Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Montana 

March 2012 

Prepared by 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

922 Bootlegger Trail 

Great Falls, Montana 59404 

406 / 727 7400 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region 

Division of Refuge Planning 

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228 

303 /236 8145 

CITATION 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region. 366 p. 

Contents
 

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
 

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxI
 

CHAPTER 1–Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
 

1 .1 Purpose and Need for the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 

1 .2 The U .S . Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 

1 .3 National and Regional Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 

1 .4 Contributions to Regional and National Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 8
 

Fulfilling the Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

Partners in Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

State Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

The Nature Conservancy–Northern Great Plains Steppe Ecoregional Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Strategic Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 

Climate Change Strategic Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 

1 .5 Strategic Habitat Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 

1 .6 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 

1 .7 The Planning Process	 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 

Coordination with the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
 

State Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 

Tribal Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 

Results of Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 

Selecting an Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 

CHAPTER 2 The Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 

2 .1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 19
 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
 

Benton Lake Wetland Management District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 

Swan Valley Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 

2 .2 Purposes of the Refuge Complex Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 32
 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
 

Benton Lake Wetland Management District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 

Swan Valley Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 

2 .3 Vision for the Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 

2 .4 Goals for the Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 33
 

Landscape Conservation Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 

Habitat Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

Wildlife Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

Cultural Resources Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

Visitor Services Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

Administration Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

2 .5 Special Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 34
 

Part of a National System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

Intact Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

Conservation Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
 

Intact Native Prairie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
 

Diversity of Water Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
 

Rare Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
 

Migratory Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
 

Cultural History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
 

Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
 

Rural Economies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
 

2 .6 Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 36
 

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
 

Agricultural Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
 

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
 

Invasive Plants, Nonnative Plants, and Noxious Weeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
 

Loss of Ecological Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
 

Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
 

Wildlife Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
 

Fisheries Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
 

Nonwildlife-dependent Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
 

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
 

Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
 

Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
 

CHAPTER 3 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
 

3 .1 Development of Alternatives for the Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 42
 

Landscape Conservation Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
 

Habitat Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
 

Wildlife Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
 

Cultural Resources Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
 

Visitor Services Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
 

Administration Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
 

Iv Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 
CONTENTS 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
 

3 .2 Elements Common to All Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
 

3 .3 Alternative A (Current Management–No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 43
 

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
 

Preserving Intact Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
 

Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
 

Forests and Woodlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
 

Species of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
 

Migratory Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
 

Staff and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
 

Visitor and Employee Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
 

Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
 

3 .4 Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 48
 

Actions Same as Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
 

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
 

Forests and Woodlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
 

Species of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
 

Migratory Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
 

Staff and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
 

Visitor and Employee Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
 

3 .5 Alternative C (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 50
 

Actions Same as Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
 

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
 

Preserving Intact Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
 

Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
 

Migratory Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
 

Staff and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
 

Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
 

3 .6 Summary of the Alternatives’ Actions and Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
 

CHAPTER 4 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
 

4 .1 Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 63
 

Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
 

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
 

Geology and Physiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
 

Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
 

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
 

Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
 

Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
 

Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
 

4 .2 Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 81
 

Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
 

v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forests and Woodlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
 

Sagebrush-Steppe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
 

Invasive and Nonnative Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
 

Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
 

Wildlife Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
 

Habitat Management Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
 

4 .3 Species of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 98
 

Federally Listed Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
 

Candidate Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
 

Arctic Grayling, Black-footed Ferret, Greater Sage-grouse, Pallid Sturgeon, and Piping Plover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
 

Other Species of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
 

4 .4 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 104
 

Prehistoric Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
 

Historic Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
 

History and Archaeology of the Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
 

4 .5 Special Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 111
 

Wilderness Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
 

Important Bird Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
 

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
 

4 .6 Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 112
 

Appropriateness and Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
 

Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
 

Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
 

Trapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
 

4 .7 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 117
 

Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
 

Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
 

4 .8 Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
 

4 .9 Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 120
 

Regional Economic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
 

Economic Conditions and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
 

CHAPTER 5 Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
 

5 .1 Analysis Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
 

5 .2 Effects Common to All Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
 

Regulatory Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
 

Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
 

Geology and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
 

5 .3 Landscape Conservation Goal Effects	 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
 

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
 

Climate Change–Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
 

Climate Change–Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
 

Climate Change–Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
 

Preserving Intact Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
 

vI Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preserving Intact Landscapes–Alternatives A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
 

Preserving Intact Landscapes–Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
 

5 .4 Habitat Goal Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 139
 

Grasslands: Native–Alternatives A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
 

Grasslands: Native–Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
 

Grasslands: Tame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
 

Grasslands: Tame–Alternatives A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
 

Grasslands: Tame–Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
 

Grasslands: Nonnative Tree Plantings–Alternatives A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
 

Grasslands: Nonnative Tree Plantings–Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas: Natural–Alternatives A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas: Natural–Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas: Altered–Alternatives A, B, and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas: Creation, Enhancement, and Restoration–Alternatives A, B, and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas: Protection–Alternatives A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas: Protection–Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
 

Forests and Woodlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
 

Forests and Woodlands–Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
 

Forests and Woodlands–Alternatives B and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
 

5 .5 Wildlife Goal Effects	 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
 

Species of Concern–Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
 

Species of Concern––Alternatives B and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
 

Migratory Birds–Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
 

Migratory Birds–Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
 

Migratory Birds–Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
 

5 .6 Visitor Services Goal Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 151
 

Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
 

Hunting–Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
 

Hunting–Alternatives B and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography–Alternatives A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography–Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation–Alternatives A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation–Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
 

5 .7 Administration Goal Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 153
 

Staff and Funding–Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
 

Staff and Funding–Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
 

Staff and Funding–Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
 

5 .8 Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Goal Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156
 

Visitor and Employee Safety–Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
 

Visitor and Employee Safety–Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
 

Visitor and Employee Safety–Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
 

Resource Protection–Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
 

Resource Protection–Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
 

Resource Protection–Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
 

CONTENTS vII 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 .9 Socioeconomic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 156
 

Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
 

Economic Impacts of Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Excluding Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge) . . . 158
 

5 .10 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
 

CHAPTER 6 Management Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
 

6 .1 Proposed Goals, Objectives, and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 170
 

Landscape Conservation Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
 

Habitat Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
 

Wildlife Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
 

Cultural Resources Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
 

Visitor Services Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
 

Administration Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
 

6 .2 Stepdown Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
 

6 .3 Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198
 

CHAPTER 7 Analysis of Management Alternatives for the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge . 199
 

7 .1 The Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
 

7 .2 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
 

7 .3 Purpose, Goals and Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 201
 

Adjacent Landowners and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
 

Loss of Ecological Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
 

Declining Wetland Ecological Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
 

Water Quality, Delivery, and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
 

Water Quality and Selenium Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
 

Invasive Plants, Nonnative Plants, and Noxious Weeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
 

Wildlife Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
 

Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
 

Wildlife Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
 

Comments Received from the Public and Found to be Outside the Scope of the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
 

7 .4 Development of Alternatives	 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
 

Elements Common to All Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
 

Actions Same as the Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
 

7 .5 Alternative A1(Current Management–No Action)	 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
 

Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
 

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
 

Staff and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
 

Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
 

7 .6 Alternative B1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 210
 

Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
 

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
 

Staff and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
 

vIII Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 
Resource Protection

7 .7 Alternative B2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 212
 

Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
 

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
 

Staff and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
 

Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
 

7 .8 Alternative C1 (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 213
 

Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
 

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
 

Staff and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
 

Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
 

7 .9 Alternative C2	 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
 

Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
 

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
 

Staff and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
 

Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
 

7 .10 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 216
 

Siphon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
 

Only Pumping in Spring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
 

Restore Units 1 and 2 and Pump Water to Lower Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
 

Minimal Pumping in the Fall Primarily for Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
 

7 .11 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 218
 

Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
 

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
 

Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
 

Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
 

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
 

Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
 

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
 

Refuge Management Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
 

Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
 

Staff and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
 

7 .12 Alternatives Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 243
 

Elements Common to All Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
 

7 .13 Consequences of Alternative A1 (Current Management–No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 244
 

Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
 

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
 

Ix 
Staff and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
 

Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
 

7 .14 Consequences of Alternative B1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 249
 

Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
 

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
 

Staff and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
 

Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
 

7 .15 Consequences of Alternative B2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 253
 

Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
 

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
 

Staff and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
 

Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
 

7 .16 Consequences of Alternative C1 (Proposed Action)	 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
 

Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
 

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
 

Staff and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
 

Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
 

7 .17 Consequences of Alternative C2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 262
 

Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
 

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
 

Staff and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
 

Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
 

7 .18 Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 264
 

Impacts from Refuge Revenue Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
 

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
 

Impacts from Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
 

Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
 

Staff and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
 

Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
 

7 .19 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
 

7 .20 Summary of the Alternatives’ Actions and Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
 

7 .21 Management Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 283
 

Habitat Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
 

Visitor Services Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
 

Administration Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
 

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
 

x Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 
Appendixes 

Appendix A, Key Legislation and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
 

Appendix B, Preparers and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
 

Appendix C, Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
 

Appendix D, Species List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
 

Appendix E, Draft Compatibility Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
 

Appendix F, Fire Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
 

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
 

FIGURES
 

1 The comprehensive conservation planning area for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . 3
 

2 The strategic habitat conservation process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 

3 The Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative and the Plains and Prairie Potholes Landscape 


Conservation Cooperative with Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 

4 Process steps for comprehensive conservation planning and associated environmental analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
 

5 Map of Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 

6 Map of easements and waterfowl production areas in the Benton Lake Wetland Management District 


(north), Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 

7 Map of easements and waterfowl production areas in the Benton Lake Wetland Management District 


(south), Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 

8 Map of the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
 

9 Map of the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 

10 Map of Swan River National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
 

11 Map of the Swan Valley Conservation Area, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
 

12 Map of average annual precipitation in Montana, 1971¬–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
 

13 Map of public use at Swan River National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
 

14 The adaptive resource management process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
 

15 Map of the pump station, easement, and travel route of water from Muddy Creek to the Benton Lake 


National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
 

16 Model of long-term dynamics of water levels in Benton Lake, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
 

17 Map of the topography of the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
 

18 Map of the Lake Creek watershed, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
 

19 Water management pools on the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
 

20 Map of saline seeps in the Benton Lake region, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
 

21 Graph showing the range of selenium concentrations from water, sediment, invertebrates, and egg samples 


across Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 1986–2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
 

22 Map of upland vegetation at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
 

23 Map of potential historical vegetation communities on the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . 235
 

24 Vegetation communities on Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
 

25 Public use at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
 

TABLES 

1 Summary of the comprehensive conservation planning process for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 


Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 Land acquisition history for units of the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 Waterfowl production areas in the Benton Lake Wetland Management District, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Each Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex-level alternative is linked to one or more alternatives for 


Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Benton Lake National 


 15
 

 20
 

 25
 

 41
 

xI 
TABLES (CONTINUED)
 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
 

6 Weather information for units of the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
 

7 Water rights and use on Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
 

8 Federally listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species that occur within the Benton Lake National 


Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
 

9 Actual Annual Performance Plan for 2011 for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . 112
 

10 Staff funded in fiscal year 2011 at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
 

11 Regional population estimates and characteristics for Montana, 2000-2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
 

12 Unemployment, poverty, and household income in the counties surrounding Benton Lake National Wildlife 


Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
 

13 Employment by industry for the 12-county region surrounding Benton Lake National Wildlife 


Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
 

14 Annual impacts from revenue sharing payments for all alternatives for Benton Lake National Wildlife 


Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
 

15 Estimated current annual visitation for Benton Lake Wetland Management District and Swan River National 


Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
 

16 Annual average number of visits and visitor days by activity and alternative for Benton Lake National Wildlife 


Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
 

17 Average annual impacts of nonlocal visitor spending by activity and alternative for Benton Lake National 


Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
 

18 Staffing and percent of time allocated for working by alternative for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 


Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
 

19 Annual local impacts of salary spending by alternative by personnel at Benton Lake National Wildlife 


Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
 

20 Local economic impacts by alternative of purchases related to Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 


Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
 

21 Summary of all management activities for alternative A for the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge
 

Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
 

22 Summary of all management activities for alternative B for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 


Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
 

23 Change in economic impacts under alternative B compared to alternative A for Benton Lake National Wildlife 


Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
 

24 Summary of all management activities for alternative C for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 


Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
 

25 Change in economic impacts under alternative C compared to alternative A for Benton Lake National Wildlife
 

Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
 

26 Hunting opportunity throughout the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
 

27 Seasonal closures at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
 

28 Current and proposed staff at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
 

29 Stepdown Management Plans for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
 

30 Each Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex-level alternative is linked to one or more alternatives 


for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
 

31 Annual amounts of pumped water, natural runoff, and selenium entering Benton Lake, 1970-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . 222
 

32 Lemly Hazard Assessment score by component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
 

33 Lemly Hazard Assessment Results for four sites at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . 229
 

34 Hydrogeomorphic matrix of historical distribution of vegetation communities/habitat types on Benton Lake 


National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
 

35 Migratory bird species of concern that breed at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . 239
 

36 Annual mortality of ducks caused by botulism at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
 

37 Annual impacts from refuge revenue sharing payments for all alternatives for Benton Lake National Wildlife 


Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
 

38 Estimated current annual visitation for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
 

xII Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 
TABLES (CONTINUED) 

39 Annual average number of visits and visitor days by activity and alternative for Benton Lake National 


Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
 

40 Average annual impacts of nonlocal visitor spending by activity and alternative for Benton Lake National 


Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
 

41 Range of annual impacts of nonlocal waterfowl hunter spending for pumping and nonpumping years 


under alternatives C1 and C2 for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
 

42 Staffing and percent of time allocated for working by alternative on Benton Lake National Wildlife 


Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
 

43 Annual Local Impacts of Salary Spending by Personnel by Alternative for Benton Lake National Wildlife
 

Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
 

44 Local economic impacts by alternative of purchases related to Benton Lake National Wildlife 


Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
 

45 Summary of all management activities for alternative A1 for Benton Lake National Wildlife 


Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
 

46 Summary of all management activities for alternative B1 for Benton Lake National Wildlife 


Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
 

47 Change in economic impacts under alternative B1 compared to alternative A1 for Benton Lake National 


Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
 

48 Summary of all management activities for alternative B2 for Benton Lake National Wildlife 


Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
 

49 Change in economic impacts under alternative B2 compared to alternative A1 for Benton Lake National 


Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
 

50 Summary of all management activities for alternative C1 for Benton Lake National Wildlife 


Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
 

51 Change in economic impacts under alternative C1 compared to alternative A1 for Benton Lake 


National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
 

52 Summary of all management activities for alternative C2 for Benton Lake National Wildlife 


Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
 

53 Change in economic impacts under alternative C1 compared to alternative A1 for Benton Lake 


National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
 

54 Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Benton Lake 


National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
 

xIII 

Summary
 

Walling Reef at Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area . 

USFWS

The United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) manages the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex (refuge complex)—encompassing 163,304 acres in northwestern and north-central 

Montana. To address the long-term management 

of the refuge complex, the Service has developed a 

draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and 

environmental assessment (EA). 

The Benton Lake Refuge Complex is part of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), 

and is located in northwest and north-central Montana. Spanning both sides of the Continental Divide, 

the refuge complex is a collection of diverse landscapes, from wetlands and mixed-grass prairie in 

the east to forests, intermountain grasslands, rivers, 

and lakes in the west. Likewise, animal species that 

inhabit the refuge complex lands are diverse and 

reflective of a variety of habitats. Large numbers 

of waterfowl and shorebirds inhabit wetlands in the 

east, while large predators such as grizzly bears 

make their home in the mountains and forests to the 

west. 

The refuge complex oversees management of 

27 units (2 refuges, 1 wetland management district 

containing 22 waterfowl production areas, and 3 

conservation areas) and administers 216 easements 

within the Refuge System: 

■■ Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) 

was established in 1929 and consists of 12,383 

fee-title acres and 76.88 acres of right-of-way 

easement. It is located on the northern Great 

Plains, 50 miles east of the Rocky Mountains and 

12 miles north of Great Falls, Montana. 

■■ Benton Lake Wetland Management District (district) was established in 1975. It includes 10 counties (Cascade, Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Lewis and 
xvI Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

, Toole), 22 

tinct ease

the largest 

ed States. 

t continues 

ments and 

The scoping process identified many special val

ues of the refuge along with issues and recom

mendations. Based on this information as well as 

n

s

it

c

e

on guidance from the Improvement Act, National 

Clark, Liberty, Pondera, Powell, Teto

waterfowl production areas, and 4 di ­

ment programs. This district covers

geographical area of any in the Un

The protection of habitat in the distri

to grow with acquisition of more eas

waterfowl production areas. 

■■ Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area (CA) was 

established in 1995 and expanded in 2011. This 

conservation easement program has the potential 

to protect up to 103,500 acres in the Blackfoot 

Valley by buying conservation easements on private land within the 824,024-acre project area. 

■■ Rocky Mountain Front CA was established in 

2005 and expanded in 2011. This conservation 

easement program has the potential to protect 

up to 295,000 acres in the Rocky Mountain Front 

(Front) by buying conservation easements on 

private land within the 918,000-acre project area. 

■■ Swan River National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1973 and consists of 1,568.81 acres. It is 

located in the Swan Valley, 38 miles southeast of 

Creston, Montana. 

■■ Swan Valley CA was established in 2011. This 

conservation area has the potential to protect 

up to 10,000 acres in the Swan Valley by buying 

conservation easements on private land, and up 

to 1,000 acres in fee-title land next to the Swan 

River Refuge within the 187,400-acre project 

area. 

This document contains the draft CCP and EA for 

all areas that make up the refuge complex. 

THE PLANNING PROCESS 

Public scoping began with a Notice of Intent to prepare the draft CCP and EA which was published 

in the Federal Register on August 18, 2008. Information about plan development was distributed 

through news releases, a published planning update, presentations to local agencies and organizations, and by holding eight public scoping meetings 

through June 2011. In addition, the Service has coordinated with Federal, State and local agencies and 

Native American tribes. 

KEY PLANNING ISSUES 

­

­

Environmental Policy Act, and planning policy, the 

Service identified several key issues for the refuge 

complex and, specifically, for the Benton Lake Refuge to address in the CCP: 

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District, 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation 

Area, Rocky Mountain Front 

Conservation Area, Swan River 

National Wildlife Refuge, 

Swan Valley Conservation Area 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Climate change is anticipated, but there are many 

unknowns. Intact landscapes with functioning ecological processes, such as the diverse range found on 

the refuge complex, offer ecosystem resiliency and 

resistance and are better suited for adapting to the 

extreme impacts that some are predicting. 

AGRICULTURAL CONVERSION 

The refuge complex is losing native prairie due to 

agricultural tilling and plowing. These habitats are 

especially important for nesting migratory birds, 

including many shorebirds, waterfowl, and grassland 

bird species. 

DEVELOPMENT 

Habitat fragmentation due to housing and road 

developments has become a threat to the refuge 

complex. Many opportunities to protect habitat 

for wildlife may be lost when land is developed for 

residential, commercial, agricultural, and other purposes. 

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 

Bull trout is a federally listed threatened species 

and is known to occur within that part of the Swan 
SUMMARY xvII 

River that flows through the Swan River Refuge. 

Northern pike, a nonnative fish species, migrates up 

Spring Creek and may be impacting bull trout and 

waterfowl on the refuge. 

Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge 

DECLINING WETLAND ECOLOGICAL 

HEALTH 

In recent years, refuge staff and the public have 

noticed significant declines in the number of waterbirds and overall productivity. An absence of historical dry periods at the refuge that sustain wetland 

health is a concern 

There is uncertainty around how long dry periods 

need to be to restore and support wetland ecological 

health. 

WATER QUALITY AND SELENIUM CONTAMINATION 

Selenium concentrations in the water, sediment and 

biota of parts of the Benton Lake Refuge are currently at levels that can affect reproduction of species that are particularly sensitive to selenium, such 

as waterfowl species. In some parts of the refuge, 

selenium could reach levels that cause reproductive 

failure in waterfowl and other waterbirds in as little 

as 10 years. 

INVASIVE PLANTS 

Nonnative grasses, forbs, and woody species are 

of concern on the refute because they diminish the 

quality and suitability of habitat and reduce its potential to support many native wildlife species. Invasive species spread easily, replace native habitat, 

reduce diversity, and cause great expenditure of 

financial and human resources. 

HUNTING 

Hunters have expressed concern that the quality of 

waterfowl hunting at the refuge has declined significantly over the last several years. Excessive vegetation, limited open-water, and low-water levels have 

all been mentioned as contributing factors. 

FUTURE OF THE REFUGE 

COMPLEX 

VISION 

A vision is a concept, including desired conditions for 

the future, which describes the essence of what the 

Service is trying to accomplish. The following vision 

for the refuge complex is a future-oriented statement designed to be achieved through refuge, district, and conservation area management throughout 

the life of this CCP and beyond. 

The spirit of the American West resonates 

on both sides of the Continental Divide 

in the prairies, mountains, rivers, and 

wetlands of the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex . 

Here, migratory birds fill the sky, bull 

trout thrive, and grizzlies and wolves still 

roam . Visitors experience many of the 

same landscapes that Lewis and Clark 

explored on their journey through the 

“Crown of the Continent .” 

Conservation efforts in the refuge complex 

protect intact landscapes, manage 

productive habitats, and offer people 

opportunities to connect with wildlife in 

solitude under Montana’s big sky . 

These efforts rely on innovative public and 

private partnerships, are supported by the 

region’s people, and harmonize with the 

historic rural economy . 

GOALS 

The Service developed a set of goals for the refuge 

complex based on the Improvement Act, the purposes of the refuge complex, and information developed during project planning. A goal is a descriptive, 

broad statement of desired future conditions that 

conveys a purpose, but does not define measurable 

units. The goals direct efforts toward achieving the 

vision and purposes of the refuge complex and out­
xvIII Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

line approaches for managing refuge resources. The 

Service established seven goals for the entire refuge 

complex. 

Landscape Conservation Goal 

Actively pursue and continue to foster relationships 

within the Service, other agencies, organizations, 

and private partners to protect, preserve, manage, 

and restore the functionality of the diverse ecosystems within the working landscape of the refuge 

complex. 

Habitat Goal 

Actively conserve, restore, and manage upland and 

wetland habitats across the northern prairies and intermountain valleys of the refuge complex, through 

management strategies that perpetuate the integrity of ecological communities. 

Wildlife Goal 

Support diverse and sustainable continental, regional, and local populations of migratory birds, native fish, species of concern, and other indigenous 

wildlife of the northern prairies and intermountain 

valleys of northern Montana. 

Cultural Resources Goal 

Find and evaluate the cultural resources of the refuge complex and protect those that are found to be 

significant. 

Visitor Services Goal 

Provide opportunities to enjoy wildlife-dependent 

recreation on Service-owned lands and increase 

knowledge and appreciation for the refuge complex’s 

ecological communities and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Administration Goal 

Provide facilities, strategically allocate staff, and 

effectively use and develop sources of money, partnerships, and volunteer opportunities to support 

the long-term integrity of habitats and wildlife resources of the refuge complex. 

Wetland gathering on the refuge complex . 

USFWS 
SUMMARY xIx 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Goal 

Provide for the safety, security, and protection of 

visitors, employees, natural and cultural resources, 

and facilities throughout the refuge complex. 

ALTERNATIVES 

The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives as options for managing habitats and public use 

across the entire refuge complex: 

■■ alternative A–no action 

■■ alternative B 

■■ alternative C–proposed action 

These alternatives examine different ways for providing 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 incorporated specific actions intended to 

achieve the goals. The no-action alternative, however, represents the current, unchanged refuge management and may not meet every aspect of every 

goal. The no-action alternative provides a basis for 

comparison of the action alternatives B and C. 

Alternative A (no action) 

Management activity being conducted by the Service would remain the same. The Service would 

not develop any new management, restoration, or 

education programs at the refuge complex. Current habitat and wildlife practices helping migratory 

species and other wildlife would not be expanded 

or changed. Habitat management within the refuge complex would continue to focus, primarily, on 

helping migratory birds, especially during breeding. 

Other species would be considered through land 

protection programs and partnerships (for example, 

grizzly bear and bull trout). Staff would continue 

monitoring, inventory, and research activities at 

their current levels. Money and staff levels would 

remain the same with little change in overall trends. 

Programs would follow the same direction, emphasis, and intensity as they do now. 

Alternative B 

Management efforts would focus on supporting 

the resiliency and sustainability of native grasslands, forests, shrublands, and unaltered wetlands 

throughout the refuge complex by emulating natural processes. Prescribed fire, grazing, and other 

management techniques would be used to replicate 

historical disturbance factors. Where feasible, restoration of native uplands would occur. 

For altered wetlands where water management 

capability exists, management efforts would focus 

on minimizing the effects of drought periods of the 

northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. Management would be active and intensive to keep these 

wetland conditions in a consistent state for wildlife using artificial flooding and drawdowns. Management would be active and intensive to support 

consistency for wildlife using tools such as artificial 

flooding, drawdowns, fire, rest, and grazing. 

Changes in the refuge complex’s research and 

monitoring, staff, operations, and infrastructure 

would likely be required. 

Alternative C (proposed action) 

Emphasis would be placed on achieving selfsustaining systems with long-term productivity. 

Management efforts would focus on supporting and 

restoring ecological processes, including natural 

communities and the dynamics of the ecosystems 

of the northern Great Plains and northern Rocky 

Mountains in relationship to their geomorphic landscape positioning. Conservation of native landscapes 

would be a high priority accomplished by protecting habitats from conversion using a combination 

of partnerships, easements and fee-title lands, and 

through active management and proactive enforcement of easements. Management actions, such as 

prescribed fire, grazing, and invasive species control, 

would be used to support the resiliency and sustainability of Service-owned lands throughout the refuge 

complex. 

Whenever possible, habitat conditions would be 

allowed to fluctuate with climatically driven wet 

and dry cycles, which are essential for long-term 

productivity. 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

alternatives 

In addition, it was found that a separate analysis 

would be conducted, and that a broader range of alternatives would be developed, for just Benton Lake 

Refuge because the issues that applied to this refuge 

were more complex. The following alternatives are 

specific to Benton Lake Refuge and do not apply to 

the rest of the refuge complex. However, they are 

extensions of alternatives A, B, and C that would 

apply to the entire refuge complex: 
xx Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

■■ alternative A1–no action 

■■ alternative B1 

■■ alternative B2 

■■ alternative C1–proposed action 

■■ alternative C2 

ALTERNATIVE A1 (NO ACTION) 

Current management on the refuge would continue 

and would focus, primarily, on the individual wetland units. Most of staff time and efforts would be 

directed toward providing migration and breeding 

habitat every year for wetland-dependent wildlife, 

primarily waterfowl. Annual flooding would be supported by pumping water from Muddy Creek to supplement natural run-off. Water management within 

the 8 wetland units on the refuge would be similar 

each year so that units are flooded at approximately 

the same time and depths consistently. This alternative would provide an opportunity for waterfowl 

hunting every fall. Managing grasslands and other 

wildlife-dependent public uses (wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental education and interpretation, and upland game-bird hunting) on the 

refuge would be a secondary focus. 

ALTERNATIVE B1 

Refuge wetland impoundments would be intensely 

managed to improve health over current conditions, 

yet provide for wetland-dependent wildlife habitat 

and recreation (waterfowl hunting) every year at 

consistent levels. Efforts would be made to improve 

wetland health and sustainability for individual 

wetland units through short-term drying rotations, 

prescriptive management treatments and working 

in the Lake Creek and Muddy Creek watersheds. 

Drying rotations may be extended if necessary to 

achieve wetland health objectives. Managing grasslands and other wildlife-dependent public uses (wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation, and upland game-bird 

hunting) would be a secondary focus. 

ALTERNATIVE B2 

Refuge wetland units would be intensely managed 

to improve health over current conditions, yet provide for wetland-dependent wildlife habitat and 

recreation more often than would occur naturally. 

Efforts would be made to improve wetland health 

and sustainability through an initial, basin-wide dry 

period to “reset” the system, prescriptive management treatments and work in the Lake Creek and 

Muddy Creek watersheds. When wetland health 

has improved sufficiently, pumping may be incrementally reintroduced and reevaluated annually. 

Managing grasslands and other wildlife-dependent 

public uses (wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education and interpretation, and 

upland game-bird hunting) on the refuge would occur as resources allow, primarily during the initial, 

basin-wide dry period. 

ALTERNATIVE C1 (PROPOSED ACTION) 

Refuge management would focus on the refuge as 

a whole, with emphasis on restoring the health and 

long-term sustainability of the wetland basin, to 

support a wide diversity of migratory birds and a 

variety of wildlife-dependent recreation. This would 

be accomplished by reintroducing the full extent and 

variability of the natural wet-dry cycles, prescriptive management treatments and working in the 

Lake Creek watershed. The wetland basin would 

receive only natural run-off and wetland basin infrastructure (for example, ditches, dikes, and water 

control structures) could be modified or removed 

only if necessary to achieve wetland health objectives. The pumphouse and all water rights would 

be supported. As the wetland basin is restored and 

becomes self-sustaining, more resources would be 

directed toward managing and restoring upland 

grasslands, providing other wildlife-dependent public uses (wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation, and upland 

game-bird hunting), and providing support for conservation easement acquisition in the complex. 

Refuge management would focus on the refuge as 

a whole, with particular emphasis on restoring the 

long-term sustainability of the wetland basin, to support a wide diversity of migratory birds and wildlifedependent recreation. This would be accomplished 

by reintroducing the full extent and variability of 

the natural wet-dry cycle, removal of the water 

management infrastructure (for example, ditches, 

dikes, and water control structures), prescriptive 

management treatments, working in the Lake Creek 

watershed and decommissioning of the pump house. 

As the wetland basin is restored and becomes selfsustaining, more resources would be directed toward managing and restoring upland grasslands, 

providing other wildlife-dependent public uses (wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation, and upland game-bird 

hunting), and providing support for conservation 

easement acquisition in the complex. 
Abbreviations
 

A .D . Anno Domini or “in the year of the Lord” 

Administration Act National Wildlife Administration Act of 1966 

amsl above mean sea level 

ARM adaptive resource management 

AUM animal unit month 

B .C . before Christ 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CA conservation area 

CCP comprehensive conservation plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CO2 carbon dioxide

 compact Montana House bill 717–Bill to Ratify Water Rights Compact 

CKST Confederated Kootenai and Salish Tribes 

CPR cardiopulmonary resuscitation 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

district Benton Lake Wetland Management District 

DNC dense nesting cover 

EA environmental assessment 

EDRR early detection, rapid response 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

Front Rocky Mountain Front 

FTE full-time equivalent position 

FY fiscal year 

GFPS Great Falls Public Schools 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GNLCC Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

gpm gallons per minute 

GS general schedule (pay) 

HAPET Habitat and Population Evaluation Team 

HGM hydrogeomorphic 

HCPC historical climax plant community 

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IPM integrated pest management 
LCC landscape conservation cooperative 

LIDAR light detection and ranging 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund 

MFIS Montana Fisheries Information System 

MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 

MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

MNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program 

NEPA
 National Environmental Policy Act 

NISC
 National Invasive Species Council 

NOAA
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NRIS
 Natural Resource Information System 

NRCS
 Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NWR
 national wildlife refuge 

PIF Partners in Flight 

PPPLCC Plains and Prairie Potholes Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

refuge refuge within the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

refuge complex Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System 

RLGIS Refuge Lands Geographic Information System 

RONS Refuge Operations Needs System 

RRS Refuge Revenue Sharing Act 

Se selenium 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

SHC strategic habitat conservation 

STEM Expo Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Exposition 

TMDL total maximum daily load 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

μg/g micrograms per gram 

μg/gDW micrograms per gram dry weight 

μg/L micrograms per liter 

U .S . United States 

U .S .C . United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDA FSA U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Geological Survey Policy Analysis and Science Assistance USGS–PASA Branch 

WG wage grade (pay schedule) 

WPA waterfowl production area 

Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary, located after chapter 7 . 

xxII Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 
CHAPTER 1–Introduction
 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge . 

Mitch Werner 

The United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) manages the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex (refuge complex)—encompassing 163,304 acres in northwestern and north-central 

Montana. To address the long-term management 

of the refuge complex, the Service has developed a 

draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and 

environmental assessment (EA). 

The Benton Lake Refuge Complex is part of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), 

and is located in northwest and north-central Montana (figure 1). Spanning both sides of the Continental Divide, the refuge complex is a collection 

of diverse landscapes, from wetlands and mixedgrass prairie in the east to forests, intermountain 

grasslands, rivers, and lakes in the west. Likewise, 

animal species that inhabit the refuge complex lands 

are diverse and reflective of a variety of habitats. 

Large numbers of waterfowl and shorebirds inhabit 

wetlands in the east, while large predators such as 

grizzly bears make their home in the mountains and 

forests to the west. 

The refuge complex oversees management of 

27 units (2 refuges, 1 wetland management district 

containing 22 waterfowl production areas [WPAs], 

and 3 conservation areas [CAs]) and administers 216 

easements within the Refuge System: 
2 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

■■ Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) 

was established in 1929 and consists of 12,383 

fee-title acres and 76.88 acres of right-of-way 

easement. It is located on the northern Great 

Plains, 50 miles east of the Rocky Mountains and 

12 miles north of Great Falls, Montana. 

■■ Benton Lake Wetland Management District (district) was established in 1975. It includes 10 counties (Cascade, Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Lewis and 

Clark, Liberty, Pondera, Powell, Teton, Toole), 22 

waterfowl production areas, and 4 distinct easement programs. This district covers the largest 

geographical area of any in the United States. 

The protection of habitat in the district continues 

to grow with acquisition of more easements and 

waterfowl production areas. 

■■ Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area (CA) was 

established in 1995 and expanded in 2011. This 

conservation easement program has the potential 

to protect up to 103,500 acres in the Blackfoot 

Valley by buying conservation easements on private land within the 824,024-acre project area. 

■■ Rocky Mountain Front CA was established in 

2005 and expanded in 2011. This conservation 

easement program has the potential to protect 

up to 295,000 acres in the Rocky Mountain Front 

(Front) by buying conservation easements on 

private land within the 918,000-acre project area. 

■■ Swan River National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1973 and consists of 1,568.81 acres. It is 

located in the Swan Valley, 38 miles southeast of 

Creston, Montana. 

■■ Swan Valley CA was established in 2011. This 

conservation area has the potential to protect 

up to 10,000 acres in the Swan Valley by buying 

conservation easements on private land, and up 

to 1,000 acres in fee-title land next to the Swan 

River Refuge within the 187,400-acre project 

area. 

The Service has developed this draft CCP to provide a foundation for the management and use of the 

refuge complex. Figure 1 shows the location of the 

refuge complex within the overall planning area. The 

CCP specifies the necessary actions to achieve the 

vision and purposes of the refuge complex. Wildlife 

is the first priority in refuge and district management, and public use (including wildlife-dependent 

recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long as it 

is compatible with the purposes of each management unit, in accordance with the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act). During the planning process, it became 

evident that the issues surrounding the management 

of Benton Lake Refuge, and the wetland basin in 

particular, were unique within the refuge complex. 

Therefore, the issues, alternatives, proposed action, consequences, and objectives for Benton Lake 

Refuge have been addressed in a separate chapter. 

The material described in chapter 7 fits within the 

umbrella of the refuge complex but explores some 

aspects in detail. When completed, the management 

direction for the refuge complex, described in chapters 1–6, and the management direction for Benton 

Lake Refuge, described in chapter 7, will be used 

in conjunction to serve as a working guide for management programs and activities throughout the 

refuge complex over the next 15 years. As part of 

implementing the final CCP (refer to section 6.3 in 

chapter 6) stepdown plans will be developed to guide 

management in further detail. 

When the CCP process began in 2008, the Lost 

Trail Refuge and the Northwest Montana Flathead 

County Wetland Management District were administratively managed as a unit of the refuge complex. 

In 2012, the refuge complex was administratively 

reorganized, which resulted in the transfer of the 

Lost Trail Refuge and Northwest Montana Flathead County District to the National Bison Range 

Complex in Moiese, Montana. Although Lost Trail 

Refuge has a CCP that was completed in 2005 and 

remains in effect, several issues were identified during scoping for the refuge complex CCP. To address 

these issues, an amendment to the Lost Trail CCP 

will be prepared. Also during scoping for the refuge 

complex CCP, a few issues about management of 

waterfowl production areas in the wetland management district were identified. These issues will be 

forwarded to the staff of the National Bison Range 

Complex for consideration during their CCP efforts, 

which are currently in the preplanning phase. 

This chapter introduces the process for development of the refuge complex’s CCP, including descriptions of the involvement of the Service, the State 

of Montana, the public, and others. Chapter 1 also 

describes the conservation issues and plans that 

affect the refuge complex. The remaining chapters 

contain information the Service used and results of 

the Service’s analysis that is the foundation of the 

draft plan: 

■■ chapter 2 describes the refuge complex and planning issues. 

■■ chapter 3 sets out the alternatives for management of the refuge complex. 
Chapter 1—Introduction 3 

Figure 1 . The comprehensive conservation planning area for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

CHAPTER 1– Introduction 5 

■■ chapter 4 describes the physical, biological, and 

social environment that the alternatives would 

affect. 

■■ chapter 5 explains the expected consequences of 

carrying out each of the alternatives. 

■■ chapter 6 describes objectives and strategies for 

the proposed action (alternative C) for the refuge 

complex, which compose the draft CCP. 

■■ chapter 7 describes the issues, alternatives, background information, expected consequences, objectives, and strategies for the proposed action 

(alternative 4) for the Benton Lake Refuge. 

1 .1 Purpose and Need 

for the Plan 

The purpose of this draft CCP is to show the role 

that the refuge complex will play in support of the 

mission of the Refuge System and to provide longterm guidance for managing programs and activities. The CCP is needed to help the Service achieve 

the following: 

■■ communication with the public and other partners in efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge System 

■■ a clear statement of direction for managing the 

refuge complex 

■■ providing neighbors, visitors, and government 

officials with an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions on and around the refuge 

complex 

■■ make sure that management actions by the Service are consistent with the mandates of the Improvement Act 

■■ make sure that management of the refuge complex is consistent with Federal, State, and county 

plans 

■■ formulate a basis for development of budget requests for the refuge complex’s operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs 

1 .2 The U .S . Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal 

Federal agency responsible for fish, wildlife, and 

plant conservation. The Refuge System is one of the 

Service’s major programs. 

U .S . FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE MISSION 

The mission of the U .S . Fish and 

Wildlife Service, working with others, 

is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish 

and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the 

American people . 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

SYSTEM MISSION 

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 . 

History of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, America’s fish and wildlife resources were declining at an 

alarming rate, largely due to unrestricted market 

hunting. Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and angling groups joined and generated the 

political will for the first significant conservation 

measures taken by the Federal Government. These 

actions included the establishment of the Bureau of 

Fisheries in the 1870s and, in 1900, passage of the 
6 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

first Federal wildlife law—the Lacey Act—which 

prohibited interstate transportation of wildlife taken 

in violation of State laws. In 1892, Benjamin Harrison’s order to protect Afognak Island, Alaska as 

a forest and fish culture reservation was the first 

presidential proclamation withdrawing public domain for wildlife conservation (Proclamation No. 

39). Although the reservation was not deliberately 

established for the protection of sea lions and sea 

otters, its motivation was to sustain commercial 

harvest and recognized the need to regulate harvest 

and test the presidential power to rein in commercial 

excess (Fischman 2003). 

Theodore Roosevelt viewed the conservation imperative as a moral issue as well as a necessary condition for sustaining national prosperity. Roosevelt 

had long expressed concern for the viability of birds 

targeted by plume hunters for fashion. In Florida’s 

Indian River drainage, plume hunters were decimating 

egrets, ibises, roseate spoonbills, and other birds with 

colorful features (Cutright 1985). On March 14, 1903, 

President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed Pelican Island as a “preservation and breeding ground for native 

birds.” Between 1903 and 1909, Roosevelt decreed 52 

bird and 4 big game reserves. In 1906, The U.S. Congress endorsed Roosevelt’s Executive reservations. 

Sandhill cranes nest at Benton Lake Refuge . 

Donna A. Dewhurst / USFWS 

Roosevelt inspired The U.S. Congress to reserve land 

that would become wildlife refuges beginning with 

Wichita Mountain Forest and Game Preserve in 1905, 

the National Bison Range in 1908, and the National 

Elk Refuge in 1912 (Fischman 2003). 

The following growth of the Refuge System focused on particular geographic regions and broad national needs with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 

1918. It established the first significant preemptive, 

Federal restrictions on hunting and implemented new 

treaty obligations to sustain populations of certain 

birds especially waterfowl populations. Refuge purchases were made to help accommodate the multistate 

north-south migrations (Fischman 2003). 

In 1929, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act was 

authorized to acquire lands to serve as avian refuges 

or ‘inviolate sanctuaries’ for migratory birds. After 

a precipitous decline in waterfowl populations in the 

early 1930s, The U.S. Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934, which dedicated 

money for acquiring waterfowl conservation refuges 

from sales of Federal Duck Stamps that all waterfowl 

hunters were required to affix to their State hunting 

license. With an assured source of money, the growth 

of the Refuge System accelerated. Money for refuge 

acquisition was augmented following the passage of 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964 

(LWCF), which provides money from the receipts from 

motorboat fuel tax and payments for Federal offshore 

oil and gas leases. 

In 1940 as part of the New Deal innovation, President Franklin Roosevelt established the U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and placed it within the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and existing Federal 

wildlife functions including law enforcement, fish management, animal damage control, and wildlife refuge 

management were combined into a single organization 

for the first time. 

In 1956, the U.S. Congress gave the Executive 

branch the authority to acquire refuges not just for migratory birds but also for any wildlife through the Fish 

and Wildlife Act. There were 166 refuges established 

under this act (Fischman 2003). 

In 1962, the passage of the Refuge Recreation Act 

marked the beginning of the modern trend to provide 

the Service with systematic management guidance. 

The Refuge Recreation Act mandated that public 

recreation use be permitted in a refuge “only to the 

extent that is practicable and not inconsistent with 

the primary objectives for which the particular area 

is established.” In 1966, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (Administration Act) 

consolidated the land units managed by the Service, 

provided a comprehensive management mandate, and 

extended the applicability of the compatibility standard. It also provided for a program for the “conservation, protection, restoration, and propagation of 

selected species of native fish and wildlife threatened 

with extinction.” This was the first establishment of 

the connection between refuges and endangered species, which remains strong today. More than 260 listed 

species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) oc­
CHAPTER 1– Introduction 7 

cur on refuges and 56 refuges have been added to the 

system specifically by ESA acquisition authority (Fischman 2003). 

From 1903–97, the U.S. Congress had provided 

little guidance to the Service on consolidating refuges 

into a system. Conservation has always been the common theme for refuges mandates; however, conservation encompasses a range of concerns from ecosystem 

preservation, to endangered species recovery, to sustaining game populations for hunting. Without overarching guidance, coordinating and ensuring alignment 

of individual refuges toward a larger goal was difficult. 

In 1997, the Improvement Act was passed, which provided the Refuge System with an overall mission. 

As conservation challenges have changed, the Service has adapted and responded. This has been shown 

repeatedly from such circumstances as the Service’s 

response to marketing hunting in late 1880s, plume 

hunters of the 1900s, falling waterfowl populations 

in the 1930s, protection of endangered species in the 

1960s and 1970s, loss of wetland and prairie habitat 

from 1920 through the 1980s, challenges facing forest landbirds and grassland bird species, and more 

recently effects from climate change. As conservation 

issues are identified, the Service has responded with 

shifts in management agendas and priorities in keeping with the original purpose for which the refuge unit 

was established. 

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. Currently, 

the Refuge System has become the largest collection 

of lands in the world specifically managed for wildlife, 

encompassing more than 150 million acres within 550 

refuges and more than 3,000 waterfowl production 

areas. Today, there is at least one refuge in every State 

including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Today, the Service enforces Federal wildlife laws, 

conserves lands and resources, conducts landscape 

conservation, conserves and manages migratory bird 

populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, 

conserves and restores vital wildlife habitat, protects 

and recovers endangered species, and helps other governments with conservation efforts. In addition, the 

Service administers a Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program that distributes hundreds of millions of 

dollars to States for fish and wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education, and related programs 

across the United States. 

1 .3 National and Regional 

Mandates 

Refuge System units are managed to achieve the 

mission and goals of the Refuge System along with 

the designated purposes of the national wildlife 

refuges and wetland management districts (as described in establishing legislation, Executive orders, 

or other establishing documents). The key concepts 

and guidance for the Refuge System are in the Administration Act, Title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), “Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” and the Improvement Act. 

The Improvement Act established a clear mission for the Refuge System. The act states that each 

national wildlife refuge (meaning every unit of the 

Refuge System, which includes wetland management 

districts) shall be managed to do the following: 

■■ Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System 

■■ Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge and 

district 

■■ Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first 

■■ Support the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System 

■■ Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation 

activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation are legitimate and priority 

public uses 

■■ Keep the authority of refuge managers to decide 

compatible public uses 

■■ Fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP for 

each unit of the Refuge System and fully involve 

the public in preparation of these plans 

■■ In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, 

the wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the 

Refuge System supports the following principles: 

■■ Wildlife comes first. 

■■ Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge and district management. 

■■ Habitats must be healthy. 

■■ Growth of refuges and districts must be strategic. 

■■ The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others. 

Following passage of the Improvement Act, the 

Service immediately began to carry out the direction 

of the new legislation including preparation of CCPs 
8 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

for all national wildlife refuges and wetland management districts. Consistent with the act, the Service 

prepares CCPs in conjunction with public involvement. Each refuge and each district is required to 

complete its CCP within the 15-year schedule (by 

2012). 

The Improvement Act amends the Administration 

Act by providing (1) a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System, (2) a new process for determining compatible 

public uses on refuges and districts, and (3) a requirement that each refuge and district be managed under 

a CCP. The Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority of Refuge System lands and 

that the Secretary of the Interior will make sure that 

the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of refuge lands are supported. Each refuge and 

district must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System’s 

mission and the specific purposes for which the unit 

was established. The Improvement Act requires the 

Service to check the status and trends of fish, wildlife, 

and plants in each national wildlife refuge and wetland 

management district. 

A detailed description of these and other laws 

and Executive orders that may affect the CCP or the 

Service’s implementation of the CCP is in “Appendix 

A–Key Legislation and Policy.” Service policies for 

planning and day-to-day management of refuges and 

districts are in the “Refuge Manual” and the “Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual.” 

1 .4 Contributions to Regional 

and National Plans 

The refuge complex contributes to the conservation 

efforts outlined in the various regional and national 

plans described here. 

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 

A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System” (USFWS 1999a), is the culmination of a yearlong process by teams of Service 

employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. The report contains 42 recommendations packaged with three vision statements for wildlife and 

habitat, people, and leadership. This CCP deals with 

all three of these major topics. The planning team 

looked to the recommendations in the document for 

guidance during CCP planning. 

The Service has recently embarked on an effort to 

update the vision in “Fulfilling the Promise” through a 

new initiative, “Conserving the Future.” A landmark 

conference was held in 2011 to solidify the direction of 

this effort. Updated guidance and documents will be 

developed in the near future. As the vision for “Conserving the Future” develops, these new ideas and 

directions will be incorporated into the management of 

the refuge complex. 

PARTNERS IN FLIGHT 

The Partners in Flight program began in 1990 

with the recognition of declining population levels 

of many migratory bird species (Ruth 2006). The 

central premise of Partners in Flight has been that 

the resources of public and private organizations in 

North and South America must be combined, coordinated, and increased to achieve success in conserving bird populations in this hemisphere. 

Montana Partners in Flight identified the highest priority habitats in Montana as mixed grassland, 

sagebrush-steppe, dry forest (ponderosa pine and 

Douglas-fir), riparian deciduous forest, and prairie pothole wetlands (Casey 2000). All of these key habitats 

occur within the refuge complex. The primary objectives in each priority habitat are to restore ecological 

processes necessary to provide suitable habitat for 

priority (target) species, find and protect those remaining blocks of habitats that have undergone drastic 

declines, and develop management prescriptions that 

can be applied at all geographic scales. 

NORTH AMERICAN WATERBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
 

The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

provides a contiguous framework for conserving 

and managing colonial-nesting waterbirds, seabirds, 

coastal waterbirds, wading birds, and marshbirds. 

The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

includes a goal to establish conservation action and 

exchange information and expertise with other bird 

conservation initiatives. The plan also calls for establishment of practical units for planning for terrestrial habitats (Kushlan et al. 2002). The refuge 

complex is located within the Northern Prairie and 

Parklands Region. 

The challenge for the Northern Prairie and Parklands Regional Plan is operating in a landscape significantly affected by agriculture, oil, gas, and other 

human development activities that factor immensely 

in the region’s conservation issues. Wetland loss and 

deterioration tops the list, which is further influenced 

by the region’s natural cycles of drought and inundation as well as the widespread and uncertain ramifications of global climate change. Reliable, comprehensive 

population information that incorporates wetland 

availability and landscape context is the foremost information need in this area (Beyersbergen et al. 2004). 
CHAPTER 1– Introduction 9 

NORTH AMERICAN 

WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT 

PLAN 

Recognizing the importance of waterfowl and wetlands to North Americans and the need for international cooperation to help in the recovery of a shared 

resource, the United States, Canadian and Mexican Governments have joined together to develop a 

strategy to restore waterfowl populations through 

habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. 

Originally written in 1986, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is innovative because of 

its international scope and its implementation at the 

regional level. Its success depends on the strength 

of partnerships called joint ventures, which involve 

Federal, State, provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; conservation organizations; and 

individual citizens. (USFWS and Canadian Wildlife 

Service 1986). 

Joint ventures are regional, self-directed partnerships that carry out science-based conservation 

through a wide array of community participation. Joint 

ventures develop implementation plans that focus on 

areas of concern identified in the plan. The refuge complex lies within the Intermountain West and Prairie 

Pothole Joint Ventures. The North American Waterfowl Management plan and the supporting efforts of 

the Intermountain West and Prairie Pothole Joint 

Ventures have been considered throughout the planning process and will be supported and promoted in 

the CCP. 

U .S . SHOREBIRD 

CONSERVATION PLAN 

The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership involving organizations throughout the United 

States committed to the conservation of shorebirds. 

The organizations and individuals working on the 

Plan have developed conservation goals for each 

region of the country, identified critical habitat conservation needs and key research needs, and proposed education and outreach programs to increase 

awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face 

(Brown et al. 2001). 

The national plan has been stepped down by region, including the Intermountain West Region and 

the Northern Plains Prairie Pothole Region, which 

include the refuge complex. Managing for shorebirds 

in the prairies is challenging due to the dynamic nature of wetland conditions in time and space. Major 

issues for shorebirds in this area include conservation 

of declining species, habitat loss, and filling information 

gaps on threats (Skagen and Thompson 2003). The 

most important issue facing shorebird conservation in 

the Intermountain West is the availability of quality 

water. The shorebird plan for this area focuses on habitat management, monitoring, research, outreach, and 

planning (Oring et al. 2000). 

STATE COMPREHENSIVE FISH 

AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

STRATEGY 

Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy (MFWP 2005) is for all vertebrate 

species known to exist in Montana including both 

game and nongame species. The plan recognizes that 

managing fish and wildlife more comprehensively 

is a natural progression in the effective conservation of the remarkable fish and wildlife resources of 

Montana. The goals of the plan are to identify all of 

Montana’s fish and wildlife and related habitats in 

greatest need of conservation, identify management 

strategies to conserve fish and wildlife and related 

habitats in greatest need, work independently and 

in partnership to conserve, enhance, and protect 

Montana’s diverse fish and wildlife resources, and 

address each species equitably regardless of classification as game or nongame, rare or at risk, improve the ability of the Montana Fish, Wildlife & 

Parks (MFWP) to address present and future money 

challenges and opportunities and integrate monitoring and management of game and nongame fish and 

wildlife species. 

Several Tier I (greatest conservation need) focus 

areas and community types were identified that overlap geographically with the refuge complex and with 

the Service’s management alternatives under consideration in this plan. These are the Rocky Mountain 

Front foothills, Mission/Swan Valley and Mountains, 

grassland complexes, riparian and wetlands, mountain 

and prairie streams. In addition, there are at least 15 

Tier I wildlife species identified in this plan that are 

also trust responsibilities of the Service. The 15-year 

management direction for refuge complex outlined in 

this CCP has significant potential to complement and 

advance the conservation needs MFWP outlined in 

their comprehensive conservation strategy. 
10 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

THE NATURE 

CONSERVANCY—NORTHERN 

GREAT PLAINS STEPPE 

ECOREGIONAL ASSESSMENT 

The Northern Great Plains Steppe Ecoregional 

Assessment encompasses approximately 250,000 

square miles (an area about one and half the size 

of California) and includes parts of five States and 

two Canadian provinces: Montana, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Alberta, and Saskatchewan (TNC 1999). Historical and current land 

use practices have significantly affected many native 

species in the ecoregion. Grassland species have 

begun to show widespread declines—most notable 

are endemic Great Plains birds, which have shown 

steeper and more consistent declines than any other 

group of North American species. The Northern 

Great Plains Steppe Ecoregional Plan identified 42 

primary species, 18 secondary species, 323 natural 

communities, and 2 general aquatic communities 

as targets of conservation. Portfolio sites that are 

also priorities for the refuge complex include the 

Rocky Mountain Front and the Sweet Grass Hills. 

Much of the portfolio is being supported by existing 

land management practices; however, significant 

threats persist that could either destroy or significantly degrade sites and their conservation targets. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) identified the need 

to strengthen existing partnerships and more effectively reach out to stakeholders in the ecoregion. 

The Service will consider its role in supporting this 

effort through the CCP and future management 

direction. 

THE NATURE 

CONSERVANCY— 

CANADIAN ROCKY 

MOUNTAINS ECOREGIONAL 

ASSESSMENT 

The Canadian Rocky Mountains ecoregional assessment covers approximately 27.1 million hectares 

(66.9 million acres) across a large part of the Rocky 

Mountains from southeastern British Columbia and 

southwestern Alberta to northern Idaho, northwestern Montana and a small part of northeastern Washington (Rumsey et al. 2004). This ecoregion is best 

recognized for its full complement of large mammals. Elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, mountain goats, mule deer, white-tailed deer, moose, and 

woodland caribou are among the large ungulate species. Some of the most threatened species are carnivores, and this ecoregion supports populations of 

grizzly bears, gray wolves, wolverines, fishers, and 

lynx. The ecoregional assessment for the Canadian 

Rocky Mountains represents the first step in developing a network of conservation areas that, with 

proper management, would make sure the long-term 

persistence of the ecoregion’s species, communities, 

and ecological systems. The refuge complex is a key 

stakeholder in several of these conservation areas, 

including the Crown of the Continent. The goal is to 

conserve the entire portfolio of conservation areas, 

which will need a combination of strategies, including on-the-ground action at specific conservation areas and multiple-area strategies to abate pervasive 

threats to targets across the ecoregion. 

PARTNERS FOR 

FISH AND WILDLIFE 

PROGRAM STRATEGIC PLAN 

In 2004, Service directorate instructed the Partners 

Program to develop a national strategic plan. The 

plan included regional geographic areas in which to 

focus local projects to realize the greatest help to 

those fish and wildlife resources most in need. The 

guidance directed the preparation of regional and 

State stepdown plans. The 2007 Montana Step-down 

Strategic Plan identifies geographic focus areas, 

provides focus area habitat accomplishment targets, and describes benefits to Federal trust species. 

Focus areas within the refuge complex include the 

Rocky Mountain Front, Blackfoot River watershed, 

and the Swan Valley (USFWS 2007a). The Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife Program is currently updating 

their 5-year plan and the results of that effort will 

be considered in the management direction for the 

refuge complex. 

RECOVERY PLANS FOR 

THREATENED AND 

ENDANGERED SPECIES 

There are eleven threatened, endangered, or candidate species that occur, or have historically occurred, 

within the refuge complex (USFWS 2012). Recovery 

plans have been completed for the pallid sturgeon, 

black-footed ferret, grizzly bear, and piping plover. 
CHAPTER 1– Introduction 11 

Draft recovery plans are available for the bull trout 

and water howellia. The recovery needs of all listed 

species within the refuge complex are considered 

in the development of the CCP. Species that have 

a significant part of their population within the refuge complex and are likely to be most affected by 

this CCP, either through direct management of feetitle lands or through partnership in conservation 

easements, include the grizzly bear (threatened) 

Sprague’s pipit (candidate) and bull trout (threatened). 

CLIMATE CHANGE 


STRATEGIC PLAN
 

The Service expects that accelerating climate 

change will affect the Nation’s fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources in profound ways. While many species will continue to thrive, some may decline and 

in some instances go extinct. In 2010, the Service 

completed a strategic plan to address climate change 

for the next 50 years titled, Rising to the Urgent 

Challenge—Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change (USFWS 2010c). The 

strategic plan employs three key strategies: adaptation, mitigation, and engagement. In addition, the 

plan acknowledges that no single organization or 

agency can address climate change without allying 

itself with others in partnership across the Nation 

and around the world. This plan is an integral part 

of the DOI’s strategy for addressing climate change 

as expressed in Secretarial Order 3289 (September 

14, 2009). 

Figure 2 . The strategic habitat conservation process . 

The Service will follow five guiding principles in 

responding to climate change Service-wide and within 

the refuge complex: 

■■ Continually evaluate priorities and approaches, 

make difficult choices, take calculated risks, and 

adapt to climate change. 

■■ Commit to a new spirit of coordination, collaboration, and interdependence with others. 

■■ Reflect scientific excellence, professionalism, and 

integrity in all work. 

■■ Emphasize the conservation of habitats within 

sustainable landscapes, applying the Strategic 

Habitat Conservation (SHC) framework. 

■■ Assemble and use state-of-the-art technical capacity to meet the climate change challenge. 

1 .5 Strategic Habitat 

Conservation 

SHC is a means of applying adaptive management 

across large landscapes. SHC involves an ongoing 

cycle of biological planning, conservation design, 

conservation delivery, outcome-based monitoring, 

and assumption-based research (figure 2). SHC uses 

science to focus conservation in the right places 

(USGS, USFWS 2008). 

In 2010, the Service started to expand its conservation easement programs in the Blackfoot Valley and 
12 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Figure 3 . The Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative and the Plains and Prairie Potholes Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative with Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

along the Rocky Mountain Front as well as establish 

a new conservation easement program in the Swan 

Valley. Input from the public was solicited in May 2010 

and used to complete an EA and land protection plan 

for each Conservation Area. The land protection plans 

(USFWS 2011c,d,e) outline how the refuge complex 

will use SHC to focus the purchase of conservation 

easements to meet objectives for focal species such as 

the grizzly bear, bull trout, and Canada lynx. As new 

information on population objectives, habitat needs, 

and threats become available, the Service will continue 

to update the land protection plans. Efforts by key 

partners such as TNC, Trout Unlimited, MFWP, the 

Service’s Ecological Services branch and the Great 

Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) are essential to completing these monitoring and 

feedback parts of the SHC process and for keeping 

conservation efforts focused on the highest priorities. 

1 .6 Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives 

Landscape conservation cooperatives (LCCs) facilitate the application of adaptive management and 

SHC across large landscapes. These cooperatives 

are conservation-science partnerships between the 

Service and other Federal agencies, States, tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, universities, and 

others. Designed as fundamental units for planning 

and science, the cooperatives have the capacity to 

help the Service carry out the elements of SHC—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. 
CHAPTER 1– Introduction 13 

The refuge complex lies within the Service’s GNLCC and the Plains and Prairie Potholes Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative (PPPLCC) (figure 3). The 

GNLCC has identified priority species including bull 

trout, grizzly bear, Lewis’s woodpecker, trumpeter 

swan, westslope cutthroat trout, Arctic grayling, wolverine, willow flycatcher, greater sage-grouse, burrowing owl, and Columbia spotted frog. Eight of these 

priority species exist within the refuge complex. The 

PPPLCC includes three main subunits, the Prairie 

Pothole Region, northern Great Plains, and the riparian corridors of several major river systems including 

the Missouri River, the Yellowstone River, and the 

Red River of the North. The refuge complex lies primarily within the PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region, 

which includes millions of wetlands that constitute one 

of the richest wetland and grassland systems in the 

world. The area provides habitat for both breeding 

and migrating birds, as well as a host of other wetland 

and native grassland-dependent species, including 

waterfowl, shorebirds, grassland birds, native stream 

fishes, and big river fishes such as the pallid sturgeon, 

and paddlefish. 

As LCCs continue to develop, an overarching priority will be to serve as a convening body, bringing 

together partners to address existing and future issues 

related to climate change and landscape-scale conservation. LCCs will continue to: 

■■ convene forums for the assessment of conservation needs and identification of key issues and 

decisions; 

■■ collect and assimilate climate information to support vulnerability assessments for populations 

and habitats most susceptible to the effects of 

climate change; 

■■ develop population and habitat models as necessary to enhance conservation delivery in response to climate change and other effects to 

landscapes; 

■■ identify conservation delivery strategies; 

■■ jointly figure out and address research needs for 

priority species and priority habitat conservation; 

■■ provide decision support systems and tools that 

are accessible to partners and help define the 

Figure 4 . Process steps for comprehensive conservation planning and associated environmental analysis . 
14 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

conservation actions needed including how much 

and where; 

■■ support proper data sharing, 

■■ develop monitoring and evaluation protocols; 

■■ leverage existing capacities and avoid inefficiencies and redundancy in landscape conservation 

and monitoring. 

The refuge complex intends to continue to be an 

active participant in LCCs and continue to consider 

opportunities where refuge management, partnership work, conservation delivery, and research needs 

coincide with the work of the LCCs (USFWS 2009a). 

1 .7 The Planning Process 

The Improvement Act requires the Service to 

develop a CCP by 2012 for each national wildlife 

refuge. The final plan for the refuge complex is 

scheduled for completion in 2012 and will guide the 

management of the refuge complex for the next 15 

years. 

The Service prepared this draft CCP and EA in 

compliance with the Improvement Act and Part 602 

(National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the 

“Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described in the draft CCP and EA meet the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations that carry out the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). More requirements 

and guidance are contained in the Refuge System’s 

planning policy, issued in 2000. This policy established 

requirements and guidance for refuge and wetland 

management district plans—including CCPs and stepdown management plans—to make sure that planning 

efforts follow the Improvement Act. The planning 

policy identified several steps of the CCP and environmental analysis process (figure 4). 

The Service began the preplanning process in February 2008 with the establishment of a planning team 

comprised primarily of Service staff from refuge complex and the Region 6 Division of Refuge Planning. A 

broader advisory planning team also was established 

due to the great interest by other refuge divisions. 

During workshops and other critical stages in the 

planning process, the broader team was part of the 

decision process. Contributors included other Service 

divisions stationed in regional office, U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), and Greenbrier Wetland Services, 

(refer to “Appendix B–Preparers and Contributors”). 

During preplanning, the team developed a mailing 

list, internal issues, and identified the unique qualities 

of the refuge complex (see section 2.2 in chapter 2). 

The planning team identified and reviewed current 

programs, compiled and analyzed relevant data, and 

defined the purposes of the refuge units within the 

refuge complex. 

Public scoping started with a Notice of Intent to 

prepare the draft CCP and EA that was published in 

the Federal Register on August 18, 2008. Information 

was distributed through news releases, issuance of the 

first planning update, and holding a series of public 

scoping meetings. Meetings were held as follows: 

■■ September 2, 2008, La Quinta Inn, Great Falls, 

Montana, 4–7 p.m. 

■■ September 3, 2008, Stage Stop Inn, Choteau, 

Montana, 4–7 p.m. 

■■ September 3, 2008, Ovando School, Ovando, Montana, 4–7 p.m. 

■■ September 4, 2008, Red Lion Inn, Kalispell, Montana, 4–7 p.m. 

■■ October 15, 2008, Benton Lake Refuge Headquarters, Great Falls, Montana, 5–7 p.m. 

■■ November 16, 2010, Benton Lake Refuge Headquarters, Great Falls, Montana, 5–7 p.m. 

■■ January 11, 2011, Benton Lake Refuge Headquarters, Great Falls, Montana, 4–6 p.m. 

■■ June 9, 2011, Best Western Heritage Inn, Great 

Falls, Montana, 8 a.m.–3 p.m. 

In addition to hosted meetings, several opportunities to meet with a variety of interest groups occurred. 

Service employees shared the CCP planning process, 

solicited issues and concerns from individuals attending meetings, and answered any questions. These 

opportunities provided staff greater understanding 

of issues, concerns, and effects shared by the public. 

Refuge staff attended meetings or met with the following: Ducks Unlimited, Great Falls Audubon, Montana 

Audubon, Russell Country Sportsmen’s Association, 

Muddy Creek Watershed Group, Sun River Watershed 

Group, Montana Bird Conservation Partnership, Great 

Falls Public School, and Rocky Mountain Front Land 

Manager’s Forum. 

The planning team encouraged public comment 

during the planning process through the development 

and release of this draft CCP and EA. This project 

complies with public involvement requirements of 

NEPA, and the planning team incorporated public input throughout the planning process. Over the course 

of the planning process, the planning team collected 

available information about the resources of the refuge 

complex units and the surrounding areas. This information is summarized in chapter 4–Affected Environment. Table 1 lists the specific steps in the planning 

process to date for the preparation of this draft CCP 

and EA. 
CHAPTER 1– Introduction 15 

Table 1 . Summary of the comprehensive conservation planning process for Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Date Event	 Outcome or purpose 

February 7, 2008 Preplanning

meeting 

Service staff discussed the initial planning team list, started the mailing 

list, discussed the planning schedule, and discussed the biological data 

needs. 

April 30, 2008	 Planning team 

invitation letters 

mailed 

The Regional Director invited tribal nations and MFWP to take part on 

the planning team. 

May 12–14, 2008	 CCP kickoff and 

vision statement 

meeting 

The planning team reviewed the refuge complex purposes, identified refuge complex qualities and issues, and developed a draft vision statement 

for the refuge complex. 

July 15, 2008 Work plan The work plan was completed. 

August 18, 2008 Notice of Intent The Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP was published in the Federal Reg

ister (volume 73, number 160, pages 48237–38). 

August 2008 Planning update	 The first planning update was sent to people and organizations on the 

mailing list. The update described the planning process and announced 

the upcoming public scoping meetings. 

September 2, 2008 Public scoping 

meeting 

A public meeting was held in Great Falls. The public had an opportunity 

to learn about the CCP process and provide comments. 

September 3, 2008 Public scoping 

meeting 

A public meeting was held in Choteau. The public had an opportunity to 

learn about the CCP process and provide comments. 

September 3, 2008 Public scoping 

meeting 

A public meeting was held in Ovando. The public had an opportunity to 

learn about the CCP process and provide comments. 

September 4, 2008 Public scoping 

meeting 

A public meeting was held in Kalispell. The public had an opportunity to 

learn about the CCP process and provide comments. 

October 15, 2008 Public scoping 

meeting 

A public meeting was held at the Benton Lake Refuge Headquarters. 

The public had an opportunity to learn about the CCP process and pro

vide comments. 

November 20, 2008– 

January 13, 2009 

Six planning 

team conference 

calls 

The process for developing goal statements for the refuge complex was 

agreed on, and goal statements were developed for the refuge complex. 

April 28–30, 2009 Biological review 

planning meeting 

The planning team met in Great Falls for a presentation by Greenbrier 

Wetland Services of the draft report, “An Evaluation of Ecosystem 

Restoration and Management Options for Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge” followed by a question and answer session. The planning team 

discussed mCoordination anagement alternatives for the refuge. 

July 29, 2009	 Alternatives 

development 

planning meeting 

The planning team met at the refuge to discuss management alternatives 

and environmental consequences for the refuge. 

September 9, 2009– 

January 20, 2010 

Ten planning 

team conference 

calls 

The planning team developed and analyzed three management alternatives for the refuge complex. 

February 16–18, 2010	 Environmental 

consequences and 

selection of 

proposed action 

workshop 

The planning team met in Great Falls to review the environmental conse

quences for the alternatives, and select a proposed action alternative. 

November 2–30, 2010	 Four planning 

team conference 

calls 

The planning team began writing objectives and strategies for the proposed action alternative. 

November 16, 2010 Public scoping 

meeting 

A public meeting was held at the Benton Lake Refuge Headquarters. 

The public had an opportunity to learn about the CCP process and pro

vide comments. 

­

­

­

­
16 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Table 1 . Summary of the comprehensive conservation planning process for Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, Montana . 

December 7–9, 2010 Objectives and The planning team met in Great Falls to review and complete objectives 

strategies work and strategies for the proposed action alternative. 

session 

January 11, 2011 Public scoping 

meeting 

A public meeting was held at the Benton Lake Refuge Headquarters. 

The public had an opportunity to learn about the CCP process and pro

vide comments. 

June 9, 2011 Options 

Workshop 

A workshop was held in Great Falls to discuss management issues and 

options related to water management, selenium contamination, and public 

use at the Benton Lake Refuge. 

January–November 

2011 

Draft plan p 

reparation 

The planning team prepared the draft CCP and EA. 

January 2012 Draft plan 

internal review 

The planning team and other Service staff reviewed the draft CCP and 

EA and provided comments to help clarify the analyses and provide 

consistency. 

March 2012 Draft plan 

public review 

The planning team completed the draft plan for distribution to the public 

for review. 

­

COORDINATION WITH 

THE PUBLIC 

A mailing list of more than 450 names was prepared 

during preplanning. The mailing list includes private 

citizens; local, regional, and State government representatives and legislators; other Federal agencies; 

and interested organizations (refer to “Appendix 

C–Public Involvement”). 

The first planning update was sent in August 2008 

to everyone on the mailing list. Information was provided on the history of the refuge and the CCP process 

and included an invitation to attend any of the four 

public scoping meetings being held in early September. 

The planning update included a mailing list consent 

form to be placed on the CCP mailing list. The update 

also provided opportunities for submitting comments 

including emails. 

The Service held five public scoping meetings from 

September 2–October 15, 2008. Turnout was relatively 

low with 5–10 people attending each meeting and 28 

attendees, primarily local citizens, including surrounding ranchers. The public meetings were conducted as 

open houses, where attendees could individually view 

a PowerPoint presentation about the refuge complex 

and an overview of the CCP and NEPA processes, as 

well as other supplemental information on the extent 

of the refuge complex, the purpose for each unit and 

the vision for the refuge complex. Attendees were encouraged to ask questions and offer comments. Verbal 

comments were recorded and each attendee was given 

a comment form to submit other thoughts or questions 

in writing. 

Written comments for the initial scoping effort 

were due September 15, 2008. Sixty written comments 

were received orally and in writing throughout this 

scoping process. The Service received letters from five 

nongovernmental organizations (Sun River Watershed 

Group, Montana Audubon, Born Free USA, Friends 

of the Wild Swan, Flathead Wildlife) and two agencies 

(MFWP, Region One; and Montana Salinity Control 

Association). All comments were shared with the planning team and considered throughout the planning 

process. 

One of the most significant issues identified for the 

refuge complex, by both the public and the planning 

team, was the declining condition of the Benton Lake 

Refuge wetlands. To fully understand what was causing this decline, the Service met with consultants from 

Greenbrier Wetland Service on April 28 and July 29, 

2009, to develop a hydrogeomorphic (HGM) assessment of Benton Lake. The scientists from Greenbrier 

Wetland Services are recognized experts in the field 

of wetland ecology. They worked with Service staff to 

understand what changes had occurred in the Benton 

Lake wetlands over time and how this might relate 

to the observed declines in productivity, increases in 

invasive species and increasing selenium contamination (Heitmeyer et al. 2009). These findings and other 

information were used to analyze the management 

alternatives and to select a proposed action alternative 

for the refuge. 

After choosing the proposed action alternative 

at the meeting in February 2010, refuge staff began 

another scoping effort to share the results with the 

public. Refuge staff focused on groups and individuals 

who had expressed interest or concern about Benton 

Lake during the first scoping effort. Refuge staff organized and led presentations to local interest groups 

(Russell County Sportsmen’s Association, Upper Missouri Breaks Audubon, Sun River Watershed Group), 

MFWP, congressional representatives, and the public. 

Many people attended the meetings and provided comments that the Service recorded. These comments 

were considered by the planning team in preparation 

of this draft CCP and EA and are addressed in chapter 

7, which describes the issues at Benton Lake Refuge in 

detail. 
CHAPTER 1– Introduction 17 

STATE COORDINATION 

At the start of the planning process, April 2008, the 

Regional Director (Region 6 of the Service) sent 

a letter to MFWP, inviting them to take part in 

the planning process. MFWP did not designate a 

representative to take part on the planning team; 

however, several MFWP staff members have been 

involved in the planning process to date. Service 

staff met periodically with local, regional, and headquarters staff to discuss various planning issues and 

conduct an onsite tour of the Benton Lake Refuge. 

In June 2011, MFWP staff members took part in a 

workshop to discuss water management options at 

Benton Lake Refuge. 

In MFWP Region 2, engagement with State employees occurred from initial planning process with 

attendance at open houses and requests to address 

particular issues including the River to Lakes Initiative, expanding conservation protection around the 

Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge and enhancement 

of elk hunting at this refuge. Due to the subsequent 

administrative reorganization of the refuge complex 

in 2011, issues raised by MFWP about the Lost Trail 

Refuge will be incorporated in an amendment to the 

CCP for the Lost Trail Refuge. 

At the start of the process, the offices of each of 

the three State Congressmen (then Senator John Tester, Senator Max Baucus, and Representative Dennis 

Rehburg) were sent letters telling them about the 

planning process and inviting them to comment on the 

plan. The refuge complex manager met with each local 

office representative informing them of the planning 

process and opportunity to comment. Seven other 

Montana State senators and representatives and Governor Brian Schweitzer were sent similar letters. 

TRIBAL COORDINATION 

Early in the planning process, April 2008, the Regional Director (Region 6 of the Service) sent a letter to tribes identified as possibly having a cultural 

and historical connection to the area in which the 

refuge complex is located. Those contacted were the 

Confederated Salish Kootenai, Blood, Fort Belknap 

Assiniboine and Gros Ventre, Blackfeet, and Peigan 

tribal councils. The tribal councils did not submit 

responses to the Region 6 letter; nevertheless, the 

councils were provided opportunities to comment. 

RESULTS OF SCOPING 

Comments collected from scoping meetings and correspondence were used in the development of a final 

list of issues to be addressed in this draft CCP and 

EA. The planning process makes sure that issues 

with the greatest effect on the refuge complex resources and programs are resolved or given priority 

over the life of the final CCP. These issues, as well 

as changes suggested to current refuge management, are summarized in chapter 2. The Service 

subsequently developed alternatives that could best 

address these issues. A description of these alternatives can be found in chapter 3. 

SELECTING AN ALTERNATIVE 

After the public reviews and provides comments 

on the draft CCP and EA, the planning team will 

present this document along with a summary of all 

substantive public comments to the Regional Director (Region 6 of the Service). The Regional Director 

will consider the environmental effects of each alternative including information gathered during public 

review. 

The Regional Director will select a preferred alternative for each of the two analyses in the draft CCP 

and EA: (1) management of declining wetland productivity, selenium contamination, and visitor services at 

Benton Lake Refuge; and (2) all other management 

aspects of the refuge complex. If the Regional Director 

finds that no significant impacts would occur, the Regional Director’s decision will be disclosed in a finding 

of no significant impact included in the final CCP. If 

the Regional Director finds a significant impact would 

occur an environmental impact statement will be prepared. If approved, the actions in the preferred alternatives will compose the final CCP. 

After the planning team prepares the final CCP for 

publication, a notice of availability will be published in 

the Federal Register, and copies of the final CCP or accompanying summary will be sent to individuals on the 

mailing list. Subsequently, the Service will carry out 

the CCP with help from partner agencies, organizations, and the public. 

The CCP will provide long-term guidance for management decisions; support achievement of the goals, 

objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish the 

purposes of the refuge complex; and describe the Service’s best estimate of future needs. The CCP will 

detail program-planning levels that may be substantially above budget allocations and, thus, are primarily 

for strategic planning purposes. The CCP does not 

constitute a commitment for staff increases, operation 

and maintenance increases, or money for future land 

acquisitions. 
18 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex
 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area . 

Dave Hanna 

The refuge complex consists of 163,304 acres of lands 

and waters encompassing the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge, Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area, Rocky 

Mountain Front Conservation Area, Swan River 

National Wildlife Refuge, and Swan Valley Conservation Area. 

The Service is responsible for the protection of 

7,098 acres of wetland easements, 4,294 acres of 

grassland easements, 628 acres of Farmer’s Home 

Administration conservation easements, 120,838 

acres of conservation easements, 16,498 acres of 

waterfowl production areas (16,218 fee title and 280 

leased from the State), and 14,028 acres of refuge 

lands. 

The refuge complex spreads across a 12-county 

area in northwestern Montana: Cascade, Chouteau, 

Glacier, Hill, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Missoula, 

Lake, Pondera, Powell, Teton, and Toole. The refuge 

complex headquarters is located at the Benton Lake 

Refuge, 12 miles north of Great Falls. 

Chapter 7 has more information specific to the 

Benton Lake Refuge. 

2 .1 Establishment, 

Acquisition, and 

Management History 

The following section describes the establishment, 

acquisition, and management history of the national 

wildlife refuges, wetland management districts, and 

conservation areas within the refuge complex. Table 

2 summarizes the land acquisition history for the 

refuge complex. 
20 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Table 2 . Land acquisition history for units of the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Complex Unit County Date Acres Means of 

Acquired or Acquisition 

Established 

Benton Lake National Cascade, Chouteau, Teton 1929 12,234.92 Primary withdrawal 

Wildlife Refuge 1958–62 147.64 Fee title 

1958–62 76.88 Right-of-way easement 

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

Cascade, Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Lewis and Clark, 

Liberty, Pondera, Powell, 

Teton, Toole 

1975 16,138 Fee title 

280 State lease land 

7,098 Wetland easement 

4,294 Grassland easement 

628 Farmers Home Administration 

easement 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area 

Lewis and Clark, Missoula, 

Powell 

1994 23,845 Migratory Bird Conservation 

Funds 

19,361 Land Water Conservation Funds 

311 Donation 

474 North American Wetlands Con

servation Act grant 

Rocky Mountain 

Front Conservation 

Area 

Teton, Lewis and Clark 2005 31,479 Migratory Bird Conservation 

Funds 

45,368 Land Water Conservation Funds Pondera 

Swan River National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Lake 1973 1,568.81 Fee title 

Swan Valley Conser

vation Area 

Lake, Missoula 2011 0 None to date 

Total 12 counties 1929–present 163,304.25 Various 

­

­

BENTON LAKE NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Originally owned and managed by the Bureau 

of Reclamation as part of the Sun River Reclamation Project, the Benton Lake Refuge (figure 5) was 

withdrawn from the public domain and became part 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System by Executive order of President Herbert Hoover in 1929. The 

original area of the refuge was 12,235 acres, of which 

about 3,000 was flooded wetland in 1928 (Great Falls 

Tribune 1929a). 

The refuge was unstaffed, with infrequent visits 

from refuge managers at the National Bison Range 

until 1961, when local support from the Cascade 

County Wildlife Association prompted a major effort to increase the water supply and management 

capabilities of the refuge. A pump station, pipeline, 

and water control structures were constructed 

from 1958–62 to bring irrigation return water from 

Muddy Creek, about 15 miles to the west, to the 

Benton Lake Refuge. The acquisition of the pumping 

station near Power, Montana brought the refuge 

to its current fee-title acreage of 12,383 acres. In 

addition, 76.88 acres of right-of-way easement were 

bought to accommodate the pipeline. 

In 1962, the first water was pumped from Muddy 

Creek and managed by the new, permanent staff 

on the refuge. The historical Benton Lake bed was 

divided into six wetland management units (Unit 4 

was later subdivided into three subunits) by dikes, 

ditches, and water control structures to facilitate 

management of water. 

Water management at Benton Lake Refuge, 

since the Muddy Creek pumping system was developed, has typically sought to consistently flood 

some wetland pools each year to provide breeding 

and migration habitat for waterfowl. In the uplands, 

management of the early 1960s included the breaking of more than 600 acres of native prairie for agricultural production, planting of many shelterbelts, 

and a reduction in haying and grazing activities that 

had dominated the refuge’s first 30 years. 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 21
 

Figure 5 . Map of Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 
22 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

A more detailed description of the establishment, 

acquisition and management history of Benton Lake 

Refuge is in chapter 7. 

BENTON LAKE WETLAND 


MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
 

The district, established in 1975, is spread over 

a 10-county area consisting of Cascade, Chouteau, 

Glacier, Hill, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Pondera, 

Powell, Teton, and Toole Counties in north-central 

Montana (figures 6 and 7). There are several types 

of Refuge System lands within the wetland management district: 

■■ waterfowl production areas, which are acquired 

in fee title 

■■ perpetual wetland easements, which protect privately owned wetlands from being drained, filled, 

or leveled, while the landowner keeps all other 

rights 

■■ perpetual grassland easements, which protect 

privately owned rangeland and hayland from conversion to cropland, and the landowner keeps all 

other rights 

■■ perpetual Farmers Home Administration conservation easements, which help farmers reduce 

their debt load on farmland and protect wetlands 

and grasslands 

■■ perpetual conservation easements, which primarily protect wetland and grassland habitats from 

being subdivided and developed on privately 

owned property 

■■ a grassland and wetland parcel leased from the 

State and managed similarly as a waterfowl production fee-title unit. 

Waterfowl production areas and wetland and grassland easements are bought or donated from willing sellers through the Small Wetlands Acquisition 

Program authorized by The U.S. Congress in 1958— 

as an amendment to the Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934. This program 

is funded by the sale of Federal Duck Stamps and 

loans against future duck stamp sales. The purpose of this important program is to make sure the 

long-term protection of breeding habitat, primarily 

within the PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region of the 

United States, for waterfowl and other migratory 

bird species. 

The Service owns waterfowl production areas 

in fee title and manages them to provide breeding 

waterfowl with quality wetlands for courtship and 

brood rearing, as well as suitable grasslands for 

nesting. Habitats are managed using techniques 

such as prescribed grazing, haying, and fire, including farming and reseeding of former croplands to 

herbaceous cover. Most of the wetlands on waterfowl production areas within the refuge complex 

are subject to natural flooding and drying cycles and 

are not intensively managed or manipulated. These 

areas are open to migratory gamebird hunting, upland gamebird hunting, big game hunting, fishing, 

and trapping according to State seasons. Hunting 

opportunities attract hunters from across the United 

States and Canada. The Sands WPA and the H2-O 

WPA are closed to hunting in accordance with property deed restrictions. 

Wetland easements are perpetual and prohibit 

filling, leveling, draining, and burning of wetlands 

under easement. Wetland easements are real property interests that the Service buys from willing 

landowners and are permanent fixtures to land titles. The land remains in private ownership and the 

landowner decides on public access. Since 1958 when 

the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program began, 

the Service has acquired a perpetual, real property 

interest in more than 2 million wetland acres for waterfowl production in the Great Plains States, which 

include Montana. The district currently manages 

7,098 acres of perpetual wetland easements. 

Conversion of grassland to cropland has generated a need for protection of upland habitat next 

to wetlands. The loss of upland nesting cover has 

reduced the value and productivity of wetlands for 

nesting waterfowl and their broods, other migratory 

birds, and other wildlife. Grassland easements, like 

wetland easements, are perpetual and protect both 

existing and restored habitat. The purposes of the 

perpetual, grassland easement program are (1) to 

improve and protect the water quality of wetlands, 

(2) support upland nesting habitat for ground-nesting birds, (3) protect highly erodible soils, and (4) 

provide an alternative to buying uplands in fee title, 

leaving land in private ownership. Grassland easements are real property interests that the Service 

buys from willing landowners to prohibit a loss of 

grassland cover from cropland conversion and development. Grassland easements also protect nesting 

birds by prohibiting haying or mowing until after 

July 15. Typically, haying and mowing is only conducted on tame grasslands. Grazing is not prohibited 

or regulated under the grassland easement. Money 

for grassland easements comes primarily from the 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act and North American Wetland Conservation Act 
Chapter 2—The Refuge Complex 23
 

Figure 6 . Map of easements and waterfowl production areas in the Benton Lake Wetland Management District (north), Montana . 
24 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Figure 7 . Map of easements and waterfowl production areas in the Benton Lake Wetland Management District (south), Montana . 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 25 

grants. The district currently manages 4,294 acres of 

perpetual grassland easements. 

Farmers Home Administration conservation 

easements were developed by The U.S. Congress 

under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1985 to establish easements for conservation, recreation, and wildlife purposes on 

properties that were foreclosed on by the Federal 

Government (inventory properties). The Service 

was designated as the easement manager on those 

easements worthy of inclusion into the Refuge System. The district currently manages 628 acres of 

perpetual Farmers Home Administration conservation easements. 

As of 2011, the district has 22 waterfowl production areas totaling 16,498 (16,218 fee title and 280 

leased from the State) acres, which are described in 

table 3. 

More wetland and grassland easements may be 

acquired based on the availability of money from the 

North American Wetland Conservation Act grants, 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, and the 

availability of willing sellers. 

Table 3 . Waterfowl production areas in the Benton Lake Wetland Management District, Montana . 

Waterfowl Purchase year Location Total Habitat 

production size 

Tame Native area (acres) grass­ grassland land 

(acres) (acres) 

Wetland 

(acres) 

Arod Lakes 1992 8.5 miles southwest of Brady 797 628 0 169 

Big Sag 1980 3 miles northeast of Highwood 350 181 0 169 

Blackfoot 1978, 1988, 

2004, 2010 

7 miles southeast of Ovando 1,713 0 1,548 165 

Blackhurst 1979 4 miles north of Ferdig 320 277 0 43 

Brown 1980 3.5 northeast of Sunburst 260 215 0 45 

Brumwell 1976 4 miles north of Power 252 73 0 179 

Cemetary 1982 3 miles east of Sunburst 109 37 0 72 

Danbrook 1979 6 miles east of Sweetgrass 327 220 0 107 

Dunk 1980 5 miles northeast of Sunburst 80 52 0 28 

Ehli 1978 8 miles east of Sweetgrass 475 171 154 150 

Furnell 1976 2.5 miles south of Whitlash 1,995 0 1,871 124 

H2–O Donated 

2000 

in 3 miles northwest of Helmville 1,803 863 705 235 

Hartelius 1979 5 miles north of Vaughn 307 173 0 134 

Hingham Lake Leased from 

the State 

2 miles northeast of Rudyard 280 0 167 113 

Jarina 1986 12.5 miles west of Dupuyer 640 0 555 85 

Kingsbury Lake 1980 4 miles southwest of Geraldine 3,734 248 2,054 1,432 

Kleinschmidt Lake 1992 6 miles southeast of Ovando 1,120 0 1,062 58 

Long Lake 1980 3.5 miles northeast of Sunburst 646 349 0 297 

Peterson 1977 10 miles northeast of Santa Rita 94 51 15 28 

Sands Donated 

1983 

in 3 miles west of Havre 379 84 129 166 

Savik 1982 1.5 miles southwest of Bynum 397 0 143 254 

Schrammeck Lake 1980 8 miles southeast of Cascade 420 122 0 298 
26 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

BLACKFOOT VALLEY 

CONSERVATION AREA 

The Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area (figure 

8)—originally the Blackfoot Valley Wildlife Management Area—was established on February 3, 1997, 

under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 United 

States Code [U.S.C.] 742a–j) and Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901(b), 

100 Stat. 3583). The Blackfoot Valley CA overlaps 

the district in Powell County. By establishing the 

conservation area, the Service expanded its authorization to protect habitat in Powell County beyond 

the district’s Small Wetlands Acquisition Program to 

include the authority to buy easements with LWCF 

money within the conservation area boundary. This 

was important because some high-priority conservation areas that could not qualify under the Small 

Wetlands Acquisition Program were now eligible for 

easements under the LWCF. 

In 2009–10, efforts were made to expand the 

project area for LWCF acquisition authority after 

overwhelming support for the expansion was received during CCP scoping meetings. Refuge staff 

completed a preliminary project proposal in November 2009, which was approved April 8, 2010. Detailed 

planning began in May 2010 including a public scoping meeting in Ovando on May 19, 2010. A draft EA 

and land protection plan was released for a 30-day 

public review from July 25–August 25, 2010. The expansion of the existing conservation area and subsequent LWCF acquisition authority from 23,500 acres 

to 103,500 acres was authorized and the name of 

the project area was changed from Blackfoot Valley 

Wildlife Management Area to Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area on January 5, 2011. This expanded 

the project area from Powell County to included 

parts of Missoula and Lewis and Clark Counties. 

The project area encompasses an 824,024-acre 

ecosystem that includes parts of Missoula, Powell, and Lewis and Clark Counties. Parts of these 

counties make up the Blackfoot River watershed in 

western Montana and include the Ovando Valley and 

the Helmville Valley. The watershed is bordered to 

the east by the Continental Divide, to the south by 

the Garnet Range, to the north by the Bob Marshall 

Figure 8 . Map of the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area, Montana . 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 27 

and Scapegoat Wilderness, and to the west by the 

Rattlesnake Wilderness. The center of the project 

area lies about 55 miles east of Missoula. 

Because the project area contains acquisition 

authority for both the Small Wetlands Acquisition 

Program and the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund (LWCF), these options allow for purchases 

of fee-title waterfowl production areas and grassland, wetland, and conservation easements. Each 

individual easement has a variety of rights secured 

in the purchase including protection of grasslands 

from being plowed under, the draining, burning, 

or filling of wetlands or protection of habitats from 

being subdivided and developed. This integration of 

acquisition authorities provides a variety of choices 

for conservation in the Blackfoot Valley. 

The Blackfoot, Kleinschmidt Lake, and H2–O 

WPAs form the anchor of the conservation area. 

The conservation easement program and waterfowl 

production areas located within the project are administratively managed by the refuge complex office 

and maintenance facilities located on the H2–O WPA 

in Helmville, by a permanent full-time position cofunded by the refuge complex and the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program. 

To date, 43,991 acres of wetland, grassland, and 

conservation easements have been obtained within 

the project area. LWCF accounted for 19,361 acres 

of conservation easements and the remaining acreage includes 23,845 acres with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds, 474 acres with North American 

Wetlands Conservation Act money, and 311 acres 

from donation. 

The Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area is part 

of a conservation strategy to protect one of the last 

undeveloped, low-elevation river valley ecosystems 

in western Montana. The area complements other 

components of a broad partnership known as the 

Blackfoot Challenge. These efforts include the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program working with private landowners to restore and enhance 

habitat on private lands and coordinated management activities on public lands throughout the entire 

Blackfoot Valley. 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT 

CONSERVATION AREA 

The Rocky Mountain Front CA was established 

on August 10, 2005 under the Fish and Wildlife Act 

of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a–j) for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources (figure 9). The 

conservation area is nested within the district including parts of Lewis and Clark, Teton, and Pondera Counties. As with the Blackfoot Valley CA, the 

project area contains acquisition authority for both 

the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program and the 

LWCF. These options allow for purchases of grassland, wetland, and conservation easements. Each 

individual purchase has a variety of rights secured, 

including protection of grasslands from being plowed 

under, the draining, burning, or filling of wetlands 

or protection of habitats from being subdivided and 

developed. This integration of acquisition authorities 

provides a variety of choices for conservation along 

the Front. 

In 2009–10, efforts were made to expand the 

conservation area for LWCF acquisition authority 

after overwhelming support for the expansion was 

received during CCP scoping meetings. Refuge staff 

completed a preliminary project proposal in November of 2009, which was approved April 8, 2010. 

Detailed planning began in May 2010 including a 

public scoping meeting in Choteau on May 17, 2010. 

A draft EA and land protection plan was released 

for a 30-day public review from July 25–August 25, 

2010. The expansion of the existing conservation 

area and subsequent LWCF acquisition authority 

from 170,000 acres to 295,000 acres was authorized 

on January 5, 2011. 

The expanded project area skirts along the eastern edge of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem 

and is centered 65 miles northwest of Great Falls, 

Montana. Lying in the shadow of the rugged Continental Divide, the Bob Marshall Wilderness and 

Lewis and Clark National Forest marks its western 

boundary. The 1.5 million acre Blackfeet Indian Reservation borders the project to the north and the 

eastern boundary is dictated by the distribution of 

fescue grasslands, which generally follows highways 

89 and 287. The southern boundary falls approximately along the watershed of the south fork of the 

Dearborn River. 

To date, a total of 76,847 acres have been protected by the Service through conservation easements. The Service bought 31,479 acres with 

Migratory Bird Conservation Funds and 45,368 

acres with LWCF. Current activities include cooperation and partnerships with a variety of nongovernmental organizations to significantly leverage 

available Federal money to complete the approved 

acquisitions within the project area. The conservation easement program is administratively managed by the refuge complex headquarters facilities 

located north of Great Falls, by two permanent fulltime positions. 

The Rocky Mountain Front CA has been a successful model for partnerships with and connecting 

to lands already owned by the State of Montana, 

TNC, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Forest Service, the Montana Land Reliance, the 
28 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Figure 9 . Map of the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area, Montana . 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 29 

Boone and Crockett Club, and the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). In addition, local ranchers, 

business owners, and representatives of local governments have formed a landowner advisory council 

to find options and strategies for supporting ranching and rural lifestyles in the area. Conservation 

easements are a tool that they strongly support as a 

means of conserving the ranching lifestyle along the 

Front. 

SWAN RIVER NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE REFUGE 

The Swan River Refuge is located in northwest 

Montana (figure 10), 38 miles southeast of the town 

of Creston, in the Swan Valley. The refuge was established May 14, 1973, at the request of Montana 

Senator Lee Metcalf, who often hunted the area 

and who desired to see it preserved. The refuge was 

established under the authority of the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. The 1,568.81-acre refuge lies 

within the floodplain of the Swan River above Swan 

Lake and between the Swan Mountain Range to the 

east and the Mission Mountain Range to the west. 

The Swan River Valley was formed when glacial 

water poured down the steep slopes of the Mission 

Range into Flathead Lake. The valley floor is generally flat, but rises steeply to adjacent forested 

mountain sides. Approximately 80 percent of the refuge lies within this valley floodplain. Deciduous and 

coniferous forests compose the remaining 20 percent. Swan River, which once meandered through 

the floodplain, has been forced to the west side of 

the refuge by past earthquakes and deposits of silt. 

These geologic events have created a series of oxbow sloughs within the refuge floodplain. 

Figure 10. Map of Swan River National Wildlife 

Refuge, Montana. 

The refuge’s objectives include providing for 

waterfowl habitat and production and to provide 

habitat for other migratory birds. It also provides 

nesting for bald eagles and a variety of other avian 

species. In addition, deer, elk, moose, beaver, otter, 

bobcat, black bear, and threatened species including grizzly bears, bull trout, and water howellia are 

known to inhabit the area. There are no significant 

developments; however, a small parking area with 

access to a kiosk and overlook with interpretive panels do exist. 

When the refuge was under private ownership, it 

served as a cattle operation and, later, as a fur farm. 

Old ditches and dikes constructed during private 

ownership have altered the hydrology of flooding 

events across the refuge, the degree, to which, has 

yet to be decided but is being explored through new 

light detection and ranging (LIDAR) technology. 

Haying and grazing for habitat management have 

not been conducted in recent years. Finding willing 

cooperators is hampered by the distances farmers 

and ranchers need to travel to get to the refuge. 

Prescribed fire is still used as an alternate habitat 

management tool; however, concerns about the effects of burning on bull trout habitat, smoke management, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Forest Service inholding suggest the need 

for interagency planning which may result in more 

challenging burns. 

SWAN VALLEY 

CONSERVATION AREA 

The Swan Valley is located on the western edge of 

the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem, approximately 30 miles southeast of Kalispell, Montana. 

The Bob Marshall Wilderness and Glacier National 

Park mark the eastern boundary, with the Mission 

Mountains Wilderness and Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai tribal lands on the western boundary, and 

the Blackfoot Valley flanking the southern side of 

the watershed. The project area encompasses an 

187,400-acre landscape on the valley floor of the 

469,000-acre Swan River watershed. The watershed 

contains approximately 332,000 acres in protected 

public ownership. 

The Swan Valley Conservation Area (figure 

11) was designated to help protect one of the last 

undeveloped, low-elevation coniferous forest ecosystems in western Montana. The Swan Valley is 

situated between the roadless areas of the Glacier 

National Park–Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, 

the Mission Mountains Wilderness, and the SelwayBitterroot Wilderness to the southwest. As such, 

it provides an avenue of connectivity between the 

Canadian Rockies and the central Rockies of Idaho 

and Wyoming. 

In 2009–10, efforts were made to establish the 

conservation area after support for the establishment was received during CCP scoping meetings. 

Refuge staff completed a Preliminary Project Proposal in November of 2009, which was approved 

April 8, 2010. Detailed planning began in May 2010 

including two public scoping meetings in Condon, 

Montana on May 18 and June 2, 2010. A draft EA 

and land protection plan were released for a 30­

day public review from July 26–August 26, 2010. A 

finding of no significant impact was signed by the 

Region 6 Director on September 24, 2010. The establishment of the conservation area and LWCF 

acquisition authority for up to 10,000 acres of conservation easements and up to 1,000 acres in fee title 
30 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Figure 10 . Map of Swan River National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 31
 

Figure 11 . Map of the Swan Valley Conservation Area, Montana . 
32 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

immediately next to the Swan River Refuge was 

authorized on May 18, 2011. 

Due to its very recent establishment, no easements or fee title lands have yet been purchased 

within the Swan Valley Conservation Area. The 

conservation easement program is administratively managed by the refuge complex headquarters, which is located north of Great Falls. If future 

money is available, the refuge complex will consider 

placement of a full-time permanent position within 

the valley to manage and administer the conservation area. 

2 .2 Purposes of the 

Refuge Complex Units 

Every national wildlife refuge, wetland management district, and conservation area has a purpose 

for which it was established. This purpose is the 

foundation on which to build all refuge, district, and 

conservation area programs—from biology and public use, to maintenance and facilities. No action undertaken by the Service or public may conflict with 

this purpose. The refuge, district, and conservation 

area purposes are found in the legislative acts or executive actions that provide the authorities to either 

transfer or acquire a piece of land for one of these 

units. Over time, an individual refuge or district may 

contain lands that have been acquired under various transfer and acquisition authorities, giving the 

unit more than one purpose. The goals, objectives, 

and strategies proposed in the draft CCP (refer to 

chapter 6) are intended to support the individual 

purposes for which each refuge, district, and conservation area was established. 

BENTON LAKE NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE REFUGE 

The purposes of the Benton Lake Refuge are: 

■■ As a refuge and breeding ground for birds (Executive Order 5228, dated November 21, 1929). 

■■ For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory birds 

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act). 

BENTON LAKE WETLAND 


MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
 

The purposes of the district are: 

■■ As “Waterfowl Production Areas subject to all 

of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] except the inviolate sanctuary 

provisions” (Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp). 

■■ For “any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act). 

■■ For “conservation purposes” (Consolidated Farm 

and Rural Development Act). 

BLACKFOOT VALLEY 

CONSERVATION AREA 

The purposes of the Blackfoot Valley Conservation 

Area are: 

■■ For “conservation of the wetlands of the Nation 

to support the public benefits they provide and to 

help fulfill international obligations contained in 

various migratory bird treaties and conventions” 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986). 

■■ For “the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956). 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT 

CONSERVATION AREA 

The purposes of the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area are: 

■■ For “the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956). 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 33 

SWAN RIVER NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE REFUGE 

The purposes of the Swan River Refuge are: 

■■ For “use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory birds” 

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act). 

SWAN VALLEY 

CONSERVATION AREA 

The purposes of the Swan Valley Conservation Area 

are: 

■■ For “the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956). 

2 .3 Vision for the 

Refuge Complex 

A vision is a concept, including desired conditions for 

the future, which describes the essence of what the 

Service is trying to accomplish. The following vision 

for the refuge complex is a future-oriented statement designed to be achieved through refuge, district, and conservation area management throughout 

the life of this CCP and beyond. 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area . 

USFWS 

The spirit of the American West 

resonates on both sides of the 

Continental Divide in the prairies, 

mountains, rivers, and wetlands of the 

Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex . 

Here, migratory birds fill the sky, 

bull trout thrive, and grizzlies and wolves 

still roam . Visitors experience many of 

the same landscapes that Lewis and Clark 

explored on their journey through the 

“Crown of the Continent .” 

Conservation efforts in the 

refuge complex protect 

intact landscapes, manage 

productive habitats, and offer people 

opportunities to connect with wildlife 

in solitude under Montana’s big sky . 

These efforts rely on innovative 

public and private partnerships, 

are supported by the region’s people, 

and harmonize with the 

historic rural economy . 

2 .4 Goals for the 

Refuge Complex 

The Service developed a set of goals for the refuge 

complex based on the Improvement Act, the purposes of the refuge complex, and information developed during project planning. A goal is a descriptive, 

broad statement of desired future conditions that 

conveys a purpose, but does not define measurable 

units. The goals direct efforts toward achieving the 

vision and purposes of the refuge complex and outline approaches for managing refuge resources. The 

Service established seven goals for the entire refuge 

complex. 

LANDSCAPE 

CONSERVATION GOAL 

Actively pursue and continue to foster relationships 

within the Service, other agencies, organizations, 
34 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

and private partners to protect, preserve, manage, 

and restore the functionality of the diverse ecosystems within the working landscape of the refuge 

complex. 

HABITAT GOAL 

Actively conserve, restore, and manage upland and 

wetland habitats across the northern prairies and intermountain valleys of the refuge complex, through 

management strategies that perpetuate the integrity of ecological communities. 

WILDLIFE GOAL 

Support diverse and sustainable continental, regional, and local populations of migratory birds, native fish, species of concern, and other indigenous 

wildlife of the northern prairies and intermountain 

valleys of northern Montana. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES GOAL
 

Identify and evaluate the cultural resources of the 

refuge complex and protect those that are found to 

be significant. 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL 

Provide opportunities for visitors of all abilities to 

enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation on Serviceowned lands and increase knowledge and appreciation for the refuge complex’s ecological communities 

and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

ADMINISTRATION GOAL 

Provide facilities, strategically allocate staff, and 

effectively use and develop sources of money, partnerships, and volunteer opportunities to support 

the long-term integrity of habitats and wildlife resources of the refuge complex. 

VISITOR AND EMPLOYEE 

SAFETY AND RESOURCE 

PROTECTION GOAL 

Provide for the safety, security, and protection of 

visitors, employees, natural and cultural resources, 

and facilities throughout the refuge complex. 

2 .5 Special Values 

Early in the planning process, the planning team 

and public identified the outstanding qualities, or 

special values, of the refuge complex. These special 

values are characteristics and features of the refuge complex that make it special and valuable for 

wildlife. Identifying the special values of the refuge 

complex emphasizes the refuge complex’s worth and 

makes sure that the refuge complex is conserved, 

protected, and enhanced through the planning process. These special values can be unique biological 

resources, as well as something as simple as a quiet 

place to see a variety of birds and enjoy nature. 

PART OF A NATIONAL SYSTEM
 

The refuge complex is part of a national system of 

lands. In the 1920s, public agencies and private organizations attempted to elevate the public’s awareness of wetland loss and to take positive steps to 

slow it. The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 

1929 authorized the Federal Government to acquire 

wetlands and associated uplands to conserve them 

as migratory bird habitat and thus create a chain of 

stepping stones along major migration routes. The 

law also established a commission of Federal and 

State officials to evaluate lands for possible acquisition, and in so doing, it established the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (Adair 2003). 

INTACT LANDSCAPES 

Some areas keep the same composition of habitat 

and wildlife as 100 years ago. Refuge complex lands 

and waters are important corridors for birds, fish, 

and other wildlife. 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 35 

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
 

The refuge complex’s conservation easement programs protect existing native prairie areas and 

wetlands in perpetuity through the acquisition of 

grassland, wetland, and conservation easements on 

private lands. The Service, with the willing seller 

interest of private landowners, has protected more 

than 132,858 acres of grassland and wetland habitats 

throughout the refuge complex. 

INTACT NATIVE PRAIRIE 

Large, intact native prairie communities can still 

be found throughout the refuge complex. Since approximately 50 percent of native grasslands have 

been lost in the PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region of 

Montana, preservation of native prairie is extremely 

important (Ducks Unlimited 2003). Visitors to the 

refuge complex can experience the vastness and “big 

sky” of relatively undisturbed prairie landscapes. 

Native prairie areas are important to grassland-dependent species such as northern pintail, burrowing 

owl, chestnut-collared longspurs, and Sprague’s pipits as well as other species of concern. These wildlife 

species favor large expanses of native prairie and 

are sensitive to its development and conversion to 

agricultural uses. Species Diversity 

Across the refuge complex, there exists a very 

high level of diversity. Wildlife ranges from migratory waterfowl to grassland birds, to native trout, to 

“charismatic megafauna”’ such as elk, gray wolf, and 

grizzly bear. 

DIVERSITY OF 

WATER FEATURES 

A variety of waterbodies occurs within the refuge 

complex boundaries, including depressional wetlands, semipermanent wetlands, riparian corridors, 

and wild rivers. These wetland habitats serve many 

ecological functions as well as agricultural purposes. 

RARE SPECIES 

Refuge complex lands harbor Federal and State species of concern. Threatened and endangered species 

include bull trout, grizzly bear, gray wolf, Canada 

lynx, and water howellia. 

MIGRATORY BIRDS 

The lands of the refuge complex were established to 

protect and provide habitat for migratory birds that 

cross State lines and international borders and are 

by law a Federal trust responsibility. 

The refuge complex is of great value to waterfowl and shorebirds, as well as other migrating water-dependent bird species, because of the diversity 

of wetland and upland habitats that provide for the 

diverse life cycle needs of these species. Furthermore, the refuge complex has large, intact areas 

of native prairie that provide habitat for grassland 

birds that are one of the most imperiled groups of 

migratory birds nationwide. In addition, the refuge 

complex serves as a valuable research site for the 

study of migratory birds, plant communities, and 

grassland and wetland management. 

CULTURAL HISTORY 

The refuge complex has a rich cultural history of Native American inhabitants, explorers, frontiersmen, 

outlaws, and early settlers. Evidence of early human 

occupation in the State of Montana dates back 11,000 

years (Brumley 2006). 

The Lewis and Clark expedition traveled the 

Missouri River, and extensively throughout the refuge complex through parts of the district and the 

Blackfoot Valley, Swan Valley, and Rocky Mountain 

Front Conservation Areas. 

PUBLIC USE 

The refuge complex is valued by hunters for its variety of hunting opportunities and by other visitors 

for its opportunities to view and photograph wildlife 

and their habitats. 

The refuge complex attracts many visitors and 

tourist dollars to the communities surrounding the 

refuges and waterfowl production areas. 

RURAL ECONOMIES 

The Service works closely with agricultural landowners in the surrounding communities and has an 

interest in preserving these working landscapes. 
36 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

2 .6 Planning Issues 

Several key issues were identified following the 

analysis of comments collected from refuge complex staff and the public and a review of the requirements of the Improvement Act and NEPA. 

Eight public meetings, news releases in the local 

and regional press, presentations to local agencies 

and organizations, an announcement in the Federal 

Register, and planning updates were used to solicit 

public input on which issues the CCP should address. Substantive comments (those that could be 

addressed within the authority and management 

capabilities of the Service) were considered during 

formulation of the alternatives for future management. Issues relating to the Benton Lake Refuge are 

described in section 7.2 in chapter 7. Key issues pertaining to the rest of the refuge complex are summarized below. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Climate change is anticipated, but there are many 

unknowns. The Service does not fully understand 

the effects that climate change will have on precipitation or temperatures, or the corresponding effects 

to habitat and wildlife species. The refuge complex’s 

unique attributes of intact landscapes and diversity 

in terms of habitat and elevation gradient changes, 

positions the refuge complex in a unique situation. 

The intact landscapes with functioning ecological 

processes are characterized by ecosystem resiliency 

and resistance and better suited for adapting to extreme changes predicted by global climate change. 

For example, these relatively intact landscapes (the 

Rocky Mountain Front, Swan Valley, and Blackfoot 

Valley Conservation Areas) provide opportunities 

for corridors for wide-roaming species and gradients 

for elevation migrations. 

In areas of the refuge complex that are not as intact, for example the landscape around Benton Lake 

Refuge, managing the refuge to maximize its resiliency and long-term sustainability becomes even 

more critical with climate change (see section 7.2). 

This planning issue carries through all alternatives under the Climate Change planning element 

heading in chapter 3. 

AGRICULTURAL CONVERSION
 

A loss of native prairie due to agriculture (tilling, 

plowing) is occurring. These habitats are especially 

important for nesting migratory birds, including 

many shorebirds, waterfowl, and grassland bird 

species. Current and changing Farm Bill Policy 

continues to be a driving force in the profitability 

of converting native prairie into tillable land. This 

affects the Service ability to protect native prairie 

landscapes through easement programs. 

The geographic area immediately east of the 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area has been 

largely converted to small grain production. The 

presence of large cattle ranches, depressed grain 

prices, frequent high winds, and fragile soils has 

largely prevented grassland conversion in this area. 

Changes in global commodity prices or Federal farm 

policies could quickly change this situation. 

This planning issue involves several planning 

elements and carries through all alternatives under 

Elements Common to All Alternatives and under 

the Preserving Intact Landscapes planning element 

heading in chapter 3. 

DEVELOPMENT 

Due to increasing development pressure, many 

opportunities to protect habitat for wildlife may 

be permanently lost as these areas are developed 

for residential, commercial, agricultural, and other 

purposes. Increased fragmentation of habitat from 

housing developments and associated road development is a threat to the refuge complex. The 

latest published statistics by the U.S. Census Bureau, reported the State of Montana experienced a 

9.7-percent increase in population from 2000-2010. 

Population change within the refuge complex varied 

with Lake, Liberty, Missoula, and Lewis and Clark 

County experiencing the largest population growth 

rates of 5–15 percent. Cascade, Glacier, Pondera, and 

Toole County experienced moderate growth rates 

of 0–5 percent within the same period (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2011b). The Rocky Mountain Front CA is 

comprised mainly of large-scale private ranches and 

Federal, State, and private conservation properties, 

which have allowed it to remain significantly intact. 

Recently, demand for recreational property and development of vacation home “ranchettes” has been 

spilling over from western Montana and that constitutes the single greatest threat to this ecosystem. In 

particular, the canyon mouths of the Dearborn, Sun, 

and Teton Rivers have become targets for several 

small recreational subdivisions. Many new homes 

and resorts are “view properties” situated in lowand mid-elevation forests, native grassland–sagebrush communities, and riparian habitats along the 

major rivers such as the Blackfoot and Swan Rivers 

and their associated tributary streams. 

Extractive industries such as coal mining, and 

wind, oil, and gas development, pose immediate 

threats to this landscape and contribute to further 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 37 

fragmentation of the landscape. Historically, the 

predominant industries in many western Montana 

rural counties were timber or mining production. 

Clearcuts, mining activity, and logging roads were 

the major threats to wildlife habitat in the region. 

However, mining reclamation and clean-up has 

become more predominant than exploration and 

development. In the 1990s, mining, logging, and 

wood-product industries were declining while health 

services, trade contractors, business services, and 

real estate development were growing. 

A major difference between the old economy 

(timber, mining, and ranching) and the new economy 

(residential development and amenities) is the level 

of permanence. Effects from logging and, to a lesser 

extent, mining can be reclaimed; trees and other 

vegetative cover can regenerate; and logging roads 

can be closed and obliterated. However, subdivisions 

and developments are more permanent and offer 

fewer possibilities of wildlife habitat restoration in 

the future. In most instances, the Service does not 

own the subsurface mineral rights of the units in 

the refuge complex. In the district, renewed oil and 

gas exploration, in combination with new interests 

in wind development, has heightened the threat of 

accelerated fragmentation. 

This planning issue involves several planning 

elements and carries through all alternatives under 

Elements Common to All Alternatives and under 

the Preserving Intact Landscapes planning element 

heading in chapter 3. 

INVASIVE PLANTS, 

NONNATIVE PLANTS, 

AND NOXIOUS WEEDS 

Management of invasive plants, nonnative plants, 

and noxious weeds has been an issue throughout the 

refuge complex for many years. 

Priority noxious weeds include spotted knapweed, leafy spurge, yellow and Dalmatian toadflax, common tansy and tansy ragwort. Other 

nonnative grasses such as crested wheatgrass, reed 

canarygrass, Garrison creeping foxtail, Kentucky 

bluegrass, Japanese brome and cheatgrass are 

also expanding rapidly on refuge lands. Nonnative 

grasses, forbs, and woody species are of concern 

because they can diminish the quality and suitability 

of habitat and reduce its potential to support many 

native wildlife species. Nonnative grasses often develop into a monoculture. Invasive species spread 

easily, replace native habitat, reduce diversity, and 

cause great expenditure of financial and human resources. 

A male sharp-tailed grouse performs a courtship display 

at a lek . 

USFWS 

A large percentage of the Service’s fee-title land 

is comprised of nonnative grasses that should be 

replanted or restored to native species to provide 

optimal habitat conditions for wildlife. Planted nonnative tree and shrub species shelterbelts occur on 

Benton Lake Refuge, and several waterfowl production areas throughout the district where woody 

vegetation did not naturally occur. Whether or not 

these shelterbelts should be removed or supported 

needs to be evaluated. 

The Blackfoot Valley has experienced the spread 

of nonnative plant species as development and land 

use conversion have occurred. The Rocky Mountain 

Front has largely avoided the explosive spread of 

noxious weeds that has plagued much of western 

Montana over the past few decades. However, spotted knapweed and leafy spurge infestations have 

become established in the lower reaches of several 

riparian corridors. With plentiful weed sources 

in the region and limited government or private 

resources for noxious weed control, the spread of 

weeds into the area is a serious concern. 

This planning issue carries through all alternatives under Elements Common to All Alternatives 

in chapter 3. 

LOSS OF ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES 

Natural fluctuations in water levels (seasonal flooding and drying)—integral to a healthy functioning 

wetland system—have been lost at Benton Lake 

Refuge and altered to some extent at the Swan 

River Refuge. This is having a negative effect on 

health and long-term sustainability of the refuge 

complex’s wetland habitat. Improving, supporting, 

and protecting the health and long-term sustainability of wetland habitat on these two units is a continual challenge. Wetlands on and off of Service lands 
38 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

are susceptible to key stressors such as draining, 

sedimentation, alteration, pollution, and invasive 

species. Many of the wetlands on the refuge complex 

are subject to natural flooding and drying cycles that 

help support resiliency, health, and sustainability 

over the long term, protecting the wetlands from 

outside stressors. The most striking manifestation 

of the loss of fluctuating water levels and flooding 

intervals is the domination of nonnative species such 

as Garrison creeping foxtail, reed canarygrass, and 

other species that depend on stable water levels. 

(See chapter 7 for more information on Benton Lake 

Refuge.) 

The use of fire and grazing in supporting native 

grasslands has declined. Grazing by cattle and prescribed fire mimic historical disturbance regimes 

(such as herbivory by bison and lightning storms). 

Cattle grazing is used on approximately half of the 

waterfowl production areas within the refuge complex; however, livestock grazing does not currently 

occur on all units of the refuge complex. 

The presence of USDA Forest Service lands 

within the refuge boundary complicates the Service’s ability to conduct prescribed fires at the Swan 

River Refuge. The prescribed fires are critical for 

management, to rejuvenate vegetation as well as reduce litter and the associated fire hazard. Similarly, 

there is resistance to burning in populated areas due 

to safety concerns. 

This planning issue involves several planning 

elements and carries through all alternatives under 

Elements Common to All Alternatives and under 

the Partnerships for Conservation, Grassland Habitat Management, Wetland and Riparian Habitat 

Management, and Forest and Woodland Habitat 

Management planning element headings in chapter 

3. 

WATER QUALITY 

Elevated levels of selenium and salinity (as measured by high salinity concentrations) are present in 

the refuge complex and pose a threat to water quality. Many seepage areas exist in the refuge complex, 

especially surrounding the Benton Lake Refuge and 

across the district where native grasslands have 

been converted to agriculture. Both selenium and salinity, if their levels are high enough, can negatively 

affect wildlife, particularly reproduction. Selenium 

concentrations in the water, sediment, and biota 

of the Benton Lake Refuge are elevated and have 

reduced production of species, including waterfowl 

species, which are particularly sensitive to selenium 

(See chapter 7 for more information on Benton Lake 

Refuge.) 

This planning issue involves several planning 

elements and carries through all alternatives under 

Elements Common to All Alternatives and under 

the Preserving Intact Landscapes planning element 

heading in chapter 3. 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 

The refuge complex provides habitat for several 

wide-ranging carnivores of concern including the 

grizzly bear, Canada lynx, and gray wolf. Supporting 

the large landscapes that these species need is an 

issue for the refuge complex. 

Protecting habitat and managing for a wide variety of migratory birds is a priority for the refuge 

complex. Waterfowl and other waterbirds, grassland 

songbirds, and riparian area-dependent birds are 

some of the highest priority groups. Grassland birds, 

in particular, have experienced the most severe declines of any group of birds across the U.S. 

Several wildlife diseases are of concern within 

the refuge complex either due to a history of occurrence, human health concerns, or a concern that the 

disease could spread to the immediate area in the 

near future. These include botulism, West Nile virus, 

and chronic wasting disease among others. 

This planning issue involves several planning 

elements and carries through all alternatives under 

Elements Common to All Alternatives and under 

the Preserving Intact Landscapes, Species of Concern, Migratory Birds, and Visitor Services planning 

element headings in chapter 3. 

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 

Bull trout are known to occur within the part of 

the Swan River that flows through the Swan River 

Refuge. Northern pike (a nonnative fish species) 

migrates up Spring Creek and may be negatively 

affecting bull trout and waterfowl on the refuge. 

The refuge is closed March 1–July 15 to reduce disturbance to nesting migratory birds during the pike 

spawning period, which prevents anglers from removing some of these fish. 

This planning issue involves several planning 

elements and carries through all alternatives under 

Elements Common to All Alternatives and under 

the Wetland and Riparian Habitat Management; 

Species of Concern, and Visitor Services planning 

element headings in chapter 3. 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 39 

The piping plover nests on open shorelines . 

Bill Byrne / USFWS 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Visitor service programs and facilities are lacking throughout the refuge complex to support the 

wildlife-dependent uses of hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation. 

Some of the public is interested in more hunting 

opportunities on Service-owned lands. Others commented that there were too many hunters on some 

units, which has lowered the quality of their hunting 

experience (see chapter 7, section 7.2 for hunting on 

Benton Lake Refuge). In another aspect of the hunting program, a local outfitter requested a formalized 

permit system for guided waterfowl hunting on the 

Swan River Refuge. 

One request was received from a commercial outfitter to conduct guided hunting on the Swan River 

Refuge. A formal evaluation was conducted, and 

it was found that this is not an appropriate refuge 

use. See chapter 4, section 4.6, appropriateness and 

compatibility, for more details. 

Some people have expressed interest in fishing 

Spring Creek during the pike spawning run, but 

this would be a conflict with the Swan River Refuge 

closure to reduce disturbance to nesting migratory 

birds. 

The public enjoys viewing wildlife on the refuges and waterfowl production areas. Benton Lake 

Refuge, in particular, because of its close location 

to the city of Great Falls, is especially valued by 

birdwatchers. Opportunities throughout the refuge 

complex to expand the birdwatching experience for 

a wide variety of birds has been requested. 

The refuge complex is not meeting public demand 

for environmental education and interpretation programs. Expanding and updating these programs 

could enhance the public’s knowledge of wildlife 

management issues and encourage support, which 

would help wildlife populations in the future. There 

is some public confusion about which areas are open 

or closed and which uses are authorized or prohibited; updated brochures, signs, and interpretive panels have been suggested to improve this situation. 

This planning issue involves several planning elements and carries through all alternatives under Elements Common to All Alternatives and under the 

Visitor Services and Visitor and Employee Safety 

planning element headings in chapter 3. 

NONWILDLIFEDEPENDENT USES 

On the Swan River Refuge, Bog Road was once believed to be county road; this four-wheel drive road 

has a history of being used for motorized recreation. 

The future administration of this road needs to be 

evaluated. 

Another concern at the Swan River Refuge is 

noncompliance with a designated no-wake zone 

(boating) on the Swan River. The designation needs 

to be verified and enforcement efforts may need to 

be redirected to increase compliance and reduce 

wildlife disturbance. 

This planning issue involves several planning 

elements and carries through all alternatives under 

Elements Common to All Alternatives and under 

the Visitor Services, Visitor and Employee Safety, 

and Resource Protection planning element headings 

in chapter 3. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Many of the cultural resource sites on the refuge 

complex are not adequately identified or protected, 

and it is likely there are many undiscovered sites. 
40 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

This planning issue carries through all alternatives under Elements Common to All Alternatives 

in chapter 3. 

OPERATIONS 

Money and staff are not sufficient to fulfill the purposes and meet the goals of the refuge complex. The 

number of full-time equivalent positions (FTEs), a 

measure indicating the amount of available workforce, averaged 9.1 FTEs through the 1990s, and 

increased to an average of 10.80 during the last 10 

years. Currently the refuge complex has 9.5 permanent FTEs, and 2 seasonal FTEs as money permits. 

The refuge complex has grown from a single refuge with a moderately sized wetland management 

district in 1988, to two refuges, one wetland management district, and three conservation areas. This, 

coupled with the fact that several units are up to 5 

hours away from the refuge complex headquarters, 

makes daily management and operations difficult to 

coordinate. 

In addition to the increase in land base, the organizational structure of the refuge complex has 

changed as well. The refuge complex houses the 

following Service programs: Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife program, regional invasive species program, 

the zone law enforcement program, Refuge Inventory and Monitoring program, Montana Habitat and 

Population Evaluation Team (HAPET), and Montana realty program. Sharing resources across programs allows the Service to effectively use facilities 

and other resources, but also creates administrative 

challenges. Refuge complex staff needs to identify, 

describe, and set priorities for unfunded needs to be 

able to compete effectively for money from within 

the Service and from partners and other sources. 

Creative partnerships and volunteerism, although 

helpful, are not a complete or always reliable solution. Visitor numbers and associated demands would 

increase in coming years. With more resources, the 

Service could accomplish more of the goals and objectives of the refuge complex described in this CCP. 

This planning issue involves several planning 

elements and carries through all alternatives under 

Elements Common to All Alternatives and under 

the Staff and Funding, Visitor and Employee Safety, 

and Resource Protection planning element headings 

in chapter 3. 

NOMENCLATURE 

Naming the refuge complex after one refuge is confusing to the public. It was suggested to change the 

name so it better encompasses all the lands within 

the refuge complex’s designated area. 

Added nomenclature confusion occurs for the 

Benton Lake Refuge. “Lake” in the refuge name 

suggests a deep, permanent water source. Many 

visitors comment that (1) the refuge is not managed 

properly because the “lake” is dry, or (2) that certain 

lake-dependent recreational activities should be provided. 

This planning issue carries through all alternatives under Elements Common to All Alternatives 

and under the Visitor Services planning element 

heading in chapter 3. 
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives
 

Partnerships at work in the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area . 

USFWS 

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the management alternatives considered for the Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. 

Alternatives are different approaches to management that are designed to achieve the refuge complex purposes, vision, and goals; the mission of the 

Refuge System; and the mission of the Service. 

Alternatives are developed to address the substantive issues, concerns, and problems identified by the 

Service, the public and other partners during public 

scoping, and throughout the development of the 

draft CCP. 

Alternatives A–C for the refuge complex, as described below, apply to all units of the refuge complex (two refuges, one wetland management district, 

three conservation areas). In addition, it was found 

that a separate analysis would be conducted, and 

that a broader range of alternatives would be developed, for just Benton Lake Refuge because the issues that applied to this refuge were more complex. 

The alternatives that are specific to Benton Lake 

Refuge do not apply to the rest of the refuge complex. However, they are extensions of alternatives 

A, B, and C that would apply to the entire refuge 

complex (see table 4). Chapter 7 describes the analysis for Benton Lake Refuge and how the proposed 

action relates to the refuge complex. 

Table 4 . Each Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex-level alternative is linked to one or more 

alternatives for Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Montana . 

Refuge Complex A B C 

Alternative 

Benton Lake A1 B1, B2 C1, C2 

Refuge Alternative 
42 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

3 .1 Development of 

Alternatives for the 

Refuge Complex 

The Service assessed the planning issues identified 

in chapters 2 and 7, the existing biological conditions 

described in chapters 4 and 7, and external relationships affecting the refuge complex. This information contributed to the development of alternatives; 

as a result, each alternative presents different approaches for meeting long-term goals. More alternatives were developed and analyzed for Benton Lake 

Refuge in chapter 7. Each alternative was evaluated 

according to how well it would advance the vision 

and goals of the refuge complex and the Refuge System and how it would address the planning issues. 

Several planning elements came out of this assessment. Approaches for meeting long-term goals 

have been grouped under each planning element. 

These have been carried across each alternative 

to help in comparing alternatives. Approaches for 

meeting long-term goals are also addressed under 

elements common to all alternatives. 

Long-term goals, planning elements, and their 

accompanying planning issues from chapter 2 are as 

follows: 

LANDSCAPE 

CONSERVATION GOAL 

■■ Elements common to all alternatives 

■■ Climate change: climate change 

■■ Preserving intact landscapes: agricultural conversion, development, water quality, wildlife 

management 

HABITAT GOAL 

■■ Elements common to all alternatives 

■■ Grasslands: invasive plants, nonnative plants and 

noxious weeds; loss of ecological processes 

■■ Wetlands and riparian areas: invasive plants, 

nonnative plants and noxious weeds; loss of ecological processes, fisheries management 

■■ Forests and woodlands: invasive plants, nonnative plants and noxious weeds; loss of ecological 

processes 

WILDLIFE GOAL 

■■ Elements common to all alternatives 

■■ Species of concern: invasive plants, nonnative 

plants and noxious weeds; wildlife management; 

fisheries management 

■■ Migratory birds: wildlife management 

CULTURAL RESOURCES GOAL
 

■■ Elements common to all alternatives 

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL 

■■ Elements common to all alternatives 

■■ Visitor services: wildlife management, fisheries 

management, visitor services, nonwildlife-dependent uses and nomenclature 

ADMINISTRATION GOAL
 

■■ Elements common to all alternatives 

■■ Staff and funding: operations 

VISITOR AND EMPLOYEE 

SAFETY AND RESOURCE 

PROTECTION GOAL 

■■ Elements common to all alternatives 

■■ Visitor and employee safety: visitor services, 

nonwildlife-dependent Uses, operations 

■■ Resource protection: nonwildlife-dependent 

Uses, operations 
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 43 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

BUT ELIMINATED FROM 

DETAILED STUDY 

■■ No alternatives were considered and eliminated 

from detailed study. 

3 .2 Elements Common to All 

Alternatives 

There are some consistencies in the three alternatives. This section identifies the following key elements that will be included in the CCP, regardless of 

the alternative selected: 

■■ The Service would make sure that management 

of the refuge complex complies with all Federal 

laws and regulations that provide direction for 

managing units of the Refuge System. 

■■ Attempts to control invasive species would be 

made through an integrated pest management 

(IPM) approach that includes biological, chemical, 

and mechanical treatment methods. 

■■ Cultural resources would be provided equal protection and management. New cultural resources 

would be documented and protected as they are 

discovered. 

■■ Research efforts would be conducted internally, 

or generated externally, to help reach management objectives. 

■■ Wildlife and habitat inventory, monitoring, and 

research efforts would be conducted. 

■■ Surveillance for key wildlife diseases such as botulism and West Nile virus would occur as needed. 

■■ Strong and diverse partnerships would be 

promoted to help meet objectives and achieve 

complex goals. These partnerships, among other 

things would help link protected areas, leverage 

financial resources and increase community support, and preserve the rural way of life. 

■■ A coordination of activities, monitoring, and collaboration with industrial, commercial, or agricultural development interests would continue to 

protect existing and potential Service interests. 

■■ Water rights throughout the refuge complex 

would be supported. 

■■ Sagebrush-steppe habitat would continue to be 

protected through conservation easements, fee 

title acquisition, and land exchanges or donations. On fee-title lands, mechanical methods for 

tree removal, fire, and grazing would be used 

to rejuvenate sagebrush-steppe habitat. Work 

with landowners through Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife to support and manage sagebrush-steppe 

habitat would continue. 

■■ Fishing would continue at some units of the refuge complex in accordance with State regulations. 

■■ Recreational trapping would continue to be allowed on waterfowl production areas in the district, with the exception of the H2-O and Sands 

WPAs, in accordance with State seasons and regulations. No recreational trapping at Swan River 

Refuge would be authorized; however, trapping 

by special use permit would continue for wildlife 

and infrastructure management purposes only. 

■■ Facilities, infrastructure, vehicles, and other 

equipment would continue to be supported in 

good working condition to achieve management 

goals. Fences in the refuge complex that serve 

no management purpose would continue to be 

removed. 

3 .3 Alternative A 

(Current Management– 

No Action) 

Alternative A is the no-action alternative, which 

represents the current management of the refuge 

complex. This alternative provides the baseline 

against which to compare the other alternatives. It 

also fulfills the requirement in NEPA that a no-action alternative be addressed in the analysis process. 

Management activity being conducted by the 

Service would remain the same. The Service would 

not develop any new management, restoration, or 

education programs at the refuge complex. Current 

habitat and wildlife practices that help migratory 

species and other wildlife would not be expanded 

or changed. Habitat management within the ref­
44 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

uge complex would continue to focus, primarily, on 

helping migratory birds, especially during breeding. 

Other species would be considered through land 

protection programs and partnerships (for example, 

grizzly bear and bull trout). Staff would continue 

monitoring, inventory, and research activities at 

their current level. Money and staff levels would 

remain the same with little change in overall trends. 

Programs would follow the same direction, emphasis, and intensity as they do now. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Baseline monitoring of habitat conditions that 

could potentially be related to the effects of climate 

change would continue. Existing weather stations 

and stream gauges would be supported. Staff would 

continue to collaborate with the USGS to obtain 

climate-related information. 

Climate change stressors would be addressed 

primarily through preservation of large blocks of 

functional land that have natural processes that 

maximize resiliency. The refuge complex would work 

cooperatively with partners to improve condition 

of landscapes to increase resiliency, and seek other 

opportunities to work with partners to address climate change issues including restoration projects 

on Service-interest lands. Efforts would be made 

throughout the refuge complex to restore grasslands, forests, and wetlands and prevent conversion 

to enhance carbon sequestration. 

Attempts would be made to reduce the carbon 

footprint of existing facilities. Activities would include weatherproofing facilities, upgrading furnaces, 

doors, and windows. These would be modest improvements to facilities and increased use of Webinars and other virtual meeting devices to reduce 

the carbon footprint from traveling. A major project 

to reduce the carbon footprint was completed December 2009, through the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act. The project included the installation of a 10 kilowatt wind generator and three photovoltaic panels at the headquarters building. 

PRESERVING INTACT 

LANDSCAPES 

Conservation of intact, native landscapes would remain a high priority. The mechanisms to conserve 

valuable lands for wildlife would include, but not 

be limited to, pursuing easements, land exchanges, 

donations, and limited fee title purchases of wetland, 

riparian, forest, sagebrush-steppe, and grassland 

habitats. 

Refuge complex staff would continue to build 

relationships and work with private landowners that 

are interested in easements, annually inspect easements and follow up with easement holders when 

questions or concerns arise. 

Refuge complex staff would also continue to engage in activities (such as educational tours and outreach) that build support for meeting acreage goals 

for habitat protection. 

In 2011, the ability to preserve intact landscapes 

increased significantly within the refuge complex. 

The project area for the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area was expanded to 918,000 acres from 

560,000 acres and the total easement acquisition 

goals were increased from 170,000 acres to 295,000 

acres. The Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area was 

also expanded from 165,000 acres to a new boundary 

encompassing 824,024 acres with a new easement 

acquisition goal of 103,500 acres. In addition, a new 

conservation area was established in the Swan Valley with a goal of protecting 10,000 acres with easements and up to 1,000 acres in fee title. 

GRASSLANDS 

At present, a high priority is placed on the preservation and management of native grasslands. Within 

currently authorized areas, conservation easements 

are regularly used to protect native grasslands from 

conversion. Easements are proactively monitored 

and enforced. Easement contacts, evaluations and 

preliminary acquisition work, are supported by a 

Haystack Butte in the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area . 

Jeff Van Tine 
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 45 

shared Partners for Fish and Wildlife and realty 

full-time position. Other easement programs (Farmers Home Administration, grassland, wetland) outside of the conservation areas are administered, but 

there is little to no time to cultivate interests for 

acquisition. 

Fee-title native grasslands are managed to sustain grassland health, composition, and native plant 

diversity. This is done by emulating historical disturbance regimes such as fire, grazing, treatment of 

invasive species using IPM, “early detection, rapid 

response” (EDRR), and proper periods of rest. 

Tame grasslands are managed to support stands 

in a productive condition using a rotational management system to sustain the longevity of the grass 

stand. Grassland health is assessed using species 

composition, vigor, and litter accumulation. When 

tame grass stands degrade to the point when reseeding is the only viable choice, careful consideration 

is given to establishing native versus tame grass 

species. 

Nonnative tree plantings in grasslands (shelterbelts) are present, but not actively managed. 

Monitoring of grasslands occurs across the refuge 

complex in varying degrees of intensity, and with a 

focus on adaptive management. 

WETLANDS AND 


RIPARIAN AREAS
 

Wetlands on private land are also protected with 

easements. The Service is currently conducting 

landscape-level analysis to rank wetland resources 

based on their importance to breeding waterfowl, 

which may be expanded to other priority wetlanddependent birds in the future. This prioritization 

would help identify the highest priority wetland 

resources in the district for future protection. Currently, wetland easements outside of the conservation areas are administered, but there is little to no 

time to cultivate interests for acquisition. 

Many of the wetlands on fee title lands in the 

refuge complex are subject to natural flooding and 

drying cycles. However, where the capability exists, 

natural runoff is impounded or supplemental water 

is pumped into wetlands. In these wetlands, water is 

managed to extend the natural flooding cycle in the 

spring, summer, and fall, to provide consistent wetland habitat from year-to-year and flood wetlands 

more deeply than the original basin. Water-level 

management would continue to be accomplished 

with existing water control structures. 

Where feasible, wetland vegetation is managed 

using prescribed fire, grazing, and haying. Wetland 

vegetation is also managed to reduce or end invasive 

species. Treatment of invasive species using IPM 

and EDRR would continue. 

Throughout the refuge complex, wetlands are 

created, enhanced, and restored. Wetland creation 

occurs when a wetland is created where it did not 

occur before. Wetland restoration occurs when a 

wetland basin was present historically, but has been 

drained or altered. Restoration returns the wetland 

to as close to its functional, historical condition as 

possible. Enhancement means a wetland has been 

modified to hold water longer or more deeply that 

the natural basin. Enhancements may occur in combination with restoration. 

Before 2000, wetland enhancement, creation, and 

restoration projects were all done within the refuge complex. However, wetland restoration is currently the highest priority and wetlands are rarely 

enhanced or created. Less than 50 acres of wetlands 

have been created by the Service within the refuge 

complex over the last 5 years and only on private 

land with conservation easements. 

Most riparian areas in the refuge complex are on 

private land. The focus would be on working with 

private landowners to better manage and improve 

health and vigor of these important and biologically 

diverse areas through conservation easements and 

partnerships. The riparian areas on fee-title lands 

are mostly treated with rest and protection. 

FORESTS AND WOODLANDS 

Forest and woodland habitat occurs on the Swan 

River Refuge and the Blackfoot WPA. At present, 

active timber management within the refuge complex is limited. A timber harvest plan is required 

and must be approved by the Service before commercial timber harvest is permitted on private lands 

protected with conservation easements. 

SPECIES OF CONCERN 

Staff would continue to informally check and document federally listed species on refuge complex 

lands, such as grizzly bear and bull trout. Refuge 

complex staff would consult with the Endangered 

Species Program before implementing any management action that may affect listed species. Conservation easements would continue to be used as 

a strategy to protect landscape-level habitat and 

wildlife linkage corridors. 

Staff would also continue to check and document 

other species of concern as needed. Recent examples 

include black tern breeding and foraging monitoring 

that has been conducted on parts of the district. Reintroduction efforts for trumpeter swans have been 
46 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

conducted for several years in the Blackfoot Valley. 

Within the Swan Valley, common loon breeding surveys have been conducted by MFWP. 

MIGRATORY BIRDS 

Most of the support for migratory birds would continue to be accomplished through habitat management to provide nesting, resting, brood-rearing, and 

migration habitat. 

Staff would continue to annually take part in 

population level or landscape-level monitoring of 

migratory birds such as the breeding bird survey, 

annual midwinter waterfowl survey, prairie pothole 

breeding waterfowl survey, mourning dove survey, 

and preseason waterfowl banding. 

More measures to support migratory birds would 

continue, including the implementation of seasonal 

closures on Service-owned lands to reduce disturbance to migratory birds during nesting season, 

limited predator removal, and supporting a limited 

number of artificial nesting structures. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Visitor service programs throughout the refuge 

complex are administered based on the type of unit 

(such as a national wildlife refuge or waterfowl production area) and the policies and regulations that 

establish the guidelines for the appropriate use of 

each unit type. 

National wildlife refuges are encouraged to 

provide wildlife-dependent recreation where feasible and compatible with the purpose of the refuge. 

Wildlife-dependent recreation is defined as a use 

of a Refuge System unit involving hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation. Other activities may 

be allowed, such as boating, to facilitate compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Waterfowl production areas are open to migratory bird hunting, upland gamebird hunting, big 

game hunting, fishing, and trapping subject to the 

provisions of State laws and regulations. All forms 

of hunting or entry on all or any part of individual 

areas may be temporarily suspended by posting 

on occasions of unusual or critical conditions of, or 

affecting land, water, vegetation, or wildlife populations. The Sands WPA in Hill County and the H2–O 

WPA in Powell County would remain closed to hunting in accordance with property deed restrictions. 

Priority public uses for the Benton Lake Refuge 

are described in chapter 7. 

Hunting 

Hunting programs in the refuge complex would not 

change. No new areas, expansions of season, and 

no new species would be open to hunting. Only approved nontoxic shot would be used or possessed 

while hunting upland gamebirds and migratory 

gamebirds on refuges and waterfowl production areas within the refuge complex. The Benton Lake and 

Swan River Refuges would continue to limit migratory bird hunting to no more than 40 percent of the 

refuge. These restrictions make sure that habitat 

without disturbance is available for migrating birds. 

Commercial outfitting in support of hunting would 

continue to be prohibited. See chapter 7 for information on Benton Lake Refuge hunting actions across 

alternatives. 

BENTON LAKE WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

Migratory gamebird, upland gamebird, and big game 

hunting on waterfowl production areas throughout 

the district would continue. Approximately 14,127 

acres of upland and wetland habitat would continue 

to be available for hunting. The Sands WPA in Hill 

County and the H2–O WPA in Powell County would 

remain closed to hunting in accordance with property deed restrictions. 

BLACKFOOT VALLEY, ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT, 

AND SWAN VALLEY CONSERVATION AREAS 

Hunting access on lands under easement is controlled by the private landowner. Some landowners 

may choose to enroll in block management program 

administered by the State. 

Carmen Luna / USFWS 
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 47 

SWAN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Hunting of migratory gamebirds including ducks, 

geese, coots, and swans (by permit only) would continue in designated areas of the refuge with approximately 40 percent of refuge lands open to hunting. 

Upland game, big game, and guided hunting would 

continue to be prohibited on the refuge. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography opportunities would continue to be provided throughout the 

refuge complex, and would be supported by providing observation blinds, supporting an up-to-date 

bird species list for the refuges, and allowing the 

public the opportunity to use portable viewing and 

photography blinds through the issuance of special 

use permits. Seasonal closures to protect sensitive 

wildlife areas and reduce disturbance to fish and 

wildlife would be supported. Dogs would continue to 

be required to be leashed and remain on designated 

roads and trails, except in the hunt area during 

hunting season. Commercial photography requests 

would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and authorized through special use permit. No new facilities for observing and photographing wildlife (such 

as observation decks, trails, auto tour routes, and 

photography blinds) would be developed, but existing facilities would be supported. See chapter 7 for 

wildlife observation and photography actions across 

the alternatives for Benton Lake Refuge. 

BENTON LAKE WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

Waterfowl production areas would be open to wildlife observation and photography year round. No 

conflicts are currently occurring to suggest seasonal 

closures would be necessary. Foot traffic, including hiking, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing, 

would be permitted throughout the waterfowl production areas. Equestrian use would continue to 

be prohibited, and bicycle use would continue to be 

restricted to roads open to vehicular traffic. Boating 

would continue to be permitted in accordance with 

state regulations. 

SWAN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Bog Road would continue to provide wildlife-viewing opportunities and access to the interior of the 

refuge. The existing observation platform, informational kiosk, and interpretive panel would continue to be supported and provide opportunity for 

wildlife observation and photography. The entire 

refuge, with the exception of the information kiosk 

and wildlife viewing platform, would continue to be 

closed to all public access from March 1 through July 

15. Foot-traffic, including cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing, would continue to be authorized north 

of Bog Road between July 16 and the end of February. Equestrian and bicycle use would continue to be 

prohibited. The use of boats on Swan River would 

continue to support wildlife viewing, photography, 

and fishing opportunities. State “no wake” regulations would continue to be enforced and a Federal 

no-wake regulation would not be established. 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation 

The environmental education program would continue to be opportunistic, as time and staff allow. 

Staff would take part in offsite special events and 

activities to bring the refuge complex message to 

large numbers of people, and participation in these 

events would continue as time and staff allow. Tasks 

would be performed as collateral assignments and 

no specific specialists are assigned to environmental 

education or interpretation programs on the refuge 

complex, nor is growth in this area expected. Interpretive panels, brochures, factsheets, Web sites, and 

maps would be updated as money allows. No new 

facilities or programs would be developed. Geocaching would continue to be prohibited; however, virtual 

geocaching would be authorized if requested. See 

chapter 7 for environmental education and interpretation actions across the alternatives for Benton 

Lake Refuge. 

BENTON LAKE WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

Waterfowl production areas would remain open for 

environmental education and interpretation. Area 

schools would continue to visit waterfowl production 

areas to study birds, wetland wildlife, and water 

quality. Staff would continue to host several on and 

offsite events attracting more than 250 attendees 

annually. 

A facility at the H2–O WPA would continue to 

provide on-site education within the Blackfoot Valley, and an interpretive display would continue to be 

available at the north parking area of the Blackfoot 

WPA. 

SWAN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

An interpretive kiosk, updated in 2011, would continue to provide interpretive information to the 

visiting public. There would continue to be limited 

outreach and environmental education programs and 

minimal resources to update signs and brochures. 

BENTON LAKE WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing on waterfowl 

production areas would continue to be authorized 

in support of wildlife-dependent recreation. Equestrian and bicycle use would continue to be restricted 

to public roads open to vehicular traffic. Boating 
48 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

would continue to be permitted in accordance with 

state regulations. Waterfowl production areas, with 

the exception of the H2-O and Sands WPAs, would 

remain open to recreational trapping in accordance 

with State seasons and regulations. 

SWAN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

The entire refuge, with the exception of the information kiosk and wildlife viewing platform, would 

continue to be closed to all public access from March 

1 through July 15. Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing would continue to be authorized between 

July 16 and the end of February. Equestrian and 

bicycle use would continue to be prohibited. The use 

of boats on Swan River would continue to support 

wildlife viewing, photography, and fishing opportunities. State “no wake” regulations would continue to 

be enforced and a Federal no-wake regulation would 

not be established. No recreational trapping would 

be authorized; however, trapping by special use permit would continue for wildlife and infrastructure 

management purposes only. 

STAFF AND FUNDING 

Current staff consists of 9.5 full-time employees. 

Temporary, term, and seasonal employees are used 

to supplement staff as money allows. Capacity for 

active management is constrained by limited staff 

and money. Current staff levels are insufficient 

to meet program mandates, resulting in limited 

management on some units. More staff would be 

acquired as money became available through the 

Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS). 

VISITOR AND 

EMPLOYEE SAFETY 

Employee and visitor safety would continue to be 

emphasized in all operations throughout the refuge 

complex. Currently, only one dual-function officer 

exists within the refuge complex. Efforts would be 

made to replace the recently vacated full-time law 

enforcement position to promote visitor and employee safety. 

Potential for employees and visiting public to 

encounter insects, venomous snakes, mosquitoes 

(West Nile virus), extreme heat, cold, wind, all contribute to possible injury or illness. More signage 

warning visitors of these potential hazards may be 

considered. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

One dual-function law enforcement officer would 

continue to provide quality public use experiences, 

and protect habitat resources on fee-title and easement lands. Efforts to replace recently vacated fulltime law enforcement officer would occur. 

3 .4 Alternative B 

Management efforts would focus on supporting 

the resiliency and sustainability of native grasslands, forests, shrublands, and unaltered wetlands 

throughout the refuge complex by emulating natural processes. Prescribed fire, grazing, and other 

management techniques would be used to replicate 

historical disturbance factors. Where feasible, restoration of native uplands would occur. 

For altered wetlands where water management 

capability exists, management efforts would focus 

on minimizing the effects of drought periods of the 

northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. Management would be active and intensive to keep these 

wetland conditions in a consistent state for wildlife using artificial flooding and drawdowns. Management would be active and intensive to support 

consistency for wildlife using tools such as artificial 

flooding, drawdowns, fire, rest, and grazing. 

Changes in the refuge complex’s research and 

monitoring, staff, operations, and infrastructure 

would likely be required to achieve this alternative’s 

goals and objectives. The success of these efforts 

and programs would depend on added staff, research, and monitoring programs, operations money, 

infrastructure, and new and expanded partnerships. 

Please refer to chapter 7 for more details on the 

Benton Lake Refuge alternatives (B1,B2) linked to 

this alternative. 

ACTIONS SAME 

AS ALTERNATIVE A 

Management actions would be the same as under 

alternative A for preserving intact landscapes, 

grassland habitat management, wetland and riparian 

habitat management, and environmental education 

and interpretation. 
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 49 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A, plus staff would take part in all aspects of 

the GNLCC and PPPLCC to understand climate 

change impacts locally, improve the condition of the 

landscape and increase resiliency. 

Increasing resiliency on Service lands and addressing climate change stressors would be accomplished through active monitoring, adaptive 

management and, where feasible, using management 

practices that emulate natural processes. Data acquired from other sources would be used to analyze 

or check for climate change effects. 

FORESTS AND WOODLANDS 

Active forest management would be increased to 

support resiliency and sustainability by emulating 

natural processes. Natural fire regimes would be 

emulated with prescribed fire, which may require 

some thinning or fuel reduction before burning. Silvicultural practices may be used to decrease the 

spread of insects or disease and support or increase 

carbon sequestration. 

SPECIES OF CONCERN 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A, and the effects of management actions on 

other species of concern that are not threatened or 

endangered would be assessed before implementation. 

MIGRATORY BIRDS 

Habitat management actions and seasonal closures 

would be the same as alternative A, plus the migratory bird monitoring program would be expanded. 

Indicator species would be used to provide feedback 

for evaluating the success of management actions 

and to help achieve national and State migratory 

bird goals. The migratory bird program and its objectives would be periodically reviewed to figure 

out whether efforts are still a priority for the refuge 

complex; if not, efforts would be discontinued. 

A limited number of artificial nesting structures 

would be supported based on a specific species need 

and only when other habitat management options 

have been exhausted. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Hunting 

The Service would explore opportunities for increased hunting on two fee-title refuges within the 

refuge complex. Decisions and details related to 

the above hunting elements, as well as other possible hunting season framework changes, would be 

evaluated against wildlife and human disturbance 

thresholds. 

The Service would also increase regulatory hunting signage (for example, closed to hunting area 

signs, nontoxic shot required signs) and interpretive materials (for example, an updated and more 

comprehensive complex hunting leaflet, hunting 

factsheets) in an effort to reduce unintentional hunting violations throughout the refuge complex. 

Management actions would vary across alternatives for the Benton Lake Refuge (see chapter 7). 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

SWAN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A, except foot traffic, including hiking, 

cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing, would be restricted to designated roads and trails. Public access 

would be available year-round at the parking lot, 

informational kiosk, wildlife observation platform, 

and Bog Road trail, and seasonally during waterfowl 

hunting season, when the hunting area north of Bog 

Road would be open to public use. 

STAFF AND FUNDING 

Same as alternative A, plus the Service would add 

to the refuge complex’s current staff 4.0 permanent, 

full-time positions to achieve the goals and supporting objectives: 1 law enforcement officer, 1.0 maintenance worker, 1.5 wildlife refuge specialist, and 0.5 

generalist. 

VISITOR AND EMPLOYEE 

SAFETY 

Same as A, plus efforts would be expanded to provide dependable and improved communication 

throughout the complex. 
50 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A, and special emphasis would be placed on 

preventative law enforcement efforts to make sure 

compliance with regulations. In addition, cooperative law enforcement efforts would be pursued to 

improve relationships with other law enforcement 

entities. 

3 .5 Alternative C 

(Proposed Action) 

Emphasis would be placed on achieving selfsustaining systems with long-term productivity. 

Management efforts would focus on supporting and 

restoring ecological processes, including natural 

communities and the dynamics of the ecosystems 

of the northern Great Plains and northern Rocky 

Mountains in relationship to their geomorphic landscape positioning. Conservation of native landscapes 

would be a high priority accomplished by protecting habitats from conversion using a combination 

of partnerships, easements and fee-title lands, and 

through active management and proactive enforcement of easements. Management actions, such as 

prescribed fire, grazing, and invasive species control, 

would be used to support the resiliency and sustainability of Service-owned lands throughout the refuge 

complex. 

Whenever possible, habitat conditions would be 

allowed to fluctuate with climatically driven wet and 

dry cycles, which are essential for long-term productivity. The success of these efforts and programs 

would depend on added staff, research, and monitoring programs, operations money, infrastructure, and 

new and expanded partnerships. 

ACTIONS SAME AS 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B for forest and woodland habitat management, species of concern, hunting, and visitor and 

employee safety. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A, plus more stations and gauges to check 

climate change would be installed. The refuge complex would vigorously take part in all aspects of the 

GNLCC and PPPLCC as available to field stations. 

Use of scaled-downed climate change models would 

be applied to habitat objectives and determining 

land preservation priorities to a greater degree than 

alternatives A and B. Refuge complex staff would 

actively take part in, and cooperate with, data acquisition, monitoring, and analyzing management 

actions in respect to climate change. 

The complex would also pursue installation of another photovoltaic system to support the expanded 

headquarters office. 

PRESERVING 

INTACT LANDSCAPES 

Management actions would be the same as alternatives A and B, plus the refuge complex would 

actively pursue opportunities for cooperative landscape-level monitoring of new and expanded conservation areas. This would include active participation 

in applying the principles of SHC to continually 

refine and focus landscape-level conservation priorities. In addition, new areas and partnership opportunities would be explored within the refuge complex 

to establish more conservation areas and increase 

the opportunities for landowners to take part in conservation easement programs. 

GRASSLANDS 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A, plus, where feasible, degraded tame grass 

stands across the complex would be prioritized and 

planted back to native grass species. Starting with 

those in native grasslands, all nonnative tree plantings would be removed across the complex. 

Formal monitoring of grasslands would be focused on native prairie with an emphasis on adaptive 

management. Restoration of habitats (native grass 

planting and tree removal) would be formally monitored to evaluate success. Opportunities for cooperative landscape-level monitoring would be actively 

pursued in new and expanded conservation areas. 

Monitoring of tame grasslands would be minimal and 

informal. 
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 51 

WETLANDS AND 


RIPARIAN AREAS
 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A, except management treatments such as 

grazing and fire may be used to mimic historical disturbances and support sustainability and resiliency 

when natural flooding and drying cycles allow. More 

treatments for invasive species may be applied. 

Formal monitoring of wetlands would focus on 

wetland health and sustainability through adaptive 

management. Monitoring would track long-term 

trends in wetland cycles, health, and wildlife use. 

For restoration efforts, monitoring would be especially important to figure out if systems are recovering. 

MIGRATORY BIRDS 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B, plus monitoring efforts within conservation 

area boundaries as part of SHC would be expanded. 

Artificial nesting structures would be phased out. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B, plus potential for more walking trails 

throughout the refuge complex would be evaluated 

and a park ranger would be hired to help support 

and expand wildlife observation and photography 

infrastructure and opportunities. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

Same as alternatives A and B, plus programming 

would be increased and expanded to enhance public 

knowledge and understanding of restoration efforts, 

unique habitat and wildlife values and attributes, 

and landscape-scale conservation programs. Efforts 

would be made to promote and educate the public 

about the new and expanded easement programs 

and to reach out and tap into available resources, 

especially in Great Falls. 

Silver sagebrush is an important habitat component for 

sage-grouse . 

Dr. Thomas G. Barnes / USFWS 

STAFF AND FUNDING 

Same as alternative B, plus the Service would add 

2.0 permanent, full-time positions to achieve the 

goals and support objectives: 1 full-time park ranger 

(one person working half time on the refuge complex, half time at Benton Lake Refuge exclusively), 

and 1 full-time supervisory biologist. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B, except replacing a full-time law enforcement 

officer position, that was part of the refuge complex 

in fiscal year (FY) 2009, would have high priority. 

The recently expanded Rocky Mountain Front and 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Areas and the newly 

established Swan Valley Conservation Area would 

need more inspection and enforcement. In addition, 

more opportunities for easement protection may be 

established during the life of this plan. 

3 .6 Summary of the 

Alternatives’ Actions 

and Consequences 

Table 5 summarizes all aspects of management of 

the refuge complex under alternatives A–C. Actions 

and impacts for Benton Lake Refuge can be found in 

chapter 7. 
52 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Table 5 . Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (proposed action) (current management–no action) 

Landscape Conservation Goal . Actively pursue and continue to foster relationships within the Service, other agencies, 

organizations, and private partners to protect, preserve, manage, and restore the functionality of the diverse ecosys

tems within the working landscape of the refuge complex.. 

Climate change—actions 

■■ Do baseline monitoring of habi ■■ Same as alternative A, plus: ■■ Same as alternative A, plus: 

tat conditions. ■■ Actively take part in GNLCC ■■ Install more weather stations 

■■ Support existing weather sta and PPPLCC. to watch climate change. 

tions. ■■ Address climate change stress ■■ Vigorously take part in GN

■■ Collaborate with USGS to ob ors through management that LCC and PPPLCC. 

tain information. emulates natural processes and ■■ Use scaled-downed climate 

■■ Minimally take part in GNLCC increased monitoring feedback. change models to a greater ex

and PPPLCC tent. 

■■ Preserve large blocks of land ■■ Actively take part in data ac

that have functioning natural quisition, monitoring, and anal

processes. ysis related to climate change. 

■■ Reduce carbon footprint of fa ■■ Install photovoltaic system to 

cilities. support headquarters office ex

pansion. 

Climate change—environmental consequences 

Utility and scope of baseline data Same as alternative A, plus increased Same as alternative A, plus expanded 

limited. Monitoring water usage will opportunities to collaborate on climate monitoring can be tied to regional 

protect water rights. Opportunities to change issues and connection to com and national trends. Collaboration on 

collaborate on climate change issues plex improved. Increased ability to climate change issues with LCCs and 

limited. Preventing habitat conversion detect climate change effects at the partners maximized. Resiliency to clithrough easements would increase re- local level. mate change in habitats maximized 

siliency to climate change. Protection through greater prevention of habitat 

and restoration of habitats would sup- conversion. Greatest reduction in car

port or improve carbon sequestration. bon footprint. 

Modest reduction in carbon footprint. 

Preserving intact landscapes—actions 

■■ Place conservation of intact ■■ Same as alternative A. ■■ Same as alternative A, plus: 

landscapes as a high priority. ■■ Pursue opportunities for coop

■■ Continue to build relationships erative landscape-level moni

with private landowners. toring of conservation areas. 

■■ Engage in outreach. ■■ Use SHC principles to continu

ally refine landscape-level con

servation priorities. 

­

­

­

­

­

­ ­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 53 

Table 5 . Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (proposed action) (current management–no action) 

Preserving intact landscapes—environmental consequences 

Transitional zones of valley floors to Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, plus a greater 

montane forests would be preserved help to trust resources by actively ap

and help fish and wildlife resources plying SHC. 

and enhance the resiliency of the eco

system. 

Protecting large, intact blocks of 

native habitat, including wildlife corri

dors in the conservation areas, would 

help trust species and wide-ranging 

species. 

Existing conservation partnerships 

would support working landscapes 

in which fish and wildlife resources 

coexist with the ranching community, 

forestry, and other agricultural opera

tions. 

Current staff and money may not 

be able to fully carry out easement 

programs. 

Habitat Goal . Actively conserve, restore, and manage upland and wetland habitats across the northern prairies and 

intermountain valleys of the refuge complex, through management strategies that perpetuate the integrity of ecological 

communities. . 

Grasslands—actions 

■■ Place high priority on preser Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, plus: 

vation and management of na ■■ Rank degraded tame grass 

tive grasslands. stands and plant back to native 

■■ Use easements to protect na species. 

tive grasslands from conver ■■ Remove all nonnative tree 

sion. plantings. 

■■ Manage fee-title native grass ■■ Focus formal monitoring on 

lands to sustain grassland native prairie and restoration 

health, composition, and native efforts. 

plant diversity. ■■ Pursue cooperative landscape-

■■ Manage tame grasslands with a level monitoring in conserva

rotational management system. tion areas. 

■■ Provide limited monitoring. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
54 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Table 5 . Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (proposed action) (current management–no action) 

Grasslands—environmental consequences 

Potential for protecting great ex Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, plus more 

panses of native prairie to reduce soil acres of native prairie would be pro

erosion, support water quality, effec tected through reallocation of complex 

tively sequester carbon, and increase resources. 

resiliency and resistance to distur Tame grass replanted to native spe

bance. Management is assumed to in cies should have increased diversity, 

crease the health of native prairie, but replenished soil, improved nutrient cy

monitoring feedback would be limited. cles. Replanting native species is more 

Native prairies would have varying expensive and difficult than replanting 

levels of invasion by nonnative spe to tame grass. 

cies. Removal of nonnative tree plant

Productivity of tame grass would ings would restore contiguous grass

be sustained, but would be less di land and reduce the negative effects of 

verse and provide habitat for fewer fragmentation, depredation, and para

trust species than native prairies. sitism to grassland-dependent migra

tory birds. There may be a decrease 

in the diversity of migratory and 

resident bird species, which depend 

on planted tree habitats, but other 

nearby habitats are available. 

Increased monitoring would im

prove management effectiveness and 

grassland health. 

Wetlands and riparian areas—actions 

■■ Create, enhance, and restore Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, except: 

wetlands. ■■ Use grazing and fire to mimic 

■■ Impound natural runoff or historical disturbances and sup

pump supplemental water into port resiliency when natural 

wetlands to extend the natural flooding and drying cycles al

flooding cycle and to provide low. 

consistent wetland habitat ■■ Apply more treatments for in

year to year. vasive plants. 

■■ Manage vegetation with pre ■■ Watch wetland health, recov

scribed fire, grazing, haying, ery, and sustainability through 

and herbicides. adaptive management. 

■■ Watch water quantity and 

quality. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 55 

Table 5 . Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (proposed action) (current management–no action) 

Wetlands and riparian areas—environmental consequences 

Extended drying periods would help Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, plus more fo

remove the salts and selenium that cus on invasive plants should reduce 

can build up during wet cycles. the negative effects such as monotypic 

After a few years of stable water stands, reduced native plant diversity, 

levels, emergents would decline and and lower productivity. sites would eventually revert to open 

water. 

Prescribed fire, mowing, and her

bicide applications to consume litter, 

rejuvenate vegetation, or control 

exotic species may only be possible 

when wetland basins are sufficiently 

dry. While this may limit the ability to 

control invasive plants, the wet–dry 

cycle may act as a natural control by 

favoring native vegetation adapted to 

this cycle and by changing conditions 

that no longer favor invasive plants. 

During drier periods, extensive 

mudflat areas would likely attract 

large numbers of shorebirds and other 

species that could feed on inverte

brates. 

Reducing invasive wetland veg

etation would improve habitat for 

wetland-dependent wildlife. Native 

wildlife has evolved to use native 

vegetation for feeding, nesting, and 

hiding cover; nonnative vegetation is 

often a poor substitute. 

Where natural runoff was im

pounded or supplemental water di

verted or pumped, the natural drying 

cycle would be reduced or ended. 

These wetlands would have more 

predictable flooding cycles. Flooding 

and holding water in a basin above the 

natural level creates a wetland where 

the water is deeper, and likely holds 

water longer, than would normally oc

cur. It would also likely expand the 

extent of the wetland basin, essen

tially creating a bigger wetland. 

Wetlands that were impounded or 

receive supplemental water would 

provide a breeding opportunity for 

waterbirds and other wetland-depen

dent wildlife almost every year. 

Sustained flooding, with shortened 

or absent drying cycles, may nega

tively affect productivity by disrupt

ing plant and invertebrate cycles, 

which may reduce the quality of food 

and cover. 

Selenium would likely increase 

and nonnative plants would increase, 

which would likely lower values. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Table 5 . Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (proposed action) (current management–no action) 

Forests and woodlands—actions 

■■ Conduct minimal forest man ■■ Same as alternative A, plus: ■■ Same as alternative B. 

agement. ■■ Use prescribed fire and silvi

■■ Approve a timber harvest plan cultural practices to manage 

before commercial timber har forests. 

vest on easement lands. 

Forests and woodlands—environmental consequences 

Forests may be less vigorous and Introducing fire would help natural Same as alternative B. 

more susceptible to stand-replacing ecosystem processes and reduce the 

fires or disease and insect outbreaks. chance of catastrophic fire. A reduc

tion in stand density (silviculture) 

would increase forest health, reduce 

the vulnerability to insects and dis

ease and increase carbon sequestra

tion. There would be reduced chance 

of catastrophic wildfire and insect and 

disease outbreaks that could poten

tially destroy culturally significant 

trees. 

Wildlife Goal . Support diverse and sustainable continental, regional, and local populations of migratory birds, native 

fish, species of concern, and other indigenous wildlife of the northern prairies and intermountain valleys of northern 

Montana.. 

Species of concern—actions 

■■ Informally watch and docu ■■ Same as alternative A, plus: ■■ Same as alternative B. 

ment Federally threatened and ■■ More formally assess the ef

endangered species. fects of management actions 

■■ Consult with Endangered Spe on species of concern before 

cies program as needed. implementation. 

■■ Use conservation easements to 

protect habitat for species of 

concern. 

■■ Watch and document other 

species of concern as needed. 

Species of concern—environmental consequences 

Monitoring and considering species Same as alternative A, plus con- Same as alternative B. 

of concern in management decisions sidering and monitoring more species 

would not only help the individual of concern in management decisions 

species but would also help make sure would help more species and also help 

that there is ecosystem health and make sure that there is ecosystem 

biodiversity. health and biodiversity to a greater 

Considering species of concern in degree than alternative A. 

management decisions may affect 

public use because area or seasonal 

closures may be necessary. 

56 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Table 5 . Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (proposed action) (current management–no action) 

Migratory birds—actions 

■■ Support migratory bird popu ■■ Same as alternative A, except: ■■ Same as alternative B, except: 

lations through effective habi ■■ Increase monitoring and use ■■ Increase monitoring in conser

tat management. indicator species to provide vation areas. 

■■ Take part in annual population feedback for evaluating the ■■ Gradually phase out the use of 

and landscape level surveys. success of management actions artificial nesting structures. 

■■ Carry out seasonal closures on to help achieve national and 

fee-title lands to reduce distur State migratory bird goals. 

bance to migratory birds dur ■■ Use artificial nesting struc

ing nesting season. tures only when other habitat 

■■ Conduct limited predator re is not available. 

moval. 

■■ Support a limited number of 

artificial nesting structures. 

Migratory birds—environmental consequences 

Population and landscape level studies Same as alternative A, plus choosing Same as alternative B, plus increased 

help inform management by providing migratory bird species that can serve efforts to watch conservation areas 

a larger context for evaluating suc as indicators for evaluating manage would provide more information to 

cess. ment actions would provide informa target land protection that helps highBy establishing seasonal closures tion to help staff make adjustments priority migratory birds. 

on fee-title lands subject to frequent to management and engage others at Since none of the nesting structures 

disturbance, the negative effects of a landscape level. This could result in are for bird species whose populations 

human-caused disturbance would be greater benefits to migratory birds are in decline or that cannot find other 

reduced and the reproductive success such as higher nest success. habitat options, the removal of the 

of migratory birds protected. structures would not affect target spe

Predator removal and nest struc cies. 

tures likely help migratory birds, but 

are not monitored. 

Visitor Services Goal . Provide opportunities for visitors of all abilities to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation on 

Service-owned lands and increase knowledge and appreciation for the refuge complex’s ecological communities and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

visitor Services: Hunting—actions 

■■ Benton Lake Wetland Man ■■ Same as alternative A, plus: ■■ Same as alternative B. 

agement District—continue ■■ Explore opportunities to in

migratory gamebird, upland crease hunting at Benton Lake 

game, and big game hunting and Swan River refuges. 

on Waterfowl production ar ■■ Increase the number of regu

eas, except continue closure latory signs and informational 

of the Sands and H2–O WPAs materials. 

to hunting in accordance with 

property deed restrictions. 

■■ Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Moun

tain Front, and Swan Valley 

CAs—landowners continue to 

decide hunting opportunity on 

conservation easements. 

■■ Swan River Refuge—continue 

hunting of migratory gamebirds in designated areas on no 

more than 40% of refuge lands, 

and continue to prohibit hunt

ing of upland game, bird, big 

game, and guided hunting. 

CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 57 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
58 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Table 5 . Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (proposed action) (current management–no action) 

visitor Services: Hunting—environmental consequences 

■■ Benton Lake Wetland Manage Same as alternative A, plus hunting Same as alternative B. 

ment District—annually, ap may increase on the refuges and un

proximately 1,350 visits to the intentional violations should decrease. 

district for hunting would be 

expected. 

■■ Swan River Refuge—annu

ally, approximately 100 visitor 

use-days would be expected for 

waterfowl hunting. 

visitor Services: Wildlife observation and photography—actions 

■■ Support existing observation Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, plus: 

blinds, bird species lists, and ■■ Evaluate the opportunity for 

portable viewing and photogra added walking tours through

phy blinds. out the refuge complex. 

■■ Support seasonal closures to ■■ Hire a park ranger to support 

protect sensitive wildlife areas increased wildlife observation 

and reduce disturbance to fish and photography infrastructure 

and wildlife. opportunities. 

■■ Evaluate commercial photogra

phy requests on a case-by-case 

basis and authorize through 

special use permit. 

■■ Benton Lake Wetland Manage

ment District—open waterfowl 

production areas to wildlife ob

servation and photography. 

■■ Swan River Refuge—provide 

wildlife-viewing opportunities 

and access to the interior of the 

refuge via Bog Road; and sup

port the existing observation 

platform, kiosk, and interpre

tive panel. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 59 

Table 5 . Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (proposed action) (current management–no action) 

visitor Services: Wildlife observation and photography—environmental consequences 

Annual visitation to the refuge com Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, plus increased 

plex for wildlife observation and disturbance from wildlife would be 

photography would remain similar to possible. More staff and resources 

existing visitation rates: 8,230 visits/ would be required to manage the 

year and 490 visits/year, respectively. increased public use. Significant in

creases in public use would be possi

■■ Benton Lake Wetland Manage ble, as well as, increased participation 

ment District—wildlife obser and visitation and improved visitor 

experience. vation and photography would 

account for 580 and 50 annual 

visits, respectively. 

■■ Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Moun

tain Front, and Swan Valley 

CAs—private landowners 

would control public access to 

easement lands. 

■■ Swan River Refuge—the ref

uge would remain a popular 

destination point while travel

ing through Swan Valley due 

to Bog Road and associated 

wildlife-viewing opportunities, 

cross-country skiing, and snow

shoeing; annual visitation is ex

pected to be approximately 400 

visits for wildlife observation 

and 40 visits for photography. 

visitor Services: Environmental education and interpretation—actions 

■■ Continue the opportunistic Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, plus: 

environmental education pro

gram as time and staff allow. ■■ Increase programming to en

■■ Update interpretive panels, hance public knowledge and un

brochures, factsheets, Web derstanding of the restoration 

sites, and maps as money al efforts and the emphasis on 

lows. landscape-scale conservation. 

■■ Benton Lake Wetland Manage ■■ Hire park ranger to support 

ment District—keep water environmental education and 

fowl production areas open for interpretive programming. 

environmental education and 

interpretation, staff would host 

several on and offsite events 

attracting more than 250 at

tendees annually. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Table 5 . Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (proposed action) (current management–no action) 

visitor Services: Environmental education and interpretation—environmental consequences 

Activities would continue at current Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, plus increased 

rate of approximately 1,765 visits/year programming would enhance public 

for environmental education programs knowledge, understanding of res

on and offsite occur on the refuge toration efforts, and emphasis on 

complex. landscape-scale conservation efforts 

■■ Benton Lake Wetland Manage through easement programs. 

ment District—activities would Community engagement would in

crease, especially in Great Falls, from continue at current rate of ap educational efforts including field ex proximately 100 participants ploration kits, workshops for teachers, annually. special events, job shadows, and Web ■■ Swan River Refuge—less than site and other social networking tools. 10 visits per year. 

Administration Goal . Provide facilities, strategically allocate staff, and effectively use and develop funding sources, 

partnerships, and volunteer opportunities to maintain the long-term integrity of habitats and wildlife resources of the 

refuge complex. 

Staff and funding—actions 

■■ Support current staff of 9.5 Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B, plus: 

full-time employees. ■■ Add 4.0 staff: 1 full-time law ■■ Add 2.0 FTEs: 1 FTE park 

■■ Supplement staff with tempo enforcement officer, 1.0 FTE ranger (one person working 

rary, term, and seasonal em maintenance worker in the dis half time on the refuge com

ployees as money allows. trict, 1.5 FTE wildlife refuge plex, half time at Benton Lake 

■■ Acquire more staff as money specialist , and 0.5 FTE gener Refuge exclusively), 1 FTE su

becomes available through alist. pervisory biologist. 

RONS. 

Staff and funding—environmental consequences 

Special emphasis would be placed on Other complex priorities may see Other complex priorities may see 

the management, and some monitor shifts of operations money and per increases in the availability of opera

ing, of the wetland and grassland sonnel to accomplish management tions money made available for work 

habitats as well as on preserving in objectives at the Benton Lake Refuge. elsewhere in the complex from imple

tact landscapes throughout the refuge During intense water level manage menting alternatives C1 or C2 at Bencomplex. Money and staff would be al ment years, money and staff would ton Lake refuge. Following the initial 

located accordingly with the greatest predominately go toward habitat res decommissioning or changing of the 

concentration of operations and main toration efforts at the Benton Lake system, money would be distributed 

tenance money (more than $160,000) Refuge (see alternatives B1 and B2, to other programs within the refuge 

going toward water level management chapter 7). Without significant base complex such as preserving intact 

at Benton Lake Refuge (pumping money increases, it would be not be landscapes, grassland restoration, and 

electrical expense, managing water possible to carry out the landscape visitor services. 

delivery, pump house and structures preservation efforts. 

and ditch maintenance). 

Under this alternative, staff and 

money to manage the preservation 

of intact landscapes would not be ex

pected to grow significantly. Without 

significant base money increases or 

help from other programs, it would 

be extremely difficult to adequately 

manage the efforts toward preserving 

intact landscapes. 

60 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­ ­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Table 5 . Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (proposed action) (current management–no action) 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Goal . Provide for the safety, security, and protection of visi

tors, employees, natural and cultural resources, and facilities throughout the refuge complex. 

visitor and employee safety—actions 

■■ Continue to emphasize em Same as alternative A, plus expand Same as alternative B. 

ployee and visitor safety in all efforts to provide dependable and im

proved communication throughout the operations. complex. 

■■ Assign one collateral duty law 

enforcement officer to promote 

visitor and employee safety. 

■■ Consider more signage warn

ing visitors of potential haz

ards. 

visitor and employee safety—environmental consequences 

Because of a historical issue with dead The safety of visitors and employees Same as alternative B. 

zones for radio and cell phone cover would be increased. 

age in remote parts of the refuge com

plex, the potential exists for someone 

to be stranded, injured or in need of 

aid with no way of contacting immedi

ate help. 

Resource protection—actions 

■■ Continue to assign one dual- Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B, plus: 

function law enforcement offi ■■ Place special emphasis on pre ■■ Place higher priority on replac

cer to protect habitat resources ventative law enforcement ing previous full-time law en

on fee-title and easement lands. efforts to comply with regula forcement officer. 

■■ Replace recently vacated full tions. 

time officer. ■■ Pursue cooperative law en

forcement efforts and improve 

relationships with other law 

enforcement entities. 

Resource protection—environmental consequences 

The presence of law enforcement of Same as alternative A, plus officers Same as alternative B, plus there 

ficers on the refuge complex would would increase efforts to educate the would be more resource protection 

result in greater compliance with public about rules and regulations, due to an added law enforcement of

regulations. leading to increased compliance and ficer. 

resulting in less resource damage. 

CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 61 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­ ­

­

­

­

­

­

­
62 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment
 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area . 

Jeff Van Tine 

This chapter 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 

CCP. The Service used published and unpublished 

data, as noted in the bibliography, to quantify what 

is known about the refuge complex. 

4 .1 Physical Environment 

CLIMATE 

The refuge complex covers more than 2,700 square 

miles and spans the Continental Divide in northwestern and north-central Montana. The Continental Divide exerts a marked influence on the climate 

of adjacent areas. West of the Divide the climate 

might be termed a modified, north Pacific Coast 

type, while to the east, climatic characteristics are 
64 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

decidedly continental. On the west of the mountain 

barrier winters are milder, precipitation is more 

evenly distributed throughout the year, summers 

are cooler in general, and winds are lighter than on 

the eastern side. According to the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there is 

more cloudiness in the west in all seasons, humidity 

runs a bit higher, and the growing season is shorter 

than in the eastern plains areas (NOAA 2011). 

Cold waves, which cover parts of Montana on 

the average of 6–12 times a winter, are confined 

mostly to the eastern part of the refuge complex. 

The coldest temperature ever observed was −70 °F 

at Rogers Pass, 40 miles northwest of Helena, on 

January 20, 1954. Between cold waves, there are 

periods, sometimes longer than 10 days, of mild but 

often windy weather along the eastern slopes of the 

Divide. These warm, windy winter periods are popularly known as “Chinook” weather. Chinook winds 

frequently reach speeds of 25–50 miles per hour 

or more and can persist, with little interruptions, 

for several days. Most complex lakes and wetlands 

freeze over every winter. All rivers carry floating ice 

during the late winter or early spring. Few streams 

freeze solid; water generally continues to flow beneath the ice. During the coldest winters, anchor ice 

that builds from the bottom of shallow streams on 

rare occasions causes some flooding (NOAA 2011). 

During the summer months, hot weather occurs 

often in the eastern parts of the refuge complex. 

Temperatures higher than 100 °F sometimes occur 

in the lower elevation areas west of the Divide during the summer, but hot spells are less frequent and 

of shorter duration than in the Plains sections. Summer nights are almost invariably cool and pleasant. 

In the areas with elevations above 4,000 feet, extremely hot weather is almost unknown. Much of the 

State has average freeze-free periods longer than 

130 days, allowing plenty of time for growing a wide 

variety of crops. There is no freeze-free period in 

many higher valleys of the western mountains, but 

hardy and nourishing grasses thrive in such places, 

producing large amounts of quality grazing for stock 

(NOAA 2011). 

Precipitation varies widely across the refuge 

complex and depends largely on topographic influences. Generally, nearly half the annual long-term 

average total falls from May through June (NOAA 

2011). The western part of the refuge complex is the 

wettest and the east side the driest. Average annual 

precipitation in the intermountain valleys west of 

the Continental Divide is 16–22 inches, while most of 

the eastern part of the refuge complex only receives 

an average of 8–14 inches (NRIS 2011a) (figure 12). 

Figure 12. Map of average annual precipitation in 

Montana, 1971¬–2000. Source: NRIS 2011a. 

Drought in its most severe form is practically 

unknown, but dry years do occur in some areas. All 

parts of the State rarely suffer from dryness at the 

same time. The only exceptions on record occurred 

during the 1930 decade (NOAA 2011). In the eastern 

parts of the refuge complex, the last 100 years of 

weather data show a long-term “boom and bust” 

cycle of 10–20 years of alternating wet and dry periods (NOAA 2009). 

Annual snowfall varies from quite heavy, 300 

inches, in some parts of the mountains in the western half of the refuge complex, to around 20 inches 

east of the Continental Divide. Most of the larger 

cities have annual snowfall within the 30- to 50-inch 

range. Most snow falls during the November–March 

period, but heavy snowstorms can occur as early as 

mid-September or as late as May 1. Mountain snowpacks in the wetter areas often exceed 100 inches 

in depth as the annual snow season approaches its 

end around April 1–15. The greatest volume of flow 

of Montana’s rivers occurs during the spring and 

early summer months with the melting of the winter 

snowpack (NOAA 2011). Table 6 summarizes precipitation and temperature throughout the refuge 

complex. 

Table 6 . Weather information for units of the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Unit Average Highest Average Average Average Average 

annual pre- precipitation snowfall annual low tem- high tem

cipitation months (inches) tempera­ perature perature 

(inches) ture (°F) (°F) (°F) 

Benton Lake National Wildlife 15 May, June 61 45 33 57 

Refuge (Great Falls) 

Benton Lake Wetland Manage 6–22 May, June 41–80 39–44 24–33 54–55 

ment District 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation 17 May, June 79 39 25 54 

Area (Ovando) 

Rocky Mountain Front Conserva 14 May, June 41 43 29 57 

tion Area (Augusta) 

­

­

­
Swan River National Wildlife Refuge and Swan Valley Conservation 

Area (Seeley Lake) 

21 December, 

January 

120 41 27 55 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Benton Lake Wetland Management District 

The climate of the district to the east of the Blackfoot Valley and the Rocky Mountain Front is semiarid 

continental, which is characterized by cold, dry winters and warm, dry summers. Subzero weather normally 

occurs several times during a winter, but the duration of cold spells typically lasts only several days to a week 

after which it can be abruptly terminated by strong southwesterly Chinook winds. The sudden warming 

associated with these winds can produce temperature rises of nearly 40 °F in less than a day. Conversely, 

strong intrusions of bitterly cold arctic air moves south from Canada several times each winter and can drop 

temperatures 30–40 °F within 24 hours. The dynamic Chinook winds prohibit large accumulation of snow over 

winter and reduce large spring runoffs, because snow melts in smaller increments throughout winter and is 

mostly absorbed into the ground. 

Figure 12 . Map of average annual precipitation in Montana, 1971¬–2000 . Source: NRIS 2011a . 

CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 65 

Average annual precipitation across the district 

varies from a high of 22 inches near the foothills of 

Rocky Mountains and Sweet Grass Hills to a low of 6 

inches in the center of the district around the towns 

of Shelby and Chester. At Benton Lake Refuge, the 

average annual precipitation is 14.98 inches. During 

the period of record at Great Falls, yearly precipitation extremes have ranged from 6.68 inches in 1904 

to 25.24 inches in 1975. Precipitation generally falls 

as snow during winter, late fall, and early spring, 

whereas, the highest rainfall months are May and 

June. 

Long-term temperature and precipitation data 

show dynamic patterns of recurring peaks and lows 

on a 10–20 year cycle. Regional precipitation decreased and temperatures rose from the late 1910s 

to the late 1930s (NOAA 2009). A steady rise in precipitation and declining temperatures occurred from 

the early 1940s to the mid-1950s followed by another 

decline in precipitation and local runoff in the 1960s. 

Precipitation rose again during the late 1970s and 

early 1990s, and remained about average during the 

1980s and late 1990s to early 2000s. Currently, precipitation appears to be gradually increasing again. 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area 

In the Blackfoot Valley, the climate is generally cool 

and dry, but there is considerable variability corresponding to the east–west elevational gradient that 

greatly influences vegetation and habitat. July and 

August are the warmest months with an average 

high around 81 oF and a low near 40 oF. On average, 

the warmest month is July. The highest recorded 

temperature was 99 °F in 2003. January is the average coldest month. The lowest recorded temperature was −48 °F in 1982. 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area 

Along the Rocky Mountain Front, the climate is generally cool and dry, but there is considerable variability corresponding to the east–west elevational 

gradient that greatly influences vegetation and habitat. July and August are the warmest months with 

an average high around 77 oF and a low near 45 oF. 

The Augusta climatic station at the eastern boundary of the Front has similar above-freezing winter 

average highs, but is colder at night with January 
66 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

having average lows of 10 oF. Average summer temperatures are also warmer in Augusta with July and 

August having highs slightly greater than 80 oF and 

lows around 47 oF. Gibson Dam receives almost 18 

inches of precipitation annually; May and June are 

the wettest months with about 3 inches per month, 

and the winter months receive less than 1 inch of 

precipitation per month. Augusta has a similar pattern with relatively wet springs and dry winters 

although the total precipitation annually averages 

only about 14 inches. This precipitation gradient 

(along with soils) is vital in structuring vegetation 

communities across the Front (Kudray and Cooper 

2006). 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge and 

Swan Valley Conservation Area 

The upper Swan Valley is at the eastern limit of 

the Pacific maritime climatic influence, common to 

northern Idaho and northwestern Montana. The 

Mission Range experiences more of the maritime 

influence than the Swan Range. The climate is generally cool and dry with precipitation increasing 

from south to north in the valley. Precipitation in the 

form of snow and rain varies between an average of 

30 inches on the valley floor to more than 100 inches 

along the Swan and Mission divides. The highest 

precipitation usually comes from late October to 

mid-February and again from mid-May to early July. 

The highest precipitation intensity occurs when a 

moist weather front from the Pacific collides with 

cool continental weather. 

Occasionally, cold arctic air slips over the Continental Divide from the northeast and down the 

valley, bringing extreme subzero temperatures from 

the continental weather system. Summer temperatures average in the 80s at the lower elevations 

with extreme temperatures of 90–100 °F during 

drought years. The relatively short growing season 

(2–3 months) limits widespread agricultural development. Frosts can occur any month of the year. 

Therefore, conversion of forest types to cultivated 

crops has been limited in comparison to other western Montana valleys. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Warming of the global climate is considered by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 

2007) to be unequivocal. Over the last 100 years, the 

average global temperature has risen 1.3 °F. In the 

Northern Hemisphere, the temperature rise over 

the last 50 years is very likely higher than any other 

50-year period in the last 500 years. In Montana, 

average spring temperatures have risen by almost 

4 °F over the last 55 years and winter temperatures 

have increased 3 °F (TNC 2009). 

Increases in temperature have been associated 

with decreases in mountain glacier and snow cover, 

earlier spring melt, higher runoff and warmer lakes 

and rivers. In Montana, precipitation changes have 

varied across the State. In general, the northern 

Rockies are now seeing less winter snow while the 

southeastern plains are receiving slightly more 

spring and fall rain. However, that added rain is 

coming in fewer, more severe, storms (TNC 2009). 

Climate change adaptation is the emerging discipline that focuses on helping people and natural systems prepare for and cope with the effects of climate 

change. Adaptation refers to measures designed to 

reduce the vulnerability of systems to the effects of 

climate change (Glick et al. 2011). Adaptation efforts 

generally include (1) building resistance, which is 

the ability of an ecosystem, species, or population to 

withstand change without significant ecological loss, 

(2) building resilience, which is the ability of system 

to recover from a disturbance or change without 

significant loss and return to a given ecological state 

and (3) facilitation of ecological transitions. Promoting and supporting resilience is the most commonly 

recommended approach, but related to the success 

of this is the ability to reduce existing stressors that 

would be magnified with climate change, protect 

refugia and habitat connectivity and implementing 

proactive management and restoration (Glick et al. 

2011). 

The refuge complex is part of the GNLCC and 

the PPPLCC. The LCCs work with a variety of science partners to address existing and future issues 

related to climate change and landscape-scale conservation. These partnerships have the potential 

to be a major conduit for stepping down global and 

regional climate change models and helping to target 

this work to the highest priority needs for land managers and conservation within the refuge complex. 

GEOLOGY AND PHYSIOGRAPHY


The landscape of the refuge complex is extremely 

diverse. Elevations across the refuge complex range 

from as little as 3,000 to more than 10,000 feet above 

mean sea level (amsl). Changes in elevation are especially significant along the Rocky Mountain Front 

Conservation Area, which encompasses up to 4,000 

feet of topographic relief over a few miles. The landscape features vary from large rivers to intermittent 

prairie streams, small temporary wetlands to large 

lakes, intermountain valleys to alpine peaks and 

prairie grasslands to conifer forests. 

The geology that underlies the visible topography within the refuge complex is also diverse. Up 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 67 

until approximately 175 million years ago, the landscape of the modern day complex was fairly uniform. 

Most of Montana was below sea level and vast areas were shallowly flooded. This changed with the 

shifting of the tectonic plates that form the earth’s 

crust that led to the collision of the continental plate 

bearing North America with the floor of the Pacific 

Ocean. That collision led to the literal crumpling of 

the continent along deep fault lines. As the earth’s 

surface continued to bulge, it eventually became unstable and the top sedimentary layers peeled off and 

came to rest to the east, piling on top of each other 

to form the eastern front of the Rocky Mountains. 

The mountains in northwest Montana are comprised 

of the older formations that were exposed when the 

veneer slipped off. 

Around 65 million years ago, the crust beneath 

central Montana rose sufficiently that the inland 

sea retreated. Subsequent to this, volcanic activity 

led to igneous intrusions into the older, surrounding 

sedimentary rocks and the formation of the island 

mountain chains in north-central Montana, including 

the Sweet Grass Hills. This was followed by a relatively calm geologic period in Montana where crustal 

movements subsided. Alternating dry and warm, 

tropical periods from the Oligocene to the Pliocene 

(35 to 2.5 million years ago) led to deposition of sedimentary layers including gravel, sand, mud, volcanic 

ash, limestone, coal and 

laterite. 

Today, these earlier 

sedimentary layers 

are buried throughout 

most of the refuge 

complex by glacial till 

and debris left by the 

enormous glaciers that 

covered northern Montana during the last ice 

ages. The glaciers had 

a profound effect on 

the landscape within 

the refuge complex by 

sculpting mountains, 

changing riverflows and 

leaving behind many 

wetlands. The first, 

and largest, of these 

recent ice ages was 

the Bull Lake Ice Age, 

approximately 70,000– 

130,000 years ago. 

This was followed by a 

less extensive ice age, 

the Pinedale, approximately 10,000–15,000 

years ago (Alt and 

Hyndman 1989). 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area . 

USFWS 

Benton Lake 

National Wildlife 

Refuge 

The Benton Lake basin 

is characterized by gently dipping sedimentary 

bedrock formed during 

the Cretaceous Period 

(145–65 million years
68 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

ago) overlain in many places by glacial and alluvial 

deposits from the last ice ages (Maughan 1961). Bedrock in most of the Benton Lake basin is seleniferous 

marine shale of the Cretaceous Colorado Group, 

often referred to as Colorado Shale (Maughan 1961). 

The ancient sedimentary bedrock that lies beneath 

the Benton Lake basin is important because of the 

effect it has on water quality today as a source of 

selenium. 

During the last Pleistocene ice sheet, Glacial 

Lake Great Falls covered low-lying parts of the Benton Lake region. Glacial lake deposits near Benton 

Lake are primarily clay and silty clay and are up to 

100 feet thick (Lemke 1977). Glacial drift associated 

with the last ice sheet was deposited northeast of 

Benton Lake and east of Priest Butte Lakes and 

formed the closed Benton Lake basin. Glacial drift 

deposits are primarily glacial till consisting of unsorted and unstratified clay, silt, sand, and some 

coarser material. Locally, glacial drift may include 

stratified sand and gravel alluvial deposits (Mudge 

et al. 1982, Lemke 1977). 

The topography of the refuge reflects the dominant geological surfaces and features of the region. 

Within Benton Lake proper, elevation gradients are 

relatively subtle ranging from about 3,614 feet amsl 

in the lowest depressions in the middle of the historical lakebed to about 3,622 feet amsl on the edge 

of the lake that defines its full-pool water level. 

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

The glaciers that covered the Plains of the district 

originated from the northeast near Hudson Bay and 

reached their southern edge in central Montana at 

the end of the ice ages. As a consequence, the glacial imprint on this area is relatively light as glaciers were thinner and present for a relatively brief 

time. The inland mountain ranges, for example the 

Sweet Grass Hills were surrounded, but not covered by these glaciers. Nevertheless, as the glaciers 

retreated they left a layer of glacial till and debris 

covering northern Montana. The classic hummocky 

landscape left behind by this debris can be seen on 

the Furnell WPA at the base of the Sweet Grass 

Hills. 

The southern edge of the glaciers approximated 

the modern-day Missouri River. The edges of the 

glaciers dammed rivers and created lakes in central 

Montana. The largest was Glacial Lake Great Falls, 

which was 600 feet deep in Great Falls and extended 

all the way to Cut Bank. As Glacial Lake Great Falls 

rose, it formed a spillway north of the Highwood 

Mountains washing out a large valley known today 

as the Shonkin Sag. The repeated flooding and spilling by Glacial Lake Great Falls through the Shonkin 

Sag left behind several depressions that are now 

shallow, brackish lakes including those found on the 

Kingsbury Lake and Big Sag WPAs. Similarly, the 

Milk River may have been diverted during the last 

ice age, forming the Sweetgrass Sag and leaving 

behind depressions that created wetlands on the waterfowl production areas in northern Toole County. 

Most of the district lies within the Great Plains, a 

relatively flat landscape sloping slightly to the east. 

The area is punctuated by large rivers including the 

Missouri and Milk and their associated tributaries as 

well as isolated mountain groups such as the Highwood Mountains and Sweet Grass Hills. The Sweet 

Grass Hills consist of three distinct buttes with 

scattered hills connecting them. The three buttes 

are West Butte (elevation of 6,983 feet), Gold Butte 

(elevation of 6,512 feet), and East Butte (elevation of 

6,958 feet). The three buttes, and the hills between 

them, run for about 50 miles east to west and are 

about 10 miles in distance from north to south. 

The sedimentary rocks of north-central Montana 

are also of particular interest because some harbor 

oil and gas or coal. A large structural warp in the 

bedrock between Shelby and Cut Bank, known as 

the Sweetgrass arch, has trapped several oil and 

gas fields. Crude oil production peaked in 1960 in 

central Montana but has declined since then, as new 

discoveries did not keep up with depletion. The Cut 

Bank Field, Pondera Field west of Conrad and a 

large reservoir near Kevin and Sunburst are some 

of the largest resources, but many of the wells today 

produce only a few barrels per day (Alt and Hyndman 1986). 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area 

The Blackfoot Valley was strongly influenced 

by large continuous ice sheets that extended from 

the mountains southward into the Blackfoot and 

Clearwater River Valleys (Witkind and Weber 1982) 

during the Bull Lake and Pinedale ice ages. When 

the glaciers receded, large deposits of glacial till, 

glacial outwash, and glacial lakebed sediments were 

left behind. These deposits cover much of the Blackfoot Valley floor, shaping the topography of the valley and the geomorphology of the Blackfoot River 

and the lower reaches of most tributaries. Glacial 

features evident on the landscape today include moraines, outwash plains, kame terraces, and glacial 

potholes (Whipple et al. 1987, Cox et al.1998). The 

Blackfoot and Kleinschmidt Lake WPAs, in particular, reflect this glacial influence in the pothole 

wetlands present on these parcels. The landscape 

between Clearwater Junction and Lincoln is characterized by alternating areas of glacial moraines 

and their associated outwash plains. In this area, 

ice pouring down from the mountains to the north 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 69 

spread out to form large ponds of ice several miles 

across, known as piedmont glaciers. Muddy meltwater draining from these piedmont glaciers spread 

sand and gravel across the ice-free parts of the valley floor to create large outwash plains. The town of 

Ovando sits on one of these smooth outwash plains 

(Alt and Hyndman 1986). In addition, during the latter part of the Pleistocene Era, the Blackfoot Valley 

was further shaped by the repeated filling and catastrophic draining of Glacial Lake Missoula, which 

extended upstream as far as Clearwater Junction 

(Alt and Hyndman 1986). 

The Blackfoot River watershed totals nearly 1.5 

million acres. The 132-mile long Blackfoot River 

drains 2,320 square miles and hosts a 3,700-mile 

stream network. The headwaters of the Blackfoot 

begin atop Roger’s Pass at the Continental Divide 

and flow west to its confluence with the Clark Fork 

River near Missoula. The Blackfoot Valley floodplain 

varies in width from several hundred feet to several 

miles and has many tributaries. Historically, the 

river meandered back and forth across the valley 

floor. The remnants of these old oxbows formed the 

wetland basins managed today on the H2–O WPA. 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area 

The highest elevation landforms are located in the 

most western section of the Front and are Paleozoic Era sedimentary rock composed of sandstone, 

shale, and limestone (including dolomite). These 

relatively hard materials kept their shape during 

formation and are not as prone to erosion. The Kootenai Formation from the Mesozoic Era is found 

adjacent at lower elevations and is also sedimentary 

rock, but is composed of conglomerate, sandstone, 

shale, and mudstone. These materials formed tight 

folds and are prone to erosion, resulting in low hills 

that look more like the Plains to the east than the 

craggy mountains to the west. The Colorado Shale 

Formation of shale and siltstone is typically found 

at the next lowest topographic position. At lower 

elevations, alluvial deposits are common with layers 

of gravel, sand, and silt. There are also significant 

low-elevation glacial deposits from the Pleistocene 

Age that have variable, mostly coarse textures. 

These have left behind hummocky pothole wetlands 

in some areas. The Two Medicine Formation from 

the Cretaceous Era is one of the most common lower 

elevation types and is sedimentary with clay, limestone, and sandstone. There is also a prominent area 

of Cretaceous volcanic rock in the far southern part 

of the Front (Kudray and Cooper 2006). 

The Rocky Mountain Front in Montana transitions from eastern foothill grasslands between 3,500 

and 5,500 feet in elevation to mountain peaks at 

nearly 9,000 feet in elevation. The area is drained by 

several rivers including the Sun, Teton, and Marias, 

which eventually drain into the Missouri River. 

Although geologically speaking, the Front has 

the potential for oil and gas reserves, the complexity 

of the formation suggests that any fields are likely to 

be small (Alt and Hyndman 1986). 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

and Swan Valley Conservation Area 

During the shifting of tectonic plates that led to the 

formation of the Rocky Mountains, the Swan Valley 

was created along a fault by a large block of rock being pushed up on the east side of the valley forming 

the Swan Range, and the west side of the fault dipping down, forming the Mission Range. The general 

direction of the faulting was northwest to southeast, 

with the mountain ranges tilted in an easterly direction. This faulting history generally left steeper and 

more rugged mountains in the Swan Range. Both 

the Mission Range and the Swan Range are Precambrian sedimentary formations. 

Further alteration of the geological landscape 

in the Swan Valley resulted from the Bull Lake Ice 

Age when the northern end of the Mission Range 

split the glacier, which flowed south from British 

Columbia. One lobe of the glacier went through the 

Swan Valley south to the Blackfoot River, forming a 

continuous sheet over the mountains, especially the 

northern part of the Mission Range. Only the highest peaks and ridges remained uncovered. 

Ice again advanced through the valley to the 

lower end of Salmon Lake during the Pinedale Ice 

Age. Additionally, long tongues of ice thrust out of 

the mountains into the valley, depositing moraines 

at their edges. The last fingers of ice formed the 

high ridges or high moraines that now enclose glacial lakes such as Holland and Lindbergh Lakes, as 

well as others at the mouths of canyons in the Mission Range and Swan Range. As the valley glacier 

melted, dirt and debris were left behind. Large piles 

of these sediments remained as humps on the valley 

floor or were pushed into ridges or eskers as the 

glaciers moved. In other areas, pockets of ice were 

left behind. When they melted, they left depressions 

that became lakes, ponds, potholes, or wetlands. 

This complex of wetlands intermingled with upland 

terrain is unique (Swan Ecosystem Center 2004). 

The Swan River basin, tributary to Flathead 

Lake and the Flathead River in the headwaters of 

the Columbia River, is approximately 1,286 square 

miles in area. A wide diversity of lakes, riparian areas, rivers, creeks, alpine and subalpine glacial lakes, 

and springs feed the basin (Friessell et al. 1995). 

The Swan and Mission Ranges reach peak elevations higher than 9,000 feet. The Swan River flows 

through the mountains, winds across the morainal 
70 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

foothills and through the valleys forming braided 

delta areas. The river travels over a dense forest 

floor comprised of variously graded porous glacial 

till and alluvium, averaging 6.2 miles wide at an elevational range of 2,500–9,000 feet. (Friessell et al. 

1995). Several large lakes (250 to 2,700 acres) occur 

along the course of the river and its main tributaries. Hundreds of kettle lakes, fens, bogs, and other 

lake-like systems and small, shallow and vegetated 

wetlands, with many perched aquifers not directly 

connected to surface streams, lie scattered across 

the glacial and alluvial valley floors and foothills 

(Frissell et al. 1995). Forested riverine and small, 

shallow and vegetated wetlands fringe the river 

channel and dominate its extensive floodplains and 

relict paleochannels (an ancient inactive stream 

channel filled by the sediments of younger overlying 

rock). 

The Swan River refuge lies within the floodplain 

of the Swan River on the southern edge of Swan 

Lake between the Swan Mountain Range to the east 

and the Mission Mountain Range to the west. The 

valley floor is generally flat but rises steeply to adjacent forested mountain sides. Eighty percent of the 

floodplain is comprised of wetlands and the other 20 

percent consists of forests of old growth fir, spruce, 

cedar, and larch. The Swan River, which once meandered through the floodplain, has been forced to the 

west side of the refuge by deposits of silt, leaving a 

series of oxbow sloughs within the refuge floodplain. 

SOILS 

Soils in the refuge complex are extremely variable 

due to the diverse influences of climate, topography, 

and geology. In general, the soils are strongly related to the geologic substrates and landforms. The 

State soil geographic database provides a consistent 

method of assessing generalized soil characteristics on a regional scale (NRCS 2006). This has been 

used in conjunction with the Ecoregions of Montana 

(Woods et al. 2002) to provide a generalized description of the common soil characteristics within the 

refuge complex. More detailed soils data are available from the county soil survey geographic databases that will be used as stepdown management 

plans are developed for individual units. Information 

on the soil geographic databases is available from 

the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) (NRCS 2011c). 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Surface soils are predominantly clays and silty clays 

(Vertisols) deposited in the lake-system environments of Glacial Lake Great Falls and Benton Lake. 

The Benton Lake bed and surrounding lower elevation areas are mostly plastic clays and exceed 100 

feet deep under parts of Benton Lake. These are 

Pendroy, Thebo Vanda, and Marvan clays (NRCS 

2011c). In the area where Lake Creek enters Benton 

Lake, soils are mostly silt and sand with minor clay 

and gravel present in soil stratigraphy. Thickness of 

these soils range from 10 to 40 feet where they become intermixed with underlying lake-system-type 

deposits. Higher elevation terrace-type soils along 

the western and southern edges of Benton Lake are 

mostly 10–30 feet thick silty clay loam types overlying reddish-brown, poorly sorted sand and gravel 

dominantly of subangular to slabby sandstone and 

subrounded quartzite, shale, granite, and argillite 

Swan River . 

USFWS 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 71 

(Maughan and Lemke 1991). Some of these surfaces 

have interesting, stratified soils indicating various 

depositions from historical marine environments, 

Lake Great Falls, and underlying Colorado Shale 

(Condon 2000). 

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

The materials left by the glaciers during the last ice 

ages are the most widely distributed parent material 

of soils in the district today. The thickness of these 

deposits varies widely from more than 100 feet deep 

in preglacial valleys and depressions to very thin on 

higher divides and benches. Mollisols—dark, baserich mineral soils typically formed under perennial 

grasses—cover much of the area (NRCS 2011a). 

Common mollisol soils series include Scobey, Telstad, 

Vida, Joplin, Bearpaw, and Kevin, which are very 

deep, well drained soils formed in glacial till across 

the Plains, and in the case of Kevin soils, are typical 

of glacial moraines and hummocky areas (Woods et 

al. 2002, NRCS 2011b). Native vegetation on these 

soils is typically western wheatgrass–needlegrass 

(Woods et al. 2002). In areas where there are steep, 

actively eroding slopes, floodplains, or glacial outwash plains, Entisols are common (Woods et al. 

2002). Entisols show little or no soil horizons as deposition or erosion rates are often faster than soil 

development (NRCS 2011a). The Hillon soil series 

is found on several waterfowl production areas and 

is a common Entisol across the district (Woods et al. 

2002, NRCS 2011b). The third common soil order in 

the northern glaciated plains is vertisols. Vertisols 

are clayey soils that have deep, wide cracks for some 

time during the year. Vertisols generally have gentle 

slopes and are associated with grass cover (NRCS 

2011a). The Pendroy series are common vertisols in 

the district (Woods et al. 2002). The Pendroy series 

consists of deep, well drained soils formed in clayey 

glacial river or lake material or in alluvium from 

shale uplands (NRCS 2011b). These soils are on alluvial fans, floodplains, stream terraces, and lake 

plains. Because the permeability of these soils is 

slow, irrigation can result in the buildup of salinity 

and nearly all mature soils in the area carry a constituent of alkali salts (Gieseker et al. 1933). 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area 

The floor of the Blackfoot Valley was shaped 

by the glaciers and is characterized by hummocky 

moraines, outwash plains, terraces, fans, poorly 

developed drainage networks, and many wetlands 

(Woods et al. 2002). Most soil types present in the 

watershed have similar surface textures, are moderately well to well drained, and have a depth to water 

table between 3 and 6 feet. These dominant soils are 

neither prime farmland nor hydric soils supporting wetlands. Fescue grasslands within the valley 

are commonly underlain by Mollisols soils including 

Quigley, Perma, Raynesford, Leavitt, Burnette, and 

Winspect (Woods et al. 2002). These soils are very 

deep, well drained and were formed by alluvium, 

colluvium, alpine till, or slide deposits derived from 

limestone, shale, sandstone, limestone and calcareous sedimentary rock. They are typically found on 

alluvial fans, stream terraces, hills, outwash plains, 

and moraines (NRCS 2011b). In areas that support 

timber, such as ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, 

Inceptisol series such as Totelake and Winfall are 

common (Woods et al. 2002). These soils are very 

deep, well drained and formed either by glacial outwash (Totelake) or loamy till (Winfall). The Totelake 

soils are found on alluvial fans and stream terraces 

whereas the Winfall soils are found on moraines and 

mountains (NRCS 2011b). 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area 

At the foot slopes of the Rocky Mountains and the 

smaller mountain chains, such as the Sweet Grass 

Hills, Mollisols and Entisols are the prevalent soil 

orders. Within these, there is a wide variety of common soils series. Mollisols soil types that support 

western wheatgrass–needlegrass prairies include 

Farnuf, Fairfield, Delpoint, Marmarth, Reeder, and 

Regent (Woods et al. 2002). These are very deep to 

moderately deep, well drained soils formed from 

either glacial deposits (Farnuf, Fairfield, Delpoint) 

or from weathered sedimentary materials such as 

sandstone, siltstone, mudstone or shale (Marmarth, 

Reeder, Regent) (NRCS 2011b). Fescue grasslands 

can be commonly found on Mollisols series such as 

Castner, Work, Absarokee, Michelson, and Redchief. 

These are shallow to very deep, well drained soils 

formed from alluvium or colluvium over bedrock, 

or in case of Redchief soils, from glacial deposits. 

Redchief soils can also support scattered lodge pole, 

aspen and alpine fir as elevations increase (NRCS 

2011b). Entisols soil series common to the Rocky 

Mountain Front include Cabbart and Cabba (Woods 

et al. 2002). Both are shallow, well drained soils derived from semiconsolidated, loamy sedimentary 

beds. These soils are found on hills, escarpments, 

and sedimentary plains and typically support wheatgrass–needlegrass prairies (NRCS 2011b). 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

and Swan Valley Conservation Area 

The Swan Valley has a wide diversity of soils from 

steep mountain formations that are minimally developed and consist mainly of bedrock of various belt 

supergroup formations—to deep fertile soils of the 
72 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

valley floor consisting of recent alluvium along the 

floodplains. 

Valley soils consist of glacial moraine, outwash, 

lakebeds, or other sediments associated with the 

last glacial activity and its associated lake and flood 

sediments. Parent materials are sands, silts, and 

gravels underlain by siltstones or glacial deposits. 

The valley floor is generally flat with slopes of from 

2 to 20 percent. Steep slopes occur at the front edge 

of some terraces. Soils in the valley bottom consist 

of two broad types. One is rocky and poorly drained 

and is underlain by unsorted glacial till. These soils 

generally support timber production. The second 

type of soil consists of deep, well-drained, and wellstructured silty substrate with thick, dark nutrient 

rich surface horizons up to 1 foot thick. 

The soils of the Swan River Refuge were largely 

formed by the Swan River moving back and forth 

across the floodplain over time. Nearly 30 percent 

are Aquepts formed by alluvium deposited in the 

floodplain. The soils in the valley bottom are gravelly or silty loams that typically support shrub and 

forest vegetation. The edges of the refuge that transition from the floodplain to the forested uplands are 

Andeptic Cryoboralfs formed by glacial till and also 

typically support forested vegetation (NRCS 2011c). 

WATER RESOURCES 

Water resources for the refuge complex consist 

of precipitation, runoff, ground water flows, and 

established water rights. On fee-title lands within 

the refuge complex, just more than half of the approximately 12,000 acres of wetlands are subject to 

natural flooding and drying cycles. In Montana, precipitation is cyclical, causing a series of wet and dry 

years, often in 10–20 year cycles (Hansen et al. 1995, 

Heitmeyer et al. 2009). Therefore, whether or not 

most of the wetlands within the refuge complex are 

flooded or dry in any given year depends on natural 

climatic cycles. For the remaining wetlands, water 

resources may be augmented by water rights associated with diversions from streams, irrigation return 

flows and impoundments. 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge was established by Executive order of 

President Hoover in 1929. For the first 30 years of 

the refuge history, the refuge was not staffed and 

was administered by the National Bison Range in 

western Montana. During this time, the hydrological 

regime in Benton Lake mirrored seasonal and longterm regional precipitation patterns (for example, 

Nimick 1997). 

In 1957, local support from the Cascade County 

Wildlife Association prompted a major effort to construct major pumping and water delivery structures 

from Muddy Creek to the refuge. A pump station 

and pipeline were constructed 1958–62 to bring irrigation return flow in Muddy Creek from the central and northeast parts of the Greenfields Bench 

to the refuge. In 1961, full-time Service staff were 

assigned to, and housed on, the refuge. The first water pumped to Benton Lake from Muddy Creek occurred in 1962. Water from the Muddy Creek pump 

station is moved 4 miles through an underground 

pipeline over a low-drainage divide and then is discharged into the natural Lake Creek channel where 

it flows for about 12 miles to its mouth in Benton 

Lake. Pumping from Muddy Creek corresponds to 

times of irrigation return flow in the Greenfields 

Irrigation system and is generally from May until 

mid-October. The refuge has rights for up to 14,600 

acre-feet of water from Muddy Creek each year depending on adequate flows in the creek (Palawski 

and Martin 1991). Water from Muddy Creek is free, 

but the refuge must pay electrical costs for the three 

pumps (two 350-horsepower and one 250-horsepower). 

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District, Blackfoot Valley Conservation 

Area, and Rocky Mountain Front 

Conservation Area 

Within the 10-county district, there are approximately 500,000 acres of wetlands (MNHP 2010b). 

Areas with particularly high densities include the 

Rocky Mountain Front, the Sweet Grass Hills, and 

the Blackfoot Valley. In the Blackfoot Valley, wetland densities exceed 100 basins per square mile. 

The Service currently holds conservation, grassland, and wetland easements on 132,858 acres of 

land in the district. Wetlands associated with lands 

in all of these easement programs are protected. 

The Service is currently conducting landscape-level 

analysis to rank wetland resources based on their 

importance to breeding waterfowl, which may be 

expanded to other priority wetland-dependent birds 

in the future. This prioritization will help identify 

the highest priority wetland resources in the district 

for future protection. 

Currently, there are approximately 4,300 acres 

of wetlands protected and managed on waterfowl 

production areas within the district (MNHP 2010b). 

Roughly one-third of these wetland acres are permanent or semipermanent, one-third are seasonal and 

the remaining third are temporary (MNHP 2010b). 

Most of these wetlands receive water primarily 

through precipitation and runoff from snow or rain 

events. The catchment area for most waterfowl pro­
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 73 

duction area wetlands is generally small and limited 

to the area immediately surrounding the basin. One 

exception is Kingsbury Lake WPA, where the main 

wetland basin receives runoff from the nearby Highwood Mountains via Alder Creek. 

On approximately 400 acres of waterfowl production area wetlands, the basins have been impounded 

to hold precipitation and runoff higher or longer 

than would otherwise occur, thus extending the 

period of flooding. These include some or all of the 

wetlands on the Blackfoot, Hartelius, Arod Lakes, 

Kingsbury Lake, and Sands and Furnell WPAs. On 

the H2–O WPA in the Blackfoot Valley, water is 

diverted from the Blackfoot River to flood oxbow 

wetlands on the waterfowl production area. 

H2–O WPA 

The H2–O WPA is located next to the Blackfoot 

River and near the mouth of Nevada Creek. The 

630-acre parcel south of the Blackfoot River supports 35 wetlands totaling approximately 229 acres 

within and immediately next to the property. The 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation described the hydrology of the H2–O 

in 2005 based on 2 years of monitoring on the waterfowl production area (Roberts and Levens 2005). 

Inflows into the H2–O are supplied by surface water 

(McCormick ditch), shallow ground water, and precipitation. Outflows were made up of evapotranspiration, and surface and ground water returns to the 

Blackfoot River and Nevada Creek. 

Water is delivered to the wetlands by an irrigation ditch that conveys water from a head gate 

located 1.1 miles below the Highway 141 crossing on 

the Blackfoot River, through four neighboring properties, to the H2–O WPA. The ditch, referred to as 

the McCormick ditch, enters the waterfowl production area in two locations. After traveling 3.24 miles 

in a southwestern direction the ditch splits, sending 

water 0.95 miles west to the H2–O WPA near Pond 

#4. The other branch of McCormick ditch flows 1.95 

miles south before entering the eastern edge of the 

waterfowl production area near Alkali Lake. The 

total water right in the ditch for all users is 122.5 

cubic feet per second (cfs). The H2–O WPA part of 

this is 75 cfs. The Service currently supports the 

ditch. The percent of water diverted from the Blackfoot River that actually reaches the H2–O ranges 

from 6 percent to more than 200 percent. The wide 

range in these values is a function of adjacent irrigation. For example, when the McCormick turnout is 

pulling water from the ditch, the deliverable part 

is much lower. Conversely, on those days when the 

McCormick turnout is not pulling water, and there 

is substantial tail water runoff from adjacent flood 

irrigation, the deliverable part exceeds 100 percent 

(ditch is gaining). 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

and Swan Valley Conservation Area 

Within the refuge, wetlands are mostly meandered 

loops of the Swan River that have been cut off from 

the main channel. Under natural conditions, floodwater and ground water would be the dominant inputs. 

Currently, the hydrology of the refuge is not well 

understood. It is possible that there have been significant modifications to the water resources that 

are hidden by thick vegetation. A detailed hydrogeomorphic analysis of the refuge would help to understand and manage the hydrology more effectively. 

WATER QUALITY 

A comprehensive evaluation of water quality across 

the refuge complex has not been conducted. Given 

the significant land use changes in parts of the refuge complex (for example, conversion of grasslands 

to agriculture in the district) water quality problems 

may currently be undiscovered. 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

In the late 1980s, it was discovered that the refuge 

had concentrations of selenium in water, bottom 

sediment and biota that were moderately to considerably higher than regional background values or 

reference concentrations associated with biological 

risk (Knapton et al. 1988). Since that time, considerable effort has been focused on understanding and 

characterizing the selenium contamination issues at 

Benton Lake Refuge (Nimick et al. 1996; USFWS 

1991; Zhang and Moore 1997; Henney et al. 2000; unpublished data on file at Benton Lake Refuge 2006, 

2008, 2011). Concerns have focused on reducing the 

selenium levels on the refuge and in the Lake Creek 

watershed to prevent concentrations that would 

cause reproductive failure in sensitive birds. 

High salinity was also a concern before on the 

refuge. However, a review of long-term salinity data 

on the refuge found that, while salinity may increase 

within a season as wetlands dry, there were no detectable increasing trends over a 10-year period 

(Nimick 1997). 

For further discussion of water quality at Benton 

Lake Refuge, see chapter 7. 

Benton Lake Wetland Management District 

In 1995, a survey of contaminants from 10 sites 

within the district was conducted to find out if trace 

elements were accumulating in either sediment or 

the aquatic food chain of wetlands (Gilbert et al. 

1995). Elevated levels of lead, boron, and selenium 

were detected in several locations. The concentrations did not appear to pose an immediate threat 
74 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

to wildlife resources but continued monitoring was 

recommended. Given the alkaline nature of many of 

the soils in the district and the fact that evaporation 

rates can exceed precipitation, the potential for accumulation of toxins in wetland basins, particularly 

impoundments that do not dry out, deserves further 

attention. 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area 

The Blackfoot River, from the headwaters downstream to Landers Fork, shows varying levels of 

metals-related impairment. Water quality data show 

that the upstream part of this stream segment routinely exceeds numeric water quality criteria for 

metals cadmium, copper, iron, lead, and zinc. Metals 

concentrations decrease in the downstream direction 

to the point where exceedences of metals-related 

numeric water quality criteria typically occur during 

high flows only. Water quality data from Blackfoot 

River from Landers Fork to Nevada Creek occasionally exceeds numeric water quality criteria during high flows for cadmium, iron, aluminum, and zinc. 

Sources of metals-related impairment and acidity 

from the upper river segments are associated with 

the Upper Blackfoot Mining Complex. Reclamation activities including the restoration strategies 

for metals listed segments of the Blackfoot River 

rely on the completion of the water quality restoration commitments from the Upper Blackfoot Mining 

Complex. 

In 2005, a basin-wide restoration action plan for 

the Blackfoot River watershed was completed. This 

action plan serves as a guiding document to identify, 

rank, and plan for the implementation of restoration 

projects in the Blackfoot River watershed. 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area 

Watersheds in the Rocky Mountain Front include 

the Sun River, Teton River, and Dearborn River. 

The Sun River watershed is connected to the Teton 

River watershed via human-built canals and irrigation works. 

SUN RIVER WATERSHED 

The Sun River watershed spans several land types 

from the forested headwaters in the Rocky Mountain wilderness, to the prairies at its confluence 

with the Missouri River near the city of Great Falls, 

Montana. Agricultural land use predominates in the 

watershed. The links between water quality, land 

use, and the natural variability of land types in the 

watershed are complex. The potentially impaired 

waters identified by the State of Montana in the Sun 

River watershed are Ford Creek, Gibson Reservoir, 

Willow Creek Reservoir, upper Sun River, lower 

Sun River, Freezeout Lake, and Muddy Creek. 

The upper Sun River was identified as impaired 

on Montana’s 2000 and 2002 list of impaired waterbodies because of excess nutrients. This segment is 

approximately 80 miles long and runs from Gibson 

Dam to Muddy Creek. Landowners, local watershed organizations, and many Federal, State, and 

local government agencies collaborated to carry out 

agricultural best management practices in the upper Sun River and its tributaries. Water quality 

improved as a result, allowing the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to remove the upper 

Sun River from the list for nutrients in 2006. The 

Sun River watershed project is a classic example of 

using the watershed approach to address nonpoint 

source pollution (EPA 2012). 

TETON RIVER WATERSHED 

The Teton River watershed is located on the eastern 

side of the Rocky Mountain Front in west-central 

Montana. Recorded conditions in the Teton basin begin with the Lewis and Clark expedition of 1804–6. 

The expedition journals, as translated by Moulton 

(1999), documented several points of interest that 

can be used today to gain an understanding of the 

historical landscape and riparian vegetation. On 

June 3, 1805, the Fields brothers noted the Teton’s 

riparian areas as “containing much timber in its 

bottom, consisting of the narrow and wide leafed 

cottonwood with some birch and box alder undergrowth, willows, rosebushes, and currents.” 

White settlers soon followed, using the expansive lands to raise large herds of cattle and horses. 

Where possible, rich river bottomlands were cleared 

to increase forage production. Irrigation of the land 

soon followed to increase the amount of hay that 

could be produced and stored for winter. Land use 

along the river bottoms and floodplain has changed 

significantly, some reaches of the river were channelized (straightened), permanent bridges for transportation were installed, and riparian areas were 

being heavily used, which reduced bank-stabilizing 

vegetation. 

The Teton River flows into the Marias River near 

Loma, in west-central Montana and then into the 

Missouri River. In 1996, 13 stream segments or waterbodies in the Teton River watershed were listed 

with threatened or impaired beneficial use. In 2002, 

nine stream segments or waterbodies have impaired 

status, and five stream segments or waterbodies 

have been found to fully support all beneficial uses. 

The type and magnitude of water quality impairments vary across the watershed. Primary causes 

of water quality impairments include salinity, total 

dissolved solids, and chlorides or sulfides, selenium, 

organic enrichment (dissolved oxygen), siltation 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 75 

(suspended solids), temperature, and nutrients. 

Other listed causes include stream flow alteration 

(dewatering), bank erosion, riparian degradation, 

fish habitat alteration, and other habitat alteration. 

Sources are varied, but predominantly result from 

the effects of the 1964 flood or relate to agricultural 

land uses and associated practices. Agricultural activities dominate the watershed with 84 percent of 

the land cover and land use identified as cropland, 

rangeland, or pasture. Irrigated and dryland agriculture practices have a cumulative effect on the 

river system and resultant water quality either by 

altering stream flows or by raising ground water 

levels and augmenting flows that contribute to saline 

seeps. Riparian grazing activities also have an effect on the health of the riparian zones, stability of 

stream banks, and ultimately, water quality (MDEQ 

2003). 

DEARBORN RIVER WATERSHED 

In 1996, 2002, and 2004 the State of Montana reported that several stream segments in the Dearborn River watershed in west-central Montana have 

impaired beneficial uses. The segments of concern 

are the Dearborn River, middle fork Dearborn 

River, south fork Dearborn River, and Flat Creek. 

Causes of impairment in these stream segments 

include flow alteration, thermal modifications, other 

habitat alterations, and siltation (MDEQ 2005). 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

and Swan Valley Conservation Area 

Clear, cold waters emerge from the Mission Range 

and Swan Range and flow through the 410,000-acre 

Swan River watershed joining the Flathead River 

and eventually reaching the Pacific Ocean by way 

of the Columbia River. The Swan Valley holds more 

surface water than any other Montana watershed; 

16 percent of the land is wet. Water collects in more 

than 4,000 potholes, ponds, lakes, marshes, and wetlands, and a 1,300-mile network of streams transports water throughout the valley. Two key water 

quality problems facing the Swan Lake watershed 

follow: (1) sediment contributed from past activities has degraded water quality; and (2) forest land 

has been converted to residential use. Development 

of roads and homesites has created water quality 

problems in the Swan Valley. Water quality in Swan 

Lake is generally excellent; however, dissolved 

oxygen levels in two deep basins reach unexpected 

low levels in the fall of each year. Low dissolved 

oxygen levels are of concern due to potential harm 

to aquatic life and as an indication of possible basinwide increases in pollutants reaching Swan Lake 

(Swan Ecosystem Center 2011). 

Wetland in the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area . 

USFWS 

WATER RIGHTS 

Montana waters, in all their varied forms and locations, belong to the State. The Montana constitution states that all surface, underground, flood, and 

atmospheric waters within the boundaries of the 

State are the property of the State for the use of 

its people. (Article IX, section 3[3]). Since water 

belongs to the State, anyone that holds a water right 

does not own the water itself, instead, they possess a 

right to use the water within State guidelines. 

Water rights in Montana are guided by the prior 

appropriation doctrine, that is, first in time is first in 

right. A person’s right to use a specific quantity of 
76 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

water depends on when the use of water began. The 

first person to use water from a source established 

the first right; the second person could establish a 

right to the water that was left, and so on. During 

dry years, the person with the first right has the 

first chance to use the available water to fulfill that 

right. The holder of the second right has the next 

chance. Water users are limited to the amount of 

water that can be beneficially used. In Montana, 

the term “beneficial use” means, generally, a use of 

the water for the benefit of the appropriator, other 

persons, or the public, including but not limited to 

agricultural (including stock water), domestic, fish 

and wildlife, industrial, irrigation, mining, municipal, 

power, and recreational uses. 

Water rights are appurtenant to the land on 

which they are used and may, but do not have to 

transfer with sale of the land. Water rights are summarized in table 7 and described in this section for 

the units of the refuge complex. 

Table 7 . Water rights and use on Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Claim 

number 

(priority 

date) 

Refuge 

complex 

unit 

Use 

(period) 

Source Diversion 

means 

Flow 

rate* 

Claimed 

volume 

(acre-feet) 

Annual 

used 

volume 

(acrefeet) 

Other 

information 

Benton Lake Wetland Management District for the 2010 water year 

41R–W– 

188250 

Kingsbury 

Lake 

(annual) Stock 

Dam #1 

Dam Natural 

Flow 

1 

WPA 

41R–W– 

188251 

Kingsbury 

Lake 

(annual) Stock 

Dam #2 

Dam Natural 

Flow 

2.5 

WPA 

41R–W– 

188252 

Kingsbury 

Lake 

(annual) Stock 

Dam #3 

Dam Natural 

Flow 

2.5 

WPA 

41R–P– 

098648 

Kingsbury 

Lake 

(annual) Stock 

Dam #4 

Dam Natural 

Flow 

0.4 

WPA 

41R–W– 

211490 

Kingsbury 

Lake 

(annual) Stock 

Dam #5 

Dam Natural 

Flow 

6 

WPA 

41R–W– 

011810 

Kingsbury 

Lake 

(seasonal) Alder 

Creek 

Direct 

Use 

Max Flow 

12 cfs 

3.25 

WPA 

41R–W– 

011812 

Kingsbury 

Lake 

WPA 

(seasonal) Well 

5-inch 

Casing 

Windmill 

and 

tank 

0.5 gpm 3.5 0 

41R–W– 

011806 

Kingsbury 

Lake 

WPA 

(seasonal) Unnamed 

Couleeor 

Dry Runs 

Dam Old claim 2 

41R–W– 

011807 

Kingsbury 

Lake 

WPA 

(seasonal) Unnamed 

Couleeor 

Dry Runs 

Dam Old claim 2 
Table 7 . Water rights and use on Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Claim 

number 

(priority 

date) 

Refuge 

complex 

unit 

Use 

(period) 

Source Diver

sion 

means 

Flow 

rate* 

Claimed 

volume 

(acre-feet) 

Annual 

used 

volume 

(acrefeet) 

Other 

information 

41R–W– 

011808 

Kingsbury 

Lake 

WPA 

(seasonal) Unnamed 

Couleeor 

Dry Runs 

Dam Old claim 2 

41R–W– 

011809 

Kingsbury 

Lake 

WPA 

(seasonal) Unnamed 

Couleeor 

Dry Runs 

Pit Old claim 2 

41R–W– 

011811 

Kingsbury 

Lake 

WPA 

(seasonal) Unnamed 

Couleeor 

Dry Runs 

Pit Old claim 2 

76F–W– 

033714 

Blackfoot 

WPA 

(seasonal) Unnamed 

Springs 

Direct 

Use 

Max Flow 

15 cfs 

160 160 Supplies wa

ter to 4 ponds 

76F–P– 

78265 

Blackfoot 

WPA 

(annual) Unnamed 

tributary 

of the Big 

Blackfoot 

River 

Headgate Surface 

water 

319 319 Permit is as

sociated with 

water right 

No. 76F– 

W–033714 

and supplies 

water to 4 

ponds. Total 

appropriation 

is 479 acrefeet 

76F–P– 

003472 

Blackfoot 

WPA

 (seasonal) Big 

Blackfoot 

River 

Pump 700 gpm 370 0 Irrigates 123 

acres 

76F–W– 

097791 

Kleinschmidt 

Lake 

WPA 

(seasonal) Kleinschmidt 

Lake 

Direct 

Use 

Unknown 

Sands 

WPA 

(annual) Beaver 

Creek 

Water 

Contract 

Headgate Unknown 50 50 

40J–W– 

118716 

Sands 

WPA 

(seasonal) 

Apr.1– 

Nov.31 

Squaw 

Coulee 

Dam 0.66 cfs 0.66 0.66 

40J–W– 

118717 

Sands 

WPA 

IrrigationApr.1– 

Oct.31 

Squaw 

Coulee 

Headgate 2.92 cfs 

40J–P– 

011694 

Sands 

WPA 

(annual) Unnamed 

tributary 

of Half

way Lake 

Reser

voir 

Natural 

Flow 

0.95 0.95 

CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 77 

­

­

­

­

­
78 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Table 7 . Water rights and use on Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Claim Refuge Use Source Diver- Flow Claimed Annual 

number complex (period) sion rate* volume used 

(priority unit means (acre-feet) volume 

date) (acrefeet)
 

Other 

information 

40J 

30042409 

Sands 	

WPA	 

Livestock 

(May 15– 

September 30) 

Indian 

Woman 

Coulee 

Pit 0.25 

410 

30022505 

Savik 	

WPA	 

Livestock 

(May 1– 

October 

31) 

Unnamed 

tributary 

of Foster 

Creek 

Pit Surface 

water 

0.14 

410 

30025677 

Savik 	

WPA	 

Livestock 

(May 1– 

October 

31) 

Unnamed 

tributary 

of Foster 

Creek 

Pit Surface 

Water 

0.14 0.14 

41N–W– 

183215 

Furnell 

WPA 

(annual) Trail 

Creek 

Headgate 2 cfs 480.80 0 No Available 

Runoff 2009 

40F–W– 

159045 

Ehli 

WPA 

(annual) Willshaw Direct 

Use 

Runoff 28 0 

40F–B– 

214983 

Ehli 

WPA 

(annual) 

Apr.1– 

Oct.1 

Willshaw 

Coulee 

Dam 770.6 0 Early Sum

mer Runoff 

76F–G– 

117710 

H2–O 

WPA 

Irrigation 

(Apr.1– 

Nov.1) 

Blackfoot 

River 

Single 

headgate 

Authorization applies 

to 76F–W– 

117710, 76F– 

W–11711, 76F 

B–214348. 

Irrigates 515 

acres, many 

ponds, and 

wetlands 

76F–W– 

117702 

H2–O 

WPA 

Domestic 

(annual) 

Ground 

water 

Well 35 gpm 4 4 Artesian well, 

residence 

76F–W– 

117703 

H2–O 

WPA 

Livestock 

(annual) 

Ground 

water 

Well 35 gpm 6.72 0 Artesian 

well (same as 

above) 

76F–W– 

117704 

H2–O 

WPA 

No 

(May 

Dec.1) 

use 

1– 

Ground 

water 

Well 20 gpm 6.72 0 Old windmill 

no longer in 

use 

76F–W– 

117705 

H2–O 

WPA 

Livestock 

(annual) 

Ground 

water 

Well 35 gpm 6.72 6.72 Artesian well 

by Alkali 

Lake 

­
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 79 

Table 7 . Water rights and use on Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Claim Refuge Use Source Diver- Flow Claimed Annual 

number complex (period) sion rate* volume used 

(priority unit means (acre-feet) volume 

date) (acrefeet) 

Other 

information 

76F–P– 

017006 

H2–O 

WPA 

Irrigation 

(April 15– 

October 

19) Live

stock (an

nual ) 

Blackfoot 

River 

Pump 1,500 gpm 375 0 Irrigates 250 

acres 

76F–W– 

117707 

H2–O 

WPA 

Livestock 

(annual) 

Ground 

water 

Well 35 gpm 6.72 6.72 Aunt Molly 

76F–C– 

069182 

H2–O 

WPA 

Livestock 

(June 

7–20) 

Ground 

water 

Well 25 gpm 5.95 0.08 Section 29 

76F–B– 

214346 

H2–O 

WPA 

Fish and 

wildlife 

(annual) 

Ground 

water 

Well 66 gpm 106 106 Artesian well 

by house 

(overflow) 

76F–B– 

214347 

H2–O 

WPA 

Fish and 

wildlife 

(annual) 

Blackfoot 

River 

Diver

sion 

25 cfs 88 88 

76F–B– 

214349 

H2–O 

WPA 

Fish and 

wildlife 

(annual) 

Ground 

water 

Well 75 gpm 120 120 Alkali Lake, 

well overflow 

76F–B– 

214350 

H2–O 

WPA 

Fish and 

wildlife 

(annual) 

Waste 

and seep

age 

Irrigation 12.5 cfs 88 88 Overflow 

collects in 

McCormick 

ditch, waste 

and seepage 

along ditch 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

76K– 

190563 

(2/10/1925) 

Swan 

River 

Refuge 

Irrigation 

(Apr.15– 

Oct.19) 

Swan 

River 

Dike Unknown 3,395 3,395 To irrigate 

1397 acres 

76K– 

188249 

(4/21/1927) 

76K– 

190565 

(10/22/1919) 

Swan 

River 

Refuge 

Fish and 

Wildlife 

(annual) 

Bond 

Creek 

Dike Unknown Unknown 268 Max. 

volume 

Swan 

River 

Refuge 

Fish and 

Wildlife 

(annual) 

Stopher 

Creek 

Pipeline Unknown Unknown 1,900 

Max. 

volume 

76K– 

190566 

(9/20/1926) 

Swan 

River 

Refuge 

Fish and 

Wildlife 

(annual) 

Lime 

Creek 

Pipeline Unknown Unknown 1,807 

Max. 

volume 

76K– 

190564 

(5/3/1923) 

Swan 

River 

Refuge 

Fish and 

Wildlife 

(annual) 

Lime 

Creek 

Pipeline Unknown Unknown 1,793 

Max. 

volume 

76K– 

188247 

(2/10/1925) 

Swan 

River 

Refuge 

Fish and 

Wildlife 

(annual) 

Swan 

River 

Dike Unknown Unknown 3,395 

Max. 

volume 

­

­

­

­
80 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Table 7 . Water rights and use on Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Claim Refuge Use Source Diver Flow Claimed Annual Other 

number complex (period) sion rate* volume used information 

(priority unit means (acre-feet) volume 

date) (acrefeet) 

76K– Swan Fish and Spring Dike 135 cfs Unknown 8,260 7,240 acre188248 River Wildlife Creek Max. feet is non

(4/21/1927) Refuge (annual) volume consumptive 

*Flow rate measures: cfs=cubic feet per second, gpm=gallons per minute. 

­

­

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge has two primary water rights. One is 

for 14,600 acre-feet of surface water from Muddy 

Creek(41K 188174 00) with a priority date of April 

28, 1958. The other is for the natural flow in the 

Lake Creek drainage, including the unnamed tributaries to Benton Lake, where the drainage enters 

the refuge in the amount of natural flow remaining 

after the satisfaction of the following rights: 

■■ all rights recognized under State law with a priority date before the effective date of the Compact 

■■ any rights for stock watering ponds with a priority date after the effective date of the Compact 

and a maximum capacity of the impoundment or 

pit of less than 15 acre-feet and an appropriation 

of less than 30 acre-feet per year from a source 

other than a perennial flowing stream 

■■ any right to appropriate ground water with a priority date after the effective date of the Compact 

by means of a well or developed spring with a 

maximum appropriation of 35 gallons per minute 

(gpm) or less that does not exceed a total appropriation of 10 acre-feet per year 

The refuge also has a ground water right to 2 

acre-feet per year diverted at a maximum rate of 45 

gpm from ground water beneath the Benton Lake 

Refuge. 

The “Montana House bill 717–Bill to Ratify Water Rights Compact” (compact) is a water rights 

compact between the State of Montana and the Service signed July 17, 1997. The parties to this agreement recognize that the water rights described in 

the compact are junior to any tribal water rights 

with a priority date before the effective date of the 

compact, including aboriginal rights, if any, in the 

basins affected. 

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

Water rights in the district exist for eight waterfowl 

production areas and include stock water, irrigation, 

domestic use, fish, and wildlife. The rights cover 

natural runoff, instream flows, artesian wells, and 

springs. Table 7 includes all district water rights. 

The Blackfoot River watershed is currently going through the adjudication process. 

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas 

All water rights associated with the conservation areas in the refuge complex remain under the control 

of the landowner. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge has seven water rights for irrigation 

and fish and wildlife purposes and all are associated 

with instream flows (table 7). 

AIR QUALITY 

Air quality is a global concern. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has lead responsibility for the quality of air in the United States. 

Through the 1990 Clean Air Act, the agency sets 

limits on the amount of pollutants that can be discharged into the air. More than 170 million tons of 

pollution is emitted annually into the air within the 

United States, through either stationary sources 

(such as industrial and power plants) or mobile 

sources (such as automobiles, airplanes, trucks, 

buses, and trains). There are also natural sources 

of air pollution such as fires, dust storms, volcanic 

activity, and other natural processes. The EPA has 

identified six principal pollutants that are the focus 

of its national regulatory program: carbon monoxide, 

lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and 

sulfur dioxide. 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 81 

Air quality problems in Montana are usually related to more urban areas and mountains or river 

valleys that are sensitive to temperature inversions. 

Carbon monoxide and particulate matter are the air 

pollutants that have the greatest adverse effect on 

Montana’s air quality. Particulate matter is tiny liquid or solid particles in the air that can be breathed 

in through the lungs. 

Most of the refuge complex is located in rural 

settings where soot from slash burning, forest fires, 

wood burning fireplaces and stoves and dust associated with windblown sand and dirt from roadways, 

fields and construction sites are the main factors 

that contribute to particulate matter. The major 

sources of carbon monoxide in Montana are motor 

vehicles and residential wood burning. 

Air quality for the refuge complex is considered 

good with few manufacturing sites or major air pollution sources. 

The Federal Clean Air Act requirements provided 

the framework for Montana’s air quality program. 

However, the State has exceeded the Federal requirements in many areas by: 

■■ adopting tougher ambient air quality standards 

for certain pollutants; 

■■ requiring a permitting program for smaller 

sources of pollution; 

■■ providing emission control analyses to the regulated public to make sure that smaller sources 

of air pollution have the best emission control 

technology available; 

■■ developing local air quality programs to regulate 

residential wood burning and road dust (the primary sources of particulate air pollution in Montana), as well as smaller sources of air pollution; 

■■ developing the Montana Smoke Management 

Plan and Open Burning Program to control the 

amount of harmful particulate matter that is released with smoke from prescribed fires. 

The State of Montana, through the Department 

of Environmental Quality and local governments, 

continues to actively address air quality problems 

throughout the State. At present, urban development is more of a threat to Montana’s air quality 

than industrial activities (MDEQ 2011). 

Areas that violate Federal air quality standards 

are designated nonattainment areas. EPA declares 

each area nonattainment for a specific pollutant such 

as carbon monoxide or particulate matter. The only 

area designated to have attainment problems in the 

refuge complex was Great Falls (carbon monoxide). 

Great Falls met attainment standards for carbon 

monoxide in 2002. 

4 .2 Biological Resources 

The following sections describe the biological resources and habitat management activities that may 

be affected by the implementation of the CCP. The 

biological features detailed below are vegetative 

habitat types and the associated species of concern, 

birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fishes and 

insects. The quality of these habitats varies throughout the refuge complex due to water quality and 

quantity, the presence of invasive and nonnative 

species, effects from surrounding land uses, and the 

Service’s ability to properly manage and protect a 

particular area. 

The major habitat types that occur on the refuge 

complex follow: 

■■ Grasslands—comprised primarily of mixed-grass 

prairie with limited tame grasslands consisting of 

dense nesting cover (DNC) scattered throughout 

the refuge complex on fee-title land 

■■ Wetlands and riparian areas—natural and enhanced freshwater and saline wetlands including 

lakes, rivers, and ponds 

■■ Forests and woodlands 

■■ Sagebrush-steppe 

Habitat management activities include cooperative farming, prescribed fire and haying, and prescriptive grazing. 

GRASSLANDS 

Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge and Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

The district is the largest geographical district 

in the country encompassing ten counties, with 

nine counties on the east side of the Continental 

Divide and one on the west side. Historically, the 

northern mixed-grass prairie system stretched 

from northern Nebraska into southern Canada 

and westward through the Dakotas to the Rocky 

Mountain Front in Montana; now it covers only approximately 104,000 square miles. Dominant grass 
82 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

species include rough fescue, Idaho fescue, western 

wheatgrass, and green needlegrasses. Other common species include blue grama, needle and thread 

grass, and threadleaf sedge. Shrub species such as 

snowberry and prairie sagewort also occur. Fire and 

grazing, along with drought, constitute the primary 

dynamics affecting this system. 

The northern mixed-grass prairie is one of the 

most disturbed grassland systems with an estimated 

75 percent of the region having been heavily altered. 

Agricultural crops are common in the central part 

of the district also known as the Golden Triangle. 

This agricultural designation, includes Great Falls 

as its apex, and then roughly runs northeast through 

Havre, west to Cut Bank and back to Great Falls. 

The area produces approximately half of Montana’s 

wheat, primarily winter and spring wheat, and is 

the most productive of the State’s farming areas 

that are not irrigated. Only a few remaining areas 

have escaped conversion to agriculture (NatureServe 2008). These grasslands are prominently represented in the district along the Rocky Mountain 

Front, surrounding the Sweet Grass Hills and in 

Glacier County on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. 

Benton Lake Refuge also has nearly 6,000 

acres of intact, northern mixed-grass prairie. The 

dominant plant community is represented by green 

needlegrass, western wheatgrass, thickspike wheatgrass, prairie Junegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass. 

Other grasses and sedges include plains reedgrass, 

threadleaf sedge and needleleaf sedge. Blue grama is 

the only common warm-season grass. Grasses represent about 80 percent of the total annual production 

in this community (NRCS 2005). 

Common forbs on Benton Lake’s clayey soils include dotted gayfeather, American vetch, white prairie clover and purple prairie clover. American vetch 

and the prairie clover are nitrogen-fixing species 

and are valuable forage producing plants. Groundplum milkvetch, scurfpea and prairie thermopsis 

are lower successional forbs that have the ability 

to fix nitrogen. White milkwort, biscuitroot, wild 

onion and western yarrow may be present as minor 

components of the plant community. Forbs represent about 15 percent of the total annual production 

(NRCS 2005). 

Winterfat and Nuttall’s saltbush are common 

warm and cool-season shrubs, respectively on 

Benton Lake Refuge. They are valuable forage for 

wildlife and livestock. Silver sagebrush, fringed 

sagewort, broom snakeweed and prickly pear cactus 

may also represent minor shrub components. Overall, shrubs account for about 5 percent of the annual 

plant production (NRCS 2005). 

There are approximately 4,516 acres of tame 

grasslands existing on fee-title lands scattered 

throughout the refuge complex. Most of the tame 

grasslands were inherited as former farmland 

when the waterfowl production areas or refuges 

were bought. However, there were some limited 

areas of native prairie on Benton Lake Refuge that 

were broken and seeded to tame grass in the 1960s 

and early 1970s. The predominant herbaceous coolseason species used were varying combinations of 

intermediate wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, slender 

wheatgrass, pubescent wheatgrass, western wheatgrass, and crested wheatgrass; the legumes were alfalfa and sweetclover. The basic seeding rates were 

comprised of 75 percent wheatgrass and 25 percent 

legumes. These species, commonly referred to as 

DNC, were chosen based on research that showed 

they are highly attractive and beneficial to waterfowl (Duebbert 1969). Rationale was based on research conducted in the late 1960s and 1970s, which 

showed ducks were experiencing higher nesting 

success in DNC than in surrounding upland habitats (Duebbert 1969, Duebbert and Lokemoen 1976, 

Kaiser et al.1979). DNC fields throughout the refuge 

complex range from excellent to poor conditions. 

Most stands are in some type of rotational management scheme to rejuvenate and extend the longevity 

of the planting. 

Blue grama is a common prairie grass . 

Al Schneider / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database 

ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE 

Grassland bird species on refuge complex lands are 

considered priority species due to the conversion of 

the landscape grassland ecosystems in surrounding 

areas and the overall trend of grassland bird species 

decline. During the past quarter-century, grassland 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 83 

birds have experienced steeper, more consistent, 

and more widespread population declines than any 

other avian guild in North America (Vickory et al. 

2000). A 6-year study done in Northwest Montana 

showed that grasslands in the northern Great Plains 

represent unique characteristics that support a composition of all the species that are endemic to the 

landscape (Hendricks et al. 2007). On the refuge 

complex, priority grassland bird species include the 

Federal candidate species, Sprague’s pipit. Other 

grassland priority species include ferruginous hawk, 

upland sandpiper, long-billed curlew, marbled godwit, burrowing owl, short-eared owl, grasshopper 

sparrow, chestnut-collared longspur, Baird’s sparrow, and bobolink. 

Grassland bird point counts were conducted for 

4 years (1994–7) consecutively at the Benton Lake 

Refuge. More than 800 individuals and 41 species 

of grassland birds were detected. Over the course 

of these surveys, there was a steady decline of the 

chestnut-collared longspurs, grasshopper sparrows, 

and horned larks. 

Grassland-bird point counts were also conducted 

for 3 years (1995–7) at the Kingsbury Lake and Furnell WPAs. There was high species richness, and 

grasshopper sparrow, Baird’s sparrow and Sprague’s 

pipits were the most abundant species (Benton Lake 

Refuge Non-game Monitoring Program, Piercy 

1997). 

Grassland bird conservation and management 

recognizes the historical dynamics under which 

these habitats have evolved and, where feasible, 

incorporate the ecological processes that have generated and supported these distinctive grassland 

biotas (Vickory et al. 2000). Further management 

and conservation of these lands by refuge managers 

would ultimately continue to support a diverse assemblage of grassland bird species. 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area 

Sweeping expanses of native bunchgrass prairie 

are one of the most striking visual elements of the 

Blackfoot River watershed. Grassland areas in the 

watershed were targeted by early European settlers for grazing and farm lands. Today, most of the 

grassland communities are located on private land 

in the watershed. Some have been converted to irrigated and dryland pastures or used for hay production. Nonnative species include creeping foxtail, 

orchard grass, timothy, tall wheatgrass, meadow 

brome, smooth brome, alfalfa and sainfoin. Large 

bunchgrass prairies occur throughout the valley 

bottoms. The dominant bunchgrass is rough fescue; other common native grasses include bluebunch 

wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, prairie Junegrass, and 

several species of needlegrass. Native grassland 

often occurs in a matrix throughout the watershed. 

ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE 

Grasslands support a variety of wildlife including 

reptiles such as eastern racer, northern alligator 

lizard, rubber boa, and terrestrial garter snake 

(MNHP 2009a). A variety of small mammals use 

grasslands in the Blackfoot Valley including shrews, 

voles, gophers, squirrels and rabbits. Large mammals include grizzly bears, white-tailed and mule 

deer and elk. 

In addition to grassland birds such as vesper 

sparrows and western meadowlarks, the Blackfoot 

Valley is perhaps also the best breeding and nesting 

area for the long-billed curlew in western Montana. 

This species is declining nationally and has been 

identified as a priority in both the shorebird and 

Partners in Flight conservation plans. Local surveys on Kleinschmidt Flat in 1997 found 31 pairs 

on 3,840 acres or more than 8 pairs per 1,000 acres. 

Production was not monitored, but many broods 

were noted. This species is highly reliant on grassland-nesting habitat, but will also nest in sagebrushsteppe, and relies more heavily on wetlands during 

migration. 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area 

The Front contains the largest intact expanse of 

fescue grasslands left in the northern Great Plains 

(Lesica 1994). Higher elevations include fescue 

grasslands and a large acreage recently changed 

by a wildfire that is now a mix of mostly Douglasfir regeneration, among burned tree trunks over 

relatively lush fescue grasslands. The fescue is often 

mixed with shrubs, creeping juniper and kinnikinnick occur on somewhat drier sites, and shrubby 

cinquefoil is common in more mesic areas. Shrubby 

cinquefoil is particularly common in the northern 

extreme of the Front, but also follows the greater 

eastward expansion of the fescue-type habitat in 

the southern end, where it is more closely associated with stream terraces. The fescue grasslands 

at higher elevation (and correspondingly greater 

precipitation) transition at lower elevations to 

grasslands dominated by various grass species in response to soil and topography. Western wheatgrass 

is the dominant species in swales (lower elevation 

land that remains moist) with heavier soils. Needle 

and thread is the most common species on sandier 

soils, which tend to occur somewhat higher in the 

local landscape. Bluebunch wheatgrass is associated 

with steeper slopes; mixtures of any or all these 

grasses can occur with the variable conditions found 

in this diverse landscape. Blue grama can become 

very common with sustained heavy grazing. The 
84 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

absence of sagebrush is notable and currently unexplained. 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area 

USFWS

ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE 

Lying next to Bob Marshall Wilderness, the diverse 

habitats of the Front play a critical role in sustaining the Northern Continental Divide’s free-ranging 

wildlife populations. It is one of the last remaining 

areas in the lower 48 United States with an intact 

assemblage of large mammalian carnivores, and it 

is the only place in the world where grizzly bears 

still roam from the mountains onto the prairies as 

they did nearly 200 years ago. An estimated 100–150 

bears frequent the project area, which is included 

in much of the recovery plan for the northern Continental Divide grizzly bear population. Gray wolf 

numbers are estimated to be 835 individuals making 

up approximately 110 packs in the Montana Portion 

of the Northern Continenental Divide ecosystem. 

The Front once supported a large concentration of 

swift fox, which were nearly extirpated from the 

State. Swift fox are now being reintroduced just 

north of the project area through a partnership 

between Defenders of Wildlife and the Blackfeet 

Indian Nation and would eventually move back into 

the project area. 

The Rocky Mountain Front provides essential 

habitat for many grassland birds, many of which are 

experiencing significant population declines. These 

include chestnut-collared longspurs, Sprague’s 

pipits, ferruginous hawks, long-billed curlews and 

McCown’s longspur. In addition, the most common 

birds found on grasslands along the Front during an 

inventory in 2004 include vesper sparrows, western 

meadowlarks, horned larks, Brewer’s blackbirds, 

Savannah sparrows and upland sandpipers (Lenard 

and Hendricks 2005). 

The grasslands provide critical winter range for 

all large ungulates found within the eastern Bob 

Marshall Wilderness. Thousands of elk and mule 

deer winter primarily on State wildlife management 

areas along the Front. Shiras moose, a subspecies 

found in the central Rocky Mountains, occasionally 

frequent the project area. The grasslands along the 

eastern part of the project boundary also sustain 

small populations of pronghorn. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

and Swan Valley Conservation Area 

The current grasslands of the Swan Valley and 

the Swan River Refuge are the result of conversions of other habitat types. Settlers to the valley 

often converted forested areas and wet meadows 

and seasonal wetland habitats to haying and grazing 

areas. Trees were removed and fields destumped 

and attempts were made to drain wetlands and plant 

timothy and reed canarygrass for forage. These areas remain today as grasslands awaiting restoration 

of forested habitat or wetlands (personal communication, Mike Pallidinie, October 2011). 

WETLANDS AND 


RIPARIAN AREAS
 

Exceptional diversity of wetland and riparian types 

exists within the refuge complex. This includes 

major riparian areas (including the Missouri River, 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 85 

Blackfoot River, and the Swan River), smaller riparian tributaries, glacial prairie potholes, depressional 

wetlands, emergent marshes, lakes, bogs, fens, and 

swamps. Many systems have been developed to classify and describe wetland types. The Service has 

adopted as its national standard the “Classification 

of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United 

States” (Cowardin et al. 1979). Added hydrologic 

and vegetation characteristics for the refuge complex wetlands that are also specific to Montana are 

described here by crossing the Cowardin classification system with the Ecological Systems described 

by Comer and others (2003) and produced by the 

Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP 2011b). 

Wet–dry climatic cycles in Montana, often in 10 

to 20-year periods, exert a strong influence on the 

wetlands and riparian systems in the refuge complex 

(Hansen et al. 1995). During this climatic cycle, wetlands go through a dry marsh, regenerating marsh, 

degenerating marsh and a lake phase that is regulated by periodic drought and deluge (van der Valk 

1981, Mitsch and Gosselink 2000, Euliss et al. 2004). 

During drought periods, seeds from annuals and 

perennials germinate and cover exposed mudflats. 

When precipitation floods the depressions, the annuals drown and the perennials survive, regenerating the marsh. Over a series of years, perennials 

dominate and submersed and floating-leaved hydrophytes return. After a few years of the regenerating phase, emergent vegetation begins to decline 

and eventually the marsh reverts to an open-water 

system. Muskrats may play an important role in the 

decline of emergent vegetation in some of these systems. During drought, the drawdown to mudflats is 

necessary so that emergent vegetation can become 

reestablished. Flooding, drawdown and the eventual 

exposure of mudflats drive the water-level vegetation cycle. 

Wet–dry cycles are important for supporting water quality that supports vegetation and wildlife 

in wetlands. During wet cycles, contaminants such 

as salts, metals and nutrients are washed into wetlands. Agriculture and forestry operations, when 

adjacent, may cause nutrient and herbicide runoff. In saline soil marshes, increase in precipitation 

during exceptionally wet years can dilute the salt 

concentration in the soils, allowing less salt-tolerant species to occur. The dry cycles create periods 

where these toxins can be neutralized by wind, sun 

and chemical transformation to remove them from 

wetlands (Zhang and Moore 1997, Smith et al. 2008, 

Heitmeyer et al. 2009). 

Similar to wetlands, healthy, productive riparian 

areas are supported by dynamic processes (MNHP 

2011b). Random and variable flood events scour 

and redistribute sediments which create new locations for vegetation to become established. Once 

vegetation becomes established, it can further trap 

sediments which can elevate gravel bars and create backwater channels. This variability creates a 

variety of vegetation communities at different successional stages. 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Benton Lake historically was a large, seasonally 

flooded marsh that likely supported emergent vegetation during some years. Currently, portions of 

the wetland are permanently flooded and are more 

like a lake with relatively large areas of open water (see chapter 7 for more detail). The wetland is 

completely isolated from the regional ground water 

system by the presence of an impermeable layer of 

clay. Subsurface soil layers are restrictive to water movement and root penetration. The water can 

have increased salinity and be somewhat brackish. 

The historical gradation of vegetation zones within 

Benton Lake from robust emergents in deeper depressions to grasslands on uplands has been altered 

over time. Most historical vegetation communities 

are still present on the refuge, but their distribution 

and extent have changed. Developments for water 

management and subsequent altered hydrology and 

water chemistry in Benton Lake pools are responsible for most changes. Generally, communities have 

shifted from drier wetland vegetation such as western wheatgrass, foxtail barley and sedges to a more 

extensive distribution of wetter and more alkalinetolerant species (for example, alkali bulrush and 

cattails). Increasing amounts of exotic and invasive 

species also now occur on the refuge (Heitmeyer et 

al. 2009). 

ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE 

A rich diversity of wildlife species use the Benton 

Lake basin (“Appendix D–Species List”). Aquatic 

invertebrates include a variety of Crustacea (such as 

Daphnia sp., Gammarus sp., and Hyalella azteca) and 

insects such as Corixid beetles, damselflies and dragonflies, Notonectid backswimmers, and Chironomids 

(Heitmeyer et al. 2009). 

Several amphibian and reptile species also used 

Benton Lake including tiger salamanders, boreal 

chorus frogs, painted turtles, and common, western 

and plains garter snakes. There is one historical record of northern leopard frog on the refuge, but no 

recent occurrences. Fathead minnows are the only 

fish species occasionally present on the refuge. 

Mammal species diversity and abundance in the 

Benton Lake wetland basin is relatively low, except 

for many small rodents such as mice and voles. Several species of bats likely use wetlands as foraging 

areas, but no formal surveys have been conducted. 

Muskrat often create openings in wetland vegetation 
86 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

with den building, but shallow water that freezes 

completely every year may be limiting numbers. 

Additionally, many mammal species that mostly use 

the uplands, such as coyote, white-tailed deer, mule 

deer, and pronghorn, use dry parts of the wetlands 

to forage and breed. 

Many waterbirds breed in the Benton Lake 

area. The most common breeding species included 

eared grebe, mallard, northern pintail, gadwall, 

blue-winged teal, cinnamon teal, American wigeon, 

northern shoveler, redhead, lesser scaup, ruddy 

duck, Canada geese, American coot, American avocet, Wilson’s phalaropes, marbled godwits, willets, 

Franklin’s gull, white-faced ibis, black-necked stilt, 

and black-crowned night-heron. 

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

Wetlands within the district, both on Service lands 

and throughout the landscape, are typically located 

in shallow depressions created by glacial activity 

during the last ice age. They are often found in complexes and in Montana, depressional wetlands are 

most concentrated to the north of Montana State 

Highway 2, from Glacier National Park to the North 

Dakota border. Individual depressions can also be 

found across the Northwestern Glaciated Plains 

north of the Missouri River. 

SMALL, SHALLOW AND VEGETATED WETLANDS 

Most wetlands within the district are relatively 

small, shallow, and vegetated and are typically 

known as marshes, swamps, bogs, fens and wet 

meadows (Cowardin et al. 1979). The underlying 

soils, hydrology, and water chemistry strongly influence the vegetation found in these wetlands in any 

given year. 

Some of these small, shallow, and vegetated wetlands are isolated from both ground water and other 

wetlands by an impermeable layer such as dense 

clay. The major sources of inputs are precipitation 

and snowmelt, and water loss occurs through evapotranspiration. These wetlands are temporarily or 

seasonally flooded, with most filling with water only 

occasionally and drying quickly, which affects the 

plant communities that are present. The drawdown 

zone is typically dominated by western wheatgrass, 

foxtail barley, povertyweed, common spikerush, 

hardstem bulrush or willow dock. Species richness 

can vary considerably among individual wetlands 

and it is especially influenced by adjacent land use 

such as agriculture and grazing (MNHP 2011b). 

Wetlands like these with more consistent water 

(for example, seasonal, semipermanent, and permanent) usually have a larger watershed and significant connection to ground water. Species diversity 

can often be high. These wetlands usually contain 

emergent vegetation such as cattails, sedges, spikerushes, rushes and bulrushes, as well as floating 

vegetation such as pondweeds, arrowhead, or common hornwort. When water recedes along the edges 

or during drought years, annuals and perennials, 

such as sedges, will germinate in exposed mudflats 

(MNHP 2011b). 

Some of the small, shallow, and vegetated wetlands within the district have increased soil salinity 

due to high evaporation and the accumulation of 

minerals dissolved in the water. Salt-tolerant plants 

such as alkali bulrush, common three square, inland 

saltgrass, Nuttall’s alkali grass, foxtail barley, red 

swampfire and freshwater cordgrass, and shrubs 

such as black greasewood are typical of these wetlands. Less salt-tolerate plants may occur in wet 

years when the salts are diluted (MNHP 2011b). 

Prairie potholes occur in shallow depressions 

scraped out by glaciers in the northern Great Plains 

of Montana. The concentration of dissolved solids 

can vary considerably, even within the same year, 

although most prairie potholes contain alkaline water. Vegetation within these wetlands is highly influenced by hydrology and salinity. If water persists 

through the summer, monotypic stands of hardstem 

bulrush may occur with minor components of softstem bulrush or common threesquare along slightly 

drier margins. In permanently flooded sites, aquatic 

buttercups, aquatic smartweeds, pondweeds or 

duckweeds are common. In seasonal and temporary 

wetlands, vegetation generally occurs in bands from 

a wetter middle dominated by spikerush through 

a drier ring of foxtail barley and an outer margin 

of western wheatgrass or thickspike wheatgrass 

(MNHP 2011b). Potholes are most common in the 

district around the Sweet Grass Hills and the northern end of the Rocky Mountain Front. 

Such wetlands with mineral soils that are subjected to long periods of anaerobic conditions can 

be found in the district as fringes around lakes or 

oxbows, and along slow-flowing streams and rivers as riparian marshes. The wetlands are typically 

seasonal or semipermanent. Seasonal wetlands typically have a central shallow marsh zone dominated 

by graminoids and sedges, while the deeper central 

marsh zone of semipermanent wetlands are dominated by cattails and bulrushes. Dominant vegetation often includes western wheatgrass, Northwest 

Territory sedge, Nebraska sedge, broadleaf cattail, 

and hardstem bulrush. Alkaline communities include 

western wheatgrass, freshwater cordgrass, and seashore saltgrass (MNHP 2011b). 

More than 30 wetland basins, of this type, now 

exist on the H2–O WPA. These wetlands are primarily the remnants of natural oxbows basins that 

were created as the Blackfoot River meandered 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 87 

back and forth across the valley. Many of these wetlands were drained under earlier ownership, but 

have since been restored. With recent restoration of 

many of the wetlands, some of the wetter areas are 

beginning to revert to sedge and rush communities. 

However, quackgrass continues to dominate in many 

areas and it will take active management practices 

to convert these areas back to a more native composition. 

LAKE-SYSTEM WETLANDS 

Lake systems are less common on fee title lands 

across the district. These wetlands typically have 

deeper, more permanent water with <30 percent 

emergent vegetation (typically restricted to the 

edges) (Cowardin et al. 1979). Species associated 

with lake-system wetlands include sedges, creeping 

spikerush, broadleaf cattail and bulrush. Floatingleaved hydrophytes may be present in shallower 

areas of lakes, ponds and reservoirs, or in river 

backwaters. These include water lilies, yellow pondlily, buttercup, pondweed and duckweed. Submergents such as common hornwort, horned pondweed, 

mare’s tail and water milfoil are also found in warm, 

shallow areas of lakes, ponds and reservoirs (MNHP 

2011b). Examples of this type can be found on Arod 

Lakes WPA. 

RIPARIAN AREAS 

Riparian areas are associated with perennial to intermittent or ephemeral streams throughout the 

northwestern Great Plains. Flooding is important 

in riparian areas for seed dispersal, vegetation establishment and creating a diversity of vegetation 

communities such as forest, shrubland, wet meadows 

as well as gravel and sand flats. In the western part 

of Montana, the overstory is often dominated by 

species such as black cottonwood with narrowleaf 

cottonwood and Plains cottonwood occurring as codominants . Further east, narrowleaf cottonwood 

and Plains cottonwood become dominant. In wetter systems, the understory is typically willow and 

redosier dogwood with graminoids such as western 

wheatgrass and forbs like American licorice. Sagebrush may dominate in areas where the channel 

is incised. Overgrazing or agriculture can degrade 

riparian systems causing saltcedar and Russian olive 

to replace native woody vegetation (MNHP 2011b). 

Riparian areas along the foothills and valleys of 

the mountains are generally comprised of a mosaic 

of trees and shrubs. Black cottonwood is the key 

indicator species. Other dominant trees may include 

boxelder maple, narrowleaf cottonwood, eastern 

cottonwood, Douglas-fir, peachleaf willow, or Rocky 

Mountain juniper. Dominant shrubs include Rocky 

Mountain maple, thinleaf alder, river birch, redosier 

dogwood, hawthorn, chokecherry, skunkbush sumac, willows, rose, silver buffaloberry, or snowberry. 

These riparian areas may be next to sage-steppe 

in moderately high intermountain basins (MNHP 

2011b). 

ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE 

A rich diversity of animal species use the wetlands 

and riparian habitats of the district. The relative 

abundance of species and specific food and cover 

resources used by animals vary with the long-term 

dynamics of flooding and drying in the systems 

(Frederickson and Reed 1988, Batzer et al. 1999, 

Wrubleski 2005). Aquatic invertebrates reach high 

abundance and biomass during wet periods of longterm water cycles in Great Plains wetlands and include a rich diversity of Crustacea such as Daphnia 

sp., Gammarus sp., and Hyalella azteca and insects 

such as Corixid beetles, damselflies and dragonflies, 

Notonectid backswimmers, and Chironomids (Heitmeyer et al. 2009). 

Several amphibian and reptile species use the 

district wetlands and riparian areas on the Plains. 

Amphibians include three species of frogs (boreal 

chorus, northern leopard, and Columbia spotted), 

four species of toads (plains spadefoot, Great Plains, 

Woodhouse’s and western) and tiger salamanders. 

Reptiles include the common garter snake, plains 

garter snake, terrestrial garter snake, painted turtle 

and spiny softshell turtles (MNHP 2011). In the 

Blackfoot Valley, the Rocky Mountain tailed frog and 

long-toed salamander have also been documented 

(MNHP 2011). The presence and abundance of some 

common species like tiger salamanders, gartersnakes and boreal chorus frogs varies among years 

as flooding and drying changes resource availability 

and species susceptibility to being prey for other 

species groups (Heitmeyer et al. 2009). 

Smaller prairie streams support native fish such 

as fathead minnows, white suckers and lake chubs 

(Holton and Johnson 1996). Several streams and rivers along the Rocky Mountain Front support pure 

strains of westslope cutthroat trout, and are considered highly significant for the east slope population. The Sun River was historically a stronghold for 

fluvial Arctic grayling, which vanished from the system because of habitat degradation. In the spring of 

1999, grayling were reintroduced above Gibson Dam 

into the upper Sun River tributaries. A rare hybrid 

of the northern redbelly dace also occurs along the 

Rocky Mountain Front. There are currently 12 native fish species and 13 nonnative fish species in the 

Blackfoot River watershed, as well as several hybrid 

salmonids (MFWP 2010. Montana Fisheries Information System. MFWP, Helena, MT. http://fwp.mt/ 

gov/fishing/MFish). 

Mammal species diversity and abundance in the 

district wetlands is relatively low, except for many 
88 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

small rodents such as mice and voles. The relative 

abundance and productivity of wetland-dependent 

species like muskrat and mink tracks long-term hydrological and vegetation dynamics. Several species of bats may use wetlands as foraging areas, 

especially when flooded. Additionally, many mammal 

species that mostly used the uplands surrounding 

wetlands, such as coyote, white-tailed deer, mule 

deer, pronghorn, and elk may move into wetlands 

during dry seasons and years to forage and breed. 

Many waterbirds use the district wetlands, but 

species richness, abundance, and production vary 

with the extent and duration of flooding in the basins. The most common breeding species included 

eared grebe, mallard, northern pintail, gadwall, bluewinged teal, cinnamon teal, American wigeon, northern shoveler, redhead, lesser scaup, ruddy duck, 

Canada goose, American coot, American avocet, 

Wilson’s phalaropes, marbled godwits, willets, and 

black tern. During wetter periods of the long-term 

precipitation and flooding cycle many waterfowl, 

shorebirds, wading birds, gulls and terns, and other 

wetland-dependent species are present and productivity is high. Breeding waterbird productivity in 

the district wetlands ecosystem follows long-term 

dynamics of production in other northern prairie 

systems as vegetation, invertebrate, and nutrient 

cycling changes when wetlands dry, reflood, reach 

peak flooding extent, and then begin drying again 

(for example, Murkin et al. 2000). 

Waterbird use across the district is high during 

fall and spring migration periods, both in wet and 

dry periods. During drier periods, extensive mudflat 

areas can attract shorebirds that use rich benthic 

and terrestrial invertebrate resources and drying 

wetlands concentrate aquatic prey that is used by 

wading birds, some terrestrial birds, and mammals. 

As water in the district rises during wetter periods, 

more of the basins are flooded in both spring and 

fall and provided critical migration stopover areas 

for waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and other 

species such as birds of prey, songbirds, rails, and 

blackbirds. Bald eagle and peregrine falcon, raptor species of concern, are attracted to the region 

when large numbers of waterfowl and waterbirds 

are present (Heitmeyer et al. 2009). 

Broadleaf cattail is an emergent plant species in wetland 

habitat . 

George F. Russell / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area 

As with other areas of the refuge complex, the 

Blackfoot Valley conservation area includes a rich 

diversity of wetland and riparian systems. Approximately 5 percent of the area is made up of wetland 

and riparian areas. The dominant riparian feature 

is the Blackfoot River and its associated tributaries. This is a cool to cold-water system with strong 

seasonal variability due to melting snow pack from 

higher elevation mountainous areas. The Blackfoot 

is a classic freestone trout river with boulder/cobble 

riffles, cobble/gravel runs and pools, and silt on the 

margins or in the deepest pools. Deep runs and pools 

with undercut banks and large woody debris provide the best fish habitats, while the riffles harbor 

diverse macroinvertebrate communities. The Blackfoot is a clear running river, except during spring 

run-off or where heavy livestock use, bank erosion 

or stream incisement has occurred in the watershed 

(MNHP 2011b). 

As with other parts of the district, the Blackfoot 

Valley contains small, shallow and vegetated wetlands and lake-system wetlands that have already 

been described, however, it is more likely in these 

higher elevation areas that wetland may be dominated by woodland and forest vegetation. 

In northwestern Montana, wooded small and 

shallow wetlands, or vernal pools, occur on valley 

bottoms, lower benches, toe slopes, and flat sites 

from elevations of 2,840-5,200ft. Wooded vernal pools 

glacially created, small, shallow, freshwater wetlands that partially or totally dry up by fall. Wooded 

vernal pools are often surrounded by grand fir, subalpine fir, western larch, Engelmann spruce, lodge 

pole pine, Douglas-fir, black cottonwood, and, to a 

lesser extent, quaking aspen and paper birch. Other 

common species include water starwort, inflated 

sedge, common spikerush, and reed canarygrass 

(MNHP 2011b). 

In northwestern Montana, small, shallow and 

vegetated wetlands dominated by conifers with 

permanent or seasonal flooding are also known as 

conifer swamps. This is an uncommon wetland type 

often next to lakes, fens or wet meadows with areas 

of moving and stagnant water. Vegetation includes 

western red cedar, western hemlock, subalpine fir 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 89 

and Engelmann spruce forests. Some of the most 

typical understory species include American ladyfern, woodfern, skunk cabbage, field horsetail, arrowleaf groundsel, and bluejoint reedgrass. This 

system frequently borders fens and wet to mesic 

coniferous forest (MNHP 2011b). 

ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE 

There are currently five amphibians that have been 

documented in the Blackfoot Valley including Columbia spotted frog, long-toed salamander, Pacific 

tree frog, Rocky Mountain tailed frog, and western 

toad. 

There are currently 12 native fish species and 

13 nonnative fish species in the Blackfoot River watershed, as well as several hybrid salmonids (MFIS 

2009). 

The Blackfoot River watershed also provides 

quality breeding, nesting, migratory, and wintering habitat for a diversity of wetland-dependent 

bird species. Wetland complexes in the watershed 

provide important breeding habitat for 22 species of 

waterfowl: 

northern pintail 

mallard 

lesser scaup 

wood duck 

redhead 

ring-necked duck 

canvasback 

American wigeon 

Canada goose 

green-winged teal 

blue-winged teal 

cinnamon teal 

northern shoveler 

gadwall 

common goldeneye 

Barrow’s goldeneye 

harlequin duck 

bufflehead 

hooded merganser 

common merganser 

red-breasted merganser 

ruddy duck 

During the nesting season in 1995, 1996, and 

1997, the University of Montana Wildlife Cooperative Unit and the Service conducted breeding-bird 

productivity studies in three separate properties 

within the Blackfoot River watershed including the 

Blackfoot WPA. Nest success for upland nesting waterfowl (measured by the Mayfield method), including pintail, mallard, and lesser scaup, was found to 

be 49, 30, and 45 percent, respectively (Fondell and 

Ball 1997). These nest success estimates are some 

of the highest in North America for upland nesting 

ducks. Fondell and Ball (1997) stated that “Because 

the [Ovando] Valley is relatively undisturbed these 

estimates may reflect nest success over large areas 

of the watershed.” 

Brood surveys of northern shoveler, gadwall, 

American wigeon, cinnamon and blue-winged teal, 

canvasback, redhead, ring-necked, ruddy, and Barrow’s goldeneye ducks in 1995 and 1996 on the waterfowl production areas in the Blackfoot Valley 

averaged 63 broods on 5 wetlands totaling 104 acres, 

or 0.62 broods per acre, with prefledge brood sizes of 

5.2 in 1995, and 5.9 in 1996, higher than brood sizes 

reported in studies conducted at Freezeout Lake 

Wildlife Management Area and at Benton Lake Refuge on the east side of the Continental Divide (Fondell and Ball 1997). This high productivity is due to 

the large expanses of relatively undisturbed native 

grassland in association with wetland habitat, a coyote-dominated predator base, and a high concentration of glaciated wetlands. Breeding waterfowl pair 

counts have shown relatively high pair densities per 

square section for redhead and canvasback ducks. 

Redhead duck numbers over the past 15 years have 

averaged 12 pairs per section and canvasback ducks 

at 9 pairs per section. 

The Blackfoot Conservation Area has also had a 

successful trumpeter swan reintroduction project 

for the last several years. Please see the Species of 

Concern section for more details. 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area 

This conservation area lies within the district 

and has a similar diversity of wetlands and riparian types as already described for the district. The 

Dearborn, Sun, and Teton Rivers form major riparian corridors running from the mountains eastward 

onto the prairies. Approximately 30 percent of the 

700-plus plant species documented on the Front are 

associated exclusively with wetland or riparian habitats, including some of the largest remaining fens in 

the Pacific Northwest. 

Fens are confined to specific environments defined by ground water discharge, soil chemistry, and 

peat accumulation. Fens form at low points in the 

landscape where ground water supports a constant 

water level at or near the surface most of the time. 

Constant high water levels typically lead to an relatively deep accumulation of organic material. Fens 

can be very diverse with a large number of rare and 

uncommon bryophytes and vascular plant species, 

and provide habitat for uncommon mammals, mollusks and insects. 

Fens usually occur as a mosaic of herbaceous 

communities dominated by sedges, spikerushes, and 

rushes and woody plant communities of willow and 

birch carr shrubland. Forb diversity is especially 

high in fens. Fens are often found in association with 
90 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

other wetlands such as marshes, wet meadows, riparian shrublands, conifer swamps or wet to mesic 

coniferous forests (MNHP 2011b). 

ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE 

Several amphibians occur along the Front including three species of frogs (boreal chorus, northern 

leopard, and Columbia spotted), two species of toads 

(plains spadefoot and western), and two species of 

salamanders (tiger and long-toed). The common garter snake, plains garter snake, terrestrial garter 

snake, and painted turtle are reptiles known to occur 

along the Front (Maxell et al. 2003). 

Several streams and rivers along the Front support pure strains of westslope cutthroat trout, and 

are considered highly significant for the east slope 

population. The Sun River was historically a stronghold for fluvial Arctic grayling, which vanished from 

the system because of habitat degradation. In the 

spring of 1999, grayling were reintroduced above 

Gibson Dam into the upper Sun River tributaries. A 

rare hybrid of the northern redbelly dace also occurs 

within the project area. 

Lying at the western end of the PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region within the refuge complex, the 

Rocky Mountain Front provides habitat for a significant diversity of wetland-dependent bird species. 

Seventeen species of waterfowl breed within the 

project area, including the harlequin duck, which 

is found in several mountain streams. Three nesting pairs of rare trumpeter swans have been documented in the Bean Lake–Nylan Reservoir complex, 

one of the few breeding occurrences outside of the 

Centennial Valley in southwest Montana. Hundreds 

of thousands of snow geese migrate along the Front, 

including 40,000 Wrangel Island snow geese, representing 50 percent of the entire known population. 

Peak flights of waterfowl along the Front during 

spring and fall migration often exceed several million birds. Six species of grebes are known to nest 

including the red-necked grebe, a species in serious 

decline in many other areas. Eleven different species 

of shorebirds breed in the wetlands and adjacent 

grasslands scattered throughout the area. Several 

thousand sandhill cranes from the Rocky Mountain population use the river corridors during their 

spring and fall migration, and some of the cranes 

breed in these areas as well. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

and Swan Valley Conservation Area 

Most wetlands on the Swan River refuge are seasonal or semipermanent emergent or scrub-shrub 

wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1979, MNHP 2011b) that 

occur around Swan Lake or in oxbows of the Swan 

River. Historically, dominant vegetation in the Swan 

River wetlands may have included western wheatgrass, Northwest Territory sedge, Nebraska sedge, 

broadleaf cattail, and hardstem bulrush; however, 

today reed canarygrass is common (MNHP 2011b). 

The federally threatened wetland plant, water 

howellia, can be found on the Nature Conservancy 

Preserve that borders the southern edge of the refuge, but the plant has not been confirmed to exist 

on the refuge to date. The Swan River also flows 

through the refuge. Historically, the river corridor 

would have been prone to annual to episodic flooding, which would create a mosaic of multiple communities that are tree-dominated with a diverse 

shrub component. However, the extent to which 

modifications to the hydrology may be disrupting 

these processes is unknown. 

The Swan Valley is unique among Montana’s 

spectacular valleys in that it contains more than 

4,000 glacially derived wetlands. In fact, approximately 16 percent of the land in Swan Valley is 

considered wetland habitat (lakes, rivers, ponds, 

marshes, wet meadows, peatlands, and riparian 

areas). By comparison, the remainder of Montana 

averages 1-percent wetland habitat. As with other 

parts of the district and the Blackfoot Valley, the 

Swan Valley contains small, shallow and vegetated 

wetlands, fens, and foothill/valley riparian areas 

and conifer swamps. In addition, Rocky Mountain 

wooded vernal pools are particularly well represented in the Swan Valley (MNHP 2011b). 

ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE 

Seventeen species of waterfowl breed on the refuge including common waterfowl species such as 

Canada geese, mallards, cinnamon teal and common goldeneye. Red-necked grebes, horned grebes, 

eared grebes, sora, Virginia rails, and marsh wrens 

are also common breeders. In addition, the refuge 

provides nesting sites for bald eagles. Yellow-headed 

blackbirds nest and forage on the refuge. Whitetailed deer are the most common large mammal 

seen. Elk, moose, beaver, bobcat, grizzly and black 

bear are known to inhabit the area. Other resident 

wildlife are coyotes, muskrat and raccoons. Game 

fish include yellow perch, bull trout, northern pike, 

kokanee salmon, largemouth bass, cutthroat trout, 

brook trout and mountain whitefish. 

Sixteen species of amphibians and reptiles are 

known to inhabit the diverse habitats within the 

Swan Valley. Many of the documented species include S4 Status Species (apparently secure, though 

it may be quite rare in parts of its range or is suspected to be declining) such as common garter 

snake, painted turtle, rubber boa, Columbia spotted 

frog, long-toed salamander, and Rocky Mountain 

tailed frog (MNHP 2011). The western toad is listed 

as a S2 Status Species (species at risk because of 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 91 

very limited or potentially declining population numbers, range or habitat, making it vulnerable to global 

extinction or extirpation in Montana). The northern 

leopard frog is listed as an S1 Status Species (at high 

risk because of extremely limited or rapidly declining population numbers, range or habitat, making 

it highly vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in Montana). Species not listed in the Natural 

Heritage Database, but known to occur in the valley 

are Pacific tree frog, western skink, eastern racer, 

gopher snake, terrestrial garter snake, and western 

rattlesnake (Werner et al. 2004). 

Common fish species of the Swan Valley include 

longnose suckers, largescale suckers, and slimy sculpin. In addition, potential species of concern within 

the project area include the brook stickleback and 

pygmy whitefish. Westslope cutthroat trout are currently a species of special concern, and use clear, cold 

lakes and streams found in the project area. Swan 

Valley Conservation Area is within the designated 

recovery area for the federally threatened bull trout. 

Critical habitat has been designated for bull trout 

within the project area. 

Wetland complexes in the Swan Valley provide 

important breeding habitat for 21 species of waterfowl: 

mallard 

lesser scaup 

wood duck 

redhead 

ring-necked duck 

canvasback 

American wigeon 

Canada goose 

green-winged teal 

blue-winged teal 

cinnamon teal 

northern shoveler 

gadwall 

common goldeneye 

Barrow’s goldeneye 

harlequin duck 

bufflehead 

hooded merganser 

common merganser 

red-breasted merganser 

ruddy duck 

The Swan Valley is one of the only watersheds in 

the western continental United States that supports 

breeding common loons. Currently, there are six 

breeding pairs in the Swan Valley on the Van, Loon, 

Summit, Lindbergh, Swan, and Holland Lakes. Historical records show Shey and Peck Lakes as being 

occupied by common loons. 

Mallard Pair 

Gene Nieminen / USFWS 

Redheads feed in large, open areas . 

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS 

FORESTS AND WOODLANDS 

Large parts of the Blackfoot Valley and Swan Valley CAs include forested lands. Healthy forests and 

wetland systems provide a host of watershed services, including water purification, ground water and 

surface flow regulation, erosion control, and stream 

bank stabilization. Carbon sequestration is the process by which atmospheric carbon dioxide is taken 

up by trees, grasses, and other plants through photosynthesis and stored as carbon in biomass (trunks, 

branches, foliage, and roots) and soils. The sink of 

carbon sequestration in forests and wood products 

helps to offset sources of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and mitigate climate change. 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area and 

Blackfoot Waterfowl Production Areas 

There are approximately 260 acres of fee-title forest 

lands on the Blackfoot WPA. Management of the 

forest has consisted mainly of invasive plant con-
92 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

trol; there has been no logging or burning since the 

waterfowl production area was added to the Refuge 

System in the 1970s. 

Stands of large ponderosa pine historically dominated most dry forest sites in western Montana. 

These dry forests are also comprised of a mix of 

ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Logging and fire 

suppression has resulted in an alteration of age-class 

structure, physical structure, tree density, and tree 

species composition (Barrett 1979, Shepperd et al. 

1983). Large, old-growth trees in more open settings 

have been replaced with dense stands of younger 

trees. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

and Swan Valley Conservation Area 

There are approximately 300 acres of fee-title forest 

lands on the Swan River Refuge. Management has 

consisted mainly of invasive plant control; there 

has been no logging or burning since the refuge was 

added to the Refuge System. 

The Swan Valley lies at the border of the maritime and continental climates and thus has a mixture 

of Pacific Coastal Forest and intermountain tree 

species. Western red cedar, grand fir, western hemlock, and western larch grow in the valleys, along 

with more familiar species such as Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, ponderosa pine, and lodge pole pine. 

Cottonwood and spruce also dominate much of 

the Swan River’s floodplain. Most of the lower elevation uplands consist of mixed conifers dominated by 

Douglas-fir, western larch, ponderosa pine, and lodge 

pole pine. Other common species include grand fir 

and subalpine fir. Stand types at most of the lowelevation lands range from regenerated seedling and 

pole stands, to mixed-aged stands of mature timber. 

For the lower elevations, typical forest rotations for 

saw timber range from 50–75 years. Forest types 

on the higher lands consist primarily of subalpine 

fir and lodge pole pine, with components of western 

larch, Douglas-fir, whitebark pine, and other species. 

ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE 

Many priority bird species are closely associated 

with old forest stages and snags, such as the Lewis’s 

woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, flammulated owl, white-breasted nuthatch, 

and Williamson’s sapsucker. Regional populations of 

these species have decreased due to the reduction 

of old forest stages. Olive-sided flycatchers, flammulated owls and black-backed woodpeckers are all 

level one priority species for the Montana Partners 

In Flight program. They are found in open canopy 

woodlands, open-canopy ponderosa pine and closedcanopy lodge pole pine, respectively. 

Sixty-nine species of mammals are known to inhabit the diverse habitats within the Swan Valley. 

Many of the species documented include S2 Status 

Species such as the grizzly bear and Townsend’s bat. 

Other species include S3 Status Species such as the 

wolverine, fisher, hoary bat, fringed myotis, hoary 

marmot, and Canada lynx, a federally threatened 

species. The refuge complex does not have enough 

fee-title forested habitat to provide all life needs 

for species such as lynx, gray wolf, and grizzly bear. 

However, complex fee-title and easement lands secure important linkage and connectivity between 

critical habitats on adjacent forested lands. 

Game species known to occur in the valley are 

moose, elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, bighorn 

sheep gray wolf, and mountain goat (Foresman 

2001). The forest units are located in areas with robust deer and elk populations. A diverse forest with 

varying age classes and stand types is important to 

ungulate survival. Early successional forests provide 

abundant shrubs and forbs that are important forage 

species for elk and deer. Older forests with dense 

canopy cover are important for thermal regulation. 

Forests also provide important hiding and escape 

cover. 

Other species documented to occur within the 

valley follow (Foresman 2001): 

northern pocket gopher 

southern red-backed vole 

long-tailed vole 

montane vole 

heather vole 

northern grasshopper mouse 

house mouse 

Norway rat 

northern bog lemming 

yellow-bellied marmot 

northern flying squirrel 

coyote 

red fox 

striped skunk 

long-tailed weasel 

mink 

badger 

raccoon 

white-tailed jackrabbit 

mountain cottontail 

porcupine 

SAGEBRUSH-STEPPE 

In the refuge complex, most of this system is dominated by mountain big sagebrush. Three tip sagebrush is found where it functions primarily as a 

seral component, increasing in frequency following 

fire. Antelope bitterbrush may codominate, but as 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 93 

a codominant is of very limited occurrence, being 

found primarily on intrusive volcanics in western 

and west-central Montana. Other shrubs may be 

present, but usually at low cover values (5–10 percent). Species include rubber rabbitbrush, and green 

rabbitbrush, wax currant, Woods’ rose, deerbrush 

ceanothus, snowberry and serviceberry (MNHP 

2010a). 

The herbaceous layer is usually well represented. Graminoids that can be abundant include 

rough fescue, Idaho fescue, bottlebrush squirreltail, 

pinegrass, needlegrass, spike fescue, poverty oatgrass, western wheatgrass, mountain brome, slender 

wheatgrass, prairie Junegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg’s bluegrass, and are variety of dry, 

upland sedges such as threadleaf sedge and Geyer’s 

sedge (MNHP 2010a). 

Forb diversity is moderate to high, commonly 

exceeding 30 species in a 400 m2 macroplot. Species 

may include arrowleaf balsamroot, Indian paintbrush, cinquefoil, fleabane, phlox, milkvetch, prairie 

smoke, lupine, buckwheat, yarrow, rosy pussytoes, 

wild strawberry, and western sagewort (MNHP 

2010a). 

Fire is critical to supporting native grassland– 

sagebrush communities. The historical fire regime 

in rough fescue communities, for example, was characterized by frequent return-interval (5–10 years), 

low-severity fires. The historical fire regime in 

sagebrush communities was characterized by longer 

return-interval (more than 25 years) stand-replacement fires. 

Sagebrush-steppe areas in the refuge complex 

were targeted by early European settlers for grazing and farm lands. Today, most of the native grassland–sagebrush communities are located on private 

land. The big sagebrush-dominated plant community type is most prevalent in the middle Blackfoot 

Valley south of the Blackfoot River. The big sagebrush–rough fescue plant association, endemic to 

west- and north-central Montana, is common in the 

Kleinschmidt Flat area. The three-tip sagebrush– 

rough fescue plant association is common in the 

Ovando area, yet found nowhere else in the world. 

Sagebrush-steppe habitat occurs in the Blackfoot 

River watershed on approximately 56,000 acres (4 

percent of total watershed acres). The Service owns 

in fee title 2,585 acres of sagebrush–steppe and has 

12,750 acres of sagebrush-steppe under Western 

Montana conservation easements. 

Associated Wildlife 

High-priority species such as the Brewer’s sparrow and loggerhead shrike build nests aboveground 

in shrubs or rely specifically on shrubs for cover. 

Brewer’s sparrows, in particular, have experienced 

significant declines in the last 10–20 years and are 

good habitat indicator species because they appear 

to be sensitive to habitat changes at multiple scales 

(Knick et al. 2003). Brewer’s sparrow is strongly 

associated with sagebrush, preferring sites with 

more than 13 percent sagebrush cover with an average canopy height less than 5 feet and more than 25 

percent of cover in native, climax species (Bock and 

Bock 1987, Rotenberry et al. 1999). This sagebrush 

obligate was the most abundant breeding species 

found at sagebrush sites on the Blackfoot and Kleinschmidt Lake WPAs during Service productivity 

surveys in 1996 (Fondell and Ball 1997). The longterm viability of Brewer’s sparrows in Montana 

depends on the maintenance of large stands of sagebrush in robust condition (PIF 2000). 

INVASIVE AND 

NONNATIVE PLANTS 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge is generally free from highly invasive, 

noxious weeds. Through EDRR, early colonizing plants of spotted knapweed and leafy spurge, 

in particular, have been eradicated every year 

and prevented from spreading. Canada thistle has 

been present for many years on the refuge; thistle 

patches are found near many roads, dikes, wetland 

edges and other disturbed areas. Some dense stands 

have been treated with success, but most areas go 

untreated. 

Across the wetland and grassland habitat on the 

refuge; however, several nonnative species are of 

concern for their effect in changing the native habitat, even if they are not on the State’s noxious weed 

list. 

CRESTED WHEATGRASS 

Crested wheatgrass has been the most commonly 

planted exotic grass in western North America since 

the early 1900s. Invasion of this species into native 

rangeland can have a negative effect on plant and 

wildlife diversity (Reynolds and Trost 1981, Christian and Wilson 1999, Davis and Duncan 1999). 

Crested wheatgrass was used to landscape areas 

around the refuge headquarters area in the 1960s 

and to revegetate roadsides and other areas of disturbance. Since then, it has spread throughout the 

refuge to varying degrees and covers approximately 

400 acres. The refuge has begun a pilot program to 

evaluate the most effective methods for controlling 

crested wheatgrass and restoring the native vegetation. 
94 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

RUSSIAN OLIVE 

This species is adaptable in semiarid and saline 

environments and has been promoted as a source 

of food and cover for some wildlife species (NRCS 

2002), particularly ring-necked pheasant. With this 

in mind, refuge staff planted Russian olive trees on 

the refuge until the 1970s. Since that time, research 

has shown that Russian olive and other nonnative 

trees fragment native prairie by causing avoidance 

of these areas by some nesting grassland birds and 

increased predation of nests, adults, and juvenile 

grassland-dependent birds (Delisle and Savidge 

1996, Gazda et al. 2002, Helzer 1996, Johnson and 

Temple 1990). Fortunately, at Benton Lake, Russian olive trees have not spread and are generally 

confined to shelterbelts where they were planted or 

single individuals scattered on the refuge. 

JAPANESE BROME 

This grass has been present in the refuge complex 

for many years with almost no attention given to 

treatment. Efforts are currently underway to map 

and estimate the extent and density of the infestation on the refuge. The degree to which this species 

affects wildlife use of native prairie is unknown. It 

is possible that Japanese brome decreases naturally 

during wetter periods (NRCS 2005), making aggressive control unnecessary. 

KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS 

This grass has been present in the refuge for many 

years with almost no attention given to treatment. 

Efforts are currently underway to map and estimate 

the extent and density of the infestation. Recent 

inventories in the Dakotas have shown that many 

areas of native sod on fee-title lands in the northern Great Plains have become heavily invaded with 

Kentucky bluegrass, which is associated with loss of 

floristic and avian diversity as well as negatively affected nutrient pools, energy flows, soil invertebrate 

and mycorrhizal relationships, and water cycles 

(Murphy and Grant 2005, Grant et al. 2009). 

GARRISON CREEPING FOXTAIL 

Creeping foxtail is an introduced rhizomatous perennial species. It has regenerative advantage on sites 

with conditions transitional between the more regularly flooded alkaline communities such as alkali bulrush and areas formerly dominated by foxtail barley 

at higher elevations. Its distribution has expanded 

substantially through the Benton Lake Refuge in recent years and generally occurs in bands or zones lying immediately above the zone occupied by cattail. 

CHEATGRASS 

This grass has been present in the refuge complex 

for many years with almost no attention given to 

treating it. It is mostly restricted to the southeast 

 refuge east of the Bootlegger Road. It is 

 because of its interaction with fire. Pre

e is the primary management tool at Ben-

 however, cheatgrass can readily spread 

ing. Work to map the infestations and to 

preburn treatment plan is in progress. 

nonnative species that occur in low num

 a limited extent but could become an 

roblem include smooth brome, reed ca

, salsify, alfalfa and yellow sweetclover. 

terfowl production areas have been sur

 noxious weeds at least once over the past 

rough the efforts of the Invasive Species 

m. Most of the waterfowl production areas 

ively small and annually variable infesta

anada thistle, houndstongue, and a few 

ous weeds. Known infestations are treated 

al basis as time allows. High priority nox

 infestations are described below: 

WPA has one known patch of leafy spurge 

imately 0.1 acre in size and scattered 

s of spotted knapweed that collectively 

t to approximately 2 acres. 

akes WPA has scattered patches of Rus

apweed over approximately 5 acres. 

meck Lake WPA has scattered patches 

atian toadflax which collectively cover 

imately 1 acre. 

ason exotic invasive grasses in the district 

rily Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, 

d wheatgrass. Prescribed grazing and fire 

anagement tools currently used to combat 

ies on native prairie. The district is part of 

orative Native Prairie Adaptive Manage

ect within Region 6 designed to find man

scenarios to reverse Kentucky bluegrass 

h brome infestations across the region. 

4, the Blackfoot Challenge Weeds Com

hich the Service is a participant of, has 

d and implemented a holistic strategy for 

 undesirable, invasive and noxious weeds 

ershed. Combining action with education, 

f the program is the locally led Vegeta

gement Areas program, where neighbors 

ss property boundaries to manage weeds. 

part of the

of concern ­

scribed fir

ton Lake;

after burn

develop a 

Other ­

bers or to

invasive p ­

narygrass

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

All 22 wa ­

veyed for

5 years, th

Strike Tea

have relat ­

tions of C

other noxi

on an annu ­

ious weed

■■ Jarina 

approx

patche

amoun

■■ Arod L ­

sian kn

■■ Schram

of Dalm

approx

Cool-se

are prima

and creste

are the m

these spec

the collab ­

ment Proj ­

agement 

and smoot

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area 

Since 199 ­

mittee, w

coordinate

managing

in the wat

the core o ­

tion Mana

work acro
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 95 

Almost 475,000 acres are under active weed management with 380 private landowners participating in 

the project. Integrated weed management strategies include herbicides, biocontrol, revegetation, 

multispecies grazing, hand pulling, plowing, mowing, 

prevention and EDRR (Blackfoot Challenge and 

Trout Unlimited. 2009). 

On fee-title lands, the local manager and Invasive 

Species Strike Team have mapped infestations and 

are actively managing these infestations through 

biocontrol, chemical control and monitoring. The 

species of most concern are leafy spurge, yellow 

toadflax, Russian and spotted knapweed, common 

tansy, hound’s-tongue, oxeye daisy, and Canada 

thistle. 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area 

The Service recognizes the Front as one of the Nation’s most significant wildlife areas and identifies 

invasive weeds as one of three primary threats to 

the Front’s ecological integrity. Of the 2 million acres 

on the Front, noxious weeds infest an estimated 

32,000 acres. Weeds have negative economic effects 

by reducing the productivity of farms and ranches, 

degrading water quality, reducing the quality and 

quantity of forage for elk, deer, pronghorn and other 

wildlife and adversely affecting outdoor recreation. 

Concerned private landowners, nongovernmental organizations, State agencies, Federal agencies 

and the Service have active partnerships along the 

Front to address noxious weed issues. These groups 

have organized, generally, along major watersheds 

to map and treat weeds as well as educated others 

on prevention and control. Spotted knapweed and 

leafy spurge are currently the primary noxious weed 

infestations along the Front. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

Much of the native vegetation in the wetlands of the 

refuge has been replaced with reed canarygrass. A 

complete inventory of reed canarygrass and other 

invasives has not been done on the refuge. 

Swan Valley Conservation Area 

The most common noxious weeds in the Swan Valley 

are spotted knapweed and oxeye daisy. The noxious orange and yellow hawkweeds are relatively 

new but rapidly spreading. The possibility of purple 

loosestrife, tansy ragwort, and yellow flag iris becoming new invaders is also of concern in the Swan 

Valley. 

Crested wheatgrass is a nonnative species that can have a 

negative effect on plant and wildlife diversity . 

Cassondra Skinner / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database 

THREATS 

Primary threats to native habitats and wildlife 

within the complex include energy development, 

housing development and agricultural conversion. 

Oil, gas and wind development activity has increased 

recently in the wetland management district. Loss 

and fragmentation of habitat are among the significant ecological impacts from access roads, drill pads, 

pipelines, waste pits, and other components of the 

oil and gas project infrastructure. These impacts 

extend beyond the physical structures. Studies show 

that the actual ecological footprint of oil and gas 

extraction stretches across rangelands and forested 

lands for a considerable distance (Weller et al. 2002). 

During strong markets for scenic western properties, especially when cattle prices are low, there is 

concern that ranches, particularly in the Blackfoot 

Valley and the Rocky Mountain Front, will be vulnerable to sale and subdivision for residential and 

commercial development. Housing development, and 

the associated infrastructure, can disrupt wildlife 

migration patterns. Nesting raptors and grassland 

bird species may be especially vulnerable to habitat 

fragmentation in the Blackfoot Valley. Riparian habitat loss due to development is also a key concern. 

Riparian habitat is a key component to grizzly bear 

movement between the mountains, valleys and prairies. Livestock grazing and ranching practices tend 
96 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

to be compatible with grizzly bears, which move 

unimpeded up and down riparian corridors. Riparian areas also provide nest sites for many species of 

migratory birds that may be negatively impacted by 

development. In addition, housing developments can 

add sewage-derived nutrients to streams and lakes, 

increase wetland drainage and water diversion, and 

introduce invasive species which can affect threatened species, such as the bull trout. 

Historically, the northern mixed-grass prairie 

system stretched from northern Nebraska into 

southern Canada and westward through the Dakotas to the Rocky Mountain Front in Montana; 

now it covers only approximately 104,000 square 

miles. This is one of the most disturbed grassland 

systems, where an estimated 75 percent of the region has been heavily altered. Much of the conversion, and continued threat, within the complex is in 

the central part of the wetland management district, 

also known as the “Golden Triangle”. This agricultural designation, includes Great Falls as its apex, 

and then roughly runs northeast through Havre, 

west to Cut Bank and back to Great Falls. The area 

produces approximately half of Montana’s wheat, 

primarily winter and spring wheat, and is the most 

productive of the State’s farming areas that are not 

irrigated. Only a few remaining areas of mixed-grass 

prairie in the complex have escaped conversion to 

agriculture (NatureServe 2008). These grasslands 

are prominently represented in the district along 

the Rocky Mountain Front, surrounding the Sweet 

Grass Hills and in Glacier County on the Blackfeet 

Indian Reservation. 

WILDLIFE DISEASE 

Regular surveillance and response preparedness for 

wildlife diseases are on-going within the refuge complex. Currently, the high priority wildlife diseases 

are botulism, West Nile virus and chronic wasting 

disease. 

Botulism 

Avian botulism outbreaks, caused by the ingestion of 

a toxin produced by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum, have occurred at Benton Lake at least since 

the mid-1960s (USFWS 1961–99). Occurrence of botulism at Benton Lake before the 1960s is unknown 

(no records or monitoring data are available), but 

documentation of historic outbreaks in other large 

wetland basins in the western U.S. suggest it probably occurred at least in some years (for example, 

Wetmore 1915, Giltner and Couch 1930, Kalmbach 

1930, Wobeser 1981). Arod Lakes WPA also has a 

history of botulism outbreaks. District staff conduct 

periodic checks during late summer at this area. 

West Nile Virus 

A surveillance program for West Nile virus is ongoing at the Benton Lake Refuge. Cascade County 

conducts annual mosquito trapping in conjunction 

with weekly surveillance routes for avian mortality 

conducted by refuge staff. 

Chronic Wasting Disease 

Weekly surveillance and opportunistic sampling for 

chronic wasting disease has occurred on the refuge complex since 2004. To date, no occurrences of 

chronic wasting disease has been detected in wild 

ungulates in Montana. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

ACTIVITIES 

The Service manages habitats through several 

refuge management activities under specific, prescribed conditions to meet habitat demands for a 

diverse suite of species—cooperative farming, prescribed fire and haying, and prescriptive grazing. 

Cooperative Farming 

When lands are included into the Refuge System 

as waterfowl production areas they often contain 

cropland or degraded stands of tame grasses instead 

of native habitat conditions. In these cases, the cropland is usually seeded back to native cover or DNC 

for waterfowl. Native grass seed is generally more 

expensive and native grass stands are often more 

difficult to establish. 

If tame grass stands are in very poor condition 

or have serious weed problems, farming to create a 

clean seedbed may be required for 2–4 years. Farming and seeding is used only to reestablish grassland 

or nesting cover and return an altered landscape to 

a more native condition. The interim crops such as 

grain can provide some short-term, immediate benefits to local and migrating wildlife and as an erosion 

control measure. In the long term, the real benefit is 

the increase in nesting habitat that result from this 

activity. 

Often the Service conducts farming and seeding 

operations in cooperation with local farmers. Benefits to the local economy are limited but the farming 

permittee should experience some economic gain. 

However, finding a cooperator willing to farm can be 

a limiting factor. 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 97 

The Service uses prescribed fire to rejuvenate grasses and 

reduce vegetative litter . 

James Graham / USFWS 

Prescribed Fire 

Prescribed fires have been used in the northern 

Great Plains and Rocky Mountains for native species 

management by both public and private agencies. 

Fire is used to remove litter and ladder fuel, control 

noxious weeds, reduce woody vegetation or to improve the height and density of planted cover. Prescribed fire has been used as a management tool to 

manage grasslands in the refuge complex since 1975. 

Fire can be very important to the natural health and 

vigor of grasslands and shrublands. Fire releases 

nutrients tied up in vegetative matter, and removes 

dead vegetation that inhibits new growth. Fire can 

suppress exotic plant species and prevent the invasion of woody species such as juniper into native 

grasslands. However, fire may also allow invasion of 

fire tolerant species such as cheat grass and spotted 

knapweed. 

Application of burning to grasslands that have 

evolved with fire can enhance vegetative growth, 

improve plant reproduction, and attract or concentrate wildlife. Regrowth following fire can be especially attractive to wildlife because of increased 

nutrition and palatability, and plants are often larger 

and more vigorous after a short recovery period. 

Blackened soil warms more quickly in the spring 

resulting in more rapid plant growth and seed germination and can make soil invertebrates more 

available for wildlife. Nutrients are released from 

dead vegetation and are more readily available for 

new plant growth. Prescribed fires, when done properly, can increase habitat diversity by creating edges 

between habitat associations, which makes the area 

more attractive to wildlife. However, burning of upland vegetation results in a very intense removal of 

cover and the temporary loss of fire sensitive species 

such as sagebrush. 

Haying and Mowing 

Haying and mowing management strategies are 

generally used to enhance tame grass or tame grass– 

legume stands and to control spread of invasive 

weeds. Haying temporarily removes residual, dead, 

and matted vegetation, and stimulates new growth, 

which improves habitat structure and diversity. 

Seed production, seed germination and growth of desirable plants can result from properly timed haying. 

The duration of the treatment period is relatively 

short and manageable. Haying is very selective relative to location of treatment. Removal of vegetation 

allows early warming of soils in the spring, which 

stimulates earlier green up and invertebrate production. 

Proper management of DNC may provide quality habitat up to 8 years without disturbance, it is 

the periodic vegetation treatments such as haying 

that capitalize on the relationship between young, 

vigorous stands of vegetation and higher wildlife 

production (Duebbert et al. 1981). With a rotational 

management plan that periodically rejuvenates the 

tame grass stand productivity can be greatly increased. 

Prescriptive Grazing 

Grazing effects on grassland communities and woody 

riparian habitats have also been the subject of many 

studies. The effects of grazing on plant diversity 

depend on grazing intensity, the evolutionary history of the site and climatic regimes. Hoof impact by 

grazing animals can break up capped soils, improve 

the water cycle, stimulate vegetative reproduction 

of stoloniferous grasses, and enhance the decomposition of old plant material by breaking up plant litter. 

Hoof action can also distribute and trample seeds 

into soils, increasing chances of successful germination (Laylock 1967). Nutrients are returned to the 

soil in the form of urine and feces. Cattle may return 

80–85 percent of the nitrogen ingested with plant 

tissue. 

Grazing intensity and frequency can be regulated to enhance species diversity of both plants 

and animals. For example, summer grazing can create fresh fall and winter regrowth as forage for elk 

and mule deer. Certain levels of grazing can provide habitat diversity and patchiness, particularly 

in areas of higher precipitation. Cattle dung hosts 

invertebrate production, undigested plant parts, and 

newly germinated seedlings, which in turn can be 

used by wildlife as food. Grazing can be much more 

species selective than mowing, burning, or chemical 

treatments. For example, grazing in uplands can 

stimulate germination and production of grasses 
98 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

without affecting the sagebrush and other species 

that are important elements of the habitat, while fire 

removes all flammable material with which it comes 

in contact. 

Grazing is a tool that, when used properly, removes old vegetation, stimulates new plant growth, 

restructures vegetation, affects plant species composition, and enhances animal diversity. Development 

of proper grazing strategies is essential to using this 

tool properly. The objectives of grazing are to help 

the wildlife species first and foremost, and economic 

benefits are a secondary consideration. The needs of 

wildlife and their habitats are the primary determining factors of any habitat management strategy. 

Determining the proper number of animals to be 

placed on an area is the principal factor affecting 

the relative success of any grazing management 

strategy (Heitschmidt and Sluth 1991). The timing, 

frequency, and intensity of grazing are the three 

main variables available to managers when designing a grazing plan. 

■■ Timing refers to the period when livestock will be 

placed on a parcel of land. It is generally related 

to the plant phenology (spring=growth period, 

summer=active growth and reproduction period, 

fall=reproduction and carbohydrate storage, and 

winter=dormancy). 

■■ Frequency is the time interval between applications of active treatment strategies. These can 

range from more than one treatment per year, 

to annual, alternate year, or greater than 1 year 

(periodic). 

■■ Intensity has been defined as the proportion of 

current years forage production that is consumed 

or destroyed by grazing animals. This classical definition refers to the amount of palatable 

plant matter physically removed by cattle from 

a parcel of land and this is generally expressed 

in animal unit months (AUMs). AUMs are determined by multiplying the number of animals 

by the number of days spent on the grazed area, 

divided by 30.4 (the average number of days in 

a month). The amount of forage in an AUM is 

approximately 794 pounds. For example, 55 cows 

graze an area for 21 days. (55x21)/30.4=38 AUMS. 

This is approximately 30,172 pounds of forage or 

15 tons (38x94=30,172 pounds). 

Grazing intensity as it relates to wildlife habitat 

and cover may be more accurately defined as the 

amount of standing residual and current vegetation 

(cover) that is removed or destroyed by grazing animals in relation to the pretreatment standing cover. 

This definition is different because it addresses the 

factor of cover in the management of uplands and 

other areas where the objective is to provide nesting cover. In areas where grazing is to be used to 

reinvigorate and restore cover, the measure of cover 

removal will be more meaningful. This can be expressed in a percentage figure of removal of aboveground biomass for planning purposes, and then after 

monitoring, it can be converted into an AUM figure 

for ease of developing future grazing prescriptions 

for that specific field. 

Specific management plans can be prepared for 

each unit (where grazing is used) to address the 

timing, frequency and intensity of treatment and 

make sure that wildlife objectives are being met. 

Short-duration, high-intensity grazing will be the 

most commonly used form of grazing. A sufficient 

number of animals will be placed on a given parcel of 

land to remove the desired amount of standing vegetation within a short period. Under this system, the 

animals are forced to consume available vegetation 

instead of being allowed to be so selective that they 

repeatedly graze only the more palatable plants. 

Ideally, the plants should be grazed only once during the growing period, and even longer periods of 

rest will be used to make sure that there is enough 

vegetation regrowth and accumulation for proper 

wildlife cover. 

4 .3 Species of Concern 

For the purposes of this planning document, species 

of concern are defined as follows: 

■■ Those species listed under the ESA as endangered, threatened, or candidate species. 

■■ Bald and golden eagles as protected under the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 

■■ Native species that are considered to be at risk 

in Montana due to declining population trends, 

threats to their habitat, or restricted distribution 

as defined by the MNHP (2009). 

FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES 

The ESA (Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 

U.S.C. 1531 et.seq.) requires Federal agencies to 

carry out conservation (recovery) programs for 

listed species and to make sure that agency actions 

are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

of listed species or adversely change or destroy 

their critical habitat. Section 7(a) of the act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with re­
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 99 

spect to any species that is listed as endangered or 

threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 

any is being designated. Further, regulations implementing the interagency cooperation provision of 

the act codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) 

requires Federal agencies to make sure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of any species 

listed as endangered or threatened, or to destroy or 

adversely change its critical habitat. 

Key federally listed species that occur in the 

refuge complex include the threatened bull trout, 

grizzly bear, water howellia and Canada lynx (table 

8). Candidate species that occur on the refuge complex include greater sage-grouse, Sprague’s pipit 

and wolverine. The piping plover, pallid sturgeon, 

black-footed ferret and arctic grayling are all species 

that are listed under the ESA, but they are either 

no longer present on refuge complex lands or the 

Service’s management strategies are not expected to 

affect them. 

Table 8 . Federally listed endangered, threatened, and candidate animal species within the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Status National Wildlife Wetland Conservation Areas 

Refuges Management 

District 

Benton Lake Swan River Benton Lake Blackfoot Rocky Moun­ Swan valley 

valley tain Front 

Pallid sturgeon LE x 

Black-footed ferret LE x x 

Bull trout LT,CH x x x x 

Arctic grayling C x x x x 

Grizzly bear LT x x x x x 

Canada lynx LT,CH x x x x x 

Piping plover LT x 

Water howellia LT x x 

Sprague’s Pipit C x x x 

Greater sage-grouse C x 

Wolverine C x x x x x 

(C = Candidate species, LE = Listed endangered, LT = Listed threatened, CH =Critical habitat identified)
 

Note: The gray wolf was delisted in May, 2011 . Management of the species has been turned over to individual states 


with oversight by the Service . On June 30, 2011, the Service found that listing the fisher in the U .S . northern Rocky 


Mountains as threatened or endangered is not warranted at this time .
 

Bull Trout 

Bull trout are a cold-water fish of relatively pristine 

stream and lake habitat in the Pacific Northwest of 

the United States. Bull trout need the coldest water 

temperatures of any northwest salmonid, and they 

need the cleanest stream substrates for spawning 

and rearing. These trout need complex habitats: 

streams with riffles and deep pools, undercut banks, 

and lots of large logs. In addition, bull trout need 

connections from main river, lake, and even ocean 

habitats to headwater streams for annual spawning 

and feeding migrations. 

For listing purposes, the Service divided the 

range of bull trout into distinct population segments 

consisting of 27 recovery units. The Blackfoot River 

and Swan River watersheds lie within the Clark 

Fork River Recovery Unit and the Upper Clark 

Fork Recovery Subunit. Within this subunit, both 

the Swan River and Blackfoot River watersheds 

have been identified as core recovery areas (USFWS 2002a). The watersheds also have multiple 

stream reaches identified as critical habitat within 

the Clark Fork River Basin (USFWS 2010b). 

Within the Blackfoot River watershed, bull 

trout densities are very low in the upper Blackfoot 

River, but increase downstream of the North Fork. 

Streams that appear to be particularly important for 

the spawning of migratory bull trout include Monture Creek, the north fork Blackfoot River, Copper 

Creek, Gold Creek, Dunham Creek, Morrell Creek, 

the west fork Clearwater River, and the east fork 

Clearwater River. Bull trout spawner abundance is 

indexed by the number of identifiable female bull 

trout nesting areas (redds). Data show that Monture 

Creek has an upward trend from 10 redds in 1989 to 

an average of 51 redds in subsequent years (Pierce 

et al. 2008). The North Fork also shows an upward 
100 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

trend from 8 redds in 1989 to an average of 58 redds 

between 1989 and 2008. The Copper Creek drainage 

(including Snowbank Creek) has experienced a resurgence of bull trout redds—from 18 in 2003 to 117 

in 2008—since the 2003 Snow Talon Fire. The total 

number of redds counted in these three streams 

(Monture Creek, North Fork, and Copper Creek) 

increased from 39 in 1989 to 217 in 2000. With the 

onset of drought, bull trout redd counts then declined to 147 in 2008. These changes are attributed 

to protective regulations first enacted in 1990, restoration actions in spawning streams during the 1990s 

and a period of sustained drought between 2000 and 

the present (Pierce et al. 2008). 

Within the Swan watershed, the bull trout population has remained strong. The Swan Lake population is stable because fish can access about 150 

miles of quality tributary spawning habitat. Most 

other bull trout populations are declining, because of 

habitat degradation, but many of the Swan Valley’s 

tributary streams are in good to excellent condition. 

Continuous, identifiable female bull trout nesting 

areas (redd) count history dating to 1982 is available 

for bull trout for four index streams in the Swan 

River watershed (MFWP 2009). Bull trout may have 

reached equilibrium in this system at a population 

level of about 2,000 adults and the current trend 

appears stable. The total redd count was 598 in 2008, 

representing roughly 2,000 adults in the spawning 

run. Given that some adults do not spawn every 

year, the total adult population is likely more than 

2,500 adult bull trout. 

One of the biggest threats to bull trout survival is 

increased development, which exacerbates temperature problems, increases nutrient loads, decreases 

bank stability, alters instream and riparian habitat, 

and changes hydrologic response of affected watersheds. 

Canada Lynx 

The Canada Lynx Recovery Outline categorized 

lynx habitat and occurrence within the contiguous 

United States as (1) core areas, (2) secondary areas, 

and (3) peripheral areas. Core areas are defined as 

the areas with the strongest long-term evidence of 

the persistence of lynx populations. Core areas have 

both persistent verified records of lynx occurrence 

over time and recent evidence of reproduction. Six 

core areas and one provisional core area are identified within the contiguous United States (Nordstrom 

et al. 2005). The Blackfoot and Swan watersheds 

contain lands designated in the Northern Rocky 

Mountain–Northeastern Idaho Core Area, which 

supports the highest density lynx population in the 

northern Rocky Mountain region of the lynx’s range. 

It acts as a source for lynx and provides connectivity to other parts of the lynx’s range in the Rocky 

Mountains, particularly in the Yellowstone area 

(Federal Register 2009). 

The Swan River and Blackfoot River watersheds 

are a stronghold for the Canada lynx in the northern 

Rocky Mountains. Based on ongoing research in 

these watersheds, lynx populations appear stable, 

although low reproductive rates are characteristic of 

this population. Since 1998, more than 80 lynx have 

been monitored in this area, providing information 

on habitat use, reproduction, mortality, and movement. This research has shown that these watersheds contain some of the best remaining habitat 

for lynx in the continental United States. Large, 

intact spruce–subalpine fir forests above 4,000 feet 

in this area provide quality habitat for lynx and for 

snowshoe hares, the primary lynx food source. Regenerating forest stands are often used as foraging 

habitat during the snow-free months while older, 

multistoried stands serve as denning and year-round 

habitat (Blackfoot Challenge 2005). 

Grizzly Bear 

Grizzly bears are currently listed as a federally 

threatened species in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (USFWS 2011a). This ecosystem is 

an area of the northern Rocky Mountains with large 

blocks of protected public land containing some of 

the most pristine and intact environments found 

in the contiguous United States. Despite dramatic 

losses of habitat throughout North America, the 

grizzly bear has supported a presence in Montana 

and occurs in parts of the Blackfoot and Swan watersheds and along the Rocky Mountain Front. 

The Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem 

supports the largest population (765 individuals) 

of grizzly bears in the lower 48 States. In 2003 and 

2004, 29 individual grizzly bears were confirmed in 

the Blackfoot River watershed and 45 grizzly bears 

were confirmed in the Swan Valley watershed. The 

USGS estimates that at least 40 bears are present 

during all or part of the year in the Blackfoot River 

watershed (USGS 2004) with 61 present in the Swan 

Valley. 

Lakes, ponds, fens and spring-fed creeks, common in parts of the Swan River and Blackfoot River 

valley floors, provide excellent bear habitat. Additionally, the vegetation found along certain reaches 

of both rivers and their tributaries provide bears 

with cover, food, and natural movement corridors. 

Supporting linkage areas is important to the continued survival of the grizzly bear. The grizzly bear 

has an increased risk of extinction because the population consists of a limited number of individuals that 

live in several distinct populations geographically 

isolated from one another. Small populations are less 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 101 

able to absorb losses caused by random environmental, genetic and demographic changes (Serveen et al. 

2001). Linkage zones are areas between separated 

populations that provide adequate habitat for low 

densities of individuals to exist and move between 

isolated populations. The resulting exchange of genetic material helps support demographic vigor and 

diversity, increasing the viability of individual populations. For the grizzly bear, preserving the linkage 

between populations is as critical to long-term conservation of the species as managing the individual 

populations. 

The Blackfoot River watershed contains important habitat links for grizzly bears that are recolonizing historical ranges to the south. Grizzly bears 

breed, forage, and migrate throughout the watershed and den above 6,500 feet. They move from high 

mountain elevations to lower valley bottoms to forage seasonally for available food. 

The Swan Valley area has been identified as an 

important habitat link for grizzlies moving between 

the Glacier National Park–Bob Marshall Wilderness 

Complex and the Mission Mountains Wilderness. 

The Swan Valley is also believed to be the key linkage zone to the large and important Selway–Bitterroot Wilderness to the southwest. As such, it 

provides an avenue of connectivity between the Canadian Rockies and the central Rockies of Idaho and 

Wyoming. 

An estimated 100–150 bears frequent the Rocky 

Mountain Front project area, which is included in 

much of the recovery plan for the northern Continental Divide grizzly bear population. Some of the 

units in the district are located along the Rocky 

Mountain Front and have documented grizzly bear 

use. 

Water Howellia 

Water howellia is a federally listed threatened 

plant restricted in Montana to depressional wetlands in the Swan Valley, typically occupying small 

basins where the water level recedes partially or 

completely by the fall. Montana contains the largest number of occupied ponds and wetlands though 

population numbers are generally small and the occupied habitat is clustered in a very small part of the 

State. Reed canarygrass has invaded some wetlands 

in the Swan Valley and it has the potential to form 

dense monocultures, thereby decreasing the amount 

of available habitat. Additionally, water howellia 

is an annual species that is solely dependent on recruitment from seed; it has very narrow habitat and 

moisture requirements, which leaves it vulnerable 

to extirpation as a result of consecutive years of unfavorable growing conditions (MNHP 2012). Water 

howellia is on land owned by TNC next to the Swan 

River Refuge and on other sites in the Swan Valley. 

Similar habitat is found on Swan River Refuge. 

CANDIDATE SPECIES 

Candidate species are plants and animals for which 

the Service has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the ESA, but for which 

development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. A 

candidate species status is reviewed annually. 

Candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA. However, the Service encourages the formation of partnerships to conserve these 

species because they are by definition species that 

may warrant future protection under the act. Since 

candidate species do not receive regulatory protection under the ESA, the definition of “take” as 

identified in the act does not apply to these species. 

However, Service policy requires that candidate species be treated as “proposed for listing” for purposes 

of Intra-Service section 7 conference procedures 

(USFWS 1998). 

Sprague’s Pipit 

Sprague’s pipit is a candidate for listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.; USFWS 2008b, 2010) Sprague’s pipits have 

been documented on the Benton Lake Refuge and in 

the district. 

Sprague’s Pipits breed in the northern Great 

Plains, with the highest density occurring in northcentral and eastern Montana to North Dakota. 

(Stewart 1975, American Ornithologists’ Union 1998, 

Robbins and Dale 1999, Tallman et al. 2002 as cited 

in Jones 2010). 

Sprague’s Pipits are closely associated with native grassland throughout their range (Sutter 1996, 

1997; Sutter and Brigham 1998; Madden et al. 2000; 

Grant et al. 2004 as cited in Jones 2010) and are less 

abundant (or absent) in areas of introduced grasses 

than in areas of native prairie (Kantrud 1981, Johnson and Schwartz 1993, Dale et al. 1997, Madden et 

al. 2000, Grant et al. 2004 as cited in Jones 2010). 

Generally, pipits prefer to breed in well-drained 

native grasslands with high plant species richness 

and diversity. They prefer higher grass and sedge 

cover, less bare ground, and an intermediate average grass height when compared to the surrounding 

landscape, less than 5–20 percent shrub and brush 

cover, no trees at the territory scale, and litter cover 

less than 4.7 inches (Sutter 1996, Madden et al. 2000, 

Dechant et al. 2003, Dieni and Jones 2003, Grant 

et al. 2004 as cited in Jones 2010). The amount of 
102 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

residual vegetation remaining from the prior years’ 

growth also appears to be a strong positive predictor 

of Sprague’s Pipits occurrence (Madden 1996, Sutter 

1996, Prescott and Davis 1998, Sutter and Brigham 

1998 as cited in Jones 2010) and where they put their 

nests (Dieni and Jones 2003, Davis 2005). 

Sprague’s Pipits rarely occur in cultivated lands, 

and are uncommon on nonnative planted pasturelands (Owens and Myres 1973, Sutter 1996, Davis et 

al. 1999, McMaster and Davis 2001 as cited in Jones 

2010). They have not been documented to nest in 

cropland (Owens and Myres 1973, Koper et al. 2009), 

in land in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

(Higgins et al. 2002) or in DNC planted for waterfowl habitat (Prescott 1997). 

Projects that alter grassland habitat with permanent structures, such as wind towers, oil wells, 

roads and buildings, can make the areas unsuitable 

for Sprague’s pipit use. Because Sprague’s pipits 

avoid not only the structure but also an area around 

the structure, the effective impact of the disturbance 

is much greater than its actual footprint. While the 

grassland habitat on which Sprague’s pipits breed 

can be disturbance dependent, negative effects on 

the pipit can largely be avoided by doing habitat manipulation such as mowing or prescribed fire outside 

of the breeding season. These actions may make an 

area unsuitable for several years until the grassland 

plant association has partially returned. However, 

adverse effects can be avoided by performing management actions on a subunit of the grassland area 

in any given year, so that some suitable grassland 

habitat is available at all times. 

Sprague’s Pipit 

© Bob Gress 

Wolverine 

Suitable wolverine habitat in the conterminous U.S. 

is limited to high-elevation, alpine areas that occur 

in island-like fashion. One of the last strongholds for 

wolverines in the contiguous U.S. is the northern 

Continental Divide region of Montana. 

On December 13, 2010, the Service found that 

the North American wolverine in the contiguous 

United States is a distinct population segment that 

warrants protection under the ESA, but that listing the distinct population segment under the act 

is precluded by the need to address other listing 

actions of a higher priority. The wolverine was listed 

as a candidate species under the act (78032 Federal 

Register. 2010). 

Wolverines are indigenous to high mountain 

habitats that are separated from like habitats forming isolated populations. Since wolverines naturally 

occur at low densities and reproduce infrequently, 

protected linkage areas are crucial for dispersal, 

genetic flow and survival of the species. While most 

core wolverine habitat is in public ownership, many 

areas inbetween these islands are subject to rapidly 

increasing pressure from urban development and 

roads. 

ARCTIC GRAYLING, BLACKFOOTED FERRET, GREATER 

SAGE-GROUSE, PALLID STURGEON, AND PIPING PLOVER 

Arctic grayling, black-footed ferret, greater sagegrouse, pallid sturgeon, and piping plover, are species that have historical records of occurrence on 

the refuge complex but are either no longer present 

on the refuge complex or the Service’s management 

strategies are not expected to affect these species. 

Arctic Grayling 

On September 8, 2010, the upper Missouri River basin’s “distinct population segment” of Arctic grayling 

was listed as a candidate species under the ESA. 

Fluvial Arctic grayling currently occupy only a fraction (about 5 percent) of their historical range within 

the Missouri River watershed upstream of the Great 

Falls. Kaya (1992) concluded that the major factors causing the range-wide decline of fluvial Arctic 

grayling in the upper Missouri River system include 

habitat degradation, angling exploitation and overfishing, and interactions with introduced nonnative 

salmonid fishes. Fluvial Arctic grayling in Montana
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 103 

are presently restricted to an approximately 80-mile 

long segment of the upper Big Hole River. 

Reintroduction efforts began in 1997 in the upper 

Ruby River and expanded to the north and south 

forks of the Sun River in 1999, the lower Beaverhead River in 1999, and the Missouri River headwaters near Three Forks, Montana, in 2000. Due 

to drought conditions and limited resources, the 

Montana Arctic Grayling Workgroup in 2002 recommended focusing reintroduction efforts on the 

upper Ruby River, and to continue with other sites 

as money, workload and resources allow. Reintroduction efforts in 2008 took place in the upper Ruby 

River and the north fork of the Sun River. At both 

of these locations, remote site incubators were used 

to introduce grayling fry into the restoration reach 

(Magee and McCullough 2008). 

Black-Footed Ferret 

Black-footed ferrets are listed in several counties 

in the district and likely occurred here historically; 

however, no known populations currently exist 

within the district. 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

On March 5, 2010, the Service found that the greater 

sage-grouse warrants protection under the ESA, 

but that listing the species under the act is precluded by the need to address other listing actions 

of a higher priority. Evidence suggests that habitat 

fragmentation and destruction across much of the 

species’ range has contributed to significant population declines over the past century. If current trends 

persist, many local populations may disappear in 

the next several decades, with the remaining fragmented population vulnerable to extinction. Greater 

sage-grouse may be present in Chouteau, Hill, and 

Liberty Counties in the district. 

Pallid Sturgeon 

Records show that pallid sturgeon have been documented in the district in the Missouri River in Chouteau County; however, management actions within 

the refuge complex would not be expected to have 

any effects on the Missouri River or the pallid sturgeon. 

Piping Plover 

A 5-year review of the piping plovers’ ESA listing was completed in September 2009. The current 

recovery plan was completed in 1988. The northern 

Great Plains population of piping plovers nest on the 

shorelines and islands of alkali (salty) lakes in North 

Dakota and Montana. They nest on sandbar islands 

and reservoir shorelines along the Missouri River 

and reservoirs in Montana, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, and Nebraska. 

The only records of piping plover on the refuge 

complex are in Pondera county in the district where 

one to four pair of piping plover were observed at 

Alkali Lake from 1990 until 2007. 

OTHER SPECIES OF CONCERN
 

The MNHP serves as the State’s information source 

for animals, and plants, with a focus on species and 

communities that are rare, threatened, or have declining trends and as a result are at risk of extinction 

in Montana. The MNHP assesses species’ status 

based on methods developed by NatureServe (Regan et al. 2004). These criteria include population 

size, area of occupancy in Montana, short- and longterm trends, threats, inherent vulnerability, and 

specificity to environment. Based on these factors, 

a preliminary rank is calculated and is reviewed by 

key experts. 

According to the MNHP database (MNHP 

2011a), there are 126 animal species of concern that 

could occur on lands administered by the refuge 

complex. These include 15 mammal, 55 birds, 19 fish, 

9 amphibian and 28 invertebrate species (see appendix D). 

Trumpeter swans were endemic to the Blackfoot 

Valley but have been absent for 200 years. Meriwether Lewis first documented trumpeter swans 

in the Blackfoot Valley in 1806. A pair of trumpeter 

swan naturally returned to the valley in 2000. This 

pair eventually bred but the female was killed. The 

male raised the 3 cygnets through the fall but none 

of the swans returned the following spring. A partnership of private landowners, foundations, conservation groups, as well as State and Federal agencies 

was formed to restore the swan to the Blackfoot 

Valley. Eggs from trumpeter swans in Canada were 

collected and transported to a facility in Jackson, 

Wyoming, where they were raised to a suitable age 

for release. The cygnets were then trucked to the 

Blackfoot Valley and released on suitable habitat. 

Since 2005, 83 trumpeter swans have been released. 

In 2011, swans that were part of the reintroduction 

effort successfully bred producing seven cygnets. 

Black terns are considered a species of special 

concern by the Service in Region 6. They are listed 

at a Level II on the Montana Priority Bird Species 

List, which dictates that Montana has a high responsibility to watch the status of this species, and 

design conservation actions. Black terns are found 

throughout the district and the Blackfoot River wa­
104 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

tershed hosts the largest black tern colony documented in Montana. 

The Blackfoot Valley supports western Montana’s 

largest population of Brewer’s sparrow, one of the 

highest priority songbirds in Montana (Casey 2000). 

This sagebrush obligate was the most abundant 

breeding species found at sagebrush sites on the 

Blackfoot and Kleinschmidt Lake WPAs during Service productivity surveys in 1996 (Fondell and Ball 

1997). The long-term viability of Brewer’s sparrows 

in Montana depends on the maintenance of large 

stands of sagebrush in robust condition (PIF 2000). 

The Blackfoot Valley is perhaps also the best 

breeding and nesting area for the long-billed curlew 

in western Montana. This species is declining nationally and has been identified as a priority in both the 

shorebird and Partners in Flight conservation plans. 

Local surveys on Kleinschmidt Flat in 1997 found 

31 pairs on 3,840 acres or greater than 8 pairs per 

1,000 acres. Production was not monitored, but many 

broods were noted. This species is highly reliant on 

grassland-nesting habitat, also nests in sagebrushsteppe, and relies more heavily on wetlands during 

migration. Small population size and negative population trends, combined with threats of habitat degradation on both breeding and wintering grounds, 

make the long-billed curlew a high conservation priority (National Audubon Society 2007). 

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 

U.S.C. 668–668d), enacted in 1940, and amended 

several times since then, protects bald and golden 

eagles by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, 

purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, 

transport, export or import, of any bald or golden 

eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, 

unless allowed by permit (16 U.S.C. 668(a), 50 CFR 

22). “Take” includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, 

wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb 

(16 U.S.C. 668c, 50 CFR 22.3). Species Protected 

under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

include the Golden Eagle and Bald Eagle. 

One of the Nation’s densest populations of golden 

eagles and prairie falcons lives in the rock escarpments along the Rocky Mountain Front. The Front 

also hosts relatively robust populations of bald 

eagles, peregrine falcons, ferruginous hawks, and 

goshawks. 

Montana supports the largest breeding population of common loons in the western United States 

with a 10-year average summer count of 216 individuals. This population consists of an average of 62 

territorial pairs, 52 nonbreeding single adults, and 

41 chicks. Since surveys began in the late 1980s, the 

population has remained remarkably stable. Fecundity in Montana appears to be above average in comparison to many other States ranging between 0.66 

and 0.70 chicks fledged per territorial pair. Most loon 

observations range from the Rocky Mountain Front 

west to the Idaho–Montana border with breeding 

limited to the northwest corner. As of 2009, there 

were 12 breeding pairs in the Swan Valley and 5 in 

the Blackfoot Valley (Hammond 2009). 

The refuge complex includes one of the largest remaining expanses of native prairie left in the 

northern Great Plains. This sea of grass provides 

essential habitat for many grassland birds, many of 

which are experiencing significant population declines. These include chestnut-collared longspurs, Le 

Conte’s sparrows, bobolinks, Sprague’s pipit, burrowing owls, marbled godwits, long-billed curlews, 

and lark buntings. 

4 .4 Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources for the refuge complex are described in terms of the area’s prehistoric occupation 

and historic period and the refuge complex-specific 

history and archaeology. 

PREHISTORIC OCCUPATION 

The cultural sequence for prehistoric occupation in 

this area is often split into three major subdivisions 

based on these phases—early, middle, and late prehistoric. 

Early Prehistoric 

The Paleo-Indian Period dates to 12,000 years before 

Christ (B.C.)–6,500 B.C. in the region surrounding 

Benton Lake Refuge. Paleo-Indian people had an 

economy based primarily on communal big game 

hunting with distinctive Clovis and Folsum fluted 

projectile points (spear points). The period is associated with the end of glaciation in North America. 

The climate was cooler and drier than today, supporting several now-extinct large mammal species. 

Based on archaeological bones excavated in sites 

of this period, these hunters subsisted primarily on 

giant bison, mastodon, camel, horse and mammoth. 

Middle Prehistoric 

Middle Prehistoric Period ranges from 6,500 B.C.– 

Anno Domini (A.D.) 200 depending on location. Archaeologically it appears that these people were 

largely focused on exploiting bison, but the tool kit 

expanded from paleo-Indian times suggesting dependence on a broader spectrum of plant and animal 

resources in more varied habitats. Climatologically 

it was becoming drier and Plains Archaic popula­
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 105 

tions tended to inhabit areas with protected water 

sources. Sites typically occur in basin and foothill 

regions, river valleys and in open prairie. There is 

a wide variation of projectile point (spear or atlatl) 

types associated with the Middle Prehistoric, no 

doubt due to the varied species, environments, and 

hunting techniques used to get game in this fluctuating climatic regime. The atlatl or spear thrower 

was introduced allowing greater range than spear 

throwing and necessitating smaller projectile points. 

Communal hunting continued, but researchers have 

suggested that smaller hunting groups were used 

at various times of the year. There is also more evidence of processing of vegetal resources suggesting 

reliance on a broader spectrum of resources. 

Late Prehistoric 

Late Prehistoric Period lasts from A.D. 200–1750 

A.D. During this phase prehistoric people moved 

out onto the prairies and new technologies were 

introduced including the bow and arrow and pottery. Complexes included in this tradition include 

Besant, Avalonea, Benson’s, Butte–Beehive, and 

Old Women’s. The Besant complex represents the 

earliest adoption of pottery and bow and arrow use 

in this area of the northern Great Plains. 

Horses were not in widespread use in the 

northern plains until A.D. 1725-A.D. 1750. Bison 

continued to be the primary resource exploited by 

Protohistoric groups, but the addition of the horse to 

hunting techniques drastically affected social organization, settlement patterns and effectiveness of bison hunting. Protohistoric people were able to react 

more quickly to the movements of the bison herds, 

were able to hunt further away from basecamps and 

began to leave women and children in camps while 

hunting. 

HISTORIC PERIOD 

During this period, trade goods and interaction between European settlers and tribal people began 

to directly affect aboriginal lifeways. This process 

started well before European settlers reached the 

area. Trade goods and the desire for them changed 

Native American lifeways by shifting hunting activities for household consumption to a means to 

obtain trade goods. As more aboriginal people were 

being pushed into the northern Great Plains, conflict between tribes in search of bison became more 

frequent. Taking control of territories for hunting 

grounds and high mobility became increasingly important. 

Native American History 

The origin of aboriginal groups in Montana before 

1500 is debated by archaeologists and linguists. In 

eastern Montana, by the 1600s, it is generally accepted that the River Crow were situated on the 

Missouri River and the Mountain Crow along the 

Yellowstone. The Blackfoot were situated northwest 

of the River Crow into Canada and the Assiniboine 

to the northeast of the River Crow into Canada. 

Western and northwestern Montana were inhabited 

by the Bitterroot Salish, upper Pend d’Oreilles and 

Kootenai who are now known as the Confederated 

Kootenai and Salish Tribes (CKST). 

Highway 200 near Ovando, Montana, in the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area . 

J. Salisbury 
106 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

In the late 18th century, increased movement 

of European settlers in the northern plains caused 

the first outbreaks of smallpox among Montana’s 

native people (Fandrich and Peterson 2005). By 1781 

reports in Saskatchewan Canada relate that 30–60 

percent of the native population was lost. Diseases 

introduced by European settlers would greatly affect tribal politics and warfare because the loss of 

population numbers forced certain tribes to create 

partnerships that would allow them to defend themselves against native enemies. Anglo contacts grew 

more frequent with ongoing movement of riverboats 

associated with the fur trade and discovery of gold 

in western Montana. This increased opportunities 

for diseases to spread through the native populations. With the introduction of the steam-powered 

riverboats using the Missouri River to ship supplies, 

diseases were able to move faster across the region. 

In 1837 the riverboat St. Peter carried smallpox 

to Fort Union (Fandrich and Peterson 2005). The 

Captain, Alexander Culbertson, wanted to halt the 

progress of the riverboat until the outbreak of smallpox had ended. However, the Piegan and Bloods 

were awaiting supplies and the boat continued to 

Fort McKenzie spreading smallpox. The Gros Ventre, Sioux and Plains Cree did not experience radical 

population losses from the outbreak. 

During the 1880s the climate and conditions for 

native people in Montana were at their worst. The 

bison were now gone from the area and a series of 

harsh winters left most tribal populations without 

adequate food. Government supplies were not sufficient to feed the tribal populations and without 

bison hunting for supplemental nutrition, starvation 

ensued. 

Lewis and Clark 

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson organized the Corps of 

Discovery after the Louisiana Purchase from the 

French ended any European claim to the land. At 

this time, this part of the western United States was 

largely undocumented. Jefferson realized the need 

to survey the area in preparation for settlement and 

was in search of a Northwest Passage to the Orient. At that time there was no navigable route that 

connected Eastern and Western North America, 

requiring ships to sail around South America and 

Africa. Ultimately this goal of the Corps was not 

realized because the route was difficult to navigate 

and required several portages making movement 

of large watercraft unpractical. When the Corps 

of Discovery returned to Saint Louis they brought 

with them field maps documenting the locations of 

waterways and resources they had encountered. The 

Corps found large numbers of wild furs and wildlife 

that inhabited the region and would later spur the 

fur trade. Several Lewis and Clark campsites are 

known along the upper Missouri River and Meriwether Lewis is known to have camped in Lincoln 

Gulch in the Blackfoot Valley. 

Although the Lewis and Clark expeditions of the 

region are generally thought of as the first Anglo 

visitors to the Upper Missouri, they were predated 

by French Canadian trappers and traders in the 

18th century working with the Hudson’s Bay Company. Historians believe that one major reason for 

the Corps of Discovery expedition was to thwart the 

Hudson’s Bay Company’s interest in the area. This 

is suggested by the 1816 amendments to trade laws 

preventing foreign agents from doing business on 

American soil without obtaining a license. 

Historic Euro-Americans 

The post-Lewis and Clark historic period in central 

and northern Montana can be divided into three generalized periods based on the major type of economic 

activity—fur trade era, ranching era, and railroad 

era. 

FUR TRADE ERA 

With the rise of beaverpelt prices, in the 19th century, more European settlers came to the upper Missouri River to trap and trade furs. Once the beaver 

were trapped out of the region, the fur trade shifted 

to the bison robe trade. Fort Benton was constructed to support these industries as the furthest 

inland port in the continental United States. Fort 

Lewis was constructed in 1831 and was abandoned 

after the Blackfeet requested that the fort be moved 

to the north side of the river in 1846. Several smaller 

forts were established downstream on the Missouri 

River from Fort Benton to the North Dakota border 

for two reasons: (1) forts allowed the tribes easy access to traders for their furs; and (2) the riverboats 

coming from Saint Louis often could not get further 

up river from Fort Benton because the river became 

shallower upstream. Fort Benton served as a hub of 

transport for supplies and people because the town 

was connected by a road network leading to gold 

mining communities, which were becoming established in the mountainous areas of western Montana. 

By the 1820s, the American Fur Company began 

to sponsor small forts along the river to secure a 

share of the trade in animal products from native 

and white trappers. This company was owned by 

John Jacob Aster who was later to become one of 

the wealthiest men in the country by taking the 

money made in this enterprise and buying real estate. Several forts were established to compete with 

the American Fur Company, but most failed due 

to the fierce competition with the company or frequent attacks by native people. One reason so many 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 107 

forts, trading posts and riverboat landings were 

constructed was due to the difficulty with getting 

up river from the area of modern day Fred Robinson bridge (at the boundary of Phillips and Fergus 

Counties) to Fort Benton. The stretch of river from 

Cow Island to Fort Benton was known as Rocky 

River marking the point where elevation increased 

approximately 2 foot per mile as one went upstream 

(Davy 1992). From the area downstream of Rocky 

River, riverboats could be unloaded and freight put 

on wagons to be hauled to Helena, Fort Benton or 

the Judith Mountains. In sum, 31 trading posts were 

built on the Missouri River between the North Dakota boundary to Fort Benton between 1828 and 

1885 (Davy 1992). 

Throughout the 19th century, the fur trade in 

Montana depended on riverboats to move the goods 

to and from the region. The tribes as well as Anglo trappers were involved in the trade and there 

were frequent conflicts between the two groups. 

Some of the aboriginal groups opposed trading 

with European settlers altogether. The Assiniboine 

supported the establishment of Fort Union while 

the Blackfoot and Gros Ventre did not. Originally 

the trade consisted of beaverpelts, but in the 1840s 

the animals had been overexploited and fur prices 

dropped, changing the focus of trade to bison robes. 

Growth of this industry was rapid as 2,600 bison 

robes were sent east annually in the early 1800s, 

whereas approximately 90,000 or more would be 

shipped annually from St. Louis by the 1850s. By 

1850, the tribes depended on trade goods, which 

they obtained through the bison robe trade. Tribal 

involvement increased conflict between aboriginal 

groups because the tribal hunting grounds were the 

key to supporting trade. 

With the discovery of gold in western Montana 

in the 1860s and the development of the fur trade, 

steamboat travel was a vital supply line to towns 

such as Fort Benton and Helena who had few other 

choices for travel because of the lack of well-established roads or railways to supply these towns. 

Food, supplies and trade goods required for miners 

and trappers would be hauled up from St. Louis and 

goods such as furs, bison robes, and gold, would be 

sent downstream to the markets. Steamboat traffic 

was common on the river from 1859 until 1888 averaging about 20 boats a year. In the years between 

1860 and 1869 the river averaged 34 boats per year, 

making this the highlight of riverboat use on the Upper Missouri. 

Mullan Road was constructed from 1858 to1862 

by the Federal Government to connect Fort Walla 

Walla in Washington State to Fort Benton. It was 

designed to bring settlers into the region and make 

military expeditions possible due to the rising conflicts between European settlers and native people. 

The road also provided a route to carry supplies 

into western Montana for the early mining operations and link the west coast to the Missouri River. 

Before the introduction of railways to Montana, this 

route was the first established passageway from the 

Rocky Mountains to the inland Northwest. During 

its active life, the road is estimated to have brought 

20,000 civilians to the region. Mullan Road was listed 

on the National Register of Historic places in 1975. 

A section of the road is thought to occur on the Benton Lake Refuge, however, documentation confirming this is currently lacking. 

RANCHING ERA 

Because of the difficulty of transporting locally produced products from Montana, ranching began as 

small operations providing beef to miners, primarily in the western part of the State. Early mining 

was focused on deposits of placer gold. This work 

began in 1862–4 and was situated at Bannack, Virginia City, Helena, and Confederate Gulch. Because 

the railroads had not been constructed, goods were 

transported between Saint Louis and Fort Benton 

by keel boat, which added cost to food (as well as 

other products) and allowed small, local ranching 

outfits to make profits on these developing local markets. Due to the difficulty of agriculture, ranching 

was the preferred mode of food production at this 

time. Eventually steam-powered riverboats were 

used to move the goods. In 1866 the first cattle drive 

from Texas took place, which started open-range 

ranching in the grasslands that were vacant after 

the destruction of the bison herds. Mid-nineteenth 

century ranching operations in Montana were 

fairly unorganized and consisted of both corporate 

interests and small ranches. Cattle depended on 

open range for grazing because there was little 

hay production due to the cost of irrigating. The 

management styles of the different operations and 

the lack of fencing caused difficulties from many 

sources including overstocking, loss of cattle from 

mavericking and outright theft. Mavericking was 

the process of branding unbranded calves (calves 

that lacked a branded mother by which to identify 

the owner). Because cattle were left on the open 

range, there were two roundups held in the fall and 

spring used to manage the cattle. By the early 1880s, 

17 districts statewide had been established to make 

rules for the roundups. These districts were based 

on natural boundaries. In each of the districts, the 

ranches worked communally during the roundup to 

gather the free-ranging cattle in their district. The 

cattle were sorted by brand and rules were established among the districts to encourage fairness in 

branding. For instance, use of branding irons was 

prohibited at any time except during the roundups 

(Malone et al. 1976). Decisions were also made about 
108 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

unbranded calves at the roundup. In some cases, the 

calves would be branded with the brand in the area 

managed by the ranch in which they were found. 

Some districts considered unbranded calves as district property and sold them to help the district. 

Mavericking was common and was a way to quickly 

increase the size of the owner’s herd at no cost. Also 

during the 1880s, railways had been constructed 

across the State linking it more directly with large 

cattle markets in the east and west, making the business of ranching cattle more profitable. The long 

drives, used before the railroad, reduced the value of 

the herd and were more expensive than loading the 

cattle onto a train. 

This system of ranching was successful until the 

winter of 1886–7 when particularly severe weather 

and overstocking caused the loss of a great deal of 

the State’s cattle. Overgrazing on the ranges and 

a very hot, dry summer left the forage in poor condition that fall. Low temperatures and precipitation kept the forage covered for most of the winter, 

which resulted in a massive die-off because storage 

of hay had not become common practice and there 

was no reserve of food for the cattle in winter. Although losses varied in different parts of the State, 

overall about 60 percent of the cattle were lost 

(Davy 1992). Of the 220 cattle operations statewide, 

before that winter, 120 financially survived. 

The winter of 1886–7 changed cattle ranching 

in Montana in several significant ways. Open range 

grazing was practiced in fewer and fewer areas 

during the following decades because of the risk of 

a similar catastrophe. Large operators, who were 

financed with money from the east, lost support 

from their investors and downsized or ceased operations completely. Many of the small operators 

fared the winter better because they were more 

prone to store up hay to feed their cattle over winter. Between 1887 and 1889 the number of ranches 

increased significantly, and by 1890 the ranges carried more cattle than before the 1886–7 winter. The 

amount of land devoted to hay cropping tripled 

during this period. Sheep, which are more able to 

withstand the severe weather, were less affected by 

the 1886–7 winter and many ranchers converted to 

sheep ranching in the 1890s. This change was so profound that by 1900 Montana was the Nation’s largest 

wool producer with 6 million head. 

RAILROAD ERA 

During the 1880s, railroads were established, linking eastern Montana to large cities and markets 

for the natural resources that were available for 

exploitation at the time. With the establishment of 

the railways, movement of goods was faster, more 

predictable and cheaper than riverboat travel along 

the Missouri. With the addition of the railroad to 

the State’s transportation system, the 

reliable movement of cattle to large 

markets in the east was made sure. 

By 1900, a homestead boom began that would 

last until 1918. Initial settlement of the region was 

in river bottoms that were readily cultivated. Settlement was spurred by the cheap transportation by 

railways, profitable shipment of grain to market and 

advertisement campaigns by the railroad companies 

for free land. The Federal Government had given 

the railways land along tracks to pay them for the 

construction costs. When an area was settled, the 

railroads would not only be able to sell the land, but 

would also create more traffic for freight as the settlers would need to move their products to market. 

The homestead boom was so intense that Montana 

had more homestead entries than any other State. 

The boom continued successfully as high moisture 

during the period of 1909–16 made dry farming of 

cereal grains successful. Shipping grain by rail made 

moving the grain to large eastern markets financially profitable and reliable. Once conditions became 

drier, the farming boom ended as farmers began to 

understand the lack of predictable moisture in the 

eastern part of the State limited dryland farming. 

This, in combination with the Great Depression, 

caused a mass exodus from Montana in which half 

of Montana farmers lost their farms between 1921 

and 1925. Predictable water for farming in most of 

Montana would be addressed at this time with largescale Federal Government supported irrigation. 

Baird’s sparrow 

© Bob Gress 

HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY 

OF THE REFUGE COMPLEX 

The refuge complex has a rich history, including 

several cultural resource sites. 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 109 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Originally Benton Lake was known as Alkali pond. 

In 1887, local farmers attempted to use the lake’s 

water for irrigation and constructed Benton Lake 

Canal. Promoters of the project believed it would 

open a million acres for settlement by farmers. Unfortunately the promoters did not anticipate the 

shallow nature of the lake and its vulnerability to 

drought. At the urging of local sportsman in 1929, 

Montana Congressman Scott Leavitt proposed having several thousand acres of the project set aside 

for a refuge. The county commissioners did not initially support the idea because they believed the 

land would be best used for settlement by farmers. 

In the fall of 1929, President Hoover established the 

refuge by Executive order. In 1931, the lake dried 

up and a canal project was started by sportsmen 

and women to bring water back into the lake. The 

proposed canal would have to be 30 miles long, connecting the lake to the Sun River. This project was 

cancelled and the issue would not be revisited until 

1957 when The U.S. Congress appropriated $90,000 

for a pump station and ditches to divert water from 

Muddy Creek. 

The main county road bisecting the refuge to the 

north called Bootlegger Trail received its name during the Prohibition Era (1916–33). The road is known 

from the 19th century as a thoroughfare connecting 

farms to Great Falls. During Prohibition, it became 

the major route in the area for obtaining legally produced alcohol from Canada. This alcohol would be 

resold illegally to northwestern Montana residents. 

ARCHAEOLOGY 

Limited archaeological surveys have taken place on 

the refuge associated with the construction of dikes, 

a prescribed fire survey and several canal segment 

constructions. The refuge supports a section of both 

Mullan Road and Benton Lake Canal. The section 

of Mullan Road on the refuge was listed on the National Register in 1975. It is located in native prairie 

and the refuge has no immediate plans for disturbing 

the area. 

The most substantial cultural resources survey conducted on the refuge is a 560-acre survey 

of Bootlegger Trail for a Montana Department of 

Transportation road improvement. During this 

project, three sites were identified on Service land 

including Benton Lake Canal 24CA974, Bootlegger Ponds 24CA975 and Slate Pit 24CA976. The 

Benton Lake Canal was found eligible for the National Register while Bootlegger Ponds and Slate 

Pit were found not eligible (Frontier Historical Consultants 2004). Benton Lake Canal was conceived in 

1887 when local farmers cut a 1.25-mile-long canal 

26 feet deep to obtain Benton Lake’s water for irrigation. Slate pit was a historic and modern mining 

operation, which was mostly removed at the time of 

recording in 2004. Bootlegger Ponds consist of 2 erosion check dams and 1 stock water pond presumed 

to have been built during the 1931 road construction 

project. 

Recently, miscellaneous small surveys have 

been conducted for refuge projects. Loflin (2006) 

conducted survey for 180 acres for a control burn 

next to Benton Lake. No cultural resources were 

observed. In 2005 Loflin surveyed 6.5 acres near the 

Lake Creek ditch next to Benton Lake in preparation for an upgrade of the ditch. Although no sites 

were found the researcher observed an isolated 

lithic flake suggesting that there was some prehistoric occupation of the lake margin, but because the 

lake size has been altered, it is likely that the sites 

may have been inundated (Loflin 2005). 

In 2008, Alberta Tie, LTD, contracted with the 

University of Arizona to conduct a Traditional use 

study along a corridor just east of the refuge with 

the Blackfeet and Piegan tribes (Zedeno and Murray 

2008). This study was in preparation for a 120-milelong electrical transmission line connecting Great 

Falls to Canada. Four traditional use areas including 

locations of burials, plant gathering areas and ceremonial locations were identified suggesting that the 

Blackfeet have traditional use and ongoing interest 

in the area. 

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

Beginning in the early 1900s, efforts to increase opportunity for small grain farming in the region began with the initiation of the Sun River Reclamation 

Project, later known as the Sun River Irrigation 

Project. This Sun River project was authorized by 

the Secretary of the Interior in 1906 and contains 

more than 100,000 acres of potentially irrigated 

land along the Sun River and its tributaries west of 

Benton Lake (Knapton et al. 1988). The Sun River 

project contains two major divisions. The Fort Shaw 

Irrigation Division that borders the Sun River contains about 10,000 acres and the Greenfields Irrigation Division, contains about 83,000 acres. 

Construction of the Fort Shaw Division began in 

1907, and the first water was delivered to Division 

farmlands in 1909 (Knapton et al. 1988). Construction of facilities within the Greenfields Irrigation 

Division began in 1913, and the first water was delivered to area grain farmers in 1920. The main storage 

structure, Gibson Reservoir was constructed on 

the upper Sun River during 1922–9. Approximately 

300 miles of canals and lateral distribution ditches 

distribute water across the Greenfields Bench. 
110 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

The development of the Greenfields Irrigation 

Division dramatically changed the landscape within 

large parts of the district and influenced land use 

near Benton Lake Refuge. During this time, native grassland was converted to irrigated cropland, 

mostly wheat and barley, and pasture–hayland. The 

advent of increased small grain production in the 

region and accompanying storage, transportation, 

and milling facilities encouraged grain production 

outside of the irrigation division also. Much of the 

native grassland in the district was converted from 

native grassland to dryland cropland. The predominant crops grown in this area until the 1980s were 

wheat, barley, oats, and flax using crop–fallow rotations where alternating linear fields were either 

cropped or kept fallow (free of vegetation using tillage or chemical treatments) for 1–2 years. Since the 

mid-1980s, more than 60 percent of the cropland in 

the Greenfields Division has been contracted for 

growing malting barley, which has improved the 

financial sustainability of cropping lands in the area 

and has provided more than $20 million annual return. 

ARCHAEOLOGY 

Three of the district’s waterfowl production areas 

have documented, prehistoric and historic sites. 

Blackfoot WPA 

Based on the limited amount of field inventory conducted on Service land, seven cultural resource sites 

have been recorded: six are prehistoric and one is 

historic. The prehistoric sites consist of lithic scatters, and their ages are unknown. The historic site 

consists of an old road that was the main road to the 

area. None of the sites have been formally evaluated 

for eligibility to the National Register of Historic 

Places. A cultural resource survey on timbered parts 

of the Blackfoot WPA is planned. 

Three areas on lands next to the Blackfoot WPA 

have been identified as containing culturally significant ponderosa pine peeled trees and vegetatively 

significant ponderosa pine trees (BLM 2010). 

These pine peeled trees have also been documented in Colorado and Utah, and are referred to 

as culturally modified trees. It is believed the peeled 

trees were used occasionally by native people as a 

sealant, glue, medicine, or sweetener (Loosle 2003). 

The bark was usually collected when the sugary sap 

was running in the spring. Bark sheets were cut 

from trees using wooden sticks or rib bones from 

elk. The inner and outer bark was separated and 

could either be eaten fresh or rolled into balls that 

could be stored for later use. Harvesting methods 

did not kill the tree (Ostlund et al. 2005). Surviving 

trees exhibit distinctive peeling scars. These trees 

are found throughout northwestern Montana and 

can now be used to interpret native peoples’ land use 

and movements. 

Ehli WPA 

A single, historic, late-nineteenth- to mid-twentieth 

century farmstead has been recorded at Ehli WPA 

(Loflin 2007). This work was done in preparation 

for debris removal for a farmstead on the waterfowl 

production area and no other survey was conducted. 

At the time of recordation, all of the buildings except 

a recycled rail car had collapsed. The site was found 

not eligible for the National Register and the debris 

associated with the farmstead has been removed. 

The Montana State Historic Preservation Office has 

concurred with the findings. 

H2–O WPA 

About 470 acres of archaeological survey have been 

conducted at H2–O WPA (Schwab 1994). During 

this survey for wetland repairs, four prehistoric 

lithic scatters and two historic sites were found. The 

two historic sites (McCormick ditch 24PW623 and 

McCormick farmstead 24PW618) were found potentially eligible for the National Register and need 

further investigation if work is proposed near them. 

The McCormick farmstead (24PW618) was found 

not eligible by the contractor, but the Montana State 

Historic Preservation Office did not concur. The unresolved National Register eligibility of 24PW618 is 

an ongoing issue for the waterfowl production area. 

In 2005, the Service proposed to build a new office 

at the H2–O headquarters. Service staff again found 

that 24PW618 was not eligible for the National Register due loss of integrity of the farmstead (Loflin 

2005). The Montana State Historic Preservation 

Office disagreed stating that not enough historic research had been conducted. The Service forwarded 

the project to the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation who has requested more information. 

This issue will be revisited when the refuge decides 

to pursue the project again. 

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas 

These lands remain in private ownership; therefore, 

Federal laws pertaining to the protection and management of cultural resources do not apply to these 

units. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

Although no formal survey of this refuge has been 

conducted, in 2009 refuge cultural resources staff 

recorded a historic muskrat farm on the refuge (Loflin 2010). This work was done in preparation for the 

disposal of a small log building known as Trapper’s 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 111 

Cabin. The cabin is on the river’s edge and refuge 

staff were concerned it was going to fall into the 

river. The residence associated with this building 

has completely collapsed and Service cultural resources staff documented that the building had lost 

too much integrity to be considered National Register eligible. The Montana State Historic Preservation Office has concurred (Brown 2011) and the cabin 

is in the process of being transferred. 

4 .5 Special 

Management Areas 

Management of areas with official designations takes 

into consideration the special features that led to 

their designation. 

WILDERNESS REVIEW 

A wilderness review is the process used for deciding 

whether to recommend Service lands or waters to 

the U.S. Congress for designation as wilderness. 

The Service is required to conduct a wilderness review for each refuge as part of the CCP process. 

Lands or waters that meet the minimum criteria 

for wilderness would be identified in a CCP and further evaluated to decide whether or not they merit 

recommendation for inclusion in the Wilderness System. To be designated a wilderness, lands must meet 

certain criteria as outlined in the Wilderness Act of 

1964: 

■■ Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

human work substantially unnoticeable. 

■■ Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation. 

■■ Has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient 

size to make practicable its preservation and use 

in an unimpaired condition. 

■■ May also contain ecological, geological, or other 

features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. 

The Benton Lake Refuge meets the wilderness criteria for size and for scientific, scenic, and ecological 

value, but are affected by roads, fences, and extensive human effects from livestock grazing and wetland modifications, which preclude the refuge from 

being designated as a wilderness. 

IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS 

The Benton Lake Refuge and approximately 13,284 

acres of the Blackfoot Valley have been designated 

as an important bird area through a program administered by the National Audubon Society. Important bird areas are sites that provide essential 

habitat for one or more species of birds. These areas 

include sites for breeding, wintering, or migrating 

birds. Important bird areas may be a few acres or 

thousands of acres, but usually they are discrete 

sites that stand out from the surrounding landscape. 

Important bird areas may include public or private 

lands, or both, and they may be protected or unprotected (National Audubon Society 2010). To qualify 

as an important bird area, sites must satisfy at least 

one of the following criteria to support the following 

types of bird species groups: 

■■ Species of conservation concern (for example, 

threatened and endangered species) 

■■ Restricted-range species (species vulnerable because they are not widely distributed) 

■■ Species that are vulnerable because their populations are concentrated in one general habitat 

type or biome 

■■ Species or groups of similar species (such as waterfowl or shorebirds) that are vulnerable because they occur at high densities due to their 

behavior of congregating in groups 

■■ Of the more than 240 species of birds documented 

on the Benton Lake Refuge, 17 species of global 

and continental conservation concern breed on 

the refuge: 

■■ Global Concern—ferruginous hawk, piping plover, long-billed curlew, Sprague’s pipit, Brewer’s 

sparrow, chestnut-collared longspur 

■■ Continental Concern—northern harrier, Swainson’s hawk, upland sandpiper, marbled godwit, 

Wilson’s phalarope, common tern, burrowing owl, 

short-eared owl, loggerhead shrike, Baird’s sparrow, McCown’s longspur 
112 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE 

SHOREBIRD RESERVE 

NETWORK 

Because of the concentrations of migrating shorebirds that have been observed in some years, the 

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network 

recognizes the Benton Lake Refuge as a site of regional importance. 

4 .6 Visitor Services 

Visitors to the refuge complex enjoy a variety of 

wildlife-dependent public use activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation (figure 13). 

Brochures containing area maps, public use regulations, bird species, and general information are 

available for the units in the refuge complex. Table 9 

shows the number of visitors participating in various 

wildlife-dependent activities and volunteer hours 

for each unit of the complex. All visitor services information for Benton Lake Refuge can be found in 

chapter 7. 

Table 9 . Actual Annual Performance Plan for 2011for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Refuge Complex Benton Lake Benton Lake Swan River 

Total Refuge Wetland Manage- Refuge 

ment District 

Total number of visitors 13,280 10,000 2,780 500 

Number of Special Events hosted 10 3 7 0 

on- and off-site 

Number of participants in special 525 75 450 0 

events onsite 

Visitors to Visitor Center or Contact 1,000 1,000 n/a 0 

Station 

Waterfowl hunt visits 555 300 155 100 

Other migratory bird hunt visits 12 0 12 0 

Upland game hunt visits 825 75 750 0 

Big game hunt visits 455 0 455 0 

Total hunting visits 1,847 375 1,372 100 

Fishing visits 425 50 350 25 

Number of foot trail/pedestrian visits 1,420 750 270 400 

Number of Auto Tour visits 6,810 6,500 310 n/a 

Number of boat trail/launch visits 0 0 0 0 

Total wildlife observation visits 8,230 7,250 580 400 

Number of photography participants 490 400 50 40 

Number of education participants 1,765 1,700 55 10 

involved in on- and off-site environ

mental education programs 

Number of interpretation partici 120 75 45 0 

pants in on- and off-site talks/pro

grams 

Total other recreational participants 205 75 30 100 

Number of volunteers 4 1 0 3 

­

­

­
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 113
 

Figure 13 . Map of public use at Swan River National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 
114 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

APPROPRIATENESS 


AND COMPATIBILITY
 

In general, national wildlife refuges are closed to 

all public use until specifically opened. Waterfowl 

production areas are inherently open to migratory 

gamebird hunting, upland gamebird hunting, big 

game hunting, fishing, and trapping and closed to all 

other uses unless specifically opened. 

Existing and proposed uses of national wildlife 

refuges where the Service has jurisdiction over the 

use need to be screened for appropriateness before 

compatibility. For a use on a refuge to be found appropriate, it must meet one of the following criteria: (1) be a priority public use; (2) be described in 

a refuge management plan approved after October 

9, 1997; (3) is take of fish and wildlife under State 

regulations; and (4) be found appropriate as specified 

in 603 FW 1 Sec 1.11. Uses that are not appropriate 

are to be denied without determining compatibility. 

One such use deemed not appropriate came 

up during public scoping. A commercial outfitter 

requested to conduct guided hunting on the Swan 

River Refuge. A formal evaluation was conducted 

using the criteria noted above; and guided waterfowl hunting was found to be “Not Appropriate” on 

the Swan River Refuge for the following reasons. 

To be permitted on a National Wildlife Refuge, an 

economic use must contribute to “the achievement of 

the national wildlife refuge purposes or the National 

Wildlife Refuge System mission” (50 CFR 29.1). 

Guided waterfowl hunting would not contribute to 

the purpose of the Swan River Refuge, which is “for 

use as an inviolate sanctuary... for migratory birds”. 

Additionally, this use was found to be “not appropriate” because it would not further enhance public understanding or be beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources. The current hunting program 

on the refuge provides relatively easy access to a 

quality recreational hunting experience, and the refuge complex has not received any public comments 

or requests from hunters indicating the need for a 

guided hunt. There is also concern that competition 

from a commercial operation for the “best” hunting 

locations could impair the potential for nonguided 

hunters to experience a quality hunt. 

Uses that are found appropriate must still have 

a compatibility determination. A compatible use is a 

use that will not materially interfere with or detract 

from the fulfillment of the Refuge System mission 

or the purposes of the refuge. A compatibility determination is written documentation by the refuge 

manager of a proposed or existing use of a refuge to 

decide if it is or is not compatible with the purpose 

the refuge was established. Refuge management activities are not subject to compatibility, unless that 

activity produces a commodity (for example, haying, 

grazing, timber harvest, and trapping.). 

A use that is found compatible does not necessarily mean it is approved. For administration reasons, 

the refuge manager may deny a compatible use. This 

process includes a public comment period and concurrence is required from the refuges regional chief. 

Lastly, the compatibility policy has no administrative mechanism to appeal a compatibility determination. 

All existing and proposed uses will go through 

this screening process. These policies make sure that 

each approved use will be conducted in accordance 

with the legal mandates and policies for which each 

refuge was established, and that each use complies 

with station budget and staff levels. 

Economic uses are only allowed on national wildlife refuges as described in 50 CFR 29.1 in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 715s. The use must contribute 

to the achievement of the national wildlife refuge 

purposes or the National Wildlife Refuge System 

mission. Specific uses must be compatible and can 

only be authorized with the proper permit. 50CFR 

29.1 states, “Economic use in this section includes 

but is not limited to grazing livestock, or engaging 

in operations that facilitate approved programs on 

national wildlife refuges.” 

HUNTING 

Hunting is one of the six priority recreational uses 

identified in the Improvement Act. All recreational 

activities are secondary to the primary purpose for 

which the refuge unit was established and must be 

compatible. In FY 2011, hunting accounted for 1,847 

recreational visits to the refuge complex, which is 14 

percent of the total visitor use. The highest hunting 

use occurs on the district. 

In addition to the site-specific regulations mentioned below, all State hunting regulations apply 

to Service lands in the refuge complex. Shotgun 

hunters may only possess and use nontoxic shot on 

fee title lands within the refuge complex, and vehicle 

travel and parking is restricted to roads, pullouts, 

and parking areas. 

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District 

All waterfowl production areas in the district, except the Sands and H2–O WPAs, are open to migratory gamebird hunting, upland gamebird hunting, 

big game hunting, fishing, and trapping in accordance with Montana State law. The Sands and H2-O 

WPAs were donated to the Service with deed re­
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 115 

strictions that prohibit hunting. Travel on the waterfowl production areas is by foot or nonmotorized 

boats. No camping, overnight parking, or fires are 

permitted on waterfowl production areas. The one 

exception is Arod Lakes WPA which is cooperatively managed with MFWP. State provided facilities include a boat ramp that allows motorized boats, 

a small, designated camping area and limited motorized vehicle access for ice fishing three months of the 

year. 

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas 

Hunting is popular throughout the project areas. 

Hunting for a variety of wildlife includes waterfowl, 

upland gamebirds, elk, moose, deer, black bear, bighorn sheep, mountain lion, and furbearers. Public 

access to conservation easement lands is under the 

control of the landowner. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

On the refuge, approximately 100 annual hunter visits occur. The area of the refuge north of Bog Road is 

open for waterfowl hunting and closed for all other 

species. Big game and upland game hunting is not 

authorized on the refuge. Guided hunting opportunities are not authorized on the refuge. 

FISHING 

National wildlife refuges may be opened to sportfishing only after a determination is made that this 

activity is compatible with the purposes for which 

the refuge was established. In addition, the sportfishing program must be consistent with principles 

of sound fishery management and otherwise be in 

the public interest. Lands acquired as waterfowl 

production areas are open to sportfishing subject to 

the provisions of State laws and regulations. Fishing 

or entry on all or any part of individual areas may 

be temporarily suspended by posting on occasions of 

unusual or critical conditions of, or because of situations affecting, land, water, vegetation or fish and 

wildlife populations. In FY 2011, fishing accounted 

for 425 recreational visits to the refuge complex, 

which is 3 percent of the total visitor use for the 

refuge complex. 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge offers no fishing opportunities due to a 

lack of sport fish on the refuge. The Pumphouse Unit 

is open for walk-in access to Muddy Creek, which 

provides trout-fishing opportunities. More information about fishing may be found in chapter 7. 

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District 

The Arod Lakes and Blackfoot WPAs are open to 

fishing. Arod Lakes WPA, where yellow perch and 

northern pike are plentiful, receives the bulk of fishing visits in the refuge complex. 

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas 

Public access to conservation easement lands is under the control of the landowner and subject to State 

stream access laws. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge is open to fishing in accordance with 

State regulations with a closure from March 1 until 

July 15 to protect nesting migratory birds. 

TRAPPING 

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District 

With the exception of Sands and H2-O WPAs, recreational trapping is permitted on waterfowl production areas in accordance with State regulations. 

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas 

Public access to conservation easement lands is under the control of the landowner. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

Recreational trapping is prohibited on the refuge. 

Trapping by special use permit occurs for wildlife 

and infrastructure management purposes only. 

WILDLIFE OBSERVATION 

AND PHOTOGRAPHY 

Wildlife observation and photography are popular 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities at the refuge complex. A variety of habitats and many species 

of wildlife throughout the refuge complex provides 

many observation and photography opportunities 
116 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

year-round. In FY 2011, wildlife observation and 

photography accounted for 8,230 and 490 recreational visits, respectively, which is 62 percent and 

4 percent of the total visitor use to the refuge complex. The Benton Lake Refuge received most of the 

visitation. 

To protect nesting birds and other wildlife, pets 

are required to be leashed and remain on designated 

roads and trails, except during the hunting season 

in the hunt area. Vehicles (both motorized and nonmotorized) must stay on designated roads. Off-road 

vehicle travel is strictly prohibited due to negative 

impacts to biological resources and disturbance to 

wildlife. 

Commercial filmmakers and still photographers 

must acquire a special use permit to work on Service 

lands. The permit specifies regulations and conditions that the permittee must follow to protect the 

wildlife and habitats they have come to capture on 

film and to prevent unreasonable disruption of other 

visitors enjoyment of the refuge complex. Commercial filming and photography on Service lands must 

also show a means (1) to generate the public’s appreciation and understanding of the refuge’s wildlife 

and their habitats and the value and mission of the 

Refuge System, or (2) to facilitate the outreach and 

education goals of the refuge complex. 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area . 

USFWS 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge offers the Prairie Marsh Wildlife 

Drive, a 9-mile self-guided auto tour route, as well 

as a Visitor Center, informational kiosk, a boardwalk 

trail with spotting scope, and a photography blind 

that is available on a first-come, first-served basis. 

More wildlife observation and photography opportunities are provided by a blind that is available 

by reservation in April and May for viewing the 

courting rituals of sharp-tailed grouse. The refuge 

also permits visitors to use their own temporary 

photography blinds along Prairie Marsh Wildlife 

Drive. Most visitors view wildlife from the auto tour 

route. More information about wildlife observation 

and photography may be found in chapter 7. 

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

Wildlife observation and photography is prohibited 

unless authorized on waterfowl production areas by 

special use permit or through compatibility determination. Currently, the waterfowl production areas 

are open to wildlife photography and observation. 

Parking areas provide easy access. 

Waterfowl production areas are open to foot traffic, including hiking, snowshoeing, and cross country 

skiing. Bicycle use is permitted only on roads open 

to vehicular traffic. Equestrian use is prohibited. 

Impacts to biological resources, such as introduction 

of invasive species and disturbance to wildlife during 

periods of nesting and migration, are a continuing 

concern. 

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas 

Public access to conservation easement lands is under the control of the landowner. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

Bog Road provides wildlife-viewing and photography opportunities and access to the interior of the 

refuge. The existing observation platform, kiosk, 

and interpretive panel and associated parking area 

also provide opportunity for wildlife observation and 

photography and are popular destination point while 

traveling through the Swan Valley. 

Foot traffic, including hiking, cross country skiing and snowshoeing is currently permitted north 

of Bog Road from July 16 through the end of February; however, access to Swan River NWR in winter 

months is difficult. Bog Road is not supported and 

typically is covered with several feet of snow. Parking is very limited on the refuge; therefore access is 

primarily from Swan Lake. The number of visitors 

using the refuge for cross country skiing or snowshoeing are very low; likely less than ten visitors per 

year. 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 117 

Equestrian and bicycle use are prohibited on 

Swan River NWR to limit impacts to biological resources, such as the introduction of invasive species 

and disturbance to wildlife during periods of nesting 

and migration. 

Boating is permitted on the Swan River in accordance with State regulations. Many visitors to the 

refuge use canoes or kayaks to travel up the river 

enjoying the sights and sounds of the refuge. Use 

of motor boats is controlled by the State “no wake” 

regulation which has reduced the impacts to the 

river shoreline. The use of boats on the Swan River 

is primarily done in the summer months of July and 

August. Outside of that period visitor use on the 

river is sporadic. 

“No-wake” is a State regulation that was adopted 

to curb motor boaters, and personal water craft users from running at top speed up the Swan River. 

The regulation is followed by most visitors and has 

increased use of the river by canoeists and kayakers. 

The “no-wake” regulation has reduced signs of erosion along the riverbanks, which would help native 

bull trout. The creation of a Federal no-wake regulation would take staff time and would not provide 

added benefits above the current situation. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 

AND INTERPRETATION 

Opportunities for environmental education and interpretation are abundant within the refuge complex. In FY 2011, for programs on and off of the 

refuge complex, environmental education accounted 

for 1,765 visits and interpretation accounted for 120 

recreational visits, which is 13 percent and 1 percent, respectively, of the total visitor use. In addition, 525 participants attended 10 special events on 

and off the refuge complex. 

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

Waterfowl production areas are open for environmental education and interpretation if they are 

found to be compatible. All waterfowl production 

areas in the district have the potential to be part of a 

structured environmental education and interpretation program. Currently, no such program exists due 

to the lack of environmental education staff in the 

refuge complex. Occasional environmental education 

events are held at the H2–O WPA in Powell County. 

These usually involve wetland education themes 

with grade school children from around the Blackfoot Valley. 

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas 

Public access to conservation easement lands is under the control of the landowner and no active interpretive or educational programming is occurring on 

easement lands. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

Currently, no formal environmental education or 

interpretation program exists at the refuge due to 

a lack of environmental education staff. The kiosk 

panels at the refuge, which are regulatory and informational, have been revised. Concrete work that 

provided a parking area, trail, and observation deck, 

all, of which, are accessible to people with disabilities, was completed in 2009. and construction of a 

new kiosk was completed in 2011. Interpretive panels on the viewing platform discuss biology of the 

marsh. There is currently very limited potential for 

staff led environmental education at the refuge due 

to the difficult access conditions on Bog Road and 

the lack of parking space. Bog Road provides access 

to the interior of the refuge. It is a one-lane gravel 

road that can become impassable in high water conditions or wet weather. 

4 .7 Operations 

Service operations consist of the staff, facilities, 

equipment, and supplies needed to administer resource management and public use programs 

throughout the refuge complex, which is located 

across a 12-county area covering more than 2,700 

square miles. Within this area, the Service is responsible for the protection of 163,304 acres of lands and 

waters. 

STAFF 

Currently, the refuge complex staff is comprised of 

9.5 permanent full-time employees (table 10). Since 

1998, the refuge complex has lost three positions— 

one full-time law enforcement position, one permanent biological science technician and a permanent 

maintenance worker. The current staff level remains 

well below the minimum prescribed in the June 2008 

Final Report—Staffing Model for Field Stations 

(USFWS 2008e), which recommended ¬adding 8 

staff members, including a general schedule (GS)–13 

refuge manager, GS–12 wildlife refuge specialist, 

GS–9 park ranger (visitor services specialist), GS–9 

park ranger (law enforcement), GS–12 wildlife biolo­
118 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

gist, wage grade (WG)–8 maintenance worker, and GS–6 biological science technician (0.5 full-time equivalent 

employee). 

Table 10 . Staff funded in fiscal year 2011 at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Permanent Staff 

Official Title Working Title Series/Grade FTE Assignment Stationed At 

Wildlife Refuge 

Manager 

Complex Manager GS-0485-14 1.0 Refuge Complex Benton Lake NWR 

Wildlife Refuge 

Manager 

Deputy Refuge 

Manager 

GS-0485-12 1.0 Refuge Complex Benton Lake NWR 

Wildlife Biologist Refuge Biologist GS-0486-12 1.0 Benton Lake NWR 

Supv. Wildlife 

Refuge Specialist 

Wetland District 

Manager 

GS-0485-12 1.0 District - all Benton Lake NWR 

Wildlife Refuge 

Specialist 

Wildlife Refuge 

Specialist 

GS-0485-11 0.5 District - Blackfoot H2-O WPA 

Wildlife Refuge 

Specialist 

Wildlife Refuge 

Specialist 

GS-0485-09 1.0 District - RMF Benton Lake NWR 

Maintenance 

Worker 

Maintenance 

Worker 

WG-4749-08 1.0 Benton Lake NWR Benton Lake NWR 

Assistant Fire 

Management Of

ficer 

AFMO GS-0401-09 1.0 Western Fire District Benton Lake NWR 

Administrative 

Officer 

Budget Specialist GS-0341-11 1.0 Refuge Complex Benton Lake NWR 

Budget Analyst Regional PCS/ 

Travel Coord. 

GS-0560-09 1.0 Refuge Complex Benton Lake NWR 

Temporary, Term, and Seasonal Staff (as money allows) 

Biological Science 

Tech (Term) 

Biological Science 

Tech (Term) 

GS-0404-06 0.8 Benton Lake NWR Benton Lake NWR 

Biological Science 

Tech (Temp) 

Biological Science 

Tech (Temp) 

GS-0404-06 0.5 Benton Lake NWR Benton Lake NWR 

Administrative 

Office Assistant 

Generalist GS-0303-04 0.5 Refuge Complex Benton Lake NWR 

­

FACILITIES 

Facilities are used to support habitat and wildlife 

management programs and wildlife-dependent public use activities. Facilities and real property assets 

are generally well supported throughout the refuge complex. The condition of real property assets 

affects the efficiency of staff to manage biological 

and visitor resources. The refuge complex has one 

full-time maintenance worker to support buildings, 

fences, and roads. 

Poorly functioning facilities and infrastructure 

(for example, pump house, water delivery ditches, 

levees, and water control structures) can affect 

wetland, grassland, and forest management activities throughout the refuge complex. Water delivery, 

storage, and release are fundamental for accomplishing some management objectives. Poorly functioning 

levees, water control structures, pump house, and 

delivery ditches would significantly reduce effectiveness of management. Interior and exterior fencing 

and boundary signing within the refuge complex 

are in need of further maintenance, which reduces 

efficiency and effectiveness of grassland and wetland 

management and resource protection. 

The condition of real property assets affects the 

efficiency of staff to manage visitor services. Visitors to the refuge complex expect facilities and real 

property assets such as offices, comfort stations, 

roadways, boardwalks, and kiosks to be in good condition, accessible, and contain correct information. 

Accessible facilities exist, but may not be strategically located to meet the needs of the users. 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 119 

VISITOR AND EMPLOYEE 

SAFETY AND RESOURCE 

PROTECTION 

Up until the end of FY 2011, the Benton Lake Refuge has had at least one dual-function law enforcement-commissioned officer position. A full-time law 

enforcement officer is critical to protect fish and 

wildlife resources along with staff and visitor safety. 

Within the last 4 years, the refuge complex has had 

a permanent full-time law enforcement position and 

up to two collateral duty positions. Currently, only 

one collateral duty officer exists throughout the refuge complex. 

Past violations on fee-title lands have primarily been hunting violations. Problems of vandalism, 

trespass issues, dumping, and general littering exist, but violators are not often apprehended by law 

enforcement. Seasonal closures are implemented 

throughout the refuge complex to protect sensitive 

wildlife resources. Minimizing disturbance to nesting migratory birds is of particular concern. Law 

enforcement officers on the refuge complex are also 

responsible for monitoring and enforcing easement 

contracts, which is a critical aspect of protecting 

wetland and grassland habitats. 

The current management routinely emphasizes 

safe work habits, use of personal protective equipment, and job hazard analyses in all work situations, 

including ones that seem relatively free of potential hazards. In FY 2009, the Regional Safety Office 

conducted an inspection at Benton Lake Refuge 

headquarters and compound that resulted in the correction of a small number of minor unsafe situations 

(for example, handrails need to connect to walls). In 

2009, there was only one employee on-the-job injury. 

Overall employee and visitor safety is at acceptable 

levels. 

4 .8 Partnerships 

The primary objectives of partnerships for conservation between the Service, private partners, nongovernmental organizations and others are to: 

■■ support biological diversity related to wildlife 

values, 

■■ link together existing protected areas, 

■■ preserve existing wildlife corridors, and 

■■ protect large, intact, functioning ecosystems, 

■■ while supporting the rural character and agricultural lifestyle of western Montana. 

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program continues to develop strong partnerships with private 

landowners along the Rocky Mountain Front and 

within the Blackfoot and Swan Valleys through the 

implementation of habitat restoration and management projects on private lands. Strong partnerships 

have also developed with a variety of agencies and 

organizations jointly involved to accomplish similar objectives through restoration and protection 

projects such as Trout Unlimited, TNC, The Conservation Fund, Ducks Unlimited, Natural Resource 

Conservation Service, MFWP, and the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 

Habitat restoration efforts currently focus on 

invasive weed treatment, wetlands, streams, native grasslands, and riparian areas. Typical projects 

include wetland restoration, riparian corridor enhancement (revegetation), instream restoration, 

invasive weed treatment programs, and the development of grazing systems to rejuvenate native grasslands. 

The Blackfoot River watershed has a history of 

pioneering innovative land management strategies 

to support working landscapes and the fish and wildlife that depend on them. Recognizing the strong 

tie between land and livelihood, private landowners 

have played a key role in conservation projects for 

more than three decades. One of the earliest efforts 

involved developing Montana’s enabling legislation 

for conservation easements, with the first conservation easement in Montana signed in the Blackfoot 

Valley in 1976. 

The mission of the Blackfoot Challenge, a private 

nonprofit organization, is to coordinate efforts that 

conserve and enhance the natural resources and rural way of life in the Blackfoot Valley for present and 

future generations developed out of this rich tradition. Their contributions are cornerstone for the 

successes within the valley. In 2006, the Blackfoot 

Challenge won the Innovations in American Government Award sponsored by the Ash Institute for 

Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard 

University’s Kennedy School of Government. 

Innovative partnerships continue to develop 

within northwest Montana. As part of the Blackfoot Community Project, for example, partners 

developed the 41,000-acre Blackfoot Community 

Conservation Area that involves community forest 

ownership of 5,609 acres and cooperative ecosystem 

management across public and private lands. As a 

multiple-use demonstration area, this project shows 

innovative access, land stewardship, and restora­
120 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

tion practices through management by a 15-member 

community-based council. 

TNC has been a leading influence on the acquisition of conservation easements along the Rocky 

Mountain Front, protecting more than 79,000 acres 

at a cost of $15.8 million over the past 30 years. In 

the past 5 years, TNC has provided $2.1 million in 

private money to the Service’s easement program 

within the project area. In addition, this partnership 

recently expanded to include the Conservation Fund 

and Richard King Mellon Foundation, both of whom 

have committed an added $15 million dollars in private money to buy conservation easements along the 

Rocky Mountain Front. 

In addition there are several grant programs 

administered by the Division of Ecological Services, 

available to tribes, States, and individual private 

landowners, for projects that help federally listed, 

proposed, or candidate species along the Rocky 

Mountain Front Conservation Area, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area and Swan Valley Conservation Area. 

4 .9 Socioeconomic 

Environment 

Most of the complex is open to public use including the compatible, wildlife-dependent uses of 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation. These 

recreational opportunities attract outside visitors 

and bring in dollars to the community. Associated 

visitor activity—such as spending on food, gasoline, 

and overnight lodging in the area—provides local 

businesses with supplemental income and increases 

the local tax base. Management decisions for the refuge complex about public use, expansion of services, 

and habitat improvement may either increase or 

decrease visitation to the refuge complex and, thus, 

affect the amount of visitor spending in the local 

economy. 

As part of the CCP process, the Service had a 

contractor prepare a socioeconomic study for the 

complex (USGS, PASA 2011), which is the basis for 

the following sections described below: population 

and employment, public use of the refuge complex, 

and baseline economic activity. 

REGIONAL ECONOMIC SETTING
 

For the purposes of an economic impact analysis, 

a region (and its economy) is typically defined as 

all counties within a 30-60 mile radius of the impact 

area. Only spending that takes place within this regional area is included as stimulating changes in 

economic activity. The size of the region influences 

both the amount of spending captured and the multiplier effects. Most of the economic activity related 

to the refuge complex is located within a twelvecounty region in northwestern Montana: Cascade, 

Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Missoula, Pondera, Powell, Teton, and Toole 

Counties. These counties compose the local economic 

region for this analysis. The complex headquarters is 

located at the Benton Lake Refuge, 12 miles north of 

Great Falls. 

During the last century, ranching, farming, mining, oil and natural gas development, and the railroad have been important factors in the social and 

economic history of the area. More recently, outdoor 

recreation and tourism have been increasingly important contributors to the local economies. The 

next sections describe the socioeconomic characteristics and trends in the twelve-county region. 

Population and Density 

Table 11 summarizes the population characteristics 

of Montana and the twelve counties in the complex’s 

local economic region. In 2009, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated the total population for the twelve 

counties to be 342,587 residents, or 35.1 percent of 

Montana’s total population. Three counties (Cascade, Lewis and Clark, and Missoula) accounted 

for 252,743 residents, or 74 percent of the residents 

in the twelve-county region. Missoula County was 

the most heavily populated with 108,623 residents, 

while Liberty County was the least populated with 

1,748 residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). Three 

counties had populations greater than 60,000 and six 

had populations less than 8,000. Montana’s population experienced an in-migration of residents from 

2000-2009, growing by nearly 8 percent (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2011a). Counties with larger populations 

grew more quickly than lesser populated counties. 

Cascade, Glacier, Hill, Lake, Lewis and Clark, and 

Missoula counties recorded population gains over 

the past decade while Chouteau, Liberty, Pondera, 

Powell, Toole, and Teton counties recorded population losses (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). Missoula 

County experienced the largest gain (13 percent) 

while Liberty County experienced the largest loss 

(19 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). 

To better understand the demographic profiles of 

these counties, it is useful to examine their population densities and compare these to the same figures 

for the major communities in the region. Generally, 

counties with larger populations tend to be more 

densely populated. Missoula County, the most populated county in the complex, has a population density 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 121 

of 42 persons per square mile. Cascade, Lake, and 

Lewis and Clark Counties (all heavily populated) 

follow similar patterns. Liberty County, the least 

populated county in the twelve-county region, has a 

population density of only 1 person per square mile. 

Chouteau, Pondera, Powell, Teton and Toole Counties (all sparsely populated) follow similar patterns. 

The 2010 census reports the population of the city of 

Missoula to be 66,788, which represents over 60 percent of the population of Missoula County. Similarly, 

the city of Great Falls has approximately 72 percent 

of Cascade County’s population (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). The higher local densities in these large 

communities show that rural areas outside of these 

communities may be more sparsely populated than 

shown in table 11. 

Population projections may help to show the 

expected economic conditions and demand for 

recreation surrounding the complex in the future. 

Montana’s population was projected to increase 24 

percent from 2009 levels by 2030, with a steady increase of approximately 11 percent each decade. 

The twelve-county region is also predicted to grow, 

with the population in the region expected to increase by 18 percent from 2009 levels by 2030 (NPA 

Data Services, Inc. 2011). Toole County, the second 

smallest county in the region, and Cascade County, 

the second largest, are predicted to lose the highest 

proportion of residents (-8.37 percent and -7.69 percent, respectively) while Lake County, currently the 

fourth largest county in the complex, is predicted to 

gain the largest proportion of residents (47 percent) 

(NPA Data Services, Inc. 2011). 

Communities near the Refuge Complex 

The following narrative describes the communities 

near each of the units. 

BENTON LAKE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Benton Lake Refuge is primarily located in northcentral Cascade County, with portions located in 

Chouteau and Teton Counties. Visitors travel to 

Benton Lake Refuge for wildlife observation, photography, waterfowl and upland game hunting. 

Great Falls, located about 12 miles to the south, 

is the closest city to the refuge. Despite a history 

of boom-and-bust mining cycles, Great Falls is a 

well-planned city. By the late 1800s, connections to 

the railroad allowed for a growing number of businesses and a vibrant agricultural sector in the city. 

Throughout the 1900s, the city experienced steady 

growth due to the diversity of the local economy. 

By 1939, when Malmstrom Air Force Base was established in Great Falls, the city had several welldeveloped sectors in the local economy, including 

manufacturing, agriculture, military, and retail (Big 

Sky Fishing 2011). Currently, Great Falls is a growing tourist destination as it provides access to a wide 

variety of outdoor recreation opportunities. Visitors 

come to the city for its rich Western history and 

impressive parks and open spaces (Great Falls Visitor Information Center 2011). In addition to these 

attractions, Great Falls is one of the many gateways 

to Glacier, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National 

Parks, as well as Showdown, Teton Pass, and Great 

Divide ski resorts (Great Falls Visitor Information 

Center 2011). 

Table 11 . Regional population estimates and characteristics for Montana, 2000-2030 . 

Resident Population Persons per Percent Population 

in 2009 Square Mile Change 2000-2009 

Montana 974,989 7 7.9% 

Projected % Population 

Change 2009-2030 

24% 

Cascade 82,178 30 2.5% -8% 

Chouteau 5,167 1 -13.5% -3% 

Glacier 13,550 5 2.7% 7% 

Hill 16,632 6 0.02% -7% 

Lake 28,605 19 7.5% 47% 

Lewis and Clark 61,942 18 10.9% 38% 

Liberty 1,748 1 -18.8% -2% 

Missoula 108,623 42 13.0% 30% 

Pondera 5,814 4 -8.8% -4% 

Powell 7,089 3 -1.2% 15% 

Teton 6,088 3 -5.4% -2% 

Toole 5,151 3 -2.1% -8% 

Source: U .S . Census Bureau (2011a) and NPA Data Services, Inc . (2011) 
122 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

BENTON LAKE WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

The district is the largest in the country, covering 

ten counties. The Service has acquired 22 waterfowl production areas within the district, most of 

which lie in north-central Montana’s Glacier and 

Toole Counties. More than 7,000 acres of wetland 

easements and 4,294 acres of grassland easements 

in northern Montana have been purchased for waterfowl production. Although these easements are 

spread throughout the district, the town of Shelby 

is near to a cluster of wetland easements. Shelby is 

a small town that is dependent upon agriculture and 

tourism. The agricultural industry accounts for 10 

percent of the 3,525 jobs in Toole County (Bureau 

of Economic Analysis 2011). Wildlife living on the 

conservation easements and waterfowl production 

areas also attract visitors to the area. Opportunities for viewing wildlife are abundant, and hunting, 

trapping, and fishing are available in many of the 

waterfowl production area areas. 

BLACKFOOT VALLEY CONSERVATION AREA 

The Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area is located in 

north Powell County and lies just south of the town 

of Ovando, which was home to only 81 residents in 

2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). This sleepy town 

is located along highway 200 between Helena and 

Missoula. Historically, it has played several significant roles including, for example, a thoroughfare for 

the Blackfoot Indian Tribe, a camp for the Lewis and 

Clark party, a forerunner in the establishment of a 

United States Post Office system in Montana, and 

a regional hub for cattle and sheep ranching in late 

19th century (Ovando, Montana 2011). The Blackfoot 

River Valley is a 1.5-million acre watershed that is 

the central focus of the Blackfoot Community Project, a partnership with The Nature Conservancy, the 

Blackfoot Challenge, seven local communities and 

private landowners (Blackfoot Challenge 2005). 

The Blackfoot Valley CA encompasses an 

824,024-acre ecosystem that includes portions of 

Missoula, Powell, and Lewis and Clark counties. To 

date, a total of 43,991 acres of wetland, grassland, 

and conservation easements have been obtained 

within the project area. Parts of these counties make 

up the Blackfoot River watershed in western Montana and include the Ovando Valley and Helmville 

Valley. The watershed is bordered to the east by 

the Continental Divide, to the south by the Garnet 

Mountains, to the north by the Bob Marshall and 

Lincoln-Scapegoat wilderness areas, and to the west 

by the Rattlesnake wilderness area. The center of 

the project area lies about 55 miles east of Missoula. 

The Blackfoot Valley CA is part of a conservation 

strategy to protect one if the last undeveloped, low 

elevation river valley ecosystems in western Montana. The area compliments other components of a 

broad partnership known as the “Blackfoot Challenge”. These efforts include the Service’s Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife Program working with private 

landowners to restore and enhance habitat on private lands and coordinated management activities 

on public lands throughout the entire Blackfoot Valley. 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT CONSERVATION AREA 

The Rocky Mountain Front CA stretches from Pondera County, south through Teton County, and into 

Lewis and Clark County. The town of Choteau is 

located near the center of the conservation area in 

Teton County, 53 miles northwest of Great Falls. In 

2010, Choteau, the county seat of Teton County, was 

home to 1,684. Located on regional trucking routes 

as well as Burlington Northern Railroad routes, the 

city serves as an important commercial hub (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2011b; Choteau Chamber of Commerce date unknown). The town is also a “home 

base” from which tourists and recreationists enjoy 

the Rocky Mountain Front, located just 20 miles 

to the east. This area, which is known for its many 

wide-open spaces and pristine wildlife habitats, allows visitors to enjoy the “...culture and traditions 

[that] are steeped in the fertile soil and in the wheat, 

barley and livestock” (Choteau Chamber of Commerce date unknown). Tourists also enjoy the Old 

Trail Museum, which takes visitors back to prehistoric times. Hiking through the mountains, viewing 

wildlife and fishing the streams and lakes are some 

of the major recreational highlights of the area surrounding the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation 

Area (Teton County History 2011). More than 80,000 

acres of conservation easements have been acquired 

to date. 

SWAN RIVER REFUGE 

Swan River NWR covers 1,569 acres in northern 

Lake County. Visitors are attracted to the refuge for 

opportunities to fish, hunt waterfowl, and view wildlife. The refuge is near the city of Kalispell, which 

is the 7th largest city in Montana and the Flathead 

County seat. Colorado College recently named Kalispell the “most diverse, balanced economy in the 

Rocky Mountain West” in its State of the Rockies 

report (Kalispell Chamber of Commerce 2011). Kalispell has a small-business oriented economy that is 

growing fast due to train traffic and increasing interest in outdoor recreation. The city provides easy access to the Canadian border as well as public lands, 

which makes up 94 percent of the county’s total land 

area (Kalispell Chamber of Commerce 2011). 

SWAN VALLEY CONSERVATION AREA 

Swan Valley CA, which is part of the Interior Columbia River Basin, is located in Lake and northern 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 123 

Missoula Counties on the western side of the twelvecounty region. The establishment of the Swan Valley 

CA authorized the purchase of up to 10,000 acres of 

conservation easements and up to 1,000 acres of fee 

title land next to the Swan River NWR. The conservation area lies about 30 miles southeast of Kalispell, 

near the small town of Seeley Lake, which was home 

to 1,436 residents in 2000 and relies on tourist traffic 

to and from Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks 

to sustain its local economy. 

Swan Valley Conservation Area . 

USFWS 

Gender, Age and Racial Composition 

In the 2009 Census estimate, Montana had about an 

equal proportion of males (49.9 percent) and females 

(50.1 percent). This is also true of most of the counties in the complex; the largest disparity, however, is 

in Powell County, where 61.4 percent of the population is male (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). 

Median ages of the twelve counties ranged between 

31 years (Glacier County) and 48.8 years (Liberty 

County). Only four of the twelve counties reported 

median ages below the state median (39.0 years). In 

general, the age distribution of the twelve-county 

region mimics the distribution of the state as a 

whole (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). Counties with 

higher populations tend to follow the state pattern 

more closely, and there is more variation in the median age in counties with considerably lower populations. 

In 2009, Montana’s population was mostly Caucasian (90.3 percent of all residents). American Indian/ 

Alaska Natives had the second largest representation with 6.5 percent of residents. Generally, this 

distribution is also representative of the racial demographics in the twelve-county region (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). The demographics of the region, 

however, do differ slightly from statewide trends in 

the following ways: 

■■ The regional Caucasian population represents 

2.7-percent less of the total population than indicated by statewide demographics. 

■■ The regional American Indian/Alaska Native 

population represents 2.0-percent more of the 

total population than indicated by statewide demographics. 

The latter of these differences between statewide 

and regional racial demographics is due in large part 

to the American Indian/Alaska Native population of 

Glacier County, which represents the highest proportion of American Indian/Alaska Natives (60.9 

percent) in both the region and the state. All counties surrounding the complex are within two percentage points of the state proportion of residents 

of Hispanic or Latino origin (U.S. Census Bureau 

2011a). 

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

AND TRENDS 

This section discusses conditions and trends in unemployment and social welfare. Many of the counties 

responded to the recent recession with below-average increases in unemployment, oftentimes reporting unemployment figures lower than the state and 

national rates. In contrast, many of the counties 

reported poverty figures much higher than the state 

and national averages (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a; 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). This section also 

discusses income and employment by industry. 

Unemployment and Poverty 

Table 12 summarizes unemployment rates, poverty 

levels, and household incomes. From 2007-2010, 

many of the counties in the complex proved to have 

job markets that were less impacted by the recent 

recession than the rest of the country. The largest 
124 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

increase in nationwide unemployment occurred 

between 2008 and 2009, during which time unemployment increased by 3.5 percent (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2011a). In contrast, the average increase in 

unemployment for the twelve-county region during 

the same period was 0.9 percent. Glacier County had 

the smallest change in the unemployment rate from 

2008-2009, with unemployment increasing by only 

0.4 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). 

In 2009, most of the counties in the region reported median household incomes below the national 

median ($50,221). The exception is Lewis and Clark 

County ($52,317), which had the highest median 

household income in the 12-county region. Lewis and 

Clark was the only other county in the region to report a figure greater than the state median ($42,222). 

After Lewis and Clark County, Hill ($40,778), Cascade ($40,434), and Missoula ($40,130) Counties were 

the only other counties to report a median household income greater than $40,000. Glacier County 

($29,941) reported the lowest median income in the 

region (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). 

Poverty levels in the region tended to be higher 

than the state (15.0 percent) and national (14.3 percent) averages in 2009. Glacier, Lake, and Powell 

Counties reported the highest poverty rates among 

individuals, with 30.5 percent, 20.9 percent, and 20.3 

percent, respectively. Lewis and Clark, Cascade, and 

Teton Counties reported the lowest poverty rates 

among individuals, with 10.1 percent, 15.1 percent, 

and 15.3 percent, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 

2011a). 

In 2010, all of the counties in the 12-county region 

had median household incomes below the national 

median ($51,425), and many of the counties had 

median incomes below the State median ($43,089). 

The largest median household income, $50,245, was 

reported in Lewis and Clark County. The lowest 

median household income, $32,790, was reported in 

Pondera County (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). Only 

Hill ($44,833), Flathead ($45,258), and Lewis and 

Clark ($50,245) Counties reported median household 

incomes above the State median. 

Although unemployment seemed to show 

a rather strong economy, poverty levels in the 

12-county region tended to be higher than the State 

(14.7 percent) and national (13.5 percent) averages. 

Glacier, Pondera, Liberty, and Lake Counties reported the highest poverty rates among individuals, 

with 24, 23.6, 22.8, and 21.3 percent, respectively. 

Lewis and Clark, Flathead, Powell, and Teton 

Counties reported the lowest poverty rates among 

individuals, with 10.4, 11.6, 12.8, and 13 percent, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). 

Table 12 . Unemployment, Poverty and Household Income in the Counties Surrounding the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Median Household Unemployment Net Change in Percent of Persons 

Income 2009 Rate 2010 Unemployment Below Poverty 2009 

Rate 2007-1010 

United States $50,221 9.6% 5.0% 14.3% 

Montana $42,222 7.2% 3.9% 15.0% 

Cascade $40,434 6.1% 2.8% 15.1% 

Chouteau $37,945 4.4% 1.5% 18.1% 

Glacier $29,941 10.1% 2.2% 30.5% 

Hill $40,778 5.6% 1.7% 19.1% 

Lake $35,888 10.1% 5.0% 20.9% 

Lewis and Clark $52,317 5.5% 2.7% 10.1% 

Liberty $36,106 5.0% 2.2% 18.3% 

Missoula $40,130 7.3% 4.1% 16.9% 

Pondera $34,813 6.6% 2.9% 19.1% 

Powell $35,848 8.9% 3.9% 20.3% 

Teton $36,834 5.9% 3.0% 15.3% 

Toole $37,238 4.7% 2.4% 16.5% 

Source: (U .S . Census Bureau 2011a,b) . 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 125 

Employment and Income by Industry 

Table 13 summarizes employment by industry for 

the entire region. In 2009, about half of the regional 

employment (49%) fell into four main sectors, which 

are as follows (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011): 

■■ public administration 

■■ educational, health, and social services 

■■ retail trade 

■■ arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, 

and food services 

The Census data show that there is a tradeoff 

between population levels and employment in certain sectors. Namely, counties in the region with 

smaller populations tend to have both high employment in the agriculture and mining sectors and low 

employment in the retail trade industry. The opposite is true of regional counties with relative large 

populations. For example, Liberty County, the least 

populous of the 12-county region, reported that the 

agriculture industry alone accounted for 23 percent 

of its total employment in 2009, while retail trade accounted for 9 percent. In contrast, Missoula County, 

the most populous county, reported that the retail 

trade industry accounted for 13 percent of its total 

­

­

employment in the same year, while agriculture and 

mining accounted for only 1 percent of total employ

ment (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011). 

Liberty County had the highest dependence on 

farm earnings, which accounted for more than 45 

percent of its total earnings for 2009. Chouteau, 

Pondera, and Teton Counties also showed a high 

dependence on their farming industries, which ac

counted for 29 percent, 21 percent and 20 percent 

of total county earnings, respectively (Bureau of 

Economic Analysis 2011). These counties have an 

average population of around 4,700 residents, and an 

average population density of 2.3 persons per square 

mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). 

Key Activities that Affect 

the Local Economy 

The ability of the complex to affect local economic 

activity and desired economic conditions is related to 

Service land use decisions and associated land uses. 

Recreation and tourism are the prominent resourcebased industries with ties to the complex. 

TOURISM AND OUTDOOR RECREATION IN MONTANA 

Montana residents and visitors to the state take part 

in a variety of outdoor recreation activities. According to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, 

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, approximately 

950,000 residents and nonresidents took part in wildlife-associated activities in Montana (FWS and U.S. 

Department of Commerce 2008a). Of all participants, 

Table 13 . Employment by industry for the 12-county region surrounding Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Montana . 

Total employment (jobs) = 221,513 

Industry Employment by Industry for the 

12-county region (%) 

Educational, health and social services 13 

Retail trade 12 

Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 10 

Construction 6 

Public administration 14 

Professional, scientific, management, admin, and waste services 9 

Manufacturing 2 

Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 8 

Ag, forestry, fish and hunting, and mining 5 

Other services (except public administration) 6 

Transportation and warehousing 2 

Wholesale trade 2 

Information Services 2 

Source: U .S . Census Bureau (2011a) 
126 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

31 percent took part in fishing for a total of 2.9 million fishing days, 21 percent took part in hunting for 

a total of 2.1 million hunting days, and 79 percent 

took part in wildlife-watching for a total of 3.1 million activity days. Montana residents had the highest 

per capita hunting participation in the country at 20 

percent, and fishing participation was also high at 23 

percent. Most of all anglers (59 percent) and hunters 

(74 percent) in Montana were state residents, while 

most of away-from-home wildlife watching participants in Montana were nonresidents (67 percent). 

The in-state spending associated with these activities totaled $1.1 billion in 2006, with $585 million 

spent on trip-related expenditures, $472 million on 

equipment purchases, and $72 million on licenses 

(FWS and U.S. Department of Commerce 2008a). 

HUNTING AND FISHING 

Much of the Service’s fee-owned land in the refuge 

complex is open to hunting. In 2006, the number of 

people that reported participating in fishing, hunting, or both as a primary form of recreation in Montana totaled 378,000 (FWS and U.S. Department 

of Commerce 2008a). The spending associated with 

fishing and hunting in Montana totaled $753 million; of which 55 percent ($417 million) was spent on 

equipment, 38 percent ($283 million) was spent on 

trip related expenditures, and 7 percent ($53 million) 

was spent on other expenses such as magazines, 

membership dues, and land leasing (FWS and U.S. 

Department of Commerce 2008a). Waterfowl hunting is a popular recreation activity in the area surrounding the refuge complex. Although popular, 

the number of waterfowl hunters have declined in 

recent years. In 2001, there were 23,675 waterfowl 

stamps sold to in-state residents. Fewer stamps 

were sold in 2005 (17,474) and fewer still in 2010 

(16,428) (MFWP 2011). During the same period, upland game hunting, comprised of turkey and bird 

hunting, has seen an increase from 44,000 licenses 

in 2001 to 52,000 in 2010. In 2006, migratory bird 

hunting comprised only 8 percent of all hunters in 

Montana (MFWP 2011). 

WILDLIFE VIEWING 

Wildlife viewing opportunities are abundant 

throughout the State of Montana. Wildlife viewing 

can include the activities of observing, identifying, 

or photographing wildlife. In 2006, the number of 

people that reported participating in wildlife viewing as a primary form of recreation totaled 755,000 

in Montana (FWS and U.S. Department of Commerce 2008a). The spending associated with wildlife 

viewing in Montana totaled $376 million; of which 

80 percent ($303 million) was spent on trip related 

expenditures, 15 percent ($55 million) was spent on 

equipment, and 5 percent ($19 million) was spent 

on other expenses such as magazines, membership 

dues, and land leasing (FWS and U.S. Department of 

Commerce 2008a). According to a USFWS report on 

the national and state economic impacts of wildlife 

watching, spending by resident and nonresident 

wildlife watchers in Montana in 2006 generated economic impacts of $376 million in retail sales, $213 

million in wages, 9,772 jobs, and $50 million in state 

and local sales tax revenue, totaling $639 million in 

total economic effects (FWS 2008b). 

Land Use and Ownership Changes Sur

rounding Refuge Complex Lands 

­

Divided by the Rocky Mountains, the twelve-county 

area surrounding the refuge complex contains a diverse variety of land uses and covers. Lake, Missoula, and Powell Counties lie to the west of the 

Continental Divide, and Cascade, Chouteau, Glacier, 

Hill, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Pondera, Teton, and 

Toole lie to the east. The western region is largely 

forested and includes some of the best water, wildlife and working forests in the country (TNC 2011). 

Land cover in the western counties is comprised of 

58 percent forestland, 19.7 percent grassland, 9.3 

percent shrubland, 7.0 percent mixed cropland, 0.3 

percent urban, and 3.3 percent other lands and water. Refuge complex units lying to the west of the 

divide include Swan River NWR, the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area, and the Swan Valley Conservation Area. The eastern region is more arid and is 

largely comprised of planted grasslands and native 

prairie. The area also includes croplands, primarily 

located in the northeastern counties of Chouteau, 

Hill, Liberty, Pondera, Teton, and Toole. Land cover 

in the eastern counties is comprised of 9.9 percent 

forestland, 74.8 percent grassland, 6.6 percent shrubland, 6.2 percent mixed cropland, 0.1 percent urban, 

and 0.8 percent other lands and water (Headwaters 

Economics 2011). Refuge complex units lying to the 

east of the divide include Benton Lake Refuge, the 

district, and the Rocky Mountain Front CA. 

Land ownership within the twelve-county area 

is comprised of 63.5 percent private ownership, 20.7 

percent Federal ownership, 6.9 percent State ownership, and 7.6 percent tribal ownership (Headwaters 

Economics 2011). Of the federally owned land, 77 

percent is owned by the USDA Forest Service , 9 

percent by the National Park Service, 10 percent by 

the BLM, and 4 percent by other Federal agencies 

including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Headwaters Economics 2011). 

CHANGES IN LAND USE 

The lands and waters of the refuge complex are 

unique landscapes with high conservation values. 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 127 

Some of the largest tracts of pristine wildlife habitat 

remaining in the U.S. are located within the Rocky 

Mountain Front, Blackfoot Valley, and Swan Valley Conservation Areas. These areas include large 

expanses of intact habitat and historic wildlife corridors that help federal trust species such as grizzly 

bear, gray wolf, wolverine, pine martin, and Canada 

lynx as well as migratory bird species, fish species, 

and rare plant species. The conservation areas in the 

complex are primarily comprised of a mix of public 

lands and large tracts of privately owned ranchlands 

and forestlands. Private ranchlands and forestlands 

provide dual benefits by supplying wildlife habitat 

on working landscapes. These valuable landscapes 

are threatened by residential development. In 2000, 

the American Farmland Trust identified 5.1 million 

acres of prime ranchlands in Montana as being vulnerable to low-density residential development by 

the year 2020, with ranchlands located in high mountain valleys and mixed grassland areas surrounding 

the Rocky Mountains at highest risk of conversion. 

Within the Rocky Mountain Region (which includes 

263 counties in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, 

Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico) Lewis and 

Clark and Missoula Counties ranked in the top ten 

counties for acres of strategic ranchland at risk 

(American Farmland Trust 2000). 

Development risk for ranchlands is largely 

driven by population growth and housing demand. 

Northwestern Montana has seen a boom in population and residential development in recent years. 

Within the twelve-county area, Missoula County 

has seen the fastest growth in population, with an 

increase of 12.95 percent between 2000 and 2009. 

Lewis and Clark and Lake Counties have also seen a 

large increase in population, with increases of 10.85 

percent and 7.45 percent, respectively during the 

same time period (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). In 

addition to increases in population, second homes 

have become very popular in the state. As of 2011, 

there were more than 38,000 vacation homes in Montana, up 59 percent from those reported in the 2000 

Census (Great Falls Tribune, 2011). Increases in 

population and second homes have led to increases 

in residential development in the region. Within 

the twelve-county area, acres of private land developed for residential use increased by 29.9 percent 

from 1980 to 2000. As of 2000, residential development accounted for 2.8 percent of private lands in 

the twelve-county area, up from 2.1 percent in 1980 

(Headwaters Economics 2011). Among the twelve 

counties, residential development accounted for the 

largest percent of private acreage in Lake and Missoula Counties. Between 1980 and 2000, residential 

development in Lake County increased by 101.1 percent from 9.2 percent to 18.4 percent; and residential 

development in Missoula County increased by 10.1 

percent from 11.4 percent to 12.5 percent (Headwaters Economics 2011). 

Residential development is not the only threat to 

wildlife in the region. The conversion of grasslands 

and wetlands to croplands can degrade water quality and diminish valuable habitat. Wetlands cover a 

relatively small area of Montana, but they have high 

ecological value as stopovers and breeding grounds 

for migratory birds and waterfowl. Montana wetlands are at risk of cropland conversion, with about 

27 percent of the wetlands present before 1800 converted to other land uses, primarily cropland (Dahl 

1990). In addition to the filling, leveling, and draining 

of wetlands, conversion of grassland to cropland has 

threatened upland habitat next to wetlands. Upland 

habitats provide nesting cover for migratory birds 

and for waterfowl and their broods. The complex’s 

wetland management districts play a key role in protecting Montana’s wetland and grassland resources. 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands also 

affect wildlife habitat and water quality near the 

complex. The CRP program pays landowners to 

take highly erodible croplands out of production and 

plant them to native grasses. CRP grasslands reduce erosion and help keep contaminates, sediments, 

and nutrients out of streams and lakes (USDA FSA 

2008). CRP lands also help wildlife and have been 

found to increase nest abundance and population 

growth for waterfowl and migratory birds (Ryan et 

al. 1998). As of 2011, CRP lands in Montana comprised more than 2.8 million acres or about 3 percent 

of the Montana land base (USDA FSA 2011). The 

USDA Farm Service Agency enters into 10 or 15 

year CRP contracts with farmers, and more than 59 

percent of these contracts are scheduled to expire 

in the next three years; 497,194 acres will expire in 

2011, 694,004 acres will expire in 2012, and 365,537 

acres will expire in 2013 (USDA FSA 2011). Depending on market conditions, commodity prices, 

and farm policy, these expirations could result in a 

large conversion of grasslands to croplands (Smith, 

Montana Outdoors); however, it is not likely that all 

of the expiring contracts will be converted (Roberts 

and Lybowski 2007). 

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS 

The Service has identified conservation easements 

as a key strategy for conserving important wildlife 

habitat in Northwestern Montana. Conservation 

easements leave land in private ownership, protecting private property rights, while providing the Service with a cost-effective conservation strategy that 

enables the conservation of large blocks of habitat. 

Within the Rocky Mountain Front, Blackfoot Valley, 

and Swan Valley conservation areas, the Service 
128 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

proposes to conserve a total of 408,500 acres of wildlife habitat through the acquisition of conservation 

easements from willing sellers. To date, the Service has protected 76,847 acres in Lewis and Clark, 

Pondera, and Teton counties through conservation 

easements within the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area, and 43,991 acres in Lewis and Clark 

and Powell counties through wetland, grassland, and 

conservation easements within the Blackfoot Valley 

Conservation Area. The Service has protected an 

added 11,392 acres in wetland and grassland easements in the district. 

A conservation easement is a voluntary legal 

agreement entered into between a landowner and 

a conservation entity. Conservation easements are 

binding in perpetuity; the landowner reserves the 

right to sell or bequeath the property, but the easement and its associated restrictions remain with 

the property in perpetuity. Under a conservation 

easement, a landowner supports ownership of their 

property, but transfers some of their ownership 

rights to the conservation entity. Landowners have 

a set of rights associated with their land. For example, landowners have the right to run cattle, grow 

crops, harvest trees, build structures, and subdivide 

and sell portions of their land. Under a conservation 

easement, the landowner transfers several of these 

rights to a conservation entity. The most common 

right transferred is the right to develop or subdivide the land. Some conservation easements include 

more land use restrictions. The terms of a conservation easement must be mutually agreed-upon by 

the landowner and the easement holder. There are 

three primary types of conservation easements 

offered in the refuge complex: perpetual wetland 

easements, perpetual grassland easements, and perpetual conservation easements. Perpetual wetland 

easements protect privately owned wetlands from 

being drained, filled, or leveled; perpetual grassland 

easements protect privately-owned rangeland and 

hay-land from conversion to cropland. Perpetual 

conservation easements include the wetland and 

grassland restrictions and also protect land from being subdivided for residential development. For all 

refuge complex easements, landowners support the 

right to allow or disallow public access to their land. 

Hunting on many private lands is available for a fee 

through outfitters and guides. Although conservation easements do prohibit game farms, refuge complex easements do not preclude commercial hunting 

on private lands. Private landowners can also grant 

permission for hunters to hunt on their land at no 

cost. The State of Montana facilitates private land 

hunting through their Block Management program, 

which helps landowners manage hunting activities 

and provides the public with free hunting access to 

private land (Personal conversation with Neal Whitney, MFWP, on June 14, 2011.). 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CONSERVATION 

EASEMENTS 

Conservation easements are public goods that generate many benefits for local residents, communities, and governments. Unlike goods derived from 

natural resources that are traded in a market, many 

of the benefits from conservation, such as ecosystem 

services and intrinsic worth, can be difficult to monetarily quantify. Conservation easements can protect values associated with biodiversity and wildlife 

abundance, support aesthetic beauty, and protect social and culturally significant features of landscapes 

and livelihoods (Holdren and Ehrlich 1974, Ehrlich 

and Ehrlich 1992, Daily 1997, MEA 2005). Ecosystem services, such as water purification, oxygen production, pollination, and waste breakdown, are also 

supported for local residents through conservation 

easements (MEA 2005). A primary public benefit of 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conservation easements is enhanced and preserved wildlife habitat. As 

development stressors increase over time, many key 

off-refuge habitat areas may become less available 

due to conversion to nonwildlife habitat uses. Habitat preservation has been shown to stabilize and increase wildlife populations, especially for migratory 

bird species (Reynolds et al. 2001). Conservation 

easements on private lands strengthen the resiliency 

of species habitat and provide opportunities for wildlife movement and adaptation for years to come. 

Although the general public may not be able to explicitly use or access land that is protected by conservation easements, these lands do help residents 

through increased biodiversity, recreational quality, 

and hunting opportunities on publicly accessible 

wildlife refuges and on some private lands (Rissman 

et al. 2007). In addition to preserving wildlife habitat 

and ecosystem services, conservation easements can 

protect the traditional and historic way of life that 

is associated with the working landscape; land with 

historic commercial use, such as ranching, forestry, 

and farming, is often compatible with or beneficial to 

wildlife refuge objectives (Jordan et al. 2007, Rissman et al. 2007). Conservation easements can also 

provide financial benefits for landowners that can 

enable them to preserve the natural and historic 

value of their farm, ranch, and open space lands, and 

to pass this legacy on to their children and grandchildren. 

The Service proposes to buy conservation easements from willing sellers at fair market value. The 

fair market value of a conservation easement is decided through an appraisal process. An appraiser 

estimates how much the land would sell for unencumbered by the conservation easement (the before 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 129 

value) and how much the land would sell for with 

the conservation easement in place (the after value). 

The value of the conservation easement is equal 

to the before value minus the after value, or the 

difference in the fair market value of the property 

with and without the easement. Landowners may 

also choose to donate conservation easements to the 

Service. The donation of a conservation easement 

may qualify as a tax-deductible charitable donation, 

which may result in federal income tax benefits. The 

sale of a conservation easement for less than its fair 

market value (called a bargain sale) may also qualify 

for tax deductions. Landowners may be able to claim 

a charitable income tax donation equal to the difference between the fair market value and the bargain 

sale price of their easement. Income from the sale 

of a conservation easement may be taxable. Please 

note that the Fish and Wildlife Service does not give 

tax advice. Landowners considering entering into 

a conservation agreement with the Service should 

consult a tax advisor or attorney for advice on how a 

conservation easement would affect their taxes and 

estate. 

Conservation easements affect the value of the 

encumbered property, and may affect the value of 

neighboring properties. A conservation easement 

will reduce the fair market value of an estate, because the easement permanently removes some of 

the estate’s development potential. The reduction in 

value depends on the potential development value 

of the land and the level of restriction agreed-upon 

in the easement. In general, an easement on land 

located in an area with high development pressure 

will have a greater effect on the value of the land 

than an easement on land located in an area with low 

development pressure; and an easement that is more 

restrictive will have a greater effect on the value of 

the land than an easement that is less restrictive. 

Changing the status of a parcel of land from developable pastureland to privately owned conservation 

land can increase the residential value of adjacent 

properties that are in proximity to permanently 

preserved open spaces (Irwin 2002). Evidence suggests that increases in residential property values as 

a result of open space proximity is most significantly 

due to the preclusion of development and not necessarily the type of open space preserved. In other 

words, preserved farm and ranchland could increase 

residential property values in a similar way that 

preserved forestland could (Irwin 2002). 

The conservation easements acquired by the 

refuge complex are expected to have minimal impacts to local government revenue. Local governments collect revenue through intergovernmental 

Boardwalk at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge . 

USFWS 
130 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

transfers, property taxes, sales taxes, personal 

income taxes, and other charges such as permitting. Property taxes constitute the largest source 

of local governments’ own revenue (Urban Institute 

and Brookings Instutution 2008), and are expected 

to remain unchanged. Property taxes are assessed 

based on the value of property. For most types of 

properties, county assessors use fair market value 

to determine property tax liabilities; however, agricultural and forest land is often assessed differently. 

In many states, the assessed value of agricultural 

land and forestland is decided based on the productive value of the land rather than on the fair market 

value of the property. The fair market value of land 

is the amount that a property is estimated to sell 

for. This value includes both the productive value of 

the land and any speculative value associated with 

the possibility of developing the land. Conservation 

easements reduce the fair market value of property by removing the speculative value associated 

with possible development; however, conservation 

easements generally do not affect the productive 

value of agricultural land or forestland. In Montana, 

agricultural lands and forestlands are valued on the 

basis of land productivity, and are not influenced by 

the pressures of urban influences or land speculation 

(Montana Department of Revenue 2011). Most of the 

properties that enter into conservation easement 

agreements with the Service are classified as agricultural land or forestland, thus there will be little 

to no impact to the current property tax base for 

the twelve-county area. Local government revenue 

associated with personal income is also expected 

to remain relatively constant within the twelvecounty area. The proposed easements would affect 

the location and distribution of development, but 

are not expected to change the rate or density of 

human population growth. Redistribution of population growth could affect the distribution of personal 

income related revenues across the counties, but 

is expected to have little effect on total revenues 

within the twelve-county area. Land protection 

through conservation easements could result in a reduction in future expenditures for local governments 

and municipalities. New residential developments 

require local governments to provide services such 

as fire protection, police services and schools, and to 

construct new infrastructure such as roads, parks, 

and water and electrical delivery systems. A 2009 

study to assess the effect of the Montana Legacy 

Project on net government revenues in Lake and 

Mineral Counties found that the costs of residential 

development of Legacy Project lands outweighed 

expected new revenues (Headwaters Economics 

2011a, 2011b). The effect of conservation easements 

on local government revenue is complex and speculative, but evidence suggests that the effects of the 

refuge complex conservation easement programs on 

net revenues will be marginal. 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental 

Consequences 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area . 

Dave Carr 

This chapter provides an analysis of the potential effects on the environment associated with the implementation of the management alternatives for the 

refuge complex. The Service assessed the environmental consequences of implementing each of the alternatives on the physical, biological, socioeconomic, 

and cultural resources of the refuge complex. 

Management actions are prescribed in the alternatives as a means for achieving the vision and goals 

for the refuge complex, while responding to issues 

raised by Service managers, the public and governmental partners. Because management would differ 

for each alternative, the environmental and social 

effects resulting from implementation would likely 

differ as well. 

The environmental consequences discussed in 

this chapter are the estimated potential effects on a 

resource from carrying out the actions of an alternative. Table 5 (see chapter 3, section 3.6) summarizes 

the alternatives’ actions and the associated consequences as described below. 

Environmental consequences for a separate 

analysis—to address management specific to Benton 

Lake Refuge—are described in chapter 7 and are 

not repeated here. 

5 .1 Analysis Methods 

The determination of effects is evaluated at several 

levels including whether the effects are adverse or 

beneficial and whether the effects are direct, indirect, or cumulative with other independent actions. 

In addition, the duration of effects is used in the 

evaluation of environmental consequences. 

Direct effects are those where the effect on the 

resource is immediate and the direct result of a specific action or activity. Examples of a direct effect 
132 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

include the effect of trail construction on vegetation 

along the trail or the effect of hunting on wildlife. 

Indirect, or secondary, effects are those induced 

by implementation actions but that occurs later in 

time or farther removed from the place of action 

through a series of interconnected effects. Examples 

of indirect effects include the effects on downstream 

water quality from an upstream surface disturbance 

or the effect that recreational use along a trail may 

have on nearby plant communities. 

A cumulative effect is defined as “the impact on 

the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future action 

regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) 

or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 

1508.7). 

Impacts are often described in terms of their context, intensity, and duration. The duration of effects 

is either short term or long term. Short-term effects 

would persist for a period of 3–5 years and would 

consist primarily of temporary disturbance due 

to habitat restoration or facility construction and 

subsequent revegetation efforts. Long-term effects 

would last more than 5 years after project initiation 

and may outlast the 15-year lifespan of the CCP. 

Many long-term effects consist of long-term help to 

wildlife habitat resulting from management actions. 

5 .2 Effects Common 

to All Alternatives 

The following potential effects would be similar for 

each of the three alternatives: 

■■ Implementation of the management direction 

(goals, objectives, and strategies) would follow 

the refuge complex’s best management practices. 

■■ Management activities and programs would 

avoid and reduce adverse effects on federally 

threatened and endangered species, to the extent 

possible and practicable. 

■■ The refuge complex staff, contractors, researchers, and other consultants would acquire all 

applicable permits, such as those for future construction activities. 

The sections below describe in more detail other 

effects expected to be similar for each alternative. 

Regulatory Effects 

As described in chapter 1 of this draft CCP, the 

Service must follow Federal laws, administrative 

orders, and policies in the development and implementation of its management actions and programs. 

Among these mandates are the Improvement Act, 

the ESA, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and compliance with Executive Order 11990–Protection of 

Wetlands and Executive Order 11988–Floodplain 

Management. The implementation of any of the 

alternatives described in this draft CCP and EA 

would not lead to a violation of these or other mandates (see appendix A). 

Environmental Justice 

Within the spirit and intent of Executive Order 

12898–Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income 

Populations, no actions being considered in this draft 

CCP and EA would disproportionately place any 

adverse environmental, economic, social, or health 

effects on minority or low-income populations when 

compared with the public. 

The Service is committed to ensuring that all 

members of the public have equal access to the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources, as well as equal 

access to information that would enable them to take 

part meaningfully in activities and policy shaping. 

Geology and Soils 

All alternatives would positively affect soil formation processes on the refuge complex. Some disturbance to surface soils and topography would occur 

at locations selected for (1) administrative, maintenance, and visitor facilities, (2) removal and eradication of invasive plant species, and (3) restoration of 

native habitat. 

5 .3 Landscape 

Conservation Goal Effects 

Climate Change 

Climate change is the preeminent issue for conservation in future decades. Over the next two decades, 

a warming of about 0.36 °F per decade is projected 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 133 

globally. Warming is expected to continue for centuries even if greenhouse gas emissions were stabilized due to significant time lags in the feedback loop 

of climatic processes (Christensen et al. 2007). 

Consequent with the projected warming, the 

atmospheric moisture transport and convergence 

is projected to increase, resulting in a widespread 

increase in annual precipitation over most of the 

continent except the south and southwestern part 

of the United States (Christensen et al. 2007). This 

increased precipitation is more likely to occur in 

winter and spring months, rather than summer 

(Christensen et al. 2007). It is also considered very 

likely that extreme weather (heat waves, flooding) 

will become more frequent. Increases in annual 

precipitation may be partially offset by increases 

in evaporation. Moisture availability, rather than 

just precipitation, is a critical resource for plants 

and animals. One tool for trying to address this is 

the Hamon moisture metric (Young et al. 2010) that 

integrates temperature and precipitation through 

a ratio of actual evapotranspiration to potential 

evapotranspiration (AET:PET), with consideration 

of total daylight hours and saturated vapor pressure. 

This metric, when used with an ensemble of 16 major global circulation models and the “middle of the 

road” emissions scenario (A1B), predicts a net drying across the refuge complex, even with potential 

increases in precipitation (Girvetz et al. 2009). 

However, this metric does not include components of habitat moisture retention such as waterholding capacity, effect of snow pack on water 

availability, and different vegetation types, all of 

which are challenging to incorporate at a national 

scale (Young et al. 2010). Furthermore, recent work 

analyzing spatial and temporal patterns in wet areas 

for approximately 40,000 wetland basins over nearly 

20 years in the PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region of 

the Dakotas and eastern Montana found that precipitation and temperature were not sufficient to 

explain annual wetland water conditions (Niemuth 

et al. 2010). Predictive models for wetlands need to 

consider water regimes, spatial patterns, and other 

factors for more accurate prediction of water conditions and wildlife response to climate change. 

Current trends in climate change are expected 

to affect high mountain ecotypes and lower elevation, snowmelt-dependent watersheds, such as those 

found in the refuge complex, more acutely than some 

other landscape ecotypes. Empirical data shows that 

during the 20th century, the Crown of the Continent 

region has grown warmer, and in some areas drier, 

especially east of the Divide and along the Rocky 

Mountain Front. In Montana, average spring temperatures have risen by almost 4o

F over the last 55 

years and winter temperatures have increased 3oF 

(TNC 2009). 

The effects of climate change would extend beyond the boundaries of any single refuge or easement program and would therefore need large-scale, 

landscape-level solutions that extend throughout the 

refuge complex. Such solutions include supporting 

intact, interconnected landscapes, restoring fragmented or degraded habitats and preserving and 

restoring ecological processes. The collective goal 

is to protect and improve resilience in ecological 

systems and communities, so that, even as climate 

conditions change, the natural landscape would continue to support its full range of native biodiversity 

and ecological processes. 

Resiliency in ecological system is dependent on 

several factors. Diversity is important for maximizing the options by which a system can respond to 

disturbance. Embracing ecological variability, such 

as droughts and floods, is also key. For example, 

eliminating periodic fire from forests can actually 

reduce resiliency and make them more vulnerable 

to catastrophic wildfires. Expecting the unexpected 

and recognizing that the understanding of systems, 

thresholds and driving variables is often imperfect 

are also important to managing resiliency in systems 

and creating long-term sustainability (Holling 1973, 

Gunderson 2000, Walker and Salt 2006). 

Climate Change—Alternative A 

Temperature and 

Precipitation Uncertainty 

Translating global and continental climate change 

models to regional scales, such as Montana or the 

refuge complex are difficult. There are still major 

uncertainties at the regional level, especially related 

to precipitation (Christensen et al. 2007), although 

models are getting increasingly more reliable. Some 

robust predictions suggest that warming is likely 

to be most pronounced in winter and snow season 

length and snow depth have a greater than 90-percent probability of decreasing. Expected increases 

in temperature range from 4-9 °F in western North 

America during this century (Christensen et al. 

2007). 

Changes in temperature and precipitation are 

expected to decrease snow pack, which could affect stream flow and water quality throughout the 

refuge complex. Warmer temperatures would result 

in more winter precipitation falling as rain rather 

than snow throughout much of the region particularly in mid-elevation basins where average winter 

temperatures are near freezing. This would result 

in less winter snow accumulation, higher winter 

stream flows, earlier spring snowmelt, and earlier 
134 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

peak spring stream flow and lower summer stream 

flows in rivers that depend on snowmelt (USFWS 

2009d). 

Although temperature increases over the next 

several decades appear inevitable, the resulting effect on precipitation, moisture and wetland hydroperiods is highly uncertain (see Climate Change 

section, chapter 4). Some modeling has suggested 

that there could be a shift to the PPPLCC’s eastern 

Prairie Pothole Region of highly favorable water 

and cover conditions for waterfowl breeding and 

shorter hydroperiods for seasonal and semipermanent wetlands if precipitation does not increase 

along with temperatures (Johnson et al. 2005, Johnson et al. 2010). However, other researchers have 

found that precipitation and temperature alone were 

insufficient to explain annual wetland water conditions in the PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region 

when compared to a dataset of 40,000 basins spanning 1998–2007 and expressed concern about using 

climate change models that were calibrated with 

just a few wetlands (Niemuth et al. 2010). In addition, the natural variation in wet–dry cycles in the 

PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region may eclipse any 

smaller, climate-change driven shifts that occur in 

the near term (Niemuth et al. 2010). Continuing to 

manage natural wetlands by supporting wet–dry cycles, emulating historical processes such as fire, and 

reducing stressors such as invasive species, should 

maximize resiliency in natural wetlands (Walker 

and Salt 2006). This approach should be beneficial 

to natural wetlands on the refuge complex whether 

or not the projected magnitude of climate changes 

actually occur. 

To analyze effects of climate change on priority 

wetland-dependent birds, the Service conducted 

a vulnerability assessment on 4 species that use 

deeper, more permanent wetlands and 11 species 

that prefer shallow, more seasonal wetlands (Young 

et al. 2010). Species were chosen if they are common or uncommon breeders in the refuge complex 

and were identified as a species of concern at the 

national or regional level by the Service or its partners. The Vulnerability Assessment designed by 

NatureServe uses up to 16 assessment factors and 

allows for uncertainty in any of the variables. The 

assessment recognized that these wetland-dependent breeding birds in the refuge complex have increased vulnerability due to their dependence on a 

specific hydrologic condition (wetlands) and sensitivity to phenological changes in relation to migration—wetlands thawing earlier than migration and 

the possible added stressor of more wind farms as 

a green energy solution. However, these birds are 

also highly mobile, have a tolerance for a wide range 

of temperatures and consume varied diets. All of 

these provide some resistance to climate changes 

and reduces their vulnerability relative to other 

species. Considering these factors in combination, 

the assessment ranked all of the priority bird species 

as “presumed stable/not vulnerable” with a slight 

trend toward “moderately vulnerable” for some species. Similar results, reflecting the ability of birds to 

respond to climate change perhaps better than other 

taxa, were found during vulnerability assessments 

in the southwestern United States, which is likely to 

experience stronger temperature increases and precipitation decreases than northern Montana (Girvetz 

et al. 2009, Christensen et al. 2007). 

Restoration in the Swan Valley Conservation Area . 

USFWS 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 135 

In the intermountain region of the refuge complex, specialized habitat for fish and wildlife species 

is expected to diminish as glaciers and alpine snow 

fields melt and winters warm in Montana. Snow 

conditions that facilitate hunting success for forest 

carnivores, such as Canada lynx, are now changing 

due to winter warming (Stenseth 2004). Other birds 

and mammals throughout the Crown of the Continent and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystems (Kendall 

and Arno 1989) would also be negatively affected by 

winter warming. 

High-elevation forest plants, such as whitebark 

pine, are an important food source for grizzly bears 

that appears to be declining. Whitebark pine is susceptible to several factors that may be exacerbated 

with a warming climate such as drought, wildlife 

and mountain pine beetle attacks. Continued decline 

of this important food source may result in shifts in 

foraging elevations and potentially increase grizzly 

bear conflicts with humans and livestock (Hanna et 

al. 2009). 

As late summer flows are affected by global 

warming, fewer rivers would be able to supply ample cold water required by species such as bull trout. 

Bull trout distribution is expected to be fragmented 

by the heightened ambient air temperatures (America’s Hottest Species 2009). 

Baseline monitoring of weather information at 

the Benton Lake Refuge would continue to occur. 

Over the life of the plan (15 years), dramatic shifts 

are not expected; however, this baseline information 

may be useful for detecting trends across larger 

timeframes. The uncertainty of temperature and 

precipitation changes would continue to exist. The 

refuge complex would rely on outside entities such 

as USGS to help downscale climate change models to 

increase predictability of temperature and precipitation changes and apply these predictions to management accordingly. 

Preservation of Water Rights 

Monitoring of water usage would help preserve existing water rights. Regular usage of the cubic flows 

associated with the individual water right makes 

sure the water is available for the future. Water use 

is documented at the Benton Lake and Swan River 

Refuges and at the Kingsbury Lake, Blackfoot, 

Kleinschmidt Lake, Sands, Furnell, Ehli, Savik and 

H2–O WPAs. The retention and use of these rights 

is important, especially if climate conditions cause 

a reduction of available runoff and there is greater 

demand for less water. 

Baseline Inventory and Monitoring of 

Natural Resources 

The current baseline monitoring of habitat conditions, weather stations and river gauges would 

provide some ability to detect long-term trends related to climate change. These trends could include 

changes in vegetation composition, wetland water 

levels, some riverflows and temperature. However, 

this information is likely to be limited in scope, sitespecific and not easily related to regional or national 

climate change data and trends. 

Ecosystem Resilience 

Resilience of ecosystems within the refuge complex 

would be strategically increased. Preventing the 

conversion of the natural habitat through wetland, 

grassland and conservation easements increases 

resilience (the capacity of an ecosystem to absorb 

disturbance while supporting function) by reducing fragmentation and promoting corridors for 

movement and adaptation of wildlife. By reducing 

stressors such as conversion of natural habitat and 

fragmentation, resilience to climate change can be 

enhanced. 

Working with Others 

At the current levels of engagement by staff in climate change related partnerships such as the GNLCC and the PPPLCC, the ability to proactively 

address climate change issues is limited. Research or 

on-the-ground conservation is less likely to directly 

apply to refuge complex issues without greater participation by staff. In addition, any new information 

about climate change, and how it relates to management in the refuge complex, or opportunities to collaborate on conservation delivery may be missed by 

limiting partnerships. 

Carbon Sequestration and 

Reducing the Carbon Footprint 

Carbon sequestration rates vary depending on plant 

species, soil type, region, climate, topography and 

management practices that can affect plant productivity. At a local scale, carbon sequestration is 

largely influenced by light conditions, water availability, soil water-holding capacity and its nutrient 

content. Local conditions could change the frequency 

and severity of natural risks such as forest fires and 

strong winds, increasing the probability of CO2 emissions and hence carbon loss from these systems. In 

general, the protection and restoration of forest, 

grassland and wetlands proposed under alternative 

A on both fee-title lands and within the conservation 
136 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

areas would support or improve carbon sequestration throughout the refuge complex. The largest 

gains in carbon sequestration could occur if cropland 

is restored to grassland or drained wetlands are 

restored (Bangsund et al. 2005). 

Some efforts toward reducing the footprint of 

facilities would occur. The reduction is likely to be 

modest and not well quantified. Electric savings 

from the wind generator and photovoltaic panels at 

Benton Lake Refuge would continue at 73 percent 

annually. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

No major deviations would be made with existing 

staff. With implementation of green innovations, 

some expenses such as electric, fuel (gasoline and 

diesel), and natural gas may decrease. 

Climate Change—Alternative B 

Effects would be the same as alternative A for temperature and precipitation uncertainty, preservation 

of water rights, ecosystem resilience, and carbon 

sequestration and reducing the carbon footprint. 

Baseline Inventory and 

Monitoring of Natural Resources 

The increase in baseline monitoring of habitat conditions, weather stations and river gauges would improve the ability to detect long-term trends related 

to climate change within the complex. These trends 

could include changes in vegetation composition, 

wetland water levels, some riverflows and temperature. However, this information may still be limited 

in scope, site-specific and not easily related to regional or national climate change data and trends. 

Ecosystem Resilience 

Resilience of ecosystems within the refuge complex 

would be greater in this alternative over alternative A. Preventing the conversion of the natural 

habitat through wetland, grassland and conservation easements is expected to happen on more acres 

under this alternative. This will increase resilience 

by reducing fragmentation and promoting corridors 

for movement and adaptation of wildlife. By doing 

more to reduce stressors, such as conversion of natural habitat and fragmentation, resilience to climate 

change can be enhanced. 

Working with Others 

An increase of engagement by staff in climate 

change related partnerships such as the GNLCC 

and the PPPLCC, would improve the ability to proactively address climate change issues. Research or 

on-the-ground conservation would be more likely to 

directly apply to refuge complex issues with greater 

participation by staff. In addition, any new information about climate change, and how it relates to management in the refuge complex, or opportunities to 

collaborate on conservation delivery may be realized 

by increasing partnerships. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

Some reallocation of refuge resources (0.1 FTE wildlife refuge manager or biologist) would occur for 

taking part in more partnerships to address climate 

change and to take part in initiatives such as the 

GNLCC and the PPPLCC. 

Climate Change—Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as alternatives A and B 

for temperature and precipitation uncertainty, and 

preservation of water rights. 

Baseline Inventory and 

Monitoring of Natural Resources 

Same as alternative A plus, more weather stations 

and river gauges would increase the refuge complex 

staff’s ability to detect long-term trends related to 

climate change. The active participation of staff in 

data acquisition, monitoring, and analyzing management actions in respect to climate change would 

increase the scope of the projects and increase the 

likelihood that this information can be related to 

regional or national climate change data and trends. 

Ecosystem Resilience 

Resilience of ecosystems within the refuge complex would be greater in this alternative over alternatives A and B. Preventing the conversion of 

the natural habitat through wetland, grassland and 

conservation easements is expected to happen on 

more acres under this alternative. This will increase 

resilience (the capacity of an ecosystem to absorb 

disturbance while supporting function) by reducing 

fragmentation and promoting corridors for movement and adaptation of wildlife. By doing more to reduce stressors, such as conversion of natural habitat 

and fragmentation, resilience to climate change can 

be enhanced. 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 137 

Working with Others 

Vigorous participation of staff with landscape-level 

climate change initiatives would facilitate more opportunities to strategically protect areas and acquire 

data, check, and analyze climate change effects. 

Carbon Sequestration and 

Reducing the Carbon Footprint 

Same as alternative A, plus more efforts to reduce 

the refuge complex carbon footprint should decrease 

carbon emissions more than alternative A. For example, the expansion of the photovoltaic system at 

the headquarters would be expected to off-set the 

increase in energy demands. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

Greater reallocation of refuge resources (0.2 FTE 

wildlife refuge manager or biologist) would occur to 

vigorously take part in more partnerships to address 

climate change, take part in initiatives such as the 

GNLLC and the PPPLCC and manage increased 

monitoring efforts. 

Preserving Intact Landscapes 

One of the greatest threats to wildlife today is residential development and human population growth. 

Much of this growth is happening in rural areas. 

In Montana, the rate of growth in unincorporated 

places during the 1990s was more than twice the 

rate of growth in incorporated areas (American 

Wildlands 2009). Land development has three 

main effects on wildlife: (1) direct habitat loss; (2) 

increased risk of mortality by increasing the frequency and lethality of human and wildlife conflicts; 

(3) displacement and avoidance of developed areas 

by wildlife, which decreases available habitat and 

serves to isolate populations. Isolated populations 

are less resilient to changes in environment due to 

genetic inbreeding that decreases genetic diversity 

and produces genetic anomalies that are often detrimental to individuals and populations. Isolated populations are also less resilient to disease, overhunting, 

or catastrophic events like floods or fire. 

As habitat fragmentation continues to create 

barriers to animal movement, habitat connectivity 

grows increasingly vital in promoting the long-term 

survival of species. Continued connectivity between 

large core areas of habitat is critical to the survival 

of many species of concern, especially those species 

that travel great distances and have large home 

ranges such as grizzly bear, gray wolf, wolverine, 

and Canada lynx. 

Although all aspects of managing the refuge 

complex may be affected by the proposed action at 

the Benton Lake Refuge (see chapter 7), the ability to protect intact landscapes has the potential to 

be affected the most. In 2011, the opportunity to 

preserve intact landscapes within the refuge complex was greatly increased by the expansion of the 

Rocky Mountain Front and Blackfoot Valley CAs 

and the establishment of the new Swan Valley CA. 

Refuge complex staff, at all levels, take part in, and 

support, these landscape-level efforts. The more 

staff time and complex resources needed to manage 

the Benton Lake Refuge, the fewer refuge complex 

resources would be available to support landscapelevel projects. This would affect the total number 

of acres that can be protected during the life of this 

plan. 

Preserving Intact Landscapes— 

Alternatives A and B 

Elevation Gradient 

The elevation gradient, which extends from intact 

wetland complexes at 3,000 feet, to upland forests at 

6,500 feet, is preserved in part through the Blackfoot 

Valley, Swan Valley, and Rocky Mountain Front 

Conservation Areas. Changes in elevation are especially significant along the Rocky Mountain Front 

Conservation Area, which encompasses 918,000 

acres of topographic relief from wetland–grassland 

to mountains. The wide array of habitat types provides microhabitats for a plethora of plant species 

and associated use by a variety of wildlife species. 

Transitional zones of valley floors to montane forests would be preserved and help fish and wildlife 

resources. The preservation of the gradient habitats 

would enhance the resiliency of the ecosystem. 

Wildlife Corridors 

Fragmentation and the subsequent loss of wildlife 

corridors can lead to islandization of wide-roaming 

species. Protected areas become isolated due to the 

loss of corridor areas and access to prime habitat. 

Without the corridor bridges, genetic isolation occurs and results in serious genetic anomalies and 

increasing vulnerability of species to disease, catastrophic events like floods and fires, and overhunting (Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative 

2009). Preservation and enhancement of wildlife corridors and linkage areas in the conservation areas, 

in particular, would be protected and enhanced for 

grizzly bear, black bear, elk, mule deer, white-tailed 
138 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

deer, moose, mountain lion, Canada lynx, bobcat, 

gray wolf, coyote, wolverine, fisher, and a wide variety of small mammals. 

Trust Resources 

Within the existing efforts in the Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, and Swan Valley Conservation Areas, and within the district, grizzly 

bear, Canada lynx, gray wolf, long-billed curlews, 

Brewer’s sparrow, bull trout, west-slope cutthroat 

trout, trumpeter swan, black tern, and more than 

22 species of waterfowl and other migratory birds 

are trust species that would be helped by protecting 

large, intact blocks of native habitat. 

Easement programs protect wildlife habitat from 

dispersed development that leads to degradation 

and loss of habitat for trust resources. For wideranging species, unplanned development leads to 

loss of habitat connectivity within the project area 

and, on a larger scale, between the Crown of the 

Continent ecosystem and other historical or potential ranges. For example, riparian zones provide 

excellent habitat and cover for grizzly bears moving 

throughout the watersheds, but they are also among 

the most desired locations for building (Lolo National Forest 2003). An increase in development also 

leads to more frequent conflicts between bears and 

people due in large part to the increased presence of 

bear attractants such as human garbage, dog food, 

and bird seed. The increased interaction can lead to 

human-caused grizzly bear mortality, which in turn 

results in a decrease in grizzly bear reproduction 

and loss of population and genetic viability. 

Preserving the Rural Way of Life 

Existing landscape-scale conservation partnerships 

such as the Blackfoot Challenge in the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area, the Rocky Mountain Front 

Advisory Committee in the Rocky Mountain Front 

Conservation Area and the Swan Ecosystem Center in the Swan Valley Conservation Area would 

continue to support working landscapes in which 

fish and wildlife resources coexist with the ranching community, forestry, and other agricultural operations. Conservation easements would continue to 

be an important tool for protecting wildlife habitat 

while leaving the land in private ownership. 

Ascertainment Needs 

To meet the expansion goals of the Rocky Mountain Front CA (average tract size is 5,000 acres) 

59 willing sellers would need to be contacted and 

successfully enrolled in the easement program. For 

the Blackfoot Valley CA (average tract size is 1,000 

acres), at least 103 willing-seller landowners would 

need to be contacted and successfully enrolled in 

the easement program to protect 103,500 acres. 

The Swan Valley CA’s average tract size (250 acres) 

would need contact and successful enrollment in the 

easement program with more than 45 landowners to 

acquire 11,000 acres. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

Staff and money to manage the preservation of 

intact landscapes are not expected to grow significantly. A total of 2.5 FTEs (wetland district manager and 1.5 FTE wildlife refuge specialists) would 

be allocated toward these efforts. Budget operations 

and salary percentage dedicated to this activity 

would remain at current levels. 

It is expected to be quite difficult to meet the 

challenges associated with any significant increases 

in land acquisition money from LWCF or Migratory Bird funding. Fieldwork would be necessary 

to carry out the program, secure willing sellers, 

and inspect provisions of easement contracts. A 

reallocation of staff and money from other refuge 

complex programs and reliance on other refuge regional programs (such as Realty and Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife programs) would be necessary to 

help carry the increased workload. Little flexibility 

exists in other complex programs and the Realty 

and Partners for Fish and Wildlife programs would 

see increased workload requirements as well with 

little flexibility to lend help. Without significant base 

money increases or help from other programs, it 

would be extremely difficult to adequately manage 

the efforts toward preserving intact landscapes. 

Preserving Intact Landscapes— 

Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as alternative A and B for 

ascertainment needs. 

Elevation Gradient 

Same as alternative A, plus better identification 

and protection of key transitional zones of valley 

floors to montane forests is likely to occur if staff are 

actively engaged in applying SHC with partners. 

The increased preservation of the gradient habitats 

would enhance the resiliency of the ecosystem in this 

alternative over other alternatives. 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 139 

Wildlife Corridors 

Same as alternative A, plus better identification 

and protection of wildlife corridors is likely to occur if staff are actively engaged in applying SHC, 

with partners, to the landscape. By improving connectivity through wildlife corridors, the benefit to 

populations of focal species would be greater under 

alternative C than the other alternatives. 

Trust Resources 

Same as alternative A, plus a greater a benefit to 

trust resources would be expected if staff were actively engaged in applying SHC with partners. 

Preserving the Rural Way of Life 

Same as alternative A, plus the potential to establish new conservation areas would provide more opportunities to support working landscapes in which 

fish and wildlife resources coexist with the ranching 

community, forestry, and other agricultural operations. Conservation easements could be used in new 

communities as a tool for protecting wildlife habitat 

while leaving the land in private ownership. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

Same as alternative A, except staff and money 

needed to manage the preservation of intact landscapes is expected to grow significantly. One and a 

half more full-time wildlife refuge specialists would 

be needed to coordinate, carry out, and provide a local presence for the Crown of the Continent Conservation Areas and other potential conservation areas. 

These landscape-scale initiatives can increase the 

refuge complex acreage by more than 296,000 acres 

almost exclusively through the conservation easement program. Three FTEs (1 wildlife refuge specialist working in each of the conservation areas and 

more support from the Realty program) would need 

to be allocated toward refuge complex-wide preservation of intact landscape efforts. Budget operations 

and salary percentage dedicated to this activity 

would increase nearly two-fold. Fieldwork would 

be necessary to carry out the programs, secure willing sellers, and inspect provisions of easement contracts. More staff time, and potentially travel costs, 

would be associated with actively engaging in the 

application of SHC. Without significant base money 

increases or reallocation of complex resources from 

Benton Lake Refuge (see chapter 7, alternatives C1 

and C2), it would be not be possible to fully carry out 

the landscape preservation efforts. 

5 .4 Habitat Goal Effects 

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to grasslands, wetlands, riparian areas, 

forests and woodlands, and sagebrush-steppe. The 

following impact analysis spends little time discussing cause and effect relationships of trust species. It 

was assumed, by protecting landscapes expanses of 

native habitats through easement programs, there 

would be a positive effect on endemic wildlife and 

trust species. Also, management of fee-title lands in 

contiguous blocks using the environmental factors at 

proper levels that shaped the prairie and intermountain valley ecosystems— fire and grazing—would 

inherently positively affect trust species such as 

grassland birds, wetland-dependent birds and sage 

obligates such as Brewer’s sparrows. 

Grasslands: 

Native—Alternatives A and B 

Protection and Management 

New and expanded project areas and alternative 

money sources provide potential for protecting great 

expanses of native prairie. Preserving and managing 

native prairie landscapes reduces soil erosion, supports water quality, effectively sequesters carbon 

and make them more resilient and resistant to disturbances (Bangsund et al. 2005). 

Fee-title management of native grasslands would 

continue to be managed extensively but imprecisely, 

using a coarse, generic approach because of limited 

resources for staff, money and scientific knowledge 

relative to individual management units. Grazing 

and prescribed fire are used to emulate historical 

processes, which is assumed to increase the health 

of native prairie. Native prairies have varying levels 

of invasion by noxious weeds and cool-season exotic 

grasses. 

Monitoring 

Although some baseline data and monitoring is occurring on the refuge complex, it is not comprehensive. This may result in less success in determining 

the effects of management actions over time. The 

ability to share the acquired knowledge with others 

is also limited without more formal monitoring. 
140 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

Under current management, staff limitations are 

already clear and would be stretched thinner with 

each added conservation easement. For the Rocky 

Mountain Front and Blackfoot Valley CAs, easement 

contacts, evaluations, and preliminary acquisition 

work, are supported by a temporally shared fulltime 

position and a wildlife refuge specialist recently assigned to the Rocky Mountain Front CA. However, 

other easement programs that protect grasslands in 

the district are administered with little to no time 

to cultivate new interest for acquisition. In addition, easement enforcement is also a responsibility 

of refuge complex staff that increases with each new 

easement. A reduction in staff’s ability to enforce 

easements and resolve conflicts can undermine the 

easement program and damage relationships with 

the local community. Implementing the alternatives 

for Benton Lake associated with alternatives A and 

B (Benton Lake Refuge A1, B1 or B2—see chapter 

7) make it unlikely that more complex staff or money 

would be allocated toward easement acquisition or 

fee-title management of native grasslands. 

Grasslands: 


Native —Alternative C 


Protection and Management 

Same as A and B plus, there is substantial potential 

to protect in excess of 150,000 acres of native grasslands in these expansive community supported conservation areas. With expanding opportunities for 

protecting native grasslands in the Blackfoot Valley 

CA and Rocky Mountain Front CA, increases in refuge complex, realty, and Partners for Fish and Wildlife staff functions will be necessary, either through 

new hires or reallocation of existing staff resources 

to make successful impacts. 

Monitoring 

The increased effort to formally watch native grasslands should improve the effectiveness of management actions over time. By tracking successes and 

failures, staff would be able to learn more quickly 

and improve results. These results may include 

higher productivity of native plant species, more 

diversity of native plant species, increased use, and 

increased diversity and productivity of grassland 

breeding birds (or other trust resource). Monitoring is also helpful in preventing the spread of new 

invasive species through EDRR as well as providing 

feedback on efforts to treat larger, established infestations. Formally documenting these efforts as part 

of a monitoring program may also help other refuges 

with their native prairie management. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

Same as A and B, except implementing the Benton 

Lake Refuge alternatives associated with alternative C (C1 or C2—see chapter 7) will result in the 

greatest potential to reallocate complex resources 

toward easement acquisition. 

Grasslands: Tame 

Management of fee-title tame grass was approached 

through supporting health and longevity of stands 

using a rotational system within specific management units. This scheme provides a diversity of 

vegetative structure within each management unit, 

which provides a variety of habitats for different 

grassland-dependent species. Offering a variety of 

habitats on the landscape would appeal to the widest 

array of species (See 4.2 Biological Resources). 

Grasslands: 


Tame —Alternatives A and B
 

Management 

Establishment of management rotations on tame 

grass units has largely been opportunistic, begun 

by cooperators expressing an interest in haying or 

grazing. Tame grass plantings consist of only three 

or four introduced plant species. Compared to native 

grasslands the diversity of soil invertebrate species and nutrient cycling processes would be vastly 

simplified. Tame grasslands are markedly less efficient in capturing and transferring solar energy, 

sequestering carbon and resisting disturbances such 

as invasive species (Bangsund et al. 2005). Rotations 

provide a diversity of structural habitats within the 

management unit, which appeals to a wide variety 

of grassland-dependent species. Tame grass favors 

species that like tall, dense vegetation, such as nesting mallards, but not a true prairie obligate such as 

Sprague’s pipits. 

Monitoring 

Informal monitoring of tame grass would provide 

feedback to managers; however, less information 

may be collected than from formal monitoring, which 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 141 

could result in less success in determining the effects of management actions over time. The ability 

to share the acquired knowledge with others is also 

limited without more formal monitoring. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

Farming and reseeding degraded tame grass stands 

has been considered, but shortages of resources has 

prevented any concerted efforts (130 acres over the 

last 6 years). As tame grass stands continue to degrade over time into poor habitat conditions (currently approximately 850 acres), the initial resources 

to address these habitat needs grows substantially. 

Implementing the alternatives for Benton Lake Refuge associated with alternatives A and B (A1, B1 

or B2—see chapter 7) make it unlikely that more 

complex staff or money would be allocated toward 

managing tame grass. 

Grasslands: 


Tame —Alternative C
 

Management 

Replanting tame grass to native species with subsequent treatments of prescribed fire and grazing 

management would mimic historical processes and 

gradually recover soil mycorrhizae, invertebrate 

diversity and symbiotic relationships. Tame grass 

stands replanted to native prairie species will be 

managed using prescribed fire and grazing prescriptions rather than haying. These types of management should replenish and improve the nutrient 

cycles rather than mining the soil nutrients through 

rotational haying systems. 

Monitoring 

The increased effort to formally watch the replanting of tame grass to natives should increase the 

effectiveness of replanting efforts over time. By 

tracking successes and failures, staff would be able 

United States Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar visits the refuge complex . 

USFWS 
142 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

to learn more quickly and improve results. These 

results may include better or faster establishment of 

native plant species, more diversity of native plant 

species and faster or more robust breeding bird (or 

other trust resource) response. Formally documenting these efforts as part of a monitoring program 

may also help other refuges with their native replanting efforts. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

Planting 800 acres to native grass species would 

have higher input cost ($156 per acre) and traditionally take longer (3–4 years) and are more difficult to 

establish when compared to planting DNC with cost 

of $106 per acre and 1–2 years to establish. Seedbed 

preparation before seeding either native or tame 

grass takes at least of 2 years of farming. A conservative estimate in staff time to complete these 

efforts in 15 years would be one more FTE. Beside 

the increased staff time needed to administer and 

conduct farming and seeding activities, grassland 

monitoring and management activities would increase. Monitoring would be used to fine tune management strategies to reach vegetative objectives 

sooner or identify management misconceptions and 

begin modifications to management techniques. 

Implementing the Benton Lake Refuge alternatives associated with alternative C (Benton Lake 

C1 or C2—see chapter 7) will result in the greatest 

potential to reallocate complex resources toward native grassland plantings. 

Grasslands: Nonnative Tree 

Plantings—Alternatives 

A and B 

Management 

Currently there are no specific management activities in regard to tree plantings. Nonnative tree 

plantings contribute to fragmentation, depredation 

and parasitism, which negatively affect grasslanddependent migratory birds (Bakker 2003). Some of 

these bird species include species of concern, such 

as marbled godwits and chestnut-collared longspurs 

(unpublished records on file at Benton Lake Refuge). Distance to a wooded edge has been shown in 

many studies to increase nest predation and displace 

grassland species (Bakker 2003). This makes grassland habitat around tree plantings either unavailable 

or less desirable for grassland species. The distance 

varies by study area and species, but the Service 

estimates that between 66 and 764 acres of grassland habitat on Benton Lake Refuge would become 

available or more desirable to grassland species by 

removing these trees (Bakker 2003). 

Nonnative tree plantings provide an unconventional habitat niche for a wider diversity of resident 

and migratory bird species. As many as 21 other 

bird species occur on the Benton Lake Refuge because of the nonnative tree plantings (unpublished 

records on file at Benton Lake Refuge). Some of 

these birds include species of concern, such as loggerhead shrikes and Swainson’s hawk (unpublished 

records on file at Benton Lake Refuge). 

Nonnative tree plantings consist of a handful of 

introduced species that are far less diverse than 

native grassland communities compromised by their 

establishment. Tree plantings can also contribute to 

and provide opportunities for invasive noxious weed 

infestations. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

Currently there are no specific management activities in regard to tree plantings. 

Grasslands: Nonnative Tree 

Plantings—Alternative C 

Management 

If all nonnative tree planting were removed at Benton Lake Refuge, at least seven species of migratory 

birds that nest primarily in trees and shrubs would 

no longer nest on the refuge. However, there are 

many tree plantings that surround the refuge and an 

extensive woody riparian corridor along the nearby 

Missouri River. Some of these species may still use 

the refuge for feeding and resting. The loss of nesting habitat for loggerhead shrikes and Swainson’s 

hawks on the refuge would not be expected to have a 

significant negative effect on the overall populations 

of these species. 

The use of nonnative tree plantings by migratory 

birds on other fee-title lands within the district has 

not been studied. These tree plantings only add up 

to 6 miles and are located on the Arod Lake WPA 

within tame grass. Therefore, the effects of removing any of these plantings may be similar to Benton 

Lake Refuge, but much smaller in scale. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

Costs to remove 19 miles of planted tree would be 

approximately $1140 in fuel and $2,000 in main­
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 143 

tenance of the equipment (replacing teeth, fluids, 

breakdowns). Herbicide treatment would need 

to follow tree removal for two growing seasons 

($1,000). After the tree plantings are successfully 

removed, each site would be evaluated for grass 

seeding. 

Implementing the Benton Lake Refuge alternatives associated with alternative C (Benton Lake 

C1 or C2—see chapter 7) will result in the greatest 

potential to reallocate complex resources toward 

shelterbelt removal. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to natural wetlands, altered wetlands 

(creations and enhancements), restored wetlands, 

and wetland vegetation management for the refuge 

complex. Altered wetlands are where the hydrology 

or the topography has been actively modified from 

historical conditions to achieve specific management 

goals. For example, holding water at higher levels, 

longer or more frequently than occurred historically. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas: 

Natural—Alternatives A and B 

Natural wetlands are those basins where the topography of the basin has not been altered or it has 

been restored as closely as practicable to historical 

conditions. In addition, natural basins are subject to 

climatic flooding and drying cycles. However, these 

natural wetlands may be altered by factors such as 

changes in hydrology and land use in the surrounding landscape. 

Water Quantity, Quality, and Timing 

On fee-title lands within the refuge complex, just 

over half of the approximately 12,000 acres of wetlands are subject to natural flooding and drying 

cycles. Most of these are depressional wetlands— 

potholes— caused by glaciation. In Montana, precipitation is cyclical, causing a series of wet and drought 

years, often in 10 to 20-year cycles (Hansen et al. 

1995, Heitmeyer et al. 2009). Therefore, whether or 

not these wetlands within the refuge complex were 

flooded or dry in any given year would depend on 

natural climatic cycles, and in some cases, ground 

water exchange. 

The extended drying periods are beneficial for 

removing contaminants such as salts and selenium 

that can build up during the wet cycles. Natural wetlands in the refuge complex are less likely to develop 

significant contamination problems than impounded 

or altered wetlands. 

Within the Swan River Refuge, wetlands are 

part of the Swan River floodplain or meander loops 

of the river that have been cut off from the main 

channel of the Swan River. In alternatives A and 

B, floodwater and ground water would continue to 

be the dominant inputs. Evaporation, discharge to 

ground water and receding floodwaters would be the 

primary means for wetland drying. Over time, new 

oxbows may be created during flood events while 

existing oxbows may eventually be filled in by sediment. 

Wetland Vegetation and Management 

Vegetation within natural wetlands would vary with 

the long-term wet and dry cycles. During drought 

years, most of these wetlands on the refuge complex 

would be dry or mudflats. During this time, seeds 

from many annuals, and some perennials, would germinate and cover the exposed mudflats. When the 

drought ends and precipitation returns, the mudflats would be flooded and the annuals would drown, 

but the perennials would likely survive, expand and 

in 1–2 years, would dominate the sites. The drawdown during the dry cycle is necessary for emergent 

vegetation to establish. After a few years of stable 

water levels, the emergent vegetation would begin 

to decline and the site eventually reverts to open 

water. When the wet cycle ends, resulting in wetland drying and exposing the mudflats, the water 

level–vegetation cycle continues (Hansen et al. 1995, 

Heitmeyer et al. 2009). 

In oxbow wetlands on the Swan River Refuge, 

the primary factors affecting vegetation include water chemistry, sedimentation and water fluctuations. 

As oxbows fill over time with sediment from flooding, the vegetation progresses from marsh through 

wet meadow to shrub then tree-dominated communities (Hansen et al. 1995). 

Management of wetland vegetation in these basins would be strongly influenced by the natural 

wet–dry cycles. For example, prescribed fire, mowing, or certain herbicide applications to consume 

litter, rejuvenate vegetation, or control exotic species may only be possible when wetland basins are 

sufficiently dry. This may limit the ability to control 

invasive species in certain years. However, the wet– 

dry cycle may act as a natural control by favoring 

native vegetation adapted to the wet–dry cycles and 

by changing conditions that no longer favor certain 

invasive species. For example, invasive species that 

thrive in wet conditions may naturally be reduced 

or more vulnerable to treatment methods during 

drought. 
144 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Trust Species and Wildlife Use 

For the natural wetlands on the refuge complex, the 

diversity and relative abundance of birds and other 

wildlife species would vary with the long-term flooding and drying cycles in the system. During wetter 

periods, many waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, 

gulls, terns and other wetland-dependent species 

would be present on these wetlands and productivity should be high (Murkin et al. 2000, Heitmeyer 

et al. 2009). Aquatic invertebrates reach high abundance, biomass and diversity during wet periods of 

the long-term natural cycles (Heitmeyer et al. 2009). 

During the dry cycles, fewer, if any, waterbirds, 

would use these wetlands and productivity would be 

reduced or absent. However, during drier periods, 

extensive mudflat areas would likely attract large 

numbers of shorebirds as well as wading birds, terrestrial birds and mammals that could feed on rich 

benthic and terrestrial invertebrates present during 

this phase. 

Wetland-dependent wildlife that use these wetlands have adapted to the long-term flooding and 

drying cycles. For example, waterfowl that need 

stable, more permanent wetlands, such as canvasback, tend to return to the same breeding area used 

the year before (such as homing) whereas species 

that use less permanent and unpredictable wetlands, 

such as northern pintail, are much more opportunistic in where they breed. Most species of waterfowl, 

however, exhibit flexibility and will alter settling 

patterns (typically northward) in response to local 

drought conditions (Johnson and Grier 1988). Even 

species with limited mobility, such as amphibians, 

reptiles and small mammals, have behavioral adaptations that would enable them to survive dry 

periods and exploit wet cycles. For example, the 

northern leopard frog, a species of concern, can survive dry periods by migrating short distances or 

remaining in depressions (Heitmeyer et al. 2009, 

Grzimek 1974). 

Reducing or eliminating nonnative invasive 

wetland vegetation would improve wetland habitat 

for wetland-dependent wildlife. Native wildlife has 

evolved to use native vegetation for feeding, nesting 

and hiding cover. Nonnative vegetation is often a 

poor substitute, potentially reducing the ability of 

wildlife to successfully breed and build up energy reserves for migration. However, herbicide treatments 

for wetland vegetation carry inherent risks for potential contamination and nontarget effects. These 

need to be carefully weighed against the potential 

benefits before proceeding. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

In general, wetlands that are in a natural condition and subject to climatic variation demand significantly less management time and money than 

altered wetlands on the refuge complex. Natural 

wetland management consists primarily of controlling invasive plants or treating vegetation with prescribed fire, haying or grazing, often in conjunction 

with upland management. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas: 

Natural—Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as alternative A for water quantity, quality, and timing; trust species and 

wildlife use; and staff time and management costs. 

Wetland Vegetation 

Same as alternative A, plus more focus on invasive 

species should improve wetland vegetation and 

health. This should reduce the negative effects of 

invasive species such as monotypic stands, reduced 

native plant diversity and lower overall productivity. 

If more herbicide treatments are used, however, 

careful review would be necessary to be sure that 

herbicides do not have unintended, negative effects 

that outweigh the benefits. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas: 

Altered—Alternatives A, B, 

and C 

Water Quantity, Quality, and Timing 

For wetlands where natural runoff is impounded or 

supplemental water is diverted or pumped, the natural drying cycle is reduced or ended. These wetlands 

have more predictable and stable flooding cycles 

from year-to-year and are often flooded more deeply 

or for more months each year than would naturally 

occur. Water quality impairments may be associated 

with these wetlands (see detailed discussions of the 

Benton Lake Refuge in chapter 7). 

Flooding and holding water in a basin above the 

natural level creates a wetland where the water is 

deeper, and likely holds water longer, than would 

normally occur. It would also likely expand the extent of the wetland basin, essentially creating a bigger wetland. 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 145 

H2–O WPA 

On average, 1,535–1,829 acre-feet of water is diverted from the Blackfoot River to the H2–O WPA 

each season. Water diverted from the Blackfoot 

River fills wetlands, but also recharges ground water and elevates ground water levels. It also extends 

the length of time there are return flows to Nevada 

Creek and the Blackfoot River. This diversion ditch 

provides senior water rights to neighboring landowners which often leads to season-long flows. However, in dry years diversions may be stopped during 

July–August and wetlands on the H2–O may dry out 

in fall. 

Wetland Vegetation and Management 

In wetlands where water is impounded or supplemented annually, wetland vegetation management is 

often focused on creating a 50:50 mix of open water 

and emergent vegetation, or a hemi-marsh phase. To 

do this, some type of treatment (e.g. herbicide, fire, 

mowing or discing) must be applied either overwater or in combination with periodic drying because 

otherwise these wetlands will likely become dominated by emergent vegetation or be primarily open 

water with emergent vegetation only on the edges. 

Focusing wetland vegetation management on the 

hemi-marsh phase reduces the diversity of wetland 

habitat types on the refuge complex and reduces the 

diversity of wetland-dependent wildlife that can successfully breed in these wetlands. 

Flooding during periods outside of the normal 

cycle (for example fall) may further disrupt the vegetative cycle because necessary seed deposition and 

germination conditions are not met (Heitmeyer et al. 

2009; personal communication, L. Frederickson). 

Holding water above the natural basin level 

would likely shift the wetland vegetation communities from plants adapted to more shallow conditions 

to those adapted to deeper water conditions. In general, the typical progression of wetland vegetation 

communities from deeper to shallow are open water 

to robust emergents (for example, cattails) to rushes 

and sedges to wet grasslands and meadows (Hansen 

et al. 1995, Heitmeyer et al. 2009). In intermountain 

valley wetlands, vegetation transitions from open 

water, to sedges, to reed grasses to shrubs to trees 

(Hansen et al. 1995). 

As with natural wetlands, in altered wetlands 

reducing or eliminating nonnative invasive wetland 

vegetation would improve wetland habitat for wetland-dependent wildlife. Native wildlife has evolved 

to use native vegetation for feeding, nesting and 

hiding cover. Nonnative vegetation is often a poor 

substitute, potentially reducing the ability of wildlife 

to successfully breed and build up energy reserves 

for migration. However, herbicide treatments for 

wetland vegetation carry inherent risks for potential 

contamination and nontarget effects. These need to 

be carefully weighed against the potential benefits 

before proceeding. 

Trust Species and Wildlife Use 

Wetlands on the refuge complex that are impounded 

or receive supplemental water provide a breeding 

opportunity for waterbirds and other wetlanddependent wildlife almost every year. The specific 

birds that would breed in a given wetland in a given 

year depend on the depth and duration of that flooding. While the presence of water would likely attract 

waterbirds to these wetlands, the quality and likelihood of breeding success is uncertain. Sustained 

flooding, with shortened or absent drying cycles, 

may negatively affect productivity by disrupting 

plant and invertebrate cycles, which may reduce 

the quality of food and cover on the wetlands (Heitmeyer et al. 2009; personal communication, L. Frederickson). 

In conjunction with the vegetative shifts described above, the wildlife that use altered wetlands 

has likely changed. Deeper wetlands are typically 

attractive to certain waterbirds including diving 

ducks (for example, canvasback, redheads), swans 

and grebes, although some dabbling ducks may still 

use these wetlands (Heitmeyer et al. 2009). Deeper 

wetlands would be more likely to hold water longer, 

and thus provide brood rearing and fall migration 

habitat, than a basin at its naturally lower level. 

H2–O WPA 

Wetlands flooded with diverted water provides pair, 

brood, and migratory habitat for waterfowl as well 

as potential nesting habitat for other waterbirds 

such as black terns (State species of concern). 

Diverted flows from the Blackfoot River reduce 

flows for the threatened bull trout by less than 1 

percent during below average water years (Roberts 

and Levens 2005). A fish screen has recently been 

installed at the point of diversion from the Blackfoot 

River to prevent fish from being trapped in the irrigation ditch. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

Wetland management for altered wetlands often 

requires higher inputs of staff time and money than 

naturally functioning wetlands. Altered wetlands 

need monitoring, artificial drawdowns, potentially 

more intensive mechanical and chemical manipulation, infrastructure (for example, ditch and pump) 

maintenance, and potential contamination remediation. These costs are extremely variable and would 

increase with the number of acres of wetlands 
146 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

treated. Wetlands need to be monitored to find when 

they have begun to lose productivity and need management as well as to identify nonnative invasive 

plant concerns. As with natural wetlands, fire, grazing, and haying all need preplanning and, in the case 

of grazing and haying, also need coordination with 

an outside cooperator. Herbicide treatment also adds 

expense to management. 

H2–O WPA 

Managing water diversions from the Blackfoot River 

onto the H2–O requires approximately 1–2 days per 

week for 2–3 hours per day April–October, or 0.2 

FTE. In addition, less than $500 for cleaning and 

repair per year is needed annually for upkeep and 

maintenance. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas: 

Creation, Enhancement, and 

Restoration—Alternatives 

A, B, and C 

Water Quantity, Vegetation, 

and Wildlife Use 

Wetland restorations would have similar effects for 

water quantity, vegetation and wildlife use as described under “Natural Wetlands.” The full benefit 

of a wetland restoration requires several years to 

fully realize as vegetation and wildlife use respond 

to the restored hydrology. 

Wetland creations are primarily used as a tool to 

provide a water resource to improve grazing management, which, in turn, can be used to improve 

native prairie. In addition, the created wetland provides more habitat for wetland-dependent wildlife. 

Impounding water can, however, change the water 

dynamics within the drainage such that water flowing downstream or ground water flows are reduced 

or altered. There can also be unintended negative 

effects to water quality and wetland vegetation. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

A general estimate of wetland restoration cost is 

$1,000 per acre plus staff time. Wetland creations 

are more expensive due to the added dirt work, spillways and water control structures. The cost of creations on a per acre basis would vary considerably 

with the size of the wetland. Wetland creation can 

be an important tool for building relationships with 

private landowners that lead to further cooperative 

relationships, such as easements, that further protect native habitats. Created wetlands are roughly 

10 times cheaper than other water sources such as 

wells. However, created wetlands provide a less 

predictable and reliable water source for cattle. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas: 

Protection—Alternatives 

A and B 

Placing a high priority on easement acquisition, 

compliance and enforcement helps protect wetlands 

from being drained or altered. In addition, it makes 

sure that any wetlands that have been negatively 

altered are restored. 

Under current management and money levels, 

most wetland protection in the next 15 years is 

likely to occur within the Rocky Mountain Front, 

Blackfoot Valley and Swan Valley Conservation Areas. More wetlands may occasionally be protected 

and expansions to waterfowl production areas and 

refuges or new waterfowl production areas may 

occur. Protection in other areas of the district may 

increase if ongoing landscape-level research shows 

that these wetlands have a high density of breeding waterfowl. Approximately one-quarter of the 

wetlands in Montana have been lost. In the prairie 

parts of the refuge complex, many wetlands have no 

clear surface water connection to any river system, 

and in the absence of State legislation, may lack any 

substantial legal protection. At the same time, these 

wetlands are under pressure from resource extraction and agricultural conversion. In parts of the refuge complex where wetland easement acquisition is 

not active, more wetlands would likely be lost. 

Protecting wetland basins and the associated 

grassland uplands would help support resiliency in 

these systems. Wetlands protected with easements 

provide habitat for a wide diversity of wetland-dependent wildlife. The benefits of protecting wetlands 

for these species is similar to effects described under 

“Natural Wetlands” in alternative A. A vulnerability assessment of priority wetland-dependent birds 

in the district highlighted their potential susceptibility to human-related impacts related to climate 

change, such as the development of wind farms in 

the district. Protecting high-priority wetlands with 

easements can mitigate impacts from infrastructure 

development associated with wind farms to some 

degree. 

Riparian areas support the greatest concentration of plants and animals in Montana, serving as a 

unique transition zone between aquatic and terrestrial environments. Buying easements and forming 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 147 

partnerships with private landowners to protect 

riparian areas from modification or degradation, due 

to land conversion or housing development, would 

help protect water quality by reducing siltation 

and preventing vegetation changes that can lead to 

higher stream temperatures. This would help the 

aquatic life in the streams including imperiled fish 

species such as westslope cutthroat and bull trout. 

Intact, protected riparian zones are also important 

linkages for terrestrial species of concern such as 

grizzly bears and migratory birds. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

In general, protecting wetlands with conservation 

easements is significantly more cost-effective than 

buying wetlands in fee title. Easements provide a 

means to protect many more acres of wetlands than 

would be possible with fee-title purchase alone. See 

grasslands and preserving intact landscapes sections 

for staff time and costs associated with conservation 

and grassland easements. Wetland easements currently require 2 days of inspections via air. The time 

required for follow-up on any violations is highly 

variable. 

Implementing the alternatives for Benton Lake 

Refuge associated with alternatives A and B (Benton Lake A1, B1 or B2—see chapter 7) make it unlikely that more complex staff or money would be 

allocated toward protecting wetlands with easements. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas: 

Protection—Alternative C 

Same as A and B, except implementing the Benton 

Lake Refuge alternatives associated with alternative C (Benton Lake C1 or C2—see chapter 7) will 

result in the greatest potential to reallocate complex 

resources toward easement acquisition. 

Forests and Woodlands 

Sustainable forestry practices can increase the 

ability of forests to sequester atmospheric carbon 

while enhancing other ecosystem services, such as 

improved soil and water quality. Improving forest 

health through thinning and prescribed fires would 

increase forest carbon sequestration over the long 

term. 

Forests and 

Woodlands—Alternative A 

Physical and Biological Conditions 

A policy of suppressing wildfires for decades has re

sulted in areas where trees are densely stocked and 

subject to extreme drought stress. They often have 

poor vigor and are susceptible to stand-replacing 

wildfire as well as insect and disease attacks. Stand 

replacement fires in areas that have evolved under 

more frequent, less intense fire regimes can have 

devastating effects on soils, watershed functions, 

and biodiversity. Fire, or the lack of fire, has also af

fected nutrients, turbidity, buffering capacity, water 

temperature, and other water characteristics. Be

cause forests on refuge complex lands are relatively 

small and are surrounded by vast acres of managed 

forests, the probability of stand replacing fires and 

­

­

­

Swan Valley Conservation Area . 

USFWS 
148 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

insect and disease outbreaks may be lessened by 

adjacent land use practices. 

Protection of forest lands would make sure that 

there is continued watershed function and health. 

Forests capture, store, and slowly release water 

back into the watershed. On the other hand, deforestation and development along the stream banks 

can contribute to surface runoff and subsequent soil 

erosion, which can cause excessive sedimentation. 

Sedimentation can seriously degrade water quality, 

instream and riparian habitats and affect the health 

of fish, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic plants. 

Cultural Resources 

The inner bark or sap layer in various pine species 

was an important food source for Native Americans 

in western Montana including the Salish, Kootenai 

and Blackfoot tribes. The bark was usually collected 

when the sugary sap was running in the spring. 

Bark sheets were cut from trees using wooden sticks 

or rib bones from elk. The inner and outer bark was 

separated and could either be eaten fresh or rolled 

into balls that could be stored for later use. Harvesting methods did not kill the tree (Ostlund et 

al. 2005). Surviving trees exhibit distinctive peeling scars. These trees are found throughout northwestern Montana and can now be used to interpret 

native peoples’ land use and movements. This alternative could increase the chance of catastrophic 

wildfire and insect and disease outbreaks, which 

could potentially destroy culturally significant trees. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

No other FTEs or refuge resources would be needed 

to carry out this alternative. There is a greater 

chance for ignition of a wildfire in this alternative 

and, should a wildfire occur, it could be larger and 

more destructive than under the other alternatives. 

Forests and 

Woodlands—Alternatives 

B and C 

Physical and Biological Conditions 

This alternative would use silvicultural practices 

and introduce fire to forests, following approved 

fire management plans for each unit, on refuge complex lands to emulate historical fire regimes, which 

would help natural ecosystem processes and reduce 

the chance of catastrophic fire. A reduction in stand 

density and competition and a release of nutrients 

to the soil would increase forest health reducing the 

vulnerability to insects and disease and increasing 

carbon sequestration. Short-term increases in carbon released into the atmosphere by controlled fire 

would be offset by increased carbon sequestration in 

healthy, vigorous forest environment. 

Properly carried out on suitable sites, prescribed 

fire can be a very effective and cost efficient treatment method to help restore the desired composition of plant species in an ecological site, rejuvenate 

sprouting browse species and stagnant grass plants, 

release nutrients into the soil, improve palatability 

and nutrient content of forage, reduce fuel load, and 

prepare an ash seedbed for seeding. 

There would be an expected increase in benefits 

due to an expanded effort to acquire easements and 

fee-title land of forest lands. 

Cultural Resources 

This alternative may initially result in the loss of 

some trees with historical bark peeling scars. Pretreatment surveys could be done to limit these 

losses. This alternative would reduce the chance 

of catastrophic wildfire and insect and disease outbreaks, which could potentially destroy culturally 

significant trees. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

This alternative would reduce the chance of catastrophic wildfire and wildfire suppression costs. Although the chance of catastrophic wildfire would be 

less, there would be a chance that a controlled burn 

could spread onto neighboring lands. If this were to 

happen, the Service would be liable for all losses associated with this burn. Timber losses from disease 

and insect outbreaks on Service lands as well as 

neighboring forest lands would be reduced. 

This alternative would require the allocation of 

0.2 fire specialist FTE and 0.2 biological technician 

FTE to carry out. Burn costs could be up to $35 per 

acre. A 0.2 FTE wildlife refuge specialist would be 

needed to plan and administer silvicultural work. 

5 .5 Wildlife Goal Effects 

This section discusses the effects of alternatives pertaining to threatened and endangered species, species of concern, migratory birds, and wildlife disease. 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 149 

Species of 

Concern—Alternative A 

Monitoring and considering species of concern in 

management decisions would help the individual 

species and also help make sure that there is ecosystem health and biodiversity. This alternative would 

make sure that there is compliance with the ESA 

and allow staff to evaluate management decisions to 

protect species of concern. 

Considering species of concern in management 

decisions may have negative effects on public use 

because area or seasonal closures may be necessary. Disturbance caused by recreational pursuits 

may elicit behavioral and physiological responses in 

wildlife. Behavioral responses may be of short duration (temporary displacement) or long term, such as 

abandonment of preferred foraging or secure nesting areas. Physiological responses may increase an 

individual’s metabolic rate increasing energy expenditure. Under stress conditions such as winter this 

could reduce productivity or even result in death to 

an animal (Joslin 1999). 

Effects to public use may include the following: 

■■ Creation of designated trails to localize disturbance 

■■ Establishment of viewing sites that provide 

viewing opportunities while minimizing disturbance 

■■ Location of travel routes to avoid sensitive habitats features (sensitive wetland communities, 

bogs, amphibian breeding areas, big game winter 

habitat) 

■■ Buffer zones around nest sites 

■■ Seasonal use restrictions or closures where 

needed to reduce or prevent disturbance or displacement to sensitive wildlife 

■■ Seasonal closures to recreational activity to reduce disturbance or displacement (nesting season, winter big game habitat) 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

An added 0.25 FTE would be needed to inventory 

and check species of concern, and evaluate the effects of management decisions. 

Species of 

Concern—Alternatives B and C 

Same as alternative A, plus considering and monitoring more species of concern in management decisions would help more species and also help make 

sure that there is ecosystem health and biodiversity 

to a greater degree than alternative A. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

An added 0.5 FTE would be needed to accomplish 

more monitoring, evaluate effects of management 

actions to species of concern, to develop partnerships and support databases. 

Migratory Birds—Alternative A 

All of the migratory birds that use the fee-title 

lands within the refuge complex are part of a larger 

population and spend at least a part of their life 

somewhere else. Population and landscape-level 

studies help inform management on Service lands by 

providing a broader context for evaluating success. 

Evaluating migratory bird population responses to 

management only within refuge complex fee-title 

lands can be misleading and result in ineffective 

management actions. 

Annual increases in breeding bird populations 

are figured out by using several components of 

reproduction, including the number of breeding 

pairs, hatching success and survival of the young. 

Human disturbance can reduce any or all of these 

components and, in time, result in declining bird 

populations (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). By establishing seasonal closures on fee-title lands subject 

to frequent disturbance, this alternative should reduce or stop the negative effects of human-caused 

disturbance and protect reproductive success of migratory birds using these areas. 

In general, predator removal in the greater region has been shown to be effective for increasing 

nest success for breeding waterfowl (Duebbert and 

Lokemoen 1980). The effect on waterfowl nesting 

success of recent trapping efforts at the Benton 

Lake Refuge is unknown because systematic nest 

success studies have not been conducted over this 

same period. Please see chapter 7 for more details. 

Historically, goose structures were placed across 

complex lands to restore declining goose populations. Canada goose populations for the Rocky 

Mountains and prairies of Montana have rebounded 

significantly and are no longer a significant management concern (USFWS 2009e). No complex re­
150 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

sources are currently obligated toward waterfowl 

nesting structures. Other nesting structures across 

the refuge complex currently target other species 

with stable or increasing populations and have limited use. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

All participation in population and landscape-level 

studies requires more investment of staff time and 

money; however, this varies greatly between studies. The most intensive studies currently are the 

prairie pothole breeding waterfowl survey (foursquare mile survey) and waterfowl banding. These 

two studies both need 3–4 people for at least 1 

month each to complete. Banding costs up to $3,500 

per year, but these costs are offset by the regional 

office. In general, population and landscape-level 

studies provide a good return on investment because 

they do not need station-level staff to analyze data 

and interpret results, but the Service receives substantial management information from the resulting 

large datasets. However, broader studies may not 

provide site specific information for managing a refuge or waterfowl production area. 

Informing the public of closures via signs and 

brochures requires a small amount of staff time. 

Current trapping efforts require 60 staff hours 

over 4 months. Added costs for bait, traps, and fuel 

are a few hundred dollars per year. 

Staff time is not currently spent on supporting 

the nesting structures on waterfowl production areas. The nest boxes for bluebirds and kestrels on 

Benton Lake require approximately 2 days per year 

to support. 

Migratory Birds—Alternative B 

Same as A plus, selecting migratory bird species as 

indicators to inform future management decisions. 

It is possible that habitat objectives may be met, but 

bird use does not respond as expected. This information may show that management actions are the 

cause or it may show that there is another influence 

at a population or landscape level. Evaluating all 

of these possibilities would help staff make proper 

adjustments to management and engage others at 

a landscape level. This could result in greater benefits to migratory birds such as higher nest success, 

greater survival or greater fecundity. 

None of the current nesting structures provide 

habitat for bird species whose populations are in decline or cannot find other habitat options in the area. 

Therefore a reduction in these structures would not 

be expected to negatively affect target species. If 

in the future nesting structures could help a species 

of concern, they may be used and may sustain or 

increase populations. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

If nesting structures were necessary in the future 

to replace otherwise unavailable habitat, the costs 

would be highly variable. Cost savings may be realized if participation in a landscape-level migratory 

bird study is no longer a priority and is discontinued. There would be increased staff time required 

to watch the response of migratory birds used as 

indicators. 

Migratory Birds—Alternative C 

Same as B, plus increased efforts to check conservation areas would provide more information to target 

land protection that benefits high-priority migratory 

birds. Protecting key parcels that help these species 

should result in greater benefits such as higher nest 

success, greater survival, and greater fecundity. 

None of the current nesting structures provide 

habitat for bird species whose populations are in decline or cannot find other habitat options in the area. 

Therefore elimination of these structures would not 

be expected to negatively affect target species. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

Same as alternative B except, costs to support artificial structures would decline to zero as structures 

fail and are not replaced. There would be more staff 

Waterfowl workshops for youth are held at Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge . 

USFWS 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 151 

time required to take part in, or lead, migratory bird 

monitoring within the conservation areas. 

5 .6 Visitor Services 

Goal Effects 

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental education and interpretation, and other uses. 

Hunting 

Hunting, as one of the six priority uses of the Refuge System, provides traditional recreation activities with no adverse effects on biological resources. 

The refuge complex would provide approximately 

1,850 hunt visits per year mostly occurring in the 

district. See chapter 7 for effects across alternatives 

for hunting at Benton Lake Refuge. 

Hunting—Alternative A 

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

Annually, approximately 1,350 visits for hunting 

would be expected; however, factors beyond the 

scope of this plan would affect hunter numbers on 

waterfowl production areas. For example, economic 

conditions, weather, and State permit availability 

would influence hunter numbers from one year to 

the next. Hunter numbers are not expected to fluctuate dramatically throughout the life of the plan 

under any alternative. 

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas 

These areas would only be open to hunting if the 

landowner chooses to allow this use. Under all alternatives the Service relies on the other entities 

(nongovernmental organizations and State) that offer payment for hunting access with their easements 

such as MFWP block management program. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

Annually, approximately 100 visitor use-days are expected to occur on the refuge for waterfowl hunting 

for each alternative. Waterfowl-hunting opportunity 

and availability would remain stable throughout 

the life of the plan for all alternatives. Use would 

be focused north of Bog Road. There would not be 

any conflicts with other hunting groups (big game 

or upland game) for they are not authorized. There 

would be equal opportunity for all user groups with 

a first-come-first-serve basis and no reserved areas 

or guided operations would be occurring on the refuge. 

Hunting—Alternatives B and C 

Same as A plus, hunting could increase under this 

alternative with increased opportunities. Unintentional hunting violations should be reduced by increasing signage and informational materials. 

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography 

Wildlife Observation and photography are one of the 

six priority uses of the Refuge System, and provides 

traditional recreation activities with no adverse effects on biological resources. The refuge complex 

hosts 8,230 wildlife observation visits per year and 

490 photography visits per year, which accounts for 

62 percent and 4 percent, respectively, of the total 

visits to the refuge complex. These are the most 

popular recreational uses occurring within the refuge complex. On all units, wildlife observation and 

photography is regulated by seasonal closures and 

a variety of access methods to protect their primary 

purposes: migratory birds or waterfowl production. 

Commercial photography is authorized under special use permit and generates photography used 

by refuge staff to expand outreach and educational 

efforts. For wildlife observation and photography at 

Benton Lake Refuge, see chapter 7 for effects across 

alternatives. 

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography—Alternatives 

A and B 

Wildlife observation and photography would continue to provide recreational opportunities throughout the refuge complex with no definable adverse 

effects on the biological integrity or habitat sustainability of the refuge complex resources as defined 

in the Improvement Act. Annual visitation to the 

refuge complex for wildlife observation and photog­
152 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Cattle on the Sweet Hills in the refuge complex . 

USFWS 

raphy would remain similar to existing visitation 

rates: 8,230 and 490 visits per year, respectively. 

Benton Lake Wetland S

to Management District 

Wildlife observation and photography would account 

for 580 and 50 annual visits, respectively. The uses 

would remain popular recreational activities with 

stable growth; however, no effects on nesting migratory birds would be expected. 

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas 

Public access to conservation easement lands would 

remain under the control of the landowner. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

Bog Road would provide wildlife-viewing and photography opportunities and access to the interior 

of the refuge. The existing observation platform, 

kiosk, and interpretive panel and associated parking 

area would provide opportunity for wildlife observation and photography and would remain a popular 

destination point while traveling through the Swan 

Valley. 

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography—Alternative C 

Same as alternative A, plus the wildlife observation 

and photography opportunities would be expanded. 

Expanding public opportunities for wildlife observation and photography may lead to increased disturbance due to wildlife and trampling of vegetation, 

particularly if visitors travel off roads and trails. 

More staff and resources would be required to manage the increased public use to reduce disturbance 

to wildlife and habitat and to educate photographers 

and wildlife observers about the local resources. The 

facilitation of the expanded opportunity (new photography/wildlife observation blind) and improved 

or supported infrastructure would only be possible 

by the addition of the 0.5 FTE for park ranger. This 

would be increase in staff costs for the refuge complex; however, significant increase in usage by the 

public is possible by tapping into the 60,000 individuals of Great Falls leaving 12 miles south of the refuge complex headquarters and expanding outreach 

to other communities such as Missoula, Kalispell, 

Lincoln, and Helena. The amount of increase in visitation is unknown, but could be quite significant. 

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

ame as alternative A, plus interpretive guided 

urs could lead to increases in participation. 

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas 

Same as alternative A. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

Same as alternative A. 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation 

Environmental Education and interpretation are 

one of the six priority uses of the Refuge System, 

and provide traditional recreation activities with 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 153 

no adverse effects on biological resources. In FY 

2011, approximately 1,765 visits for environmental 

education programs on and offsite occurred. Approximately 120 recreational visits for on and offsite 

interpretation occurs annually. These uses account 

for 13 percent and 1 percent, respectively, of the 

total visits to the refuge complex. Popular events 

include the Annual Envirothon that attracts more 

than 250 students and teachers throughout Montana, Great Falls Public School third grader visits 

to Benton Lake each year, and several University of 

Montana field trips to the Blackfoot Valley for onsite 

classrooms. For impacts specific to environmental 

education and interpretation at Benton Lake Refuge, see chapter 7. 

In virtual geocaching, participants follow GPS 

coordinates to locations such as a visitor center, informational kiosk, or even a scenic view. Virtual 

“caches” would lead people into refuges without 

damaging habitat and would promote the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and the complex. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation—Alternatives 

A and B 

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

Environmental and educational activities would 

continue at current rate of approximately 100 participants annually. No effects on resources would be 

expected at this rate. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

Minimal environmental education and interpretation 

exists at the refuge for approximately 10 visits per 

year. This is expected to continue due to lack of staff 

for environmental and interpretive programming in 

the refuge complex. 

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas 

No participation in environmental education or interpretation is expected. Landowners have the sole 

discretion to allow such uses on conservation easement land. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation—Alternative C 

Same as alternative A, plus programming would 

be increased and expanded to enhance public 

knowledge, understanding of restoration efforts 

throughout the refuge complex and emphasis on 

landscape-scale conservation efforts through easement programs in the refuge complex. These efforts would help foster support and success of the 

easement program and the numbers of acres protected of grasslands and wetlands. In addition, the 

efforts would generate support by the public for 

restoration efforts conducted by staff throughout 

the refuge complex. Community engagement would 

increase throughout the refuge complex especially 

in Great Falls from educational efforts such as field 

exploration kits, workshops for teachers, special 

events, job shadows, and the Web site and other 

social networking tools. The numbers of individuals 

reached through educational and interpretive efforts 

would be significantly greater than under any other 

alternative due to the programming implementation 

conducted by the addition of a park ranger (0.5 FTE) 

and wildlife refuge specialist (0.25 FTE) stationed 

at Upsata WPA, which is proposed for acquisition. 

These efforts would also tap into the resources of 

Great Falls not being addressed in alternatives A or 

B (see chapter 7). 

5 .7 Administration 

Goal Effects 

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to staff, money, and facilities and real 

property assets. 

Staff and Funding 

In FY 2009, the Refuge System received an increase 

of $250 million (National Wildlife Refuge Association 

2009 Annual Report). Projections show that due to 

the current state of the economy and the increasing 

debt and recession, operations money would remain 

stable to decreasing. With annual inflation, base allocations would erode with the inability to keep up 

with expenses beyond salary, such as health insurance and retirement benefits. The Service conservatively estimates a need for annual increases between 

$18 million and $35.5 million to meet conservation 

expectations of partners and the U.S. Congress 
154 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

(National Wildlife Refuge Association 2009 Annual 

Report). Increased operation money is not expected. 

However, nearly $6 million in Land Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for the Rocky Mountain Front 

CA was received in FY 2011. LWCF directly affects 

the refuge complex’s ability to preserve intact landscapes. To accomplish the administration goal, complex staff would need to maximize opportunities for 

in-kind help, both fiscal and human resources, in addition to experiencing increases in base allocations. 

The refuge complex has a rich tradition of maximizing partnerships to meet established goals and 

objectives. The Service would need to continue these 

efforts and look for more opportunities to leverage 

dollars and human capital through partnerships. 

Needed staff has been identified throughout the 

CCP, with special emphasis on implementation and 

monitoring of the wetland, grassland, and forest 

management; preservation of intact landscapes; protection of visitors and natural resources; and growth 

of the visitor services program. Visitors expect information and help to be available during high visitation periods (weekends during the summer months). 

This is currently not possible due to lack of visitor 

services staff to run visitor contact facilities during 

the peak visitation time—summer weekends. Particular needs of the visitor services program identified during scoping include the following inreach and 

outreach activities: 

■■ kiosks, interpretive panels, flier distribution, and 

brochure updates 

■■ congressional and directorate briefing packages 

■■ keeping the Web site current and updated 

■■ establishing a Friends group for the refuge complex 

■■ coordinating multi-agency youth and volunteer 

activities 

■■ providing interpretive and educational outreach 

programs 

■■ refining and increasing participation in the refuge 

complex’s volunteer program 

Volunteer use on the refuge complex has been 

low, partly due to not having a staff position to nurture the program and the opportunistic manner in 

which the program has been implemented. Volunteers represent an untapped resource that can further contribute to meeting the goals and objectives 

of the CCP. 

Staff and 

Funding—Alternative A 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

The refuge complex currently has 9.5 full-time employees and 3 seasonal employees. Special emphasis 

throughout the refuge complex is the management 

and some monitoring of the wetland and grassland 

habitats as well as preserving intact landscapes. 

Money and staff is allocated accordingly with the 

greatest concentration of operations and maintenance money (more than $130,000) going toward 

water level management at Benton Lake Refuge 

(pumping electrical expense, managing water delivery, pump house and structures and ditch maintenance). 

Under this alternative, staff and money to manage the preservation of intact landscapes is not expected to grow significantly. A total of 2.5 FTEs 

(1.0 wetland district manager and 1.5 FTE wildlife 

refuge specialists) would be allocated toward these 

efforts. Budget operations and salary percentage 

dedicated to this activity would remain at current 

levels. 

It is expected to be quite difficult to meet the 

challenges associated with any significant increases 

in land acquisition money from LWCF or Migratory Bird funding. Fieldwork would be necessary to 

carry out the programs, secure willing sellers, and 

inspect provisions of easement contracts. A reallocation of staff and money from other refuge complex programs and reliance on other refuge regional 

programs (such as Realty and Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife programs) would be necessary to help 

carry the increased workload. Little flexibility exists 

in other programs and the realty and partners for 

wildlife programs would see increase workload requirements as well with little flexibility to lend help. 

Without significant base money increases or help 

from other programs, it would be extremely difficult 

to adequately manage the efforts toward preserving 

intact landscapes. 

Visitor Services, Partnerships, 

Volunteers, Resource Protection, 

and FTE and Base Money Allocation 

Competing staff and money needs for the biological 

program and efforts to preserve intact landscapes 

would stifle the efforts of growth in the visitor services program. In FY 2009 and 2010, visitor and volunteer service allocations of money and staff include 

approximately $600 a year for the refuge complex’s 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 155 

volunteer program administration and regional allocation of deferred maintenance money were used 

toward interpretive panels and kiosks updates (FY 

2009 $30,000). In FY 2011, no money was provided. 

Visitor and resource protection needs, however, 

could be enhanced throughout the refuge complex 

by replacing a full-time law enforcement officer position that was part of the refuge complex in FY 2009. 

The establishment of Friends group to advocate 

the needs of the refuge complex internally and externally would not be possible. Formation of other 

partnerships to leverage staff and money and 

growth of the volunteer program would also not be 

possible due to the lack of staff and money. 

Staff and 

Funding—Alternative B 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

Other complex priorities may see shifts of operations money and personnel to accomplish management objectives at the Benton Lake Refuge. During 

intense water level management years, money and 

staff would predominately go toward habitat restoration efforts at the Benton Lake Refuge (see alternatives B1 and B2, chapter 7). 

Staff and money to manage the preservation of 

intact landscapes is expected to be reduced as well. 

Although preserving intact landscapes would be of 

special importance especially with the challenges 

of climate change and the implementation of SHC 

through the GNLCC, no added staff would be available. Fieldwork would be necessary to carry out the 

programs, secure willing sellers, and inspect provisions of easement contracts. Staff would continue to 

rely on other programs for help. Without significant 

base money increases, it would be not be possible to 

carry out the landscape preservation efforts. 

A total of 2.5 added FTE would be required to 

fully carry out this alternative for the complex (0.5 

generalist, 1.0 supervisory wildlife biologist, 1.0 law 

enforcement officer). 

Visitor Services, Partnerships, Volunteers, Resource Protection, and FTE and 

Base Funds Allocation 

Same as alternative A, plus efforts to secure money 

to replace a full time law enforcement officer would 

occur to improve visitor and resource protection and 

enhance easement compliance. 

Staff and 

Funding—Alternative C 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

Other complex priorities may see increases in the 

availability of operations money made available for 

work elsewhere in the complex from implementing 

alternatives C1 or C2 at Benton Lake Refuge. Following the initial restoration or decommissioning of 

the system, some of the savings from reduced annual operations and maintenance for water management could be distributed to other priorities within 

the refuge complex such as preserving intact landscapes, grassland restoration, and visitor services. 

Staffing increases would be the same as for alternative B, plus there would be an increase of 2.5 

FTE (1.5 wildlife refuge specialist, 1.0 maintenance, 

and 1.0 park ranger) would be needed to accomplish 

objectives in the wetland management district and 

throughout the complex. Particular emphasis would 

be placed on managing and preserving intact landscapes and increasing visitor services throughout 

the complex. A total of 6.0 FTEs (0.5 generalist, 1.0 

supervisory wildlife biologist, 1.0 law enforcement 

officer, 1.0 wildlife refuge specialist, 0.5 wildlife refuge specialist, 1.0 maintenance worker, and 1.0 park 

ranger) would be required to fully carry out this 

alternative. 

Visitor Services, Partnerships, Volunteers, Resource Protection, and FTE and 

Base Money Allocation 

Growth in the visitor services program is most 

likely to occur with the addition of a park ranger to 

manage the volunteer program, establish a Friends 

group, and manage visitor services operations. This 

position would tap into the resources of Great Falls 

and other population centers within the refuge complex. Focus would be on restoration efforts throughout the refuge complex. 

Replacing a full-time law enforcement officer position that was part of the refuge complex in FY 

2009 would have high priority. The growth in conservation areas (Swan Valley and the potential for 

other areas) would require more inspection and enforcement responsibilities. 
156 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

5 .8 Visitor and Employee 

Safety and Resource 

Protection Goal Effects 

Visitor and Employee 

Safety—Alternative A 

The refuge complex has historically had an issue 

with dead zones for radio and cell phone coverage 

in remote parts of the refuge complex. Radios and 

repeaters that exist are ineffectual for certain locations, as are cell phones. Although no major incident 

has yet resulted from this lack of communication, the 

potential exists for someone to be stranded, injured 

or in need of aid with no way of contacting immediate help. 

Visitor and Employee 

Safety—Alternatives B and C 

Efforts would be made to increase the ability to 

communicate throughout the refuge complex. This 

is critical to respond to emergencies by staff and 

visitors. Currently, blackout zones exist and many 

units of the refuge complex are greater than 5-hour 

vehicle response time. Improvements in radio communication and portable phones are necessary. 

Resource 

Protection—Alternative A 

Staff would continue to provide visitor, employee, 

and resource protection at current levels. The presence of law enforcement officers on the refuge complex results in greater compliance with regulations 

that are designed to protect the natural (wildlife and 

habitat) resources, cultural resources, facilities, visitors, and employees of the refuge complex. 

Resource 

Protection—Alternative B 

Same as alternative A, plus an increased effort to 

engage in proactive communications and contacts 

with the public to educate them on rules and regulations would reduce citations and to build support for 

refuges and public lands. These preventative law 

enforcement efforts would ideally lead to increased 

compliance with regulations, thus resulting in less 

damage to the refuge complex’s resources. 

Officers would engage in proactive communications and contacts with the public to educate them 

on rules and regulations in an effort to reduce citations and to build support for refuges and public 

lands. 

Resource 

Protection—Alternative C 

Same as alternative B, plus focusing more law enforcement efforts on the inspection and enforcement 

of easements would result in the continued protection of wetland and grassland habitat. 

5 .9 Socioeconomic Effects 

Economic Impacts of Current 

and Proposed Management 

Activities 

During the CCP planning process it became evi

dent that the issues surrounding the management of 

Benton Lake Refuge, and the wetland basin in par

ticular, were of significant concern within the refuge 

complex. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

public have identified selenium contamination, and 

its effect on all aspects of management at Benton 

Lake Refuge and the declining wetland productivity, 

as some of the most critical situations needing to be 

addressed in this CCP planning process. Because of 

the complexity of these issues, the economic impact 

analysis for the Benton Lake Refuge will be pre

sented separate from the rest of the refuge complex. 

The issues described in Benton Lake Refuge analy

sis fit within the umbrella of the refuge complex, 

but explore some aspects in greater detail. When 

completed, the management direction for the refuge 

complex and the management direction for Benton 

Lake Refuge will be used in conjunction to serve 

as a working guide for management programs and 

activities throughout the refuge complex over the 

next 15 years. 

­

­

­

­
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 157 

Methods for a Regional Economic 

Impact Analysis 

Economic input-output models are commonly used 

to decide how economic sectors will and will not 

be affected by demographic, economic, and policy 

changes. The economic impacts of the management 

alternatives for the refuge complex were estimated 

using Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN), a 

regional input-output modeling system developed 

by the USDA Forest Service. IMPLAN is a computerized database and modeling system that provides a regional input-output analysis of economic 

activity in terms of 10 industrial groups involving 

more than four hundred economic sectors (Olson 

and Lindall, 1999). The IMPLAN model draws upon 

data collected by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group 

from multiple federal and state sources including 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, and the U.S. Census Bureau (Olson and 

Lindall, 1999). For the refuge complex analysis, the 

year 2009 IMPLAN 3.0 data profiles for Cascade, 

Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Missoula, Pondera, Powell, Teton, and Toole 

Counties were used for the local area analysis. For 

the Benton Lake Refuge analysis, the year 2009 

IMPLAN 3.0 data profiles for Cascade, Chouteau, 

and Teton Counties were used for the local area 

analysis. The IMPLAN county level employment 

data estimates were found to be comparable to the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, Regional Economic Information System 

data for the year 2009. 

Because of the way industries interact in an economy, activity in one industry affects activity levels in 

several other industries. For example, if more visitors come to an area, local businesses will buy extra 

labor and supplies to meet the increase in demand 

for more services. The income and employment resulting from visitor purchases from local businesses 

represent the direct effects of visitor spending 

within the economy. Direct effects measure the net 

amount of spending that stays in the local economy 

after the first round of spending; the amount that 

doesn’t stay in the local economy is termed a leakage 

(Carver and Caudill, 2007). To increase supplies to 

local businesses to meet increased demand, input 

suppliers must also increase their purchases of inputs from other industries. The income and employment resulting from these secondary purchases by 

Trumpeter swans are released in the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area . 

USFWS 
158 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

input suppliers are the indirect effects of visitor 

spending within the economy. Employees of the directly affected businesses and input suppliers use 

their incomes to buy goods and services. The resulting increased economic activity from new employee 

income is the induced effect of visitor spending. The 

indirect and induced effects are known as the secondary effects of visitor spending. “Multipliers” (or 

“Response Coefficients”) capture the size of the secondary effects, usually as a ratio of total effects to 

direct effects (Stynes, 1998). The sums of the direct 

and secondary effects describe the total economic 

impact of visitor spending in the local economy. 

For each alternative, regional economic effects 

from the IMPLAN model are reported for the following categories: 

■■ Employment represents the change in the number of jobs generated in the region from a change 

in regional output. IMPLAN estimates for employment include both full time and part time 

workers, which are measured in total jobs. 

■■ Labor Income includes employee wages and 

salaries, including income of sole proprietors and 

payroll benefits. 

■■ Value Added measures contribution to Gross 

Domestic Product. Value added is equal to the 

difference between the amount an industry sells 

a product for and the production cost of the product, and is thus net of intermediate sales. 

The CCP provides long range guidance and management direction to achieve the refuge complex 

purposes over a 15-year timeframe. The economic 

impacts reported in this report are on an annual 

basis in 2011 dollars. Large management changes 

often take several years to achieve. The estimates 

reported for all the alternatives represent the final 

average annual economic effects after all changes in 

management have been implemented. 

Economic Impacts of Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex (Excluding Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge) 

This section provides an analysis of the potential 

economic effects associated with the implementation of the management alternatives for the refuge 

complex. Economic impacts for a separate analysis—to address the management at Benton Lake 

Refuge—are described in the next section and are 

not repeated here. 

The planning team developed and analyzed two 

alternatives beyond current management; the evaluation included an analysis of the environmental and 

socioeconomic consequences and the cumulative impacts of implementing each of the following alternatives: 

■■ Alternative A (no action): represents the current management of the refuge complex. This 

alternative provides the baseline against which to 

compare the other alternatives.; 

■■ Alternative B: management efforts would be focused on supporting the resiliency and sustainability of native grasslands, forests, shrublands 

and unaltered wetlands throughout the complex 

by mimicking natural processes.; 

■■ Alternative C: emphasis would be placed on selfsustaining systems with ecological processes 

functioning for long-term productivity. Management efforts are focused on supporting and restoring ecological processes including natural 

communities and dynamics of the ecosystems of 

the Northern Great Plains and Northern Rocky 

Mountains in relationship to their geomorphic 

landscape positioning. 

Impacts from Payments to 

Communities and Landowners 

Impacts from Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Under provisions of the Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act (RRS), local counties receive an annual payment for lands that have been purchased by full fee 

simple acquisition by the Service. Payments are 

based on the greater of 75 cents per acre or 0.75 

percent of the fair market value of lands acquired 

by the Service. The exact amount of the annual 

payment depends on congressional appropriations, 

which in recent years have tended to be less than 

the amount to fully fund the authorized level of payments. In FY 2010, actual RRS payments were 21 

percent of authorized levels. FY10 refuge complex 

RRS payments (made in 2011) were: $887 to communities in Cascade County; $1,112 to communities 

in Chouteau County; $42 to communities in Glacier 

County; $517 to communities in Hill County; $13,173 

to communities in Lake County; $1,541 to communities in Pondera County; $11,463 to communities 

in Powell County; $1,496 to communities in Teton 

County; and $2,327 to communities in Toole County 

for a total payment of $32,558. Table 14 shows the 

resulting economic impacts of RRS payments under 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 159 

all alternatives. Accounting for both the direct and 

secondary effects, RRS payments for alternatives 

A, B, and C would generate total annual economic 

impacts of $11.3 thousand in labor income and $16.4 

thousand in value added in the local twelve-county 

impact area. 

Table 14 . Annual impacts from refuge revenue sharing payments for all alternatives for Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Employment Labor income Value Added 

(# full and part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Alternatives A, B, and C 

Direct effects < 1 $8.8 $11.7 

Secondary effects < 1 $2.5 $4.7 

Total economic impact < 1 $11.3 $16.4 

Impacts from Conservation Easement Payments 

Over the life of the plan the Service’s conservation 

easement acquisition objectives are 5,000 acres in 

the Swan Valley CA, 120,000 acres in the Rocky 

Mountain Front CA and 45,000 acres in the Blackfoot Valley CA. Acquisition is dependent upon 

money; primarily from the Land Water Conservation Fund which varies annually. Although there is 

not enough information to estimate the economic 

impact of the easements on these private properties, 

it is generally expected that conservation easement 

purchases inject new money into the local economy. 

The sale of conservation easements provides landowners with more revenue. Some percentage of this 

money may be spent in the local economy, including 

purchasing more real estate interests, consumer 

goods, or services in the local area. Other transactions may include paying of loans, corporate ventures, or family and financial planning initiatives. 

In many cases, the sale of easements allows farm 

owners to continue farming practices on their land. 

The farmer’s costs for equipment, supplies and materials likely to be spent in the local economy, thus 

stimulating local businesses and supporting local employment. Farm workers will also generally spend 

their salaries in the local economy, thus supporting 

further local employment. From a social perspective, conservation easements generate benefits for 

local residents, communities, and governments by 

protecting values associated with biodiversity and 

wildlife abundance, aesthetic beauty, local agriculture, and social and culturally significant features of 

landscapes and livelihoods. 

Impacts from Public Use and Access 

Management 

Refuge Complex 

Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy 

Spending associated with recreational visits to national wildlife refuges generates significant economic 

activity. The FWS report Banking on Nature: The 

Economic Benefits of National Wildlife Refuges Visitation to Local Communities, estimated the impact 

of national wildlife refuges on their local economies 

(Carver and Caudill, 2007). According to the report, 

more than 34.8 million visits were made to national 

wildlife refuges in FY 2006 which generated $1.7 

billion of sales in regional economies. Accounting 

for both the direct and secondary effects, spending 

by national wildlife visitors generated nearly 27,000 

jobs, and more than $542.8 million in employment 

income (Carver and Caudill, 2007). Approximately 

82 percent of total expenditures were from nonconsumptive activities, 12 percent from fishing, and 6 

percent from hunting (Carver and Caudill, 2007). 

The overarching goal of the refuge complex public use program is to enhance wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities and access to quality visitor experiences while managing units to conserve 

fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. A variety of 

recreational opportunities are associated with the 

“Big-Six” wildlife-dependent uses: hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and environmental education. In FY11, there 

were 3,027 visits to the refuge complex, including: 

375 anglers, 455 big game hunters, 267 waterfowl 

and other migratory bird hunters, 750 upland game 

hunters, 1,180 nonconsumptive users (wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation). 

This section focuses on the regional economic impacts associated with refuge complex visitation. Annual visitation estimates for the refuge complex are 

based on several refuge complex statistic sources 

including: visitors entering the visitor center/office 

and general observation by refuge complex person­
160 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

nel. Annual visitation estimates are on a per visit 

basis. Visitor spending profiles are estimated on 

an average per day (8 hours) basis. Because some 

visitors only spend short amounts of time visiting 

the refuge complex, counting each visit as a full visitor day would overestimate the economic impact of 

refuge complex visitation. To properly account for 

the amount of spending, the annual number of visits 

were converted to visitor days. Refuge complex 

personnel estimate that big game hunters spend 

approximately 8 hours (1 visitor day), anglers and 

upland game hunters spend approximately 4 hours 

(1/2 a visitor day) on the refuge complex, while waterfowl hunters spend approximately 6 hours (3/4 

a visitor day). Visitors that view wildlife or take 

part in other wildlife observation activities typically 

spend 4 hours (1/2 a visitor day). 

To figure out the local economic impacts of visitor spending, only spending by persons living outside of the local twelve-county area are included 

in the analysis. The rationale for excluding local 

visitor spending is twofold. First, money flowing 

into the local twelve-county area from visitors living outside the local area (hereafter referred to as 

nonlocal visitors) is considered new money injected 

into the local economy. Second, if residents of the 

local twelve-county area visit the refuge complex 

more or less due to the management changes, they 

will correspondingly change the spending of their 

money elsewhere in that local area, resulting in no 

net change to the local economy. These are standard 

assumptions made in most regional economic analyses at the local level. Refuge complex personnel figured out the percentage of nonlocal refuge complex 

visitors. Table 15 shows the estimated percent of 

current visits and visitor days by visitor activity for 

the district and Swan River Refuge. 

The annual average number of refuge complex 

visits are shown in table 16. The refuge complex 

staff anticipates that the number of big game, waterfowl, and other migratory bird hunting visits 

will remain constant for all the alternatives. For 

alternatives B and C, fishing visits are anticipated 

to increase by 10 percent compared to alternative A. 

Upland game visits are anticipated to increase by 5 

percent for alternative B and 10 percent for alternative C compared to alternative A. Nonconsumptive 

use visitation will remain the same as current estimates for alternatives A and B but is anticipated to 

increase by 25 percent under alternative C. 

A visitor usually buys a wide range of goods and 

services while visiting an area. Major expenditure 

categories include lodging, restaurants, supplies, 

groceries, and recreational equipment rental. In 

this analysis we use average daily visitor spending profiles from the Banking on Nature report 

(Carver and Caudill, 2007) that were derived from 

the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 

Wildlife Associated Recreation (USFWS 2008a). 

The National Survey reports trip related spending 

of state residents and nonresidents for several different wildlife-associated recreational activities. For 

each recreation activity, spending is reported in the 

categories of lodging, food and drink, transportation, and other expenses. Carver and Caudill (2007) 

calculated the average per-person per-day expenditures by recreation activity for each FWS region. 

We used the spending profiles for nonresidents for 

FWS Region 6 (for the purposes of the analysis in 

the Banking on Nature report, Region 6 includes 

Montana), and updated the 2006 spending profiles to 

2011 dollars using the Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator. Average daily spending profiles for 

nonresident visitors to Region 6 for fishing ($125.71), 

big game hunting ($213.64), upland game hunting 

Table 15 . Estimated current annual visitation for Benton Lake Wetland Management District and Swan River 

National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Number Total annual Number Total annual Percentage of nonlo- Visitor Activity number of of hours number of of nonlocal cal visi­ visits spent visitor days* visits (%) tor days* 

Fishing 375 4 188 2% 4 

Big game hunting 455 8 455 25% 114 

Waterfowl and migratory bird hunting 267 6 200 25% 50 

Upland game hunting 750 4 375 10% 38 

Non consumptive visitors: wildlife ob

servation, photography, education, and 1,180 4 590 42% 248 

interpretation 

Total Visitation 3,027 1,934 504

*

One visitor day = 8 hours. 

­
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 161 

­

­

­

($176.03 per-day), and waterfowl hunting ($75.88 

per-day) were used to estimate nonlocal visitor 

spending for refuge complex fishing and hunting 

related activities. The average daily nonresident 

spending profile for nonconsumptive wildlife recreation (observing, feeding, or photographing fish and 

wildlife) was used for nonconsumptive wildlife viewing activities ($157.62 per-day). 

Total spending by nonlocal refuge complex visitors was figured out by multiplying the average 

nonlocal visitor daily spending by the number of 

nonlocal visitor days at the refuge complex. The 

economic impacts of each alternative were estimated 

using IMPLAN. Table 17 summarizes the total 

economic impacts associated with current nonlocal 

refuge complex visitation by activity and alternative. Under alternative A, nonlocal refuge complex 

visitors would spend approximately $74 thousand in 

the local economy annually ($39 thousand in spending by nonconsumptive visitors, $24.3 thousand by 

big game hunters, $6.6 thousand by upland game 

hunters, $3.6 thousand by waterfowl hunters, and 

$500 by anglers). This spending would directly account for $17.9 thousand in labor income, and $29.4 

thousand in value added in the local economy. The 

secondary or multiplier effects would generate $7.9 

thousand more in labor income, and $14.5 thousand 

in value added. Accounting for both the direct and 

secondary effects, spending by nonlocal visitors for 

alternative A would generate total economic impacts 

of 1 job, $25.8 thousand in labor income, and $43.9 

thousand in value added. 

As shown in table 17, the total annual average 

economic impacts for alternative B would be similar 

to alternative A. The economic impacts are slightly 

higher for alternative C compared to alternative 

A which corresponds to the slight (66 visitor days) 

increase in visitation between the alternatives. 

Table 16 . Annual average number of visits and visitor days by activity and alternative for Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Total visits 

Fishing 375 413 413 

Big game hunting 455 455 455 

Waterfowl and migratory bird hunting 267 267 267 

Upland game hunting 750 788 825 

Non consumptive visitors: wildlife observation, photogra

phy, education, and interpretation 1,180 1,180 1,475 

Total Annual Visits 3,027 3,102 3,435 

Total visitor Days 

Fishing 188 206 206 

Big game hunting 455 455 455 

Waterfowl and migratory bird hunting 200 200 200 

Upland game hunting 375 394 413 

Non consumptive visitors: wildlife observation, photogra

phy, education, and interpretation 590 590 738 

Total Visitor Days 1,808 1,845 2,012 

Nonlocal visitor Days 

Fishing 4 4 4 

Big game hunting 114 114 114 

Waterfowl and migratory bird hunting 48 48 48 

Upland game hunting 38 39 41 

Non consumptive visitors: wildlife observation, photogra

phy, education, and interpretation 248 248 310 

Total Nonlocal Visitor Days 451 453 517 
Table 17 . Average annual impacts of nonlocal visitor spending by activity and alternative for Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Employment Labor income Value Added 

(# full and part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Alternative A 

Direct effects < 1 $17.9 $29.4 

Secondary effects < 1 $7.9 $14.5 

Total economic impact 1 $25 .8 $43 .9 

Alternative B 

Direct effects < 1 $18.2 $29.8 

Secondary effects < 1 $7.9 $14.5 

Total economic impact 1 $26 .1 $44 .3 

Alternative C 

Direct effects < 1 $20.6 $33.8 

Secondary effects < 1 $9.1 $16.6 

Total economic impact 1 $29 .7 $50 .4 

162 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Impacts from Refuge Complex 

Administration 

Staff – Personal Purchases 

Refuge complex employees reside and spend 

their salaries on daily living expenses in the local 

area, thereby generating impacts within the local 

economy. Household consumption expenditures 

consist of payments by individuals/households to 

industries for goods and services used for personal 

consumption. The IMPLAN modeling system contains household consumption spending profiles that 

account for average household spending patterns 

by income level. These profiles allow for leakage of 

household spending to outside the region. Several 

members of the refuge complex staff work at Benton 

Lake Refuge as well as other areas on the refuge 

complex. For the purposes of the economic analysis, 

the USFWS provided the percentage split of staff 

time spent working on the refuge complex for each 

position. Table 18 illustrates refuge complex staffing 

and time spent working at the refuge complex (as 

well as working on refuge complex-related issues) 

for each alternative. Under alternative A, salary 

would total $580.3 thousand for the part of time the 

refuge complex staff members spent working on the 

refuge complex. Table 18 shows the changes in positions, time spent working, and total salary amounts 

for refuge complex staffing by alternative. 

Refuge complex personnel estimate that annual 

salaries total around $580.3 thousand for alternative 

A and would increase under alternatives B and C. 

Table 19 shows the economic impacts associated 

with spending of salaries in the local twelve-county 

area by refuge complex employees under all alternatives. For alternative A, salary spending by refuge 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area . 

USFWS 
Table 18 . Staffing and percent of time allocated for working by alternative on the Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Percent of Time Spent Working 

at the Refuge Complex 

Positions by Alternative Full Time Equivalent Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Administrative Officer 1.0 60% 60% 60% 

Assistant Fire Management Officer 1.0 40% 50% 40% 

Bio-Science Technician 0.8 10% 10% 10% 

Bio-Science Technician 0.5 25% 10% 25% 

Bio-Science Technician 0.5 100% 100% 100% 

Budget Analyst 1.0 80% 80% 80% 

Complex Manager 1.0 50% 40% 40% 

Deputy Refuge Manager 1.0 50% 40% 40% 

Generalist 0.5 60% 50% 50% 

Generalist 0.5 80% 60% 60% 

Law Enforcement Officer 1.0 0% 75% 75% 

Maintenance Worker 1.0 25% 10% 25% 

Maintenance Worker 1.0 0% 0% 100% 

Park Ranger 1.0 0% 0% 50% 

Supervisory Wildlife Biologist 1.0 0% 20% 30% 

Wetland District Manager 1.0 75% 75% 85% 

Wildlife Biologist 1.0 25% 10% 10% 

Wildlife Refuge Specialist 1.0 90% 80% 100% 

Wildlife Refuge Specialist 0.5 100% 80% 100% 

Wildlife Refuge Specialist 0.5 0% 0% 100% 

Wildlife Refuge Specialist 1.0 0% 0% 100% 

Wildlife Refuge Specialist 1.0 0% 0% 100% 

Total Salary $ 580,300 $605,100 $894,100 

Table 19 . Annual local impacts of salary spending by personnel by alternative for the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Employment Labor income Value Added 

(# full and part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Alternative A 

Direct effects 0 $0 $0 

Secondary effects 4 $124.3 $237.0 

Total economic impact 4 $124.3 $237.0 

Alternative B 

Direct effects 0 $0 $0 

Secondary effects 4 $129.6 $247.2 

Total economic impact 4 $129.6 $247.2 

Alternative C 

Direct effects 0 $0 $0 

Secondary effects 6 $191.5 $365.2 

Total economic impact 6 $191.5 $365.2 

CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 163 
164 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

complex personnel would generate the secondary effects of 4 jobs, $124.3 thousand in labor income, and 

$237 thousand in value added in the local economy. 

Alternative C would have the largest increase in impacts, generating secondary effects of 6 jobs, $191.5 

thousand in labor income, and $365.2 thousand in 

value added in the local economy. As shown in table 

19, impacts for alternative B are less than alternative C but higher than alternative A. 

Work-related Purchases 

A wide variety of supplies and services are purchased for refuge complex operations and maintenance activities. Refuge complex purchases made 

in the local twelve-county area contribute to the 

local economic impacts associated with the refuge 

complex. Major local expenditures include: supplies 

and services related to annual maintenance costs; 

small equipment; auto repairs, parts, and fuel; and 

utilities. Average annual refuge complex nonsalary 

expenditures are anticipated to be $414.3 thousand 

for alternative A, $420.5 thousand for alternative B, 

and $492.8 thousand for alternative C. According to 

refuge complex records, approximately 70 percent 

of the annual nonsalary budget expenditures are 

spent on goods and services purchased in the local 

twelve-county area. Table 20 shows the economic 

impacts associated with work related expenditures 

in local communities near the refuge complex. For 

alternative A, work related purchases would generate a total economic impact of 2 jobs, $45.5 thousand 

in labor income, and $72.1 thousand in value added. 

Work related purchases under alternative C would 

generate the largest total economic impact of 2 jobs, 

$62.5 thousand in labor income, and $98.9 thousand 

in value added. As shown in table 20, impacts for 

alternative B are less than alternative C but higher 

than alternative A. 

Summary of Economic Impacts for 

Alternative A 

Table 21 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts in the twelve-county area of refuge 

complex management activities for alternative A. 

Under alternative A, refuge complex management 

activities directly related to refuge operations generate an estimated 2 jobs, $58.1 thousand in labor 

income, and $87.1 thousand in value added in the 

local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced 

effects, all refuge complex activities generate a total 

economic impact of 7 jobs, $206.9 thousand in labor 

income, and $369.4 thousand in value added. In 2009, 

total labor income was estimated at $8.7 billion and 

total employment was estimated at 231 thousand 

jobs for the local twelve-county area, according to 

IMPLAN 2009 data. Thus, total economic impacts 

associated with refuge complex operations under 

alternative A represent less than .01 percent of total 

income and total employment in the overall twelvecounty area economy. Total economic effects of 

refuge complex operations play a larger role in the 

communities near the refuge complex where most of 

the refuge complex-related expenditures and public 

use related economic activity occurs. 

Table 20 . Local economic impacts by alternative of purchases related to Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Montana . 

Employment Labor income Value Added 

(# full and part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Alternative A 

Direct effects 1 $31.4 $46.0 

Secondary effects < 1 $14.1 $26.1 

Total economic impact 2 $45.5 $72.1 

Alternative B 

Direct effects 1 $32.3 $47.4 

Secondary effects < 1 $14.5 $26.9 

Total economic impact 2 $46.9 $74.2 

Alternative C 

Direct effects 2 $43.1 $63.2 

Secondary effects < 1 $19.4 $35.8 

Total economic impact 2 $62.5 $98.9 
Table 21 . Summary of all management activities for alternative A for the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Montana . 

Labor income 

Employment (Thousands, Value Added 

(# full and part time jobs) $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Complex Administration* 

Direct effects 2 $40.2 $57.7 

Total Effects 6 $181.1 $325.5 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects < 1 $17.9 $29.4 

Total Effects 1 $25.8 $43.9 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects 2 $58.1 $87.1 

Total effects 7 $206.9 $369.4 

*Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

Table 22 . Summary of all management activities for alternative B for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Montana . 

Employment Labor income Value Added 

(# full and part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Complex Administration* 

Direct effects 2 $41.1 $59.1 

Total Effects 6 $187.8 $337.8 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects < 1 $18.2 $29.8 

Total Effects 1 $26.1 $44.3 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects 2 $59.3 $88.9 

Total effects 7 $213.9 $382.1 

 Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 165 

Summary of Economic Impacts for 

Alternative B 

Table 22 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts in the twelve-county area of refuge 

complex management activities for alternative B. 

Under alternative B, refuge complex management 

activities directly related to refuge operations would 

generate an estimated 2 jobs, $59.3 thousand in labor 

income, and $88.9 thousand in value added in the 

local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced 

effects, all refuge complex activities would generate 

a total economic impact of 7 jobs, $213.9 thousand in 

labor income, and $382.1 thousand in value added. 

In 2009, total labor income was estimated at $8.7 

billion and total employment was estimated at 231 

thousand jobs for the local twelve-county area, according to IMPLAN 2009 data. Thus, total economic 

impacts associated with refuge complex operations 

under alternative B represent less than .01 percent 

of total income and total employment in the overall 

twelve-county area economy. Total economic effects 

of refuge complex operations play a larger role in 

the communities near the refuge complex where 

most of the refuge complex-related expenditures 

and public use related economic activity occurs. 

Table 23 summarizes the change in economic 

effects associated with refuge complex operations 

under alternative B as compared to alternative A. 

Due to slight increases in refuge complex visitation 

and administration, alternative B would generate $7 

thousand more in labor income, and $12.7 thousand 

more in value added as compared to alternative A. 

*
166 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Summary of Economic Impacts for 

Alternative C 

Table 24 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts in the twelve-county area of refuge 

complex management activities for alternative C. 

Under alternative C, refuge complex management 

activities directly related to refuge operations would 

generate an estimated 3 jobs, $72.5 thousand in labor 

income, and $108.7 thousand in value added in the 

local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced 

effects, all refuge complex activities would generate 

a total economic impact of 10 jobs, $294.9 thousand 

in labor income, and $531 thousand in value added. 

In 2009, total labor income was estimated at $8.7 

billion and total employment was estimated at 231 

thousand jobs for the local twelve-county area, according to IMPLAN 2009 data. Thus, total economic 

impacts associated with refuge complex operations 

under alternative C represent less than .01 percent 

of total income and total employment in the overall 

twelve-county area economy. Total economic effects 

of refuge complex operations play a larger role in 

the communities near the refuge complex where 

most of the refuge complex-related expenditures 

and public use related economic activity occurs. 

Table 25 summarizes the change in economic effects associated with refuge complex operations under alternative C as compared to alternative A. Due 

to increases in refuge complex visitation and administration, alternative C would generate 3 more jobs, 

$88.0 thousand more in labor income, and $161.6 

thousand more in value added as compared to alternative A. 

Table 23 . Change in economic impacts under alternative B compared to alternative A for Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Employment Labor income Value Added 

(# full and part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Complex Administration* 

Direct effects (+) < 1 (+) $0.9 (+) $1.4 

Total Effects (+) < 1 (+) $6.7 (+) $12.3 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects (+) < 1 (+) $0.3 (+) $0.4 

Total Effects (+) < 1 (+) $0.3 (+) $0.5 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects (+) < 1 (+) $1.2 (+) $1.8 

Total effects (+) < 1 (+) $7.0 (+) $12.7 

* Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

Table 24 . Summary of all management activities for alternative C for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Montana . 

Employment Labor income Value Added 

(# full and part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Complex Administration* 

Direct effects 2 $51.9 $74.9 

Total Effects 9 $265.2 $480.5 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects < 1 $20.6 $33.8 

Total Effects 1 $29.7 $50.4 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects 3 $72.5 $108.7 

Total effects 10 $294.9 $531.0 

* Staff salary spending and work related purchases 
Table 25 . Change in economic impacts under alternative C compared to alternative A for Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Employment Labor income Value Added 

(# full and part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Complex Administration* 

Direct effects (+) < 1 (+) $11.7 (+) $17.1 

Total Effects (+) 3 (+) $84.1 (+) $155.0 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects (+) < 1 (+) $2.7 (+) $4.4 

Total Effects (+) < 1 (+) $3.9 (+) $6.6 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects (+) < 1 (+) $14.4 (+) $21.5 

Total effects (+) 3 (+) $88.0 (+) $161.6 

* Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 167 

5 .10 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts include the incremental effects of the actions for an alternative when added 

to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. Cumulative impacts can be the result of 

individually minor effects, which can become significant when accumulated over time. 

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations that carry out NEPA requires mitigation 

measures when the environmental analysis process 

detects possible significant impacts on habitat, wildlife, or the human environment. 

None of the activities proposed for the CCP 

would be expected or intended to produce significant 

levels of cumulative environmental impacts that 

would require mitigation measures. Nevertheless, 

the final CCP would contain the following measures 

to preclude significant environmental impacts from 

occurring: 

■■ Federally listed species would be protected from 

intentional or unintended impacts by having activities banned where these species occur. 

■■ All proposed activities would be regulated to 

lessen potential impacts to wildlife, fish, and plant 

species, especially during sensitive reproductive 

cycles. 

■■ Monitoring protocols would be established to decide goal achievement levels and possible unforeseen impacts to resources and for application of 

ARM to make sure wildlife and habitat resources 

as well as the human environment are preserved. 

■■ The Service could revise and amend the CCP 

after 5 years of implementation, for application 

of adaptive resources management to correct 

unforeseen impacts that occur during the first 

years of the plan. 

The refuge complex is located in an area that 

is designated as a high priority for conservation 

and linkage protection by many partners including MFWP, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 

TNC, Conservation Fund, American Wildlands, 

Blackfoot Challenge, Swan Ecosystem Center, 

Northwest Connections, Trout Unlimited, Ducks 

Unlimited and Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative. 

Many of these organizations are involved in transboundary conservation, protecting and connecting 

habitat in the United States and Canada. Given the 

level of public and private partnerships focused on 

land protection within the Crown of the Continent, 

this landscape is arguably one of the most promising large-scale opportunities remaining in North 

America for species resiliency and adaptation in the 

face of climate change. 
168 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 
CHAPTER 6–Management Direction
 

Swan Valley Conservation Area . 

Mitch Werner 

This chapter contains the specific objectives and 

strategies that would be used to carry out the Service’s proposed action (alternative C), which is the 

draft CCP for the Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex in northwestern Montana. The Service recommends this as the alternative that could 

best achieve the refuge complex’s purposes, vision, 

and goals while helping to fulfill the Refuge System 

mission. 

The proposed action (alternative C) would apply 

to all units of the refuge complex. If the Regional 

Director selects alternative C as the preferred alternative, the objectives and strategies presented 

in this chapter would become the final plan to be 

carried out over the next 15 years. In addition, the 

stepdown management plans listed in table 29 (refer 

to section 6.3 below) would provide implementation 

details for specific refuge programs. Alternative C 

would be augmented by specific objectives and strategies for the Benton Lake Refuge, which are fully 

described in chapter 7 under alternative C1. 

The focus of the draft CCP, as described in alternative C, acknowledges the importance of naturally 

functioning ecological communities in the refuge 

complex. Management efforts would be focused on 

restoring and supporting the natural dynamics of 

the ecosystems of the northern Great Plains and 

Rocky Mountains and providing associated visitor 

services. 

Appendix E contains the required compatibility 

determinations (draft) for public uses and management actions associated with this draft CCP. In addition, appendix F describes the fire management 

program for the refuge complex. 
170 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Figure 14 . The adaptive resource management process . . 

6 .1 Proposed Goals, 

Objectives, and Strategies 

This section discusses goals, objectives, and strategies that serve as the steps needed to achieve the 

CCP vision. While a goal is a broad statement, an 

objective is a concise statement that describes what 

is to be achieved, the extent of the achievement, who 

is responsible, and when and where the objective 

should be achieved—all to address the goal. The 

strategies are the actions needed to achieve each 

objective. Unless otherwise stated, the refuge complex staff would carry out the actions in the objectives and strategies. The rationale for each objective 

provides context such as background information, 

assumptions, and technical details. 

A major objective of this CCP is to establish 

partnerships with landowners, volunteers, private 

organizations, and county, State, and Federal natural resource agencies. This has been woven into the 

objectives and strategies that follow across all goals. 

In particular, landowners would be informed of opportunities to take part in compensated habitat protection programs (such as conservation easements). 

Opportunities exist to enhance or establish new 

partnerships with nonprofit organizations, sporting 

clubs, community organizations, and educational 

institutes. 

Another process that would be applied across 

all goals is adaptive resource management (ARM) 

to help in inventory, monitoring and research. The 

Service proposed that the uncertainty surrounding 

habitat management could be dealt with most efficiently within this paradigm (figure 14) (Holling 

1978, Kendall 2001, Lancia et al. 1996, Walters and 

Holling 1990). This approach provides a framework 

within which objective decisions can be made and 

the uncertainty surrounding those decisions reduced. Briefly, the key components of an ARM plan 

follow: 

■■ Clearly defined management goals and objectives. 

■■ A set of management actions with associated uncertainty as to their outcome. 

■■ A suite of priority models representing various 

alternative working hypotheses describing the 

response of species or communities of interest. 

■■ Monitoring and assessment of the response of 

target organisms. 
CHAPTER 6 – Management Direction 171 

■■ Use of monitoring and assessment information to 

direct future decisionmaking through choosing a 

best model. 

The first three components (goals, actions, and 

models) are largely defined before initiation of an 

ARM plan, while the latter two (monitoring and 

directed decisionmaking) constitute an iterative process, whereby each year the predictive ability of 

models are tested against what was observed during 

monitoring. This may result in a new best model, 

greater support for the existing best model, or new 

models constructed from emerging hypotheses. In 

this way, management can evolve as more information is gained and uncertainty is reduced. 

The development of ARM plans for habitat management, for example, would allow the refuge complex to learn by doing, while supporting a focus on 

management objectives. Knowledge gained from 

assessing management actions is considered as integral to the process as the management actions themselves. This emphasis on gaining knowledge about 

the refuge complex creates a situation whereby the 

refuge complex can refine its habitat management 

in a feedback between management and assessment. 

Reducing the uncertainty of habitat management via 

ARM plans would greatly help the refuge complex 

in development of long-term habitat management 

plans. 

Landscape Conservation Goal 

Actively pursue and continue to foster 

relationships within the Service, other agencies, 

organizations, and private partners to protect, 

preserve, manage, and restore the functionality 

of the diverse ecosystems within the working 

landscape of the refuge complex . 

Background Information 

The refuge complex is located in an area that is designated as a high priority for landscape conservation 

and linkage protection by many conservation partners including MFWP, National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, TNC, The Conservation Fund, Ducks 

Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, 

American Wildlands, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative and the Blackfoot Challenge. Many 

of these organizations are involved in transboundary 

conservation, protecting and connecting habitat in 

the United States and Canada. Strong partnerships 

have already been developed to meet the challenges 

of climate change and wildlife. 

Climate Change Objective 1 

Carry out at least five management actions in the 

next 10 years that improve resiliency of wildlife and 

habitats to adapt to the effects of climate change. 

Strategies 

■■ Address climate change stressors through preservation of large blocks of functional land that 

have natural processes, which maximizes resiliency. 

■■ Work cooperatively with partners to improve 

condition of landscape to increase resiliency and 

seek more opportunities to work with partners to 

address climate change issues including restoration projects on Service-interest lands. 

■■ Vigorously take part in all aspects of the Great 

Northern LCC and the Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC. 

■■ Conduct baseline monitoring of habitat conditions 

to measure effects of climate change. 

■■ Watch and analyze management actions to figure out the effect of climate change, including 

actively participating and cooperating in data 

acquisition through the national inventory and 

monitoring program. 

■■ Support existing weather station and river 

gauges throughout complex, and install more stations and gauges to check climate change. 

■■ Partner with USGS and others to obtain information on climate change and its applicability to 

management of the complex. 

■■ Restore native grasses and perennial plants in 

grassland habitats throughout the refuge complex (see grasslands objectives). 

■■ Actively support USDA NRCS conservation 

programs, such as CRP, in refuge complex watersheds. 

Rationale. Climate change is contributing to the loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation of current habitats 

and would likely create unique new habitats as species redistribute themselves across the landscape. 

In addition, climate change is interacting with nonclimate stressors—such as land use change, wildfire, 
172 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

urban and suburban development, and agriculture— 

to fragment habitats at ever-increasing rates. Protecting and restoring contiguous blocks of habitat, 

and using linkages and corridors to enhance connectivity between habitat blocks, would likely facilitate 

the movement of fish and wildlife species responding 

to climate change. 

The refuge complex is located in two LCCs—the 

Great Northern and the Plains and Prairie Potholes. 

These LCCs are a conservation alliance of science 

and management with other bureaus in the DOI, 

other Federal agencies, the State natural and wildlife resource offices, Canadian Provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, and academic and other 

nongovernmental organizations. LCC products may 

include resource assessments, climate model applications to proper scale, vulnerability assessments, inventory and monitoring protocols, and conservation 

plans and designs. Many of these products will be 

developed collaboratively with DOI Climate Science 

Centers and other science providers (for example, 

USGS Science Centers, USDA Forest Service Research Stations, and universities). In the face of 

accelerating climate change and other twenty-firstcentury conservation challenges, LCCs will continually seek out new scientific information, assess 

the effectiveness of conservation actions and make 

necessary adjustments as new information becomes 

available. With active and vigorous participation by 

complex staff, this recurring feedback process would 

help staff address uncertainties on the landscape 

and transform new knowledge into more effective 

conservation plans and actions on the ground. 

To understand the effect of climate change on 

refuge complex habitats and resources, baseline 

inventories and longer term monitoring of key indicators need to be developed. Temperature, precipitation and runoff are likely to be sensitive to climate 

change and by expanding these monitoring stations 

within the refuge complex, staff would have a better 

understanding of how global changes are translating 

to local effects. Developing baseline information 

and monitoring for habitat indicators would also be 

critical for understanding how climate change is affecting these resources as well as giving direction to 

future management. Collaborating with others such 

as the USGS, LCCs, and the Service’s Inventory and 

Monitoring Program would strengthen this effort by 

bringing more technical expertise, scientific credibility and a connection to climate changes outside of 

the refuge complex. 

Managing complex lands in a healthy vigorous 

state dominated by native species can increase 

carbon sequestration. CO2 from the atmosphere 

is taken up by plants and stored as carbon in biomass (for example, tree trunks, leaves and roots) or 

stored as organic carbon in soils. Plants and soil have 

extraordinary capacity to remove and store atmospheric carbon, thus diminishing greenhouse gases. 

Recent work by the USGS and Ducks Unlimited has 

shown that restoration of previously farmed wetlands results in rapid replenishment of soil organic 

carbon (Gleason et al. 2005). 

CRP is among the most important land use strategies for sequestering stored organic carbon and, 

in addition, contributes significantly to controlling 

soil erosion losses, restoring soil quality, providing 

wildlife habitat, and protecting air and water quality 

(Rice and Owensby 2001). The CRP program also 

illustrates the potential to sequester carbon in soil 

by converting cropland to grass cover. Gebhart et al. 

(1994) reported for the Great Plains that 21 percent 

of carbon lost by decades of intensive tillage was 

recovered within 5 years under CRP, with carbon 

sequestration rates of 4,357–5,990 pounds per acre 

each year. 

Restoration to native grasses is more expensive 

to establish, but has a higher carbon storing potential, than exotic grass mixtures. Further, it was 

found that in natural ecosystems of perennial plants, 

annual biomass production belowground generally 

exceeds that aboveground. Root mass was greater 

at grazed sites in two-thirds of the studies, and when 

production was viewed at the whole plant level, 

grazing had no effect on plant production (Milchunas 

and Lauenroth 1993). 

Climate Change Objective 2 

To decrease greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 

that lead to accelerated climate change, aggressively 

sequester carbon and use best management practices to meet stewardship responsibilities; manage 

lands, facilities, travel, vehicles, and vessels; and 

become carbon-neutral by 2020. 

Strategies 

■■ Throughout the complex, conduct an energy audit on all buildings and continue to carry out energy saving strategies. 

■■ Designate a staff member to carry out and share 

energy saving strategies that staff can use to reduce energy consumption on the refuge complex. 

■■ Reduce energy use in buildings by implementing 

energy efficient projects—upgrade insulation, 

heating systems, windows and doors. 

■■ Expand the photovoltaic system at the complex 

headquarters. 
CHAPTER 6 – Management Direction 173 

■■ Employ energy saving practices such as, unplug 

office equipment when not in use, buy energy 

star products, recycle, buy recycled products, 

install high-efficiency lighting, unplug chargers 

when not in use, lower thermostats, set water 

heaters to 120–130 °F, enable the “sleep mode” 

feature on computers, configure computers to 

“hibernate” automatically after 30 minutes of 

inactivity, and shut down computers at the end of 

the day. 

■■ Incorporate “green” building principals and construction practices in construction projects. New 

buildings and additions should be designed to 

maximize efficiency and should be equipped with 

the most energy efficient heating and cooling systems, and appliances. 

■■ Use renewable energy sources for infrastructure—wind power, solar power, and geothermal 

energy technologies. 

■■ Replace current vehicles with energy efficient 

models, and consider alternative fuel vehicles 

when possible. 

■■ Reduce fuel consumption in existing vehicles 

by implementing conservation strategies (such 

as, check tires to make sure that there is proper 

inflation, change oil as directed by the manufacturer, and by checking air filters monthly and 

changing when needed). 

■■ Reduce travel by using teleconferencing, Webinars, and WebEx. 

■■ Manage habitats to maximize carbon sequestration. 

Rationale. This objective is identified in the Service’s 

climate change strategy. Methods for accomplishing 

carbon neutrality include reducing the carbon footprint of the refuge complex and increasing carbon 

sequestration on refuge complex lands. The refuge 

complex is continuing to expand. As more infrastructure is added, it should be evaluated for energy efficiency and upgraded to reduce energy consumption. 

The Service’s land management activities for 

wildlife have an associated carbon footprint. To 

achieve carbon neutrality, the Service must assess 

and reduce this footprint to the greatest extent possible, while still achieving the Service’s mission. The 

Service should consider how to reduce emissions 

while achieving the Service’s highest land management priorities, a process that involves evaluating 

green energy alternatives, considering trade-offs, 

and making difficult choices. 

Refuge managers have a variety of management 

tools to help them support healthy, vigorous grasslands. The condition of habitat and the tools selected 

to achieve habitat goals affect sequestration of carbon. For example, the amount of soil organic carbon 

is greater under a grazing regime than under a haying regime. This is a result of a greater amount of 

carbon being returned to the pasture as excreta and 

greater stubble remaining with grazing (Schnabel 

2001). 

Restoration of eroded and degraded soils provides a large potential to sequester soil organic 

carbon. DNC that has been planted on some of the 

waterfowl production areas is often similar in composition and structure to CRP, which has been found 

to increase sequestration of soil organic carbon. 

Preserving Intact Landscapes 

Objective 1 

Over the next 15 years, protect 170,000 acres of 

wildlife habitat (grassland, wetland, riparian, 

sagebrush-steppe and forest) that support intact, 

functional landscapes, protect high-priority habitat 

and linkage zones for Service trust species, increase 

resiliency for climate change and other stressors and 

support working landscapes within refuge complex 

conservation areas. 

Strategies 

■■ Work with other Service programs such as realty 

and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife to engage 

and meet with interested landowners, to set priorities, and to buy conservation easements. 

■■ Regularly meet with county commissioners, 

State and Federal agencies, nongovernmental 

conservation organizations and other participating partners to provide updates and coordination 

on conservation easement purchases and program progress. 

■■ Pursue money to buy easements in established 

conservation areas from congressional appropriations, private donations, partnerships with nongovernmental organizations and securing other 

non-Federal money sources. 

■■ Host informational tours to share examples of 

successful conservation collaboration between 

the Service and partners. 

■■ Fully carry out the Service’s SHC initiative, 

which would refine and update priorities within 

conservation area boundaries for buying conservation easements. 
174 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

■■ Develop, take part in, and collaborate on monitoring that informs landscape protection, SHC and 

ARM, such as the Annual Breeding Waterfowl 

Surveys in the PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region 

in Montana and at the Swan Valley CA. 

■■ Establish a complex representative to regularly 

engage with the Great Northern LCC and the 

Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC. 

■■ Evaluate and explore new areas and partnership 

opportunities within the refuge complex to establish conservation areas and increase the opportunities for landowners to take part in conservation 

easement programs. 

■■ Hire 1.5 FTE wildlife refuge specialists to support land acquisition and work with the realty 

program. 

■■ Hire 0.5 and 1.0 FTE wildlife refuge specialists 

to manage conservation easement programs in 

Swan Valley and Blackfoot Valley CAs. 

Rationale. Within the refuge complex, the Rocky 

Mountain Front, the Blackfoot Valley and the Swan 

Valley have been identified as priority areas where 

protecting intact, functional landscapes would have 

significant benefits for Service trust species including grizzly bears, bull trout, trumpeter swans, lynx, 

waterfowl and other priority migratory birds. Conservation areas have been established in each of 

these landscapes that enable the Service to work 

with willing landowners to buy perpetual conservation easements. 

The Service has had a successful history of buying conservation easements and protecting intact, 

functional landscapes in the Blackfoot Valley since 

1994 and the Rocky Mountain Front since 2005. One 

key to this success is building partnerships internally and externally. Within the Service, having Service staff from the refuge complex, the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program and the realty program 

engaged in each landscape has been a formula for 

success. In the newly established Swan Valley CA 

and any future conservation areas, this level of partnership and commitment is likely to be necessary to 

be successful. In addition, 1.5 FTE are necessary to 

A wetland in the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area . 

USFWS 
CHAPTER 6 – Management Direction 175 

establish a full-time position in the Blackfoot Valley 

and Swan Valley CAs for the successful implementation of conservation easement objectives. 

Based on the history of money and staff availability for buying easements within the refuge complex, a total of 170,000 acres over the next 15 years 

is considered a reasonable objective. This would 

include 120,000 acres for the Rocky Mountain Front 

CA, 45,000 acres for the Blackfoot Valley CA and 

5,000 acres for the Swan Valley CA over the life of 

the plan. These acre estimates are based on several variables within each CA: acquisition averages 

over the last five years, high variability in annual 

money sources such as LWCF, average parcel size, 

land values, and the availability of willing sellers. 

Historically, the number of landowners interested in 

easements exceeded the available money. Decisions 

among conservation areas would be made through 

consensus based on biological values, willing sellers, 

money source and opportunity. 

Priorities within projects have been identified 

in land protection plans published by the Service 

in 2011 for each conservation area (USFWS 2011f). 

These priorities would need to continue to be evaluated and revised using SHC. SHC is a way of thinking and doing business that requires the Service to 

set biological goals for priority species populations, 

helps the Service make strategic decisions about 

conservation efforts, and encourages the Service to 

constantly reassess and improve its actions. These 

are critical steps in dealing with a range of landscape-scale resource threats such as development, 

invasive species, and water scarcity—all magnified by accelerating climate change. SHC incorporates five key principles in an ongoing process that 

changes and evolves. These include biological planning (setting targets), conservation design (developing a plan to meet the goals), conservation delivery 

(implementing the plan), monitoring and adaptive 

management (measuring success and improving 

results) and research (increasing understanding). 

LCCs are fundamental units of planning and science 

capacity to help the Service and its partners carry 

out SHC. Having a staff member engaged with the 

LCCs would improve the refuge complex’s efforts to 

carry out SHC. 

In addition to established conservation areas, 

the Service has the authority to buy wetland and 

grassland easements throughout most of the refuge 

complex through the Federal Duck Stamp Program. 

Federal Duck Stamp funding targets important migratory bird habitat. To use this money strategically 

(SHC), the Service is currently working on updating 

models of wetland use by breeding waterfowl in 

the PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region in Montana. 

These priorities would be consistent with priorities 

in the eastern part of the greater area, based on 

similar models that target unprotected wetlands 

with more than 25 breeding duck pairs per square 

mile and are at high risk of degradation. In addition, 

the Intermountain West Joint Venture is developing 

similar models of wetland use by breeding waterfowl 

in the Swan Valley to refine wetland protection priorities in this landscape. 

Preserving Intact Landscapes 

Objective 2 

Protect Service interests throughout the refuge 

complex by annually coordinating, monitoring, and 

collaborating with entities engaged in activities such 

as industrial or commercial development and agricultural land conversion. 

Strategies 

■■ Actively engage in planning efforts by industrial and commercial interests where it influences 

complex interests by providing relevant Service 

data and input during the development and siting 

phases, reviewing and responding to planning 

documents—such as an EA or environmental 

impact statement (EIS)—and where proper, participating in postimplementation monitoring. 

■■ Attend training on the regulations, effects, and 

mitigation techniques for industrial, commercial, and agricultural developments that affect 

resources. 

■■ Proactively collaborate with partners and LCCs 

in landscape-wide regional threat assessments. 

Rationale. In addition to those activities that directly 

harm the natural resources located on fee title and 

easement lands, the Service is concerned with any 

potential effect on other parts of the refuge complex. 

Certain activities, such as development and land 

conversion, have the potential to have far-reaching 

and cumulative effects on resources throughout the 

refuge complex. 

Habitat Goal 

Actively conserve, restore, and manage upland 

and wetland habitats across the northern prairies 

and intermountain valleys of the refuge complex, 

through management strategies that perpetuate 

the integrity of ecological communities . 
176 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Grasslands Objective 1 

Within the first 5 years of the plan, complete rangeland assessments on fee-title native grassland tracts 

greater than 80 acres in size (10 tracts totaling 

12,420 acres). 

Strategies 

■■ Evaluate existing native plant communities in 

comparison to the historical climax plant community (HCPC) described in the corresponding 

NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions. 

■■ Summarize the degree to which current vegetation indicates a decline in integrity of native 

vegetation in a report. Use these results to rank 

grasslands for future management action. 

■■ Hire one seasonal technician [for 2 seasons] to 

conduct native grassland assessments. 

Rationale. Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland 

Health Technical Reference 1734–6 Version 4 (Pellant et al. 2005), is recognized by range professionals as the basis for inventory and assessment of 

rangeland health. This publication was a collaborative effort between the BLM, NRCS, the Agricultural Research Service and the USGS’s Forest and 

Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center. The publication promotes the concept of rangeland heath 

as an alternative to range condition and assessing 

rangelands through ecological status concepts. 

These principles combined with NRCS Ecological 

Site Descriptions, provide the best available science 

for assessing the refuge complex’s prairie tracts. 

Native grassland tracts greater than 80 acres in 

size were found to be a reasonable break point for 

conducting rangeland assessments within the refuge 

complex. Remaining native grassland tracts in the 

refuge complex are made up of smaller fragmented 

areas (<80 acres) typically represented by rocky hill 

tops, wetland edges and fence line corners making 

them difficult to manage separately from their tame 

grass dominated surrounding. 

Ten tracts were identified for rangeland assessments: Benton Lake Refuge and nine waterfowl 

production areas—Blackfoot, Ehli, Furnell, H2–O, 

Jarina, Kingsbury Lake, Kleinschmidt Lake, Sands, 

and Savik. 

Grasslands Objective 2 

Within 15 years, manage 10 high-priority, fee-title, 

native grassland tracts to support plant communities 

at greater than 80 percent of their HCPC or within 

their ecological site-specific reference state. 

Strategies 

■■ Manage grasslands using fire, grazing, rest, and 

if necessary, haying cycles. Timing and combinations of treatments may be altered to support 

native plant communities or trend toward restoration of their HCPCs. Attention will be given 

to diversity of vegetative structure within each 

management unit. 

■■ Priority would be given to invasive species management within native grasslands using IPM and 

EDRR. 

■■ Watch species composition and vegetative trends 

to evaluate the success of current management 

regimes. 

■■ Identify and check key wildlife species as added 

indicators of grassland health and management 

success. 

■■ Hire one seasonal biological technician for native 

grassland management throughout the refuge 

complex. 

Rationale. Grasslands within the refuge complex 

were formed as the result of climatic conditions, geological parent materials, fire, biotic factors, and the 

influences of natural herbivory (USDA–NRCS–MT. 

2005) The HCPCs for each of these unique combinations can be described by evaluating relict areas, and 

other areas protected from excessive disturbance. 

Within the refuge complex, the HCPCs are generally dominated by cool-season grasses, with a minor 

component of warm-season grasses, native forbs, 

native shrubs and an absence of nonnatives. 

Traditional theories of plant succession leading 

to a single HCPC, however, are inadequate for understanding the refuge complex succession of plant 

communities in grasslands (Briske et al. 2005). 

Grasslands are more aptly described using stateand-transition vegetation dynamics in a nonlinear 

framework. A “state” is an alternative, persistent 

vegetation community that is not simply reversible in the linear successional framework. States 

are seral stages, while pathways between states 

are “transitions.” Transitions are triggered by climatic events such as wildland fire or by management 

such as grazing, farming, and prescribed fire. The 

HCPCs, and their associated states and transitions, 

have been described by NRCS for most of the grassland types on the refuge complex (USDA–NCRS– 

MT. 2005). 

Historically, HCPCs transitioned to other seral 

states due to drought, grazing, precipitation and 

fire regimes. These transitions did not compromise 
CHAPTER 6 – Management Direction 177 

the long-term resiliency or health of the grasslands. 

In addition, these different states were preferred 

by different wildlife species providing a variety of 

grassland habitats and resources over time. Departure from this historical range of variation can occur 

under continued adverse effects such as colonization 

and recruitment of noxious weeds, improper management actions, extended drought and changes 

in the natural fire regime. The HCPC species are 

gradually outcompeted by lower successional species. This shift in species composition disrupts ecological processes, impairs the biotic integrity of the 

site and restricts the system’s ability to recover to 

higher seral states. Thus, the site loses much of its 

resiliency (USDA–NRCS–MT. 2005). 

Therefore, the objective is to manage grasslands 

within the refuge complex so that they do not cross 

a threshold where resiliency is lost and the system is 

no longer able to recover to higher seral stages, yet 

still allowing for departures from the HCPC that are 

part of the historical states and transitions of that 

grassland type. NRCS grassland descriptions do not 

specifically state 80 percent as a threshold; however, 

this seems to be a reasonable starting point and as 

management and evaluation progresses this can be 

reevaluated. Although research consistently shows 

that precipitation is the principle factor altering productivity on ecological sites in the northern Great 

Plains (Heitschmidt et al. 2005), rotational management prescriptions for grazing, fire and rest emulate 

historical transitions, contribute to HCPC resiliency 

and provide a diversity of habitats that appeals to a 

wide variety of grassland-dependent species. 

Across the fee-title grasslands, nonnative, invasive species are one of the largest threats to supporting HCPC resiliency and function. Preventing 

the introduction of invasive species is the first line 

of defense against invasions. However, even the best 

prevention efforts would not stop all invasive species introductions. EDRR efforts increase the likelihood that invasions would be addressed successfully 

while populations are still localized and population 

levels are not beyond that which can be contained 

and eradicated (NISC 2003). Once populations are 

widely established, all that might be possible is the 

partial mitigation of negative effects. In addition, 

the costs associated with EDRR efforts are typically 

far less than those of long-term invasive species 

management programs. 

Grasslands Objective 3 

Within 15 years of the approved plan, convert 800 

acres of tame grass stands, on five high-priority feetitle tracts, to native-dominant perennial herbaceous 

cover including several species of native forbs. 

Strategies 

■■ Identify cooperators and negotiate farming 

agreements and budget seeding and chemical 

costs for planned planting years. 

■■ Use cooperative farming agreements for 2–4 

years to prepare the seedbed before planting native species. 

■■ Hire 0.5 FTE maintenance worker to convert 

tame grass stands to native cover and check results. 

Rationale. Replanting tame grass to native grasslands, with subsequent treatments of prescribed fire 

and grazing management, would emulate historical 

processes and gradually recover soil mycorrhizae, 

invertebrate diversity and symbiotic relationships. 

Once native grass species are reestablished, soil erosion potential should be negligible, with permanent 

plant cover breaking the cropping cycle required 

to support tame grass. Carbon sequestration and 

nutrient cycling would be significantly greater in the 

more floristically diverse community expected with 

native plantings. 

Tame grass stands that were hayed are more 

likely to be burned or grazed once they are replanted to native prairie. These types of management should replenish and improve the nutrient 

cycles rather than mining the soil nutrients through 

rotational haying systems. 

Priority for planting native species is given to 

tracts with tame grass stands that have become 

decadent or overrun with undesirable introduced 

cool-season grasses, especially fields that are next 

to or within high-priority prairie tracts and compatible with grazing and fire treatments. Factors taken 

into consideration to assure reasonable success of 

establishment and long-term management include, 

(1) surrounding adjacent vegetation and (2) availability and suitability of management tools (prescribed grazing and fire). Tame grass tracts where 

the surrounding adjacent landscapes are dominated 

by agricultural crops and tame grass stands were 

identified as a lower priority for native planting. In 

these areas, resource costs associated with protecting native plantings from invasion of cool-season 

exotic grasses and noxious weed infestations are 

prohibitive. 

There are approximately five priority tracts 

within the refuge complex (Benton Lake Refuge, 

Big Sag, H2–O, Kingsbury Lake, and Sands WPAs) 

that have about 1,651 acres of tame grass that could 

be planted to native grass species using the criteria 

described above. Planting native grass species requires higher input costs ($156 per acre), tradition­
178 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

ally takes longer (3–4 years) and is more difficult 

to establish than tame grass ($106 per acre and 1–2 

years to establish). Given the higher input costs and 

difficulty in establishment, planting approximately 

50 percent, or 800 acres, of the priority tame grass 

stands to native species is considered reasonable 

over the next 15 years. Monitoring these plantings 

would be important to assess the success and to 

identify improvements in techniques and efficiencies 

that could reduce costs over time. 

Grasslands Objective 4 

Over the life of the plan, support 1,905 acres of lowpriority, fee-title, tame grass and DNC in good to 

fair condition based on species composition (25-percent legume, 75-percent wheatgrass mix), vigor 

(seedhead production greater than 25 percent) and 

litter accumulation of less than 6 inches in the duff 

layer. 

Strategies 

■■ Manage 1,055 acres of DNC (currently in good 

to fair condition) using cooperative rotational 

systems (primarily haying). 

■■ Replant 850 acres of DNC (currently in poor condition and not suitable for native plantings) back 

to DNC using cooperative faming agreements 

for 2 to 4 years to prepare the seedbed before 

replanting DNC. 

■■ Treat invasive species within tame grasslands 

using IPM and EDRR. 

■■ Identify cooperators, negotiate farming agreements, and budget seed and chemical costs for 

planned planting years. 

■■ Hire 0.5 maintenance worker to support DNC 

grassland management. 

Rationale. Tame grass stands established for wildlife cover should ideally be comprised of 75-percent 

grasses and 25-percent alfalfa (Duebbert et al. 1981). 

Grasses planted with legumes are taller and the 

overall stand productivity is higher. Taller, dense 

vegetation, in turn, has been related to higher waterfowl nest densities and success (Higgins and 

Barker 1982, Arnold et al. 2007). 

Tame grass stands that have been successfully 

established on good sites can be expected to provide 

desirable vegetative structure for at least the first 

6 growing seasons and to keep the composition for 

at least the first 10 growing seasons, and probably 

longer for most stands (Higgins and Barker 1982, 

Devries and Armstrong 2011). Decreasing vigor 

can be identified by deviations from the optimal 

75:25 percent mix, as well as reduced vigor measured by seedhead production. In drier parts of the 

PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region, such as the refuge complex, an approximate guideline of less than 

25-percent seedhead production is recommended 

(personal communication, Ducks Unlimited). Declining stand quality often also coincides with a buildup 

of litter (Duebbert at al 1981, Higgins and Barker 

1982, Devries and Armstrong 2011). The threshold 

of 6 inches is based on staff observations and experience managing tame grass stands within the refuge 

complex. Because tame grass stands are generally a 

lower priority than native grasslands on the refuge 

complex, indicators have been chosen that can be 

rapidly assessed with informal monitoring. 

Management of low-priority fee-title tame grass 

and DNC within the refuge complex was divided 

into two categories, (1) Maintenance of 1,055 acres of 

DNC in good to fair condition and (2) replanting 850 

acres of DNC currently in poor condition. These figures do not include the 1,651 acres of degraded tame 

grass stands identified and grouped as high-priority 

areas for native grass plantings. 

The 1,055 acres of DNC in good to fair condition 

may be managed primarily using rotational haying 

systems to sustain longevity, species composition, 

vigor and reduce litter accumulation. Rotations provide a diversity of structural habitats within the 

management units, which appeals to a wide variety 

of grassland-dependent species. Occasional prescribed grazing or fire may be implemented within 

specific tract rotations. 

The 850 acres of tame grass currently in poor 

condition should be prioritized for cooperative farming and planting back to DNC. As tame grass stands 

continue to degrade over time into poor habitat conditions the initial resources to address these habitat 

needs grows substantially. 

Regardless of tame grass condition, treating invasive species infestations in these units would still 

be a priority. Emphasis would be given to species 

that have been identified by the State of Montana 

as noxious. EDRR efforts increase the likelihood 

that invasions would be addressed successfully 

while populations are still localized and population 

levels are not beyond that which can be contained 

and eradicated (NISC 2003). Once populations are 

widely established, all that might be possible is the 

partial mitigation of negative effects. 

Grasslands Objective 5 

Within 15 years, begin removal of 25 miles of tree 

shrub plantings, starting with high-priority large 

native prairie tracts. 
CHAPTER 6 – Management Direction 179 

Strategies 

■■ Remove up to 19 miles of nonnative tree plantings on the Benton Lake Refuge. Removal efforts would start with 3.5 miles of interior tree 

plantings that cause fragmentation of otherwise 

contiguous grassland blocks. 

■■ Remove remaining nonnative tree plantings on 

waterfowl production areas in the wetland management district as a second priority. 

■■ Use forestry cutters for tree removal. Apply herbicide treatment for two growing seasons following tree removal. 

■■ Evaluate areas for grass seeding after trees have 

been successfully removed. 

Rationale. The refuge complex has approximately 

25 miles of nonnative tree plantings. Most of these 

plantings occur on the Benton Lake Refuge. The 19 

mile figure represents nonnative tree plantings in 

or next to native prairie grasslands. Nonnative tree 

plantings contribute to fragmentation, depredation 

and parasitism, which negatively affect grasslanddependent migratory birds (Bakker 2003). Some 

of these species include species of concern, such as 

marbled godwits and chestnut-collared longspurs. 

Tree plantings on waterfowl production areas 

within the district are a lower priority because they 

are exclusively in tame grass stands and do not fragment native prairie. 

Forestry cutters are available within the region 

and maybe reserved for specific projects. The tree 

removal may be accomplished using existing Service staff in the fall and winter months, which would 

result in cost savings. Based on past operations, it 

takes approximately 8 hours to remove 1 mile of tree 

planting. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Objective 1 

Over the next 15 years, manage and protect water 

quality for wetlands and riparian habitats on feetitle lands within the refuge complex such that there 

is minimal hazard to wildlife from contaminants. 

Note: Minimal hazard is defined as conditions 

where “hazardous constituents may be elevated in 

one or more ecosystem components, but no imminent toxic threat is identified” (Lemly 1995, USDI 

1998). The exact numerical value would vary with 

the contaminant and the constituent (such as water 

or soil). 

Strategies 

■■ Develop a baseline assessment of water quality in 

relation to high-priority contaminants on fee-title 

wetlands and riparian areas. 

■■ For wetlands and riparian areas already within 

the minimum hazard thresholds, check conditions 

every 5 years thereafter or as water conditions 

allow. 

■■ For wetlands and riparian areas above the minimum hazard threshold, conduct proper onsite 

remediation to reduce contaminants. 

■■ For complex wetlands and riparian areas above 

the minimum hazard threshold, work with neighboring landowners, watershed groups, nongovernmental organizations and other government 

agencies to reduce offsite contributions to contaminants whenever possible. 

Rationale. There are hundreds of substances known 

to affect wetlands and waterbodies; however, there 

are nine that are common in the western United 

States and of particular concern. These include salinity, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and 

the trace elements arsenic, boron, copper, mercury, 

molybdenum, selenium and zinc (USDI 1998). In 

addition, lead can be a concern when birds feed in 

hunted areas and ingest lead pellets. 

For waterbodies on fee-title land managed by 

the Service, any contaminant at levels shown to 

cause reproductive impairment in wildlife are unacceptable. Information is available on the biological 

effects of these contaminants that can be used to 

define what level, and in what constituent (such as 

water, soil, or wildlife), is right for defining the minimum threshold (for example, USDI 1998, Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality, and EPA) for 

a given waterbody. 

Selenium is a serious problem on the Benton 

Lake Refuge. The refuge has a history of moderate to high hazard levels (Nimick et al. 1996, Zhang 

and Moore 1997, refuge unpublished data 2006). Selenium at these levels is sufficient to affect reproduction in sensitive species such as waterfowl. See 

chapter 7 for more details on addressing this objective for selenium on Benton Lake Refuge. 

In 1995, a survey of contaminants from 10 sites 

within the district was conducted to find out if trace 

elements were accumulating in either sediment or 

the aquatic food chain of wetlands (Gilbert et al. 

1995). Elevated levels of lead, boron, and selenium 

were detected in several locations. The concentrations did not appear to pose an immediate threat 

to wildlife resources but continued monitoring was 
180 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

recommended. Other fee-title wetlands within the 

refuge complex that have not been tested before 

should have at least an initial baseline survey completed, especially those with potential sources of 

contaminants in the surrounding landscape. 

For some fee-title wetlands, streams and rivers 

on the refuge complex contaminants may be coming 

from offsite sources that are not directly under Service management. In these situations, partnerships 

with neighboring landowners, watershed groups and 

other government agencies may be necessary. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Objective 2 

Where possible, over the next 15 years, restore the 

natural hydrologic processes (wet–dry cycles) for 

the site-specific hydrogeomorphic condition of wetlands and riparian areas within the refuge complex. 

Strategies 

■■ Check water inputs on fee-title lands as necessary to protect water rights. 

■■ Conduct a hydrogeomorphic assessment of the 

Swan River Refuge and evaluate other fee-title 

areas, which could greatly benefit from this type 

of intensive assessment. 

Rationale. Each wetland and riparian system lies 

within a specific hydrogeomorphic context, which is 

based on the underlying geology, soils, topography, 

elevation, hydrology, plant and animal communities 

and physical anthropogenic features of the surrounding landscape. While hydrology is widely considered 

by wetland experts to the most significant of these 

factors for driving wetland health and function, it 

cannot be considered outside of the hydrogeomorphic context. 

Throughout the refuge complex, most of the wetlands on fee-title lands have not been altered and 

any changes to the original hydrogeomorphic condition are due to the surrounding landscape. However, for some of the wetlands and riparian areas 

within the refuge complex the hydrology has been 

altered. Most of the alterations to these waterbodies have been done with the intention of maximizing use by migratory birds, in particular waterfowl. 

While these alterations may initially increase use 

by waterfowl, these conditions may either be difficult to sustain or may result in unintended negative consequences to the health and sustainability 

of the wetland or riparian systems. For example, 

repeated or deep flooding may result in lower wetland productivity such as decreased food sources 

(seeds, invertebrates) for waterbirds, changes in 

vegetation including favoring nonnative, aggressive 

species, reducing flows or increasing temperatures 

that are detrimental to species such as native trout 

in streams or rivers used as water sources, and causing or exacerbating contamination of waterbodies 

(Murkin et al. 1997, Zhang and Moore 1997, Heitmeyer et al. 2009). 

To understand the extent to which alterations 

are affecting wetland health and integrity, a process 

known as the HGM methodology can be applied. An 

HGM study assembles known information about 

the hydrogeomorphic features of a waterbody before alteration, develops an understanding of what 

the alterations have been and their effect, and then 

describes possible management actions for improving the health and sustainability of the wetland or 

riparian area. By continuing to check and support 

water rights, both natural and supplemental, the 

refuge complex has the greatest flexibility of possible management actions for improving the health 

of wetlands or riparian areas once the hydrogeomorphic context is understood. 

Several areas within the refuge complex have 

been identified as high priority for restoring hydrology and wetland function because of documented 

negative effects, feasibility of restoration, or connection to ongoing mitigation efforts. These include 

the Benton Lake and Swan River Refuges. A complete hydrogeomorphic assessment has been completed for the Benton Lake Refuge. For a detailed 

description of restoration at Benton Lake Refuge, 

see chapter 7. Whether or not other fee-title lands 

could benefit from an HGM analysis would also be 

evaluated. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Objective 3 

Where it is not currently feasible to restore full hydrologic function within the refuge complex, annually manage wetlands and riparian areas to emulate 

the natural hydrologic processes (wet–dry cycles), as 

for the site-specific hydrogeomorphic condition. 

Strategies 

■■ At H2–O WPA, natural flow and runoff would 

be captured, and Blackfoot River flows would be 

occasionally diverted from April to September to 

prolong the spring, summer, and fall hydroperiod. 

If less than historical amounts of water are used, 

residual right may be leased to the State. 

■■ At Blackfoot WPA, management of natural wetland basins would emulate natural processes. The 

drying cycle would be emulated in all wetland 

basins including mitigation wetland basins. Mitigation wetland basins may be held at lower water 

levels to emulate natural flows and runoff. 
CHAPTER 6 – Management Direction 181 

Rationale. Some wetland and riparian areas within 

the refuge complex have been altered, but the ability to restore the hydrologic function is limited by 

legal obligations, such as wetlands created under 

mitigation agreements, limited by constraints in the 

surrounding landscape beyond the Service’s management controls or lack of money.. In these cases, 

the Service would manage these areas by emulating 

the natural flooding and drying cycles. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Objective 4 

Within 5 years, complete condition assessments on 

fee-title wetlands and riparian areas throughout the 

refuge complex. 

Strategies 

■■ Evaluate existing wetlands and riparian areas with Level 1 Assessments designed by the 

MNHP. 

■■ Summarize the degree to which current vegetation indicates a decline in integrity of native vegetation and value to wetland-dependent wildlife 

in a report. Use these results to rank wetlands 

for future management action. 

■■ Hire one seasonal technician for two seasons to 

conduct wetland assessments. 

Rationale. Wetlands and riparian systems are very 

dynamic. Flooding and drying cycles have a significant effect on the plant and animal communities that 

may be present at any given point in time. Because 

of this variability, vegetation is often the preferred 

indicator of wetland condition because at least some 

plants are usually present in a wetland basin making 

it possible to do surveys in wet and dry years. Many 

guides have been developed to account for the range 

of variability for wetland vegetation and what it 

indicates for wetland condition, including several 

specifically for Montana (MNHP 2010, Hansen et al. 

1996, NatureServe 2010). The MNHP, in particular, 

has developed a rapid assessment that can be tailored to the needs of the user. Using these guides 

that describe the full range of natural variability for 

a particular wetland type or site, in addition to current vegetation, the Service would assess the degree 

to which the integrity of the native wetland vegetation community has been compromised. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Objective 5 

Within 15 years, begin or continue management of 

fee-title wetland vegetation so that refuge complexwide at least 80 percent of wetlands are in good vegetative condition as defined by the MNHP Wetland 

Condition Assessment method. 

Kingsbury Waterfowl Production Area . 

USFWS 
182 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Strategies 

■■ Manage wetland vegetation by using grazing, 

haying, or fire to emulate historical disturbances 

when natural flooding and drying cycles allow. 

■■ Reduce competition and cover of nonnative vegetation by using discing, prescribed fire, grazing, 

haying or herbicides. 

■■ Where proper and feasible, native plantings and 

seeding may be used to restore native vegetation. 

■■ Priority would be given to invasive species management within wetlands using IPM and EDRR. 

■■ Use natural flooding and drying cycle to favor native vegetation and reduce nonnative vegetation 

where applicable. 

■■ Check vegetation to find out if wetland vegetation is improving or declining. 

■■ Identify and check key wildlife species as added 

indicators of wetland health and management 

success. 

Rationale. Vegetation is a common indicator of wetland health (Fennessy et al. 2007). Many methods 

have been developed to try to capture this, but 

the methods of DeKeyser et al. (2003, 2009), Hargiss et al. (2008), and the MNHP (2010) have been 

developed on similar wetland basins and capture 

the range of variation within the refuge complex. 

The method is also flexible, allowing for rapid assessments in areas where change is expected to be 

minimal or the Service’s ability to affect the wetland 

with management is minimal, but can be scaled up to 

a more intensive method where active restoration, 

changes in management or significant effects from 

the surrounding landscape would be expected. 

Objectively determining the breakpoints, or 

thresholds, for condition classes, such as defining 

what is a “good” wetland is difficult. The MNHP is 

currently working on a wetland reference network 

in Montana that would help clarify this definition. 

Until this is finished, the Service would use the vegetation metrics identified by the MNHP and strive 

to have wetlands in the top condition classes for each 

metric. At a minimum, the Service would conduct 

the rapid assessment and strive for at least 80-percent cover by native plants, less than 5-percent noxious weeds, less than 25-percent other nonnative or 

highly tolerant native species, moderate litter accumulation that does not prevent plant recruitment, 

no single dominant plant type across entire wetland, 

and for wetlands with naturally occurring woody 

vegetation all age classes of native woody vegetation 

are present and less than 50 percent of available 

second year and older stems are browsed. For wetlands with active restoration or management, the 

more intensive assessment can be implemented that 

collects more details on the diversity of native plant 

species, their Coefficient of Conservatism and overall Floristic Quality Index (Northern Great Plains 

Floristic Quality Assessment Panel 2001; Montana 

Natural Heritage Program unpublished data) Reference conditions and cutoff values of “good” may be 

reassessed after the initial evaluation. 

Forests and Woodlands Objective 1 

In collaboration with the BLM’s Marcum Mountain 

Resource Management Projects (Environmental 

Assessment DOI–BLM–MT–B010–2009–0013–EA), 

the Service would develop site-specific prescriptions 

to reduce average conifer canopy coverage by 50–75 

percent through emulation of a mixed severity fire in 

natural patterns, consistent with Douglas-fir habitat 

types within Fire Groups 4 and 6 (Fischer, 1987). 

Strategies 

■■ Treat 260 acres of warm Douglas-fir forest habitat on the Blackfoot WPA using timber harvest, 

mastication, and prescribed fire, or a combination 

of these treatments. 

■■ Restore historical wildlife habitat attributes, 

such as snags, large down logs, and quantity and 

quality of forage and browse species, while keeping open, large-tree (more than 18 inches diameter at breast height) habitat with edge sinuosity 

and feathered density transitions. 

■■ Support visual resources within the various forest types. 

■■ Increase the landscape’s resilience to future wildfire events, root disease and mountain pine beetle 

outbreaks by supporting and increasing (depending on location), the widely adapted seral species present (such as ponderosa pine and quaking 

aspen). 

■■ Reduce invasive weed species within these forest 

types. 

Rationale. Harvest, mastication, and prescribed fire 

treatments would be designed to decrease conifer 

encroachment into open parks and meadows, increase aspen groves by decreasing conifer encroachment and stocking density to more historical levels, 
CHAPTER 6 – Management Direction 183 

decrease ladder fuel on ponderosa pine-dominant 

sites, and reduce any remaining hazardous fuel. 

Treatment activities are intended to support and 

restore forest and rangeland health by improving 

vegetation distribution (spatial and temporal) and 

species composition and structure to resemble the 

historical range of natural variability. 

The quaking aspen and shrub–grass parks have 

tended to decrease in extent and habitat quality because of long-term fire suppression, conifer competition, timber management activities, browse damage 

by wild ungulates and livestock, and past livestock 

management practices. 

Some proposed vegetation treatment units are 

located within sight of Highway 200. Treatments in 

these units would be implemented in such a way as 

to not dominate the visual landscape. 

■■ Fire Group Four: Warm, dry Douglas-fir habitat 

types. Under natural conditions, these sites support fire supported ponderosa pine stands. In the 

absence of fire, Douglas-fir regenerates beneath 

the pine and eventually dominates the overstory. 

■■ Fire Group Six: Moist Douglas-fir habitat types. 

Douglas-fir often dominates all stages of succession on these sites, even when subjected to periodic fire. 

Forests and Woodlands Objective 2 

Within 2 years of plan approval, find out if forestland 

treatments are needed on the remainder of the refuge complex. If needed, develop management plans 

with site specific prescriptions. 

Strategies 

■■ Use natural fire regimes according to “Fire Ecology of Western Montana Forest Habitat Types” 

(Fischer, 1987) to support the health and vigor of 

forested resources. Natural fire regimes would be 

emulated with prescribed fire, which may require 

some thinning or fuel reduction before prescribed 

fire. 

Rationale. In general, complex forest lands are in 

good condition and do not need extensive management at this time. Since forest comprise only 3 

percent of refuge complex lands and are naturally 

self-sustaining for decades, complex resources have 

been directed to other habitats. All complex forest lands are surrounded by vast acres of forest 

managed by the USDA Forest Service, Montana 

Department of State lands and Plum Creek Timberlands. Timber management of these mid-elevation 

forests is primarily for sustainable harvest and multiple uses. Managing refuge lands for mature forests 

would complement adjacent forest types. 

Sagebrush–Steppe Objective 

Support 2,500 acres of healthy, vigorous sagebrushsteppe habitats dominated (more than 50-percent 

cover) by mid-height, native cool-season grasses. 

Support at least 13-percent mountain big sagebrush 

cover with an average canopy height less than 5 

feet. Support Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and Rocky 

Mountain Juniper at less-than–5-percent cover. Annually, these conditions should be supported on at 

least 50 percent of grassland and steppe habitats 

as nesting cover for upland nesting waterfowl and 

sagebrush-obligate species. 

Strategies 

■■ When conditions are conducive, prescribed fire 

may be applied to the native sagebrush uplands 

emulating the historical mean fire interval for big 

sagebrush communities in southwestern Montana, which is estimated to be 25 years (Lesica et 

al. 2005). 

■■ If prescribed fire is not fully successful in reducing the woody vegetation cover to less than 5 

percent, mechanical removal of trees may be 

needed to meet objective. 

■■ Units of sagebrush–steppe would be grazed at a 

high intensity (50–60 percent removal of standing 

cover), with a heavy stocking rate, for a short 

duration, as needed to reduce litter and increase 

vigor of the grassland understory. 

■■ Priority would be given to invasive species management within sagebrush-steppe using IPM and 

EDRR. 

■■ Check species composition and vegetative trends 

to evaluate the success of current management 

regimes. 

Rationale. Native sagebrush-steppe is an imperiled 

ecosystem, with as much as 60 percent of the sagebrush communities in North America considered 

to be significantly altered or degraded (Knick et al. 

2003). There is a priority to protect this vital habitat 

type through conservation easements and work with 

private landowners through the Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program to improve management on 

these lands. The Service also wants to manage its 

fee-title sagebrush-steppe to best complement the 

native species that rely on this habitat type. 
184 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Woody species such as Ponderosa pine and Rocky 

Mountain juniper are encroaching into the native 

sagebrush uplands and significant ecological changes 

are occurring. This invasion is taking place because 

fire has been excluded from the valley floor and it 

will continue until fire is reentered into the natural equation or until mechanical and chemical techniques are used (Miller and Rose 1999, Miller et al. 

2001). Historical mean fire intervals for big sage 

communities were estimated at 25 years for southwestern Montana (Lesica et al. 2005). 

Prescribed fire can be logistically and socially 

difficult to complete. When certain situations present themselves, such as landowner interest, partner 

availability, and the ability to safely complete burns, 

prescribed fire would be considered to meet various habitat objectives. However, no more than 50 

percent of the native uplands in a single unit would 

be burned during the breeding season each year. 

If prescribed fire is not fully successful in reducing 

the woody vegetation cover to less than 5 percent, 

mechanical removal of trees may be needed to meet 

the objective. 

The understory of the sagebrush-steppe is typically dominated by rough fescue, ranging in canopy 

cover from 10 percent to as much as 70 to 80 percent 

on the least disturbed, most mesic sites. Other important understory (more than 75 percent) grasses 

are Idaho fescue, prairie Junegrass, and bluebunch 

wheatgrass (Cooper 2004). Rough fescue plants appear to be well adapted to periodic burning; however, succession to a near-climax state takes more 

than 20 years following heavy grazing, and complete 

recovery following light grazing can take up to 14 

years (Tirmenstein 2000). Conversely, Idaho fescue 

can increase with grazing and can become dominant 

when rough fescue is overgrazed. If prescribed fire 

is not possible on sagebrush-steppe habitats, litter 

may build up and decrease the vigor of the understory grasses. In such cases, limited grazing may be 

helpful, but no more than 25 percent of the total native upland acreage would be grazed in any one year. 

Grazing prescriptions would need to be carefully 

monitored to avoid adverse effects. 

Plants such as spotted knapweed, yellow toadflax, common tansy, and Canada thistle have the 

genetic propensity to invade native vegetation and 

become a dominant element of the landscape, often 

with only minimal disturbance or through natural 

disturbance events. These species degrade wildlife 

habitat, increase soil erosion, diminish water quality, 

degrade native grasslands, and require the expenditure of significant resources in attempts to control 

their spread. None of these species are native to 

Montana, and most of the natural agents (insects 

and diseases) that keep these species under control 

in their native areas of Europe of Asia are not present in Montana and there is no other natural agent 

to prevent the unchecked spread of these species 

across the State. 

On the Service’s fee-title lands, the local refuge 

manager and the Invasive Species Strike Team 

have mapped infestations and are actively managing 

these infestations through biocontrol, chemical control and monitoring. Integrated weed management 

strategies include herbicides, biocontrol, revegetation, multispecies grazing, hand pulling, plowing, 

mowing, prevention, and EDRR. 

High-priority species such as the Brewer’s sparrow, and loggerhead shrike build nests aboveground 

in shrubs or rely specifically on shrubs for cover. 

Brewer’s sparrows, in particular, have experienced 

significant declines in the last 10–20 years and are 

good habitat indicator species because they appear 

to be sensitive to habitat changes at multiple scales 

(Knick et al. 2003). Brewer’s sparrow is strongly 

associated with sagebrush, preferring sites with 

more than 13-percent sagebrush cover with an average canopy height less than 5 feet and more than 25 

percent of cover in native, climax species (Bock and 

Bock 1987, Rotenberry et al. 1999). 

Wildife Goal 

Support diverse and sustainable continental, 

regional, and local populations of migratory 

birds, native fish, species of concern, and other 

indigenous wildlife of the northern prairies and 

intermountain valleys of northern Montana . 

Species of Concern Objective 

Over the next 15 years, develop protocols to protect 

and enhance federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species on refuge fee-title lands 

for the continued health and viability of populations 

of species of concern and reduce any possible negative effects from management actions on other State 

and Federal species of concern. 

Strategies 

■■ Biologists would develop protocols to evaluate 

the effects of new or changed management actions on species of concern. 

■■ Biologists would develop a monitoring protocol 

to establish abundance, population trends and 

habitat associations of high-priority species of 

concern. 
CHAPTER 6 – Management Direction 185 

■■ Partner with conservation organizations, MFWP, 

Plum Creek Timber Company, and private organizations to help with inventory and monitoring. 

■■ Coordinate with the MNHP to survey the Swan 

River Refuge yearly for water howellia. 

■■ Survey suitable habitat on waterfowl production areas in the Blackfoot Valley for Spalding’s 

catchfly. 

■■ Continue to help Blackfoot Trumpeter Swan reintroduction by coordinating cygnet releases, release sites, and monitoring until seven breeding 

pairs are established or until evaluation by the 

working group under the guidance of the Blackfoot Trumpeter Swan Program Implementation 

and Evaluation Plan suggests that the project 

should be terminated. 

■■ Consider reintroduction of trumpeter swans 

within the Swan Valley Conservation Area. 

■■ Evaluate and potentially begin grizzly bear conflict reduction measures, as implemented in the 

Blackfoot River Conservation Area, in communities within the Rocky Mountain Front and Swan 

Valley Conservation Areas. Grizzly bear conflict 

reduction measures would only be implemented 

in concert with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

and with support from local communities. 

■■ Evaluate the effects of public use on species of 

concern and carry out seasonal public-use restrictions in areas where species of concern occur 

within 5 years of plan approval. 

Rationale. The ESA requires Federal agencies to 

carry out conservation (recovery) programs for 

listed species and to make sure that agency actions 

are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

of listed species or adversely change or destroy their 

critical habitat. Section 7(a) of the act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect 

to any species that is listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is 

being designated. 

Conservation planners often develop a list of species of concern specific to their goals and objectives. 

The refuge complex has decided to use the MNHP’s 

list of species of concern because they are specific to 

areas managed by the refuge complex, and the criteria used to make up their list was based on population size, area of occupancy in Montana, short- and 

long-term trends, threats, inherent vulnerability, 

and specificity to environment. Species designated 

as State species of concern by the MNHP that may 

occur within 

the refuge 

complex are 

located in appendix D. Refuge biologists 

would look at 

the MNHP 

list, compare 

it to other programs’ lists, 

and evaluate 

population trends and habitat needs to establish a 

hierarchy of species to consider in management decisions for the complex. Any management action that 

would result in long-term or substantial changes to 

habitat (including changes from historical management techniques) would be reviewed by refuge staff 

for effects on species of concern before implementation. In addition, staff would conduct pre- and postmonitoring of selected species in conjunction with 

habitat management efforts including restoration, 

and regeneration efforts. Supporting an up-to-date 

list of species of concern, providing feedback on refuge complex occurrences to MNHP, and monitoring 

the effects of management actions would help support the conservation of species of concern on the 

refuge complex. 

Habitat management practices are derived from 

a managers past experience, knowledge collected 

over years of hands-on fieldwork, research trials, 

and communication with colleagues. However, habitat management is a complex science and results 

can be site specific and change through time. It is 

necessary to check the effect of management actions on priority species to make sure these actions 

are having the desired wildlife species response. 

Management techniques can be altered if the desired 

results are not met. This is the basis of adaptive 

resource management. 

Specific actions to help species of concern that 

have already been implemented on the refuge complex include the following: (1) collaboration with 

the MNHP to check for water howellia on the Swan 

River Refuge; (2) reintroduction of trumpeter swans 

to the Blackfoot Valley; and (3) baseline monitoring 

of colonial-nesting waterbird species of concern. 

Spalding’s catchfly is a federally listed threatened 

species that is easy to miss in traditional surveys 

and monitoring. Waterfowl production areas in the 

Blackfoot Valley contain habitats (rough fescue-dominated grasslands and fescue–sage grasslands) that 

support Spalding’s catchfly in other locations. Although vegetation surveys have been conducted on 

these waterfowl production areas, intensive surveys 

for Spalding’s catchfly also need to be conducted. 

Badger . 

USFWS 
186 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Water howellia is restricted in Montana to depressional wetlands in the Swan Valley, typically occupying small basins where the water level recedes 

partially or completely by the fall. Water howellia 

is located on land owned by TNC next to the Swan 

River Refuge. Similar habitat is found on the Swan 

River Refuge. Surveys need to be conducted in suitable habitat yearly because water howellia production is highly dynamic depending on yearly climatic 

conditions. 

The Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem 

(NCDE) grizzly bear population is increasing at an 

annual rate of 3 percent and the overall population 

is estimated at approximately 900 bears (Servheen 

2011). There were 232 mortalities documented between 2000 and 2010 with 49 percent of those deaths 

occurring on private lands. Research shows that 

these mortalities are a direct result of human/grizzly 

bear conflicts (Servheen 2011). Successful, cooperative, conservation delivery activities that have been 

implemented in the Blackfoot Valley Conservation 

Area to reduce human/grizzly bear conflicts include 

removal of dead livestock carcasses, protecting 

spring calving areas and installing power fencing 

around apiaries (USFWS 2011f). Initiating similar 

cooperative efforts in the Rocky Mountain Front 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas could result in 

further reductions in human/grizzly bear conflicts for 

the NDCE grizzly bear population. 

Disturbance caused by recreational pursuits may 

elicit behavioral or physiological responses in wildlife. Behavior responses are seen when individuals 

are displaced from prime foraging habitats. This 

may result in decreased body condition going into 

winter, which has been linked to lower reproductive 

performance and even death. Other forms of behavior responses include flight and interference with 

foraging. Physiological responses are less obvious 

and harder to measure. They include adrenalin-induced increases in heart rate, blood flow to skeletal 

muscle, increased body temperature and elevated 

blood sugar (Gabrielsen and Smith 1995). All of 

which exert an energy cost to the animal reducing 

vigor. 

Because they are listed under the ESA and have 

been the subjects of considerable research, evidence 

of such effects is more readily available for grizzly 

bears than many other species of concern (Claar et 

al. 1999). Recreational activities can affect, directly 

or indirectly, the survival of grizzly bears. Grizzly 

bears can be directly taken in the defense of human 

life. Indirectly, recreationists can displace bears off 

quality habitat onto less desirable habitat. This may 

result in reduced reproduction by displaced bears, 

higher mortality rates due to food stress or lower security, and smaller bear populations due to reduced 

carrying capacity of remaining habitat (Serveen et 

Grizzly bear spotted in Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area . 

USFWS 

al. 2001). Another example includes nesting trumpeter swans that have been shown to be sensitive to 

human disturbance during the nesting season. Birdwatching, photography, research, and other activities in or near nesting areas may cause nest failure 

or cygnet loss by disturbing adults (Mitchell 1994). 

In Yellowstone National Park, human intrusion was 

the most significant known cause of egg failure in 

trumpeter nests (Banko 1960). By reviewing and 

summarizing known effects from disturbance on 

species of concern within the refuge complex, staff 

would be better able to manage and reduce the possible negative effects. 

Migratory Birds Objective 

Through the life of the plan, the refuge complex 

would annually review national and regional migratory bird population trends and then address monitoring and management strategies as needed. 

Strategies 

■■ Increase communication and coordination with 

Division of Migratory Bird Management within 

the Service to identify species of conservation 

concern. 

■■ Once a species of conservation concern is identified, seek Division of Migratory Bird Management input to provide potential management and 

research direction and opportunities for helping 

with long-term sustainability. 

■■ Use adaptive management, such as implementation of seasonal closures on fee-title lands to 

protect nesting birds, limited predator removal, 

nest success monitoring and artificial nesting 
CHAPTER 6 – Management Direction 187 

structure implementation to support habitat augmentation efforts for species of conservation concern, and cooperate with research efforts done by 

partner agencies. 

■■ Annually take part in population level or landscape-level monitoring of migratory birds such 

as the North American Breeding Bird Survey, 

Annual Midwinter Waterfowl Survey, Prairie 

Pothole Breeding Waterfowl Survey (Foursquare Mile Survey), Mourning Dove Survey, 

and preseason waterfowl banding for the refuge 

complex. 

Rationale. Due to an ever-increasing habitat loss, migratory birds have become dependent on land managers for habitat creation, maintenance and health 

(Vickery et al. 2000). Landscape-level habitat and 

species management is the impetus as natural resource management moves into the future (USFWS 

2009e). Contributions to this landscape-level effort 

done by the refuge complex would include continuation of the annual reviews for national and regional 

migratory bird trends through the following efforts: 

■■ Partners in Flight 

■■ U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan 

■■ North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

■■ U.S. Conservation Joint Ventures Bird Habitat Joint Ventures—Prairie Habitat Joint Venture (Canada) and Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 

(United States) 

Consultations with the Division of Migratory 

Bird Management within the Service would identify potentially imperiled species. When species are 

identified as being a species of conservation concern, 

management actions could be modified accordingly 

to support migratory bird objectives. 

All participation in population and landscapelevel studies requires an investment of staff time 

and money; however, this varies greatly between 

studies. The most intensive studies currently are 

the Prairie Pothole Breeding Waterfowl Survey 

(Four-square Mile Survey) and preseason waterfowl 

banding. In general, population and landscape-level 

studies provide a good return on investment because 

they do not need station-level staff to analyze data 

and interpret results, but the Service receives substantial management information from the resulting 

large datasets. However, broader studies may not 

provide site specific information for managing a refuge or waterfowl production area. 

Wildlife Disease Objective 

Annually review national and regional disease 

trends and carry out monitoring and management 

strategies as needed. 

Strategies 

■■ Annually review and update the 2006 Disease 

Contingency Plan as needed. 

■■ Conduct regular surveillance for key wildlife 

diseases such as highly pathogenic, botulism, 

chronic wasting disease, and West Nile virus. 

■■ Consult with the regional Wildlife Health Program to carry on or adopt new monitoring protocols. 

■■ Support a supply of protective equipment for 

emergency cleanup and specimen collection operations. 

Rationale. Because refuges are a concentration 

spot for migratory birds and other wildlife, there 

is greater potential for disease outbreaks and mortality events. A Disease Contingency Plan specific 

to the Benton Lake Refuge was developed in 2006 

and contains protocols for disease monitoring and 

management. Working with other State and Federal 

agencies will be important in identifying present and 

future wildlife disease concerns. 

Cultural Resources Goal 

Identify and evaluate the cultural resources of 

the refuge complex and protect those that are 

determined to be significant . 

Cultural Resources Objective 

Protect and preserve cultural resources throughout 

the refuge complex through coordination with the 

Region 6 Cultural Resources Branch, who help refuge staff with meeting the requirements of Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and 

other cultural resources-related legislation. 

Strategies 

■■ Inform the R6 cultural resources staff of refuge 

complex projects early in project planning with 

the Cultural Resources Review Form. 
188 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

■■ Known, but not documented, cultural resources 

will be documented by the cultural resources 

staff to figure out the proper long-term management. 

■■ Documented National Register eligible, or potentially eligible, resources and undocumented 

cultural resources, regardless if they have been 

evaluated for the National Register, will be protected from alteration or neglect. 

■■ Conduct further investigation into the eligibility 

of two sites on the H2-O WPA for the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

Rationale. The refuge complex has several documented cultural resources; however, much of its 

property has not been inventoried for these resources. Archaeological and historic sites are important to the Service and the public and compliance 

with cultural resources-related legislation would 

serve to protect these resources. Federal laws and 

policies mandate the identification and evaluation of 

archaeological and historic sites on Federal lands. 

Specifically, Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act requires all Federal agencies to 

consider cultural resources before project implementation and specifies the process required to meet 

this goal. Under the National Historic Preservation 

Act cultural resources are treated as eligible for the 

National Register until they have been evaluated. 

About 470 acres of archaeological survey has 

been conducted at the H2-O WPA (Schwab 1994). 

Four prehistoric lithic scatters and two historic sites 

were found. The two historic sites (McCormick ditch 

24PW623 and McCormick farmstead 24PW618) were 

found to be potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and need further investigation if work is proposed near them. The McCormick 

farmstead was found to be not eligible by the contractor, but the Montana State Historic Preservation Office did not concur. The unresolved National 

Register eligibility of this site is an on-going issue 

for the complex. 

Visitor Services Goal 

Provide opportunities for visitors of all abilities 

to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation on Serviceowned lands and increase knowledge and 

appreciation for the refuge complex’s ecological 

communities and the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System . 

Hunting Objective 

Throughout the life of the plan, provide a variety 

of hunting opportunities for approximately 1500 

visits per year, that support sustainable resources 

and provide participants with an opportunity to appreciate the natural environment on the district and 

Swan River Refuge. 

Note: Specific hunting objectives and strategies 

related to the Benton Lake Refuge are presented in 

chapter 7. 

Strategies 

■■ Provide a variety of hunting opportunities across 

the refuge complex as shown in table 26. 

■■ On the district, (excluding Sands WPA and 

H2—O WPA), evaluate the potential for implementing a hunting season for State-defined 

predators and nongame species from August 15 

through March 1. 

■■ Work with partners to develop programs to introduce young people to safe, effective, and ethical hunting techniques and methods. 

■■ Coordinate with State and other interested 

groups to host a Hunter Education class at the 

refuge complex Headquarters, which would include a mentored gamebird hunt. 

■■ Encourage landowners of conservation easements to take part in the State block management program to increase hunter access. 
Table 26 . Hunting opportunity throughout the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Animal group Benton Lake Refuge† The District* Swan River Refuge 

Big game No	 Yes (mule deer, white-tailed deer, 

pronghorn, elk, moose, bighorn 

sheep, mountain goat, mountain 

lion, and black bear) 

No 

Upland gamebird Yes (pheasant, gray partridge, 

and sharp-tailed grouse) 

Yes (pheasant, gray partridge, No 

sharp-tailed grouse, spruce 

grouse, ruffed grouse, Franklin’s 

grouse, and turkey) 

Migratory gamebird Yes (ducks, geese, swans, and 

coots) 

Yes (ducks, geese, swans, coots, Yes (ducks, geese, swans, 

common snipe, mourning dove, and coots) 

and sandhill crane) 

Predator No No** No 

Furbearer No No**	 No 

Nongame wildlife No No**	 No 

*Excludes Sands WPA and H2–O WPA, which were donated with condition of being a nonhunting unit . 

†Refuge hunting seasons vary from State regulations, see refuge specific regulations 

**Trapping in accordance with State regulations is permitted on the district 

 (with the exception of Sands and H2-O WPAs) 

CHAPTER 6 – Management Direction 189 

Rationale. Hunting is one of the six priority recreational uses identified in the Improvement Act. All 

recreational activities are secondary to the primary 

purpose for which the refuge unit was established 

and must be compatible. Hunting provides traditional recreational activities throughout the refuge 

complex and local areas with no definable adverse 

effects on the biological integrity or habitat sustainability of the refuge complex resources as defined in 

the act. Hunting cannot conflict with the purpose of 

the refuge complex units. Service policy states that 

no more than 40 percent of a national wildlife refuge 

may be open to migratory bird hunting. This restriction makes sure that habitat without disturbance is 

available for migrating birds, including waterfowl. 

In FY 2011, an estimated 1,847 visits for hunting 

occurred on the refuge complex representing 14 percent of recreational visits to the refuge complex. A 

variety of hunting opportunity exists throughout the 

refuge complex. Population goals for harvest are set 

by MFWP and flyway councils. All waterfowl production areas (except the Sands and H2–O WPAs, 

which were donated to the Service with the caveat 

of remaining nonhunting areas) are open to migratory bird, upland gamebird, and big game hunting 

in accordance with all State seasons. Refuges of the 

refuge complex are more restrictive such as the 

Benton Lake and Swan River Refuges, which offer 

bird hunting only. 

Hunting predators and nongame wildlife is currently prohibited on the refuge complex; however 

on the district (excluding Sands and H2—O WPAs) 

the potential for implementing a hunting season for 

State-defined predators and nongame species will 

be evaluated. Montana defines predators as coyotes, weasels, striped skunks, and civet cats (spotted 

skunks). Nongame species are defined as badgers, 

raccoons, red foxes, hares, rabbits, ground squirrels, 

marmots, tree squirrels, porcupines, and prairie 

dogs. Restricting a predator and nongame hunting 

season to August 15 through March 1 would provide increased recreational opportunities to hunters 

while minimizing disturbance to migratory birds. 

Fishing Objective 

Continue to offer opportunities for fishing at the 

Swan River Refuge and waterfowl production areas 

within the refuge complex while supporting sustainable resources. 

Strategies 

■■ Swan River Refuge would continue to be closed 

to fishing via walk-in access from March 1 until July 15 to reduce disturbance to nesting 

migratory birds. Walk-in access for fishing opportunities on the river through the refuge would 

continue from July 16 until the end of February. 

■■ On Swan River Refuge, navigable waters are 

open to fishing by boat year-round. Boating access points are available on Swan Lake. 

■■ Walk-in access would continue year-round on the 

Arod Lakes WPA with vehicle access to Middle 

and Round Lakes permitted from January 2 to 

April 1. 

■■ Minnow seining would continue to be prohibited 

throughout the refuge complex. 
190 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Cutthroat trout . 

USFWS 

Rationale. As one of the six priority recreational uses 

identified in the Improvement Act, fishing provides 

traditional recreational activities on refuges and waterfowl production areas in the refuge complex with 

no definable adverse effects on biological resources. 

Throughout the refuge complex, fishing is authorized within designated timeframes and locations; 

however, a limited number of areas in the refuge 

complex support recreational fisheries. 

Waterfowl production areas open to fishing include Arod Lakes and Blackfoot. In FY 2011, 425 

fishing visits were reported for the refuge complex. 

Arod Lakes WPA, where yellow perch and northern 

pike are plentiful, receives the bulk of fishing pressure in the refuge complex. 

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography Objective 

Throughout the life of the plan, continue to provide 

visitors of all abilities with opportunities to observe 

and photograph a variety of wildlife species. 

Strategies 

■■ Make sure the public is aware of wildlife observation and photography opportunities throughout 

the refuge complex and identify open observation 

areas to the public through signage, publications, 

and maps. 

■■ Support and improve infrastructure associated 

with wildlife observation and photography across 

the refuge complex. 

■■ Expand wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities by providing added infrastructure. 

Support seasonal closures (table 27) in some areas to protect sensitive wildlife values. 

■■ Allow limited commercial photography through 

special use permit decided on a case-by-case basis. 

■■ Install a spotting scope to enhancing viewing 

opportunities at the Swan River Refuge information kiosk and observation platform. 

■■ Continue to provide year-round wildlife observation and photography opportunities on waterfowl 

production areas throughout the district. 

■■ Evaluate the potential for adding more walking 

trails throughout the refuge complex such as Bog 

Road on the Swan River Refuge. 

■■ Collaborate with nongovernmental organizations 

to conduct birding tours and other opportunities 

to the public for wildlife observation. 

■■ Hire a park ranger position (0.50 FTE, or one 

person assigned half time to the refuge complex, 

half time to Benton Lake Refuge exclusively) 

to help provide more wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities along with guided 

interpretive tours. 
Table 27 . Seasonal closures at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Activity type Benton Lake Refuge The District Swan River Refuge 

General See chapter 7, section 7.18 Arod Lakes WPA Road to Middle Entire refuge closed to all 

and Round Lakes Closed to mo- public access March 1–July 15 

torized vehicles April 1 through except wildlife observation 

the end of upland game season (ap- platform, kiosk and Bog Road. 

proximately January 2) South of Bog Road closed yearround 

Hiking	 Permitted on roads that are open Permitted on roads that are open Permitted on Bog Road yearto motorized vehicles and desig- to motorized vehicles. round. 

nated trails 

Skiing and 	 Permitted refuge-wide from the Permitted as weather allows 

snowshoeing	 close of upland gamebird season (approximately January 1) 

through the end of February 

Restricted to designated roads 

and trails. 

Equestrian 

use 

Permitted on roads that are open 

to motorized vehicles 

Prohibited Prohibited 

Bicycling Permitted on roads that are open Permitted on roads that are open Permitted on Bog Road yearto motorized vehicles and desig to motorized vehicles round. 

nated trails 

Boating Nonmotorized boats are permitted in the hunting area during 

hunting season only 

According to State regulations According to State regulations 

(no-wake zone) 

CHAPTER 6 – Management Direction 191 

­

Rationale. Wildlife observation and photography 

are among the six wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities listed in the Improvement Act. As such, 

they are considered priority public uses; although, 

all recreational activities are secondary to the primary purpose for which each refuge unit was established and must be compatible. Wildlife observation 

and photography provide recreational activities 

throughout the refuge complex with no definable 

adverse effects on the biological integrity or habitat 

sustainability of the refuge complex resources as 

defined in the act. In 2011, wildlife observation and 

photography accounted for 8,230 and 490 annual 

visits, respectively, to the refuge complex. A park 

ranger position would allow focus on the untapped 

resources within the refuge complex such as Great 

Falls, which could dramatically increase wildlife 

observation and photography visitation. 

The opportunity to view and photograph a variety of species in their native habitats can be an exciting and rewarding experience. These encounters 

would enrich visitors’ personal lives while garnering support for conserving the unique qualities and 

natural resources of the refuge complex for future 

generations. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 1 

During the life of the plan, enhance public knowledge and understanding of the restoration efforts 

and the progress being made. Expand environmental education programs for adults and children on 

and off the refuge complex, focusing on the wetland 

habitat and native prairie habitats and the natural, cultural, and historical resources of the refuge 

complex. Programs and activities would promote 

awareness of and advocacy for refuge resources and 

management activities for the more than 19,500 visitors and students annually. 

Strategies 

■■ Hire permanent 0.5 FTE park ranger to focus on 

environmental education, community outreach, 

public use, information dissemination, maintenance of public use infrastructure, programming 

and special events for the refuge complex. 

■■ Develop more education kits specific to refuge 

programs and resources including field exploration kits (for example, backpacks with field equipment), a lending library and field activity pages. 

■■ Develop a series of environmental outreach programs with specific themes as they relate to the 

particular complex unit, such as riparian restoration program for the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area. 

■■ Annually take part in at least two community 

events (such as the Environthon) where the opportunity is available to educate the public about 

the refuge complex, its resources and the management activities. 

■■ Provide onsite programs for school groups on the 

refuge complex. 
192 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

■■ Conduct visits to local schools within the refuge 

complex to present information on the history, 

purposes, natural resources, management and 

the restoration project. 

■■ Host events for the International Migratory Bird 

Day, National Wildlife Refuge Week, and National Trails Day. 

■■ Pursue opportunities to expose middle school, 

high school, and college students to the field of 

natural resource management through job shadowing, internships, and other activities. 

■■ Develop programs for introducing young people 

to the enjoyment of the outdoors and instilling 

ethical, safe, and effective skills for observation, 

identification, and photography of wildlife. 

■■ Work with schools and teachers within the refuge 

complex to develop programs that support their 

curriculum objectives and facilitate a workshop 

for local teachers. 

■■ Pursue grants and other money sources to support environmental education programs. 

■■ Explore the possibility of a partnership with 

community colleges and universities to expand 

educational opportunity, volunteer activities, and 

internships. 

■■ Use social networking tools to reach a greater 

part of the public including supporting and updating an accurate complex Web site, creating a 

Facebook page and Twitter account. 

■■ Work with other organizations to place refuge information and directional maps at locations with 

high public traffic. 

■■ Develop a refuge specific traveling display that 

can be used for programs and events. 

■■ Develop and install interpretive panels for the 

facilities throughout the refuge complex. 

■■ Engage partners and challenge cost-share opportunities to develop a short refuge complex film 

accessible from the refuge complex Web site and 

used during outreach and educational activities. 

Rationale. Environmental education and interpretation are two of the six priority public-use activities listed in the Improvement Act. All recreational 

activities are secondary to the primary purpose in 

which the refuge was established, and must be compatible. These uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, interpretation, and 

environmental education) receive special recognition 

by the Service and are accommodated when compatible with the original purpose of the refuge unit. 

Environmental education within the Refuge System 

incorporates onsite, offsite, and distance-learning 

materials, activities, programs, and products that 

address the audience’s course of study, refuge purposes, physical attributes, ecosystem dynamics, 

conservation strategies, and the Refuge System 

mission. 

Environmental education is a process designed to 

teach citizens and visitors, children and adults, the 

history and importance of conservation and scientific 

knowledge about the Nation’s natural resources. 

Through this process, the Service can help develop a 

citizenry that has awareness, knowledge, attitudes, 

skills, motivation, and commitment to work cooperatively toward the conservation of environmental 

resources. The refuge complex has been conducting 

minimal environmental education and interpretation 

activities due to limited staff. In FY 2011, the refuge complex staff reached 1,765 participants during 

on and offsite environmental education programs. 

Most of which, approximately 850, are third graders 

in the Great Falls Public School System who visit 

the Benton Lake Refuge as part of their education 

curriculum. In addition, refuge complex-wide, 525 

participants attended 10 special events and 120 participants attended interpretation programs on- and 

offsite. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 2 

During the life of the plan, increase environmental 

and interpretive programs within the Blackfoot Valley and Swan Valley CAs. 

Strategies 

■■ Use refuge wildlife specialist (1 FTE) at Upsata 

Lake to explore and help refuge park ranger with 

outreach and education opportunities within the 

district, Blackfoot Valley CA, Swan Valley CA, 

and the Swan River Refuge. 

■■ Use the facilities at Upsata Lake for environmental education and interpretive programs. 

■■ Establish a cooperative program with the University of Montana at Missoula. 

■■ Offer environmental education programs for 

youth groups, schools and the public within the 

Missoula area and Swan Valley CA. 
CHAPTER 6 – Management Direction 193 

Rationale. More potential exists in the Blackfoot Valley and Swan Valley CAs to expand the Service’s 

educational and interpretive efforts. Upsata Lake 

WPA, which is proposed for acquisition, offers an opportunity for more onsite environmental education 

and interpretive experiences with its proximity to 

Missoula and the University of Montana. 

Administration Goal 

Provide facilities, strategically allocate staff, 

and effectively use and develop funding sources, 

partnerships, and volunteer opportunities to 

maintain the long-term integrity of habitats and 

wildlife resources of the refuge complex . 

Staff and Funding Objective 

Throughout the life of the plan, strive to fill positions 

identified in the CCP as critical to accomplishing 

goals and objectives (table 28). 

Current staff within the refuge complex consists of 9.5 permanent FTEs, and approximately 

3 seasonal FTEs. Table 28 shows the current staff 

and proposed added staff required to fully carry 

out the CCP. Due to the area of responsibility and 

added complexities of this plan all grade levels for 

current staff would be evaluated. If all positions 

were funded, the refuge complex staff would be able 

to carry out all aspects of this CCP, providing the 

greatest long-term help to wildlife, habitat, and ecosystems while improving facilities and providing 

visitor services. Projects that have adequate money 

and staff would receive priority for accomplishment. 

Staff and money are requested for the 15-year life of 

this CCP. 

Strategies 

■■ Conduct site visits and prepare briefing packages 

for Service and other Federal officials (for example, congressional staff) to showcase complex 

achievements and potential acquisition growth. 

■■ Use local media throughout the refuge complex 

to promote habitat improvements, outreach activities, and other accomplishments. 

■■ Continue to cultivate good working relationships 

with the refuge complex’s neighbors, other State 

and Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations and other user groups to promote grassroot support and advocacy for refuge complex 

initiatives. 

■■ Cooperate with organizations like TNC and the 

Conservation Fund to leverage resources for conservation easement programs. 

■■ Continue to accurately document money and staff 

needs through memos and reports. 

■■ Prove to neighbors, partners, and local communities the potential benefits of increased money and 

staff in the refuge complex. 

■■ Establish a Friends group to help support and 

advocate for the refuge complex. 

■■ Coordinate and take part in multi-agency youth 

and volunteer programs and initiatives. 

■■ Refine and increase participation in the refuge 

complex volunteer program. 

Table 28 . Current and proposed staff at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Refuge Complex Unit Current Positions (FTE) Proposed Added Positions 

Benton Lake and Swan River 5.5 1 FTE full-time law enforcement officer, 1 FTE 

Refuges’ headquarters refuge complex park ranger, 1 FTE supervisory 

biologist refuge complex, 0.5 FTE generalist 

Benton Lake Refuge 2 0.8 career-seasonal biological technician, 0.8 sea

sonal biological technician 

Swan River Refuge 0 Supported by wildlife refuge specialist assigned 

to Swan Valley CA 

The District 1 1.0 maintenance worker 

Blackfoot Valley CA 0.5 0.5 FTE wildlife refuge specialist 

Rocky Mountain Front CA 1 0 

Swan Valley CA 0 1 FTE wildlife refuge specialist 

­
194 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Rationale. Increases in the size and complexity of 

lands within the refuge complex require added staff 

and money. Several new or expanded easement initiatives (Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas) would need 

more staff for monitoring and administration of 

easements as well as more money to acquire easements. 

Current staff and budget levels are not sufficient 

to complete required administrative functions. In 

FY 2009, the Refuge System received an increase of 

$250 million (National Wildlife Refuge Association 

2009 Annual Report). Projections show that due to 

the current state of the economy and the increasing debt and recession, operations money would 

remain stable to decreasing. With annual inflation, 

base allocations would erode with the inability to 

keep up with cost of living adjustments. The Service 

conservatively estimates a need for annual increases 

between $18 million and $35.5 million to meet conservation expectations of partners and the U.S. Congress (National Wildlife Refuge Association 2009 

Annual Report). Increased operation money is not 

expected. 

However, a significant increase in LWCF appropriations for the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area has occurred in recent years. This money 

is highly variable and directly affects the refuge 

complex’s ability to preserve intact landscapes. 

To accomplish the goals and objectives identified 

in this plan, the refuge complex staff would need to 

maximize opportunities for in-kind help, both fiscal 

and human resources, in addition to experiencing 

increases in base (operations money) allocations. 

The refuge complex has a rich tradition of maximizing partnerships to meet established goals and 

objectives. The Service would need to continue these 

efforts and look for more opportunities to leverage 

dollars and human capital through partnerships. 

Creative work force planning, partnerships, and 

using supplemental money opportunities are mechanisms to successfully carry out recommendations. 

Other options are to use maintenance action teams, 

contracting, seasonal and temporary hires, volunteers, and youth initiatives. 

Facilities and Infrastructure Objective 

Strive to support facilities and real property in good 

to excellent condition and meet Service standards 

and Refuge System goals. 

Strategies 

■■ Update the Refuge Lands Geographic Information System (RLGIS) database and assess 

condition assessment of existing infrastructure. 

Complete a rotational assessment every 5 years 

throughout the refuge complex. 

■■ Support and improve facilities at Upsata Lake 

WPA, which is proposed for acquisition. 

■■ Remove any assets that are no longer contributing to the mission and goals of the refuge complex. 

■■ Use annual maintenance money for maintenance 

of real property assets. 

■■ Use grazing cooperators for routine fence maintenance and pursue opportunities to use cooperators and volunteers for sign installation and 

replacement. 

■■ Set priorities for replacement of water control 

structures based on age, availability of money 

and management needs and condition assessments. 

■■ Set priorities for road maintenance based on 

available money and public use. 

■■ Provide adequate facilities for employees and 

equipment. 

■■ Improve and support existing accessible infrastructure and establish new facilities as needed. 

■■ Increase staff by 1.0 FTEs to address seasonal 

maintenance needs on the district. 

■■ Replace faded logos on entrance signs and anywhere else they appear. 

■■ Repair or replace damaged or faded boundary 

and informational signs, as needed, to meet Service sign standards. 

■■ Continue to develop and install entrance signs on 

all waterfowl production areas. 

■■ Develop a trapping plan for Swan River NWR. 

Trapping would occur by special use permit for 

wildlife and infrastructure management purposes 

only. 

Rationale. Visitor services infrastructure including 

information kiosks, entrance, directional and boundary signing, trails, roads (public use and staff use 

only), water control structures, fences, dikes and 

buildings need routine annual and long-term maintenance to support resources in good to excellent 

condition. 
CHAPTER 6 – Management Direction 195 

Due to the extensive maintenance backlog in the 

Service and the lack of maintenance staff in the refuge complex (there is currently one full-time maintenance worker for the entire complex), infrastructure 

throughout the refuge complex varies from poor to 

excellent condition. Roads and dikes need gravel. 

In some areas, significant repair due to muskrat 

burrowing is needed. Some water control structures 

are failing due to advanced age and some sections of 

boundary fence no longer function effectively due to 

broken posts and wire. Signs are missing, unreadable and, in many cases, have been shot by vandals. 

Recently, energy conservation modifications have 

been made at several facilities. There are more facilities in the refuge complex that need insulation, 

windows and roofs, and in some cases, siding. 

Accessible facilities (such as restrooms and entrance ramps) exist primarily in refuge office buildings. Limited accessible facilities in the field include 

the Benton Lake boardwalk and hunt blind, and the 

Swan River observation platform and kiosk. 

Visitor and Employee Safety 

and Resource Protection Goal 

Provide for the safety, security, and protection 

of visitors, employees, natural and cultural 

resources, and facilities throughout the refuge 

complex . 

Visitor and Employee Safety Objective 1 

Keep employee accidents and injuries (as reportable 

to the Office of Workers Compensation Program) 

below the regional average of 6.2 hours of lost time 

a year. 

Strategies 

■■ Provide employees with proper personal protective equipment. 

■■ Make sure all required safety and operator training is completed before engaging in tasks or work 

situations. Make sure other training, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and first aid, 

is available to employees as needed or requested. 

■■ Make sure employees review job hazard analyses 

before engaging in at-risk tasks. 

■■ Practice sound risk management “the state in 

which risks are acceptable.” 

■■ Continue safety talks at weekly staff meetings. 

Rationale 

Injuries in the Service account for 21.1 days of lost 

time in FY 2010, second quarter (DOI 2010). Minimizing the potential for accidents and injuries is 

cost efficient, provides better job satisfaction for 

employees, and is the right way to conduct business. 

The Service requires job hazard analysis write-ups 

before all at-risk tasks, such as operating an all-terrain vehicle or pounding fence posts. A library of job 

hazard analyses is available on the Regional Safety 

Office Web site. 

Visitor and Employee Safety Objective 2 

Over the life of the plan, strive to support the refuge 

complex as 100-percent visitor accident-free. 

Strategies 

■■ Educate and inform visitors of their responsibilities while visiting national wildlife refuges 

and the ways to mitigate potential dangers and 

hazards. 

■■ Use directional and informative signage, visitor 

information kiosks, and posted warnings to help 

reduce preventable accidents and mishaps. 

■■ Close roads deemed unsafe for travel due to 

weather conditions or poor visibility. 

■■ Law enforcement officers will help with protecting visitors and report serious incidents to the 

proper authorities (per guidance found in 054 FW 

1). 

Rationale. Visiting a national wildlife refuge can be 

inherently dangerous. Snake bites, stinging and biting insects and their associated diseases, extreme 

hot and cold temperatures, wind, lightning, standing or turbulent water, uneven terrain, and steep 

edges can potentially turn a pleasant day out into 

a life-altering experience. The Service’s role is to 

help identify these dangers, inform the public about 

them, and mitigate these dangers to the greatest 

extent possible. 

Visitor and Employee Safety Objective 3 

In the first 5 years, improve communication systems 

within the refuge complex. 

Strategies 

■■ During weekly program manager’s meeting, 

share key safety issues between the multiple programs of the refuge complex. 
196 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

■■ Provide staff with the best available communication tools (cell phones, satellite phones, radios) 

and upgrade them regularly. 

■■ Routinely update the refuge complex’s Web site 

to provide current conditions, information, safety 

hazards, and sightings of interest. 

■■ Continue to coordinate with USDA Forest Service in the usage of their radio system including 

repeaters. 

Rationale. Historically, vast areas of the refuge 

complex have been in communication dead zones, a 

situation that is complicated by the topography of 

the landscape. As cell and satellite usage increases, 

coverage has improved; however many areas of the 

refuge complex continue to experience no service. 

Radios provide an essential means of communicating 

out in the field and to a base station; however, getting the proper authorizations to buy and program 

the best devices for the Service’s needs has proven 

problematic over the last decade. A Memorandum of 

Understanding is in place with the Lewis and Clark 

National Forest office in Great Falls. Use of USDA 

Forest Service frequencies and repeaters has to 

some extent decreased the problem of communication dead zones, however, more efforts are needed. 

Resource Protection Objective 1 

Strive to support 100-percent compliance with easement contracts. 

Strategies 

■■ Follow the guidelines contained in the refuge 

easement manuals for enforcement procedures, 

conduct annual surveillance flights to detect 

or prevent potential easement violations and 

promptly follow up with needed enforcement 

actions. 

■■ Make sure that there is conservation easement 

compliance by conducting annual meetings with 

individual landowners to review and discuss potential activities on their land as related to easement administration. 

■■ Annually send letters and meet with new landowners to inform them of existing easements on 

their property, including associated easement 

provisions. 

■■ Annually review Farmers Home Administration 

easements to make sure that all easement provisions are enforced. 

■■ Review and update easement administrative 

manuals as needed. 

Rationale. Monitoring and enforcing easement contracts is a critical aspect of protecting wetland and 

grassland habitats. Efforts to protect the habitat 

resources on easements would also be focused on 

preventative law enforcement. Proactively contacting landowners and operators may serve to remind 

them of easement provisions and hopefully prevent 

future violations. 

Resource Protection Objective 2 

Over the life of the plan, strive to limit illegal activity to at, or below, levels to be figured out within 5 

years of plan approval. 

Strategies 

■■ Conduct regular law enforcement patrol of refuges and waterfowl production areas to make 

sure that there is compliance with regulations. 

■■ Continue to foster good relationships with other 

local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies. 

■■ Make sure that there is adequate law enforcement coverage during peak activity by working 

cooperatively with officers from other refuges. 

■■ Edit hunting regulations and general activities 

brochures to improve clarity and understanding 

of refuge specific regulations. 

■■ Support proper signage to reduce visitor confusion and improve clarity of boundaries and restricted areas. 

■■ Make sure that refuge regulation pamphlets are 

available for the public visiting outside of normal 

office hours. 

■■ Develop baseline data using known current violations and set a measurable goal to reduce future 

violations. 

■■ Hire a (1.0 FTE) full-time law enforcement officer assigned to the refuge complex and support 

at least one dual-function law enforcement officer 

(1.0 FTE) on the district. 

■■ At the Swan River Refuge, close Bog Road (a 

county-owned road) to motorized vehicles west of 

the kiosk parking lot. 
CHAPTER 6 – Management Direction 197 

■■ Carry out seasonal closures throughout the refuge complex to protect sensitive wildlife values. 

Rationale. Resources to be protected throughout the 

refuge complex include natural (wildlife and habitat) 

resources, cultural resources, facilities, and other 

government property. Law enforcement efforts 

would be focused on preventative enforcement. It 

is expected that initially, the number of documented 

violations would increase due to increased law enforcement presence. As visitors become more aware 

of refuge complex regulations or have contact with 

law enforcement officers, the number of violations 

should decrease. 

There is currently one dual-function Refuge 

Officer at the refuge complex. This officer spends 

between 25 and 50 percent of their duty hours conducting law enforcement activities including regular 

patrols and investigations to make sure that there is 

resource protection. The Montana–Wyoming Zone 

Officer, is stationed at the Benton Lake Refuge, and 

may provide more law enforcement support as time 

allows. Staff would continue to provide visitor, employee and resource protection at current levels 

even though LE presence has diminished from three 

dual-function law enforcement officers in 2004 to one 

dual-function officer in 2011. 

Past violations on fee title lands, enforced 

with Violation Notices, have primarily been hunting 

violations. Problems of vandalism, trespass issues, 

dumping, and general littering exist, but violators 

are often not apprehended by law enforcement. 

At this time, there is insufficient data to determine a measurable goal for reducing violations 

on fee title lands. It is expected that as law enforcement effort increases, the amount of documented 

incidents should increase because as officers spend 

more time and effort in the field, they become more 

aware of incidents and issue more violation notices. 

In time, the initial increase in the number of documented incidents should level off and decline as the 

local community and visiting public becomes more 

aware and compliant with regulations. 

On the Swan River Refuge, Bog Road was 

once believed to be a county road; this four-wheel 

drive road has a history of being used for motorized 

recreation. The Service’s recent investigation into 

this issue revealed that this is not a county road, and 

work is progressing toward extinguishing the rightof-way reserved by the former landowner before 

purchase as a National Wildlife Refuge. On conclusion of this issue, the road will be gated to prevent 

unauthorized vehicle travel and may be opened as an 

interpretive trail. 

Seasonal closures (table 27) would be implemented throughout the refuge complex to protect 

sensitive wildlife resources. Minimizing disturbance 

to nesting migratory birds is of particular concern. 

Deep Creek . 

Jeff Van Tine 

6 .2 Stepdown 

Management Plans 

The CCP is intended as a broad umbrella plan that 

provides general concepts and specific wildlife, 

habitat, visitor services, and partnership objectives 

over the next 15 years. The purpose of the stepdown 

management plans is to provide detail to managers 

and employees for implementing specific actions and 

strategies authorized by the CCP. Table 29 presents 

the plans needed for the refuge complex by unit, 

their status, and the next revision date. 
198 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Table 29 . Stepdown management plans for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . 

Plan Completed Plan, Year Approved New or Revised Plan, Completion Year 

Habitat Management Plan 

Inventory and Monitoring Plan 

Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Fire Management Plan 

Visitor Services Plan 

Law Enforcement Plan 

6 .3 Plan Amendment 

and Revision 

This CCP will be reviewed annually to decide if it 

needs revision. A revision will occur when significant 

information becomes available, such as a change 

in ecological conditions. The final CCP will be augmented by detailed stepdown management plans to 

address the completion of specific strategies in support of the CCP goals and objectives. Revisions to 

the CCP and the stepdown management plans will 

be subject to public review and NEPA compliance. 

At a minimum, this plan will be evaluated every 5 

years and revised after 15 years. 
CHAPTER 7–Analysis of Management 

Alternatives for the Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Pronghorn on the grasslands of the refuge complex . 

Neal Mischler 

During the planning process, it became evident 

that the issues surrounding the management of the 

Benton Lake Refuge, and the wetland basin in particular, were of serious concern within the refuge 

complex. The Service and the public have identified 

declining wetland health and selenium contamination, and its effect on wildlife and management on 

the refuge, as the most critical issues needing to be 

addressed in this CCP. 

Because of the complexity of the analysis for 

Benton Lake Refuge, all aspects of NEPA evaluation unique to the refuge are presented together 

in this chapter and described in detail. When completed, the management direction for the refuge 

complex, described in chapters 1–6, and the management direction for the Benton Lake Refuge, described in this chapter, will be used in conjunction to 

serve as a working guide for management programs 

and activities throughout the refuge complex over 

the next 15 years. 

7 .1 The Planning Process 

One of the most important issues identified for 

the refuge complex during the planning process, 

by both the public and the planning team, was the 
200 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

declining condition of the Benton Lake Refuge wetlands. Refuge staff had concerns that long-term 

selenium contamination problems in the wetland 

were increasing and potentially becoming critical. In 

addition, staff had observed expansions of nonnative 

wetland vegetation and declining open water habitat important to waterfowl. Overall use by wetland 

dependent birds had also appeared to have declined 

from historic numbers. The public, particularly migratory gamebird hunters, also commented on the 

lack of open water and difficulty accessing wetlands 

with deep layers of sedimentation. 

To better understand what was causing this declining condition, the Service met with consultants 

from Greenbrier Wetland Service on April 28 and 

July 29, 2009, to develop a hydro-geomorphic assessment of Benton Lake. The scientists from Greenbrier Wetland Services are recognized experts in the 

field of wetland ecology. They worked with Service 

staff to understand what changes had occurred in 

the Benton Lake wetlands over time and how this 

might relate to the observed declines in bird use, 

increases in invasive species and increasing selenium 

contamination (Heitmeyer et al. 2009). In addition, 

USGS developed a water budget model based on 

more than 30 years of data (Nimick et al. 2011) and 

a selenium model based on research conducted by 

USGS and the University of Montana (Knapton et 

al. 1988, Nimick et al. 1996, Zhang and Moore 1997) 

on the refuge. These models, coupled with the wetland assessment, were used to develop and analyze 

the management alternatives and to select one as 

the proposed action for the refuge. 

After initially identifying the proposed action at a 

planning meeting in February 2010, refuge staff began another scoping effort to share the results with 

the public. Refuge staff focused on groups and individuals who had expressed interest or concern about 

Benton Lake during the first scoping effort. Refuge 

staff organized and led presentations to local interest groups (Russell County Sportsmen’s Association, 

Upper Missouri Breaks Audubon, Sun River Watershed Group), MFWP, congressional representatives 

and the public. Many people attended the meetings 

and provided comments that the Service recorded. 

At the request of local stakeholders including 

Ducks Unlimited, National Wildlife Federation, Russell County Sportsmen’s Association, local and State 

Audubon organizations, and MFWP, a workshop 

was held in Great Falls, Montana, June 9, 2011, to 

explore options related to water management, selenium contamination, and public use at the refuge. 

Many good ideas were generated at the workshop 

including recognition that achieving refuge objectives for selenium and wetland habitat would require dealing with inputs from the highly altered 

Lake Creek watershed, as well as refuge water management. 

As a result of these scoping efforts, the planning 

team decided that more alternatives were needed 

for Benton Lake than the three that had been developed earlier for the complex-wide planning effort. 

7 .2 Establishment, 

Acquisition, and 

Management History 

The refuge (figure 15) was established by Executive 

order of President Herbert Hoover in 1929. It is 

located on the northern Great Plains, 50 miles east 

of the Rocky Mountains and 12 miles north of Great 

Falls, Montana. The original area of the refuge was 

12,235 acres, of which about 3,000 was flooded wetland in 1928 (Great Falls Tribune 1929a). Originally 

owned and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation 

as part of the Sun River Reclamation Project, Benton Lake subsequently became part of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Impetus for establishing 

the refuge came mostly from local sportsmen and 

women, especially waterfowl hunters, in the mid1920s when about 8,000 acres of U.S. Governmentcontrolled land near Benton Lake was proposed to 

be opened for settlement. Sportsmen and women 

supported the establishment of the refuge even 

though this designation “will mark the end of hunting on the lake, which for years has been the favorite 

duck shooting grounds of Great Falls sportsmen” 

(Great Falls Tribune 1929a).Figure 15. Map of the 

pump station, easement, and travel route of water 

from Muddy Creek to the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 

The refuge was unstaffed, with infrequent visits 

from refuge managers stationed at the National Bison Range until 1961, when local support from the 

Cascade County Wildlife Association prompted a 

major effort to increase the water supply and management capabilities of the refuge. A pump station, 

pipeline, and water control structures were constructed from 1958–1962 to bring irrigation return 

water from Muddy Creek, about 15 miles to the 

west, to the refuge. The acquisition of the pumping 

station near Power, Montana, brought the refuge to 

its current 12,459.88 acres (12,383 fee-title acres and 

76.88 acres of right-of-way easement). A complete 

acquisition history can be found in table 2 (see chapter 2, section 2.1). 

In 1962, the first water was pumped from Muddy 

Creek and managed by the new, permanent staff 

on the refuge. The historic Benton Lake bed was 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 201 

divided into six wetland management units (Unit 4 

was later subdivided into three subunits) by dikes, 

ditches and water control structures to facilitate 

management of water. 

In addition to construction of dikes, ditches, 

water control structures and pumps, many other 

topographic alterations have occurred on the Benton Lake Refuge since the early 1960s. These alterations include roads, parking lots and building 

complexes, excavations and mounds within wetland 

units for nesting islands, sedimentation and filling of 

some wetland depressions, construction of drainage 

ditches within units and deposition of hard material 

(for example, riprap, rock, concrete, and gravel) into 

wetlands (USFWS 1961–99). Most of the nesting 

islands were built in the 1980s; however, the islands 

in Unit 4b were later removed when they attracted 

large gull colonies that preyed on waterfowl nests. 

Water management at the refuge, since the 

Muddy Creek pumping system was developed, has 

typically sought to consistently flood some wetland 

units each year to provide breeding and migration 

habitat for waterfowl. Since 1962, water typically 

has been pumped from late August through October 

to provide water for fall migrating waterfowl and 

to store water in units for the next spring. In many 

years, water is also pumped from mid-April to midJune to raise water levels for waterfowl reproduction. From 1962 through the late 1980s, some water 

was also pumped during the summer to support 

water levels; however, in the last 20-plus years the 

pumps generally have not been used during summer 

and Units 3–6 are mostly dry from mid-July until 

pumping resumes in August. This gradual change 

in water management was the result of discovering 

that deep season-long flooding did not stimulate desirable wetland vegetation and was often associated 

with botulism in Units 3–6. Largely because botulism has never been a significant problem in Units 1 

and 2, these units have traditionally been managed 

for more permanent water. Water is held in these 

units throughout the summer to provide brood rearing habitat for waterfowl (USFWS 1961–99). 

Figure 15 . Map of the pump station, easement, and travel route of water from Muddy Creek to the Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 
202 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

In the uplands, management of the early 1960s 

included breaking more than 600 acres of native 

prairie for agricultural production, planting many 

shelterbelts, and a reduction in haying and grazing 

activities that had dominated the refuge’s first 30 

years. During the 1970s, the agricultural lands were 

gradually converted to DNC, grazing was ended, 

and waterfowl production was the primary emphasis 

of the refuge. 

7 .3 Purpose, Goals 

and Planning Issues 

Chapter 2, section 2.2 details the purpose for which 

Benton Lake Refuge was established. 

The Service developed a set of goals for the 

refuge complex, which can be found in chapter 2, 

section 2.4. All of these apply to the Benton Lake 

Refuge. 

Comments collected from scoping meetings and 

correspondence were used in the development of a 

final list of issues for the refuge. The following issues are unique to the refuge and are the reason this 

chapter was developed. 

Adjacent Landowners 

and Land Uses 

When private landowners keep their fields in grass 

through the CRP, this helps prevent the accumulation of salinity and selenium in seepage areas. 

This help may be lost if large areas currently in the 

(CRP) are converted to crops. It has been suggested 

by Refuge staff, members of the public, and interest 

groups that staff should consider working more with 

private landowners, particularly surrounding the 

refuge, to build partnerships that improve water 

quality and reduce saline seeps. 

This planning issue involves several planning elements and carries through all alternatives in chapter 

7 under the preserving intact landscapes and grasslands planning element heading. 

Loss of Ecological Processes 

Natural fluctuations in water levels (seasonal flooding and drying)—integral to a healthy functioning 

and self-sustaining wetland system—have been lost 

at the refuge. The most striking manifestations of 

the loss of fluctuating water levels and flooding intervals include: the domination of nonnative species such as Garrison creeping foxtail, the spread of 

monotypic stands of native and nonnative species 

that depend on stable water conditions (for example, 

cattail, alkali bulrush), lack of sediment solidification, 

increasing loss of open-water habitat, and the diversity of plant and wildlife species that result from 

dynamic water levels. However, there is uncertainty 

around whether or not dry periods need to be as 

long as occurred naturally or historically to restore 

and support wetland ecological health. 

The functionality and productivity of wetlands 

are also related to the way water moves across the 

wetland and floods the basin. This water movement 

has been severely disrupted at the refuge. Instead 

of shallow ‘sheet flow’ from Lake Creek across the 

wetland basin, the water is diverted into a distribution canal and flows first into deep ditches along 

the dikes, rather than spreading quickly across the 

basin, resulting in negative effects on sedimentation, 

selenium distribution, microtopography, vegetation, 

and invertebrate and seed availability for wildlife. 

This planning issue involves several planning elements and carries through all alternatives in chapter 

7 under the grasslands and wetlands and riparian 

areas planning element headings. 

Declining Wetland 

Ecological Health 

An absence of historical dry periods at the refuge 

that sustain wetland health is a concern. The altered 

source, depth, timing and duration of flooding affects 

contaminant and sediment loading and distribution, 

as well as nutrient cycling. It appears that these 

changes are likely altering the type, distribution and 

biomass production of vegetation and invertebrates, 

which provide resources (for example, food, breeding habitat) required for wildlife to meet their life 

cycle needs. 

In the years following the initial pump house construction and subsequent flooding of Benton Lake, 

the wetland basin was very productive with tens 

of thousands of waterfowl, shorebirds and other 

waterbirds using the refuge. In recent years, refuge 

staff and the public have noticed significant declines 

in the number of waterbirds. Current estimates of 

waterfowl during migration peak at 10,000–30,000 

birds, as compared to 50,000–100,000 noted in the 

early years of refuge water management. Despite 

designation as a Western Hemisphere Shorebird 

Reserve Network Site, refuge staff rarely see peak 

numbers of more than 500 shorebirds using the refuge. 

This planning issue involves several planning elements and carries through all alternatives in chapter 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 203 

7 under the water resources and wetlands and riparian areas planning element headings. 

Water Quantity, 

Delivery, and Cost 

Water management, at the Benton Lake Refuge 

is a key issue for the refuge complex. The refuge’s 

impoundments are intensively managed with supplemental water transported across substantial distances at great financial cost. In recent years, the 

delivery and management of this water has cost as 

much as $135,000 annually. As costs for electricity 

continue to rise, pumping costs have risen as well. 

This has required the reallocation of money that 

could be used for land management to accommodate 

the increasing pumping costs. 

How best to use the water budget to maximize 

wetland health and migratory bird productivity needs to be addressed. How the refuge’s water 

rights in Muddy Creek may be affected by changes 

in water management also needs to be defined. 

This planning issue involves several planning elements and carries through all alternatives in chapter 

7 under the wetlands and riparian areas and water 

resources planning element headings. 

Water Quality and 

Selenium Contamination 

Major issues that have affected the management 

of the refuge in the last 20 years include increasing accumulation of contaminants (selenium) in the 

wetland, dense stands of monotypic vegetation that 

have increasingly become dominated by nonnative 

species, pumping costs for electricity and declining 

bird use. Refuge records suggest that the large numbers of migrating and breeding waterfowl that used 

the refuge in the 1970s and 1980s have declined over 

the last 20 years. Current estimates of waterfowl 

during migration peak at 10,000–30,000 birds, as 

Seep at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge . 

USFWS 
204 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

compared to 50,000–100,000 noted in the early years 

of refuge water management. 

Selenium concentrations in the water, sediment 

and biota of portions of the Benton Lake Refuge are 

currently at levels that can affect reproduction of 

species that are particularly sensitive to selenium, 

such as waterfowl species. These levels have been 

increasing over the last 50 years and if they continue 

to increase, selenium could reach levels that cause 

reproductive failure in waterfowl and other waterbirds in in some parts of the refuge in as little as 10 

years. 

The Sun River Watershed Group has been working to improve water quality in Muddy Creek, in 

particular reducing sediment loading into the Sun 

River. This group would like the refuge to continue 

withdrawing water, either through the pump house 

or a siphon (if built), to help reduce flows in Muddy 

Creek. 

Some interest groups identified the need for the 

refuge to continue to pump or siphon water from 

Greenfields Irrigation District to dilute concentrations of contaminants (salinity and selenium) entering the refuge. The Service received several 

comments suggesting that the refuge needs to address selenium inputs from the Lake Creek watershed by working with landowners and other partner 

organizations and consider establishing a conservation easement program that includes the refuge, 

Muddy Creek, and Lake Creek watersheds. It was 

also suggested that working in the watershed should 

be a higher priority, and would be more effective, for 

improving water quality on the refuge than changes 

to management. 

There may be more impairments to water quality 

from sediments, pesticides, and nutrient loading on 

the refuge that have not been studied. 

This planning issue involves several planning elements and carries through all alternatives in chapter 

7 under the preserving intact landscapes and water 

resources planning element headings. 

Invasive Plants, Nonnative 

Plants, and Noxious Weeds 

Nonnative grasses, forbs, and woody species are of 

concern because they diminish the quality and suitability of habitat and reduce its potential to support 

many native wildlife species. If nonnative species 

are particularly invasive they can spread easily, replace native habitat, reduce diversity, and cause 

great expenditure of financial and human resources. 

Nonnative grasses such as crested wheatgrass, Garrison creeping foxtail, Kentucky bluegrass, Japanese 

brome and cheatgrass are concerns on refuge lands. 

Several fields on the refuge are planted with nonnative grasses, which should be evaluated for replanting to native species to provide optimal habitat 

conditions for wildlife. 

Shelterbelts of planted, nonnative trees and 

shrubs occur on the refuge where woody vegetation 

did not naturally occur. Shelterbelts were originally 

planted to increase wildlife diversity, but current 

research suggests that they increase predation and 

negatively affect imperiled grassland birds. Whether 

or not these shelterbelts should be removed or supported needs to be evaluated. 

This planning issue involves several planning elements and carries through all alternatives in chapter 

7 under the grasslands and wetland and riparian 

areas planning element headings. 

Wildlife Management 

Protecting habitat and managing for a wide variety 

of migratory birds is a priority for the refuge complex. Waterfowl and other waterbirds, grassland 

songbirds, and riparian area-dependent birds are 

some of the highest priority groups. Grassland birds, 

in particular, have experienced the most severe declines of any group of birds across the U.S. Managing the refuge to help these species is a concern. 

The public is also concerned about waterbirds 

such as white-faced ibis, black-crowned night-herons, and Franklin’s gulls that use the refuge and 

depend on relatively deep, permanent water. 

There is concern that the refuge wetlands should 

be flooded every year to provide wetland habitat for 

wildlife that compensates for other wetland habitat 

that has been drained or altered in Montana. 

Botulism has been a problem in some of the refuge units in the past. Flooding Units 3–6 during 

late summer in hot, dry years has historically led to 

botulism outbreaks killing thousands of birds. Botulism needs to be considered in future management 

scenarios. 

This planning issue involves several planning elements and carries through all alternatives in chapter 

7 under the preserving intact landscapes and visitor 

services planning element headings. 

Hunting 

Hunters have expressed concern that the quality 

of waterfowl hunting at the refuge has declined 

significantly over the last several years. Excessive 

vegetation, limited open water, and low-water levels 

were mentioned specifically. Several comments suggested that significant management actions would be 

needed to improve conditions. Opening other parts 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 205 

of the refuge normally closed to hunting, while management actions were implemented on the current 

hunt units, was also suggested. 

Comments were also received that the access for 

hunters with disabilities needs to be improved. 

This planning issue involves several planning elements and carries through all alternatives in chapter 

7 under the visitor services and visitor and employee 

safety planning element headings. 

Wildlife Observation 

The public enjoys viewing wildlife on the refuges 

and waterfowl production areas within the refuge 

complex. The Benton Lake Refuge in particular, because of its close location to the city of Great Falls, 

is especially valued by birdwatchers. The public has 

requested the expansion of opportunity to observe 

sharp-tailed grouse on their dancing leks, a very 

popular activity. Expanding birdwatching opportunities for a wide diversity of birds should be evaluated. 

This planning issue involves several planning elements and carries through all alternatives in chapter 

7 under the visitor services and visitor and employee 

safety planning element headings. 

Comments Received from the 

Public and Found to be Outside 

the Scope of the Plan 

Many issues were identified through scoping, including public meetings, letters, emails, and other written correspondence from the public. The following 

comments from the public, however, were reviewed 

by the Service and found to be outside of the scope 

of the plan because they conflict with existing policy; 

the Service’s, or the Refuge System’s, mission and 

purpose; the best available science; or with other 

information: 

■■ The focus of the refuge should be for ducks, not 

other species. The highest and best use should 

dictate management and give residents access for 

several hunting and recreational pursuits. 

This comment suggests refuge management actions that are not congruent with the purpose of the 

refuge. The refuge was established as “a refuge and 

breeding ground for birds” (Executive Order No. 

5228, November 21, 1929). One species group is not 

considered more important than another. The Improvement Act requires that “each refuge shall be 

managed to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System, 

as well as the specific purpose for which that refuge 

was established” (section 4 (a)(1)(3)(A)). There is a 

strong and singular wildlife conservation mission for 

the Refuge System and, when found to be compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational uses are legitimate and proper uses but secondary to the primary 

purpose for which the refuge was established. 

■■ Federal Duck Stamps purchased the refuge so it 

has to be managed for ducks and migratory bird 

funds and Pittman–Robertson Funds spent on 

the refuge clearly show a long-term dedication 

on the part of the public to sound wetland management to help waterfowl and other wetland 

species. 

This comment suggests that the refuge was 

bought by Federal Duck Stamp revenue, but it was 

not. The refuge lands were reserved during homesteading. The lands were subsequently transferred 

from the Bureau of Reclamation to the Service as a 

refuge and breeding ground for birds by Executive 

order. There was no hunting allowed of any species at that time. No Federal Duck Stamp or Pittman–Robertson monies were used to construct the 

levees and water control structures. All alternatives 

presented in the document reflect sound wetland 

management to help waterfowl and other wetland 

species. 

■■ If a long dry period is implemented, when the 

basin is wet again, the birds will not be able to 

find the refuge because management has broken 

the birds’ tradition. 

This comment suggests that water-dependent 

birds have not adapted to long-term flooding and 

drying cycles. Although some species of waterfowl 

tend to return to the same breeding area used the 

year before (such as homing), most species of waterfowl exhibit some degree of flexibility in settling 

patterns in response to local wetland conditions 

(Johnson and Grier 1988). Examples of this occur 

regularly on the waterfowl production areas within 

the wetland management district where basins under natural hydrological regimes are flooded following a relatively long dry cycle with significant 

associated bird use. 

■■ There are no visible deformities yet, so why is 

the Service proposing such radical solutions now? 

This comment suggests that the Service knowingly not address accumulating selenium, which 

would be in direct opposition of the Improvement 

Act, the mission of the Refuge System, and the purpose of the refuge. When selenium contamination 

reaches levels where visible deformities can readily 
206 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

be observed, the refuge is likely to be so highly contaminated that extreme measures such as capping 

portions of the refuge, as occurred at the Kesterson 

NWR in California in the 1980s, will be necessary. 

At lower levels, selenium causes impairments that 

prevent eggs from hatching, which is not easily 

observed without careful monitoring. However, at 

these levels there are more options available to managers to reduce selenium levels. The Improvement 

Act directs that “the Secretary shall ensure that the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of the Refuge System are supported for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (section 4 (4) (B)). 

■■ The refuge should just treat the selenium problem, for example by scraping out or removing 

the contaminated sediment, to solve the wetland 

health issues. 

This comment suggests that the Service take an 

approach in addressing wetland health issues that 

treats a symptom (selenium) of the problem, not 

the problem, itself. Chapter 7 analyzes management 

alternatives and impacts that focus on the underlying changes to wetland ecological processes, such 

as alterations to the flooding and drying cycle, that 

result in symptoms such as selenium contamination. 

By taking this approach, the Service expects that 

selenium contamination will be reduced, and overall 

wetland health will be improved, so that the refuge 

can be managed in a way that provides long-term solutions that help migratory birds and other wildlife. 

■■ It has been suggested that botulism should not 

be given strong consideration in developing a 

management scheme. 

This comment suggests that the Service purposefully carry out management strategies that have 

proven in the past to cause significant wildlife mortalities. Several units on the refuge have a history 

of botulism outbreaks and botulism is known for 

recurring outbreaks in earlier disease locations. Refuge staff recognize that wildlife mortalities, from a 

variety of causes, are natural and to be expected. 

However, the purpose of the refuge as a breeding 

ground for birds indicates that the Service should 

strive to manage so that the refuge is not a population sink. 

■■ If the refuge does not pump water it will result in 

the abandonment of the refuge and management. 

This comment suggests that management actions 

such as prescribed fire, grazing, treating invasives, 

ARM, and providing for public uses would not continue to occur. However, such management actions 

are currently considered under all alternatives. 

■■ Members of the public suggested that under certain alternatives the participation of the Great 

Falls Public School Third Graders at the refuge 

would be discontinued. 

All alternatives under consideration would continue to provide opportunities for the third graders 

who visit the refuge. Discussions with school staff 

identified no concerns. The teachers stated that they 

would adjust their curriculum to the future conditions of the refuge. 

■■ Over the last three decades conservation partners have invested close to $750,000 in water 

management infrastructure that affects 655 acres 

on the refuge. Removal or modification of this 

infrastructure would mean a loss of this investment. 

The Service recognizes and appreciates the past 

efforts of the refuge’s partners in supporting the 

development of infrastructure on the refuge. These 

efforts were based on the best available wildlife 

management expertise and science at the time. Just 

as this infrastructure was built with the intention of 

helping wildlife, it may be that removing some or all 

of it is now of greater help to wildlife. The Service is 

committed to an ARM approach, and when new information becomes available, the Service must stay 

flexible to adjust management accordingly. 

■■ The Service received a comment that removal of 

the basin infrastructure is a “criminal act.” 

This comment suggests that there is legal standing for this position, but that is not the case. The 

refuge operated without any infrastructure from its 

establishment in 1929 to 1960 and was considered to 

be fulfilling the purpose for which it was established. 

Modification to infrastructure is analyzed under a 

variety of the alternatives presented in the document. 

■■ The refuge should be turned over to the State 

so that hunting would have higher priority in 

management. 

This comment suggests a change of management, 

but the Service does not consider divestiture unless 

a unit no longer meets the purposes for which it was 

established. The refuge provides significant natural 

resource benefit and continues to meet the purpose 

as a refuge and breeding ground for birds. Further­
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 207 

more, reserving and protecting wetland health is a 

concern regardless of ownership. 

■■ Some hunters asked the Service to consider purchasing public access rights from landowners 

of conservation easements or purchase fee title 

instead, so that the public may have the opportunity to access more lands for hunting. 

This comment suggests fee title acquisition, but 

this does not meet the Service’s regional priorities 

(which is easement acquisition); and it is not as cost 

effective for protecting landscape level habitats that 

protect a broad array of trust species. Landowners interested in entering into perpetual conservation easement contracts have a suite of Federal, 

State and nongovernmental organization contracts 

to choose from. The easement contracts differ in 

which individual property rights are encumbered 

depending on the specific agencies’ mission. Landowners who are interested in easement programs 

that will provide public access to their land are referred to the State. Purchasing this right is more 

closely aligned with MTFWP’s mission and money. 

In addition, the State offers public access incentive 

programs (Block Management Program) available 

to private landowners regardless of whether or not 

their properties are encumbered by Service easements. These are short-term (1- 3 year) agreements 

that landowners may consider for financial or ethical 

reasons. 

Prioritizing the easement program on protection 

of wildlife habitat enables the Service to protect 

more acres and deliver conservation on a landscape 

scale. One of the main reasons why most landowners 

are attracted to the Service’s conservation easement 

program is that the Service allows the landowner 

to support control over public access. Changing this 

policy would likely reduce landowner interest. In addition, purchasing public access rights is estimated 

to add 25 to 30 percent to the cost of the easement 

which would mean fewer acres could be protected 

with annual money allocations. Lastly, the increased 

challenges of administering the provisions of public 

access on easements would likely detract from the 

ability of staff to protect more habitat acres. 

Fee title acquisition, such as new waterfowl production areas, has considerable limitations. These 

lands would first have to qualify under the purchasing constraints of the Migratory Bird Program by 

supporting enough wetlands on a tract of land to 

sustain a minimum of 25 pairs of breeding ducks per 

square mile. There has to be an adequate amount 

of Migratory Bird Funds available in Montana for 

acquisition (current money levels would only secure 

approximately 600 acres per year). Private landowners would have to be willing to sell these specific 

tracts of land. Fee title acquisitions would cost at 

least 70 percent more per acre than conservation 

easements, because the purchase price would be 

full appraised market value. In addition, the Service 

would incur all operation and maintenance costs 

for these new fee title tracts. Fee title acquisition 

decreases the county tax base and is generally unpopular within local communities. 

■■ A conservation area (like those on the Rocky 

Mountain Front, Blackfoot Valley and Swan Valley) should be established for the area surrounding Benton Lake Refuge (for example, Lake 

Creek watershed). 

This comment suggests establishing a conservation area, but the Service currently has tools that 

can be used by refuge staff to protect land and work 

with private landowners in the area around Benton 

Lake without needing to establishing a conservation 

area. The refuge complex staff have analyzed the 

issue of working with partners to improve water 

quality in the area surrounding the refuge. The Service’s successful model for conservation easements 

is to partner with landowners to support their current land management (typically ranching) to create 

a win-win for landowners and wildlife. Conservation easements in the Lake Creek watershed would 

require landowners to change their current land 

management which would likely reduce the success 

of this approach. Also, the significantly modified 

landscape does not rank as highly for benefits to 

trust resources as more intact landscapes within the 

State. 

7 .4 Development 

of Alternatives 

The Service assessed the planning issues identified in section 7.2, the existing biological conditions 

described in section 7.10, and external relationships 

affecting the refuge complex. This information contributed to the development of alternatives; as a result, each alternative presents different approaches 

for meeting long-term goals. Each alternative was 

also evaluated according to how well it would advance the vision and goals of the refuge complex and 

the mission of the Refuge System, along with how 

well it would address the planning issues. 

The following alternatives are specific to Benton 

Lake Refuge and do not apply to the rest of the refuge complex. 

■■ alternative A1–no action 
208 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

■■ alternative B1
 

■■ alternative B2
 

■■ alternative C1–proposed action
 

■■ alternative C2
 

However, alternatives A1 through C2 are extensions of alternatives A, B, and C that would apply to 

the entire refuge complex, as shown in table 30: 

Table 30 . Each Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex-level alternative is linked to one or more 

alternatives for Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Montana . 

Refuge Complex Alternative A B C 

Benton Lake Refuge Alternative A1 B1, C1, 

B2 C2 

Planning elements and their accompanying planning issues from section 7.2 are as follows: 

■■ Grasslands: Loss of Ecological Processes, Invasive Plants, Nonnative Plants and Noxious 

Weeds 

■■ Wetlands and Riparian Areas: Loss of Ecological 

Processes, Declining Wetland Ecological Health, 

Water Quantity, Delivery and Cost; Invasive 

Plants, Nonnative Plants and Noxious Weeds; 

Loss of Ecological Processes 

■■ Water Resources: Declining Wetland Ecological 

Health; Water Quantity, Delivery and Cost 

■■ Visitor Services: Wildlife Management, Hunting, 

Wildlife Observation 

■■ Staff and Funding 

■■ Resource Protection 

The planning team decided that further examination of the forests and woodlands planning element 

in chapters 3 and 5 was not needed for Benton Lake 

Refuge. 

Elements Common 

to All Alternatives 

Regardless of the alternative selected, refuge 

management will strive to achieve key objectives 

that show wetland health and sustainability are improving wildlife. For elements common to all alternatives, see section 3.2. Those elements that are 

common only to alternatives A1 through C2 include: 

■■ reducing selenium contamination to levels where 

it does not impact reproduction in wildlife, particularly waterbirds. This is evaluated by measuring selenium at multiple trophic levels (for 

example, water, sediment, invertebrates and 

eggs). 

■■ supporting wetland vegetation to consist of at 

least 80 percent native species. 

■■ avoiding the creation of a sink for wildlife populations. This objective applies especially to alternatives B1 and B2 where the possibility of 

artificially flooding the lower units during summer could lead to increased botulism mortality 

over natural conditions. 

Actions Same as 

the Refuge Complex 

Management actions and environmental consequences for the climate change, preserving intact 

landscapes, species of concern, migratory birds and 

visitor and employee safety planning elements in 

chapters 3 and 5 apply equally to alternatives A1 

through C2 in chapter 7 as they do to alternatives A 

through C. 

7 .5 Alternative A1 (Current 

Management–No Action) 

Alternative A1 is the no-action alternative, which 

represents the current management of the refuge. 

This alternative might not meet all the CCP goals. 

It is provided as a basis for comparison with the 

other alternatives. It also fulfills the requirement in Two key objectives for wetland health for 

all alternatives: 

■■ Reduce selenium so it does not impair reproduction in wildlife (for 

example,<2ug/g in sediment) 

■■ Wetland vegetation should be at least 

80% native species 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 209 

NEPA that a no-action alternative be addressed in 

the analysis process. 

Management activity being conducted by the 

Service would remain the same. The Service would 

not develop any new management, restoration, or 

education programs at the refuge complex. Budget 

and staff levels would remain the same with little 

change in overall trends. Programs would follow the 

same direction, emphasis and intensity as they do at 

present. 

Current management on the refuge would continue and would focus, primarily, on the individual 

wetland units. Most staff time and efforts would be 

directed toward providing migration and breeding 

habitat every year for wetland-dependent wildlife, 

primarily waterfowl. Annual flooding would be supported by pumping water from Muddy Creek to supplement natural run-off. Water management within 

the 8 wetland units on the refuge would be similar 

each year so that units are flooded at approximately 

the same time and depths consistently. This alternative would provide an opportunity for waterfowl 

hunting every fall. Managing grasslands and other 

wildlife-dependent public uses (wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental education and interpretation, and upland game-bird hunting) on the 

refuge are a secondary focus. 

Grasslands 

Protection of native grasslands through easement 

programs would continue to be a high priority 

throughout the refuge complex. Within authorized 

conservation areas, easements would be regularly 

used to protect native grasslands. Easements would 

be aggressively monitored and proactively enforced. 

Native grasslands would be managed to sustain 

grassland health, composition and native plant diversity. This would be done by emulating historical disturbance regimes such as fire, treatment of 

invasive species using IPM and EDRR, and proper 

periods of rest. Grazing would not be used as a tool 

to manage grasslands on the refuge. 

Management of tame grass on the refuge would 

strive to support health and longevity of stands with 

periodic disturbance with fire or haying. 

Nonnative tree plantings in grasslands (shelterbelts) are present, but would not be actively managed. Most of the nonnative tree plantings on the 

refuge complex occur on the Benton Lake Refuge. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

Pumping is used to supplement the refuge’s natural 

runoff and artificially flood wetland habitat. The 

refuge would continue to pump an average of 4,000 

acre-feet per year, although this may decline over 

time if electricity costs increase. The water would be 

pumped from Muddy Creek primarily in the fall and 

occasionally in early summer. Most wetland units 

would be flooded to some extent every year. The 

distribution, depth and timing of flooding would be 

similar each year. The lower units (Units 3–6) would 

be managed to dry out during July and August to 

reduce the likelihood of botulism and waterfowl mortality. Units 1 and 2 would be flooded year-round 

to provide brood habitat. (A detailed description of 

current water management can be found in section 

7.10). 

Waterfowl workshops for youth are held at Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge . 

USFWS 

Water Resources 

Annually about 4,000 acre-feet of water (of a 

14,600-acre-foot water right) would continue to be 

pumped from Muddy Creek and runoff from the 

Lake Creek drainage is captured within the wetland 

basin. 

Visitor Services 

The overarching goal of the public use program 

would continue to be to enhance wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities and access to quality visitor 

experiences while managing units to conserve fish, 
210 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Recreational uses 

should continue to help visitors focus on wildlife 

and other natural resources, and provide an opportunity to make visitors aware of resource issues, 

management plans, and how the unit contributes to 

the Refuge System and Service mission. National 

wildlife refuges are encouraged to provide wildlifedependent recreation where feasible and compatible 

with the purpose of the refuge. 

Hunting 

Hunting of waterfowl (duck, goose, swan (by permit 

only), and coot) and upland gamebirds (pheasant, 

sharp-tailed grouse, and gray partridge) would continue in designated areas of the refuge on approximately 4,600 acres of upland and wetland habitat. 

Big game hunting would continue to be prohibited. 

Hunting rabbits or any other wildlife species, including furbearers would continue to be prohibited. 

Hunting on the refuge begins with the opening 

of the State waterfowl season and runs through 

November 30. Benton Lake Refuge is open for the 

youth waterfowl season, which typically occurs the 

weekend before the opening of the general waterfowl season. Hunting is on a first-come, first served 

basis. One disabled accessible hunting blind is available in Unit 5 through special use permit. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

The Prairie Marsh Wildlife Drive would provide 

year-round wildlife-viewing and photography opportunities via auto, bicycle, equestrian, or foot-traffic, 

including hiking, snowshoeing, or cross-country skiing. 

Lower Marsh Road would continue to be available to vehicles, foot-traffic, bicycling, and equestrian use for wildlife-viewing and photography 

opportunities from July 15 until the opening day of 

waterfowl hunting season. Rough road conditions 

prevent the use of RVs, vehicles towing trailers, and 

large vehicles. 

Facilities providing more opportunities for wildlife observation and photography include the Unit 1 

photographic blind and the Prairie Marsh Boardwalk 

with spotting scope and interpretive panels. More 

year-round opportunities for wildlife observation 

and photography by means of temporary blinds on 

Prairie Marsh Wildlife Drive would continue to be 

available. Blinds in other selected areas may be authorized as well through special use permit. 

Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing for wildlife-viewing and photography would continue to be 

permitted refuge-wide from December 15 until the 

end of February. Equestrian and bicycle use would 

be limited to roads open to motorized vehicles. 

The Sharp-Tailed Grouse Blind would continue 

to be available to refuge visitors by reservation on 

weekends during April and May. The grouse blind 

provides a highly sought-after opportunity to observe and photograph the courting rituals of sharptailed grouse. 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation 

The refuge would continue to offer joint-sponsored 

outdoor education courses with the MFWP, including Youth Waterfowl Safety Clinic and the Becoming 

an Outdoor Woman series. Partnership with the 

Great Falls Public School would continue to provide 

the opportunity for all third graders in the Great 

Falls Public School system to come to the refuge and 

learn about natural resources. This highly popular 

activity includes more than 850 students annually. 

Refuge staff would provide information about the 

refuge and education specialists from the GFPS perform onsite activities and learning modules. Geocaching would continue to be prohibited; however 

virtual geocaching would be authorized if requested. 

Refuge staff would continue to take part in the 

annual Montana Envirothon in Lewistown, Montana. 

The event attracts student teams from all across 

Montana while they compete for the opportunity 

to represent Montana and compete at the National 

Envirothon Competition. Refuge staff help students 

learn about fish and wildlife resources and their associated habitat. More than 200 students and teachers take part in the annual event. As time allows, the 

refuge would also continue to collaborate with other 

school groups to provide tours, teach science, and 

work together on monitoring projects. 

Refuge staff would continue to take part in the 

STEM Expo hosted in Great Falls, Montana. This 

exposition hopes to develop into an annual event 

promoting math and science within the community. 

The event would offer staff the opportunity to reach 

more than 550 children, teachers, and parents. Benton Lake Refuge participation in the future was 

identified as a beneficial educational outreach activity. 

Staff and Funding 

The refuge complex headquarters is located on the 

Benton Lake Refuge. Service operations would continue to consist of the staff, facilities, equipment, and 

supplies needed to administer resource management 

and public use programs throughout the refuge complex, which is located across a 12-county area covering more than 2,700 square miles. Within this area, 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 211 

the Service would be responsible for the protection 

of 163,304 acres of lands and waters. 

Staff 

The refuge has seen a reduction in staff since 2000. 

Currently, the refuge complex staff is comprised 

of 9.5 permanent full-time employees (table 12 in 

chapter 4, section 4.7). Staff assigned to the Benton 

Lake Refuge would continue to include: a part of the 

wildlife refuge manager, the deputy wildlife refuge 

manager, an administrative officer, and a wildlife 

refuge biologist, maintenance worker, term-seasonal 

biological technician, and part-time generalist. The 

wetland district manager would continue to often 

help with refuge support. 

Since 1998, the refuge complex has lost three 

positions—one full-time law enforcement position, 

one permanent biological science technician and a 

permanent maintenance worker. The complex has 

gained a wildlife refuge specialist assigned to the 

Rocky Mountain Front CA and Assistant Fire Management Officer assigned to the complex. The current staff level remains well below the minimum 

prescribed in the “June 2008 Final Report—Staffing 

Model for Field Stations” (USFWS 2008e), which 

recommended ¬8 more staff including a GS–13 refuge manager, GS–12 wildlife refuge specialist, GS–9 

park ranger (visitor services specialist), GS–9 park 

ranger (law enforcement), GS–12 wildlife biologist, 

WG–8 maintenance worker, and GS–6 biological science technician (0.5 full-time equivalent employee). 

Resource Protection 

Same as refuge complex alternative A. 

7 .6 Alternative B1 

Benton Lake Refuge wetland impoundments would 

be intensely managed to improve health over current conditions, yet provide for wetland-dependent 

wildlife habitat and recreation (waterfowl hunting) 

every year at consistent levels. Efforts would be 

made to improve wetland health and sustainability 

for individual wetland units through short-term drying rotations, prescriptive management treatments 

and working in the Lake Creek and Muddy Creek 

watersheds. Drying rotations may be extended if 

necessary to achieve wetland health objectives. 

Managing grasslands and other wildlife-dependent 

public uses (wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education and interpretation, and upland game-bird hunting) would be a secondary focus. 

Grasslands 

Protection of native grasslands through easement 

programs would continue to be a high priority 

throughout the refuge complex. Within authorized 

conservation areas, easements would be regularly 

used to protect native grasslands. Easements would 

be aggressively monitored and proactively enforced. 

Native grasslands would be managed to sustain 

grassland health, composition and native plant diversity. This would be done by emulating historical disturbance regimes such as fire, treatment of 

invasive species using IPM and EDRR, and proper 

periods of rest. Grazing would not be used as a tool 

to manage grasslands on the refuge. 

Management of tame grass on the refuge would 

strive to support health and longevity of stands with 

periodic disturbance with fire or haying. 

Nonnative tree plantings in grasslands (shelterbelts) are present, but would not be actively managed. Most of the nonnative tree plantings on the 

refuge complex occur on the Benton Lake Refuge. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

Initially, similar amounts of water would be pumped 

from Muddy Creek as in alternative A1 (4,000 acrefeet per year) to extend the natural flooding cycle 

in the spring, summer, and fall, and to provide consistent wetland habitat every year on the refuge. 

However, short-term dry periods (7+ years in Units 

1 and 2 and 3-5+ years in Units 3-6) would be rotated 

among units to volatilize selenium to change it into 

a vapor that would reduce its level in the wetland 

reduce invasive vegetation and improve wetland 

health. If necessary, more dry time may be implemented in individual units until wetland objectives 

are met. Added treatments of increased prescribed 

fire, discing vegetation, spraying invasive plants 

and reseeding would be used if needed. Flooding 

the lower units during summer will continue to be 

avoided to prevent botulism outbreaks unless it becomes necessary to dry Units 1 and 2 simultaneously 

for selenium control. In this case, one of the lower 

units may be flooded through summer to provide 

brood habitat. The flooding and drying rotation, water control structures and other management tools 

would continually be assessed and modified through 

an adaptive management process. This could include 

building more infrastructure such as a diversion 

channel around Units 1 and 2, expanding dry cycles, 

and adding management treatments. 
A spotting scope is on hand for educational use and for wildlife observation at the visitor center at 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge . 

USFWS 

212 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Water Resources 

Same as alternative A1, except the total acre-feet 

pumped would depend on progress toward wetland 

objectives. 

Visitor Services 

Hunting 

Same as alternative A1, except the area open for 

waterfowl hunting could change from year to year 

based on the flooding and drying rotation of the 

units. More upland gamebird habitat might be available if particular units within the hunt area are in 

their drying cycle. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Same as alternative A1, except there may be modifications to the opening and availability of Lower 

Marsh Road depending on the sequence of implementing the dry cycle in various units, which could 

affect access by bicycle or foot. These modifications 

would be implemented if unacceptable disturbance is 

occurring that needs to be reduced or if management 

actions need adjusting. 

Foot-traffic, including hiking, snowshoeing, and 

cross-country skiing, would be permitted only on 

designated trails; roads open to motorized vehicles; 

and in the refuge hunt area during the refuge hunting season. 

The auto tour route may be adjusted to accommodate adjustments to water management units and 

changes in hunt area and water availability. 

May establish mobile photo blinds through special use permit. 

Environmental Educatio

and Interpretation 

n 

Management actions would be the same as alternative A1, plus greater emphasis would occur with 

interpretive panels and maps to explain (1) the purpose and importance of emulating natural processes 

for the health and vitality of ecological system and 

(2) changes to public use regulations and access 

areas to accommodate rotating closed area due to 

changes in wetland and water management. 

Staff and Funding 

Significant increase in staff and money for the intense management actions and monitoring would 

be necessary. Increases in permanent staff to accomplish this alternative include: a 1.0 FTE supervisory biologist, a term 0.8 FTE biological technician, 

and 1.0 FTE maintenance worker. The supervisory 

biologist will be assigned to work throughout the 

complex and on Benton Lake Refuge to direct restoration and monitoring efforts and supervise the 

permanent wildlife biologist and term and temporary biological technicians. A large proportion (80 

percent) of their work load is expected to be focused 

on the refuge. To accomplish monitoring responsibilities and to make sure that objectives are be-
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 213 

ing met is expected to also require two seasonal 0.8 

FTE biological technicians. In addition, a full time 

law enforcement officer, assigned to the complex, is 

expected to spend a part (25 percent) of his/her time 

patrolling and protecting natural resources and helping visitors on the refuge. 

Water level management (operations and maintenance) efforts are expected to be same as alternative 

A1. Pumping (electricity) expenses are expected to 

be similar to alternative A1. 

Monitoring efforts would be implemented to assess results to make sure that the objectives for 

selenium, vegetation, and wetland health are being met. This is especially important to establish 

baseline information and to decide if more drying is 

needed. A significant increase in expense is expected 

over alternative A1. 

Prescriptive habitat treatment (discing, mowing, 

herbicide treatment, etc.) would be implemented in 

individual units. Significant increase in expense to 

accomplish this will occur above alternative A1. 

This alternative includes the possible construction of a diversion channel that could divert water to 

and from Units 1 and 2, which would increase water 

management flexibility. 

Resource Protection 

Same as refuge complex alternative B, plus more 

law enforcement and administrative help needed to 

make sure that boundaries are properly signed and 

literature is available to support possible shifts in 

hunting areas. Efforts would focus on preventative 

law enforcement. 

7 .7 Alternative B2 

Benton Lake Refuge wetland units would be intensely managed to improve health over current 

conditions, yet provide for wetland-dependent wildlife habitat and recreation more often than would 

occur naturally. Efforts would be made to improve 

wetland health and sustainability through an initial, 

basin-wide dry period to “reset” the system, prescriptive management treatments and work in the 

Lake Creek and Muddy Creek watersheds. When 

wetland health has improved sufficiently, pumping 

may be incrementally reintroduced and reevaluated 

annually. Managing grasslands and other wildlifedependent public uses (wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education and interpretation, and upland game-bird hunting) on the refuge 

would occur as resources allow, primarily during the 

initial, basin-wide dry period. 

Grasslands 

Same as refuge complex alternative B. In addition, 

up to 3.5 miles of nonnative tree plantings in grasslands (shelterbelts) would be removed. Shelterbelts 

that have the greatest negative effect on grasslands 

would be the highest priority for removal. Degraded 

tame grass stands (up to 207 acres) would be planted 

back to native grass species where proper and feasible. 

Formal monitoring of grasslands would be focused on native prairie with an emphasis on linking 

management actions to grassland condition (adaptive management). Restoration of habitats (native 

grass planting and tree removal) would be formally 

monitored to evaluate success. Monitoring of tame 

grasslands would be minimal and informal. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

The refuge would be managed to improve wetland 

health and sustainability through an initial, basinwide drying period (8 plus years) to “reset” the 

system. During the initial dry period, pumping will 

cease and all units will only receive natural run-off. 

When conditions allow, more intensive management 

(prescribed fire, discing, and herbicide application) 

will occur. All wetland infrastructure (dikes, ditches, 

water control structures), the pumphouse, equipment, and conduit between the pump station and the 

refuge would remain in place. 

When wetland health has improved sufficiently 

and objectives have been achieved, pumping may be 

incrementally reintroduced. The objectives for wetland management are the same as those described 

under alternative B1. If pumping is reintroduced, 

short-term dry cycles on a unit-by-unit basis and 

more management techniques, similar to those described in alternative B1, will continue to be part 

of the long-term management of the wetland. The 

decision to flood or dry each unit would be an annual 

decision based on an adaptive resource management 

approach. Wetland cycles, health, and wildlife response would be tracked with intensive monitoring 

to provide feedback on management success. 

Water Resources 

Pumping water would not occur during the initial 

dry period. Once wetland objectives are achieved, 

pumping could resume. Natural runoff would still 

be captured from the Lake Creek watershed every 

year. 
214 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Visitor Services 

Hunting 

During the initial dry period, management actions 

would be similar to alternative C1. During these 

years, there would be no waterfowl hunting opportunities on Benton Lake since there would be no, or 

very limited, water in the fall. 

During years with adequate water (runoff or 

pumped), the area open for waterfowl hunting could 

change from year to year based on the flooding and 

drying rotation of the units. 

The upland gamebird season would be expanded 

to the end of the State season. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

During the initial drying period, same as alternative 

A1, except foot-traffic, including hiking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing, would be permitted 

only on designated trails; roads open to motorized 

vehicles; and in the refuge hunt area during the refuge hunting season. Same as alternative B1 during 

any pumping or high run-off years. 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation 

Management actions would be the same as alternative B1, plus interpretive panels and maps would 

also explain the need to reset the natural processes 

in the wetlands with an initial dry period. 

Staff and Funding

Staff needed to carry out this alternative same as 

alternative B1, except a slight reduction (10 percent) 

in the part of time the supervisory biologist would 

spend dedicated to the refuge is expected to occur. 

Water level management (operations and maintenance) efforts are expected to be significantly reduced from alternatives A1 and B1. A significant 

cost saving during the extended drying period would 

be the reduction in pumping (electricity) and water management (operations and maintenance) expenses. 

If pumping resumes, infrastructure and facilities 

to support water management of the refuge would 

need annual maintenance similar to the alternatives 

A1 and B1. Monitoring efforts are expected to be 

similar to alternative B1. Monitoring efforts would 

include assessing results to make sure that the objectives for selenium, vegetation, and wetland health 

are being met. This is especially important if pumping is resumed. Efforts to establish baseline information and monitoring changes from the extended dry 

period are expected to be enhanced over alternatives A1 and B1. 

During the dry phase, active prescriptive habitat 

treatment (discing, mowing, herbicide treatment, 

etc.) is expected to be intense and similar to alternative B1, but instead of being applied to a single unit 

at a time, the treatments could be applied basinwide. 

The diversion channel is not expected to be 

needed. 

Resource Protection 

Same as refuge complex alternative B, plus more 

law enforcement and administrative help needed to 

make sure that boundaries are properly signed and 

literature is available to support possible shifts in 

hunting areas. Efforts would focus on preventative 

law enforcement. 

7 .8 Alternative C1 

(Proposed Action) 

Benton Lake Refuge management would focus on 

the refuge as a whole, with emphasis on restoring 

the health and long-term sustainability of the wetland basin, to support a wide diversity of migratory 

birds and a variety of wildlife-dependent recreation. 

This would be accomplished by reintroducing the full 

extent and variability of the natural wet-dry cycles, 

prescriptive management treatments and working 

in the Lake Creek watershed. The wetland basin 

would receive only natural run-off and wetland basin 

infrastructure (for example, ditches, dikes, and water control structures) could be modified or removed 

only if necessary to achieve wetland health objectives. The pumphouse and all water rights would 

be supported. As the wetland basin is restored and 

becomes self-sustaining, more resources would be 

directed toward managing and restoring upland 

grasslands, providing other wildlife-dependent public uses (wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation, and upland 

game-bird hunting), and providing support for conservation easement acquisition in the complex. 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 215 

Grasslands 

Same as refuge complex alternative C, plus up to 19 

miles of nonnative tree plantings in grasslands (shelterbelts) would be removed. Shelterbelts that have 

the greatest negative effect on grasslands would be 

the highest priority for removal. Up to 728 acres of 

tame grass stands would be planted back to native 

grass species. 

Formal monitoring of grasslands would be focused on native prairie with an emphasis on adaptive management. Restoration of habitats (native 

grass planting and tree removal) would be formally 

monitored to evaluate success. Monitoring of tame 

grasslands would be minimal and informal. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

Same as A1, except all units on the refuge would 

be subject to natural hydrologic regimes. Limited 

pumping may occur (estimated once every 8 years) 

to support water rights to Muddy Creek or for specific restoration purposes only (for example, flooding out nonnative vegetation). To facilitate this, the 

pump house, underground pipeline (4 miles), and 

several structures on Lake Creek will be supported. 

Units 1 and 2 would be restored to wet meadow wetlands, with water entering the refuge through the 

old Lake Creek channel and natural diffuse runoff. 

Infrastructure on the refuge could be modified or removed incrementally if monitoring results show that 

is necessary to achieve refuge objectives. Staff will 

work with our partners in the Lake Creek watershed to carry out conservation actions that improve 

water quality and wetland health on the refuge. 

Formal monitoring of wetlands would focus on 

wetland health and sustainability through adaptive 

management. Monitoring would track long-term 

trends in wetland cycles, health and wildlife use. For 

restoration efforts, monitoring would be especially 

important to decide if systems are recovering. 

Water Resources 

Only natural runoff would be captured on a regular basis protecting Lake Creek water rights. To 

preserve the Muddy Creek water rights, occasional 

pumping may occur (estimated once every 8 years). 

Visitor Services 

Hunting 

During years with limited precipitation and runoff, 

there would be no waterfowl hunting opportunities on the refuge since there would be no, or very 

limited, water in the fall. These dry years would 

provide increased upland gamebird habitat for hunting. The upland gamebird hunting season would be 

extended to the end of the State season (same as 

alternative B2). 

During years with adequate water, a decision 

would be made on an annual basis about the location 

of open and closed areas. These designated areas 

may be rotated depending on water and vegetative 

conditions. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Same as alternative A1, except foot-traffic, including hiking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing, 

would be permitted only on designated trails; roads 

open to motorized vehicles; and in the refuge hunt 

area during the refuge hunting season. If modification or removal of water management infrastructure 

occurs, parts of the existing auto tour route could 

be changed. Efforts would be made to reestablish 

the auto tour route in another location. If interior 

roads are removed for habitat management purposes, more hiking trails that access the interior of 

the refuge may be established to facilitate wildlife 

The Canada goose is a frequent visitor to Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge . 

USFWS 
 

216 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

observation and photography. Any new opportunities would be implemented in a way that reduces 

disturbance to wildlife. 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation 

Same as refuge complex alternative C regarding 

implementation of expanded environmental education and interpretation program. In addition, at 

the Benton Lake Refuge, greater emphasis would 

occur with environmental education, outreach, interpretive panels and maps to explain (1) the purpose and importance of conserving, managing, and 

restoring healthy functioning ecosystems, (2) the 

importance of natural hydroperiods in wetlands, 

and (3) changes to public use regulations and access 

areas to accommodate changes in wetland and water 

management. Environmental education curriculum 

may be adapted to reflect changes in habitat from 

restoration efforts. 

Staff and Funding 

Staff 

Staff increases expected to be needed to carry out 

this alternative include: a part (50 percent) of the 1.0 

FTE park ranger assigned to the complex, a part (25 

percent) of the 1.0 FTE law enforcement officer assigned to the complex, a part (70 percent) of the 1.0 

FTE supervisory biologist assigned to the complex, 

and 0.8 FTE biological technician. From alternative 

B2, this is a reduction of two, 0.8 FTE biological 

technicians, and 1.0 maintenance worker and an increase of a part (50 percent) of the 1.0 FTE park 

ranger assigned to the complex. 

Money and resources are expected to be reallocated throughout the refuge complex to deal directly with constraints to manage for self-sustaining 

systems. Areas requiring extra effort will have 

resources reallocated toward restoring ecological 

processes and removing constraints. Water level management (operations and maintenance) 

efforts are expected to be significantly reduced from 

alternatives A1, B1, and B2. A significant cost saving would be the reduction in pumping (electricity) 

and the associated water management (operations 

and maintenance) expenses. Limited pumping is 

expected to only be used to support the refuge’s water rights or as a prescriptive habitat management 

effort. 

Monitoring efforts are expected to be slightly 

reduced from alternatives B1 and B2. Monitoring 

efforts would include assessing results to make sure 

that the objectives for selenium, vegetation, and 

wetland health are being met while applying an 

adaptive resource approach to infrastructure modification or removal. Infrastructure will be incrementally assessed and only removed to achieve wetland 

objectives. 

Prescriptive habitat treatment (discing, mowing, herbicide treatment, etc.) is expected to be less 

intensive than alternatives B1 and B2, and applied 

basin-wide relatively simultaneously. 

Restoration and rehabilitation of altered habitats 

and ecosystems are expected to require more staff, 

equipment, and money. Activities expected include 

wetland basin restoration, shelterbelt restoration, 

and tame grass conversion. 

Resource Protection 

Same as refuge complex alternative C. 

7 .9 Alternative C2 

Benton Lake Refuge management would focus on 

the refuge as a whole, with particular emphasis on 

restoring the long-term sustainability of the wetland 

basin, to support a wide diversity of migratory birds 

and wildlife-dependent recreation. This would be 

accomplished by reintroducing the full extent and 

variability of the natural wet-dry cycle, removal 

of the water management infrastructure (for example, ditches, dikes, and water control structures), 

prescriptive management treatments, working in 

the Lake Creek watershed and decommissioning of 

the pump house. As the wetland basin is restored 

and becomes self-sustaining, more resources would 

be directed toward managing and restoring upland 

grasslands, providing other wildlife-dependent public uses (wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation, and upland 

game-bird hunting), and providing support for conservation easement acquisition in the complex. 

Grasslands 

Same as refuge complex alternative C, plus up to 19 

miles of nonnative tree plantings in grasslands (shelterbelts) would be removed. Shelterbelts that have 

the greatest negative effect on grasslands would be 

the highest priority for removal. Up to 728 acres of 

tame grass stands would be planted back to native 

grass species. 

Formal monitoring of grasslands would be focused on native prairie with an emphasis on adap­
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 217 

tive management. Restoration of habitats (native 

grass planting and tree removal) would be formally 

monitored to evaluate success. Monitoring of tame 

grasslands would be minimal and informal. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

Full restoration of the Benton Lake basin would 

begin immediately, although the process would likely 

take several years to complete. All units on the refuge would be subject to natural hydrologic regimes. 

Pumping would cease and the pumphouse, equipment, and conduit between the pump station and the 

refuge would be removed or reclaimed. Infrastructure within the wetland basin (ditches, dikes, water 

control structures) would be modified or removed. 

Units 1 and 2 would be restored to wet meadow wetlands, with water entering the refuge through the 

old Lake Creek channel and natural diffuse runoff. 

Formal monitoring of wetlands would focus on 

wetland health and sustainability through adaptive 

management. Monitoring would track long-term 

trends in wetland cycles, health and wildlife use. For 

restoration efforts, monitoring would be especially 

important to decide if systems are recovering. 

Visitor Services 

Hunting 

During years with limited precipitation and runoff, 

there would be no waterfowl hunting opportunities on the refuge since there would be no, or very 

limited, water in the fall. These dry years would 

provide increased upland gamebird habitat for hunting. The upland gamebird hunting season would be 

extended to the end of the State season (same as 

alternative B2). 

During years with adequate water, a decision 

would be made on an annual basis about the location 

of open and closed areas. These designated areas 

may be rotated depending on water and vegetative 

conditions. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Same as C1 plus, more wildlife observation and photography opportunities would be established. 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation 

Same as refuge complex alternative C regarding 

implementation of expanded environmental education and interpretation program. In addition, at 

the Benton Lake Refuge, greater emphasis would 

occur with environmental education, outreach, interpretive panels and maps to explain (1) the purpose and importance of conserving, managing, and 

restoring healthy functioning ecosystems, (2) the 

importance of natural hydroperiods in wetlands, 

and (3) changes to public use regulations and access 

areas to accommodate changes in wetland and water 

management. Environmental education curriculum 

may be adapted to reflect changes in habitat from 

restoration efforts. 

Staff and Funding 

Staff 

Same as alternative C1, except one less 0.8 biological technician would be required, and the timeline 

for restoration is quickened and higher costs are 

expected to occur immediately. Full restoration is 

associated with this alternative and includes the 

highest restoration costs. 

Resource Protection 

Same as refuge complex alternative C. 

7 .10 Alternatives Considered 

but Eliminated 

The following options were eliminated from further 

analysis as described below. 

Siphon 

The possibility of augmenting the current pumphouse with a siphon has been discussed and evaluated by refuge staff and partners since 1992. The 

purpose of the siphon was to alleviate the high electricity costs associated with pumping water with 

the current pumphouse and facilities on the refuge. 

Other benefits that were originally identified included the ability to supply water during the winter and spring, the potential for the refuge to fully 

exercise its 14,600-acre-foot water right for Muddy 

Creek, and conservation of electricity. Given the 

recent concerns about selenium accumulation, the 

siphon was also proposed as a way to bring higher 

quality water to the refuge. However, given the high 
218 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

cost of building a siphon ($5 million), insufficient 

flows to replace pumping needs, and uncertain improvements in water quality, pursuing this alternative is not beneficial to the refuge at this time. 

In 1992, the refuge requested that the Bureau of 

Reclamation complete an appraisal to use a siphon 

system to supply water from the Sun River Irrigation Project. The final report, “Appraisal Design Report for Water Supply Study, Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge,” dated October 3,1992, outlined 

plans for completion of the project and estimated associated costs under a range of options. The Bureau 

of Reclamation report found the siphon system to 

be technically feasible using an existing irrigation 

return water canal (Muddy Creek Tributary #3) near 

the existing pump station. No design obstacles were 

noted. Easements would need to be acquired from 

four landowners to complete the project. 

In 2006, the Bureau of Reclamation completed 

a 30-percent Conceptual Design of the siphon project. The siphon would tie into the existing pipeline 

just downstream of the pump station. The siphon 

would consist of two reinforced concrete structures, 

approximately 2 miles of 36-inch diameter pipe, a 

12-foot-long steel flume over Muddy Creek, and a 

36-inch in-line valve and a valve house. A small intermittent tributary of Muddy Creek would also 

have to be relocated for approximately 300 feet. 

The siphon would deliver water to the refuge using 

gravity flow and the capacity of the system is 20 cfs 

based on the pipe diameter. The most current estimate (2006) by the Bureau of Reclamation for the 

cost of the siphon project is $5 million dollars . 

In 2007 and 2008, waterflows in the Upper 

Muddy Creek Tributary #3, where the siphon intake 

would be located, were measured by Montana State 

University. Water flowed in this tributary from May 

through October and flows during the irrigation season varied from 0 to 23 cfs. The estimate for the total 

volume of water flowing through the tributary was 

2,186 acre-feet in 2007 and 2,759 acre-feet in 2008 

(personal communication, Alan Rollo). 

Currently, the refuge pumps approximately 4,000 

acre-feet per year in dry years. At the time the siphon was originally proposed, the refuge was pumping 6,000–8,000 acre-feet per year. The 2007–8 flow 

data show that the amount of water from the siphon 

would not be enough to entirely replace current 

pumping. Furthermore, to capture the full 2,186– 

2,759 acre-feet, water would need to be siphoned 

during the entire irrigation season. Siphoning during summer months would be challenging because 

there would be high losses to evaporation, increased 

risk of wildlife mortalities from botulism, and further alteration to the natural hydrologic cycle that is 

likely to have a negative effect on nutrient cycling, 

vegetation, invertebrates, and wetland health. The 

quality of the water, specifically the selenium levels, 

at the proposed siphon inlet are not well understood. 

The siphon would take water from the Greenfields 

Bench. As of 2010, Montana Department of Agriculture water monitoring reported 202 detections 

of 30 different pesticide compounds from 22 samples 

across the Greenfields Bench. For the most part, 

concentrations were low and none of the detections 

exceeded or approached human health or aquatic life 

benchmarks. Nitrate concentrations were elevated, 

but below the drinking water standard. In addition, 

the siphoned water still has to flow through Lake 

Creek where it would pick up more selenium before 

reaching the refuge. 

Only Pumping in Spring 

Based on the results of the hydro-geomorphic assessment of the refuge (Heitmeyer et al. 2009), 

pumping in the spring, instead of the fall, would 

more closely emulate the annual historical flooding cycles. Refuge staff modeled a rotational system drying out one unit at a time for 3 years with a 

spring pumping scenario (500 acre-feet in May and 

1,500 acre-feet in June). These months and water 

volumes were chosen based on availability of water from Greenfields Irrigation District, evaporation rates, and costs. The scenario was run through 

a water model developed by USGS for the refuge 

(Nimick et al. 2011). This early modeling exercise 

showed a couple of key results. In a dry cycle, only 

pumping in May–June meant that the wetland water 

was (1) too late to attract as many spring migrants 

as fall flooding, (2) capable of flooding nests of early 

nesting bird species, (3) providing water on the refuge during July–August, which increased botulism 

risk and (4) comprised of surface water that usually 

evaporated before fall negating any opportunity for 

annual waterfowl hunting. Pumping earlier in the 

year may be possible, but without return flows in 

Muddy Creek from irrigation, only one pump can 

be used to pump a small amount of water. In dry 

years, this small volume is likely to be lost to ground 

saturation and evaporation, making this choice less 

effective and more costly (per acre-foot) than late 

spring or fall pumping. Based on this analysis, an 

alternative with only spring pumping was eliminated 

from further consideration. 

Restore Units 1 and 2 and 

Pump Water to Lower Units 

Early during the planning process, staff considered 

a rotational management scenario for drying out the 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 219 

lower units for 3 years as well as restoring the original Lake Creek channel and Units 1 and 2 to wet 

meadows based on the HGM assessment. This report found that Units 1 and 2 historically were an alluvial fan meant to be the highest and driest part of 

the wetland basin, and instead have been converted 

to the deepest, wettest part of the wetland basin. 

These are also the units with the highest selenium 

levels and restoring this part of the basin to temporarily flooded wetlands, rather than semipermanent 

wetlands, would reduce selenium levels. 

The Service modeled a rotational system drying one of the lower units at a time for 3 years with 

Units 1 and 2 restored to temporarily flooded wetlands. In this scenario, the only brood habitat on the 

refuge would be whichever lower units were in their 

wet cycle. If the lower units have standing water 

in July and August, they have an increased risk for 

botulism based on past history, particularly in hot 

summers. If the lower units were flooded less deeply 

so that they dry out in July–August (as is current 

practice to prevent botulism), there would be no 

brood habitat. This means that refuge would be attracting birds to the refuge by fall pumping, which 

creates attractive water in the spring for migrants, 

and knowingly managing the refuge so it dries out 

before the birds could successfully raise a brood. 

Although it is possible that wetland birds could be 

attracted to spring water at Benton Lake that dries 

out during the summer under natural conditions, 

this would not happen every year as proposed under 

this alternative. Therefore, supporting Units 1 and 2 

as potential brood habitat was considered preferable 

for any scenario with pumped water (see alternatives B1 and B2) and this alternative was eliminated 

from further consideration. 

Minimal Pumping in the Fall 

Primarily for Recreation

 A small amount of water could be pumped in the 

fall for hunting. The amount of water would be managed so that it evaporates by freeze-up or early 

the next spring. One benefit of this scenario is that 

there would be fall hunting and fall migration habitat every year on the refuge, although it would be 

less than currently is available. There would be less 

water pumped onto the refuge, so the negative effects from pumping would be reduced. However, 

this alternative would focus on recreation without 

addressing issues of wetland health. In addition, this 

scenario would not be very cost effective, because 

of the electricity demand charge for pumping lower 

volumes of water results in significantly higher costs 

per acre. 

7 .11 Affected Environment 

The summary of the affected environment in chapter 

4 includes Benton Lake Refuge. However, aspects 

that specifically affect the management alternatives 

at the refuge are discussed in detail in this section. 

In addition, the hydrogeomorphic assessment for the 

refuge (Heitmeyer et al. 2009) can be provided on 

request. 

Climate 

The climate of the Benton Lake Refuge is semiarid 

continental, which is characterized by cold, dry winters and warm, dry summers. Subzero weather normally occurs several times during a winter, but the 

duration of cold spells typically lasts only several 

days to a week after which it can be abruptly terminated by strong southwesterly Chinook winds. The 

dynamic Chinook winds often prohibit large accumulations of snow over winter and reduce large spring 

runoffs because snow melts in smaller increments 

throughout winter and is mostly absorbed into the 

ground. 

During the period of record at Great Falls, the 

average annual precipitation is 14.98 inches. Yearly 

precipitation extremes have ranged from 25.24 

inches in 1975 to 6.68 inches in 1904. 

Long-term temperature and precipitation data 

show dynamic patterns of recurring peaks and lows 

on a 10- to 20-year cycle (NOAA 2009), depicted in 

figure 16. Regional precipitation decreased and temperatures rose from the late 1910s to the late 1930s. 

A steady rise in precipitation and declining temperatures occurred from the early 1940s to the mid-1950s 

followed by another decline in precipitation and local 

runoff in the 1960s. Precipitation rose again during 

the late 1970s and early 1990s, and remained about 

average during the 1980s and late 1990s to early 

2000s. Currently, the region appears to be heading 

back into a wet cycle, with 2010 being the wettest 

year since 1993 (NOAA 2011a). 

Climate Change 

Although temperature increases over the next several decades appear inevitable, the resulting effect 

on precipitation, moisture and wetland hydroperiods 

is highly uncertain. Some modeling has suggested 

that there could be shifts of highly favorable water 

and cover conditions for waterfowl breeding if precipitation does not increase along with temperatures 

(Johnson et al. 2005, Johnson et al. 2010). However, 

other researchers have found that precipitation 
Figure 16 . Model of long-term dynamics of water levels in Benton Lake, Montana . Source: USFWS and NOAA 2008 . 

220 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

and temperature alone were insufficient to explain 

annual wetland water conditions in the PPPLCC’s 

Prairie Pothole Region when compared to a dataset 

of 40,000 basins spanning 1998–2007 and expressed 

concern about using climate change models that 

were calibrated with just a few wetlands (Niemuth 

et al. 2010). In addition, the natural variation in wet– 

dry cycles in the PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region may eclipse any smaller, climate-change driven 

shifts that occur in the near term (Niemuth et al. 

2010). 

Geology 

Detailed geologic mapping has been completed for 

the Benton Lake area (Maughan 1961, Lemke 1977, 

Maughan and Lemke 1991). The Benton Lake basin 

is characterized by gently dipping sedimentary bedrock formed during the Cretaceous period (145–65 

million years ago) overlain in many places by deposits from glaciers and streams from the last ice ages 

(Maughan 1961). The ancient sedimentary bedrock 

that lies beneath the Benton Lake basin is important 

because of the effect it has on water quality today as 

a source of selenium. Bedrock in most of the Benton 

Lake basin is seleniferous marine shale of the Cretaceous Colorado Group, often referred to as Colorado 

Shale (Maughan 1961). 

During the last Pleistocene ice sheet, Glacial 

Lake Great Falls covered low-lying parts of the Benton Lake region. Glacial lake deposits near Benton 

Lake are primarily clay and silty clay and are up to 

100 feet thick (Lemke 1977). Glacial drift associated 

with the last ice sheet was deposited northeast of 

Benton Lake and east of Priest Butte Lakes and 

formed the closed Benton Lake basin. 

Most geomorphic surfaces on the current Benton Lake bed are deposits from Glacial Lake Great 

Falls. A second surface of local stream and sheetwash deposits cover a small area along the Lake 

Creek drainage on the north, and a small tributary 

drain on the southwestern side of Benton Lake. 

These deposits were formed by overbank deposition 

and scouring of sediments along the drainages that 

entered Benton Lake and resemble small natural levees and alluvial and colluvial fans that are 2–8 feet 

higher in elevation than the adjacent Benton Lake 

bed. These elevated geomorphic surfaces have been 

converted from the highest and driest part of the 

basin to the deepest and wettest units on the refuge 

(Units 1 and 2). 

 Within Benton Lake proper, elevation gradients 

are relatively subtle ranging from about 3,614 feet 

amsl in the lowest depressions in the middle of the 

historical lakebed to about 3,622 feet amsl on the 

edge of the lake that defines its full-pool water level 

(figure 17). A detailed elevation map of the south 

part of Benton Lake prepared in the early 2000s indicates several deeper depressions historically were 

present in the lakebed, and likely reflected glacial 

scouring when the basin was created. Uplands terraces on the refuge range from about 3,622–3,850 

feet amsl. 

Soils 

Surface soils at the refuge are predominantly clays 

and silty clays (Vertisols) deposited in the lake-system environments of glacial Lake Great Falls and 

Benton Lake. The Benton Lake bed and surrounding 

lower elevation areas are mostly plastic clays and 

exceed 100 feet deep under parts of Benton Lake. 

These are Pendroy, Thebo Vanda and Marvan clays 

(NRCS 2011c). In the area where Lake Creek enters 

Benton Lake, soils are mostly silt and sand with 

minor clay and gravel present in soil stratigraphy. 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 221 

Thickness of these soils range from 10 to 40 feet 

where they become intermixed with underlying 

lake-system-type deposits. Higher elevation terracetype soils along the western and southern edges 

of Benton Lake are mostly 10–30 feet thick silty 

clay loam types overlying reddish-brown, poorly 

sorted sand and gravel dominantly of subangular to 

slabby sandstone and subrounded quartzite, shale, 

granite, and argillite (Maughan and Lemke 1991). 

Some of these surfaces have interesting, stratified 

soils indicating various depositions from historical 

marine environments, Glacial Lake Great Falls, and 

underlying Colorado Shale (Condon 2000). 

Water Resources 

Benton Lake lies within a closed basin (figure 18). 

For the first 30 years of the refuge history, the refuge was not staffed and the hydrological regime 

in Benton Lake mirrored seasonal and long-term 

regional precipitation patterns (Nimick 1997, Heitemeyer et al. 2009). During this time, Lake Creek 

provided much of the water input to Benton Lake 

while runoff from local drainages surrounding the 

lake and onsite precipitation provide the remainder. 

Since 1961, the refuge also receives water inputs via 

water pumped from Muddy Creek in the adjacent 

watershed. 

Lake Creek is an intermittent, ephemeral, 

stream with greatest flows during spring and early 

summer following snowmelt and increased spring 

rains (Nimick 1997). Water is assumed lost from 

the wetlands solely by evaporation, which averages about 40–41 inches per year Soil Conservation 

Service 1970). Nimick and others (1996) concluded 

that little water is lost from Benton Lake to ground 

Figure 17 . Map of the topography of the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 
222 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Figure 18 . Map of the Lake Creek watershed, Montana . 

water because of the relatively impermeable glaciallake sediment that underlies the wetlands. 

Inputs from natural runoff and precipitation are 

highly dynamic and have a strong seasonal pattern. 

These inputs are highest in spring and early summer, followed by gradual declines during summer 

and fall. The wetland units typically are completely 

ice covered from mid-to-late November through 

mid-to-late March. Major spring snowmelt events 

during March and April are infrequent, but can create several thousand acre-feet of runoff when the 

weather first warms. The highest rainfall months are 

May and June, which produce smaller runoff events, 

typically a few hundred acre-feet. Total annual natural runoff has varied from 0–19,200 acre-feet since 

1970 (table 31). 

Table 31 . Annual amounts of pumped water, natural runoff, and selenium entering Benton Lake, 1970–2010 . 

Total 

Estimated Estimated estimated 

Pumped water Runoff pumped selenium natural selenium selenium 

Year (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) 

1970 3,670 3,000 50 122 172 

1971 6,371 0 87 0 87 

1972 9,079 990 123 40 164 

1973 6,643 0 90 0 90 

1974 5,897 334 80 14 94 

1975 0 13,933 0 568 568 

1976 2,978 400 40 16 57 

1977 4,167 0 57 0 57 

1978 0 19,200 0 783 783 

1979 68 12,100 1 493 494 

1980 2,000 1,100 27 45 72 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 223 

Table 31 . Annual amounts of pumped water, natural runoff, and selenium entering Benton Lake, 1970–2010 . 

Total 

Estimated Estimated estimated 

Pumped water Runoff pumped selenium natural selenium selenium 

Year (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) 

1981 3,650 500 50 20 70 

1982 3,037 4,132 41 168 210 

1983 2,822 1,763 38 72 110 

1984 4,790 1,947 65 79 144 

1985 6,380 1,157 87 47 134 

1986 3,376 4,759 46 194 240 

1987 7,987 350 109 14 123 

1988 7,517 208 102 8 111 

1989 212 9,710 3 396 399 

1990 4,797 1,056 65 43 108 

1991 8,028 943 109 38 148 

1992 7,276 21 99 1 100 

1993 1,932 3,049 26 124 151 

1994 5,800 227 79 9 88 

1995 5,555 344 76 14 90 

1996 3,969 846 54 34 88 

1997 4,430 2,245 60 92 152 

1998 5,693 622 77 25 103 

1999 5,033 122 68 5 73 

2000 5,385 54 73 2 75 

2001 5,082 51 69 2 71 

2002 3,975 610 54 25 79 

2003 3,868 4 53 0 53 

2004 3,985 73 54 3 57 

2005 2,730 422 37 17 54 

2006 3,951 827 54 34 87 

2007 3,542 486 48 20 68 

2008 4,204 673 57 27 85 

2009 4,866 1,730 66 71 137 

2010 3,069 3,433 42 140 182 

Mean 4,337 2,264 59 92 151 

Median 4,167 673 57 27 94 

Total 177,814 92,833 2,417 3,785 6,202 

Source: unpublished records on file at Benton Lake Refuge; Nimick et al . 1996 . 

In 1957, money was secured to construct pumping and water delivery structures from Muddy 

Creek to the refuge with support from members of 

the Cascade County Wildlife Association. A pump 

station (figure 15) and pipeline were constructed 

from 1958–62 to bring irrigation return flows in 

Muddy Creek from the central and northeast parts 

of the Greenfields Bench to the refuge. The first 

water pumped to Benton Lake from Muddy Creek 

occurred in 1962. Water from the Muddy Creek 

pump station is moved about 5 miles through an 

underground pipeline over a low-drainage divide and 
224 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

then is discharged into the natural Lake Creek channel where it flows for about 12 miles to its mouth 

in Benton Lake. Pumping from Muddy Creek has 

corresponded to times of irrigation return flow in the 

Greenfields Irrigation system and is generally from 

May until mid-October. The Benton Lake Refuge 

has rights for up to 14,600 acre-feet of water from 

Muddy Creek each year depending on adequate 

flows in the creek (Palawski and Martin 1991). Water 

from Muddy Creek is free, but the refuge must pay 

electrical costs for the three pumps (two 350-horsepower and one 250-horsepower). 

Natural runoff in the intermittent Lake Creek 

typically occurs from March through June and averages about 0.1 cfs except during periods of snowmelt 

and heavy precipitation. During July and August, 

Lake Creek normally is dry except when summer 

thunderstorms cause brief periods of flow. Without 

pumped water, Lake Creek would also be dry in 

September and October most years. In contrast to 

natural runoff and instream flows in Lake Creek, 

streamflow during periods of pumping generally 

ranges from 30–42 cfs when the three Muddy Creek 

pumps are run simultaneously. The full capacity of 

the three pumps is used only when streamflow in 

Muddy Creek is augmented sufficiently by irrigation 

drainage within the Greenfields Irrigation Division. 

Water Management 

Managing water at the refuge is complex because 

of the unpredictability of the timing and volume of 

inflows from natural runoff and the inability to drain 

most units. In addition, the flooding and drying must 

be managed individually for each unit to achieve 

refuge objectives. The amount of water pumped is 

decided annually and is governed, in part, by natural 

runoff received that year, the timing and amount of 

flows in Muddy Creek due to management by Greenfields Irrigation District and availability of money in 

the refuge budget for electricity to run the pumps. 

The greatest theoretical pump capacity is 41.5 cubic 

feet per second, or 82.3 acre-feet per day. Typically, 

sufficient water is available in Muddy Creek for 

pumping between May 1 and October 31. Pumping 

may be possible earlier in the season after ice has 

melted; however, lower flows significantly increase 

the cost per acre-foot and consequently may reduce 

the total volume of water that can be pumped with a 

given year’s pumping budget. 

Historically, the volume of water pumped to Benton Lake was calculated from the hours of pump operation, the rated capacities of the three pumps, and 

monthly changes in unit water levels. Since 1991, the 

volume of pumped water also has been measured 

at the Lake Creek gauging station and reported 

in annual water-use reports. Added diffuse runoff 

flowing from ungauged parts of the Benton Lake 

basin continued to be estimated from changes in unit 

water levels. 

The amount of natural runoff into Benton Lake 

and water pumped from Muddy Creek has varied 

substantially since the pump station was developed. 

For example, natural runoff has varied from 0 (1971, 

1973, 1977) to 19,200 (1978) acre-feet and pumped 

water has ranged from 0 acre-feet during the very 

wet years of 1975 and 1978 to 8,028 acre-feet in 1991. 

Because of this wide range of variability, simple 

long-term averages can be misleading. For example, 

during a relatively wet period, mean annual natural 

runoff into Benton Lake was 3,361 acre-feet during 

1970–93, while pumped water averaged 4,278 acrefeet. During a dry period from 1994 to 2007, an average of only 495 acre-feet of natural runoff entered 

Benton Lake from the Lake Creek watershed, while 

an average of 4,500 acre-feet of water was pumped 

from Muddy Creek. 

Water management is constrained by the current infrastructure capabilities. Smaller amounts of 

natural runoff flow from the surrounding drainages 

into Units 3, 4a and 6, but most natural runoff, and 

all pumped water, enters the refuge via Lake Creek 

into Unit 1 (figure 15). From there, water flows 

into Unit 2. From Unit 2, water can be directed to 

Units 4a, 4b, and the interunit canal. Water that is 

directed to the interunit canal flows via gravity to 

the south end where it can be directed into Units 3, 

4c, 5, and 6. A water control structure allows water 

to flow from Unit 4c to Unit 4b. Currently, there is 

not functional infrastructure to dry out the lower 

units (Units 3–6) by any means other than evaporation. An interunit pump has been used in the past 

on the refuge, but equipment failures, unexpected 

precipitation, and the topography of the wetland 

units prevented full dewatering. 

Water management has typically sought to flood 

some wetland units predictably, and consistently, 

each year to provide breeding and migration habitat 

for waterbirds (Annual Narratives, 1961–99) (figure 

19). This water management has varied among years 

and has significantly altered natural hydrological 

regimes, both seasonally and long term, in Benton 

Lake proper. Except in years of exceptional natural 

runoff, water has been pumped into Benton Lake in 

late-August through October since 1962 to provide 

water for fall migrant waterfowl and to store water 

in units for the next spring. If necessary, water from 

Muddy Creek is also pumped into Benton Lake from 

mid-April to mid-June to raise water levels in the 

units for waterbird reproduction (Nimick 1997, USFWS 1961–99). From 1962 through the late 1980s, 

some water was pumped to the refuge during the 

summer in most years to support water levels in 

the management units; however, in the last 20-plus 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 225 

years, the pumps generally have not been run during summer, and water levels in units have receded 

from evapotranspiration. 

Units 1 and 2 traditionally have been managed 

for more permanent water regimes and water storage. Water levels in the deepest parts of these units 

are more than 3 feet deep in some areas. Water 

from Lake Creek enters these units first and, with 

current water control infrastructure, year-round 

storage of water is considered most efficient in 

these units. In addition, these units have not experienced large botulism die-offs during the summer, 

and therefore can provide brood-rearing habitat for 

waterbirds (see wildlife disease section). 

Depending on annual water availability and management objectives, some or all of Units 3–6 have 

been flooded seasonally or for longer periods. From 

1962 to the mid-1980s, water was typically moved 

into these units in spring and held at higher, more 

completely flooded, levels through the summer to 

provide nesting and brood rearing habitat for waterfowl and other waterbirds. For example, Unit 3 

was managed for year-round inundation from 1964 

to 1975 (USFWS 1961–99). In the last 20-plus years, 

water moved into these units in spring has not been 

supplemented with summer pumping and water 

levels have gradually receded until fall pumping 

begins. This gradual change in water management 

represented an evolution in learning that deep, 

season-long flooding was not meeting refuge objectives, especially in the lower units (Units 3–6) 

and that shallower, seasonal flooding encouraged 

more desirable emergent wetland vegetation and 

helped reduce the incidence and severity of botulism 

outbreaks (USFWS 1961–99) (see wildlife disease 

section). 

Selenium and Water Quality 

In 1983, incidents of mortality, physical abnormalities, and reproductive failures in waterfowl were 

discovered by the Service at the Kesterson National 

Wildlife Refuge in the western San Joaquin Valley, 

California, where irrigation return flows had been 

impounded to form wetlands. Selenium was detected 

in high concentrations in the irrigation water used 

to flood impoundments. Subsequently, the severity 

Figure 19 . Water management pools on the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 
226 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

of the situation required the Kesterson Refuge to 

“cap” (fill in) the wetland. 

During this period, potentially toxic trace elements and pesticide residues were detected in other 

areas in Western States that receive irrigation return flows (Nimick et al. 1996). Because of similar 

geologic and hydrologic characteristics in many irrigated areas of the Western United States, there 

was concern that potentially toxic conditions related 

to selenium or other contaminants in return flows 

might not be limited to the Kesterson area. To address this concern, the DOI began the National Irrigation Water Quality Program in 1985 to evaluate 

whether irrigation-related problems existed at other 

irrigation projects the Department constructs or 

manages including national wildlife refuges or other 

wetland areas. 

The Sun River area of west-central Montana was 

selected in 1986 for a DOI reconnaissance study. 

The study found that most sampling sites within 

the Greenfields and Fort Shaw Divisions of the Sun 

River Irrigation Project had constituent concentrations that were below established criteria for the 

protection of humans, fish and wildlife (Knapton et 

al. 1988). However, several sites within Freezeout 

Lake Wildlife Management Area and the Benton 

Lake Refuge had selenium concentrations in water, 

bottom sediment, and biota that were associated 

with biological risk and moderately to considerably 

higher than regional background values or reference 

concentrations. 

Selenium (Se) is a semimetallic trace element 

that is an essential nutrient for animals. However, 

there is a very narrow margin between nutritionally 

optimal and potentially toxic dietary exposure for 

vertebrates. Based on the known margins of safety 

between normal and toxic dietary exposures, selenium is more poisonous than either arsenic or mercury (DOI 1998). Relatively small increases in the 

dietary exposure of animals is potentially harmful. A 

general rule of thumb for selenium is that thresholds 

for adverse effects in vertebrate animals begin at 

concentrations less than ten times above normal, although immunotoxic effects have been documented 

at concentrations less than 5 times above normal 

levels. Reproduction in vertebrates is particularly 

sensitive to selenium toxicity, especially in egg-laying vertebrates such as birds (DOI 1998). Birds are 

also vulnerable because selenium bioaccumulates 

through the food chain (Lemly 1995, 2002). 

The underlying geology, land use changes in the 

landscape surrounding the refuge, and alterations to 

natural hydrology (water source, timing, and duration of flooding) have all contributed to the increased 

selenium levels on the refuge (Lemly and Smith 

1987, Lambing et al. 1994, Nimick et al. 1996). Bedrock in most of the Benton Lake basin is seleniferous 

marine shale of the Cretaceous Colorado Group, 

often referred to as Colorado Shale (Maughan 1961). 

Selenium in these formations is highly mobile and biologically available in arid regions with alkaline soils, 

as is the case in much of north-central Montana. 

The crop–fallow method of wheat farming that 

surrounds the refuge is the primary contributor to 

saline seep development in the watershed. Seeps 

are formed during fallow periods when precipitation exceeds the storage capacity of the soil. The 

excess water percolates through salt-laden soil layers dissolving salts and eventually forming a saline 

water table above a deeper, impermeable layer, such 

as shale. The saline water then moves horizontally 

downslope until it discharges at the surface, where it 

evaporates and concentrates salts, including selenite 

(Se4+) and selenate (Se+6), in the immediate area 

(Brown et al. 1982). Runoff that flows through these 

areas in the Lake Creek watershed washes selenium 

and other concentrated salts into Benton Lake at 

the bottom of the watershed, where it accumulates 

(figure 20). 

Construction of the multiple units and introduction of Muddy Creek water via pumping has also 

increased total selenium accumulation on the refuge (Zhang and Moore 1997, Heitmeyer et al. 2009). 

Before 1961, Benton Lake was one large wetland 

and no water was pumped into the basin. In most 

years, pooled water from spring runoff was lost to 

evaporation during the following summer. Selenium 

concentration pre-1961 sediment collected in cores 

from the Unit 3 inlet area was approximately 0.2–0.3 

micrograms per gram (μg/g). This low concentration 

of selenium in older sediment suggests that equilibrium concentrations were very low before construction of the unit system. 

After the unit system was constructed in 1961, 

and Muddy Creek water was pumped into the refuge, inputs of selenium increased and outputs decreased. The total pounds of selenium that enter 

the refuge annually in pumped water and natural 

runoff is highly variable among years (table 31). 

From 1970–2010, the total selenium load from natural run-off was approximately 3,785 lbs. Pumping 

from Muddy Creek imported an added 2,417 lbs. to 

the refuge. 

Although selenium is transported to the refuge in 

the surface and ground water that flows to the refuge, almost all of the selenium that enters the refuge 

accumulates in wetland sediment. Selenium is not 

evenly distributed among or within the units, but 

rather accumulates more rapidly near the locations 

of primary selenium inputs and more permanently 

flooded units (Zhang and Moore 1997). In general, 

selenium concentrations in sediments are highest 

where Lake Creek enters Unit 1 and 2 and in Unit 

4c near a large seep. The remaining units in the ref­
	

	

	

CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 227 

uge receive less selenium inputs, because they are 

further from the mouth of Lake Creek (Knapton et 

al. 1988, Nimick et al. 1996, Zhang and Moore 1997). 

The natural dry cycle, which is important for removing selenium from the system, also has been significantly reduced since pumping began. Selenium is 

removed from the refuge primarily by transferring 

directly to the air from water or sediment (volatilization). The rate of selenium volatilization depends on 

the form of selenium, microbial activity, and various environmental conditions, but is much higher 

from exposed sediment than open water (Zhang 

and Moore 1997). Selenium now enters the refuge 

in Unit 1, which is rarely dried, and consequently 

average selenium concentrations in sediment are 2.7 

μg/g, with some values above the toxic threshold of 

4 μg/g. 

Selenium Toxicity at Benton Lake 

The toxic threat to wildlife from selenium is based 

on the degree of contamination present and the extent of exposure. The method used in this CCP to 

assess selenium contamination and the toxic threat 

to aquatic systems is a simple, scientifically credible 

process developed by A. Dennis Lemly (1995,2002). 

The Lemly protocol incorporates key parameters 

such as concentration, exposure and abiotic and biotic cycling. By using this protocol, refuge staff can 

develop an overall hazard value that can be compared across sites and over time. This hazard assessment focuses on bioaccumulation and its ultimate 

impact on reproductive impairment in aquatic birds. 

The protocol defines five hazard levels: 

High: a toxic threat sufficient to cause complete 

or nearly complete reproductive failure in sensitive species of aquatic birds (for example, ducks 

and stilts). 

Moderate: a toxic threat of sufficient magnitude to 

substantially impair, but not remove reproductive 

success; some species will be severely affected 

while others will be relatively unaffected. 

Low: a toxic threat that could marginally affect 

the reproductive success of some sensitive species, but leave most species unaffected. 

Figure 20 . Map of saline seeps in the Benton Lake region, Montana . 
	

	

228 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Minimal: no imminent toxic threat is identified, 

but concentrations of selenium are slightly elevated in one or more ecosystem components (water, sediment, benthic invertebrates, birds). 

None: no toxic threat is identified and selenium 

concentration are not elevated in any ecosystem 

component. 

To conduct a hazard assessment, samples must 

be collected from multiple ecosystem components. 

This includes water, sediment, invertebrates and 

aquatic bird eggs. Selenium hazard has been defined 

independently for each component. These values are 

based on extensive studies, in a wide range of habitats and environmental conditions (table 32). 

Table 32 . Lemly Hazard Assessment score by component . 

Water Sediments Macroinvertebrates Aquatic bird eggs 

Hazard Score (ug/l) (ug/g) (ug/g) (ug/g) 

None 1 <1 <1 <2 <3 

Minimal 2 1-2 1-2 2-3 3-5 

Low 3 2-3 2-3 3-4 5-12 

Moderate 4 3-5 3-4 4-5 12-20 

High 5 >5 >4 >5 >20 

The “scores” for the sample with the highest 

selenium concentration in each component is then 

combined to get an overall hazard rating: 

■■ No hazard = 4 

■■ Minimal hazard = 5-7 

■■ Low Hazard = 8-10 

■■ Moderate Hazard = 11-14 

■■ High hazard = 15-20 

The method is not simply additive, but considers 

multiple routes of exposure and synergistic effects. 

Across all of the alternatives for Benton Lake Refuge, the service has designated “minimal” hazard as 

the objective for future management. 

The highest concentrations of selenium that can 

occur in various ecosystem components for which 

no toxic threat is associated has been described by 

Lemly (1995, 2002). For water this is less than 2 

μg/l, sediment less than 2 μg/g, macroinvertebrates 

less than 3 μg/g, and aquatic bird eggs less than 5 

μg/g. Many samples from several years have found 

selenium concentrations higher than these thresholds for each of these ecosystem components at the 

refuge (Nimick et al. 1996, 2006–8, Henny et al. 2000) 

(figure 21). These values can be combined to create 

an overall hazard assessment for a given area, such 

as individual units on the refuge (Lemly 1995, 2002). 

In 2006, water, sediment, invertebrates, and 

wetland-dependent bird eggs were sampled from 

Unit 1, 3, 5 and the seep in Unit 4c to get an updated 

hazard assessment for the refuge (table 33). These 

units were chosen to capture the high and low ends 

of selenium contamination in the wetland. Samples 

were taken within units at a subset of the same sampling sites used in earlier studies (Zhang and Moore 

1997). In cases where multiple samples were taken 

in a unit, such as sediment and eggs, the highest 

selenium value was used to be the most conservative (not likely to underestimate) in assessing the 

threat. In Unit 1, where natural runoff and pumped 

water enter the refuge via Lake Creek, there was 

a high hazard level. Selenium concentrations were 

low in the water and eared grebe egg, but high in 

the sediment and invertebrate samples. The results 

of the Lemly assessment at the seep next to Unit 4c 

showed that this area also has a high overall hazard. 

Selenium concentrations were high in water and 

sediments, but the gadwall egg sampled from this 

area had a very low selenium level. The other two 

units, 3 and 5, had low overall hazard levels, respectively, reflecting the distance of these units from the 

selenium inputs and the benefit of seasonal drying 

(Zhang and Moore 1997). 

The highly hazardous conditions found at the 

seep next to Unit 4c were not surprising given that 

seeps are primary sources of selenium contamination in the Lake Creek watershed and on the refuge 

(Nimick et al. 1996, Nimick 1997). A hazard rating 

of high means an “imminent, persistent toxic threat 

sufficient to cause complete reproductive failure 

in most species of fish and aquatic birds” (Lemly 

1995, 2002). The selenium concentration in the water in 2006 (33.8 μg/g) was within the wide range of 

concentrations (10–500 μg/L) found during earlier 

studies (Knapton et al. 1988, Nimick 1997). Selenium 

concentrations in the sediment and invertebrates 

were similar to earlier samples (Knapton et al. 1988, 

Lambing et al. 1994, Zhang and Moore 1997). Interestingly, the gadwall egg sampled from this area had 

such low selenium concentration that Lemly considers it no threat. This suggests that even though 
Table 33 . Lemly Hazard Assessment Results for four sites at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge .
 

Contamination hazard levels are assigned to each of four trophic levels sampled at each site between May 15 and 


July 15, 2006 . The overall hazard level is figured out by combining the individual hazard assessments 


according to Lemly (1995,2002) .
 

Trophic level Unit 1 Unit 4c seep* Unit 3 Unit 5 

Water 

(micrograms/liter (μg/L)) 

Hazard 

2.2 

Low 

33.8 

High 

0.56 

None 

2.2 

Low 

Sediment (micrograms/ 

grams dry weight 

(μg/gDW)) 

Hazard 

4 

High 

20.3 

High 

0.32 

None 

1.09 

Minimal 

Invertebrates (μg/gDW) 

Hazard 

7.65 

High 

4.01 

Moderate 

2.14 

Minimal 

1.75 

None 

Bird species, egg 

(μg/gDW) 

Hazard 

Eared grebe

 8.71 

Low 

Gadwall 

1.86 

None 

Teal 

3.19 

Minimal 

American Avocet

 5.32 

Low 

Overall hazard High High Minimal Low 

*sampled at seep only 

CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 229 

there are acutely hazardous conditions in the immediate area of the seep, birds probably spend a very 

small percentage of their time in the seep area and 

the hazards are mitigated by their feeding primarily 

in other units, such as in Units 3 and 5, which are 

nearby and have lower levels of selenium. In 2006, 

most of Unit 4c that is next to the seep had been dry 

for several years, which would limit mixing between 

the seep and the wetland unit and reduce the influence of the seep on avian reproduction. 

The high hazard level in Unit 1 is of greater concern. Unit 1 is a large wetland that can exceed 750 

 

 

33.8 

320 

Selenium Concentration

(ug/L) or (ug/g) 

0 Water 1 2 3 4 Sediment Invertebrates Eggs 

(n=183 samples total). (Knapton et al 1988, Nimick et al 1996, 

Zhang and Moore 1997, Refuge Files 2006-2008). 

25 500 500 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Above Toxic Threshold
 

Below Toxic Threshold
 

Figure 21 . Graph showing the range of selenium concentrations from water, sediment, invertebrates, and egg 

samples across Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 1986–2008 . 
230 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

acres at full-pool levels. The high threat level was 

primarily due to selenium concentrations in the sediment and invertebrates, while all other trophic levels had low concentrations. In particular, selenium 

concentrations in eared grebe eggs were low, which 

is the trophic level of greatest concern for managers. 

Because of this, it is tempting to downplay the overall high hazard level except that the Lemly protocol 

is based on the understanding that the toxic effects 

of selenium are interactive and best characterized 

by considering all of the trophic levels simultaneously. 

Selenium Modeling 

A model of selenium cycling (Zhang and Moore 1997) 

was developed for the refuge to understand the dynamics of selenium accumulation on the refuge and 

predict outcomes for various management scenarios. 

The main selenium reservoirs on the refuge are the 

sediment and water. Sediment is considered highly 

hazardous when average concentrations for a unit 

exceed 4 μg/g (Skorupa and Ohlendorf 1991, Lemly 

1995, 2002). With the assumption that the input and 

output of selenium to the refuge was similar to the 

long-term average, and starting with selenium levels 

measured in 1994, the original model runs predicted 

that Units 1 and 2 would exceed this hazard threshold in 9 years (2004) and 17 years (2012), respectively. Due to the annual drying of the lower units, 

Units 3, 5 and 6 would never cross the toxic threshold. Unit 4, because of adjacent saline seeps, was 

predicted to cross the threshold in 67 years despite 

annual drying. 

In 2006, mean selenium levels measured in sediment samples from Unit 1 (2.3±0.3 μg/g) had not yet 

reached the toxic threshold of 4 μg/g. To be sure this 

discrepancy was not due to sampling error, in 2008 

the sediment in Unit 1 was resampled to target the 

upper 0.8 inch, which is the most sensitive to selenium accumulation, increase the 2006 sample size, 

and to capture all of the same locations sampled in 

1994. The actual 2008 mean value was 2.7±0.2 μg/g, 

which was still below the 5.4μg/g predicted for 2008 

in the original model. 

The model was reevaluated to find the cause of 

the discrepancy. The original model runs assumed 

selenium inputs in the future would be similar to 

the long-term average up to that point (1970-1993); 

however, 1994–2007 was a dry period and natural 

runoff was only 14 percent of this long-term average (495 acre-feet versus 3,615 acre-feet). When 

the model was run again with all of the same starting data from 1994, but with only 14 percent of the 

selenium inputs, the predicted values for 2008 were 

closer to those actually measured in the field (model 

=3.5 μg/g, 2008 field samples = 2.7 ± 0.2 μg/g). 

These results suggest that the model is strongly 

influenced by inputs but somewhat overestimates 

the rate of accumulation of selenium. When natural 

runoff and selenium inputs increase during the next 

wet cycle, which appears to have begun in 2009, selenium accumulation is expected to increase again. 

Units 1 and 2 may have a few more years than the 

9 and 17 years originally predicted by the model 

before they become highly toxic. However, it may 

actually be fewer years, because the mean selenium 

concentration in the upper 0.8 inch of sediment of 

Unit 1 was 60-percent higher in 2008 than the original model values in 1994 (Zhang and Moore 1997). 

Regardless, if there is no change in management, the 

toxic threshold is still likely to be crossed in these 

units soon enough to be of serious concern. 

Selenium Remediation Efforts 

An action plan, “Calming Troubled Waters,” was 

written in 1991 by refuge staff to address the selenium issue at the refuge. The goal of the plan was 

to “maintain or reduce levels of trace elements such 

as selenium at levels which pose no threat to species using Benton Lake” (USFWS 1991). This plan 

focused primarily on the watershed and the negative effect on water quality caused by the agricultural practices in the surrounding landscape. The 

primary strategy at that time was to clean up the 

refuge by cleaning up the watershed. The plan was 

estimated to take 5–10 years and cost $4.5 million 

dollars ($7.1 million in today’s dollars). The Service 

was successful in using a CRP incentive program 

to enlist five landowners in CRP contracts. In addition, the refuge collaborated with the Lake Creek 

Improvement Association and the Lake Creek Partnership to obtain Federal grants to improve water 

quality in the watershed. Seeps and recharge areas 

were mapped in the watershed and 27 producers 

signed 5-year contracts to try alternative cropping 

practices. The report shows that production from 

these crops went “as well as to be expected.” The 

refuge also worked with one neighbor to keep a field 

in a key seep recharge area in alfalfa for 5 years. 

Monitoring indicated that this continuous cover was 

effective in reducing ground water levels, which 

helps to dry up seeps. While these efforts resulted 

in short-term successes, the program ended when 

money for a full-time contaminants specialist and 

annual payments to landowners to keep their fields 

in cover crops was no longer available. Supporting 

continuous cover in the watershed in key areas, to 

reclaim seeps and improve water quality, requires 

sufficient incentives for landowners to choose this 

practice over current crop–fallow systems for small 

grains. “Calming Troubled Waters” did not consider 

any reduction in pumping water as a way to manage 

selenium levels on the refuge. 
	

CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 231 

Other selenium removal approaches have been 

considered elsewhere. The three types of remediation commonly pursued are containment, removal, 

and treatment (Higashi et al. 2005). Containment 

has been difficult to achieve in many cases and 

where open-water systems are used, they are still a 

source of contamination to waterbirds drawn to the 

containment areas. Removal of selenium has been 

difficult, because of typically low starting concentrations and chemical similarity to sulfur, which can 

be present in as much as million-fold higher concentrations. One treatment choice, algal-bacterial 

reduction of selenate was developed to the point 

of large-scale trials. It removed approximately 80 

percent of the selenium in water, but was found to 

increase concentrations of selenium in invertebrates 

2–4 times. Biovolatilization is another remediation 

approach that takes advantage of natural biogeochemical processes, but is problematic because it 

Key selenium concepts:
 

The underlying geology, land use changes 


in the surrounding watershed, increased 


selenium inputs from pumped water and 


decreased wetland drying have contributed 


to selenium accumulation on the refuge .
 

Selenium accumulates in the food chain 


and concentrations in the water, sediment, 


invertebrates and wildlife must all be 


considered when assessing the threat to 


reproduction 


Selenium is not evenly distributed 


across the refuge . It is highest near input 


locations (currently Unit 1) where it 


accumulates in sediment . Selenium levels 


in Unit1 are currently high enough to 


impair reproduction in sensitive species .
 

The primary ways to reduce selenium 


accumulation are by exposing wetland 


sediment to air (such as drying) and 


reducing inputs by improving water 


quality or reductions in pumping .
 

Refuge specific models of selenium cycling 


show that highly hazardous levels of 


selenium could be reached in Units 1 and 


2 in the next two decades .
 

draws selenium into the biota and consequently up 

the food chain. For example, vascular plants volatilize a relatively small amount of selenium while 

sequestering selenium in bio-available food web materials such as the shoots and roots. Although the 

shoot could be harvested and disposed of, the selenium is mostly contained in the belowground parts 

of the plants, which are not practical for harvesting 

or likely to be consumed in a prescribed fire (Higashi et al. 2005). Removal of selenium using organic 

materials such as rice straw has been successful in 

laboratory trials (Zhang and Frankenberger 2003). 

However, this technique has not been tested in the 

field to decide if it is a practical solution. 

Other Water Quality Concerns 

While monitoring selenium accumulation levels has 

been a priority at the refuge, other water chemistry 

variables also have been studied (Knapton et al. 

1988, Nimick 1997). A USGS study analyzed the 

water chemistry at the refuge, with an emphasis 

on dissolved solids (Nimick 1997). From 1974–95, 

specific-conductance values for the refuge varied 

substantially from year to year and over multiyear 

periods. However, no significant trend of increasing specific conductance was clear in the long-term 

record. The study concluded that accumulation of 

dissolved solids in the refuge appeared to be negligible. Benton Lake Refuge management that dried 

Units 3–6 at least 1 month per year appeared to be 

effective in managing salts (Nimick 1997). 

Initial water quality testing during the DOI Reconnaissance Study did not find elevated levels of 

nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous (Knapton et al. 1988). However, due to the intense agriculture in both the Muddy Creek and Lake Creek 

watersheds, levels of these nutrients, as well as 

sedimentation, may be problems that have been 

overlooked in recent years. More studies, including an updated baseline, would be needed to assess 

these issues. 

Water Rights 

Benton Lake Refuge has two primary water rights. 

One is for 14,600 acre-feet of surface water from 

Muddy Creek (41K 188174 00) with a priority date 

of April 28, 1958. The other is for the natural flow 

in the Lake Creek drainage, including the unnamed 

tributaries to Benton Lake, where the drainage enters the refuge in the amount of natural flow remaining after the satisfaction of the following rights: 

all rights recognized under State law with a priority date before the effective date of the Compact 
	

	

232 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

any rights for stock watering ponds with a priority date after the effective date of the Compact 

and a maximum capacity of the impoundment or 

pit of less than 15 acre-feet and an appropriation 

of less than 30 acre-feet per year from a source 

other than a perennial flowing stream 

any right to appropriate ground water with a priority date after the effective date of the Compact 

by means of a well or developed spring with a 

maximum appropriation of 35 gallons per minute 

(gpm) or less that does not exceed a total appropriation of 10 acre-feet per year. 

The refuge also has a ground water right to 2 

acre-feet per year diverted at a maximum rate of 45 

gpm from ground water beneath the Benton Lake 

Refuge. 

The “Montana House bill 717–Bill to Ratify Water Rights Compact” (compact) is a water rights 

compact between the State of Montana and the Service signed July 17, 1997. The parties to this agreement recognize that the water rights described in 

the compact are junior to any tribal water rights 

with a priority date before the effective date of the 

compact, including aboriginal rights, if any, in the 

basins affected. 

Biological Resources 

The following narrative describes habitats and wildlife on the Benton Lake Refuge. 

Grasslands 

Benton Lake Refuge has approximately 5,724 acres 

of native and planted tame grasslands (figure 22). 

The native mixed-grass prairie is characterized by 

predominantly cool-season species on Benton Lake’s 

clay soils. This ecological site developed under the 

northern Great Plains climatic conditions, geological parent materials, fire, biotic factors, and under 

the natural influence of herbivory. The cool-season 

species evolved to take advantage of the precipitation regime that peaks in late spring–early summer. 

Research consistently shows that precipitation is the 

principle factor altering productivity on ecological 

sites in the northern Great Plains (Heitschmidt et al. 

2005). 

Figure 22 . Map of upland vegetation at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 233 

The dominant plant community is represented 

by green needlegrass, western wheatgrass, thickspike wheatgrass and bluebunch wheatgrass. Prairie 

Junegrass is the most common shortgrass. Other 

shortgrasses and sedges include plains reedgrass, 

threadleaf sedge, and needleleaf sedge. Bluebunch 

wheat grass is a dominant species on the clayey 

10–14 inch precipitation zone site in the northern 

Glaciated Plains. Blue grama is the only common 

warm-season grass. Grasses represent about 80 percent of the total annual production in this community 

(NRCS 2005). 

Dotted gayfeather, American vetch, white prairie 

clover, and purple prairie clover are forbs that commonly occur on the clayey sites. American vetch 

and the prairie clover are nitrogen-fixing species 

and valuable forage producing plants. Groundplum milkvetch, scurfpea, and prairie thermopsis 

are lower successional forbs that have the ability 

to fix nitrogen. White milkwort, biscuitroot, wild 

onion, and western yarrow may be present as minor 

components of the plant community. Forbs represent about 15 percent of the total annual production 

(NRCS 2005). Silver sagebrush, Nuttall’s saltbush, 

fringed sagewort, broom snakeweed, and prickly 

pear cactus also may represent minor shrub components. Overall, shrubs account for about 5 percent of 

the annual plant production (NRCS 2005). 

There are approximately 728 acres of tame grasslands on the refuge. Some of the tame grasslands 

were inherited as former farm ground when the 

refuge was established; however, there were some 

areas of native prairie on the refuge that were broken and seeded to tame grass in the 1960s and early 

1970s. The predominant herbaceous cool-season species used were varying combinations of intermediate 

wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass, 

pubescent wheatgrass, western wheatgrass, and 

crested wheatgrass; the legumes were alfalfa and 

sweetclover. The basic seeding rates were comprised 

of 75-percent wheatgrass and 25-percent legumes. 

These species, commonly referred to as DNC, were 

chosen based on research that showed that they are 

highly attractive and beneficial to waterfowl (Duebbert 1969). DNC fields on the refuge range from 

excellent to poor conditions. Most stands are in some 

type of rotational management scheme to rejuvenate 

and extend the longevity of the planting. 

In the recent past, planting shelterbelts was advocated in the Great Plains as a method of increasing species diversity (Schroeder 1986 and others), 

particularly bird diversity. A total of 19 miles of 

shelterbelts have been planted on the Benton Lake 

Refuge. Many of the shelterbelt trees and shrubs 

have died, which may be the result of recent drought 

conditions. A few shelterbelts are in moderate condition and most shelterbelts are in poor condition relative to their potential to increase bird diversity on 

the refuge. The most common tree and shrub species 

remaining in the shelterbelts are Russian olive and 

caragana. Attempts have not been made to irrigate 

or replant the shelterbelts. 

Upland Invasive Species 

The refuge is generally free from highly invasive, 

noxious weeds. Through EDRR, early colonizing plants of spotted knapweed and leafy spurge, 

in particular, have been eradicated every year 

and prevented from spreading. Canada thistle has 

been present for many years on the refuge. Thistle 

patches are found near many roads, dikes, wetland 

edges, and other disturbed areas. Some dense stands 

have been treated with success, but most areas go 

untreated. 

In addition to the nonnative species described in 

the wetland section, several nonnative species are 

of concern for their impact in changing the native 

grassland habitat, even if they are not on the State’s 

noxious weed list. 

Crested Wheatgrass 

Crested wheatgrass has been the most commonly 

planted exotic grass in western North America since 

the early 1900s. Invasion of this species into native 

rangeland can have a negative effect on plant and 

wildlife diversity (Reynolds and Trost 1981, Christian and Wilson 1999, Davis and Duncan 1999). 

Crested wheatgrass was used to landscape areas 

around the refuge headquarters area in the 1960s 

and to revegetate roadsides and other areas of disturbance. Since then, it has spread throughout the 

refuge to varying degrees and covers approximately 

400 acres. The refuge has begun a pilot program to 

evaluate the most effective methods for controlling 

crested wheatgrass and restoring the native vegetation. 

Russian Olive 

This species is adaptable in semiarid and saline 

environments and has been promoted as a source 

of food and cover for some wildlife species (NRCS 

2002), particularly ring-necked pheasant. With this 

in mind, refuge staff planted Russian olive trees on 

the refuge until the 1970s. Since that time, research 

has shown that Russian olive and other nonnative 

trees fragment native prairie by causing avoidance 

of these areas by some nesting grassland birds and 

increased predation of nests, adults, and juvenile 

grassland-dependent birds (Delisle and Savidge 

1996, Gazda et al. 2002, Helzer 1996, Johnson and 

Temple 1990). Fortunately, at the refuge, Russian olive trees have not spread and are generally confined 

to shelterbelts where they were planted or single 

individuals scattered on the refuge. 
234 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Japanese Brome 

This grass has been present in the refuge for many 

years with almost no attention given to treatment. 

Currently efforts are underway to map and estimate 

the extent and density of the infestation on the refuge. The degree to which this species affects wildlife 

use of native prairie is unknown. 

Kentucky Bluegrass 

This grass has been present in the refuge for many 

years with almost no attention given to treatment. 

Currently, efforts are underway to map and estimate the extent and density of the infestation. Recent efforts in the Dakotas has shown that many 

areas of native sod on fee title lands in the northern 

Great Plains have become heavily invaded with Kentucky bluegrass, which is associated with loss of 

floristic and avian diversity as well as negatively affected nutrient pools, energy flows, soil invertebrate 

and mycorrhizal relationships, and water cycles 

(Murphy and Grant 2005, Grant et al. 2009). 

Cheatgrass 

This grass has been present on the refuge for many 

years with almost no attention given to treating it. 

It is mostly restricted to the southeast part of the 

refuge east of the Bootlegger Trail. It is of concern 

because of its interaction with fire. Prescribed fire 

is the primary management tool at the refuge; however, cheatgrass can readily spread after burning 

(Zouhar 2003). Efforts to map the infestations and 

to develop a preburn treatment plan are in progress. 

Other nonnative species that occur in low numbers or limited extent but could become an invasive 

problem include smooth brome, reed canarygrass, 

salsify, alfalfa, and yellow sweetclover. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

This section describes the historical conditions of the 

refuge’s wetland vegetation and current vegetation 

including invasive plants. 

Historical Wetland Vegetation 

The historical gradation of vegetation zones within 

the refuge from robust emergent in deeper depressions to grasslands on uplands has been altered over 

time. Most historical vegetation communities are 

still present on the refuge, but their distribution 

and extent have changed. Developments for water 

management and subsequent altered hydrology and 

water chemistry in units are responsible for most 

vegetative changes. Generally, communities have 

shifted to more extensive distribution of wetter and 

more alkaline-tolerant species. Increasing amounts 

of exotic and invasive species also now occur on the 

refuge (Heitmeyer et al. 2009). 

Historical vegetation communities on the Benton Lake Refuge ranged from dense emergent wetland vegetation in the lowest elevation depressions 

to upland grassland on higher elevation terraces 

and benches next to the lakebed. This gradation of 

plant communities is typical of wetland basins in 

the northern Great Plains of Montana (Hansen et al. 

1995). Plant species distribution reflected tolerance 

to timing, depth, and duration of annual flooding, salinity, and underlying soils and geomorphic surfaces. 

(table 34). The precise distribution of historical wet 

Table 34 . Hydrogeomorphic matrix* of historical distribution of habitat types on Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Montana . 

Habitat type Geomorphic Soil type Flood Elevation c Estimated acres 

surface a frequency b 

Robust emergent Ql clay A–PM <3614.5 73 

Sedge–rush Ql clay A–SP 3614.6–3615.7 1,728 

Sedge–rush alkaline Qac clay A–SP 3614.6–3615.7 53 

Seasonal herbaceous Ql silt-clays A–SE 3615.8–3616.3 1,040 

Cordgrass–saltgrass Qac silt-clays A–SE 3615.8–3616.3 143 

Wet grassland Ql silty clay 1–SE 3616.4–3622 3,167 

Wet grassland alkaline Qac silty clay 1–SE 3616.4–3622 1,216 

Upland grassland Qt and Kbb silty clay R 3622 4,802 

*Relationships were figured out from land cover maps prepared by the General Land Office (1920),geomorphology 


maps (Maughan 1961), soils maps prepared by NRCS, hydrological data (unpublished NOAA and Benton Lake Refuge records 


on file at Benton Lake Refuge), various accounts by naturalists and settlers, and publications from the late 1800s and early 1900s .
 a Ql =Quaternary lake, Qac =Quaternary alluvium and colluviums, Qt =Quaternary terrace, Kbb = Cretaceous Bootlegger .
 b A–PM =annually flooded permanent, A–SP= annually flooded semipermanent, A–SE =annually flooded
 

seasonal, 1–SE = irregularly flooded among years seasonal, R = rarely if ever flooded .
 

c Feet above mean sea level .
 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 235 

Figure 23 . Map of potential historical vegetation communities on the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 

Montana . Vegetation community: 1=robust emergent, 2a=sedge–rush, 2b=alkaline sedge–rush, 3a=seasonal herbaceous, 3b=prairie cordgrass–saltgrass, 4a=wet grassland, 4b=alkaline wet grassland, 5=upland grassland . 

land vegetation species groups in the refuge proper 

undoubtedly varied over time as surface water coverage and depth changed in the long-term wet to dry 

cycles (for example, van der Valk and Davis 1978, 

van der Valk 1989). The relative juxtaposition of 

historical plant communities occurred along a wetness continuum where specific groups expanded or 

contracted and moved either up or down elevation 

gradients as water levels rose and fell in Benton 

Lake basin over time. Furthermore, some communities with specific distribution associations, such as 

saltgrass that was associated with higher alkaline 

or saline conditions, also probably changed locations 

somewhat over time depending on the intensity and 

location of saline seeps as saline conditions in the 

lake became more or less concentrated or diluted 

during more extreme flooding versus drawdown 

phases of the long-term hydrologic cycle. 

Recognizing the annual variation in flooding 

regimes and latent chronological and distribution 

response dynamics of wetland plant species to 

changing moisture conditions, an HGM matrix of 

potential vegetation communities related to geomorphologic, soil, elevation, and hydrology conditions 

historically present at Benton Lake was developed. 

The distribution of these HGM-predicted vegetation 

communities assumes average long-term flooding 

and drying periods of 10–20 years with peak highs 

and lows lasting about 5–6 years. This duration of 

peaks and lows is based primarily on historical aerial 

photographs of the refuge, especially the sequential 

basin photographs from 1950, 1951, 1954, 1956, and 
236 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

1957. This HGM matrix was extrapolated to historical (such as before construction of levees and water 

control structures) basin conditions using the geographical information data sets on geomorphology, 

soils, and elevation (figure 23). 

Using this HGM matrix (table 34) and potential historical vegetation map (figure 23), about 73 

acres of the lowest elevations in the Benton Lake 

basin (less than 3,614.5 feet amsl) contained some 

surface water throughout most years and supported 

open-water aquatic plant communities surrounded 

by concentric bands of robust emergent vegetation 

including cattail and hardstem bulrush. Soils in these 

depressions were heavy clays and within the geomorphic surface formed by historical lake-system 

environments. Water in these depressions was fresh, 

with little salt concentration. Historical aerial photographs, surveys, and naturalist accounts from the 

Benton Lake region show that dense emergent vegetation was present in the deeper depressions at 

Benton Lake, at least during wet years of the longterm flooding cycle, but it is unclear which emergent 

species were present. It is likely that most emergent 

vegetation was hardstem bulrush, but some cattail 

probably was present also, based on similar wetland 

conditions in western Montana (Hansen et al. 1995) 

and the extensive presence of cattail within Benton 

Lake at present. The width of this emergent vegetation band varied depending on extent and duration 

of flooding and chronological position of the longterm hydrological cycle. Submergent aquatic plants 

such as pondweeds, naiads, coontail, widgeongrass, 

and milfoil were present in the deepest open areas 

and rich algal blooms occurred in these areas. 

Semipermanently flooded sites that were slightly 

higher elevation (3,614.6–3,615.7 feet amsl) next 

to cattail and bulrush zones contained slightly less 

permanent water regimes and supported diverse 

sedge and rush species (figure 24). These sedge–rush 

communities covered about 1,728 acres and supported diverse herbaceous wetland plants including 

alkali bulrush, three-square rush, Nuttall’s alkaligrass, beaked sedge, Nebraska sedge, and water 

smartweed. The sedge–rush community apparently 

Figure 24 . Vegetation communities on Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 237 

covered more area within the Benton Lake bed than 

other communities and historical accounts of the 

lake (for example, the General Land Office, 1920) 

comment on the wide bands and extensive coverage of sedges and rushes. This sedge–rush community may have expanded during wet periods to even 

higher elevation edges of Benton Lake and then 

contracted to lower elevations during extended dry 

periods. The periodic flooding and drying of these 

vegetation zones likely caused moderate alkaline soil 

conditions. 

Seasonally flooded areas next to sedge–rush 

communities (3,615.8–3,616.3 feet amsl) contained 

diverse annual and perennial herbaceous plants 

and wet-prairie meadow grasses such as spikerush, 

lambsquarter, annual smartweeds, prairie cordgrass, 

and saltgrass. Prairie cordgrass apparently occurred 

in temporary and overflow areas along streams and 

the edges of marsh sites that had silty clay soils, 

less alkaline conditions, and where seasonal (usually 

spring) sheetflow of surface water occurred. Spikerush usually was in relatively narrow bands along 

yearly flooded stream and tributary sites and the 

margins of lake communities. In contrast, saltgrass 

was most common in more saline or alkali sites including areas where seeps flowed into Benton Lake 

and in some overflow areas next to Lake Creek. 

The highest elevation edges of Benton Lake 

(3,616.4–3,622 feet amsl) typically had short duration seasonal flooding regimes and represented the 

transition zone from wetland to upland grassland 

plant communities (figure 24). Foxtail barley was 

present on the higher annually drawn down margins 

of the lake basin and in some ephemeral depressions. 

Foxtail barley gradually graded to western wheatgrass on terraces next to the lake. Eventually, these 

wetland-edge grass communities graded into upland 

grassland (elevations more than 3,622 feet amsl). 

Current Wetland Vegetation and Invasive Plants 

A survey of vegetation in Benton Lake Refuge units 

was conducted in 2001 and documented composition 

and distribution of plant communities (Thompson 

and Hansen 2002). At that time 91 plant species 

were documented in wetland units and the dominant 

vegetation communities (habitat types) were alkali 

bulrush (31.2 percent of total area within wetland 

units), western wheatgrass (18.1 percent), foxtail 

barley (17.4 percent), open water (9.6 percent), varied moist-soil annuals (8.8 percent), and cattail–hardstem bulrush (6.6 percent) (figure 24). The invasive 

creeping foxtail covered only 2.8 percent of the units 

in 2001. Creeping foxtail is an introduced rhizomatous perennial species. Its distribution has expanded 

through Benton Lake basin in recent years and 

generally occurs in bands or zones lying immediately above the zone occupied by cattail. The precise 

taxonomy of this creeping foxtail is unknown but 

may be the “Garrison” cultivar named and released 

by the NRCS Plant Materials Center in Bismarck, 

North Dakota in 1963 (NRCS 2007). The original 

collection of the Garrison cultivar was made in 1950 

where plants were growing on the margins of prairie 

pothole wetland basins; it is especially adapted to 

cold-temperature regions next to wet areas such 

as the Benton Lake bed. Native species comprised 

50, 100, 54, 58, and 58 percent, respectively, of tree, 

shrub, grass, forb, and total plants in wetland units 

in 2001. 

Units 1 and 2, which have been managed for 

more permanent water regimes, contain large 

amounts of open water with extensive stands of cattail next to deeper open-water areas. Open-water 

areas contain abundant aquatic submergent vegetation, especially milfoil and pondweed. Creeping 

foxtail has spread into areas formerly dominated by 

foxtail barley at higher elevation edges of Units 1 

and 2. Foxtail barley now occupies a relatively small 

amount of area of each unit. Western wheatgrass 

still occupies large areas on the highest upland edge 

of Units 1 and 2 but invasive Kentucky bluegrass, 

crested wheatgrass, and smooth brome are expanding in area. Some reed canarygrass also now is present in both units. 

Unit 3 contains extensive, but declining areas of 

alkali bulrush in lower elevations and foxtail barley 

in higher sites. Creeping foxtail is gradually expanding coverage in the unit. In contrast, Canada thistle 

and field milk-thistle now occupy large areas of 

higher, drier edges of the unit. Former island areas 

also have small coverage by Woods’ rose. Unit 3 now 

is managed for short duration seasonal flooding, but 

for more than 15 years (1964–78) it was managed for 

yearlong inundation (USFWS 1961–99). 

Vegetation in Unit 4 varies among the three subunits and reflects permanency of water regimes and 

past excavations and construction of levees, nesting 

islands, and internal drainage ditches. Unit 4a has 

more natural vegetation communities than other 

subunits and is dominated by alkali bulrush. Subunit 

4a has been allowed to flood and dry on more natural 

cycles, with deeper interior areas holding water for 

longer periods and supporting more alkali bulrush 

communities, compared to Units 4b and 4c. Foxtail 

barley and western wheatgrass remain dominant 

species on the edges of Unit 4a, but creeping foxtail 

has taken over most of the eastern part of the unit 

between the water control structure and the deeper 

interior. 

Vegetation in Unit 4b is highly altered from historical condition. The historical geomorphology of 

the Unit 4b area was a higher alluvial depositional 

surface that historically flooded only for short periods during high-flow events of Lake Creek, mainly 
238 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

in spring, and it appears to have been dominated by 

prairie cordgrass, foxtail barley, wheatgrass, and 

possibly some saltgrass. Construction of the internal 

levee to subdivide Unit 4, construction of nesting 

islands, and excavations shifted this site to wetter regimes in the 1960s to 1980s. In more recent 

years Unit 4b has been managed for shorter duration flooding. Common species in Unit 4b are foxtail 

barley, common orache, lambsquarter, prickly lettuce, western wheatgrass, and the invasive crested 

wheatgrass. Little creeping foxtail is present in the 

subunit, which may be a result of the limited flooding 

this unit has received in the last 10–15 years. 

Unit 4c is the largest subunit of Unit 4 and is 

becoming highly invaded by creeping foxtail. In 

2001, the subunit kept a large amount of native foxtail barley, western wheatgrass, and alkali bulrush 

(Thompson and Hansen 2002), but each of these species is declining at present. Expansion of creeping 

foxtail may be increasing, because the site appears 

to have prolonged soil saturation, but not extensive 

surface flooding. Soil saturation may be discouraging less water tolerant native grasses and moistsoil-type species. It is uncertain if this saturation is 

being caused by leakage from the main water distribution canal or seasonal diversion of surface water 

into the unit. 

Units 5 and 6 historically had several deeper depressions and these deeper sites remain dominated 

by alkali bulrush with some scattered cattail present. Similar to Unit 4c, creeping foxtail has spread 

across the areas with prolonged soil saturation in 

these units. Photos taken between 1996 and 2010 in 

Unit 6 show almost total replacement of alkali bulrush with creeping foxtail in transition zone between 

the inlet of the water control structures and the 

deeper depressions. The outer edges of these units 

that are flooded less frequently are now covered 

mainly by foxtail barley, lambsquarter, strawberry 

blight, rillscale, and western wheatgrass. 

Wildlife 

A rich diversity of wildlife species use the Benton 

Lake basin (appendix D). Aquatic invertebrates 

include a variety of Crustacea (such as Daphnia sp., 

Gammarus sp., and Hyalella azteca) and insects 

such as Corixid beetles, damselflies and dragonflies, 

Notonectid backswimmers, and Chironomids (Heitmeyer et al. 2009). 

Several amphibian and reptile species also used 

Benton Lake including tiger salamanders, boreal 

chorus frogs, painted turtles, and common, western 

and plains garter snakes. There is one historical record of northern leopard frog on the refuge, but no 

recent occurrences. Uplands are used by western 

rattlesnakes and racers. 

Fathead minnows are the only fish species occasionally present on the main refuge unit. 

Mammal species diversity and abundance in the 

Benton Lake wetland basin is relatively low, except 

for many small rodents such as mice and voles. Several species of bats likely use wetlands as foraging 

areas, but no formal surveys have been conducted. 

Muskrat often create openings in wetland vegetation 

with den building, but shallow water that freezes 

completely every year may be limiting numbers. 

Additionally, many mammal species that mostly use 

the uplands, such as coyote, white-tailed deer, mule 

deer, and pronghorn, may also use dry parts of the 

wetlands to forage and breed. Very rare sightings of 

other mammals on the refuge include black bear, elk 

and moose. 

The refuge provides migration and breeding 

habitat for a variety of birds. The Benton Lake Refuge has been designated as a Western Hemisphere 

Shorebird Reserve Network site and an Audubon 

Important Bird Area (IBA) (National Audubon Society 2012). 

Grassland bird species are a priority for the refuge due to the conversion of native prairie in the 

surrounding areas and the overall trend of grassland bird species decline. During the past quartercentury, grassland birds have experienced steeper, 

more consistent, and more widespread population 

declines than any other avian guild in North America (Vickory et al. 2000). On Benton Lake Refuge 

priority grassland bird species include the ESA candidate species Sprague’s pipit as well as ferruginous 

hawk, upland sandpiper, long-billed curlew, marbled 

godwit, burrowing owl, short-eared owl, grasshopper sparrow, and chestnut-collared longspur. Grassland bird point counts were conducted for 4 years 

(1994–7) consecutively at the refuge. One census 

reported that 820 individuals and 41 species of grassland birds were detected. Of these years studied 

there was a steady decline of the chestnut-collared 

longspurs, grasshopper sparrows, and horned larks. 

Many wetland-dependent waterbirds breed at 

Benton Lake. The most common breeding species 

included eared grebe, mallard, northern pintail, gadwall, blue-winged teal, cinnamon teal, American 

wigeon, northern shoveler, redhead, lesser scaup, 

ruddy duck, Canada geese, American coot, American avocet, Wilson’s phalaropes, marbled godwits, 

Franklin’s gull, white-faced ibis, black-necked stilt, 

and black-crowned night-heron. 

Of the relatively common wetland-dependent 

birds that breed on the refuge, 19 are considered 

species of concern (table 35). For some species, Benton Lake lies within the core of their breeding range. 
Table 35 . Migratory bird species of concern that breed at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Deeper, more Population Population Benton Lake relative Benton Lake use relative 

permanent water estimate status to distribution to total population 

Black-crowned night-heron not available Stable Disjunct 

Canvasback Occurrence at the refuge is 600,000 Stable Core 

<1% of the continental popu Redhead 1,100,000 Increasing Core lation. 

Lesser scaup 4,200,000 Decreasing Core 

Wilson’s phalarope 1,500,000 ? Core 

Yellow-headed blackbird 23,000,000 Increasing Core 

Shallower water Population Population Benton Lake relative 

estimate status to distribution 

American bittern not available Decreasing? Core 

Franklin’s gull 1,000,000 Stable Peripheral 

Mallard 8,400,000 Increasing Core 

Gadwall 3,000,000 Increasing Core 

Northern pintail 3,500,000 Decreasing Core Occurrence at the refuge is 

American wigeon 2,400,000 Stable Core <1% of the continental popu

Blue-winged teal, cinnamon lation. 

teal 6,300,000 Increasing Core 

Green-winged teal 3,500,000 Increasing Core 

American avocet 450,000 Stable Core 

Black-necked stilt 175,000 Stable Disjunct 

Willet 250,000 Stable Core 

Marbled godwit 170,000 Stable Core 

Long-billed curlew 164,000 Decreasing Core 

Upland birds Population Population Benton Lake relative Grass type 

estimate status todistribution 

intermediFerruginous hawk 23,000 Decreasing? Core ate 

intermediUpland sandpiper 350,000 Decreasing Core ate 

Short-eared owl 2,400,000 Stable Core tall–dense Occurrence open– at the refuge Burrowing owl 2,000,000 Decreasing Core sparse is <0.05% of intermediSprague’s pipit 479,000 Decreasing Core ate the continen

intermedi­ tal population 

Baird’s sparrow 1,200,000 Decreasing Core–Peripheral ate 

intermediGrasshopper sparrow 15,000,000 Decreasing Core ate–open 

open– 

McCown’s longspur 1,100,000 Decreasing Core sparse 

open– 

Chestnut-collared longspur 5,600,000 Decreasing Core sparse 

Species = common or uncommon breeders at Benton Lake Refuge that have also been identified as a species of concern 


at a national or regional level .
 

Source: Service flyway data; Birds of North America Online; Partners in Flight Landbird Database; other Service publication data .
 

CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 239 

­

­

­
240 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

For others, such as Franklin’s gulls, black necked 

stilts and black-crowned night-herons, the refuge 

is on the edge of their range or disjunct from the 

primary breeding habitat. 

Planted, nonnative trees in shelterbelts provide 

habitat for at least 18 bird species that specialize in 

this type of habitat. Two of these species, loggerhead 

shrikes and Swainson’s hawks, are species of concern 

and breeding has been documented in refuge shelterbelts. 

Little quantitative data are available to determine changes in presence, abundance, and productivity of animal populations at the Benton Lake 

Refuge over time. Certain data show increasing 

numbers and production of waterbirds, especially 

dabbling ducks on the refuge in the late 1960s to 

late 1970s, when the refuge was initially flooded and 

units were managed for more prolonged water regimes (USFWS 1961–99). During this period annual 

duck production was reported to be high (several 

thousand ducklings) and included primarily northern 

shoveler, blue-winged teal, gadwall, cinnamon teal, 

northern pintail, and mallard. An increasing number 

of Canada geese also began using Benton Lake at 

this time and produced several hundred goslings in 

some years. Staff observations show that the number of breeding waterbirds have declined on Benton 

Lake in the last two decades. This may be due to the 

reduction in the amount of permanent and prolonged 

flooding of units in summer to manage botulism, below normal precipitation and runoff from 1998–2008, 

reduced productivity from the static hydroperiod 

created with annual pumping or may be an artifact 

of changes in staff and survey methods (USFWS 

1961–99). Large numbers of migrant waterbirds also 

use Benton Lake during spring and fall migration. In 

recent years, up to 30,000 ducks, 400 tundra swans, 

and 2,000 Canada geese regularly use the lake and 

region each fall, with somewhat lower numbers in 

the spring. 

Currently on the refuge, three predator-trapping 

locations using live-traps are supported from midApril through July to reduce predation of nesting 

birds. Over the last 4 years, six predators (raccoons 

and skunks) were trapped. During the same period, 

eight nontarget animals were trapped and released. 

Botulism 

Avian botulism outbreaks, caused by the ingestion 

of a toxin produced by the bacterium Clostridium 

botulinum, have occurred at Benton Lake at least 

since the mid-1960s (USFWS 1961–99). Occurrence 

of botulism at Benton Lake before the 1960s is unknown (no records or monitoring data are available), 

but documentation of historic outbreaks in other 

large wetland basins in the western U.S. suggest 

it probably occurred at least in some years (for 

example, Wetmore 1915, Giltner and Couch 1930, 

Kalmbach 1930, Wobeser 1981). 

Peak waterbird mortality caused by botulism at 

Benton Lake occurred in 1970–2 when more than 

18,000 birds (17,127 ducks) died in 1970 and more 

than 10,000 birds died in 1971 and 1972 (USFWS 

1970–99) (table 36). The years 1971 and 1972 were 

very dry years and water levels in units that had 

been managed for higher summer water levels to 

support duck broods (Units 3, 4c, and 5) receded 

quickly contributing to the die-off. In 1971, the 

Benton Lake Refuge was ranked highest in North 

America for known botulism losses (USFWS annual 

report, 1971). Waterbird mortality from botulism 

at the refuge declined during the remainder of the 

1970s when water levels were high in the wetland 

basin, caused by increased precipitation and natural 

runoff from Lake Creek. 

Table 36 . Annual mortality of ducks caused by 

botulism at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 

Montana . 

Year Number of ducks 

1970 17,127 

1971 10,778 

1972 10,081 

1973 1,602 

1974 884 

1978 812 

1979 1,148 

1987 83 

1988 597 

1989 2,025 

1990 509 

1991 3,743 

1997 88 

Source: USFWS 1970–90; USFWS unpublished files . 

Since the 1980s, botulism mortality at the refuge 

has been relatively low (less than 500) in most years 

except 1989 and 1991, when 2,025 and 3,743 ducks 

died, respectively. Generally, botulism outbreaks at 

the refuge have been greatest in Units 3, 4c, and 5 

when they had greater amounts of flooding and rapid 

drawdown in late summer. 

Over time, refuge managers have learned to allow Units 3–6 to dry during July, which has coincided with a significantly lower incidence of major 

botulism die-offs on the refuge. Units 1 and 2 can 

be kept full for brood water during July, as these 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 241 

units have not had a history of botulism. Concern for 

avoiding the conditions that created high botulism 

mortality (high water levels in lower units and hot, 

dry weather in summer) constrains water management options on the refuge. 

Cultural Resources 

The historical landscape in the Benton Lake basin 

contained vast expanses of grasslands, undulating 

topography, a few intermittent streams and forested 

riparian corridors, and scattered wetland basins, 

with Benton Lake being the largest. This area was 

inhabited by Native Americans for at least 10,000 

years before European settlement. The Blackfeet, 

Cheyenne, and Crow tribes lived in the Plains region, but had mobile lifestyles and they apparently 

had relatively little influence on the Plains landscape, with the exception of occasionally setting 

fires. A few French trappers apparently visited areas along the nearby Missouri River in the mid-tolate 1700s, but the area was not explored until 1805 

when members of the Lewis and Clark expedition 

viewed the Great Falls of the Missouri River and 

Black Eagle Falls. These Lewis and Clark explorers spent about 3 weeks in the area and recorded 

in their journals descriptions of the falls and surrounding area, which would eventually fuel interest 

in settlement. Expedition members returned to the 

area in 1806 and reported large numbers of bison, 

elk, deer, and pronghorn in the area along with grizzly bear and mountain lions. After 1807, trappers 

and fur traders became active in the region; the 

American Fur Company built Fort Benton on the 

Missouri River in 1847. 

The United States received most of what is now 

Montana as part of the Louisiana Purchase in the 

early 1800s, and the northwestern part of the State 

was gained by treaty with Great Britain in 1846. In 

1862, prospectors found gold in southwest Montana 

and many settlers moved to the State thereafter. 

The area around Benton Lake was not a source of 

gold, however, and only occasional trappers, hunters, and gold seekers occupied the area. Threats of 

Indian aggression also deterred European settlement in the region until the 1870s. Consequently, 

the physical and ecological nature of the Benton 

Lake basin remained essentially unchanged from its 

historical condition until about 1880, when settlers 

increasingly moved to the Missouri River Valley. 

Between 1880 and 1890 the population of Montana 

grew from about 39,000 to nearly 143,000. In 1884, 

Paris Gibson founded the city of Great Falls at the 

confluence of the Sun and Missouri Rivers and the 

city was incorporated in 1888 (Yuill and Yuill 1984). 

The Mullan Road, a common western pathway built 

in the early 1860s for pioneers and settlers traveling 

from Fort Benton by way of Coeur d’ Alene to the 

Pacific northwest wound around the north end of 

Benton Lake (Cascade County Historical Society 

1999). Interestingly, another early road near Benton 

Lake, running north of Great Falls from the current 

Highway 87 to Canada, was heavily used to carry 

bootlegged liquor to Great Falls and other towns 

further south during the Prohibition Era from 1920 

to 1933. Named Bootlegger Trail, it crossed the old 

Mullan Road and homesteaders along the trail near 

Benton Lake augmented their income by allowing 

bootleggers to use their barns to layover during the 

daytime. 

Beginning in the early 1900s, efforts to increase 

opportunity for small grain farming in the region 

began with the initiation of the Sun River Reclamation Project, later known as the Sun River Irrigation 

Project. This Sun River project was authorized by 

the Secretary of the Interior in 1906 and contains 

more than 100,000 acres of potentially irrigated 

land along the Sun River and its tributaries west of 

Benton Lake (Knapton et al. 1988). The Sun River 

project contains two major divisions, the Fort Shaw 

Irrigation Division that borders the Sun River contains about 10,000 acres and the Greenfields Irrigation Division, contains about 83,000 acres. 

Construction of the Fort Shaw Division began in 

1907, and the first water was delivered to division 

farmlands in 1909 (Knapton et al. 1988). Construction of facilities within the Greenfields Irrigation 

Division began in 1913 and the first water was delivered to area grain farmers in 1920. The main storage 

structure, Gibson Reservoir was constructed on 

the upper Sun River during 1922–9. Approximately 

300 miles of canals and lateral distribution ditches 

distribute water across the Greenfields Bench. 

The development of the Greenfields Irrigation 

Division dramatically changed the landscape within 

large parts of the district and influenced land use 

near the Benton Lake Refuge. During this time, native grassland was converted to irrigated cropland, 

mostly wheat and barley, and pasture–hayland. The 

advent of increased small grain production in the 

region and accompanying storage, transportation, 

and milling facilities encouraged grain production 

outside of the irrigation division also. Much of the 

native grassland was converted from native grassland to dryland cropland. The predominant crops 

grown in this area until the 1980s were wheat, barley, oats, and flax using crop–fallow rotations where 

alternating linear fields were either cropped or kept 

fallow (free of vegetation using tillage or chemical 

treatments) for 1–2 years. Since the mid-1980s, more 

than 60 percent of the cropland in the Greenfields 

Division has been contracted for growing malting 

barley, which has improved the financial sustainabil­
242 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

ity of cropping lands in the area and has provided 

more than $20 million annual return. 

Visitor Services 

Visitors to the refuge enjoy a variety of wildlifedependent, public use activities such as hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation (figure 25). In 

general, national wildlife refuges are closed to all 

public use until specifically opened. Existing and 

proposed uses of national wildlife refuges, need to 

be evaluated for appropriateness and compatibility 

(See chapter 4, section 4.6 for a full description and 

definitions of these terms). 

Hunting 

Hunting on the refuge begins with the opening of 

the State waterfowl season and runs through November 30. Benton Lake Refuge is open for the 

youth waterfowl season, which typically occurs the 

weekend before the opening of the general waterfowl season. Hunting on Benton Lake is confined to 

Units 5, 6 and parts of Unit 4C. Ducks, geese, coots, 

swans (by permit), sharp-tailed grouse, gray partridge, and ring-necked pheasants can be hunted on 

the refuge. Hunting of all other species is prohibited. 

State seasons apply within the refuge framework. 

Hunting is on a first-come, first served basis. One 

disability accessible hunting blind is available in 

Unit 5 through special use permit. 

Fishing 

The refuge offers no fishing opportunities on the 

main part of the refuge due to a lack of sport fish. 

The Pump House Unit (147 acres) is open for walk-in 

access to Muddy Creek, which provides trout-fishing 

opportunities. 

Figure 25 . Public use at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 243 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

The most popular recreational activity on the refuge 

is wildlife observation and photography. The auto 

tour route, Prairie Marsh Boardwalk, Lower Marsh 

Road, and the sharp-tailed grouse blind are the most 

popular observation areas. In addition, a photography blind constructed in Unit 1 is available. 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation 

The Benton Lake Refuge has the potential to provide an extraordinary environmental education and 

interpretation program. The refuge is located 12 

miles from Great Falls, a city of 60,000 people, in 

north-central Montana. The population of Cascade 

County, where the refuge is located, is 82,000. The 

refuge staff has never included an environmental 

education position. Management staff has given occasional tours to school groups and nongovernmental 

organizations. The environmental science department of the GFPS brings all third graders (800–900 

students) to the refuge each year in May and June 

for a basic introduction to prairie grasslands and 

wetlands. Refuge staff greet the buses and give a 

very brief overview of the Refuge System and provide refuge-specific information. Occasional youth 

hunting clinics are held at the refuge with help from 

MFWP staff. Becoming an Outdoor Woman workshops have also been held occasionally on the refuge. 

Refuge Staff also take part in the STEM Expo to 

help foster community-based participation by youth 

in the career fields of science and mathematics. The 

program includes both a community expo and mentoring program. 

Interpretive panels have been updated and are 

displayed in the visitor kiosk located on the office 

entrance road. More panels are being developed for 

display on the Prairie Marsh Boardwalk. 

Refuge Management Activities l

The Service manipulates habitat through several 

management activities that are carried out under 

specific, prescribed conditions to meet the needs 

of wildlife. Water management on the refuge is 

described above. Prescribed fire has been used 

regularly on the refuge. Since 2004, the refuge has 

burned an average of 2,000 acres per year. In the recent past, cooperative farming and grazing have not 

been used on the refuge. Haying has been used to a 

limited extent on tame grass fields. For a complete 

description of these tools please see chapter 4.8. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

Benton Lake Refuge is located in north-central Cascade County. The refuge shares a partial border with 

Chouteau County, and lies near the border of Teton 

County. Visitors travel to the refuge for wildlife 

observation, photography, migratory and upland 

gamebird hunting. Great Falls, the closest city to 

the refuge, is about 12 miles south of the refuge. 

Unlike other cities with a history of boom and bust 

cycles of mining, Great Falls was a planned city. By 

the late 1800s, the city was connected to the railroad 

and had a growing number of businesses and agricultural production. Great Falls was never dominated 

by a single industry, which helped to continue its 

steady growth throughout the 1900s. With the arrival of Malmstrom Air Force Base in 1939 Great 

Falls boasted a diverse economy of manufacturing, 

agriculture, military and retail (Big Sky Fishing, 

2011). Great Falls is a growing tourist destination as 

it provides access to a wide variety of outdoor recreation opportunities. Visitors come to Great Falls for 

its rich Western history and impressive parks and 

open spaces (Great Falls Visitor Information Center, 2011). Great Falls is one of the many gateways 

to Glacier, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National 

Parks, as well as Showdown, Teton Pass, and Great 

Divide ski resorts (Great Falls Visitor Information 

Center, 2011). 

For a description of the socioeconomic setting in 

the 12-county area of the refuge complex, please see 

chapter 4. 

Staff and Funding 

The refuge complex headquarters is located on Benton Lake Refuge. Service operations consist of the 

staff, facilities, equipment, and supplies needed to 

administer resource management and public use 

programs throughout the refuge complex, which is 

ocated across a 12-county area covering more than 

2,700 square miles. Within this area, the Service is 

responsible for the protection of 163,304 acres of 

lands and waters. 

Staff 

Currently, the refuge complex staff is comprised 

of 9.5 permanent full-time employees (table 10 in 

chapter 4, section 4.5). Of these, staff assigned to 

the management of Benton Lake Refuge include: a 

part of the wildlife refuge manager for the refuge 

complex, the deputy wildlife refuge manager, an 

administrative officer, part-time generalist, a termseasonal biological technician and a complete FTE 
	

	

	

244 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

of wildlife refuge biologist and maintenance worker. 

The wetland district manager and wildlife refuge 

specialist (assigned to the Rocky Mountain Front) 

often help with refuge support as well. The refuge 

has seen a reduction in staff since 2000. 

Since 1998, the refuge complex has lost three positions—one full-time law enforcement position, one 

permanent biological science technician and a permanent maintenance worker. The current staff level 

remains well below the minimum prescribed in the 

“June 2008 Final Report—Staffing Model for Field 

Stations” (USFWS 2008e), which recommended 8 

more staff including a GS–13 refuge manager, GS–12 

wildlife refuge specialist, GS–9 park ranger (visitor 

services specialist), GS–9 park ranger (law enforcement), GS–12 wildlife biologist, WG–8 maintenance 

worker, and GS–6 biological science technician (0.5 

full-time equivalent employee). 

Facilities and Infrastructure 

Significant infrastructure exists on the refuge to primarily support water management activities. This 

includes 11.5 miles of dikes and ditches that divide 

the wetland basin into 8 units and 9 water control 

structures. In addition, the interunit canal (a 2.2 mile 

long and approximately 50 feet wide channel) delivers water to the lower units. The dikes also provide 

a roadway for the Prairie Marsh Drive Auto Tour 

Route and Lower Marsh Road Auto Tour Route. A 

pump house with 3 pumps and a water control structure that impounds flows of Muddy Creek also aides 

in water management. 

The refuge office has been expanded to accommodate housing complex employees as well as other 

regional refuge programs. Recently constructed support infrastructure included a wind generator and 

photovoltaic system that provides electrical needs 

for the office building. 

Visitor and Employee Safety 

and Resource Protection 

A collateral duty officer (wildlife refuge specialist) is 

assigned to the district and conducts all law enforcement duties at Benton Lake Refuge. 

7 .12 Alternatives Analysis 

Management actions are prescribed in the alternatives as a means for achieving the vision and goals 

for the refuge, while responding to issues raised 

by Service managers, the public and governmental 

partners. Because management would differ for each 

alternative, the environmental and social effects 

resulting from implementation would likely differ 

as well. The effects are evaluated at several levels 

including whether they are adverse or beneficial and 

whether the effects are direct, indirect, or cumulative with other independent actions. In addition, 

the duration of effects is used in the evaluation of 

environmental consequences 

The five alternatives for the refuge are listed 

below. The effects of each of the five alternatives are 

described under the major resource topics described 

throughout this document. 

In addition, table 53 in section 7.20 following the 

description of consequences summarizes the alternatives’ actions and the associated consequences as 

described below. 

Elements Common to 

All Alternatives 

The following potential effects would be similar for 

each of the five alternatives: 

Implementation of the management direction 

(goals, objectives, and strategies) would follow 

the refuge complex’s best management practices. 

Management activities and programs would avoid 

and reduce adverse effects on federally threatened and endangered species, to the extent possible and practicable. 

The refuge staff, contractors, researchers, and 

other consultants would acquire all applicable 

permits, such as those for future construction 

activities. 

The sections below describe in more detail other 

effects expected to be similar for each alternative. 

Regulatory Effects 

As described in chapter 1 of this draft CCP, the 

Service must follow Federal laws, administrative 

orders, and policies in the development and implementation of its management actions and programs. 

Among these mandates are the Improvement Act, 

the ESA, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and compliance with Executive Order 11990–Protection of 

Wetlands and Executive Order 11988–Floodplain 

Management. The implementation of any of the 

alternatives described in this draft CCP and EA 

would not lead to a violation of these or other mandates. 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 245 

Environmental Justice 

Within the spirit and intent of Executive Order 

12898–Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income 

Populations, no actions being considered in this draft 

CCP and EA would disproportionately place any 

adverse environmental, economic, social, or health 

effects on minority or low-income populations when 

compared with the public. 

The Service is committed to ensuring that all 

members of the public have equal access to the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources, as well as equal 

access to information that would enable them to take 

part meaningfully in activities and policy shaping. 

Cultural Resources 

All of the alternatives would enhance cultural resources through protection of existing resources and 

extension of protection to newly discovered cultural 

resources. 

There have been limited cultural resource surveys performed on the refuge, so more surveys 

would be required before any new construction 

or excavation to fully satisfy provisions of the Archeological Resources Protection Act and other applicable acts and policies related to historical and 

archaeological resources. 

Potentially negative effects from construction 

of trails or facilities would require review by the 

Region 6 archaeologist and consultation with the 

Montana State Historic Preservation Office. 

7 .13 Consequences of 

Alternative A1 (Current 

Management –No Action) 

Most staff time and efforts are directed toward providing migration and breeding habitat every year 

for wetland-dependent wildlife, primarily waterfowl. 

The opportunity for waterfowl hunting every fall is 

provided. Water management within the wetland 

units on the refuge is similar each year so that units 

are flooded at approximately the same time and 

depths consistently creating a dominance of semipermanent wetland habitat. This water regime favors species dependent upon semipermanent water 

sources such as wading birds and waterfowl. Management efforts strive to reduce the dynamic shifts 

and variability in hydro-periods which cause fluctuations in water levels. Risk of botulism is reduced due 

to seasonal drying of lower units. The effects from 

the extended dry cycles are cut. Selenium accumulation and toxicity hazard to wildlife will continue to 

increase. Wetland health continues to decline and 

issues pertaining to selenium contamination hazard, 

nonnative or single-species dominance of vegetation communities are not addressed. The ability to 

absorb perturbations in the system is likely compromised. Over the life of the plan, wildlife-dependent 

recreation is estimated at 5,625 hunting visits; 750 

fishing visits; 114,750 wildlife observation and photography visits; and 26,625 visits for interpretive 

programming. Over the life of the plan, the total 

cost to carry out wetland basin management (operations and maintenance, pumping, monitoring, 

and prescriptive habitat treatment) is estimated to 

be $1,785,000. Staffing dedicated to refuge include: 

a part of the wildlife biologist, deputy complex wildlife refuge manager, maintenance worker, part-time 

generalist, and term biological technician with more 

support from the complex manager, wetland district 

manager, wildlife refuge specialist, assistant fire 

management officer, administrative officer, and budget analyst. 

Grasslands 

Native Grasslands 

Protection of native grasslands through easement 

programs continues to be a high priority throughout the refuge complex. New and expanded project 

areas and more money sources provide the potential for protecting great expanses of native prairie. 

However, with annual additions to easement acres 

and contracts, supporting the current level of proactive easement enforcement and landowner contact 

would eventually be compromised. Preserving and 

managing native prairie landscapes reduces soil erosion, supports water quality, effectively sequesters 

carbon and increases resiliency and resistance to 

disturbances such as climate change (Bangsund et al. 

2005). 

Refuge management of native grasslands would 

continue extensively, but imprecisely, using a coarse, 

generic approach because of limited resources for 

staff, money and long-term monitoring. Native 

grassland health, composition and native plant diversity are managed using fire and rest cycles on the 

refuge. Noxious weeds would continue to be treated 

using IPM and EDRR and the low presence of these 

species would likely continue. Cool-season, exotic 

grasses such as Japanese brome, Kentucky bluegrass and crested wheatgrass, have invaded significant areas of the refuge. With current management 

and resource allocation, these infestations would 
246 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

likely continue to expand and further degrade the 

quality of the native prairie. The invasion by nonnative species can extend beyond the displacement 

of native species and the reduction of diversity and 

include the alteration of energy and nutrient flows 

within the prairie ecosystem (Christian and Wilson 

1999). This could also affect reproductive success 

of grassland-nesting birds. For example, chestnutcollared longspurs, which are a common species of 

concern on the refuge, have been shown to have 

lower nest success, slower nestlings growth, and 

nestlings with smaller final mass in crested wheatgrass compared to native prairie (Lloyd and Martin 

2005). 

Tame Grasslands 

Management of tame grass on the refuge strives 

to support the health and longevity of stands with 

periodic disturbance using fire or haying in a rotational system within specific management units. 

Tame grass on the refuge is typically taller and 

denser than native prairie, providing more structural diversity which meets habitat requirements 

for a wide variety of grassland-dependent species. 

However, tame grass plantings consist of only three 

or four introduced plant species. Compared to native 

grasslands the diversity of soil invertebrate species and nutrient cycling processes would be vastly 

simplified. Tame grasslands are markedly less efficient in capturing and transferring solar energy, 

sequestering carbon and resisting disturbances such 

as invasive species (Bangsund et al. 2005). 

Nonnative Tree Plantings 

Currently there are no specific management activities in regard to tree plantings. Nonnative tree 

plantings contribute to fragmentation, depredation 

and parasitism, which negatively affect grasslanddependent migratory birds (Bakker 2003). Some of 

these bird species include species of concern, such 

as marbled godwits and chestnut-collared longspurs 

(unpublished records on file at Benton Lake Refuge). 

Nonnative tree plantings consist of a handful of 

introduced species that are far less diverse than 

native grassland communities compromised by their 

establishment. Tree plantings can also contribute to 

and provide opportunities for invasive noxious weed 

infestations. 

Nonnative tree plantings provide an unnatural 

change to the vegetative structure of the prairies. 

This allows some species to nest where they otherwise would not. The result is an increase in local species diversity, but with negative impacts to regional 

biological diversity. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

Water Quantity and Timing 

Units 1 and 2 would be flooded year-round. The 

lower units (Units 3–6) would be shallowly flooded 

all year except for July. A water budget model was 

developed with refuge staff and USGS to assess effects on changes in water management on the refuge 

(Nimick et al. 2011). This model is based on refuge 

water use records, precipitation, evaporation and 

runoff from 1970–2006. If the next 30 years were 

similar to the last 30 years, in a wet cycle, the refuge 

wetland basin would be greater than 50-percent 

full 4 years out of 15 and would never be less than 

7-percent full. In a dry cycle, the refuge wetland basin would be 10-percent or less full most years, but 

never completely dry (Nimick et al. 2011). 

Infrastructure 

With current infrastructure, the ability to channel water to all units for management objectives 

is available. However, the system is constrained in 

that all water that enters from Lake Creek must 

pass through Units 1 and 2 before moving to the 

lower units. The lower units (Units 3–6) are difficult 

to dewater, which limits options for management, 

especially botulism. In the lower units, water first 

enters extensive 1- to 3-foot deep ditches before it 

spreads across the wetlands. This reduces sheet flow 

which decreases the quantity and quality of flooded 

acres within the wetland (see wetland productivity 

section). 

Collectively, the dikes, roads and ditches have 

disrupted natural waterflow patterns into and 

through Benton Lake, affected wind- and waterrelated soil erosion and deposition patterns, and 

changed public access and disturbance of many areas 

on the refuge (Heitmeyer et al. 2009). For example, 

sheet flow that quickly moves across a wetland basin 

and shallowly floods the greatest area, which would 

warm quickly and make invertebrates, in particular, 

available to many birds, is delayed and altered by 

ditches that line each dike within the Benton Lake 

wetland. The dikes and ditches also create sediment traps altering the soil chemistry and microbial 

processes that support wetland function (Euliss et 

al. 2008). Holding water behind control structures 

changes the ecology of the wetlands. For example, 

mineral and organic nutrients that promotes a proliferation of plant life, especially algae, accumulate 

which then reduces the dissolved oxygen content 

and can cause the extinction of other organisms 

(Jarworski and Raphael 1978, Brix 1993). Impound­
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 247 

ments favor anoxia and inhibit the release of nutrients that could contribute to pulses in primary 

production by slowing mineralization (Brix 1993, 

Wetzel 2001, Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Scouring 

of sediment and transportation of mineralized nutrients are reduced due to impoundments (Euliss et al. 

2008). Water control structures also affect salinity 

and selenium accumulation by trapping and concentrating contaminants, and in the case of selenium, 

potentially preventing adequate soil oxygenation to 

volatilize the contaminant (Seiler et al. 1999, Euliss 

and Mushet 2004, Nelson and Reiten 2006). 

Water Quality 

Extensive research on selenium contamination and 

loading has been conducted on Benton Lake Refuge 

(Lambing et al. 1994, Nimick et al. 1996, Nimick 

1997, Zhang and Moore 1997, Henney et al. 2000). 

Because this alternative would continue current 

management, the average total load of selenium 

deposited on the refuge annually would be expected 

to be the same as has occurred over the last 30 years 

(151 pounds/ year, table 31). The total pounds of selenium that enter Benton Lake annually from pumped 

versus natural runoff would be highly variable 

among years depending on the relative amounts of 

water flowing to the lake from natural runoff in the 

Lake Creek watershed versus water pumped from 

Muddy Creek. On average, approximately 61 percent of the selenium comes from natural runoff and 

39 percent from pumped water. Pumping increases 

the total selenium load to the refuge and prevents 

long-term dry cycles, which could remove selenium 

from the system. 

A selenium cycling model, developed specifically 

for Benton Lake Refuge in 1997, predicted that 

Units 1 and 2 would become a toxic threat sufficient 

to cause complete, or nearly complete, reproductive failure in sensitive species of aquatic birds in 9 

and 17 years, respectively (Zhang and Moore 1997, 

Lemly 1995, 2002). As of 2008, selenium levels in 

Unit 1 had not yet reached the toxic threshold. This 

appears to be because selenium inputs from natural 

runoff were 86-percent below the long-term average 

used in the original calculations. It is expected that 

when natural runoff, and associated selenium inputs, 

increase during the next wet cycle, which appears to 

have begun in 2009, units 1 and 2 may again have as 

little as 9–17 years, respectively, before they become 

highly toxic, under current management. It may 

even be fewer years, because the selenium in the 

upper 0.8 inch of sediment of Unit 1 was 60-percent 

higher in 2008 than the original model values in 1994 

(Zhang and Moore 1997). If this occurred, drying 

out Unit 1 for more than 10 years would likely be 

necessary to try to remove selenium via volatilization (Zhang and Moore 1997). The new inlet wetland 

would likely be Unit 2, (due to infrastructure constraints), which if it continued to be flooded yearround for brood habitat, would likely cross the toxic 

threshold in 9 years. Due to the annual drying of the 

lower units, Units 3, 5, and 6 would never cross the 

toxic threshold. Unit 4, because of adjacent saline 

seeps, is predicted to cross the threshold in 67 years 

or less despite annual drying. 

If both Units 1 and 2 accumulated selenium levels in the sediment more than 4 μg/g, there may be 

only two choices left to protect wildlife—destroy the 

wetland to limit access by wildlife (as was done at 

Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge) or remove selenium contaminated sediment from the wetland and 

start over, which is an extremely costly endeavor 

(Zhang and Moore 1997). 

It is not currently known if phosphorous and 

other agrichemical nutrients are elevated in Benton Lake. Given the extensive conversion of native 

upland vegetation to farm production (wheat and 

barley) and farm practices such as crop and fallow 

farming in both the Muddy Creek and Lake Creek 

watersheds, it is a concern. Phosphorous and agrichemical nutrients further exacerbate and accelerate eutrophication (Craft and Richardson 1993a, 

b). Pumping would increase loads of these contaminants, but may also dilute concentrations. 

Wetland Productivity 

This alternative likely would continue to result in 

lower wetland productivity at potentially all levels 

of the food chain. Before 1961, Benton Lake experienced highly variable flooding and drying. After 

pumping began in 1962, refuge reports show that 

the wetland was very productive, as indicated by 

high waterfowl use. When a wetland refloods after a 

dry period, there is a pulse of nutrients that stimulates productivity in invertebrates, and some plants, 

which provides important food resources for waterfowl and other wetland-dependent wildlife (Magee 

1995). Since this time, however, Benton Lake has 

experienced relatively stable water conditions with 

much less variability in flooding and drying. Stable 

water conditions negatively impact nutrient cycling 

in wetlands by creating anaerobic conditions and denitrification which can alter plant and invertebrate 

communities (Gosselink and Turner 1978, Magee 

1995, Mitsch and Gosselink 2007, Malson et al. 2008, 

Euliss et al. 2008, Anteau 2012). 

Variable flooding and drying conditions are key to 

sustaining complex interactions that create diversity 

and abundance in resources, such as invertebrates, 

that wetland-dependent wildlife require for migration and breeding (Schneider 1999, Murkin and Ross 

1999, Anteau 2012). In general, greater diversity and 
248 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

abundance of invertebrates in wetlands supports a 

greater diversity of birds (Murkin and Ross 1999). 

When water conditions become more stable, optimal conditions for only a select suite of species are 

provided, plant and animal diversity is reduced and 

single species begin to dominate. However, the benefits for these species are likely to be short term and 

not sustainable if stable water conditions continue 

(Euliss et al. 2008, Anteau 2012). Although longterm, rigorous studies on invertebrates and other 

indicators of productivity have not been conducted 

at Benton Lake, the decreasing diversity of plant 

communities and waterfowl use observed by staff 

are likely to be primarily the result of stable water 

conditions. 

The continuation of adding at least 4,000 acrefeet of pumped water into the refuge every year 

would increase erosion along Lake Creek and the 

load of sediment and contaminants being washed 

into the basin over and above the amount coming in 

with natural runoff, thus compounding the negative 

effects of these inputs. Given that this has already 

been occurring for 50 years, another 15 years is 

likely to be even more detrimental to productivity, 

as hydrology in the wetland has been stabilized for 

many years (Murkin et al. 1997, van der Valk and 

Davis 1978). 

Wetland Vegetation 

Flooding the units to approximately the same level, 

at the same time, every year would likely cause 

existing stands of monotypic vegetation, such as 

alkali bulrush, cattails and invasive Garrison creeping foxtail to continue to expand or become denser, 

especially in a dry cycle. This is because pumped 

water would be creating consistent water levels 

that favor the expansion of these species rather than 

allowing drier conditions where these species would 

be replaced by vegetation that is more competitive 

during drought. A wet cycle, with significant flooding, may create more open areas where current vegetation is drowned out (van der Valk 1981, Murkin et 

al. 1997, Frederick and Ogden 2001, Heitmeyer et al. 

2009). 

Water Resources 

Water rights would be supported by continuing to 

use all water rights on an annual basis. 

Visitor Services 

A variety of visitor services opportunities exist. In 

FY 2011, approximately 10,000 visits occurred at the 

refuge. The most popular use continues to be wildlife 

observation (7,250 visits) followed with environmental education (1,700 participants), wildlife photography (400 visits), hunting (375 visits), interpretation 

(75 visits), and fishing (50 visits). Visits would be 

similar, with potential reductions, if habitat conditions continue to decline, which may affect usage of 

wildlife that attract refuge visitors. In addition, wet 

years with peak runoff, some uses would increase 

such as waterfowl hunting. 

Limited law enforcement patrols are needed to 

manage this use at the present level; however, if use 

increases more demands for staff time are possible. 

There is a potential for conflict between user groups. 

Hunting 

A water budget model was developed with refuge 

staff and USGS to assess effects on changes in water 

management on the refuge (Nimick et al. 2011). This 

model is based on refuge water use records, precipitation, evaporation and runoff from 1970–2006. If the 

next 30 years are similar to the last 30 years, in a 

wet cycle, the refuge would be greater than 50-percent full 4 years out of 15 and would never be less 

than 7-percent full. In a dry cycle, the refuge would 

be 10-percent, or less, full most years, but never 

completely dry (Nimick et al. 2011). During the wet 

years, waterfowl hunting may increase significantly 

for 1 to 2 years. This has been documented in fall 

of 2011, in which hunter use nearly doubled during 

a peak runoff year. During the dry cycle, hunter 

numbers are expected to be similar to hunter usage 

Kingsbury Waterfowl Production Area . One of the many wetland habitats on the refuge complex . 

USFWS 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 249 

recorded in past 10 years, which average approximately 300 visits annually. Over the past 15 years, 

waterfowl hunting peaks opening weekend with approximately 40 individual hunters. Weekends, until 

big game season opener, are about half the level of 

opening weekend with a peak of three to six hunting 

parties daily during the week. Just before freeze up, 

less than 6 hunting parties are generally using the 

refuge each day during the weekend. Over the life 

of the plan, the total waterfowl hunting visits are 

estimated to be 4,500 visits. 

In addition to opportunity is a measure of quality 

of hunting experience. The quality of the hunt would 

continue to be marginal (as described by hunters at 

refuge open houses). Available open water would 

continue to decline over time with single species 

dominating such as alkali bulrush or invasive Garrison creeping foxtail. Extreme wet events such as 

that documented in 2011 would help set back the 

Garrison, but it may rapidly return. Solidification 

of sediment is not addressed, so it would still be a 

difficult hunting experience for hunters due to the 

muck buildup in refuge units including hunt units. A 

quality hunt experience also includes availability of 

waterfowl. If habitat is marginal, this reduces bird 

use and limits species availability for hunting, lowering the quality of the hunting experience. 

Upland gamebird hunting is expected to remain 

relatively stable at 75 visits per year currently occurring, throughout the life of this plan totaling 

approximately 1,125 visits. No significant improvements would be expected in upland grasslands, so 

no increase in availability of birds for hunting is 

expected. Existing grasslands would continue to 

decline, which could affect bird numbers available to 

hunters. 

Total hunting visits annually would be approximately 375 visits with an estimated total for the life 

of the plan at 5,625 visits. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Primary focus of the wildlife observation and photography use is along the auto tour route, Boardwalk Prairie Marsh Trail, Lower Marsh Road, and 

grouse blind. No changes would occur at these 

facilities, except the possibility of another grouse 

blind being established due to repeated requests to 

enhance this opportunity since demand exceeds supply. This would result in a modest increase in visitor 

usage by approximately 100 visits per year. 

Wildlife observation and photography account for 

73 percent of overall annual visitation to the refuge. 

The number of visits are not expected to experience 

significant annual changes throughout the life of the 

plan; however, a slight decline from current usage 

is a possibility. Wildlife availability is not expected 

to change rapidly; however, not addressing serious 

management concerns such as selenium accumulation, lack of management of grassland habitat, and 

vegetative shifts resulting in single species dominance including invasive species would cause continued decline of wetland health and productivity. 

This, in turn, would result in steady reduced usage 

by wildlife. Visitors participating in wildlife observation and photography, which depend on the presence 

of wildlife, would be affected due to these declines. 

Although diversity of wildlife species (wetland 

and grassland-dependent species) is not expected 

to change, the number of individual species would 

continue to decline, which may affect observation 

numbers. If selenium levels result in toxic levels, 

significant declines in bird production would be expected, resulting in potential capping of the refuge 

and removal of observation opportunity and significant loss of species usage. 

Current use is very limited on some roads that 

are already open to motor vehicles. Waterbirds may 

be slightly disrupted from this use. The time of year 

that these activities take place and the extremely 

limited level of use would cause very little negative 

effect on wildlife or habitat. Users may gain knowledge of the Refuge System and the refuge. There is 

a potential for conflict between user groups. 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation 

We would expect no significant changes in the number of environmental education participants on the 

refuge, which is about 1,700 annually. Most of these 

participants would be Great Falls public schools 

third graders, STEM Expo participants, and the 

Montana Envirothon Event. These opportunities enhance the communities understanding of the Refuge 

System and mission of the Service, enhance environmental ethics, and develops advocacy of youth for 

natural resources. 

Staff and Funding 

Total costs for pumping ($960,000) and operations 

and maintenance ($825,000) through the life of the 

plan is estimated to cost $1,785,000. 

Operations and maintenance for managing water 

requires staff to manage the water movement, record and produce annual water use reports. Support 

and run the pump house, and perform regular maintenance on the infrastructure associated with water 

management. The cost of operations and maintenance at the FY 2011 rates is expected to average 

$55,000 per year. For the life of the plan, operations 

and maintenance is estimated to cost $825,000. The 
250 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

price per acre-feet of pumped water varies significantly year to year. Based on the last 10 years, costs 

per-acre feet have ranged from $13.13 to $23.60. In 

addition to cost per-acre feet variable by year so is 

the amount of pumped water due to variations in 

natural runoff. In the past 10 years, the amount of 

pumped water has ranged from 2,849 to 5,082 acrefeet. The average acre-feet pumped per year and the 

cost per acre-feet used for costs estimates is $16 per 

acre-feet with an average pumped acre-feet of water 

of 4,000 acre-feet. Electricity expenses for pumping 

are estimated to cost $960,000 over 15 years. If energy prices go up, which is considered likely, either 

total cost would be higher, or less water could be 

pumped. 

Under current management, inventory and 

monitoring is completed primarily by the wildlife 

biologist, seasonal biological technician, and through 

the help of the deputy refuge complex manager. Selenium sampling has occurred and water usage is 

documented. 

No prescriptive habitat treatment is actively occurring within the wetland units. 

Staff limitations under current management 

would remain and be stretched thinner with each 

added conservation easement in the three approved 

conservation areas. Easement contracts, evaluations, and preliminary acquisition work—inherently 

district manager’s responsibilities—are supported 

by a temporally shared full-time position. Other 

easement programs (Farmers Home Administration, grassland, wetland) would continue to be administered but with little to no time to cultivate 

interest for acquisition. 

Management of native prairie tracts would be ongoing but limited staff time does not allow site specific, quantitative monitoring of species composition 

and vegetative trends. This information is necessary 

to evaluate the success of current management regimes. 

Farming and reseeding degraded tame grass 

stands have been considered but shortages of resources has prevented any concerted efforts. As 

tame grass stands continue to degrade over time 

into poor habitat conditions, the initial resources to 

address these habitat needs grows substantially. 

Currently there are no specific management activities in regard to tree plantings. 

Current predator control efforts require 60 staff 

hours over 4 months. Added costs for bait, traps, and 

fuel are a few hundred dollars per year. 

Resource Protection

 Currently, law enforcement patrols are limited to 

managing visitor services and resource protection. 

7 .14 Consequences of 

Alternative B1 

Most staff time and efforts would be directed toward 

providing migration and breeding habitat every year 

for wetland-dependent wildlife, primarily waterfowl. 

A 50-percent reduction in the amount of brood habitat compared to alternative A1 is expected. Management within the wetland units includes short-term 

dry cycle and application of intensive prescriptive 

habitat treatment. Risk of botulism could be elevated over alternative A1 if summer flooding in 

lower units becomes necessary. Compared to alternative A1, selenium input into the wetland may be 

reduced and increase in removal of accumulated 

selenium may occur. Reduction in the toxic hazard to 

wildlife is expected, but less certain than the other 

alternatives. Short-term improvement in the health 

and sustainability of the wetland units is expected 

from reducing selenium contaminant levels, controlling nonnative vegetation, and stimulating productivity. The ability to absorb perturbations in the 

system is expected to improve over alternative A1, 

but is not self-sustainable. Over the life of the plan, 

wildlife-dependent recreation is estimated to be similar to alternative A1 for fishing visits; wildlife observation and photography visits; and interpretation 

and environmental education programming visits. 

Hunting visits are expected to increase 10-percent 

over alternative A1. Over the life of the plan, the 

total cost to carry out wetland basin management 

(operations and maintenance, pumping, monitoring, 

and prescriptive habitat treatment) is estimated 

to range from $2,641,000 to $2,829,000. Compared 

to alternative A1, an increase of a term biological 

technician, two seasonal biological technicians, and 

a maintenance worker dedicated to the refuge and 

a proportion of supervisory wildlife biologist, generalist, and law enforcement officer assigned to the 

complex are necessary to carry out this alternative. 

Grasslands 

Native Grasslands 

Same as alternative A1, plus, with the increased 

effort to manage Benton Lake wetlands, there may 

be more declines in biological diversity, ecological 

integrity and environmental health of the refuge native grasslands. 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 251 

Tame Grasslands 

Same as alternative A1. 

Nonnative Tree Plantings 

Same as alternative A1. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

Water Quantity and Timing 

Either Unit 1 or 2 would be flooded year-round 

through the life of the plan to provide brood habitat. 

Each of the lower units would be dried out one at a 

time for at least 3 years. It is assumed that 3 years 

would be sufficient to get enough drying, but this 

may end up being longer (4–6+ years). Flooded units 

would still be allowed to dry during July. In a wet 

cycle, the refuge would be greater than 50-percent 

full 3 years out of 15 and would never be less than 

5-percent full. In a dry cycle, the refuge would be 

10 percent, or less, full most years, but never completely dry (Nimick et al. 2011). However, during a 

wet cycle, intended drying rotations may be delayed 

by high levels of natural runoff. 

Infrastructure 

Same as alternative A1. 

Water Quality 

Initially, Unit 1 would be dried out to reduce the 

selenium contamination in the sediments to less than 

2 μg/g, a level where selenium may be slightly elevated in one or more ecosystem components, but 

no imminent toxic threat exists (Lemly 1995, 2002). 

Based on current selenium concentrations in the 

sediment of Unit 1, and a sediment volatilization 

rate estimated for Benton Lake (Zhang and Moore 

1997), the Service estimates at least 8 years of drying to reduce selenium in Unit 1 to an average of 

less than 2 μg/g. During this time, natural runoff 

and pumped water would enter into Unit 2 (via the 

old Lake Creek channel in Unit 1), which would now 

accumulate selenium at a higher rate (Zhang Moore 

1997). If using the old Lake Creek channel is not 

successful, a diversion channel may be constructed. 

If the next 15 years are dry, alternating every 2 

years between Units 1 and 2, after the initial 8 years 

of drying, may keep selenium contamination at an 

acceptable level. Conversely, in a wet cycle, with 

increased natural runoff, the selenium levels in Unit 

2 would rise more quickly during the drying of Unit 

1, and it may not be possible to keep both units below the 2 μg/g threshold. However, if reductions in 

inputs could be achieved through work in the Lake 

Creek watershed described under Partnerships for 

Conservation, this concern could be reduced. 

In Units 3-6 have lower starting concentrations 

of selenium than Units 1 and 2 in the sediment. Rotating short-term dry cycles (3+years), as well as 

annual drying in July, should keep these units below 

the toxic threshold. 

The potential for improving any contamination 

from phosphorous, nitrogen and agrichemicals is 

unknown and would need monitoring. 

Wetland Productivity 

The overall effect on wetland productivity is uncertain in this alternative. The rotation of short-term 

dry cycles across units will increase the variability 

in flooding and drying that stimulates productivity 

(Frederickson and Reid 1995). However, the annual 

variation will not be the same as historic flooding 

and drying cycles. Productivity, for example in invertebrates, would likely be reduced because these 

species may not be adapted to these short term 

flooding and drying cycles (Magee et al. 1999). This 

alternative is not a self-sustaining system and would 

need significant management action intervention to 

stimulate diversity of plant and animal communities 

and improve productivity (Euliss et al. 2008). 

Although a dry cycle would be implemented at 

the scale of an individual impoundment, the effects 

of long-term (10-20 year) wet and dry cycles at the 

scale of the entire refuge and the landscape would 

not be emulated with management. Long-term 

cycles at the refuge and landscape scale stimulate 

cycles of invertebrate communities, plant communities, and mammalian predators that create complex 

interactions that are not emulated by managing at 

the individual impoundment level. For example, 

some invertebrates are able to exploit newly flooded 

wetlands because they hold over in dry wetland 

sediments. This creates a window of opportunity 

to be very productive before other invertebrates, 

that must find the wetland by flying from distant 

wetlands, arrive and compete for resources. After an 

extended dry cycle, with few if any nearby flooded 

wetlands, this could take some time. In this alternative, this early window will not exist because newly 

flooded units will be immediately invaded from an 

adjacent flooded unit (Murkin and Ross 1999). Similarly, landscape-wide dry cycles that historically reduced communities of predators that prey on nesting 

birds will not occur under this alternative because 

Benton Lake will always have water somewhere 

that attracts prey for these predators (for example, 

Krapu et al. 2004). 
252 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Wetland Vegetation 

Introducing at least a 3-year drying cycle rotation is 

expected to increase wetland vegetation diversity 

across the wetland basin. As units dry, monotypic 

stands of emergent vegetation, such as alkali bulrush, cattails and Garrison creeping foxtail, would 

die and give way to drier, terrestrial vegetation. 

How quickly this happens would likely depend on 

weather, the existing seedbank, any potential subirrigation from neighboring units and more management actions such as prescribed fire or discing. This 

may also create newly exposed mudflats that could 

provide opportunities for nonnatives such as Canada 

thistle to become established. 

Once a unit is reflooded, it would transition from 

flooded grasses and annual forbs, to more open water as these plants die, to eventual reestablishment 

of alkali bulrush, cattails and possibly, Garrison 

creeping foxtail. During the flooding phase, these 

plants would likely continue to expand and reform 

dense, monotypic stands, as in alternative A1. In 

addition, in units that are not immediately dried, 

the emergent vegetation would continue to expand, 

as well as the nonnative Garrison creeping foxtail. 

A more aggressive drying rotation could be implemented by having more units in the dry cycle and 

fewer in the wet cycle. This would start reducing the 

emergent vegetation and reset the vegetation cycle 

(described above) on more of the refuge. Conversely, 

a wet cycle, with significant flooding, may create 

wetlands with large open areas where current vegetation is drowned out (van der Valk 1981, Murkin et 

al. 1997, Heitmeyer et al. 2009). 

Water Resources 

Same as alternative A1. 

Visitor Services 

A variety of visitor services opportunities would 

occur, with wildlife observation the dominant use. 

Overall visits for wildlife observation and hunting 

may increase slightly compared to alternative A1 

due to improvement within individual units from 

management efforts to emulate natural processes 

such as drying. Some restrictions in the availability 

of use may occur due to rotation of units through 

variety of management prescriptions. The quality 

of visitor use experiences may improve as habitat 

quality improves based on the management prescriptions. 

Hunting 

Overall hunter numbers are expected to remain 

stable with slight increases (approximately 10 percent) possible, and the quality of the experience is 

expected to improve. The long-term trend at Benton 

Lake has been an overall decline in hunter numbers; 

however, the Service expects stable numbers with 

perhaps a modest increase from alternative A1. 

A decrease in waterfowl hunters in individual 

units exposed to drying is expected. Units may be 

dry between 3 and 4 years eliminating waterfowl 

hunting opportunity during the treatment phase. 

This loss of opportunity is expected to be compensated by an increase in open water available to hunters in other units already receiving prescriptive 

management. Annually, waterfowl hunting visits 

are projected to be 330 visits per year, with approximately 4,950 waterfowl hunting visits expected over 

the life of the plan. 

The short-term dry cycles are expected to 

improve habitat conditions of wetlands, which in 

turn, may improve the overall quality of hunting 

for waterfowl hunters over alternative A1. Available open-water habitat is expected to increase and 

improve over time. Over time, management actions 

are expected to reduce the Garrison creeping foxtail, 

alkali bulrush, and cattail stands. Solidification of the 

wetland sediments is expected to improve access for 

waterfowl hunters in the hunt units. Prescriptive 

habitat treatments are expected to improve habitat 

and in turn increase the availability of waterfowl, 

improving the hunting experience. These benefits 

are greatest in the years immediately following drying, prescriptive treatment, and flooding and would 

eventually diminish over time with subsequent stable water management. 

The individual wetland unit would be the focus of 

restoration efforts. In addition, due to the rotational 

system some units would not receive treatment until 

toward the end of the 15-year planning process. In 

turn, these improvements in habitat that are linked 

to hunting experience may not occur immediately 

and be spread across the latter half of the planning 

process (years 8–15). Units experiencing treatment 

are expected to improve more rapidly. If habitat 

objectives are not met, more drying would be implemented throughout the units, which may reduce the 

availability of fall water for hunting waterfowl. 

To administer a rotational system would require 

shifting the available hunting units. This could lead 

to confusion by hunters, especially if these changes 

occur on an annual basis. This may require hunters 

to annually refresh themselves on the rules and regulations associated with hunting on the refuge. This 

would take greater effort from refuge staff as well to 

clearly communicate the changes and expectations 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 253 

of refuge hunters through open houses and other 

outreach efforts. Although unlikely, the rotational 

system may contribute to access challenges for hunters based on closed area restrictions. 

An increase in upland gamebird hunter visits due 

to the expansion of available habitat is expected. 

The annual upland hunting visits is estimated to be 

83 visits and over the life of the plan 1,245 upland 

gamebird-hunting visits is expected. 

Total estimated annual hunting visits for waterfowl and upland gamebird is 413 visits and 6,195 

visits over the life of the plan. This is a 10-percent 

increase over alternative A1, which is the highest 

expected hunting visits of any of the alternatives. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Same as alternative A1, plus the improvements in 

habitat would be expected to result in healthier 

wildlife populations than alternative A1, which 

would include greater diversity of species and more 

opportunity for wildlife observation and photography. 

The auto tour route, and the opening of other 

interior roads (after July 15), may vary due to rotation and changes in the closed area. By changing 

water management within the units, waterbirds may 

become less habituated to traffic and therefore may 

be more disrupted with bicyclists or hikers passing 

by or stopping to observe. Visitors may have difficulty telling which roads are open and which are 

closed on a yearly basis. Maintenance of roads would 

cost more and would need to be conducted more 

frequently if use increases. 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation 

Same as alternative A1, plus opportunities for wetland based interpretation and education would still 

exist although potentially in different locations. 

Under alternative A1, Unit 2 has been used by the 

GFPS as the location for the segment of the third 

grade visits that deals with wetlands. Under this 

alternative, Unit 2 may be dry. If this occurs, the 

onsite sampling location could easily be moved to 

another location within the wetland basin. 

Staff and Funding 

Expenses associated with pumping would be the 

same as alternative A1, plus this alternative would 

need increases in money and staff to support the 

intense prescriptive management and rotational 

dry cycle per unit. Staff increases to accomplish 

this alternative include: a large part of the supervisory biologist assigned to the complex to supervise 

biological activities associated with the refuge and 

help the deputy complex manager manage the water movement, record, and produce annual water 

use reports, support and run the pump station; 1.0 

FTE biological technician and two 0.8-FTE seasonal 

biological technicians to watch selenium, botulism, 

vegetation, nest success, and bird use; and 1.0 FTE 

maintenance worker to help manage, support the 

pump house and infrastructure and conduct some 

of the prescriptive management treatments. In 

addition, the addition of full time law enforcement 

officer assigned to the complex would provide approximately 25 percent of their time helping with 

issues on the refuge. 

Over the life of the plan, the total expenses for 

operations and maintenance, pumping, monitoring, 

and prescriptive habitat management are estimated 

to range from $2,641,000 to $2,829,000. 

 Operations and maintenance expenses are estimated to be similar to alternative A1 ($825,000 over 

the life of the plan). 

Pumping expenses can vary due to how much 

natural runoff is received and how much pumping is 

necessary. Due to this variability estimates were calculated on whether a wet cycle is encountered or a 

dry cycle. Pumping could range between $991,000 to 

$1,048,000 over the life of the plan, a slight increase 

from alternative A1. 

Ensuring that results toward meeting selenium, 

vegetation, and wetland health objectives are occurring, would require significant monitoring efforts 

Students from Centerville, Montana, identify birds at the 

visitor center at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge . 

USFWS 
254 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

over alternative A1. Monitoring costs are estimated 

to be $45,000 per year totaling $675,000 over the life 

of the plan. 

Prescriptive management (such as discing, grazing, prescribed fire, or mowing) will predominately 

be accomplished in-house through Maintenance Action Teams or staff. The costs are expected to vary 

based on seasonal conditions from $150,000-$281,000 

over the life of the plan. 

Redirecting permanent staff from other units 

within the refuge complex would be necessary to 

help meet the pumping, operations and maintenance, 

monitoring, and habitat treatment expenditures. 

If pumping costs continue to raise this would need 

an added proportion of staff time and discretionary 

money to cover the expenditure or reduction in the 

amount of pumped acre-feet of water. 

Monitoring refuge-wide nest success as part of 

the predator-trapping effort would need a substantial increase in staff time compared to alternative 

A1. Past nest success monitoring conducted on the 

refuge required at least 3 staff people for 2 months. 

In addition, preplanning, data entry, analysis and 

summary would need another month of the biologist’s time. Added cost for equipment would likely 

be less than $1,000 per year. 

One-time costs associated with this alternative 

include diversion channel. The structure has been 

suggested as a possible enhancement of water movement by diverting water from Units 1 and 2. Costs 

for constructing the channel were estimated at 

$100,000 in 2005. 

Resource Protection 

Law enforcement patrols commitments would be 

increased to make sure users understand changes 

in visitor access necessary to accommodate efforts 

to improve habitat. Preventative law enforcement 

efforts such as signing, news releases, informational 

open houses and notice posting would be increased 

over alternative A1 to help reduce confusion and 

increase compliance of visitors to refuge rules and 

regulations. 

7 .15 Consequences of 

Alternative B2 

Initial dry period and application of intensive prescriptive habitat treatment basin-wide is expected 

to improve the health and sustainability of the wetland basin and reduce selenium contaminant levels, 

control nonnative vegetation, and stimulate productivity. This alternative will provide will provide 

for a wide suite of migratory bird species (shorebirds, waterfowl, and grassland birds) over the life 

of the plan, and if pumping is resumed, migration 

and breeding habitat for wetland-dependent wildlife 

would occur more frequently than under a natural 

hydro-period. Compared to alternative B1, selenium 

input into the wetland is expected to be reduced at 

least 15-20 percent and removal of accumulated selenium will increase. A reduction in the toxic hazard 

to wildlife is expected. Short-term improvements 

in wetland health with long-term sustainability improved over alternatives A1 and B1, but it is not 

expected to be self-sustainable. Improvement in 

grassland habitats expected from conversion up 

to 207 acres of tame grass and removal up to 3.5 

miles of shelterbelt habitat. The ability to absorb 

perturbations in the system is expected to improve 

over alternative B1 due to initial dry period, but 

is not self-sustainable once flooding resumes Over 

the life of the plan, wildlife-dependent recreation is 

estimated to be similar to alternative A1 for fishing 

visits; wildlife observation and photography visits; 

and interpretation and environmental education 

programming visits. Over the life of the plan, hunting visits are expected to decrease 15 percent over 

alternative A1. Over the life of the plan, the total 

cost to carry out wetland basin management (operations and maintenance, pumping, monitoring, 

and prescriptive habitat treatment) is estimated 

to range from $1,816,000 to $2,263,000. One-time 

implementation costs for grassland restoration are 

expected to total $36,000. Staffing to carry out the 

alternative are the same as alternative B1. 

Grasslands 

Native Grasslands 

During the initial, basin-wide drying period, more 

complex resources would be available to protect and 

manage grasslands as described for alternative C1. 

If pumping is reintroduced, intensive management 

would resume and effects would be the same as alternative B1. 

Tame Grasslands 

During the initial, basin-wide drying period, up to 

207 acres of degraded tame grass stands would be 

planted back to native grass species where proper 

and feasible. This would be followed with prescribed 

fire and grazing management to emulate historical 

processes and gradually recover soil mycorrhizae, 

invertebrate diversity and symbiotic relationships. 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 255 

The associated nutrient cycles would be largely improved in comparison to mining the soil nutrients 

through rotational haying systems used to manage 

tame grass. Once native grass species are reestablished, soil erosion potential should be negligible, 

with permanent plant cover breaking the cropping 

cycle of tame grass. Carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling would be significantly greater in a more 

floristically diverse community. 

Nonnative Tree Plantings 

The strategic removal of 3.5 miles of nonnative 

tree plantings on the refuge would restore contiguous grassland habitat and reduce negative effects of fragmentation, predation and parasitism 

to grassland-dependent migratory birds (Bakker 

2003). Distance to a wooded edge has been shown in 

many studies to increase nest predation and displace 

grassland species (Bakker 2003). This makes grassland habitat around tree plantings either unavailable 

or less desirable for grassland species. The distance 

varies by study area and species, but the Service estimates that between 65 and 750 acres of grassland 

habitat would become available or more desirable to 

grassland species by removing these trees (Bakker 

2003). The highest priority plantings for removal are 

those that bisect large tracts of native prairie. 

There may be a decrease in the diversity of migratory and resident bird species that depend on 

planted tree habitats. However, there would still be 

15.5 miles of nonnative tree plantings on the refuge 

in addition to other nearby habitats, including the 

Missouri River riparian areas and neighboring agricultural tree plantings. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

Water Quantity and Timing 

The refuge would stop pumping for an initial period 

(approximately 8 years). During this time, all wetland units would only receive natural run-off. Once 

wetland objectives are met, pumping may be phased 

back in slowly with careful monitoring (with a rotational system similar to alternative B1). Long-term 

and recent weather patterns suggest the next 15 

years are likely to be a wet cycle, so the success of 

this approach is highly uncertain. To be successful in 

this alternative, the period of not pumping will need 

to coincide with a natural dry cycle which may not 

occur during the initial years of this plan. 

Infrastructure 

Same as alternative A1. 

Water Quality 

As described in alternative B1, Unit 1 is estimated 

to take at least 8 years of drying to reduce selenium in the sediment to levels where flooding with 

pumped water could be reintroduced. Since both 

Units 1 and 2 will be drying simultaneously in this 

alternative, the selenium levels in both units will be 

decreasing during the initial drying period, which 

will make it easier to keep the units below toxic 

thresholds if pumping is reintroduced. The initial 

drying phase will also reduce selenium inputs over 

the life of the plan by 15-20 percent compared to 

alternative B1. The initial drying phase, with the 

associated reduction in resources needed to manage 

water, would also provide an opportunity to work 

more intensely in the Muddy Creek and Lake Creek 

watersheds to reduce selenium inputs. This may 

make pumping more sustainable if it is reintroduced 

and reduce some of the negative effects of altering 

the natural hydrology described for alternative B1. 

Wetland Productivity 

Following the initial, basin-wide drying period, the 

wetland productivity should improve as described 

for alternative C1. If pumping is reintroduced, intensive monitoring would be needed to support improvements and prevent or reduce negative effects 

of altering the natural hydrology described for alternatives A and B1. 

Wetland Vegetation 

During the initial, basin-wide drying period, a reduction in monotypic stands of emergent vegetation 

such as cattail and alkali bulrush would be expected. 

In addition, Garrison creeping foxtail may decline 

more rapidly than alternative B1 because there will 

not be the potential of subirrigation from adjacent 

flooded units and the seedbank will be decreasing 

across the whole basin. If pumping is reintroduced, 

intensive monitoring would be needed to support 

improvements and prevent or reduce negative effects of altering the natural hydrology described for 

alternatives A and B1. 

Water Resources 

Same as alternative C1. Water rights should be preserved as long as pumping occurs within an 8-year 

time period (USFWS Solicitor). However, if objec­
256 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

tives are not met and more drying is necessary, this 

may risk the Muddy Creek rights if challenged by 

other users. No changes or risk of loss is expected 

for Lake Creek water rights for they would be exercised throughout the life of the plan by capturing 

natural run-off. 

Visitor Services 

A variety of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities would be available. There would be an initial 

drying period until habitat objectives are met, with 

subsequent flooding on a regular basis as long as 

habitat objectives were supported. This would result 

in a mixture of effects on visitor services by reflecting a drying period similar to alternative C1 and a 

flooding regime similar to alternative B1. 

Hunting 

An increase in the number of waterfowl hunting 

visits is expected over alternatives C1 and C2 and 

a decrease from alternatives A1 and B1. The exact 

amount of time needed for drying is uncertain, and 

the exact number of years of pumping is not known. 

For these estimates, the Service assumed there 

would be nearly an even split between the number 

of years of pumping and drying. However, long-term 

hydrographs suggest we are currently in year 2 of 

a potential 5-year wet cycle, and it is likely that it 

would not be possible to begin a dry period for 3–5 

years. 

If pumping is reinstated, waterfowl hunting annually visits could be as much as alternative B1 with 

an average 330 visits per year. During nonpumping 

years, the projected average annual use of 120 visits 

per year should be similar to alternatives C1 and C2. 

If the Service assumes 8 years of dry and 7 years of 

pumping, the number of waterfowl-hunting visits 

over the life of the plan is estimated to be up to 3,375 

visits. 

The improvements in habitat condition are expected to improve waterfowl hunting experience 

similar to alternative B1; plus these improvements 

will be significant especially during the waterfowl 

hunting season following an extended dry period. 

Improvements in the grasslands habitats may 

occur, but are not expected until the later years of 

the plan (years 10–15). Improvement to grasslands 

includes the planned conversion of 207 acres of tame 

grassland to native prairie and the removal of interiorly placed shelterbelts (3.5 miles). This may 

negatively affect some of the nonnative upland game 

species (pheasants and Hungarian partridges) and to 

a lesser extent native sharp-tailed grouse that are 

accustomed to using nonnative grasslands and shelterbelts for shelter and food. This reduction in usage 

of upland gamebirds may affect upland hunters. 

During the dry period, more habitat would be 

available to hunt upland gamebirds. In addition, the 

upland gamebird hunting season will be expanded, 

which would provide more hunting opportunities. 

This is expected to result in an increase in upland 

gamebird visits. Upland gamebird-hunting visits 

have been estimated by averaging alternatives B1 

and alternative C1, which totals 1,380 visits over the 

life of the plan. This exceeds upland game hunting 

visits for alternatives A1 and B1 and is less than 

alternatives C1 and C2. 

Total hunting visits on a yearly basis is estimated 

to be 317 visits per year and 4,755 visits over the 

life of the plan. This is a 15-percent decrease from 

alternative A1. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Same as alternative B1, plus during the reset dry 

period, the ability to observe certain water-dependent wildlife would be more variable. Water modeling suggests that there would be water on the 

refuge in March–May in 22 years out of 30. This 

means that there would continue to be an opportunity to see water-dependent wildlife most years, 

although in some years it may be limited to migrating, as opposed to breeding birds. Refuge staff are 

committed to continuing to provide wildlife observation opportunities and are interested in hearing 

ideas from the public on ways that the upland wildlife viewing could be expanded. While grassland 

birds can be more challenging to observe, they are 

a group of birds of high conservation concern due to 

their continental population declines, and the refuge 

would like to increase education and awareness of 

these species. 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation 

Same as alternative A1, plus an emphasis on interpretation and education relating to the restoration efforts to meet habitat objectives and wetland 

health and productivity would begin. 

Staff and Funding 

Staff necessary to accomplish this alternative would 

be the same as alternative B1; however, slight shifts 

in proportion of staff time spent on the refuge versus other complex units are expected to change 

slightly. This includes reduction of time by supervisory biologist, wetland district manager, wildlife 

refuge specialist, and an increase in time by the com­
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 257 

plex’s Assistant Fire Management Officer to conduct 

more prescribe fires. 

Over the life of the plan, the total expenses for 

operations and maintenance, pumping, monitoring, 

and prescriptive habitat management are estimated 

to range from $1,816,000 to $2,263,000. This is less 

than alternative B1 and slightly higher than alternative A1. Operations and maintenance costs would 

vary from nonpumping years ($5,000 per year) to 

pumping years ($55,000 per year). Operations and 

maintenance costs for the life of the plan are estimated to total $425,000, which is less than alternatives A1 and B1. Pumping would not occur during 

the initial drying phase (8 plus years), but would 

resume if habitat objectives are met and supported. 

Pumping expenses are estimated to occur annually 

once the initial drying period resets the system. 

Pumping costs across the life of the plan are estimated to range from $434,000 to–$729,000, depending on how much natural runoff is received. 

Monitoring would be a significant expense and is 

estimated to be the same as alternative B1. Intense 

monitoring during the initial drying period and annually, if pumping is resumed, would be necessary to 

make sure habitat objectives are being met. Monitoring expenses are estimated to total $45,000 per 

year and $675,000 for the life of the plan. 

During the initial drying period, all units would 

be undergoing rapid prescriptive habitat treatment; 

this exceeds management expenditures compared to 

all other alternatives. It is expected to require not 

only in-house staffing to accomplish, but contracted 

help as well. This very intensive treatment is expected to set back the accumulated negative effects 

that the lack of drying has caused from the last 50 

years of repetitive water level management. Management treatments are estimated to total $282,000 

to$434,000 depending on the natural runoff. 

Added one-time costs associated with this alternative include: shelterbelt restoration of 3.5 

miles and up to 207 acres of tame grass conversion 

to native species. Forestry cutters are available 

within Region 6 and maybe reserved in advance for 

specific projects; such as shelterbelt restoration. 

The tree removal work could be accomplished by 

existing staff in the fall and winter months. Costs 

to remove 3.5 miles of planted trees would be approximately $1,000 and include: fuel, maintenance 

of the equipment (replacing teeth and fluids, repairing breakdowns, and herbicide treatment for two 

growing seasons, and grass reseeding. The conversion of up to 207 acres of tame grass is estimated to 

cost $35,000. This would be completed over multiple 

years. These projects are expected to be completed 

during the extended drying period. 

Resource Protection 

Same as for alternative B. 

7 .16 Consequences 

of Alternative C1 

(Proposed Action) 

The long-term sustainability of the whole refuge 

will be restored which will help a wide suite of migratory bird species (waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

grassland birds) over the life of the plan. Compared 

to alternative A1, selenium input into the wetland is 

expected to be reduced at least 40 percent and removal of accumulated selenium will be maximized. A 

reduction in the toxic hazard to wildlife is expected. 

Restoring the full extent of the dry cycle improves 

the wetland health with long-term sustainability 

over alternatives A1, B1, and B2, and is expected 

to be self-sustainable. Improvement in grassland 

habitats expected from conversion up to 728 acres of 

tame grass and removal up to 19 miles of shelterbelt 

habitat. The ability of wetlands and grasslands to 

absorb perturbations in the system is expected to 

greatly improve over alternatives A1, B1 and B2 

since resistance and resiliency is strengthened from 

the restoration of natural processes. Over the life of 

the plan, wildlife-dependent recreation is estimated 

to be similar to alternative A1 for fishing visits with 

an increase of 25 percent for wildlife observation and 

photography visits and interpretation and environmental education programming visits. Over the life 

of the plan, hunting visits are expected to decrease 

41 percent over alternative A1. Over the life of the 

plan, the total cost to carry out wetland basin management (operations and maintenance, pumping, 

monitoring, and prescriptive habitat treatment) is 

estimated to range from $809,000 to $941,000. Onetime implementation costs for grassland restoration 

are expected to total $118,500. Restoration of the 

wetland basin could range from $0 to $4,000,000 if 

complete removal of water management infrastructure is necessary. Compared to alternative A1, an 

increase of a term biological technician and seasonal 

biological technician dedicated to the refuge and a 

proportion of supervisory wildlife biologist, generalist, law enforcement officer, and park ranger 

assigned to the complex are necessary to carry out 

this alternative. 
258 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Grasslands 

Same as alternative B2 during the initial drying 

phase, plus more resources would be available to 

manage and improve the quality of native prairie in 

the uplands. In addition, more acres of tame grass 

(up to 728) are likely to be replanted to native prairie and the associated benefits, as described under 

alternative B2, realized on more acres. 

Approximately half of the refuge is native, 

mixed-grass prairie. While some areas have been 

invaded by nonnative grasses such as crested wheatgrass, Japanese brome and cheatgrass, it remains 

a major block of nearly 6,000 acres of native grassland habitat in a larger landscape where most of this 

valuable resource has been lost. 

The refuge has tremendous value to grassland 

birds, the group of birds that have experienced the 

most severe population declines in recent history. 

For example, chestnut-collared longspurs and grasshopper sparrows are abundant and the Sprague’s 

pipit, which is a candidate for listing under the ESA, 

regularly occurs on the refuge. The refuge sharptailed grouse viewing blind is extremely popular 

with the public. Even in dry years, the refuge would 

have value to wildlife and meet its purpose as a refuge and breeding ground for birds. 

The removal of the nonnative tree plantings (up 

to 19 miles) established in native grasslands would 

occur. This would have the same effects as described 

for alternative B2, plus the most acreage of grassland habitat would become available or more desirable to grassland bird species by removing the 

trees (Bakker 2003). Up to 18 species of migratory 

birds that nest primarily in trees and shrubs may no 

longer nest on the refuge. However, there are many 

tree plantings that surround the refuge and some of 

these species may still use the refuge for feeding and 

resting. The loss of nesting habitat for loggerhead 

shrikes and Swainson’s hawks on the refuge would 

not be expected to have a significant negative effect on the overall populations of these species. The 

cost to remove all nonnative tree plantings would 

increase over those described in alternative B2 to 

approximately $3,500 and 40 days of staff time. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

Water Quantity and Timing 

The hydrology of the basin would be restored with 

flooding and drying cycles decided by natural runoff. 

In a wet cycle, the wetland basin would be greater 

than 50-percent full 3 years and could be dry 7 years 

out of 15. In a dry cycle, the refuge would be dry 

most years (Nimick et al. 2011). Historical records 

over the last century show that the refuge went 

through wet periods in the early 1920s, late 1930s, 

late 1950s, mid-1970s and early 1990s, or about every 

10–20 years, with dry periods inbetween (Heitmeyer 

et al. 2009). Precipitation and runoff have increased 

in the last 2 years, which may be suggesting that 

over the initial 3–8 years of this plan, it may be a wet 

cycle. 

Infrastructure 

The Service would use an adaptive management 

approach to removing the wetland infrastructure. 

A long-billed curlew with a wide-prairie view on the refuge complex . 

Jeff Van Tine 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 259 

Refuge staff would start with the smallest modifications necessary and only proceed to full removal if it 

is necessary because monitoring results show that 

sufficient progress is not being made toward the 

refuge objectives. By just restoring the natural hydrology, and decreasing the frequency and duration 

of flooding, subsurface and surface moisture gradients would be improved (Euliss et al. 2008). Unless 

infrastructure is modified; however, it may prevent 

full restoration of these gradients that directly influence vegetative and macro invertebrate distribution 

within the wetland basin. 

Modifications may also be necessary to restore 

natural waterflow patterns into and through Benton 

Lake and wind- and water-related soil erosion and 

deposition patterns (Heitmeyer et al. 2009). For 

example, to restore the benefits of sheet flow that 

quickly moves across a wetland basin shallowly 

flooding the greatest area and warming quickly to 

make invertebrates, in particular, available to many 

birds, some or all of the ditches in the wetland may 

need to be filled. The dikes and ditches also create 

sediment traps altering the soil chemistry and microbial processes that support wetland function, can 

drive the system toward eutrophy, may prevent the 

scouring of sediment and transportation of mineralized nutrients as well as favor anoxia and inhibit the 

release of nutrients that may not be corrected for by 

just restoring the hydrology (Jarworski and Raphael 

1978, Brix 1993, Euliss et al. 2008). 

Water Quality 

The restoration of Units 1 and 2 to wet meadow 

wetlands would almost completely preclude future 

selenium loading in this area as most water would be 

in Lake Creek and only occasionally overflow across 

the old units. However, selenium that has accumulated in sediment is not readily removed through 

volatization and can take several years (Zhang and 

Moore 1997). Added management actions, such as 

prescribed fire, may help (Zhang and Moore 1997). 

The primary way to decrease selenium accumulation at Benton Lake is to decrease inputs (Zhang 

and Moore 1997). By ceasing pumping, the refuge 

would realize an automatic 40-percent decrease in 

selenium inputs over the long term and as much as 

a 75-percent decrease during dry years (Nimick et 

al. 1996) at no cost. Furthermore, the area where 

Lake Creek would again enter the refuge, and selenium deposition would expected to be highest, 

would be one of the first areas to dry out as waters 

recede. With reduced inputs and increased drying, 

the refuge would reach an equilibrium below the 2 

μg/g threshold. Pre-1961 selenium levels were only 

0.2–0.3 μg/g in Unit 3, even though crop–fallow agriculture had been widespread in the watershed for 

more than 40 years (Zhang and Moore 1997, Heitmeyer et al. 2009). In 1994, levels had only increased 

to 0.4–0.5 μg/g, which suggests that returning to a 

pre-1961 hydrological cycle (no pumping) should support selenium levels below toxic thresholds. Again, 

prescribed fire to support wetland vegetation health, 

may also help keep selenium levels low in the restored inlet area. However, intensive wetland management methods would not be necessary to reduce 

selenium. 

Wetland Productivity 

Overall wetland productivity would improve over 

alternatives A, B1 and B2, especially during wet 

cycles, but it will be more variable over time. Restoring the full variability in the wet–dry cycle 

should have a positive effect on ecosystem processes 

and increase nutrient cycling (Gosselink and Turner 

1978, Mistsch and Gosselink 2007, Malson et al. 

2008, Euliss et al. 2008). As wetland restoration progresses, wetland productivity in the Benton Lake 

ecosystem would likely follow long-term dynamics of 

production in other northern prairie systems as vegetation, invertebrate, and nutrient cycling changes 

when wetlands dry, reflood, reach peak flooding 

extent, and then begin drying again (for example, 

Murkin et al. 2000, Anteau 2012). 

Dry conditions would be recurring and often last 

for several years in a 10 to 20 year cycle. During this 

time, the area of wetland vegetation and the vigor of 

wetland plants would be reduced while the extent of 

terrestrial plants would expand. Wetland-dependent 

species richness would be low for this period, but 

upland species would likely move into the basin and 

use grassland habitat. Once drought conditions are 

broken, the basin may flood rapidly when sufficient 

precipitation or spring runoff occurs. When a wetland refloods after a dry period, there is a pulse of 

nutrients that stimulates productivity in invertebrates, and some plants, which provides important 

food resources for waterfowl, shorebirds and other 

wetland-dependent wildlife (Magee 1995, Anteau 

2012). These wet periods may occur for 1 to 3-plus 

years in the 10 to 20 year cycle (Heitmeyer et al. 

2009). As precipitation declines, water levels would 

decline from evaporation, and vegetation would shift 

from wetland to a more terrestrial phase. 

Restoring annual and long-term variability 

in the wetland basin would increase plant and animal 

diversity over the long term while providing optimal 

conditions for different suites of species at different 

times. Single species would be less likely to become 

dominant or the extent or length of monotypic conditions would be reduced (Euliss et al. 2008). Densities of certain species of macroinvertebrates may 

decline; however, species diversity should increase 
260 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

(Collinson et al. 1995). For example, invertebrates 

that need a dry period during winter would be 

able to complete their life cycle and provide important food for avian spring migrants and breeders 

(Schneider 1999, Murkin and Ross 1999, Anderson 

and Smith 2000). This increase in variability and 

diversity should increase long-term sustainability 

(Peterson et al. 1998, Euliss et al. 2008). 

The flooding and drying cycles would be synchronized at the refuge and the landscape scales. 

Long-term cycling at the refuge and landscape scale 

stimulate invertebrate communities, plant communities, and mammalian predators that create complex 

interactions that are not emulated by managing at 

the individual impoundment level (Schneider 1999, 

Murkin and Ross 1999, Krapu et al. 2004, Anteau 

2012). The potential for reductions in wetland-dependent invasive species and mammalian predators 

during drought cycles would be greater than in alternatives A, B1 and B2. 

Wetland Vegetation 

Over the life of the plan, the precise distribution of 

wetland vegetation species groups would vary over 

time as surface water coverage and depth change 

with wet and dry cycles (for example, van der Valk 

and Davis 1978, van der Valk 1989). In general, a 

reduction in the coverage of robust, emergent vegetation such as cattail and alkali bulrush would be expected. Extended drying would be expected reduce 

Garrison creeping foxtail as well, but the duration 

and extent of these reductions is less certain. This 

vegetation would be replaced with wetland species 

adapted to more seasonal and temporary flooding 

cycles such as occurred historically on the refuge 

(see section 7.10). 

The lowest elevations in the Benton Lake basin 

(about 73 acres) would contain some surface water 

throughout most years and supported open-water 

aquatic plant communities surrounded by concentric 

bands of robust emergent vegetation including cattail and hardstem bulrush. The width of this emergent vegetation band would vary depending on the 

extent and duration of flooding and chronological 

position of the long-term hydrological cycle. Submergent aquatic plants such as pondweeds, naiads, 

coontail, wigeon grass, and milfoil may be present in 

the deepest open areas along with rich algal blooms. 

Semipermanently flooded sites that are slightly 

higher in elevation, next to cattail and bulrush zones, 

would support diverse sedge and rush species. These 

sedge–rush communities include diverse herbaceous 

wetland plants including alkali bulrush, three-square 

rush, Nuttall’s alkaligrass, beaked sedge, Nebraska 

sedge, and water smartweed. This sedge–rush community may expand during wet periods to even 

higher elevation edges of the basin and then contract 

to lower elevations during extended dry periods. 

The periodic flooding and drying of these vegetation 

zones could cause moderate alkaline soil conditions. 

Seasonally flooded areas would likely contain diverse annual and perennial herbaceous plants and 

wet-prairie meadow grasses such as spikerush, 

lambsquarter, annual smartweeds, prairie cordgrass, 

and saltgrass. Spikerush would be expected in relatively narrow bands along yearly flooded stream and 

tributary sites and the margins of the lake. Whereas, 

saltgrass would be common in more saline or alkali 

sites including areas where seeps flow into Benton Lake and in some overflow areas next to Lake 

Creek. 

The highest elevation edges of Benton Lake 

would have short duration seasonal flooding regimes 

in the transition zone from wetland to upland grassland plant communities. Foxtail barley would occur 

on the higher, annually drawn down, margins of the 

lake basin and in some ephemeral depressions. Foxtail barley would likely gradually grade to western 

wheatgrass on terraces next to the lake. 

If restoring the hydrology is not sufficient to 

achieve the expected vegetation communities, infrastructure will be modified or removed to facilitate 

this process. 

Water Resources 

The Service’s solicitor suggested that the water 

rights for Muddy Creek will be kept by pumping the 

minimum amount required. This is expected to be 

at least once every 8 years. However, no indications 

of interest in the Service’s right from other water 

users has occurred. The water right for Lake Creek 

would be supported. 

Visitor Services 

Opportunities to inform the public about restoration 

efforts would be featured in educational and interpretive programming. Outreach efforts with the 

community would increase due to the establishment 

of a position to address visitor services programming. Wildlife-dependent recreation for wetland 

species would be tied to natural runoff events. A 

decrease in late summer and fall standing water is 

expected to affect some recreational user groups. 

Hunting 

The availability of water for waterfowl hunting 

would depend on natural runoff. The water budget 

model developed by refuge staff and USGS to as­
 

CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 261 

sess effects on changes in water management on 

the refuge (Nimick et al. 2011) is based on 30 years 

of data collection. Under the assumption that the 

next 30 years would be similar to the last 30 years, 

inferences about water conditions during waterfowl season (fall) can be extrapolated. Conservatively, the model suggests that for the life of the 

plan (15 years), 3–5 years should result in fall water 

exceeding 2,127 acres (greater than 50 percent of 

the managed wetland basin), 3 years of fall water 

levels varying from at least 0–97 acres of water, and 

8 years of no water. Historical hydrographs suggest 

that wet cycles occur over a 5-year window. These 

wet cycles saturate the soils and result in portions 

of the wetland basin containing surface water yearround. 

For the past 2 years, the refuge has experienced 

runoff characteristic of a wet cycle. It is expected 

that the next 2–3 years would also be wet in the 

fall with a gradual reduction in surface water in the 

basin for the next 5 years. During these wet years, 

hunter use has been documented to double over earlier levels (alternative A1). Approximately 600 visits 

annually during a wet cycle, can be expected for 

about 3 years. During 4 years of less than 97 acres of 

water, the ability to provide a waterfowl hunt will be 

evaluated on an annual basis. During the dry cycle 

(8 years), no waterfowl hunting is expected to occur. 

This would result in an estimated 1,800 waterfowl 

hunter use-days for the life of the plan. This is a 

60-percent reduction in use compared to alternative 

A1; a 64-percent reduction in use compared to alternative B1; a 47-percent reduction in use compared to 

alternative B2; and similar use for alternative C2. 

Waterfowl hunting experience is expected to be 

similar to the experiences currently occurring on 

the waterfowl production areas. In addition to the 

presence of water, waterfowl hunting experience 

is also influenced by the quality of the hunt based 

on bird availability and habitat condition. Improvements in habitat conditions would occur throughout 

the basin, which would provide open water, solidified 

sediment, vegetative diversity, increased forage and 

seed availability, and resulting increase in bird use. 

Upland gamebird-hunting visits per year would 

increase over alternatives A1, B1, and B2 due to 

extending the refuge season to corresponded with 

the State designated season, increase in upland 

gamebird habitat during dry years, and promotion of 

upland hunting opportunities by the visitor services 

program during dry years. When the wetland basin 

is dry, a greater proportion of the refuge is available 

for upland gamebird habitat compared to alternatives 

A1 and B1. 

Improvements in the grasslands habitats are expected to occur. Improvement to grasslands would 

involve the planned conversion of up to 728 acres 

of tame grassland to native prairie and the removal 

of shelterbelts (19 miles). This may negatively affect some of the nonnative upland gamebird species (pheasants and Hungarian partridges), and to 

a lesser extent native sharp-tailed grouse, that are 

accustomed to using nonnative grasslands and shelterbelts for shelter and food. This reduction in usage 

of nonnative habitats may affect upland gamebird 

hunting; however, the increase in hunting area and 

extended late season opportunities are expected to 

offset the effect of grassland restoration efforts. 

Under this alternative, 1,500 upland gamebird 

hunter visits are expected over the life of the plan 

which is greater than alternatives A1, B1, and B2.) 

The expectation of 100 visits per year is not unrealistic, and actual usage may exceed this estimate as 

well. Upland gamebird hunter use is expected to be 

same as alternative C2. 

Decisions would be made on a year-by-year basis 

about the location of open and closed areas for waterfowl hunting. Changes in the hunting area could 

lead to confusion for hunters and require increased 

awareness of regulations. An increase in communication efforts by staff to provide annual information 

and post hunt area would be necessary. In addition, 

modifications occurring to infrastructure such as 

dikes and ditches may create access challenges for 

hunters. All attempts would be made by refuge staff 

to reduce access issues whenever possible. 

Total hunting visits over the life of the plan are 

expected to be the same as alternative C2 (3,300 visYellow-bellied marmot . 

Neal Mischler 
262 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

its), 47-percent less than alternative B1, 41-percent 

less than alternative A1, and 31-percent less than 

alternative B2. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

The ability to observe certain water-dependent 

wildlife would be more variable. Water modeling 

suggests that there would be water on the refuge 

during March–May in 22 years out of 30. This means 

that there would continue to be an opportunity to 

see water-dependent wildlife most years, although 

in some years it may be limited to migrating, as opposed to breeding birds. Refuge staff would expand 

upland wildlife observation opportunities. While 

grassland birds can be more challenging to observe, 

they are a group of birds of high conservation concern due to their continental population declines, 

and the refuge would like to increase education and 

awareness of these species. 

The hiring of a park ranger to address visitor services issues would increase awareness of the refuge 

and wildlife observation and photography opportunities, restoration activities, ecological functions of 

wetlands, unique attributes of native prairies, and 

perils of grassland-dependent bird species. This increased exposure is estimated to increase visitation 

to the refuge 25 percent over alternative A1 for a 

total of approximately 143,440 visits over the life of 

the plan. 

Modifications to the Prairie Marsh Drive and 

Lower Marsh Road auto tour routes may occur due 

to restoration efforts. More nature trails are expected to offset any visitation losses that could occur 

from the modifications. 

The habitat restoration efforts would increase 

the health and vigor of wetland and grassland habitats resulting in the increase diversity and abundance of wildlife species for wildlife enthusiast to 

enjoy. Wildlife observation and photography are 

expected to continue to be the dominant recreational 

use occurring on the refuge. 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation 

The addition of a park ranger to address visitor services issues on the refuge complex would increase 

environmental education and interpretive programming an estimated 25 percent over alternative A1, 

for a total of approximately 33,280 visits over the 

life of the plan. The focus would include such issues 

as restoration efforts, appreciation of native prairie habitats, wetland health and productivity. The 

understanding by the community of the refuge’s 

purpose and importance of conserving management, 

and restoring healthy functioning ecosystems would 

be increased. The Service would communication 

more widely the importance of natural hydroperiods 

in wetlands. The communities’ awareness and appreciation for the refuge and refuge complex would be 

enhanced beyond alternatives A, B1 and B2. 

Staff and Funding 

Staff necessary to accomplish this alternative would 

be the same as alternative B2; plus, slight shifts 

in the proportion of staff time spent on the refuge 

versus other complex units are expected to reduce 

slightly. This includes reduction of time by wetland 

district manager, wildlife refuge specialist, and 

maintenance worker. In addition, there would be the 

reduction of two, 0.8 biological technician positions 

and a full time maintenance worker. Under alternative C1; 50 percent of a park ranger position would 

be focused on the refuge while the remaining percentage would be spread across the complex units. 

Over the life of the plan, the total expenses for 

operations and maintenance, pumping, monitoring, and prescriptive habitat management are estimated to range from $809,000 to $941,000. This is 

less than alternatives A1, B1 and B2 and slightly 

higher than alternative C2. As the system becomes 

more self-sustaining, resources would be allocated 

toward other units in the refuge complex such as 

conservation areas. Operations and maintenance 

is closely tied to pumping. Since this alternative 

includes limited pumping during the life of the plan, 

operations and maintenance expenses are expected 

to be extremely low compared to alternatives A1, 

B1 and B2. During nonpumping years, operations 

and maintenance expenses are estimated to total 

$5,000 per year. Operations and maintenance expenses throughout the life of the plan are estimated 

at $75,000. 

Alternative C1 includes extremely limited 

pumping to support water rights (pumping once 

every 8 years) or as a habitat management tool. Because it is expected to be used minimally under this 

alternative, pumping expenses are estimated to be 

$20,000 over the life of the plan. This is less than 

alternatives A1, B1, B2, and higher than alternative 

C2. 

During the course of restoration, monitoring the 

effects of management actions would be critical to 

figure out the next response as part of the ARM 

approach. Monitoring to document changes and 

progress toward meeting objectives for vegetation, 

selenium, macroinvertebrates, water quality and 

other factors would be occurring. Monitoring is estimated to cost $45,000 annually for the first 5 years 

while intensive monitoring evaluates the success of 

management actions and figures out the next man­
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 263 

agement response. From years 6–15, monitoring is 

estimated to be reduced to $35,000 each year. Over 

the life of the plan, monitoring is estimated to total 

$575,000. 

Prescriptive habitat treatment is expected to be 

reduced and primarily focused on invasive species 

control, prescribed fire, and grazing. Management 

treatments would be applied basin-wide to get the 

full effect of restoration efforts. Prescriptive habitat 

treatment throughout the life of the plan is estimated to range from $139,000 to $271,000 depending 

on natural runoff. This is less than alternatives B1 

and B2, and same as alternative C2. 

One-time costs associated with the alternative 

include the expenses made toward the restoration of 

the basin. These are estimated to range from $0 to 

$4,000,000 if full-restoration is necessary. Restoration efforts could include the removal of dikes, creating low water crossings, recontouring of the wetland 

basin, removal of riprap, filling of ditches and channels, and reestablishment of the Lake Creek channel. Restoration costs may be less than the entire 

amount if during the ARM approach it is found that 

only minor alternations are necessary versus complete removal of structures such as water control 

structures or dikes. 

Added one-time costs associated with this alternative include: shelterbelt restoration of 19 miles 

and up to 728 acres of tame grass conversion to native species. Costs to remove 19 miles of planted 

trees would be approximately $3,500 and the conversion of up to 728 acres of tame grass is estimated to 

cost $115,000. This would be completed over multiple years. 

Resource Protection 

Due to changes in hunting area, increase patrol presence would be necessary along with preventative 

law enforcement efforts to reduce hunter confusion 

and violations. 

7 .17 Consequences 

of Alternative C2 

The long-term sustainability of the whole refuge 

will be restored which will help a wide suite of migratory bird species (waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

grassland birds) over the life of the plan. Compared 

to alternative A1, selenium input into the wetland is 

expected to be reduced at least 40 percent and removal of accumulated selenium will exceed all other 

alternatives. A reduction in the toxic hazard to wildlife is expected. Restoring the full extent of the dry 

cycle and completely restoring the wetland basin 

improves the wetland health with long-term sustainability over all other alternatives, and is self-sustainable. Removal of wetland infrastructure would 

be irreversible and reduce management flexibility 

permanently. Improvement in grassland habitats 

expected from conversion up to 728 acres of tame 

grass and removal up to 19 miles of shelterbelt habitat. The ability of wetlands and grasslands to absorb 

perturbations in the system is maximized over all 

other alternatives, since resistance and resiliency is 

optimized from the restoration of natural processes. 

Over the life of the plan, wildlife-dependent recreation will be the same as alternative C1. Over the 

life of the plan, the total cost to carry out wetland 

basin management (operations and maintenance, 

pumping, monitoring, and prescriptive habitat 

treatment) is estimated to range from $601,000 to 

$733,000. One-time implementation costs for grassland restoration are expected to total $118,500. Restoration of the wetland basin is expected to range 

from $1,200,000 to $4,000,000 and complete removal 

of water management infrastructure including the 

decommissioning of the pump house will be completed within the first half of the life of the plan. 

Staffing to carry out the alternative are the same as 

alternative C1, except one less seasonal biological 

technician. 

Grasslands 

During the restoration phase, refuge complex resources may be focused on restoration of the Benton 

Lake basin, which could reduce efforts to manage 

and protect grasslands. However, after restoration, 

the effects would be the same as described in alternative C1. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

Water Quantity and Timing 

Same as alternative C1. 

Infrastructure 

Same as alternative C1, except any potential benefits from removing infrastructure would occur more 

quickly. Conversely, unnecessary and irreversible 

changes to the infrastructure could also occur. 
264 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Water Quality 

Same as alternative C1, except any potential benefits from removing infrastructure would occur more 

quickly. However, without the infrastructure, the 

Service loses some management flexibility and possible tools to address unexpected problems. 

Wetland Productivity 

Same as alternative C1, except any potential benefits from removing infrastructure would occur 

more quickly. For example, infrastructure can alter 

moisture gradient diversity which directly influences vegetative and macroinvertebrate distribution 

within the wetland basin (Euliss et al. 2008). However, without the infrastructure, the Service loses 

some management flexibility and possible tools to 

address unexpected problems. 

Wetland Vegetation 

Same as alternative C1, except any potential benefits from removing infrastructure would occur more 

quickly. However, without the infrastructure, the 

Service loses some management flexibility and possible tools to address unexpected problems. For example, if deep flooding will decrease invasive plants 

more quickly than drying, this will not be a possible 

tool under this alternative. 

Water Resources 

The water rights for Muddy Creek could be lost if 

challenged in court for nonuse. The water right in 

Lake Creek would be kept. 

Visitor Services 

Hunting 

Same as alternative C1, plus habitat improvements 

could occur more rapidly and across entire basin at 

relatively simultaneously improving habitat conditions at a faster pace than alternative C1. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Same as alternative C1. 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation 

Same as alternative C1. 

Staff and Funding 

Staff necessary to accomplish this alternative would 

be the same as alternative C1; plus, a slight shift in 

proportion of staff time spent on the refuge versus 

other complex units are expected to reduce slightly 

for the supervisory biologist. In addition, there 

would be the reduction of a 0.8 biological technician 

position. 

Over the life of the plan, the total expenses 

for operations and maintenance, monitoring, and 

prescriptive habitat management are estimated to 

range from $601,000 to $733,000. This is less than 

alternatives A1, B1, B2 and C1. It is the most cost 

effective alternative. As the system becomes more 

self-sustaining, resources would be allocated toward 

other units in the refuge complex such as conservation areas. 

Operations and maintenance is closely tied to 

pumping. Since this alternative does not include 

pumping, during the life of the plan, operations 

and maintenance expenses are estimated to be extremely low compared to alternatives A1, B1 and B2 

and 50-percent less than C1 as well. Operations and 

maintenance expenses are estimated to total $5,000 

per year, and totaling $37,500 over the life of the 

plan. 

Under this alternative, no pumping will occur. 

Monitoring is estimated to cost $35,000 annually 

for years 1–5 and $25,000 per year for years 6–15 for 

a total estimated monitoring cost for the life of the 

plan at $425,000. This is the least amount across the 

alternatives. 

Prescriptive habitat treatments are estimated to 

be the same as alternative C1, ranging from $139,000 

to $271,000. 

One-time costs associated with the alternative 

include the complete restoration efforts. This is 

expected to occur rapidly within the first 6 years 

of the plan implementation. This would require an 

estimated $1,200,000 to $4,000,000 from the onset of 

plan implementation. Applying money saved from 

not pumping and the subsequent savings from operations and maintenance could be applied to other 

priority management actions and programs in the 

refuge complex like the conservation easement program more quickly than alternative C1. 

Added one-time costs associated with this alternative include: shelterbelt restoration of 19 miles 

and up to 728 acres of tame grass conversion to native species same as alternative C1. 

Resource Protection 

Same as alternative C1. 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 265 

7 .18 Socioeconomic 

Environment 

Impacts from Refuge

Revenue Sharing 

Under provisions of RRS, local counties receive an 

annual payment for lands that have been purchased 

by full fee simple acquisition by the Service. Payments are based on the greater of 75 cents per acre 

or 0.75 percent of the fair market value of lands 

acquired by the Service. The exact amount of the 

annual payment depends on congressional appropriations, which in recent years have tended to be less 

than the amount to fully fund the authorized level 

of payments. In FY 2010 (FY10), actual RRS payments were 21 percent of authorized levels. FY10 

Benton Lake Refuge RRS payments (made in 2011) 

were: $338 to communities in Cascade County; $8 

to communities in Chouteau County; and $235 to 

communities in Teton County for a total payment of 

$581. Table 37 shows the resulting economic impacts 

of RRS payments under all alternatives. Accounting 

for both the direct and secondary effects, RRS payments for alternatives A1, B1, B2, C1, and C2 would 

generate total annual economic impacts $200 in labor 

income and $300 in value added in the local threecounty impact area. 

Table 37 . Annual impacts from refuge revenue 

sharing payments for all alternatives for 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Value 

Labor Added 

Employment income (Thou­

(# full and (Thousands, sands, 

part time jobs) $2011) $2011) 

Alternatives A1, B1, B2, C1, and C2 

Direct < 1 effects $0.2 $0.2 

Secondary 

effects < 1 $0.0 $0.1 

Total 

economic < 1 $0.2 $0.3 

impact 

Impacts from Public Use and 

Access Management 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy 

The overarching goal of the Benton Lake Refuge 

public use program is to enhance wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities and access to quality visitor experiences while managing units to conserve 

fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. A variety of 

recreational opportunities are associated with the 

“Big-Six” wildlife-dependent uses: wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, environmental 

education, hunting, and fishing. Ducks, geese, coots, 

sharp-tailed grouse, gray partridge, and ring-necked 

pheasants can be hunted on Benton Lake Refuge. 

Hunting of all other species is prohibited. Benton 

Lake Refuge does not offer fishing opportunities 

on the main part of the refuge due to a lack of sport 

fish. The Pump House Unit is open for walk-in access to Muddy Creek which provides trout fishing 

opportunities. In FY11, approximately 300 waterfowl hunting visits, 75 upland game hunting visits, 

and 50 fishing visits occurred at Benton Lake Refuge. 

The most popular recreational activity on the 

refuge is wildlife observation and photography. The 

Auto Tour Route, Prairie Marsh Boardwalk, Lower 

Marsh Road, and the sharp-tailed grouse blind are 

popular observation areas. In addition, Benton Lake 

Refuge has the potential to expand the environmental education and interpretation program. In FY11, 

approximately 9,425 nonconsumptive related visits 

occurred at Benton Lake Refuge including; wildlife 

observation (7,250 visits), environmental education 

(1,700 visits), wildlife photography (400 visits), and 

interpretation (75 visits). 

This section focuses on the regional economic 

impacts associated with Benton Lake Refuge visitation. Annual visitation estimates for the refuge 

are based on several refuge statistic sources including: visitors entering the visitor center or office and 

general observation by refuge personnel. Annual 

visitation estimates are on a per visit basis. Visitor spending profiles are estimated on an average 

per day (8 hours) basis. Because some visitors only 

spend short amounts of time visiting the refuge, 

counting each refuge visit as a full visitor day 
266 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

would overestimate the economic impact of Benton Lake Refuge visitation. To properly account 

for the amount of spending, the annual number of 

refuge visits were converted to visitor days. Refuge 

personnel estimate that anglers and upland game 

hunters spend approximately 4 hours (1/2 a visitor 

day) on the refuge, while waterfowl hunters spend 

approximately 6 hours (3/4 a visitor day). Visitors 

that view wildlife or take part in other wildlife observation activities typically spend 4 hours (1/2 a 

visitor day). 

To figure out the local economic impacts of visitor 

spending, only spending by persons living outside 

of the local three-county area are included in the 

analysis. The rationale for excluding local visitor 

spending is twofold. First, money flowing into the local three-county area from visitors living outside the 

local area (hereafter referred to as nonlocal visitors) 

is considered new money injected into the local economy. Second, if residents of the local three-county 

area visit Benton Lake Refuge more or less due to 

the management changes, they will correspondingly 

change the spending of their money elsewhere in 

the local area, resulting in no net change to the local 

economy. These are standard assumptions made in 

most regional economic analyses at the local level. 

Refuge personnel found out the percentage of nonlocal refuge visitors. Table 38 shows the estimated 

percent of current refuge visits and visitor days by 

visitor activity. 

The refuge staff anticipates that the number of fishing visitors will remain constant for all 

the alternatives. Nonconsumptive use visitation 

will remain similar to current estimates for alternatives A1, B1, and B2 but is anticipated to 

increase by 25 percent under alternatives C1 and 

C2. The expected increase in visitation is due to 

the hiring of a Park Rangerwho will specialize on 

developing and enhancing educational, observation, and interpretative programming by tapping 

into the resources of Great Falls. Upland game 

hunting is expected to remain the same under 

alternative A1 but increase 10 percent under alternative B1, increase 23 percent under alternative B2, and increase 25 percent under alternatives 

Table 38 . Estimated current annual visitation for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Num- Total ber of Total annual Percentage annual Visitor Activity hours number of of nonlocal number of spent at visitor days* visits (%) visits Refuge 

Number

of nonlocal visitor days* 

Fishing 50 4 25 0% 0 

Waterfowl Hunting 300 6 225 25% 56 

Upland Game Hunting 75 4 38 10% 4 

Non consumptive visitors: wildlife 

observation, photography, education, 9,425 4 4,713 42% 1,980 

and interpretation 

Total Visitation 9,850 5,001 2,039 

* One visitor day = 8 hours. 

Greater short-horned lizard . 

USFWS 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 267 

C1 and C2 due to extended season, increase in available hunt area offered during dry cycle years, grassland restoration efforts, and promotion of upland 

hunting experience by the visitor services program 

during dry years. 

Waterfowl hunting visitation is expected to remain similar to current estimates for alternative A1. 

Under alternative B1, the refuge staff anticipates 

waterfowl hunting to increase slightly (10 percent) 

compared to alternative A1. The anticipated increase is due to improvement within individual units 

from management efforts to mimic natural processes 

such as drying. Under alternative B2, the refuge 

staff anticipates that there would be a split between 

the number of years of pumping and nonpumping. 

During the pumping period, annual waterfowl hunting use is anticipated to be similar to annual use 

under alternative B1 (on average 330 visits per 

year), and during nonpumping years, annual use is 

anticipated to be similar to alternatives C1 or C2 (on 

average 120 visits per year). Therefore, the number 

of waterfowl hunting visits over the life of the plan 

are estimated to be 3,375 visits which would equate 

to an annual average of 225 visits for alternative B2. 

Under alternative C1, the availability of water 

for waterfowl hunting would be dependent upon 

natural run-off and would vary over the 15-year 

life of the plan. For the past 2 years, the refuge has 

experienced run-off characteristic of a wet cycle. 

It is expected that the next 2-3 years will also be 

wet in the fall with a gradual reduction in surface 

water in the basin for the next 5 years. During these 

wet years, the refuge has experienced a 100-percent increase in hunter use from alternative A1. 

This same usage (600 visits annually during a wet 

cycle) can be expected under alternative C1 for an 

estimated 3 years. During the anticipated 4 years of 

approximately 97 acres of water, the small surface 

area would likely result in very little area available 

for hunting. During this time period hunter use was 

conservatively estimated as the same as dry cycle. 

During the dry cycle of 8 years, no waterfowl hunting would occur. This would result in an estimated 

total of 1,800 waterfowl hunting use days for the 

life of the plan with a range of zero hunters to 600 

waterfowl hunting visits (for 3 years). This reflects a 

60-percent reduction in waterfowl hunting use compared to alternative A1; a 64-percent reduction in 

use compared to alternative B1; a 47-percent reduction in use compared to alternative B2; and similar 

use for alternative C2. 

Table 39 summarizes the average annual estimated visits and visitor days by type of activity for 

all alternatives. For the purposes of the economic 

impact analysis, visitation over the 15 year life of the 

CCP must be converted to an average annual basis 

(as shown in table 18). The number of waterfowl 

hunters have the potential to fluctuate between 0 to 

600 visits for the anticipated pumping and nonpumping years for alternatives C1, and C2. The economic 

impacts for the anticipated range of waterfowl hunters for pumping and nonpumping years will also be 

estimated. The anticipated 600 waterfowl hunting 

visits in pumping years would equate to 450 annual 

waterfowl hunter visitor days of which 113 visitor 

days would be from nonlocal waterfowl hunters. 

Wilson’s phalarope on the refuge complex . 

USFWS 
Table 39 . Annual average number of visits and visitor days by activity and alternative for Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Alternative A1 Alternative B1 Alternative B2 Alternative C1 Alternative C2 

Total visits 

Fishing 50 50 50 50 50 

Waterfowl Hunting 300 330 225 120 120 

Upland Game Hunting 75 83 92 94 94 

Non consumptive visitors: 

wildlife observation, 

photography, education, 9,425 9,425 9,425 11,781 11,781 

and interpretation 

Total Annual Visits 9,850 9,888 9,792 12,045 12,045 

Total visitor Days 

Fishing 25 25 25 25 25 

Waterfowl Hunting 225 248 169 90 90 

Upland Game Hunting 38 41 46 47 47 

Non consumptive visitors: 

wildlife observation, 

photography, education, 4,713 4,713 4,713 5,891 5,891 

and interpretation 

Total Visitor Days 5,000 5,026 4,952 6,053 6,053 

Nonlocal visitor Days 

Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 

Waterfowl Hunting 56 62 42 23 23 

Upland Game Hunting 4 4 5 5 5 

Non consumptive visitors: 

wildlife observation, 

photography, education, 1,979 1,979 1,979 2,474 2,474 

and interpretation 

Total Nonlocal 

Visitor Days 2,039 2,045 2,026 2,501 2,501 

268 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

A visitor usually buys a wide range of goods and 

services while visiting an area. Major expenditure 

categories include lodging, restaurants, supplies, 

groceries, and recreational equipment rental. In 

this analysis we use average daily visitor spending profiles from the Banking on Nature report 

(Carver and Caudill, 2007) that were derived from 

the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 

Wildlife Associated Recreation (FWS, 2008). The 

National Survey reports trip related spending of 

state residents and nonresidents for several different wildlife-associated recreational activities. For 

each recreation activity, spending is reported in the 

categories of lodging, food and drink, transportation, and other expenses. Carver and Caudill (2007) 

calculated the average per-person per-day expenditures by recreation activity for each FWS region. 

We used the spending profiles for nonresidents for 

FWS Region 6 (for the purposes of the analysis in 

the Banking on Nature report, Region 6 includes 

Montana), and updated the 2006 spending profiles to 

2011 dollars using the Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator. Average daily spending profiles for 

nonresident visitors to Region 6 for upland game 

hunting ($176.03 per-day) and waterfowl hunting 

($75.88 per-day), were used to estimate nonlocal visitor spending for refuge fishing and hunting related 

activities. The average daily nonresident spending 

profile for nonconsumptive wildlife recreation (observing, feeding, or photographing fish and wildlife) 

was used for nonconsumptive wildlife viewing activities ($157.62 per-day). 

Total spending by nonlocal refuge visitors was 

figured out by multiplying the average nonlocal visitor daily spending by the number of nonlocal visitor 

days at the refuge. The economic impacts of each 
Table 40 . Average annual impacts of nonlocal visitor spending by activity and alternative for Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Nonlocal Waterfowl Nonlocal Upland Nonlocal Noncon- Total Nonlocal 

Hunting Game Hunting sumptive Visitation Visitation 

Employment Labor 

Income 

Value 

Added 

Employment Labor 

Income 

Value 

Added 

Employment 

Labor 

Income 

Value 

Added 

Employment Labor 

Income 

Value 

Added 

(# full 

and part 

time 

jobs) 

(Thousands, $2011) 

(# full 

and 

part 

time 

jobs) 

(Thousands, $2011) 

(# full 

and 

part 

time 

jobs) 

(Thousands, $2011) 

(# full 

and 

part 

time 

jobs) 

(Thousands, $2011) 

Alternative A1 

Direct 

effects < 1 $1.0 $1.6 < 1 $0.1 $0.2 3 $74.5 $122.0 3 $75.6 $123.8 

Secondary 

effects < 1 $0.5 $0.8 < 1 $0.1 $0.1 1 $39.4 $69.8 1 $39.9 $70.8 

Total effect  < 1 $1.5 $2.4 < 1 $0.2 $0.4 4 $113.9 $191.8 4 $115.5 $194.6 

Alternative B1 

Direct 

effects < 1 $1.1 $1.8 < 1 $0.2 $0.3 3 $74.5 $122.4 3 $75.8 $124.4 

Secondary 

effects < 1 $0.5 $0.9 < 1 $0.1 $0.2 1 $39.4 $69.8 1 $39.9 $70.9 

Total effect  < 1 $1 .6 $2 .6 < 1 $0.3 $0.4 4 $113.9 $192.2 4 $115.7 $195.3 

Alternative B2 

Direct 

effects < 1 $0.8 $1.2 < 1 $0.2 $0.3 3 $74.5 $122.4 3 $75.5 $123.9 

Secondary 

effects < 1 $0.3 $0.6 < 1 $0.1 $0.2 1 $39.4 $69.8 1 $39.8 $70.6 

Total effect  < 1 $1 .1 $1 .8 < 1 $0.3 $0.5 4 $113.9 $192.2 4 $115.2 $194.5 

Alternatives C1 and C2 

Direct 

effects < 1 $0.4 $0.6 < 1 $0.2 $0.3 4 $93.1 $153.0 4 $93.7 $154.0 

Secondary 

effects < 1 $0.2 $0.3 < 1 $0.1 $0.2 1 $49.2 $87.3 1 $49.5 $87.8 

Total effect  < 1 $0.6 $1.0 < 1 $0 .3 $0 .5 5 $142 .3 $240 .3 5 $143.2 $241.7 

CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 269 

alternative were estimated using IMPLAN. Table 

40 summarizes the total economic impacts associated with current nonlocal visitation by activity and 

alternative. Under alternative A1, nonlocal Benton 

Lake Refuge visitors would spend approximately 

$316.9 thousand in the local economy annually ($312 

thousand in spending by nonconsumptive visitors, 

$4.3 thousand by waterfowl hunters, and $700 by upland game hunters). This spending would directly account for 3 jobs, $75.6 thousand in labor income, and 

$123.8 thousand in value added in the local economy. 

The secondary or multiplier effects would generate 1 

job, $39.9 thousand in labor income, and $70.8 thousand in value added. Accounting for both the direct 

and secondary effects, spending by nonlocal visitors 

for alternative A1 would generate total economic impacts of 4 jobs, $115.5 thousand in labor income, and 

$194.6 thousand in value added. As shown in table 

40, almost all (98.5 percent) of the nonlocal impacts 

are generated by nonconsumptive visitors. 

Under alternative B1, nonlocal Benton Lake 

Refuge visitors would spend approximately $317 

thousand in the local area annually. Accounting for 

both the direct and secondary effects, average annual total spending by nonlocal visitors for alternative B1 would generate total economic impacts of 

4 jobs, $115.7 thousand in labor income, and $195.3 

thousand in value added. The total annual average 

economic impacts for alternative B2 would be similar 

to alternative A1. 
270 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Under alternatives C1 and C2, nonlocal Benton 

Lake Refuge visitors would spend more than $390 

thousand in the local area annually. Accounting for 

both the direct and secondary effects, spending by 

nonlocal visitors for alternatives C1 and C2 would 

generate total economic impacts of 5 jobs, $143.2 

thousand in labor income, and $241.7 thousand in 

value added. 

The economic impacts for the anticipated range 

of waterfowl hunters for pumping and nonpumping 

years for alternatives C1 and C2 are shown in table 

20. In nonpumping years, waterfowl hunting will not 

occur and therefore, there would be no economic impacts. In pumping years, it is anticipated that there 

would be 600 annual waterfowl hunting visits (450 

visitor days of which 113 are nonlocal visitor days). 

Nonlocal waterfowl hunters would spend approximately $8.6 thousand in the local area annually. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, 

average annual spending by nonlocal waterfowl 

hunters during pumping years would generate total 

economic impacts $2.9 thousand in labor income, and 

$4.8 thousand in value added (table 41). 

Table 41 . Range of annual impacts of nonlocal waterfowl hunter spending for pumping and nonpumping 

years under alternatives C1 and C2 for Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Employment Labor Value 

(# full and income Added 

part time (Thousands, (Thousands, 

jobs) $2011) $2011) 

Nonpumping years 

Direct 0 

effects 

$0 $0 

Secondary 

effects 

0 $0 $0 

Total 

economic 

impact 

0 $0 $0 

Pumping years 

Direct 

effects < 1 $2.00 $3.20

Secondary 

effects < 1 $0.90 $1.60

Total 

economic 

impact 

< 1 $2.90 $4.80 

Average annual impacts over life of plan 

Direct < 1 $0.4 effects $0.6

Secondary 

effects < 1 $0.2 $0.3

Total 

economic 

impact 

< 1 $0.6 $1.0 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge staff regularly 

conduct educational outreach in local communities such 

as at the Ulm School in Ulm, Montana . 

USFWS 

White-tailed jackrabbit . 

Neal Mischler
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 271 

Impacts from Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Administration 

Staff–Personal Purchases 

Benton Lake Refuge employees reside and spend 

their salaries on daily living expenses in the local 

area, thereby generating impacts within the local 

economy. Household consumption expenditures 

consist of payments by individuals/households to 

industries for goods and services used for personal 

consumption. The IMPLAN modeling system contains household consumption spending profiles that 

account for average household spending patterns 

by income level. These profiles allow for leakage of 

household spending to outside the region. Several 

members of the refuge complex staff work at Benton 

Lake Refuge as well as other areas on the refuge 

complex. For the purposes on the economic analysis, the FWS provided the percentage split of staff 

time spent working at Benton Lake Refuge for each 

position. Table 42 illustrates staffing and time spent 

working at Benton Lake Refuge (as well as working on Benton Lake Refuge-related issues) for each 

alternative. Under alternative A1, salary would total 

$465.2 thousand for that part of time 13 of the refuge 

complex staff members spent working on Benton 

Lake Refuge. Table 42 shows the changes in positions, time spent working, and total salary amounts 

for Benton Lake Refuge staffing by alternative. 

Table 42 . Staffing and percent of time allocated for working by alternative on Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Montana . 

Full Percent of Time Spent Working on Benton Lake Refuge 

Time 

Equiva­ Alterna­ Alterna­ Alterna­ Alterna­ AlternaPositions by Alternative lent tive A1 tive B1 tive B2 tive C1 tive C2 

Administrative Officer 1 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 

Assistant Fire Management Officer 1 35% 25% 35% 35% 35% 

Bio-Science Technician 0.8 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 

Bio-Science Technician 0.5 75% 90% 90% 75% 75% 

Bio-Science Technician 0.5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Bio-Science Technician 0.8 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 

Bio-Science Technician (2 positions) 0.8 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 

Budget Analyst 1 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 

Refuge Complex Manager 1 50% 60% 60% 60% 60% 

Deputy Refuge Manager 1 50% 60% 60% 60% 60% 

Generalist 0.5 40% 50% 50% 50% 50% 

Generalist 0.5 20% 40% 40% 40% 40% 

Law Enforcement Officer 1 0% 25% 25% 25% 25% 

Maintenance Worker 1 75% 90% 90% 75% 75% 

Maintenance Worker 1 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 

Maintenance Worker 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Park Ranger 1 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 

Supervisory Wildlife Biologist 1 0% 80% 70% 70% 60% 

Wetland District Manager 1 25% 35% 25% 15% 15% 

Wildlife Biologist 1 75% 90% 90% 90% 90% 

Wildlife Refuge Specialist 0.5 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 

Wildlife Refuge Specialist 1 10% 25% 20% 0% 0% 

Wildlife Refuge Specialist 0.5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Wildlife Refuge Specialist 1.0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Total Salary $465,200 $851,800 $822,700 $701,500 $644,700 
272 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Refuge personnel estimate that annual salaries 

total around $465.2 thousand for alternative A1 and 

would increase under all other alternatives. Table 43 

shows the economic impacts associated with spending of salaries in the local three-county area by Benton Lake Refuge employees under all alternatives. 

For alternative A1, salary spending by Benton Lake 

Refuge personnel would generate the secondary 

effects of 3 more jobs, $108.1 thousand in added labor income, and $198.7 thousand in value added in 

the local economy. Alternative B1 would have the 

largest increase in impacts, generating secondary effects of 6 jobs, $198.0 thousand in labor income, and 

$363.9 thousand in value added in the local economy. 

As shown in table 43, impacts for alternatives B2, 

C1, and C2 are slightly less than alternative B1 but 

higher than alternative A1. 

Table 43 . Annual local impacts of salary spending by 

personnel by alternative for Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Employment 

(# full Labor Value 

and income Added 

part (Thou­ (Thoutime sands, sands, 

jobs) $2011) $2011) 

Alternative A1 

Direct effects 0 $0.0 $0.0 

Secondary 

effects 3 $108.1 $198.7 

Total economic

 impact 3 $108.1 $198.7 

Alternative B1 

Direct effects 0 $0 $0 

Secondary 

effects 6 $198.0 $363.9 

Total economic

 impact 6 $198.0 $363.9 

Alternative B2 

Direct effects 0 $0 $0 

Secondary 

effects 6 $191.2 $351.5 

Total economic

 impact 6 $191.2 $351.5 

Alternative C1 

Direct effects 0 $0 $0 

Secondary 

effects 5 $163.1 $299.7 

Total economic

 impact 5 $163.1 $299.7 

Alternative C2 

Direct effects 0 $0 $0 

Secondary 

effects 4 $149.8 $275.4 

Total economic 

impact 4 $149.8 $275.4 

Ducks on Benton Lake . 

USFWS 

Work-related Purchases 

A wide variety of supplies and services are purchased for refuge operations and maintenance 

activities. Refuge purchases made in the local threecounty area contribute to the local economic impacts 

associated with the Benton Lake Refuge. Major local 

expenditures include: supplies and services related 

to annual maintenance costs; small equipment; auto 

repairs, parts, and fuel; and utilities. Average annual 

Benton Lake Refuge nonsalary expenditures are 

anticipated to be $240.3 thousand for alternative A1,
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 273 

$336.9 thousand for alternative B1, $329.6 thousand 

for alternative B2, $299.3 thousand for alternative 

C1, and $285.1 thousand for alternative C2. According to refuge records, approximately 70 percent of 

the annual nonsalary budget expenditures are spent 

on goods and services purchased in the local threecounty area. Table 44 shows the economic impacts 

associated with work related expenditures in local 

communities near the Benton Lake Refuge. For 

alternative A1, work related purchases would generate a total economic impact of 2 jobs, $52.2 thousand 

in labor income, and $83.4 thousand in value added. 

Work related purchases under alternative B1 would 

generate the largest total economic impact of 3 jobs, 

$73.2 thousand in labor income, and $116.9 thousand 

in value added. As shown in table 44, impacts for 

alternatives B2, C1, and C2 are less than alternative 

B1 but higher than alternative A1. 

In addition to the annual local purchases of supplies and services to support general refuge operations, one-time costs related to wetland management 

and restoration may occur under alternatives B1, 

B2, C1, and C2. Under alternative B1, a $100 thousand diversion structure may be constructed within 

the first few years of the 15-year CCP planning 

timeframe. Under alternative B2, up to 3.5 miles of 

shelterbelts could be removed and up to 207 acres 

of tame grass could be converted to native grasses 

at an estimated total cost of $35 thousand over five 

years. Under alternatives C1and C2, up to 19 miles 

of shelterbelts may be restored and up to 728 acres 

of tame grass may be converted to native grasses 

at an estimated cost of $115 thousand over the life 

of the plan. In addition, wetland infrastructure may 

be incrementally modified or remove to achieve target contaminant, vegetation, and wetland health 

and productivity levels under alternative C1 with 

an estimate cost ranging from $0 to $4 million over 

the life of the plan. Under C2, full basin restoration would occur with an estimated cost ranging 

from $1.2 to $4 million and would likely be completed 

within the first six years of the plan. 

Restoration activities, particularly under alternatives C1, and C2, would generate economic activity 

in the region surrounding the refuge. Portions of the 

restoration work, especially under alternative C2, 

are expected to be contracted to local businesses for 

services such as construction and environmental and 

engineering consulting, and most of the materials 

required for the restoration would be purchased 

within the local economy. This economic activity 

would increase demand for services and materials 

and would support jobs and generate income in the 

local economy. Furthermore, the restored ecosystem would help local communities well beyond the 

completion of the restoration projects by mitigating 

human and wildlife health hazards. 

Table 45 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts in the three-county area of refuge 

management activities for alternative A1. Under 

alternative A1, Benton Lake Refuge management 

activities directly related to refuge operations generate an estimated 5 jobs, $111.0 thousand in labor 

income, and $176.5 thousand in value added in the 

local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced 

effects, all Benton Lake Refuge activities generate 

a total economic impact of 9 jobs, $276.1 thousand in 

labor income, and $477.0 thousand in value added. In 

2009, total labor income was estimated at $2.3 billion 

and total employment was estimated at 60 thousand 

jobs for the local three-county area, according to 

IMPLAN 2009 data. Thus, total economic impacts 

associated with Benton Lake Refuge operations 

under alternative A1 represent less than .01 percent 

of total income and total employment in the overall 

Table 44 . Local economic impacts by alternative of 

purchases related to Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Montana . 

Employment Labor Value 

(# full income Added 

and part (Thou­ (Thoutime sands, sands, 

jobs) $2011) $2011) 

Alternative A1 

Direct effects 2 $35.2 $52.4 

Secondary effects < 1 $17.1 $30.9 

Total economic 

impact 2 $52.2 $83.4 

Alternative B1 

Direct effects 2 $49.3 $73.5 

Secondary effects < 1 $23.9 $43.4 

Total economic 

impact 3 $73.2 $116.9 

Alternative B2 

Direct effects 2 $48.2 $71.9 

Secondary effects < 1 $23.4 $42.4 

Total economic

 impact 3 $71.6 $114.4 

Alternative C1 

Direct effects 2 $43.8 $65.3 

Secondary effects < 1 $21.3 $38.5 

Total economic

 impact 3 $65.1 $103.9 

Alternative C2 

Direct effects 2 $41.7 $62.2 

Secondary effects < 1 $20.3 $36.7 

Total economic 

impact 2 $62.0 $98.9 
three-county area economy. Total economic effects of 

refuge operations play a larger role in the communities near Benton Lake Refuge where most of the 

refuge related expenditures and public use related 

economic activity occurs. 

Table 45 . Summary of all management activities for 

alternative A1 for Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Montana . 

Employment Labor Value 

(# full income Added 

and part (Thou­ (Thoutime sands, sands, 

obs) $2011) $2011) 

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Administration* 

Direct effects 2 $35.3 $52.6 

Total Effects 5 $160.6 $282.4 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects 3 $75.6 $123.8 

Total Effects 4 $115.5 $194.6 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects 5 $111.0 $176.5 

Total effects 9 $276.1 $477.0 

*Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

Table 46 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts in the three-county area of refuge 

management activities for alternative B1. Under 

alternative B1, Benton Lake Refuge management 

activities directly related to refuge operations generate an estimated 5 jobs, $125.2 thousand in labor 

income, and $198.2 thousand in value added in the 

local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced 

effects, all Benton Lake Refuge activities generate a 

total economic impact of 13 jobs, $387.1 thousand in 

labor income, and $676.4 thousand in value added. In 

2009, total labor income was estimated at $2.3 billion 

and total employment was estimated at 60 thousand 

jobs for the local three-county area, according to 

IMPLAN 2009 data. Thus, total economic impacts 

associated with Benton Lake Refuge operations 

under alternative B1 represent less than .01 percent 

of total income and total employment in the overall 

three-county area economy. Total economic effects of 

refuge operations play a larger role in the communities near Benton Lake Refuge where most related 

expenditures and public use-related economic activity occurs. 

Table 46 . Summary of all management activities for 

alternative B1 for Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Montana . 

Employment Labor Value 

(# full income Added 

and part (Thou­ (Thoutime sands, sands, 

jobs) $2011) $2011) 

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Administration* 

Direct effects 2 $49.5 $73.7 

Total Effects 9 $271.4 $481.1 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects 3 $75.8 $124.4 

Total Effects 4 $115.7 $195.3 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects 5 $125.2 $198.2 

Total effects 13 $387.1 $676.4 

*Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

Table 47 summarizes the change in economic 

effects associated with Benton Lake Refuge op

erations under alternative B1 as compared to al

ternative A1. Due primarily to increases in refuge 

administration, alternative B1 would generate 3 

more jobs, $111.0 thousand more in labor income, 

and $199.4 thousand more in value added as com

pared to alternative A1. 

­

­

­

Table 47 . Change in economic impacts under alternative B1 compared to alternative A1 for Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Employment Labor 

(# full income Value 

and part (Thou- Added 

time sands, (Thousands, 

jobs) $2011) $2011) 

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Administration* 

Direct effects (+) < 1 (+) $14.1 (+) $21.1 

Total Effects (+) 3 (+) $110.9 (+) $198.7 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects no change (+) $0.1 (+) $0.6 

Total Effects no change (+) $0.2 (+) $0.7 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects (+) < 1 (+) $14.3 (+) $21.7 

Total effects (+) 3 (+) $111.0 (+) $199.4 

*Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

274 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 275 

Table 48 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts in the three-county area of refuge 

management activities for alternative B2. Under 

alternative B2, Benton Lake Refuge management 

activities directly related to refuge operations generate an estimated 5 jobs, $123.8 thousand in labor income, and $196.1 thousand in value added in 

the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and 

induced effects, all refuge activities generate a total 

economic impact of 13 jobs, $387.3 thousand in labor income, and $660.7 thousand in value added. In 

2009, total labor income was estimated at $2.3 billion 

and total employment was estimated at 60 thousand 

jobs for the local three-county area, according to 

IMPLAN 2009 data. Thus, total economic impacts 

associated with Benton Lake Refuge operations 

under alternative B2 represent less than .01 percent 

of total income and total employment in the overall 

three-county area economy. Total economic effects of 

refuge operations play a larger role in the communities near Benton Lake Refuge where most of the related expenditures and public use-related economic 

activity occurs. 

Table 48 . Summary of all management activities for 

alternative B2 for Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Montana . 

Employment 

(# full 

and part 

time 

jobs) 

Labor 

income 

(Thousands, 

$2011) 

Value 

Added 

(Thousands, 

$2011) 

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Administration* 

Direct effects 2 $48.4 $72.1 

Total Effects 8 $263.1 $466.2 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects 3 $75.5 $123.9 

Total Effects 4 $115.2 $194.5 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects 5 $123.8 $196.1 

Total effects 13 $378.3 $660.7 

*Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

Table 49 summarizes the change in economic 

effects associated with Benton Lake Refuge operations under alternative B2 as compared to alternative A1. Due primarily to increases in refuge 

administration, alternative B2 would generate 3 

more jobs, $102.2 thousand more in labor income, 

and $183.7 thousand more in value added as compared to alternative A1. 

Table 49 . Change in economic impacts under alternative B2 compared to alternative A1 for Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Employment 

(# full Labor Value 

and part income Added 

time (Thousands, (Thousands, 

jobs) $2011) $2011) 

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Administration* 

Direct effects (+) < 1 (+) $13.1 (+) $19.5 

Total Effects (+) 3 (+) $102.5 (+) $183.8 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects no change (-) $0.2 (+) $0.1 

Total Effects no change (-) $0.3 (-) $0.1 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects (+) < 1 (+) $12.9 (+) $19.6 

Total effects (+) 3 (+) $102.2 (+) $183.7 

*Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

Table 50 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts in the three-county area of refuge 

management activities for alternative C1. Under 

alternative C1, Benton Lake Refuge management 

activities directly related to refuge operations generate an estimated 6 jobs, $137.7 thousand in labor 

income, and $226.1 thousand in value added in the 

local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced 

effects, all Benton Lake Refuge activities generate a 

total economic impact of 12 jobs, $371.5 thousand in 

labor income, and $707.9 thousand in value added. In 

2009, total labor income was estimated at $2.3 billion 

and total employment was estimated at 60 thousand 

jobs for the local three-county area, according to 

IMPLAN 2009 data. Thus, total economic impacts 

associated with Benton Lake Refuge operations 

under alternative C1 represent less than .01 percent 

of total income and total employment in the overall 

three-county area economy. Total economic effects of 

refuge operations play a much larger role in the communities near Benton Lake Refuge where most of 

Prescribed fire . 

USFWS 
the related expenditures and public -elated economic 

activity occurs. 

Table 50 . Summary of all management activities for 

alternative C1 for Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Montana . 

Employment Labor Value 

(# full income Added 

and part (Thou­ (Thoutime sands, sands, 

jobs) $2011) $2011) 

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Administration* 

Direct effects 2 $44.0 $72.1 

Total Effects 7 $228.3 $466.2 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects 4 $93.7 $154.0 

Total Effects 5 $143.2 $241.7 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects 6 $137.7 $226.1 

Total effects 12 $371.5 $707.9 

* Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

Table 51 summarizes the change in economic 

effects associated with Benton Lake Refuge operations under alternative C1 as compared to alternative A1. Due to increases in refuge visitation and 

administration, alternative C1 would generate 3 

more jobs, $95.4 thousand more in labor income, and 

$230.9 thousand more in value added as compared to 

alternative A1. 

Table 51 . Change in economic impacts under alternative C1 compared to alternative A1 for Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Employment Labor Value 

(# full income Added 

and part (Thou­ (Thoutime sands, sands, 

jobs) $2011) $2011) 

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Administration* 

Direct effects (+) < 1 (+) $8.6 (+) $19.5 

Total Effects (+) 2 (+) $67.8 (+) $183.8 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects (+) 1 (+) $18.1 (+) $30.1 

Total Effects (+) 1 (+) $27.7 (+) $47.2 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects (+) 1 (+) $26.7 (+) $49.6 

Total effects (+) 3 (+) $95.4 (+) $230.9 

*Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

Table 52 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts in the three-county area of refuge 

management activities for alternative C2. Under 

alternative C2, Benton Lake Refuge management 

activities directly related to refuge operations generate an estimated 6 jobs, $135.6 thousand in labor 

income, and $226.1 thousand in value added in the 

local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced 

effects, all Benton Lake Refuge activities generate a 

total economic impact of 12 jobs, $355.2 thousand in 

labor income, and $664.4 thousand in value added. In 

2009, total labor income was estimated at $2.3 billion 

and total employment was estimated at 60 thousand 

jobs for the local three-county area, according to 

IMPLAN 2009 data. Thus, total economic impacts 

associated with Benton Lake Refuge operations 

under alternative C2 represent less than .01 percent 

of total income and total employment in the overall 

three-county area economy. Total economic effects of 

refuge operations play a larger role in the communities near Benton Lake Refuge where most of the related expenditures and public use-related economic 

activity occurs. 

Table 52 . Summary of all management activities for 

alternative C2 for Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Montana . 

Employment Labor Value 

(# full income Added 

and part (Thou­ (Thoutime sands, sands, 

jobs) $2011) $2011) 

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Administration* 

Direct effects 2 $41.9 $72.1 

Total Effects 7 $212.0 $466.2 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects 4 $93.7 $154.0 

Total Effects 5 $143.2 $198.2 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects 6 $135.6 $226.1 

Total effects 12 $355.2 $664.4 

*Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

276 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Table 53 summarizes the change in economic 

effects associated with Benton Lake Refuge operations under alternative C2 as compared to alternative A1. Due to increases in refuge visitation and 

administration, alternative C2 would generate 3 

more jobs, $79.1 thousand more in labor income, and 

$187.4 thousand more in value added as compared to 

alternative A1. 
Table 53 . Change in economic impacts under alter

native C1 compared to alternative A1 for Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Employment Labor 

(# full income Value 

and part (Thou- Added 

time sands, (Thousands, 

jobs) $2011) $2011) 

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Administration* 

Direct effects (+) < 1 (+) $6.6 (+) $19.5 

Total Effects (+) 2 (+) $51.5 (+) $183.8 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects (+) 1 (+) $18.1 (+) $30.1 

Total Effects (+) 1 (+) $27.7 (+) $3.6 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects (+) 1 (+) $24.6 (+) $49.6 

Total effects (+) 3 (+) $79.1 (+) $187.4 

* Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 277 

­

7 .19 Cumulative Impacts 

Resource redistribution would be necessary to 

accomplish objectives under alternative A1 due to 

the intensity of management actions, monitoring, 

operations, and maintenance on Benton Lake. This 

redistribution would affect other refuge complex 

programs such as the conservation easement program. As a result, there would likely be a reduction 

in the capacity to protect native grasslands and wetlands. 

Cumulative impacts for alternative B1 would 

be the same as for alternative A1, plus increasing 

partnership efforts should lead to improvements in 

water quality in both the Muddy Creek and Lake 

Creek watersheds. 

Cumulative impacts for alternative B2 would 

be the same as for alternative B1, plus any dry 

years during the initial drying phase may cause localized changes in bird distribution as migratory 

birds adapt to the presence or absence of water. On 

a continental population level, no effects would be 

expected to migratory bird species that typically use 

the refuge (personal communication, USFWS, Region 6 Migratory Bird Program, Kathleen Burchett, 

Vanessa Fields, Toni Griffin). 

On a very localized scale, effects on migratory 

gamebird hunting would occur during dry periods 

under alternative B2; however, other locations do 

exist to accommodate user groups. For example, 

opening weekend of 2011, a dramatic decline occurred in the number of hunters using the Freezeout 

Wildlife Management Area (121 hunters compared 

to average of 227 hunters). Interestingly, the Benton 

Lake Refuge experienced nearly the exact same 

increase in hunter use (94 hunters compared to 

average of 40 hunters). Many hunters stated that 

they went to the Benton Lake Refuge instead of 

Freezeout Wildlife Management Area this year due 

to increased water levels. Migratory gamebird huntThis boardwalk is part of the infrastructure available for visitor use at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge . 

USFWS 
278 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

ers generally have a variety of sites to select from 

within the landscape due to unpredictable climatic 

conditions. 

During the drying phase when pumping is suspended, effects on the Muddy Creek watershed 

under alternative B2 would be expected. When 

pumping is suspended, the refuge would no longer 

reduce flows in Muddy Creek by 24 cfs. This increase 

in flows is estimated to increase sedimentation by 

4,500 tons per year (personal communication, Alan 

Rollo). 

Through implementation of alternatives C1 or 

C2, overall wetland protection would be increased. 

Once the basin’s self-sustaining ecological functions 

return, the intensity of management actions would 

be reduced, allowing reallocation of resources. These 

resources can be applied to other refuge complex 

programs such as the conservation easement program. A result of this would be an increase in the 

capacity to protect native grasslands and wetlands. 

These effects would be realized on a landscape level 

rather than a locally. 

There would be localized changes in bird distribution as migratory birds adapt to the presence or 

absence of water. On a continental population level, 

no effects are expected (personal communication, 

Region 6 Migratory Bird Program, Kathleen Burchett, Vanessa Fields, Toni Griffin). 

On a very localized scale, impacts to migratory gamebird hunting under alternatives C1 or 

C2 would occur during dry periods; however, other 

locations do exist to accommodate user groups. For 

example, opening weekend of 2011, a dramatic decline occurred in the number of hunters at Freezeout 

Wildlife Management Area (121 hunters compared 

to average of 227 hunters). Interestingly, the refuge experienced nearly the exact same increase in 

hunter use (94 hunters compared to average of 40 

hunters). Many hunters stated that they went to 

Benton Lake instead of Freezeout this year due to 

increased water levels. 

Impacts to the Muddy Creek watershed would 

be expected under alternatives C1 or C2. Currently, 

Muddy Creek’s erosion is low when flows are under 150 cfs. During the spring and fall when Benton 

Lake would normally be pumping (alternatives A1, 

B1, B2), average flows are at this target of 150 cfs 

(personal communication, Alan Rollo). The refuge 

would no longer reduce flows in Muddy Creek by 

24 cfs when the pumps were run in spring or fall. 

This increase in flows is estimated to increase sedimentation by 4,500 tons/year (personal communication, Alan Rollo). Recent work by the Muddy Creek 

watershed group have found that for every 2 cfs 

reduction in flows, the project cost is approximately 

$100,000. 

Alternatives C1 or C2 should be more effective 

in counteracting the impacts of wetland loss across 

the landscape on migratory birds than alternatives 

A1, B1 and B2. By shifting management of Benton Lake from intensively managed semipermanent 

water, to a wetland driven by natural hydrology, 

more complex resources can be directed to protecting the most vulnerable wetlands on the landscape. 

The Service’s HAPET office has identified temporary and seasonal wetlands, often less than 1 acre in 

size, and totally or partially embedded in cropland, 

as the highest risk for conversion. The pressure to 

drain and fill these wetlands for tillage agriculture 

puts these basins at higher risk of conversion than 

those with more permanent water or embedded 

in grassland. At the same time, the value of these 

wetlands to the waterfowl resource is great. According to HAPET, for every ten 1-acre wetlands in 

the PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region, there would 

predictably be 20 breeding pairs of ducks; whereas, 

one 10-acre wetland would likely support only seven 

duck pairs. Managing Benton Lake as a semipermanent wetland does not provide the same resources as 

would managing most of the lost wetlands across the 

landscape. Protecting and restoring these vulnerable 

wetlands would be of greater benefit to migratory 

birds. 

Although the Service is working to improve wetland health and sustainability in its impounded and 

managed wetlands across the Refuge System, few 

refuges have the opportunity or possibility to fully 

restore their wetlands. Many refuge impoundments 

are too highly modified or subject to forces beyond 

the Service’s control, which make restoration impossible. In these systems, understanding the underlying hydrogeomorphology is still critical to long-term 

sustainability, but emulating natural processes may 

be all that is possible. Benton Lake Refuge is relatively unique in that simply restoring the hydrology 

is not only possible, but is likely to have a significant, 

positive impact on the health and long-term sustainability of the wetland. A fully functional, large, seasonal wetland basin that is protected, as proposed 

under alternatives C1 or C2, is a relatively rare and 

special wildlife resource on the Montana landscape. 

7 .20 Summary of the 

Alternatives’ Actions 

and Consequences 

Table 54 summarizes the actions of each alternative (detailed in sections 7.5–7.9) and the consequences of those actions (sections 7.13–7.17). 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 279 

Table 54 . Summary of t

for the Benton Lake Na

Alternative A1— 

(No Action) 

Protection of native 

he actions and consequences of the management alternatives 

tional Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Alternative B1 Alternative B2 

Grasslands—actions 

Same as alternative Same as alternative 

Alternative C1— 

(Proposed action) 

Same as alternative 

Alternative C2 

Same as C1. 

grasslands through A1. A1, plus: B2, plus: 

easements is a high Up to 3.5 miles Up to 19 miles 

priority in the com of nonnative tree of nonnative tree 

plex; refuge grass plantings would be plantings would be 

lands managed to removed and up to removed and up to 

sustain health. 

Resources insuf

ficient to manage 

grasslands precisely. 

Cool-season, exotic 

grasses would likely 

continue to expand 

and further degrade 

the quality of the na

tive prairie, which 

could affect reproduc

tive success of grass

land-nesting birds. 

Nonnative tree 

plantings provide 

habitat for wider di

versity of birds but 

contribute to frag

mentation, depreda

tion and parasitism, 

which negatively af

fects grassland-depen

dent migratory birds. 

Pumping is used to 

supplement natural 

runoff to provide mi

gration and breeding 

habitat every year for 

wetland-dependent 

wildlife, primarily wa

terfowl. 

207 acres of degraded 728 acres of degraded 

tame grass stands tame grass stands 

would be planted back would be planted back 

to native grass spe to native grass species 

cies. 

Grasslands—environmental consequences 

Same as alternative During the initial, More resources 

A1, except increased drying period, more would be available to 

focus on refuge wet resources available manage and improve 

lands may mean to manage grasslands the quality of native 

declines in biological and health improved. prairie. 

diversity, ecological Between 65 and 750 Up to 18 species of 

integrity and envi acres of grassland migratory birds that 

ronmental health of habitat would become nest in nonnative 

refuge grasslands. available or more de trees may be dis

sirable to grassland placed. 

species by removing 

nonnative trees. 

Wetlands and riparian areas—actions 

Same as A1, except Same as B1, except All units on the ref

short-term dry cycles an initial, basin-wide uge would be subject 

of 3–7+ years would drying period (8 plus to natural hydrologic 

be rotated among years) would be im regimes. Limited 

wetland units. Added plemented to “reset” pumping may occur 

treatments of pre the system. to support water 

scribed fire, discing, Pumping may be rights or for specific 

herbicide or reseed incrementally rein restoration purposes 

ing would be used if troduced if wetland only. The pump house 

needed. health objectives are will be supported. 

Intensive monitor met. Infrastructure on the 

ing and annual adjust refuge could be modi

ments made based on fied incrementally 

progress toward wet if monitoring results 

land health objectives. show that is necessary 

to achieve wetland 

health objectives. 

Same as C1 after 

basin restoration. 

Same as C1 except 

basin restoration 

would include the 

removal of all wet

land infrastructure 

as well as the pumphouse. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­ ­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
280 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Table 54 . Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives 

for the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Alternative A1— Alternative B1 Alternative B2 Alternative C1— Alternative C2 

(No Action) (Proposed action) 

Wetlands and riparian areas: water quantity and timing—environmental consequences 

Consistent flooding 

and minimal drying 

within wetland units; 

wetland basin is never 

completely dry. 

More variable 

flooding and drying 

within wetland units; 

wetland basin is never 

completely dry. 

Same as B1, except 

wetland basin may be 

completely dry during 

initial drying phase. 

The hydrology of 

the basin would be 

determined by natural 

runoff. 

Same as C1. 

Wetlands and riparian areas: infrastructure—environmental consequences 

With current infrastructure, the ability 

to channel water to all 

units for management 

objectives is available. Infrastructure 

alters natural flow 

patterns across the 

basin, inhibits nutri

ent release, reduces 

dissolved oxygen, 

and traps and concen

trates contaminants. 

Same as alternative 

A1. 

Same as alternative 

B1. 

Modification of infrastructure may be 

necessary to decrease 

contaminants, restore 

moisture gradients 

and waterflow patterns, and increase 

soil oxygenation 

which directly influence nutrient release, 

vegetation and macro

invertebrate distribu

tion in the wetland. 

Same as alterna

tive C1, except: 

Potential benefits 

from removing infra

structure identified 

under alternative C1 

would occur more 

quickly. 

Conversely, unnec

essary and irrevers

ible changes to the 

infrastructure could 

also occur. 

Wetlands and riparian areas: water quality—environmental consequences 

The average total 

load of selenium de

posited on the refuge 

would be 152 pounds/ 

year, (61% from natu

ral run-off 39% from 

pumped water). 

Units 1 and 2 would 

become a toxic threat 

sufficient to cause 

complete reproduc

tive failure in sensi

tive species of aquatic 

birds in 9 and 17 

years. 

Same as A1, except selenium levels 

reduced to minimal 

levels (no imminent 

toxic threat) through 

intensively managed 

drying rotations, 

prescriptive wetland 

treatments, monitoring, partnerships it 

the watershed and 

possibly a diversion 

channel. 

Same as B1, except 

initial drying period 

will make it easier to 

keep selenium below 

minimum levels. Sele

nium inputs reduced 

by 15-20% over A1 

and B1. 

By ceasing pumping, the refuge would 

realize an automatic 

40% decrease in sele

nium inputs over the 

long term and as much 

as a 75% decrease 

during dry years at no 

cost. 

Reduced inputs, 

coupled with in

creased drying, should 

result in an equilib

rium well below the 

toxic threshold. 

Same as C1. 

Wetlands and riparian areas: wetland productivity—environmental consequences 

Stable water conditions would likely continue to lower wetland 

productivity at poten

tially all levels of the 

food chain. 

Within wetland 

units, short-term dry 

cycles increase flooding and drying vari

ability that stimulate 

productivity but is 

less than historic vari

ability. Long-term 

wet-dry cycles absent 

at the refuge and 

landscape scale that 

stimulate cycles of 

invertebrate commu

nities, plant communi

ties, and mammalian 

predators. Not selfsustaining. 

Increased over B1 

at the wetland unit, 

refuge and landscape 

level. Not self-sustain

ing. 

Increased over B2, 

especially during wet 

cycles, but it will be 

more variable over 

time. Restoring the 

full variability in the 

wet–dry cycle should 

have a positive effect 

on ecosystem pro

cesses and increase 

nutrient cycling. 

Long-term dynamics 

of production same 

as other northern 

prairie systems as 

vegetation, inverte

brate, and nutrient

cycling changes when 

wetlands dry, reflood, 

reach peak flooding 

extent, and then begin 

drying again. Selfsustaining. 

Same as C1. 

­

­

­ ­

­

­

­ ­

­

­

­ ­

­ ­

­

­

­ ­ ­

­

­

­

­

­
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 281 

Table 54 . Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives 

for the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Alternative A1— Alternative B1 Alternative B2 Alternative C1— 

(No Action) (Proposed action) 

Wetlands and riparian areas: wetland vegetation—environmental consequences 

Alternative C2 

Stable water would Wetland vegetation Same as B1, but im- A reduction in the Same as C1. 

likely cause existing diversity increased provements likely to coverage of robust, 

stands of monotypic across the wetland be greater and more emergent vegetation 

vegetation, such as basin. Drying will widespread across such as cattail, alkali 

alkali bulrush, cattails reduce monotypic wetland basin. bulrush and Garrison 

and invasive Garrison stands of emergent creeping foxtail would 

creeping foxtail to vegetation and nonna be expected. This 

continue to expand or tive Garrison creeping vegetation would be 

become denser, espe foxtail within units. replaced with wet

cially in a dry cycle. Nonnatives such as land species adapted 

Kentucky bluegrass to more seasonal and 

and Canada thistle temporary flooding 

may become estab cycles such as oc

lished in newly ex curred historically. 

posed mudflats. The wetland basin 

In addition, in units would likely contain 

that are not immedi diverse annual and 

ately dried, the emer perennial herbaceous 

gent vegetation would plants and wet-prairie 

continue to expand. meadow grasses. 

Water resources—actions 

Muddy Creek and Same as alternative Same as alternative The water rights The water rights 

Lake Creek water A1. C1. for Muddy Creek for Muddy Creek 

rights used annually. could be lost unless could be lost if chal

water is pumped at lenged in court for 

least once every 8 nonuse. 

years. The water right in 

The water right for Lake Creek would be 

Lake Creek would be kept. 

supported. 

Water resources—environmental consequences 

Annually about Same as alternative Same as B1, except Only natural runoff Same as C1, ex

4,000 acre-feet of wa A1, except: pumping water would would be captured on cept no pumping. 

ter is pumped from The total acre feet not occur during the a regular basis. Pump

Muddy Creek and pumped would depend initial dry period and ing would be very 

runoff from the Lake on progress toward future pumping is less rare. 

Creek drainage is wetland objectives. certain. 

captured within the 

wetland basin. 

visitor services: hunting—actions 

Hunting for water Same as alternative Same as alterna During years with Same as alterna

fowl and upland game- A1, except: tive C1 during initial adequate water, the tive C1. 

bird would continue the area open for drying phase; Same location and size 

in designated areas. waterfowl hunting as alternative B1 of waterfowl Hunt 

Hunt units do not could change annually. when adequate water Area could change 

change. Wetland hunt (pumping/run-off); depending on water 

units flooded annually. Upland gamebird conditions. Upland 

Big game hunting, hunting would be ex gamebird season 

other wildlife species, panded to the close of would be same as al

including furbearers, the State season (usu ternative B2. 

would continue to be ally January 1). 

prohibited. 

­

­ ­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­ ­

­

­

­

­
282 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Table 54 . Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives 

for the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Alternative A1— Alternative B1 Alternative B2 Alternative C1— Alternative C2 

(No Action) (Proposed action) 

visitor services: hunting—environmental consequences 

Total hunting vis

its over the life of 

the plan projected to 

be 5,625 visits, pos

sibly less if habitat 

conditions decline. 

Waterfowl and upland 

gamebird hunting 

opportunities every 

year. 

Total hunting visits 

over the life of the 

plan projected to be 

6,195 visits. Overall 

hunter numbers may 

increase slightly 

(<10%) over A1, 

and the quality of 

the experience may 

improve. Annual 

changes in the water

fowl hunt area could 

be confusing. This 

would take greater ef

fort from refuge staff 

to clearly communi

cate. 

Total hunting vis

its over the life of 

the plan projected 

to be 4,755 (15% less 

than A1). Waterfowlhunting visits greater 

than C1 and C2, but 

less than A1 and B1. 

Annual changes in 

the waterfowl hunt 

area could be confus

ing. This would take 

greater effort from 

refuge staff to clearly 

communicate. 

Total hunting vis

its over the life of 

the plan projected 

to be 3,300 (41% less 

than A1). Waterfowl 

hunting experience 

similar to currently on 

waterfowl production 

areas in the complex. 

Annual changes in 

the waterfowl hunt 

area could be confus

ing. This would take 

greater effort from 

refuge staff to clearly 

communicate. 

Same as C1. 

visitor Services: wildlife observation and photography—actions 

The Prairie Marsh 

Wildlife Drive would 

be open year-round. 

Lower Marsh Road 

would be open from 

July 15 until the open

ing day of waterfowlhunting season. 

Annual grouse view

ing would continue by 

reservation. Photo

graphic blinds, Prairie 

Marsh Boardwalk, 

spotting scopes and 

interpretive panels 

supported. 

Same as alterna

tive A1, except the 

auto tour routes may 

be adjusted as needed 

due to changes in wa

ter management. 

Same as alternative 

A1 during initial dry

ing period,. 

Same as alterna

tive B1 if pumping 

resumes. 

Same as A1, except 

parts of the exist

ing auto tour route 

could be changed and 

more hiking trails 

may be established 

if interior roads are 

modified/removed for 

habitat management 

purposes. 

Same as C1. 

visitor services: wildlife observation and photography—environmental consequences 

Total visits over 

the life of the plan 

are projected to be 

114,750. This use 

would continue to 

account for 73% of 

total visitor use. May 

be slight increase if 

another grouse blind 

is established. Op

portunities would be 

negatively impacted 

if habitat conditions 

decline. 

Same as the al

ternative A1, by 

changing water man

agement within the 

units waterbirds may 

become less habitu

ated to traffic. Annual 

changes in road clo

sures could be confus

ing to visitors. This 

would take greater 

effort from refuge 

staff to clearly com

municate. 

Same as alternative 

B1, except during the 

initial dry period, the 

ability to observe cer

tain water-dependent 

wildlife would be 

more variable. Op

portunities to observe 

and photograph up

land wildlife may be 

expanded. 

Total visits over 

the life of the plan are 

projected to increase 

25% over Al, for a 

total of 143,440. The 

ability to observe cer

tain water-dependent 

wildlife would be 

more variable and 

occur primarily in 

spring. Upland wild

life observation op

portunities expanded. 

The hiring of a park 

ranger would increase 

awareness of opportu

nities on the refuge. 

More nature trails 

would offset any visi

tation losses that may 

occur from modifica

tions to the auto tour 

route. 

Same as C1. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 283 

Table 54 . Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives 

for the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Alternative A1— Alternative B1 Alternative B2 Alternative C1— Alternative C2 

(No Action) (Proposed action) 

visitor services: environmental education and interpretation—actions 

Partnership with Same as alternative Same as alternative Same as alternative Same as C1. 

the Great Falls Pub A1, plus: B1 plus: B1, except 

lic Schools to provide interpretive ma Interpretive panels curriculum may 

an opportunity for all terials to explain the and maps would also be adapted to reflect 

third graders to visit purpose of short-term explain the purpose of changes in habitat 

the refuge. Support dry cycles and any initial drying period. from restoration 

Envirothon, STEM resulting changes to efforts. Hire park 

expo, MFWP clinics public use. ranger. 

and other educational 

opportunities. 

visitor services: environmental education and interpretation—environmental consequences 

Total visits over Opportunities for Same as alternative Total visits over Same as C1. 

the life of the plan are interpretation and ed A1, plus an emphasis the life of the plan are 

projected to be 26,625. ucation would be simi on interpretation and projected to increase 

lar to A1, although education relating to 25% over A1 and be 

potentially in different the restoration efforts 33,280. Increased en

locations. to meet habitat ob vironmental education 

jectives and wetland and interpretive pro

health and productiv gramming, particu

ity would begin. larly in relation to the 

importance of natural 

hydroperiods in wet

lands. 

Staff and funding—actions 

5.5 FTE currently Increase perma- Increase perma- Increase perma- Increase perma

assigned to refuge nent staff by 2.8 FTE nent staff by 2.7 FTE nent staff by 2.3 FTE. nent staff by 1.5 

management; and 2 seasonal biologi and 2 seasonal biologi- Maintenance of FTE. Decommission 

Maintenance of cal technicians. Main cal technicians. Main pumphouse and possi pumphouse and all 

pumphouse and wet tenance of pumphouse tenance of pumphouse ble removal/modifica wetland infrastruc

land infrastructure; and wetland infra and wetland infra tion of some wetland ture. 

Pump an average of structure. structure. infrastructure. 

4,000ac-ft annually. Money for a diver

sion channel possibly 

needed. 

Staff and funding—environmental consequences 

Total costs for Total costs (water Total costs (water Total costs (op- Total costs (opera

pumping and opera- level management, level management, erations, maintenance, tions, maintenance, 

tions and maintenance pumping, operations, pumping, operations, pumping, prescriptive prescriptive habitat 

over the life of the maintenance, pre- maintenance, pre- habitat treatment, treatment, grassland 

plan are estimated to scriptive habitat scriptive habitat grassland restoration restoration and mon

total $1,785,000. treatment, and moni treatment, grassland and monitoring) over itoring) over the life 

toring) over the life restoration and the life of the plan of the plan vary from 

of the plan are pre monitoring) over the vary from $809,000 $601,000 - $733,000. 

dicted to range be life of the plan vary - $941,000. The res The restoration of 

tween $2,641,000 and from $1,816,000 to toration of the basin the basin is projected 

$2,829,000, depending $2,263,000 depending could cost between to cost between 

on how much natural on how much natural $0–4 million dollars $1.2–4 million dollars 

runoff is received and runoff is received and depending on modifi

how much pumping is how much pumping cations to infrastruc

necessary. occurs. ture. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­ ­ ­

­ ­ ­

­ ­

­

­

­

­

­

­ ­

­

­
284 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Table 54 . Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives 

for the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . 

Alternative A1— 

(No Action) 

Alternative B1 Alternative B2 

Resource protection—actions 

Alternative C1— 

(Proposed action) 

Alternative C2 

Law enforce- Law enforcement Same as alternative Same as alternative Same as alterna

ment patrols are patrols commitments B B1 tive B1 

limited to manag would be increased. 

ing visitor ser- Preventative law envices and resource forcement efforts such 

protection. as signing, news re

leases, informational 

open houses and no

tice posting would be 

increased. 

Resource protection—environmental consequences 

Staff time for any Users would better Same as alternative Same as alternative Same as alterna

particular activity understand changes in B B1 tive B1 

would be limited. visitor access neces

sary to accommodate 

efforts to improve 

habitat. 

User confusion 

would be reduced and 

compliance with ref

uge rules and regula

tions would increase. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

7 .21 Management Direction 

This section contains the specific objectives and 

strategies that would be used to carry out the Service’s proposed action (alternative C1) for the Benton Lake Refuge. The Service recommends this as 

the alternative that could best achieve the refuge’s 

purposes along with the refuge complex’s vision and 

goals while helping to fulfill the Refuge System mission. 

If the Regional Director selects alternative C1 as 

the preferred alternative, the objectives and strategies presented in this chapter would become the 

final plan to be carried out over the next 15 years. 

Once approved, the preferred alternative for Benton 

Lake Refuge, along with the preferred alternative 

for all the other management aspects of the refuge 

complex (refer to chapters 3 and 6), would become 

the final plan. The Service would publish a notice of 

availability in the Federal Register and send copies 

of the final CCP or CCP summary to individuals and 

groups on the mailing list. 

The CCP would serve as the primary management document for the refuge complex until it is formally revised. The Service would carry out the final 

CCP with help from partner agencies, organizations, 

and the public. The management direction presented 

in this chapter would meet the purposes, vision, and 

goals of the refuge complex. 

The Service is proposing alternative C1 as the 

most effective and safest way to manage Benton 

Lake Refuge. This section discusses goals, objectives, and strategies that serve as the steps needed 

to achieve the CCP vision. While a goal is a broad 

statement, an objective is a concise statement that 

describes what is to be achieved, the extent of the 

achievement, who is responsible, and when and 

where the objective should be achieved—all to address the goal. The strategies are the actions needed 

to achieve each objective. Unless otherwise stated, 

the refuge complex staff would carry out the actions 

in the objectives and strategies. The rationale for 

each objective provides context such as background 

information, assumptions, and technical details. 

The goals and objectives for the Benton Lake 

Refuge are the same as those for the refuge complex 

and are not repeated here unless they have strategies specific to the refuge. Objectives and strategies 

specific to the refuge are described below. 

Habitat Goal 

Actively conserve, restore, and manage upland and 

wetland habitats across the northern prairies and 
	

CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 285 

intermountain valleys of the refuge complex through 

management strategies that perpetuate the integrity of ecological communities. 

Grasslands Objective 1 

Within the first 5 years of the plan, complete rangeland assessments on fee-title native grassland tracts 

greater than 80 acres in size. (Same as Grasslands 

Objective 1, chapter 6.) 

Strategies 

In addition to the refuge complex strategies (Grasslands Objective 1, chapter 6): 

Evaluate 5,014 acres of native grass on the refuge 

for existing native plant communities in comparison to the HCPC for that specific ecological site 

using NRCS ecological site description. 

Rationale 

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health Technical Reference 1734–6 Version 4 (Pellant et al. 2005), 

is recognized by range professionals as the basis for 

inventory and assessment of rangeland health. This 

publication was a collaborative effort between the 

BLM, NRCS, the Agricultural Research Service and 

the USGS’s Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center. The publication promotes the concept 

of rangeland heath as an alternative to range condition and assessing rangelands through ecological 

status concepts. These principles combined with 

NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions, provide the best 

available science for assessing the 5,014 acres of native prairie on the refuge. 

Grasslands Objective 3 

Within 15 years of the approved plan, convert up to 

728 acres of tame grassland on Benton Lake Refuge 

to native-dominant perennial herbaceous cover in

cluding several species of native forbs. 

­

Strategies 

Same as the refuge complex strategies (Grasslands 

Objective 3, chapter 6). 

Conducting vegetation sampling on the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge . 

USFWS 
	

	

	

	

286 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Rationale 

Same as the refuge complex rationale (Grasslands 

Objective 3, chapter 6). 

Grasslands Objective 5 

Within 15 years, remove up to 19 miles of nonnative 

tree plantings, starting with high-priority large native prairie tracts. 

Strategies 

Same as the refuge complex strategies (Grasslands 

Objective 5, chapter 6). 

Rationale 

The strategic removal of up to 19 miles of nonnative tree plantings on the refuge would restore 

contiguous grassland habitat and reduce negative 

effects of fragmentation, depredation and parasitism 

to grassland-dependent migratory birds (Bakker 

2003). Distance to a wooded edge has been shown in 

many studies to increase nest predation and displace 

grassland species (Bakker 2003). This makes grassland habitat around tree plantings either unavailable 

or less desirable for grassland species. The distance 

varies by study area and species, but the Service estimates that between 65 and 750 acres of grassland 

habitat would become available or more desirable to 

grassland species by removing these trees (Bakker 

2003). The highest priority plantings for removal are 

those that bisect large tracts of native prairie. 

At the expense of grassland-obligate species, 

nonnative tree plantings provide an unnatural 

change to the vegetative structure of the prairies. 

This allows some species to nest where they otherwise would not. The result is an increase in local 

species diversity, but with negative impacts to regional biological diversity. As many as 18 other bird 

species occur on the refuge as a result of nonnative 

tree plantings (unpublished records on file at Benton Lake Refuge). Some of these include species of 

concern, such as loggerhead shrikes and Swainson’s 

hawk (unpublished records on file at Benton Lake 

Refuge). These species have other nearby habitat including the Missouri River riparian area and 

neighboring tree plantings. Tree plantings may also 

contribute to and provide opportunities for invasive 

noxious weed infestations. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Objective 1 

Over the next 15 years, manage and protect water 

quality for wetlands and riparian habitats on feetitle lands within the refuge complex such that there 

is minimal hazard to wildlife from contaminants. 

(Same as Wetlands Objective 1, chapter 6.) 

Strategies 

In addition to the strategies for the refuge complex 

(Wetlands Objective 1, chapter 6): 

Cease pumping water to the refuge to reduce 

selenium loading and increase selenium volatilization. During dry cycles, use prescribed fire to 

increase selenium volatization from vegetation 

and exposed sediments 

Check selenium levels every 1–3 years depending 

on severity level. 

Identify the seeps next to Lake Creek and its 

tributaries to assess their discharge, and use this 

information to set clean-up priorities. 

Assign staff member to work with the Lake 

Creek watershed group, the Montana Salinity 

Control Association, USDA and other organizations to reduce selenium loading in natural runoff 

to the refuge. 

Rationale 

Same as the refuge complex rationale (Wetlands 

Objective 1, chapter 6), plus selenium has been a 

potentially serious problem on the Benton Lake 

Refuge. The refuge has a history of moderate to 

high hazard levels (Nimick et al. 1996, Zhang and 

Moore 1997, refuge unpublished data 2006). Recent 

monitoring data, combined with predictive models, 

show that the refuge could reach selenium levels 

that are associated with complete or nearly complete reproductive failure in sensitive wildlife species in as little as 10 years (Zhang and Moore 1997). 

Selenium enters the refuge in natural runoff from 

the surrounding Lake Creek watershed and from 

water pumped from the Muddy Creek watershed. 

While natural runoff has contributed most of the selenium loading on the refuge over the last 35 years, 

the pumped water has contributed approximately 

40 percent of the total selenium load (Nimick et al. 

1996). Furthermore, the addition of pumped water 

has reduced drying of the wetland sediments, which 

is the primary mechanism for selenium to leave the 

refuge. Dry periods also create opportunities to use 

prescribed fire, which may volatize more selenium 

from wetland vegetation (Zhang and Moore 1997). 

The toxic threat to wildlife from selenium is 

based on the degree of contamination present and 

the extent of exposure. “Minimum hazard” level is 

defined as the concentration of selenium in various 

ecosystem components for which “no imminent toxic 

threat is identified” (Lemly 1995, 2002). For water 

this is less than 2 μg/l, sediment less than 2 μg/g, 

macroinvertebrates less than 3 μg/g, and aquatic 

bird eggs less than 5 μg/g. These values can be com­
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 287 

bined to create an overall hazard assessment for a 

given area, such as the wetland basin on the refuge 

(Lemly 1995, 2002). 

For some fee-title wetlands, streams and rivers 

on the refuge complex, contaminants may be coming 

from offsite sources that are not directly under Service management. In these situations, partnerships 

with neighboring landowners, watershed groups 

and other government agencies may be necessary. 

This is particularly important for Benton Lake Refuge. While the elimination of pumped water alone 

is expected to reduce selenium levels to below the 

minimum hazard, the Service is still interested in 

working with partners in the Lake Creek watershed. A contaminant action planned developed by 

the refuge in 1991 (USFWS 1991), identified actions 

to further reduce selenium inputs in natural runoff 

such as working with landowners, the Montana Salinity Control Association and USDA farm programs 

to promote seep reclamation and encourage perennial planted cover. Improving the watershed condition, along with changes in refuge management, 

offer the best long-term protection of water quality 

on the refuge. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Objective 2 

Over the next 15 years, restore the natural hydrologic processes (wet–dry cycles) for the site-specific 

hydrogeomorphic condition of wetlands and riparian 

areas. (Same as Wetlands Objective 2, chapter 6.) 

Strategies 

In addition to the refuge complex strategies (Wetlands Objective 2, chapter 6): 

■■ Cease pumping to the refuge from Muddy Creek 

except as necessary to support water rights. Support pumphouse in working condition. 

■■ Restore Units 1 and 2 to wet meadow wetland, 

with water entering the refuge through the old 

Lake Creek channel and natural diffuse runoff. 

■■ On the refuge, over the next 15 years, check indicators of wetland health to evaluate if removing 

infrastructure, breaching dikes and filling ditches 

to facilitate the return of natural sheet flow to the 

basin is necessary. 

■■ Hire a supervisory refuge biologist to carry out 

ARM as the restoration proceeds and other duties in the complex as needed 

■■ Hire a seasonal biological technician to help with 

implementation of ARM. 

Rationale 

Same as the refuge complex rationale (Wetlands Objective 2, chapter 6), plus an HGM assessment was 

completed for Benton Lake Refuge in 2009 (Heitmeyer et al. 2009). This analysis identified several 

significant alterations to the hydrologic cycles at 

the refuge. During the first 30 years of the refuge’s 

history, the refuge experienced 10- to 20-year wet 

and dry cycles that sustained wetland health, plant 

diversity and wildlife diversity. During dry years, 

contaminants were volatized, sediments were solidified, robust emergent vegetation such as cattails and 

bulrush died back, and wetland-dependent wildlife 

used migration, hibernation, burrowing or other 

strategies to survive. When the wet cycle returned 

to Benton Lake it experienced a boom of wetland 

productivity as invertebrates and wetland-dependent wildlife took advantage of the newly available 

resources. Over the last 50 years, this cycle has been 

altered by pumped water that reduced or ended the 

dry cycles and the associated benefits. In addition, 

wet years are also less productive because the rejuvenating effects of the dry cycle did not occur. 

Another important alteration of the hydrologic 

cycle at Benton Lake is the timing of flooding with 

pumped water. Historically, Benton Lake received 

most of its natural runoff and precipitation from 

spring snowmelt and rain during April-June. Conversely, pumped water is available and used for 

flooding primarily in the fall. While fall flooding may 

occur occasionally, repeated, annual fall flooding has 

likely reduced productivity in the wetlands, especially for spring migrants and breeding birds, by reducing seed availability altering plant germination 

and reducing invertebrate abundance and diversity 

(Schneider 1999, Murkin and Ross 1999, Anderson 

and Smith 2000, Greer et al. 2006). 

The physical movement and storage of water 

on Benton Lake has also been significantly altered. 

Units 1 and 2 were originally an alluvial fan of Lake 

Creek and only flooding during high flows, probably 

during spring (Heitmeyer et al. 2009). Currently, 

these units are the deepest, most permanently 

flooded part of the refuge. This has led to selenium 

contamination and cattail encroachment problems. 

In addition, the dikes, ditches and canals on the refuge have disrupted the original flooding patterns 

that alter the microtopography of the wetland basin 

and ultimately wetland productivity (Heitmeyer et 

al. 2009; personal communication, L. Frederickson). 

Unlike many wetlands in the United States, especially on refuges, the hydrogeomorphic conditions of 

Benton Lake have not been altered to an extent that 

prevents restoration. While the land surrounding 

the refuge in the Lake Creek watershed has largely 

been converted from native prairie to small grain 

agriculture, much of the remaining influences on the 
288 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

refuge have not changed. In particular, there are no 

significant alterations to the inputs from Lake Creek 

to the refuge, and since it is a closed basin, there are 

no downstream users of the water. 

As the restoration progresses, refuge staff would 

be using ARM and monitoring feedback loops to inform the management decision-making process. An 

added full-time supervisory biologist and seasonal 

biological technician would be necessary to achieve 

this objective. A part of the supervisory biologist’s 

time would be focused on developing, adjusting 

and providing oversight for the adaptive resource 

management of the restoration process. The daily 

implementation of the monitoring for the restoration 

process would be accomplished with the existing 1 

FTE refuge biologist and two seasonal biological 

technicians, as well as one added technician. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Objective 5 

Within 15 years, begin management of refuge wetland vegetation so that refuge at least 80 percent 

of wetlands are in good vegetative condition as defined by the MNHP Wetland Condition Assessment 

method. 

Strategies 

■■ Manage wetland vegetation by using grazing, 

haying, or fire to emulate historical disturbances 

when natural flooding and drying cycles allow. 

■■ Reduce competition and cover of nonnative vegetation by using discing, prescribed fire, grazing, 

haying or herbicides. 

■■ Where proper and feasible, native plantings and 

seeding may be used to restore native vegetation. 

■■ Priority would be given to invasive species management within wetlands using IPM and EDRR. 

■■ Use natural flooding and drying cycle to favor native vegetation and reduce nonnative vegetation 

where applicable (rest). 

■■ Check vegetation to find out if wetland vegetation is improving or declining. 

■■ Identify and check key wildlife species as added 

indicators of wetland health and management 

success. 

Rationale 

Vegetation is a common indicator of wetland health 

(Fennessy et al. 2007). Many methods have been 

developed to try to capture this, but the methods of 

DeKeyser et al. (2003, 2009), Hargiss et al. (2008), 

and the MNHP (2010) have been developed on similar wetland basins similar to the refuge. 

Objectively determining the breakpoints, or 

thresholds, for condition classes, such as defining 

what is a “good” wetland is difficult. The MNHP is 

currently working on a wetland reference network 

in Montana that would help clarify this definition. 

Until this is finished, the Service would use the vegetation metrics identified by the MNHP and strive 

to have wetlands in the top condition classes for each 

metric. At a minimum, the Service would conduct 

the rapid assessment and strive for at least 80-percent cover by native plants, less than 5-percent noxious weeds, less than 25-percent other nonnative 

or highly tolerant native species, moderate litter 

accumulation that does not prevent plant recruitment, and no single dominant plant type across entire wetland. For wetlands with active restoration 

or management, such as Benton Lake, the assessment can be augmented with data on the diversity 

of native plant species, their Coefficient of Conservatism and overall Floristic Quality Index (Northern 

Great Plains Floristic Quality Assessment Panel 

2001; Montana Natural Heritage Program unpublished data). Reference conditions and cutoff values 

of “good” may be reassessed after the initial evaluation. 

Visitor Services Goal 

Provide opportunities to enjoy wildlife-dependent 

recreation on Service-owned lands and increase 

knowledge and appreciation for the refuge complex’s 

ecological communities and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Hunting Objective 

Over the life of the plan, provide a variety of hunting 

opportunities for approximately 3,300 visits that 

support sustainable resources and provide participants with an opportunity to appreciate natural 

environment on Benton Lake Refuge. (Same as 

Hunting Objective, chapter 6.) 

Strategies 

In addition to the refuge complex strategies (Hunting Objective, chapter 6): 

■■ Provide waterfowl hunting as conditions allow 

until November 30. 

■■ Provide upland gamebird hunting at the refuge 

including increased opportunity by extending 

the season on the refuge to correspond with the 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 289 

State season (generally first weekend in October 

to January 1) and expanding the locations available to hunt on the refuge. 

■■ Provide youth waterfowl and upland gamebird 

hunting opportunities within State season. 

■■ Annually evaluate and revise hunt location and 

seasonal availability to synchronize opportunity 

with water availability and to provide an inviolate sanctuary for migrating waterfowl. 

Rationale 

Same as the refuge complex rationale (Hunting Objective, chapter 6). Waterfowl and upland gamebird 

hunting occurs on the refuge. General refuge hunting begins with the opening of the State waterfowl 

season, with the exception of youth waterfowl and 

upland gamebird seasons. Waterfowl hunting season 

closes after November 30th and upland gamebird 

hunting will close in correspondence with the State 

season. When waterfowl hunting occurs, the hunting area would be flexible to make sure an inviolate 

sanctuary exists while concurrently providing for 

hunting. Decisions would be made on a year-by-year 

basis about the location of open and closed areas for 

waterfowl hunting. 

Wildlife Observation 

and Photography Objective 

Throughout the life of the plan, continue to provide 

opportunities for approximately 7,500 visits annually 

at Benton Lake Refuge to observe and photograph a 

variety of wildlife species. (Same as Wildlife Observation and Photography Objective, chapter 6.) 

Strategies 

In addition to the refuge complex strategies (Wildlife Observation and Photography Objective, chapter 

6): 

■■ Continue to support observation and photography blinds. 

■■ Install another grouse observation and photography blind. 

■■ Continue to support an information kiosk and 

Prairie Marsh boardwalk trail with a spotting 

scope. 

■■ If habitat restoration efforts require it, change or 

reroute the existing auto tour routes. 

■■ Evaluate locations for more walking trails. 

■■ Restrict foot-traffic, including hiking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing, to designated 

trails; roads open to motorized vehicles; and to 

the refuge hunt area during the refuge hunting 

season. 

■■ To provide an accessible alternative to the grouse 

blind, provide a video in the Visitor Center that 

shows grouse dancing and make sure that visitors are aware that it is available. Explore the 

possibility of putting the video on the refuge Web 

site. 

Rationale 

Same as refuge complex rationale plus, in 2011, wildlife observation and photography accounted for 7,650 

visits to the refuge. The Benton Lake Visitor Center, the Prairie Marsh Drive, Lower Marsh Road, 

an informational kiosk, the Prairie Marsh Boardwalk with a spotting scope, a photography blind, and 

a Sharp-tailed Grouse observation blind facilitate 

wildlife observation and photography opportunities 

on the refuge. 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation Objective 1 

During the life of the plan, enhance public knowledge and understanding of the restoration efforts 

and the progress being made. Expand environmental education programs for adults and children on 

and off the refuge, focusing on the wetland habitat 

and native prairie habitats and the natural, cultural, 

and historical resources of the refuge. Programs and 

activities would promote awareness of and advocacy 

for refuge resources and management activities for 

the more than 10,000 visitors and students annually 

at the Benton Lake Refuge. 

Strategies 

In addition to the refuge complex strategies (Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective 

1, chapter 6): 

■■ Develop a series of environmental outreach programs with specific themes (such as prairie and 

wetland conservation) as it relates to the restoration process for the refuge. 

■■ Design and install interpretive panels that focus 

specifically on the restoration efforts and explain 

the restoration process and the progress. 

■■ Adapt an environmental education curriculum in 

coordination with the Great Falls Public Schools 

to reflect the changes throughout the habitat restoration process. 
290 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Prescribed fire is a managment tool used at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge . 

USFWS 

■■ When safety permits, allow visitors access to areas undergoing restoration to highlight activities 

and restoration effects and resulting benefits to 

natural resources. 

■■ Consider producing tear sheets on birdlife histories 

■■ Develop a unified, professionally designed exhibit 

with a central theme for the entire visitor center 

area 

■■ Provide outreach materials for people with disabilities (large print, audio), and make sure that 

all refuge environmental education programs are 

accessible. 

Rationale 

Same as the refuge complex rationale (Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective 1, chapter 6), plus in FY 2011, refuge staff reached 1,700 

participants during on and offsite environmental 

education programs. Most of which, approximately 

850, were third graders in the Great Falls Public 

School System who visit the Benton Lake Refuge 

as part of their education curriculum. In addition, 75 

participants attended 3 special events and 75 participants attended interpretation programs on and off 

refuge facilities. 

Understanding why the habitat restoration needs 

to be accomplished would generate more support 

from sportsmen and women, wildlife observers, and 

other interested public. Identifying and communicating important messages about natural resources 

to diverse audiences forges connections between 

interests of the audiences and develops understanding through appreciation and finally protection. It 

is essential to help the public become aware of the 

natural world around them and what they can do to 

help protect and restore it. 

The refuge has the potential to provide an extraordinary environmental education and interpretation program. The refuge is located 12 miles from 

Great Falls, a city of 60,000 people, in north-central 

Montana. The population of Cascade County, where 

the refuge is located, is 82,000. The refuge staff has 

never included an environmental education position. Management staff has given occasional tours to 

school groups and nongovernmental organizations, 

but has not developed and implemented a professional Environmental education program. The environmental science department of the GFPS brings 
CHAPTER 7–Alternatives Analysis for Benton Lake NWR 291 

all third graders (800–900 students) to the refuge 

each year in May and June for a basic introduction 

to prairie grasslands and wetlands. The enthusiasm 

and interest found in these young minds provides a 

foundation on which the Service could build a positive outdoor ethic. 

Administration Goal 

Provide facilities, strategically allocate staff, and 

effectively use and develop funding sources, partnerships, and volunteer opportunities to maintain 

the long-term integrity of habitats and wildlife resources of the refuge complex. 

Staff and Funding Objective 

Throughout the life of the plan, strive to fill positions 

identified in the CCP as critical to accomplishing 

goals and objectives (table 28 in section 6.1). 

Strategies 

■■ Conduct site visits and prepare briefing packages 

for Service and other Federal officials (for example, congressional staff) to showcase complex 

achievements and potential acquisition growth. 

■■ Use local media throughout the refuge complex 

to promote habitat improvements, outreach activities, and other accomplishments. 

■■ Continue to cultivate good working relationships 

with the refuge complex’s neighbors, other State 

and Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations and other user groups to promote grassroot support and advocacy for refuge complex 

initiatives. 

■■ Cooperate with organizations like TNC and the 

Conservation Fund to leverage resources for conservation easement programs. 

■■ Continue to accurately document money and staff 

needs through memos and reports. 

■■ Prove to neighbors, partners, and local communities the potential benefits of increased money and 

staff in the refuge complex. 

■■ Establish a Friends group to help support and 

advocate for the refuge complex. 

■■ Coordinate and take part in multi-agency youth 

and volunteer programs and initiatives. 

■■ Refine and increase participation in the refuge 

complex volunteer program. 

Rationale 

Increases in the size and complexity of lands within 

the refuge complex require more staff and money. 

Several new or expanded easement initiatives 

(Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, and Swan 

Valley Conservation Areas) would need more staff 

for monitoring and administration of easements as 

well as more money to acquire easements. 

Current staff and budget levels are not sufficient 

to complete required administrative functions. In 

FY 2009, the Refuge System received an increase of 

$250 million (National Wildlife Refuge Association 

2009 Annual Report). Projections show that due to 

the current state of the economy and the increasing debt and recession, operations money would 

remain stable to decreasing. With annual inflation, 

base allocations would erode with the inability to 

keep up with cost of living adjustments. The Service 

conservatively estimates a need for annual increases 

between $18 million and $35.5 million to meet conservation expectations of partners and the U.S. Congress (National Wildlife Refuge Association 2009 

Annual Report). Increased operation money is not 

expected. 

However, a significant increase in LWCF appropriations for the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area has occurred in recent years. This money 

is highly variable and directly affects the refuge 

complex’s ability to preserve intact landscapes. 

To accomplish the goals and objectives identified 

in this plan, the refuge complex staff would need to 

maximize opportunities for in-kind help, both fiscal 

and human resources, in addition to experiencing 

increases in base (operations money) allocations. 

The refuge complex has a rich tradition of maximizing partnerships to meet established goals and 

objectives. The Service would need to continue these 

efforts and look for more opportunities to leverage 

dollars and human capital through partnerships. 

Creative work force planning, partnerships, and 

using supplemental money making opportunities are 

mechanisms to successfully carry out recommendations. Other options are to use maintenance action 

teams, contracting, seasonal and temporary hires, 

volunteers, and youth initiatives. 

Visitor and Employee Safety 

and Resource Protection Goal 

Provide for the safety, security, and protection of 

visitors, employees, natural and cultural resources, 

and facilities throughout the refuge complex. 
292 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Resource Protection Objective 

Over the life of the plan, strive to limit illegal activity to at or below levels to be figured out within 5 

years of plan approval. (Same as Resource Protection Objective 2, chapter 6.) 

Strategies 

In addition to the refuge complex strategies (Resource Protection Objective 2, chapter 6): 

■■ Increase patrol and preventative law enforcement efforts at the refuge by utilizing the fulltime law enforcement officer hired for the refuge 

complex. 

■■ Organize and distribute information about the 

changing routes of travel, access areas, designated closures, changes in refuge specific regulations to improve preventative law enforcement 

efforts. 

■■ Submit news releases to local newspapers and 

radio stations and post on refuge Web site to increase the public’s awareness about annual recreational opportunities, refuge specific regulations, 

and shifts in open and closed areas to hunting and 

other wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

■■ Host an annual hunter orientation “open house” 

before the hunting season to share refuge specific 

regulations and changes to the open and closed 

areas. 

Rationale 

Same as the refuge complex rationale (Resource 

Protection Objective 2, chapter 6), plus currently 

law enforcement support on the refuge consists of 

help from the collateral duty officer assigned to the 

wetland management district or the Montana-Wyoming Zone Officer stationed at the complex headquarters. Restoration efforts within the wetland 

basin may require shifts in open and close areas, 

auto tour routes, walking trails and other wildlifedependent recreational activities. Preventative law 

enforcement efforts can help end or reduce the occurrence of refuge specific violations. Open houses, 

news releases, posting of regulatory information are 

effective ways to improve visitor compliance. 
Glossary
 

accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas 

and activities for people of different abilities, especially those with physical impairments. 

A .D .—Anno Domini, “in the year of the Lord.” 

adaptive resource management (ARM)—The rigorous 

application of management, research, and monitoring to gain information and experience necessary to assess and change management activities. 

It is a process that uses feedback from research, 

monitoring, and evaluation of management actions to support or change objectives and strategies at all planning levels. It is also a process in 

which the Service carries out policy decisions 

within a framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and assumptions 

inherent in management plans. Analysis of results helps managers decide whether current 

management should continue as is or whether it 

should be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

alternative—Reasonable way to solve an identified problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 

1500.2); one of several different means of accomplishing refuge and district purposes and goals 

and contributing to the National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

amphibian—Class of cold-blooded vertebrates that 

includes frogs, toads, and salamanders. 

annual—Plant that flowers and dies within 1 year of 

germination. 

baseline—Set of critical observations, data, or information used for comparison or a control. 

biological control—Organisms or viruses used to 

control invasive plants or other pests. 

biological diversity, biodiversity—Variety of life and 

its processes including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, 

and the communities and ecosystems in which 

they occur (“Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 

052 FW 1.12B). The National Wildlife Refuge 

System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic 

communities, and ecological processes. 

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms; 

caused, produced by, or comprising living organisms. 

breeding habitat—Environment used by migratory 

birds or other animals during the breeding season. 

canopy—Layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or understory vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy 

closure (also canopy cover) is an estimate of the 

amount of overhead vegetative cover. 

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. 

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. 

CO2—Carbon dioxide. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—Codification of 

the general and permanent rules published in the 

Federal Register by the Executive departments 

and agencies of the Federal Government. Each 

volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar 

year. 

compact—Montana House bill 717–Bill to Ratify 

Water Rights Compact. 

compatibility determination—See compatible use. 

compatible use—Wildlife-dependent recreational 

use or any other use of a refuge or district that, 

in the sound professional judgment of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will 

not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge or 

district (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility determination 

supports the selection of compatible uses and 

identified stipulations or limits necessary to make 

sure there is compatibility. 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—Document 

that describes the desired future conditions of 

the refuge or district and provides long-range 

guidance and management direction for the refuge manager to accomplish the purposes of the 

refuge or district, contribute to the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, and meet other 

relevant mandates (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

concern—See issue. 

cool-season grasses—Grasses that begin growth 

earlier in the season and often become dormant 

in summer; grasses that germinate at lower temperatures. Examples of cool-season grasses in the 

refuge complex are western wheatgrass, needle 

and thread, and green needlegrass. 

conservation—Management of natural resources to 

prevent loss or waste; actions may include preservation, restoration, and enhancement. 
294 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

conservation easement—Perpetual agreement entered into by a landowner and the Service by 

which a landowner gives up or sells one or more 

of the rights on their property for conservation purposes, with terms set by the Service. 

In return for a single lump-sum payment, the 

landowner agrees not to drain, burn, level, or fill 

habitats covered by the easement. Conservation 

easements generally prohibit the cultivation of 

grassland and wetland habitats while still permitting the landowner traditional grazing uses. A 

single-habitat conservation easement is often 

referred to as either a wetland easement or a 

grassland easement. 

coordination area—Wildlife management area made 

available to a State by a “cooperative agreement 

between the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the State fish and game agency pursuant 

to section 4 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 U.S.C. 664); or (B) by long-term leases 

or agreements pursuant to the Bankhead–Jones 

Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525; 7 U.S.C. 1010 et 

seq.).” States manage coordination areas, but 

they are part of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. CCPs are not required for coordination 

areas. 

cover, cover type, canopy cover—Present vegetation 

of an area; also see canopy. 

cultural resources—Remains of sites, structures, or 

objects used by people in the past. 

dense nesting cover (DNC)—Composition of grasses 

and forbs that allows for a dense stand of vegetation that protects nesting birds from the view of 

predators, usually consisting of one to two species of wheatgrass, alfalfa, and sweetclover. 

district—See wetland management district. 

district purpose—See purpose of the refuge. 

disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition from natural causes such as 

wildfire or human-caused activities and development such as timber harvest and road building. 

DNC—See dense nesting cover. 

drawdown—A manipulated water level in an impoundment that allows for the natural drying-out 

cycle of a wetland. 

duck, dabbling—Duck that mainly feeds on vegetable matter by upending on the water surface 

or by grazing and only rarely dives. 

duck, diving—Duck that mainly feeds by diving 

through the water. 

EA—See environmental assessment. 

ecosystem—Dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated nonliving environment; a biological community, together with its environment, functioning 

as a unit. For administrative purposes, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service has designated 53 ecosystems covering the United States and its possessions. These ecosystems generally correspond 

with watershed boundaries and their sizes and 

ecological complexity vary. 

ecotype—Subspecies or race that is especially 

adapted to a particular set of environmental conditions. 

emergent—Plant rooted in shallow water and having 

most of the vegetative growth above water such 

as cattail and hardstem bulrush. 

endangered species, Federal—Plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended, that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant part of its range. 

endangered species, State—Plant or animal species 

in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in a 

particular State within the near future if factors 

contributing to its decline continue; species with 

a population at a critically low level or having 

habitat that has been degraded or depleted to a 

significant degree. 

environmental assessment (EA)—Concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses 

the purpose and need for an action and alternatives to such action and that provides sufficient 

evidence and analysis of effects to determine 

whether to prepare an environmental impact 

statement or finding of no significant impact (40 

CFR 1508.9). 

evapoconcentration—Concentration of chemical constituents in a liquid due to evaporative processes. 

extinction—Complete disappearance of a species 

from the earth; no longer existing. 

extirpation—Extinction of a population; eradication 

of a species within a specified area. 

°F—Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit. 

fauna—Vertebrate and invertebrate animals in an 

area. 

Federal trust resource—Resource managed by one 

entity for another who holds the ownership. The 

Service holds in trust many natural resources for 

the people of the United States of America because of Federal acts and treaties; examples are 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act, 

migratory birds protected by international treaties, and native plant or wildlife species found on 

a national wildlife refuge. 

Federal trust species—Species where the Federal 

Government has primary jurisdiction including 

federally endangered or threatened species, migratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. 

fee title—Acquisition of most or all of the rights to a 

tract of land. 

Federal land—Public land owned by the Federal 

Government including lands such as national 
GLOSSARY 295 

wildlife refuges, national forests, and national 

parks. 

flora—Plant species in an area. 

forb—Broad-leaved herbaceous plant; seed-producing annual, biennial, or perennial plant that 

does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies 

down at the end of the growing season. 

fragmentation—Alteration of a large block of habitat 

that creates isolated patches of the original habitat interspersed with a variety of other habitat 

types; process of reducing the size and connectivity of habitat patches, making movement of individuals or genetic information between parcels 

difficult or impossible. 

ft—Feet, length measure. 

full-time equivalent (FTE)—One or more job positions 

with tours of duty that, when combined, equate 

to one person employed for the standard Government work-year. 

FWS—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Geographic Information System (GIS)—Computer system capable of storing and manipulating spatial 

data; set of computer hardware and software for 

analyzing and displaying spatially referenced 

features (such as points, lines and polygons) with 

nongeographic attributes such as species and age. 

GIS—See Geographic Information System. 

glyphosate—Glyphosate N–(phosphonomethyl) glycine; broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to 

kill invasive plants, especially perennials. Glyphosate inhibits an enzyme involved in the synthesis 

of the amino acids tyrosine, tryptophan, and phenylalanine; absorbed through foliage and translocated to growing points, it is only effective on 

actively growing plants and is not effective as a 

preemergence herbicide. 

goal—Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable 

units (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 

620 FW 1.5). 

gpm—Gallons per minute, waterflow. 

grassland tract—Contiguous area of grassland that 

is not fragmented. 

GS—General schedule pay rate schedule for certain 

Federal positions. 

habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and reproduction; place where an organism typically lives 

and grows. 

habitat type, vegetation type, cover type—Land classification system based on the concept of distinct 

plant associations. 

hemimarsh—Emergent phase of a seasonal or semipermanent wetland where the ratio of open-water area to emergent vegetation cover is about 

50:50 and vegetation and open-water areas are 

highly interspersed. 

hydroperiod—Period during which soils, waterbodies, and sites are wet. 

impoundment—Body of water created by collection and confinement within a series of levees 

or dikes, creating separate management units 

although not always independent of one another. 

Improvement Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

in—Inch. 

indigenous—Originating or occurring naturally in a 

particular place. 

integrated pest management (IPM)—Methods of managing undesirable species such as invasive plants; 

education, prevention, physical or mechanical 

methods of control, biological control, responsible 

chemical use, and cultural methods. 

“interseed”—Mechanical seeding of one or several 

plant species into existing stands of established 

vegetation. 

introduced species—Species present in an area due 

to intentional or unintentional escape, release, 

dissemination, or placement into an ecosystem 

because of human activity. 

invasive species—Species that is nonnative to the 

ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health. 

inviolate sanctuary—Place of refuge or protection 

where animals and birds may not be hunted. 

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision; for example, a Service initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, 

a threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in 

uses, public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition (“Draft Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

lek—An elevated patch of grassland used by male 

grouse to display and challenge one another to 

attract females; the elevation not only provides a 

clear view to interested female grouse, but it also 

enables the males to spot predators at a distance. 

management alternative—See alternative. 

management plan—Plan that guides future land 

management practices on a tract of land. 

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of animals between their breeding regions and 

wintering regions; to pass periodically from one 

region or climate to another for feeding or breeding. 

migratory bird—Bird species that follows a seasonal 

movement from its breeding grounds to its wintering grounds; includes waterfowl, shorebirds, 

raptors, and songbirds. 

mission—Succinct statement of purpose or reason 

for being. 
296 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an environmental effect or to make an effect less severe. 

mixed-grass prairie—Transition zone between tallgrass prairie and shortgrass prairie dominated 

by grasses of medium height that are about 2–4 

feet tall; soils are not as rich as in the tallgrass 

prairie and moisture levels are less. 

monitoring—Collecting information to track changes 

of selected parameters over time. 

national wildlife refuge (NWR)—Designated area of 

land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the National Wildlife Refuge System but does 

not include coordination areas; listing of all units 

of the Refuge System is in the current Annual 

Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)— 

Various categories of areas administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior for the conservation 

of fish and wildlife including species threatened 

with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests 

therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife 

refuges; areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with 

extinction; wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife 

management areas, and waterfowl production 

areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Improvement Act)—Set administrative 

policy for all refuges and units in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System; defined a unifying mission for the Refuge System; established the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority 

public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation); established a formal process for 

determining appropriateness and compatibility; 

established the responsibilities of the Secretary 

of the Interior for managing and protecting the 

Refuge System; required a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit by the year 2012; 

amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act 

and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. 

native species—Species that, other than as a result 

of an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in a specific ecosystem. 

neotropical migrant, migratory bird—Bird species that 

breeds north of the United States and Mexican 

border and winters primarily south of this border. 

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act. 

nest success—Chance that a nest will hatch at least 

one egg. 

nongovernmental organization—Group that is not 

comprised of Federal, State, tribal, county, city, 

town, local, or other governmental entities. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan—Recognized that the recovery and perpetuation of 

waterfowl populations depends on restoring 

wetlands and associated ecosystems throughout 

the United States and Canada; established cooperative international efforts and joint ventures 

comprised of individuals, corporations, conservation organizations, and local, State, Provincial, 

and Federal agencies drawn together by common 

conservation objectives. 

noxious weed—Plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to 

crops (including nursery stock or plant products), 

livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, natural resources of 

the United States, public health, or the environment. 

NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

NWR—See national wildlife refuge. 

objective—Concise target statement of what will be 

achieved, how much will be achieved, when and 

where it will be achieved, and who is responsible 

for the work; derived from goals and provides the 

basis for determining management strategies; 

should be attainable, time specific, and stated 

quantitatively to the extent possible (if cannot 

be stated quantitatively, may be stated qualitatively) (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 

602 FW 1.5). 

palustrine—Relating to a system of inland, nontidal 

wetlands characterized by the presence of trees, 

shrubs, and emergent vegetation (vegetation 

that is rooted below water but grows above the 

surface); palustrine wetlands range from permanently saturated or flooded land to land that is 

wet only seasonally. 

Partners in Flight Program—Western Hemisphere 

program designed to conserve neotropical migratory birds and officially endorsed by many 

Federal and State agencies and nongovernmental 

organizations; also known as the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Program. 

partnership—Contract or agreement entered into 

by two or more individuals, groups of individuals, 

organizations, or agencies in which each agrees 

to furnish a part of the capital or some in-kind 

service such as labor for a mutually beneficial 

enterprise. 

patch—Area distinct from that around it; distinguished from its surroundings by environmental 

conditions. 

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; waterbody that holds water 

year-round; plant species that has a lifespan of 

more than 2 years. 
GLOSSARY 297 

planning team—Group of individuals that prepares 

the comprehensive conservation plan; interdisciplinary in membership and function; generally 

consists of a team leader, refuge manager, biologist, staff specialists or other representatives of 

Service programs, ecosystems or regional offices, 

and State partner wildlife agencies as needed. 

planning team leader—Professional planner or natural resource specialist knowledgeable of the requirements of National Environmental Policy 

Act and who has planning experience; manages 

the refuge planning process and makes sure that 

there is compliance with applicable regulatory 

and policy requirements. 

planning unit—National wildlife refuge or wetland 

management district, or an ecologically or administratively related refuge complex, or a distinct 

unit of a refuge; may include lands outside refuge 

or district boundaries. 

plant community—Assemblage of plant species 

unique in its composition that occurs in particular 

locations under particular influences; reflection 

or integration of the environmental influences on 

the site such as soil, temperature, elevation, solar 

radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes a 

general kind of climax plant community such as 

ponderosa pine or bunchgrass. 

preferred alternative—Alternative selected to 

becomes the final plan; it can be the proposed 

action, the no-action alternative, another alternative, or a combination of actions and alternatives 

described in the draft CCP and environmental 

analysis document. 

prescribed fire—Skillful application of fire to natural 

fuel under specified conditions such as weather, 

fuel moisture, and soil moisture that allows confinement of the fire to a predetermined area and 

produces the intensity of heat and rate of spread 

to accomplish planned benefits to one or more 

objectives of habitat management, wildlife management, or hazard reduction. 

pristine—Typical of original conditions. 

private land—Land owned by a private individual, a 

group of individuals, or a nongovernmental organization. 

private landowner—Individual, group of individuals, 

or nongovernmental organization that owns land. 

private organization—Nongovernmental organization. 

priority public use—One of six uses authorized by 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 to have priority if found to be 

compatible with a refuge or district’s purposes; 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation; 

also see wildlife-dependent recreational use. 

proposed action—Alternative proposed to best 

achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge 

or district (contributes to the Refuge System 

mission, addresses the significant issues, and is 

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management). 

protohistoric—Pertaining to the transition period 

between prehistory and the earliest recorded 

history. 

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, State, and local government 

agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations (may 

include anyone outside the core planning team); 

anyone who may or may not have shown an interest in Service issues and those who do or do not 

realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

public domain, reserved from—See reserved from 

public domain. 

public involvement or scoping—Process that offers 

affected and interested individuals and organizations an opportunity to become informed about 

and to express their opinions on Service actions 

and policies; in the process, these views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful consideration is 

given to public views when shaping decisions for 

refuge and district management. 

purpose of the refuge, district—Reason for establishment and management of a national wildlife 

refuge or wetland management district that is 

specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, Executive order, agreement, public land 

order, donation document, or administrative 

memorandum establishing authorization or expansion of a refuge, refuge unit, refuge subunit, 

or district (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

raptor—Carnivorous bird such as a hawk, falcon, 

or vulture that feeds wholly or chiefly on meat 

taken by hunting or on carrion (dead carcasses). 

Reclamation—Bureau of Reclamation. 

redd—The spawning area or nest of trout or salmon. 

refuge—See national wildlife refuge. 

Refuge Operations Needs System—National database 

that contains the unfunded operational needs of 

each refuge and district; projects included are 

those required to carry out approved plans and 

meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates. 

refuge purpose—See purpose of the refuge. 

Refuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge System. 

refuge use—Activity on a refuge, except administrative or law enforcement activity, carried out by 

or under the direction of an authorized Service 

employee. 

reserved from public domain—Public land placed into 

permanent reserved status, such as a national 
298 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

wildlife refuge, that is not held in private ownership. 

resident species or wildlife—Species inhabiting a 

given locality throughout the year; nonmigratory 

species. 

resilience—the ability of system to recover from 

a disturbance or change without significant loss 

and return to a given ecological state 

rest—Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation in reference to Service lands. 

restoration—Management emphasis designed to 

move ecosystems to desired conditions and 

processes such as healthy upland habitats and 

aquatic systems. 

riparian area, habitat, corridor—Area that transitions 

from a terrestrial to aquatic ecosystem including streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent plant 

communities and their associated soils that have 

free water at or near the surface; land and its 

vegetation immediately adjoining and directly 

influenced by a stream. 

RLGIS—Refuge Lands Geographic Information System. 

RONS—See Refuge Operations Needs System. 

“round-outs”—Odd shapes and holes of non-Federal 

land within the boundary of Refuge System units 

that are straightened, or made whole, by the purchase of land tracts. 

runoff—Water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural or landscape irrigation that flows over the 

land surface into a waterbody. 

SAMMS—See Service Asset Maintenance Management System. 

scoping—Process of obtaining information from the 

public for input into the planning process. 

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers. 

senior water rights—Rights to water that were legally filed earlier than junior (more recent) water 

rights, having precedence. 

Service—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Service Asset Maintenance Management System— 

National database that contains the unfunded 

maintenance needs of each refuge and district; 

projects include those required to support existing equipment and buildings and to correct safety 

deficiencies for the implementation of approved 

plans and to meet goals, objectives, and legal 

mandates. 

shelterbelt—Single to multiple rows of trees and 

shrubs planted around cropland or buildings to 

block or slow down the wind. 

shorebird—Suborder of birds (Charadrii) such as a 

plover or snipe that frequents the seashore or 

mudflat areas. 

spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the character of space. 

special use permit—Special authorization from the 

refuge manager for any service, facility, privilege, 

or product of the soil provided at the Service’s 

expense and not usually available to the public 

through authorizations in Title 50 CFR or other 

public regulations (“Refuge Manual” 5 RM 17.6). 

species of concern—Species, while not falling under 

the definition of special status species, that is of 

management interest by virtue of being Federal 

trust species such as migratory birds, important 

game species, or significant keystone species; 

species that has a documented or clear population decline, a small or restricted population, or 

dependence on restricted or vulnerable habitats. 

stand—Homogenous area of vegetation with more 

or less uniform soils, landform, and vegetation. 

stepdown management plan—Specific plan that provides the details necessary to carry out management strategies identified in the comprehensive 

conservation plan (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

strategy—Specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (“Draft Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). 

submergent—Vascular or nonvascular plant adapted 

to grow in water, either rooted or nonrooted, that 

lies entirely beneath the water surface except for 

flowering parts in some species. 

System—See National Wildlife Refuge System. 

threatened species, Federal—Species listed under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 

that is likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 

part of its range. 

threatened species, State—Species likely to become 

endangered in a particular State within the near 

future if factors contributing to population decline or habitat degradation or loss continue. 

trust resource—See Federal trust resource. 

trust species—See Federal trust species. 

U .S .C .—United States Code.
 

USDA—United States Department of Agriculture.
 

U .S . Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, FWS)—Part 

of U.S. Department of the Interior; principal 

Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the National 

Wildlife Refuge System comprised of national 

wildlife refuges and waterfowl production areas. The Service runs national fish hatcheries 

and ecological service field stations, enforces 

Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird 

populations, restores national significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such 

as wetlands, administers the Endangered Spe­
GLOSSARY 299 

cies Act, oversees the Federal aid program that 

distributes millions of dollars in excise taxes on 

fishing and hunting equipment to State wildlife 

agencies, and helps foreign governments with 

their conservation efforts. 

U .S . Geological Survey (USGS)—Federal agency in 

the U.S. Department of the Interior whose mission is to provide reliable scientific information to 

describe and understand the earth; reduce loss of 

life and property from natural disasters; manage 

water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; 

and enhance and protect our quality of life. 

ungulate—Hoofed mammal. 

vision statement—Concise statement of the desired 

future condition of a planning unit, based primarily on the Refuge System mission, specific refuge 

or district purposes, and other relevant mandates 

(“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 

FW 1.5). 

volatilize—To cause a solid or liquid to be changed 

into a vapor. This is the means by which selenium 

is transferred from sediment to the air, thereby 

reducing levels in the wetland 

wading birds—Birds having long legs that enable 

them to wade in shallow water such as egret, 

great blue heron, black-crowned night-heron, and 

bittern. 

waterbird—Birds that depend on aquatic habitats to 

complete portions of their life cycles. 

waterfowl—Category of birds that groups ducks, 

geese, and swans. 

watershed—Geographic area within which water 

drains into a particular river, stream, or waterbody. 

wetland—Land transitional between terrestrial and 

aquatic systems where the water table is usually 

at or near the surface or the land is covered by 

shallow water. 

wetland management district—Land that the Refuge System acquires with Federal Duck Stamp 

money for restoration and management, primarily as prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl 

and other wetland birds. 

WG—Wage grade schedule, pay rate schedule for 

certain Federal positions. 

wildfire—Free-burning fire requiring a suppression 

response; all fire other than prescribed fire that 

occurs on wildlands. 

wildland fire—Wildfire or prescribed fire that occurs 

in undeveloped land. 

wildlife-dependent recreational use—Use of a refuge 

or district involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, 

or interpretation; also see priority public use. 

wildlife management—Practice of manipulating wildlife populations either directly through 

regulating the numbers, ages, and sex ratios 

harvested or indirectly by providing favorable 

habitat conditions and alleviating limiting factors. 

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not 

usually touching, generally forming 25–60 percent cover. 

WPA—Waterfowl production area. 

Appendix A 

Key Legislation and Policy 

This appendix briefly describes the guidance for 

the National Wildlife Refuge System and other key 

legislation and policies that guide management of 

the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

The mission of the 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 . 

(National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997) 

A .1 Goals of the National 

Refuge System 

■■ Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats, including species that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

■■ Develop and support a network of habitats for 

migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that 

is strategically distributed and carefully managed 

to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges. 

■■ Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, 

wetlands of national or international significance, 

and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, 

rare, declining, or underrepresented in existing 

protection efforts. 

■■ Provide and enhance opportunities to take part 

in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation). 

■■ Foster understanding and instill appreciation 

of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats. 

A .2 Guiding Principles 

There are four guiding principles for management 

and general public use of the Refuge System established by Executive Order 12996 (1996): 

■■ Public Use—The Refuge System provides important opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities involving hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. 

■■ Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper without quality habitat and without fish and wildlife, 

traditional uses of refuges cannot be sustained. 

The Refuge System will continue to conserve 

and enhance the quality and diversity of fish and 

wildlife habitat within refuges. 

■■ Partnerships—America’s sportsmen and women 

were the first partners who insisted on protecting valuable wildlife habitat within wildlife 

refuges. Conservation partnerships with other 

Federal agencies, State agencies, tribes, organizations, industry, and the general public can 

make significant contributions to the growth and 

management of the Refuge System. 

■■ Public Involvement—The public should be given 

a full and open opportunity to participate in decisions regarding acquisition and management of 

our national wildlife refuges. 

A .3 Legal and Policy Guidance 

Management actions on national wildlife refuges and 

wetland management districts are circumscribed 

by many mandates including laws and Executive 

orders. Regulations that affect refuge and district 

management the most are listed below. 
302 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)—Directed agencies to consult with native traditional 

religious leaders to determine proper policy changes 

necessary to protect and preserve Native American 

religious cultural rights and practices. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992)—Prohibited 

discrimination in public accommodations and services. 

Antiquities Act (1906)—Authorized the scientific investigation of antiquities on Federal land and provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects 

taken or collected without a permit. 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974)— 

Directed the preservation of historic and archaeological data in Federal construction projects. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as 

amended—Protected materials of archaeological 

interest from unauthorized removal or destruction, 

and requires Federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)—Required federally 

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to 

be accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Clean Water Act (1977)—Required consultation with 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permits) 

for major wetland modifications. Section 404—Authorized the Secretary of the Army, acting through 

the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits, after notice 

and opportunity for public hearing, for discharge 

of dredged or fill material into navigable waters of 

the United States, including wetlands, at specified 

disposal sites. Required selection of disposal sites 

be in accordance with guidelines developed by the 

Administrator of the EPA in conjunction with the 

Secretary of the Army. Stated that the Administrator can prohibit or restrict use of any defined area 

as a disposal site whenever she or he determines, 

after notice and opportunity for public hearings, that 

discharge of such materials into such areas will have 

an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water 

supplies, shellfish beds, fishery areas, wildlife, or 

recreational areas. 

Dingell–Johnson Act (1950)—Authorized the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial help for 

State fish restoration and management plans and 

projects. Financed by excise taxes paid by manufacturers of rods, reels, and other fishing tackle. Known 

as the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986)—Promoted wetland conservation for the public benefit to 

help fulfill international obligations in various migratory bird treaties and conventions. Authorized the 

purchase of wetlands with LWCF monies. 

Endangered Species Act (1973), as amended—Required all Federal agencies to carry out programs 

for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

species. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990—Established 

the Office of Environmental Education within EPA 

to develop and administer a Federal environmental 

education program. Responsibilities of the office 

include developing and supporting programs to improve understanding of the natural and developed 

environment and the relationships between humans 

and their environment, supporting the dissemination 

of educational materials, developing and supporting training programs and environmental education 

seminars, managing a Federal grant program, and 

administering an environmental internship and fellowship program. Required the office to develop and 

support environmental programs in consultation 

with other Federal natural resource management 

agencies including the Service. 

Executive Order 5228 (1929)—Established Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge and 

breeding ground for birds.” 

Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on 

Public Lands (1972)—Provided policy and procedures 

for regulating off-road vehicles. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management 

(1977)—Required Federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood 

loss, reduce the effect of floods on human safety, and 

preserve the natural and beneficial values served by 

the floodplains. Prevented Federal agencies from 

contributing to the “adverse impacts associated with 

occupancy and modification of floodplains” and the 

“direct or indirect support of floodplain development.” In the course of fulfilling their respective 

authorities, Federal agencies “shall take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss, to reduce the effect of 

floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.” 

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (1977)— 

Directed Federal agencies to (1) reduce destruction, 

loss, or degradation of wetlands, and (2) preserve 

and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alterna¬tive exists. 
APPENDIX A–Key Legislation and Policy 303 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1996)— 

Defined the mission, purpose, and priority public 

uses of the Refuge System; presented four principles 

to guide management of the Refuge System. 

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996)— 

Directed Federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial uses of Indian 

sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid 

adversely affecting the physical integrity of such 

sacred sites, and where appropriate, support the 

confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Executive Order 13443, Facilitation of Hunting Heritage 

and Wildlife Conservation (2007)—Directed Federal 

agencies that have programs and activities that have 

a measurable effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including 

the Department of the Interior and the Department 

of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990)—Required the use 

of integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other Federal 

and State agencies. 

Federal Records Act (1950)—Required the preservation of evidence of the Government’s organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other information. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972—Required 

any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge into 

navigable waters to obtain a certification from the 

State in which the discharge originates or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water 

pollution control agency having jurisdiction over 

navigable waters at the point where the discharge 

originates or will originate, that the discharge will 

comply with applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. Required that a certification 

obtained for construction of any facility must also 

pertain to subsequent operation of the facility. 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)—Directed the Secretary 

of the Interior to develop the policies and procedures necessary for carrying out fish and wildlife 

laws and to research and report on fish and wildlife 

matters. Established the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the Interior, as well 

as the positions of Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Director of the Service. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958)—Allowed 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into 

agreements with private landowners for wildlife 

management purposes. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978—Improved 

the administration of fish and wildlife programs and 

amends several earlier laws including the Refuge 

Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. Authorized the Secretary to accept 

gifts and bequests of real and personal property on 

behalf of the United States. Authorized the use of 

volunteers for Service projects and appropriations 

to carry out volunteer programs. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (1935), 

known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended 

(1965)—Declared a national policy to preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located at refuges and districts. Provided 

procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites and for designation 

of national historic and natural landmarks. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965—Provided money from leasing bonuses, production royalties, and rental revenues for offshore oil, gas, and 

sulphur extraction to the Bureau of Land Management, the USDA Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and State and local agencies for 

purchase of lands for parks, open space, and outdoor 

recreation. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)—Established 

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or 

gifts of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

(1934)—Authorized the opening of part of a refuge 

to waterfowl hunting. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)—Designated the 

protection of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility and enabled the setting of seasons and other 

regulations including the closing of areas, Federal or 

non-Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 

Mineral Leasing Act (1920), as amended—Authorized 

and governed leasing of public lands for development of deposits of coal, oil, gas and other hydrocarbons, sulphur, phosphate, potassium and sodium. 

Section 185 provided for granting of rights-of-way 

over Federal lands for pipelines. 
304 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)—Required 

all agencies including the Service to examine the 

environmental effects of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. Required Federal agencies to integrate this 

act with other planning requirements and prepare 

appropriate documents to facilitate better environmental decisionmaking (40 CFR 1500). 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as 

amended—Established policy that the Federal Government is to provide leadership in the preservation 

of the Nation’s prehistoric and historical resources. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

(1966)—Defined the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorized the Secretary of the Interior to 

allow any use of a refuge, provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for which the refuge 

was established. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997—Set the mission and administrative policy for 

all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandated comprehensive conservation planning for 

all units of the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998—Encouraged the use of volunteers to help the Service in 

the management of refuges within the Refuge System. Facilitated partnerships between the Refuge 

System and non-Federal entities to promote public 

awareness of the resources of the Refuge System 

and public participation in the conservation of those 

resources. Encouraged donations and other contributions by persons and organizations to the Refuge 

System. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (1990)—Required Federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and 

repatriate cultural items under their control or possession. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (1989)— 

Provided for the conservation of North American 

wetland ecosystems, waterfowl and other migratory 

birds, fish, and wildlife that depend on such habitats. 

Pittman–Robertson Act (1937)—Taxed the purchase of 

ammunition and firearms and earmarks the proceeds 

to be distributed to the States for wildlife restoration. Known as the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act or P–R Act. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962)—Allowed the use of 

refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and when 

sufficient money is available to manage the uses. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, section 401 (1935)—Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes using 

revenues derived from the sale of products from 

refuges. 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 28, 1906—Provided the 

first Federal protection for wildlife at national wildlife refuges. Made it unlawful to hunt, trap, capture, 

willfully disturb, or kill any bird or wild animal, or 

take or destroy the eggs of any such birds, on any 

lands of the United States set apart or reserved as 

refuges or breeding grounds for such birds or animals by any law, proclamation, or Executive order, 

except under rules and regulations of the Secretary. 

Protected Government property on such lands. 

Rehabilitation Act (1973)—Required programmatic 

accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for 

all facilities and programs funded by the Federal 

Government to make sure that any person could 

take part in any program. 

Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration 

Act (2006)—Furthered the purposes of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act 

of 1992 by directing the Secretary of the Interior, 

acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to 

carry out an assessment and demonstration program 

to control saltcedar and Russian olive and for other 

purposes. 

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948—Provided that, on determination by the Administrator of the General 

Services Administration, real property no longer 

needed by a Federal agency can be transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of the Interior 

if the land has particular value for migratory birds 

or to a State agency for other wildlife conservation 

purposes. 

U .S . Department of the Interior Order Number 3226 

(2001)—Directed bureaus and offices of the Department to analyze the potential effects on climate 

change when undertaking long-range planning, setting priorities for scientific research, and making 

major decisions about use of resources. 

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

Act (1998)—Encouraged the use of volunteers to 

help in the management of refuges within the Refuge System. Facilitated partnerships between the 
APPENDIX A–Key Legislation and Policy 305 

Refuge System and non-Federal entities to promote 

public awareness of the resources of the Refuge 

System and public participation in the conservation 

of the resources and encouraged donations and other 

contributions. 

Wilderness Act of 1964—Directed the Secretary of 

the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless 

island (regardless of size) within the Refuge System 

and National Park Service for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Appendix B 

Preparers and Contributors 

This document is the result of extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by the members of the planning team shown below. 

Team member Position Work unit 

Mike Artmann Wildlife biologist and Geographic Information System (GIS) specialist 

USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Steve Assmus Maintenance worker USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Kevin Beck Fire management specialist USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Kathy Burchett Project leader USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Amy Coffman Wildlife refuge specialist USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Mark Ely GIS specialist USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Kevin Ertl Refuge operations specialist USFWS, H2–O WPA, Helmville, Montana 

Vanessa Fields Wildlife biologist USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Amy Graham Wildlife refuge specialist USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Toni Griffin Planning team leader USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Robert F. Johnson Deputy refuge manager USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Patricia Johnston Administrative support assistant USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Susan Lakes Administrative officer USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Jim Lange Wetland district manager USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana 

John Takala Former refuge manager USFWS, Lost Trail Refuge, Marion, Montana 

Lynn Verlanic Wildlife biologist USFWS, Lost Trail Refuge, Marion, Montana 

Mitch Werner Writer–editor USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, Colorado 
308 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Many organizations, agencies, and individuals provided invaluable help with the preparation of this CCP. The 

Service acknowledges the efforts of the following individuals and groups toward the completion of the plan. 

The diversity, talent, and knowledge contributed dramatically improved the vision and completeness of this 

document. 

Team member Position Work unit 

John Chaffin Attorney DOI, Office of the Solicitor, Billings, Montana 

Richard Coleman Assistant regional director, Refuge 

System 

USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Megan Estep Chief, Division of Water Resources USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Sheri Fetherman Chief, Division of Education and 

Visitor Services 

USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Leigh Fredrickson Wetlands ecologist Wetland Management and Education Services, Puxico, 

Missouri 

Shannon Heath Outdoor recreation planner USFWS, Helena, Montana 

Mickey E. 

Heitmeyer 

Wetland ecologist Greenbrier Wetland Services, Advance, Missouri 

Wayne King Wildlife biologist USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Lynne Koontz Economist USGS, Fort Collins Science Center, Colorado 

Lindy Garner Montana strike team coordinator, 

noxious weeds 

USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Brant Loflin Zone archaeologist USFWS, Spearfish, South Dakota 

Murray Laubhan Inventory and monitoring zone 

biologist 

USFWS, Quivira Refuge, Stafford, Kansas 

David C. Lucas Chief, Division of Refuge Planning USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

David A. Nimick Hydrologist, Geo Chem USGS, Water Science Center, Helena, Montana 

Emily Pattersen Meeting facilitation Belt Collins, Inc., Boulder, Colorado 

Clay Ronish Refuge law enforcement zone officer USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Dean Rundle Refuge supervisor USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Jim Stutzman Montana State coordinator, Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife Program 

USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Gary Sullivan Montana State coordinator, realty 

program 

USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Meg Van Ness Regional archaeologist USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 
Appendix C 

Public Involvement 

A notice of intent to prepare the draft comprehensive conservation plan and EA was published 

in the Federal Register on August 18, 2008. The 

Service compiled a mailing list of more than 700 

names during preplanning. The list includes private 

citizens; local, regional, and State government representatives and legislators; other Federal agencies; 

and interested organizations. Public scoping began 

immediately after publication of the notice of intent 

and was announced through news releases and issuance of the first planning update to the mailing list. 

The planning update provided information on the 

history of the refuge complex and the CCP process, 

along with an invitation and schedule to upcoming 

public open houses to be held throughout the planning area. Each planning update included a comment 

form to give the public an opportunity to provide 

written comments. Emails were also accepted at the 

refuge complex’s email address: bentonlake@fws. 

gov. 

Open houses were announced to local newspapers, radio, and television stations. Flyers were 

posted, and announcements were made via email and 

at meetings of local organizations. 

Four public open houses were held in local communities in the refuge complex area including Great 

Falls, Choteau, Ovando, and Kalispell, Montana, 

September 2–4, 2008. At the meetings informational 

posters, maps, and handouts, along with a power 

point presentation provided a history of the Refuge System, orientation to the planning area, and 

an overview of the CCP and NEPA processes. The 

draft vision statement developed for the refuge complex was also presented at the open houses. Service 

staff was available to answer questions on a variety 

of topics about refuge management and the CCP 

process. Attendees were encouraged to ask questions and offer comments. Verbal comments were 

recorded and each attendee was given a comment 

form to submit thoughts or questions in writing. The 

turnout was low, with 5–10 people attending each 

meeting. 

All written comments were due September 15, 

2008. Sixty comments were received during the 

scoping effort. Input obtained from public meetings, 

letters, emails, and comment forms was considered 

in developing the draft CCP. These comments identified biological, social, and economic concerns about 

refuge management. 

The planning team’s response to public comments 

will be completed before final approval of the CCP. 

The mailing list for the CCP and EA follows. 

C .1 Federal Officials 

U.S. Representative Dennis Rehberg, Washington, DC 

U.S. Senator John Tester, Washington, DC 

U.S. Senator Max Baucus, Washington, DC 

C .2 Federal Agencies 

BLM, Billings, Montana 

BLM, Lewistown, Montana 

Bureau of Reclamation, Billings, Montana 

Department Natural Resources Conservation, 

Helena, Montana 

Farm Service Agency, Bozeman, Montana 

USDA National Resources Conservation Service, 

Bozeman, Montana 

USDA Forest Service, Choteau, Montana 

USDA Forest Service, Great Falls, Montana 

USDA Forest Service, Libby, Montana 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Missoula, Montana 

USFWS, Air Quality Branch, Lakewood, Colorado 

USFWS, Creston Fish and Wildlife Center, 

Creston, Montana 

USFWS, Ecological Services, Helena, Montana 

USFWS, Education and Visitor Services, 

Helena, Montana 

USFWS, the Swan River Refuge, Bigfork, Montana 

USGS, Bozeman, Montana 

USGS, Biological Resources Division, 

Missoula, Montana 

C .3 Tribal Officials 

Blackfeet Tribal Business Council, 

Browning, Montana 

Blood Tribes, Cardston, Alberta, Canada 
310 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Confederated Salish Kootenai Tribes, 

Pablo, Montana 

Fort Belknap Community Council, 

Harlem, Montana 

Peigan Tribe, Brocket, Alberta, Canada 

C .4 State Officials 

Governor Brian D. Schweitzer, Helena, Montana 

Representative Shannon Augare, 

Browning, Montana 

Representative Bill Beck, Whitefish, Montana 

Representative Bob Bergren, Havre, Montana 

Representative Jerry Black, Shelby, Montana 

Representative Mark Blasdel, Somers, Montana 

Representative John Brueggeman, Polson, Montana 

Representative Edith Clark, Sweetgrass, Montana 

Representative John Cobb, Augusta, Montana 

Representative Douglas Cordier, 

Columbia Falls, Montana 

Representative Aubyn Curtiss, Fortine, Montana 

Representative Ken Hansen, Harlem, Montana 

Representative Robin Hamilton, Missoula, Montana 

Representative Ralph Heinart, Libby, Montana 

Representative Joey Jayne, Arlee, Montana 

Representative Mike Jopek, Whitefish, Montana 

Representative Llew Jones, Conrad, Montana 

Representative William Jones, Bigfork, Montana 

Representative Carol Juneau, Browning, Montana 

Representative Mike Milburn, Cascade, Montana 

Representative Jerry O’Neil, 

Columbia Falls, Montana 

Representative Rick Ripley, Wolf Creek, Montana 

Representative Don Ryan, Great Falls, Montana 

Representative Janna Taylor, Dayton, Montana 

Representative Chas Vincent, Libby, Montana 

Representative Dan Weinberg, Whitefish, Montana 

C .5 State Agencies 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 

Helena, Montana 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Conrad, Montana 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Helena, Montana 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Missoula, Montana 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena, Montana 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Billings, Montana 

Montana Natural Heritage Program, 

Helena, Montana 

Montana Historical Society and Preservation Office, 

Helena, Montana 

Montana State Lands, Helena, Montana 

C .6 Local Government 

Bigfork County Water and Sewer, Bigfork, Montana 

Cascade County Mosquito Management District, 

Great Falls, Montana 

City of Bigfork, Roadside Vegetation Program, 

Bigfork, Montana 

City of Havre, Havre, Montana 

Hill County Government, Havre, Montana 

Hill County, Mosquito Management District, 

Havre, Montana 

Teton County Commission, Choteau, Montana 

Pondera County Commission, Conrad, Montana 

C .7 Local Fire Departments 

Marion Volunteer Fire Department, 

Marion, Montana 

C .8 Local Businesses 

AAA Weed and Pasture, Columbia Falls, Montana 

American Public Lands Exchange, 

Missoula, Montana 

Benton Lake Land Company, Great Falls, Montana 

Bignell Ranch Company, Helmville, Montana 

Brown and Brown of Montana, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Glacier Colony, Cut Bank, Montana 

Golden Acres Farm, Brady, Montana 

Gollaher Ranch Company, Cascade, Montana 

Gumbo Incorporated, Choteau, Montana 

Harmon Properties LLC, Havre, Montana 

Heavirland Enterprises, Choteau, Montana 

Historical Research Associates Incorporated, 

Missoula, Montana 

Ish Incorporated, Chester, Montana 

Juedeman Grain Company, Geraldine, Montana 

Klabzuba Oil and Gas Incorporated, 

Fort Worth, Texas 

Klondike Ridge Farms, Sunburst, Montana 

KRA Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland 

Location Montana Incorporated, Bigfork, Montana 

Mannix Brothers Incorporated, Helmville, Montana 

McGinnis Meadows Guest Ranch, Libby, Montana 

McGregor Lake Resort, Marion, Montana 

Montana Power Company, Butte, Montana 
APPENDIX C–Public Involvement 311 

Montana Salinity Control Associates, 

Conrad, Montana 

Muddy Creek Ranch, Choteau, Montana 

Neuman Land and Livestock, Great Falls, Montana 

Nevada Spring Creek Partners, Helena, Montana 

NR Recording and Communications, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Pernell Partners LP, Kalispell, Montana 

Plum Creek Land Company, Seattle, Washington 

Plum Creek Timber Company, 

Columbia Falls, Montana 

PPL Montana, Hydro Licensing, Butte, Montana 

Sheep Mountain Cattle Company, 

Geraldine, Montana 

Simmes Ranch Incorporated, Sunburst, Montana 

Sliters Incorporated, Somers, Montana 

Spring Coulee Ranch Incorporated, 

Highwood, Montana 

Springdate Colony Incorporated, Power, Montana 

Starshine, Great Falls, Montana 

Sveum Brothers Incorporated, Sunburst, Montana 

Talent Properties Incorporated, Clayton, California 

Tapper Lite LLC, Bigfork, Montana 

Top Notch Land Company, Kalispell, Montana 

Tungsten Holdings Incorporated, Libby, Montana 

Twin Springs Incorporated, Kevin, Montana 

White Swan Properties LLC, Bigfork, Montana 

4M Farms Incorporated, Highwood, Montana 

C .9 Organizations 

American Wildlands, Bozeman, Montana 

Bethel Cemetery Association, Somers, Montana 

Big Meadows Grazing Association, 

Hot Springs, Montana 

Born Free, Sacramento, CA 

Chain of Lakes Homeowner’s Association, 

Libby, Montana 

Defenders of Wildlife, Missoula, Montana 

Eagle Bend Homeowners Association, 

Bigfork, Montana 

Five Valley Audubon Society, Missoula, Montana 

Friends of the Rocky Mountain Front, 

Choteau, Montana 

Glacier Natural History Association, 

West Glacier, Montana 

Mission Mountain Audubon, Polson, Montana 

Montana Audubon, Helena, Montana 

Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society, 

Bozeman, Montana 

Montana Historical Society, Helena, Montana 

Montana Land Reliance, Bigfork, Montana 

Montana Stockgrowers Association, 

Helena, Montana 

Montana Wilderness Association, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Montana Wildlife Federation, Helena, Montana 

National Wildlife Federation, Missoula, Montana 

National Wildlife Refuge Association, 

Colorado Springs, Colorado 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, 

Missoula, Montana 

Russell Country Sportsmen’s Association, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Sands Memorial Foundation, Havre, Montana 

Sonoran Institute, Choteau, Montana 

Swan River Wildlife Protection Association, 

Great Falls, Montana 

TNC, Helena, Montana 

C .10 Libraries 

Columbia Falls Library, Columbia Falls, Montana 

Lincoln County Library, Libby, Montana 

Whitefish City Library, Whitefish, Montana 

C .11 Universities and Schools 

Helmville Elementary School, Helmville, Montana 

Kila School District, Kila, Montana 

Montana Academy, Marion, Montana 

Montana State University, Research Center, 

Bozeman, Montana 

Pleasant Valley School Superintendent, 

Marion, Montana 

Skyline Education Center, Great Falls, Montana 

University of Alaska, 

Biology and Wildlife Department, 

Fairbanks, AK 

University of Great Falls, Great Falls, Montana 

University of Illinois, Department of Geology, 

Urbana, IL 

University of Montana, 

Department of Biological Sciences, 

Missoula, Montana 

University of Montana, 

Grizzly Bear Recovery Office, 

Missoula, Montana 

University of Montana, Wildlife Biology Program, 

Missoula, Montana 

University of Washington, Department of Zoology, 

Seattle, Washington 
312 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

C .12 Media 

Choteau Acantha, Choteau, Montana 

Hungry Horse News, Columbia Falls, Montana 

C .13 Individuals 

540 private individuals 
 

Common Name Scientific Name Designation 

MAMMALS 

American Mink Mustela vison 

Badger Taxidea taxus 

Beaver Castor canadensis 

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus 

Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis 

Bison Bison bison 

Black Bear Ursus americanus 

Black-tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus Species of concern 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

Bushy-tailed Woodrat Neotoma cinerea 

California Myotis Myotis californicus 

Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened 

Columbian Ground Squirrel Spermophilus columbianus 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 

Dusky or Montane Shrew Sorex monticolus 

Dwarf Shrew Sorex nanus Species of concern 

Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus borealis Species of concern 

Elk or Wapiti Cervus canadensis 

Fisher Martes pennanti Species of concern 

Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes Species of concern 

Golden-mantled 

Ground Squirrel Spermophilus lateralis 

Gray Wolf Canis lupus 

Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos Threatened 

Ground squirrel Spermophilus elegans 

Heather Vole Phenacomys intermedius 

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Species of concern 

Hoary Marmot Marmota caligata Potential species of concern 

Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus 

Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis 

Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans 

Long-tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus 

Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata 

Marten Martes americana 

Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus 

Appendix D
 

Species Lists 
314 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Common Name Scientific Name Designation 

Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Merriam’s Shrew Sorex merriami Species of concern 

Onychomys spp . 

Mice Peromyscus spp . 

Reithrodontomys spp . 

Mink Mustela vison 

Montane Vole Microtus montanus 

Moose Alces americanus 

Mountain Cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii 

Mountain Lion Puma concolor 

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

northern Bog Lemming Synaptomys borealis Species of concern 

northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus 

northern Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides 

northern river Otter Lontra canadensis 

Pika Ochotona princeps 

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 

Preble's Shrew Sorex preblei Species of concern 

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana 

Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes 

Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 

Red-tailed Chipmunk Tamias ruficaudus 

river Otter Lutra canadensis 

Short-tailed Weasel Mustela erminea 

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Potential species of concern 

Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus 

Spotted Bat Euderma maculatum Species of concern 

Southern Red-backed Vole Myodes gapperi 

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis 

Swift Fox Vulpes velox 

Townsend's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii Species of concern 

Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans 

Water Shrew Sorex palustris 

Water Vole Microtus richardsoni 

Western Jumping Mouse Zapus princeps 

Western Small-footed Myotis Myotis ciliolabrum 

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus 

White-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii 

Wolverine Gulo gulo Species of concern 

Yellow-bellied Marmot Marmota flaviventris 
APPENDIX D–Species Lists 315 

Common Name Scientific Name Designation 

Yellow-pine Chipmunk Tamias amoenus 

Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis Potential species of concern 

BIRDS 

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Species of concern 

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana 

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Species of concern 

American Coot Fulica americana 

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 

American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus 

American Goldfinch Spinus tristus 

American Kestrel Falco sparverius 

American Pipit Anthus rubescens 

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla 

American Robin Turdus migratorius 

American Three-toed 

Woodpecker Picoides dorsalis 

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea 

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Species of concern 

American Wigeon Anas americana 

Anna's Hummingbird Calypte anna 

Audubon's Warbler Dendroica coronata auduboni 

Baird’s Sparrow Ammodramus bairdii 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Species of concern 

Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata 

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia 

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 

Barred Owl Strix varia 

Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Potential species of concern 

Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon 

Black Rosy-Finch Leucosticte atrata Species of concern 

Black Swift Cypseloides niger Species of concern 

Black Tern Chlidonias niger Species of concern 

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus Species of concern 

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Species of concern 

Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia 

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus 

Black-chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri 

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Species of concern 

Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus 

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus Species of concern 

Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens 

Black-throated Sparrow Amphispiza bilineata 

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata 

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors 
316 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Common Name Scientific Name Designation 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Species of concern 

Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus 

Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonicus Species of concern 

Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus 

Brambling Fringilla montifringilla 

Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri Species of concern 

Brown Creeper Certhia americana Species of concern 

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum 

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii 

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia 

California Gull Larus californicus 

Calliope Hummingbird Stellula calliope 

Canada Goose Branta canadensis 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

Canyon Wren Catherpes mexicanus 

Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia Species of concern 

Cassin's Finch Carpodacus cassinii Species of concern 

Cassin's Vireo Vireo cassinii 

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 

Chestnut-backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens 

Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus 

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina 

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera 

Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii Species of concern 

Clark's Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana Species of concern 

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida 

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula 

Common Loon Gavia immer Species of concern 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser 

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor 

Common Raven Corvus corax 

Common Redpoll Acanthis flammea 

Common Tern Sterna hirundo Species of concern 

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Cordilleran Flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis 

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis 

Dark-eyed Junco (Gray-headed) Junco hyemalis caniceps 
APPENDIX D–Species Lists 317 

Common Name Scientific Name Designation 

Dark-eyed Junco 

(Montana Junco) Junco hyemalis montanus 

Dark-eyed Junco (Pink-sided) Junco hyemalis mearnsi 

Dark-eyed Junco (Slate-colored) Junco hyemalis cismontanus 

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri 

Dusky Grouse Dendragapus obscurus 

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis 

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe 

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 

Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope 

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Exotic species (not native to Montana) 

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus 

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Species of concern 

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla 

Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus Species of concern 

Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri Species of concern 

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca 

Franklin's Gull Leucophaeus pipixcan Species of concern 

Gadwall Anas strepera 

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Species of concern 

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa 

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Species of concern 

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis 

Gray Partridge Perdix perdix Exotic species (not native to Montana) 

Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch Leucosticte tephrocotis Species of concern 

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Species of concern 

Great Egret Ardea alba 

Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa Species of concern 

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus 

greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Species of concern 

greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus 

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca 

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 

Hammond's Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii 

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Species of concern 

Harris's Sparrow Zonotrichia querula 

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus 

Hoary Redpoll Acanthis hornemanni 

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Potential species of concern 

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Species of concern 
318 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Common Name Scientific Name Designation 

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris 

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus 

House Sparrow Passer domesticus 

House Wren Troglodytes aedon 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 

Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys 

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus 

lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena 

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus 

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla 

Le Conte’s Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii 

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis 

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Lewis’s Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Species of concern 

Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Species of concern 

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Species of concern 

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Long-eared Owl Asio otus 

MacGillivray's Warbler Oporornis tolmiei 

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa 

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 

McCown’s Longspur Rhynchophanes mccownii Species of concern 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides 

Mountain Chickadee Poecile gambeli 

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus Species of concern 

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 

Myrtle Warbler Dendroica coronata coronata 

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla 

northern Flicker Colaptes auratus 

northern Flicker (Red-shafted) Colaptes auratus cafer 

northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Species of concern 

northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 

northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula Potential species of concern 

northern Oriole Icterus galbula 

northern Pintail Anas acuta 

northern Pygmy-Owl Glaucidium gnoma 

northern Rough-winged 

Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus 

northern Shoveler Anas clypeata 
APPENDIX D–Species Lists 319 

Common Name Scientific Name Designation 

northern Shrike Lanius excubitor 

northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi 

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla Potential species of concern 

Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica 

Pacific Wren Troglodytes pacificus Species of concern 

Painted Redstart Myioborus pictus 

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Species of concern 

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps 

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Species of concern 

Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator 

Pine Siskin Spinus pinus 

Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Species of concern 

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened 

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus 

Pygmy Nuthatch Sitta pygmaea 

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra 

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator 

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis 

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus 

Red-naped Sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis 

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena 

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 

Redhead Aythya americana 

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris 

Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchius Exotic species (not native to Montana) 

Rock Pigeon Columba livia Exotic species (not native to Montana) 

Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoletus 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Ross's Goose Chen rossii 

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula 

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus 

Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Potential species of concern 

Sabine's Gull Xema sabini 

Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Species of concern 

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis 
320 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Common Name Scientific Name Designation 

Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya 

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus 

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus 

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 

Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus Species of concern 

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Potential species of concern 

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis 

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens 

Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus 

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria 

Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius 

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia 

Sora Porzana carolina 

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius 

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus 

Sprague’s Pipit Anthus spragueii 

Spruce Grouse Falcipennis canadensis 

Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri 

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata 

Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Potential species of concern 

Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus 

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina Potential species of concern 

Townsend's Solitaire Myadestes townsendi 

Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi 

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor 

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Species of concern 

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 

Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius 

Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi 

Veery Catharus fuscescens Species of concern 

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina 

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola 

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus 

Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana 

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis 

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis 

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta 

Western Screech-Owl Megascops kennicottii Potential species of concern 

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana 

Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus 

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 
APPENDIX D–Species Lists 321 

Common Name Scientific Name Designation 

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi Species of concern 

White-tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucura Species of concern 

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 

White-throated Swift Aeronautes saxatalis 

White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera 

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca 

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo Exotic species (not native to Montana) 

Willet Tringa semipalmata 

Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus 

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii 

Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 

Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata 

Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla 

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Species of concern 

Wood Duck Aix sponsa 

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia 

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens 

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata 

REPTILES 

Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

Common Sagebrush Lizard Sceloporus graciosus Species of concern 

Eastern Racer Coluber constrictor 

greater Short-horned Lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi Species of concern 

northern Alligator Lizard Elgaria coerulea Species of concern 

Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta 

Plains Garter Snake Thamnophis radix 

Rubber Boa Charina bottae 

Spiny Softshell Apalone spinifera Species of concern 

Terrestrial Garter Snake Thamnophis elegans 

Western Hog-nosed Snake Heterodon nasicus Species of concern 

Western Rattlesnake Crotalus viridus 

AMPHIBIANS 

Boreal Chorus Frog Pseudacris maculata 

Columbia Spotted Frog Rana luteiventris 

Great Plains Toad Bufo cognatus Species of concern 

Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum 

northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens Species of concern 

Pacific Treefrog Pseudacris regilla 

Plains Spadefoot Spea bombifrons 

Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog Ascaphus montanus 

Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum 

Western Toad Bufo boreas Species of concern 
322 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Common Name Scientific Name Designation 

FISH 

Arctic Grayling Thymallus arcticus 

Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus Species of concern 

Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Potential species of concern 

bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened 

Columbia River Redband Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri Species of concern 

Deepwater Sculpin Myoxocephalus thompsonii Species of concern 

Iowa Darter Etheostoma exile Species of concern 

Longnose Sucker Catostomus catostomus 

Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi 

northern Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis 

northern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus eos 

northern redbelly x 

finescale dace
 Phoxinus eos x phoxinus neogaeus Species of concern

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula Species of concern
 

Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Species of concern
 

Pearl Dace Margariscus margarita Species of concern
 

Pygmy Whitefish Prosopium coulteri Species of concern
 

Sauger Sander canadensis Species of concern
 

Slimy Sculpin Cottus cognatus
 

Spoonhead Scalpin Cottus ricei Species of concern
 

Sturgeon Chub Macrhybopsis gelida Species of concern
 

Torrent Sculpin Cottus rhotheus Species of concern
 

Trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus Species of concern
 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi Species of concern
 

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri Species of concern
 

INvERTEBRATES 

caddisfly Anagapetus debilis 

caddisfly Arctopsyche grandis 

caddisfly Brachycentrus americanus 

caddisfly Brachycentrus occidentalis 

caddisfly Chyrandra centralis 

caddisfly Dicosmoecus atripes 

caddisfly Dicosmoecus gilvipes 

caddisfly Helicopsyche borealis 

caddisfly Hesperophylax designatus 

caddisfly Hydropsyche confusa 

caddisfly Lepidostoma cascadense 

caddisfly Lepidostoma unicolor 

caddisfly Micrasema bactro 

caddisfly Neophylax rickeri 

caddisfly Neophylax splendens 

caddisfly Neothremma alicia 

caddisfly Onocosmoecus unicolor 
APPENDIX D–Species Lists 323 

Common Name Scientific Name Designation 

caddisfly Rhyacophila betteni 

Cave-obligate Isopod Salmasellus steganothrix Species of concern 

Eukiefferiellan Chironomid Eukiefferiella brehmi 

Eukiefferiellan Chironomid Eukiefferiella devonica 

Eukiefferiellan Chironomid Eukiefferiella gracei 

Freshwater Sponge Ephydatia cooperensis Species of concern 

Leech Helobdella stagnalis 

Limnephilid Caddisfly Nemotaulius hostilis 

mayfly Acentrella turbida 

mayfly Attenella margarita 

mayfly Baetis bicaudatus 

mayfly Baetis tricaudatus 

mayfly Caenis youngi Species of concern 

mayfly Caudatella hystrix 

mayfly Drunella coloradensis 

mayfly Drunella doddsi 

mayfly Drunella grandis 

mayfly Drunella spinifera 

mayfly Epeorus longimanus 

mayfly Ephemerella excrucians 

mayfly Parameletus columbiae Species of concern 

mayfly Plauditus punctiventris 

mayfly Serratella tibialis 

mayfly Timpanoga hecuba 

millipede Endopus parvipes Species of concern 

millipede Ergodesmus compactus 

millipede Lophomus laxus Species of concern 

millipede Orophe cabinetus Species of concern 

rhyacophilan Caddisfly Rhyacophila alberta 

rhyacophilan Caddisfly Rhyacophila brunnea 

rhyacophilan Caddisfly Rhyacophila ebria Species of concern 

rhyacophilan Caddisfly Rhyacophila glaciera Species of concern 

rhyacophilan Caddisfly Rhyacophila narvae 

rhyacophilan Caddisfly Rhyacophila potteri Species of concern 

rhyacophilan Caddisfly Rhyacophila verrula 

riffle Beetle Cleptelmis addenda 

riffle Beetle Heterlimnius corpulentus 

riffle Beetle Lara avara 

riffle Beetle Narpus concolor 

riffle Beetle Optioservus quadrimaculatus 

riffle Beetle Ordobrevia nubifera 

riffle Beetle Zaitzevia parvula 

sand-dwelling mayfly Lachlania saskatchewanensis Species of concern 
324 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Common Name Scientific Name Designation 

stonefly Amphinemura banksi 

stonefly Claassenia sabulosa Claassenia sabulosa 

stonefly Despaxia augusta 

stonefly Doroneuria theodora 

stonefly Hesperoperla pacifica 

stonefly Isocapnia crinita Species of concern 

stonefly Isoperla petersoni Species of concern 

stonefly Kogotus modestus 

stonefly Prostoia besametsa 

stonefly Setvena bradleyi 

stonefly Yoraperla brevis 

stonefly Zapada cinctipes 

stonefly Zapada columbiana 

stonefly Zapada cordillera Species of concern 

stonefly Zapada oregonensis 

true fly Atherix pachypus 

Tvetenian Chironomid Tvetenia bavarica 

Afranius Duskywing Erynnis alfranius 

Alexander’s Rhyacophilan 

Caddisfly Rhyacophila alexanderi Species of concern 

Alpine Mountainsnail Oreohelix alpina Species of concern 

Amber Glass Nesovitrea electrina 

American Emerald Cordulia shurtleffii 

American Salmonfly Pteronarcys dorsata 

Agapetus Caddisfly Agapetus montanus Potential species of concern 

amphipod Hyalella azteca Exotic species (not native to Montana) 

Anicia Checkerspot Euphydryas anicia 

Anise Swallowtail Papilio zelicaon 

Artic Blue Plebejus glandon 

Banded Tigersnail Anguispira kochi 

Band-winged Meadowhawk Sympetrum semicinctum 

Belted Whiteface Leucorrhinia proxima 

Black Meadowhawk Sympetrum danae 

Blue-eyed Darner Rhionaeschna multicolor Potential species of concern 

Blue Glass Nesovitrea binneyana 

Boreal Whiteface Leucorrhinia borealis Species of concern 

Brown Hive Euconulus fulvus 

Brush-tipped Emerald Somatochlora walshii Species of concern 

California Darner Rhionaeschna californica Potential species of concern 

California Tortoiseshell Nymphalis californica 

Callippe Fritillary Speyeria callippe 

Canada Darner Aeshna canadensis 

Carinate Mountainsnail Oreohelixelrod Species of concern 

Chalk-fronted Corporal Ladona julia Potential species of concern 
APPENDIX D–Species Lists 325 

Common Name Scientific Name Designation 

Checkered White Pontia protodice 

Cherry-faced Meadowhawk Sympetrum internum 

Chocolate Arion Arion rufus 

Common Green Darner Anax junius 

Common Whitetail Plathemis lydia 

Coeur d’Alene Oregonian Crytomastix mullani 

Crimson-ringed Whiteface Leucorrhinia glacialis Potential species of concern 

Cross Vertigo Vertigo modesta 

Cuneate Arches Lacinipolia cuneata 

Depressed Rocky Mountainsnail Oreohelix stringosa depressa 

Dot-tailed Whiteface Leucorrhinia intacta 

Eight-spotted Skimmer Libellula forensis 

Emerald Spreadwing Lestes dryas 

Ethologist Fairy Shrimp Eubranchipus serratus 

Fir Pinwheel Radiodiscus abietum Potential species of concern 

Forest Disc Discus whitneyi 

Four-spotted Skimmer Libellula quadrimaculata 

Gillette's Checkerspot Euphydryas gillettii Species of concern 

Glacier Amphipod Stygobromus glacialis Species of concern 

Green Comma Polygonia faunus 

Grooved Fingernailclam Sphaerium simile 

Hagen’s Small Minnow Mayfly Diphetor hageni 

Herrington Fingernailclam Sphaerium occidentale 

Hudsonian Whiteface Leucorrhinia hudsonica 

Idaho Forestsnail Allogona ptychophora 

Keeled Mountainsnail Oreohelix carinifera Species of concern 

Lake Darner Aeshna eremita Potential species of concern 

Lake Disc Discus brunsoni Species of concern 

Lance-tipped Darner Aeshna constricta Potential species of concern 

Large-mantle Physa Physa megalochlamys Species of concern 

Lorquin’s Admiral Limenitis lorquini 

Lustrous Copper Lycaena cupreus 

Lyre Mantleslug Udosarx lyrata Species of concern 

Magnum Mantleslug Magnipelta mycophaga Species of concern 

Meadow Slug Deroceras laeve Exotic species (not native to Montana) 

Meltwater Lednian Stonefly Lednia tumana Species of concern 

Milbert's Tortoiseshell Aglais milberti 

Mountain Emerald Somatochlora semicircularis Potential species of concern 

Mourning Cloak Nymphalis antiopa 

northern Bluet Enallagma annexum 

northern Checkerspot Chlosyne palla 

northern Rocky Mountains 

refugium caddisfly Goereilla baumanni Species of concern 
326 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Common Name Scientific Name Designation 

northern Rocky Mountains 

refugium mayfly Caudatella edmundsi Potential species of concern 

northern Spreadwing Lestes disjunctus 

Orange-banded Arion Arion fasciatus 

Pacific Forktail Ischnura cervula 

Pacific Spiketail Cordulegaster dorsalis 

Paddle-tailed Darner Aeshna palmata 

Pale Snaketail Ophiogomphus severus 

Pale Swallowtail Papilio eurymedon 

Police Car Moth Gnophaela vermiculata 

Quick Gloss Zonitoides arboreus 

Ranchman’s tiger Moth Platyprepia virginalis 

Red-veined Meadowhawk Sympetrum madidum Potential species of concern 

Red-winged Wave Dasyfidonia avuncularia 

Reticulate Taildropper Prophysaon andersoni Species of concern 

Ribbed Spot Punctum californicum 

river Jewelwing Calopteryx aequabilis 

Rocky Mountain Capshell Acroloxus coloradensis Species of concern 

Rocky Mountain Duskysnail Colligyrus greggi Species of concern 

Rocky Mountainsnail Oreohelix strigosa 

Saffron-winged Meadowhawk Sympetrum costiferum 

Salmonfly Pteronarcys californica 

Sandhill Skipper Polites sabuleti 

Sedge Darner Aeshna juncea Potential species of concern 

Shadow Darner Aeshna umbrosa 

Sheathed Slug Zacoleus idahoensis Species of concern 

Shiny Tightcoil Pristiloma wascoense Species of concern 

Signal Crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus 

Silky Vallonia Vallonia cyclophorella 

Sinuous Snaketail Ophiogomphus occidentis Potential species of concern 

Smoky Taildropper Prophysaon humile Species of concern 

Spiny Baskettail Epitheca spinigera Potential species of concern 

Spotted Spreadwing Lestes congener 

Spruce Snail Microphysula ingersolli 

Spurge Hawkmoth Hyles euphorbiae Exotic species (not native to Montana) 

Striate Disc Discus shimekii Species of concern 

Striped Meadowhawk Sympetrum pallipes 

Subalpine Mountainsnail Oreohelix subrudis 

Subarctic Bluet Coenagrion interrogatum Species of concern 

Taiga Bluet Coenagrion resolutum 

Tapered Vertigo Vertigo elatior 

Twelve-spotted Skimmer Libellula pulchella 

Two-ridge Rams-horn Helisoma anceps 

Variable Darner Aeshna interrupta 
Common Name Scientific Name Designation 

Variegated Meadowhawk Sympetrum corruptum 

Western Glacier Stonefly Zapada glacier Species of concern 

Western Glass-snail Vitrina pellucida 

Western Pearlshell Margaritifera falcata Species of concern 

Western Red Damsel Amphiagrion abbreviatum 

Western Tailed Blue Cupido (Everes) amyntula 

White-faced Meadowhawk Sympetrum obtrusum 

Wrinkled Marshsnail Stagnicola caperata 

Zigzag Darner Aeshna sitchensis Potential species of concern 

vASCULAR PLANTS 

Adder's Tongue Ophioglossum pusillum Species of concern 

Aspen Populous tremuloides 

Austin's Knotweed Polygonum austiniae Species of concern 

Beaked Spikerush Eleocharis rostellata Species of concern 

Beck Water-marigold Bidens beckii Species of concern 

Blunt-leaved Pondweed Potamogeton obtusifolius Species of concern 

Chaffweed Centunculus minimus Species of concern 

Cliff Toothwort Cardamine rupicola Species of concern 

Clustered Lady's-slipper Cypripedium fasciculatum Species of concern 

Crawe's Sedge Carex crawei Species of concern 

Creeping Sedge Carex chordorrhiza Species of concern 

Crested Shieldfern Dryopteris cristata Species of concern 

Deer Indian Paintbrush Castilleja cervina Species of concern 

Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 

English Sundew Drosera anglica Species of concern 

Flexible Collomia Collomia debilis var . camporum Species of concern 

Giant Helleborine Epipactis gigantea Species of concern 

Glaucus Beaked Sedge Carex rostrata Species of concern 

Hall's Rush Juncus hallii Species of concern 

Howell's Gumweed Grindelia howellii Species of concern 

Hutchinsia Hutchinsia procumbens Species of concern 

Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 

Keeled Bladderpod Physaria carinata Species of concern 

Lake-bank Sedge Carex lacustris Species of concern 

Limber pine Pinus flexilis 

Linearleaf Moonwort Botrychium lineare Species of concern 

Linear-leaved Sundew Drosera linearis Species of concern 

Loesel's Twayblade Liparis loeselii Species of concern 

Lyall Phacelia Phacelia lyallii 

Mingan Island Moonwort Botrychium minganense Potential species of concern 

Mission Mountain Kittentails Synthyris canbyi Species of concern 

Missoula Phlox Phlox kelseyi var . missoulensis Species of concern 

Moonwort Grape-fern Botrychium lunaria Potential species of concern 

Mountain Moonwort Botrychium montanum Species of concern 

APPENDIX D–Species Lists 327 
Common Name Scientific Name Designation 

northern Bog Clubmoss Lycopodium inundatum Species of concern 

northern Moonwort Botrychium pinnatum Status under review 

Pale Sedge Carex livida Potential species of concern 

Pod Grass Scheuchzeria palustris Species of concern 

Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa 

Pygmy Water-lily Nymphaea leibergii Species of concern 

Round-leaved Orchis Amerorchis rotundifolia Species of concern 

Short-flowered Monkeyflower Mimulus breviflorus Species of concern 

Slender Cottongrass Eriophorum gracile Species of concern 

Small Yellow Lady's-slipper Cypripedium parviflorum Potential species of concern 

Sparrow's-egg Lady's-slipper Cypripedium passerinum Species of concern 

Spoon-leaf Moonwort Botrychium spathulatum Species of concern 

Stalk-leaved Monkeyflower Mimulus ampliatus Species of concern 

Stalked Moonwort Botrychium pedunculosum Species of concern 

Thinsepal monkeyflower Mimulus hymenophyllus Status under review 

Tufted Club-rush Trichophorum cespitosum Species of concern 

Upward-lobed Moonwort Botrychium ascendens Species of concern 

Water Bulrush Schoenoplectus subterminalis Species of concern 

Watershield Brasenia schreberi Species of concern 

Water Howellia Howellia aquatilis Threatened 

Wavy Moonwort Botrychium crenulatum Species of concern 

Western Moonwort Botrychium hesperium Species of concern 

NONvASCULAR PLANTS 

Barnes' eurhynchium moss Eurhynchium pulchellum 

var . barnesii 

Status under review 

Brick-spored Firedot Lichen Brigantiaea praetermissa Potential species of concern 

Bryum moss Bryum calobryoides 

Chocolate Chip Lichen Solorina bispora Species of concern 

Douglas' neckera moss Neckera douglasii Species of concern 

Gray Lungwort Lichen Lobaria hallii Species of concern 

Hooded Ramalina Lichen Ramalina obtusata Species of concern 

Jelly Lichen Collema curtisporum Species of concern 

Lead Lichen Parmeliella triptophylla Species of concern 

Magellan's Peatmoss Sphagnum magellanicum Species of concern 

Mountain Oakmoss Lichen Evernia divaricata Potential species of concern 

Netted Specklebelly Lichen Pseudocyphellaria anomala Species of concern 

Powdery Twig Lichen Ramalina pollinaria Species of concern 

Speck Lichen Verrucaria kootenaica Species of concern 

. 

328 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 
Appendix E 

Draft Compatibility Determinations 

E .1 Refuge Complex Name 

and Dates Established 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex: 

■■ Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge— 

November 21, 1929 

■■ Benton Lake Wetland Management District— 

1975 

■■ Swan River National Wildlife Refuge— 

May 14, 1973 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

16 U.S.C. § 715(d), 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act 1929 

16 U.S.C. § 718(c), 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

of 1934 

16 U.S.C. § 661–667e, 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 

16 U.S.C. § 742(a–j), 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

16 U.S.C. § 718d(b), 

Small Wetlands Acquisition Program 1958 

25 U.S.C. § 488, 

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 

of 1985 

E .2 Refuge Complex Purposes 

The establishing and acquisition authorities set out 

the purposes for each unit of the refuge complex, as 

described below. 

Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge 

■■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds.” 

■■ Executive Order 5228, November 21, 1929 

■■ For “use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

■■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

■■ As “Waterfowl Production Areas subject to [...] 

all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] [...] except the inviolate sanctuary provisions.” 

■■ Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

■■ For “any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

■■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

■■ For “conservation purposes.” 

■■ Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 

Swan River National 

Wildlife Refuge 

■■ For “use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory birds” 

■■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Mission 

The mission of the 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 . 

E .3 Description of Uses 

The following uses are evaluated for compatibility 

within the refuge complex: 

■■ Hunting 
330 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

■■ Fishing 

■■ Wildlife observation and photography 

■■ Environmental education and interpretation 

■■ Cooperative farming, haying, and grazing 

■■ Commercial filming, audio recordings, and still 

photography 

■■ Research and monitoring 

■■ Special one-time events 

■■ Virtual geocaching 

■■ Dry lot for up to 4 horses 

Hunting 

The refuge complex’s hunting program will be 

driven by its compatibility with wildlife population 

objectives and the availability of water during the 

hunting season. In addition to the site-specific regulations mentioned below, the State hunting regulations apply to all Service-owned lands in the refuge 

complex. Hunters may only possess and use Serviceapproved, nontoxic shot loads on Service-owned 

lands, and vehicle travel and parking is restricted to 

public roads, pullouts, and parking areas. The refuge 

complex Web site and public use brochures provide 

guidance onsite-specific regulations. The general 

hunting regulations are available from MFWP. 

The CCP proposes to continue the hunting uses 

described for each unit below. In addition, the Service will increase regulatory hunting signage (for 

example, closed to hunting area signs, nontoxic shot 

required signs) and interpretive materials (for example, an updated and more comprehensive refuge 

complex hunting leaflet, hunting factsheets) to reduce unintentional hunting violations throughout the 

refuge complex. 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Public hunting of migratory gamebirds including 

ducks, geese, coot, swan (by permit only) and upland 

gamebirds including pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, and 

gray partridge is permitted in designated areas of the 

refuge. 

Big game hunting and hunting rabbits or any 

other wildlife species, including furbearers is not be 

permitted on Benton Lake Refuge. 

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District 

Except for the Sands WPA in Hill County and H2-O 

WPA in Powell County, all waterfowl production 

areas within the district are open to hunting of migratory gamebirds, upland game, and big game. 

Approximately 14,127 acres of upland and wetland 

habitat are available for hunting. Unless otherwise 

noted, all Service lands open to hunting are subject 

to State hunting regulations and seasons. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

Hunting of migratory gamebirds including ducks, 

geese, swans (by permit only), and coots is permitted in designated areas of the refuge. 

Upland gamebird hunting, big game hunting, and 

guided hunting is not permitted on the refuge. 

Availability of Resources 

Existing programs such as current refuge directional signs and brochures are occasionally updated 

with available resources. Maintenance of access 

roads, parking, hunting and information kiosks, 

and public use signs is closely tied to Service Asset Maintenance Management System funding. The 

refuge complex’s base money would fund the update 

and printing of existing and new brochures. 

More law enforcement staff and resources would 

be required (1) to manage significant changes to the 

hunting program to reduce disturbance to wildlife 

and habitat, (2) carry out and encourage preventative law enforcement efforts, and (3) to check compliance with public use and hunting regulations. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

The hunting program on Service lands in the refuge complex will continue to provide hunters ample 

quality hunting opportunities without materially 

detracting from the mission of the Refuge System 

or the establishing purposes of the refuge complex 

lands. Public use brochures and the refuge complex’s 

Web site will be kept up to date and made readily 

available to hunters. Hunter success and satisfaction will continue to be monitored through random 

contacts with hunters in the field and in the refuge 

complex office. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 

1966, other laws, and the Service’s policy permit 

hunting on a national wildlife refuge when it is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was 

established and acquired. As practiced on the refuge complex, hunting does not pose a threat to the 

wildlife populations. By its very nature, hunting 

creates a disturbance to wildlife and directly affects 

the individual animals being hunted. Hunting will be 

designed and monitored to offer a safe and quality 

program and to keep adverse effects within acceptable limits. 

Although hunting directly affects the hunted species and may indirectly disturb other species, limits 

on harvest and access for recreational hunting would 

make sure that populations do not fall to unsustain­
APPENDIX E–Draft Compatibility Determinations 331 

able levels. Closed areas on the refuge complex 

provide sanctuary to migratory birds during the 

hunting season. 

Other effects from hunting activity include 

conflicts with individuals participating in wildlifedependent, priority public uses such as wildlife observation and photography. This could decrease the 

visitors’ satisfaction during the hunting season. 

Public Review and Comment 

This Compatibility Determination is presented for 

public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Determination 

Hunting is a compatible use on the refuge complex. 

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility 

■■ Hunters will be required to use approved nontoxic shot for migratory bird and upland gamebird hunting on Service-owned lands. 

■■ Vehicles will be restricted to county and public 

roads and parking areas in the refuge complex. 

■■ Signage, news releases, open-houses, and brochures will be used to provide hunters information on where and how to hunt on the refuge 

complex to make sure there is compliance with 

public use regulations. 

Justification 

Hunting is a form of wildlife-dependent recreation 

and is identified as a priority public use in the Improvement Act. Based on anticipated biological effects described above and in the EA, the Service has 

found that hunting within the refuge complex would 

not interfere with the purposes for which the refuges and district were established. Limiting access 

and monitoring the use could help limit any adverse 

effects. Except for the H2–O and Sands WPAs, all 

lands and waters within the wetland management 

district would be open to hunting in accordance 

with the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Act, under which they were acquired. 

Mandatory 15-year 

Reevaluation Date: 2027 

Fishing 

This use will be a continuation of the historic activity 

of noncommercial fishing. Public use areas such as 

parking and fishing areas, as well as interpretive 

panels, signs, kiosks, and other structures may be 

installed and supported to facilitate this program. 

Areas on the refuge complex that are seasonally 

sensitive to migratory birds will remain closed to 

public entry and use. Only selected areas of the refuge complex will be open to fishing. Special refuge 

regulations governing fishing will be available in 

refuge brochures. 

The CCP proposes the fishing uses described for 

each unit below in accordance with State regulations. The CCP does not call for the implementation 

of any new fishing programs; however, opportunities 

may be expanded with more purchases of waterfowl 

production areas within the district. 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

The main part of the refuge offers no fishing opportunities due to a lack of sport fish. The Pump House 

Unit of the refuge is open for fishing. 

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

Lands acquired as waterfowl production areas are 

open to fishing subject to the provisions of State 

laws and regulations. Fishing or entry on all or any 

part of individual areas may be temporarily suspended by posting on occasions of unusual or critical 

conditions of, or affecting, land, water, vegetation or 

fish and wildlife populations. 

Fishing on waterfowl production areas throughout the district is permitted. Known game fish populations exist at the Arod Lakes, H2–O, proposed 

acquisition at Upsata Lake, and Blackfoot WPAs. At 

the Arod Lakes and Upsata Lake WPAs, walk-in access would be permitted year-round. On Arod Lakes 

WPA, vehicle access to Middle and Round Lakes is 

permitted January 2 until April 1. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

Fishing is permitted on portions of the Swan River 

that flow through the refuge year-round. Walk-in 

access for fishing from Bog Road may occur throughout the year. 
332 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Availability of Resources 

The refuge complex has adequate administrative 

and management staff to support its fishing program. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Temporary disturbance of wildlife may occur near 

fishing activity. Fishing will temporarily decrease 

the fish population until natural reproduction or 

stocking replenishes the population. Frequency of 

use is directly dependent upon fish populations and 

their feeding activity. When fish populations are 

high and active, public use will increase. Minimal 

disturbance to ground nesting birds may occur from 

anglers walking along rivers and streams. Littering 

can also become a problem. No long-term negative 

impacts to resources are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment 

This Compatibility Determination is presented for 

public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Determination 

Fishing is a compatible use on the Benton Lake and 

Swan River Refuges and waterfowl production areas in the district in accordance with State regulations. 

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility 

■■ Vehicles will be restricted to county and public 

roads and parking areas on the waterfowl production areas. 

■■ Use of motorized boats is prohibited on the Benton Lake Refuge, except the Swan River where 

no-wake regulations are in effect. 

■■ Boats, fishing equipment, and all other personal 

property must be removed at the end of each day. 

Justification 

Fishing is a form of wildlife-dependent recreations 

and is identified as a priority public use in the Improvement Act. Based on the biological effects addressed above and in the EA, the Service has found 

that fishing would not interfere with the purposes 

for establishment of the refuges and waterfowl production areas within the refuge complex. Current 

staffing levels and monetary resources are adequate. 

Special refuge regulations are in place to reduce 

negative impacts to refuge habitat and wildlife. 

Mandatory 15-year 

Reevaluation Date: 2027 

Wildlife Observation 

and Photography 

A variety of habitats and many species of wildlife 

throughout the refuge complex provide observation and photography opportunities year-round. The 

Benton Lake Refuge received most of the visitation. 

Wildlife observation and photography opportunities would continue to be provided throughout the 

refuge complex, and would be supported by providing observation blinds, supporting an up-to-date bird 

species list for the refuges in the refuge complex, 

and allowing the public the opportunity to use portable viewing and photography blinds through the 

issuance of special use permits. These activities may 

take place on foot, bicycle, automobile, horse, crosscountry skis and snowshoes. 

Facilities exist on the Benton Lake and Swan 

River Refuges that support these activities by 

bringing visitors closer to wildlife: Boardwalk 

Nature Trail, Swan River Overlook, Sharp-tailed 

Grouse Observation Blind, Benton Lake Refuge 

photography blind, and Prairie Marsh Wildlife 

Drive. Modifications and relocations may occur to 

the existing facilities and auto tour routes to accommodate restoration activities to the wetland basin at 

the Benton Lake Refuge. New facilities for observing and photographing wildlife (such as observation decks, trails, auto tour routes, and photography 

blinds) may be developed. 

The CCP proposes to continue wildlife observation and photography on the following units of the 

refuge complex as described below. 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

The Prairie Marsh Wildlife Drive would provide 

year-round wildlife-viewing and photography opportunities via auto, foot, cycling, snowshoes, or 

cross-country skis. Hazardous road conditions would 

occasionally require periodic closures. 

Lower Marsh Road would continue to be available to vehicles, hiking, and bicycling for wildlifeviewing and photography opportunities from July 15 

until the opening day of waterfowl-hunting season. 

Rough road conditions prevent the use of recre­
APPENDIX E–Draft Compatibility Determinations 333 

ational vehicles, vehicles towing trailers, and large 

vehicles. 

Facilities providing more opportunities for wildlife observation and photography include the Unit 1 

Photographic Blind and the Boardwalk Nature Trail 

with spotting scope and interpretive panels. More 

opportunities for wildlife observation and photography by means of temporary blinds year-round on 

Prairie Marsh Wildlife Drive would be provided. 

Blinds in other selected areas may be provided as 

well through SUP. 

The Sharp-Tailed Grouse Blind would continue 

to be available to the public by reservation on weekends during April and May. The grouse blind provides a highly sought-after opportunity for visitors 

to observe and photograph the courting rituals of 

sharp-tailed grouse. Another blind may be installed 

at another lek location due to extreme interest in 

this opportunity exceeding current availability. 

Foot traffic, including hiking, cross country skiing, and snowshoeing, for wildlife observation and 

photography is also permitted throughout the hunt 

area during hunting season. At other times of the 

year, public use is limited to the designated roads 

and trails described above. 

All facilities and infrastructure may be altered 

in location or experience periodic closures to accommodate modifications to existing infrastructure in 

support of basin wide restoration efforts. 

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

Wildlife observation and photography opportunities 

are available year-round on 22 waterfowl production 

areas. Most visitors view wildlife from public roads. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

Swan River Refuge is a popular destination point for 

visitors traveling through the Swan Valley. The existing observation platform, kiosk, and interpretive 

panels would continue to be supported and provide 

opportunity for wildlife observation and photography. Bog Road, which provides access to the interior 

of the refuge, will be supported as a walking trail 

which will allow foot traffic, including hiking, cross 

country skiing, and snowshoeing. 

Availability of Resources 

Sufficient resources are available to administer, 

manage and check the use. Infrastructure exists on 

the refuge complex to support these activities. Observation areas are placed in areas that provide consistent wildlife viewing opportunity with minimum 

disturbance to wildlife. The construction and maintenance of roadways, kiosks, observation platforms, 

and trails, as well as law enforcement activities to 

make sure that visitors comply with refuge regulations while conducting these activities, are the principle expenses associated with wildlife observation 

and photography. Resources are available within the 

existing staffing and budget allocations of the refuge 

complex. An extra park ranger, law enforcement 

officer, and maintenance worker, as proposed in the 

comprehensive conservation plan, will enhance public opportunities for these uses and improve quality 

and quantity of opportunities. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Short-term effects may include the temporary displacement of birds and other wildlife to adjacent 

habitats during the initial positioning and removal of 

portable blinds, cameras, and other equipment. Some 

birds will be flushed from foraging or resting habitats 

by the approach of people on trails. However, the area 

impacted by these disturbances is small compared to the 

overall habitat area available. Disturbance caused by these 

uses is not anticipated to cause wildlife to leave or abandon the refuge, and all areas are available to wildlife for 

undisturbed use during closed hours. 

Winter activities, such as cross-country skiing, 

and snowshoeing, would have no effect on nesting 

birds and little effect on vegetation. Winter disturbance to resident wildlife is temporary and minor. 

Hiking during the breeding season, when confined 

to open trails and roads would have little or no effect on wildlife. Equestrian use on the Benton Lake 

Refuge is restricted to roadways to prevent spread 

of weeds, erosion from hoof action, and trampling 

disturbance to wildlife. Bicycling is restricted to 

roadways open to vehicular traffic to reduce disturbance to wildlife. 

Disturbance resulting from wildlife observation and 

photography programs is deemed to be biologically insignificant. No long-term effects are expected if recommended stipulations are followed. The proposed 

uses, including development of facilities to support 

those uses, will foster public appreciation and understanding of the prairie ecosystem and the importance of refuge and district habitats for wildlife 

conservation. 

Public Review and Comment 

This Compatibility Determination is presented for 

public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 
334 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Determination 

Wildlife observation and noncommercial photography are compatible uses on the Benton Lake and 

Swan River Refuges and waterfowl production areas in the district. 

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility 

❏■A special use permit will be issued to all individuals using blinds for photography and observation within the complex.. A total of five 

special use permits would be issued in any 

given year on any unit of the refuge complex 

for the use of small observation blinds on a 

first-come-first-served basis. If the number of 

requests for blinds exceeds five, the permitting process would be revisited and modified 

as necessary. Visitors using permanent or portable observation and photography blinds will 

be provided with information on proper use 

and etiquette of these structures to reduce disturbance to wildlife and their natural environments and other refuge complex visitors. 

❏■Blinds will be erected and removed daily. 

❏■Blind location will be decided by complex staff 

and may be limited to areas next to public access roads. 

❏■Refuge complex staff must be notified before 

arrival at the refuge for observation and photography. 

❏■Refuge complex staff will decide if, when, 

where and for how long access may be allowed 

to photograph at individual areas. 

■■ Seasonal closures to protect sensitive wildlife 

areas and reduce disturbance to fish and wildlife 

will be supported. 

■■ Non-Service vehicles will be restricted to county 

and public access roads in the refuge complex. 

■■ Viewing areas will be designed to reduce disturbance effects on wildlife and all refuge resources 

while providing a good opportunity to view wildlife in their natural environments. 

■■ On the Benton Lake and Swan River Refuges, 

foot traffic (hiking, cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing) will be permitted only on designated trails, roads open to motorized vehicles, 

and in the refuge hunt area during the refuge 

hunting season. 

■■ On the Benton Lake Refuge, equestrian use will 

be restricted to roadways open to motorized 

vehicles year-round and prohibited on all other 

units of the refuge complex. 

■■ On the Benton Lake Refuge and the district, bicycling will be restricted to roadways open to 

motorized vehicles year-round. 

Justification 

Wildlife observation and photography are a form of 

wildlife-dependent recreation and are identified as 

priority public uses in the Improvement Act. These 

uses, including existing and future enhanced programs as prescribed in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex are compatible with the purposes, 

and with the mission of the Refuge System. These 

uses are not only justified but are encouraged by the 

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. 

Wildlife observation and photography can instill, in 

citizens of all ages, a greater appreciation for wildlife 

and its habitat. This appreciation may extend to the 

Refuge System and other conservation agencies. 

Disturbance from wildlife observation and photography is not expected to adversely impact wildlife populations. Most wildlife observation is confined 

to within a set distance from existing roadways, and 

in some locations, the infrastructure helps to concentrate public use in areas that can allow wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities at safe 

distances that reduce disturbance to wildlife. 

Based on anticipated biological effects described 

above and in the EA, the Service has found that 

wildlife observation and noncommercial photography within the refuge complex would not interfere 

with the purposes for which the refuges and district 

were established. Limiting access and monitoring 

the uses could help limit any adverse effects. 

Mandatory 15-year 

Reevaluation Date: 2027 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation 

The refuge complex provides opportunity for student field trips on an “as-arranged” basis. Temporary and impromptu outdoor classrooms may be 
APPENDIX E–Draft Compatibility Determinations 335 

established or used in wetland and riparian habitats; 

however, seasonal closures may occur to avoid impacts to threatened and endangered species or sensitive habitats. 

Interpretive panels and auto tour brochures provide users on Benton Lake and Swan River Refuges 

information about habitat, wildlife, management 

actions, and activities along the Boardwalk Nature 

Trail, the Swan River Overlook, and other interpretive kiosks is passive in nature from self-guided 

opportunities, interpretive panels, brochures, Web 

sites, and tear-sheets. 

The CCP proposes to continue environmental 

education and interpretation and add the following 

to improve these programs: 

■■ The Service would expand the opportunities for 

environmental education and interpretation to 

foster appreciation and understanding of the 

Refuge System and the resources of the refuge 

complex. 

■■ More interpretive panels may be developed for 

the refuge complex. 

■■ More accessible observation sites will be developed in the refuge complex. 

■■ The mammal, reptile and amphibian lists will be 

updated for the refuge complex and a brochure 

will be developed. 

■■ Refuge complex staff may take part in offsite 

special events and activities to bring the refuge 

complex message to large numbers of people as 

time and staff allow. 

■■ Interpretive panels, brochures, tear-sheets, Web 

sites, and maps will be updated.. 

■■ Many of the proposed actions are contingent on 

hiring a visitor services park ranger to develop 

and carry out these programs. 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge offers joint-sponsored outdoor education 

courses with the MFWP, including a Youth Waterfowl Hunting Clinic and the Becoming an Outdoor 

Woman series. 

Partnership with the Great Falls Public School 

provides the opportunity for all third graders in the 

Great Falls Public School system to come to the refuge and learn about natural resources. This highly 

popular activity includes more than 850 students 

annually. Refuge staff provides information about 

the refuge and education specialists from the GFPS 

perform onsite activities and learning modules. 

Refuge staff takes part in the annual Montana Envirothon Event in Lewistown, Montana, 

The event attracts student teams from all across 

Montana while they compete for the opportunity to 

represent Montana at the National Envirothon Competition. Refuge staff helps students learn about fish 

and wildlife resources and the habitat they depend 

on. More than 200 students and teachers take part in 

the annual event. As time allows, the refuge would 

continue to collaborate with other school groups to 

provide tours, teach science, and work together on 

monitoring projects. 

Refuge staff recently took part in the STEM 

Expo hosted in Great Falls, Montana. This annual 

event invigorates the community and students in the 

areas of science, technology, engineering, and math. 

Staff have the opportunity to reach more than 550 

children, teachers, and parents. 

Greater emphasis would occur with interpretive panels and maps to explain (1) the purpose and 

importance of conserving, managing, and restoring 

healthy functioning ecosystems, (2) the importance 

of natural hydroperiods in wetlands, and (3) changes 

to public use regulations and access areas to accommodate changes in wetland and water management. 

In addition, environmental education curriculum 

may be adapted to reflect changes in habitat from 

restoration efforts as well. 

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District 

The waterfowl production areas would remain open 

for environmental education and interpretation. 

Staff will provide occasional onsite educational visits 

on the waterfowl production areas. A facility exists on the H2–O WPA to provide onsite education 

within the Blackfoot Valley. Interpretive displays 

would continue to be available on the north and 

south parking areas of the Blackfoot WPA. 

The proposed acquisition of Upsata Lake WPA 

may offer more onsite interpretive and environmental education opportunities. In addition, cooperative 

efforts with University of Montana in Missoula may 

further develop opportunities. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

An interpretive kiosk is located on the refuge. 

Availability of Resources 

Environmental education and interpretation activities, directional signs, and brochures would be 

mainly supported by annual operations money and 
336 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

other sources such as grants, regional project proposals, and challenge cost-share agreements to enhance programming. 

New facilities and maintenance of existing facilities will occur as visitor facility enhancement 

projects. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

The use of the refuge complex for onsite activities 

for environmental education or interpretation may 

impose a short-term, low-level effect on the immediate and surrounding area. Effects may include trampling of vegetation and temporary disturbance to 

nearby wildlife species during the activities. Development and implementation of interpretive and education programs will have minimal and biologically 

insignificant impacts on refuge complex resources. 

Refuge complex brochures, interpretive panels, 

and other educational materials will continue to be 

updated as needed. Features such as the auto tour 

route and accessible observation sites will continue 

to provide access to the many sights and sounds of 

the refuge complex. 

The Service will continue to promote a greater 

public understanding and appreciation of the refuge 

complex resources, programs, and issues through 

interpretive, outreach, and environmental educational programs. Establishing and engaging with a 

Friends group and other local groups, the Service 

will continue to provide environmental education 

and interpretation both on and off Service lands. 

Presentations, both on and off Service lands, will be 

provided to refuge visitors, school groups, and organizations, allowing the Service to reach a broader 

audience. Onsite presentations will be managed to 

reduce disturbance to wildlife, habitat, and cultural 

resources. 

Public Review and Comment 

This Compatibility Determination is presented for 

public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Determination 

Environmental education and interpretation are 

compatible uses on the Benton Lake and Swan River 

Refuges and waterfowl production areas in the district. 

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility 

■■ Onsite activities will be held where minimal effect on wildlife and habitats will occur. 

■■ The Service will review new environmental education and interpretation activities to make sure 

these activities meet program objectives and are 

compatible. 

■■ All motor vehicles associated with these uses will 

remain on designated roads open to vehicular 

traffic. 

■■ Staff will check use patterns and would make 

adjustments in timing, location, and duration of 

activities as needed to limit disturbance to wildlife and habitat. 

Justification 

Environmental education and interpretation are 

forms of wildlife-dependent recreation and are priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Environmental Education and interpretation will increase public awareness and appreciation 

of the significant wildlife and habitat values of the 

refuge complex, and the Refuge System. It is anticipated that such appreciation and understanding 

will foster increased public support for the Refuge 

System and conservation of America’s wildlife resources. 

Based on anticipated biological effects described 

above and in the EA, the Service has found that environmental education and interpretation on the refuge complex would not interfere with the purposes 

for which the refuges and district were established. 

Limiting access and monitoring the uses could help 

limit any adverse effects. 

Mandatory 15-year 

Reevaluation Date: 2027 

Cooperative Farming, 

Haying, and Grazing 

The Service would continue to use cooperative farming and prescriptive livestock grazing and haying as 

management tools throughout the refuge complex. 

These tools would be used to meet habitat objectives, control vegetative litter, promote native plant 

production and diversity, control the spread of in­
APPENDIX E–Draft Compatibility Determinations 337 

vasive plant species, and help convert disturbed 

grasslands back to native plant species. 

The district currently uses cooperative farming and haying as tools to manage upland habitats, 

including control of invasive plant species and cattails. In the past, these techniques were also used 

on Benton Lake Refuge. The draft CCP proposes 

to use cooperative farming and haying to manage 

habitats. Furthermore, the draft CCP establishes 

goals and objectives for specific habitat types where 

cooperative farming and haying may be used. The 

refuge complex would improve the monitoring and 

research programs for vegetation and wildlife to 

assess habitat and wildlife population responses to 

cooperative farming and haying. 

The refuge complex currently uses prescriptive 

livestock grazing as a tool to manage a variety of 

uplands and seasonal wetlands. Fencing and controlling livestock is the responsibility of the cooperating 

rancher. The Service provides instruction and guidance within the special use permit for placement of 

fences, water tanks, and livestock supplements to 

make sure that sensitive habitats or refuge complex 

assets are protected. Temporary electric fencing is 

used. Current forage conditions, habitat objectives, 

and available water would decide stocking rates in 

each grazing unit. The draft CCP proposes to continue using prescriptive livestock grazing to meet 

habitat objectives. Furthermore, the draft CCP establishes goals and objectives for specific habitat 

types where prescriptive livestock grazing may be 

used. The refuge complex would improve the monitoring and research programs for vegetation and 

wildlife to assess habitat and wildlife population 

responses to prescriptive livestock grazing. Different grazing rates and management strategies would 

be investigated to figure out the best methods for 

meeting the habitat goals and objectives. 

Availability of Resources 

Existing resources would be sufficient to administer 

the farming, haying, and grazing programs at current levels. These programs would continue to be 

conducted through special use permits or cooperative farming agreements, which reduce the need for 

staff time and Service assets to complete work. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

The cooperative farming and haying program 

and prescriptive livestock-grazing program would 

be used to meet habitat- and species-specific goals 

and objectives identified in the draft CCP. These 

programs are intended to support and enhance habitat conditions to help a wide variety of migratory 

birds and other wildlife that use the refuge complex. 

Minimal negative effects are expected. Control of invasive plant species through these programs would 

be a long-term benefit. 

Some wildlife disturbance may occur during farming operations and some animals may be 

temporarily displaced. Wildlife would receive the 

short-term benefit of standing crops or stubble for 

food and shelter and the long-term benefit of having 

cropland or other poor-quality habitat converted 

to native grasses or DNC. In addition, restoration 

of cropland to grassland cover would prevent soil 

erosion, improve water quality, and the need for 

chemical use. 

Some trampling of areas by livestock may occur 

around watering areas or mineral licks. If fences are 

not supported, it may be difficult to meet habitat 

objectives. It is anticipated that grazing would be in 

a mosaic pattern with some areas more intensively 

grazed than others in certain years. Grazing, as well 

as fire, is known to increase the nutrient cycling of 

nitrogen and phosphorous (Hauer and Spencer 1998, 

McEachern et al. 2000). Hoof action may break up 

mats of clubmoss and allow native plant seeds to become established. Cattle grazing may also increase 

the risk of invasive plants getting established. In 

addition, the presence of livestock may be disturbing 

to some wildlife species and some public users. The 

long-term benefits of this habitat management tool 

should outweigh the short-term negative effects. 

Public Review and Comment 

This Compatibility Determination is presented for 

public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Determination 

Cooperative farming, haying, and grazing as a habitat management tools would be compatible uses on 

the Benton Lake and Swan River Refuges and waterfowl production areas in the district. 

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility 

■■ To make sure there is consistency with management objectives, the Service will require general 

and specific conditions for each farming, haying, 

or grazing permit. 

■■ Only areas that have a prior crop history, an invasive plant problem, or decadent DNC will be 
338 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

included in the farming and haying program. To 

reduce effects on nesting birds and other wildlife, the staff will determine and incorporate any 

needed timing constraints on the permitted activity into the cooperative farming agreement or 

special use permit. For example, haying will not 

be permitted on Service lands until after July 

15 to avoid destroying bird nests on the management unit unless the complex staff deems it 

necessary to hay earlier to control invasive plants 

or restore grasslands. 

■■ The cooperative farming agreement or special 

use permit will specify the type of crop to be 

planted. Farming permittees will be required 

to use Service-approved chemicals that are less 

detrimental to wildlife and the environment. 

■■ Control and confinement of livestock are the responsibility of the permittee, but the Service will 

decide where fences, water tanks, and livestock 

supplements would be placed within the management unit. Temporary electric fence may be 

used to keep livestock within grazing cells as well 

as to protect sensitive habitat areas and refuge 

complex assets such as water control structures. 

Cooperators would be required to remove fences 

at the end of the grazing season. 

Justification 

Some habitat management needs to occur to support 

and enhance habitat for migratory birds and other 

wildlife. When properly managed and monitored, 

prescriptive farming and haying are options that 

can be used to improve wildlife cover and restore 

disturbed habitats to desirable grassland cover. Prescriptive livestock grazing can rejuvenate native 

grasses and help control the spread of some invasive 

plant species. Each of these tools can be controlled 

and the results would be monitored (for example, 

vegetation monitoring) so that adjustments in the 

programs can be made to meet habitat goals and 

objectives. 

Using local cooperators to accomplish the work 

is a cost-effective method to accomplish the habitat 

objectives. The long-term benefits of habitat restoration and management far outweigh the short-term 

effects caused by cooperative farming, haying, and 

grazing. 

Mandatory 10-year 

Reevaluation Date: 2022 

Commercial Filming, 

Audio Recording, and 

Still Photography 

Commercial motion pictures and audio recordings 

are defined as the digital or film recording of a visual 

image or sound recording by a person, business, or 

other entity for a market audience, such as for a documentary, television, feature film, advertisement, or 

similar project. It does not include news coverage or 

amateur/visitor use. Commercial photography is defined a visual recording (motion or still) by firms or 

individuals (other than news media representatives) 

who intend to distribute their photographic content 

for money or other consideration. This includes the 

creation of educational, entertainment, or commercial enterprises as well as advertising audio-visuals 

for the purpose of paid product or services, publicity, 

and commercially oriented photo contests. 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

provides tremendous opportunities for commercial filming and photography of migratory birds and 

other wildlife. Each year, the refuge complex staff 

receives an average of two requests to conduct commercial filming or photography on Service lands. 

Refuge complex staff review requests for commercial photography, motion pictures, and audio recordings, and issue a special use permit if the request is 

approved. Each request is evaluated on an individual 

basis, using several DOI, USFWS, and National 

Wildlife Refuge System policies (for example, 43 

CFR Part 5, 50 CFR 27.71, 8 RM 16). 

Evaluation criteria will include, but not be limited to, the following: 

■■ Commercial photography, motion pictures, and 

audio recordings must (1) show a means to increase public appreciation and understanding of 

wildlife or natural habitats, (2) enhance public 

knowledge, appreciation, and understanding of 

the Refuge System, or (3) facilitate outreach and 

education goals of the refuge complex. Failure to 

show any of these criteria results in a special use 

permit being denied. 

■■ Activities that cause undue disturbance to wildlife or their habitat are not approved. The degree 

and type of disturbance are carefully weighed 

when evaluating a request. 
APPENDIX E–Draft Compatibility Determinations 339 

■■ Requests that will conflict with other management programs or will impair existing wildlifedependent recreational uses are not approved. 

■■ If staffing or logistics make it impossible for the 

refuge complex to check the activity, this may 

cause the request to be denied, depending on the 

specific circumstances. 

Availability of Resources 

The commercial filming, audio recording, and still 

photography uses are administered with current resources. Administrative costs for review of applications, issuance of special use permits, and staff time 

to conduct compliance checks may be offset by a fee 

system designated for the agencies within the DOI. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Wildlife filmmakers and photographers tend to create the greatest disturbance of all wildlife observers 

(Dobb 1998, Klein 1993, Morton 1995). While observers frequently stop to view wildlife, photographers 

are more likely to approach the animals (Klein 1993). 

Even a slow approach by photographers tends to 

have behavioral consequences to wildlife (Klein 

1993). Photographers often remain close to wildlife 

for extended periods in an attempt to habituate the 

subject to their presence (Dobb 1998). Furthermore, 

photographers with low-power lenses tend to get 

much closer to their subjects (Morton 1995). This 

usually results in increased disturbance to wildlife 

as well as habitat including the trampling of plants. 

Handling of animals and disturbing vegetation (such 

as cutting plants and removing flowers) or cultural 

artifacts is prohibited on Service lands. 

Issuance of special use permits with strict guidelines and follow-up by refuge complex staff for 

compliance help to reduce or avoid these effects. 

Permittees who do not follow the stipulations of 

their special use permits could have their permits 

revoked, and further applications for filming or photographing on refuge complex lands would be denied. 

Public Review and Comment 

This Compatibility Determination is presented for 

public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Determination 

Commercial filming, audio recording, and still photography would be compatible uses on the Benton 

Lake and Swan River Refuges and waterfowl production areas in the district. 

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility 

■■ Commercial filming or still photography must (1) 

show a means to extend public appreciation and 

understanding of wildlife or natural habitats, (2) 

enhance education, appreciation, and understanding of the Refuge System, or (3) facilitate outreach and education goals of the refuge complex. 

Failure to show any of these criteria will result in 

a special use permit being denied. 

■■ All commercial filming requires a special use 

permit that would (1) describe conditions that 

protect the refuge complex’s values, purposes, 

resources, and public health and safety, and (2) 

prevent unreasonable disruption of the public’s use and enjoyment of the refuge complex. 

Such conditions may be, but are not limited to: 

specifying road conditions when access would 

not be allowed, establishing time limitations, and 

identifying routes of access. These conditions 

are identified to prevent excessive disturbance 

to wildlife, damage to habitat or refuge complex 

infrastructure, or conflicts with other visitor services or management activities. 

■■ The special use permit stipulates that imagery 

produced on refuge complex lands will be made 

available for use in environmental education and 

interpretation, outreach, internal documents, or 

other suitable uses. In addition, any commercial 

products must include proper credits to the refuge complex, the Refuge System, and the Service. 

■■ Still photography requires a special use permit 

(with specific conditions as outlined above) if one 

or more of the following would occur: 

❏■it takes place at locations where or when members of the public are not allowed 

❏■it uses models, sets, or prop that are not part 

of the location’s natural or cultural resources or 

administrative facilities 

❏■the Service incurs added administrative costs 

to check the activity 
340 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

❏■the Service needs to provide management and 

oversight to avoid impairment of the resources 

and values of the site, limit resource damage, or 

decrease health and safety risks to the visiting 

public 

❏■the photographer intends to intentionally manipulate vegetation to create a shot, for example, cutting vegetation to create a blind 

■■ To reduce the impact on Service lands and resources, the refuge complex staff will make sure 

that all commercial filmmakers and commercial 

still photographers (regardless of whether a special use permit is issued) comply with policies, 

rules, and regulations. The staff will watch and 

assess the activities of all filmmakers, audio recorders, and still photographers. 

Justification 

Commercial filming, audio recording, and still photography are economic uses that must contribute 

to the achievement of the refuge complex purposes, 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 

or the mission of the Service. Providing opportunities for these uses should result in an increased 

public awareness of the refuge complex’s ecological 

importance as well as advancing the public’s knowledge and support for the Refuge System and the 

Service. The stipulations outlined above and conditions imposed in the special use permits issued to 

commercial filmmakers, audio recorders, and still 

photographers would make sure that these wildlifedependent activities occur with minimal adverse 

effects to resources or visitors. 

Mandatory 10-year 

reevaluation date: 2022 

Research and Monitoring 

The refuge complex allows research and monitoring 

on a variety of biological, physical, and social issues 

and concerns to address management information 

needs or other issues. Studies are conducted by federal, state, and private entities, including the USGS, 

state and private universities such as the University 

of Montana, and independent researchers and contractors. 

Each year, the refuge complex issues special use 

permits for biological and physical research studies. Five to ten requests are received each year. 

Priority is given to studies that contribute to the 

enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of the refuge complex’s native plant, fish, and 

wildlife populations and their habitats. Research 

applicants must submit a proposal that outlines the 

objectives of the study; justification for the study; 

detailed study methods and schedule; and potential 

impacts on wildlife and habitat, including short and 

long-term disturbance, injury, or mortality. This includes a description of measures the researcher will 

take to reduce disturbances or impacts; a personnel 

required and their qualifications and experience; 

status of necessary permits (scientific collecting 

permits, endangered species permits, etc.); costs to 

the refuge complex and refuge complex staff time 

requested, if any; and anticipated progress reports 

and end products, such as reports or publications. 

Refuge staff will review research permit applications and issue special use permits if approved. 

Evaluation criteria for the issuance of special 

use permits will include, but not be limited to, the 

following: 

■■ Research that will contribute to specific management issues, the purposes of the refuge complex, 

or the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System will be given higher priority over other 

requests. 

■■ Research that will conflict with other ongoing 

research, monitoring, or management programs 

will not be approved. 

■■ Research projects that can be conducted off-complex lands are less likely to be approved. 

■■ Research that causes undue disturbance or is intrusive are likely not to be approved. The degree 

and type of disturbance will be carefully weighed 

when evaluating a research request. 

■■ Research evaluation will determine if any effort 

has been made to reduce disturbance through 

study design, including adjusting location, timing, 

number of permittees, study methods, and number of study sites. 

■■ If staffing or logistics make it impossible for staff 

to check researcher activity in a sensitive area, 

the request will likely be denied. 

■■ Length of the project will be considered and 

agreed-upon before approval. Projects will be 

reviewed annually and an annual progress report 

will be required. 

■■ To reduce disturbance to wildlife, researchers 

will not be permitted in closed areas, unless spe­
APPENDIX E–Draft Compatibility Determinations 341 

cifically authorized. Vehicular access will only be 

permitted on roads and trails normally open to 

the public. 

Availability of Resources 

The refuge complex uses existing staff to issue special use permits for research projects that occur on 

the complex. Currently, staff resources are deemed 

adequate to manage this use at anticipated levels. 

Review of the permit application, drafting and issuing the special use permit, and compliance assessments use an average of 3 hours of staff time per 

permit. Access points, vehicles, miscellaneous equipment, and limited logistical support may be available at the refuge complex at the refuge complex 

manager’s discretion. Temporary housing located on 

the refuge complex may be available for use by researchers while studying refuge complex resources, 

at the refuge complex manager’s discretion. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Some degree of disturbance is expected with all research activities, since researchers may use Service 

roads or enter areas that are closed to the public; 

in addition, some research may require collection 

of samples or handling of wildlife. Research activities may disturb fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

For example, the presence of researchers can cause 

waterfowl to flush from resting and feeding areas, 

cause disruption of birds and other wildlife on nests 

or breeding areas, or increase predation on individual nests and individual animals as predators follow human scent or trails. Efforts to capture animals 

can cause disturbance, injury, or death to groups 

of wildlife or to individuals. To wildlife, the energy 

cost of disturbance may be appreciable in terms of 

disruption of feeding, displacement from preferred 

habitat, and the added energy expenditure to avoid 

disturbance. Sampling activities can cause compaction of soils and the trampling of vegetation, the 

establishment of temporary foot trails through vegetation beds, and disruption of bottom sediments in 

wetlands. The removal of vegetation or sediments 

by core sampling methods can cause increased localized turbidity and disrupt nontarget plants and 

animals. Installation of posts, equipment platforms, 

collection devices, and other research equipment 

may present a hazard to heavy equipment operators if these items are not adequately marked and 

removed at the right times or upon completion of the 

project. Minimal impact on refuge wildlife and habitats is expected with research studies on the refuge 

complex because special use permits will include 

conditions to make sure that impacts to wildlife and 

habitats are kept to a minimum. 

Public Review and Comment 

This Compatibility Determination is presented for 

public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Determination 

Research and monitoring would be compatible uses 

on the Benton Lake and Swan River Refuges and 

waterfowl production areas in the district. 

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility 

■■ Extremely sensitive wildlife habitats and species 

will be sufficiently protected from disturbance 

by limiting research activities in these areas. 

All refuge complex rules and regulations will be 

followed unless otherwise exempted by refuge 

complex management. Projects will be reviewed 

annually and annual progress reports will be submitted. 

■■ Refuge complex staff will use the above criteria 

for evaluating and determining whether to approve a proposed study. If research methods are 

found to have potential effects on habitat or wildlife, it must be shown that the research was necessary for conservation management of resources 

on the refuge complex. Measures to reduce potential effects will be developed and included as 

part of the study design; these measures would 

be conditions on the special use permit. 

■■ Refuge complex staff will check research activities for compliance with conditions of the special 

use permit. At any time, refuge complex staff 

may accompany the researchers to determine potential effects. Staff may decide that approved research and special use permits be terminated due 

to observed effects. The refuge manager will also 

have the ability to cancel a special use permit if 

the researcher was out of compliance or to make 

sure there is wildlife and habitat protection. 

■■ Before conducting investigations, researchers 

will obtain a special use permit from the refuge 

complex that contains specific stipulations related 

to when, where, and how the research will be 

conducted. The refuge complex manager keeps 

the choice to prohibit research which causes undo 

harm or disturbance or which does not contribute 
342 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

to the purposes of the refuge complex or the mission of the Refuge System. 

■■ Refuge staff will use the criteria for evaluating 

a special use permit application for research, as 

outlined above under “Description of Use”, when 

determining whether to approve a proposed 

study on the refuge. If proposed research methods are determined to have potential impacts 

on refuge complex resources, it must be shown 

that the research is necessary for refuge complex 

resource conservation management. Measures to 

reduce potential impacts will need to be developed and included as part of the study design. In 

addition these measures will be listed as conditions on the special use permit. 

■■ Specific stipulations in the special use permit will 

vary by research project, but will be designed to 

reduce impacts to wildlife and their habitats and 

to make sure visitors, researchers, and refuge 

complex staff are safe. 

■■ Refuge complex staff will check research activities for compliance with conditions of the special 

use permit. At any time, refuge complex staff 

may accompany the researchers. The refuge complex manager may decide that the approved research and special use permit be terminated due 

to noncompliance with permit conditions or due 

to observed disturbance to wildlife or habitat. 

■■ Researchers must possess all applicable State 

and Federal permits for the capture and possession of protected species, for conducting regulated activities in wetlands, and for any other 

regulated activities. 

■■ Researchers will promptly submit findings, such 

as annual status reports and a final report, to 

the refuge complex manager for inclusion in the 

decision-making and management process. 

■■ To reduce potential safety hazards, researchers 

must clearly mark posts, equipment platforms, 

fencing materials, and other equipment left unattended. Such items shall be promptly removed 

upon completion of the research. 

■■ Research involving collections will be extremely 

restricted. Collections will be limited to type or 

voucher specimens only and require preapproval 

by the refuge manager and include verification of 

compliance with all State and Federal collection 

permits and requirements. 

Justification 

The Service discourages the granting of special 

privileges to employees; however, certain personal 

privileges may be authorized when circumstances 

and conditions warrant., such as when employees 

are required to live on station. According to the 

Service Manual policy 055 FW 4 persons living on 

Service lands may keep livestock, not to exceed five 

animals per family. The stipulations identified make 

sure that this activity is compatible under current 

circumstances. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date 

(Based on date of final plan) 
 

 

 

D .8 Signatures 

APPENDIX E–Draft Compatibility Determinations 343 

Submitted by:
 

Kathleen A. Burchett, Project Leader Date 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Great Falls, Montana 

Reviewed by:
 

Dean Rundle, Refuge Supervisor Date 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mountain–Prairie Region 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Approved by:
 

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date 

Assistant Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mountain–Prairie Region 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Appendix F 

Fire Management Program 

The Service has administrative responsibility for fire 

management at the Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex: Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Benton Lake Wetland Management District, and the Swan River National Wildlife Refuge. 

F .1 The Role of Fire 

In ecosystems of the Great Plains, vegetation has 

evolved under periodic disturbance and defoliation 

from grazing, fire, drought, and floods. This periodic 

disturbance is what kept the ecosystem diverse and 

healthy while supporting significant biodiversity for 

thousands of years. 

Historically, natural fire and Native American 

ignitions have played an important disturbance role 

in many ecosystems by removing fuel accumulations, 

decreasing the effect of insects and diseases, stimulating regeneration, cycling nutrients, and providing 

a diversity of habitats for plants and wildlife. 

When fire or grazing is excluded from prairie 

landscapes, the fuel load increases due to the buildup 

of thatch and invasion of woody vegetation. This 

increase in fuel load leads to an increase in a fire’s 

resistance to control, which threatens firefighter 

and public safety as well as Federal and private facilities. However, fire when properly used can do the 

following: 

■■ Reduce hazardous fuel buildup in both wildlandurban interface and non–wildland-urban interface 

areas 

■■ Improve wildlife habitats by reducing the density 

of vegetation or changing the plant species composition, or both 

■■ Sustain or increase biological diversity 

■■ Improve woodland and shrubland by reducing 

plant density 

■■ Reduce susceptibility of plants to insect and disease outbreaks 

■■ Improve the quality and quantity of livestock 

forage 

■■ Improve the quantity of water available for municipalities and activities that depend on wildlands for their water supply 

F .2 Wildland Fire Management 

Policy and Guidance 

Based on Federal interagency policy (Fire Executive Council 2009), wildland fire is defined as any 

nonstructure fire that occurs in the wildland including wildfire and prescribed fire. Response to wildland fire is based on consideration of a full range 

of fire management actions—allowing the fire to 

help the resource where possible or taking suppression action when those benefits are not attainable 

or there is a likely risk to important resources or 

adjacent lands. 

Considerations, guidance, and direction for wildland fire management should be addressed in the 

land use resource plans (for example, this CCP). 

Fire management plans are stepdown processes 

from the land use plans and habitat plans and provide details about fire suppression, fire use, and fire 

management activities. 

The 1995 Federal Fire Policy Wildland Fire Management Policy was updated in 2001. This revised 

policy directs Federal agencies to achieve a balance 

between fire suppression to protect life, property, 

and resources and fire use to regulate fuel and support healthy ecosystems. The following guiding principles and policy statements are excerpted from 

this document titled Review and Update of the 1995 

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy; these 

are the foundational principles for Federal wildland 

fire management policy. 
346 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Guiding Principles 

1. Firefighter and public safety is the first priority 

in every fire management activity. 

2. The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological 

process and natural change agent will be incorpo

rated into the planning process. 

Federal agency land and resource manage

ment plans set the objectives for the use and 

desired future condition of the various public 

lands . 

3. Fire management plans, programs, and activities 

support land and resource management plans and 

their implementation. 

4. Sound risk management is a foundation for all 

fire management activities. 

Risks and uncertainties relating to fire man

agement activities must be understood, ana

lyzed, communicated, and managed as they 

relate to the cost of either doing or not doing 

an activity . Net gain in public benefit will be 

an important component of decisions . 

5. Fire management programs and activities are 

economically viable, based on values to be pro

tected, costs, and land and resource management 

objectives. 

Federal agency administrators are adjusting 

and reorganizing programs to reduce costs 

and increase efficiencies . As part of this pro

cess, investments in fire management activi

ties must be evaluated against other agency 

programs to effectively accomplish the overall 

mission, set short- and long-term priorities, 

and clarify management accountability . 

6. Fire management plans and activities are based 

on the best available science. 

Knowledge and experience are developed 

among all Federal wildland fire management 

agencies . An active fire research program 

combined with interagency collaboration pro

vides the means to make these tools available 

to all fire managers . 

7. Fire management plans and activities incorpo

rate public health and environmental quality con

siderations. 

8. Federal, State, tribal, local, interagency, and in

ternational coordination and cooperation are es

sential. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

Increasing costs and smaller workforces 

require that public agencies pool their human 

resources to successfully deal with the everincreasing and more complex tasks of fire 

management . Full collaboration among 

Federal wildland-fire management agencies 

and between these agencies and international, 

State, tribal, and local governments and private entities results in a mobile fire management workforce available for the full range of 

public needs . 

9. Standardization of policies and procedures among 

Federal wildland-fire management agencies is an 

ongoing objective. 

Consistency of plans and operations provides 

the fundamental platform on which these 

agencies can cooperate, integrate fire activities across agency boundaries, and provide 

leadership for cooperation with State, tribal, 

and local fire management organizations . 

F .3 Management Direction 

The refuge complex will protect life, property, and 

other resources by safely suppressing all wildfires. 

Prescribed fire, as well as manual and mechanical 

fuel treatments, would be used in an ecosystem context to protect both Federal and private property 

and for habitat management purposes. Fuel reduction activities would be applied in collaboration with 

Federal, State, private, and nongovernmental partners. In addition, the Service would set priorities for 

fuel treatment based on guidance for prioritization 

established in the goals and strategies outlined in 

the following documents: (1) “U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service National Wildlife Refuge System Wildland 

Fire Management Program Strategic Plan 2003– 

2010”; and (2) “Region 6 Refuges Regional Priorities 

FY07–11.” For wildland-urban interface treatments, 

areas with community wildfire protection plans and 

designated “communities at risk” would be the primary focus. All aspects of the fire management program would be conducted consistent with applicable 

laws, policies, and regulations. The refuge complex 

would support a fire management plan to accomplish 

the fire management goals described below. Prescribed fire and manual and mechanical fuel treatments would be applied in a scientific way under 

selected weather and environmental conditions. 
APPENDIX F–Fire Management Program 347 

Fire Management Goals 

Fire management goals are set at national, regional, 

and local levels. 

National Fire Management Goals 

The goals and strategies of the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System Wildland Fire Management Program Strategic Plan” are 

consistent with the following guidance: 

■■ Policies of the Department of the Interior and 

the Service 

■■ National Fire Plan direction 

■■ The President’s Healthy Forest Initiative 

■■ The 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan 

■■ National Wildfire Coordinating Group Guidelines 

■■ Initiatives of the Wildland Fire Leadership 

Council 

■■ Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations 

Regional Fire Management Goals 

The “Region 6 Refuges Regional Priorities FY07– 

11” are consistent with the refuges’ vision statement 

for the Mountain–Prairie Region, “to maintain and 

improve the biological integrity of the region, ensure 

the ecological condition of the region’s public and 

private lands are better understood, and endorse 

sustainable use of habitats that support native wildlife and people’s livelihoods.” 

Refuge Complex Fire Management Goals 

The fire management goal for the refuge complex 

is to use prescribed fire and manual and mechanical 

treatments to (1) reduce the threat to life and property through hazardous-fuel reduction treatments, 

and (2) meet the habitat goals and objectives identified in this CCP.. 

Fire Management Objective 

Fire is an important natural component in the maintenance and restoration of native prairie ecosystems. The primary objective of the prescribed fire 

management program is to reduce fuel loads while 

restoring and supporting native prairie habitats. 

Prescribed fire would be used to recycle nutrients, 

reduce or end invasive plants, increase the growth 

and production of native plants, improve wildlife 

habitat and nesting cover for migratory birds, and 

reduce the risk of wildfire. 

Achieving this objective would require 500 acres 

to 2000 acres of upland, and wetland habitat annually, until every upland acre has been burned at 

least once. Thereafter, the Service would attempt to 

mimic a natural cycle of prescribed fire by retreating 

the same piece of native prairie every 6–8 years, or 

on whatever cycle is necessary for restoration. 

Strategies 

Strategies and tactics that consider public and firefighter safety, as well as resource values at risk, 

would be used. Wildfire suppression, prescribed fire 

methods, manual and mechanical means, timing, 

and monitoring would be described in detail within 

the stepdown fire management plans for the refuge 

complex. 

All fire management actions would use prescribed fire and manual or mechanical means to reduce hazardous fuel, restore and support desired 

habitat conditions, control nonnative vegetation, 

and control the spread of woody vegetation within 

the diverse ecosystem habitats. The fuel treatment 

program would be site specific and follow the most 

recent interagency template for burn plans. 

A prescribed fire would temporarily decrease 

air quality by reducing visibility and releasing components through combustion. The refuge complex 

would meet the Clean Air Act emission standards 

by adhering to the Montana requirements during all 

prescribed fire activities.. 

F .4 Fire Management 

Organization, Contacts, 

and Cooperation 

Using the fire management district approach, Region 6 of the Service would establish qualified technical oversight of fire management for the refuge 

complex. Under this approach, the level of fire management staff would be determined by established 

modeling systems and be based on the fire management workload of a group of refuges and possibly 

that of interagency partners. Workload is based on 
348 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

historical wildfire suppression activities as well as 

historical and planned fuel treatments. 

Depending on budgets, fire management staff 

and support equipment may be located at the headquarters of the refuge complex or at other refuges 

within the district and shared between all units. 

Fire management activities would be conducted in a 

coordinated and collaborative manner with Federal 

and non-Federal partners. 

On approval of this CCP, one or more fire management plans would be developed for the refuge 

complex. The fire management plans may be prepared as (1) plans that cover each individual refuge 

and wetland management district, (2) a plan that 

covers the area identified within this CCP, (3) a plan 

that covers the fire management district, or (4) an 

interagency fire management plan. 
Bibliography
 

Adair, S.E. 2003. America’s vanishing wetlands. In: 

Butcher, Russell; editor. America’s national wildlife refuges, a complete guide. Lahnam, Maryland: Roberts Rinehart. 1–11. 

Alt, D.; Hyndman, D.W. 1986. Roadside geology of 

Montana. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 427 p. 

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of 

North American birds. 7th edition. Washington, 

DC: American Ornithologists’ Union. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

American Wildlands. 2009. American Wildlands 

priority linkage assessment. [Internet] <http:/ 

www.wildlands.org/programs/> [Date accessed 

unknown]. 

America’s Hottest Species. 2009. Endangered Species Coalition. [Internet] <http://www.stopextinction.org/images/hottestspecies.pdf> [Date 

accessed unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Anderson, JT; Smith, LM. 2000. Invertebrate response to moist-soil management of playa wetlands. Ecological Applications 10(2):550–8. 

Anteau, M. J.; Afton, A. D. 2011. Lipid catabolism of 

invertebrate predator indicates widespread wetland ecosystem degradation. PLoS One 6:e16029. 

Archibald, W.R.; Ellis, R.; Hamilton, A.N. 1987. Responses of grizzly bears to logging truck traffic 

in the Kimsquit River Valley, British Columbia. 

International Conference on Bear Research and 

Management. 7: 251–7. 

Arnold, T. W.; Craig-Moore, L. M.; Armstrong , L. 

M.; Howerter, D. W.; Devries, J. H.; Joynt, B. L.; 

R. Emery, B.; Anderson , M. G. 2007. Waterfowl 

use of dense nesting cover in the Canadian parklands. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2542– 

49. 

Audubon. 2011. Montana Important Bird Areas. [Internet] <http://iba.audubon.org/iba/stateIndex. 

do?state=US-MT> [Date accessed unknown]. 

Austin, K. 2006. The intersection of land use history 

and exurban development: implications for carbon storage in the Northeast.[Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher name unknown]. [Number 

of pages unknown] 

Bacon, C.R. 1983. Eruptive history of Mount 

Mazama and Crater Lake Caldera, Cascade 

Range, USA. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 18:57-115. 

Bakker, K. 2003. A synthesis of the effect of woody 

vegetation on grassland nesting birds. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science. 

82:119–41. 

Bangsund, Dean A.; Leistritz, F. Larry; de Silva, 

Lynette L.; Steadman, Edward N.; Harju, John 

A. 2005. Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Potential in Southwest North Dakota. [Internet] 

<http://www.undeerc.org/PCOR/newsandpubs/ 

pdf/TerrestrialCarbonSequestration.pdf> [Date 

accessed unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Banko, W.E. 1960. The trumpeter swan—its history, habits, and population in the United States. 

North American Fauna. 63:1–214. 

Barrett, J.W. 1979. Silviculture of ponderosa pine in 

the Pacific Northwest—the state of our knowledge, GTP PNW–GTR–97. Portland, Or: U.S. 

Dept. of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. 106p. As cited 

in: Casey, D. 2000. Partners in Flight–Draft Bird 

Conservation Plan, Montana. Kalispell, Mt: Montana Partners in Flight, Montana Fish, Wildlife, 

& Parks. 

Batzer, D.P.; Rader, R.B.; Wissinger , S.A. 1999. 

Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North 

America: ecology and management. New York: 

Wiley and Sons. 1100 p. 

Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas 

and habitat corridors for cougars. Conservation 

Biology. 7:94–108. 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 2011. Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge. [Internet] 

<http://www.fws.gov/bentonlake/benton.htm> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

Beyersbergen, G.W.; Niemuth, N.D.; Norton, M.R., 

coordinators. 2004. Northern prairie and parkland waterbird conservation plan. A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the 

Americas initiative. Denver, CO: Prairie Pothole 

Joint Venture. 183 p. 

Bick, Patricia. 1985. Letter from the Montana Historical Society to Ray Washtak, refuge manager 

concerning the National Register eligibility of 

the Fleshman Place. On file at U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

Big Sky Fishing. 2011. The history of Great Falls, 

Montana. [Internet] <http://www.bigskyfish­
350 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

ing.com/Montana-Info/great-falls-history.shtm> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

Blackfoot Challenge, Big Blackfoot Chapter of Trout 

Unlimited, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Hydrometrics Inc. 2005. A basin-wide restoration 

action plan for the Blackfoot watershed. Ovando, 

MT: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Bock, C.E.; Bock , J.E. 1987. Avian habitat occupancy following fire in a Montana shrubsteppe. 

Prairie Naturalist. 19:153–8. 

Briske, D.D.; Fuhlendorf S.D.; Smeins, F.E. 2005. 

State-and-transition models, thresholds, and 

rangeland health: a synthesis of ecological concepts and perspectives. Rangeland Ecol Manage 

58:1-10. 

Brix, H. 1993. Wastewater treatment in constructed 

wetlands: system design, removal processes, and 

treatment performance. In: Moshiri, G. A., editor. 

Constructed wetlands for water quality improvement. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. 14 p. 

(9-22). 

Brown, Pete. 2011. Concurrence letter from the 

Montana State Historic Preservation Office regarding the National Register eligibility of a log 

cabin to be disposed of at Swan River NWR. [On 

file at unknown location]. 

Brown, P.L. 1972. Water use and soil water depletion by alfalfa on upland recharge and downslope 

saline seep areas. .[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher name unknown]. Bozeman, 

Montana, Annual Research Report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Brown, P.L.; Halvorson, A.D.; Siddoway, F.H.; mayland, H.F.; Miller, M,R. 1982. Saline-seep diagnosis, control and reclamation. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Conservation Research Report No. 

30. 22 p. 

Brown, S.; Hickey, C.; Harrington , B.; Gill, R., editors. 2001. The U.S. shorebird conservation plan, 

2nd ed. Manomet, MA: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Brumley, John. 2006. Nemont Telephone Cooperatives 2006 Dagmar, Glentanna and Larslan Exchanges: cultural resources inventory. Prepared 

for Nemont Telephone Cooperative. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Ethos Consultants. On file 

at the Montana Archaeological Society, Helena, 

MT. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2011. Regional 

economic accounts. [Internet] http://www.bea. 

gov/regional/reis/action.cfm. [Date accessed unknown]. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Marcum 

Mountain resource management projects. Environmental assessment DOI–BLM–MT_B010– 

2009–0013EA. Missoula, MT; BLM Missoula 

Field Office. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Carver, E.; Caudill, J. 2007. Banking on nature 2006: 

the economic benefits to local communities of 

National Wildlife Refuge visitation. Washington, 

DC: Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Cascade County Historical Society. 1999. The Cascade County album. Great Falls, MT: [Publisher 

name unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Casey; Wood, M. 1987. Effects of water on productivity of canada geese in the northern Flathead 

Valley, final report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. 1984BII6687, Project No. 

198349800, (BPA Report IOE/BP-16687-3). Helena, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks. [Internet] [Web site address and date 

accessed unknown] 208 p. 

Casey, D. 2000. Partner’s in Flight bird conservation plan, Montana. Version 1.1. Kalispell, MT: 

American Bird Conservancy. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Chapman, R.C. 1977. The effects of human disturbance on wolves [thesis, type unknown]. Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

Choteau Chamber of Commerce. [Date unknown]. 

[Name of publication unknown]. [Publisher name 

unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Chouteau County, Montana. 2011. Welcome to Chouteau County, Montana. [Internet] <http://www. 

co.chouteau.mt.us/index.htm> [Date accessed 

unknown]. 

Christensen, J.H.; Hewitson, B.; Busuioc, A.; Chen, 

A.; Gao, X.; Held, I.; Jones, R.; Kolli, R.K.; Kwon, 

W.-T.; Laprise, R.; Rueda, V. Magaña; Mearns, L.; 

Menéndez, C.G.; Räisänen, J.; Rinke, A.; Sarr, A.; 

Whetton , P. 2007. Regional climate projections. 

In: Climate change 2007: the physical science 

basis. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA: 

Cambridge University Press. [Internet] <http:// 

www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ 

ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_ 

the_physical_science_basis.htm> [Date accessed 

unknown]. (Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; 

Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; 

Miller, H.L. editors. Contribution of working 

group 1 to the fourth assessment report of the 

intergovernmental panel on climate change). 

Christian, J.M.; Wilson , S.D. 1999. Long term ecosystem impacts of an introduced grass in the 

northern Great Plains. Ecology. 80(7):2397–407. 

City of Helena. 2011. City of Helena, MT. [Internet] 

<http://www.ci.helena.mt.us/home.html>[Date 

accessed unknown]. 

Claar, J.J.; Anderson, N.; Boyd, D. [et al.] 1999. Carnivores. In: Joslin, G.; Youmans, H.; coordinators. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 351 

Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: 

a review for Montana. Committee on Effects of 

Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The 

Wildlife Society: 7.1–7.63. 

Collinson, N.H.; Biggs, J.; Corfield, A.; Hodson, M. 

J.; Walker, D.; Whitfield, M.; Williams, P.J. 1995. 

Temporary and permanent ponds: an assessment 

of the effects of drying out on the conservation 

value of aquatic macroinvertebrate communities. 

Biological Conservation 74:125-133. 

Comer, P.; Faber-Langendoen, D.; Evans, R.; 

Gawler, S.; Josse, C.; Kittel, G.; Menard, S.; Pyne, 

M.; Reid, M.; Schulz, K.; Snow, K.; Teague, J. 

2003. Ecological systems of the United States: a 

working classification of U.S. terrestrial systems. 

Arlington, VA: NatureServe. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Condon, S.M. 2000. Stratigraphic framework of 

Lower and Upper Cretaceous rocks in central 

and eastern Montana. U.S. Geological Survey 

Digital Data Series DDS–57.[Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher name unknown]. [Number 

of pages unknown] 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes; Montana 

Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 2004. Flathead subbasin 

plan: executive summary. A report prepared for 

the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 

Portland, OR: [Publisher name unknown]. [Number of pages unknown] 

Cooper, S.V. 2004. Mountain big sagebrush/prairie 

fescue shrub herbaceous vegetation, ecological 

systems description. [Internet]. Arlington,VA: 

NatureServe. < http://www.natureserve. 

org>[Date accessed unknown]. 

Cordell, H. Ken; Overdevest, Christine. 2001. Footprints on the land: an assessment of demographic 

trends and the future of natural lands in the 

United States. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing. 314 p. 

Cowardin, L.M.; Carter, V ; Golet, F.C.; LaRoe, E.T. 

1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater 

habitats of the United States. Washington DC : 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. 

131 p. 

Cowardin, L.M.; Gilmer, D.S.; Shaiffer, C.W. 1985. 

Mallard recruitment in the agricultural environment of North Dakota. Wildlife Monographs 

92.[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher 

name unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Cox, B.; Gignoux, T.; McCulloch, R. 1998. Economic 

geology in the western Montana portion of the 

Blackfoot River region: discussion and field trip 

guide. Abstract. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Northwest Geology. Volume 28:101–109. 

Crabtree, R.L.; Sheldon, J.W. 1999. Coyotes and 

canid co-existence in Yellowstone. In: Clark, T.W.; 

Curlee,A.P.; Minta, S.C.; Kareiva, P.M., editors. 

Carnivores in ecosystems: the Yellowstone experience. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press: 

127–64. 

Craft, C.B.; Richardson, C.J. 1993a. Peat accretion 

and phosphorus accumulation along a eutrophication gradient in the northern Everglades. Biogeochemistry 22:133-56. 

———. 1993b. Peat accretion and N, P, and organic 

C accumulation in nutrient-enriched and unenriched Everglades peatlands. Ecological Applications 3:446-58. 

Cutright, P.R. 1985. Theodore Roosevelt, the making of a conservationist. Urbana, IL: University 

of Illinois Press. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Dahl, T.E. 2011. Status and trends of wetlands in 

the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 108 p. 

Dahl, Thomas E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United 

States 1780’s to 1980’s. Version 16JUL97. [Internet] Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Jamestown, 

ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/ 

wetloss/index.htm> [Date accessed unknown]. 

Dale, B.C.; Martin, P.A.; Taylor, P.S. 1997. Effects 

of hay management on grassland songbirds in 

Saskatchewan.[Place of publication unknown]: 

Wildlife Society. Bulletin 25:616–626. 

Davis, S.K. 2005. Nest-site selection patterns and 

the influence of vegetation on nest survival of 

mixed-grass prairie passerines. [Place of publication unknown]: Condor. 107:605–16. 

Davis, S.K.; Duncan, D.C. 1999. Grassland songbird 

occurrence in native and crested wheatgrass pastures of southern Saskatchewan. Studies in Avian 

Biology 19:211-8. 

Davis, S.K.; Duncan, D.C.; Skeel, M.. 1999. Distribution and habitat associations of three endemic 

grassland songbirds in southern Saskatchewan. 

Wilson Bulletin 111: 389–396. 

Davy, Douglas 1992. Historic properties survey 

of selected areas at Fort Peck Lake, Montana. 

Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. Sacramento, California: EBASCO 

Environmental. On file at U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Omaha, NE. 

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M; Nenneman, M.P; Euliss, B.R. 

2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Sprague’s pipit. Jamestown, North 

Dakota: U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. [Internet] <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/ 

literatr/grasbird/sppi/sppi.htm> accessed May 13, 

2009. 
352 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Decker, G. 2010a. McGregor Meadows waterfowl 

production area stream and wetland restoration 

plan conceptual restoration alternatives. Report 

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Whitefish, 

MT: River Design Group, Inc. 8 p. 

———. 2010b. Memo to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [On file at unknown location]. 

Defenders of Wildlife. 2009. Petition for a rule to 

designate fishers (Martes pennanti) in the U.S. 

Northern Rocky Mountains a distinct population 

segment and add them to the list of endangered 

or threatened wildlife protected by the Federal 

Endangered Species Act. [Internet] <http://www. 

defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_ 

and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species/fisher/northern_rockies_fisher_esa_petition. 

pdf> [Date accessed unknown]. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

DeKeyser, E.S.; Kirby, D.R.; Ell, M.J. 2003. An index of plant community integrity: development 

of the methodology for assessing prairie wetland plant communities. [Place of publication unknown]: Ecological Indicators. 3:119–33. 

DeKeyser, E.S.; Biondini, M.; Kriby, D.; Hargiss , C. 

2009. Low prairie plant communities of wetlands 

as a function of disturbance: physical parameters. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Ecological Indicators. 9:296–306. 

Delisle, J.M.; Savidge, J.A. 1996. Reproductive success of grasshopper sparrows in relation to edge. 

Prairie Naturalist 28:107-13. 

Devries, J.H. and Armstrong, L.M. 2011. Impact 

of management treatments on waterfowl use of 

dense nesting cover in the Canadian parklands. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Journal of Wildlife Management. 75(6):1340–9. 

Dieni, J.S.; Jones, S.L. 2003. Grassland songbird 

nest site selection patterns in North-central Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: Wilson. Bulletin 115:32–40. 

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: the debate behind the 

lens. Audubon: January-February. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

DuBois, K. 1989. Impacts of predator control on 

duck production at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge. On file at Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge, Great Falls, MT. 10 p. 

Ducks Unlimited. 2003. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 2003. [Place of publication unknown]: Ducks 

Unlimited. 30 p. 

Duebbert,H.F. 1969. High nest density and hatching 

success of ducks on South Dakota CAP lands. 

Transactions of the North American wildlife natural resource conference. [date of conference unknown]. [Location of conference unknown]. [Place 

of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

34:18–228. 

Duebbert, H.F.; Lokemoen, J.T. 1976. Duck nesting in fields of undisturbed grass-legume cover. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Journal of Wildlife Management. 40:39–49. 

Duebbert, H.F.; Lokemoen, J.T. 1980. High duck 

nesting success in a predator-reduced environment. [Place of publication unknown]: Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 44:428–37. 

Duebbert, H.F.; Jacobson, E.T.; , Higgins, K.F.; Podoll, E,B. 1981. Establishment of seeded grasslands for wildlife habitat in the prairie pothole 

region. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Special Scientific Report–Wildlife No. 

234. 

Ducks Unlimited Canada. 1993. Letter from Brent 

Wark, Ducks Unlimited Habitat Biologist, to 

Karen Smith, refuge manager Lostwood NWR. 

On file at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 

Great Falls, MT. 

[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. 

Montana: Upper Sun River. [Internet]. <http:// 

water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/mt_sun. 

cfm> [Date accessed unknown]. 

Euliss, N.H.; LaBaugh, J.W.; Frederickson, L.H.; 

Mushet, D.M.; Laubhan, M.K.; Swanson, G.A.; 

Winter, T.C.; Rosenberry, D.O.; Nelson, R.D. 

2004. The wetland continuum: a conceptual 

framework for interpreting biological studies. [Place of publication unknown]: Wetlands. 

24(2):448-458. 

Euliss, N.H., Jr.; Mushet, D.M. 2004. Impacts of water development on aquatic macroinvertebrates, 

amphibians, and plants in wetlands of a semi-arid 

landscape. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 7:73-84. 

Euliss, N.H.; LaBaugh, J.W.; Frederickson, L.H.; 

Mushet, D.M.; Laubhan, M.K.; Swanson, G.A. 

Winter, T.C.; Rosenberry, D.O.; Nelson, R.D. 

2004. The wetland continuum: a conceptual 

framework for interpreting biological studies. 

Wetlands 24(2):448-458. 

Euliss, N.H.; Smith, L.M.; Wilcox, D.A.; Browne, 

B.A. 2008. Linking ecosystem processes with 

wetland management goals: charting a course 

for a sustainable future. [Place of publication unknown]: Wetlands. 28(3):553-562. 

Fandrich, Blain; Lynelle Peterson 2005. A Traditional Cultural Property Study Fort Peck Lake, 

Montana. Report produced for the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Omaha. Billings MT: Ethnoscience, Incorporated. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Fennessy, M.S.; Jacobs, A.D.; Kentula, M.E. 2007. 

An evaluation of rapid methods for assessing the 

ecological condition of wetlands. [Place of publication unknown]: Wetlands 27(3):543–60. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 353 

Ferrasci-O’Malley, Brian. 2006. The Blackfoot Valley trumpeter swan reintroduction: a chronology 

and case study. [Professional paper presented 

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the 

degree of Master of Science in Environmental 

Studies]. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Fischer, W. G.; Brady, A. F. 1987. Fire ecology of 

Western Montana forest habitat types. Ogden, 

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Gen. Tech. 

Rep., INT-GTR-223. 

Fischman, Robert L. 2003. The National Wildlife 

Refuges: coordinating a conservation system 

through law. Washington, DC: Island Press. 277 

p. 

Follet, R.F.; Kimble, J.M.; Lal, R. 2001. The potential of U.S. grazing lands to sequester soil carbon, 

chapter 16. In Follett, R.F.; Kimble, J.M.; Lal, 

R.; editors. The potential of U.S. grazing lands 

to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse 

effect. Washington, DC: Lewis Publishers. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Fondell, T.; Ball, I. J. 1997. Avian species composition and productivity in non-forest habitats of the 

Blackfoot Valley, Montana. Project report Montana cooperative wildlife research unit. Missoula, 

MT: University of Montana. 16 p. 

Fondell, T.F.; Ball, I.J. 1997. Breeding bird productivity in the Blackfoot Valley, Montana. On file 

at Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, MT. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Foresman, K.R. 2001. The wild mammals of Montana. Special Publication No. 12. The American 

Society of Mammalogists. Lawrence, KS: Allen 

Press, Inc. 278 p. 

Frederick, P.K.; Ogden, J,C. 2001. Pulsed breeding 

of long-legged wading birds and the importance 

of infrequent severe drought conditions in the 

Florida Everglades. [Place of publication unknown]: Wetlands 21(4):484–91. 

Fredrickson, L.H.; Reid, F.A. 1988. Invertebrate 

response to wetland management. Waterfowl 

Management Handbook. Washington DC: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Frissell, C.A.; Doskocil, J.; Gnagemi, J.T.; Stanford, 

J.A. 1995. Identifying priority areas for protection and restoration of aquatic biodiversity: a 

case study in the Swan River Basin, Montana, 

USA. Polson, MT: Flathead Biological Station, 

The University of Montana. FLBS Report 136­

95. 28 p. 

Frontier Historical Consultants. 2004. 2 km north 

of Great Falls north cultural resources survey 

and assessment. Report produced for the Montana Department of Transportation. Grand View, 

Idaho: Frontier Historical Consultants. On file 

with the Montana Historical Society, Helena, MT 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

Gabrielsen, G.W.; Smith, E.N. 1995. Physiological 

responses of wildlife to disturbance. In: Knight; 

Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and recreationists: 

coexistence through management and research. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 372p. (95–107). 

Gazda, R.J.; Meidinger, R.R.; Ball, I.J.; Connelly, 

J.W. 2002. Relationships between Russian olive and duck nest success in southeastern Idaho. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(2):337-44. 

Gebhart, D.L.; Johnson, H.B.; Mayeux, H.S.; Polley, 

H.W. 1994. The CRP increases oil organic carbon. 

J. Soil Water Cons. 49:488-492. 

General Land Office. 1920. GLO maps and notes for 

the Benton Lake, Montana region. 

Gieseker, L.F.; Morris, E.R,; Strahorn, A.T.; Manifold, C.B. 1933. Soil survey (reconnaissance) of 

the northern plains of Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S.Department of Agriculture, 

Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, in cooperation 

with the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station. Series 1929, Number 21. 73 p. 

Gilbert, E.D.; Heath, S.B.; Palawski, D.U.; Malloy, 

J.C. 1995. Trace element concentrations in sediment and biota from the Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District, north-central Montana. 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Giltner, L.T.; Couch, J.F. 1930. Western duck sickness and botulism. Science 72: 660. 

Girvetz, E.H.; Zganjar, C.; Raber, G.T.; Maurer, E.P.; 

Kareiva, P.; Lawler, J.J. 2009. Applied climatechange analysis: the climate wizard tool. [Internet] <http://www.climatewizard.org/> [Date 

accessed unknown]. 

Glacier County Government. 2011. Glacier County. 

[Internet] <http://www.glaciercountygov.com/> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

Gleason, R.A.; Euliss, N.H., Jr.; Hubbard, D.E.; 

Duffy, W.G. 2003. Effects of sediment load on 

emergence of aquatic invertebrates and plants 

from wetland soil egg and seed banks. Wetlands 

23:26-34. 

Gleason, R.A.; Euliss, Ned H., Jr.; McDougal, 

Rhonda L.; Kermes, Kevin E.; Steadman, Edward N.; Harju, John A. 2005. Potential of restored prairie wetlands in the glaciated North 

American prairie to sequester atmospheric carbon. [Place of publication unknown]: University 

of North Dakota. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Glick, P.; Stein, B.A.; Edelson, N.A., editors. 2011. 

Scanning the conservation horizon: a guide to 

climate change vulnerability assessment. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation. 168 p. 
354 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Gosselink, J.G. ;Turner, R.E. 1978. The role of hydrology in freshwater wetland ecosystems. In: 

Good, R. E. ; Whigham, D. F.; Simpson, R. L., editors. Freshwater wetlands. New York: Academic 

Press, Inc. 16 p. (63-78). 

Grant, T.A.; Flanders-Wanner, B.; Shaffer, T.L.; 

Murphy, R.K.; Knutsen, G.A. 2009. An emerging 

crisis across northern prairie refuges: prevalence 

of invasive plants and a plan for adaptive management. Ecological Restoration 27(1): 58-65. 

Grant, T.S.; Madden, E.; Berkey, G.B. 2004. Tree and 

shrub invasion in northern mixed-grass prairie: 

implications for breeding grassland birds. [Place 

of publication unknown]: Wildlife Society. Bulletin 32:807–18. 

Great Falls [Montana]Tribune.1929a. Hoover approves proposal for Benton Lake Preserve. 

[Date, section, page and column unknown]. 

———. 1929b. Water supply big problem of Benton 

Lake Bird Preserve. [Date, section, page and 

column unknown]. 

Great Falls Visitor Information Center. 2011. Recreational Activities. [Internet] <http://www. 

visitgreatfalls.net/recreate.php> [Date accessed 

unknown]. 

Greer, A.K.; Dugger, B.D.; Graber, D.A.; Petrie, 

M.J. 2006. The effects of seasonal flooding on seed 

availability for spring migrating waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(5):1561–6. 

Greer, John; Greer, Mavis. 1996. Site form for 

24FH873. On file at the Montana State Site Files, 

Missoula, MT. 

Grzimek, B. editor. 1974. Fishes and amphibians. 

Volume 5 of Grzimek’s animal life encyclopedia. 

New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

Hammond, C. A. H. 2009. Conservation plan for the 

common loon in Montana. Kalispell, MT: Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Hanchett, L.J. 2008. Montana’s Benton Road. Wolf 

Creek, MT: Pine Rim Publishing. 217 p. 

Hanna, D.; Bay, L.; Bergman, E. 2009. Proposed 

climate change case statement for The Nature 

Conservancy in Montana. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

Hauer, F.R.; Spencer, C.N. 1998. Phosphorus and 

nitrogen dynamics in streams associated with 

wildfire—a study of immediate and long-term 

effects. International Journal of Wildland Fire 

8:183-98. 

Hansen, P.L.; Pfister, R.D.; Boggs, K.; Cook, B.J.; 

Joy, J.; Hinckley, D.K. 1995. Classification and 

management of Montana’s riparian and wetland 

sites. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, 

School of Forestry. Miscellaneous publication. 

54:1-646. 

Hargiss, C.L.M.; DeKeyser, E.S.; Kirby, D.R.; Ell, 

M.J. 2008. Regional assessment of wetland plant 

communities using the index of plant community 

integrity. [Place of publication unknown]: Ecological Indicators. 8:303–7. 

Heitmeyer, M.E.; Fields, V.L.; Artmann, M.J.; Frederickson , L.H. 2009. An evaluation of ecosystem 

restoration and management options for Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Advance, MO: 

Greenbrier Wetland Services. 62 p. 

———. 2010. An evaluation of ecosystem restoration and management options for Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge. Advance, MO: Greenbrier Wetland Services. 59 p. 

Heitschmidt, R. K.; Sluth, J.W. 1991. Grazing management. An ecological perspective. [Place of 

publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 259 

p. 

Heitschmidt, R.K.; Klement, K.D.; Halferkamp, 

M.R..2005. Interactive effects of drought and 

grazing on northern Great Plains rangelands. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Rangelands Ecology Management. 58: 11–19. 

Helzer, C.J. 1996. The effects of wet meadow fragmentation on grassland birds [master’s thesis]. 

Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska. 65 p. 

Hendricks, P.; Lenard , S.; Currier, C.; Carlson, J. 

2007. Grassland bird surveys in North Valley 

County, Montana: 2001–2006. Report to the Bureau of Land Management, Glasgow Field Office. 

Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 19 p. (plus appendices). 

Henny, C.J.; Grove, R.A.; Bentley, V.R. 2000. Effects of selenium, mercury and boron on water 

bird egg hatchability at Stillwater, Malheur, 

Seedskadee, Ouray and Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuges and surrounding vicinities. 

[Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Geological 

Survey. National irrigation water quality program information report. 5:79. 

Higgins, K.F.; Barker, W.T. 1982. Changes in vegetation structure in seeded nesting cover in the prairie pothole region. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Special Scientific Report– 

Wildlife. 242: [Number of pages unknown]. 

Higgins, K.F.; Naugle, D.E.; Forman, K.J. 2002. 

A case study of changing land use practices in 

the northern Great Plains, U.S.A.: an uncertain 

future for waterbird conservation. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. Waterbirds 25: special publication. 2:45–50. 

Higashi, R.M.; Cassel, T.A.; Skorupa, J.P.; Fan, 

T.W.M. 2005. Remediation and bioremediation 

of selenium-contaminated waters. In: Lehr, J.H.; 

Keeley, J., editors. Water encyclopedia: water 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 355 

quality and resource development. Hoboken, NJ: 

Wiley. 717 p. 

History of Deer Lodge. 2011. Powell County, Montana. [Internet] <http://www.powellcountymontana.com/history.html> [Date accessed unknown]. 

Hoekman, S.T.; Mills, L.S.; Howerter, D.W.; Devries, 

J.H.; Ball, I.J. 2002. Sensitivity analyses of the 

life cycle of midcontinent mallards. The Journal 

of Wildlife Management, Vol. 66, No. 3. 883-900. 

17 p. 

Holling, C.S., editor. 1978. Adaptive environmental 

assessment and management. London: John Wiley and Sons. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Holton, G.D.; Johnson, H.E. 1996. A field guide to 

Montana fishes, second edition. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 104 p. 

Hossack, B.; Wahl , R.; Corn, S. 2009. Boreal toad 

capture-recapture study at Lost Trail National 

Wildlife Refuge. Annual Report. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number 

of pages unknown]. 

Inman, R. M.; Packila, M. L.; Inman, K. H.; Aber, 

B.; Spence, R.; McCauley, D. 2009. Greater 

Yellowstone wolverine program, progress report–December 2009. Bozeman, MT: Wildlife 

Conservation Society. North America Program, 

General Report. [Number of pages unknown]. 

IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: synthesis report. 

Valencia, Spain: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 73 p. 

Jarworski, E.; Raphael, C.N. 1978. Historical 

changes in natural diversity of fresh water wetlands, glaciated region of northern United States. 

In: Greeson, P. E.; Clark, J. R.; Clark, J. E., editors. Wetland functions and values: the state of 

our understanding. Minneapolis, MN: American 

Water Resources Association. 12 p. (545-56). 

Johnson, D.H.; Grier, J.W. 1988. Determinants of 

breeding distribution of ducks. Wildlife Monographs No. 100:3-37. 

Johnson, D.H.; Schwartz, M.D. 1993. The conservation reserve program: habitat for grassland birds. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Great Plains Research. 3:273–295. 

Johnson, D.H.; Igl, L.D. 2001. Area requirements of 

grassland birds: a regional perspective. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Auk. 118:24–34. 

Johnson, R.G.; Temple, S.A. 1990. Assessing habitat 

quality for birds nesting in fragmented tallgrass 

prairies. In: Verner, J; Morrison, M.L.; Ralph, 

C.J.; editors. Wildlife 2000-modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. Madison, WI: 

University of Wisconsin Press. 244-9. 

Johnson, W.C.; Millett, B.V.; Gilmanov, T.; Voldseth, 

R.A.; Guntenspergen, G.R.; Naugle, D.E. 2005. 

Vulnerability of northern prairie wetlands to climate change. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 55(10):863-872. 

Johnson, W.C.; Werner, B; Guntenspergen, G.R.; 

Voldseth, R.A.; Millett, B.; Naugle, D.E.; Tulbure, M.; Carroll, R.W.H.; Tracy, J.; Olawsky , 

C. 2010. Prairie wetland complexes as landscape 

functional units in a changing climate. [Place of 

publication unknown]: BioScience. 60(2): 128-140. 

Jones, S. L. 2010. Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) 

conservation plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Joslin, G.; Youmans, H., coordinators. 1999. Effects 

of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife. A 

review for Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: Committee on Effects of Recreation on 

Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 

307pp. 

Junk, W.J.; Bayley, P.B.; Sparks, R.E. 1989. The 

flood-pulse concept in river floodplain systems. 

In: Dodge, D. P., editor. Canadian special publication of fisheries and aquatic Sciences 106: 

Proceedings of the international large river symposium. 18 p. (110-27). 

Kaiser, P.H.; Berlinger, S.S.; Fredrickson, L.H. 

1979. Response of blue-winged teal to range 

management on waterfowl production areas in 

southeastern South Dakota. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Journal of Range Management (32)4: 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Kalmbach, E.R.; Gunderson, M.F. 1934. Western 

duck sickness – a form of botulism. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Technical 

Bulletin No. 411. 

Kantrud, H.A. 1981. Grazing intensity effects on the 

breeding avifauna of North Dakota native grasslands. [Place of publication unknown]: Canadian 

Field-Naturalist. 95:404–17. 

Kaya, C. M. 1992. Review of the decline and status 

of fluvial Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), in 

Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. Proceedings of Montana Academy of Sciences. 52:43–70. 

Kendall, Craig. 2010. In: Curtis, Lori. 2010. Flathead watershed sourcebook: a guide to an extraordinary plance. [Internet] <http://www. 

flatheadwatershed.org/watershed/hydrology. 

shtml> [Date accessed unknown]. 

Kendall, K.C.; Arno, S.F. 1989. Whitebark pine— 

an important but endangered wildlife species. 

In: Schmidt, W. C.; McDonald, K. J., compilers. 

Proceedings of symposium on whitebark pine 

ecosystems: ecology and management of a highmountain resource. U.S. Forest Service Technical 

Report INT-270: Proceedings, Symposium on 

whitebark pine ecosystems; 1989 March 29–31; 
356 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

[Place of proceedings unknown]. Bozeman, MT: 

U.S. Forest Service. 10 p. (264–273). 

Kendall, W.L. 2001. Using models to facilitate complex decisions. In: Shenk, T.M.; Franklin, A.B., 

editors. Modeling in natural resource management: development, interpretation, and application. Washington, DC: Island Press. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses 

to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31-9. 

Knick, S.T.; Dobkin, D.S.; Rotenberry, J.T.; Schroeder, M.A.; Vander Haegen, W.M.; van Riper 

III, C. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late? 

Conservation and research issues for avifauna 

of sagebrush habitats. [Place of publication unknown]: Condor. 105:611–34. 

Koehler, G.M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north-central Washington. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:845–51. 

Koper, N.; Walker, D.J.; Champagne, J. 2009. Nonlinear effects of distance to habitat edge on 

Sprague’s pipits in southern Alberta, Canada. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Landscape Ecology. 24:1287–1297. 

Korschgen, C.E.; Dahlgren, R.B. 1992. Human 

disturbances of waterfowl: causes, effects and 

management. Waterfowl management handbook. 

[Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Leaflet. 13(2):15. 

Knapton, J.R.; Jones, W.E.; Sutphin, J.W. 1988. 

Reconnaissance investigation of water quality, 

bottom sediment, and biota associated with irrigation drainage in the Sun River. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number 

of pages unknown]. 

Knight, R.R.; Blanchard, B.M.; Mattson, D.J. 1985. 

Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations— an annual report of the interagency team, 1983 and 

1984. Bozeman, MT: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Interagency Grizzly Bear Team. 41 p. 

(as cited in: LeFranc, Maurice, Jr.; Moss, Mary; 

Patnode, Kathleen. [et al.], editors. 1987. Grizzly 

bear compendium. Washington, DC: National 

Wildlife Federation; U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 

Knopf, F.L. 1996. Prairie legacies—birds. In: 

Samson, F.B.; Knopf, F.L., editors. Prairie conservation: preserving North America’s most endangered ecosystem. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Krapu, G.L.; Pietz, P.J.; Brandt, D.A.; Cox, R.R. 

2004. Does presence of permanent fresh water 

affect recruitment in prairie-nesting dabbling 

ducks? [Place of publication unknown]: Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 68(2):332–41. 

Krigbaum, Dagny. 1989. National register registration form. [Place of publication unknown]: Historical Discoveries. On file with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Kudray, Gregory, M.; Cooper, Stephen V. 2006. Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front: vegetation map 

and type descriptions. Report to the U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 26 p. (plus appendices. Ii). 

Kushlan, James A.; Steinkamp, Melanie J.; Parsons, 

Katharine C.; Capp, Jack; Acosta Cruz, Martin; 

Coulter, Malcolm; Davidson, Ian; Dickson, Loney; 

Edelson, Naomi; Elliot, Richard; Erwin, R. Michael; Hatch, Scott ; Kress, Stephen ; Milko, Robert; Miller, Steve ; Mills, Kyra; Paul, Richard; 

Phillips, Roberto; Saliva, Jorge E.; Sydeman, Bill 

; Trapp, John; Wheeler, Jennifer ; Wohl. Kent, 

2002. Waterbird conservation for the Americas: 

the North American waterbird conservation 

plan, version 1. Washington, DC: Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. 78 p 

Lajeunesse, S. 1999. Dalmation and yellow toadflax. 

In: Sheley, R.L.; Petroff, J.K.., editors. Biology 

and management of noxious rangeland weeds. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

202-216. 14 p. 

Lake County Direct. 2011. Lake County Montana 

directory. [Internet] <http://www.lakecodirect. 

com/activities.html>[Date accessed unknown]. 

Lake, P.S. 2011. Drought and aquatic ecosystems, 

effects and responses. Hoboken, NJ: WileyBlackwell. 379 p. 

Lambing, J.H.; Nimick, D.A.; Knapton, J.R.; Palawski, D.U. 1994. Physical, chemical and biological 

data for detailed study of the Sun River irrigation project, Freezeout Lake Wildlife Management Area and Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, west-central Montana, 1990–92 with 

selected data for 1987–89. Helena, MT: U.S. Geological Survey. Open file report 94–120. 171 p. 

Lancia, R.A.; Braun, C.E.; Collopy, M.W.; Dueser, 

R.D.; Kie, J.G.; Martinka, C.J.; Nichols, J.D.; 

Nudds, T.D.; Porath, W.R.; Tilghman, N.G. 1996. 

ARM! For the future: adaptive resource management in the wildlife profession. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Wildlife Society. Bulletin. 

24:436–42. 

Laylock, W.A. 1967. How heavy grazing and protection affect sagebrush-grass ranges. J. Range 

Manage. 20:206-213. 

Lemke, R.W. 1977. Geologic map of the Great Falls 

quadrangle, Montana. [Place of publication unknown]. [Scale unknown]. U.S. Geological Survey 

Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-1414. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 357 

Lemly, A.D. 1995. A protocol for aquatic hazard 

assessment of selenium. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 32: 280-288. 

Lemly, A.D.; Smith, G.J. 1987. Aquatic cycling of selenium – implications for fish and wildlife. [Place 

of publication unknown]: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 12. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

Lemly, A.D. 2002. Protocol for aquatic hazard assessment. In: Alexander, D.E., editor. Selenium 

assessment in aquatic acosystems: a guide for 

hazard evaluation and water quality criteria (61­

88). New York: Springer-Verlag. 176 p. 

Lenard, S.; P. Hendricks. 2005. Birds of selected 

grassland and riparian plots along the Rocky 

Mountain Front: inventory 2004. Helena, MT: 

Montana Natural Heritage Program. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

Lesica, P. 1994.The distribution of plant community 

diversity associated with glacial wetlands in the 

Ovando Valley, Montana. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. On file at The 

Nature Conservancy, Helena, Montana. 26 p. 

Lesica, P.; Cooper, S.V.; Kudray, G. 2005. Big sagebrush shrub-steppe postfire succession in southwestern Montana. Helena, MT: Montana Natural 

Heritage Program. 29 p. 

Lewis and Clark County Happenings. 2011. Lewis 

and Clark County. [Internet] < http://www. 

co.lewis-clark.mt.us/happenings/parks-openspace.html> [Date accessed unknown]. 

Lewis, Rhoda. 2001. Site forms for historic sites 

24FH0964 and 24FH0965. On file with the Montana Historical Society, Helena, MT, and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

Liberty County. 2011. About Liberty County. [Internet] <http://co.liberty.mt.us/html/about_liberty_county.html> [Date accessed unknown]. 

Lloyd, J.D.; Martin, T.E. 2005. Reproductive success of chestnut-collared longspurs in native and 

exotic grassland. [Place of publication unknown]: 

The Condor. 107:363–374. 

Loflin, Brant. 2005a. H2–O Ranch evaluation, Powell County Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. On file 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, 

CO. Report. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———.2005b. Lake Creek ditch, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Cascade County Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher 

unknown]. On file with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———. 2006. Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Unit 2 RX, Cascade County, Montana. [Place 

of publication unknown]: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. On file with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver, CO. Report. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

———. 2007. Site form for the Ehli Homestead, 

Toole County Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. On file with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

———. 2010a. Cultural Resources Staff field notes 

for 2009. On file at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office, Spearfish, SD. 

———. 2010b. Letter report to the Montana State 

Historic Preservation Office regarding the replacement of siding on 24FH0964. On file with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

Lolo National Forest. 2003. Biological assessment 

for grizzly bears: Clearwater roads project. On 

file at U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Lolo National Forest, Seeley Lake 

Ranger District, Seeley Lake, MT. 

Loosle, Byron. So delicious they ate the bark off 

the trees–Ashley National Forest, December 

2003. [Internet]. <http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/ashley/ 

heritage/ethnography/so-delicious.pdf> [Date 

accessed unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Lorang, M. 2008. Proposed scope of work and preliminary cost estimates to complete WPA north 

shore erosion control/restoration project. [Place 

of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

Report to PPL-Montana and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 20 p. 

Mackie, R.J.; Pac, D.F.; Hamlin, K.L. et al. 1998. 

Ecology and management of mule deer and 

white-tailed deer in Montana. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Federal aid to wildlife restoration report, project W–120–R. 180 p. 

Madden, E.M. 1996. Passerine communities and 

bird-habitat relationships on prescribe-burned, 

mixed-grass prairie in North Dakota. [master’s 

thesis] , Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Madden, E.M.; Murphy, R.K.; Hansen, A.J.; Murray, 

L. 2000. Models for guiding management of prairie bird habitat in northwestern North Dakota. 

[Place of publication unknown]: American Midland Naturalist. 144:377–392. 

Magee, James; McCullough, A. 2008. Montana arctic 

grayling monitoring report. Dillon, MT: Montana 

Fish, Wildlife & Parks. [Internet]. <http://fwpiis. 

mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=48510> [Date 

accessed unknown]. 

Magoun, A. J. 1987. Summer and winter diets of 

wolverines, Gulo gulo, in arctic Alaska. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Canadian Field Naturalist. 

101:392–397. 

Malone, M.; Roeder, R.; Lang, W. 1976. Montana a 

history of two centuries. Seattle : University of 

Washington Press. 466 p. 
358 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Malson, K.; Backeus, I.; Rydin, H. 2008. Long-term 

effects of drainage and initial effects of hydrological restoration on rich fen vegetation. Applied 

Vegetation Science 11:99-106. 

Manning, Robert E. 1999. Studies in outdoor recreation. 2nd edition. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University Press. 374 p. 

Maughan, E.K. 1961. Geologic map of the Vaughn 

quadrangle, Montana. [Place of publication unknown]. [Scale unknown]. U.S. Geological Survey 

Quadrangle Map GQ-135. 

Maughan, E.K. and R.W. Lemke. 1991. Geologic 

map of the Portage quadrangle, Cascade and 

Chouteau Counties, Montana. [Place of publication unknown]. [Scale unknown]. U.S. Geological 

Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I–2196. 

Maxell, B. A.; Werner, J.K.; Hendricks, P.; Flauth, 

D. L. 2003. Herpetology in Montana. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Society for Northwestern 

Vertebrate Biology. [Number of pages unknown]. 

May, R. 2007. Spatial ecology of wolverines in Scandinavia. [dissertation, type unknown]. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Science 

and Technology. [Number of pages unknown]. 

McEachern P.; Prepas, E.E.; Gibson, J.J.; Dinsmore, 

P. 2000. The forest fire induced impacts on phosphorus, nitrogen and chlorophyll a concentrations 

in boreal sub-arctic lakes of northern Alberta. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57(Supplement 2):73–81. 

McKay, Kathy; Hamilton, Ginger. 1996. Cultural 

resource inventory and evaluation Batavia 

Waterfowl Production Area. Columbia Falls, MT: 

Tracks of the Past. Report produced for the Montana Department of Transportation. On file with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

McMaster, D.G.; Davis, S.K. 2001. An evaluation of 

Canada’s permanent cover program: habitat for 

grassland birds? [Place of publication unknown]: 

Journal of Field Ornithology. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Mech, L.D. 1970. The wolf; ecology and behavior 

of an endangered species. New York: Natural 

History Press, Doubleday. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Mech, L.D.; Meier, T.J.; Burch, J.W. 1991. Denali 

Park wolf studies: implications for Yellowstone. 

In: Transactions of the North American Wildlife 

and Natural Resources Conference; [Date and 

location of conference unknown]. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 56:86–90. 

Milchunas, D.G.; Lauenroth, W.K. 1993. Quantitative effects of grazing on vegetation and soils 

over a global range of environments. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Ecological Monographs. 

63:327–66. 

Miller, R.; Baisan, C.; Rose, J.; Pacioretty, D. 2001. 

Pre and post settlement fire regimes in mountain 

big sagebrush steppe and aspen: the northwestern Great Basin. Final Report to the National 

Interagency Fire Center. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 18 p. 

Miller, R.F.; Rose, J.A. 1999. Fire history and western juniper encroachment in sage-brush steppe. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Journal of Range 

Management. 52:550–9. 

Mitchell, C.D. 1994. Trumpeter swan. In: Poole, 

A.; Stettenheim, P.; Gill, F., editors. The birds of 

North America. Philadelphia: The Academy of 

Natural Sciences. Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists’ Union. No. 105. 24 p. 

Mitsch, W.J.; Gosselink, J.G. 2000. Freshwater 

marshes. Wetlands 3rd edition. [Place of publication unknown]: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 40 p. 

(377–417). 

———. 2007. Wetlands, 4th edition. New York: John 

Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Number of pages unknown]. 

[MDEQ] Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality. 2003. Water quality management plan 

and TMDLs for the Teton River watershed. [Internet]. <http://www.deq.mt.gov/wqinfo /TMDL/ 

TPAmap.mcpx> [Date accessed unknown]. 

———. 2005. Search results of Teton and Dearborn River watersheds. [Internet]. Helena, MT: 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 

<http://www.deq.mt.gov/wqinfo.TMDL/TPAmap. 

mcpx> Accessed November 2011. 

———. 2011. [Title of data unknown] [Internet]. 

<http://deq.mt.gov/Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)-Understanding Air 

Quality.mht> [Date accessed unknown]. 

[MFWP] Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 2005. 

Montana’s comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation strategy. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, 

Wildlife & Parks. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———. 2009. Bull trout red counts completed in 

the Flathead system: North Fork, Middle Fork, 

about average; Swan and South Fork below average. [Internet]. Revised November 5, 2009. 

<http://fwpiis.mt.gov/news/article_8625.aspx> . 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

———.2010. Montana Fisheries Information System. On-line database. [Internet]. <http://fwp. 

mt.gov/fishing/mFish/> accessed November 2011. 

———. 2012. Water howellia — howellia aquatilis. 

Montana Field Guide. Montana Natural Heritage 

Program. [Internet]. <http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/ 

detail_PDCAM0A010.aspx> accessed February 

2012. 

[MNHP] Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2009. 

Natural resource information system search 

results for the Blackfoot subbasin. Helena, MT: 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 359 

Montana Natural Heritage Program. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

———. 2010a. Montana ecological integrity assessment, field manual. [Internet]. <http://mtnhp. 

org/wetlands/docs/Protocol.pdf> [Date accessed 

unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———. 2010b. National wetlands inventory for 

Montana. [Internet]. <http://nris.mt.gov/nsdi/ 

nris/shape/nwi_poly.zip> [Date accessed unknown]. 

———. 2010c. Wetland and riparian ecological systems. Montana field guide. [Internet]. <http:// 

fieldguide.mt.gov/displayES.aspx?id=8> [Date 

accessed unknown]. 

———. 2011a. Amphibians and reptiles. Montana 

field guide. [Internet]. <http://fieldguide.mt.gov/ 

displayClasses.aspx?Kingdom=Animalia> [Date 

accessed unknown]. 

———. 2011b. Wetland and riparian ecological systems. Montana field guide. [Internet]. 

<http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/displayES_Detail. 

aspx?ES=9252> accessed March 31, 2011. 

[MNHP] Montana Natural Heritage Program and 

[MFWP] Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2009. 

Montana animal species of concern. Helena, MT: 

Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 17 p. 

Monthey, R.W. 1986. Responses of snowshoe hares, 

Lepus americanus, to timber harvest in northern 

Maine. [Place of publication unknown]: Canadian 

Field Naturalist. 100:568–70. 

Morton, J. M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. In: Whitman, 

W.R.; Strange, T.; Widjeskog, L.; Whittemore, R.; 

Kehoe, P.; Roberts, L.; editors. Waterfowl habitat 

restoration, enhancement and management in the 

Atlantic flyway. 3rd edition. Dover, Delaware: 

Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway Council Technical Section; Delaware 

Division of Fish and Wildlife. F59-F86. 

Moulton, Gary. 1999. The journals of Lewis and 

Clark expedition; 12 volumes 1983-1999. Lincoln, 

NB: University of Nebraska Press. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

Mudge, M.R.; Earhart, R.L.; Whipple, J.W.; Harrison, J.E. 1982. Geologic and structure map of the 

Choteau 1o and 2o quadrangle, western Montana. 

[Place of publication unknown]. [Scale unknown]. 

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Montana 

Atlas Series MA 3-A. 

Murkin, H.R.; Ross, L.C. 1999. Macroinvertebrate 

responses to a simulated wet/dry cycle. In: 

Batzer, D.P.; Rader, R.B; Wissinger, S.A., editors. 

Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands. [Place of 

publication unknown]: John Wiley and Sons. 27 p. 

(543–70). 

Murkin, H.R.; Murkin, E.J.; Ball, J.P. 1997. Avian 

habitat selection and prairie wetland dynamics: 

a 10-year experiment. [Place of publication unknown]: Ecological Applications. 7(4): 1144–59. 

Murkin, H.R.; van der Valk, A.G.; Clark, W.R. 2000. 

Prairie wetland ecology: the contribution of the 

Marsh Ecology Research Program. Ames, IA: 

Iowa State University Press. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Murphy, R.K.; Grant, T.A. 2005. Land management history and floristics in mixed-grass prairie, North Dakota, USA. Natural Areas Journal 

25:351–358. 

Muths, E.; Corn,P.S.; Pessier, A.P. Green, D. E. 

2003. Evidence for disease-related amphibian decline in Colorado. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Biological Conservation. 110:357–65. 

National Audubon Society. 2007. Audubon watch 

list. [Internet]. [Revision date unknown]. <http:// 

web1.audubon.org/science/species/watchlist/> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

National Audubon Society. 2010. Important bird areas. [Internet]. Updated November 2010. <http:// 

web4.audubon.org/bird/iba/iba_intro.html> [Date 

accessed unknown]. 

———. 2012. Important bird areas in the U.S. 

Benton Lake NWR. [Internet]. [Revision date 

unknown]. <http://iba.audubon.org/iba/profileReport.do?siteId=2929&navSite=search&pagerOffs 

et=0&page=1> [Date accessed unknown]. 

[NISC] National Invasive Species Council. 2003. 

General guidelines for the establishment and 

evaluation of invasive species early detection 

and rapid response systems. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. Version 1. 16 p. 

[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2009. Archival climatic records–Great 

Falls, MT. [Internet] <http://noaa.gov> [Date 

accessed unknown]. 

———. 2011a. Archival climatic records–Great 

Falls, MT. [Internet] <http://noaa.gov> [Date accessed unknown]. 

———. 2011b. Montana statewide climate summary, 

Western Regional Climate Center. [Internet]. 

<http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/> [Date accessed unknown]. 

National Wildlife Refuge Association. 2009. Restoring America’s wildlife refuges 2009-a plan 

to solve the refuge system funding crisis. Washington, DC: Cooperative Alliance For Refuge 

Enhancement. [Number of pages unknown]. 

[NRIS] Natural Resource Information System. 

2011a. Montana Average Annual Precipitation 

Map, 1971–2000. Helena, MT. [Internet]. <http:// 

nris.mt.gov/nsdi/nris/precip71_00.gif. [Date accessed unknown]. 
360 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

———. 2011b. Montana Average Daily Maximum 

Temperature, 1971–2000. Helena, MT. [Internet]. 

<http://nris.mt.gov/nsdi/nris/shape/tmax71_00. 

zip> [Date accessed unknown]. 

[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

2002. History, biology, ecology, suppression, and 

revegetation of Russian-olive sites (Elaeagnus 

angustifolia, L.). NRCS Technical Note No. 

MT-43. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———. 2005. Ecological site description, Clayey 

10–14” p.z. Northern Glaciated Plains (52XN) 

1–15. 

———. 2006. Digital general soil map of Montana 

(STATSGO2). Fort Worth, TX: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation 

Service.[Internet]. <http://nris.mt.gov/nsdi/nris/ 

shape/statsgo2.zip> [Date accessed unknown]. 

———. 2007. Creeping foxtail plant guide. [Place of 

publication unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture Plant Material Program. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

———. 2011a. The twelve orders of soil taxonomy. 

USDA-NRCS poster. [Internet]. <http://soils. 

usda.gov/technical/soil_orders/> [Date accessed 

unknown]. 

———. 2011b. Official soil descriptions. USDANRCS Soil Survey Division. [Internet]. <https:// 

soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdnamequery.asp> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

———. 2011c. United States Department of Agriculture. Web soil survey. [Internet]. <http:// 

websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/> accessed March 

and April 2011. 

NatureServe. 2008. International ecological classification standard; terrestrial ecological systems 

of the United States, NatureServe central databases. Arlington, VA: NatureServe. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

———. 2010. Ecological Systems descriptions. [Internet]. <www.natureserve.org> [Date accessed 

unknown]. 

Neimuth, N.D.; Wangler, B.; Reynolds, R.E. 2010. 

Spatial and temporal variation in wet area of 

wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region of North 

Dakota and South Dakota. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Wetlands. 30:1053–64. 

Nelson, K.A.; Reiten, J.C. 2006. Saline seep impacts 

on Hailstone and Halfbreed National Wildlife 

Refuges. Denver, CO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 Contaminants Program. DEC ID: 

2001600001, FFS: 61130-6N47. 

Neudecker, Greg; Hinz, Tom. [Year unknown]. 

Blackfoot trumpeter swan program implementation & evaluation plan. Blackfoot trumpeter swan 

working group. August 30, 2005. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number 

of pages unknown]. 

Nimick, D.A. 1997. Hydrology and water chemistry 

of the Benton Lake basin with emphasis on the 

fate of dissolved solids at Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge, west-central Montana. Helena, 

MT: U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources 

Investigations Report 97–4100. 79 p. 

Nimick, D.A.; Fields, V.L.; McCarthy, P.M. 2010. 

Water management model for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, west central Montana. , 

Helena, MT: U.S. Geological Survey. 35 p. 

Nimick, D.A.; Fields, V.L.; McCarthy, P.M. 2011, 

A planning tool for water management at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, West-central 

Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5133. 28 p. 

Nimick, D.A.; Lambing, J.H.; Palawski, D.U.; Malloy, J.C. 1996. Detailed study of selenium in soil, 

water, bottom sediment, and biota in the Sun 

River Irrigation Project, Freezeout Lake Wildlife Management Area and Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge, west-central Montana, 1990–92. 

Helena, MT: U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigation Report 95–4170. 120 p. 

Nordstrom, L.; Hecht, A.; McCollough, M.; Naney, 

B.; Trick, J.; Warren, N.; Zwartjes, M. 2005. Recovery outline; contiguous United States distinct 

population segment of the Canada lynx. [Place of 

publication unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 12p. 

Northern Great Plains Floristic Quality Assessment Panel. 2001. Floristic quality assessment 

for plant communities of North Dakota, South 

Dakota (excluding the Black Hills), and adjacent 

grasslands. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center Online. [Internet]. Version January 26, 2001. <http://www.npwrc.usgs. 

gov/resource/plants/fqa/index.htm> [Date accessed unknown]. 

NPA Data Services, Inc. 2011. 2011 regional economic projections series. Census and Economic 

Information Center, Montana Department of 

Commerce. [Internet]. <http://ceic.mt.gov/Demog/project/NPActy_total_and_65+_1107_web. 

pdf> [Date accessed unknown]. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Olson, D.; Lindall, S.1999. IMPLAN professional 

software, analysis and data guide: Minnesota 

IMPLAN Group, Inc. . [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Oring, L.W.; Neel, L; Oring, KE. 2000. Intermountain West regional shorebird plan. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 55 p. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 361 

Ostlund, L.; Keane, B.; Arno, S.; Anderson, R. 2005. 

Culturally scarred trees in the Bob Marshall 

Wilderness, Montana, USA-Interpreting Native 

American historical forest use in a wilderness 

area. [Place of publication unknown]: Natural 

Areas Journal. 25(4): 315–25. 

Ovando, Montana. 2011. Ovando Montana Home. 

[Internet]. < http://www.ovandomontana.net/> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

Owens, R.A.; Myers, M.T. 1973. Effects of agriculture upon populations of native passerine birds 

of an Alberta fescue grassland. [Place of publication unknown]: Canadian Journal of Zoology. 

51:697–713. 

Palawski, D.U.; Martin, S.J. 1991. Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge contaminant biomonitoring 

strategy. Denver, CO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Partners In Flight. 2000. Partners in flight bird 

conservation plan Montana. Version 1.1 [Place 

of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Pellant, M.; Shaver, P.; Herrick, J.E. 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health, version 

4. Technical reference 1734-6. Denver, CO: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center. BLM/WO/ST-00/001+1734/REV05. 122 p. 

Peterson, G.; Allen, C.R.; Holling, C.S. 1998. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1:6-18. 

Pierce R.; Davidson, M.; Knotek, L.; Podner, C.; 

Thabes, J. 2008. The Big Blackfoot River fisheries and restoration investigations for 2006 and 

2007. Missoula, MT: Montana Department of 

Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Piercy, M. 1997. Benton Lake NWR non-game monitoring program. USFWS. Great Falls, Montana 

1997 progress report. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Pondera County. 2011. About Pondera County. [Internet]. <http://www.ponderacountymontana.org/ 

about-pondera/> [Date accessed unknown]. 

Post; Buckley; Schuh; Jernigan. 2007. Montana Department of Transportation wetland mitigation 

monitoring report: year 2007. Kalispell, MT: Batavia. PBS&J Project No: B43088.00–0102. 58 p. 

Prescott, D.R.C. 1997. Status of Sprague’s Pipit 

(Anthus spragueii) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 10, Edmonton, 

Alberta, Canada. [Internet]. <http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/library/egovdocs/alen/1997/42208. 

pdf> accessed November 2009. 

Prescott, D.R.C.; Davis, S.K. 1998. Status report on 

the Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii in Canada. 

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. [Number 

of pages unknown]. 

Regan, T.J.; Master, L.L.; Hammerson, G.A. 2004. 

Capturing expert knowledge for threatened 

species assessments: a case study using NatureServe conservation status ranks. [Place of publication unknown]: Acta Oecologica. 26:95–107. 

Reynolds, T. and C. Trost. 1981. Grazing, crested 

wheatgrass, and bird populations in southeastern 

Idaho. Northwest Science. 55(3):225-34. 

Rice, C.W.; Owensby, C.E. 2001. The effects of fire 

and grazing on soil carbon in rangelands. In: Follett, R.F.; Kimble, J.M.; Lal, R., editors. The potential of U.S. grazing lands to sequester carbon 

and mitigate the greenhouse Effect (chapter 13). 

Washington, DC: Lewis Publishers. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

River’s Edge Trail. 2011. Trail description. [Internet] <http://thetrail.org/reports/TrailDispt.html> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

Robbins, M.B.; Dale, B.C. 1999. Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii). In: Poole, A.; Gill , F., editors. 

The birds of North America, no. 439. Academy 

of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Washington, DC: American Ornithologists’ 

Union. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Roberts, M.; Levens, R. 2005. H2–O Ranch hydrologic report. Helena, MT: Montana Department 

of Natural Resources and Conservation. Report 

WR–3.C.2.HHR. 20 p. 

Rotenberry, J.T.; Patten, M.A.; Preston, K.L. 1999. 

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri). In: : Poole, 

A.; Gill , F., editors. The birds of North America, 

no. 463. Philadelphia, PA: The Birds of North 

America, Inc. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Rumsey, C.; Wood, M.; Butterfield, B.; Jean, C.; 

Torgerson, K.J.; Mullen, R.; 

Ruth, J.M. 2006. Partners in Flight – US website. 

[Internet]. <http://www.partnersinflight.org> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

Carroll, C.; Kittel, G.; Hillary, D.; Iachetti, P.; Bryer, 

M.; Lewis, J. 2004. 

Canadian Rocky Mountains ecoregional assessment volume one: report version 2.0. [Internet]. 

<http://waconservation.org/projects/ecoregions/> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 88 p. 

Schmidt, W. C.; McDonald, K. J., compilers. Proceedings, symposium on whitebark pine ecosystem: ecology and management of a high-mountain 

resource. Bozeman, MT. March 29–31, 1989. 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 10 p. (264–73). 

Schnabel, R.R.; Franzluebbers, A.J.; Stout, W.L.; 

Sanderson, M.A.; Stuedemann, J.A. 2001. The 
362 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

effects of pasture management practices. In: Follett, R.F.; Kimble, J.M.; Lal, R. editors. The potential of U.S. grazing lands to sequester carbon 

and mitigate the greenhouse effect (chapter 12). 

Washington, DC: Lewis Publishers. 291-322. 31 p. 

Schneider, D.W. 1999. Influence of hydroperiod on 

invertebrate community structure. In: Batzer, 

D.P.; Rader, R.B.; Wissinger, S.A., editors. Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands. [Place of 

publication unknown]: John Wiley and Sons. 19 p. 

(299–318). 

Schroeder, R.L. 1986. Habitat suitability index models: wildlife species richness in shelterbelts. USFWS Bio Report 82(10.128). 17 p. 

Schwab, David 1994. Results of cultural resource 

survey of the lower Nevada Creek wetland improvement project, Powell County, Montana. 

Report produced for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver CO. [Place of publication unknown]: Schwab Cultural Consulting. On file with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Seiler, R.L.; Skorupa, J.P.; Peltz, L.A. 1999. Areas 

susceptible to irrigation-induced selenium contamination of water and biota in the western 

United States. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1180. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Serveen, C.; Waller, J.S.; Sandstrom, P. 2001. Identification and management of linkage zones for 

grizzly bears between the large blocks of public 

land in the northern Rocky Mountains. Missoula, 

MT: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service; University of Montana. 87 p. 

Sheley, R.L.; Jacobs, J.S.; Carpinelli, M.L. 1999. 

Spotted knapweed. In: Sheley, R.L.; Petroff, 

J.K., editors. Biology and management of noxious 

rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University Press, 350-361. 11 p. 

Sheppard. W.D.; Alexander, R.R.; Ronco, F., Jr. 

1983. Silviculture of ponderosa pine in the central 

and southern Rocky Mountains. Research Paper 

RM–TT–4. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Exp. Station. As cited in: Casey, D. 

2000. Partners in Flight–draft bird conservation 

plan, Montana. Kalispell, MT: Montana Partners 

in Flight, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Sime, Carolyn A.; Asher, V.; Bradley, L.; Lance, N.; 

Laudon, K.; Ross, M.; , Nelson A.; Steuber, J. 

2011. Montana gray wolf conservation and management 2010 annual report. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 168 p. 

Skagen, S.K.; Thompson, G. 2003. Northern plains/ 

prairie potholes regional shorebird conservation 

plan. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. v1.0. 36 p. 

Skorupa, J.P.; Ohlendorf, H.M. 1991. Contaminants 

in drainage water and avian risk thresholds. In: 

Dinar, D.; Zilberman, D., editors. The economics 

and management of water and drainage in agriculture. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 23 p. (345-368). 

Smith, L.M.; Euliss, N.H.; Wilcox, D.A.; Brinson, 

M.M. 2008. Application of a geomorphic and 

temporal perspective to wetland management in 

North America. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Wetlands. 28(3):563-577. 

Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1970. A map of evapotranspiration for 

Montana. Missoula, MT. 

Steidl, R.J.; Anthony, R.G. 1996. Responses of bald 

eagles to human activity during the summer in 

interior Alaska. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Ecological Applications. 6(2):482–491. 

Stenseth, N. 2004. Snow conditions may create an 

invisible barrier for lynx. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 101(29):10,632– 

10,634. 

Stewart, R.E. 1975. Breeding birds of North Dakota. Fargo, ND: Tri-college Center for Environmental Studies. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Stynes, D. 1998. Guidelines for measuring visitor 

spending: Department of Parks, Recreation and 

Tourism Resources, Michigan State University. 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Sutter, G.C. 1996. Habitat selection and prairie 

drought in relation to grassland bird community 

structure and the nesting ecology of Sprague’s 

pipit, Anthus spragueii. [Ph.D. dissertation]. Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada: University of Regina. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Sutter, G.C. 1997. Nest-site selection and nest-entrance orientation in Sprague’s pipit. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Wilson Bulletin. 109:462–9. 

Sutter, G.C.; Brigham, R.M. 1998. Avifaunal and 

habitat changes resulting from conversion of native prairie to crested wheat grass: patterns at 

songbird community and species levels. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Canadian Journal of Zoology. 76:869–75. 

Swan Ecosystem Center. 2004. Upper Swan Valley 

landscape assessment. Condon, Montana. [Internet]. <http://www.swanecosystemcenter.org/ 

landscapeassessment.html> [Date accessed unknown]. 

———. 2011. Swan Ecosystem water quality search 

results. [Internet]. Revised January 1, 2012. 

<http://swanecosystemcenter.org/waterquality. 

html>. Accessed November 2011. 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge. 2011. Swan 

River National Wildlife Refuge. [Internet] 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 363 

<http://www.fws.gov/bentonlake/swanRiver/> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

Tallman, D.A.; Swanson, D.L.; Palmer, J. S. 2002. 

Birds of South Dakota. Aberdeen, SD: South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Teel, T.L.; Dayer, A.A.; Manfredo, M. J.; Bright, 

A.D. 2005. Wildlife values in the west (regional 

results). Project report for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Fort Collins, 

CO: Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit. Project report 

no. 58. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Teton County History. 2011. Teton County. [Internet]. <http://www.tetoncomt.org/history.aspx> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

[TNC] The Nature Conservancy. 1999. Ecoregional 

planning in the northern Great Plains steppe. 

[Place of publication unknown]: The Nature Conservancy. 189 p. 

———. 2009. Climate Change in Montana: How can 

we respond? [Internet]. <http://www.nature.org/ 

ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/ 

montana/howwework/climate_change_in_mt_ 

web-2.pdf> [Date accessed unknown]. [Number 

of pages unknown]. 

Thier, T.; Sizemore, D. 1981. An evaluation of grizzly 

locations in the BGP area, 1975–1980. As cited 

in: LeFranc, Maurice, Jr.; Moss, Mary; Patnode, 

Kathleen. et al., editors. 1987. Grizzly bear compendium. Washington, DC: National Wildlife 

Federation; U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Missoula, MT: University of Montana, Border 

Grizzly Project. Special Report 47. 16 p. 

Thompson, I.D. 1988. Habitat needs of furbearers 

in relation to logging in boreal Ontario. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Foresty Chronicle. 64:251– 

61. 

Thompson, W.H.; Hansen, P.L. 2002. Vegetation 

inventory, mapping, and functional health assessment of wetlands on the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge in Montana. Corvallis, MT: Bitterroot Restoration, Inc. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Tirmenstein, D. 2000. Festuca altaica, F. campestris, F. hallii. In: Fire effects information system. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences 

Laboratory. [Internet]. <http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

database/feis/> accessed October 8, 2011. 

Toole County. 2011. Toole County, Montana. [Internet]. <http://www.toolecountymt.gov/index-3. 

html> [Date accessed unknown]. 

Torgerson, C. Jean; Mullen, R.; Iachetti, P.; Lewis, 

J. 2003. Canadian Rocky Mountains ecoregional 

assessment, volume two: appendices. Prepared 

for The Nature Conservancy and the Nature 

Conservancy of Canada. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Trombulak, S.C.; Frissell, C.A. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic 

communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011a. American FactFinder. 

[Internet]. <http://factfinder.census.gov/home/ 

saff/main.html?_lang=en> [Date accessed unknown]. 

———. 2011b. Department of Commerce. [Internet]. Revised 2011. <http://2010.census. 

gov/2010cesus/data/> [Date accessed unknown]. 

[USDA Forest Service] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000. Wildland fire in 

ecosystems; effects of fire on flora. [Place of publication unknown]: USDA Forest Service. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–42-vol.2. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

[DOI] U.S. Department of the Interior. 1998. Guidelines for interpretation of the biological effects 

of selected constituents in biota, water and sediment. [Place of publication unknown]: National 

Irrigation Water Quality Program. Information 

report no. 3. 198 p. (plus appendices). 

———. 2010. Safetynet scorecard. [Internet]. 

<www.doi.gov/safetynet/#scorecard> [Date accessed unknown].

 [DOI] U.S. Department of the Interior, [BLM] 

Bureau of Land Management; [USGS] U.S. 

Geological Survey; [NRCS] Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2005. Iterpreting indicators of rangeland health. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. Tech. Ref. 1734–6. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1961-1999. 

Unpublished annual narrative reports. On file 

at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Black 

Eagle, MT. 

———. 1970-1990. Unpublished annual disease reports, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 

Black Eagle, MT. 

———. 1991. Calming troubled waters: contaminants at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 

a plan of action. Great Falls, MT: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———. 1998. Consultation Handbook: Procedures 

for Conducting consultation and conference activities under section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher 

unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———. 1999a. Fulfilling the promise: the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 92 p. 

———. 1999b. Interim wolf control plan for northwest Montana and the panhandle of northern 

Idaho. Lakewood, CO: [Publisher unknown]. 23 p. 
364 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

———. 2002a. Chapter 3, Clark Fork River recovery unit, Montana, Idaho, and Washington. In: 

Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 285 p. 

———. 2002b. United States. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pacific implementation plan for the Rocky 

Mountain population of trumpeter swans. Pacific flyway Study Committee. [Internet]. <http:// 

www.pacificflyway.gov/Documents/Tsip_plan. 

pdf> accessed July 2002. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———. 2004. Conservation focus areas of the Great 

Divide: a vast region encompassing the Upper 

Missouri, Yellowstone and Upper Columbia watersheds. Denver, CO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Internal Report. 77 p. 

———. 2007a. Partners for fish and wildlife program, Mountain–Prairie Region strategic plan 

2007–2011. Denver, CO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 160 p. 

———. 2007b. Recovery plan for Silene spaldingii 

(Spalding’s catchfly). Montana field guide. 2011. 

[Internet]. <http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_PDCAM0A010.aspx> [Date accessed unknown]. 

———. 2008a. 2006 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated recreation. [Place 

of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

———. 2008b. Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service [Internet]. <http://www. ws.gov/ 

endangered/wildlife.html> accessed December 

2008. 

———. 2008c. National and state economic impacts 

of wildlife watching–addendum to the 2006 national survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated recreation. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. Report 2006–1. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

———. 2008d. North Shore habitat development 

plan. Great Falls, MT: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 33 p. 

———. 2008e Staffing model for field stations, final report. Unpublished report on file at Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Great Falls, Montana. 22 p. 

———. 2009a. The Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative. [Internet]. <http://www. 

fws.gov/mountain-prairie/lcc/greatNorthern/ 

DoIGreatNorthernLCCNarrative.pdf> [Date accessed unknown]. 

———. 2009b. Endangered species program, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. [Internet]. <http:// 

www.fws.gov/endangered/ > [Date accessed unknown]. 

———. 2009c. Montana partners for wildlife–Blackfoot River watershed focus area.[Internet]. 

<www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pfw/montana/ 

mt5b.htm> [Date accessed unknown]. 

———. 2009d. Strategic plan for responding to accelerating climate change in the 21st century. 

[Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 41 

p. 

———. 2009e. Waterfowl population status, 2009. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———. 2010a. Draft environmental assessment and 

land protection plan–Swan Valley Conservation 

Area. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher 

unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———. 2010b. Revised designation of critical habitat for bull trout in the conterminous United 

States: final rule. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. Federal Register Docket 

No. FWS–R1–ES–2009-0085. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

———. 2010c. Rising to the urgent challenge: strategic plan for responding to accelerating climate 

change. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 36 p. 

———. 2011a. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) 

5-year review: summary and evaluation. August 

2011. [Internet]. <http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_ 

year_review/doc3847.review_August%202011. 

pdf> accessed February 2012. 205 p. 

———. 2011b. History and evolution of the Blackfoot challenge. [Internet]. <http://www.fws.gov/ 

mountain-prairie/pfw/montana/mt5a.htm> [Date 

accessed unknown]. 

———. 2011c. Land protection plan for the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area. Denver, CO: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———. 2011d. Land protection plan for the Rocky 

Mountain Front Conservation Area. Denver, CO: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

———. 2011e. Land protection plan for the Swan 

Valley Conservation Area. Denver, CO: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———. 2011f. Montana Partners for Fish and Wildlife program draft strategic plan, 2012-2017. 

Great Falls, MT: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

———. [Date unknown]. Draft great northern 

landscape conservation cooperative FY2010 development plan. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 365 

———. [Date unknown]. Conservation in Transition Report 2009. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———. 2012. Species report. [Internet]. <http:// 

ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/> [Date accessed unknown]. 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; [NOAA] 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008. Extrapolated from unpublished historical aerial photographs and NOAA naturalist 

observations and published articles. On file at 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Great 

Falls, Montana. 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American 

waterfowl management plan—a strategy for cooperation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of the Interior. Gatineau, Quebec: Environment 

Canada. 26 p.

 [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: 

Montana. 

———. 2008a. 2006 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associate recreation: Montana. 

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2004. Northern 

Divide grizzly bear project. [Internet]. Revised 

June 2010. <http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/ 

ncdebeardna_detail.htm> [Date accessed unknown]. 

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey and [USFWS] U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Strategic habitat conservation, final report of the national ecological assessment team. July 2006. [Internet]. 

<http://training.fws.gov/CSP/Resources/SHC/ 

shc_finalrpt.pdf> accessed February 2012. 48 p. 

van der Valk. 1981. Succession in wetlands: a Gleasonian approach. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Ecology. 62(3): 688-696. 

van der Valk, A.G. 1989. Editor. Northern prairie 

wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa State University 

Press. [Number of pages unknown]. 

van der Valk, A.G.; Davis, C.B. 1978. The role of 

seed banks in the vegetation dynamics of prairie 

glacial marshes. Ecology 59:322–35. 

Vickery, P.D.; Herkert, J.R.; Knopf, F.L.; Ruth, J.; 

Keller, C.E. 2000. Grassland birds: an overview 

of threats and recommended management strategies. In: Bonney, R.; Pashley, D.N.; Cooper, R.J.; 

Niles, L., editors. Strategies for bird conservation: the partners in flight planning process. 

[Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service. RMRS–P–16. 4 p. 

(74–7). 

Vuke, S.M.; Colton, R.B.; Fullerton , D.S. 2002. 

Geologic map of the Great Falls North 30 x 60 

feet quadrangle, Central Montana. [Place of publication unknown]. [Scale unknown]. Montana 

Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-file report 

MBMG 459. 

Walker, B.; Salt, D. 2006. Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing 

world. Washington DC: Island Press. 174 p. 

Walker-Kuntz 1999. Report of cultural resource inventory and evaluation for the Kerr North Shore 

erosion control project, Flathead Lake, Montana. 

Report prepared for Montana Power Company, 

Butte. Billings, MT: Ethnoscience. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

Walters, C.J.; Holling, C.S. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Ecology. 71:2060– 

8. 

Weller, C.; Tomson, J.; Morton, P.; Aplet, G. 2002. 

Fragmenting our lands: the ecological footprint 

from oil and gas development. A spatial analysis 

of a Wyoming gas field. The Wilderness Society. 

[Inteernet]. <http://www.sagebrushsea.org/pdf/ 

TWS_Fragmenting_Our_Lands.pdf> [Date accessed unknown]. 

Werner, K.; Flath, D.L.; Hendricks, P.; Maxwell, 

B.A.. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. 

Missoula, MT: Montana Press Publishing Company. 262 p. 

Wetmore, A. 1915. The duck sickness in Utah. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Bulletin No. 672. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Wienert, A.C. 1997. From forestland to house lot: 

carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas emissions from exurban land. [thesis, type unknown]. 

Providence, RI: Brown University, Center for 

Environmental Studies. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Whipple, J.W.; Earhart, R.L.; Mudge, M.R. 1987. 

Geologic map of the Rogers Pass area, Lewis 

and Clark County, Montana. [Place of publication 

unknown]: U.S. Geological Survey. USGS Miscellaneous Investigation Series Map I-1642. 

Whitehead, R.; Martin, P.; Powelson, A. Reducing 

stand and landscape susceptibility to mountain 

pine beetle. [Internet]. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ 

hfp/publications/00170/MPB_SDM.pdf> [Date 

accessed unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Witkind, I.J.; Weber, W.M. 1982. Reconnaissance 

geologic map of the Bigfork-Avon environmental 

study areas, Flathead, Lewis and Clark, Missoula 

and Powell counties, Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-1380. 

WolframAlpha Computational Knowledge Engine. 

2011. WolframAlpha. [Internet]. <http://www. 
366 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

wolframalpha.com/input/?i=missoula%2C+mt> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

Woods, Alan J.; Omernik, James, M.; Nesser, John 

A.; Shelden, J.; Comstock, J.A.; Azevedo, Sandra H. 2002. Ecoregions of Montana, 2nd edition. Color poster with map, descriptive text, 

summary tables, and photographs. Map scale 

1:1,500,000. [Internet]. <http://www.epa.gov/wed/ 

pages/ecoregions/mt_eco.htm> [Date accessed 

unknown]. 

Wrubleski, DA. 2005. Chironomidae (diptera) responses to the experimental flooding of prairie 

marshes. [Place of publication unknown]: Wetlands. 25(1): 200-209. 

Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. 2009. 

[Internet]. <http://www.wildlands.org/programs/ 

corridors/pla> [Date accessed unknown]. 

Young, B.; Byers, E.; Gravuer, K.; Hall, K.; Hammerson , G.; Redder, A. 2010. Guidelines for using 

the NatureServe climate change vulnerability 

index. Arlington, VA: NatureServe. [Internet]. 

<http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/climatechange/ccvi.jsp> [Date accessed unknown]. 

Yuill, C.D.; Yuill, E.R. 1984. A centennial celebration of Great Falls. Great Falls, MT: Cascade 

County Historical Society. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Zedeno, M.N.; Murray, J.R. 2008. Blackfeet traditional land use assessment for selected localities and the Montana Alberta tie, LTD proposed 

transmission line. Prepared for Montana Alberta 

Tie, LTD. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. On 

file at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office, 

Spearfish, SD. 

Zedeno, M.N.; Carroll, Alex; Miller, Samrat. 2008. 

Blackfeet traditional use study for Yellowstone 

National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and 

National Elk Refuge. Prepared for the Blackfeet 

Tribe, Browning, Montana. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona. On file at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office, Spearfish, SD. 

Zhang, Q.; Frankenberger, W.T. 2003. Removal of 

selenate in simulated agricultural drainage water 

by a rice straw bioreactor channel system. [Place 

of publication unknown]: Journal of Environmental Quality. 32(5):1650–7. 

Zhang, Y.; Moore, J.N. 1997. Final report on biogeochemical cycling of selenium in Benton Lake, 

Montana. Report prepared for U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Missoula, MT: University of 

Montana. 228 p. 

Zouhar, K.. 2003. Bromus tectorum. In: Fire effects 

information system. [Internet]. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). < http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/> 

accessed February 9, 2012.