . .240
Fishing. . .241
Wildlife Observation and Photography. . .242
Interpretation. . .242
Environmental Education. . .243
Outreach. . .244
Access. . .244
Recreation Sites. . .246
Commercial Recreation . .246
Refuge Headquarters and Field Stations . .246
4.6 Human History and Cultural Resources. . .246
Prehistoric History. . .247
Historical Period. . .248
Known Cultural Resources. . .252
Refuge Resources Important to Tribes. . .252
4.7 Paleontological Resources. . .252
4.8 Socioeconomics . .253
Regional Economic Setting. . .254
Population and Demographics. . .254
Employment and Income . .256
Key Refuge Activities that Affect the Local Economy.  .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   . . 259
Land Use and Ownership Changes Surrounding the Refuge. . .264
Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs. . .266
IX
CHAPTER 5—Environmental Consequences . .269
5.1 Analysis Method. . .269
5.2 Assumptions.  .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   . . 270
5.3 Cumulative Impacts. . .270
5.4 Environmental Consequences for the Physical Environment. . .271
Effects on Climate Change. . .271
Effects on Air Quality. . .272
Effects on Visual Resources. . .274
Effects on Soundscapes. . .277
Effects on Soils. . .278
Effects on Water Resources. . .280
Cumulative Impacts on the Physical Environment. . .282
5.5 Environmental Consequences for Biological Resources. . .282
Effects on Uplands. . .282
Effects on River Bottoms . .288
Effects on Riparian Areas and Wetlands . .289
Effects on Shoreline. . .293
Effects on Birds. . .293
Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern. . .296
Effects on Furbearers and Small Predators. . .299
Effects on American Bison Restoration . .300
Effects on Northern Gray Wolf . .301
Effects on Big Game . .302
Effects on Other Wildlife. . .308
Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources. . .310
5.6 Environmental Consequences for Visitor Services. . .312
Effects on Hunting. . .312
Effects on Fishing . .315
Effects on Wildlife Observation and Photography. . .316
Effects on Environmental Education. . .318
Effects on Interpretation. . .319
Effects on Outreach. . .319
Effects on Access . .320
Effects on Recreation Sites. . .322
Effects on Commercial Recreation. . .323
Cumulative Impacts on Visitor Services. . .323
5.7 Environmental Consequences for Special Areas. . .324
Effects on Special Management Areas . .324
Effects on Wilderness. . .324
Cumulative Impacts on Special Areas. . .327
5.8 Environmental Consequences for Cultural and Historical Resources . .327
Effects Common to All Alternatives. . .327
Effects of Alternatives B, C, and D. . .327
Conclusion. . .327
Mitigation. . .327
Cumulative Impacts on Cultural and Historical Resources. . .327
5.9 Environmental Consequences for Paleontological Resources . .328
Effects Common to All Alternatives. . .328
Effects of Alternatives B, C, and D. . .328
Conclusion. . .328
Mitigation. . .328
Cumulative Impacts on Paleontological Resources. . .328
X Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
5.10 Environmental Consequences for the Socioeconomic Environment. . .329
Method for the Regional Economic Impact Analysis. . .329
Economic Impacts of Alternative A. . .330
Economic Impacts of Alternative B . .335
Economic Impacts of Alternative C . .338
Economic Impacts of Alternative D. . .341
Impacts on Private Lands and Livestock Permittees.  .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   . 344
Impacts on State Grazing Lands . .346
Effects on Environmental Justice . .346
Conclusion. . .346
Mitigation. . .347
Cumulative Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment. . .348
5.11 Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments. . .348
5.12 Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance of Long-Term Productivity.  .   .   .   .   .   .   .   . . 349
5.13 Adherence to Planning Goals. . .349
Habitat and Wildlife Management . .349
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern. . .350
Research and Science. . .350
Fire Management . .350
Public Use and Education. . .350
Wilderness. . .351
Cultural and Paleontological Resources. . .351
Refuge Operations and Partnerships. . .351
5.14 Unavoidable Adverse Effects. . .351
5.15 Conflicts with Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Agencies . .351
5.16 Comparison of Environmental Consequences . .352
Glossary. . .359
Appendixes
Appendix A—List of Preparers and Contributors. . .367
Appendix B—Public Involvement Summary. . .373
Appendix C—Compatibility Determinations. . .383
Appendix D—Key Legislation and Policy. . .399
Appendix E—Wilderness Review and Summary. . .403
Appendix F—List of Plant and Animal Species . .419
Bibliography. . .441
Index. . .461
TABLES
1. Planning process summary for the CCP for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . 11
2. History of significant land authorizations for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . 20
3. Focal bird species for uplands at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . 92
4. Focal bird species for river bottoms at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges . 94
5. Focal bird species for riparian areas and wetlands at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . 95
6. Stepdown management plans for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .151
7. Costs over 15 years to carry out the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .151
8. Cost analysis for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .152
9. Personnel to carry out the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.  .   .   .   .   .   .   .   . . 153
XI
10. Comparison of actions for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .156
11. Average daily discharge and peak flows for six USGS water stations on or near the Charles M. Russell
and UL Bend Refuges. . 184
12. Historical fire data for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.  .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   . 201
13. Comparison of riparian area health of 82 streams across the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .212
14. Acreage of treated weeds at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .221
15. Least tern nest success at Fort Peck Lake. . .222
16. History of stocking pallid sturgeon in the middle Missouri River, Montana. . .222
17. Piping plover nest success at Fort Peck Lake . .223
18. MFWP’s elk population objectives, estimates, and needed herd-size reductions for hunting districts
covering the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .230
19. Population estimates for the Nation and the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .254
20. Employment by type for Montana and the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .257
21. Employment by industry for the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .258
22. Income, earnings, and unemployment for the Nation, Montana, and counties surrounding the Charles M.
Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .258
23. Farm operators whose primary employment is farming in Montana and the counties surrounding the
Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .260
24. Animal inventory and animal unit months of feed needed for the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell
and UL Bend Refuges. . .262
25. Total AUMs for the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. .263
26. Seasonal housing in the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .265
27. Wildlife value orientations and proportions in the western States and Montana . .266
28. Comparison of access, visitation, and facilities between the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell
and UL Bend Refuges. . .312
29. Wilderness protection under the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges . .324
30. Full fee-simple acquisition acreage and refuge revenue-sharing payments for the Charles M. Russell
and UL Bend Refuges. . .330
31. Annual economic impacts from refuge revenue-sharing payments by the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
Refuges for CCP alternative A. . .330
32. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by employees at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
Refuges for CCP alternative A. . .331
33. Local economic impacts of work-related purchases by the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for
CCP alternative A. . .331
34. Estimated annual visitation of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for CCP alternative A. . .332
35. Annual economic impacts of spending by nonlocal visitors to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges
for CCP alternative A. . .332
36. Grazing permits and AUMs for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .333
37. Economic impact of grazing on the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .333
38. Summary of economic impacts of all management activities at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges
for CCP alternative A. . .334
39. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by employees at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
Refuges for CCP alternative B. . .335
40. Local economic impacts of work-related purchases by the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for
CCP alternative B . .335
41. Estimated annual visitation of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for CCP alternative B. .336
42. Annual economic impacts of spending by nonlocal visitors to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for
CCP alternative B . .336
43. Summary of economic impacts of all management activities at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges
for CCP alternative B. . .337
44. Change in economic impacts for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges under CCP alternative B compared
with CCP alternative A. . .338
XII Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
45. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by employees at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
Refuges for CCP alternative C. . .338
46. Local economic impacts of work-related purchases by the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for
CCP alternative C . .339
47. Estimated annual visitation of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for CCP alternative C. . .339
48. Annual economic impacts of spending by nonlocal visitors to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges
for CCP alternative C. . .340
49. Summary of economic impacts of all management activities at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges
for CCP alternative C. . .341
50. Change in economic impacts for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges under CCP alternative C compared
with CCP alternative A. . .341
51. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by employees at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
Refuges for CCP alternative D. . .342
52. Estimated annual visitation of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for CCP alternative D . .342
53. Annual economic impacts of spending by nonlocal visitors to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges
for CCP alternative D. . .343
54. Summary of economic impacts of all management activities at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges
for CCP alternative D. . .344
55. Change in economic impacts for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges under CCP alternative D compared
with CCP alternative A. . .344
56. Acres of grazing lands available under the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .345
57. Ratings for how well the actions in the CCP alternatives meet the goals for the Charles M. Russell and
UL Bend Refuges. . .349
58. Summary of the environmental consequences for actions of the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell
and UL Bend Refuges. . .353
Appendix Tables
A. Timeline for wilderness on the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges . .403
B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .408
C. Summary of wilderness study areas (WSAs) recommended in CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell
and UL Bend Refuges.  .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   . . 416
FIGURES
1. Vicinity map for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . 2
2. Map of the bird conservation regions in North America. . 7
3. Map of the Plains and Prairie Potholes Geographic Area. . 9
4. The process for comprehensive conservation planning and environmental analysis . 10
5. Map of the decision and analysis areas for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges . 17
6. Topographic base map of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges . 22
7. Map of management under CCP alternative A for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . 36
8. Map of management under CCP alternative B for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . 42
9. Map of management under CCP alternative C for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . 48
10. Map of management under CCP alternative D for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . 56
11. Adaptive management process. . .150
12. Map of potential visibility of roads at 1 mile along the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .172
13. Map of potential visibility of roads at 3 miles along the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .172
14. Chart of the number of road segments visible across the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges
and from proposed wilderness units and wilderness study areas . .173
15. Map of water and geographic features in the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .176
16. Map of habitat units (grazing) in the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.  .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   . 178
17. Map of habitat types for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .190
XIII
18. Map of fire frequency for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges . .192
19. Graph of residual cover after grazing in the East Indian Butte Habitat Unit of the Charles M. Russell
Refuge. . .204
20. Bar graph of monitoring results for chokecherry fruit production 4 years after fire at the Charles M.
Russell Refuge . .205
21. Graph of monitoring results for aspen growth at the Charles M. Russell Refuge. . .205
22. Bar graph of monitoring results for saltbush growth at the Charles M. Russell Refuge. . .206
23. Map of river bottoms in need of restoration at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .207
24. Map of Riparian and Wetland Research Program survey locations at the Charles M. Russell and
UL Bend Refuges. . .210
25. Map of invasive species occurrence at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .215
26. Map of lek locations for sharp-tailed grouse on the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. .217
27. Chart of survey results for the listening route for sharp-tailed grouse on the Charles M. Russell and
UL Bend Refuges. . .218
28. Graph of data for the black-footed ferret population at the UL Bend Refuge. . .221
29. Map of critical habitat for piping plover at Fort Peck Reservoir . .223
30. Map of the maximum extent of black-tailed prairie dogs at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .224
31. Map of lek locations for greater sage-grouse on and near the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .226
32. Map of leopard frog locations on the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .228
33. Chart of mule deer densities within six counties covering the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .231
34. Map of the aerial survey blocks for mule deer and elk at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .232
35. Chart of the ratios of adult mule deer bucks to does within the six counties covering the Charles M.
Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .231
36. Chart of the number of mule deer harvested in hunting districts on and next to the Charles M. Russell
and UL Bend Refuges. . .232
37. Map of the aerial bighorn sheep survey at the Charles M. Russell Refuge . .234
38. Map of areas within 328 yards (300 meters) of escape cover for bighorn sheep at and around the Charles M.
Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .235
39. Map of areas in Montana that are valued by hunters and anglers. . .241
40. Graph of the total employment index for Montana and the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell
and UL Bend Refuges. . .256
41. Chart of agriculture employment in the six counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
Refuges. . .259
42. Chart of trends in gross revenues from agriculture in the area surrounding the Charles M. Russell and
UL Bend Refuges. . .260
43. Chart of the breakdown of gross revenues from agriculture for the six counties surrounding the
Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .261
44. Chart of the cattle inventory for the six counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
Refuges. . .262
45. Chart of animal unit months by agency for the six counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and
UL Bend Refuges. . .263
46. Chart of the visibility of roads from proposed wilderness units and wilderness study areas in the
Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges by CCP alternative. . .275
47. Chart of the visibility of roads refuge wide by CCP alternative for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . 275
48. Graph of the proportion of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges within the corresponding travel
time of the nearest road, by CCP alternative . .320
49. Graph of the proportion of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges to the nearest road at 30 minutes. . .321
50. Map of accessibility by foot to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges under CCP alternative A. . .322
Appendix Figure
A. Map of the wilderness review areas for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . .405
Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed this final comprehensive conservation plan and envi­ronmental impact statement (final CCP and EIS) to provide alternatives and identify consequences for the management and use of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and the UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge in Montana. The alternatives are the result of extensive public input and of work­ing closely with several cooperating agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Bureau of Land Manage­ment; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; counties of Fergus, Garfield, McCone, Petroleum, Phillips, and Valley; and Mis­souri River Conservation Districts Council (for the six districts that surround the refuge). Other tribal governments, governmental agencies, nongovern­mental organizations, businesses, and private citi­zens contributed substantial input to the plan.
This document (volume 1) contains the final CCP and EIS. The accompanying volume 2 contains the Service’s summarization and response to public com­ments and testimony received during public review of the draft CCP and EIS.
Encompassing nearly 1.1 million acres—including Fort Peck Reservoir and UL Bend National Wild­life Refuge—Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge is one of the largest refuges in the lower 48 States. This refuge in north-central Montana extends west about 125 air miles along the Missouri River from Fort Peck Dam to the refuge’s western edge at the boundary of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. A portion of the Missouri River
along the refuge’s western boundary is part of Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River. This expansive refuge covers parts of six counties: Fergus, Petroleum, Garfield, McCone, Valley, and Phillips.
Refuge habitat includes native prairie, forested coulees, river bottoms, and badlands. Wildlife is as diverse as the topography and includes Rocky Moun­tain elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, sharp-tailed grouse, prairie dogs, and more than 236 species of birds.
More than 250,000 visitors take part in a vari­ety of wildlife-dependent recreational activities every year. In particular, the refuge is renowned for its outstanding hunting opportunities. Other visi­tors enjoy viewing and photographing wildlife along the refuge’s extensive network of roads. The Fort Peck Interpretive Center showcases an aquarium of native and game fish, other wildlife, and several casts of dinosaur fossils including a Tyrannosau­rus rex. Still others enjoy fishing along the Missouri River or on Fort Peck Reservoir.
REFUGE BACKGROUND
In 1805, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark first detailed accounts of the abundant wildlife resources they found in the area now known as Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge (Moulton 2002). One hundred thirty years later, Olaus J. Murie, a renowned wildlife biologist for the U.S. Biological
Survey, made the first biological assessment of plant and wildlife species for the proposed Fort Peck Migratory Bird Refuge (Murie 1935).
Photo at sunset with pine trees in the foreground and hills background. Photo at sunset with pine trees in the foreground and hills background.
Photo credit: XVI Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
■■
The refuge was established in 1936 as the Fort
Peck Game Range for sustaining large numbers of
sharp-tailed grouse, pronghorn, and other wildlife.
In 1963, it was designated as the Charles M. Russell
National Wildlife Range in honor of famous western
painter Charlie Russell, and this “range” became a
“refuge” in 1976. UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge
was established in 1969 and lies within the bound-ary
of Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge;
these two Refuge System units are managed cohe-sively
as one refuge. As part of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, the refuge is managed for wildlife
conservation above all else. UL Bend National Wild-life
Refuge contains the 20,819-acre UL Bend Wil-derness,
and Charles M. Russell National Wildlife
Refuge has 15 proposed wilderness units totaling
155,288 acres.
PURPOSE and NEED for the
PLAN
The purpose of this final CCP and EIS is to identify
actions necessary to accomplish the purposes of the
refuges, identify the role the refuges will play in sup-port
of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System and to provide long-term guidance for man-agement
of refuge programs and activities. The CCP
is needed:
■■ to communicate with the public and other part-ners
in efforts to carry out the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System;
■■ to provide a clear statement of direction for man-agement
of the refuge;
■■ to provide neighbors, visitors, and government
officials with an understanding of the Service’s
management actions on and around the refuge;
■■ to ensure the Service’s management actions are
consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge
Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act);
to ensure that management of the refuge consid-ers
other Federal, State, and county plans;
■■ to provide a basis for development of budget
requests for the operation, maintenance, and cap-ital
improvement needs of the refuge.
The Service is committed to sustaining the Nation’s
fish and wildlife resources together through the com-bined
efforts of governments, businesses, and private
citizens.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
SYSTEM
Like all national wildlife refuges, Charles M. Russell
and UL Bend Refuges are administered under the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
of 1966, as amended in 1997.
The mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System
is to administer a national network of lands
and waters for the conservation, management,
and where appropriate, restoration of the fish,
wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats
within the United States for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans.
The veery is a “focal” species, one of the first to respond to
changed conditions, for refuge river bottoms.
Dan Sudia / USFWS
REFUGE PURPOSES
Each national wildlife refuge is managed to fulfill the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as
well as the specific purposes for which that refuge
was established.
The purpose for a national wildlife refuge comes
from one or more authorities—law, proclamation,
Executive order, agreement, or other document—that
establish or expand a refuge. In 1936, Charles M.
Russell National Wildlife Refuge was established by
Executive Order 7509 for the following purpose:
“That the natural forage resources therein shall
be first utilized for the purpose of sustaining in
a healthy condition a maximum of four hundred
thousand (400,000) sharp-tailed grouse, and
one thousand five hundred (1,500) antelope,
the primary species, and such nonpredatory
secondary species in such numbers as may be
necessary to maintain a balanced wildlife pop-ulation,
but in no case shall the consumption
of the forage by the combined population of
Summary XVII
the wildlife species be allowed to increase the
burden of the range dedicated to the primary
species: Provided further, That all the forage
resources within this range or preserve shall be
available, except as herein otherwise provided
with respect to wildlife, for domestic livestock
... And provided further, That land within the
exterior limits of the area herein described ...
may be utilized for public grazing purposes only
to the extent as may be determined by the said
Secretary (Agriculture) to be compatible with
the utilization of said lands for the purposes for
which they were acquired.”
UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge was established
in 1969 “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any
other management purpose, for migratory birds” (16
U.S.C. 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation Act).
Other lands within both refuges subsequently have
been acquired under a variety of transfer and acquisi-tion
authorities or have different designations, giving
the refuges more than one purpose.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
In fall 2007, the Service began the public scoping for
this project with the publication of a public involve-ment
summary and a planning update that described
the CCP process and anticipated schedule (FWS
2007a). The Service published a notice of intent to
prepare a CCP and EIS in the Federal Register on
December 4, 2007. Since then, the Service has con-ducted
21 public meetings during scoping and devel-opment
of the alternatives, mailed six planning
updates, posted information on the Web page for the
CCP, and coordinated with Federal, State, and local
agencies, and Native American tribes.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The scoping process identified many qualities of the
refuge along with issues and recommendations. Based
on this information as well as guidance from the
Improvement Act, National Environmental Policy
Act, and planning policy, the Service identified seven
significant issues to address in the CCP and EIS:
■■ habitat and wildlife
■■ water resources
■■ public use and access
■■ wilderness
■■ socioeconomics
■■ partnerships and collaboration
■■ cultural values, traditions, and resources
HABITAT and WILDLIFE
The final CCP and EIS addresses the following hab-itat
and wildlife issues:
■■ the use and role of wildfire, livestock grazing
(including water resources needed to support
livestock), hunting, fencing, and other manage-ment
tools for the preservation and restoration of
habitat conditions on the refuge
■■ habitat and wildlife management in the context
of the larger landscape that includes adjacent pri-vate,
State, tribal, and Federal lands
■■ species reintroductions and management of spe-cies
that could move onto the refuge such as wild
American bison, gray wolf, grizzly bear, and Rocky
Mountain bighorn sheep
■■ special consideration of threatened and endan-gered
species and species of concern
■■ invasive species and noxious weed management
including the management tools used to combat
invasive species
■■ predator management
WATER RESOURCES
Wildlife populations, both on and off the refuge, are
affected by water quality and access to water. Live-stock
grazing has degraded habitat, particularly
near water sources. Furthermore, stock watering
ponds can affect streamflow, fish, and riparian areas
conditions. The final CCP and EIS addresses the fol-lowing
important water issues:
■■ water quality and quantity
■■ water development
■■ Missouri River riparian ecosystem
■■ water rights
The scoping process identified the qualities of the refuge
and issues of concern. USFWS
XVIII Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
PUBLIC USE and ACCESS
The Service allows the public uses of hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and
environmental education. In addition, the Service sup-ports
these uses by providing associated access and
facilities such as roads, motorized access, and camp-ing.
The final CCP and EIS addresses the following
public use and access issues:
■■ priority public uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, interpretation, and
environmental education
■■ motorized and nonmotorized access and law
enforcement
■■ roads including number, location, types, and main-tenance
■■ nonpriority uses such as camping and bicycling
■■ facilities, programs, and infrastructure to support
public uses and access
■■ permitted uses such as livestock grazing, com-mercial
recreation, or other uses
WILDERNESS
Planning policy requires refuges to review special
designation areas such as wilderness and address the
potential for any new designations. Concurrent with
the comprehensive conservation planning and envi-ronmental
analysis process, the Service conducted
a wilderness review and will make final recommen-dations
in the record of decision. The final CCP and
EIS addresses the following wilderness issues:
■■ identification of the potential for new designa-tions
■■ access, infrastructure, and use of management
tools
SOCIOECONOMICS
It is important to manage refuge resources and public
use in ways that protect the resources, that are finan-cially
responsible, and that are integrated with the
economic viability of the surrounding communities.
The final CCP and EIS addresses the following socio-economic
issues:
■■ benefits of the refuge and promotion of refuge
values
■■ a range of alternatives and effects of those alter-natives
on the local economy and community
PARTNERSHIPS and COLLABORATION
Because of the long, narrow extent of the refuge
boundary, the subsequent amount and variety of
adjacent land uses not only affect, but also are inter-related
with, refuge resources. Therefore, it is crucial
for the Service to collaborate with refuge neighbors
and to establish partnerships with interested agen-cies
and groups. Wildlife populations and movements
are greatly affected by conditions both outside and
inside the refuge. Similarly, invasive species are one
of the biggest threats facing State, Federal, and pri-vate
landowners. Changes in the ownership of pri-vate
lands next to the refuge may change conditions
for habitat, wildlife, and public access. Privately
owned mineral rights, future energy development,
and rights-of-way influence the future conditions and
use of the refuge and adjacent lands. The final CCP
and EIS addresses the following partnership and
collaboration issues:
■■ adjacent land management related to habitat,
wildlife, and public use
■■ consultation and coordination with Federal, State,
and local partners
■■ climate change and development of minerals
including recommendations for reducing effects
on resources
■■ priorities for future land acquisition
CULTURAL VALUES,
TRADITIONS, and RESOURCES
The refuge has significant archaeological resources
and rich prehistoric and historic values to the local
and regional community. The western traditions and
practices of livestock grazing have affected the lives
of ranchers and their families for many generations.
Of unique value are the significant paleontological
resources (fossilized plants and animals). The final
CCP and EIS addresses the following cultural, tra-ditions,
and resource issues:
Dotted Gayfeather
USFWS
Summary XIX
■■ refuge values and qualities
■■ land management designations
■■ traditions and lifestyles
■■ cultural and paleontological resources
VISION
The Service developed a vision for the refuge at the
beginning of the planning process. The vision describes
the focus of refuge management and portrays a picture
of the refuge in 15 years.
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Ref-uge’s
expansive badlands, cottonwood river
bottoms, old-growth forested coulees, sage-brush
steppes, and mixed-grass prairies
appear out of the sea that is the northern
Great Plains.
Encompassing more than a million acres, the
refuge affords visitors solitude, serenity, and
unique opportunities to experience natural
settings and wildlife similar to what Native
Americans and, later, Lewis and Clark
observed.
The diversity of plant and animal communi-ties
found on the refuge stretch from the high
prairie through the rugged breaks, along the
Missouri River, and across Fort Peck Reser-voir.
The refuge is an outstanding example of
a functioning, resilient, and intact landscape
in an ever-changing West.
Working together with our neighbors and
partners, the Service employs adaptive man-agement
rooted in science to protect and
improve the biological integrity, biological
diversity, and environmental health of the
refuge’s wildlife and habitat resources.
GOALS
The Service developed eight goals for the refuge
based on the Improvement Act, the refuge purposes,
and information developed during planning. The
goals direct work toward achieving the vision and
purposes of the refuge and outline approaches for
managing refuge resources.
HABITAT and WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Conserve, restore, and improve the biological integ-rity,
environmental health, and ecological diversity
of the refuge’s plant and animal communities of the
Missouri River Breaks and surrounding prairies to
support healthy populations of native plants and wild-life
in a changing climate. Working with others,
reduce and control the spread of nondesirable, nonna-tive,
invasive plant and aquatic species for the benefit
of native communities on and off the refuge.
THREATENED and ENDANGERED
SPECIES and SPECIES OF CONCERN
Contribute to the identification, preservation, and
recovery of threatened and endangered species and
species of concern that occur or have historically
occurred in the northern Great Plains.
RESEARCH and SCIENCE
Advance the understanding of natural resources, eco-logical
processes, and the effectiveness of manage-ment
actions in a changing climate in the northern
Great Plains through compatible scientific investiga-tions,
monitoring, and applied research.
FIRE MANAGEMENT
Manage wildland fire using a management response
that promotes fire’s natural role in shaping the land-scape
while protecting values at risk.
PUBLIC USE and EDUCATION
Provide all visitors quality education, recreation, and
outreach opportunities that are appropriate and com-patible
with the purpose and goals of the refuge and
the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
while maintaining the remote and primitive experi-ence
unique to the refuge.
WILDERNESS
Conserve, improve, and promote the wilderness char-acter
and associated natural processes of designated
and proposed wilderness areas and wilderness study
areas within the refuge for all generations.
CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
Identify, value, and preserve the significant paleon-tological
and cultural resources of the refuge to con-nect
refuge staff, visitors, and the community to the
area’s prehistoric and historic past.
XX Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
REFUGE OPERATIONS and
PARTNERSHIPS
Through effective communication and innovative use
of technology and resources, the refuge uses funding,
personnel, partnerships, and volunteer programs for
the benefit of natural resources while recognizing the
social and economic connection of the refuge to adja-cent
communities.
ALTERNATIVES
Following the initial scoping process in 2007 and 2008,
the Service held meetings and workshops with the
cooperating agencies and the public and identified
a reasonable range of preliminary alternatives. The
Service carried forward the following four alterna-tives
and analyzed them in detail in this environmen-tal
impact statement:
■■ Alternative A—No Action
��■ Alternative B—Wildlife Population Emphasis
■■ Alternative C—Public Use and Economic Use
Emphasis
■■ Alternative D—Ecological Processes Emphasis
(preferred alternative)
These alternatives examine different ways for pro-viding
permanent protection and restoration of fish,
wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources and
for providing opportunities for the public to engage
in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Each
alternative incorporates specific actions intended
to achieve the goals. However, the no-action alterna-tive
represents the current, unchanged refuge man-agement
and may not meet every aspect of every
goal. The no-action alternative provides a basis for
comparison of the action alternatives B–D.
ELEMENTS COMMON
to ALL ALTERNATIVES
The following actions and programs apply to all
alternatives:
■■ protection and management of significant cul-tural
and paleontological resources
■■ special regulations for public access on the refuge
■■ landing sites for seaplanes
■■ collection of grazing fees
■■ collaboration with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
■■ protection of UL Bend Wilderness and manage-ment
as a class 1 air shed
■■ closure of roads in proposed wilderness units
except for roads that provide access to private
land within the refuge
■■ wildfire suppression and use of prescribed fire
under an approved fire management plan
■■ collaboration with partners to carry out the plan
■■ suppression of wildfires and issuance of special
use permits for grazing on State school-section
lands within the boundary of the refuge
■■ integrated pest management
■■ capping of artesian wells
■■ adjudication of water rights
■■ access to State lands for livestock permittees
■■ exchange of State lands within the refuge bound-ary
where feasible
■■ acquisition of priority lands within the refuge
boundary from willing sellers
■■ jurisdiction transfer for lands not needed by U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers
■■ adherence to legal obligations of rights-of-way
for access to private and State lands
■■ boating
■■ partnerships for providing accessible opportuni-ties
■■ prohibition of shed hunting
■■ protection of areas with special designations such
as historic trails, landmarks, research areas, and
scenic rivers
■■ evaluation of predator control for appropriate-ness
and compatibility
Big game management includes objectives for mule deer.
USFWS
ALTERNATIVE A—NO ACTION
Few changes would occur in the management of exist-ing
wildlife populations and habitat. Wildlife-depen-dent
public uses and economic uses would continue
at current levels. Key actions of alternative A follow:
■■ There would be a continued emphasis on big game
management, annual livestock grazing, use of
fencing for pastures, invasive species control,
Summary XXI
and water development. Habitat would continue
to be managed in the 65 habitat units that were
established by the Bureau of Land Management
for grazing purposes. Prescriptive grazing would
be carried out gradually as units became avail-able
and habitat evaluations were completed.
■■ Big game would be managed to achieve target
levels in the 1986 environmental impact state-ment
record of decision: 160 bighorn sheep, 10
mule deer per square mile, and 2.5 elk per square
mile. This would include a more restrictive rifle
season for mule deer in some State hunting dis-tricts
as compared with the State season.
■■ Select stock ponds would be maintained or re-habilitated.
Riparian habitat would be restored
where possible and standard watershed manage-ment
practices would be enforced.
■■ Access would be allowed on 670 miles of refuge
roads.
■■ About 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness
within 15 units of the Charles M. Russell Refuge
would be managed in accordance with Service
policy.
A range of alternatives was identified for managing the 1.1 million-acre refuge.
© Rick and Susie Graetz
ALTERNATIVE B—WILDLIFE
POPULATION EMPHASIS
The Service would manage the landscape, in coop-eration
with partners, to emphasize the abundance
of wildlife populations using balanced natural eco-logical
processes such as fire and herbivory by wild
ungulates and responsible farming practices and
tree planting. Wildlife-dependent public use would
be encouraged, and economic uses would be lim-ited
when they compete for habitat resources. Key
actions of alternative B follow:
■■ The Service would actively manage and manipu-late
habitat, thus creating a diverse plant commu-nity
of highly productive wildlife food and cover
plants. The management emphasis would be on
habitat for targeted wildlife species, including
focal bird species, in separate parts of the ref-uge.
The Service would consolidate the 65 habitat
units. Subsequently, the refuge staff would write
new habitat management plans based on field sta-tion
boundaries and habitat evaluation for target
species. The Service would work with others to
develop methods to monitor and evaluate target
or focal species and habitat needs.
■■ Desired habitat conditions may be created using
natural ecological processes (such as fire, grazing
by wildlife, or flooding) or through management
practices (such as prescriptive livestock grazing,
agricultural plantings or managed fire).
■■ An aggressive approach to reduction of invasive
plants in the river bottoms would be based on
funding and other staffing priorities. Work would
include use of prescribed fire, spraying with her-bicides,
and planting of wildlife food crops to clear
invasive plants. In addition, the Service would
collaborate with others to combat invasive plants
in shoreline habitat. Where feasible and combined
with research, the Service would restore the func-tioning
condition of riparian areas and preserve
fire refugia (places where fire rarely burns).
■■ Through cooperation and collaboration with
the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks and adjoining landowners, the Service
would use wildlife- and habitat-based objectives
and strategies that consider natural densities,
social structures, and population dynamics at the
landscape level. The Service and cooperators
would mutually agree on population levels that
can be tolerated by adjoining landowners and
provide quality recreational experiences without
negatively affecting habitat or other wildlife. The
XXII Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
Service would collaborate with others to manage
wildlife to benefit all species in and around the
refuge, actions could include conservation ease-ments
or other incentives.
■■ The Service would cooperate with Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Bureau
of Land Management; Montana Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation; conserva-tion
organizations; and others to conduct the nec-essary
biological, social, and economic research to
determine the feasibility of a restoration effort
for wild bison on the surrounding landscape.
■■ The Service would identify habitat suitable for
bighorn sheep and establish new populations
based on the Montana Department of Fish, Wild-life
and Parks’ modeling and transplant criteria.
The Service would work with the department to
provide quality hunting opportunities as a man-agement
tool that maintains both sustainable
populations of big game and habitat for nongame
species.
■■ In managing the hunting program, the Service
would seek to benefit wildlife populations and
promote harvest experiences that are not always
achieved on other public lands. An example would
be providing opportunities to hunt big game ani-mals
with all age classes represented (i.e., mule
deer in the 8- to 10-year class).
■■ The Service would close about 106 miles of road
and would work with partners to develop a travel
plan and secure access to the refuge through
other lands. Nonmotorized access would be pro-moted,
but the Service would consider allowing
motorized access on existing roads only for game
retrieval and restricting access on a seasonal
basis to sensitive areas by the river and roads.
■■ Opportunities for expanding hunting programs
would be considered to encourage and facilitate
young hunters and mobility-impaired hunters.
Limited hunts for furbearers or other predators
would be considered only if monitoring verified
that population levels could be sustained.
■■ The Service would expand or adjust by 25,869
acres the existing proposed wilderness units: Alkali
Creek, Antelope Creek, Crooked Creek, East Seven
Blackfoot, Mickey Butte, Sheep Creek, Wagon Cou-lee,
West Beauchamp Creek, and West Hell Creek.
ALTERNATIVE C—PUBLIC USE and
ECONOMIC USE EMPHASIS
The Service would manage the landscape, in coop-eration
with partners, to emphasize and promote
the maximum, compatible, wildlife-dependent public
use and economic uses while protecting wildlife popu-lations
and habitats to the extent possible. Damaging
The alternatives address a variety of public uses
including hunting and access.
USFWS
effects on wildlife habitats would be minimized while
using a variety of management tools to enhance and
diversify public and economic opportunities. Key
actions of alternative C follow:
■■ In addition to the habitat elements in alternative A,
the Service would generally manage habitats to
provide more opportunities for wildlife-dependent
recreation. In places, the refuge staff would man-age
for plant communities that could necessitate a
compromise between providing wildlife food and
cover and livestock forage needs. Where needed,
fencing and water gaps would be used to manage
livestock use and prevent further degradation of
riparian habitat. Camping areas would be man-aged
to limit expansion and further degradation
of riparian habitat.
■■ Through collaboration with the Montana Depart-ment
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and others, the
Service would keep a balance between numbers
of big game and livestock to sustain habitats and
populations of big game and sharp-tailed grouse.
Similar balancing could be necessary when manag-ing
populations of nongame or migratory birds
and livestock needs. For example, it could be neces-sary
to balance prairie dog needs with public and
economic uses such as livestock grazing or with
needs of other wildlife.
■■ Working with the Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, the Service would expand and
maximize the following hunting opportunities: (1)
programs to include new species and traditional or
Summary XXIII
niche (primitive weapon) hunting; (2) mule deer
season; (3) predator hunting; (4) trapping; and (5)
opportunities for young hunters.
■■ Refuge access would be managed to benefit public
and economic uses. The Service would improve
access to boat ramps and consider establishing new
roads in some areas and seasonally closing other
areas, such as those around Fort Peck, to protect
habitat and to provide for a diversity of experience.
■■ Wilderness areas would be managed similar to
alternative A (155,288 acres in 15 units).
■■
■■
■■
The use of prescribed fire, wildfire, and grazing by wild ungulates and livestock is addressed.
USFWS
ALTERNATIVE D—ECOLOGICAL
PROCESSES EMPHASIS
(Preferred Alternative)
In cooperation with partners, the Service would use
natural, dynamic, ecological processes and manage-ment
activities in a balanced, responsible manner to
restore and maintain the biological diversity, biologi-cal
integrity, and environmental health of the refuge.
Once natural processes are restored, a more passive
approach (less human assistance) would be favored.
There would be quality wildlife-dependent public
uses and experiences. Economic uses would be lim-ited
when they are injurious to ecological processes.
Key actions of alternative D follow:
Where feasible, the Service would apply manage-ment
practices that mimic and restore natural
processes on the refuge, managing for a diversity
of plant species and wildlife species in upland and
riparian areas. This would include a concerted
manipulation of habitats or wildlife populations
(using prescribed fire and grazing and hunting)
through coordinated objectives. Management
would evolve toward more passive approaches,
allowing natural processes such as fire, graz-ing,
and flooding to occur with less human aid or
money.
The Service would maintain plant diversity and
health using fire in combination with wild ungu-late
herbivory or prescriptive livestock grazing,
or both, to ensure the viability of populations of
sentinel plants (those plant species that decline
first when management practices are injurious
and in concert with other focal bird species or
special status wildlife species; see appendix F).
In collaboration with the Montana Department
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and others, the Ser-vice
would maintain the health and diversity of
all species’ populations including focal birds
and other migratory birds, threatened and endan-gered
species, species of concern, game species,
and nongame species by restoring and maintaining
XXIV Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
balanced, self-sustaining populations. This could
include manipulating livestock grazing and wildlife
numbers, or both, if habitat monitoring found that
conditions were declining or plant species were
being affected by overuse. Predators would be
managed to benefit the ecological integrity of
the refuge. Limited hunting for mountain lion or
other furbearers or predators would be consid-ered
only after monitoring verified that popula-tion
levels could be sustained with a hunt.
■■ The Service would cooperate with Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Bureau
of Land Management; Montana Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation; conserva-tion
organizations; and others to conduct the nec-essary
biological, social, and economic research to
determine the feasibility of a restoration effort
for wild bison on the surrounding landscape.
■■ The Service would cooperate with Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to pro-vide
hunting experiences that keep game species
at levels that meet State objectives, sustain ecologi-cal
health, and provide opportunities not found on
other public lands. The Service would develop
cooperative big game population and habitat
monitoring programs with the department. Dur-ing
development of habitat management plans,
the Service would establish population levels, sex
and age composition targets, and harvest strate-gies
that are jointly agreed to and tailored to the
varied habitat potential on the refuge. Hunting
regulations would be designed to provide a vari-ety
of quality recreational opportunities includ-ing
population objectives with diverse male age
structures not generally managed for on other
public lands.
■■ Refuge access would be managed primarily to ben-efit
natural processes, but some improvements
would be made to provide quality visitor expe-riences.
Initially, the Service would close about
21 miles of roads, implement a seasonal closure
along 2.4 miles of road 315, and designate 13 miles
of roads on the northeast side of the refuge as
game-retrieval roads where seasonal closures
would be applied. Other closures or modifica-tions
could be necessary after further review of
the road program. This would encourage free
movement of wildlife, permit prescribed fire or
wildfire suppression activities, and increase effec-tive
harvest of wild ungulates. Additionally, the
Service would upgrade about 5 miles of roads to
all-weather access (gravel), allow for more win-ter
fishing access, and expand opportunities for
quality wildlife observation, interpretation, and
environmental education by adding trails, view-ing
blinds, and a science interpretive center.
■■ The Service would expand or adjust existing pro-posed
wilderness units by 19,942 acres in Alkali
Creek, Antelope Creek, Crooked Creek, East Seven
Blackfoot, Mickey Butte, Sheep Creek, Wagon Cou-lee,
and West Hell Creek.
OBJECTIVES and STRATEGIES
Based on the vision and goals for the refuge, the
Service has developed objectives and strategies for
each alternative. An objective is a general statement
about what the Service wants to achieve on the ref-uge,
while a strategy is a specific action or tool that
is used to achieve an objective. Because each alter-native
has a different emphasis, objectives vary by
alternative. The following summarizes key objec-tive
topics addressed for each alternative in the final
CCP and EIS:
■■ management of four broad categories of vegeta-tion
found on the refuge: upland, river bottom,
riparian area and wetland, and shoreline
■■ use of fire (both prescribed and wildfire), grazing
by wildlife and livestock, restoration, predation,
and hunting in managing refuge’s uplands, river
bottoms, riparian areas, and shoreline
■■ managing for climate change and controlling
invasive species
■■ management of birds; threatened and endangered
species or species of concern; furbearers and
small predators; big game; and other wildlife such
as invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, fish, and
small mammals
■■ public uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, and interpretation,
The affected environment chapter describes the resources
at the refuge including greater sage-grouse.
© Judy Wantulok
Summary XXV
and the management of commercial outfitting, rec-reation
acres, and public access
■■ management of wilderness and other special area
designations and the protection of significant
cultural and paleontological resources
■■ refuge operations and partnerships
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The final CCP and EIS describes the characteristics
and resources of the refuge and how existing or past
management or other influences have affected these
resources. The affected environment addresses the
physical, biological, and social aspects of the refuge
that could be affected by management under the
four alternatives. These aspects include the physi-cal
and biological environment, special management
areas, visitor services, cultural and paleontological
resources, and the socioeconomic environment. The
Service used published and unpublished data, as
noted in the bibliography, to quantify what is known
about the refuge.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
The alternatives for refuge management would pro-vide
a variety of positive effects (benefits) and negative
effects (impacts) to resources at Charles M. Russell
National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National
Wildlife Refuge. Some of the greatest benefits would
come from consolidating habitat units and managing
the upland vegetation to create a mosaic of habitats
using prescribed fire, naturally occurring wildfires,
and prescriptive grazing to support a diversity of
species and improve the overall health of the refuge.
The Service would restore numerous former agri-cultural
river bottoms by reducing invasive plant
infestations and planting native species. Another sig-nificant
benefit would be the improved function and
quality of riparian areas for wildlife using prescrip-tive
grazing, possible water impoundment removal
or modification, and restoration projects.
The greatest effect on refuge resources would be
the continuation of current fire suppression strate-gies
and constant grazing pressure over large parts
of the refuge under alternative A. While the overall
economic effects of any alternative would be benefi-cial,
implementation of new grazing and habitat man-agement
approaches in alternatives B or D would
result in impacts to individual livestock permittees.
From a habitat perspective, the action alternatives
(B, C, and D) would benefit upland and riparian hab-itats,
with alternatives B and D resulting in moderate
to major long-term benefits to both habitat and wild-life.
These and other effects including a description
of their context, intensity, and duration are described
in detail in chapter 5. The degree of effect was quan-tified
using known numeric or modeled estimates or
information derived from extensive monitoring or
research. Where sufficient numeric information was
not available, qualitative or relative assessments
were made using scientific literature or professional
field experience.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The slower transition to prescriptive grazing under
alternatives A and C could cause moderate to major
negative effects on soils, while the transition to pre-scriptive
grazing over a shorter period, and over
most of the refuge in alternatives B and D, would
reduce those impacts in the long term. The use of
prescribed fire in any alternative would generally
result in short-term, negligible, negative effects on
air quality, visual resources, and soils. The impacts
of large wildfires on these resources would be major
under alternative A and would be minor to moder-ate
under alternatives B–D.
Livestock grazing in some areas would result in
moderate to major negative effects on soils under
alternatives A and C, while prescriptive grazing in
alternatives B and D would reduce those impacts
over the long term. The aesthetic impacts of live-stock
grazing and prescribed fire on visual resources
for some refuge visitors would be negligible to minor
under alternatives A and C, while they would be
moderate benefits under alternatives B and D.
The overall impacts of motorized use on sound-scapes
would be negligible to minor under all alter-natives.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
The continuation of current management of uplands
under alternative A would have minor short-term
impacts, with moderate to major long-term impacts.
The localized effects of alternative B on upland habitat
would be variable but overall would result in moder-ate
long-term benefits. Increased prescriptive graz-ing
and balanced ungulate use under alternative C
would result in minor long-term benefits. Efforts to
restore natural processes under alternative D would
result in major long-term benefits to uplands.
Ongoing habitat protection and water impound-ment
removal or improvement would benefit ripar-ian
areas and wetlands. Over the long term, these
benefits would be minor under alternative A, mod-erate
under alternative B, minor to moderate under
alternative C, and moderate to major under alter-native
D. In all alternatives, localized moderate
XXVI Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
impacts from grazing on riparian habitat would per-sist
in some areas. While the approaches and time-frame
would vary, river bottom restoration in all
alternatives would result in minor to moderate long-term
benefits. Effects of the alternatives on shore-line
habitat would be negligible.
Under alternative A, continued negative effects
on bird habitat would generally offset the benefits
of protection and enhancement efforts, resulting in
negligible effects. Habitat protection and manage-ment
efforts in the action alternatives (B–D) would
benefit birds on the refuge. These long-term bene-fits
would be moderate to major under alternatives
B and D, and minor under alternative C. In all alter-natives,
moderate to major localized impacts would
continue to occur in some areas due to grazing.
As the Service is required to manage for the ben-efit
of special status species, alternative A, with no
specific objectives, would have negligible effects.
More active management of threatened and endan-gered
species and species of concern under the action
alternatives (B–D) would have moderate to major
long-term benefits for those species.
Continued management of furbearers and small
predators would have negligible effects. Alternative B
would have major long-term benefits to furbearers
and small predators due to reintroductions, while
alternative C would have minor to major impacts due
to increased harvest. The effects of alternative D
would be negligible.
While the big game management emphases and
approaches would vary, all alternatives would ben-efit
big game populations. Over the long term, these
benefits would be minor under alternative A, minor
to moderate under alternative B, and moderate
under alternatives C and D.
Continued habitat degradation under alterna-tive
A would have minor, incremental, negative
effects on amphibians, reptiles, fish, and small mam-mals,
while habitat improvements under the action
alternatives would benefit those species. Benefits
would be moderate under alternative B, minor under
alternative C, and moderate to major under alterna-tive
D.
Implementation of the action alternatives (B–D) would
have the greatest benefit to riparian areas.
USFWS
The 670 miles of roads that crisscross the refuge affect the
physical, biological, and public environment.
USFWS
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS
Alternative A would keep the current and proposed
wilderness configurations. Expansion of proposed
wilderness units under alternatives B and D would
result in minor benefits. None of the alternatives
would affect the designation or management of other
special management areas.
VISITOR SERVICES
Continuation of current hunting opportunities and
management under alternative A would have negligi-ble
effects, while the action alternatives (B–D) would
have varying benefits to hunting. Expanded hunting
opportunities under alternative B would have negli-gible
to minor benefits, while an expanded emphasis
on hunting opportunities and harvest under alterna-tive
C would have minor to moderate benefits. The
benefits of higher quality hunting opportunities under
alternative D would be minor to moderate, depend-ing
on the preferences of individual hunters. None of
the alternatives would affect fishing.
Alternative A would have negligible effects on
wildlife observation and photography. Increases in
personnel, facilities, and programs would result in
negligible to minor benefits under alternative B and
moderate benefits under alternatives C and D. Lim-ited
environmental education, interpretation, and out-reach
under alternative A would have negligible
effects. Alternative B would have negligible benefits
due to more staff and program and facility improve-ments.
Alternatives C and D would have minor ben-efits
due to expanded staff and facilities. Effects on
Summary XXVII
commercial uses would be negligible under all alter-natives
except for alternative C, which would have
minor benefits due to more permits and efforts to
reduce conflicts.
Under alternative A, access would remain as
it is currently with 670 miles of road open to visi-tors.
Alternative B would result in minor negative
effects on vehicle access, with 106 miles of road clo-sures,
while the 21 miles of closed roads and 15 miles
of seasonal closures in alternative D would have neg-ligible
impacts. Alternatives C and D would consider
allowing more winter fishing access along the south-west
side. There would be 16 miles of upgrades to
roads under alternative C and 5 miles in alternative
D, which would have minor benefits. The impacts of
specific road closures would be greater for individu-als
who prefer to access the refuge by those partic-ular
routes.
Fishing would continue to be a popular activity under all alternatives.
Brett Billings / USFWS
CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
While alternative A would have negligible effects, all
of the action alternatives (B–D) would have negligi-ble
to minor benefits on cultural and paleontological
resources due to improved resource identification,
protection, law enforcement, and interpretation.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
The regional economic impacts of refuge manage-ment
activities, including local economic output and
jobs, would be negligible under alternatives A and B.
Alternatives C and D would result in minor benefits.
Alternative C would generate $3.9 million in local out-put
and 48 additional jobs, and alternative D would
generate $2.1 million in local output and 25 additional
jobs.
As the refuge currently supplies less than 1 per-cent
of total animal unit months in the six-county
area, any changes in grazing management would
have negligible economic effects. However, refuge
management changes would affect individual live-stock
permittees. The negative effects on permittees
would be negligible to minor under alternatives A
and C and would be potentially moderate to major
under alternatives B and D.
COMMENTS on the DRAFT
CCP and EIS
The Service received nearly 20,600 comments on the
draft CCP and EIS, which was released to the pub-lic
for review and comment on September 7, 2010.
A 60-day comment period for the document closed
on November 16, 2010 and then was extended to
December 10, 2010. The Service held seven public
hearings throughout Montana during the comment
period. Refer to appendix B for the public involve-ment
summary and volume 2, which contains public
comments and Service responses.
XXVIII Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES in the
FINAL CCP and EIS
As a result of public comment on the draft CCP and
EIS, the Service made several significant changes
while preparing the final CCP and EIS.
WILDERNESS
■■ Revised appendix E and clarified that any addi-tions
would become wilderness study areas
(existing proposed wilderness units would remain
the same).
■■ Modified the acreage for the wilderness study
areas in alternatives B and D due in part to a
mapping error in the draft CCP and EIS (640
acres within East Seven Blackfoot proposed wil-derness
and next to the Bureau of Land Man-agement
wilderness study area was mislabeled
as State lands). The Mickey Butte addition was
included in alternative D (already considered in
alternative B). As a result, the acreage for alter-native
B would be 25,869 acres, and alternative D
would be 19,942 acres.
■■ Determined that there is not sufficient justifica-tion
for recommending the removal of any exist-ing
proposed wilderness previously considered in
alternatives C and D.
ROADS
■■ Changed road 315 (Petroleum County) in alterna-tive
D from closed to seasonally closed from junc-tion
of road 838 to its end.
■■ Designated about 13 miles on the northeast side
(roads 331, 332, 333, and 440 in Valley County) as
game-retrieval roads in alternative D (previously
identified for closure in alternative B only). These
would be seasonal closures during the hunting
season, when most of the use occurs.
WILDLIFE OBJECTIVES
■■ Adjusted and clarified the big game objectives.
The objectives would meet or exceed the objec-tives
approved in existing State plans. Refuge-specific
abundance and population composition
objectives would be established through the
habitat management planning process and would
be tailored to regional habitat conditions, produc-tivity,
and considerations for functioning ecosys-tem
processes, biological integrity, and hunting
opportunities and experiences.
■■ Updated the information on threatened and
endangered species and species of concern (gray
wolf, Sprague’s pipit, mountain plover, and north-ern
leopard frog).
HABITAT OBJECTIVES and STRATEGIES
■■ Clarified and expanded on the prescriptive graz-ing
definition and information.
■■ Made several organizational changes to the habi-tat
objectives including changing livestock graz-ing
from an objective level to a strategy, which is
consistent with Service policy (timeframes would
remain the same).
■■ Clarified that the timeframe for implementation
of prescribed grazing under alternative A would
be similar to alternative C (50 percent or more
would have converted to prescribed grazing over
15 years, based on the current trends for conver-sion).
■■ Expanded the discussion on monitoring sentinel
plant and the refuge’s past monitoring efforts.
■■ Identified the miles of streams and the percent-age
of riparian areas within the refuge that would
be improved from restoration efforts.
FOCAL BIRD SPECIES
■■ Identified the focal bird species for each broad
habitat category (upland, river bottom, riparian
areas and wetland, and shoreline) and connected
the sentinel plant monitoring to the focal bird spe-cies,
particularly in alternative D and to a lesser
extent in the other alternatives. Previously, these
were identified as potential sentinel bird species.
The use of “focal birds” is consistent with the Ser-vice’s
focal bird strategy (FWS 2011c).
MINERALS
■■ Clarified that mineral withdrawals are for locat-able
minerals.
LAND ACQUISITION
■■ Clarified that, under all alternatives, the Service
would continue to acquire lands within its autho-rized
boundary and in accordance with Title VIII
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(Enhancement Act).
LEGAL MANDATES
■■ Expanded discussion on the history of the pas-sage
of the Improvement Act, Service policies,
refuge history, and legal mandates.
Summary XXIX
WATER QUALITY, AIR MONITORING,
and CLIMATE CHANGE
■■ Added information and clarified these topics.
■■ Added climate change to several of the goals.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
The Service’s final decision will be documented in a
record of decision published in the Federal Regis-ter
no sooner than 30 days after filing this final EIS
and CCP with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and distributing it to the public.
The Service will begin to carry out the final
CCP immediately on publication of the decision in
the Federal Register. Selected management activi-ties
and projects will be carried out as funds become
available. The final plan does not constitute a com-mitment
for funding, and future budgets could influ-ence
implementation priorities.
Abbreviations
ATV
all-terrain vehicle
AUM
animal-unit month
BCR 17
Badlands and Prairies Bird Conservation Region
BLM
Bureau of Land Management
CCP
comprehensive conservation plan
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CO2
Carbon dioxide
DNRC
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
DOI
U.S. Department of the Interior
EIS
environmental impact statement
Enhancement Act
Title VIII of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
FWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GIS
Geographic Information System
GPS
Global Positioning System
GS
General Schedule (employment type)
HDP
height-density plot
HMP
Habitat Management Plan
IMPLAN
Impact Analysis for Planning
Improvement Act
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
MFWP
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
MIAG
Montana/Idaho Airshed Group
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Refuge System
National Wildlife Refuge System
region 6
Mountain–Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
RLGIS
Refuge Land Geographic Information System
Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
TEA–21
1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TES
threatened and endangered species
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C.
United States Code
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFS
USDA Forest Service
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
WG
wage grade (employment type)
WSA
wilderness study area
Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary,
located after chapter 5.1—Introduction
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this final comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement (final CCP and EIS) to provide alternatives and identify con­sequences for the management and use of Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, located in north-cen­tral Montana. Located within the boundary of the Charles M. Russell Refuge, UL Bend Refuge is, in essence, a refuge within a refuge (see vicinity map in figure 1). The Service manages these refuges as one refuge. Together, they encompass an area of 1.1 million acres that span about 125 air miles along the Missouri River, from the Fort Peck Dam west to the boundary with the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. Throughout this document, the two refuges are referred to as “the refuge” unless individually named.
Wildlife conservation is the first priority in manag­ing national wildlife refuges. Public uses, specifically wildlife-dependent recreational uses, are allowed and encouraged as long as they are compatible with the refuge’s purposes.
In preparing this document, the Service complied with the National Wildlife Refuge System Adminis­tration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), also known as the Improvement Act and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (FWS 2000c). Additionally, the actions described meet the require­ments of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
This document (volume 1) contains the final CCP and EIS. The accompanying volume 2 contains the Service’s summarization and response to public com­ments and testimony received during public review of the draft CCP and EIS.
This final CCP and EIS discusses program lev­els that are sometimes substantially above cur­rent budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning purposes. Once com­pleted, the CCP will specify the necessary actions to achieve the vision and goals of the refuge. The plan will guide the management, programs, and actions for 15 years after CCP approval.
The Service has formulated four final alterna­tives that are the result of extensive public input and working closely with agencies and local governments that have close ties to the refuge. The core planning team of representatives from several Service pro­grams prepared this final CCP and EIS (refer to appendix A). In addition, the following cooperating agencies participated on the planning team:
■■U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
■■Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
■■Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)
■■Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC)
■■Counties of Fergus, Garfield, McCone, Petro­leum, Phillips, and Valley
■■Missouri River Conservation Districts Council, representing the six conservation districts next to the refuge
Public involvement in the planning process is dis­cussed in section 1.6 below and in detail in appen­dix B.
Photo of 4 young burrowing owls standing in grass.
USFWS2 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
After reviewing a wide range of management
needs and public comments during three public
comment periods (scoping, draft alternatives, and
draft CCP and EIS), the planning team developed
four sets of alternatives, objectives, and strategies
for management of the refuge. Details on the no-action
alternative and the three action alternatives
and are in chapter 3, and the predicted effects of the
alternatives are described in chapter 5. The Service
has identified one alternative (D) as the preferred
alternative.
1.1 PURPOSE and NEED for
ACTION
The purpose of this final CCP and EIS is to identify
the role the refuge will play in support of the mission
of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge Sys-tem)
and to provide long-term guidance for manage-ment
of refuge programs and activities. The CCP is
needed:
■■ to communicate with the public and other partners
in efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge
System;
■■ to provide a clear statement of direction for man-agement
of the refuge;
■■ to provide neighbors, visitors, and government
officials with an understanding of the Service’s
management actions on and around the refuge;
■■ to ensure that the Service’s management actions
are consistent with the mandates of the Improve-ment
Act;
■■ to ensure that management of the refuge considers
other Federal, State, and local government plans;
■■ to provide a basis for development of budget re-quests
for the operation, maintenance, and capi-tal
improvement needs of the refuge.
The Service is committed to sustaining the Nation’s
fish and wildlife resources together through the com-bined
efforts of governments, businesses, and pri-vate
citizens.
DECISION to be MADE
The Regional Director of Region 6 of the Service will
make the final decision on the selection of a preferred
alternative for the CCP. The Regional Director’s deci-sion
will be based on the legal responsibility of the
Service including the mission of the Service and the
Refuge System, other legal and policy mandates, the
purposes of Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges,
and the vision and goals in this final CCP. In addition,
the Regional Director will consider public input from
the cooperating agencies, Native American tribes, and
the public about the final CCP and EIS. Other con-
Figure 1. Vicinity map for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.
Chapter 1—Introduction 3
siderations are land uses in the surrounding area and
other parts of the ecosystem, the environmental effects
of the alternatives, and future budget projections.
The Service’s final decision will be documented in
a record of decision that is published in the Federal
Register, no sooner than 30 days after filing the final
CCP and EIS with the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion
Agency and distributing it to the public. The Ser-vice
will begin to carry out the final CCP immediately
on publication of the decision in the Federal Register.
1.2 The U.S. FISH and
WILDLIFE SERVICE and the
REFUGE SYSTEM
The Service is the principal Federal agency responsi-ble
for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Ref-uge
System is one of the Service’s major programs.
U.S. FISH and WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service was established in the Department of
the Interior (DOI) in 1940, through the consolida-tion
of bureaus then operating in several Federal
departments. The primary precursor agency was the
Bureau of Biological Survey in the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Today, the Service enforces Federal
wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations,
restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves
and restores vital wildlife habitat, protects and
recovers endangered species, and helps other gov-ernments
with conservation efforts. In addition, the
Service administers a Federal aid program that dis-tributes
hundreds of millions of dollars to States for
fish and wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter
education, and related programs.
Our mission is working with others to
conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife,
and plants and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the American people.
Service Activities in Montana
Service activities in Montana contribute to the State’s
economy, ecosystems, and education programs. The
following list describes the Service’s presence and
activities:
■■ Management of two national fish hatcheries,
one fish health center, one fish technology center,
four ecological services field offices, and one fish
and wildlife management assistance office (FWS
2010a).
■■ Management of 23 national wildlife refuges encom-passing
1,228,575 acres (FWS 2010a).
■■ Management of five wetland management districts
(FWS 2010a).
■■ Management of 209,479 acres of waterfowl pro-duction
areas (includes fee-title lands, easements,
or leases) (FWS 2010a).
■■ Annually provides millions of dollars to MFWP
for sport fish and wildlife restoration and hunter
education (FWS 2009f).
■■ For more than 20 years, the Service’s Partners
for Fish and Wildlife program has helped private
landowners restore about 33,000 wetland acres on
2,715 sites, 388,760 upland acres, and 1,288 miles
of river and stream channel habitat (FWS 2008a).
■■ In 2009, payment to Montana counties of $371,727
under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act for use
in schools and for roads (FWS 2010b).
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated
the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the Nation’s
first wildlife refuge for the protection of brown pel-icans
and other native, nesting birds. This was the
first time the Federal Government had set aside
land for wildlife. This small but significant designa-tion
was the beginning of the National Wildlife Ref-uge
System.
One hundred years later, the Refuge System has
become the largest collection of lands in the world
specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more
than 550 units that total 150 million acres (FWS
2009e). Today, there is at least one refuge in every
State and in five U.S. territories and Commonwealths.
These units of the Refuge System vary widely in
size, purpose, origin, climate, level of development
and use, and degree of Federal ownership (Fischman
2005, FWS 2011d).
Before 1997, most refuge-establishing statutes
authorizing acquisition of national wildlife refuge
lands gave broad authority to the Service for man-aging
lands for wildlife. However, in many cases
the establishing authorities lacked specific direc-tion
or procedures for uniform management of the
acquired and reserved lands. To resolve this, Con-gress
passed two statutes in the 1960s to provide
administrative guidance: Refuge Recreation Act of
1962 and National Wildlife Refuge System Admin-istration
Act of 1966. While the Administration Act
of 1966 consolidated the units under the Service’s
jurisdiction, it still did not meet its goal of giving
4 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
clear direction for Refuge System management. The
Administration Act gave the Secretary of the Inte-rior
broad power to determine what secondary uses
could occur on national wildlife refuges but did not
provide any biological standards or other standards
of review outside of the establishing purposes. Fur-thermore,
Congress did not specify a definition for
compatible uses or provide any other direction on
making such a determination (Tredennick 2000).
In the late 1980s, a decline in migratory bird popu-lations
prompted a General Accounting Office study
of wildlife practices affecting the Service’s ability
to reverse the decline with refuge lands (General
Accounting Office 1989, U.S. House of Represen-tatives
1997). The report concluded that the manage-ment
of secondary uses of refuges diverted refuge
managers’ attention and scarce resources away from
wildlife management. In the early 1990s, several envi-ronmental
organizations sought to end recreational
and economic uses on refuges because of alleged incom-patibility
with wildlife conservation and challenged the
Service through several lawsuits (Tredennick 2000).
Eventually, the Service settled the lawsuits by chang-ing
or eliminating several existing uses on refuge lands.
The pressure for new legislation intensified as a direct
result of these lawsuits combined with other issues,
and the ground was laid for passage of a bill that would
give the Service a clear mission and help resolve the
problems of the past (U.S. House of Representatives
1997). Finally, on October 9, 1997, Congress passed into
law the National Wildlife Refuge System Improve-ment
Act of 1997. The Improvement Act established
a clear vision for the Refuge System.
The mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System
is to administer a national network of lands
and waters for the conservation, management,
and where appropriate, restoration of the fish,
wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats
within the United States for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans.
The Improvement Act (or associated regula-tions)
states that each national wildlife refuge shall
be managed:
■■ to “fulfill the mission of the System, as well as the
specific purposes for which that refuge was estab-lished”;
■■ to consider “wildlife conservation … [as] the sin-gular
National Wildlife Refuge System mission”
(Final Compatibility Regulations Pursuant to the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997);
■■ to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity,
and environmental health of the System are main-tained”;
■■ to fulfill the requirements of preparing “a com-prehensive
conservation plan … for each refuge
within 15 years after the date of enactment of the
… Act” and of ensuring opportunities for “public
involvement in the preparation and revision of
[these] plans”;
■■ to recognize that “compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation [fishing, hunting, wildlife observation
and photography, and environmental education
and interpretation] is a legitimate and appropri-ate
general public use of the System”;
■■ to retain the authority of a refuge manager to
“make … the compatibility determination” after
exercising “sound professional judgement …
regarding wildlife conservation and uses of the
National Wildlife Refuge System” (Final Compat-ibility
Regulations Pursuant to the National Wild-life
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997).
Following passage of the Improvement Act, the Ser-vice
started carrying out the direction of the new legis-lation
including the preparation of CCPs for all national
wildlife refuges and wetland management districts.
Consistent with the Improvement Act, the Service
prepares CCPs in conjunction with public involve-ment.
Each refuge and district is required to complete
its first CCP within the 15-year schedule, by 2012.
People and the Refuge System
The Nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to
the quality of American lives and is an integral part
of the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places
have always given people special opportunities to
have fun, relax, and appreciate the natural world.
Wildlife recreation contributes millions of dol-lars
to local economies, whether through birdwatch-ing,
fishing, hunting, photography, or other wildlife
pursuits. Nearly 35 million people visited national
wildlife refuges in 2006 (Carver and Caudill 2007),
mostly to observe wildlife in their natural habitats.
Visitors experience nature trails, auto tours, inter-pretive
programs, and hunting and fishing opportu-nities.
Local communities that surround the refuges
and districts generate significant economic benefits.
Economists report that Refuge System visitors con-tribute
more than $1.7 billion annually to local econo-mies
(Carver and Caudill 2007). These figures do not
include Alaska or the Pacific Island refuges, which
together hosted more than 2 million visitors in 2006.
Compatible Refuge Uses
Lands within the Refuge System are different from
multiple-use Federal lands. Refuge System lands
are closed to all public uses unless specifically and
Chapter 1—Introduction 5
legally opened. A refuge use is not allowed unless
the Service finds the use to be appropriate and com-patible
(FWS 2000a). The Service cannot initiate or
permit a new use of a refuge or expand, renew, or
extend an existing use of a refuge unless the Sec-retary
has determined that the use is a compatible
use and is consistent with public safety. A compatible
use is one that, in the sound professional judgment
of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere
with, or detract from the fulfillment of the Refuge
System mission or the purposes of the refuge. Sound
professional judgment is defined as a decision that
is consistent with the principles of fish and wildlife
management and administration, the available sci-ence
and resources, and adherence to law.
A compatibility determination is the written docu-mentation
that a proposed or existing use of a national
wildlife refuge is or is not a compatible use. The deter-mination
is completed, signed, and dated by the ref-uge
manager with the concurrence of the assistant
Regional Director for the Refuge System. Compati-bility
determinations are typically completed as part
of the process for a CCP or stepdown management
plan. Once a final compatibility determination is made,
it is not subject to administrative appeal.
The Improvement Act states that six priority
uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, pho-tography,
interpretation, and environmental educa-tion—
should receive consideration in planning and
management over other public uses. All facilities and
activities associated with recreational uses, or where
there is an economic benefit associated with a use,
such as livestock grazing or commercial recreation,
require compatibility determinations. However, ref-uge
management activities such as prescribed fire or
invasive plant control do not require compatibility
determinations.
The compatibility determinations for the refuge
are in appendix C.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and
Environmental Health
Central to the Improvement Act is the requirement
that the biological integrity, diversity, and environ-mental
health of the Refuge System be maintained
for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans. In 2001, the Service published a policy
with guidance on this topic (FWS 2001). This pol-icy
presents a directive for refuge managers to fol-low
while achieving refuge purposes and the Refuge
System mission: a refuge manager is to consider the
broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources
found on the refuge and associated ecosystem. The
policy defines the terms biological integrity, diver-sity,
and environmental health and provides direction
for allowing secondary economic uses like farming,
haying, logging, livestock grazing, and other extrac-tive
activities. These are permissible habitat man-agement
practices only when prescribed in plans
to meet wildlife or habitat management objectives
and only when more natural methods, such as fire
or grazing by native herbivores, cannot meet refuge
purposes and goals.
1.3 NATIONAL and REGIONAL
MANDATES
The Service manages Refuge System units to achieve
the mission and goals of the Refuge System, along
with the designated purposes of the refuges and dis-tricts
as described in establishing legislation, Exec-utive
orders, or other establishing documents. Key
concepts and guidance for the Refuge System are in
the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act of 1966, as amended by the Improvement Act
(16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 668dd et seq.) and
further detailed in Title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) and the Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual.
Brief descriptions of the laws and Executive
orders that may affect the development or implemen-tation
of this CCP are in appendix D. Service policy
for the planning process and management of refuges
and districts is in the Fish and Wildlife Service Man-ual
and the Refuge Manual.
1.4 REFUGE CONTRIBUTIONS
to NATIONAL and REGIONAL
PLANS
Refuge resources contribute to the planning and con-servation
efforts, both regional and national, listed
below.
6 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
FULFILLING the PROMISE
A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise—The National
Wildlife Refuge System” (FWS 1999a), was the cul-mination
of a yearlong process by teams of Service
employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide.
This report was the focus of the first National Refuge
System conference (in 1998), which was attended by
refuge managers, other Service employees, and rep-resentatives
from leading conservation organizations.
The report contains 42 recommendations packaged
with three vision statements dealing with wildlife
and habitat, people, and leadership. The outcome of
that effort continues to influence CCP planning both
nationally and locally.
Yellow-headed blackbirds nest on the refuge.
Phil Norton / USFWS
BIRD CONSERVATION
During the past few decades, there has been growing
interest in conserving birds and their habitats. This
has led to the development of partnership-based bird
conservation initiatives that have produced interna-tional,
national, and regional conservation plans.
The North American Bird Conservation Initiative
Committee was started in 1999. This coalition of gov-ernment
agencies, private organizations, and bird
initiative groups in the United States, Canada, and
Mexico is working to advance and integrate bird con-servation
efforts. The primary conservation planning
initiatives follow: Partners In Flight North Amer-ican
Landbird Conservation Plan, North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. Shorebird Con-servation
Plan, and North American Waterbird Con-servation
Plan. The refuge’s role is described below
for the Partners in Flight plan and the North Amer-ican
Waterfowl Management Plan.
Partners in Flight
The Partners in Flight program began in 1990 with
the recognition of declining population levels of many
migratory bird species. The program’s primary goal
is to provide for the long-term health of birdlife in
North America. Priorities include the following: (1) pre-vent
the rarest species from going extinct; (2) prevent
uncommon species from descending into threatened
status; and (3) “keep common birds common” (Part-ners
in Flight 2010).
For planning purposes, Partners in Flight splits
North America into seven groupings of birds by
ecological area, avifaunal biomes, and 37 conserva-tion
regions (see figure 2). The refuge lies within
Bird Conservation Region 17–Badlands and Prai-ries
(North American Bird Conservation Initiative
2009). Region 17 is a semiarid plain dominated by
mixed-grass prairie. Importantly, this region pro-vides
habitat for some of the healthiest populations
of high-priority, dry-grassland bird species on the
continent including greater sage-grouse, Sprague’s
pipit, mountain plover, McCown’s longspur, and long-billed
curlew.
Focal birds are species representative of a
broader group of species that share similar conser-vation
needs. They are a subset of the list of the Ser-vice’s
2009 Birds of Management Concern (FWS
2011c) and are chosen based on one of five criteria:
(1) high conservation need; (2) representative of a
broader group of species sharing the same or similar
conservation needs; (3) high level of current Service
effort; (4) potential to stimulate partnerships; and (5)
high likelihood that factors affecting status can real-istically
be addressed.
As discussed in chapter 3, section 3.8, and chap-ter
4, section 4.3, many of the Region 17 species are
found on the refuge.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
By 1985, waterfowl populations had plummeted to
record lows, with waterfowl habitat disappearing
at a rate of 60 acres per hour. The North American
Waterfowl Management Plan envisioned a 15-year
Chapter 1—Introduction 7
effort to achieve landscape conditions that could
sustain waterfowl populations. Specific objectives
of the plan are to increase and restore duck popula-tions
to the average levels of the 1970s: 62 million
breeding ducks and a fall flight of 100 million birds.
Recognizing the importance of waterfowl and wet-lands
to North Americans and the need for interna-tional
cooperation to help recover a shared resource,
the United States and Canada Governments devel-oped
a strategy to restore waterfowl populations
through habitat protection, restoration, and enhance-ment.
Mexico signed the plan in 1994. The plan is
innovative because of its international scope plus its
implementation at the regional level (DOI [FWS],
SEMARNAP Mexico, Environment Canada 1998).
The success of the waterfowl management plan
depends on the strength of partnerships called joint
ventures, which involve Federal, State, provincial,
tribal, and local governments; businesses; conser-vation
organizations; and individual citizens. Joint
ventures are regional, self-directed partnerships
that carry out science-based conservation through
community participation. Joint ventures develop
implementation plans that focus on areas of con-cern
identified in the plan. The refuge is part of the
Northern Great Plains Joint Venture (FWS 2009b).
Figure 2. Map of the bird conservation regions in North America.
RECOVERY PLANS for THREATENED
and ENDANGERED SPECIES
Where federally listed threatened or endangered
species occur at the Charles M. Russell and UL
Bend Refuges, the refuge staff adheres to the man-agement
goals and strategies in the recovery plans.
The list of threatened and endangered species at the
refuge changes as species are listed or delisted or as
listed species are discovered on refuge lands. Cur-rently,
the refuge follows the recovery and manage-ment
plans for black-footed ferret, pallid sturgeon,
piping plover, and least tern. In 1994, the Service
released black-footed ferrets into prairie dog towns
on the refuge. Since their release, the ferrets have
suffered from canine distemper and starvation due
to the devastation of their main food source, prairie
dogs, caused by the sylvatic plague (refer to chap-ter
4).
8 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
STATE COMPREHENSIVE FISH and
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY
Documented declines of wildlife populations have
occurred nationwide over the past several decades. As
an ambitious endeavor to take an active hand in keep-ing
species from becoming threatened or endangered,
Congress created the State Wildlife Grant program
in 2001. This program provides States and territories
with Federal money to support wildlife conservation.
Under this program, a State develops a Compre-hensive
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy
that defines an integrated approach to the steward-ship
of all wildlife species, with emphasis on species
of concern and habitats at risk. The goal is to shift
focus from single-species management and highly
specific individual efforts to a geographically based,
landscape-oriented, conservation effort. The Service
approves each State’s conservation strategy and
administers the State Wildlife Grant money.
Montana’s focus has been on game animals and
their habitats from the early years of fish and wild-life
management, and hunters and anglers have pro-vided
most of MFWP’s funding. MFWP intends to
keep its focus on important game species and main-tains
that conserving particular types of habitat will
benefit a variety of game and nongame species. With
Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conser-vation
Strategy and State Wildlife Grant money in
place, MFWP believes that managing fish and wild-life
more comprehensively is a natural progression in
the effective conservation of Montana’s remarkable
fish and wildlife resources (MFWP 2005a).
Although game species are included in Montana’s
conservation strategy, the priority is species and
their related habitats “in greatest conservation
need.” This means identifying focus areas or commu-nity
types that are significantly degraded or declin-ing,
federally listed species and other declining
populations, and areas where important distribution
and occurrence information needed to assess the sta-tus
of individuals and groups of species are lacking.
The planning team reviewed Montana’s Compre-hensive
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy
and used the information during the development of
the final CCP and EIS (MFWP 2005a). Implementa-tion
of the CCP’s habitat goals and objectives would
support the goals and objectives of the State conser-vation
strategy.
1.5 STRATEGIC HABITAT
CONSERVATION
In the face of escalating challenges such as land use
conversion, invasive species, water scarcity, and com-plex
issues that have been amplified by accelerating
climate change, the Service has evolved from its eco-system
approach of thinking about conservation to
developing a broader vision.
A cooperative effort by the Service and U.S. Geo-logical
Survey (USGS) culminated in a report by the
National Ecological Assessment Team (USGS 2006).
The report outlines a unifying adaptive resource man-agement
approach for conservation at a landscape
scale, the entire range of a priority species or suite of
species. This is strategic habitat conservation—a way
of thinking and doing business by incorporating bio-logical
goals for priority species populations, by mak-ing
strategic decisions about the work needed, and by
constantly reassessing.
Since 2006, the Service has taken significant steps
to turn this vision into reality and has defined a frame-work
of 22 geographic areas. Experts from the Ser-vice
and USGS developed this framework through
an aggregation of bird conservation regions (figure 2).
The Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges lie in
the Plains and Prairie Potholes Geographic Area (fig-ure
3). Key issues in this geographic area are con-servation
of paddlefish, pallid sturgeon, waterfowl,
shorebirds, grassland birds, and black-footed ferret.
The Service is using the framework as the basis
to locate the first generation of landscape conserva-tion
cooperatives. These cooperatives are conserva-tion–
science partnerships between the Service and
other Federal agencies, States, tribes, nongovernmen-tal
organizations, universities, and others. Designed as
fundamental units for planning and science, the coop-eratives
have the capacity to help the Service carry
out the elements of strategic habitat conservation:
biological planning, conservation design and delivery,
and monitoring and research. Coordinated planning
and scientific information will strengthen the Service’s
strategic response to accelerating climate change.
CLIMATE CHANGE
The Service expects that accelerating climate change
will affect the Nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant re-sources
in profound ways. While many species will
continue to thrive, some may decline and in some
instances go extinct. Others will survive in the wild
only through direct and continuous intervention by
managers. In 2010, the Service completed a strate-gic
plan to address climate change for the next 50
years. The strategic plan employs three key strat-egies:
adaptation, mitigation, and engagement. In
addition, the plan acknowledges that no single orga-nization
or agency can address climate change with-out
allying itself with others in partnerships across
the Nation and around the world (FWS 2010c). This
strategic plan is an integral part of DOI’s strategy
for addressing climate change as expressed in Secre-tarial
Order 3289 (DOI 2009).
Chapter 1—Introduction 9
Figure 3. Map of the Plains and Prairie Potholes Geographic Area.
Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
National Wildlife Refuges
The Service will use the following guiding princi-ples
from the strategic plan (FWS 2010c) in respond-ing
to climate change:
■■ Priority Setting—Continually evaluate priorities
and approaches, make difficult choices, take cal-culated
risks, and adapt to climate change.
■■ Partnership—Commit to a new spirit of coordi-nation,
collaboration, and interdependence with
others.
■■ Best Science—Reflect scientific excellence, profes-sionalism,
and integrity in all the Service’s work.
■■ Landscape Conservation—Emphasize the conser-vation
of habitats within sustainable landscapes,
applying the Service’s strategic habitat conserva-tion
framework.
■■ Technical Capacity—Assemble and use state-of-the-
art technical capacity to meet the climate
change challenge.
■■ Global Approach—Be a leader in national and inter-national
efforts to meet the climate change challenge.
1.6 PLANNING PROCESS
In 2000, the Service issued its Refuge System plan-ning
policy (FWS 2000c). The resulting requirements
and guidance for refuge and district plans, includ-ing
CCPs and stepdown management plans, ensure
that planning efforts comply with the Improvement
Act. The planning policy sets out the steps of the CCP
and environmental analysis process (see figure 4).
10 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana
Figure 4. The process for comprehensive conservation planning and environmental analysis.
The Service began the pre-planning step for the
refuge’s CCP in June 2007 with the establishment of
a core planning team comprising Service personnel
from the refuge and region 6. Appendix A lists the
planning team members, cooperating agency mem-bers,
contributors, and consultants for this planning
process.
The core team is responsible for the analysis, writ-ing,
and production of the draft and final versions of
the CCP and EIS. Together w