Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Montana

June 2011

Prepared by

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex

194 Bowdoin Auto Tour Road

Malta, Montana 59538

406 /654 2863

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region

Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

303 /236 8145

CITATION

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region. 336 p.

Contents

Summary ....................................................................................... XI

Abbreviations .................................................................................... XIX

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

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2 Early History of Conservation ................................................................ 4

1.3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System ......................................

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ....................................................................

 5

 5

Service Activities in Montana .................................................................... 6

National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................. 6

1.4 National and Regional Mandates ............................................................ 7

1.5 Contributions to National and Regional Plans .................................................

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

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

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

 8

 8

 8

 9

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

Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan ......................................

Montana Piping Plover Management Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse in Montana ..................................

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

 9

 10

 10

 10

 11

1.6 Strategic Habitat Conservation ..............................................................

Climate Change ..............................................................................

 12

 12

1.7 Planning Process ..........................................................................

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

 14

 17

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

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

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

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

 18

 18

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

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History .......................................... 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................

Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................

Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................................

Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................

Bowdoin Wetland Management District .............................................................

Summary of Land Acquisition History ...............................................................

19

 20

 22

 26

 26

 33

 33

 39

2.2 Purposes ..................................................................................

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................

Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................

Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................................

Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................

Bowdoin Wetland Management District .............................................................

 41

 41

 42

 42

 42

 42

 42
IV Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

 2.3 Vision ..................................................................................... 43

2.4 Goals ..................................................................................... 43

Goal for Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife ......................................................

Goal for Wetland Habitat and Associated Wildlife .....................................................

 43

 43

Goal for Visitor Services ........................................................................ 43

Goal for Partnerships ...........................................................................

Goal for Operations ............................................................................

 43

 43

2.5 Special Values .............................................................................

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

Migratory Birds ...............................................................................

Prairie Pothole Region ..........................................................................

Special Designations ...........................................................................

Native Prairie ................................................................................

 44

 44

 44

 44

 45

 45

Conservation Easements ........................................................................ 46

Cultural History ...............................................................................

Public Use ..................................................................................

 46

 46

2.6 Planning Issues ............................................................................

Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife ............................................................

Loss of Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks ..................................................................

Wetland Management at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge .............................................

Lake Bowdoin Salinity Concentrations ..............................................................

Water Resources within Bowdoin Wetland Management District ..........................................

Riparian Habitat and Associated Wildlife ...........................................................

Wildlife Disease .............................................................................

 46

 46

 47

 47

 48

 48

 49

 49

Piping Plover ................................................................................

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

Habitat Protection and Acquisition ................................................................

Visitor Services ..............................................................................

 49

 51

 52

 52

Partnerships .................................................................................

Operations ..................................................................................

Natural Gas Development .......................................................................

Prioritization of Refuge Complex Lands .............................................................

Research, Inventory, and Monitoring ...............................................................

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................ 

 53

 53

 54

 54

 54

57

CHAPTER 3–Alternatives ....................................................................... 59

3.1 Divestiture of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge ........................................

Lake Thibadeau Refuge Alternative 1 (Current Management–No Action) .....................................

Lake Thibadeau Refuge Alternative 2 (Divestiture–Proposed Action) ........................................

Summary ...................................................................................

 59

 59

 60

 60

3.2 Development of Alternatives for the Refuge Complex ...........................................

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated .............................................................

 63

 63

3.3 Description of Alternatives for the Refuge Complex ............................................ 

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

63

 64

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

Alternative B (Proposed Action) ...................................................................

Alternative C .................................................................................

 64

 68

 73

3.4 Summary of Alternatives and Consequences .................................................. 74

CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment .............................................................. 95

4.1 Physical Environment ....................................................................... 

Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

95

 95

Climate Change ..............................................................................

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

 98

 99
CONTENTS V

Soils ....................................................................................... 99

Water Resources ............................................................................. 99

Air Quality .................................................................................. 109

4.2 Biological Resources ....................................................................... 109

Uplands .................................................................................... 110

Wetlands ................................................................................... 117

Riparian Areas ............................................................................... 127

4.3 Federally and State-listed Species ........................................................... 128

Piping Plover ................................................................................. 129

Plant Species ................................................................................ 129

Animal Species of Concern ...................................................................... 129

4.4 Cultural Resources ......................................................................... 130

Prehistoric Occupation .......................................................................... 130

Protohistoric and Historic Native Americans .......................................................... 130

Historic Euro-Americans ........................................................................ 130

History of Bowdoin Refuge Complex ................................................................ 131

4.5 Special Management Areas ................................................................. 133

Wilderness Review ............................................................................ 133

Important Bird Area ............................................................................ 133

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network ...................................................... 134

4.6 Visitor Services ............................................................................ 134

Hunting .................................................................................... 134

Fishing ..................................................................................... 137

Wildlife Observation and Photography .............................................................. 137

Environmental Education ........................................................................ 137

Interpretation ................................................................................ 138

4.7 Management Uses ......................................................................... 138

Cooperative Farming ........................................................................... 138

Prescribed Burning , Haying, and Grazing ............................................................ 139

4.8 Socioeconomic Environment ................................................................ 141

Population and Employment ...................................................................... 141

Public Use of the Refuge Complex ................................................................. 141

Baseline Economic Activity ...................................................................... 142

4.9 Partnerships ............................................................................... 142

4.10 Operations ................................................................................ 142

Staff ....................................................................................... 143

Facilities .................................................................................... 143

CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 145

5.1 Analysis Methods .......................................................................... 145

5.2 Effects Common to All Alternatives ........................................................... 146

Regulatory Effects .............................................................................

Environmental Justice ..........................................................................

 146

 146

Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 146

Climate Change ..............................................................................

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

 146

 147

5.3 Description of Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife ............................................................. 147

Wetland Habitat and Associated Wildlife ............................................................ 150

Visitor Services ............................................................................... 153

Partnerships ................................................................................. 155

Operations .................................................................................. 156
VI Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Socioeconomics .............................................................................. 157

5.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................ 158

CHAPTER 6–Analysis of Salinity ................................................................ 159

6.1 Salinity Issues .............................................................................

Salinity for Lake Bowdoin .......................................................................

Water Quantity, Delivery, and Cost .................................................................

 160

 160

 160

6.2 Background ...............................................................................

Salt Basics ..................................................................................

 160

 160

Principal Salts at Bowdoin Refuge .................................................................

Presettlement Salt Balance ......................................................................

 163

 164

Postsettlement Salt Balance ..................................................................... 164

Current Salt Balance ........................................................................... 173

Water Supply ................................................................................ 176

6.3 Salt and Water Management ................................................................

Salt Management .............................................................................

Water Management ...........................................................................

Salt and Water Objectives .......................................................................

 181

 181

 181

 185

6.4 Planning Process ..........................................................................

Development of Alternatives .....................................................................

Public Involvement ............................................................................

 185

 185

 186

Plan Completion .............................................................................. 186

6.5 Salinity Alternatives Analysis ...............................................................

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

 187

 187

Salinity Alternative 1–Current Management (No Action) .................................................

Salinity Alternative 2–Evaporation Ponds and Removal of Saline Residue .....................................

Salinity Alternative 3–Flushing by Beaver Creek .......................................................

Salinity Alternative 4–Underground Injection Well and Flushing by Beaver Creek (Proposed Action) ..................

Salinity Alternative 5–Pumping to Milk River .........................................................

Summary of Alternatives Actions and Consequences ....................................................

 188

 191

 194

 197

 200

 202

6.6 Implementation of the Proposed Action (Salinity Alternative 4) ..................................

Salinity Alternative 4–Underground Injection Well and Flushing by Beaver Creek ...............................

Goal and Objectives for Salinity and Blowing Salts .....................................................

 207

 207

 208

CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP .............................. 215

7.1 Divestiture of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge ........................................ 215

7.2 Salinity and Blowing Salts .................................................................. 216

7.3 Summary of the Draft CCP ................................................................... 217

7.4 Goal for Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife .............................................. 217

Native Grassland ............................................................................. 217

Disturbed Grassland ........................................................................... 221

7.5 Goal for Wetland Habitat and Associated Wildlife ............................................. 223

Managed Wetlands ............................................................................ 224

Target Waterbird Species ....................................................................... 224

Wetland Habitat Objectives ...................................................................... 225

Avian Disease ................................................................................ 231

Piping Plover ................................................................................. 232

7.6 Objectives that Support the Goals for Upland and Wetland Habitats .............................. 234

Invasive and Nonnative Species ................................................................... 234

Wildfire Management .......................................................................... 240

Habitat Protection and Acquisition ................................................................. 241
CONTENTS VII

 7.7 Goal for Visitor Services and Cultural Resources .............................................. 248

Visitor Services ............................................................................... 248

Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 253

 7.8 Goal for Partnerships ....................................................................... 254

Public, Government, and Industry Partners ........................................................... 254

 7.9 Goal for Operations ......................................................................... 256

Staff ....................................................................................... 256

Facilities and Equipment ........................................................................ 258

7.10 Stepdown Management Plans ............................................................... 259

7.11 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation ........................................................ 260

7.12 Plan Amendment and Revision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

Glossary ....................................................................................... 261

Appendixes

Appendix A–Key Legislation and Policy ............................................................... 269

Appendix B–List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

Appendix C–Public Involvement ..................................................................... 279

Appendix D–Draft Compatibility Determinations ....................................................... 283

Appendix E–Divestiture Model Results for Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge .......................... 297

Appendix F–Species Lists .......................................................................... 303

Appendix G–Fire Management Program .............................................................. 319

Bibliography ................................................................................... 323

FIGURES

1 Map of refuges in the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex within the Prairie Pothole Region of North 

America ................................................................................... 2

2 Vicinity map of the five refuges and one wetland management district in the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Montana .......................................................................... 3

3 Map of the five refuges and one wetland management district in the Bowdoin National Wildlife Complex within 

Geographic Area 13–Plains and Prairie Potholes ................................................... 13

4 Process steps for comprehensive conservation planning and associated environmental analysis .............. 14

5 Base map of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ............................................ 21

6 Map of habitat types at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ................................... 23

7 Base map of Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ......................................... 25

8 Map of habitat types at Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ................................ 27

9 Base map of Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ..................................... 28

10 Map of habitat types at Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ............................ 29

11 Base map of Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ......................................... 31

12 Map of habitat types at Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ................................ 32

13 Base map of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ....................................... 34

14 Map of habitat types at Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .............................. 35

15 Map of conservation easements and waterfowl production areas in Bowdoin Wetland Management District, 

Montana .................................................................................. 37

16 Map of waterfowl flyways in the United States ..................................................... 45

17 Map of critical habitat for piping plover at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ............. 50

18 Map of oil and gas activities in and around Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ............ 55

19 Graph of total annual precipitation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1905–2008) .............. 96

20 Graph of total February precipitation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1905–2008) ............ 96
VIII Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

FIGURES (continued)

21 Graph of total June precipitation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1905–2008) ............... 96

22 Graph of average maximum daily temperature for February at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

(1969–2008) ................................................................................ 97

23 Graph of average minimum daily temperature for February at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

(1969–2008) ................................................................................ 97

24 Graph of average maximum daily temperature for June at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

(1969–2008) ................................................................................ 97

25 Graph of average minimum daily temperature for June at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

(1969–2008) ................................................................................ 98

26 Map of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex within the Milk River watershed ...................... 100

27 Map of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex located between the Milk River and Beaver

Creek watersheds ........................................................................... 101

28 Map of current and proposed public use sites and activities at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .... 136

29 Map of wetlands, water management infrastructure, and monitoring sites on Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge, Montana ............................................................................ 165 

30 Map of a historical survey showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge on the topographic features of 

the landscape .............................................................................. 167

31 Map of the Milk River Project, Montana ........................................................... 171

32 Chart of sources of salts into Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ............................... 173

33 Graph of tons of salt in the lakes and wetlands at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

(1990–2007) ................................................................................ 174

34 Chart of sources of water into Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .............................. 175

35 Map of water levels and salinity for Lake Bowdoin, Montana (1975–2007) ............................... 177

36 Graph of water deliveries to Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1938–2008) ..................... 179

37 Map of the extent of Lake Bowdoin at various water elevations ........................................ 183

38 Graph of tons of salt in Lake Bowdoin with salinity alternative 1, no action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

39 Graphs of the relationship of pH and salinity to avian botulism outbreaks . ................................ 191

40 Graph of tons of salt in Lake Bowdoin with salinity alternative 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

41 Graph of tons of salt in Lake Bowdoin with salinity alternative 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

42 Graph of water depth and substrate preferences of shorebird foraging guilds ............................. 227

43 Map of Russian olive tree infestations in and around Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ............ 237

44 Map of Russian olive evaluation areas (Big Island) for grassland restoration at Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge, Montana ........................................................................... 238

45 Map of wetland density per square mile in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

46 Map of grassland density in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ........................ 246

47 Map of areas with high densities of wetlands and grasslands for use as a decision matrix to determine

protection priorities in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

48 Adaptive management process .................................................................. 260

49 Map of wetlands within 10 miles of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .................... 299
CONTENTS IX

TABLES

1 Summary of the CCP planning process for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ............. 15

2 Land acquisition history for refuges in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana (1937–1989) ...... 40

3 Land acquisition history for Bowdoin Wetland Management District, Montana (1977–2008) ................. 41

4 Comparison of alternatives and environmental consequences for keeping or divesting Lake Thibadeau National 

Wildlife Refuge, Montana ..................................................................... 61

5 Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . .................... 75

6 Water rights for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Phillips County, Montana ............................. 105

7 Water rights for the waterfowl production areas and satellite refuges of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Montana .......................................................................... 106

8 Base staff funded in fiscal year 2011 at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ............... 143

9 Salinity categories and the corresponding ranges of specific conductance values .......................... 163

10 Pipeline size and cost estimates for western and eastern pipeline options for pumping to the Milk River. . . . . . . . 201

11 Summary of alternatives and consequences considered to address the elevated salinity and blowing salts 

issue at Lake Bowdoin, Montana ............................................................... 202

12 Partner agencies and expertise for the injection well project at Lake Bowdoin, Montana .................... 209

13 Conservation status of target species of upland birds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana .... 218

14 Nesting habitat requirements for target species of upland birds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Montana .......................................................................... 219

15 Conservation status of target species of waterbirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ........... 225

16 Life history needs of target species of waterbirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ..... 226

17 Nest site and habitat characteristics of target, interior-nesting shorebirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, Montana .................................................................... 226

18 Current and proposed staff for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

19 Stepdown management plans for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana .................... 259

Summary

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages the 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which 

covers 84,724 acres in north-central Montana. The 

refuge complex is spread across Blaine, Hill, Phillips, 

and Valley Counties. With its headquarters near the 

town of Malta, the refuge complex comprises the 

following units:

■ Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge

■ Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt Lake, 

and Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuges 

(unstaffed satellite refuges)

■ Bowdoin Wetland Management District—nine 

waterfowl production areas, refuge and flowage 

easements, wetland conservation easements, and 

grassland conservation easements

This is a summary of the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment that 

the Service has prepared for the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. The full document contains background information and the Service’s 

analyses of alternatives for managing the refuge 

complex.

The Refuge Complex

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

is located within the Prairie Pothole Region of the 

Great Plains. While the five national wildlife refuges 

and the wetland management district were established under different authorities, they all have the 

overriding purpose of providing migration, nesting, 

resting, and feeding habitat for migratory birds.

Chokecherry is a native shrub in the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

© Gary A. Monroe / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

!(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

^_HELENA

CANADA

IDAHO

Malta Glasgow

£¤2

£¤2

§ ̈¦15

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

Casper

Rexburg

Bozeman Billings

Gillette

Sheridan

Williston

Dickinson

Rapid City

Idaho Falls

Great Falls

Montana

Wyoming

North Dakota

South Dakota

Bowdoin Refuge 

Complex 

Headquarters
XII Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

The refuge complex provides opportunities for 

the public to enjoy compatible wildlife-dependent 

public use activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation.

The Planning Process

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a comprehensive conservation plan 

by 2012 for each national wildlife refuge. The final 

plan for the Bowdoin Refuge Complex is scheduled 

for completion in 2011 and will guide the management of the refuge complex for the next 15 years.

The planning process for a comprehensive conservation plan is a series of steps including environmental analysis. The Service encourages and 

values the involvement of the public and partners 

throughout the process. The Service’s planning team 

compiled a list of issues to consider and analyzed 

management alternatives for the comprehensive 

conservation plan that would not only address these 

issues but also meet the purposes, vision, and goals 

of the refuge complex.

There are three separate alternatives’ analyses 

within the draft comprehensive conservation plan 

and environmental assessment for the refuge complex that are summarized under the “Alternatives” 

section of this summary:

■ Divestiture (the selling or release of Service 

interests) of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife 

Refuge

■ Salinity and blowing salts at Lake Bowdoin

■ Management of the remaining programs throughout the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 7 contains the draft plan for the refuge 

complex. After the public reviews and provides 

comments on the draft plan and environmental assessment, the Regional Director will consider the 

environmental effects of each alternative including information gathered during public review. The 

Service’s Regional Director of the Mountain–Prairie 

Region will select a preferred alternative for each of 

the three analyses.

After the planning team prepares the final CCP 

for publication, a notice of availability will be published in the Federal Register, and copies of the final 

CCP or accompanying summary will be sent to individuals on the mailing list. Subsequently, the Service will implement the CCP with help from partner 

agencies, organizations, and the public.

Issues

Substantive issues were identified following an internal review of refuge information and through 

public scoping, which was begun in 2007. The following are summaries of the issues detailed in chapter 2.

Lake Bowdoin Salinity Levels

The principle sources of water for the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge are precipitation, floodwater 

from Beaver Creek, ground water seepage, water 

deliveries from the Milk River Project, and irrigation return flows. The last three sources of water 

add dissolved solids (salinity) to the refuge. In addition, the refuge and adjoining lands are underlain by 

glacial till and shale containing high concentrations 

of soluble salts. The Milk River Project water supply on Bowdoin Refuge is limited and insufficient to 

improve wetland water quality. As water evaporates 

from Lake Bowdoin’s closed system, salts have become concentrated and water salinity has increased. 

Historically, two methods have been used to improve Lake Bowdoin’s water quality and reduce 

salinity levels: (1) discharges of saline water into 

Beaver Creek; and (2) managing Dry Lake as an 

evaporation basin for Lake Bowdoin’s water. Neither of these methods is an environmentally feasible 

option for removing salts. If no action is taken to 

improve water quality on the refuge, the progressively increasing salinity levels in Lake Bowdoin 

and the blowing salts out of Dry Lake will continue 

to threaten migratory birds, other wildlife, wetland 

habitats, and, potentially, neighboring landowners 

and downstream irrigators.

Water Quantity, Delivery, and Cost for 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge

The current water delivery of 3,500 acre-feet and 

natural sources of water have been insufficient to 

supply the necessary water for wildlife habitat management and for improving water quality. If the refuge is to survive as a viable migratory bird refuge, 

it will require additional supplies of water and the 

means to reduce and dispose of saline water, primarily from Lake Bowdoin.

Water Resources within Bowdoin 

Wetland Management District

In the wetland management district, the Korsbeck 

and Holm WPAs and the satellite refuges have 
SUMMARY XIII

reservoirs that rely on the runoff from precipitation events to fill them. Since the satellite refuges 

were established, there has been extensive water 

development in the watersheds, in particular, Lake 

Thibadeau. Runoff is being captured or diverted 

upstream of these wetlands. This has decreased 

waterbird habitat on some of these refuges, changing some from semipermanent to seasonal wetland 

habitat.

Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife

Historically, the northern Great Plains was a grassland-dominated system where fire, relatively low 

precipitation, and native grazers restricted natural 

tree growth to riparian floodplains, wooded draws, 

islands within lakes, and small patches downwind of 

wetland edges (Higgins 1986). These large expanses 

of treeless prairies have been fragmented by cropland, shelterbelts, and human settlement, as well as 

from the uncontrolled spread of nonnative Russian 

olive trees.

Grassland bird populations are declining faster and 

more consistently than any other group of North 

American birds (Samson and Knopf 1994) due to 

habitat fragmentation and loss of native grasslands.

Marbled godwit and long-billed curlew are shorebirds 

that nest in native prairie at the refuge complex. 

© Michael Forsberg

Piping Plover

Approximately 3,325 acres of Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge has been designated as critical habitat for the threatened Great Plains population of 

piping plover. However, there have been no known 

piping plover nests on the refuge since 1999, primarily due to insufficient water supplies necessary to 

create attractive nesting habitat.

Invasive Plants, Nonnative Plants, 

and Noxious Weeds

The refuge complex is constantly challenged to 

maintain its native grassland habitat—critical to 

migratory birds—unfragmented by nonnative trees 

and shrubs. One of the most damaging nonnative 

plant species throughout the refuge complex is Russian olive. Although this tree is not designated as an 

invasive species in Montana, its ability to outcompete native species and fragment habitat is well documented. Russian olive trees can take over native 

vegetation, interfere with natural plant succession 

and nutrient cycling, damage water management 

facilities and fences, and tax water reserves. The 

largest infestations are on the Bowdoin Refuge and 

the Pearce WPA.

Crested wheatgrass is the primary invasive grass 

species and leafy spurge, perennial pepperweed, and 

Canada thistle are the primary invasive forb species. 

Left unmanaged these invasive plant species can 

have a detrimental effect on the diversity of native 

plants, wildlife species, and habitat quality.

Habitat Protection and Acquisition

Native prairie areas and wetlands are the most 

productive habitat types in Montana, particularly 

in the Prairie Pothole Region. Although there are 

laws that protect these areas, particularly wetlands, 

these vital habitats continue to be lost. Most of these 

habitat types occur on private lands. The Service 

has committed to work with willing landowners in 

Montana to compensate them for protecting these 

habitats, primarily through perpetual wetland or 

grassland conservation easements. Habitat protection needs to be evaluated through a priority system 

so that critical areas are identified and the most effective means of protection, through either fee title 

or easement, can be determined.

Visitor Services

An estimated 25,000 visitors come to explore the 

refuge complex annually. The refuge complex is located in north-central Montana, an area with one 

of the smallest population densities in the State. A 

major attraction for wildlife observers and hunters, the refuge complex is also popular with local 

school groups. For self-guided visitors, the Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge’s auto tour route offers the 

excellent opportunities for viewing and photographing wildlife.

There are few programs and no staff assigned 

to work with these visitors and students, many of 

whom do not know they are on a national wildlife 

refuge. This often results in a general lack of understanding about the mission and purposes the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and the refuge 

complex.
XIV Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Operations

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

manages or protects 84,724 acres within a fourcounty area. Due to the large size of the management area, limited staff and funding, and long travel 

times, some lands can only be inspected once a year 

for maintenance and management needs. In addition, 

the lack of a full maintenance and biological staff 

limits opportunities to develop an effective habitat 

management program that could address some of 

the more challenging management issues including 

native grassland restoration.

Oil and Gas Development

Extraction of oil and natural gas within the Bowdoin 

Wetland Management District has occurred since 

the 1940s. When the Service acquired most refuge 

complex lands, the mineral rights were reserved or 

excepted by the landowner or the Bureau of Land 

Management. Hewitt Lake’s establishing purposes 

permit oil and gas extraction.

There are currently 104 natural gas wells in production status on Service-interest lands. Annual 

activities on these lands include mineral exploration, 

well drilling and maintenance, pipeline construction 

and maintenance, road building, and hauling offsite of produced water. Many of these activities can 

fragment habitats and disturb wildlife. Production 

companies operating within the Bowdoin natural gas 

dome estimate that drilling is expected to last about 

10–15 years, with a project life of 30–50 years.

Research, Inventory, and Monitoring

Research throughout the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex has been minimal and sporadic, and 

some past projects have not adequately addressed 

management issues. As a result, some current management actions are based on outside research, not 

necessarily designed to address critical refuge issues, and may not follow an established management 

plan.

Spring water conditions in the glaciated pothole region of Phillips County, Montana (1986).

USFWS

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1937 as what the Service now calls a 

limited-interest refuge. Except for the 19.4 acres 

reserved from public domain, the remaining refuge 

is private lands that are encumbered by refuge and 

flowage easements. These easements give the Service the right to control hunting and trapping and 
SUMMARY XV

the uses of the main bodies of water including the 

impoundment, lakes, and streams. The Service did 

not buy the right to control uses of the upland areas 

including farming, grazing, and development.

Habitat loss has been significant over the decades. The refuge currently offers little value to 

wildlife, and the purposes for which this area was 

first established are no longer attainable. Native 

prairie areas that once existed are now farmed 

intensively. Due to upstream development, Lake 

Thibadeau, Grassy Lake, and Mud Lake are often 

dry and farmed in most years, offering no value for 

migratory birds.

The Future of the Refuge 

Complex

The vision for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex is based on the establishing purposes of the 

refuge complex, resource conditions and potential, 

and the issues identified during the planning process. The goals were developed to meet the vision 

for the refuge complex.

Vision for the Refuge Complex

Under seemingly limitless skies, Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

provides vast expanses of gently rolling 

native mixed-grass prairie, dotted with an 

array of diverse wetlands.

Recognized as one of the most 

important migratory bird refuges in 

the State of Montana, these habitats are 

managed to ensure that grassland- and 

wetland-dependent waterfowl, shorebirds, 

songbirds, and native wildlife 

species thrive.

Visitors recognize these unique and 

wondrous qualities and experience a sense 

of solitude and a connection to the land 

that fosters a desire to conserve 

this and other remnants of the 

northern Great Plains.

Goal for Upland Habitat and 

Associated Wildlife

Protect, enhance, and restore grassland habitat for 

breeding and migratory birds and other wildlife 

while maintaining the biological diversity and integrity of native prairie grasslands.

Goal for Wetland Habitat and 

Associated Wildlife

Provide, protect, and manage wetland habitat for 

breeding and migratory birds and other wildlife that 

maintains the biological diversity and integrity of 

prairie pothole wetlands.

Goal for Visitor Services

Provide visitors of all abilities with wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and environmental 

education opportunities that foster an appreciation 

and understanding of the unique wildlife, plant communities, and cultural resources of the Montana 

Prairie Pothole Region.

Goal for Partnerships

Maintain and expand partnerships that preserve, 

restore, and enhance healthy and productive prairiewetland complexes on Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge and within Bowdoin Wetland Management 

District.

Goal for Operations

Prioritize for wildlife first and emphasize the protection of trust resources in the use of staff, funding, 

partnerships, and volunteer programs.

Alternatives

This section summarizes the three analyses within 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment.
XVI Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Salinity and Blowing Salts at 

Lake Bowdoin

The following goal is what the Service hopes to 

achieve by addressing the salinity and blowing salts 

issue, so it can manage the refuge to meet its establishment purposes and the overall vision for the 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Goal: Develop a water management system 

on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge that 

would protect the environment and mitigate 

current and future salt-dust-blowing concerns 

for neighboring properties while providing 

quality water and wildlife habitat for migratory birds.

A major aspect of achieving this goal would be to 

meet the Service’s salinity objective of sustaining a 

brackish water quality level of approximately 7,000 

mg/L of total dissolved solids (salts) in Lake Bowdoin.

The Service developed and analyzed five alternatives to address the salinity and blowing salts issue 

for Lake Bowdoin in the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge:

■ Salinity alternative 1—current management (no 

action)

■ Salinity alternative 2—evaporation ponds and 

removal of salt residue

■ Salinity alternative 3—flushing by Beaver Creek

■ Salinity alternative 4—underground injection 

and flushing by Beaver Creek (proposed action)

■ Salinity alternative 5—pumping to Milk River

The Service is proposing alternative 4 as the best 

option for meeting the salinity objective for Lake 

Bowdoin and for achieving the salinity goal for the 

Bowdoin Refuge. The Service expects this proposed 

treatment would be highly effective in meeting the 

salinity goal, which would result in beneficial environmental and social consequences at a reasonable 

cost for addressing this persistent problem.

Salt residue covers the shoreline on the southeastern edge of Lake Bowdoin in late summer.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Lake Thibadeau National 

Wildlife Refuge

The Service completed an environmental analysis of 

two alternatives to address the situation at the Lake 

Thibadeau Refuge (section 3.1 in chapter 3):

■ Lake Thibadeau Refuge alternative 1–current 

management (no action)

■ Lake Thibadeau Refuge alternative 2–divestiture 

(proposed action)

Using the divestiture model for the Mountain–Prairie Region, the Service evaluated the habitat quality 

and ability of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge to meet its purposes and support the goals of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. The Service owns 

less than 1 percent of the lands within the 3,868-acre 

approved acquisition boundary; the remaining area 
SUMMARY XVII

is private land encumbered by refuge and flowage 

easements.

The easements give the Service the right to manage the impoundments and the uses that occur on 

that water and to control hunting and trapping, but 

these easements do not prohibit development, grazing, or agricultural uses. Due to upstream development in the watershed, the impoundments do not 

receive adequate water supplies and are often dry 

enough to be farmed. The surrounding uplands are 

also farmed or heavily grazed. This loss or lack of 

habitat is the basis for the Service’s proposed action 

to divest this refuge.

Alternatives for the Remaining 

Refuge Complex Programs

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

use at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(chapters 3 and 5):

■ Alternative A–current management (no action)

■ Alternative B (proposed action)

■ Alternative C

Alternative B would likely have the most effective 

management for providing wetland and upland habitat for migratory birds. While meeting this overriding purpose of the refuge complex by mimicking 

natural conditions, there would be benefits to many 

other wildlife species. In addition, there would be 

increased opportunities for visitors to learn about 

the migratory shorebirds and waterfowl, along with 

other wildlife species, that rely on so 

many aspects of the native prairie.

Alternative A–Current 

Management (No Action)

The current staff of five Service employees would continue to manage Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex primarily for migratory birds. The Service 

would continue to manipulate native 

grasslands using various management 

techniques including prescribed fire and 

grazing. Approximately 10 percent of 

the uplands would be grazed annually, 

and there would be minimal monitoring of response. As resources become 

available, cropland on waterfowl production areas would be restored to native 

grasses and forbs; however, dense nesting cover would continue to be seeded 

on highly erodible lands in the wetland management 

district. The Service would continue to use mechanical and chemical methods to control existing and 

new infestations of Russian olive. Larger infestations of invasive species such as crested wheatgrass 

would continue to be given little to no attention due 

to the extent of infestation and the lack of resources 

and staff.

The Service would continue to attempt to mimic 

natural conditions on managed wetlands to meet 

the needs of migratory water birds. The 19 ground 

water wells on and around Bowdoin Refuge would 

be monitored to collect water quality data for the 

refuge and the Beaver Creek Waterfowl Production 

Area. Lake Bowdoin and Dry Lake would continue 

to be managed as closed basins.

Visitor services programs including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation would remain at 

current levels.

© Cindie Brunner

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

The Service would conserve natural resources by 

restoring, protecting, and enhancing native mixedgrass prairie and maintaining quality wetland habitat for target migratory and resident birds within 

the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Invasive and nonnative plants that are causing habitat losses and fragmentation would be controlled or 

eradicated. Research would be conducted to control 

crested wheatgrass and restore treated areas. Enhanced wetlands would be managed to mimic natural 

conditions for wetland-dependent migratory birds 

during spring and fall migrations and during the 

breeding and nesting season.

Visitor services programs would be enhanced, 

providing additional opportunities for staff- and 

volunteer-led programs to 

provide a greater understanding of the purposes 

of the refuge complex, 

importance of conserving 

migratory birds and the 

unique mixed-grass prairie and wetlands, and an 

awareness of the mission of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. A 

sanctuary area would be 

created for waterfowl on 

the east half of the Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge 

during the hunting season, 
XVIII Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

closing this to all foot traffic. A new wildlife observation site would be added on the auto tour route. The 

Service would work with the State to investigate the 

potential for offering a safe, compatible, and quality 

big-game hunt at Bowdoin Refuge.

The success of these additional efforts and programs would depend on added staff, research, and 

monitoring programs, including additional operations funding, infrastructure, and new and expanded 

partnerships.

Alternative C

This alternative includes most of the elements in alternative B. In addition, the Service would improve 

the water management infrastructure (for example, 

water delivery systems, dikes, and levees to manipulate individual wetland) to create a more diverse and 

productive wetland complex. Biological staff would 

monitor the level of sedimentation occurring in natural wetlands and plan for its removal to restore the 

biological integrity of these wetlands.

Through partnerships, the Service would increase the acres of invasive species treated annually 

with an emphasis on preventing further encroachment of crested wheatgrass and Russian olive trees 

into native grassland. The refuge complex would 

serve as a conservation-learning center for the area. 

Public access would be improved to Creedman Coulee Refuge.
Abbreviations

ac Acre

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

BAER Burned Area Emergency Response

BAR Burned Area Rehabilitation

CCP Comprehensive conservation plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs Cubic feet per second

cm Centimeter

CO2 Carbon dioxide

 Compact

Compact Commission

Montana House Bill Number 717–Bill to Ratify Water Rights Compact

Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission

district Wetland management district

DEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality

DNC Dense nesting cover

DNRC Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

EA Environmental assessment

EC Electrical conductivity

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

°F Degrees Fahrenheit

FmHA Farmers Home Administration

ft Feet, foot

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GIS Geographic Information System

GLO General Land Office

gpm Gallons per minute

GPS Global Positioning System

GS General Schedule (pay)

HAPET Habitat Assessment and Population Evaluation Team

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

MBOGC Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation

mg/L Milligrams per liter

mmhos/cm Millimhos per centimeter

MOA Memorandum of agreement

MOU Memorandum of understanding

mS MilliSiemens

MSGWG Montana Sage Grouse Working Group

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NWR National wildlife refuge

ppt Parts per thousand

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation

refuge Refuge within the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex
XX Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

refuge complex

Refuge System

RLGIS

Service

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex

National Wildlife Refuge System

Refuge Lands Geographic Information System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

TDS Total dissolved solids

μmhos/cm

μS/cm

U.S.

Micromhos per centimeter

MicroSiemens per centimeter

United States

U.S.C. United States Code

USDA

USFWS

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USRS U.S. Reclamation Service

WG

WPA

Wage Grade (pay schedule)

Waterfowl production area

Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary, located after chapter 7.
CHAPTER 1–Introduction

The Service (United States Fish and Wildlife Service) manages the 84,724-acre Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. The refuge complex is 

in the mixed-grass prairie region of north-central 

Montana (Kuchler 1964), within an area known as 

the Prairie Pothole Region (figure 1).

The refuge complex oversees management of 

14 units and numerous refuge, flowage, wetland, 

and grassland easements located in Blaine, Phillips, 

and Valley Counties and in the eastern half of Hill 

County. These counties are bordered by Canada to 

the north and the Missouri River to the south. The 

refuge complex’s units and easements are part of the 

Refuge System (National Wildlife Refuge System):

■ Five national wildlife refuges: Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge and four unstaffed satellite 

refuges—Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, 

Hewitt Lake, and Lake Thibadeau National 

Wildlife Refuges.

■ Nine waterfowl production areas within the 

four-county Bowdoin Wetland Management 

District (Blaine, Hill, Phillips, and Valley Counties). These nine areas, along with conservation 

easements, protect approximately 67,712 acres of 

wetland and grassland (figure 2). The protection 

of habitat in the district continues to grow with 

the acquisition of additional easements annually.

To address the long-term management of the refuge 

complex, the Service has developed a draft CCP 

(comprehensive conservation plan) and EA (environmental assessment). This document presents the 

EA, which evaluates alternatives for, and expected 

consequences of, managing the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. There are three separate 

alternatives’ analyses in this document: (1) whether 

to divest Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge; 

(2) addressing the salinity and blowing salts issue 

at Bowdoin Refuge; and (3) an analysis of management alternatives for the remaining refuge complex 

programs. The Service has identified the following 

alternatives as its proposed actions:

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex is in north-central Montana within the Prairie Pothole Region.

USFWS
2 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Figure 1. Map of refuges in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex within the Prairie Pothole Region 

of North America.
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 3

■ Lake Thibadeau Refuge alternative 2 (divestiture); described in chapter 3 and appendix E

■ Salinity and blowing salts alternative 4 (underground injection and flushing by Beaver Creek); 

described in chapter 6

■ Alternative B for the remaining refuge programs; described in chapter 7

Chapter 1 introduces the process for development 

of the Bowdoin Refuge Complex’s CCP, including 

descriptions of the involvement of the Service, the 

State of Montana, the public, and others. This chapter also describes the conservation issues and plans 

that affect the refuge complex.

Figure 2. Vicinity map of the five refuges and one wetland management district in the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, Montana.

The remaining chapters contain information the 

Service used and results of the Service’s analysis 

that is the foundation of the draft plan:

■ Chapter 2 describes the refuge complex and planning issues.

■ Chapter 3 sets out the alternatives for management of the refuge complex.

■ Chapter 4 describes the physical, biological, and 

social environment that the alternatives would 

affect.

■ Chapter 5 explains the expected consequences of 

carrying out each of the alternatives.
4 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Chapter 6 documents the analysis of salinity and 

blowing salts.

■ Chapter 7 describes objectives and strategies 

for the proposed action (alternative B), which 

comprises the draft CCP.

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

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The 

CCP specifies the necessary actions to achieve the 

vision and purposes of the refuge complex. Wildlife 

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

recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long as it is 

compatible with the purposes of each management 

unit. When finalized, the CCP will serve as a working guide for management programs and activities 

throughout the refuge complex over the next 15 

years. Although this document contains management direction for the refuge complex, greater detail 

would be provided in stepdown management plans 

as part of implementing the final CCP (refer to section 7.10 in chapter 7).

1.1 Purpose and Need 

for the Plan

The purpose of this draft CCP is to identify the role 

that the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

would play in support of the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and to provide long-term 

guidance for managing programs and activities. The 

CCP is needed to help the Service achieve the following:

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

■ A clear statement of direction for managing the 

refuge complex

■ Providing neighbors, visitors, and government 

officials with an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions on and around the refuge 

complex

■ Management actions by the Service that are consistent with the mandates of the Improvement 

Act (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997)

■ Management of the refuge complex that is consistent with Federal, State, and county plans

■ A basis for development of budget requests for 

the refuge complex’s operation, maintenance, and 

capital improvement needs

Sustaining the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources 

is a task that can be accomplished only through the 

combined efforts of governments, businesses, and 

private citizens.

1.2 Early History of 

Conservation

Wildlife conservation in North America evolved to 

take on a form unique to the world. In recent years, 

it has come to be known as the North American 

Model of Wildlife Conservation (Geist et al. 2001). 

The wildlife conservation movement arose out of the 

conflict between market hunters and sport hunters 

in the mid- to late 19th century. Market hunting 

increased in response to the growth in urban population fueled by the Industrial Revolution. Between 

1820 and 1860, the percentage of Americans who 

lived in cities increased from 5 percent to 20 percent; 

this four-fold increase is the greatest proportional 

increase in urban population that ever occurred in 

America (Reiss 1995). The demand for meat and 

hides—along with feathers for the millinery trade—

led to exploitation of game animals by market hunters. Along with the increase in the urban population 

came a new breed of hunter—one who hunted for 

the chase and the challenge it provided. These sport 

hunters valued game animals more when they were 

alive, as opposed to market hunters who placed 

value on dead animals they could bring to market. 

The growing legion of sport hunters started a national movement that resulted in Federal and State 

governments taking responsibility for regulating the 

take of wildlife.

The keystone concept of the North American 

Model of Wildlife Conservation and the bedrock 

that allowed the Government to exercise control is 

the Public Trust Doctrine (Geist and Organ 2004). 

Originating in an 1842 United States (U.S.) Supreme 

Court decision in the Martin v. Waddell case, its 

origins derive from Greek and Roman law and the 

Magna Carta. Simply stated, wildlife belongs to no 

one; it is held in trust for all by the Government.

The seven pillars of the North American Model of 

Wildlife Conservation follow:
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 5

■ Wildlife as a public trust resource

■ Elimination of markets for game

■ Allocation of wildlife by law

■ Wildlife only killed for a legitimate purpose

■ Wildlife considered an international resource

■ Science as the proper tool to discharge wildlife 

policy

■ Democracy of hunting

These pillars have stood the test of time and have 

seen significant changes in approaches to wildlife 

conservation for more than 100 years. The original 

conservation movement championed by Theodore 

Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell, and others placed 

emphasis on stemming the decline, and programs restricting take and protecting lands were put in place. 

During the 1920s, conservationists realized that 

more was needed, and a committee comprised of 

Aldo Leopold, A. Willis Robertson, and other leading conservationists of the time authored the 1930 

American Game Policy. This policy called for a restoration program for habitats and populations based 

on scientific research with stable, equitable funding 

to achieve this. Within a decade, landmark legislation fulfilled many of the needs identified including 

the Duck Stamp Act to fund land acquisition for 

national wildlife refuges. In addition, the Pittman–

Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act shifted excise 

taxes imposed on firearms and ammunition to fund 

wildlife restoration through cooperation between 

the Service and State fish and wildlife agencies. For 

States to use this money, they were required to pass 

laws that prevented diversion of hunting license 

revenues to any purpose other than administration 

of the State fish and wildlife agency.

In recent decades, the importance of overall wildlife diversity has gained more emphasis in wildlife 

management. All wildlife have benefited from the 

North American Model of Wildlife Conservation 

pillars, not just game animals. However, the vast 

majority of funding for wildlife conservation at Federal and State levels comes from Pittman–Robertson 

excise taxes, Duck Stamp revenues, and hunting license sales. We owe the origins of the National Wildlife Refuge System to the hunters who articulated 

the need and provided the money (Grinnell 1913). 

The National Wildlife Refuge System has evolved 

along with the North American Model of Wildlife 

Conservation—it today provides refuge for virtually 

all species found in America and recreation for all 

Americans. It is a realization of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation to provide for 

science-based management of international wildlife 

resources held in trust for all. The importance of this 

system to American society can best be appreciated 

if we were to contemplate its loss. Wildlife connects 

us to the heritage of this country and our ancestors 

who built our society. It connects us as well to the 

natural world of which we are a part, but from which 

we have become so disconnected. To lose this connection is to lose the basis of our humanity.

1.3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Refuge System

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

Federal agency responsible for fish, wildlife, and 

plant conservation. The Refuge System is one of the 

Service’s major programs.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The mission of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, working with others, 

is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish 

and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the 

American people.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, 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 together and generated 

the political will for the first significant conservation 

measures taken by the Federal Government. These 

actions included the establishment of the Bureau of 

Fisheries in the 1870s and, in 1900, passage of the 

first Federal wildlife law—the Lacey Act—which 

prohibited interstate transportation of wildlife taken 

in violation of State laws. Beginning in 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt created more than 50 wildlife refuges across the Nation.

Over the next three decades, the United States 

ratified the Migratory Bird Treaty with Great Britain, and Congress passed laws to protect migratory 

birds, establish new refuges, and create a funding 

source for refuge land acquisition. In 1940, the U. 

S. Fish and Wildlife Service was created within the 

Department of the Interior, and existing Federal 

wildlife functions including law enforcement, fish 

management, animal damage control, and wildlife 

refuge management were combined into a single 

organization for the first time.

Today, the Service enforces Federal wildlife 

laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores 

nationally significant fisheries, conserves and re-
6 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

stores vital wildlife habitat, protects and recovers 

endangered species, and helps other governments 

with conservation efforts. In addition, the Service 

administers a Federal aid program that distributes 

hundreds of millions of dollars to States for fish and 

wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education, and related programs across the United States.

Service Activities in Montana

Service activities in Montana (2009) contribute to 

the State’s economy, ecosystems, and education programs. The following list highlights the Service’s 

presence and activities:

■ Employed 220 people in Montana

■ 446 volunteers donated more than 21,780 hours to 

Service projects on refuge and district lands

■ Managed two national fish hatcheries, one fish 

and wildlife management assistance office, six 

coordination areas, one fish health center, four 

ecological services offices, and one fish technology 

center

■ Managed 23 national wildlife refuges encompassing 1,217,617 acres (1.29 percent of the State)

■ Managed five wetland management districts

❏ Managed 48,026 acres of fee-title waterfowl 

production areas

❏ Managed 146,816 acres under leases or easements

■ Hosted more than 690,173 annual visitors to Service-managed lands

❏ 96,866 hunting visits

❏ 80,370 fishing visits

❏ 506,632 wildlife observation, photography, and 

interpretation visits

❏ 6,305 students participated in environmental 

education programs

■ Provided $9.6 million to Montana Fish, Wildlife & 

Parks for sport fish restoration and $17.4 million 

for wildlife restoration and hunter education

■ Since 1988, the Service’s Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program has helped private landowners (1) restore more than 31,759 wetland acres; 

360,826 upland acres; and 1,263 miles of river 

habitat; and (2) install 45 structures to open 502 

river miles for fish passage.

■ Paid Montana counties $394,799 under the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (money used for 

schools and roads)

National Wildlife Refuge System

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated 

the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the Nation’s first wildlife refuge for the protection of native 

nesting birds. This was the first time the Federal 

Government set aside land for wildlife. This small 

but significant designation was the beginning of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

One hundred years later, the Refuge System has 

become the largest collection of lands in the world 

specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more 

than 150 million acres within 553 refuges and more 

than 3,000 waterfowl production areas that provide 

breeding and nesting habitat for migratory birds 

and other wildlife. Today, there is at least one refuge 

in every State including Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands.

The Improvement Act established a clear mission 

for the Refuge System.

The mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System is to administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife 

and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for 

the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

The Improvement Act states that each national 

wildlife refuge (meaning every unit of the Refuge 

System, which includes wetland management 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

■ Fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP for 

each unit of the Refuge System and fully involve 

the public in preparation of these plans
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 7

■ Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System

■ Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreational 

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

and interpretation are legitimate and priority 

public uses

■ Retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses

In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, 

the wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the 

Refuge System maintains the following principles:

■ Wildlife comes first.

■ Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are 

vital concepts in refuge and district management.

■ Habitats must be healthy.

■ Growth of refuges and districts must be strategic.

■ The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others.

Following passage of the Improvement Act, the 

Service immediately began to carry out the direction 

of the new legislation including preparation of CCPs 

for all national wildlife refuges and wetland management districts. Consistent with the Improvement 

Act, the Service prepares CCPs in conjunction with 

public involvement. Each refuge and each district 

is required to complete its CCP within the 15-year 

schedule (by 2012).

People and the Refuge System

The Nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to 

the quality of American lives and is an integral part 

of the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places 

have always given people special opportunities to 

have fun, relax, and appreciate the natural world.

Whether through birdwatching, fishing, hunting, photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife 

recreation contributes millions of dollars to local 

economies. In particular, money generated from the 

taxing of sporting arms and ammunition and of fishing equipment that is authorized by the Pittman–

Robertson and Dingell–Johnson Acts, respectively, 

has generated tens of millions of dollars. Distributed 

by the Service, this money has been used by States 

to increase wildlife and fish populations, expand 

habitat, and train hunters across the Nation. Approximately 35 million people visited the Refuge 

System in 2006, mostly to observe wildlife in their 

natural habitats (Caudill and Henderson 2005). Visitors are most often accommodated through nature 

trails, auto tours, interpretive programs, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Significant economic 

benefits are being generated to the local communities that surround refuges and wetland management 

districts. Economists report that Refuge System 

visitors contribute more than $1.7 billion annually to 

local economies.

1.4 National and Regional 

Mandates

Refuge System units are managed to achieve the 

mission and goals of the Refuge System along with 

the designated purpose of the refuges and districts 

(as described in establishing legislation, Executive 

orders, or other establishing documents). The key 

concepts and guidance for the Refuge System are in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966, Title 50 of the CFR (Code of Federal 

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

The Improvement Act amends the Refuge System Administration Act by providing (1) a unifying 

mission for the Refuge System, (2) a new process for 

determining compatible public uses on refuges and 

districts, and (3) a requirement that each refuge and 

district be managed under a CCP. The Improvement 

Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority 

of Refuge System lands and that the Secretary of 

the Interior will ensure that the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands 

are maintained. Each refuge and district must be 

managed to fulfill the Refuge System’s mission and 

the specific purposes for which the unit was established. The Improvement Act requires the Service 

to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and 

plants in each national wildlife refuge and wetland 

management district.

A detailed description of these and other laws 

and Executive orders that may affect the CCP 

or the Service’s implementation of the CCP is in 

“Appendix A–Key Legislation and Policy.” Service 

policies for planning and day-to-day management 

of refuges and districts are in the “Refuge System 

Manual” and the “Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.”
8 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

1.5 Contributions to National 

and Regional Plans

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex contributes to the conservation efforts outlined in the various State and national plans described here.

Fulfilling the Promise

A 1999 report, Fulfilling the Promise, The National 

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

employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. This report was the focus of the first national 

Refuge System conference (in 1998)—attended by 

refuge managers, other Service employees, and representatives from leading conservation organizations.

The report contains 42 recommendations packaged with three vision statements for wildlife and 

habitat, people, and leadership. This CCP deals with 

all three of these major topics. The planning team 

looked to the recommendations in the document for 

guidance during CCP planning.

Partners in Flight

The Partners in Flight program began in 1990 with 

the recognition of declining population levels of 

many migratory bird species. The challenge is to 

manage human population growth while maintaining 

functional natural ecosystems in the face of human 

population growth. To meet this challenge, Partners 

in Flight worked to identify priorities for land bird 

species and habitat types. Partners in Flight activity 

has resulted in 52 bird conservation plans covering 

the continental United States.

The primary goal of Partners in Flight is to provide for the long-term health of bird life of this continent. The first priority is to prevent the rarest 

species from going extinct. The second priority is 

to prevent uncommon species from descending into 

threatened status. The third priority is to keep common birds common.

Montana Partners in Flight considered 141 species for priority status. It identified 14 high-priority 

species in need of immediate conservation action 

(priority 1), 43 moderate-priority species with lesser 

threats but in need of better monitoring and conservation consideration (priority 2), and 51 species of 

local interest whose habitat needs may play a role in 

the design and selection of conservation strategies 

(priority 3). The highest priority species are common 

loon, trumpeter swan, harlequin duck, greater sagegrouse, piping plover, mountain plover, interior least 

tern, flammulated owl, burrowing owl, black-backed 

woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, brown creeper, 

Sprague’s pipit, and Baird’s sparrow (Casey 2000).

The highest priority habitats in Montana are 

mixed grassland, sagebrush steppe, dry forest (ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir), riparian deciduous 

forest, and prairie pothole wetlands. The primary 

objectives in each priority habitat are to restore 

ecological processes necessary to provide suitable 

habitat for priority (target) species, identify and protect those remaining blocks of habitats that have undergone drastic declines, and develop management 

prescriptions that can be applied at all geographic 

scales. The Partners in Flight plan identified 58 of 

these areas.

Black Tern

Northern Shortgrass Prairie 

Physiographic Region

The conservation unit chosen by Partners in Flight 

for planning purposes has been the physiographic 

area. These areas, which are not limited by state 

borders, are based on the Breeding Bird Survey 

system, which was the first planning effort to reflect 

actual bird distributions.

There are 58 physiographic areas defined by similar physical geographic features that are wholly or 

partially contained within the contiguous United 

States, and several others are wholly or partially 

in Alaska. The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex lies within physiographic area unit 39, 

known as the northern shortgrass prairie. It is a 

huge physiographic area, extending from northeastern Wyoming over all of eastern Montana and 

into southern Alberta. The area within the refuge 

complex is more of a mixed-grass prairie, which does 

include native shortgrasses. This physiographic region includes all of the area in Montana officially 
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 9

designated as the Prairie Pothole Region, one of the 

highest priority habitats identified in the Montana’s 

bird conservation plan (Casey 2000). The region also 

contains some of the last remnants of native grasslands including those found on the refuge complex. 

Although a plan has not yet been completed for this 

physiographic region, the Partners in Flight plan 

for Montana identifies this area as critical habitat 

to some of the priority I bird species, most of which 

reside on or visit the refuge complex, including piping plover, burrowing owl, Sprague’s pipit, Baird’s 

sparrow, and greater sage-grouse. There are also numerous priority II species that nest on and use the 

refuge complex including chestnut-collared longspur, 

long-billed curlew, marbled godwit, white-faced ibis, 

black tern, and Franklin’s gull. The proposed actions 

in this plan would focus on continuing and expanding 

efforts to support these and other imperiled bird 

species.

North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan

The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

provides a contiguous framework for conserving and 

managing colonial-nesting waterbirds including 209 

species of seabirds, coastal waterbirds (gulls, terns, 

and pelicans), wading birds (herons and ibises), and 

marsh birds (certain grebes and bitterns). The overall goal of the plan is to ensure that the following are 

sustained or restored throughout the waterbirds’ 

ranges in North America: (1) the distribution, diversity, and abundance of waterbird populations; 

(2) waterbird habitats (breeding, migratory, and 

nonbreeding); and (3) important sites for waterbirds. 

The geographic scope of the plan covers 28 countries, from Canada to Panama, as well as islands and 

near-shore areas of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, 

the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. This 

waterbird partnership includes Federal, State, and 

provincial wildlife agencies, individuals, and nonprofit conservation organizations. The plan also calls 

for establishment of “practical units for planning” 

for terrestrial habitats. Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex is located within the Northern 

Prairie and Parklands Region.

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

human development activities that factor immensely 

in the region’s conservation issues. Wetland loss and 

deterioration tops the list, which is further influenced by the region’s natural cycles of drought and 

inundation. The widespread and uncertain ramifications of global warming will affect the regional plan’s 

strategies to combat wetland loss and properly 

manage associated upland habitats for the benefit 

of waterbirds and other bird species (Kushlan et al. 

2002).

International Border contrast in 1994—Blaine County, 

Montana, United States (left); Saskatchewan, Canada 

(right).

USFWS

North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan

Written in 1986, the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan envisioned a 15-year effort to 

achieve landscape conditions that could sustain waterfowl populations. Specific plan objectives are to 

increase and restore duck populations to the average 

levels of the 1970s—62 million breeding ducks and a 

fall flight of 100 million birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and Canadian Wildlife Service 1986).

The plan is innovative because of its international 

partnerships and implementation at the regional 

level. Its success depends on the strength of the 

joint ventures, which involve Federal, State, provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; 

conservation organizations; and individual citizens.

Joint ventures develop implementation plans that 

focus on areas of concern identified in the plan. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex lies within 

the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. It encompasses 

prairie wetlands from Montana, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota into Minnesota and Iowa. These prairie wetlands support more than 300 species of migratory birds, many of which are found within the 

refuge complex and are the primary breeding areas 

for the continent’s waterfowl. The most important 

activity of this joint venture is the protection, restoration, and enhancement of prairie wetlands and 

grasslands on private and public lands (USFWS 

2008b).
10 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes 

Regional Shorebird Conservation 

Plan

The Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Region encompasses two bird conservation regions—the Prairie 

Potholes and the Badlands and Prairies—and all or 

parts of seven States (eastern Montana, northeastern Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, western 

Minnesota, north-central Iowa, and northeastern 

Nebraska). The landscape is characterized by rolling hills of prairie grasses, millions of depressional 

wetlands ranging in size from shallow temporary or 

seasonal wetlands to deeper semipermanent wetlands, and agricultural land.

Thirteen species of shorebirds breed within the 

Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Region and require 

a landscape of grassland and wetland habitats for 

nesting and brood rearing. One of the major migration routes for Western Hemisphere shorebirds, 

especially that of long-distance migrants, traverses 

this area. Because long-distance migrations are energetically expensive, the availability of abundant 

habitat and food resources at migration stopovers 

within this region is critical. Shorebirds use a wide 

range of habitat types within the region including 

dry grasslands, sand and gravel beaches, natural 

freshwater and alkaline wetlands, lake margins, and 

shallowly flooded agricultural fields. During migration, the unvegetated shallow waters and moist 

mudflats of freshwater or alkaline wetlands are especially important. Due to the dynamic nature of 

wetlands in this region, many shorebirds are opportunistic and dispersed across the changing landscape 

(Helmers 1992).

Three major shorebird issues have been identified for the Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Region:

1. Conservation of threatened and endangered 

species, declining species, and species of special 

concern

2. Habitat loss including fragmentation and degradation

3. The need for additional information to evaluate 

potential threats—such as contaminants, predation, and invasion of exotic plants—to migrating 

and breeding shorebirds

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex has 

been identified as part of the Western Hemisphere 

Shorebird Reserve Network. Enrollment in this network requires that a site meet biological criteria and 

that site stakeholders agree to participate (Helmers 

1992).

Montana Piping Plover 

Management Plan

Federal agencies are mandated by the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 to conserve federally listed 

threatened and endangered species under section 

7(a)(1) of the act. In response to Federal listing of 

the Great Plains population of the piping plover as 

a threatened species in 1985, the Montana Piping 

Plover Recovery Committee was formed. Beginning in 1986, members of several Federal and State 

agencies along with volunteers made an effort to 

monitor all historical and potential piping plover 

habitat within the State. The Montana Piping Plover 

Management Plan evolved from these efforts and 

was most recently updated in 2006.

The Service, along with the other agencies involved, consulted to determine the status of the 

population and habitat as well as the potential 

for increase. The committee set a goal within the 

management plan to “manage for and maintain approximately 60 breeding pairs of piping plovers, on a 

running 10-year average, distributed in appropriate 

habitats in Montana” (Atkinson and Dood 2006).

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge is an integral 

part of this joint effort because of its historical use 

by piping plovers. A portion of the refuge was designated as critical habitat for the species in 2002.

Management Plan and 

Conservation Strategies for 

Sage Grouse in Montana

Loss of sagebrush grasslands in some western 

States has approached or exceeded 50 percent. Such 

habitat loss in Montana, in terms of quality or quantity, may not have been as high as in other States 

although significant enough (at least in part of the 

State) to influence greater sage-grouse numbers and 

population trends. Growing concern about the status 

of sagebrush on western rangelands and declines 

in sage-grouse numbers have led to petitioning the 

Service to protect populations in some western 

States under provisions of the Endangered Species 

Act. After a thorough analysis of the best available 

scientific information, the Service has concluded 

that the greater sage-grouse warrants protection 

under the Endangered Species Act. However, the 

Service has determined that proposing the species 
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 11

for protection is precluded by the need to take action 

on other species facing immediate and severe extinction threats. As a result, the greater sage-grouse has 

been placed on the list of species that are candidates 

for Endangered Species Act protection. The Service 

will review the status of the species annually, as it 

does with all candidate species, and will propose the 

species for protection when funding and workload 

priorities for other listing actions allow.

The “Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse in Montana” is the product 

of the Montana Sage Grouse Working Group. Participants in the group include representatives of 

Federal and State agencies, tribal representatives, 

and private organizations, along with several individuals from the public, all of whom have a stake in 

the issue. The overall goal of the plan is to “provide 

for the long-term conservation and enhancement 

of the sagebrush steppe/mixed-grass prairie complex within Montana in a manner that supports sage 

grouse and a healthy diversity and abundance of 

wildlife species and human uses” (MSGWG 2005). 

The plan establishes a process to achieve sagegrouse management objectives and provides a 

framework to guide local management efforts.

The greater sage-grouse is a documented local 

breeder on the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex and is a target species for upland management.

Piping Plover

Mike Morel / USFWS

Greater Sage-Grouse

Gary Kramer / USFWS

State Comprehensive Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy

Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 

2005) is for all vertebrate species known to exist in 

Montana including both game and nongame species, 

as well as some invertebrate species such as freshwater mussels and crayfish.

Although game species are included in Montana’s 

conservation strategy, the priority is species and 

their related habitats “in greatest conservation 

need.” This means focus areas, community types, 

and species that are significantly degraded or declining, federally listed, or where important distribution 

and occurrence information used to assess the status 

of individuals and groups of species are lacking. The 

conservation strategy uses five ecotypes to describe 

the broad areas of Montana’s landscape that have 

similar characteristics. Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex is in the plains grassland and plains 

forest ecotype. Montana’s high eastern plains, which 

are part of America’s Great Plains, are generally 

found on high, rolling land and on some scattered 

hills and in wide river valleys.

Within each of the ecotypes, tier 1 geographic 

focus areas (greatest need of conservation) were 

identified for all terrestrial and aquatic areas of the 

State. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

is located within the Montana glaciated plains focus area, which is dominated by level to rolling till 

plains covered by sagebrush grasslands and short, 
12 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

mixed-grass prairie and croplands. This area consists of plains, terraces, fans, and floodplains that 

formed in glacial till, gravel deposits, and alluvium 

over clay shale, sandstone, and siltstone. Land use is 

predominantly livestock grazing and dryland farming. The tier 1 priority (target) species for this area 

are the northern leopard frog, snapping turtle, spiny 

softshell, western hog-nosed snake, milksnake, common loon, bald eagle, greater sage-grouse, yellow 

rail, whooping crane, piping plover, mountain plover, 

long-billed curlew, interior least tern, black tern, 

burrowing owl, spotted bat, Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, black-tailed prairie dog, black-footed ferret, and 

American bison.

The Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy (Montana Fish, Wildlife & 

Parks 2005) outlines five conservation concerns and 

strategies for the Montana glaciated plains focus 

area. The key concerns are:

■ Conversion of native prairie to small grain production

■ Petroleum exploration and development impacts

■ Invasive or exotic plant species

■ Disruption of natural fire disturbance processes 

and hydrologic regimes

■ Range management or forest management practices

■ Loss of natural wetlands

1.6 Strategic Habitat 

Conservation

In the face of escalating challenges such as land use 

conversion, invasive species, water scarcity, and 

refuge complex issues that have been amplified by 

accelerating climate change, the Service has evolved 

from its ecosystem approach of thinking about conservation to developing a broader vision.

A cooperative effort by the Service and U.S. 

Geological Survey culminated in a report by the 

National Ecological Assessment Team (U.S. Geological Survey 2006). The report outlines a unifying 

adaptive resource management approach for conservation at a landscape scale, the entire range of a 

target species or suite, or guild, of species. This is 

strategic habitat conservation: a way of thinking and 

doing business—by incorporating biological goals 

for target species populations—by making strategic 

decisions about the work needed—and by constantly 

reassessing.

Since 2006, the Service has taken significant 

steps to turn this vision into reality and has defined 

a framework of 21 geographic areas. Experts from 

the Service and U.S. Geological Survey developed 

this framework through an aggregation of bird conservation regions. The Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex lands and waters lie in Geographic 

Area 13–Plains and Prairie Potholes (figure 3). Key 

issues in this geographic area are conservation of 

paddlefish, pallid sturgeon, waterfowl, shorebirds, 

grassland birds, and black-footed ferret.

The Service is using the framework as the basis 

to locate the first generation of landscape conservation cooperatives. These cooperatives are conservation-science partnerships between the Service 

and other Federal agencies, States, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, universities, and others. 

Designed as fundamental units for planning and science, the cooperatives have the capacity to help the 

Service carry out the elements of strategic habitat 

conservation—biological planning, conservation 

design and delivery, and monitoring and research. 

Coordinated planning and scientific information will 

strengthen the Service’s strategic response to accelerating climate change.

Climate Change

The Service expects that accelerating climate 

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

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

in some instances go extinct. Others will survive in 

the wild only through direct and continuous intervention by managers. In 2010, the Service drafted 

a strategic plan to address climate change for the 

next 50 years titled, “Rising to the Challenge—Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate 

Change” (USFWS 2010). The strategic plan employs 

three key strategies: adaptation, mitigation, and 

engagement. In addition, the plan acknowledges 

that no single organization or agency can address 

climate change without allying itself with others in 

partnership across the Nation and around the world 

(USFWS 2010). This plan is an integral part of the 

Department of the Interior’s strategy for addressing 

climate change as expressed in Secretarial Order 

3289 (September 14, 2009).

The Service will use the following guiding principles from the strategic plan (USFWS 2010) in responding to climate change:
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 13

Figure 3. Map of the five refuges and one wetland management district in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex within Geographic Area 13–Plains and Prairie Potholes.
14 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Priority Setting—Continually evaluate priorities 

and approaches, make difficult choices, take calculated risks, and adapt to climate change.

■ Partnership—Commit to a new spirit of coordination, collaboration, and interdependence with 

others.

■ Best Science—Reflect scientific excellence, professionalism, and integrity in all the Service’s 

work.

■ Landscape Conservation—Emphasize the conservation of habitats within sustainable landscapes, applying the Service’s strategic habitat 

conservation framework.

■ Technical Capacity—Assemble and use stateof-the-art technical capacity to meet the climate 

change challenge.

■ Global Approach—Be a leader in national and 

international efforts to meet the climate change 

challenge.

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

1.7 Planning Process

The Service prepared this draft CCP and EA in 

compliance with the Improvement Act and part 602 

(National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the 

“Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions 

described in the draft CCP and EA meet the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Additional requirements 

and guidance are contained in the Refuge System’s 

planning policy, issued in 2000. This policy established requirements and guidance for refuge and 

district plans—including CCPs and stepdown management plans—to ensure that planning efforts 

follow the Improvement Act. The planning policy 

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

The Service began the pre-planning process in 

October 2006 with the establishment of a planning 

team comprised primarily of Service staff from Bowdoin Refuge and staff from Montana Department 
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 15

of Natural Resources and Conservation, Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality, and Montana 

Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Additional contributors included other Service divisions, U.S. Geological Survey, Montana State University, Natural Resource 

Conservation Service, and several partners (refer to 

“Appendix B–List of Preparers, Consultation, and 

Coordination”). During pre-planning, the team developed a mailing list, internal issues, and identified 

the unique qualities of the refuge complex (refer to 

section 2.2 in chapter 2). The planning team identified and reviewed current programs, compiled and 

analyzed relevant data, and determined the purposes of the refuge complex.

Public scoping started with a notice of intent to 

prepare the draft CCP and EA that was published in 

the Federal Register on May 15, 2007. Information 

was distributed through news releases, issuance 

of the first planning update, and holding a public 

scoping meeting in Malta on May 22, 2007. Public scoping concluded on June 14, 2007, when the 

comment period closed. This project complies with 

public involvement requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act, and the planning team 

incorporated public input throughout the planning 

process. Over the course of pre-planning and public 

scoping, the planning team collected available information about the resources of the refuge complex 

units and the surrounding areas. This information is 

summarized in “Chapter 4–Affected Environment.”

Table 1 lists the specific steps in the planning 

process to date for the preparation of this draft CCP 

and EA.

Table 1. Summary of the CCP planning process for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Date Event Outcome or purpose

October 25–26, 2006 Kickoff meeting Service staff discussed the CCP overview, reviewed the refuge 

complex purposes, discussed the initial planning team list, developed the first draft of the internal issues and the qualities list, 

started the mailing list, discussed the planning schedule, and 

discussed the biological data needs.

February 15, 2007 Work plan Service staff prepared the planning work plan.

March 6, 2007

April 26, 2007

Biological review planning 

meeting

The planning team developed an agenda and objectives for the 

biological review workshops. 

April 29, 2007 Vision and goals workshop The planning team developed draft vision and goal statements 

for the refuge complex.

May 7, 2007 Planning update The first planning update was sent to people and organizations 

on the mailing list. The update described the planning process 

and announced the upcoming public scoping meeting.

May 15, 2007 Notice of intent The notice of intent to prepare a CCP was published in the 

Federal Register (volume 72, number 93, page 27325–27).

May 22–23, 2007 Water resources workshop A panel of biologists and researchers gathered to discuss and 

propose options for managing the Bowdoin Refuge’s wetland 

resources and addressing the salinity issue. A salinity team was 

established.

May 22, 2007 Public scoping meeting The public had an opportunity to learn about the CCP process 

and provide comments.

June 4, 2007 Visitor services review Staff from the Service’s Division of Education and Visitor 

Services evaluated the refuge complex’s visitor services programs and facilities. 

June 14, 2007 Public scoping period ends Public scoping comments that would be considered had to be 

received or postmarked by this date.

June 17, 2007 Chamber of Commerce

presentation

Service staff gave a presentation to the Malta Chamber of Commerce, describing the CCP process and answering questions. 

July 10, 2007 Salinity team meeting The salinity team reviewed water resources at the Bowdoin 

Refuge and evaluated nine modeling scenarios to address the 

salinity issue. 

August 20, 2007 Salinity team meeting The salinity team evaluated the revised modeling scenarios and 

narrowed the options down to four including no action.
16 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 1. Summary of the CCP planning process for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Date Event Outcome or purpose

October 3, 2007 Pre-planning for objectives 

and strategies workshop

The planning team met with Rick Schroeder (U.S. Geological 

Survey) and staff to discuss developing alternatives and the supporting objectives and strategies for the proposed action. 

October 16–17, 2007 Uplands biological 

workshop

A panel of biologists and researchers gathered to discuss and 

propose options for future management of upland habitats in the 

refuge complex.

October 24– 25, 2007 Alternatives workshop The planning team developed and evaluated three alternatives 

for refuge complex management, excluding the salinity and 

blowing salts issue. 

November 20, 2007 Followup to alternatives 

workshop

The planning team reviewed the alternatives table and discussed 

environmental consequences.

December 4, 2007 Followup to alternatives 

workshop

The planning team finalized the draft alternatives and environmental consequences table.

January 21–23, 2008 Objectives and strategies

 workshop

The planning team began writing objectives and strategies for 

the proposed action alternative. 

February 4, 2008 Salinity team meeting The salinity team discussed other options for addressing the 

salinity issue and prepared for a salinity workshop.

February 28, 2008 Salinity team meeting The salinity team finalized plans for the salinity workshop.

March 12, 2008 Salinity team meeting The salinity team discussed the salinity workshop agenda, meeting objectives, and needed presentations. 

April 22–23, 2008 Salinity issue workshop A panel of hydrologists, managers, and biologists evaluated 

the products of the salinity team and discussed alternatives. A 

proposal to hire a contractor to conduct further analysis was 

presented and accepted.

May 1, 2008 Start of draft plan 

preparation

The planning team began writing portions of the draft CCP and 

EA.

July 2008 Start of URS contract The Denver-based contractor, URS, began analysis of four alternatives proposed for addressing the salinity and blowing salts 

issue.

March 2, 2009 URS draft report review Field and regional office staff met with URS to discuss their 

report and findings and found that additional data collection and 

analysis by State and Service staff was needed. 

July 16, 2009 URS final report and Milk 

River alternative review

State and Federal agencies discussed the final URS report and 

the alternative to pump water to the Milk River. A public meeting to present these findings was planned. 

October 22, 2009 Public meeting The Service invited the public to hear a presentation on the 

alternatives that have been developed and analyzed to address 

the salinity and blowing salts issue.

November 2009 Draft plan preparation The planning team continued preparation of the chapters and 

maps for the draft CCP and EA.

April 14–15, 2010 Salinity chapter The salinity team finalized the chapter summarizing alternatives 

to address the salinity and blowing salts issue on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. 

April–October 2010 Draft plan preparation The planning team finished preparation of the draft CCP and EA 

for internal review, incorporating the results of the salinity and 

blowing salts analysis.

November– 

December 2010

Draft plan internal review The planning team and other Service staff reviewed the draft 

CCP and EA and provided comments to help clarify the analyses 

and provide consistency.

January–May 2011 Draft plan preparation The planning team finalized the draft plan for distribution to the 

public for review.
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 17

Coordination with the Public

A mailing list of more than 170 names was prepared 

during pre-planning. The mailing list includes private citizens; local, regional, and State government 

representatives and legislators; other Federal agencies; and interested organizations (refer to “Appendix C–Public Involvement”).

The first planning update was sent in May 2007 

to everyone on the mailing list. Information was 

provided on the history of the refuge and the CCP 

process and included an invitation to a public scoping 

meeting. The planning update included a comment 

form to give the public an opportunity to provide 

written comments. Emails were also accepted at the 

refuge’s email address: bowdoin@fws.gov.

The Service held one public scoping meeting at 

the Great Northern Motel in Malta, Montana, on 

May 22, 2007. There were 25 attendees, primarily local citizens, including surrounding ranchers. Following a presentation about the refuge complex and an 

overview of the CCP and National Environmental 

Policy Act processes, attendees were encouraged 

to ask questions and offer comments. Verbal comments were recorded and each attendee was given 

a comment form to submit additional thoughts or 

questions in writing.

All written comments were due June 14, 2007. 

Fifteen written comments, additional to those received orally at the public scoping meeting, were 

received throughout the scoping process. All comments were shared with the planning team and considered throughout the planning process.

One of the most significant issues identified by 

both the public and the planning team was the blowing salts and salinity issue on Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge. The planning team developed a 

salinity team that worked for more than 2 years to 

study this issue and develop alternatives (refer to 

“Chapter 6–Analysis of Salinity”). On October 22, 

2009, the planning team held a public meeting to provide information about the results of this effort. The 

public had the opportunity to ask questions and offer 

suggestions about the various aspects of the alternatives. This meeting was announced in the local media 

and more than 170 meeting announcements were 

mailed out to the planning mailing list. The staff 

also provided interviews to statewide newspapers 

about this meeting and the analysis. Many people 

helped the refuge staff organize and lead this meeting and answer questions—Service staff from the 

Division of Refuge Planning and Division of Water 

Resources and the Montana Department of Natural 

Resources and Conservation and Department of 

Environmental Quality, including members of the 

Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission. Thirty people attended this meeting and provided comments, which the Service recorded. These 

comments were considered by the planning team in 

preparation of this draft CCP and EA, particularly 

chapter 6, which addresses this issue in detail.

State Coordination

At the start of the planning process, the Regional 

Director (of the Service’s Mountain–Prairie Region 

(Region 6)) sent a letter to Montana Fish, Wildlife & 

Parks, inviting them to participate in the planning 

process. Numerous State biologists and hydrologists have since served on the planning team or been 

involved in the planning process including biological reviews of the refuge complex’s management 

program. At the start of the process, the offices of 

Montana’s United States congressional delegation 

(then-Senator John Tester, Senator Max Baucus, and 

Representative Dennis Rehburg) were sent letters 

notifying them of the planning process and inviting 

them to comment on the plan. Seven other Montana 

State senators and representatives and Governor 

Brian Schweitzer were sent similar letters.

The State was particularly concerned about the 

saline water and blowing salts issue on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. Hydrologists from the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission, 

who asked the refuge to address this water quality 

issue, worked with Service staff to develop models 

for predicting the effectiveness of actions to resolve 

this issue. The salinity team also had representatives from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation. The State has been supportive of 

the planning process to date.

Tribal Coordination

Early in the planning process, the Service’s Mountain–Prairie Regional Director sent a letter to 

tribes identified as possibly having a cultural and 

historical connection to the area in which the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex is located. 

Those contacted were the Fort Peck Assiniboine 

and Sioux, the Fort Belknap Assiniboine and Gros 

Ventre, Crow, Chippewa Cree, and Blackfeet tribal 

councils. The tribal councils did not submit responses to the letter from the Regional Director; 

nevertheless, the councils were provided opportunities to comment.
18 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Results of Scoping

Comments collected from scoping meetings and correspondence were used in the development of a final 

list of issues to be addressed in this draft CCP and 

EA. The Service determined which alternatives 

could best address these issues. The planning process ensures that issues with the greatest effect 

on the refuge complex resources and programs are 

resolved or given priority over the life of the final 

CCP. Identified issues, along with a discussion of 

effects on resources, are summarized in chapter 2. In 

addition, the Service considered suggested changes 

to current refuge management presented by the 

public and other groups.

Selecting an Alternative

After the public reviews and provides comments 

on the draft CCP and EA, the planning team will 

present this document along with a summary of all 

substantive public comments to the Service’s Mountain–Prairie Regional Director. The Regional Director will consider the environmental effects of each 

alternative including information gathered during 

public review.

The Regional Director will select a preferred 

alternative for each of the three analyses in the draft 

CCP and EA: (1) divestiture of Lake Thibadeau 

National Wildlife Refuge; (2) management of salinity 

and blowing salts at Lake Bowdoin; and (3) all other 

management aspects of the refuge complex. The 

Regional Director’s decision will be disclosed in a 

finding of no significant impact included in the final 

CCP. Once approved, the actions in the preferred 

alternatives will compose the final CCP.

After the planning team prepares the final CCP 

for publication, a notice of availability will be published in the Federal Register, and copies of the final 

CCP, summary of the CCP, or both will be sent to individuals on the mailing list. Subsequently, the Service will implement the CCP with help from partner 

agencies, organizations, and the public.

The CCP will provide long-term guidance for 

management decisions; support achievement of 

the goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish the purposes of the Bowdoin Refuge and 

the Bowdoin District; and identify the Service’s 

best estimate of future needs. The CCP will detail 

program-planning levels that may be substantially 

above budget allocations and, thus, are primarily for 

strategic planning purposes. The CCP does not constitute a commitment for staff increases, operation 

and maintenance increases, or funding for future 

land acquisitions.
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex

This chapter explains the establishment, management history, purposes, and special values of 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex in 

north-central Montana, along with the proposed 

vision and goals and a discussion of the planning 

issues.

The refuge complex consists of 84,724 acres of 

lands and waters encompassing five refuges—Bowdoin, Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt Lake, 

and Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuges—and 

Bowdoin Wetland Management District. The Service 

is responsible for the protection of 10,635 acres of 

wetland easements, 7,806 acres of refuge and flowage easements, 39,767 acres of grassland easements, 

9,504 acres in fee-title waterfowl production areas, 

and 17,012 acres of refuge lands.

The Bowdoin Refuge Complex spreads across a 

four-county area in north-central Montana, totaling 

17,183 square miles: Blaine County (4,226 square 

miles), Hill County (2,896 square miles), Phillips 

County (5,140 square miles), and Valley County 

(4,921 square miles) (National Association of Counties 2009). The refuge complex headquarters is near 

the town of Malta.

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, 

and Management History

The following section describes the establishment, 

acquisition, and management history of the national 

wildlife refuges and wetland management district 

within the Bowdoin refuge complex. Tables 2 and 3 

at the end of this section summarize the land acquisition history.

Numerous waterfowl and shorebirds use the Lakeside unit of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Bowdoin Refuge’s first entry sign, 1938.

USFWS
20 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Headquarters for the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 2007.

USFWS

Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge

Before becoming a national wildlife refuge, the lands 

within Bowdoin were managed by Reclamation 

(Bureau of Reclamation). Initially these 10,648.92 

acres were reserved from public domain (public land 

placed into permanent reserved status, such as a 

national wildlife refuge, that is not held in private 

ownership).

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt established Bowdoin Migratory Waterfowl Refuge in 

1936, the Bureau of Biological Survey (a precursor 

Refuge headquarters, 1938.

USFWS

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and Reclamation shared jurisdiction.

On November 15, 1940, Executive Order 8592 

changed the refuge name to Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge and added an additional 1,398.16 acres of 

land to the area.

On March 22, 1971, a revocation of reclamation 

withdrawal was filed to give primary jurisdiction to 

the Service. This revocation was approved on February 7, 1972, under Public Land Order 5162. While 

under Reclamation jurisdiction, Lake Bowdoin was 

managed as a sump for irrigation return flows from 

the Milk River Project.

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge lies approximately 7 miles northeast of Malta in the Milk River 

Valley of Phillips County 

and today encompasses 

15,551 acres (figure 5). The 

refuge consists of about 

8,675 acres of freshwater and saline wetlands. 

The remaining upland is 

typical mixed-grass prairie 

with a complex of western 

wheatgrass, needle and 

thread grass, sagebrush, 

and forbs. Greasewood and 

rabbitbrush are common on 

the heavier clay soils. The 

marsh areas are dominated 

by sedges, while excellent 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 21

Figure 5. Base map of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 
22 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

stands of emergent and aquatic vegetation are found 

in the shallow, open-water areas. Plateaus and grassland benches surround the refuge with elevations 

varying from 2,400 to 2,600 feet (Bureau of Sport 

Fisheries and Wildlife 1973).

There are three major wetland types on the 

refuge: (1) 4,187 acres of permanent wetlands; (2) 

1,146 acres of semipermanent wetlands; and (3) 3,342 

acres of seasonal or temporary wetlands. These wetlands are either freshwater or saline. Upland habitats include more than 5,000 acres of native prairie, 

200 acres of DNC (dense nesting cover), 269 acres 

of planted grasses (primarily crested wheatgrass), 

and 850 acres of shrubland or woodland. The remaining acreage is in roads, parking lots, and developed 

areas (figure 6). The refuge serves as an important 

staging and nesting area for migrating waterfowl, 

shorebirds, sandhill cranes, and other migratory 

birds. A variety of refuge habitats are home for resident wildlife such as sharp-tailed grouse, pronghorn, 

and white-tailed deer.

Geologic history indicates that Lake Bowdoin 

was once an oxbow of the preglacial Missouri River 

channel. Today, the Missouri River lies nearly 70 

Donna A. Dewhurst / USFWS

Sandhill cranes nest at Bowdoin Refuge.

miles south of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. 

Historically, Lake Bowdoin acted as a large catch 

basin for precipitation, early spring floods, and runoff events. The lands surrounding the lake were 

native prairie. Lake levels fluctuated from year to 

year, depending on runoff conditions and evaporation during the hot, dry summers.

In the 1800s, Lake Bowdoin was an important 

watering source for trailing cattle herds. Grasslands 

around the lake suffered extensive overgrazing from 

the watering herds, and it was not until the refuge was established in 1936 that the area received 

protection and development for wildlife purposes 

(Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 1973).

After establishment in 1936, an extensive system of dikes, ditches, and water control structures 

were constructed to better manage the available 

water supply. In 1937, the Service negotiated an 

MOA (memorandum of agreement) with Reclamation to receive part of their water right, 3,500 acrefeet, from the Milk River Project. In return, the 

Service contributed $40,000 toward construction of 

the Fresno Reservoir storage facility near Havre, 

Montana. Water is the lifeline between management 

and waterfowl survival and is essential to wildlife 

management at Bowdoin Refuge. During years of 

normal runoff, Reclamation furnishes up to 3,500 

acre-feet of water to the refuge. In years of belownormal runoff, Reclamation agrees to furnish the 

portion of 3,500 acre-feet that the natural conditions 

and Federal reclamation laws permit.

Water diverted to Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge from the Milk River Project is used to manage ponds, lakes, and marshes ranging in size from 

1 acre to 5,459 acres. The diverted water provides 

food and migrating and nesting habitat for migratory birds and wetland-related wildlife, as well as for 

resident wildlife. In addition, delivered water is used 

to attract piping plover (a threatened bird species 

that had used the refuge for nesting in the past) and 

to manage its habitat.

Black Coulee National Wildlife 

Refuge

Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge totals 1,309 

acres (figure 7): 639 acres of lands reserved from 

public domain and 840 acres of privately owned 

lands encumbered by three perpetual refuge and 

flowage easements. In 1982, 185 acres were purchased with Duck Stamp money as a waterfowl production area. The new addition included 170 acres 

of a previous 240-acre flowage easement. This land 

acquisition reduced the easement area to 670 acres.
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 23

Figure 6. Map of habitat types at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

(4,055 ac (acres))

(4,021 ac) (158 ac)

(1,554 ac) (127 ac)

(1,303 ac) (119 ac) (976 ac) (110 ac) (639 ac)

(64 ac) (555 ac)

(390 ac) (50 ac)

(383 ac) (26 ac)

(313 ac) (32 ac)

(269 ac)

CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 25

Figure 7. Base map of Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 

FWS (Fish and 

Wildlife Service)
26 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

The Black Coulee Refuge is located about 10 

miles south of the town of Turner in northeastern 

Blaine County, Montana. The general topography 

of the land is rolling mixed-grass prairie with major 

drainages running in a northeasterly direction.

Black Coulee Reservoir provides water for migratory birds as well as nesting and brood-rearing 

habitat (figure 8). The refuge has a dependable 

water source from the runoff in the west branch of 

Black Coulee drainage, which has a large watershed. 

The area influenced by the dam on the Black Coulee drainage covers about 482 acres. In years when 

extreme runoff is observed, the upper most areas 

influenced by the dam are temporarily inundated by 

water. When average runoff occurs, the reservoir 

provides about 173 acres of wetland habitat.

The wetland total for the Service-owned land is 

211 acres; wetland on the easement-controlled land 

is about 85 acres. Service-owned uplands protect 

428 acres of native prairie. The remaining uplands, 

which are under easement, consist of both cropland 

and land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. Due to fluctuations in grain commodity prices, 

conversion of the Conservation Reserve Program 

land back to cropland has increased in the past several years.

Creedman Coulee National 

Wildlife Refuge

The original Executive order designated 3,040 acres, 

consisting of 80 acres reserved from public domain 

and 2,960 acres of privately owned land encumbered 

by eight refuge and flowage easements (figure 9). 

The 80 acres owned by the Service are located in 

the southwest corner of the Executive boundary 

and contain native prairie habitat. Historical records document two other 

names for this drainage, 

Greedman Coulee or 

Greenman Coulee.

Creedman Coulee is 

in Hill County, about 33 

miles north of Havre, 

Montana. One of the 

primary features of this 

refuge is the 181-acre 

Creedman Reservoir. The 

uplands are a mix of native prairie and agricultural land. The Service 

easements over these 

uplands provide no authority over the surface use, except for hunting and 

trapping. Accurate acreage of the upland habitat 

on these private lands is difficult to estimate because the landowners convert the prairie to other 

uses more suitable to their farm and ranch operation 

needs (figure 10).

When full, Creedman Reservoir attracts migrating waterfowl and provides habitat for hundreds of 

nesting birds. Established trees near the reservoir 

serve as a rookery for great blue herons and doublecrested cormorants.

Water rights to Creedman Reservoir are owned 

by one downstream landowner and the Service. 

Before enlargement of the dam in 1938, Creedman 

Reservoir was usually dry by late June or early 

July, providing little to no nesting and brood-rearing 

habitat for waterfowl. The downstream landowner 

and the Service reached an agreement that would 

benefit both parties. The existing dam height was 

increased, thereby increasing the storage capacity of 

the reservoir. To ensure that water would be available for nesting waterfowl and broods, a gravityflow outlet structure was installed in the dam so 

that water could not be drawn below the elevation 

of 90 feet. Under this arrangement, the downstream 

landowner could still use all the water above this 

elevation for irrigation purposes without the need 

for pumping.

In recent years, natural gas exploration and extraction has increased within the refuge boundary 

and surrounding area. No drilling occurs on the 80-

acre parcel of Service-owned land, but the presence 

of this activity contributes to habitat fragmentation 

and bird disturbance and affecting the aesthetics of 

the prairie portion of the refuge. The mineral rights 

were reserved by the landowner when the easement 

was acquired, and all of this activity is occurring on 

the privately owned refuge and flowage easement 

lands. The Service easements do not prohibit such 

activities.

Double-crested cormorants

nest in groups in trees, 

referred to as rookeries.

Rodney Krey / USFWS

Hewitt Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge

The Executive order that established the Hewitt 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge in 1938 described a 

1,200-acre approved acquisition boundary. The early 

refuge consisted of 400 acres of land reserved from 

public domain and 800 acres under refuge and flowage easements. An additional 160 acres, not included 

in the Executive order boundary, was added to the 

refuge through another easement agreement (tract 

2, dated August 30, 1938), bringing the total number 

of refuge and flowage easements to three.
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 27

Figure 8. Map of habitat types at Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 

(389 ac (acres))

(629 ac)

(478 ac)
28 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Figure 9. Base map of Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 

FWS (Fish and 

Wildlife Service)
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 29

Figure 10. Map of habitat types at Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

(188 ac (acres))

(1,851 ac)

(679 ac)
30 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

In 1959, Secretarial Order 2843 transferred 320 

acres of public land for inclusion into Hewitt Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge, increasing the size to 1,680 

acres. In 1992, an existing 320-acre easement tract 

was purchased with Duck Stamp dollars as a waterfowl production area. The 320-acre Hewitt Lake 

WPA (waterfowl production area) is described in 

the below section on Bowdoin Wetland Management 

District. The current acreage of this limited-interest 

refuge consists of 1,040 acres of refuge lands (including the 320-acre waterfowl production area) and 640 

acres encumbered by easements on private lands 

(figure 11).

The Hewitt Lake Refuge lies in Phillips County, 

about 25 miles northeast of Malta via U.S. Highway 

2 and about 1.5 miles northwest of Nelson Reservoir 

(created by Reclamation). The general topography 

is rolling, mixed-grass prairie with the major drainage running in an easterly direction. Hewitt Lake 

is located a short distance from the Milk River. The 

lake, enhanced by an earthen dam, creates a shallow 492-acre seasonal wetland. There are about 234 

acres of wetland habitat on the Service-owned lands 

and another 156 wetland acres on private lands that 

are protected by Service easements. When the lake 

is full, it attracts migratory birds in the spring.

The uplands on both Service and private lands 

are primarily native prairie habitat (figure 12). The 

Hewitt Lake Refuge has one of two known blacktailed prairie dog towns in the refuge complex. Burrowing owls and mountain plovers have been known 

to nest within the prairie dog town. The uplands are 

also used by upland-nesting birds such as long-billed 

curlew, Sprague’s pipit, and waterfowl.

Natural gas exploration and extraction occurs 

within the refuge boundary and surrounding area, 

contributing to habitat fragmentation and bird disturbance and affecting the aesthetics of this prairie 

refuge. The refuge contains a large gas field in which 

the Federal Government owns much of the mineral 

rights. The Executive order establishing the refuge 

permitted oil and gas leasing. Specifically, the Executive order noted that the refuge land was within 

the known geologic structure of a producing gas field 

and stated that, “nothing should affect the disposition of its oil and gas deposits under the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920.” In addition, at the time it was 

established, Interior regulations did not prohibit oil 

and gas leasing on refuge lands (General Accounting 

Office 2001).

Hewitt Lake is an important refuge for white-faced ibis (foreground) and many other waterbird species.

James Graham / USFWS
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 31

Figure 11. Base map of Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 

FWS (Fish and 

Wildlife Service)
32 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Figure 12. Map of habitat types at Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 

(520 ac (acres))

(1,158 ac)
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 33

Lake Thibadeau National 

Wildlife Refuge

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1937, encompasses 3,868.48 acres: 19.42 

acres reserved from public domain (originally by the 

Bureau of Land Management) and 3,849.06 acres 

encumbered by 13 refuge and flowage easements 

(figure 13).

The Lake Thibadeau Refuge is located about 15 

miles north of the city Havre in central Hill County. 

The four main water units of this limited-interest 

refuge are Thibadeau Diversion Dam (16.4 acres), 

Lake Thibadeau (120.7 acres), Grassy Lake (152.4 

acres), and Mud Lake (100 acres). These large wetland basins are surrounded mostly by cropland and 

very little native prairie. When established as a refuge in 1937, there were only 480 acres of prairie left 

within the refuge boundary. Over the last 70 years, 

there has been additional conversion of the native 

prairie to cropland, resulting in a loss of about 140 

acres of prairie. Current cropland totals about 3,139 

acres (figure 14).

Of the four refuge wetlands, only Mud Lake 

and the diversion unit hold any significant amounts 

of water. The diversion dam diverts waters from 

Lehman Coulee. An unnamed drainage flows from 

the north and east into Mud Lake; when Mud Lake 

reaches capacity it overflows into Grassy Lake. Water development projects in these two drainages 

have significantly affected the watershed above 

these wetland units. Lake Thibadeau and Grassy 

Lake are farmed every season, and Mud Lake is 

farmed in most years. The refuge and flowage easement does not give the Service any rights to control the uses of these uplands, including farming 

activities, except for the control of hunting. Lake 

Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge provides only 

marginal waterfowl habitat, except during the wettest years. Intensive agriculture in the area is probably contributing pesticides and fertilizers to the 

wetlands. There is no public access to this refuge.

Natural gas exploration and extraction occurs 

within the refuge boundary and surrounding area. 

All of this activity occurs on the private land portions within the refuge boundary. The refuge and 

flowage easements do not prohibit these activities 

on the uplands. The Service controls only hunting on 

the uplands.

Bowdoin Wetland Management 

District

The Bowdoin Wetland Management District, established in 1973, is spread over a four-county area consisting of Blaine, Hill, Phillips, and Valley counties in 

north-central Montana (figure 15). 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 retains control of 

all public access

■ Perpetual grassland easements, which protect 

privately owned rangeland and hayland from conversion to cropland, and the landowner retains 

control of all public access

■ Perpetual FmHA (Farmers Home Administration) conservation easements to help farmers 

reduce their debt load on farmland and protect 

wetlands and grasslands

More than a million acres of potholes in the prairie 

States were drained between 1943 and 1961 (Briggs 

1964). The Prairie Pothole Region once produced 

up to 15 million ducks each year but now produces 

about one-third that amount. This loss of habitat is 

the main reason for the reduced production (Belrose 

1976). Other causes include the destruction of upland nest cover by the cultivation of land adjacent 

to wetlands and sloughs (Belrose 1976). These two 

significant factors led to conservation movements 

by citizens and pressure from waterfowl-hunting 

interests to reverse the loss of wetland habitat. In 

response to this pressure, the Service issued Duck 

Stamps to fund a program of wetland acquisition and 

the purchase of conservation easements (van der 

Valk 1989).

Waterfowl production areas and easements are 

purchased from willing sellers through the Small 

Wetlands Acquisition Program authorized by Congress in 1958—an amendment to the Migratory 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934. 
34 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Figure 13. Base map of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

FWS (Fish and 

Wildlife Service)
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 35

Figure 14. Map of habitat types at Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

(453 ac (acres))

(521 ac)

(3,083 ac)
36 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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 ensure the long-term protection of breeding habitat, 

primarily within the 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; farming 

and reseeding of former cropland; and rest from crop 

production. These areas are open to hunting (with 

the exception of the Holm WPA), fishing, and trapping according to State seasons. Hunting opportunities attract hunters from across the United States 

and Canada.

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 controls public access. Since 1962 when 

the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program began, 

the Service has acquired a perpetual, real-property 

interest in more than two million wetland acres for 

waterfowl production in the Great Plains States, 

which include Montana.

Conversion of grassland to cropland has generated a need for protection of upland habitat adjacent to wetlands. The loss of upland-nesting cover 

and plant foods 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) maintain uplandnesting habitat for ground-nesting birds, (3) protect 

highly erodible soils, and (4) provide an alternative 

to the purchase of uplands in fee title, leaving land 

in private ownership. Grassland easements are realproperty interests that the Service buys from willing landowners to prohibit a loss of grassland cover 

from cropland conversion, development, or other 

causes. This agreement also protects nesting birds 

by prohibiting haying or mowing until after July 

15. The land remains in private ownership. Grazing 

is not prohibited or regulated under the grassland 

easement. Funding for grassland easements comes 

from a variety of sources including the Migratory 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (with 

Governor approval), North American Wetland Conservation Act grants, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

FmHA conservation easements were developed 

by 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 (“inventories” properties). The Service 

was designated as the easement manager on those 

easements worthy of inclusion into the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

As of December 1, 2009, the Bowdoin Wetland 

Management District included nine waterfowl production areas totaling 9,504 acres: Beaver Creek, 

Black Coulee, Dyrdahl, Hewitt Lake, Holm, Korsbeck, McNeil Slough, Pearce, and Webb WPAs. Major habitat types on these areas follow: 1,390.8 acres 

of freshwater wetlands, 4,103.91 acres of native prairie, and 4,008.91 acres of prior cropland.

■ Beaver Creek WPA: Located about 3 miles east 

of the Bowdoin Refuge, the waterfowl production 

area was purchased in 1992 and added two new 

tracts in 2000 and 2003. This 2,125.8-acre area 

consists of wetlands (325.3 acres), riparian areas 

(35.9 acres), DNC (1,504.5 acres), and native prairie (260.1 acres).

■ Black Coulee WPA: This 184.8-acre area, acquired in 1982, has 49.2 acres of wetland and 

135.6 acres of native prairie. This waterfowl production area lies within the Executive boundary 

of the Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge.

■ Dyrdahl WPA: Acquired in 1985, this waterfowl 

production area is 8 miles northwest of Loring 

in Phillips County, Montana. The 1,327.17-acre 

area consists of wetland (140.2 acres), DNC (800 

acres), and native grassland (386.97 acres).

■ Hewitt Lake WPA: Of this waterfowl production 

area’s 320 acres (bought in 1992), 120.6 acres are 

wetland and 199.4 acres are native prairie. The 

area is within the Executive boundary of Hewitt 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

■ Holm WPA: This waterfowl production area was 

the first to be acquired, in 1977, and is the only 

waterfowl production area in the district that is 

closed to hunting. The property was sold to the 

Service by the three Holm brothers who wished 

to have their farm (located north of Chinook) preserved as a sanctuary for Canada geese. Habitat 

types on this 2,250.46-acre follow: 245.7 acres 

of wetlands (natural, constructed or enhanced, 

and prairie stream), DNC (332 acres), and native 

prairie (1,672.76 acres).
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 37

Figure 15. Map of conservation easements and waterfowl production areas in Bowdoin Wetland Management District, Montana.

(Farmers Home Administration)

CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 39

■ Korsbeck WPA: Acquired in 1990, this waterfowl production area is 12 miles south of Dodson 

in Phillips County, Montana. The 1,041.15-acre 

unit consists of wetlands (203.2 acres), DNC (440 

acres), and native prairie (397.95 acres). The Service also holds a State of Montana grazing lease 

on 320 acres of native prairie, which is managed 

as part of the waterfowl production area.

■ McNeil Slough WPA: The most recent purchase 

in the wetland management district was in May 

of 2008 when an inholding (139.52 acres) on McNeil Slough WPA was acquired. These acres 

were added to the lands acquired in 1992, for a 

total size of 1,339.18 acres. The Milk River borders this waterfowl production area for 4 miles 

along its north boundary. It is also bordered by 

Big McNeil Slough to the south and Hewitt Lake 

Refuge to the west. The habitat types found on 

this area are wetland (118.6 acres), DNC (602.52 

acres), and native grassland (618.06 acres).

■ Pearce WPA: Purchased in 1977, this waterfowl 

production area is adjacent to the northeastern 

boundary of Bowdoin Refuge. The 438.47-acre 

unit contains wetland (84.4 acres), DNC (132 

acres) and native grasslands (222.07 acres).

Dyrdahl Waterfowl Production Area consists of wetland, dense nesting cover, and native grassland.

USFWS

■ Webb WPA: This waterfowl production area is 

1 mile north of Dyrdahl WPA and was acquired 

in 1978. The 476.59-acre area contains wetlands 

(67.7 acres), DNC (197.89 acres), and native prairie (211 acres).

The remaining wetland management district includes 125 perpetual wetland easements, 33 perpetual grassland easements, a 6-acre perpetual flowage 

easement, 4 perpetual FmHA conservation easements—totaling 958 acres—and a State of Montana 

grazing lease. As of 2009, the district’s easement 

program has protected 10,635.4 acres of wetland and 

39,766.6 acres of grassland. These easement acres 

change frequently depending on priorities in the 

Service’s Mountain–Prairie Region (Region 6) and 

the availability of funding from the North American 

Wetland Conservation Act grants and the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Fund.

Summary of Land Acquisition 

History

Tables 2 and 3 summarize the above-detailed history of land acquisition for the five refuges and one 

district in the Bowdoin Refuge Complex.
40 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 2. Land acquisition history for refuges in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana (1937–89).

National wildlife refuge Acres County Date acquired Tract number Means of acquisition

Black Coulee 108.88

240

320

640

Blaine

Blaine

Blaine

Blaine

05/18/1937 

06/18/1937

06/18/1937

01/28/1938

5M

3M

4M

1

Easement

Easement

Easement

Primary withdrawal

Bowdoin 11,937.08

640

115.39

2,859.5

Phillips

Phillips

Phillips

Phillips

02/14/1936

06/23/1937

1937–59

09/20/1989

1

2

Various

1g

Primary withdrawal

Primary transfer

Donations

Primary withdrawal

Creedman Coulee 8

160

560

120

600

480

640

80

80

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

05/29/1937

05/25/1937

11/15/1937

11/16/1937

11/17/1937

08/15/1938

12/10/1938

03/08/1939

10/25/1941

5F

6F

8F

9F

7F

4F

3F

3F–1

1

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Primary withdrawal

Hewitt Lake 320

320.49

160.43

400

160

Phillips

Phillips

Phillips

Phillips

Phillips

04/09/1937

07/03/1937

08/03/1937

03/07/1938

08/30/1938

3F–1

500bn

3F

1

2F

Easement

Primary transfer

Easement

Secondary withdrawal

Easement

Lake Thibadeau 240.14

160.15

320.68

320

546.86

153.54

318.4

309.06

19.42

160

320

640.23

40

320

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

04/03/1937

04/10/1937

04/12/1937

04/12/1937

04/12/1937

04/13/1937

04/14/1937

04/19/1937

09/23/1937

03/23/1938

03/29/1938

04/04/1938

04/06/1938

12/10/1938

4F

5F

6F

7F

10F

11F

12F

9F

1

13F

14F

15Fa

8F

3F

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Primary withdrawal

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Total 24,817.28
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 41

Table 3. Land acquisition history for Bowdoin Wetland Management District (1977–2008).

Waterfowl production area Acres County Date acquired Tract number

Holm 2,250.46 Blaine 04/19/1977 10

Pearce 438.47 Phillips 04/22/1977 10

Webb

Addition–1

316.59

160

Phillips

Phillips

08/01/1978

04/27/1979

48

20

Black Coulee1 184.8 Blaine 05/24/1982 35

Dyrdahl

Addition–1

765.35

561.82

Phillips

Phillips

07/12/1985

10/02/1989

27

76

Korsbeck 1041.15 Phillips 01/03/1990 75

McNeil

Burgess Addition

1,199.66

139.52

Phillips

Phillips

01/10/1992

05/02/2008

77

106

Hewitt Lake2 320 Phillips 01/10/1992 77

Beaver Creek

Masters Addition

Copple Addition3

560

965.8

600

Phillips

Phillips

Phillips

01/10/1992

08/18/2000

02/20/2003

77

86

90

Total 9,503.62

1 Part of Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge.

2 Part of Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

3 51 acres donated.

2.2 Purposes

Every national wildlife refuge and wetland management district has a purpose for which it was established. This purpose is the foundation on which to 

build all refuge and district 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 and district 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 7) 

are intended to support the individual purposes for 

which each refuge or district was established.

Four of the refuges within this refuge complex 

are encumbered by refuge and flowage easements 

acquired on private lands in the late-1930s. All but 

one are perpetual. The Executive order or legislative purposes only apply when the Service buys the 

easement lands. Until that time, the only purpose 

for that area is the language found in the refuge or 

flowage easement.

Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge

The purposes of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge are:

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife [...] and that such part 

of said lands as the Secretary of Agriculture may 

deem proper be reserved for use as a shooting 

area to be operated under a cooperative agreement or lease with the Montana State Game 

Commission or such other operating agency as 

may be approved. The reservation of these lands 

as a migratory waterfowl refuge is subject to the 

use thereof by [the Department of the Interior] 

for irrigation and other incidental purposes.” 

(Executive Order 7295, February 14, 1936)

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife [...] subject to their use 

pursuant to the reclamation laws, and for the 

purpose of oil and gas development [...] and for 

purposes incidental thereto.” (Executive Order 

8592, November 12, 1940)

■ For “any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
42 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Black Coulee National Wildlife 

Refuge

The purposes of the Black Coulee National Wildlife 

Refuge are:

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes, [...] wildlife conservation demonstration 

unit and closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds and other wildlife.” (Three refuge and 

flowage easement agreements, 1937–38)

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.” (Executive Order 7801, 

January 28, 1938)

Creedman Coulee National 

Wildlife Refuge

The purposes of the Creedman Coulee National 

Wildlife Refuge are:

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes, [...] wildlife conservation demonstration 

unit and closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds and other wildlife.” (Eight refuge 

and refuge and flowage easement agreements, 

1937–39)

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.” (Executive Order 8924, 

October 25, 1941)

Hewitt Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge

The purposes of the Hewitt Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge are:

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, flood 

control, stock water, migratory waterfowl and 

wildlife conservation purposes, [...] and operate 

and maintain a closed refuge for migratory birds 

and other wildlife.” (Revocable easement signed 

August 30, 1938; section 16 land [State-owned 

lands set aside for schools])

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes, [...] wildlife conservation demonstration 

unit and closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds and other wildlife.” (Two refuge 

and refuge and flowage easement agreements, 

1937–38)

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife [...] nothing herein shall 

affect the disposition of the oil and gas deposits therein.” (Executive Order 7833, March 7, 

1938, applies to easements within the Executive 

boundary only when purchased)

■ For “purposes of a land conservation and land 

utilization program.” (Bankhead–Jones Farm 

Tenant Act)

■ For “use and administration under applicable 

laws as refuges for migratory birds and other 

wildlife.” (Secretarial Order 2843, November 17, 

1959)

Lake Thibadeau National 

Wildlife Refuge

The purposes of the Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge are:

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes, [...] wildlife conservation demonstration 

unit and closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds and other wildlife.” (13 refuge and 

flowage easement agreements, 1937–38)

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.” (Executive Order 7713, 

September 23, 1937)

Bowdoin Wetland Management 

District

The purposes of the Bowdoin Wetland Management 

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)
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 43

2.3 Vision

A vision is a concept, including desired conditions 

for the future, that describes the essence of what 

the Service is trying to accomplish. The following 

vision for the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex is a future-oriented statement designed 

to be achieved through refuge and district management throughout the life of this CCP and beyond.

Under seemingly limitless skies, Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

provides vast expanses of gently rolling 

native mixed-grass prairie, dotted with an 

array of diverse wetlands.

Recognized as one of the most 

important migratory bird refuges in 

the State of Montana, these habitats are 

managed to ensure that grassland- and 

wetland-dependent waterfowl, shorebirds, 

songbirds, and native wildlife 

species thrive.

Visitors recognize these unique and 

wondrous qualities and experience a sense 

of solitude and a connection to the land 

that fosters a desire to conserve 

this and other remnants of the 

northern Great Plains.

2.4 Goals

The Service developed a set of goals for the refuge 

based on the National Wildlife Refuge System 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 and outline approaches for managing refuge 

resources. The Service established five goals for the 

entire refuge complex.

Goal for Upland Habitat and 

Associated Wildlife

Protect, enhance, and restore grassland habitat for 

breeding and migratory birds and other wildlife 

while maintaining the biological diversity and integrity of native prairie grasslands.

Goal for Wetland Habitat and 

Associated Wildlife

Provide, protect, and manage wetland habitat for 

breeding and migratory birds and other wildlife that 

maintains the biological diversity and integrity of 

prairie pothole wetlands.

Goal for Visitor Services

Provide visitors of all abilities with wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and environmental 

education opportunities that foster an appreciation 

and understanding of the unique wildlife, plant communities, and cultural resources of the Montana 

Prairie Pothole Region.

Goal for Partnerships

Maintain and expand partnerships that preserve, 

restore, and enhance healthy and productive prairiewetland complexes on Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge and within Bowdoin Wetland Management 

District.

Goal for Operations

Prioritize for wildlife first and emphasize the protection of trust resources in the use of staff, funding, 

partnerships, and volunteer programs.
44 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

2.5 Special Values

Early in the planning process, the planning team and 

public identified the outstanding qualities or special values of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. These special values are characteristics 

and features of the refuge complex that make it special, valuable for wildlife, and worthy of refuge status. It was important to identify the special values 

of the refuge complex to recognize its worth and to 

ensure they are 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 Bowdoin National Wildlife 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 waterfowl 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).

Migratory Birds

The lands of the refuge complex were established 

to protect and provide habitat for migratory birds, 

especially waterfowl, that cross State lines and international borders and are by law a Federal trust 

responsibility.

The refuge complex is located primarily in the 

central flyway (figure 16). This makes Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex an acutely important 

and strategic stopover point for migratory birds 

during spring and fall migrations and as resting, 

feeding, and nesting habitat.

In eastern Montana, there are very few natural wetlands the size of Lake Bowdoin (including 

the surrounding array of wetland complexes) with 

the necessary food and habitat resources for ducks, 

shorebirds, and other waterbirds. Most importantly, 

the refuge complex—located in the Prairie Pothole 

Region in north-central and northeastern Montana—has very high duck-nesting success.

The Bowdoin Refuge Complex is of such great 

value to waterfowl and shorebirds, as well as other 

migrating waterbird species, because of its diversity 

of wetland and upland habitats that provide for the 

diverse life cycle requirements of these species. In 

addition, the refuge complex serves as a valuable 

research site for the study of migratory birds, plant 

communities, and grassland and wetland management.

Prairie Pothole Region

The refuge complex is within the Prairie Pothole 

Region, which the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

Canadian Wildlife Service 1986) identifies as the 

number one priority geographical conservation area 

in North America.

Furthermore, the refuge complex is within the 

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture, which is a collaboration between agriculture groups, conservationists, 

and other partners to protect wetlands, waterfowl, 

and other wildlife. In Montana, the Prairie Pothole 

Joint Venture works in 21 counties (including the 4 

counties in the refuge complex) that cover more than 

60,500 square miles. Within this region, 27 percent of 

the wetlands and 50 percent of the grasslands have 

already been lost to drainage and conversion (Ducks 

Unlimited 2003).

Wetlands of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex provide habitat for a large variety of 

plants and animals including the threatened piping 

plover. The primary attractant is the availability of 

suitable habitat for food and reproduction. These 

wetlands are very important as areas of great biodiversity and biological productivity.

Early accounts of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge note its significance to waterfowl and hunters: 

“Lake Bowdoin, Montana’s most important collective 

breeding-ground for waterfowl. Famed throughout 

eastern and central Montana since pioneer days as 

a hunting-ground [...] Lake Bowdoin under Federal supervision should be even more important as a 

breeding and feeding area for waterbirds than it has 

been in the past” (Weydemeyer and Marsh 1936).

At least 300 of the more than 800 migratory bird 

species in North America rely on the Prairie Pothole 

Region for breeding and nesting habitat during the 

spring and summer and feeding and resting habitat 

during spring and fall migrations (Ducks Unlimited 

2003). More than 260 species of birds depend on the 

refuge complex for their life cycle requirements.
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 45

Special Designations

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge has been designated as part of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird 

Reserve Network, an organization that monitors 

and protects key shorebird areas throughout the 

hemisphere. To be selected, an area must host a minimum of 20,000 shorebirds during migration.

In March 2001, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

was designated as a Globally Important Bird Area 

by the American Bird Conservancy (now managed 

by the National Audubon Society). The refuge was 

noted for its high value for the conservation of birds 

and bird habitats.

Figure 16. Map of waterfowl flyways in North America.

Native Prairie

Large, intact native prairie communities can still be 

found throughout the refuge complex. This is important, because 50 percent of native grasslands have 

been lost in the Prairie Pothole Region of Montana 

(Ducks Unlimited 2003). Visitors to the area can 

experience the vastness and big sky of relatively 

undisturbed prairie landscapes. Native prairie areas 

are important to grassland-dependent species such 

as black-tailed prairie dog and mountain plover, as 

well as other species of concern such as northern 

pintail, burrowing owl, and swift fox. These wildlife 

species favor large expanses of native prairie and 

are sensitive to its development and conversion to 

agricultural uses.
46 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Conservation Easements

The refuge complex’s conservation easement program protects existing native prairie areas and 

wetlands in perpetuity through the acquisition of 

grassland and wetland conservation easement on 

private lands as well as through fee-title areas called 

waterfowl production areas. Since April 14, 1977, the 

Service and surrounding landowners have protected 

more than 60,000 grassland and wetland acres.

Cultural History

The Bowdoin 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, approximately 70 miles south of 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, and parts of the 

Milk River.

Public Use

The refuge complex is valued by hunters for its quality 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. 

Employment and nonsalary refuge expenditures 

(maintenance and operations) greatly benefit the 

local community, county, and State in the form of income, jobs, taxes, and personal spending. In Phillips 

County, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge’s annual 

budget in 2004 generated $806,700 in economic output, 8.6 jobs, $411,600 in job income, and $163,500 in 

taxes (Caudill and Henderson 2005).

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 the National 

Environmental Policy Act. A public meeting, news 

releases in the local and regional press, a presentation to the Malta Chamber of Commerce, 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. These key issues are 

summarized below.

Upland Habitat and Associated 

Wildlife

The refuge complex has outstanding ecological features and vegetation communities (previous figures 

6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 15) that should be conserved, 

particularly unique landforms such as the prairie 

potholes and the large expanses of native prairie. 

The prairie is considered native where the sod is unbroken and the soil composition is generally intact. 

Nonnative and invasive plant species may become 

established in these areas, but some native plants 

and a native seed source may still persist.

The refuge complex’s primary purpose is to provide optimal habitat conditions for migratory birds 

and, to a lesser extent, the native resident wildlife. 

To achieve goals and objectives, aggressive management of upland habitat, including use of prescribed 

fire and treatment of invasive species, has been conducted. In addition to native prairie areas, the refuge complex also includes previously farmed uplands 

that have since been converted to various mixes of 

tame and native grasses.

Historically, the northern Great Plains was a 

grassland-dominated system where fire and native 

grazers restricted natural tree growth to riparian 

floodplains, wooded draws, islands within lakes, and 

small patches downwind of wetland edges (Higgins 

1986). These large expanses of treeless prairies have 

been fragmented by cropland, shelterbelts, and human settlement. Grassland bird populations are declining faster and more consistently than any other 

group of North American birds (Samson and Knopf 

1994) due to habitat fragmentation and loss of native 

grasslands. A growing body of literature indicates 

that trees in prairie landscapes, such as the nonnative Russian olive trees found throughout Bowdoin 

Refuge, are often associated with negative consequences to numerous bird groups including ducks 

(Rumble and Flake 1983, Gazda et al. 2002), wetlanddependent birds (Naugle et al. 1999), prairie grouse 

(Hanowski et al. 2000, Niemuth 2000, Grant et al. 

2004), and even ring-necked pheasants (Snyder 1984, 

Schmitz and Clark 1999). These fragmented grasslands make it easier for predators to successfully 

locate and capture vulnerable birds, including their 

nests and young. The nonnative trees also serve as 

perches for these predators to successfully survey 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 47

these fragmented grasslands while hunting, increasing their success. Habitat loss and fragmentation 

has been one of the greatest threats to declining 

grassland-dependent birds.

Loss of Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks

A “lek” or “dancing ground” is an area used by the 

males of species like sharp-tailed grouse and greater 

sage-grouse to attract females for mating. A lek 

consists of bare, grassy, or sparse shrubland. Males 

select hilltops, ridges, or any place with a good field 

of view for leks, so they can see the surrounding 

displaying males, approaching females, and predators (Johnsgard 2002, Manske and Barker 1987, Sisson 1969). The same leks may be used year after 

year and may be active for decades if not destroyed 

by cultivation, invasion of dense woody vegetation, 

or tree planting. Males commonly roost overnight 

near the lek and, before sunrise, will move to the lek 

and display (strut). This will continue for a couple of 

hours following sunrise from March through May.

There have been nine documented sharp-tailed 

grouse leks on Bowdoin Refuge; however, the most 

leks used by sharp-tailed grouse in any one year 

was seven. Use of leks on consecutive years ranged 

from as many as 18 years to as few as 2 years. Since 

1984, the number of leks on the refuge has continued 

to steadily decline from nine known sites to one lek, 

and in more recent years none.

Research supports the current theory that the 

loss of these leks on Bowdoin Refuge is a direct result of the encroachment of trees and woody plants 

near sharp-tailed grouse leks.

■ Gregg (1987) and Prose (1987) showed preferred 

lek sites by sharp-tailed grouse are characterized by low, sparse vegetation and that an excess 

of woody cover within 2,625 feet of the lek site 

(well over half a mile), has a negative effect on 

the number of dancing males.

■ Berger and Baydack (1992) examined 21 years 

(1965–86) of aerial photographs of habitat around 

prairie sharp-tailed grouse leks; they found 

that leks were abandoned when aspen forest increased beyond 56 percent and prairie fell below 

15 percent of the total area within 0.6 mile of the 

lek. In 1976, at least 12 leks existed within their 

study area, but by 1986 only 5 remained.

■ Moyeles (1981) and Swenson (1985) both concluded that the invasion of woody vegetation and 

trees into leks also caused displaying males to 

abandon the leks. Moyles (1981) observed an inverse relationship of lek attendance by males 

with an increase in quaking aspen within 0.5 mile 

of leks in the parklands of Alberta, Canada.

■ A study by Hanowski et al. (2000) showed that 

active sharp-tailed grouse leks had significantly 

lower proportions of upland forest and brush 

cover types and higher percentages of native 

grasses than inactive leks in Minnesota. They 

also noted sharp-tailed grouse were sensitive to 

even small increases in the amount of woody vegetation and that the reduction in the population 

on their study area appeared to be associated 

with the loss of prairie habitat.

Despite the decline of the number of leks on Bowdoin Refuge, sharp-tailed grouse are observed on 

lands surrounding the refuge during the mating season and throughout the year. Sharp-tailed grouse 

use the refuge in the fall and winter months for feeding and roosting.

A male sharp-tailed grouse performs a courtship display 

at a lek.

USFWS

Wetland Management at 

Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge

Bowdoin Refuge relies on runoff, precipitation, and 

delivered water from the Milk River to supply the 

water needed to manage refuge wetlands. The quantity of water received is dependent on both weather 

and the availability of water from the Milk River 

and, at times, irrigation water from the Milk River 

Project. The semiarid climate of this region provides 

just over 12 inches of precipitation annually and an 

annual evaporation rate of more than 2 feet. Subsequently, the refuge is more reliant most years on 

delivered water from the Malta Irrigation District.

Through an MOA, Reclamation allows the refuge 

to use its allotted water supply of 3,500 acre-feet 
48 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

from the Milk River, which is delivered to the refuge 

by the Dodson South Canal. The Service pays an operations and maintenance fee to the Malta Irrigation 

District for every acre-foot of water delivered to the 

refuge. During drought years or low-water years 

when there is insufficient water to meet the needs of 

all users, the refuge water supply is reduced along 

with that of all other irrigators. Nevertheless, the 

original purpose of the Milk River Project was for 

irrigation, and many people consider any irrigation 

water used for wildlife purposes as secondary to irrigation purposes.

In some years, the refuge receives only the 3,500 

acre-feet, and only if sufficient water is available to 

all irrigators. This minimal water supply is insufficient to properly manage all wetlands as well as 

manage the refuge’s salinity problem. For example, 

Piping Plover Pond, a wetland developed specifically for the threatened piping plover, is unable to be 

flooded in most years. With the current water transfer system, the wetlands in line before Piping Plover 

Pond must be sufficiently flooded before transferring 

water to this wetland. This pond remains dry and 

unavailable as nesting habitat for the plover in many 

years because of the refuge’s limited water supply.

The preferred period to deliver water to provide 

wetland habitat is in the early spring and before the 

arrival of waterbirds. In some years, it is necessary 

to deliver water to wetland units during late summer (at the end of the irrigation season and when 

the chance for a botulism outbreak is minimal) to 

provide migration habitat for the following spring 

and also to provide waterfowl-hunting opportunities 

on Lake Bowdoin and Drumbo Pond during the fall. 

Although this is not the preferred method to manage 

refuge wetlands, the Service bases its decision on 

climate conditions at the time, weather forecasts for 

the following season, and the possibility that there 

may be very little or no water available to provide 

wetland habitat the following spring.

Water is moved through the refuge using a series 

of canals and water control structures. The refuge 

attempts to mimic natural wetland cycles—flooding during the spring and drying throughout the 

summer—to provide quality habitat for nesting and 

migratory waterbirds and other wetland-dependent 

wildlife. However, on average, the refuge is unable 

to flood and properly manage all its wetlands using 

its annual water supply alone.

In wetter years, additional water may be available for purchase from the Malta Irrigation District 

over the 3,500 acre-feet. The refuge does pay for this 

added water supply, but with static budgets, it is becoming very difficult to get the necessary money to 

acquire the added water needed to properly manage 

wetland habitat.

Lake Bowdoin Salinity 

Concentrations

The most significant issue addressed through this 

planning process was the salinity problem in Lake 

Bowdoin. “Chapter 6–Analysis of Salinity,” goes 

into greater detail about this situation including the 

causes and effects of the increased salinity.

Several factors contribute to increased salinity 

levels in Lake Bowdoin—climate, geology, sources of 

water, development of surrounding lands, and infrastructure of the refuge. These factors, summarized 

below, prevent natural flooding and have created a 

closed basin:

■ Climate—The high evaporation loss due to a 

harsh, semiarid climate concentrates salts in the 

water.

■ Geology—There are naturally occurring soluble 

salts in the soil.

■ Water—Water sources for the lake contain salts.

■ Development—The railroad, constructed in 1887, 

intercepts the natural flow of floodwater from 

Beaver Creek, keeping the water from entering 

the refuge. The Dodson South Canal prevents 

natural runoff from entering the refuge. Surrounding lands have been converted to irrigated 

farmland and used for dryland farming.

■ Refuge Infrastructure—Roads, dikes, and water 

control structures along Lake Bowdoin and Dry 

Lake were constructed by the Service to hold 

more water. Lake Bowdoin has been converted 

from a flow-through basin to a closed basin.

If no action is taken to improve water quality on 

the refuge, the progressively increasing salinity 

levels in Lake Bowdoin and the blowing salts out of 

Dry Lake will continue to threaten migratory birds, 

other wildlife, wetland habitats, and, potentially, 

neighboring landowners and downstream irrigators.

Water Resources within 

Bowdoin Wetland Management 

District

In the wetland management district, the Korsbeck 

and Holm WPAs and all of the satellite refuges have 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 49

reservoirs that rely on the runoff from precipitation events to fill and maintain the wetlands. Since 

establishment of the satellite refuges in the 1930s, 

there has been extensive water development in the 

watersheds. Runoff is being captured or diverted up 

stream of these wetlands. This water once sustained 

the wetlands. This has resulted in a decrease in the 

amount of waterbird habitat on these refuges and 

waterfowl production areas, changing them from 

semipermanent to seasonal wetland habitat.

The Service uses irrigation water rights acquired 

with the land purchase for the Pearce, Beaver 

Creek, and McNeil Slough WPAs. The water is used 

to provide waterfowl habitat during spring and fall 

migration. Landowners surrounding these waterfowl production areas have expressed concern about 

the Service’s use of irrigation water for wildlife, but 

the State of Montana recognizes benefits to wildlife 

as a beneficial use of the water.

Beaver Creek WPA is the only unit that requires 

monitoring of the salinity levels of water that is used 

in filling wetland units. The preferred time to exercise the Service’s water rights is during spring runoff when water quality is at its best. Filling wetlands 

at any other time of the year requires monitoring, 

and the water is not used if elevated salt levels are 

recorded.

Riparian Habitat and 

Associated Wildlife

Riparian habitat is the green area next to streams, 

rivers, and lakes. Riparian areas are identified 

by the presence of vegetation that requires large 

amounts of water. Within the refuge complex, this 

habitat occurs along Beaver Creek, which borders 

the east boundary of Beaver Creek WPA, and the 

Milk River, which borders the north boundary of 

McNeil Slough WPA. Beaver Creek is dominated 

by grasses, shrubs, and willows. The Milk River is 

dominated by cottonwoods and willows. Cottonwood 

trees are dependent on stream and riverine processes for regeneration.

Riparian habitat serves many functions including 

filtering sediments and nutrients, building streambanks, storing water, recharging aquifers, providing 

fish and wildlife habitat, and dissipating stream energy. Riparian habitats are important to a diversity 

of species such as neotropical birds, fish, reptiles, 

invertebrates, and mammals for feeding, nesting, 

escape cover, and breeding. Riparian areas provide 

economic and recreational benefits as well.

Threats to riparian areas are invasive plants, 

streambank erosion, and lack of cottonwood regeneration.

Wildlife Disease

Several wildlife diseases are of concern within the 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex either 

due to a history of occurrence or a concern that the 

disease could spread to the immediate area in the 

near future. Most of these diseases have been well 

documented on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

but have been absent or only noted incidentally 

throughout the rest of the refuge complex. The diseases that have had the most impact on wildlife species in the refuge complex are avian botulism, West 

Nile virus, and epizootic hemorrhagic disease. Little 

or nothing can be done to control the spread of most 

wildlife diseases, but all employees are required to 

review the refuge complex’s Disease Contingency 

Plan so they are aware of the possible risks of handling sick or dead animals.

Avian botulism has been documented almost every year since Bowdoin Refuge was established in 

1936, with losses of less than 100 birds and up to as 

many as 20,000 birds. The disease is left to run its 

course naturally, although water management is 

still used to help minimize attracting birds into an 

affected area.

West Nile virus was first documented in the surrounding area in 2003. Although a variety of migratory birds, especially young pelicans, are susceptible 

to this disease, the biggest concern is for the human 

population. Service staff is provided with training 

and materials to avoid mosquito bites as much as 

possible. Nevertheless, in 2008, a seasonal employee 

was diagnosed with spinal meningitis brought on by 

West Nile virus.

Epizootic hemorrhagic disease has killed both 

white-tailed deer and pronghorn throughout the 

refuge complex. The disease is not contagious from 

one animal to another, and it is not transferable to 

humans. The last significant outbreak was in the 

summer of 2001, when the disease swept through 

much of the Milk River watershed, killing at least 26 

deer and 5 pronghorn within the refuge complex. It 

occurs in the driest part of the year when conditions 

are just right for biting gnats, the carriers of the 

disease. The disease is fatal, because these animals 

become emaciated after they stop eating due to illness. At present, there is little that can be done to 

prevent or control this disease.

Piping Plover

Approximately 3,325 acres of Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge has been designated as critical 

habitat for the Great Plains population of piping 

plover, federally listed as threatened (figure 17). 
50 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Figure 17. Map of critical habitat for piping plover at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 51

However, since 2000, there have been no known piping plover nests on Bowdoin Refuge, primarily due 

to insufficient water supplies necessary to create 

attractive nesting habitat. Through partnerships 

with Reclamation and Ducks Unlimited, the Service created Piping Plover Pond and enhanced the 

habitat by adding gravel to nesting beaches and 

removing Russian olive trees used by predators as 

perches to locate and kill these threatened birds. 

Since piping plovers establish territories and begin 

breeding activities almost as soon as they arrive 

in May, habitat must be made available before the 

spring migration or the birds will simply bypass 

the refuge, choosing less protected areas to breed 

and nest. The pond has to be filled either in late fall, 

before the Dodson South Canal is “dewatered,” or in 

early spring through the Malta Irrigation District 

or runoff. Since this water is transported through 

other wetlands, no water is delivered after May 15 

to prevent the flooding of over-water nesters in 

these other units. In most years, there is not enough 

water available to fill this entire system sufficient to 

deliver it all the way to the pond.

The piping plover nests on open shorelines.

Bill Byrne / USFWS

Invasive Plants, Nonnative 

Plants, and Noxious Weeds

According to the National Invasive Species Management Plan, an invasive species is defined as a 

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 (National Invasive Species 

Council 2008). Management of invasive plants, nonnative plants, and noxious weeds has been an issue 

throughout the refuge complex for many years. A 

portion of the refuge complex’s resources are directed to control introduction and spread of these 

species through integrated pest management strategies such as herbicides, prescribed burning, grazing, 

mowing, and farming.

One of the most challenging and damaging nonnative plant species throughout the refuge complex is 

the Russian olive tree. This species was first planted 

by refuge managers in the 1940s as an ornamental 

for windbreaks and wildlife food and cover. Although 

this tree is currently not designated as an invasive 

species in Montana, its ability to outcompete native 

species and fragment habitat is well documented. 

As with most nonnative species, Russian olive trees 

have spread rapidly across the refuge complex, taking over many prairie wetland zones, drainages, 

water conveyance systems, and some uplands and 

riparian areas. Russian olive trees can outcompete 

native vegetation, interfere with natural plant succession and nutrient cycling, and tax water reserves. 

The largest infestation is on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge.

The areas where most of these nonnative trees 

now dominate were historically unfragmented, native grassland. Although these trees do provide 

some benefit to wildlife, particularly for food and 

cover in the winter, these trees and the resulting 

fragmentation of grassland habitat create ideal 

conditions for predators such as fox, raccoon, and 

skunks to find and kill imperiled grassland-nesting 

birds and their young and to destroy their nests. 

These trees also serve as perches for predators 

such as great-horned owls and hawks and for nest 

parasites such as brown-headed cowbirds. Many 

grassland-nesting birds and upland-nesting waterfowl avoid areas adjacent to trees or have lower nest 

success due to predation.

Crested wheatgrass is the primary invasive grass 

species and leafy spurge, perennial pepperweed, and 

Canada thistle are the primary invasive forb species. 

Left unmanaged these invasive plant species can 

have a detrimental effect on the diversity of native 

plants, wildlife species, and habitat quality.
52 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

New invasive species such as saltcedar and spotted knapweed pose additional threats to refuge 

complex lands. The best control methods for small 

infestations of invasive plants are early detection 

and a quick management response. Due to the scattered nature of land holdings in the refuge complex, 

this is not easily monitored or achieved.

Russian olive trees in the upland east of Lakeside Extension at Bowdoin Refuge.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Habitat Protection and 

Acquisition

Native prairie and wetland are the most productive habitat types in Montana, particularly in the 

Prairie Pothole Region. Although there are some 

laws that protect these areas, particularly wetland, 

these vital habitats continue to be lost. Most of these 

habitat types occur on private lands. The Service 

has committed to work with willing landowners in 

Montana to compensate them for protecting these 

habitats, primarily through perpetual wetland or 

grassland conservation easements. With limited 

acquisition funding, easements are the most costeffective method rather than the traditional fee-title 

acquisition. Easements are less expensive and the 

landowner retains ownership, using their land much 

in the same way as before the easement purchase. 

Landowners also continue to maintain their fences, 

signs, and control of noxious weeds and other invasive plants. As of 2009, willing landowners have been 

compensated for protecting more than 50,000 acres 

of grassland and wetland habitat.

The easement program was developed by the 

Service to protect the natural resource on the landscape while minimally affecting normal farming and 

ranching practices. Habitat protection needs to be 

evaluated through a priority system so that critical 

areas are identified and the most effective means of 

protection, through either fee title or easement, can 

be determined.

Visitor Services

Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation are 

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as the priority public uses 

that may be accommodated on a national wildlife refuge if they are found compatible with the establishing purposes. All six of these public uses are offered, 

to various degrees, on the lands administered by the 

refuge complex. Appendix D contains the required 

compatibility determinations (draft) for these six 

uses.

An estimated 25,000 visitors come to explore the 

refuge complex annually. This may be an underestimate given that the refuge complex is spread out 

across four counties, making it difficult to estimate 

visitor numbers. The refuge complex is located in 

north-central Montana, an area commonly known at 

the Hi-line and with one of the smallest population 

densities in the State. A major attraction for wildlife 

observers and hunters, the refuge complex is also 

popular with local school groups. There has never 

been any visitor services staff so these and other 

interested groups are accommodated as staff and 

time allows.

Bowdoin Refuge is well known by professional 

and amateur wildlife photographers and filmmakers; 

requests for expanded access to the refuge have 

increased over the last 10 years.
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 53

There is a general lack of understanding about 

the mission and purposes the National Wildlife Refuge System and the refuge complex. Many visitors 

do not know they are on a national wildlife refuge. 

There are boundary signs and some interpretive 

panels throughout the refuges and waterfowl production areas and several displays in the visitor contact area, but there are opportunities to do more.

The refuge complex is starting to see an increase 

in visitation as the public has become more interested and educated about locating and exploring natural areas. The Service will need to address if and 

how to offer expanded opportunities for compatible, 

wildlife-dependent public use while better educating 

the public about the value and purposes of these 

lands and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Partnerships

The Service’s partners include Federal, State, and 

local government agencies; schools and universities; 

nongovernmental organizations; and individual landowners. The Service’s mission is to work with others to promote stewardship activities that restore, 

enhance, and protect fish and wildlife habitats. Effective communication and diverse partnerships are 

important for the refuge complex to be able to meet 

habitat and conservation goals and objectives. Furthermore, through partnerships the refuge complex 

has opportunities to garner support and awareness 

for the Refuge System and the refuge complex and 

to promote Service programs designed to increase 

habitat restoration and protection.

The activities on surrounding lands greatly affect 

and enhance the Service’s abilities to manage its own 

resources. Some of the most important partnerships 

are with surrounding landowners, who have vast 

areas of intact wetland and grassland habitat that 

provide the greatest opportunities for habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration for sustaining 

migratory birds and other wildlife.

Operations

The Service is responsible for protection and management of the refuge complex’s 85,713 acres spread 

across a four-county area. Due to the large size of 

the management area, limited staff and funding, and 

long travel times, some lands can only be inspected 

once a year for maintenance and management needs. 

Service lands closest to the refuge complex office 

receive the greatest attention because they are logistically easier to manage and maintain.

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

is responsible for maintaining a vast system of lands, 

roads, trails, fences, signs, buildings, and other 

equipment and infrastructure necessary to manage habitats and public use programs. The facilities 

found on the refuge complex follow:

■ 137 water control structures

■ 34 pullouts/parking areas

■ 10 bridges

■ 62 miles of roads including a self-guided auto tour 

(15 miles)

■ Three boat launches (one handicap accessible)

■ Accessible hiking trail (0.4 mile)

■ 90 miles of boundary fence

■ 32 miles of canals and dikes

■ Two low-lift water pumps

■ Five ground water wells

■ 10 buildings—refuge headquarters, two residences with unattached double-car garages, an 

apartment for seasonal housing with three storage bays, a building for all-terrain vehicles and 

equipment storage, two cold storage buildings, 

one seed storage building, and one shop with 

seven parking bays

The storage facilities are insufficient to store existing vehicles; most vehicles remain outside and 

are exposed to the harsh weather of this area. The 

refuge headquarters is sufficient for existing staff, 

including seasonal employees. The office areas would 

need to be expanded if additional permanent staff 

were added. Although recently remodeled, the bunkhouse is still not adequate to provide housing for 

seasonal and volunteer staff. This housing is critical 

to recruiting seasonal staff, because rental housing is 

very limited in the surrounding rural communities.

Currently, the refuge complex staff consists of 

five permanent full-time employees: a refuge manager, one nonsupervisory wildlife refuge specialist 

who also serves as the collateral law enforcement 

officer, a wildlife biologist, a maintenance worker, 

and an administrative support assistant. Since 1998, 

the refuge complex has lost two positions including 

a permanent-seasonal biological technician and a 

permanent-seasonal maintenance worker. The current staffing level remains well below the minimum 

prescribed in the minimum staffing model developed 

by the Service for all refuges (USFWS 2008c). The 
54 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

model recommends adding an additional five and 

one-half full-time equivalents: (1) five full-time positions—maintenance worker, deputy refuge manager, 

visitor services specialist, law enforcement officer, 

and wildlife refuge specialist; and (2) one permanentseasonal biological science technician. Additional 

staff and funding is critical for implementing habitat 

management projects, facilities maintenance, and 

meeting the purposes of the refuge complex.

Natural Gas Development

Oil and gas leasing is at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior who has delegated the Bureau of 

Land Management authority to administer the laws, 

but has by regulation restricted oil and gas leasing 

on lands of the Refuge System to those involving 

drainage (43 CFR 3101.5–1, 3100.2).

In conformance with the policy set forth in 50 

CFR 27, the Service usually recommends against 

leasing when the Bureau of Land Management asks 

for comments. In the case of non-federally owned 

oil and gas rights, it is the policy of the Service to 

protect project resources to the maximum extent 

possible without infringing on the rights of subsurface owners.

Extraction of natural gas within the Bowdoin 

Wetland Management District has occurred since 

the 1940s (figure 18). In most cases, when the Service acquired lands through fee title or easement, 

the mineral rights were reserved or excepted by 

the landowner or the Bureau of Land Management. 

In the case of Hewitt Lake Refuge, the Executive 

order establishing the refuge notes that the refuge 

land was within a known geologic structure of a producing gas field. The refuge purpose states that, 

“nothing should affect the disposition of its oil and 

gas deposits under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.”

There are 104 natural gas wells in production 

status on Service-interest lands. Annual activities 

on these lands include mineral exploration, well 

drilling and maintenance, pipeline construction and 

maintenance, road building and maintenance, and 

hauling offsite of produced water. Many of these 

activities can fragment habitats and disturb wildlife. 

For example, Ingelfinger (2001), found that roads associated with natural gas development in sagebrushsteppe reduced the guild of sagebrush-dependent 

species such as sage-grouse by 50 percent within 328 

feet of roads.

Production companies operating within the Bowdoin natural gas dome estimate that drilling is expected to last for about 10–15 years, with a project 

life of 30–50 years (Bureau of Land Management 

2008). To minimize impacts to Service interests, the 

refuge complex staff works directly with the lessee 

or operator during exploration or extraction of private minerals. To develop stipulations and conditions 

of approval to minimize the impacts, the Service 

works closely with the Bureau of Land Management 

to manage leasing or leases of Federal minerals 

below Service-interest lands. The Service outlines 

stipulations for accessing extraction sites in a special 

use permit, which the lessee or operator signs.

Prioritization of Refuge 

Complex Lands

The refuge complex staff is charged with managing habitat and protecting trust resources (such as 

migratory birds and threatened and endangered 

species) on 14 different tracts of fee-title land scattered throughout a four-county area. Limited staff, 

funding, and other resources require the Service to 

set priorities for lands, so those with the greatest 

management potential or most vulnerable resources 

are recognized, protected, and enhanced.

Research, Inventory, and 

Monitoring

In 2007, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge completed a 10-year study, in cooperation with the Division of Migratory Birds, to assess the productivity 

and habitat needs of grassland-nesting birds in the 

mixed-grass prairie. This research has been very 

beneficial to management of the Bowdoin Refuge 

and other grassland-nesting bird habitat.

Research throughout the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex has been minimal and sporadic, and some past projects have not adequately 

addressed management issues. As a result, some 

current management actions are based on outside 

research, not necessarily designed to address critical refuge issues, and may not follow an established 

management plan.

Recent inventories carried out within the refuge 

complex include fish surveys (2000–2003), a small 

mammal trapping study on Bowdoin Refuge (2000), 

and an inventory of aquatic plants in Lake Bowdoin. 

Other much-needed inventories for amphibians, reptiles, vegetation, invertebrates, and invasive plants 

have not taken place due to lack of staff and funding.

Some limited monitoring of migratory birds (waterfowl, raptors, and shorebirds) and other wildlife 

(pronghorn) take place as staff availability and time 

allows.

Further research and monitoring to better understand the hydrologic conditions that control the 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 55

Figure 18. Map of oil and gas activities in and around Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. Source: MBOGC (2010).

(Farmers Home Administration)

CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 57

chemical characteristics of Lake Bowdoin, Drumbo 

Pond, and Dry Lake as well as the effect of water 

chemistry on plant and invertebrate communities 

and bird physiology, would provide valuable knowledge that could be used to preserve and better manage these wetlands for migratory birds.

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

is responsible for controlling invasive plants on 

Service-owned lands within the four counties in the 

districts. As visitors from across the Nation and 

Canada come to these lands, there is a greater opportunity for transporting and introducing various 

invasive species from other parts of the country 

and Canada. In addition to educating visitors, the 

Service needs to monitor these lands to detect and 

respond to any new or expanding invasive plant 

and noxious weed species. The Service needs to develop a more strategic inventorying and monitoring 

program to prevent introduction and spread of current and new harmful species. This could be challenging given the widespread area that needs to be 

monitored, combined with the limited time and staff 

available.

The refuge complex recently hired a wildlife biologist for the first time in many years. They will 

need to begin identifying the research, inventory, 

and monitoring needs for the refuge complex and 

to work with Service staff, universities, and other 

biologists to develop studies that benefit the refuge 

complex and address the wildlife and habitat goals.

Lake Thibadeau National 

Wildlife Refuge

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1937 as what the Service now calls a 

limited-interest refuge. During the era of water 

shortages, the Great Depression, and the call for 

conservation across the country, the United States 

began acquiring refuge and flowage easements from 

willing landowners across Montana, North Dakota, 

and South Dakota. In the past 70 years since these 

easements were first acquired, some lands have been 

further protected through additional easements or 

fee-title acquisition and have become productive, 

functioning national wildlife refuges or waterfowl 

production areas. This is not the case with Lake 

Thibadeau. Except for the 19.4 acres in the center of 

the refuge that are reserved from public domain, the 

remaining acres remain in private ownership.

The refuge and flowage easements give the Service the right to control hunting and trapping and 

the uses of the main bodies of water including impoundments, lakes, and streams, and the uses that 

occur on those waters. The Service was not given 

the right to control uses of the upland areas including farming, grazing, and development.

This refuge is in essence a working farm and 

ranch. Habitat loss has been significant over the 

decades; the refuge currently has little value to wildlife and the purpose for which this area was first 

established has been lost. Native prairie areas that 

may have existed when the refuge was first established are now farmed intensively. Due to upstream 

development that captures water for irrigation and 

stock watering, Lake Thibadeau, Grassy Lake, and 

Mud Lake are often dry and farmed in most years, 

offering limited value for migratory birds. Public use 

on this refuge is negligible, as permission to cross 

private land remains the right of the landowner. 

During this planning process, the Service will be 

evaluating whether to keep Lake Thibadeau in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

CHAPTER 3–Alternatives

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the management alternatives considered for the Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. Alternatives are different approaches to unit 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.

Two topics received separate analyses: (1) the 

proposed divestiture (the selling or release of Service interests) of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife 

Refuge (refer to section 3.1 below); and (2) the proposed action related to the salinity and blowing salts 

issue at Lake Bowdoin on the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge (refer to chapter 6). Alternatives 

A–C for the refuge complex, as described in section 

3.3 below, apply to the remaining four refuges and 

one wetland management district in the refuge complex. The salinity and blowing salts alternative supports the actions outlined in alternative B (proposed 

action) for the refuge complex.

Pair of Blue-winged Teal

John and Karen Hollingsworth / USFWS

3.1 Divestiture of Lake 

Thibadeau National Wildlife 

Refuge

The Service developed two alternatives for the 

proposal to divest Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge: (1) keeping the refuge, with little to no 

maintenance of facilities; and (2) divesting the refuge 

and voluntarily relinquishing the water right back to 

the State.

Lake Thibadeau Refuge 

Alternative 1 (Current 

Management–No Action)

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge would 

continue to be an easement (limited-interest) refuge 

comprised almost exclusively of private lands encumbered by refuge and flowage easements. These 

easements only provide the Service the right to impound water and to control the uses that occur on 

that water. The Service also has the right to control 
60 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

hunting and trapping. The easements do not allow 

the Service to control any uses that occur on the 

uplands, including agricultural uses and development. The refuge would continue to not achieve its 

purposes as a resting place for migratory birds and 

wildlife due to almost a complete loss of wildlife 

habitat, primarily due to extensive development 

and agricultural use. The Service would minimally 

maintain the dams, spillways, and water control 

structures, even though most water resources no 

longer reach this impoundment due to upstream development. The landowner would continue to control 

access to the refuge. The 19.42 acres reserved from 

public domain lies in the center of the refuge and 

would remain inaccessible to the public.

Lake Thibadeau Refuge 

Alternative 2 (Divestiture– 

Proposed Action)

The Service would divest its interest in Lake 

Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, removing it 

from the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 

planning team used the Service’s Mountain–Prairie 

Region divestiture model to make this initial determination. The full analysis and resulting documentation are in “Appendix E–Divestiture Model Results 

for Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge.” This 

proposal was further evaluated through an analysis of the consequences of maintaining or divesting 

this refuge (summarized in table 4). This combined 

analysis determined that the refuge cannot achieve 

its purposes nor does it meet any of the goals of the 

Refuge System. If divested, the easements would 

be relinquished and all rights returned to the landowner. The dams, spillways, and water control 

structures would be transferred to the landowner or 

removed, and the water rights would be voluntarily 

relinquished to the State of Montana. This divestiture would be carried out within 5 years of CCP 

approval. To prepare the final divestiture proposal, 

the refuge staff would work with the Mountain–

Prairie Region’s Division of Realty and Division of 

Refuge Planning to prepare a full divestiture proposal. The divestiture of Lake Thibadeau National 

Wildlife Refuge would require an act of Congress.

Summary

Table 4 summarizes the analysis of two alternatives 

for management or divestiture of Lake Thibadeau 

National Wildlife Refuge.

Pasqueflower

© Cindie Brunner
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 61

Table 4. Comparison of alternatives and environmental consequences for keeping or divesting Lake Thibadeau 

National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

Lake Thibadeau Refuge alternative 1 

(current management–no action)

Lake Thibadeau Refuge alternative 2 

(divestiture–proposed action)

Habitat and wildlife—actions

Due to limited water resources caused by upstream 

development, maintain only passive management of the 

impoundment. Minimally maintain the dams and water 

control structures when funding is available but as a low 

priority compared with other maintenance needs.

Continue to retain the authority to control hunting, 

trapping, and the uses that occur on the water. The landowner would continue to retain the authority to control all 

other uses that occur on the uplands. Due to the poor quality of wildlife habitat, acquire no lands or waters within 

the refuge through fee-title or easement programs.

Divest this limited-interest refuge and revoke the easements. Voluntarily relinquish water rights to the State.

Turn over to the landowner, or remove, the dam and 

other structures.

Revoke the 19.42 acres of land reserved from public 

domain. 

Habitat and wildlife—environmental consequences

Management and use of the uplands would continue 

to be under complete control of the landowner, excluding 

hunting and trapping.

No nesting habitat would be available for waterfowl and 

other grassland-dependent birds, including in the uplands 

adjacent to the impoundments and wetlands. Waterbird 

use on the impoundments would continue to be minimal, 

similar to that found on stock water ponds found around 

the refuge.

The refuge would continue to not meet its purpose as a 

refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other 

wildlife. 

Same as alternative 1, plus:

The potential removal of the water control structures, 

dams, and water delivery would remove the ability to artificially impound and divert water. Waterbirds that might 

have used this water for loafing would likely relocate to 

other similar stock water ponds off the refuge. Wetland 

basins would most likely revert back to natural hydrologic 

periods.

If the structures were retained, the landowner would be 

responsible for the maintenance.

The Service would no longer use limited staff and resources on a refuge that does not support any goals of the 

Refuge System.

Visitor services—actions

Continue to allow hunting with access controlled by the 

landowner.

Same as alternative 1.

Visitor services—environmental consequences

The landowner would continue to control public access 

to the refuge for all visitors, providing little to no recreational opportunities.

Most visitors would remain unaware that these private 

lands are even part of the Refuge System due to the lack 

of wildlife habitat and access to these private lands.

Same as alternative 1.

Cultural resources—actions

Provide minimal protection as required by existing laws 

on the portion of Service-owned land reserved from public 

domain and the dams and other water control structures 

covered under the flowage easement.

The landowner would have responsibility to protect 

cultural resources as required by law on private lands. 
62 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 4. Comparison of alternatives and environmental consequences for keeping or divesting Lake Thibadeau 

National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

Lake Thibadeau Refuge alternative 1 

(current management–no action)

Lake Thibadeau Refuge alternative 2 

(divestiture–proposed action)

Cultural resources—environmental consequences

The refuge staff would continue to consult with the 

regional archeologist on any repairs and or improvements 

to water control structures, dams, or water delivery canals 

that may be determined eligible for the National Historic 

Register. The Service archeologist would prepare documentation to meet the requirements under the National 

Historic Preservation Act for such structures.

Divestiture of the water control structures, dams and 

water delivery canals at Lake Thibadeau would be an 

adverse effect to the property under the National Historic 

Preservation Act and would require mitigation. Mitigation 

would entail consultation with the Montana State Historic Preservation Office and Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation to determine the appropriate measures that 

would satisfy all the consulting parties.

On completion of the mitigation, relinquishment of the 

easement would not leave the landowner with any mandatory responsibilities to maintain the historic value of the 

property. Landowner responsibilities as they pertain to 

the eligible historical structures would be provided to 

them once the Service completes the required mitigation.

Once the Service meets the mitigation requirements 

of the National Historic Preservation Act, the landowner 

may remove any structures they would not need.

Operations—actions

Rehabilitate only those dams, spillways, and water control structures that pose a threat to health and safety.

Give control of structures to the landowner or remove.

Operations—environmental consequences

The maintenance or removal of water control structures, dams, and water delivery canals would continue to 

be the responsibility of the Government.

Dam inspections would continue to occur every 4–6 

years to inspect and identify deficiencies. Repairs would 

only occur if money became available; maintenance of 

these structures would be a low priority compared with 

other maintenance.

The landowner would maintain any structures, dams, 

and canals necessary for their needs.

If the landowner does not want to maintain these structures, the Service may remove them before divestiture, 

removing any capability to store even limited water resources that could be used by the landowner for agricultural purposes. 

Partnerships—actions

Continue communication with landowners only when 

updates to the Emergency Action Plan for the Lake 

Thibadeau Diversion Dam are made.

The Service would work with the landowners throughout the divestiture process. 

Partnerships—environmental consequences

The Service would continue to provide the landowners 

annual updates to the Emergency Action Plan and the 

Standard Operating Procedures for the Lake Thibadeau 

Diversion Dam.

The Service would work with the landowners throughout the divestiture process so they understand the process 

and the rights that would be returned to them. 

Easement rights—actions

Maintain the right to impound water and to control 

hunting, trapping, and the uses that occur on the water. 

Give the rights acquired in the easement agreements 

back to the landowner.

Voluntarily relinquish the water rights to the State.
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 63

Table 4. Comparison of alternatives and environmental consequences for keeping or divesting Lake Thibadeau 

National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

Lake Thibadeau Refuge alternative 1 

(current management–no action)

Lake Thibadeau Refuge alternative 2 

(divestiture–proposed action)

Easement rights—environmental consequences

The Service would maintain the flowage rights to impound water on the land and to inspect and correct deficiencies to the water control structures, dams, and water 

delivery canals.

The water resources that reach the impoundment would 

continue to be minimal due to upstream development.

The landowner would no longer be required to hold 

water.

The landowner would have control over hunting, trapping, and the uses that occur on the water. 

Socioeconomics—actions

Continue with no public access to the refuge.

Minimally maintain wetland management structures as 

money becomes available.

Remove the wetland management structures or transfer 

ownership to the landowner if they wish to retain the ability to capture the limited water resources. 

Socioeconomics—environmental consequences

There would be no economic benefits to the Service or 

public in retaining this refuge in the Refuge System.

Most of the public would continue to be unaware this 

area is a wildlife refuge.

There would be costs associated with maintaining the 

structures, which would lessen the Service’s ability to 

enhance more productive areas on the refuge complex.

The Service could use money that may be allotted for 

maintaining these impoundment structures on other more 

critical, productive projects, which may provide additional 

areas for the public to enjoy wildlife and their habitats.

If the landowners choose to retain the impoundments, 

they may have some costs associated with maintaining the 

structures. 

3.2 Development of 

Alternatives for the Refuge 

Complex

The alternatives represent different approaches 

for permanent protection and restoration of fish, 

wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources. The 

Service assessed the planning issues identified in 

chapter 2, the existing biological conditions described in chapter 4, and external relationships affecting the refuge. This information contributed to 

the development of alternatives; as a result, each 

alternative presents different approaches for meeting long-term goals. 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.

Each of the three alternatives incorporates various concepts and approaches intended to achieve the 

goals for the refuge complex outlined in chapter 2 

and is discussed in terms of how it could meet each 

goal.

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, describes the current, ongoing management activities 

throughout the refuge complex. This alternative 

might not meet all the CCP goals. It is provided as a 

basis for comparison with the other alternatives.

Alternatives Considered 

but Eliminated

There were no alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study.

3.3 Description of Alternatives 

for the Refuge Complex

This section describes the alternatives considered 

by the planning team to achieve the proposed vision 

and goals and to address the issues. These alternatives include not only the current management (alternative A) but also the Service’s proposed action 

(alternative B), which reflects the draft CCP and 

is further described in chapter 7. Table 5 in section 

3.4 below has a summary of the alternatives’ actions with associated consequences. Details about 

the consequences are in “Chapter 5–Environmental 

Consequences.”
64 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

The following alternative descriptions summarize 

each alternative’s focus, and then provide details 

related to meeting each goal for the refuge complex.

Elements Common to All 

Alternatives

There are some consistencies in the three alternatives. For example, all alternatives including the 

no-action alternative emphasize the same target 

species and protection of threatened and endangered 

species. This section identifies the following key elements that will be included in the CCP regardless of 

the alternative selected:

■ The Service would ensure that management of 

the refuge complex complies with all Federal 

laws and regulations that provide direction for 

managing units of the Refuge System.

■ Each alternative would attempt to eradicate 

invasive species through an integrated pest 

management approach that includes biological, 

chemical, and mechanical treatment methods.

■ No adjacent landowners would be adversely affected by any action taken by the Service without 

a mutual agreement and adequate compensation.

■ Each alternative would provide equal protection 

and management of cultural resources.

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 the National Environmental Policy Act that a no-action alternative be 

addressed in the analysis process.

Under alternative A, 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 benefiting migratory species and other wildlife 

would not be expanded or changed. The staff would 

perform limited, issue-driven research and monitor 

only long-term vegetation change. No new funding 

or staff levels would occur and programs would follow the same direction, emphasis, and intensity as 

they do at present. The Service would continue to 

manage the Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt 

Lake, and Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuges as unstaffed satellite refuges.

Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife

The following upland habitat discussion covers native grassland, disturbed grassland, invasive species, 

shelterbelts, habitat protection and acquisition, and 

greater sage-grouse.

Native Grassland. With available staff and funding, the Service would continue to manipulate native 

grasslands using various techniques including prescribed fire, treating invasive plants, grazing, and 

resting periods.

Currently, most management actions are based 

on outside research and do not follow an established 

management plan. Approximately 10 percent of 

the refuge complex’s uplands would continue to be 

grazed periodically. When management actions such 

as grazing or burning do occur, there would be minimal evaluation of habitat response.

Disturbed Grassland. Disturbed grasslands are areas that were once native prairie, were converted to 

cropland, and then were planted to a mix of nonnative pasture grasses, also called DNC (dense nesting 

cover). Disturbed grasslands would continue to be 

treated periodically using various techniques including prescribed fire, treating invasive plants, grazing, 

haying, and resting periods.

As resources became available, cropland on waterfowl production areas would be restored to native 

grasses and forbs; however, DNC would continue to 

be seeded on highly erodible lands in the wetland 

management district. Dense nesting cover fields on 

Bowdoin Refuge would be converted to native forbs 

and grasses.

Invasive and Nonnative Plant Species. The Service would continue to use mechanical and chemical 

methods to control existing and new Russian olive 

infestations. Control would continue to be focused 

within the interior of the management units, with 

priority given to those areas where tree removal 

would result in large contiguous blocks of native 

grassland. The control effort would continue to be 

slow and inefficient due to a lack of staff and funding 

to address the tremendous expanse and invasion by 

these nonnative trees.

Early detection and rapid response would continue to be used to attack initial infestations of invasive plant species such as leafy spurge, perennial 

pepperweed, and spotted knapweed. Larger infestations of invasive plants such as crested wheatgrass 

would continue to be given little to no attention due 

to the extent of infestation and the lack of resources 

and staff.
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 65

Shelterbelts. The only management of shelterbelts on Service lands within the refuge complex 

would be the continued, systematic removal of nonnative Russian olive trees.

Habitat Protection and Acquisition. The highest 

priority would be to continue the annual protection 

and enforcement of current Service grassland and 

wetland easements. The refuge complex would continue to seek potential grassland and wetland easement acquisitions from willing sellers, as time and 

staff permits. As funding and opportunities arise, 

the priority for fee-title acquisition would be given 

to acquiring inholdings from willing sellers that are 

adjacent to or within the boundary of the refuges 

and waterfowl production areas.

Greater Sage-Grouse. The Service would continue to provide and protect the existing habitat for 

greater sage-grouse but no sagebrush restoration 

efforts would be conducted.

Wetland Habitat and Associated Wildlife

The following wetland habitat discussion covers 

managed wetlands, natural wetlands, riparian habitat, water rights, habitat protection and acquisition, 

wildlife disease, invasive species, and threatened 

and endangered species.

Managed Wetlands. These are wetlands (natural 

or created) that have been enhanced to provide for 

water delivery to them or manipulate water levels 

by means of a water control structure using such 

This bay structure allows water into Dry Lake from Lake Bowdoin via the conveyance channel.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

mechanisms as stoplogs or screw gates (hydraulic 

engineering control elements that are used to adjust 

water levels or flow rates). Management of enhanced 

wetlands would attempt to mimic natural wetland 

conditions that provide migratory waterbirds with 

spring and fall migration habitat, as well as breeding 

and nesting habitat. Effective management of these 

wetlands within the refuge complex is limited by the 

Service’s available water and funding.

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge would continue to receive 3,500 acre-feet of water annually to 

manage all its wetland units including Lake Bowdoin. This use is part of Reclamation’s water right 

that was made available to the Service through the 

negotiated MOA. Lake Bowdoin would remain a 

closed wetland system with no intentional water 

release into Beaver Creek to improve water quality.

The Service would continue to exercise its water 

rights on all of its waterfowl production areas in the 

refuge complex for the benefit of migratory birds 

and its associated habitat. Due to the vast area, 

lack of resources, and limited staff, there would be 

minimal monitoring of the response to these management actions. This monitoring would primarily 

consist of spring surveys of waterfowl and other 

breeding birds.

Most water management structures (such as 

dikes and levees) would remain in good working 

order due to recent repairs and upgrades completed 

through annual deferred maintenance funding and 

partnerships. The infrastructure of water manage-
66 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

ment facilities would continue to be maintained as 

needed and as funding became available.

Water elevations in the wetlands would be monitored to aid in the manipulation of managed wetlands to meet habitat objectives.

Natural Wetlands. There is no single scientifically 

acceptable definition of all wetlands because of their 

tremendous diversity and because they lie along a 

continuum or gradient between deepwater habitats 

and uplands or between purely aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Cowardin et al. 1979). According 

to Cowardin et al. (1979), wetlands are lands 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. For 

the purpose of this plan, natural wetlands refer to 

those various types of wetlands that have not been 

enhanced or drained.

Under alternative A, natural wetlands would 

continue to be monitored for invasive plant species 

and wildlife use. Management practices such as prescribed burning, grazing, and invasive plant control 

would be used to maintain and restore the productivity of these wetlands for migratory bird habitat.

Potential sites for wetland restoration have been 

identified throughout the refuge complex; these sites 

would be restored if additional money became available. Through partnerships and grants, the Service 

would pursue resources to identify and protect critical wetland complexes for breeding and nesting waterfowl through easements or fee acquisition.

Riparian Habitat. Refuge and waterfowl production area boundaries would continue to be fenced to 

eliminate the negative effects of trespass livestock 

grazing. Riparian areas would continue to be allowed 

to rest and revegetate naturally. The Service would 

use early detection and rapid response (chemical, 

biological, and mechanical methods) to treat initial 

infestations of invasive plant and mammal species.

Water Supply and Rights. The Service would continue to exercise its water rights in the refuge complex, including the Reclamation right available to 

Bowdoin Refuge through the MOA, to provide habitat for migratory birds using ground water wells, 

low-lift pumps, water conveyance systems, and delivered water from the Milk River Project when 

water is available.

Habitat Protection and Acquisition. The Service 

would continue to protect native prairie and natural 

wetlands within the Bowdoin Wetland Management 

District through easements and fee-title purchases 

from willing sellers within refuge acquisition boundaries and the Bowdoin Wetland Management District. The priority for acquisition money would be 

to buy borderlands from willing sellers (including 

“round-outs”) that make it difficult to manage and 

protect refuge boundaries. The remaining priorities would be to acquire, in order, inholdings, new 

wetland and grassland easements, and waterfowl 

production areas. The Service would annually monitor all new and existing wetland and grassland easements for compliance.

Wildlife Disease. To minimize or deter avian botulism outbreaks on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, the Service would continue to avoid water-level 

fluctuations during the summer months (mid-May 

until early September) when conditions are favorable for botulism outbreaks. This would keep the 

number of birds exposed to this disease to a minimum. Refuge staff would monitor wetlands on Bowdoin Refuge for bird mortalities on a weekly basis 

throughout the summer months until the chances of 

an avian botulism or West Nile virus event are gone. 

Sample carcasses would be sent to the National 

Wildlife Health Center for analysis. An event history form would be completed for each outbreak; one 

copy would be sent to the National Wildlife Health 

Center and one would be placed in the refuge complex’s filing system.

Refuge complex staff would continue to cooperate with the U.S. Interagency Avian Influenza 

Working Group to monitor the refuge complex for 

signs of avian influenza. The refuge complex’s Disease Contingency Plan would be kept up-to-date and 

new policies would be adopted as needed. All staff 

would be trained to recognize the causes and effects 

of avian diseases, which would increase early detection of outbreaks.

Invasive and Nonnative Species. The Service 

would continue to use early detection and rapid response to treat initial infestations of invasive plant 

and mammal species. Chemical and mechanical 

treatments would be periodically used to set back invasive plants, and nonnative species such as Russian 

olive, as necessary to restore habitat for migratory 

bird use. There would be some mapping and monitoring completed throughout the refuge complex, 

primarily through the efforts of the Service’s invasive species strike team.

Threatened and Endangered Species. The Service 

would continue to survey and monitor the activity 

of piping plover at the Bowdoin and Hewitt Lake 

National Wildlife Refuges. All documented piping plover nests would be monitored until chicks 

have fledged or the nest has been abandoned or 

destroyed. Nest cages would only be erected over 

nests that are in immediate danger of being trampled or of being destroyed by predators (others 

birds and mammals). The staff would continue to 

provide information on these monitoring activities 

to the Service’s Division of Ecological Services and 

remain a member of the Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee.
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 67

Visitor Services

The following visitor services discussion covers 

hunting and trapping, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental education and interpretation, public access, and cultural resources.

Hunting and Trapping. The Service would continue 

to allow hunting of upland game birds and waterfowl 

in select areas of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. The current hunting programs on the satellite 

refuges and waterfowl production areas would also 

continue at current levels, primarily following State 

seasons and limits. The public would continue to 

need landowner permission to access easement lands 

within the satellite refuges, and Holm WPA would 

remain closed to public hunting.

The late-season (starting no earlier than December 1) upland game bird hunt on Bowdoin Refuge 

would continue on those areas that are normally 

closed to public use. The first 2 days of this December hunt would continue to be designated for young 

hunters only. This special season would be contingent on all waterfowl having left the refuge, typically by November 30.

The Service would maintain the accessible boat 

dock and parking area on Lake Bowdoin and the accessible hunting and photography blind and parking 

area at Pearce WPA.

Hunters on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

would still be required to sign in and out at the 

hunter registration kiosk. Brochures with current 

public use regulations would be available at the registration kiosk and from the refuge Web site.

The Service would continue to issue special use 

permits to a limited number of trappers on Bowdoin Refuge to remove beavers and other burrowing 

animals that threaten to damage or cause failure of 

structures including water control structures, roads, 

dikes, and canals. This trapping program would also 

be used to help the Service in its efforts to control 

mammalian predators such as skunks and nonnative 

raccoons that are negatively affecting migratory 

birds. In these situations, the Service would continue to use only live traps to ensure that only targeted predator species are removed from the area. 

In addition, trapping would also help reduce 

the spread of the diseases many of these predators 

carry. Trappers could continue to use body-gripping 

traps, commonly known as Conibear® traps, and live 

traps; leg-hold traps would continue to be prohibited.

In the establishing legislation, recreational trapping is permitted on the waterfowl production areas. Unless otherwise noted, the trapping season on 

these areas would continue to follow State regulations and limits.

Fishing. Recreational fishing opportunities would 

continue to be allowed along the Milk River at McNeil Slough WPA and along Beaver Creek at Beaver 

Creek WPA. The remainder of the wetlands within 

the refuge complex have minimal habitat or do not 

support game fish. Fishing would not be permitted 

at Bowdoin, Black Coulee, Creedman, Hewitt Lake, 

or Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuges. These 

refuges have minimal habitat or high salinity levels, 

or both, and do not support game fish.

Wildlife Observation and Photography. The Service 

would maintain the following facilities for wildlife 

observation and photography: (1) the self-guided, 15-

mile auto tour route and accompanying interpretive 

signs and brochure; (2) the accessible photo blinds at 

Bowdoin Refuge and Pearce WPA; and (3) the accessible Display Pond Trail, a national recreation trail, 

with observation deck and interpretive panel around 

Display Pond.

The Bowdoin Refuge bird list and the Northeastern Montana Birding Trail brochure would be 

updated as needed and made available to refuge 

complex visitors.

Environmental Education and Interpretation. Environmental education programs would continue to 

be opportunistic, presented as staff and time allow. 

Interpretive panels and brochures would be maintained and updated to reflect changes in information 

or policy and to meet the Service’s graphic standards.

The Service would maintain the refuge Web site 

and provide periodic updates of news and activities 

for the refuge complex to the local media and chamber of commerce.

Public Access. The Service would continue to 

provide the current level of access throughout the 

refuge complex for visitors to participate in compatible, wildlife-dependent, public use activities. All 

areas within the refuge complex would continue to 

be open to foot traffic except for the area surrounding the shop, residences, and equipment storage.

Cultural Resources. The Service would continue 

to perform cultural resource inventories only as 

needed for compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and would continue 

using Montana’s statewide inventory list of cultural 

resources to determine sensitive sites before activities. The refuge complex staff would continue 

documenting cultural resource sites that are found 

during the course of other duties and ensure their 

protection.

Partnerships

The following partnerships discussion covers partnership development and maintenance and energy 

development on Service lands.
68 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Partnership Development and Maintenance. Existing partnerships would be maintained by combining 

resources and knowledge to achieve goals of mutual 

interest. Community-based public outreach programs would be conducted as time and staff allows.

Energy Development on Service Lands. Following 

current laws and policies, the Service would work 

with energy developers who are extracting reserved and excepted oil, gas, and mineral rights on 

grassland easements and fee-title lands to minimize 

impacts from their operations. Physical occupancy 

would be kept at the minimum space compatible 

with efficient mineral operation.

Operations

The following operations discussion covers staff, 

operations, facilities, and signs and boundary designation.

Staff. The current staff of five full-time employees 

would be maintained: a maintenance worker, an administrative officer, one refuge operations specialist 

with collateral law enforcement duties, a wildlife biologist, and a refuge manager (see table 8 under section 4.10 in chapter 4). The annual recruitment of up 

to two seasonal biological technicians, a maintenance 

worker, and one or more volunteers would continue 

only if funding were available. Due to the volume of 

maintenance projects, limited funds would first be 

used to continue recruiting for a 6-month seasonal 

maintenance worker. A biologist for the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program would remain stationed 

at Bowdoin Refuge to work with private landowners 

and governmental and nongovernmental agencies 

to restore and create wetland and upland habitat on 

private and agency lands.

Operations. Money for operations would remain 

fairly consistent, except for some annual increases 

primarily due to inflation. Operations for the refuge 

complex would consist of maintenance of the following: (1) equipment such as vehicles and heavy 

machinery; (2) facilities including refuge housing 

and the headquarters; and (3) most of the management and public use structures such as dikes, roads, 

trails, and water control structures. Extensive replacement, repair, and rehabilitation of facilities and 

equipment would be completed as money became 

available.

Facilities. No additional facilities or infrastructure would be constructed unless money became 

available. Due to limited storage facilities, vehicles 

and equipment would continue to be stored outside 

year-round.

Signs and Boundary Designation. Most units in 

the refuge complex, including all waterfowl production areas, have both the proper entrance signs and 

boundary signs to orient visitors. Refuges that have 

more than 40 percent of the land within the boundary in fee title have also been identified by entrance 

signs. Service boundary signs would continue to be 

replaced as needed, and boundary fencing would be 

maintained and replaced as time and staff allows. 

Entrance signs would be maintained and replaced 

if funding became available. Fences would be maintained to prevent trespass livestock grazing.

The Service would continue discussions with the 

landowner adjacent to Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge to exchange fee-title lands needed to 

create a more manageable and enforceable refuge 

boundary and bring awareness of the effects of trespass livestock grazing.

Carmen Luna / USFWS

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Alternative B for the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex would conserve natural resources 

by restoring, protecting, and enhancing native 

mixed-grass prairie and maintaining quality nesting habitats for targeted migratory and resident 

birds within the refuge complex. There would be an 

increase in control and eradication of invasive plant 

species that are causing habitat fragmentation and 

impacts to grassland-dependent birds. These treated 

areas would be restored to native plant species, 

monitored, and treated for reinfestations. Enhanced 

wetlands would be managed to mimic natural conditions for wetland-dependent migratory birds during 

spring and fall migrations and during the breeding 

and nesting season.
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 69

For visitor services, the Service would develop 

additional access for visitors of all abilities to improve opportunities for wildlife-dependent uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation). These 

enhanced programs would encourage a greater understanding of the purposes of the refuge complex 

and an appreciation for Federal trust species including migratory birds, other native wildlife, the unique 

mixed-grass prairie, and the missions of the Service 

and the Refuge System.

The success of these additional efforts and 

programs would depend on added staff, research 

and monitoring programs, operations funding, infrastructure, and new and expanded partnerships. 

Appendix D contains the required compatibility determinations (draft) associated with this alternative.

Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife

The following upland habitat discussion covers native grassland, disturbed grassland, invasive species, 

shelterbelts, habitat protection and acquisition, and 

greater sage-grouse.

Native Grassland. The Service would attempt to 

restore native grasslands by mimicking the natural 

processes of burning and grazing (including timing 

and frequency) to meet the specific habitat requirements of target species of resident and migratory 

birds and restoring the dominant historical plant 

communities that are still found within the refuge 

complex.

Using prescribed fire during bird-nesting seasons 

can lead to nest destruction or increased nest predation. Islands of unburned areas may be targeted 

by nest predators such as coyote, skunk, and raccoon. However, birds will typically re-nest but may 

produce fewer eggs. This initial loss of nests and 

potential reduction in production is offset in future 

years by improved habitat conditions, which lead 

to improved nesting conditions and numbers. Grazing may have similar effects due to trampling but, 

again, the long-term benefits eventually outweigh 

the short-term losses.

A grassland-habitat management plan (within 

the habitat management plan) would be completed 

based on tested methods for preserving and enhancing the native grassland habitats found throughout 

the refuge complex.

The Service would conduct research to determine 

the most effective methods for enhancing native 

species and addressing species that have become 

monocultures, such as clubmoss.

Disturbed Grassland. The Service would gradually convert disturbed grasslands to a diversity of 

grasses, forbs, and shrubs native to the site and that 

have the greatest potential to survive and outcompete invasive species while providing habitat to targeted grassland-dependent migratory and resident 

birds. Invasive nonnative plant species would be 

controlled in all restored areas. Dense nesting cover 

would be seeded on highly erodible lands on the wetland management district.

Invasive and Nonnative Species. Same as alternative A, except that the refuge complex staff would 

work with the Service’s Montana Invasive Species 

Strike Team and partners to ensure that treated areas are mapped, restored with native plant species, 

monitored, and re-treated (as necessary) to prevent 

reinvasion.

The Service would increase treatment of Russian 

olive, giving priority to areas where tree removal 

would create more contiguous blocks of grassland 

habitat. Through partnerships, the Service would 

develop an education and outreach program that 

discusses the impacts of Russian olive trees on native habitat and wildlife. In addition, the outreach 

program would provide information on native trees 

to plant (instead of nonnative Russian olive) for areas where trees were present historically.

The Service would conduct experiments to 

determine the best methods for reducing crested 

wheatgrass and for restoring treated sites to native 

grasses.

Shelterbelts. The Service would begin to systematically remove all shelterbelts in the refuge 

complex. These areas would be restored to native 

grasses, forbs, and shrubs to create more contiguous 

blocks of grassland habitat for targeted migratory 

and resident birds. Treated sites would be monitored 

for infestations of invasive plant species. Future 

shelterbelts of invasive species would not be permitted anywhere on the refuge complex.

Dr. Thomas G. Barnes / USFWS

Silver sagebrush is an important habitat component for 

sage-grouse.
70 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Habitat Protection and Acquisition. Same as alternative A, plus the Service would use grants for 

acquisition of grassland easements and fee title from 

willing sellers. Future acquisitions would be prioritized by working with HAPET (Habitat Assessment 

and Population Evaluation Team) to identify the 

most critical waterfowl breeding and nesting sites 

that need protection. The Service would form partnerships with conservation groups to acquire lands 

for transfer.

Greater Sage-Grouse. Same as alternative A, except the Service would monitor greater sage-grouse 

population levels and trends. Sage-grouse habitat 

would be identified throughout the refuge complex 

and maintained or enhanced. Silver sagebrush would 

be planted on the Korsbeck and Beaver Creek 

WPAs to provide additional breeding, nesting, and 

feeding habitat for sage-grouse.

Wetland Habitat and Associated Wildlife

The following wetland habitat discussion covers 

managed wetlands, natural wetlands, riparian habitat, water rights, habitat protection and acquisition, 

wildlife disease, invasive species, and threatened 

and endangered species.

Managed Wetlands. Same as alternative A, plus 

the Service would acquire funding for a permanent 

maintenance worker and equipment necessary to 

maintain, repair, or replace water management 

structures. These improvements would be necessary 

to carry out the proposed changes to the wetland 

management program to provide quality habitat for 

targeted wetland bird species. Additional biological 

and refuge management staff would also be required 

to carry out and monitor the proposed enhancement, 

restoration, creation, protection, and maintenance of 

managed wetlands.

The Service would pursue funding to buy additional delivered water (when available) from the 

Malta Irrigation District for Lake Bowdoin during 

the spring or fall, or both seasons. This would be 

important to protect habitat for the threatened piping plover and other targeted wetland-dependent 

species.

New ground water wells would be developed 

to supplement wetland management needs. Water 

pumping sites would be developed at the Beaver 

Creek and McNeil Slough WPAs to create wetland 

habitat for migratory birds.

The Service would identify and map potential 

wetland enhancement projects that would protect 

critical wetland complexes for breeding and nesting waterfowl. Working with partners, the Service 

would pursue resources for easements or fee-title 

acquisition from willing sellers in these priority areas.

Natural Wetlands. Same as alternative A, except 

the Service would acquire additional money to restore natural wetlands used by migratory birds and 

other native species, primarily by treating invasive plants and noxious weeds that have impacted 

habitat quality. Additional biological staff would be 

needed to monitor and plan management of these 

natural wetlands.

Riparian Habitat. Same as alternative A, plus the 

Service would work with the Service’s Montana Invasive Species Strike Team and partners to identify 

and map the locations and extent of invasive species 

in riparian areas. Treatments would be documented 

and sites would be restored with native plant species, and monitored (re-treating as necessary) to 

prevent reinvasion.

Water Supply and Rights. Same as alternative A, 

except the Federal reserved water rights and compact between the State of Montana and the Service 

for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge would be adjudicated. The Service would acquire more money 

to pay for added deliveries of water (beyond the 

original 3,500 acre-feet provided through the MOA 

with Reclamation) from the Malta Irrigation District 

when water is available and is needed to meet refuge habitat objectives.

Habitat Protection and Acquisition. Same as alternative A, plus the Service would work with partners 

and prepare grant proposals to pursue resources for 

acquisitions of grassland and wetland easements and 

fee-title lands from willing sellers. Future acquisitions would be prioritized by working with HAPET 

to identify the most critical waterfowl breeding and 

nesting habitat that needs protection.

Wildlife Disease. Same as alternative A.

Invasive and Nonnative Species. Same as alternative A, plus the refuge complex would work with the 

Service’s Montana Invasive Species Strike Team and 

other partners to identify and map the locations and 

extent of invasive species within wetlands. Treated 

areas would be mapped and monitored and continue 

to be managed to prevent reinvasion. Russian olive 

trees and other vegetation that are impeding the 

function of water level management structures (such 

as dikes, ditches, and levees) would be removed.

Threatened and Endangered Species. Same as alternative A, except the Service would work with 

other agencies to acquire additional water resources 

and improve the current water delivery system, primarily to Piping Plover Pond, to better manage or 

increase piping plover habitat on Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge.

Visitor Services

The following visitor services discussion covers 

hunting and trapping, fishing, wildlife observation 
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 71

and photography, environmental education and interpretation, public access, and cultural resources.

Hunting and Trapping. Same as alternative A, plus 

the refuge would work with the State to determine 

the feasibility of providing an accessible and limited 

big game archery hunt on portions of Bowdoin Refuge currently open to public use. The refuge would 

address the safety of refuge visitors including hunters when making this determination.

Fishing. Same as alternative A.

Wildlife Observation and Photography. Same as 

alternative A, plus the Service would provide, at 

least monthly, wildlife observation programs for 

refuge complex visitors. These tours would be contingent on hiring a visitor services specialist. A new 

accessible observation site, parking area, interpretive kiosk, and two spotting scopes would be provided along the auto tour route at Bowdoin Refuge. 

The mammal, reptile, and amphibian lists would be 

updated for the refuge complex and a wildlife list 

would be developed in the Service’s graphic standards.

Environmental Education and Interpretation. Same 

as alternative A, plus the Service would expand the 

environmental education and interpretation opportunities to further expand the public’s appreciation 

and understanding of the resources of the refuge 

complex and the mission of the Refuge System. The 

staff would develop and present environmental education programs for students and adults primarily 

at Bowdoin Refuge and at off-refuge sites such as 

schools and local organization sites. Additional interpretive panels would be developed for the refuge 

complex.

The Service would develop a Friends group and 

work with the Malta Chamber of Commerce and 

Phillips County Historical Society to develop informational kiosks and interpretive displays to place in 

the town of Malta.

Many of these proposed actions would be contingent on hiring a visitor services specialist.

Public Access. Same as alternative A, except the 

east side of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge would 

be closed to all foot traffic from the start of the waterfowl season until at least November 30 to provide 

sanctuary, primarily for migratory waterfowl and 

shorebirds. The auto tour route through the closed 

portion of the refuge would remain open to vehicle 

traffic, but visitors would have to remain inside their 

vehicles.

The Service would work with Phillips County to 

rehabilitate the remaining portion of old U.S. Highway 2 that runs through the north end of Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge.

The road and parking area on Black Coulee 

National Wildlife Refuge would be developed to 

improve access for compatible wildlife-dependent 

activities.

Cultural Resources. The Service would complete 

a comprehensive cultural resource inventory for 

the entire refuge complex by working with the zone 

archeologist, contractors, local tribes, universities, 

and other partners to accomplish the project.

Partnerships

The following partnerships discussion covers partnership development and maintenance and energy 

development on Service lands.

Partnership Development and Maintenance. Same 

as alternative A plus, using the private lands and 

other programs, the Service would pursue additional 

partnerships to restore, maintain, and protect wildlife habitats on public and private lands, particularly 

those areas that impact refuge lands and waters. 

A partnership with Phillips County would be pursued to improve the surface of old U.S. Highway 2 

through Bowdoin Refuge.

Energy Development on Service Lands. Same as 

alternative A, plus the Service would determine 

the energy development potential and the associated impacts of all proposed fee-title or easement 

acquisitions as part of evaluating and prioritizing 

these opportunities. When the policy on energy development on Service lands is completed, the refuge 

would modify its program to support the direction 

and objectives of this new policy.

Operations

The following operations discussion covers staff, 

operations, facilities, and signs and boundary designation.

Staff. Same as alternative A, plus the Service 

would add to the refuge complex’s current staff an 

additional six and one-half permanent, full-time 

positions to achieve the goals and supporting objectives described in this alternative: (1) one maintenance worker, WG (Wage Grade)–4749–08; (2) 

one park ranger (visitor services specialist), GS 

(General Schedule)–025–09; (3) one refuge manager, 

GS–485–13; (4) current wildlife biologist position 

upgraded to GS–486–12; (5) one law enforcement 

officer, GS–025–09; (6) one biological science technician, GS–404–08; (7) one office automation clerk, 

GS–326–07; and (8) one permanent-seasonal maintenance worker, WG–3502–05. The current administrative support assistant position would be upgraded to 

a GS–9 administrative officer, and the current G–12 

refuge manager position would be converted to a 

supervisory wildlife refuge specialist, functioning 

as the deputy refuge manager. Additional funding 
72 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

would be required to recruit four seasonal biological 

science technicians. Volunteers would be recruited 

from universities and colleges throughout the region 

and from local communities. In addition, the Service 

would work with universities to develop a volunteer program that would provide college credits 

in exchange for volunteer work experience. With 

additional funding, the Youth Conservation Corps 

program would be reinstated with at least four 

youth positions and one social services aid, GS–186–

05, to head the program.

Operations. Same as alternative A except additional resources would be pursued to achieve refuge 

and district purposes and achieve the goals, objectives, and strategies identified for this alternative. 

This alternative would require additional equipment and five additional vehicles for added staff. 

Outdated heavy equipment such as the road grader, 

scraper, farm tractor, and front-end loader would be 

replaced. Attachments for the farm tractor would 

be needed for habitat management purposes (for 

example, farm disc, grapple fork, and mowers). The 

Service would buy a mower and marsh master to 

manage vegetation in wet areas for control of undesirable plant species and to create open-water habitat. The additional maintenance staff would operate 

and maintain this new equipment.

Facilities. Same as alternative A, plus facilities 

would need to be expanded or enhanced to accommodate the additional staff with equipment and an 

expanded visitor services program. The energy 

supplied to the Bowdoin Refuge headquarters, 

apartment, two houses, and shop buildings would 

be converted to more “green” technologies such 

as solar and wind power. A separate ground water 

well would be needed for the two refuge complex 

residences. The bunkhouse would be expanded to accommodate up to 8 people. One site with a concrete 

pad, septic and water systems, and electricity would 

be developed to accommodate a volunteer with a 

recreational vehicle.

The Service would construct one 10-bay storage 

facility for existing vehicles plus five additional field 

vehicles for new staff. An additional four-bay cold 

storage building would be needed to house additional heavy equipment.

Clumps of Baltic rush (middleground) and bulrush (background) grow on the southern tip of Lakeside unit, an area 

that floods when the refuge pumps water in the spring.

Mike Artmann / USFWS
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 73

New interpretive display and education materials 

would be added to the current visitor contact area. 

The public access road and parking at Black Coulee 

Refuge would be expanded and improved.

Signs and Boundary Designation. Same as alternative A, plus the Service would evaluate the need for 

existing fencing to manage a prescriptive grazing 

program. The retained fencing would be systematically replaced using wildlife-friendly materials 

and techniques including replacing the bottom fence 

wire with smooth wire and placing it no less than 18 

inches from the ground.

Alternative C

Under alternative C, tame grasslands would be 

systematically restored to native species to provide the diverse habitats needed for target species 

of resident and migratory birds. Additional water 

management infrastructure (such as water delivery 

systems, dikes, and levees to manipulate individual 

wetlands) would be developed to create a more diverse and productive wetland complex. Biological 

staff would monitor the level of sedimentation occurring in natural wetlands and plan for its removal to 

restore the biological integrity of these wetlands.

Through partnerships, the Service would increase the acreage of invasive and nonnative species 

treated annually with an emphasis on preventing 

further encroachment of crested wheatgrass and 

Russian olive into native grassland. The Bowdoin 

Refuge would serve as a conservation learning 

center for the local area. Public access would be 

improved to Creedman Coulee National Wildlife 

Refuge.

Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife

The following upland habitat discussion covers native grassland, disturbed grassland, invasive species, 

shelterbelts, habitat protection and acquisition, and 

greater sage-grouse.

Native Grassland. Same as alternative B.

Disturbed Grassland. Same as alternative B.

Invasive and Nonnative Species. Same as alternative B, except through partnerships, the Service 

would increase the number of acres treated annually 

with an emphasis on preventing further encroachment of crested wheatgrass and Russian olive into 

native grassland.

Shelterbelts. Same as alternative B.

Habitat Protection and Acquisition. Same as alternative B.

Greater Sage-Grouse. Same as alternative B.

Wetland Habitat and Associated Wildlife

The following wetland habitat discussion covers 

managed wetlands, natural wetlands, riparian habitat, water rights, habitat protection and acquisition, 

wildlife disease, invasive species, and threatened 

and endangered species.

Managed Wetlands. Same as alternative B, plus 

the Service would develop additional infrastructure 

(such as water delivery systems, dikes, and levees to 

manipulate individual wetlands) to create a more diverse and productive wetland complex. On Bowdoin 

Refuge, a water delivery canal would be constructed 

through the Lakeside wetland unit and directly connect to the Dry Lake Canal. This water delivery 

canal would also include two water structures to 

manage both halves of the Lakeside unit. This would 

enable the Service to deliver water to wetlands below the Lakeside unit without having to fill Lakeside 

first. Biological staff would monitor the level of sedimentation occurring in modified wetlands and plan 

for its removal to restore the biological integrity of 

the wetland.

Natural Wetlands. Same as alternative B, plus the 

biological staff would monitor the level of sedimentation occurring in natural wetlands and plan for its 

removal to restore the biological integrity of the 

wetland.

Riparian Habitat. Same as alternative B, except 

the natural vertical structure in riparian corridors 

would be restored using native species such as cottonwood, willows, and native shrubs to provide habitat for migratory birds and other native wildlife.

Water Supply and Rights. Same as alternative B.

Habitat Protection and Acquisition. Same as alternative B.

Wildlife Disease. Same as alternative A.

Invasive and Nonnative Species. Same as alternative B.

Threatened and Endangered Species. Same as alternative B.

Visitor Services

The following visitor services discussion covers 

hunting and trapping, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental education and interpretation, public access, and cultural resources.

Hunting and Trapping. Same as alternative B.

Fishing. Same as alternative B.

Wildlife Observation and Photography. Same as 

alternative B.

Environmental Education and Interpretation. Same 

as alternative B, plus the Bowdoin Refuge would 

serve as a conservation learning center for the 
74 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

surrounding schools and communities to educate 

students and public about the values of wildlife 

and wetland and grassland conservation. Biannual 

teacher workshops would educate teachers about 

these same values and instruct them on how to use 

the refuge as an outdoor classroom. A refuge-specific 

curriculum would be developed.

Public Access. Same as alternative B, plus the 

Service would work with private landowners within 

the Executive boundary of Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge to increase and improve 

access for wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities at the refuge.

Cultural Resources. Same as alternative B, plus 

the Service would create an interpretive display at 

the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge office depicting the early history of the refuge complex.

Partnerships

The following partnerships discussion covers partnership development and maintenance and energy 

development on Service lands.

Partnership Development and Maintenance. Same 

as alternative B, plus the Service would establish a 

new partnership with Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

Railroad to help address litter and limit the spread 

of invasive plants on Bowdoin Refuge where the 

railroad passes. Additional partnership with the 

Malta Irrigation District would focus on removing 

Russian olive trees along the Dodson South Canal, a 

major seed source for future infestations of trees on 

Bowdoin Refuge.

Energy Development on Service Lands. Same as 

alternative B, except the Service would not acquire 

easements or fee-title lands on properties where 

the Service could not acquire the mineral rights or 

guarantee that future extraction operations would 

not occur.

Operations

The following operations discussion covers staff, 

operations, facilities, and signs and boundary designation.

Staff. Same as alternative B.

Operations. Same as alternative B.

Facilities. Same as alternative B.

Signs and Boundary Designation. Same as alternative B, plus the satellite refuges would be posted 

using the new limited-interest boundary sign proposed for these similar private land refuges in North 

Dakota.

3.4 Summary of Alternatives 

and Consequences

Table 5 summarizes all aspects of management of the 

refuge complex under alternatives A–C, other than 

for Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge and 

the salinity and blowing salts issue at Lake Bowdoin:

■ As described in section 3.1 above, Lake 

Thibadeau Refuge alternative 2 (divestiture) is 

the proposed action for this refuge. Alternatives 

A–C below apply to the remaining four refuges 

and one wetland management district in the refuge complex.

■ Salinity alternative 4 is the proposed action for 

resolution of this issue at Lake Bowdoin (refer to 

“Chapter 6–Analysis of Salinity”). This salinity 

and blowing salts alternative supports the actions outlined in alternative B (proposed action) 

for the entire refuge complex.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Pronghorn graze in the eastern uplands along Lake Bowdoin.
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 75

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action)

GOAL for Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife. Protect, enhance, and restore grassland habitat for breeding and 

migratory birds and other wildlife while maintaining the biological diversity and integrity of native prairie grasslands.

Native grassland—actions

Manipulate native grasslands using Actively manage native grasslands Same as alternative B. 

various techniques such as burning, for targeted grassland birds to mimic 

spraying, grazing, and resting periods. the natural processes of burning and 

Base management actions on out- grazing (timing and frequency) to enside research and do not follow an es- hance native grassland with emphasis 

tablished management plan. on dominant historical communities 

Allow periodic cattle grazing of that still exist in the refuge complex.

about 10 percent of the refuge com- Prepare a grassland habitat manplex uplands with no evaluation of agement plan (within the habitat 

response. management plan) based on tested 

methods for preserving and enhancing 

native grassland.

Native grassland—environmental consequences

Native grasslands would be main- Same as alternative A, except: Same as alternative B.

tained at current conditions, providing Managing for selected bird species 

habitat for many grassland-nesting may reduce habitat for other nonsebirds. lected but desirable species.

Native grassland protected through Inventory and monitoring would 

fee title or easement would be pro- be limited to targeted species to save 

tected in perpetuity from develop- time and resources.

ment or conversion to agricultural Native plant species diversity 

purposes. This would provide ex- would increase, providing improved 

panded grassland habitats for depen- habitat for most native grasslanddent species. Protected grassland nesting birds and other resident wildwould reduce our carbon footprint. life.

Prescribed burning and grazing of Management practices such as 

native grassland would reduce excess grazing may result in invasive plant 

residual plant material and improve infestations and trampling that 

seed germination and plant vigor. could contribute to nest predation. 

Continuing to rest the native grass- However, these would be short-term 

lands would maintain the dominance effects offset by the long-term imof clubmoss, prohibiting the regenera- provements to habitat, which would 

tion of other native grasses and forbs. increase nesting production and sucA continued lack of on-refuge ex- cess.

perimentation, management, plan- Using prescribed fire during the 

ning, and monitoring may result in nesting season can lead to nest deundesirable habitat modifications and struction and increased nest predaloss of native grasslands. tion; however, birds will typically 

renest but may produce fewer eggs. 

In the long-term, production would 

increase with the improved habitat 

conditions.

Developing a grassland habitat 

management plan would focus resources and effort on the highest priority habitat needs.
76 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A

(current management–no action) Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C

Disturbed grassland—actions

Periodically treat disturbed grasslands, also known as DNC, using 

various techniques such as burning, 

spraying, grazing, haying, clipping, 

and resting periods.

Restore cropland on waterfowl production areas mainly to native grasses 

and forbs at a rate of 50 acres per 

year.

Continue to seed DNC on highly 

erodible lands in the wetland management district. Convert DNC fields on 

the Bowdoin Refuge to native forbs 

and grasses.

Gradually convert all disturbed 

grasslands to native grasses, forbs, 

and shrubs that have the greatest 

potential to survive and outcompete 

invasive species while providing habitat to targeted grassland-dependent 

birds.

Ensure that all invasive species are 

controlled in restored areas.

Same as alternative B.

Disturbed grassland—environmental consequences

Disturbed grassland (DNC) provides valuable nesting habitat for 

grassland birds. With minimal funding, seeding of cropland areas to DNC 

or replanting DNC is less expensive 

and easier to establish than native 

grass.

Without rejuvenation (such as 

reseeding) most of the disturbed 

grasslands would lose optimal species 

composition and structure needed for 

nesting grassland birds.

Gradual restoration of croplands 

to native grasses and forbs would increase plant diversity and grassland 

bird-nesting habitat.

Planting DNC would stabilize erodible soils while providing cover and 

nesting habitat for some grasslandnesting birds.

Same as alternative A, plus:

Habitat would be provided for candidate species and species of management concern. Managing for selected 

bird species may reduce habitat for 

other nonselected but desirable species.

Converting disturbed grasslands 

and croplands to native grasses and 

forbs would provide greater plant 

species diversity and attract a wider 

variety of grassland-nesting birds.

Native plantings may take longer 

to become established, resulting in 

low-quality habitat in the short-term 

with a greater possibility of infestation by invasive plants.

Species of birds that prefer DNC 

may be impacted. 

Same as alternative B. 

Invasive and nonnative species—actions

Use mechanical and chemical methods to control the spread of Russian 

olive. Focus control in the interior of 

the management units. Give priority 

to areas where tree removal results in 

large contiguous blocks of grassland.

Use early detection and rapid response to attack initial infestations of 

invasive plant and mammal species 

such as leafy spurge, whitetop, and 

spotted knapweed.

Give little to no attention to larger 

infestations of invasive species such 

as crested wheatgrass due to lack of 

resources and staff.

Same as alternative A, except:

Work with the Service’s Montana 

Invasive Species Strike Team and 

partners to ensure that treated areas 

are mapped, restored with native 

plant species, monitored, and retreated as necessary to prevent reinvasion. Increase treatment of Russian 

olive by at least 25 additional acres. 

Give priority to areas where tree and 

shrub removal would create more contiguous blocks of grassland habitat.

Same as alternative B, except:

Through partnerships, increase the 

number of acres treated annually with 

an emphasis on preventing further 

encroachment of crested wheatgrass 

and Russian olive trees into native 

grassland. 
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 77

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action)

Invasive and nonnative species—actions (continued)

Through partnerships, develop an 

education and outreach program that 

discusses the impacts of Russian olive 

on native habitat and wildlife and provide information on native tree alternatives to Russian olive trees.

Through partnerships, conduct 

experiments to determine the best 

methods for reducing crested wheatgrass to restore treated sites to native 

grasses.

Invasive and nonnative species—environmental consequences

Without comprehensive and consis- Same as alternative A, except: Same as alternative B, except:

tent treatment of rapidly spreading Identifying and mapping invasive Monotypic stands of Russian olive 

Russian olive trees, they would con- species would allow more efficient use trees and crested wheatgrass infestatinue to fragment native grasslands, of resources through improved aware- tions would be reduced more quickly 

which would impact grassland-depen- ness, planning, treatment, and moni- while native prairie habitat would be 

dent birds. Loss of this habitat would toring. improved and restored. This increased 

prevent the refuge complex from Restoration and followup treat- effort would require additional cost 

meeting its purposes. This process ments would eradicate Russian olive and resources and additional monitorhas been slow and inefficient due to trees from target areas, which would ing to ensure areas are not reinfested.

a lack of staff and funding to address improve and restore upland-nesting 

the tremendous expanse and invasion habitat while preventing additional 

by these trees. invasive plant problems.

Habitat would be protected by con- Large, contiguous blocks of grasstrolling or eradicating small infesta- land habitat would be restored with 

tions of invasive plants and noxious the removal of nonnative woody 

weeds. More widespread infestations vegetation. These large blocks of unsuch as crested wheatgrass would fragmented grassland habitat would 

continue to provide low-quality nest- provide nesting and cover habitat 

ing habitat for native birds and con- for a variety of grassland-dependent 

tinued spread into native areas would birds and other native wildlife. Predegrade upland-nesting habitat. dation of nests and young would be 

Russian olive trees would provide reduced and additional nesting terfood, cover, nesting, and perching ritories would be provided.

sites for some birds and mammals Species that use Russian olive trees 

including nest predators (magpies, for food and cover would move to 

raccoons, and skunks) and some game other treed areas on the refuge combirds. Predation of grassland birds plex or migrate to wooded habitats off 

and their nests would increase due to the refuge complex.

habitat fragmentation caused by Rus- Educating the public about the 

sian olive. impacts of Russian olive trees may 

reduce off-refuge seed sources and increase off-refuge native plantings for 

the benefit of native wildlife.

Experimental treatments of 

crested wheatgrass would result in 

an effective, long-term treatment program and restore native grasslands, 

improving habitat for most grasslanddependent birds.
78 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A

(current management–no action) Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C

Shelterbelts—actions

Remove Russian olive trees as the 

only active management of shelterbelts.

Excluding the office compound, begin removing all shelterbelts to create 

more contiguous blocks of grassland 

habitat and restore it to prevent invasive species from encroaching. Permit 

no additional shelterbelts.

Same as alternative B.

Shelterbelts—environmental consequences

Shelterbelts would deteriorate 

while continuing to cause fragmentation of the surrounding grassland 

and serve as seed sources for invasive 

trees and shrubs.

Shelterbelts would provide marginal habitat to various wildlife species, many undesirable. This includes 

food, cover, nesting, and perching 

sites for some birds and mammals 

including nest predators (magpies, 

raccoons, and skunks) and some game 

birds.

Upland-nesting conditions would be 

immediately improved with restoration and less fragmentation. Grasslands would no longer be fragmented 

by new plantings of shelterbelts. This 

would reduce predation and maintain 

and improve habitats for grasslandnesting birds.

Seed sources for invasive plants 

would be eliminated.

Same as alternative B.

Habitat protection and acquisition—actions

Continue annual protection and 

enforcement of current Service grassland easements as first priority.

Continue to seek potential grassland easements to acquire from willing sellers as time and staff permits. 

Give priority for fee-title acquisition 

to private inholdings adjacent to or 

within boundaries of the refuges and 

waterfowl production areas and from 

willing sellers, as funding and opportunities arise.

Same as alternative A, plus:

Prepare grant proposals to pursue resources for future acquisitions 

of grassland easements and fee title 

from willing sellers.

Work with HAPET to identify critical waterfowl breeding and nesting 

sites that need protection.

Establish partnerships with conservation groups to acquire lands for 

transfer.

Same as alternative B.

Habitat protection and acquisition—environmental consequences

Through fee-title and easement acquisitions, more quality habitat would 

be permanently protected and managed for the benefit of wildlife.

Fee-title lands would provide additional public use opportunities.

Enforcement of easements and regulations on Service lands with current 

law enforcement capabilities would 

continue to be marginal due to the size 

of the refuge complex, logistics, and 

travel involved.

Same as alternative A, plus:

Grants and partnerships would provide additional resources for acquisitions and more flexibility in working 

with willing sellers, resulting in more 

immediate protection of upland habitats.

Identification of priority areas for 

protection would ensure that the 

most critical waterfowl breeding and 

nesting habitats are protected as 

resources and opportunities become 

available.

Same as alternative B.
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 79

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action)

Greater sage-grouse—actions

Continue to provide habitat for Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B.

greater sage-grouse. Monitor population levels and 

trends.

Identify and maintain or enhance 

sage-grouse habitat throughout the 

refuge complex.

Target greater sage-grouse for 

future upland habitat management 

actions.

Plant silver sagebrush on the Korsbeck and Beaver Creek WPAs to 

provide additional breeding, nesting, 

and feeding habitat for greater sagegrouse.

Greater sage-grouse—environmental consequences

Protecting existing greater sage- Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B. 

grouse habitat would continue to Identifying all potential sageprovide protected quality habitat for grouse habitat would allow the Serthis resident species, which has been vice to better manage, protect, and 

recently designated as a candidate for restore or enhance it.

listing as a threatened species. Restoring sagebrush habitat to 

these waterfowl production areas 

would provide additional nesting 

and feeding habitat for greater sagegrouse.

GOAL for Wetland Habitat and Associated Wildlife. Provide wetland habitat for breeding and migratory birds and 

other wildlife that maintains biological diversity and integrity of prairie pothole wetlands.

Managed wetlands—actions

Flood and draw down wetlands in Same as alternative A, except: Same as alternative B, plus:

an attempt to mimic natural wetland Add more staff and equipment to Construct additional infrastructure 

hydroperiods to provide migration maintain, repair, and replace all water such as water delivery systems, dikes, 

habitat and breeding and nesting level management structures. and levees to manipulate individual 

habitat for wetland-dependent migra- Add biological and maintenance wetland units to create a more diverse 

tory birds. staff to achieve enhancement, res- and productive wetland complex.

Because the Bowdoin Refuge’s toration, creation, protection, and Construct a water delivery canal 

wetland program is dependent on the maintenance of managed wetlands on Bowdoin Refuge that goes through 

availability of natural runoff, deliv- throughout the refuge complex. the Lakeside wetland unit and directly 

ered water, and periodic flood events Acquire funding to buy additional connects to the Dry Lake Canal, enfrom Beaver Creek, continue to ex- delivered water from the Malta Ir- abling the Service to deliver water to 

ercise Service water rights through- rigation District (when available) to wetlands below Lakeside.

out the refuge complex, including the properly manage wetlands on Bow- Monitor the level of sedimentation 

Reclamation water right for Bowdoin doin Refuge and Pearce WPA, includ- occurring in managed wetlands and 

Refuge provided through a perpetual ing piping plover nesting habitat. plan for its removal to restore the bioMOA. Install new ground water wells to logical integrity of the wetlands.

supplement wetland management 

needs.

Add water-pumping sites on the 

Beaver Creek and McNeil Slough 

WPAs to create wetland habitat for 

migratory birds.
80 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A

(current management–no action) Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C

Managed wetlands—actions (continued)

Continue maintenance of water 

management structures (such as dikes 

and levees) as funding became available (most have been repaired and 

upgraded through annual deferred 

maintenance funding and partnerships).

Identify and map potential wetland 

creations and enhancement projects.

Use prescribed fire, grazing, 

haying, and other mechanical and 

chemical treatments to create habitat diversity and provide open-water 

habitat for migratory waterbirds, primarily waterfowl and shorebirds.

Identify and map potential wetland 

creations and enhancement projects.

Managed wetlands—environmental consequences

Management promotes a diverse 

wetland complex that helps increase 

the likelihood of meeting the habitat 

needs of wetland-dependent species.

Typically, there is an inadequate 

supply of water for Bowdoin Refuge 

to fill and properly manage these wetlands for wetland-dependent migratory birds. Effective management of 

managed wetlands within the refuge 

complex would remain limited by the 

Service’s water rights and funding.

Without adequate monitoring and 

documentation, it would be difficult 

to determine if management actions 

were improving habitat conditions 

for desired species and whether they 

should be continued. This could result 

in loss of desired habitats and wasted 

resources.

Managed wetlands with adequately 

maintained water control structures 

would facilitate proper management 

and control of invasive plants and 

avian botulism through planned drawdowns.

There would always be the potential for an accidental spill of highly 

saline water into Beaver Creek by 

natural means (such as a significant 

rain event) or failure of a water control structure, which could negatively 

affect downstream habitats and water 

users.

Same as alternative A, except:

More staff and equipment would 

improve the Service’s ability to maintain, repair, and manage facilities 

(such as water control structures, levees, and dikes) needed to adequately 

manage modified wetlands.

Mapping would help identify critical habitat areas for migratory birds 

the Service should be targeting for 

further wetland creation.

With additional biological staff, 

modified wetlands could be better 

monitored for effectiveness of management practices, and staff could 

conduct biological studies to improve 

management capabilities and wildlife 

use.

With additional staff, herbicide application would be used more effectively to restore wetland habitat. Use 

of herbicides in wetlands could have 

potential, short-term, negative effects 

on aquatic vegetation, invertebrates, 

and nesting habitat for some bird species.

These short-term effects would be 

offset by the long-term improvements 

to wetland habitat.

Acquiring additional water resources would increase the availability and quality of habitat for 

wetland-dependent migratory birds, 

including the threatened piping plover.

Same as alternative B, plus:

New infrastructure would facilitate 

and improve wetland management 

capabilities of managed wetlands, 

increasing habitat for migratory wetland birds. This new infrastructure 

could be expensive to construct initially and would need maintenance.

Monitoring sedimentation would 

determine maintenance needs and ensure the health and survival of created 

wetlands. 
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 81

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action)

Managed wetlands—environmental consequences (continued)

The use of prescribed fire, grazing, haying, and other mechanical and 

chemical treatments would continue 

to improve the quality of wetland 

habitat for migratory birds and other 

wetland-dependent wildlife.

Reduction in the extent of cattails 

should also improve migratory habitat 

for ducks and shorebirds as wetlands 

are flooded during spring and fall migration periods.

Natural wetlands—actions

Continue to monitor natural wet- Same as alternative A, except: Same as alternative B, plus:

lands for invasive plant species and Acquire additional money to re- Monitor the level of sedimentation 

wildlife use. store natural wetlands. occurring in natural wetlands and plan 

Use management practices such Use additional biological treat- for its removal to restore the biologias prescribed burning, grazing, and ments to treat invasive plants and cal integrity of the wetlands.

invasive plant control to maintain the noxious weeds.

natural productivity of the wetlands Monitor and plan management 

to restore habitat for migratory birds. needs on natural wetlands with adRestore potential wetland restora- ditional biological staff.

tion sites that have been identified if 

money became available.

With partners, pursue resources to 

identify and protect critical wetland 

complexes for breeding and nesting 

waterfowl through easements or feetitle acquisition.

Natural wetlands—environmental consequences

The lack of resources and staff to Same as alternative A, except: Same as alternative B, plus:

effectively restore, manage, and maxi- Additional natural wetlands would Monitoring sedimentation would 

mize the potential of natural wetlands be restored while current wetlands determine maintenance needs and enresults in many missed opportunities would be properly managed. This sure the health and survival of natural 

to provide important habitat for wet- includes the treatment of invasive wetlands. 

land-dependent wildlife. plants and noxious weeds. Restored 

With current staffing levels, control natural wetlands would provide 

of invasive plants and cattail in wet- quality wetland habitat for wetlandlands would continue on a small scale; dependent migratory birds and other 

therefore, some wetland habitat for wildlife. 

migratory birds would be improved 

as noxious weeds and invasive plants 

were controlled or eradicated.

Critical wetland complexes would 

be protected, expanding available 

habitat for wetland-dependent wildlife.
82 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A

(current management–no action) Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C

Riparian habitat—actions

Continue to fence the boundaries of 

the refuges and waterfowl production 

areas to eliminate the negative effects 

of trespass livestock grazing.

Continue to rest riparian areas, so 

they can revegetate naturally.

Use early detection and rapid 

response (chemical, biological, and 

mechanical methods) to treat initial 

infestations of invasive plant species.

Same as alternative A, plus:

The refuge complex would work 

with the Services Montana strike 

team and partners to identify and map 

the locations and extent of invasive 

species within the riparian areas. 

Treatments would be documented 

and sites would be restored with 

native plant species, and monitored 

(re-treating as necessary) to prevent 

reinvasion.

Russian olive trees would be removed and these areas would be 

revegetated with native species, as 

needed. Treated sites would be monitored and re-treated to prevent reinvasion.

Same as alternative B, plus:

Natural vertical structure would be 

restored in riparian corridors using 

native species, such as cottonwood 

trees, willows, and native shrubs, to 

provide habitat for migratory birds 

and other native wildlife. 

Riparian habitat—environmental consequences

Excluding cattle from riparian areas should allow for these areas to revegetate naturally with the potential 

of introducing nonnative or invasive 

species.

Riparian habitat would be protected and improved by controlling 

or eradicating small infestations of 

invasive and noxious species including 

Russian olive.

Same as alternative A, except:

Identifying and mapping invasive 

species would allow more efficient use 

of resources through improved awareness, planning, treatment, and monitoring.

Monitoring of treated areas would 

help in determining the best method 

of control and would also remove the 

seed source for reinvasion.

Restoration of native species would 

provide habitat for riparian-dependent wildlife species. Species that feed 

and roost on Russian olive trees may 

relocate to native forested areas on 

the refuge complex or onto adjacent 

wooded lands.

Same as alternative B, plus:

Native tree plantings would provide vertical structure and additional 

nesting, roosting, and food sources for 

native birds and other wildlife. Planting trees would be costly and timeconsuming.

Water supply and rights—actions

Continue to exercise the Service’s 

current water rights and the use described in the MOA with Reclamation 

to provide habitat for migratory birds. 

When additional water is available to 

meet habitat objectives, continue to 

pay for additional deliveries of water 

from the Malta Irrigation District as 

refuge budgets allow.

Same as alternative A, except:

Complete the adjudication of the 

Federal reserved water rights and 

compact between the State of Montana and the Service.

Acquire funding to purchase additional water deliveries when they 

are made available to Bowdoin Refuge 

and Pearce WPA.

Same as alternative B. 
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 83

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action)

Water supply and rights—environmental consequences

Water delivery costs continue to Same as alternative A, except: Same as alternative B.

rise, yet refuge complex budgets for Additional water resources for 

purchasing delivered water is stag- Bowdoin Refuge and Pearce WPA 

nant, resulting in less wetland habitat would allow the Service to better 

available for migratory birds. manage wetland resources, improve 

Current budgets do not permit the water quality, and provide more wetService to buy enough additional ir- land habitat for migratory birds. Adrigation water to adequately manage ditional water resources would also 

Bowdoin Refuge and Pearce WPA. provide nesting habitat for the threatened piping plover on Piping Plover 

Pond on Bowdoin Refuge.

More money would be needed to 

consistently pay for additional water 

deliveries, when available.

Habitat protection and acquisition—actions

Annually inspect all wetland ease- Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B.

ments for compliance. Work with partners and prepare 

Continue to protect natural wet- grant proposals to pursue resources 

lands through easements and fee-title for future acquisitions of wetland 

purchases from willing sellers within easements and fee-title from willing 

the refuge acquisition boundaries sellers.

and within the wetland management Work with HAPET to identify critidistrict. Give first priority to the con- cal waterfowl breeding and nesting 

tinued annual protection and enforce- sites that need protection. 

ment of current wetland easements. 

Give second priority to continue to 

protect natural wetlands through Service easements from willing sellers. 

Give third priority to fee-title acquisition from willing sellers.

Habitat protection and acquisition—environmental consequences

Additional protected habitats Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B.

would provide expanded resting and Protection of identified, critical 

breeding areas for wetland-dependent habitat for waterfowl breeding and 

wildlife. nesting would be expanded using additional resources. This would provide 

important habitat for waterfowl and 

other migratory waterbirds and wetland-dependent wildlife in perpetuity.

Wildlife disease—actions

Plan water deliveries during early Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

spring (through May 15) and late 

summer (early September) to avoid 

rising or fluctuating water levels on 

areas susceptible to avian botulism 

outbreaks.

As temperatures rise in summer, 

monitor wetlands weekly for disease 

outbreaks. Send sample carcasses to 

the National Wildlife Health Center 

for analysis. 
84 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A

(current management–no action) Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C

Wildlife disease—actions (continued)

Collect dead birds only if a disease 

outbreak posed a human health risk 

(the larger botulism outbreaks cannot 

be prevented by human intervention) 

or in high public use areas as determined by the Service.

Continue to allow the U.S. Interagency Working Group to monitor the 

refuge complex for any avian influenza 

outbreaks.

When approved, implement the 

Mountain–Prairie Region policy for a 

mosquito control plan to address potential outbreaks of West Nile virus 

and avian influenza.

Wildlife disease—environmental consequences

Water level management would 

lessen the chances of an outbreak of 

avian botulism but not completely 

eliminate it. Larger avian botulism 

outbreaks would be permitted to run 

their course, since recent studies indicate retrieving dead birds does little 

to reduce the effects of the disease. 

This may require the refuge to notify 

and educate the public about this 

natural process.

Monitoring for diseases that may 

be transferred to humans, could limit 

their spread.

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

Invasive and nonnative species—actions

Use early detection and rapid response to treat initial infestations of 

invasive plant and mammal species.

Use chemical and mechanical treatments such as prescribed fire, haying, 

and grazing to periodically set back 

invasive plants and noxious weeds as 

necessary to restore habitat for targeted resident and migratory birds.

Same as alternative A, plus:

Work with the Service’s Montana 

Invasive Species Strike Team and 

partners to identify and map the locations and extent of invasive species in 

wetlands.

For treated areas, map, monitor, 

and re-treat as necessary to prevent 

reinvasion. Investigate the availability and effectiveness of biological 

treatments.

Remove Russian olive trees and 

other vegetation that impedes the 

function of water level management 

structures (such as dikes, ditches, and 

levees).

Same as alternative B.
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 85

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action)

Invasive and nonnative species—environmental consequences

Early detection and rapid response Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B.

would facilitate control and possible Identifying and mapping invasive 

eradication of small infestations of species would allow more efficient 

new invaders around wetlands and treatment and use of resources 

protect the integrity and manageabil- through improved awareness, planity of dikes and water delivery sys- ning, treatment, and monitoring. This 

tems. awareness would help the refuge comMechanical and chemical treatment plex in working with the surrounding 

of invasive plants and noxious weeds counties to identify seed sources and 

would create open-water habitat prioritize treatment sites.

for targeted resident and migratory Water level management capabilibirds, promote native vegetation, and ties, thus habitat, would be improved 

improve recreational opportunities. on areas where Russian olive trees 

are removed from water level management structures.

Wildlife using existing Russian olive trees would resort to using native 

cover and food sources found on the 

refuge complex or would use neighboring lands.

Threatened and endangered species—actions

Take no action to acquire water Acquire additional water resources Same as alternative B.

adequate water to properly manage (see “Water Supply and Rights” 

critical habitat for piping plovers on above) to properly manage piping 

Bowdoin Refuge to attract nesting plover habitat on Bowdoin National 

birds. Wildlife Refuge and monitor response. 

Create additional piping plover habitat as additional water is acquired.

Protect all nests from flooding and 

predation. Monitor hatched young until they fledge.

Threatened and endangered species—environmental consequences

Lack of adequate water supply on Additional water would permit the Same as alternative B.

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Bowdoin Refuge to manage wetlands 

would continue the lack of adequate specifically to attract piping plovers. 

habitat for the threatened piping plo- This would give the plover added 

ver. The plovers have moved to other, protection not currently found on offless protected areas, which may affect refuge nesting sites.

their survival and nesting success. Artificially protecting nests and 

young would increase survival of eggs 

and nestlings but may result in abandonment.
86 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A

(current management–no action) Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C

GOAL for Visitor Services. Provide visitors of all abilities with wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and 

education opportunities that fosters an appreciation and understanding of the unique wildlife, plant communities, and 

cultural resources of the Montana Prairie Pothole Region. 

Hunting and trapping—actions

Continue to allow current hunting 

of upland birds and waterfowl in select areas on the refuges to manage 

wildlife and provide compatible, priority, wildlife-dependent public use.

Permit late-season hunting of upland game birds on previously closed 

areas at Bowdoin Refuge after waterfowl have left (first 2 days are for 

young hunters only) but no sooner 

than December 1.

Continue current compatible hunting program on waterfowl production 

areas.

Retain the accessible boat dock 

(Lake Bowdoin), parking, and hunting 

blind (Pearce WPA).

Require all hunters on Bowdoin 

Refuge to sign in and out at the informational kiosk, where refuge hunting 

regulations and maps are provided.

Continue to issue special use permits to a limited number of trappers 

on Bowdoin Refuge to remove burrowing animals that threaten refuge 

infrastructure or to protect migratory 

birds. Continue to prohibit leg-hold 

traps.

Continue to permit trapping on the 

waterfowl production areas according 

to State and Federal regulations.

Same as alternative A, plus:

Work with the State to determine 

the feasibility of providing an accessible, limited, big game archery hunt on 

portions of Bowdoin Refuge currently 

open to public use. Address the safety 

of refuge visitors and the wildlife and 

habitat response.

Same as alternative B.

Hunting and trapping—environmental consequences

Hunter numbers and satisfaction 

would remain relatively unchanged.

Roads, trails, and water management structures on Bowdoin Refuge 

would continue to be protected from 

burrowing animals.

The success of grassland- and wetland-nesting birds would increase due 

to a reduction in mammalian predators such as skunks and raccoons.

Same as alternative A, plus:

The Service and the State would 

be able to collect the necessary information and evaluate all the options 

needed to determine if and how a safe 

big game archery hunt could be found 

compatible on Bowdoin Refuge in the 

future.

Same as alternative A.

Fishing—actions

Continue compatible, recreational 

fishing opportunities on waterfowl 

production areas with suitable fishing 

habitat (currently, two of the seven 

waterfowl production areas).

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 87

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action)

Fishing—actions (continued)

Continue to not permit recreational 

fishing on any of the refuges, including 

Bowdoin, which have minimal habitat 

or high salinity levels, or both, and do 

not support a game fishery.

Fishing—environmental consequences

Fishing opportunities and angler Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

satisfaction would remain relatively 

unchanged.

Wildlife observation and photography—actions

Retain the 15-mile auto tour route Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B.

and an accompanying interpretive Provide, at least monthly, wildlife 

brochure for Bowdoin Refuge. observation and photography proRetain two accessible photo blinds, grams for refuge complex visitors.

one on Bowdoin Refuge and one on Develop stop number 5 along the 

Pearce WPA. auto tour route to accommodate 

Retain the paved 0.4-mile acces- more accessible parking and install 

sible trail around the Display Pond on interpretive kiosks and two spotting 

Bowdoin Refuge including interpre- scopes for observing wildlife.

tive panels and an observation deck.

Wildlife observation and photography—environmental consequences

Wildlife observation and photogra- Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B.

phy opportunities would remain con- Wildlife observation and photograstant. phy opportunities would be expanded 

Maintaining the 15-mile auto tour and enhanced, creating a greater unroute would continue to provide visi- derstanding and appreciation of the 

tors of all abilities with quality wildlife refuge complex resources.

observation and photography oppor- Enhanced and expanded wildlifetunities. viewing opportunities may cause additional disturbance to wildlife and 

increase conflicts with other users. 

Uses would need to be monitored and 

evaluated to minimize and mitigate 

any adverse effects.

Environmental education and interpretation—actions

Continue opportunistic environ- Same as alternative A, except: Same as alternative B, plus:

mental education programs as time Expand opportunities for environ- Serve as a conservation learning 

and staff allow. mental education and interpretation center for the surrounding schools 

Retain the up-to-date interpretive to foster appreciation and understand- and communities to educate students 

panels and brochures, and update oth- ing of the Refuge System and the re- and adults about the values of wildlife, 

ers as resources become available. sources of the refuge complex. wetland, and grassland conservation.

Create a public use regulation bro- Update the refuge complex’s mam- Develop a refuge-specific curricuchure for the satellite refuges and wa- mal, reptile, and amphibian lists; de- lum with help from local teachers.

terfowl production areas. velop a wildlife list to the Service’s Conduct biannual workshops for 

Maintain the refuge complex’s Web graphic standards. grade school and university teachers.

site to provide information on the Develop a Friends group for the 

resources of the area and public use refuge complex that could work with 

opportunities. visitors and students.
88 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A

(current management–no action) Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C

Environmental education and interpretation—actions (continued)

Prepare periodic news articles on 

refuge complex activities and values 

of local natural resources.

Provide monthly updates to the 

local chamber of commerce on public 

use opportunities.

Work with the city of Malta to install an informational kiosk providing 

refuge complex information and directional maps.

Develop a display at the Phillips 

County museum highlighting the history of the refuge complex.

Environmental education and interpretation—environmental consequences

Environmental education would 

minimally meet the public demand. 

Opportunities to educate students 

and the public about the values and 

purposes of the refuge complex and 

the Refuge System would be lost. This 

lack of understanding and appreciation would result in a loss of support 

for the refuge complex and the Refuge 

System.

Public outreach and interpretation 

would meet minimum Service requirements. Visitors would be provided 

adequate resources to independently 

learn about the refuge complex environment; however, there would be 

minimal contact with refuge complex 

staff to answer questions and offer 

further interpretation.

There would be greater public understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge complex’s resources and issues 

due to expanded interpretive, outreach, and educational programs.

A Friends group could provide additional staff and resources to conduct 

refuge and visitor services programs, 

which would increase awareness 

about the refuge complex and its resources.

Visitation by the public, schools, 

and other groups would increase, 

providing opportunities to reach a 

broader audience.

If not managed properly, increased 

use may lead to additional disturbance 

to wildlife and habitat.

Same as alternative B, plus:

Increased use of the refuge as an 

outdoor classroom by schools and 

other organizations would result in a 

greater awareness and appreciation 

for preserving the area’s natural resources.

By educating teachers, a greater 

number of students would receive this 

environmental education.

Public access—actions

Continue to provide adequate public access for visitors to participate in 

compatible, wildlife-dependent public 

uses.

Excluding the office compound, 

keep the refuge complex open to foot 

traffic year-round.

Same as alternative A, except:

Close the east end of Bowdoin Refuge to all foot traffic at the start of the 

waterfowl hunting season (through 

November 30) to provide sanctuary 

areas for migratory waterfowl and 

shorebirds. Keep the auto tour route 

open but require visitors to remain in 

their vehicles in designated sanctuary 

areas.

Construct a road and parking area 

on Black Coulee Refuge to improve 

access to waterfowl hunting opportunities.

Work with Phillips County to determine the feasibility of rehabilitating the remaining portion of old U.S. 

Highway 2 that runs through the 

north end of Bowdoin Refuge.

Same as alternative B, plus:

Work with the landowners on 

Creedman Coulee Refuge to determine their interest in providing additional access and opportunities for 

compatible, wildlife-dependent public 

uses. 
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 89

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action)

Public access—environmental consequences

Public access to the refuge com- Same as alternative A, except: Same as alternative B, plus:

plex would remain constant, allowing Sanctuary would be provided for With improved access through landvisitors to access public lands. There migrating waterfowl and other water- owner cooperation, public use opporwould continue to be some distur- birds during the waterfowl-hunting tunities and visitor satisfaction may 

bance to waterfowl residing on the season at Bowdoin Refuge. increase on Creedman Coulee Refuge.

refuge during periods of higher visita- Conflicts between hunters and 

tion. nonhunters may increase during the 

hunting season due to closure of the 

eastern portion of Bowdoin Refuge to 

foot traffic.

Nonhunter satisfaction may decrease due to a reduction in access 

opportunities. Hunter satisfaction 

may decrease due to an increase in 

wildlife disturbance within the hunting zone. However, hunters may have 

more opportunities to hunt waterfowl, 

because this sanctuary area may encourage birds to remain on the refuge, 

including the areas open to hunting.

Public use opportunities and satisfaction would increase on Black 

Coulee Refuge with improved access 

to the reservoir. Maintenance needs 

would increase. If the county was able 

to rehabilitate the remaining portion 

of U.S. Highway 2, the road would be 

safer and provide better public access 

to the refuge.

Increased traffic on the road could 

lead to more littering, and increased 

driving speeds could lead to more vehicle–wildlife collisions.

Cultural resources—actions

Use the Montana statewide cultural Working with the zone archeologist, Same as alternative B, plus:

resource inventory list to determine contractors, local tribes, the State Create a display at the office intersensitive sites before activities. Historic Preservation Office, uni- preting the early history of the refuge 

Document cultural resource sites versities, and other partners, start a complex. 

and ensure their protection. comprehensive cultural resource inventory.

Cultural resources—environmental consequences

Inventory of the refuge complex’s Knowledge of the early history of Same as alternative B, plus:

cultural resources would continue at the refuge complex would increase. Public knowledge and appreciation 

a minimal level. This lack of knowl- Increased awareness and mapping for the early history of the refuge 

edge would make it more difficult to of cultural resources would enhance complex would increase.

adequately protect cultural resource protection of these resources from 

sites from theft and vandalism. Service and public activities.

More information would help to interpret the unique cultural history of 

the area.
90 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A

(current management–no action) Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C

GOAL for Partnerships. Maintain and expand partnerships that preserve, restore, and enhance healthy and productive 

prairie/wetland complexes on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge and within the wetland management district.

Partnership development and maintenance—actions

Pursue partnership opportunities 

to achieve activities of mutual interest.

Continue working with Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife, and 

Parks to conduct habitat improvement 

projects in areas open to hunting.

Continue to support the private 

land work of the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program.

Periodically provide easement 

landowners with information about 

additional opportunities for compensated added protections. Also, send 

information about the conservation 

easement program to other potential 

landowners. 

Same as alternative A, plus:

Expand efforts to develop, coordinate, and manage new partnerships to 

benefit the refuge complex.

Work with landowners within the 

approved boundaries of Hewitt Lake, 

Black Coulee, and Creedman Coulee 

refuges to provide willing landowners 

with opportunities to receive compensation for added protections (grassland and wetland easements and fee 

title).

Continue expanding partnerships 

with the four counties surrounding 

the refuge complex to improve roads 

that provide public access.

Work with other Federal land managers to determine if their infrastructure and management actions could be 

used to enhance the refuge complex’s 

wetland system.

Develop a Friends Group for the 

refuge complex. 

Same as alternative B, plus:

Pursue a partnership with the Burlington Northern Railroad Company 

to address litter and invasive species 

issues related to their railroad rightof-way.

Develop a partnership with the 

Malta Irrigation District to control 

Russian olive trees along the Dodson 

South Canal.

Partnership development and maintenance—environmental consequences

Expanded partnerships would increase the Service’s ability to provide 

quality habitats for wildlife.

Continued support of the Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife Program would 

improve relationships between the 

Government and landowners while 

protecting additional habitat on private lands, some that have the potential to affect refuge complex lands and 

waters.

Periodic easement landowner contacts would reduce the potential for 

easement contract violations.

There may be additional opportunities to acquire easements on private 

lands that have high wetland densities 

and large tracts of native prairie.

Same as alternative A, plus:

Expanded partnerships would provide additional resources to address 

management issues of common interest while reducing potential impacts 

from offsite activities on neighboring 

lands.

Hewitt Lake, Black Coulee, and 

Creedman Coulee refuges would provide additional upland habitat for migratory birds.

Improving county road surfaces 

would provide a better experience 

for wildlife-dependent recreationists. 

Increased traffic through the refuge 

complex may result in higher human 

to wildlife interactions.

Same as alternative B, plus:

A partnership between Bowdoin 

Refuge and the railroad would provide 

for a cleaner landscape and a quality 

experience for visitors. Invasive species brought into the refuge via the 

railroad right-of-way would be controlled and monitored.

Removal of Russian Olive trees on 

the Dodson South Canal would eliminate a major seed source for invasion 

of Russian Olive trees on Bowdoin 

Refuge.

Energy development on Service lands—actions

Following Service procedures, 

work with energy developers who are 

extracting reserved and excepted oil, 

gas, and mineral rights on grassland 

easements and fee-title lands to minimize impacts from their operations.

Same as alternative A, except:

Evaluate all future, land acquisition 

projects to determine the status of the 

reserved and excepted oil, gas, and 

mineral rights to evaluate the potential impacts of energy development on 

wetland and grassland habitats.

Same as alternative B, except:

Do not buy easements or fee-title 

lands on properties where the Service 

cannot acquire the mineral rights or 

guarantee that future extraction operations would not occur..
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 91

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action)

Energy development on Service lands—actions (continued)

Keep physical occupancy at the When the policy on energy developminimum space compatible with ef- ment on Service lands is completed, 

ficient mineral operation. modify the program to support the 

Work with energy developers who direction and objectives of this new 

hold mineral leases on Service lands policy.

to complete habitat improvement 

projects in exchange for disturbances 

caused by their exploration and development activities.

Manage impacts using the FWS Oil 

and Gas handbook and 50 CFR.

Energy development on Service lands—environmental consequences 

Partnerships with energy devel- Same as alternative A, plus: Impacts to future easements caused 

opers would encourage good stew- The Service would be able to better by oil and gas development may be 

ardship. This may help to minimize determine potential impacts of energy lessened, but landowners may be 

impacts while preserving the maxi- development on lands proposed for discouraged from entering into any 

mum amount of wetland and grass- protection. This evaluation would help agreements with the Service, thus limland habitats. the Service in making decisions that iting the quantity and quality of lands 

Energy development would be con- are more informed and in setting pri- available for easement. 

ducted with minimal interference to orities for proposals.

the operation of the refuge complex. 

Impacts to wildlife and habitat would 

increase as energy demand increases.

GOAL for Operations. Prioritize for wildlife first and emphasize the protection of trust resources in the utilization of 

staff, funding, partnerships, and volunteer programs. 

Staff—actions

Retain the current staff of five Same as alternative A, plus: Same as alternative B.

full-time equivalent employees (ref- Increase the staff by six and oneuge manager, GS–485–12; wildlife half new positions including a GS–13 

biologist, GS–486–11; wildlife refuge refuge manager position. Convert the 

specialist (collateral law enforcement current manager position to a superviofficer), GS–485–9; administrative as- sory wildlife refuge specialist to serve 

sistant, GS–303–7; and maintenance as deputy refuge manager. 

worker, WG–4749–8). Recruit a GS–326–5 office auTo ensure the success of refuge tomation clerk and upgrade the 

complex programs, recruit one sea- administrative support assistant to 

sonal maintenance worker, two an administrative officer, GS–341–9. 

seasonal biological technicians, and Recruit an additional WG–4749–8 

volunteers, as funding is available. maintenance worker and a careerRetain the biologist for the Part- seasonal WG–3502–5 laborer.

ners for Fish and Wildlife Program to Recruit a GS–025–9 visitor services 

be stationed at the refuge complex. specialist and a GS–025–9 law enforcement officer.

Upgrade the wildlife biologist to 

a GS–486–12. Recruit a permanent, 

full-time GS–404–8, biological science 

technician. Annually recruit at least 

four temporary biological technicians, 

GS–404–3/4/5.
92 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A

(current management–no action) Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C

Staff—actions (continued)

Recruit volunteers from around 

the country and through State and 

regional universities and colleges. 

Reinstate the Youth Conservation 

Corps program, hiring four youths 

and one social services aid, GS–186–

05, to lead the program.

Work with Montana universities to 

develop a volunteer program by providing college credits in exchange for 

volunteer work experience.

Staff—environmental consequences

Programs would be maintained at 

the current levels, which means that 

habitats would continue to degrade 

due to a significant lack of resources. 

There would continue to be minimal 

monitoring of habitat and wildlife responses to management actions.

A backlog of maintenance projects 

would continue to accumulate.

As public use continued to increase, 

it would become more challenging for 

a single collateral-duty, law enforcement officer to enforce regulations 

and protect resources.

Same as alternative A, plus:

Additional funding would be required for the salary, equipment, 

facilities, and office space for the additional positions.

Additional staff and volunteers 

would be able to adequately manage and protect the refuge complex 

habitats and provide visitors with 

additional quality wildlife-dependent 

programs and recreational opportunities.

Research and monitoring could be 

conducted and would be used to evaluate management actions and adapt 

programs.

Facilities and equipment would be 

maintained and maintenance issues 

would be resolved.

Same as alternative B.

Operations—actions

Continue funding for operations at 

current levels.

Continue to maintain vehicles, 

heavy equipment, other equipment, 

buildings and refuge housing, and 

other refuge complex facilities and 

infrastructure needed to achieve management goals.

Replace equipment as funding became available.

Same as alternative A, except:

Acquire additional resources to 

achieve refuge and district purposes 

and achieve the goals, objectives, and 

strategies identified the draft CCP.

Acquire five additional field vehicles and field equipment for additional 

staff.

Replace outdated heavy equipment 

such as the road grader, scrapper, 

farm tractor, and front-end loader. 

Acquire attachments (such as a farm 

disc, grapple fork, and mowers) for 

the farm tractor for habitat management purposes. Acquire a mower and 

marsh master to manage vegetation 

in wet areas for control of undesirable 

plant species and to create open-water 

habitat.

Same as alternative B.
CHAPTER 3–Alternatives 93

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C (current management–no action)

Operations—environmental consequences

Current levels of funding are in- Added funding and equipment Same as alternative B.

adequate to acquire the needed staff, would ensure enhancement and profacilities, equipment, and other re- tection of refuge complex resources 

sources necessary to properly manage and facilities while improving safety 

and protect refuge complex resources, and expanding opportunities for visimaintain facilities and equipment, and tors to participate in wildlife-depenprovide quality visitor services pro- dent uses. A significant increase in 

grams across a four-county area. This annual funding for staff, equipment, 

would continue to result in habitat be- and supplies would be necessary to 

ing degraded and a growing backlog of carry out this alternative.

maintenance projects.

Facilities—actions

Construct no additional facilities or Expand or enhance facilities to ac- Same as alternative B.

infrastructure unless funding became commodate six and one-half additional 

available. staff, expanded visitor services proDue to limited storage facilities, grams, and new equipment.

continue to store vehicles outside Construct a 10-bay storage facility 

year-round. for existing vehicles plus five additional field vehicles for new staff. Construct a four-bay cold storage building 

to house additional heavy equipment.

Expand the visitor contact area and 

improve the interpretive displays and 

materials.

Construct a separate ground water well for the two refuge complex 

residences. Expand the bunkhouse to 

accommodate up to eight people. Convert the Bowdoin Refuge headquarters, apartment, two houses, and shop 

buildings to a solar power system.

Develop one camping site with a 

concrete pad, septic and water systems, and electricity for a volunteer 

with a recreational vehicle.

Facilities—environmental consequences

Current office space is sufficient Equipment would be protected Same as alternative B.

for current, permanent staff only but from environmental damage, reducing 

would not accommodate any new or maintenance costs.

seasonal staff or volunteers. The visi- Visitors would feel more welcome 

tor contact area is small and does not in an expanded visitor contact area 

allow for interpretive materials such and have new opportunities to learn 

as displays and educational materials, about the refuge complex’s resources 

resulting in lost opportunities to edu- through interpretation.

cate and interact with visitors. Additional office and living space 

Insufficient seasonal housing makes for seasonal staff and volunteers 

it difficult to recruit the seasonal staff would accommodate the additional 

and volunteers needed to conduct ref- staff needed to properly manage and 

uge programs. protect the refuge complex resources 

while providing visitors quality, safe, 

wildlife-dependent recreation and programs.
94 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 5. Summary of CCP alternatives for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Alternative A

(current management–no action) Alternative B (proposed action) Alternative C

Facilities—environmental consequences (continued)

Facilities to house vehicles and 

heavy equipment are inadequate and 

all heavy equipment and many vehicles are stored outside. Continual 

exposure to the elements may cause 

them to deteriorate more rapidly 

due to ultraviolet light and extreme 

weather patterns of heat, cold, and 

wind. Vehicles, boats, and other equipment not stored in secure buildings 

would be susceptible to theft and vandalism.

The refuge complex would reduce 

its carbon footprint by using renewable energy and green technologies. 

Signs and boundary designation—actions

Retain the proper boundary signs 

and fences to prevent trespass livestock grazing.

Continue discussions with a landowner on Hewitt Lake Refuge to exchange fee-title lands needed to create 

a more manageable and enforceable 

boundary and bring awareness of the 

refuge boundary.

Retain entrance signs at refuges 

that have more than 40 percent of 

lands within their boundaries in fee 

title.

Retain entrance signs at all of the 

waterfowl production areas.

Same as alternative A, plus:

Acquire funding to replace dilapidated boundary fences, gates, and 

parking areas. Evaluate the need for 

existing fences for managing a prescriptive grazing program; systematically replace retained fences using 

wildlife-friendly materials and techniques. 

Same as alternative B, plus:

Post the portions of the satellite 

refuges that are privately owned with 

the new boundary signs proposed for 

similar limited-interest refuges in 

North Dakota. 

Signs and boundary designation—environmental consequences

Refuge visitors and neighbors 

would remain aware of the refuge 

locations, boundaries, and permitted 

activities.

Exchanging lands on Hewitt Lake 

Refuge would make enforcement of 

the refuge boundary more manageable and less confusing for visitors. 

Same as alternative A, plus:

Wildlife losses from fences would 

be reduced and wildlife would be able 

to migrate more freely through the 

refuge complex.

Same as alternative B, plus:

A unique boundary sign would reduce confusion over ownership and 

the permitted uses on these privately 

owned refuge areas. 

Socioeconomics—environmental consequences

There would not be any notable 

changes in the net economic contribution of the refuge complex to the local 

economy through visitor spending or 

employee earnings.

There would be a significant increase in the net economic contribution of the refuge complex to the local 

economy (an increase of $457,500 over 

current levels) through visitor spending and employee earnings.

Same as alternative B, except: 

There would be a slightly more significant increase in visitor spending in 

the area (an increase of $487,500 over 

current levels) generated by increased 

visitation as a result of enhanced outreach efforts, programming, and public access.
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment

This chapter describes the characteristics and resources of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Montana, under these topic headings:

■ Physical environment

■ Biological resources

■ State and Federal listed species

■ Cultural resources

■ Special management areas

■ Visitor services

■ Management uses

■ Socioeconomic environment

■ Partnerships

■ Operations

The Bowdoin Refuge has one of only four nesting colonies 

of American white pelicans in Montana. 

USFWS

4.1 Physical Environment

The following sections describe aspects of the physical environment that may be affected by implementation of the CCP. Physical characteristics include 

climate, climate change, physiography and geography, soils, water resources, and air quality.

Climate

The climate of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex is “semiarid continental,” which is characterized by cold, dry winters and warm, dry summers. Average annual precipitation between 1905 

and 2009 was 12.5 inches, most of which fell as rain 

from May to September, with June being the wettest 

month. The 10-year average, high temperature for 

January is 26 °F (degrees Fahrenheit) with a low of 

2 °F. In July, the average high is 87 °F and the low 

is 56 °F. Temperature extremes range from 113 °F 

in the summer to −60 °F in the winter. The average 

growing season is 122 days.

Prevailing winds vary from southwest to northwest with periods of strong winds common throughout the year. Average annual pan evaporation 

(estimate of lake evaporation) is about 35–40 inches 

(Dunne and Leopold 1978). On refuge complex 

lakes, the average evaporation ranges from 26–30 

inches (URS 2009). During the winter, warm Chinook winds can bring rapid temperature increases of 

30–40 °F within a few hours.

Precipitation measurements from 1905 to 2008 

show a slight downward trend in annual precipitation totals (figure 19). There is also a downward 

trend in the long-term precipitation totals for February, which is historically the driest month for the 

refuge complex, and for June, which is historically 

the wettest month (figures 20 and 21).

Average daily maximum temperatures and average daily minimum temperatures taken from 1969 

to 2008 for February show a slight upward trend 

(figures 22 and 23.). The average daily maximum 

temperature for June from 1969 to 2008 showed a 

slight decrease while the average daily minimum 

temperature for June has slightly increased (figures 

24 and 25).
96 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

25.00 

20.00 

15.00 

10.00 

5.00 P

0.00

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

re

cipitation ( inches)

Year

Figure 19. Graph of total annual precipitation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1905–2008).

2.00 

1.80 

1.60 

1.40 

1.20 

1.00 

0.80 

0.60 

0.40 P

0.20 

0.00 

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

re

cipitation ( inches)

Year

Figure 20. Graph of total February precipitation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1905–2008).

10.00

9.00 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

P

1.00 

0.00 

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

re

cipitation ( inches)

Year

Figure 21. Graph of total June precipitation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1905–2008).
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 97

Figure 22. Graph of average maximum daily temperature for February at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, 

Montana (1969–2008).

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

A

1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 v

erag

e M aximum D aily T e

mperature

Year

°F

Figure 24. Graph of average maximum daily temperature for June at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

(1969–2008).

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

A

1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

v

erag

e M aximum D aily T e

mperature

Year

Figure 23. Graph of average minimum daily temperature for February at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, 

Montana (1969–2008).

°F

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

A

1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

v

erag

e M inimum D aily T e

mperature

Year

°F
98 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Figure 25. Graph of average minimum daily temperature for June at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

(1969–2008).

A

1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

v

erag

e M inimum D aily T e

mperature

Year

°F

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Climate Change

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order 

in January 2001 requiring Federal agencies under its 

direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate change effects as 

part of long-range planning endeavors. The U.S. Department of Energy’s report, Carbon Sequestration 

Research and Development (1999), concluded that 

ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon 

currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. The 

report defines carbon sequestration as “the capture 

and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise 

be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere” (1999).

The increase of CO2 (carbon dioxide) within the 

earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual 

rise in surface temperature commonly referred to 

as global warming. In relation to comprehensive 

conservation planning for Refuge System units, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary, climaterelated effect to be considered in planning.

Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon sequestration. Large, naturally occurring communities 

of plants and animals that occupy major habitats—

grassland, forest, wetland, tundra, and desert—are 

effective both in preventing carbon emission and in 

acting as biological scrubbers of atmospheric CO2.

One Service activity in particular—prescribed 

fire—releases CO2 directly to the atmosphere from 

the biomass consumed during combustion. However, there is no net loss of carbon because new vegetation quickly germinates to replace the burned-up 

biomass. This vegetation sequesters an approximately equal amount of carbon as was lost to the air 

(Dai et al. 2006).

Climate data for this area does demonstrate a 

slight reduction in annual precipitation and increases 

in temperatures over the last 100 years. Although 

slight, in such an arid climate, this can have a significant effect on water resources, including decreasing 

the supply of water while demand for water increases. This change in climate could also alter vegetation patterns and species, possibly allowing for 

additional invasive species to become established. 

Invasive plants could spread more rapidly and would 

likely be able to survive the milder climates, thereby 

outcompeting the native plants.

Stronger and more frequent droughts associated 

with climate change could cause ducks and other 

waterfowl to lose breeding and migration habitat. 

In addition, changes in the timing of migration and 

nesting could put some birds out of synchronization with the life cycles of their prey. Natural food 

sources for wildlife, as well as the grain fields on 

which some migratory birds feed during the fall 

months, could be reduced or eliminated. Avian botulism outbreaks could be more frequent, and other 

wildlife diseases may increase.

As surface water supplies might decrease with 

climate change, the refuge complex could become 

more dependent on subsurface water sources; this 

would increase management costs due to the challenges of pursuing ground water that has also been 

depleted by increased demand. Less ground water 

recharge, along with a greater demand for human 

consumption and irrigation, could limit water available for wildlife purposes. There is the potential 

for managed wetlands dependent on runoff and delivered water to not receive adequate amounts of 

water for waterbird habitat. Lake Bowdoin might 

go dry more often and for possibly longer periods of 

time; as the lake dried, accumulated salts would be 

Average Minimum Daily Temperature for June
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 99

blown away during the hot, dry summers. In addition, there could be the potential for more frequent 

heavy winds, creating dust storms and wind erosion.

Compatible public use activities may be affected 

on Service lands due to degraded habitats and less 

wildlife.

Physiography and Geology

Glaciation has been the predominant factor in the 

development of the soils and topography of the Prairie Pothole Region. The Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex area was glaciated about 15,000 

years ago, but does not have the abundance of semipermanent and permanent wetlands found in the 

glaciated prairie to the east. Bedrock underlying the 

glacial materials consists of the Claggett Formation, 

Judith River Formation, and Bearpaw Shale, all of 

the Cretaceous age. These sedimentary rock formations consist mostly of nearly impermeable marine 

shale, alternating in places with sandstone beds. 

Topography of the area is typical of the glaciated 

plains, with flat to gently rolling terrain and elevations ranging from 2,205 feet to 2,300 feet above sea 

level.

Soils

A comprehensive soil survey of Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge was completed in 1966; 11 soil types 

were identified, and 13 mapping units were delineated. The predominant soils on the refuge are clays 

and clay-loams. The most common clay-loam associations are Phillips-Elloam, Phillips-Kevin, ArvadaBone, Scobey-Phillips, and Kevin-Sunburst. Soils are 

of a fine to loamy texture and have a montmorillonite component that commonly contains a substantial 

amount of selenium. Soluble calcium and sodium 

salts are dispersed in much of the profile and also 

tend to accumulate in subsoil horizons. The soils 

range from mildly to strongly alkaline.

The Bowdoin Wetland Management District 

falls primarily within the northern glaciated plains 

ecoregion. This ecoregion has gently undulating 

to rolling, continental, glacial till plains formed in 

the last ice age during the Pleistocene epoch about 

15,000–30,000 years ago. The glacial till is largely 

underlain by Cretaceous shales of marine origin 

and Lower Tertiary nonmarine sedimentary rocks. 

Numerous wetlands characteristic of the Prairie 

Pothole Region of the north-central Great Plains are 

common throughout the district. Common soil series in the district are Elloam, Scobey, Phillips, and 

Kevin; these soils are largely deep and well-drained, 

consisting of glacial till parent material (Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 2008).

Water Resources

Water resources for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge consist of annual precipitation and runoff events, 

wells, established water rights, Milk River Project 

irrigation water, irrigation return flows, floodwater from Beaver Creek, and ground water seepage 

from off-refuge lands. Water resources for the other 

four refuges and the wetland management district 

consist of annual precipitation and runoff events, 

wells, established water rights, Milk River Project irrigation water, Beaver Creek and Milk River 

floodwaters, and ground water seepage from Nelson 

Reservoir.

Although spring and summer rains contribute 

to the water supply, most rain during this period is 

absorbed in the soil or lost through evapotranspiration. Significant runoff can occur if the soil is frozen 

or during an extremely heavy rainstorm.

Milk River Watershed

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

lies within the Milk River watershed (figure 26). 

The watershed originates in Glacier County, covers 

about 23,800 square miles, and crosses the Canadian 

border twice. The Milk River flows from the United 

States through Canada for about 215 miles before 

reentering the United States about 20 miles upstream of Fresno Reservoir. The watershed is used 

primarily for the production of livestock, alfalfa, 

native hay, oats, wheat, and barley.

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge lies between 

two natural tributaries: Milk River to the north and 

its Beaver Creek tributary to the south (figure 27). 

The Milk River is a 729-mile-long prairie stream 

with its headwaters in the Rocky Mountain Front, 

north of the town of Browning. It flows northward 

into Alberta, Canada, then curves eastward and 

south into Montana again, finally meandering its way 

to the Missouri River near the town of Fort Peck. 

The Milk River was given its name by Captain Meriwether Lewis of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 

who described the river in his journal (DeVoto 1953):

“The water of this river possesses a peculiar 

whiteness, being about the colour of a cup of 

tea with the admixture of a tablespoonfull of 

milk. from the colour of its water we called it 

Milk river.”
100 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

 Figure 26. Map of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex within the Milk River watershed. 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 101

Figure 27. Map of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex located between the Milk River and Beaver Creek 

watersheds.
102 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

The river’s milky appearance results from fine sediment or glacial till picked up in the lower part of the 

Milk River watershed.

Beaver Creek is a major right bank tributary of 

the Milk River. The Beaver Creek rises in the Little 

Rocky Mountains south of Malta, Montana, between 

Zortman and Lodgepole. The watershed is 195 miles 

long and has a drainage area of 2,060 square miles. 

The area is used primarily for livestock production, 

and bottomlands are extensively irrigated for the 

production of hay (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

1965).

Geologic history indicates that Lake Bowdoin 

was once an oxbow of the preglacial Missouri River 

channel. Today, the Missouri River is nearly 70 miles 

south of Bowdoin Refuge. Historically, Lake Bowdoin acted as a large catch basin for precipitation, 

Beaver Creek floods, and runoff events. Lake levels 

fluctuated a great deal from year to year, depending 

on runoff conditions and evaporation during the hot, 

dry summers.

The Milk River Project and 

St. Mary River Facilities

When Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge was established, it was an overlay on Bureau of Reclamation 

lands. Before refuge establishment, Lake Bowdoin 

was managed as a sump for irrigation return flows 

from the Milk River Project. The Milk River Project, started in 1907, is one of the earliest Reclamation projects developed by the Federal Government 

(Cosens 2006). The project was designed to provide 

a reliable source of water for irrigating more than 

100,000 acres of lands along the Milk River. Early 

settlers coming to the arid Milk River watershed 

had realized that a supplemental source of water 

would be necessary if they were to produce agricultural products and survive.

The Milk River rises from the plateau region 

just east of the St. Mary River watershed (figure 

27); however, the river is cut off from the mountain 

water supply by a low divide separating the Milk 

River and St. Mary River watersheds. The best alternative to provide additional water for the Milk 

River watershed users was to divert water from the 

St. Mary River watershed in Glacier National Park 

by constructing a 29-mile canal and pipeline that 

emptied into the Milk River. From there, the water 

flows through Canada for 216 miles before returning 

to the United States. After reentering the United 

States, the water flows into two reservoirs where 

it is stored until needed by downstream irrigators: 

Fresno Reservoir (104 miles west of Bowdoin Refuge) and Nelson Reservoir (4.5 miles northeast of 

the refuge). Fresno Reservoir is owned and operated by Reclamation, and Nelson Reservoir is owned 

by Reclamation but operated by the Malta Irrigation 

District. The distribution systems are operated by 

the Malta, Glasgow, and Dodson irrigation districts, 

in which the refuge complex is located.

Along with irrigation benefits, the Milk River 

Project provides many recreational and wildlife benefits. Lake Sherburne, in Glacier National Park, is 

a popular spot for fishing and windsurfing. Boating 

and water skiing are popular activities at Fresno 

Reservoir, and fishing and camping are popular activities offered at Nelson Reservoir. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge provides protected habitat 

for migrating, breeding, and feeding migratory birds 

and other wildlife. In addition, the refuge provides 

public use activities such as waterfowl and upland 

game hunting, wildlife viewing and photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation 

facilities and programs.

James Graham / USFWS

Ducks abound at Pearce Waterfowl Production Area.
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 103

Facilities on the St. Mary River have been in 

operation for more than 90 years. Most of the structures have exceeded their designed life and are in 

need of major repairs or replacement. The economy 

of the Hi-Line Region (the northern tier of Montana 

counties) has been built around the stable water 

supply provided by these facilities. Without the 

needed rehabilitation, this aging system may soon 

suffer significant failure. Failure of these facilities 

would have a devastating effect to communities, 

agriculture, wildlife, and recreational opportunities 

throughout the Milk River watershed as well as for 

water-dependent migratory birds and other wildlife 

on the Bowdoin Refuge.

Wells

Only one well supplies domestic water to all the 

buildings at the Bowdoin Refuge headquarters. Another operating well supplies water to Display Pond, 

a wildlife observation area close to the headquarters. 

In addition, two wind-generated wells on the east 

end of the refuge have not been used since livestock 

grazing ended in the 1970s.

Water Quality

A significant amount of water provided to the Bowdoin Refuge and the Pearce WPA originates in the 

Milk River. The Milk River has good water quality upstream of Havre, Montana. Below Havre, it 

becomes progressively poorer downstream because 

of agricultural returns and municipal discharges 

over the summer (Montana Department of Natural 

Resources and Conservation 1977). Because the Milk 

River watershed is underlain by glacial till and shale 

containing high concentrations of soluble salts, the 

irrigation return flows and ground water seepage in 

the watershed are major sources of saline water.

The State water quality classification for the Milk 

River drainage from the International Boundary 

with Canada to the Missouri River ranges from B to 

D: (1) B means water supply for drinking, culinary, 

and food processing purposes; and (2) waters with a 

D classification are to be maintained suitable for agricultural purposes and secondary contact recreation 

(Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

2006).

Lake Bowdoin, the primary water feature on 

Bowdoin Refuge, was first used as a sump by Reclamation after the completion of the Dodson South 

Canal in 1915 (before refuge establishment). The 

lake was used to capture irrigation return flows from 

the Milk River Project and seepage from adjacent 

irrigation activities. The Dodson South Canal was 

constructed along the north boundary of what is now 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. The canal conveys water from the Milk River at Dodson Dam for 

irrigated lands upstream of the refuge and transfers 

water to Nelson Reservoir for storage. This canal 

also conveys Milk River water to Bowdoin Refuge, 

but this water use is secondary to irrigation needs. 

The canal intercepts much of the local runoff, which 

limits the amount of water that would otherwise naturally flow into the refuge’s lakes and wetlands. This 

canal water is normally higher in dissolved solids 

(salts) than seepage, which flows downhill through 

the naturally saline soils toward Lake Bowdoin. 

Over the years, large saline seeps have developed 

between the lake and the canal due to increased 

water infiltration rates and ground water seepage 

from agricultural lands north of the refuge. Rain and 

runoff events wash these deposits into the lake.

Saline lakes occur naturally throughout the western half of North America (Langbein 1961); however, 

geothermal energy development, irrigation return 

flows, and alterations in the hydrology of natural 

lake systems can unnaturally increase salts even in 

lakes that are not naturally saline. Hydrologic barriers such as roadbed construction can disrupt the 

natural flow and mixing, causing a lake to function as 

a hydrologic sump and concentrating salts at abnormal levels (Swanson et al. 1984).

The influx of saline water into Lake Bowdoin, 

combined with evapoconcentration (the concentration of chemical constituents in a liquid due to evaporative processes), has caused salt concentrations in 

the lake to increase exponentially (Kendy 1999). The 

total dissolved solids (salts) for Lake Bowdoin in 

September 2009 were about 10,500 mg/L (milligrams 

of salt per liter), which places the lake in the subsaline category (Gleason et al. 2009). In most years, 

surface water does not flow out of Lake Bowdoin 

because of a limited water supply.

Water quality in and near Bowdoin Refuge is 

monitored annually at 19 surface sites and 14 shallow, ground water wells. Sixteen additional surface 

sites off the refuge and 18 wells along the Dodson 

South Canal are also monitored (refer to figure 29 

in chapter 6). Water-quality monitoring begins in 

the spring when the ice thaws and ends in the fall 

when the water freezes. All sites are tested every 

2 weeks for temperature, specific conductance, pH, 

and depth. Specific conductance is a measure of how 

well water can conduct an electrical current. This 

can be used to determine the presence of dissolved 

solids such as phosphate, magnesium, calcium, and 

sodium.

Past water management at Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge was aimed at maintaining high water levels in all refuge wetlands. Due to an inadequate water supply, this philosophy did not provide 

for periodic drawdowns and flushing, except during 

the infrequent flooding by Beaver Creek. The long-
104 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

term effect has been increased salinity, as measured 

by specific conductance, in not only Lake Bowdoin 

but in Dry Lake and Drumbo Pond.

Historically, the only means to remove these 

excessive concentrations of salts from lakes and 

wetlands was after a runoff and or flood event. The 

excess water would drain away, and much of the remaining water would be lost to evaporation over the 

summer months and leave behind dissolved salts. 

These salts were naturally blown away by strong 

winds or partially flushed out of the lakes during the 

next heavy runoff or flood event.

Construction of water facilities during the 1980s 

significantly improved water management capabilities on Bowdoin Refuge. Present Service management emphasizes maintenance of freshwater 

conditions in smaller wetland units such as Lakeside, 

Lakeside Extension, Bootleg Marsh, Teal Ponds, and 

Farm Ponds. These wetlands and ponds are managed to mimic natural wetlands, allowing periodic 

drawdowns or dry periods. Current management 

also focuses on how to reduce salinity levels in Lake 

Bowdoin, Dry Lake Pond, Dry Lake, and Drumbo 

Pond to address the effects on wildlife and neighboring landowners.

The Service is trying to better understand how 

to use additional water supplies, when available, for 

effective dilution and flushing. Subsequently, the 

Service and the Montana Reserved Water Rights 

Compact Commission have spent more than 2 years 

evaluating methods to improve the water quality on 

Bowdoin Refuge. This salinity team has developed 

five proposals, or alternatives, for addressing the 

increasing salinity levels. This analysis and proposed 

actions are summarized in chapter 6.

Water Supply and Rights

Water supply and rights are described in this section for the units of the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex.

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. Bowdoin Refuge has a complex system of dikes, canals, and water 

control structures for moving water between water 

units and for handling floodwaters entering from 

Beaver Creek (figure 29 in chapter 6 shows the location of this infrastructure and the refuge wetlands). 

The Montana Water Court has identified the Beaver 

Creek watershed as basin 40M. Water right filings 

for Bowdoin Refuge (table 6) have a complicated 

history, involving agreements and coordination with 

Reclamation during construction of the Milk River 

Project. In the 1930s, the Service was able to negotiate an agreement with Reclamation for a perpetual 

delivery of its water right in return for the Service 

contributing $40,000 toward the construction of the 

Fresno Reservoir near Havre, Montana. During 

years the Milk River has normal runoff, Reclamation 

will furnish a maximum of 3,500 acre-feet of water 

to the refuge each calendar year for improvement 

and maintenance of the refuge. If runoff is below 

normal, the refuge is to receive that portion of 3,500 

acre-feet that natural conditions and Federal Reclamation Law permits.

In the past, the refuge has been able to obtain 

water in excess of 3,500 acre-feet through deliveries 

of water using the Malta Irrigation District facilities. 

This has averaged 4,877 acre-feet, when considering 

all recorded deliveries. The Service has had to pay 

a delivery fee to the irrigation district for this extra 

water. Based on the maximum delivery of water 

from the Milk River on record—11,540 acre-feet—

the Service filed a historical use claim of 8,000 acrefeet at a delivery rate of 280 cubic feet per second.

Receiving this additional water was has been 

critical to the management of the refuge’s wetland 

habitats. Nevertheless, in many years there is insufficient delivered water and runoff necessary to fill 

and manage all wetlands within the refuge.

For additional information on the water supply 

and rights for Bowdoin Refuge, refer to “Chapter 

6–Analysis of Salinity.”

Bowdoin Wetland Management District. All waterfowl production areas except Webb WPA have 

recorded water rights (table 7). Sources for these 

rights include ground water wells, overland runoff, 

pumping from named watercourses, and created 

diversions. The Service uses these water rights to 

flood several wetland units on the waterfowl production areas to provide migration and brood habitat for 

migratory birds. Pearce WPA, located just downstream of Bowdoin Refuge on the Dodson South 

Canal, has a water right through Reclamation. When 

the Pearce WPA was purchased in 1976, the Service 

assumed responsibility of the contract for water that 

was previously held between the landowner and 

Reclamation; the contract was established in 1961 

when the landowner requested water from the Milk 

River Project. The contract was for the irrigation of 

50 acres of land and 100 acre-feet of water per full irrigation season. Reclamation granted the permanent 

contract with the requirement that the landowner 

pay a share of the construction cost of the irrigation project; semiannual payments would be made 

against the $2,500 construction liability. The contract 

was amended in 1969, which reduced the construction repayment cost to $1,941 and set the semiannual payment amount at $23.03. When the Service 

acquired the property and assumed responsibility 

of the contract, there were 27 years left on the payment schedule; the construction payment was paid in 

full in 2003.

The Service still pays an annual operation and 

maintenance charge for the water and will con-
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 105

Table 6. Water rights for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Phillips County, Montana.

Owner Water right 

number

Source name / 

type Priority date Water right type Purpose Maximum flow rate2

Maximum volume

(acre-feet)

Current capacity

(acre-feet)

Surface area

(acres) Period of use Reservoir Ditch name

Bureau of Reclamation 40J–40937–00 Milk River / 

Surface water

11/02/1903 Statement of claim Fish and wildlife 600 cfs 3,500 — — Mar. 1 to Nov. 15 — Dodson South Canal

Fish and Wildlife Service 40J–189872–00 Milk River / 

Surface water

03/09/1937 Statement of claim Fish and wildlife 280 cfs 8,000 24,100 6,765 Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 Lake Bowdoin

Drumbo Pond

Lakeside

Dry Lake 

Dodson South Canal

Fish and Wildlife Service 40M–187361–00 Beaver Creek / 

Surface water

11/12/1940 Compact1 Fish and wildlife — 24,714 24,714 6,769 — Lake Bowdoin

Drumbo Pond

Lake Pond

Dry Lake Pond

—

Fish and Wildlife Service 40M–187362–00 Black Coulee / 

Surface water

11/12/1940 Reserved claim Fish and wildlife — — — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Fish and Wildlife Service 40M–187363–00 Spring, 

Unnamed tributary 

of Beaver Creek / 

Ground water

11/12/1940 Compact Fish and wildlife — 1 1 0.3 Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Fish and Wildlife Service 40M–187364–00 Ground water 11/12/1940 Compact Wildlife 20 gpm 1.39 — — Mar. 1 to Nov. 19 — —

Fish and Wildlife Service 40M–187365–00 Ground water 11/12/1940 Compact Wildlife 5 gpm 0.31 — — Mar. 1 to Nov. 19 — —

Fish and Wildlife Service 40M–189874–00 Ground water 11/12/1940 Compact Institutional 30 gpm 2 — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Fish and Wildlife Service 40M–25539–00 Ground water 11/12/1940 Compact Domestic 55 gpm 4 — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

1

Compact (memorandum of agreement) with Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission.

2

Maximum flow measured in cfs=cubic feet per second; gpm=gallons per minute.
106 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 7. Water rights for the waterfowl production areas and satellite refuges of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Refuge complex unit1 County Water right 

number Source name Priority date Water right type Purpose Maximum flow rate2 Maximum volume Current capacity(acre-feet)

Surface area

(acres) Period of use Reservoir Maximum acres

Beaver Creek WPA Phillips 40M–5987–00 Beaver Creek 09/08/1900 Statement of claim Irrigation 14.26 cfs — — — Feb. 1 to Sep. 30 — 500

Phillips 40M–22930–00 Unnamed tributary 

of Beaver Creek

09/08/1900 Statement of claim Irrigation 20.83 cfs — — — Mar. 25 to Sep. 30 — 180

Phillips 40M–169663–00 Beaver Creek 09/08/1900 Statement of claim Irrigation 20.05 cfs — — — Apr. 15 to Sep. 30 — 303

Phillips 40M–22928–00 Unnamed tributary 

of Beaver Creek

07/11/1903 Statement of claim Irrigation — 528 acre-feet — — — — 264

Phillips 40M–19581–00 Spring, 

Unnamed tributary 

of Beaver Creek

12/31/1930 Statement of claim Stock — 30 gallons/day/

animal unit

— — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Dyrdahl WPA Phillips 40J–167498–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

12/31/1911 Statement of claim Stock — 24 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40K–167499–00 Surface water 12/31/1911 Statement of claim Stock — 30 gallons/day/

animal unit

— — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40J–167505–00 Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

01/30/1923 Statement of claim Irrigation — 4.8 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 On-stream —

Phillips 40J–167516–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

12/31/1923 Statement of claim Stock — 14.4 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40J–167517–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

12/31/1923 Statement of claim Stock — 1.5 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40J–167518–00 Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

12/31/1923 Statement of claim Stock — 4.8 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 On-stream —

Phillips 40J–167519–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

12/31/1923 Statement of claim Stock — 8.76 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40J–167521–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

12/31/1923 Statement of claim Stock — 28.64 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40J–167506–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

07/12/1928 Statement of claim Stock — 15.6 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

1

WPA=waterfowl production area; NWR=national wildlife refuge.

2

Maximum flow measured in cfs=cubic feet per second; gpm=gallons per minute.

3

Compact (memorandum of agreement) with Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission.
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 107

Table 7. Water rights for the waterfowl production areas and satellite refuges of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Water right Maximum Refuge complex unit1 County Source name Priority date Water right type Purpose number flow rate2 Maximum volume Current capacity

(acre-feet)

Surface area

(acres) Period of use Reservoir Maximum acres

Dyrdahl WPA

(continued)

Phillips 40J–167507–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

07/12/1928 Statement of claim Stock — 12 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40J–167508–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

07/12/1928 Statement of claim Stock — 2.4 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40J–167509–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

07/12/1928 Statement of claim Stock — 8.4 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40J–167510–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

07/12/1928 Statement of claim Stock — 3.6 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40J–167511–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

07/12/1928 Statement of claim Stock — 8.4 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40J–167512–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

07/12/1928 Statement of claim Stock — 3 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40J–167513–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

07/12/1928 Statement of claim Stock — 14 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40K–167497–00 Unnamed tributary 

of closed basin

05/10/1940 Statement of claim Stock — 4 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40J–167504–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

12/31/1945 Statement of claim Stock — 2.88 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40J–167522–00 Ground water 06/05/1964 Statement of claim Stock 6 gpm — — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40J–34882–00 Ground water 08/23/1981 Ground water 

certificate

Stock 40 gpm 3.98 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Phillips 40J–47460–00 Ground water 12/07/1981 Ground water 

certificate

Domestic 

and Stock

35 gpm 3.95 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

Holm WPA Blaine 40J 183201 00 Unnamed tributary 

of Hay Coulee

03/06/1942 Statement of claim Stock — 236 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 Hom #1

Hom #2

—

1

WPA=waterfowl production area; NWR=national wildlife refuge. 

2

Maximum flow measured in cfs=cubic feet per second; gpm=gallons per minute. 

3

Compact (memorandum of agreement) with Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission.
108 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 7. Water rights for the waterfowl production areas and satellite refuges of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Refuge complex unit1 County Water right 

number Source name Priority date Water right type Purpose Maximum flow rate2 Maximum volume Current capacity(acre-feet)

Surface area

(acres) Period of use Reservoir Maximum acres

Korsbeck WPA Phillips 40J–43760–00 Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

12/31/1905 Statement of claim Stock — 10 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 On-stream —

Phillips 40J–43936–00 Constructed pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of West Alkali Creek

12/31/1945 Statement of claim Stock — 1 acre-foot — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 On-stream —

Phillips 40J–43940–00 Constructed pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of West Alkali Creek

12/31/1954 Statement of claim Stock — 1 acre-foot — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 On-stream —

Phillips 40J–102275–00 Ground water 10/06/1958 Statement of claim Stock 6 gpm — — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 — —

McNeil Slough WPA Phillips 40J–163022–00 Unnamed tributary 

of Milk River

06/21/1930 Statement of claim Wetlands 2,500 gpm — — — Apr. 15 to Sep. 30 McNeil Slough 159

Pearce WPA Phillips 14–06–600–59081 — 10/17/1961 Statement of claim — — 100 acre-feet — — — Irrigation canal —

Black Coulee NWR Blaine Compact3 Black Coulee — Compact3 — — — — — — — —

Creedman Coulee NWR Hill 40J–183197–00 Creedman Coulee 05/25/1937 Statement of claim Fish and 

wildlife

 — 862 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 Creedman 

Reservoir

 —

Hewitt Lake NWR Phillips 40J–183198–00 Unnamed Tributary 

to Spring Coulee

07/16/1902 Statement of claim Fish and 

wildlife

 — 2,311 acre-feet — — Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 Hewitt Reservoir — 

Lake Thibadeau NWR Hill 40J–187366–00 Unnamed Tributary 

to Redrock Coulee

10/25/1937 Statement of claim Fish and 

wildlife

— 6,129 acre-feet 4,431 470 Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 Grassy Lake,

Lake Thibadeau

—

Hill 40J–187367–00 Lohman Coulee 10/25/1937 Statement of claim Fish and 

wildlife

150 cfs 6,550 acre-feet 4,742 516 Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 Grassy Lake,

Lake Thibadeau, 

On-stream

—

Hill 40J–188170–00 Martin Coulee 10/25/1937 Statement of claim Fish and 

wildlife

 — 2,323 acre-feet 1,177 240 Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 Grassy Lake —

1

WPA=waterfowl production area; NWR=national wildlife refuge.

2

Maximum flow measured in cfs=cubic feet per second; gpm=gallons per minute.

3

Compact (memorandum of agreement) with Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission.
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 109

tinue to do so in perpetuity or until the contract is 

amended.

Satellite Refuges. The four satellite refuges in the 

refuge complex all have recorded water rights (see 

table 7). Each refuge has a dam built by the Government in the 1930s that impounds water, primarily on 

private land, for the purposes of water conservation, 

drought relief, and migratory bird and wildlife conservation. The Government obtained perpetual flowage easements from the original landowners; these 

easements grant the Service the right to manage 

the uses of structures and associated impoundments, 

lakes, streams, and rivers within easement boundaries. The flowage easements did not grant any rights 

for management or protection of other natural, shallow depressions except for control of hunting.

Air Quality

Air quality is a global concern. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

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.

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 are able to be 

breathed in through the lungs.

In the area of the refuge complex, air quality is 

considered to be exceptionally good; there are no 

nearby manufacturing sites or major sources of air 

pollution. At Bowdoin Refuge, however, salts on the 

east end of the refuge are sometimes blown into the 

air during high wind events. As water evaporates 

from Lake Bowdoin throughout the summer, the 

shoreline is left with the solids or salts that can be 

carried away by high winds. Most of the blowing 

salts historically came from Dry Lake after water 

transferred from Lake Bowdoin to create shallow 

wetlands for ducks and shorebirds would eventually evaporate and leave large concentrations of 

dried salts. In the past 10 years, no water has been 

transferred from Lake Bowdoin, and Dry Lake has 

remained dry except for some occasional, natural 

runoff. Any remaining salts in Dry Lake from past 

management activities are gone. Furthermore, much 

of Dry Lake has become vegetated, which has reduced the ability of salts to become airborne.

The refuge complex periodically uses prescribed 

fire to manage habitat and control invasive and nonnative species. Both prescribed fires and wildfires 

produce numerous gasses and particulate matter 

that affect air quality. Prescribed fires are conducted 

under strict smoke and air regulations as established by the Montana and Idaho Airshed Group—all 

prescribed fires conducted on the refuge complex 

have met permitted requirements. The Service is 

assessed an annual fee based on the previous year’s 

tons of particulate matter produced from prescribed 

burning on a statewide basis. Each year, the refuge 

complex’s fire management officer applies for and 

submits payment to DEQ (Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality).

4.2 Biological Resources

The following sections describe the biological resources that may be affected by the implementation 

of the CCP. The biological features detailed below 

are vegetative habitat types and the associated 

birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, and 

insects. The quality of these habitats varies throughout the refuge complex particularly due to water 

quality and quantity, the presence of invasive and 

nonnative species, impacts 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:

■ Uplands—vast expanses comprised primarily of 

mixed-grass prairie and disturbed grasslands, 

including dense nesting cover

■ Wetlands—natural and enhanced freshwater and 

saline wetlands and associated riparian areas, 

lakes, rivers, and ponds

Unless otherwise noted, most of the following information is from unpublished Service data located in 

files at the refuge complex headquarters.
110 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Uplands

At least 50 percent of native grassland habitat has 

been converted to other uses in Montana’s Prairie 

Pothole Region (Ducks Unlimited 2003). However, 

large, intact, native prairie communities can still be 

found throughout the Bowdoin Refuge Complex, 

with more than 10,400 acres of fee-title lands in the 

refuge complex in native prairie. In addition, grassland conservation easements on private lands are 

protecting almost 40,000 acres of native prairie and 

tamegrasses.

Native prairie is defined as areas of previously unbroken, unfarmed (virgin) sod where the 

soil composition is generally intact. Grasses in the 

prairie found in this area are a mixture of western 

wheatgrass, needlegrasses, blue grama, and upland 

sedges. Interspersed within the grasses are numerous species of forbs such as fringed sagewort, scarlet globemallow, coneflowers, and yarrow. Shrubs 

include winterfat, silver sage, and greasewood. In 

addition, clubmoss and prickly pear cactus are common.

While clubmoss is a natural component of native uplands, overgrazing, drought, and lack of fire 

have allowed it to increase as herbaceous cover decreased. It has been theorized that clubmoss outcompetes other vegetation by forming dense mats 

that intercept water and prevent seed germination (Majorowicz 1963, Heady 1952). Other studies 

have rejected these hypotheses and suggest that 

clubmoss does not affect water use by other plants 

(Colberg and Romo 2003) and that seed germination is more affected by the species of seeds in the 

seed banks (Romo and Bai 2004). Clubmoss may 

also reduce runoff, increase water infiltration, and 

prevent invasive plants from becoming established 

in native grasslands that have been stressed by past 

overgrazing or drought.

In presettlement times, the frequency of wildfire 

across the northern Great Plains was highly variable 

depending on climate and soil type (Higgins 1986, 

Umbanhowar 1996). Other factors such as moisture, 

plant species composition, topography, and grazing 

by native animals also played a role in fire frequency, 

intensity, and duration (Askins et al. 2007, Madden 

et al. 2000). Fire-return intervals of 5–10 years have 

been estimated for the northern Great Plains (Frost 

1998), and intervals averaging 6 years have been 

reported for studies in North Dakota (Madden et al. 

1999). However, very little research has been conducted regarding fire in the drier prairies of northcentral Montana. Askins et al. (2007) suggest that 

grazing and a lack of moisture maintained grass as 

the dominant vegetation with fire playing a lesser 

role and estimated a fire-return interval of 10–26 

Larry Allain / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Fringed sagewort is one of the many forbs on the 

Bowdoin Refuge Complex. 

Blue grama is a common prairie grass.

Al Schneider / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 111

years for Montana. Historically, wildfires on the refuge complex were suppressed and prescribed fire 

was used sporadically. Since 2001, the Service has 

made a concerted effort to restore wildland fire to 

this prairie system, burning more than 13,000 acres 

throughout the refuge complex. Burning stimulates 

plant growth, returns nutrients to the soil, reduces 

residual cover, scarifies native seed, can reduce or 

increase competition from invasive plants, and restores upright structure. Following a prescribed 

fire, a more diverse native plant community returns, 

providing nesting and feeding habitat for migratory 

birds and other wildlife. To create a mosaic of habitat across the landscape, the Service staggers these 

prescribed fires, burning only 5–10 percent of the 

burnable acres in a single year.

Vast herds of bison once roamed throughout this 

area of north-central Montana. When the bison were 

eliminated, domestic cattle were brought to graze 

this expansive grassland habitat. The uplands may 

have been grazed even more heavily by livestock 

than other parts of the refuge complex because of 

the reliable water source in Lake Bowdoin. When 

Bowdoin Refuge was established in 1936, domestic 

cattle grazing went through several periods of use 

and nonuse until it was phased out between 1973 and 

1977. In 2001, the Service began a prescriptive cattle 

grazing program throughout to meet specific objectives for enhancing native grasslands and treating 

invasive plants.

Since the refuge complex was established, the 

Service has planted 4,477 acres of uplands to various grass species to create dense nesting cover. 

All of the 4,008 acres on the waterfowl production 

areas were prior cropland and 469 acres of native prairie on the Bowdoin Refuge were broken 

(tilled) to plant DNC. These areas are referred to 

as disturbed grasslands. All of the disturbed grasslands on the waterfowl production areas were once 

farmed; shortly after Service acquisition, these acres 

were seeded to herbaceous cover consisting of a 

cool-season vegetation mix of wheatgrasses and legumes. The predominant grass species used were 

intermediate wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, slender 

wheatgrass, pubescent wheatgrass, and western 

wheatgrass; the legumes were alfalfa and sweetclover. These species, commonly referred to as dense 

nesting cover, were chosen based on research that 

showed they are highly attractive and beneficial 

to waterfowl (Duebbert 1969). The remaining 469 

acres of disturbed grasslands, located on Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge, were planted into broken 

native prairie in the 1970s specifically to provide 

ducks a denser nesting cover than the surrounding 

upland. Rationale for this type of management action was likely based on research conducted in the 

late 1960s and 1970s, which indicated ducks were 

experiencing higher nesting success in DNC than in 

surrounding upland habitats (Duebbert 1969, Duebbert and Lokemoen 1976, Kaiser et al. 1979). Many 

of the DNC fields are in poor condition with respect 

to plant diversity. The lifespan of a DNC seeding is 

about 15 years (Higgins and Barker 1982, Lokemoen 

1984), and most of the DNC fields on the refuge complex are well past this lifespan.

Invasive and Nonnative Species 

in Uplands

Although most of the native prairie is free from invasive and nonnative plants, there is some encroachment of crested wheatgrass, Russian olive, and 

Japanese brome. Leafy spurge, spotted knapweed, 

and Canada thistle can be found in disturbed uplands 

including along roadsides and railroad tracks.

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). When it invades native prairie, 

crested wheatgrass often eliminates its native competitors and can form vast monocultures that create 

ecological traps for nesting grassland birds (Lloyd 

2005). According to Lloyd (2005), nests in native 

Crested wheatgrass is a nonnative species that can have a 

negative effect on plant and wildlife diversity.

Cassondra Skinner / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database
112 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

prairie were depredated 17 percent less often than 

nests in a field of crested wheatgrass. Survey data 

for grassland birds nesting on Bowdoin Refuge indicates fewer nests in the crested wheatgrass areas adjacent to the native grassland fields. Crested 

wheatgrass was used to landscape areas around the 

refuge headquarters area in the 1930s and to replace 

the small plots of wildlife food crops on the west end 

of the Bowdoin Refuge as they were phased out. 

Throughout the refuge complex, scattered monocultures of crested wheatgrass are slowly spreading 

and are overtaking native grasslands. It is difficult 

to effectively treat and eradicate this invasive grass.

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 (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002), 

particularly ring-necked pheasant. With this in 

mind, refuge staff planted Russian olive trees on 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge in the 1950s until 

the 1970s. The trees were allowed to spread, because 

the biological opinion at the time was that Russian 

olive trees played a very beneficial role to the landscape and to wildlife. Over the years, the trees have 

encroached into native prairie, fragmenting grassland habitats throughout the refuge complex, but 

particularly on Bowdoin Refuge. This fragmentation 

causes 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). In Bowdoin Wetland 

Management District, Pearce WPA has the greatest infestation of Russian olive trees; the McNeil 

Slough, Beaver Creek, and Korsbeck WPAs have 

a few Russian olive trees as well. The greatest infestation of Russian olive is on Bowdoin Refuge, 

which has more than 140 acres of this species scattered throughout the refuge. The eastern end of 

the refuge has relatively pristine, native prairie, 

and Russian olive trees were encroaching into this 

area. Control of Russian olive on the refuge began in 

2000 with tree cutting and treating the stumps with 

an herbicide (Arsenal® or Garlon® 3A); in some 

treated areas, the remaining tree stumps sprouted 

and readily propagated, becoming difficult for the 

refuge staff to control. The Service began by removing these single, scattered trees, and then turned 

its attention to larger, older infestations. Inefficient 

control methods combined with a lack of staff has 

slowed progress in reducing the infestation.

Japanese Brome. This grass has been present in 

the refuge complex for many years with almost no 

attention given to estimating the size of the infestations or treating them.

Leafy Spurge. Leafy spurge was first discovered 

growing on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge during the summer of 1989. There is a 0.7-acre patch on 

both sides of the railroad tracks on Big Island that 

has been treated with mowing and spraying since it 

was discovered. McNeil Slough WPA was infested 

with leafy spurge when it was purchased in 1991; 

the infestation is extensive but sparse and has been 

treated sporadically with spraying. In 1996, about 

2,000 Aphthona lacertosa flea beetles were released 

in this infestation at McNeil Slough WPA, with no 

apparent effect. There was a small patch (25 feet 

square) discovered in 2004 at Korsbeck WPA, which 

has been treated annually with chemicals.

Spotted Knapweed. In 2004, a few spotted knapweed plants were discovered along the auto tour 

road to the main boat ramp near the Bowdoin Refuge office. The infestation has been treated by pulling and spraying.

Spotted Knapweed

S Database TNALP SCRN–AD Elaine Haug / US

Canada Thistle. Canada thistle has been prevalent 

for many years on Bowdoin Refuge, Pearce WPA, 

and McNeil WPA; thistle patches are found near 

many roads and other disturbed areas. Some dense 

stands have been treated with success, but most 

areas go untreated.

Yellow Toadflax. On Bowdoin Refuge, a small 

stand of yellow toadflax was discovered growing 

along the railroad tracks on Big Island (near the 

leafy spurge patch) in 1993 and has been hand-pulled 

sporadically over the years.

Upland-Associated Wildlife

There are 119 species of birds that have been documented breeding and nesting on the refuge complex. 

About 29 species use upland habitats, particularly 

native grassland, for nesting. From 1995 to 2008, 

the most abundant breeding and nesting passerines 

using the native grasslands were chestnut-collared 

longspur, Savannah sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, 

Baird’s sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, and western meadowlark. Also documented were clay-colored sparrow, 

lark bunting, and vesper sparrow.
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 113

The importance of this area to breeding and 

migrating waterfowl and shorebirds has long been 

recognized, serving as a catalyst for establishment 

of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge and the remaining refuge complex. The most common uplandnesting ducks are mallard, gadwall, northern pintail, 

northern shoveler, and blue-winged teal. Several 

upland-nesting shorebirds are also found in native 

prairie habitats including marbled godwit, willet, 

upland sandpiper, long-billed curlew, and Wilson’s 

phalarope.

Sharp-tailed grouse are one of the few native 

prairie birds that are year-round residents. During 

the early 1980s, Bowdoin Refuge had up to seven 

leks that were used each spring by 50–100 sharptailed grouse. The number of leks and birds per lek 

have decreased dramatically since that time. By 

1999, there was only one active lek on the refuge and 

it had less than 20 birds. Despite this decline on the 

refuge, sharp-tailed grouse are observed on lands 

around the refuge throughout the year; many of 

these grouse move onto Bowdoin Refuge in the fall 

and stay through the winter months. It is not clear 

why the birds stopped using the refuge for displaying, breeding, and nesting purposes.

Although not abundant, sage-grouse, a federal 

candidate species, has been documented on Beaver 

Creek, McNeil Slough, Hewitt Lake, and Korsbeck 

WPAs. Other bird species include raptors such as 

northern harrier, ferruginous hawk, burrowing 

owl, and short-eared owl, which are commonly seen 

hunting or nesting in the uplands. The nonnative 

ring-necked pheasant is also common on most of 

the refuge complex. Introduced to the area in the 

1930s primarily for hunting, pheasant have become 

a permanent part of the upland wildlife, nesting and 

feeding in grassland habitat.

Native grazers such as pronghorn, white-tailed 

deer, and mule deer browse and graze the uplands. 

Some of the other mammals found in native grasslands on the refuge complex are coyote, white-tailed 

jackrabbit, badger, and Richardson’s ground squirrel. In 2000, a small mammal-trapping study on 

Bowdoin Refuge found deer mouse, meadow vole, 

western harvest mouse, house mouse, and least weasel. Other species observed included masked shrew, 

northern pocket gopher, white-footed mouse, and 

western jumping mouse.

There have been no formal amphibian or reptile 

surveys on the refuge complex. Some of the documented reptiles are gopher snake, prairie rattlesnake, yellow-bellied racer, plains garter snake, and 

common garter snake.

The diversity of insects in the refuge complex has 

not been quantified, but prairie and tame grassland 

produce large numbers of grasshoppers, leafhoppers, butterflies, beetles, and spiders.

Target Upland Birds

The Service has identified a diverse group of target bird species for uplands in the refuge complex: 

Baird’s sparrow, chestnut-collared longspur, greater 

sage-grouse, long-billed curlew, Sprague’s pipit, and 

marbled godwit. The life history needs of these species are described below, excepting the godwit—an 

upland-nesting shorebird that is a target species for 

both uplands and wetlands and is described under 

“Target Waterbirds.”

Baird’s Sparrow. The Baird’s sparrow is a true 

grassland specialist, requiring grasslands on both 

its breeding and wintering grounds. This sparrow 

breeds exclusively in the northern mixed-grass 

prairie from southeastern Alberta and southern 

Saskatchewan (Canada) through North Dakota and 

eastern Montana. Populations of many grassland 

birds including Baird’s sparrows have declined due 

to habitat loss from conversion to cropland, overgrazing, and poor rangeland management (Dechant 

et al. 2003).

Baird’s sparrows nest in idle to lightly grazed 

native prairie that has some residual litter cover 

and few shrubs. In wetter, eastern portions of their 

range frequent fires may be required to prevent 

shrub invasion. Drier, western grasslands do not 

require the same frequency (Dechant et al. 2003). In 

Alberta, the highest densities of Baird’s sparrows 

were found in sites not burned for 5–15 years (Green 

et al. 2002), and a fire-return interval of up to 25 

years has been recommended for dry mixed-grass 

prairie (Askins et al. 2007, Dechant et al. 2003). On 

Bowdoin Refuge, Baird’s sparrows were common in 

prairie that had not burned for at least 70 years. Although they prefer native prairie, the sparrows will 

use tamegrass pastures and some exotic grass species that are structurally similar to native prairie.

Baird’s sparrows arrive at Bowdoin Refuge 

around mid-May and begin nesting in late May 

(Jones et al. 2010). A long-term grassland bird study 

Baird’s Sparrow

© Bob Gress
114 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

at the refuge compared vegetation measurements 

taken at nest sites to measurements taken at random sites throughout four study plots (445 acres 

total). The sparrows preferred nesting habitat with 

greater litter depth (averaging 8 inches) and taller 

vegetation (averaging 14 inches) than that found at 

random sites (Dieni and Jones 2003). In addition, 

they have been found to select sites devoid of clubmoss (Dieni and Jones 2003) and bare ground (Dieni 

and Jones 2003, Green et al. 2002).

Dechant et al. (2003) made the following management recommendations for Baird’s sparrow:

■ Protect native grasslands that support breeding 

populations of Baird’s sparrow

■ Prevent encroachment of woody vegetation

■ Encourage vegetative diversity within grasslands

■ Provide large tracts of grassland

■ Use fire-return intervals appropriate for the area

■ Prevent overgrazing in pastures used by Baird’s 

sparrows

Chestnut-collared Longspur. Chestnut-collared longspurs breed only in short- and mixed-grass prairie 

of the western and northern Great Plains and are 

the most abundant grassland songbird species that 

breeds at Bowdoin Refuge (Jones et al. 2010). Their 

breeding range extends from southern Alberta to 

southern Manitoba in Canada, south through eastern 

Montana and Wyoming, and east through North 

Dakota and South Dakota to western Minnesota.

Longspurs nest in open prairie with minimal 

shrubs and litter. They prefer native grasslands that 

have been recently disturbed by fire, grazing, or 

mowing (Hill and Gould 1997). Optimal grazing intensity is dependent on soil productivity, geographic 

area, and climate. In dry, sparse, mixed-grass prairie, light to moderate grazing is more appropriate, 

and heavy grazing or overgrazing may be detrimental (Dechant et al. 2003). Longspurs will nest in 

tamegrass pastures but in lower abundance than in 

native prairie, and they do not nest in cropland (Hill 

and Gould 1997).

Chestnut-collared longspurs arrive at Bowdoin 

Refuge in mid-April and begin nesting in early to 

mid-May (Jones et al. 2010). A long-term study of 

grassland birds at the refuge found that longspurs 

nest in sparser areas than Sprague’s pipits or Baird’s 

sparrows, with less grass and litter cover and more 

clubmoss cover than the other two species (Dieni 

and Jones 2003).

The chestnut-collared longspur is a species of global 

concern that the Service has documented on Bowdoin 

Refuge.

© Michael Forsberg

Dechant et al. (2003) made the following management recommendations for chestnut-collared 

longspurs:

■ Protect native prairie from plowing and cultivation

■ Avoid managing for idle, dense vegetation, as 

longspur densities decrease with increased vertical density, diversity, and litter depth

■ Graze at light to moderate intensity in dry, 

mixed-grass prairie and avoid overgrazing

■ Use mowing to improve habitat by decreasing 

vegetation height and density

Greater Sage-Grouse. The historical range for sagegrouse covered portions of 16 states and three 

Canadian provinces (MSGWG 2005). The species 

presently occurs in 11 western states and two provinces, having disappeared from scattered areas 

around the periphery of its original range due to 

alteration or elimination of sagebrush habitat. In 

March 2010, the greater sage-grouse was listed as 

a candidate species, meaning it warrants protection 

under the Endangered Species Act but is precluded 

by higher priority species.

Greater sage-grouse require different habitat 

conditions, often across broad landscapes, to meet 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 115

yearlong needs for breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, 

and wintering habitat. Regardless of the season, 

they require large expanses of sagebrush habitats 

with healthy, diverse understories of grasses and 

forbs. In the spring, displaying males require relatively open areas as lek sites, or dancing grounds, 

where breeding takes place. Females nest in a variety of cover types, but the most suitable nesting 

habitat is a mosaic of sagebrush with horizontal and 

vertical structural diversity (Dechant 2003b). Shrub 

height of sagebrush most commonly used by nesting 

sage-grouse ranges from 11.5 to 31 inches, with a 

grass-canopy height greater than 7.2 inches and a 

diversity of forbs (MSGWG 2005).

Brood-rearing habitats for sage-grouse are typically mosaics of upland sagebrush and other habitats such as wet meadows and riparian areas that, 

together, provide abundant insects and forbs for 

hens and chicks (Dechant 2003). Succulent forbs, a 

preferred food source for sage-grouse broods, are a 

key component of summer habitat (MSGWG 2005). 

While sage-grouse are associated with sagebrush 

throughout the year, it is essential during winter 

when the birds mostly occupy sagebrush habitats 

with greater than 20-percent canopy cover (MSGWG 

2005).

Conserving sagebrush habitats on private and 

public lands is by far the most effective approach 

to assuring long-term maintenance of sage-grouse 

abundance and distribution (MSGWG 2005). Other 

A greater sage-grouse male on a lek, or dancing ground, 

in sagebrush-steppe habitat.

Dr. Thomas G. Barnes / USFWS

management recommendations (Dechant et al. 2003) 

follow:

■ Maintain, conserve, and restore large blocks of 

intact sagebrush with a healthy understory of 

native grasses and forbs

■ Protect from alteration lek sites and adjacent 

habitat (up to 11 miles from the lek)

■ Manage breeding habitats to maintain sagebrush 

canopy cover of 15–25 percent and perennial herbaceous cover of at least 15-percent grasses or at 

least 10-percent forbs, with grasses and forbs at 

least 7.1 inches tall

■ Eliminate or control invasive, nonnative plants in 

sagebrush-steppe

■ Use prescribed fire in sagebrush-steppe with 

caution, especially in the more arid portions of 

sage-grouse range, and attempt to maintain a 

mosaic of habitats following the burn

■ Manage livestock grazing through stocking rates 

and season of use on all seasonal ranges of sagegrouse to avoid habitat degradation

■ Minimize human disturbance in sage-grouse habitats, especially around leks and nesting habitat, 

for example: reduce or avoid development of mining and other resource extraction industries such 

as coal-bed methane, and avoid construction of 

power lines especially within 1.86 miles of seasonal habitats

Long-billed Curlew. The long-billed curlew, or “sicklebill,” is the largest shorebird in North America. 

There is no accurate estimate of the current population size, but the species is considered vulnerable 

throughout its range. Continued loss of grassland 

breeding habitats is thought to be the greatest 

threat to population stability (Poole 2005).

Standing 16 inches tall, this curlew has an extremely long, down-curved bill (5–6 inches for males 

and 6.5–8 inches for females) and long legs. Their 

long bills and legs are feeding adaptations for walking and probing for food in deep mud and for probing 

in soft soil and animal burrows. They feed on insects, 

marine and freshwater invertebrates, mollusks, amphibians, and wild fruits. When foraging in uplands 

they feed on grasshoppers, beetles, and other invertebrates in low-growing grassy areas (Montana Bird 

Distribution Committee 1996).

Curlews breed in the shortgrass and mixed-grass 

prairie habitats of the Great Plains, the Great Basin, and the intermontane valleys of southwestern 
116 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Canada and the United States including Montana, 

except the Rocky Mountain region (Montana Bird 

Distribution Committee 1996). Curlews rely on the 

cover and openness of native-prairie grasslands and 

pastures to nest and rear their young. Adequate, 

short-growth grassland for nesting habitat may be 

the single most important factor in sustaining longbilled curlew populations (Allen 1980, Cochrane and 

Anderson 1987, King 1978). In the northern Great 

Plains, the highest curlew densities were in lightly 

grazed grasslands on dry soils and in heavily grazed 

areas on moister soils (Kantrud and Kologiski 1982). 

Grazing generally has a positive effect on breeding 

densities because grazing produces the short grass 

and open ground favored for predator detection and 

chick mobility (Jenni et al. 1981, King 1978, Pampush 1980). The best rotation system should include 

grazing through early spring, so vegetation height 

and density are low during courtship and egg laying 

(Jenni et al. 1981). Overgrazing in drier, shortgrass 

habitats may be a threat to long-billed curlews and 

should be avoided (Bock et al. 1993, Strong 1971). 

Timing and intensity of grazing treatments should 

be adjusted according to local climate and habitat 

characteristics (Bicak et al. 1982, Bock et al. 1993). 

In addition, prescribed fire can improve habitat for 

curlews by removing shrubs and increasing habitat 

openness (Pampush and Anthony 1993).

Accounts of spring arrival dates for long-billed 

curlews in Montana are from early to mid-April. 

Habitat requirements for breeding curlews are 

grassland vegetation less than 12 inches tall, which 

enables curlews to forage without restricting the 

maneuverability of their long bills. They also prefer 

a range of 35–120 acres of suitable breeding and 

nesting habitat depending on the topographic and 

vegetative diversity of an area. Curlews nest in 

shortgrass prairie, grazed mixed-grass uplands and 

pastures, wet and dry meadows, grassy floodplains, 

alkali flats, and occasionally in hayfields, cropland, 

and fallow or stubble fields 3–9 inches high. Nests 

are usually formed in a shallow depression that is 

lined with grasses or weeds to protect the eggs. 

Curlew nests are often located close to standing 

water, within 100–450 yards, and near conspicuous 

objects including livestock dung piles, rocks, and 

dirt mounds (Allen 1980, Cochrane and Anderson 

1987, King 1978). Individuals may intentionally place 

nests near these objects, possibly to provide shade, 

increase camouflage, or facilitate nest location by a 

breeding pair.

Nesting usually takes place in May and June 

(Gillihan and Hutchings 2000). The female lays four 

eggs, which are incubated by both birds for 27–29 

days. The young are precocial (covered with down 

and capable of moving about) and, once hatched, are 

ready to leave the nest almost immediately; most 

young birds leave their nests during the months 

of June and July. After hatching, the adults move 

the chicks to areas of taller grasses and scattered 

forbs and shrubs, apparently for protection from 

predators and weather extremes. However, the 

adults avoid dense vegetation, possibly due to low 

visibility and difficulty of travel for chicks (Dechant 

et al. 1999). The female typically abandons the brood 

2–3 weeks after hatching and leaves brood care to 

the male. The remaining groups of birds leave their 

breeding grounds by the end of August (Dechant et 

al. 1999). Curlews typically depart Montana in late 

August to early September.

Long-billed Curlew

Lee Karney / USFWS
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 117

Sprague’s Pipit. Sprague’s pipit breeds only in 

the northern mixed-grass prairie, and its range is 

similar to that of Baird’s sparrow. However, while 

Baird’s sparrow numbers have been stable since the 

1980s, Sprague’s pipit numbers have continued to 

decline, causing it to be listed in 2010 as a candidate 

species in the United States.

Pipits nest in native prairie with high plant species diversity and few shrubs. They prefer lightly 

to moderately grazed pastures throughout much of 

their breeding range (Jones 2010); however, grazing 

can have a dramatic negative effect in drier, less 

densely vegetated, mixed-grass prairie (Robbins et 

al. 1999).

Burning can have short-term, adverse effects on 

the abundance of Sprague’s pipit; however, burning 

may have long-term benefits through improved habitat quality if it occurs at an appropriate frequency 

(Jones 2010). In drier portions of their range, pipits 

were common on native grassland that had not been 

burned for more than 15–32 years (Jones 2010, Robbins et al. 1999). Unlike Baird’s sparrows, Sprague’s 

pipits are uncommon in tame pasture and have not 

been documented to nest in cropland, Conservation 

Reserve Program land, or in dense nesting cover 

planted for waterfowl habitat (Jones 2010).

Sprague’s pipits arrive at Bowdoin Refuge in 

late April and begin nesting in mid-May (Jones et 

al. 2010). A long-term study of grassland birds at 

the refuge found that pipits used nest sites with 

intermediately tall (averaging 12 inches), vertically 

dense, vegetation and nest patches (16-foot radius 

plot around the nest) with greater litter cover and 

depth, while avoiding areas with prickly pear cactus 

(Dieni and Jones 2003). This is similar to what has 

been reported in other published studies such as 

that by Sutter (1997). The pipits selected areas with 

less than 20-percent clubmoss cover, few shrubs, and 

little bare ground (Dieni and Jones 2003).

According to the Sprague’s Pipit Conservation 

Plan (Jones 2010), management should consist of the 

following:

■ Keep large native prairie grasslands intact

■ Remove woody vegetation from the interior of 

grassland patches

■ Increase patch size and minimize the amount of 

edge habitat

■ Remove exotic plant species from native prairie

■ Apply prescribed fire (with frequency highly dependent on soil productivity, geographic area, 

and climate, particularly in the drier portions of 

their range)

■ Use low-intensity or no grazing in the semiarid 

mixed-grass prairie

Sprague’s Pipit

© Bob Gress

Wetlands

Wetlands are classified using several attributes—

vegetation, water regimes (the length of time water 

occupies a specific area), and water chemistry. Wetland vegetation refers to plants that grow in water 

or in soils that are saturated for most of the growing 

season. Emergent plants are those rooted in the 

substrate and having foliage that grows partially or 

entirely above the water surface. Some emergent 

plants found on the refuge complex are broadleaf 

cattail, alkali bulrush, hardstem bulrush, common 

three-square, and smartweed. Other notable species 

that occur along the shores of lakes and marshes 

include pickleweed and saltgrass. Submergent 

plants are those having roots in the substrate but do 

not emerge above the surface of the water, except 

some that have floating leaves. Submergent plants 

found in refuge complex wetlands include northern watermilfoil, widgeongrass, sago pondweed, 

and flatstem pondweed. Many wetland plants have 

broad salt tolerances and can be found in freshwater 

and saline wetlands; however, species richness for 

both emergents and submergents decreases as salinity increases (Johnson 1990). In a study conducted 

on Bowdoin Refuge in 1987 and 1988, five species 

of emergent plants and six species of submergent 

plants were found in freshwater wetlands, but only 

one emergent species and four submergent species 

were found in saline wetlands (Johnson 1990).

In 1971, Stewart and Kantrud developed a 

wetland classification system to differentiate and 
118 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

describe natural and modified wetland basins (or 

ponds) and lakes in the Prairie Pothole Region and 

also reflects seasonal, regional, and local variations 

in the environment. Stewart and Kantrud’s (1971) 

investigations indicated that the use of prairie ponds 

and lakes by waterfowl is strongly influenced by 

water permanence, depth, and chemistry and by 

land use. They also stated any marked variations in 

wetlands are usually reflected in differences in life 

form, cover interspersion, species composition, and 

species dominance. Differences in vegetation are 

easily discernible in the field and are the principle 

criteria for the Stewart and Kantrud (1971) classification system.

Seven major classes of wetlands of natural basins 

are recognized based on ecological differentiation. 

Each class is distinguished by the vegetation zone 

occurring in the central or deepest part and occupying 5 percent or more of the total wetland area 

(Stewart and Kantrud 1971). Four wetland classes 

are found on the refuge complex: temporary, seasonal, semipermanent, and permanent.

■ The primary function of temporary wetland basins is to provide isolation for breeding pairs of 

waterfowl and supply invertebrate foods early 

in the nesting period (Kantrud et al. 1989). The 

rapid warming of these shallow wetlands in the 

spring results in early development of invertebrate populations (Swanson et al. 1974).

■ Seasonal wetland basins are a major source of invertebrate protein for laying female ducks early 

in the breeding season, and these basins provide 

isolation for paired waterfowl and sites for overwater nests (Kantrud et al. 1989). During wet 

years, seasonal wetlands are also highly attractive as breeding habitat (Talent et al. 1982) and 

molting areas. They usually receive considerable 

use by spring-migrating waterfowl and shorebirds but normally are dry by fall.

■ Semipermanent wetland basins supply most 

of the needs of common prairie-nesting waterfowl and their broods. Use of semipermanent 

wetlands by breeding waterfowl seems to be 

greatest when amounts of emergent cover and 

open water are approximately equal (Weller and 

Spatcher 1965). They are the last to become icefree in the spring and, therefore, are not an early 

source of invertebrate foods for waterfowl and 

shorebirds. In addition, semipermanent wetlands 

are the main habitat for staging and fall-migrating waterfowl (Kantrud et al. 1989).

■ Permanent wetlands remain flooded throughout 

the year. Due to year-round flooding, permanent 

wetlands support a diverse, but usually not abundant, population of invertebrates. Submerged 

aquatic vegetation may occur if adequate water 

clarity exists. These wetlands are important in 

mid- to late summer when other wetlands may 

dry up and when ducks are molting their flight 

feathers; the deep water and dense cover provide 

protection from predators.

Many of the wetlands on Bowdoin Refuge have been 

sampled and fall into the following salinity classes 

defined by Stewart and Kantrud (1972):

■ Slightly brackish (320–1,280 mg/L salinity)—

Black Coulee Pond, Display Pond, Farm Ponds, 

and Lakeside

■ Moderately brackish (1,280–3,200 mg/L)—Goose 

Island Pond, Patrol Road Pond, and Strater Pond

■ Brackish (3,200–9,600 mg/L)—Dry Lake Pond 

and Drumbo Pond

■ Subsaline (9,600–28,800 mg/L)—Lake Bowdoin

These wetlands have a diverse distribution of sizes, 

types, locations, and associations; according to 

Service data, there are more than 10,000 acres of 

wetlands in the refuge complex. The chemistry of 

surface waters in these wetlands tends to be dynamic because of interactions among numerous factors, such as the position of the wetland in relation 

to ground water flow systems, chemical composition 

of ground water, surrounding land uses, and climate 

(LaBalugh et al. 2004, Swanson et al. 1988, Winter 

2004).

Invasive and Nonnative Species 

in Wetlands

The refuge complex has several invasive and nonnative wetland-loving plant species such as Phragmites (reed), Russian olive, perennial pepperweed, 

saltcedar, and reed canarygrass. Although the 

Service has been working to control these invaders 

through an integrated pest management program, 

these species are very hardy, spread rapidly, and 

easily outcompete the more vulnerable, native, wetland plant species.

Phragmites. Samples of Phragmites plants were 

collected from Bowdoin Refuge and Beaver Creek 

WPA in 2005 and sent to Cornell University for 

identification. The refuge sample was identified as a 

native species. However, the sample from the waterfowl production area was identified as an introduced 

species; the Service is currently conducting control 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 119

methods to stop the spread of this small, 1-acre infestation.

Russian Olive. Russian olive trees were planted 

on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge in the 1950s 

until the 1970s, under the belief that they were beneficial to the landscape and wildlife. Over the years, 

the trees have encroached into wetland edges and 

along canals and ditches, making it difficult for refuge staff to maintain these water delivery systems. 

Russian olive grows well in wet-saline environments 

and is shade tolerant; as a result, Russian olive trees 

have become established in the understory of the native cottonwood trees that surround several refuge 

wetlands and saline areas throughout the refuge 

complex. Russian olive trees were encroaching into 

the eastern end of Bowdoin Refuge, in drainages and 

around small wetlands. Control of Russian olive on 

the refuge began in 2000 with tree cutting and treating the stumps with an herbicide (Arsenal® or Garlon® 3A); in some treated areas, the remaining tree 

stumps sprouted and readily propagated, becoming 

difficult for the refuge staff to control. The Service 

began by removing these single, scattered trees, and 

then turned its attention to larger, older infestations. 

Inefficient control methods combined with a lack of 

staff has slowed progress in reducing the infestation.

Perennial Pepperweed. In 2004, an infestation of 

perennial pepperweed was discovered on the Big 

Island dike road at Bowdoin Refuge. The pepperweed has spread into the surrounding wetlands, and 

the size of the infestation varies depending on water 

levels. The infestation has been mapped with GPS 

(Global Positioning System) and chemically treated 

every year.

Saltcedar. One saltcedar tree was discovered 

growing on the east end of Bowdoin Refuge in 2007 

and was cut down and treated with herbicide. In 

2009, an infestation was discovered in the northern wetlands of Beaver Creek WPA; the area was 

surveyed and all saltcedar plants found were documented using GPS and sprayed with herbicide.

Reed Canarygrass. This grass has been present in 

the refuge complex for many years with almost no 

attention given to estimating the size of canarygrass 

infestations or treating them.

This “Texas crossing” on the eastern end of Dry Lake is 

a water control structure that also serves as a road.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Wetlands within Bowdoin Refuge

Wetlands in the Bowdoin Refuge are diverse in size 

and type including the following: permanent wetlands (4,187 acres); semipermanent wetlands (1,146 

acres); and seasonal or temporary wetlands (3,342 

acres) (refer to figure 29 in chapter 6).

Lake Bowdoin is a large 5,459-acre natural, subsaline, permanent wetland that, during the early 

history of Bowdoin Refuge, was modified to create 

additional wetland habitat for migratory birds and 

to prevent outbreaks of avian botulism. With Montana’s hot, dry climate, the lake has an evaporation 

loss of more than 2 feet annually. Most of the water 

in Lake Bowdoin would evaporate during the summer, leaving a small pool of water in the deepest portion of the lake or drying completely in some years. 

In years when only a small pool of water was left, 

there would be an outbreak of avian botulism, killing 

thousands of waterfowl and other migratory birds in 

one season. Modifications to the lake consisted of installing two water control structures and a dike system or auto tour road (which acts as a dike) around 

the southern portion of the lake, and two low water 

or “Texas crossings.” This infrastructure holds delivered water and captures runoff and Beaver Creek 

floodwaters.

Lake Bowdoin attracts thousands of ducks, 

swans, and geese during the spring and fall migrations. The lake provides breeding and nesting habitat for overwater nesters such as white-faced ibis, 

Franklin’s gull, black tern, eared grebe, lesser scaup, 

and redhead. The islands in the lake as well as its 

shoreline provide breeding and nesting habitat for 

American white pelican, great blue heron, northern 

pintail, mallard, Wilson’s phalarope, marbled godwit, 

and willet. In late summer and early fall, Lake Bowdoin affords quality roosting habitat for thousands 

of migrant Canada geese, ducks, and sandhill cranes.

All of the wetlands can be manipulated by water deliveries and or water control structures to 

produce valuable migration, breeding, feeding, and 

nesting habitat for migratory birds. The corresponding bird use is generally quite diverse.

Dry Lake is a large natural wetland; the 1,019-

acre lake is a brackish (somewhat salty), shallow, 

and seasonal wetland. Dry Lake was modified to create additional wetland habitat for migratory birds 

by installing one water control structure, a 4-mile 

dike along the lake’s entire length, and two low wa-
120 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

ter or “Texas crossings.” Being a shallow seasonal 

wetland, Dry Lake goes dry most years. The infrastructure was constructed to hold as much delivered 

water as possible and to capture as much runoff and 

Beaver Creek floodwaters as possible. When at least 

50-percent full, Dry Lake attracts a tremendous 

diversity of shorebirds and waterfowl, particularly 

during spring migration. It can also be significant 

wetland habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl during fall migration when delivered water is available 

from the Malta Irrigation District.

When Piping Plover Pond is at least half full, it 

attracts a diversity of shorebirds, particularly during May and from July through September. These 

shorebird species have included the threatened piping plover, which was last documented nesting along 

the shoreline in 2000.

Patrol Road Pond (4 acres), Black Coulee Pond 

(8 acres), and Strater Pond (17 acres) are permanent, moderately brackish wetlands, because they 

are difficult to manage for migratory birds due to 

ground water seepage and irrigation return flows 

from neighboring private lands. These wetlands 

have been modified by levees and water control 

structures to capture water and provide habitat for 

migratory birds. These wetlands act as deepwater impoundments with emergent vegetation such 

as bulrush and cattails and are important nesting, 

brood-rearing, and feeding sites for diving duck species such as canvasback, redhead, and lesser scaup. 

The emergent vegetation provides escape cover, 

shelter, and nesting sites for these species as well as 

marsh wren, blackbirds, coot, eared grebe, and sora 

rail.

Lakeside Pond (296 acres), Lakeside Extension 

(46 acres), Upper Farm Pond (15 acres), and Lower 

Farm Pond (5 acres) are slightly brackish, semipermanent wetlands. Water levels in these wetlands can 

be manipulated with timely water deliveries and water control structures to mimic natural wetland conditions. These conditions provide important, diverse 

wetland habitat for breeding, feeding, roosting, and 

brood rearing by waterfowl species such as northern 

pintail, mallard, lesser scaup, and eared grebe. In 

addition, the ponds’ emergent vegetation is cover 

for nesting black terns, blackbirds, marsh wrens, 

and white-faced ibises. The shoreline can provide 

important foraging habitat for shorebirds during 

spring and fall migrations and during the breeding 

and nesting seasons.

Drumbo Pond is a 207-acre natural, brackish, 

semipermanent wetland. Water levels in this unit 

can be manipulated with timely water deliveries and 

by two water control structures to mimic natural 

wetland conditions and to provide diverse wetland 

habitat for migratory birds. This wetland is also affected by the uncontrolled entry of irrigation return 

flows from neighboring private lands. Although the 

Service cannot control this flow of water into the 

pond, the Service can manipulate the water control structures to accomplish its wetland habitat 

management goal. Aquatic vegetation such as sago 

pondweed and widgeongrass grows profusely and 

provides valuable food for tundra swans, coots, 

and waterfowl such as canvasbacks and wigeons. 

Drumbo Pond provides important spring and fall 

migration habitat for waterfowl such as northern 

pintail and tundra swan, as well as shorebirds such 

as Wilson’s phalarope and marbled godwit. Waterfowl species such as mallard and lesser scaup find 

important breeding, feeding, roosting, and broodrearing habitat at the pond. In addition, the pond’s 

emergent vegetation is cover for nesting black terns, 

blackbirds, marsh wrens, and white-faced ibises.

Broadleaf cattail is an emergent plant species in wetland 

habitat.

George F. Russell / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Wetlands within Bowdoin District

Wetlands habitat in the Bowdoin Wetland Management District are predominantly seasonal wetland 

basins. The Service manages some of these basins 

by delivering water and manipulating the levels by 

using water control structures and dams. Riparian 

habitat and intermittent prairie streams are also 

found on the district. There are 1,391 acres of wetlands on Service-owned land in the district including 

the following:

■ 45 acres of permanent wetlands

■ 449 acres of semipermanent wetlands

■ 881 acres of seasonal or temporary wetlands

■ 16 acres of riverine or intermittent wetlands

Some of these wetlands are created and others have 

been enhanced by the construction of an earthen 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 121

dam. Wetlands that can receive delivered water—by 

either pumping or gravity flows or whose water levels are influenced by water control structures—are 

considered managed wetlands. There are currently 

928 acres of managed wetlands.

Temporary wetlands at the wetland management district are areas where the wet meadow zone 

dominates the deepest part of the wetland area. 

A peripheral low-prairie zone is usually present. 

Wet meadow vegetation occupies the central areas of many of the shallower pond basins and commonly occurs as a peripheral band in most of the 

deeper ponds and lakes. Most of the more numerous 

plant species in the normal emergent phase are finetextured grasses, rushes, and sedges of relatively 

low stature. Wet meadow zones in the central areas of shallow pond basins are restricted to fresh or 

slightly brackish wetlands. Examples of temporary 

wetlands that the Service manages are Pearce WPA 

(basins P11 and P12), McNeil Slough WPA (Jack’s 

Pond and Pintail Pond), and Beaver Creek WPA 

(Bergum Ponds).

Seasonal ponds are the shallow-marsh zones that 

dominate the deepest part of the wetlands. Peripheral wet meadow and low-prairie zones are usually 

present. Shallow-marsh vegetation dominates the 

central areas of pond basins that normally maintain 

surface water for an extended period in spring and 

early summer but frequently are dry during late 

summer and fall. In shallow alkali ponds, it may occur as a band between wet meadow and intermittent 

alkali zones. Examples of seasonal managed wetlands in the wetland management district are Pearce 

WPA (P4), Beaver Creek WPA (Beaver Creek oxbow and the North Cell and South Cell wetlands), 

and McNeil Slough WPA (Bruce’s, Dowitcher, Woodduck, and Fidelity Ponds).

Semipermanent ponds are where the deep-marsh 

zone dominates the deepest part of the wetland area. 

Shallow-marsh, wet meadow, and low-prairie zones 

are usually present, and isolated marginal pockets of 

fen zones (bog zones) occasionally occur. Deep-marsh 

vegetation dominates the central areas of pond basins that ordinarily maintain surface water throughout the spring and summer and frequently maintain 

surface water into fall and winter. Occasionally in 

deeper ponds with other zones, a narrow border of 

surrounding low prairie is inundated during unusually high water. Examples of semipermanent managed wetlands in the wetland management district 

are Pearce WPA (Upper Slough and Big wetland), 

Beaver Creek (Masters Oxbow and unnamed tributary), and McNeil Slough WPA (Turtle Pond and 

Bureau of Reclamation Ponds).

Widgeongrass is a submergent plant species, which grows 

completely under water.

R.A. Howard / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Wetland-Associated Wildlife

Many mammals use wetlands and surrounding vegetation for water and cover but muskrats, mink, 

raccoon, and beaver are those most commonly associated with the lakes and wetlands in the refuge 

complex.

There have been no formal amphibian or reptile 

surveys in the refuge complex, but wetland species 

that have been recorded on Bowdoin Refuge include 

leopard frog, chorus frog, and painted turtle.

Due to the shallow nature of prairie lakes and 

wetlands, they may be dry for several months to 

several years. As a result, many refuge complex 

wetlands do not support fish. In 2002 and 2003, a 

fish-trapping study was conducted on Bowdoin Refuge on several small wetlands (Display Pond, Bowdoin Intake Canal, and Black Coulee Pond); carp, 

fathead minnow, spottail shiner, white sucker, yellow 

perch, brassy minnow, and brook stickleback were 

documented.

Wetlands normally carry high insect (invertebrate) populations. Nesting waterfowl, waterfowl 

broods, marsh birds, waterbirds, and shorebirds are 

highly dependent on these protein food sources for 

healthy, vigorous growth. Common aquatic macroinvertebrates documented on the Bowdoin Refuge 

are midges, scuds, water boatman, snails, damsel-
122 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

flies, mayflies, and water fleas (Johnson 1990). The 

same insect species may be found in fresh and saline 

wetlands, but the total diversity decreases with increased salinity (Johnson 1990).

Concentrations of thousands of migrating shorebirds are found throughout most of the refuge complex, particularly in drier years when low water 

levels leave large areas of exposed shoreline. Thirtyseven species of shorebirds have been observed in 

the refuge complex; of these, 13 species including 

the spotted sandpiper and threatened piping plover 

will breed in the refuge complex (refer to “Appendix F–Species Lists”). In 2002, Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge was designated as a site of regional 

importance by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird 

Reserve Network. It was given this distinction for 

documenting at least 20,000 shorebirds using the 

refuge annually or at least 1 percent of the biogeographic population for a species (Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network 2009).

As part of the central flyway, wetlands in the refuge complex are used by many waterfowl species as 

important stopover sites on migration routes (refer 

to “Appendix F–Species Lists”). Other bird species 

are common around the wetlands, such as sora rail, 

black-necked stilt, American avocet, yellow-headed 

blackbird, and marsh wren. Lake Bowdoin provides 

habitat for colonial-nesting and overwater-nesting 

waterbirds including western grebe, eared grebe, 

American coot, white-faced ibis, black-crown nightheron, American bittern, ring-billed gull, doublecrested cormorant, great blue heron, and American 

white pelican.

Bootleg Marsh is full of Baltic rush (center) and 

surrounded by curly dock (dark vegetation in 

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Target Waterbirds

The Service has identified a diverse group of target 

waterbird species for wetlands: northern pintail, 

mallard, redhead, tundra swan, marbled godwit, Wilson’s phalarope, white-faced ibis, and Franklin’s gull. 

The life history needs of these species are described 

below.

Northern Pintail. The northern pintail is the most 

widely distributed dabbling duck (surface feeder) 

in the Northern Hemisphere. It frequents lakes, 

rivers, marshes, and ponds in grasslands, and areas 

where water is lined with trees are avoided (DeGraaf et al. 1991, Johnsgard 1979, Madge and Burn 

1988).

Pintails have a tendency to avoid areas that are 

flooded too deeply if shallow sites are also present. 

These ducks feed in shallow waters of marshes, 

ponds, and wet meadows or in grain fields, consuming seeds, roots, and leaves of aquatic plants, emergents, and many terrestrial plants (Belrose 1980, 

DeGraaf et al. 1991). Specifically, plants commonly 

eaten by pintails include pondweeds, sedges, smartweed, fall panicum, brownseed paspalum, panic 

grass, bulrush, widgeongrass, chufa, and saltgrass 

(Belrose 1980, DeGraaf et al. 1991). Many wellmanaged wetlands have the potential to provide an 

abundant supply of high-energy and nutritionally 

complete foods for pintails when water depths are 

less than 18 inches and preferably less than 6 inches. 

Optimal foraging depth is less than or equal to 18 

inches. Water more than 18 inches can still provide 

important roost sites and give security from predators (Fredrickson 1991).

Pintails regularly breed in the shortgrass prairies of the northern United States and southern 

Canada and are especially attracted to large expanses of shallow open water where visibility is good 

and small seeds and invertebrates are readily available (Fredrickson 1991). These ducks migrate early 

in spring and move northward as soon as wetlands 

become ice-free (Fredrickson 1991). They normally 

initiate nesting earlier in spring and summer than 

other dabblers. The first nests appear in early April 

during normal years, and nesting activity peaks during the first 2 weeks of May. The preferred nesting 

habitat is short grass where temporary ponds are 

abundant nearby. The highest nesting densities occur in open habitats where vegetation is low and 

sparse such as areas dominated by prairie grasses, 

whitetop, nettle, spikerush, rushes, and buckbrush 

or snowberry (Fredrickson 1991). The northern pintail builds its nest in a hollow on dry ground, generally within 300 feet of water (Madge and Burn 1988, 

Musgrove and Musgrove 1943). Grazing programs 

that leave good residue ground cover but remove 

robust growth can enhance nesting cover for pintails 

(Fredrickson 1991).

Mallard. Another dabbler, the mallard is one of 

the most familiar of ducks found throughout North 

America. Mallards use all wetland habitat types and 

depend on wetland areas and the associated upland 

habitats to survive. They feed on insects and larvae, 

aquatic invertebrates, seeds, acorns, aquatic vegmiddleground). etation, and grain. They are well adapted to eating 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 123

both natural and domestic foods such as waste grain 

from crop harvests. Most of their diet is made up of 

wetland plants and grains such as wheat, barley, rice 

and oats (Montana Field Guide (no date(b)).

Mallards tend to leave their wintering areas 

early to reach the breeding grounds, usually departing in February and March. Migration periods in the 

Bozeman, Montana, area occur from February 25 

to April 20 and from October 15 to January 1, with 

peaks on March 20 and December 1 (Skaar 1969). 

Among dabbling ducks, the mallard is one of the latest fall migrants. In the northern tier of States (like 

Montana), local breeding populations of mallards are 

not appreciably augmented by more northerly birds 

until early October. Peak population numbers are 

reached in early November and begin to gradually 

decline as the season changes and waters begin to 

freeze.

Mallard hens prefer to nest in dense vegetation 

about 24 inches high, regardless of other cover qualities. The mallard begins to nest between April 10 

and April 30 over vast reaches of its breeding range 

(Belrose 1980). Each spring, the female mallard’s 

diet switches from plants to aquatic invertebrates. 

This diet provides her with the nutrition and energy she needs to lay and incubate a clutch of eggs. 

Mallard duck eggs usually hatch from late April to 

late May. As soon as the ducklings are dry, within 

the first 12 hours of hatching, the hen mallard leads 

them to water (Belrose 1980).

Redhead. The redhead is a diving duck found in 

shallow freshwater lakes, ponds, and marshes (Belrose 1980). The redhead is a breeding bird of the 

northern prairies and associated parklands and the 

intermountain marshes of western Montana (Belrose 

1980). The largest populations of breeding birds are 

found in South Dakota and western Montana as well 

as Canada (Belrose 1980). They prefer semipermanent to permanently flooded wetlands that support 

persistent emergent vegetation.

Redheads obtain their food by diving in water 3.3–9.8 feet deep, but they can dive as deep as 

45.9 feet. They feed in shallow waters by tipping 

up so they can reach the bottom from the surface. 

Ninety percent of their diet is plants and the other 

10 percent are animals. The redhead’s diet consists 

of pondweed seeds, tubers, leaves, muskgrass, 

bulrush seeds, wild celery, duckweeds, water lily 

seeds, sedges, grasses, wild rice, widgeongrass, and 

coontail. During spring migration and the breeding 

season, adult redheads are opportunistic and omnivorous. In the spring in North Dakota and Canada, 

redheads forage in large, deep, open areas (more 

than 1 acre) with submersed aquatic vegetation; 

they feed primarily on protein-rich invertebrates, 

including Diptera larvae and Trichoptera (more than 

50 percent by volume). Much of their remaining diet 

consists of bulrush seeds and sago pondweed buds 

(less than or equal to 15 percent by volume) (Custer 

1993). In fall and winter, they primarily eat leaves, 

stems, seeds, and tubers of aquatic plants, mostly 

submergents, with smaller amounts of aquatic insects (Custer 1993).

Northern Pintail

John and Karen Hollingsworth / USFWS

Mallard Pair

Gene Nieminen / USFWS

Redheads feed in large, open areas.

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS
124 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Most redheads depart wintering areas in the Laguna Madre of Texas within 2 weeks in early March 

and from the Atlantic Coast in mid-March. They are 

considered midseason migrants, because they migrate later than species such as mallard and northern pintail (Custer 1993). They reach breeding areas 

in the northern prairies of the United States in early 

April and numbers rapidly increase through the 

month (Belrose 1980). Redheads begin to appear on 

migration areas adjacent to their breeding grounds 

in September, reach peak numbers by mid-October, 

and are largely gone by mid-November (Belrose 

1980).

The redhead uses smaller, shallower permanent 

to semipermanent wetlands with blocks of dense 

emergent vegetation for nesting—laying and incubating eggs (Custer 1993). Many nest studies 

reveal that redheads have a strong preference for 

hardstem bulrush beds over other types of vegetation, with cattails a second choice and sedges third 

(Belrose 1980). Deeper water with invertebrates 

or shallow water with moist-soil plants should be 

made available during the prelaying period. Water 

levels should be kept constant during the laying and 

incubation periods to reduce losses of clutches from 

flooding or from predators if the area becomes too 

dry. Recently flooded areas with high invertebrate 

populations should be available during the first few 

weeks of the brood period and should be followed 

by access to deeper water with ample pondweeds 

(Custer 1993).

Tundra Swan. The tundra swan, once known as 

the whistling swan in North America, is the most 

numerous and widespread of the two swan species 

native to this continent. Tundra swans are attracted 

to large open wetlands for roosting and foraging 

(Earnst 1994). Its long neck allows it to feed in water up to 3.3 feet deep as it forages in shallow ponds, 

lakes, and riverine marshes. The swan will also feed 

in harvested agricultural fields and fields growing 

winter cereal grain. Tundra swans prefer wetlands 

containing sago pondweed regardless of wetland size 

or extent of open water (Limpert and Earnst 1994). 

Tubers and seed of the sago pondweed were the exclusive diet of swans collected in the Great Salt Lake 

marshes (Sherwood 1960).

Tundra swans migrate in flocks comprised of family groups or in small flocks comprised of several 

families and some nonbreeders. The swans begin to 

leave their wintering grounds and push northward 

with the first spring thaw in March. Tundra swans 

arrive on Bowdoin Refuge in the spring as early as 

mid-March and are gone by the end of the month. 

A large portion of the eastern population of tundra swans migrates through the central flyway in 

fall and spring, primarily through the province of 

Saskatchewan and the States of Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Staging areas are confined 

to southern Saskatchewan, northeastern Montana, 

large portions of North Dakota, and northeastern 

South Dakota (Vrtiska et al. 1999). They leave their 

major breeding grounds in Alaska in late September 

and early October (Belrose 1980). They appear again 

on Bowdoin Refuge in the fall, around the last week 

in September and depart by mid- to late November. 

Censuses of tundra swans at Freezeout Lake, Montana, made by Dale Witt from 1963 to 1969 revealed 

that the swans start arriving early October, build up 

to peak numbers by the end of the month or early 

November, and depart rapidly thereafter.

Marbled Godwit. The marbled godwit is a large 

shorebird with a long, upturned bill. Most nest in 

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Tundra swan, Canada goose, and other waterfowl species at Lake Bowdoin.
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 125

prairies of north-central United States and southcentral Canada (midcontinental population). Within 

these grasslands, godwits require complexes of 

wetlands that represent a broad diversity of sizes 

and types—ranging from temporary to permanent 

(Melcher et al. 2006, Ryan et al. 1984). Godwits feed 

at water depths of 2–5 inches and in dry years, when 

temporary wetlands are limiting, the birds will shift 

to semipermanent wetlands. Such shifts underscore 

the need for conserving wetland complexes as opposed to single wetlands (Melcher et al. 2006).

Northbound migration for the midcontinental 

population peaks from late April to mid-May, with 

later peaks generally occurring at more northern 

latitudes. Typical of most shorebirds, the marbled 

godwit’s southbound migration is quite drawn out. 

Suspected nonbreeders and unsuccessful breeders 

begin to form large flocks at staging sites within 

core areas of the breeding range as early as the first 

week of June. By late June and early July, successful 

breeders and, later, juveniles join staging flocks. 

Godwits may continue moving southward into November, although southbound migration peaks in 

mid-July to mid-September (Melcher et al. 2006).

The godwit breeds in the center of North America and winters along the coasts (Gratto-Trevor 

2000). It is not well-known whether, or how, godwit breeding distributions are affected by annual 

changes in climatic or other conditions. Bowdoin 

Refuge data shows that banded individuals come 

back to the same location in subsequent breeding 

seasons. They will nest on occasion in tamegrass 

habitats, including hayfields and idle pastures (Ryan 

et al. 1984), especially if the vegetative structure is 

similar to that of native, shortgrass habitats. Typically, nesting birds avoid dense grass cover and 

rarely nest in croplands or stubble fields (Dechant 

et al. 2003). Adults with broods, however, are often 

found near taller grass (6–24 inches) than that used 

for nesting, which provides escape cover and protection from exposure (Ryan et al. 1984). Godwits in 

the midcontinental breeding range appear to prefer 

large, contiguous blocks of habitat (Melcher et al. 

2006). They nest on the ground in native prairie areas, a considerable distance from water (Montana 

Field Guide (no date (c)). Most authorities agree 

that marbled godwits in the midcontinental breeding range nest preferentially in sparse (less than 

75-percent canopy coverage) to moderately (more 

than 75-percent canopy coverage) vegetated, native shortgrass (less than 6 inches) habitats—often 

grazed or recently idled from grazing (Melcher et al. 

2006).

Wilson’s Phalarope. Wilson’s phalaropes are small 

wading birds that use both fresh and alkali wetlands 

with three characteristics: open water, emergent 

vegetation, and open shoreline (Hohn 1967, Naugle 

1997, Prescott et al. 1995, Saunders 1914, Stewart 

1975, Stewart and Kantrud 1965). Phalarope need 

protected wetland complexes with both seasonal and 

semipermanent wetlands to provide suitable habitat 

during both wet and dry years (Colwell and Oring 

1988b, Kantrud and Stewart 1984). The phalarope 

feeds by swimming or “spinning” or walking along 

the shoreline of shallow grassy ponds or lakes and 

picking insects and crustaceans from the surface 

(Johns 1969). On its breeding grounds, Wilson’s phalarope forages on open water and flooded meadows, 

less frequently in upland habitats and along beaches 

(Colwell and Jehl 1994).

Wilson’s phalarope usually appears on the breeding grounds of Montana during the first week of 

May. In the central and northern Great Plains (Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Dakota), Wilson’s 

phalaropes arrive on the breeding grounds from 

mid-April to early May and depart from mid-August 

to early September (Howe 1972, Johnsgard 1980, 

Murray 1983, Roberts 1932). Females arrive on the 

Marbled Godwit

© Michael Forsberg

Wilson’s phalarope is a small “wader.”

© Dominic Sherony
126 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

breeding grounds earlier than males (Colwell 1987, 

Reynolds et al. 1986), and commonly depart from 

breeding areas earlier than males, usually from early 

June to early July (Colwell 1987; Colwell and Oring 

1988a,c; Dechant et al. 2003; Hohn 1967; Howe 1972).

Wilson’s phalarope begins nesting in June in 

sparse to dense vegetation. Its nest is a grass-lined 

depression (Davis 1961). Nesting habitat varies 

widely and includes wetlands, wet meadows, upland grasslands, and road rights-of-way (Bent 1962, 

Bomberger 1984, Colwell 1987, Colwell and Oring 

1990, Dinsmore and Schuster 1997, Einemann 1991, 

Faanes and Lingle 1995, Hohn 1967, Murray 1983, 

Roberts 1932, Stewart 1975). Phalarope need wet 

meadows near deeper wetlands during the breeding 

season (Colwell and Oring 1988b). This may make it 

easier for adults to move young from nests to wetlands by decreasing overland travel distance. Nest 

site selection varies seasonally—the birds nest in 

upland vegetation early in the breeding season and 

in wet meadow vegetation later in the season (Colwell and Oring 1990). They usually nest no more 

than 328 feet from shorelines (Colwell and Oring 

1990, Eldridge 1992, Hatch 1971, Hohn 1967). Burning can be used to improve nesting habitat (Eldridge 

1992). In pastures that contain wetlands important 

to breeding Wilson’s phalaropes, grazing should be 

deferred until after July 15 (Prescott et al. 1993). 

Idle grasslands and previously grazed areas provide habitat for nesting, but areas with cattle present during the breeding season are less suitable 

(Kantrud and Higgins 1992, Renken 1983, Renken 

and Dinsmore 1987).

White-faced ibis are large wading birds.

© Michael Forsberg

White-faced Ibis. Much larger than the phalarope, 

the white-faced ibis is a wader that probes deep in 

the mud with its long bill and feeds in shallow water 

or on the water surface (Cogswell 1977). Ibises typically feed on crayfish, frogs, fishes, insects, newts, 

earthworms, and crustaceans in freshwater marshes 

(Terres 1980). In the Central Valley of California 

they preferentially selected foraging sites with biomass that is significantly higher for midges (Chironomidae) and significantly lower for earthworms 

(Safran et al. 2000).

Most white-faced ibis arrive in Montana in May 

(Montana Bird Distribution 2002). In late summer 

they disperse throughout the State before beginning 

the fall migration to their wintering habitat (Ryder 

and Manry 1994). Most begin their southern movement in August, and by September they are usually 

gone from the State (Montana Bird Distribution 

2002).

Breeding habitat is typically freshwater wetlands including ponds and marshes with pockets 

of emergent vegetation. The white-faced ibis also 

uses flooded hay meadows and agricultural fields as 

feeding locations. Ibises nest in areas where water 

surrounds emergent vegetation, bushes, shrubs, or 

low trees. In Montana, they use old stems in cattails, 

hardstem bulrush or alkali bulrush over shallow 

water as their nesting habitat (DuBois 1989). Water 

conditions usually determine whether nesting occurs 

in a particular area; therefore, ibis nesting sites can 

often move around from year to year. White-faced 

ibis is a fairly adaptable species but does require 

colony and roosting site isolation. Nesting colonies 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 127

are often shared with black-crowned night-herons 

and Franklin’s gulls.

Franklin’s Gull. A small gull found in the wetlands 

of the interior of North America, the Franklin’s gull 

is listed in Montana as a species of concern. It prefers large, relatively permanent, prairie marsh complexes. The gulls feed on insects, earthworms, fish, 

mice, and seeds. It forages while walking in fields, 

swimming, or in dense flocks in fields being cultivated by a plow. It is also very adept at catching flying insects on the wing (Burger and Gochfeld 1994). 

At Freezeout Lake, Montana, stomach contents of 

Franklin’s gulls included insects, earthworms, spiders, unidentified vertebrates, and plant material 

believed to be taken incidentally to consuming animals (Montana Field Guide (no date (a)).

Franklin’s gulls return to Montana in mid-April 

and are gone by early to mid-October. In Montana, 

the extreme migration dates for this species are 

April 4, (recorded in 1971 at Benton Lake Refuge 

(Casey 2000) and October 11, recorded in 1955 at 

Medicine Lake Refuge (Montana Field Guide (no 

date (a), Reichel 1996).

The gull nests in colonies and builds its nests 

over water on a supporting structure of emergent 

vegetation including cattails and bulrushes (Burger 

and Gochfeld 1994). Typical water depth is 12–24 

inches. One key feature of selected nesting sites is 

water levels that remain high enough throughout 

the nesting period, or at least until the young can 

fledge, to provide protection from predators (Casey 

2000, Montana Field Guide (no date(a)). Breeding is 

localized and occurs mainly in the northern portion 

of States in the plains region (Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and western Minnesota), prairie 

region of Canada, and in the Southwest (Nevada). 

Franklin’s gulls are known to nest in five locations 

in Montana and may account for as many as 34,000 

breeding pairs (Reichel 1996). In 1994–95, the number of nesting pairs for each of the locations were 

recorded: Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

(50–500 pairs); Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

(20 pairs, previously up to 7,500 pairs); Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge (16,000 pairs); Freezeout 

Lake Wildlife Management Area (16,000 pairs); 

and Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (200 

pairs; Reichel 1996). Possible breeding has been reported at other locations in Montana but without 

details (Lenard et al. 2003, Montana Field Guide (no 

date(a)).

Avian Disease

The Bowdoin Refuge has a history of botulism outbreaks dating back to pre-refuge establishment, 

but efforts to document the severity and exact location of die-offs were not recorded until the 1940s. 

Botulism has been documented in Lake Bowdoin, 

Drumbo Pond, Lakeside, Dry Lake, and the Dry 

Lake Canal. Outbreaks generally begin in early to 

mid-July and may last into September. The numbers 

of waterfowl affected has varied greatly from year 

to year, while the location of disease hotspots—areas 

with the highest mortalities—has changed little. 

These hotspots are in the southwestern and southeastern bays of Lake Bowdoin, the northeast shore 

of Big Island in Lake Bowdoin, and the northwest 

portion of Drumbo Pond.

The first confirmed cases of West Nile virus in 

Phillips County, Montana, were documented in 2003. 

A small number of horses and humans became ill and 

unknown numbers were exposed to the virus. Many 

people reported finding dead birds of various species 

throughout the area. In early August 2003, a sudden 

die-off of pelicans was observed on Lake Bowdoin; 

sample carcasses sent in to the National Wildlife 

Health Center tested positive for West Nile virus. 

The disease has been documented in the area every 

year since this time, but the number of cases have 

varied greatly. Outbreaks have begun as early as 

mid-July and can last into fall when colder nighttime 

temperatures control the mosquito population.

Highly pathogenic avian influenza has not yet 

been documented in North America but, because 

of the serious health risks to humans and domestic 

fowl, the Service has entered into an interagency 

agreement to develop an early detection system 

should this influenza migrate to the continent.

The refuge complex staff completed a Disease 

Contingency Plan in 2006 for the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. This plan would be reviewed annually and updated as new information 

becomes available.

Riparian Areas

According to Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy, riparian areas support the greatest concentration of plants and animals yet only constitute 4 percent of Montana’s land 

cover (Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 2005). Plant 

species composition in riparian areas is influenced 

largely by water quality, water permanence, and 

soils.

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex manages two waterfowl production areas that 

are either bordered or crossed by riparian habitat: 

Beaver Creek WPA and McNeil Slough WPA. Beaver Creek, which flows through portions of Beaver 

Creek WPA, can be classified as a mixed riparian 

area—“riparian areas dominated by a mix of shrub 

and herbaceous species, with codominance of shrub 

and grass species present and tree cover is less than 
128 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

15 percent” (Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 2005). 

Western wheatgrass, bluejoint reedgrass, rose, willow, silver sage, and snowberry are common plants 

along Beaver Creek. The Milk River, which borders 

McNeil Slough WPA, is classified as a broadleaf riparian area “dominated by broadleaf (cottonwood) 

forest, with total tree cover from 20 to 100 percent” 

(Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 2005). Associated 

shrub species are alder, bunchberry, serviceberry, 

thimbleberry, common chokecherry, and willow. 

Some of the more common invasive and nonnative 

plants found in riparian areas are Russian olive, 

Canada thistle, and leafy spurge.

Riparian Area–Associated Wildlife

Across the State, there are 149 bird species, 22 

mammal species, 16 amphibian species, and 6 reptile 

species that depend on riparian and wetland habitat 

for breeding and survival. An additional 72 species 

of wildlife regularly use these habitats and benefit 

from riparian and wetland conservation (Sullivan 

2008).

Birds observed on and near McNeil Slough WPA 

include raptors such as golden eagle, red-tailed 

hawk, northern goshawk, American kestrel, snowy 

owl, and western screech-owl. A great variety of 

passerines (perching birds and songbirds) use riparian habitat, including northern flicker, western 

wood-pewee, gray catbird, brown thrasher, cedar 

waxwing, loggerhead shrike, yellow warbler, and 

Baltimore oriole.

Although assessments of the refuge complex’s 

riparian areas have not been completed, a small 

mammal-trapping survey was conducted in 2004 on 

a State-owned wildlife management area near McNeil Slough 

WPA. The study found little 

brown myotis, silver-haired bat, 

deer mouse, northern grasshopper mouse, western jumping 

mouse, striped skunk, and three 

species of vole (Carson et al. 

2004). Other mammals that use 

riparian areas are white-tailed 

deer, beaver, raccoon, porcupine, and red fox.

In 2000 and 2001, fish surveys in Beaver Creek on Beaver Creek WPA documented 

the presence of fathead minnow, black bullhead, carp, yellow perch, brook stickleback, 

pumpkinseed, white sucker, 

brassy minnow, black crappie, 

spottail shiner, and smallmouth 

bass.

4.3 Federally and State-listed 

Species

The Service has not documented any species listed 

as endangered under the Endangered Species Act 

using any lands or water within the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The Great Plains 

population of the piping plover, federally listed as 

threatened in 1985, has been found on Bowdoin Refuge.

Many species found in the refuge complex have 

been designated as species of concern by Montana 

Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the Montana Natural 

Heritage Program (2009a, 2009b) or as birds of conservation concern by the Service (2008a).

Two bird species on the refuge complex are designated as Federal candidate species under the Endangered Species Act—greater sage-grouse and 

Sprague’s pipit. The Service has determined that 

both of these species warrant protection, but that 

listing is precluded by the need to address other 

listing actions of a higher priority. Both will remain 

classified as candidate species until listing proposals 

can be prepared. Until listed as threatened or endangered, candidate species do not receive statutory 

protection under the Endangered Species Act.

The mountain plover, which is found on Hewitt 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge within the refuge 

complex, is currently proposed for listing as a 

threatened species. The Service is still developing 

scientific information regarding the mountain plover’s life history, ecology, and habitat use to determine its status and eligibility for listing.

The Bowdoin Refuge has critical habitat for piping plover.

Gene Nieminen / USFWS
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 129

Piping Plover

Piping plovers occur in three distinct populations: 

Atlantic Coast, Great Lakes, and northern Great 

Plains. Of the roughly 6,000 piping plovers left in 

the world, about half breed in the northern Great 

Plains. Unlike the Atlantic Coast and Great Lakes 

populations, the northern Great Plains population is 

declining, somewhere between 6 percent and 12 percent annually (Larson et al. 2002, Plissner and Haig 

2000, Ryan et al. 1993). This population is expected 

to go extinct in 50–100 years unless significant conservation activities are started. The decline and poor 

prognosis led to the listing of this population in the 

mid-1980s as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in the United States and endangered in 

Canada.

The first recorded sighting for piping plovers in 

Montana was in 1967 in Phillips County (Prellwitz 

et al. 1989). Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge is 

located on the extreme western edge of the breeding 

range for the northern Great Plains population. Piping plovers nest on wide, sparsely vegetated sand or 

gravel beaches and on islands in rivers. In the northern Great Plains, flooding of nests and chicks from 

precipitation or untimely discharges of water from 

dams has been a major cause of reproductive failure. 

The refuge has suitable breeding and nesting habitat for piping plovers; nevertheless, use has been 

very sporadic and in low numbers (nesting was last 

documented in 2000). Because of its history of piping 

plover use, 3,325 acres of Bowdoin Refuge has been 

designated as critical habitat for the piping plover.

The Bowdoin Refuge participates in the International Piping Plover Breeding Census every 5 years 

and is a member of the Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee. In addition, refuge staff conducts 

annual surveys for piping plover on Bowdoin and 

Hewitt Lake refuges and at nearby Nelson Reservoir. The reservoir lies approximately 4.5 miles, as 

the plover flies, northeast of Bowdoin Refuge and 

is administered by the Bureau of Reclamation. This 

4,559-acre irrigation reservoir has approximately 

34 miles of primarily gravel shoreline at a normal 

pool elevation of 2,221 feet. This extensive shoreline 

often supports several nesting pairs of piping plover. 

Since the nearest Reclamation office is 200 miles 

away in Billings, Montana, the Service entered into 

an agreement with Reclamation to have the nearby 

refuge staff monitor plover use of the reservoir during the migration, breeding, and nesting seasons. 

Reclamation has provided the funding, and refuge 

staff has been responsible for the monitoring. In 

2009, the Service no longer had the staff to continue 

this monitoring program. Future agreements to 

continue this partnership would be contingent on 

the addition of a biologist or permanent biological 

technician to the refuge complex staff to carry out 

this additional work.

In cooperation with Reclamation, the refuge staff 

has improved nesting habitat on Nelson Reservoir 

by adding gravel to historical nesting areas and by 

periodically removing vegetation from those sites as 

needed. The Service has also collaborated with Reclamation and Ducks Unlimited to create Piping Plover Pond on the west end of Dry Lake. In addition, 

portions of the alkali beach on the pond have been 

enhanced with gravel to improve nesting habitat.

Plant Species

No federally listed plant species are known to occur 

at Bowdoin Refuge or within the Bowdoin Wetland 

Management District; however, comprehensive vegetation inventories have not been done for most of 

the district.

Animal Species of Concern

Species of concern are native animals breeding in 

Montana that are considered to be at risk due to 

their declining population trends, threats to their 

habitats, or restricted distribution (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2009a, 2009b). The Service 

identifies birds of conservation concern as migratory 

and nonmigratory birds of the United States and 

its territories that have declining populations, naturally or human-caused small ranges or population 

sizes, threats to habitat, or other factors. This designation helps stimulate coordinated and proactive 

conservation actions among Federal, State, tribal, 

and private partners. Bird species considered for 

inclusion on this list include nongame birds, game 

birds without hunting seasons, subsistence-hunted 

nongame birds in Alaska, birds that are candidates 

or proposed as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act, and birds that recently 

have been removed from a Federal listing (USFWS 

2008a).

The refuge complex has documented more than 

80 wildlife species that are listed as State species of 

concern or Federal birds of conservation concern, or 

both (refer to “Appendix F–Species Lists”). In particular, many grassland-nesting birds such as Baird’s 

sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, and McCown’s longspur 

use the refuge complex for nesting and migration 

habitat each year. These birds, along with many others using the refuge complex, are identified on both 

the State and Federal lists as species that require 

special attention to prevent them from becoming 

threatened or endangered.
130 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

4.4 Cultural Resources

Based on radiocarbon dating, evidence of human 

occupation within the northwestern plains of the 

greater Missouri River drainage extends back at 

least 11,000 years (Brumley 2006). Excavations 

from this area indicate that prehistoric inhabitants 

evolved significantly over time by adopting new 

methods of hunting, gathering, and preparing food. 

Cultural phases can be identified by the types or 

styles of projectile points used, means of food preparation, and presence or absence of certain items such 

as ceramics.

Rocks define a tipi ring at the Bowdoin Refuge.

Carmen Luna / USFWS

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

Dating back 11,000–7,700 years ago, early prehistoric or paleo-Indian peoples appear to have used 

heavy throwing or stabbing spears to hunt primarily 

big game such as mammoth and early bison. Evidence from this period in northern and central Montana is limited and most finds have been found on the 

surface.

Middle Prehistoric

Middle prehistoric humans occupied the area 

8,000–1,300 years ago and may have hunted a larger 

variety of animal species as well as gathered and 

processed wild plant foods. Projectile points from 

this period were presumably designed for a spear 

thrower, known as an atlatl. Evidence also shows 

that the bow may have coexisted and eventually 

replaced the atlatl. Signs of stone boiling and the appearance of pottery indicate changes in food processing and storage.

Late Prehistoric

Dating from 100 A.D. to historical times, this period 

is characterized by projectile points used with the 

bow and arrow. Bison were still the primary game, 

but communal kills that involved driving animals 

over a cliff, into corrals, or into natural traps were 

more common. There is also significant evidence of 

the use of pottery and ceramics.

Protohistoric and Historic 

Native Americans

The protohistoric period is the period of time between the arrival of horses and manufactured goods 

in the area and before the arrival of white traders 

and explorers. This time period lasted only about 

100 years in this area due to the arrival of the Lewis 

and Clark expedition in the early 1800s.

On arrival of the early white explorers, northern Montana was occupied primarily by three tribal 

groups: the Gros Ventres or Atsina, the Piegan of 

the Blackfoot Confederacy, and the Assiniboine. As a 

result of warfare and migration of Euro-Americans, 

the Sioux (Fort Peck Reservation), Chippewa, and 

Cree (Rocky Boy’s Reservation) had also moved into 

northern Montana by the late 1800s (Wolfgram and 

Nemeth 1998). Cultural remnants from these groups 

can be found scattered over most undisturbed areas 

within the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lodges, tipi rings, and rock cairns are the most 

common remains encountered.

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 and railroad era, 

and homestead era (Wolfgram and Nemeth 1998).

Fur Trade Era

The fur trade era began in Montana a year after the 

Lewis and Clark Expedition returned to St. Louis. 

By the 1840s, trading posts were established along 

the Missouri River and most of its major tributaries 

including the Milk, Marias, Musselshell, and Yellowstone Rivers. Most of these posts were small, 

independent ventures and lasted little more than a 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 131

year. In addition, a network of military posts was established throughout central and northern Montana.

By the mid-1880s, much of the Plains Region of 

northern Montana was ceded by the Native American tribes present there, and these peoples were 

moved to smaller reserves with boundaries similar 

to those found today. The fur trade era came to an 

end at the same time, and most of the trade and military posts were closed.

Unreserved public domain in northern Montana 

was opened to settlement in 1887, and that same 

year the Great Northern Railway was built along 

the Milk River valley. Large cattle and sheep operations quickly moved into the area.

Ranching and Railroad Era

The ranching and railroad era in northern Montana 

coincided with a major boom in the market for beef 

cattle. The slaughter of the once-vast herds of bison 

and the considerable increase in the human population after the Civil War created an almost insatiable 

market for beef. The railroad development across 

northern Montana meant that large numbers of cattle could be shipped throughout the United States. 

Many of the branch lines that extended from what 

is now called the Burlington–Northern Railroad 

have since been abandoned, but many of the towns 

that were established along those branches as well 

as along the main railway remain today. These communities were service points for the coal-fired locomotives or as sidings for freight (railway sections 

where one section is lowered to allow two trains on 

the same rail to pass). These towns became important to the farmers who came to the region during 

the homestead era. One siding town that experienced the rapid boom and just as rapid bust of the 

railroad era was Bowdoin, for which the refuge was 

named. The old town site is located on the southeast 

boundary of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge.

Homestead Era

The homestead era in northern Montana lasted only 

18 years between 1900 and 1918. Before 1900, farmers considered the region to be much too dry, and 

the open, rolling grasslands were not conducive to 

the farming techniques of the time. As dryland farming techniques improved—and with the passing of 

the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 and the Three 

Year Homestead Act of 1912—the stage was set for 

a major land rush in Montana. Individuals were provided with a free 320-acre homestead and, after only 

3 years, could lay full claim to the land even if they 

only lived on it for 5 months of the year.

In 1902, the Newlands Reclamation Act committed the Federal Government to develop and manage 

irrigation systems along the major rivers in Montana. Also in 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation came 

into existence with funding from the sale of public 

lands. Since there was a lack of reliable, stable water 

in the Milk River system, a plan was developed to 

divert spring and floodwaters from the St. Mary 

River in western Montana into the Milk River system and store it for later use in downstream reservoirs. The Milk River Project would irrigate and 

reclaim more than 250,000 acres of agricultural land 

along the Milk River valley and was one of the first 

projects of this type in the United States interior.

The period between 1909 and 1916 was wetter 

than normal and individuals were able to exist off 

their 320-acre farms. However, by the mid-1920s 

the situation had changed, and it became clear that 

farms had to be significantly larger to provide a living. Many homesteaders went broke and their lands 

were purchased by those who had been able to persevere.

History of Bowdoin Refuge 

Complex

The establishment and early history of the Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Complex is tied to the Emergency 

Relief Act and the Works Progress Administration 

program. Created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression and the Dust 

Bowl era of the mid-1930s, these programs were 

developed to employ the maximum number of people 

to work on public lands. The Civilian Conservation 

Corps was never assigned to work on any areas of 

the refuge complex (Speulda and Lewis 2003).

Works Progress Administration crews performed 

construction on the refuges in the refuge complex 

between 1936 and 1941. Their activities focused not 

only on buildings, roads, and other facilities, but 

also on the construction of dams and levees to impound water. Recognizing the importance of the 

Milk River system to the Lake Bowdoin Migratory 

Waterfowl Refuge (now Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge), the Bureau of Biological Survey (now 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) contributed funds for 

the construction of the Fresno Reservoir Dam near 

Havre, Montana, in exchange for a 3,500 acre-foot 

water right. This agreement was signed on March 7, 

1937, and the Milk River Project still serves as the 

main source of water for Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge.

Construction projects completed by the Works 

Progress Administration at the Bowdoin Refuge 

headquarters were a residence for the manager, an 

office, a shop and service building, vehicle storage, 

an observation tower, and a road to the headquar-
132 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

ters area. The office building and residence were 

unique for the time—instead of the concrete block 

buildings common in this era, the crews built wood 

structures due to the availability of salvaged wood 

from dismantled farmsteads on other refuges. The 

shop building burned down soon after being built, 

and a new structure was built on the concrete foundation. Crews also landscaped the headquarters 

area, constructed the two stone pillars that still 

stand at the refuge entrance driveway, put in flagstone walks, developed a 10-acre garden and orchard, and installed overhead electric lines from 

Malta to the new headquarters.

Early habitat projects completed by Works 

Progress Administration crews on Bowdoin Refuge 

included planting trees, shrubs, and aquatic vegetation, collecting rock, constructing nesting islands on 

Lake Bowdoin, and constructing water delivery and 

control systems. Many other refuge projects were 

also accomplished by the Works Progress Administration “boys” when refuge managers were able 

to get funding and workers, which was often difficult according to refuge narratives. While none of 

the buildings or bridges constructed by the Works 

Progress Administration crews survived, most of 

the dams, dikes, ditches, and a few water control 

structures still exist. In addition, a small National 

Youth Administration crew was employed in 1937 to 

conduct a nest and brood count throughout Bowdoin 

Refuge.

The Works Progress Administration was pivotal 

to the establishment of all four satellite refuges. 

During this Dust Bowl era, the country and the 

Government were very focused on capturing and 

conserving water for wildlife, particularly waterfowl, and agricultural operations. Water impoundments were popularized when the connection was 

made to employing out-of-work citizens to build the 

structures needed to impound and manage limited 

water resources. Most of this work was completed 

on public lands, except for the privately owned 

easement refuges, known today as limited-interest 

refuges. These limited-interest refuges are encumbered by a refuge or flowage easement, or both, 

and the Service has acquired less than 10 percent 

of the refuge acquisition boundary. By definition, 

only Lake Thibadeau is considered a limited-interest 

refuge, but the remaining satellite refuges (Black 

Coulee, Creedman Coulee, and Hewitt Lake) have 

their origins in this program. These types of refuges 

are found not only in Montana, but also in North 

Dakota and South Dakota. Most of the land within 

these refuges is still in private ownership and the 

refuges do not fully function as fee-title refuges, 

hence the name, limited interest. The Works Progress Administration constructed dams, spillways 

and water control structures on the private lands 

of what was to become Black Coulee, Greedman 

Coulee (now Creedman Coulee), Hewitt Lake, and 

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuges. Willing 

landowners signed perpetual refuge and flowage 

easements granting the Government the right to 

construct and maintain these structures; control the 

uses that occur on these impoundments and other 

Crews from the Works Progress Administration constructed several buildings for the Bowdoin Refuge headquarters (1961).

USFWS
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 133

lakes, rivers, and streams; and control hunting and 

trapping. The real benefit to these landowners was 

a more reliable water source; as an added benefit, 

some of these landowners were also employed by 

the Government to build these impoundments. Most 

of the structures are still functioning, but due to development in the watershed, much of the water that 

once flowed into these impoundments is captured 

before it ever reaches some refuges. Some habitat 

work was conducted by the Works Progress Administration crews including planting seed balls of sago 

pondweed (a desirable aquatic plant) in Hewitt Lake 

and constructing a nesting island at Black Coulee.

4.5 Special Management Areas

Areas with official designations are managed to retain the special features that led to their designation. While not suitable for wilderness, the Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge has been identified as an 

important bird area.

Wilderness Review

A wilderness review is the process used for determining whether to recommend Service lands or waters to 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 determine whether 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

Bowdoin Refuge is the only unit in the refuge complex that meets the wilderness criteria for size and 

for scientific, scenic, and ecological value. In 1973, 

the refuge was evaluated for inclusion in the Wilderness System by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife (now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 

The report concluded that Bowdoin Refuge was not 

suitable for this designation due to the extensive 

development and intensive management needed to 

meet refuge objectives (Bureau of Sport Fisheries 

and Wildlife 1973). This still holds true today. The 

refuge landscape has been altered by roads, fences, 

and extensive human effects from livestock grazing 

and wetland modifications that would preclude it 

from being designated a wilderness.

Important Bird Area

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge has been designated as an important bird area through a program 

administered by the National Audubon Society. This 

program is a global effort to identify and conserve 

areas that are vital to birds and for biodiversity. 

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

More than 260 species of birds have been documented on the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. 

The list of species breeding on the refuge has 19 species of global and continental conservation concern.
134 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Global Concern—ferruginous hawk, piping plover, long-billed curlew, red-headed woodpecker, 

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, willow flycatcher, loggerhead 

shrike, Baird’s sparrow, McCown’s longspur

The Bowdoin Refuge has one of only four nesting 

colonies of American white pelicans and one of only 

five nesting colonies of Franklin’s gulls in Montana.

The upland sandpiper uses habitats on the refuge 

complex and is a species of continental concern.

© Michael Forsberg

Western Hemisphere Shorebird 

Reserve Network

Because of the concentrations of migrating shorebirds, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network recognizes Lake Bowdoin as a site of regional importance.

4.6 Visitor Services

Visitors to the Bowdoin Refuge Complex enjoy a variety of wildlife-dependent, public use activities such 

as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. 

Most visitors use the Bowdoin Refuge’s 15-mile auto 

tour route. Brochures containing area maps, public 

use regulations, bird species, and general information are available for the units in the refuge complex.

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge office is 

open Monday–Friday, 7:30 a.m.–4:00 p.m. The auto 

tour route and remainder of the refuge are open 

from dawn to dusk, except during hunting season 

when hunters are allowed reasonable time to access hunting areas when arriving before dawn and 

leaving after dusk. The report Banking on Nature 

2004—The Economic Benefits to Local Communities 

of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation shows that in 

2004, 7,147 individuals made 5,217 recreational visits 

to Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge (Caudill and 

Henderson 2005). About 83 percent of these visits 

were by nonresidents. Hunting accounted for about 

23 percent of the visits while the remainder of the 

outings is attributed to other activities such as wildlife observation, photography, and hiking. Hunters 

are required to register at a kiosk located in front 

of the headquarters building so these numbers are 

fairly accurate. Visitors are asked to sign the guest 

register at the headquarters entrance, but registration is not mandatory. Nonhunting use is estimated 

each year based on the guest register and headcounts of education and interpretation groups.

No documented visitation data is available for the 

rest of the refuge complex; nevertheless, the Service 

estimates that current visitor use throughout the 

refuge complex is approximately 25,000 annually.

Hunting

In addition to the site-specific regulations mentioned 

below, all State of Montana hunting regulations apply to Service lands in the refuge complex. Shotgun 

hunters may only possess and use nontoxic shot on 

lands within the refuge complex, and vehicle travel 

and parking is restricted to roads, pullouts, and 

parking areas.

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge

Public hunting of migratory game birds (ducks, 

geese, coot, swan, sandhill crane, and mourning 

dove), upland game birds (pheasant, sharp-tailed 

grouse, greater sage-grouse, gray partridge), fox, 

and coyote is permitted in the designated portions 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 135

(about 40 percent) of Bowdoin Refuge (figure 28). 

An accessible boat dock, pier, and parking area are 

available at the west boat launch on Lake Bowdoin. 

Boating is only allowed on the refuge during the 

hunting season and only in those areas open to hunting. A 25-horsepower boat motor limit protects submerged aquatic vegetation in the refuge’s shallow 

wetlands. Big game hunting is not allowed at the refuge and predator hunting (fox and coyote) requires a 

special use permit approved by the refuge manager.

Since 2002, the eastern portion of the refuge that 

is normally closed to hunting has been opened to 

upland game bird hunting throughout December. 

The first 2 days of the special opening are limited 

to only young hunters. Waterfowl generally remain 

on Bowdoin Refuge until freeze up. To avoid disturbance to these migratory birds, the opening of the 

late-season hunt for upland game birds is contingent 

on waterfowl being gone by November 30.

Waterfowl hunting continues to be popular at the Bowdoin 

Refuge Complex (1940 top photo; 2009 bottom photo).

Carmen Luna / USFWS USFWS

Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge

Black Coulee comprises fee-title refuge lands and 

waterfowl production areas, which are surrounded 

by private lands encumbered by Service easements. 

The hunters wanting access to these private lands 

must get permission from the landowner. Another 

portion of the refuge was acquired as Black Coulee WPA; hunting here can be challenging, because 

public use regulations for refuges are different from 

those for waterfowl production areas. Hunting is 

open to the general public on the waterfowl production area. Hunting on the refuge is open but requires 

landowner permission to access private lands. The 

refuge is otherwise open to hunting for big game, 

migratory game birds (ducks, geese, coot, swan, 

sandhill crane, and mourning dove), and upland 

game (pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, greater sagegrouse, gray partridge, fox, and coyote). Hunters 

must follow State game laws including seasons and 

limits when hunting on this refuge.

Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge

Most of the land within the refuge boundary is private land and hunters wanting access must get permission from the landowner. The refuge is otherwise 

open to hunting for big game, migratory game birds 

(ducks, geese, coot, swan, sandhill crane, and mourning dove), and upland game (pheasant, sharp-tailed 

grouse, greater sage-grouse, gray partridge, fox, 

and coyote). Hunters must follow State game laws 

including seasons and limits when hunting on this 

refuge.

Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge

A portion of the land within the refuge boundary 

is private land and hunters wanting access to this 

inholding must get permission from the landowner. 

A portion of the land within the Executive boundary 

was acquired as Hewitt Lake WPA. The refuge is 

otherwise open to hunting for big game, migratory 

game birds (ducks, geese, coot, swan, sandhill crane, 

and mourning dove), and upland game (pheasant, 

sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage-grouse, gray partridge, fox, and coyote). Hunters must follow State 

game laws including seasons and limits when hunting on this refuge.

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge

Most of the land within the refuge boundary is private land and hunters wanting access must get permission from the landowner. The refuge is otherwise 

open to hunting for big game, migratory game birds 

(ducks, geese, coot, swan, sandhill crane, and mourn-
136 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Figure 28. Map of current and proposed public use sites and activities at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, 

Montana. 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 137

ing dove), and upland game (pheasant, sharp-tailed 

grouse, greater sage-grouse, gray partridge, fox, 

and coyote). Hunters must follow State game laws 

including seasons and limits when hunting on this 

refuge.

Waterfowl Production Areas

Except for Holm WPA, all waterfowl production 

areas within the Bowdoin Wetland Management 

District are open to hunting big game, migratory 

birds, upland game, and furbearers according to 

State game laws and regulations. Big game hunting on McNeil Slough WPA is restricted to archery, 

muzzleloader, and shotgun only. The Pearce WPA 

has an accessible hunting and photography blind and 

a parking area.

Fishing

Although recreational fishing opportunities are 

available on McNeil Slough WPA (Milk River) and 

Beaver Creek WPA (Beaver Creek), the Service 

does not actively manage sport fisheries within the 

Bowdoin Wetland Management District. The remaining wetlands within the refuge complex have 

only minimal habitat or high salinity levels, or both, 

and do not support a game fishery. Bowdoin Refuge 

is closed to fishing to provide a refuge for migratory 

birds and due to the poor fish habitat as a result of 

high salinity levels.

Anglers have many quality fishing opportunities 

on other public lands around the refuge complex 

including Nelson Reservoir, Cole Ponds, Milk River, 

Missouri River, Fort Peck Lake, and stocked ponds 

on both public and private lands (Missouri River 

Country 2007).

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography

Opportunities for wildlife observation and photography are abundant within the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, and more than 25,000 

people visit annually for these purposes.

The Bowdoin Refuge’s bird list can be used 

across the entire refuge complex. The Bowdoin Refuge’s 15-mile auto tour route guides visitors through 

a variety of wildlife habitats. The auto tour route 

is graveled and is maintained throughout the year 

but may be closed periodically due to impassable or 

hazardous conditions. Binoculars and field guides can 

be checked out at the refuge headquarters. Near the 

headquarters office, the 0.4-mile Display Pond Trail 

(walking) features a photography blind for visitors 

including those with disabilities. The refuge is also 

a designated stop on the Northeastern Montana 

Birding Trail. Walk-in access is allowed anywhere 

on the refuge except for the closed area surrounding the shop, equipment storage, and residential 

areas. Boating is only allowed on the refuge during 

the hunting season and only in those areas open to 

hunting. A 25-horsepower boat motor limit protects 

submerged aquatic vegetation in the refuge’s shallow wetlands.

Parking and walk-in access is allowed on the satellite refuges and the waterfowl production areas 

in Bowdoin Wetland Management District. People 

wishing to access the easement portions of the satellite refuges must gain permission from the affected 

landowners. The Pearce WPA has an accessible photography blind.

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 demonstrate 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 National Wildlife Refuge System, or (2) to 

facilitate the outreach and education goals of the 

refuge complex.

Environmental Education

The diversity of habitats and wildlife found throughout the Bowdoin Refuge Complex make it an ideal 

“classroom” for the area’s environmental education 

needs. The refuge complex staff has instituted educational programs—such as the wildlife poetry, wildlife art, and centennial quilt contests—to promote 

an appreciation and understanding of the wildlife 

and habitats the refuge complex was established 

to protect. Teacher workshops have been offered 

at Bowdoin Refuge in cooperation with Montana 

State University–Northern (Havre, Montana). Unfortunately, limited staff and resources are making 

environmental education programs increasingly rare 

and opportunistic, except for annual events such as 

the following:
138 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Migratory Bird Day

■ Enrichment Days (a 2-day educational event 

in conjunction with the local schools, area businesses, organizations, and other agencies)

■ National Wildlife Refuge Week

A variety of elementary and high school science 

classes have used the refuge as an outdoor classroom. School groups can check out the wetland 

teaching trunk, bat teaching trunk, binoculars, birding field guides, and a variety of wildlife videos to 

use on or off the refuge. Slide presentations about local birds and bats are also available and can be taken 

to the classroom or used for onsite programs.

Interpretation

Most of the public brochures and interpretive panels 

have been updated following Service guidelines. 

Brochures containing area maps, public use regulations, and general information are available for the 

refuge complex and include the following:

■ Auto tour interpretive guide highlighting the 

numbered stops

■ General brochure for Bowdoin Refuge

■ Bird list for Bowdoin Refuge

■ Public use regulations for Bowdoin Refuge

■ Public use regulations for Bowdoin Wetland Management District, including the satellite refuges

These brochures are available at the refuge complex headquarters and at the main kiosk. The kiosk 

has three interpretive panels displaying a location 

map, general refuge information, wetland facts, and 

information about habitat management techniques. 

In addition, the refuge complex’s Web site provides 

information about programs and regulations.

The Service has provided local newspapers with 

periodic news articles on refuge complex activities 

and informative articles on the values and protection 

of the area’s natural resources. Monthly updates on 

refuge complex activities are also prepared for the 

Malta Chamber of Commerce.

The Baltimore oriole uses riparian habitat.

David Brezinski / USFWS

4.7 Management Uses

The Service manipulates habitat through several 

management uses that are carried out under specific, 

prescribed conditions to meet the needs of wildlife 

and habitat management and to reduce hazardous 

fuel loading—cooperative farming, prescribed burning and haying, and prescriptive grazing.

Cooperative Farming

Restoration of cropland and DNC fields back to native species is quite time and labor intensive. Therefore, the refuge complex addresses this habitat need 

by working with cooperative farmers to gradually 

convert disturbed grasslands to native grasses, 

forbs, and shrubs, which have the greatest potential 

to survive and outcompete invasive species while 

providing habitat to grassland-dependent migratory 

birds.

Cooperative farming of Service lands is usually 

done on a share basis where the Service and the 

cooperator each receive a share of the crop. The 

Service may retain its share (1) as standing cover for 

wildlife forage, (2) in exchange for additional work 

from the cooperator such as invasive plant control 

and grass seeding, or (3) in exchange for supplies 

from the cooperator such as herbicides and fence 

materials for habitat protection and improvement. 

Any fees or cash income received by the Service are 

deposited in the Refuge Revenue Sharing Account. 

The refuge manager issues farming cooperators a 

cooperative farming agreement or a special use permit. Subsequently, cooperators are allowed to (1) till, 

seed, and harvest small grain, (2) control invasive 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 139

plants, or (3) harvest hay on the restoration site 

until native seed can be planted and becomes established. These agreements are generally issued for a 

2- to 4-year management prescription but in some 

cases may extend longer to allow time for establishment of native plants.

Prescribed Burning, Haying, 

and Grazing

Scientific and management communities largely 

agree that continuous idling of grassland is a poor 

management choice in comparison to periodic treatment to rejuvenate grasslands. Continuous idling 

(for example, more than 10 years) without periodic 

treatment as a conscious management decision fails 

to address long-term grassland health (Naugle et 

al. 2000). Methods used by managers to rejuvenate 

grasslands are prescribed burning, haying, and grazing. Periodic rejuvenation of vegetation is necessary 

to maintain optimum plant vigor, remove excessive 

litter, and stimulate plant height and density. Litter 

accumulations not only negatively affect the health 

of stands of vegetation but also negatively affect 

duck production (Naugle et al. 2000) as well as other 

wildlife that depend on grassland habitats.

Methods used by managers to rejuvenate grassland are haying (predominantly in seeded grasslands) and burning and grazing (predominantly in 

native prairie).

Prescribed Burning

Prescribed fire is recommended as a primary grassland management treatment whenever possible, 

because fire provides the fastest and most effective 

means of litter removal (Naugle et al. 2000). Most 

grasses and forbs respond positively to burning in 

the grassland of the northern Great Plains. Nonetheless, care must be taken when using fire to manage 

grasslands in drier climates, such as in eastern Montana. The use of fire may have a negative vegetation 

response due to longer recovery periods attributed 

to reduced litter and soil moisture, increased evapotranspiration rates and solar radiation, less snow 

retention, and poorer water infiltration (Henderson 

1982, Hulbert 1986, Old 1969, Wright and Bailey 

1980).

Bird species native to northern mixed-grass prairie are well adapted to defoliation by fire (Murphy et 

al. 2005). In general, decreases in species abundance 

and nesting density during the first growing season 

after prescribed burning are offset by increases in 

following years compared to pre-burn levels; nest 

survival appears unaffected. The short-term unavailability of breeding habitat probably is outweighed 

by the long-term benefits from using prescribed fire 

to restore and maintain vegetation structure and to 

manage the fuel load by reducing accumulated litter 

and woody vegetation. Data collected by Murphy et 

al. (2005) in the plains of North Dakota indicates that 

occurrence and survival of nests of some bird species 

is negatively associated with the extent of trees and 

tall shrubs in the landscape. Efforts to reduce these 

fuels via prescribed fire seem warranted for improving the productivity of grassland birds as well as 

addressing other prairie restoration objectives.

In presettlement times, the frequency of wildfire 

was variable, occurring every 5–10 years (Frost 

1998, Wright and Bailey 1980). However, very little 

research has been conducted regarding fire in the 

drier prairies of north-central Montana. Askins et 

al. (2007) suggest that grazing and the lack of moisture maintained grass as the dominant vegetation 

with fire playing a lesser role; they estimated a firereturn interval of 10–26 years for eastern Montana. 

Wildfires have been greatly suppressed since settlement by Europeans, and the use of prescribed fire 

by the Service and other groups or agencies has 

been sporadic.

Based on information regarding vegetation recovery intervals and bird-nesting studies, Naugle 

et al. (2000), recommends 3- to 10-year fire intervals 

in the wetter regions of the northern Great Plains 

and 10-year or greater intervals in the drier mixedgrass and shortgrass zones. Since 2000, the Bowdoin 

Refuge Complex has increased the use of prescribed 

fire as a habitat management tool to improve plant 

diversity and structure and to improve grassland 

habitat for upland-nesting birds and other wildlife. 

However, before an extensive prescribed fire program can occur, a greater understanding of fire frequency in this arid climate is needed.

The Service uses prescribed fire to rejuvenate grasses and 

reduce vegetative litter.

James Graham / USFWS
140 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Haying

About 4,478 acres of Service-owned uplands had 

been cultivated by the previous landowner. Since 

Service acquisition, most of these previously farmed 

areas have been converted to dense nesting cover 

or native grasses. The restoration of cropland to 

seeded grassland such as DNC is relatively easier to 

establish, less expensive than native prairie restoration, and provides valuable wildlife habitat. In the 

1970s, 200 acres of native prairie habitat on Bowdoin 

Refuge was “broken” to plant DNC to enhance nesting habitat for waterfowl (Duebbert 1969). Of the 

remaining 4,278 acres, 465 acres have been restored 

to native grasses. Seeded grasslands such as DNC 

fields must be periodically rejuvenated to maintain 

optimal nesting cover for migratory birds and optimal plant vigor. Nesting waterfowl using DNC 

fields require vigorous stands of vegetation with the 

tallest, most dense cover form that is possible under 

prevailing soil and climate conditions (Duebbert et 

al. 1981).

Restoration of previous cropland areas to DNC 

or native grasses is initially very time-intensive. 

It requires seedbed preparation by tilling, use of 

control measures to reduce or eliminate undesirable 

plants or weeds, planting of a protective annual crop 

for 1–2 years, and finally planting of grasses into 

the remaining crop stubble. Once established, DNC 

fields require periodic disturbance (mainly haying) 

every 4–10 years to maintain plant vigor. An exact 

schedule for disturbance of these fields is not possible because of other contributing variables such 

as the accumulation of vegetative litter, soil, and 

climate conditions. The average life expectancy of 

a DNC field is approximately 20 years, before plant 

diversity has declined and it becomes necessary to 

re-establish it. DNC fields in the refuge complex 

have been established for 20 or more years and are 

in need of replanting. Given the intensive management requirements along with the limited lifespan of 

DNC fields, the refuge complex has been gradually 

working to reseed DNC fields to native grasses. The 

only fields that will remain as DNC will be parcels of 

land regarded as highly erodible.

Native grass restoration initially is as intensive 

as the planting of DNC fields but once established it 

should never require further restoration other than 

invasive plant management and periodic disturbance 

by prescribed fire, haying or grazing. Restoration of 

fields to native grasses depends on the availability of 

funds as well as climate conditions and the establishment of native grasses.

Winterfat

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Grazing

Historically, vast herds of bison ranged throughout north-central Montana. The mixed-grass prairie evolved and depended on these native grazers 

for its diversity and productivity. As bison were 

eradicated, cattle were brought in to graze on the 

large, expansive grasslands—most of the area that 

is now the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex was extensively grazed by domestic livestock. 

Bowdoin Refuge uplands were grazed more heavily 

than other areas because of the presence of a reliable source of water in Lake Bowdoin. Today, native 

grazers such as pronghorn, white-tailed deer, and 

mule deer continue to browse and graze the uplands. 

Their grazing habits are different from that of bison 

or cattle, but it is not certain what effects these native big game grazers have had on upland vegetation 

communities, particularly at Bowdoin Refuge. Observations have shown that pronghorn and other native ungulates may be overharvesting plant species 

that they prefer to eat such as winterfat, resulting in 

overbrowsing this native plant.

After Bowdoin Refuge was established, grazing 

continued until it was gradually phased out between 

1973 and 1977. The plan at that time was to rest 

areas indefinitely, and then to resume grazing on a 

periodic basis as needed, anticipating intervals of 

6–10 years. In 1986, a short-duration, high-intensity 

grazing experiment was conducted on Bowdoin 

Refuge with an objective to break up large mats of 

clubmoss. Prescriptive grazing was not used again 

on the refuge complex until 2001. The objectives of 

the limited grazing program started in 2001 are to 

promote a diversity of native species and to control invasive plants by mimicking bison grazing and 

subsequently benefitting the mixed-grass prairie 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 141

through control of vegetative litter and increased 

plant production and diversity.

The right to graze the lands encumbered by refuge and flowage easements in the four satellite refuges is maintained by the private landowners.

4.8 Socioeconomic 

Environment

Most of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex is open to public use including the compatible, 

wildlife-dependent uses of hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, and photography. 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 an socioeconomic study for the 

Bowdoin Refuge Complex (BBC Consulting 2010), 

which is the basis for the following sections described below: population and employment, public 

use of the refuge complex, and baseline economic 

activity.

Population and Employment

The refuge complex is located throughout Valley, 

Phillips and Blaine counties; a portion of the refuge 

complex is also located within Hill County. The entireties of these four counties comprised the socioeconomic study area.

Population and Demographics

The population of the four-county study area was 

estimated to be 33,741 in 2008. Hill County has 

the largest population (16,500) among the included 

counties while Phillips County has the smallest 

population (3,900) as well as the most refuges and 

waterfowl production areas in the refuge complex. 

Blaine and Valley counties have similarly sized populations (6,500 and 6,900 respectively). The population 

of the study area declined by 5 percent between 

1990 and 2000, from 37,800 to 36,000. The population of Montana grew by 13 percent from 800,000 

to 900,000 over the same period. Future population 

projections for the study area and the State overall 

are expected to follow historical trends: the study 

area population is expected to decline slowly, and the 

State population will increase slowly.

In 1990, about 18 percent of the population was 

between 45 and 64 years old; that same demographic 

constituted 22 percent of the population in 2000 and 

27 percent in 2008. All other age groups are holding steady or have declined except for young adults 

whose population has grown slightly since 1990.

Employment

Employment in the four-county study area grew 

slowly between 2001 and 2007 from 19,700 to 21,000, 

an increase of 7 percent. Hill County had the largest 

workforce with 10,414 employees, followed by Valley 

County (4,820), Blaine County (3,144), and Phillips 

County (2,687). As of December 2009, the unemployment rate for Blaine County was 5.3 percent, Hill 

County was 4.9 percent, Phillips County was 6.5 

percent, and Valley County was 5.2 percent. These 

compared favorably with a statewide unemployment 

level of 6.8 percent (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

2009).

The study area primarily employs individuals in 

government, farm employment, retail trade, accommodations, food services, and construction. Government establishments employed 22 percent of the 

workforce while farm employment accounted for 

15 percent of the workforce. Retail trade was the 

largest private, nonfarm source of employment (12 

percent).

Public Use of the Refuge 

Complex

Public use and visitation levels are described below.

Public Use

Wildlife observation, photography, and hiking (nonconsumptive activity) account for 77 percent of visits 

to the refuge complex (Caudill and Henderson 2005). 

Most wildlife observers visit in the spring and summer, when the greatest numbers of migratory birds 

inhabit the area.

Hunting accounts for the remaining 23 percent 

of visitation to the refuge complex. Public hunting 

of migratory game birds and upland game birds are 

most popular. Predator hunting (fox and coyote) is 

allowed throughout the refuge complex. Big game 

hunting is allowed throughout the refuge complex 

except at Bowdoin Refuge and Holm WPA.
142 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Fishing is permitted only on McNeil Slough WPA 

and Beaver Creek WPA. Most wetlands within the 

refuge complex have minimal habitat for fish or high 

salinity levels that cannot support a game fishery. In 

2004, there were no fishing recreation visits to the 

refuge complex (Caudill and Henderson 2005).

Occasionally, Bowdoin Refuge offers environmental education opportunities including school group 

tours, Migratory Bird Day, Enrichment Days, and 

National Wildlife Refuge Week.

Camping and fires are not allowed on the refuge 

complex; however, the Bureau of Land Management 

oversees land around the refuge complex, which 

is open for camping. There are also several motels 

located in the town of Malta as well as two recreational vehicle campgrounds.

Visitation Levels

Annual visitation to the entire Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex is an estimated 25,000 

people according to Service staff. Visitation is most 

heavily concentrated during wildlife-viewing seasons in the fall and spring and hunting season in the 

fall. Bowdoin Refuge staff estimates that 90 percent 

or 22,500 of all visitor days at the refuge complex 

are from outside the four-county study area. Of the 

total visitors to the refuge complex, the visitation 

breakdown follows:

■ 12,680 visitor days are for wildlife viewing

■ 6,646 visitor days are for hiking and walking

■ 5,674 visitor days are for hunting of big game, 

predators, upland game birds, and migratory 

birds

Baseline Economic Activity

The refuge complex affects the economy through 

the nonresident visitor spending it generates and 

the employment it supports. Combining the effects 

of Service employment and visitor spending, the 

total economic activity generated by the refuge complex in the four-county study area is approximately 

$910,000 annually.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Employment

The refuge complex employs five full-time equivalent employees and has a payroll of $398,553, or 

about $80,000 per employee. Using the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey 

data for individuals in these income categories, 

roughly 79 percent of annual income is spent locally. 

Under this assumption, the refuge complex contributes $316,000 to the local economy in employee 

spending.

Visitor Spending

The refuges and waterfowl production areas in the 

refuge complex currently experience total visitation 

of about 22,500 nonresident visitor days per year. Of 

these, roughly 17,400 visitor days are for nonconsumptive recreational activities and 5,100 are for 

hunting. Combining these visitation numbers with 

nonresident spending averages from the Banking on 

Nature study, total visitor expenditure generated 

by the refuge complex is estimated to be $594,000 

per year. Of this total, about $313,000 comes from 

nonconsumptive recreational activity and $281,000 

comes from hunting.

4.9 Partnerships

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

has a history of fostering partnerships that help 

accomplish its vision and goals. These organizations 

and individuals with whom a common goal is shared 

include county, State, and Federal agencies; nongovernmental organizations and conservation groups; 

schools, colleges, and universities; and local landowners and private citizens. These partners have 

assisted in wildlife and habitat management, visitor 

services and recreational activities, land protection 

and acquisition, fire protection, law enforcement, 

and community outreach. Several of these relationships have developed into formalized partnerships 

with written agreements or memoranda of understanding while others remain more informal.

Private lands and significant acreages of Federal and State lands surround the refuge complex. 

Activities on and uses of these lands have a tremendous effect on the adjacent Service lands. These 

neighboring landowners and agencies have been and 

will continue to be partners in achieving the refuge 

complex’s vision while sharing ideas and resources.

4.10 Operations

Service operations consist of the staff, facilities, 

equipment, and supplies needed to administer resource management and public use programs 

throughout the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, which is located across a four-county area 

totaling 17,183 square miles. Within this area, the 
CHAPTER 4–Affected Environment 143

Service is responsible for the protection of 85,713 

acres of lands and waters including 17,009 acres of 

refuge lands, 10,635 acres of wetland easements, 

39,767 acres of grassland easements, and 9,504 acres 

of fee-title waterfowl production areas.

Staff

Currently, the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex staff comprises five permanent full-time 

employees (table 8). Since 1998, the refuge complex 

has lost two positions—one permanent biological 

science technician and a permanent maintenance 

worker. The current staffing level remains well below the minimum prescribed in the June 2008 Final 

Report—Staffing Model for Field Stations (USFWS 

2008c), which recommended 6.5 additional 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).

Table 8. Base staff funded in fiscal year 2011 at 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Montana.

Staff group Position

Management GS–12 refuge manager

GS–9 wildlife refuge specialist 

(assistant refuge manager and 

collateral duty law enforcement 

officer)

Biology GS–11 wildlife biologist

Administration GS–7 administrative support 

assistant

Maintenance WG–8 maintenance worker

Facilities

Facilities are used to support habitat and wildlife 

management programs and wildlife-dependent public use activities for visitation estimated at 25,000 

visitors annually. The refuge complex has one fulltime maintenance worker to maintain buildings, 

fences, and roads.

Facilities have remained fairly updated over the 

years. The refuge headquarters and shop were built 

in 1980 and have been maintained in good condition. 

The headquarters was expanded in 2003, adding 

five new offices and a mailroom. Two new houses 

were constructed in 2001 to provide housing for refuge employees. In addition, the apartment building 

used for seasonal housing was remodeled in 2004 but 

still does not have sufficient space for the number of 

volunteers and seasonal employees needed to accomplish field projects. A new cold storage building with 

five parking bays was constructed in 2009.

Bowdoin Refuge Facilities

■ 5,241-square-foot headquarters office building

■ 0.25-mile asphalt entrance road and parking area

■ 15-mile, self-guided auto tour route (graveled)

■ Solar-powered entrance gate with a timer

■ Two kiosks including interpretive signs

■ 0.4-mile hiking trail (paved) with one photo blind, 

bench, and overlook

■ Two 2,700-square-foot, three-bedroom houses 

for staff; two unattached two-car garages with 

houses (684 and 672 square feet)

■ 2,184-square-foot, two-bedroom bunkhouse 

apartment for seasonal staff with three parking 

bays

❏ 3,472-square-foot maintenance shop and storage facility

❏ 3,600-square-foot cold storage building with 

five parking bays

❏ 600-square-foot storage shed for the airboat

❏ 700-square-foot storage shed for all-terrain vehicles and field equipment

❏ 348-square-foot seed storage shed

❏ Two aboveground fuel tanks

Bowdoin Refuge Complex Facilities

■ 62 miles of road (40 miles are Service-only roads 

and 22 miles are open to the public)

■ 34 pullouts and parking areas

■ 10 bridges (2 are Service-only bridges and 8 are 

open to the public)

■ 90 miles of boundary fence

■ Eight entrance signs

■ 137 water control structures

■ 32 miles of canals and dikes

CHAPTER 5–Environmental 

Consequences

This chapter provides an analysis of the potential effects on the environment associated with the implementation of the management alternatives for the 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assessed 

the environmental consequences of implementing 

each of the alternatives on the physical, biological, 

socioeconomic, and cultural resources of the refuge 

complex.

Note: Environmental consequences for two separate analyses—(1) proposed divestiture of Lake 

Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, and (2) proposed action to address the salinity and blowing 

salts issues at Lake Bowdoin—are described in 

chapters 3 and 6, respectively, and are not repeated 

here.

Sunrise at Lake Bowdoin

iederrick / USFWS Patience W

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 

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 occur 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.
146 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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 are 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 

benefits to wildlife habitat resulting from management actions.

5.2 Effects Common to All 

Alternatives

The following potential effects would be similar under 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 minimize 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 indicated 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 National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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.

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 compared with the general 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 participate 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 complex, so additional 

surveys would be required before any new construction or excavation to fully satisfy provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy 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 Mountain–Prairie Region’s archaeologist and consultation 

with the Montana State Historic Preservation Office.

Climate Change

The actions proposed in this draft CCP and EA 

would conserve or restore land and habitat, thus 

retaining existing carbon sequestration throughout 

the refuge complex. This would contribute positively 

to efforts to mitigate human-induced global climate 

change.

The use of prescribed fire, which releases carbon dioxide, would result in no net loss of carbon 

because new vegetation would quickly replace the 

burned-up biomass. Overall, there should be little to 

no net change for carbon sequestered on the refuge 

complex from any of the management alternatives. 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 147

As it relates to global climate change, documenting the long-term changes in vegetation, species, 

and hydrology is an important part of research and 

monitoring. Adjustments in management may be 

necessary over time to adapt to a changing climate.

The refuge complex would continue to reduce 

its carbon footprint by using renewable energy and 

green technologies such as wind and solar energy.

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 Description of 

Consequences

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. “Chapter 3–Alternatives” presents the 

management scenario for each alternative that could 

create the consequences described here. The effects 

of each of the three alternatives—alternative A (no 

action), alternative B (proposed action), and alternative C—are described under the major resource 

topics described throughout this document.

In addition, table 5 (find in “Chapter 3–Alternatives”) summarizes the alternatives’ actions and the 

associated consequences as described below.

Upland Habitat and Associated 

Wildlife 

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to native grassland, disturbed grassland, 

invasive species, shelterbelts, habitat protection and 

acquisition, and greater sage-grouse.

Native Grassland in Alternative A 

(No Action)

Using various management techniques (including 

burning, grazing, and resting periods), native grasslands would be maintained at current conditions 

providing marginal habitat for many grassland-nesting birds. The current management regime would 

maintain the dominance of clubmoss and increaser 

species while minimizing the regeneration of other 

native grasses and forbs. (Increaser species are 

those plants, primarily grass species, that increase 

or expand in response to grazing or herbivory. Many 

of these are introduced species, such as brome, that 

flourish in less diverse and disturbed habitats.

Currently, management actions are based on 

outside research and do not follow an established 

management plan. When management actions such 

as livestock grazing or burning do take place, there 

is no evaluation of habitat response. A lack of onrefuge experimentation, planning, and monitoring 

may result in undesirable habitat modifications and a 

continued decline of native grasslands.

Native Grassland in Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) and Alternative C

The Service would manage native grasslands to 

mimic the natural processes of burning and grazing 

(including timing and frequency). Rather than just 

maintaining the grasslands in their current condition, this would enhance the native grasslands with 

emphasis on restoring dominant historical communities that are still found within the refuge complex. 

Native plant species diversity would increase, providing improved habitat for most grassland-nesting 

birds, particularly those identified as target species 

(refer to table 13 in chapter 7) and other resident 

wildlife. However, any management practice, such as 

prescriptive grazing, that disturbs native areas may 

result in nonnative plant infestations if not closely 

monitored and treated. This type of monitoring can 

be very time-consuming and would require additional partners and staff.

Developing a management plan for grassland 

habitat would focus efforts and resources on the 

most critical needs using the latest proven technologies while guiding future management.

Disturbed Grassland in Alternative A 

(No Action)

Disturbed grasslands that were planted to DNC 

would be periodically treated using various techniques including burning, grazing, haying, clipping, 

and resting periods. Without rejuvenation (such 

as reseeding), most of the disturbed grasslands 
148 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

have lost optimal species composition and structure 

needed for many nesting grassland birds.

As resources became available, cropland on 

waterfowl production areas would be restored to 

mainly native grasses and forbs, which increase 

plant diversity and nesting habitat for grassland 

birds and other wildlife. Since native plantings may 

take time to become established, planting DNC on 

hillsides and highly erodible lands would quickly stabilize soils while providing cover and nesting habitat 

for some grassland-nesting birds. To maintain the 

habitat qualities that make this type of grass seeding attractive to wildlife, these lands would require 

continual maintenance wherever prescribed management actions are used.

Disturbed Grassland in Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) and Alternative C

Same as alternative A, plus management would 

focus on the restoration of historical native plant 

communities in all disturbed grasslands, not just 

cropland. Converting these areas to native grasses 

and forbs that support the habitat needs of the selected target upland species (refer to table 13 in 

chapter 7) would provide greater plant species diversity and attract a wider variety of grasslandnesting birds. There would be considerable cost and 

effort to restore and maintain native grasslands.

Two short-term consequences of planting native 

vegetation would be (1) low-quality habitat for the 

first few years, and (2) the increased possibility of 

allowing invasive plants to become established. Due 

to the arid environment of the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, establishment of the native plantings may take several years and require 

annual maintenance of invasive plants until native 

vegetation gains a dominant edge.

By removing DNC from the landscape, some bird 

species that select for the composition provided by 

DNC may be displaced. In addition, managing grasslands for target bird species may reduce habitat for 

other nonselected, but desirable, species.

Invasive and Nonnative Species 

in Alternative A (No Action) 

The Russian olive control effort has been slow and 

ineffective due to a lack of staff and funding needed 

to address the tremendous expanse of the invasion. Without comprehensive and consistent treatment of rapidly spreading Russian olive trees, they 

would continue to fragment the native grasslands, 

which would negatively affect migratory grassland 

birds and other native wildlife. This loss of habitat 

would prevent the refuge complex from meeting 

the purposes for which its units were established. 

Russian olive trees provide food, cover, and nesting 

and perching sites for some birds and mammals, but 

this includes nest predators (such as magpie, raptors, raccoon, and skunk) and nest parasites (such as 

brown-headed cowbird).

Using early detection and rapid response to 

control or eradicate small infestations of invasive 

and noxious species protects habitat. Lack of treatment on widespread infestations such as crested 

wheatgrass continues to provide low-quality nesting habitat and allows these infestations to spread 

into native areas, resulting in degradation of more 

upland-nesting habitat.

Invasive and Nonnative Species 

in Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Same as alternative A, except that refuge complex 

staff would work with the Service’s Montana Invasive Strike Team and other partners to ensure 

that treated areas are mapped, restored with native 

plant species, monitored, and re-treated as necessary to prevent reinvasion. This would allow more 

efficient use of resources due to improved awareness, planning, treatment, and monitoring.

Large, contiguous blocks of grassland habitat 

would be restored with the removal of nonnative 

woody vegetation, particularly Russian olive trees. 

These larger blocks of unfragmented grassland 

habitat would provide nesting and cover habitat for 

a variety of grassland-dependent birds and other 

native wildlife, including the target species identified in table 13 in chapter 7. Predation of nests and 

young would be reduced and additional nesting territories would be provided. Restoration and followup 

treatments would eradicate Russian olive trees from 

target areas, preventing additional invasive plant 

problems. Species that feed and roost on Russian 

olive trees may migrate to native and other wooded 

habitats on and off the refuge complex. Initially, 

there would be some negligible loss of carbon sequestration from the removal of nonnative trees and 

shrubs, but the restored grassland and benefits to 

native wildlife would offset this.

Through partnerships, the Service would develop 

an education and outreach program that discusses 

the impacts of Russian olive trees on native habitat 

and wildlife, and would provide information on native trees (instead of nonnative Russian olive trees) 

to plant. Educating the public about the impacts 

of Russian olive trees may reduce off-refuge seed 

sources and increase off-refuge native plantings for 

the benefit of native wildlife.

Staff would conduct experiments within the refuge complex to determine the best methods for reducing crested wheatgrass and for restoring treated 

sites to native grasses. These experimental treat-
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 149

ments would result in an effective, long-term treatment program and restore native grasslands, which 

would improve habitat for grassland-dependent 

birds.

Invasive and Nonnative Species in 

Alternative C

Same as alternative B, except that, through partnerships, the Service would increase the annual acreage 

treated, with an emphasis on preventing further encroachment of crested wheatgrass and Russian olive 

trees into native grassland. This would more quickly 

reduce monotypic stands of Russian olive trees and 

crested wheatgrass infestations while native prairie 

habitat would be improved and restored. This would 

require additional staff and money to treat, restore, 

and monitor targeted sites.

Shelterbelts in Alternative A (No Action)

The Service is not currently managing shelterbelts 

in the refuge complex, so shelterbelts would gradually deteriorate while continuing to cause fragmentation of the surrounding grassland and would serve 

as seed sources for invasive trees and shrubs. They 

provide marginal habitat for various wildlife species, 

including nest predators and parasitic species such 

as magpie and brown-headed cowbird.

Shelterbelts in Alternative B (Proposed 

Action) and Alternative C

Excluding the office compound, the Service would 

remove all shelterbelts to create more contiguous 

blocks of grassland habitats and restore these areas 

to prevent invasive plants from encroaching. No 

additional shelterbelts would be permitted. Uplandnesting conditions would immediately improve, 

with restoration and less fragmentation, while seed 

sources for invasive plants would be eliminated.

Habitat Protection and Acquisition in 

Alternative A (No Action)

Grassland habitat protection would continue at current levels that, over the 15-year time period, could 

result in 8,000 acres being protected. Most of these 

acres would be protected under grassland easement 

contracts from willing sellers. Fee-title acquisitions 

would be minimal. Land acquisition in fee title would 

focus on in holdings and “round-outs” of current 

Service lands. The Service would offer easement 

contracts to willing sellers within the wetland management district whose lands meet minimum qualifications for the Montana realty program. Through 

the addition of fee-title land and easement acquisitions, grassland habitat would be permanently protected and managed for the benefit of wildlife.

Alternative funding sources, in addition to yearly 

allocations of Migratory Bird Stamp Act monies, 

would be pursued. These additional resources 

would offer more flexibility in working with willing 

landowners for acquisitions. Protection of upland 

habitats would be more immediate and provide longterm protection of grassland for migratory birds and 

native, resident wildlife.

Habitat Protection and Acquisition 

in Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

and Alternative C

Same as alternative A, plus the Service would identify, using HAPET data, critical priority areas for 

protection including large tracts of native prairie 

with wetland complexes. This would ensure that the 

most critical waterfowl breeding and nesting habitats are given priority and protected, as resources 

and opportunities become available. Focusing easement acquisitions on tracts of land with native prairie and wetland complexes would keep the native 

landscape intact and reduce habitat fragmentation, 

while accommodating the needs of the livestock 

grazing community.

New acquisitions for waterfowl production areas 

would be evaluated, and proposals for purchases 

would be submitted for approval. Purchases in fee 

title would not only increase the amount of land 

managed primarily for wildlife but also provide additional wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

This would provide additional opportunities for wildlife viewing and would address the overcrowding of 

areas currently open to hunting.

Greater Sage-Grouse in Alternative A 

(No Action)

Protecting existing habitat for greater sage-grouse 

would continue to provide protected, quality habitat 

for these resident birds.
150 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse in Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) and Alternative C

Same as alternative A, except that identifying all 

potential sage-grouse habitat would allow the 

Service to better manage, protect, and restore or 

enhance it. Restoring sagebrush habitat to these 

waterfowl production areas would provide additional 

nesting and feeding habitat for greater sage-grouse, 

currently a candidate species for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act.

Wetland Habitat and 

Associated Wildlife

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to managed wetlands, natural wetlands, 

riparian habitat, water rights, habitat protection and 

acquisition, wildlife disease, invasive species, and 

threatened and endangered species.

The sora finds refuge and a nest site in emergent 

vegetation.

Dave Menke / USFWS

Managed Wetlands in Alternative A 

(No Action)

Management of water levels and drawdowns in developed wetlands would continue to mimic natural 

wetland cycles, thereby maintaining high levels of 

productivity for wetland plants and invertebrates. 

By continuing current management activities, the 

Service anticipates a positive effect on one or more 

of the following: waterfowl production, shorebird 

migrations, and production of wetland plant and 

animal foods.

The use of prescribed fire and prescriptive 

grazing and haying to consume or remove wetland 

vegetation would improve nutrient recycling and 

help control invasive plants. In addition, the Service 

would treat monotypic stands of cattails and invasive plants such as Canada thistle in dry wetland 

basins or in wetland edge areas. Reduction in cattails would negatively affect certain species such as 

red-winged blackbirds and marsh wrens; however, 

wetland habitats managed with fire, grazing, haying, and other mechanical and chemical treatments 

should benefit other nesting species such as marbled 

godwit and Wilson’s phalarope. Reduction in the 

extent of cattails should also improve migratory 

habitat for ducks and shorebirds. Russian olive trees 

would be removed as resources allow.

Maintaining perennial grass cover around wetland perimeters would minimize negative effects 

such as sedimentation.

Managed Wetlands in Alternative B 

(Proposed Action)

Same as alternative A, except additional emphasis would be placed on improving habitat diversity 

within wetland habitats. Improving vegetative 

diversity would also improve plant structural diversity, invertebrate diversity, seed diversity, and 

food resources within wetlands. More staff and 

equipment would improve the Service’s ability to 

maintain, repair, and manage facilities (such as water control structures, levees, and dikes) needed to 

adequately manage modified wetlands. Additional 

biological staff could enhance management capabilities, thereby improving habitat for wetland birds 

and other native wildlife.

Herbicide applications, which could be used to 

expedite the restoration process, potentially could 

have short-term negative effects; however, herbicide applications are expected to decrease following restoration activities. The short-term negative 

effects would be offset by the long-term improvements to wetland habitat.

Managed Wetlands in Alternative C

Same as alternative B, except that construction of 

new infrastructure would facilitate and improve the 

capability to manage these wetlands, which would 

increase habitat for migratory wetland birds. The 

new infrastructure would be expensive to construct 

initially and to maintain.
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 151

With additional biological staff, monitoring of 

sedimentation in wetlands would be beneficial in 

maintaining productive and functioning wetlands 

for migratory birds and other wildlife. Removal of 

sedimentation would require planning and additional 

funding and equipment to restore these wetlands.

Natural Wetlands in Alternative A 

(No Action)

 The lack of resources and staff to effectively restore and maximize the potential of natural wetlands would result in many missed opportunities to 

provide important habitat for wetland-dependent 

wildlife.

With the current staffing level, control of invasive plants and cattail in wetlands would continue 

on a small scale; therefore, some wetland habitat 

for migratory birds would be improved as invasive 

plants were controlled or eradicated, but many natural wetlands would remain unproductive for most 

species.

Natural Wetlands in Alternative B 

(Proposed Action)

Same as alternative A, except additional natural 

wetlands would be restored while current wetlands 

would be properly managed and includes the treatment of invasive plants and noxious weeds. This 

would create more quality habitat for migratory 

birds.

Natural Wetlands in Alternative C

Same as alternative B, plus monitoring of sedimentation would determine maintenance needs and 

improve the health and productivity of natural wetlands.

Riparian Habitat in Alternative A 

(No Action)

Excluding cattle from riparian areas should allow 

these areas to revegetate naturally with the potential of introducing nonnative or invasive species. 

Riparian habitat would be protected and improved 

by controlling or eradicating small infestations of invasive and noxious species, including Russian olive.

Riparian Habitat in Alternative B 

(Proposed Action)

Same as alternative A, except that identifying and 

mapping invasive species would allow more efficient use of resources through improved awareness, 

planning, treatment, and monitoring. Monitoring of 

treated areas would help in determining the best 

method of control and would also remove the seed 

source for reinvasion.

Restoration of native species would provide habitat for riparian-dependent wildlife species. Species 

that feed and roost on Russian olive trees may relocate to native forested areas on the refuge complex 

or onto adjacent wooded lands.

Riparian Habitat in Alternative C

Same as alternative B, plus native tree plantings 

would provide vertical structure and additional nesting, roosting, and food sources for native birds and 

other wildlife. Planting trees would be costly and 

time-consuming.

Water Supply and Rights in Alternative A 

(No Action)

The Service would continue to exercise its water 

rights on all Service-owned lands. Water supply and 

rights (provided under the MOA with Reclamation) 

for the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge would 

continue to be exercised. However, current funding levels would not allow for the purchase of additional water to adequately manage all wetlands in 

the Bowdoin Refuge, resulting in a loss of habitat 

for wetland-dependent wildlife, including nesting 

habitat for the threatened piping plover.

Water Supply and Rights in Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) and Alternative C

Same as alternative A, except that the Federal reserved water rights would be adjudicated for all 

Service-owned lands in the refuge complex. A water rights compact for Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge between the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and the Service 

would be finalized. The Service would buy water 

from the Malta Irrigation District when additional 

water is available from the Milk River Project. This 

additional water may improve water quality while 

providing the water resources necessary to properly manage and expand wetland habitats, including 

nesting habitat for the threatened piping plover. 

There may be substantive costs associated with acquiring these additional water deliveries.

Habitat Protection and Acquisition 

in Alternative A (No Action)

Wetland habitat protection would continue to occur 

at current rates, which over 15 years would result 

in protecting about 500 acres. Most of these acres 

would be protected under wetland easements from 
152 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

willing sellers; easement contracts would only be 

offered to willing sellers within the wetland management district. Fee-title acquisitions would be 

minimal but focus on inholdings and “round-outs” of 

current Service lands. Through the addition of feetitle land and easement acquisitions, wetland habitat 

would be permanently protected and managed for 

the benefit of migratory and native resident wildlife.

Alternative funding sources, in addition to yearly 

allocations of Migratory Bird Stamp Act monies, 

would be pursued. These additional resources would 

offer more opportunities and flexibility in working 

with willing landowners for acquisitions. Protection 

of these wetlands would be widespread and immediate.

Habitat Protection and Acquisition 

in Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

and Alternative C

Same as alternative A, plus the Service would use 

HAPET data to identify priority wetland complexes. 

This would ensure that critical waterfowl breeding and nesting habitats are given priority and 

protected as resources and opportunities become 

available. Focusing easement acquisitions on tracts 

of land with high wetland densities would protect 

wetland diversity in the landscape. Wetland diversity is essential to the life cycle needs of wetlanddependent wildlife.

New acquisitions for waterfowl production areas 

would be evaluated, and proposals for purchases 

would be submitted for approval. Purchases in fee 

title would not only increase the amount of land 

managed primarily for wildlife but also provide additional wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities.

Wildlife Disease in Alternative A 

(No Action), Alternative B (Proposed 

Action), and Alternative C

Rising or fluctuating water levels would be avoided 

on areas that are hotspots for outbreaks of avian 

botulism by continuing to avoid water deliveries 

to Lake Bowdoin during late spring and summer. 

Monitoring and checking Lake Bowdoin and other 

wetland units would help staff to detect disease. 

Dead bird samples would be sent to the Service’s 

wildlife health lab to determine the cause. In areas where visitors frequent, the Service would collect and dispose of dead birds. This early detection 

and immediate response to avian disease outbreaks 

would alert staff and the public to the presence of 

diseases that can be transmitted to humans, such as 

West Nile virus.

Ongoing review and updating of the refuge complex’s Disease Contingency Plan, along with staff 

training to recognize causes and effects of disease, 

would increase early detection of outbreaks. Knowing what to do in the case of an outbreak or an encounter with an individual sick or dead animal would 

help keep health risks to Service employees and 

the public to a minimum. Disease monitoring and 

cleanup can take up a great deal of time, money, and 

equipment.

Invasive and Nonnative Species 

in Alternative A (No Action)

The refuge complex would continue to use the current methods of chemical and mechanical treatments 

(such as prescribed fire, haying, and grazing) to 

control known infestations of invasive plants and 

noxious weeds to create open-water habitat for migratory birds. Early detection and rapid response 

would be used to control and possibly eradicate 

small infestations around wetlands, dikes, and water 

delivery systems.

Invasive and Nonnative Species 

in Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

and Alternative C

Same as alternative A, plus the Service would use 

mapping technology to identify and locate areas with 

invasive plant infestations. Mapping these areas 

would increase awareness of infestations, assist 

in planning treatments, help determine the best 

method for treatment, and monitor the effectiveness 

of the treatment. The refuge complex would share 

this information with county weed boards to aid 

in identifying species, new infestations, and seed 

sources and to prioritize treatment sites. The removal of Russian olive trees from around wetlands, 

dikes, and water delivery systems would improve 

habitat for grassland-nesting birds, protect wetland 

management infrastructure, and increase the Service’s ability to properly manage wetland resources.

Threatened and Endangered Species 

in Alternative A (No Action)

The Service would continue to conduct surveys and 

monitoring for piping plovers at the Bowdoin and 

Hewitt Lake refuges during the breeding and nesting seasons. Staff would continue to work with the 

Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee to preserve and improve piping plover habitat on these 

refuges with the resources that are available.

Without additional water or improved infrastructure for water management, Piping Plover Pond 

would not receive water before the plover’s breeding 

season during most years. Since this species establishes breeding territories almost immediately on 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 153

their spring arrival, they would bypass the refuges 

for other, less protected areas if the habitat were 

not available when they arrived. This could have 

negative effects on the overall survival and nesting 

success of the species.

Threatened and Endangered Species 

in Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

and Alternative C

Same as alternative A, except that additional water 

would permit the Service to manage wetlands specifically to attract piping plovers, which may keep 

them from migrating to less protected off-refuge 

sites. Increased water management would allow the 

Service to ensure that wetlands with the best habitat for breeding and nesting piping plovers are filled 

to the desired capacity before the spring migration 

without having to fill other wetlands first.

Visitor Services

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to hunting and trapping, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation, public access, and cultural 

resources.

Hunting and Trapping in Alternative A 

(No Action)

The hunting and trapping program would continue 

at current levels and would provide hunters with 

many opportunities to hunt without compromising 

the purposes of the refuges and district. Updated 

public use brochures and the refuge complex Web 

site would be readily available to hunters. Hunter 

success and satisfaction would continue to be monitored using the hunter registration kiosk.

Roads, trails, and water management structures 

on Bowdoin Refuge would continue to be protected 

from burrowing animals. Trapping of mammalian 

predators can increase nest success as well as protect vulnerable birds that have been live-trapped for 

banding or disease detection.

Hunting and Trapping in Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) and Alternative C

Same as alternative A, plus, working with the State, 

the refuge would be able to determine if the opportunity for big game archery hunting was compatible 

and could be provided safely and with minimal impact to other users.

Fishing in All Alternatives

Recreational fishing opportunities would continue to 

be allowed along the Milk River at McNeil Slough 

WPA and along Beaver Creek at Beaver Creek 

WPA. However, these areas would continue to receive little or no use, because there are many superior fishing areas within 100 miles of the Bowdoin 

Wetland Management District. The remainder of the 

wetlands within the refuge complex have minimal 

habitat or do not support game fish and have not 

traditionally been open to fishing, so there would be 

no loss of opportunity.

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

in Alternative A (No Action)

Wildlife observation and photography opportunities 

would remain constant. Maintaining the 15-mile auto 

tour route and current established trails and blinds 

would continue to provide visitors of all abilities 

with opportunities for quality wildlife observation 

and photography.

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

in Alternative B (Proposed Action) and 

Alternative C

Same as alternative A, plus the wildlife observation 

and photography opportunities would be expanded 

and enhanced to create a greater understanding and 

appreciation of the refuge complex resources. The 

proposed wildlife-viewing area along the auto tour 

route and accompanying scopes and informational 

panels would enhance the visitor experience while 

educating them about the resources they were viewing.

Marsh Wren

© Cindie Brunner
154 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Expanding opportunities for wildlife observation 

and photography may lead to increased disturbance 

to wildlife and trampling of vegetation, particularly 

if visitors travel off roads and trails. Additional staff 

and resources would be required to manage the increased public use to minimize disturbance to wildlife and habitat and to educate photographers and 

wildlife observers about the local resources.

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation in Alternative A 

(No Action)

Environmental education would minimally meet the 

public demand. Opportunities to educate students 

and the public about the values and purposes of the 

refuge complex and the Refuge System would be 

lost. This lack of understanding and appreciation 

would result in a loss of support for the refuge complex and the Refuge System.

Public outreach and interpretation would meet 

minimum Service requirements. Visitors would have 

adequate resources to independently learn about 

the refuge complex environment; however, there 

would be minimal contact with refuge complex staff 

to answer questions and offer further interpretation.

Refuge complex brochures and other independent interpretive materials would continue to minimally meet Service requirements and may not be 

updated due to limited resources.

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation in Alternative B 

(Proposed Action)

With additional resources and greater support 

from a Friends group and the local community, the 

Service would be able to expand interpretive, outreach, and educational programs that would increase 

the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge complex’s purposes, resources, and issues. 

Visitation by the public as well as school groups and 

organizations would increase, allowing the Service 

to reach a broader audience. This increased use of 

the refuge complex would have to be managed to 

minimize disturbance to wildlife and habitat.

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation in Alternative C

Same as alternative B, plus increased use of the 

Bowdoin Refuge as an outdoor classroom by schools 

and other organizations would result in a greater 

awareness and appreciation for preserving the area’s 

natural resources. By educating teachers, a greater 

number of students would receive this environmental education.

Public Access in Alternative A 

(No Action)

The Service would continue to provide access for 

compatible, wildlife-dependent public use by maintaining public roads and trails as needed and providing current public use information and regulations 

in the refuge complex brochures and Web site. Foot 

traffic would not be limited except in the closed area 

surrounding the shop, residences, and equipment 

storage areas.

Public Access in Alternative B 

(Proposed Action)

Same as alternative A, except closing the eastern 

portion of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge to all 

foot traffic from the beginning of the waterfowlhunting season through November 30 would provide 

additional sanctuary for waterfowl and shorebirds. 

Increased use within the hunting portion of the refuge could lead to more conflicts between hunters 

and nonhunters and a decrease in overall visitor satisfaction during hunting season. However, hunters 

may have a greater opportunity to hunt waterfowl, 

because this sanctuary area may encourage birds 

to remain on the refuge, including the areas open to 

hunting. Additional staff time and resources would 

be required to enforce and manage the closure.

The Service would improve public access to compatible wildlife-dependent use activities on Black 

Coulee National Wildlife Refuge by developing the 

entrance road and parking for the reservoir. Maintenance costs and needs would increase.

The Service would work with Phillips County 

to determine the feasibility of rehabilitating the remaining portion of Old U.S. Highway 2 that runs 

through the north end of the refuge to enhance and 

expand wildlife-viewing opportunities at Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge. Although the road would 

be safer to travel, additional use of this road may 

lead to increased littering and may cause additional 

wildlife disturbance and wildlife fatalities from collisions.

Public Access in Alternative C

Same as alternative B, plus, with improved access 

through landowner cooperation, public use opportunities and visitor satisfaction may increase on 

Creedman Coulee Refuge.

Cultural Resources in Alternative A 

(No Action)

The Service would continue to inventory the refuge 

complex’s cultural resources only as required by 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 155

section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act or by documenting incidental findings during the 

course of other duties. Although this would protect 

cultural resources from planned Service activities, 

the lack of a complete inventory for the refuge complex would make it difficult to adequately protect 

cultural resource sites from vandalism and theft.

Cultural Resources in Alternative B 

(Proposed Action)

The Service would increase the awareness of local 

cultural resources by working with the zone archaeologist, contractors, local tribes, and universities 

to complete a comprehensive inventory for the refuge complex. Increased awareness and mapping 

of cultural resources would enhance protection of 

these assets from Service and public activities and 

would provide additional information to interpret 

the unique cultural history of this area.

Cultural Resources in Alternative C

Same as alternative B, plus the Service would create 

an interpretive cultural resource display to educate 

the public about the early history of the refuge complex. Knowledge of these resources could augment 

appreciation for local history.

Partnerships

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to partnership development and maintenance and on energy development on Service lands.

Partnership Development and 

Maintenance in Alternative A 

(No Action)

Existing partnerships would be maintained, allowing the refuge complex to expand its capability to 

restore, maintain, and protect wildlife habitats and 

complete projects of mutual interest on Federal or 

private lands where the Service has acquired interest. Continued support of the Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program would improve relationships 

between the Government and landowners while protecting additional habitat on private lands.

Partnership Development and 

Maintenance in Alternative B 

(Proposed Action)

Same as alternative A, plus additional partnership 

opportunities would be sought to expand the Service’s ability to restore, maintain, and protect wildlife habitats on surrounding public and private lands. 

These new relationships would include private landowners, Federal and State agencies, and nongovernmental organizations. These partnerships would 

focus on addressing impacts from offsite activities on 

neighboring land.

Working with Phillips County to determine if 

it is possible to repair the road surface of old U.S. 

Highway 2 through Bowdoin Refuge could improve 

travel conditions and provide a quality experience 

for wildlife-dependent recreation. Because of these 

better travel conditions, vehicles may travel at 

higher rates of speed, which may result in animals 

being harmed or killed.

Partnership Development and 

Maintenance in Alternative C

Same as alternative B, plus the Service would develop a new partnership between the Bowdoin Refuge and Burlington Northern Sante Fe railroad, 

which would provide a cleaner landscape and a quality refuge experience for visitors. Invasive species 

control and monitoring would also be addressed as 

train and maintenance vehicle traffic via the railroad 

right-of-way would be a source for new infestations.

The partnership with the Malta Irrigation District would focus on the removal of Russian olive 

trees on the Dodson South Canal. The removal of 

these trees would eliminate a major seed source for 

invasions on Bowdoin Refuge.

Energy Development on Service Lands 

in Alternative A (No Action)

As natural gas exploration and production continued 

to occur within the refuge complex, partnerships 

with energy developers would continue to encourage good stewardship practices on Service-interest 

lands. Negotiating surface use activities on lands 

owned or covered by a Service easement would help 

minimize impacts while preserving the maximum 

amount of wetland and grassland habitat. The negotiations for easement disturbance are limited to 

the reasonable protection of the Service’s acquired 

interest. On Service-owned land, approved energy 

development operations would be conducted without 

interference to Service operations and be of minimal 

size compatible with efficient mineral operations. 

The refuge complex would modify its operations to 

support future Service and other related energy 

policies for Federal lands.

Displacement of wildlife would continue as habitat fragmentation increased due to the growing demand for energy.
156 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Energy Development on Service Lands 

in Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Same as alternative A, plus the Service would 

evaluate current or potential effects of energy development on lands proposed for protection. This 

evaluation would help the Service in making decisions that are more informed and prioritize acquisition proposals.

Energy Development on Service Lands 

in Alternative C

Same as alternative B, except the Service would not 

acquire an interest where there is the potential for 

energy development. This may lessen impacts to future easements caused by oil and gas development, 

but may discourage landowners from entering into 

any agreements with the Service, thus limiting the 

quantity and quality of lands available for easement 

or acquisition.

Operations

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to staff, operations, facilities, and signs 

and boundary designation.

Staff in Alternative A (No Action)

All refuge complex programs would remain at current staffing levels. Service lands would continue to 

degrade due to a significant lack of resources and 

staff to conduct adequate monitoring of management 

actions.

The single maintenance worker would not be able 

to keep up with the constant demand of maintaining and repairing facilities throughout the refuge 

complex. This would result in a continued accumulation of maintenance projects and the degradation of 

facilities and infrastructure.

Refuge complex tours and environmental education programs would continue to be a low priority 

due to the limited staff and resources available to 

conduct these programs. There would continue to 

be a loss of opportunities to interact with and teach 

visitors about the purposes and values of the lands 

and waters within the refuge complex. It would become increasingly difficult for a single collateralduty law enforcement officer to enforce regulations 

and protect the refuge complex’s natural resources 

while performing the employee’s primary duties.

Staff in Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

and Alternative C

Additional funding would be required for the salary, 

equipment, facilities, and office space needed for the 

additional positions needed to accomplish the objectives and strategies in this alternative. Additional 

staff and volunteers would be able to adequately 

manage and protect habitats and provide visitors 

with increased quality wildlife-dependent programs 

and recreational opportunities. Refuge complex 

facilities and equipment would be maintained and 

most maintenance issues would be resolved.

Research and monitoring could be conducted that 

would be used to evaluate management actions and 

adapt and improve biological and visitor services 

programs.

Visitor services, environmental education opportunities, outreach, natural resource protection, and 

facility and public protection would be enhanced, as 

well as the total visitor experience.

Cattail

Jeff McMillian / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Operations in Alternative A (No Action)

Current levels of funding would continue to be inadequate to acquire the staff, facilities, equipment, and 

other resources necessary to properly manage and 

protect refuge complex resources, maintain facilities 
CHAPTER 5–Environmental Consequences 157

and equipment, and provide quality visitor services 

programs across a four-county area. This would continue to result in habitat degradation and a growing 

backlog of maintenance projects.

Operations in Alternative B (Proposed 

Action) and Alternative C

Added funding would ensure enhancement and protection of refuge complex resources and facilities 

while improving safety and expanding opportunities 

for visitors to participate in wildlife-dependent activities and programs. The refuge complex facilities 

and infrastructure would be maintained and many 

of the backlogged maintenance projects would be 

completed.

A substantial increase in annual funding for staff, 

equipment, and supplies would be necessary for the 

full implementation of these alternatives.

Facilities in Alternative A (No Action)

Facilities would continue to be inadequate for staff 

office space, visitor services, seasonal housing, and 

storage of vehicles and heavy equipment. Currently, 

all heavy equipment and many vehicles are stored 

outside continually exposing them to the elements, 

which may cause them to deteriorate more rapidly. 

Vehicles, boats, and other equipment not stored in 

secure buildings would be susceptible to theft and 

vandalism.

Current office space would continue to be sufficient for current, permanent staff only but would 

not accommodate any seasonal staff or volunteers. 

The visitor contact area is small and would not allow for interpretive materials such as displays and 

educational materials, which would result in lost 

opportunities to educate and interact with visitors. 

Insufficient seasonal housing would continue to 

make it difficult to recruit additional seasonal staff 

and volunteers needed to conduct refuge complex 

programs.

Facilities in Alternative B (Proposed 

Action) and Alternative C

Additional staff would have proper office space 

with all the necessary technology and equipment to 

conduct their job and programs properly and meet 

the needs of the public. Visitors would feel more 

welcome in an expanded visitor contact area and 

have new opportunities to learn about the refuge 

complex’s resources through interpretation.

Additional office and living space (for seasonal 

staff and volunteers) would accommodate the additional staff needed to properly manage and protect 

refuge complex resources while providing visitors 

quality, safe wildlife-dependent recreation and programs. Additional housing would also aid in attracting qualified seasonal employees to a semiremote 

station that has limited housing nearby. Equipment 

would be protected from environmental damage, 

reducing maintenance costs. The refuge complex 

would reduce its carbon footprint by using green 

technologies such as wind and solar power.

Signs and Boundary Designation 

in Alternative A (No Action)

Current signs and boundary posting on most Service 

lands are adequate and the visiting public, adjoining neighbors, and surrounding communities are 

aware of the locations and permitted activities for 

the refuges and waterfowl production areas. Hewitt 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge has been challenging 

to post and fence properly because the lake bottom 

is co-owned by a private landowner. This boundary line would require the fence to be constructed 

in a wetland basin, which would pose a significant 

flight hazard to waterfowl when the lake fills. A land 

exchange on Hewitt Lake Refuge would make the 

refuge easier to manage and post and make the land 

ownership less confusing to the public.

Signs and Boundary Designation 

in Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Same as alternative A, except that wildlife losses 

would be reduced and wildlife would be able to 

migrate more freely as fences were replaced with 

wildlife-friendly designs.

Signs and Boundary Designation 

in Alternative C

Same as alternative B, except a unique boundary 

sign for the limited-interest (privately owned) refuges would reduce confusion over land ownership 

and permitted uses.

Socioeconomics

The socioeconomic impacts are described by alternative.

Socioeconomics in Alternative A 

(No Action)

There would not be any significant change in the net 

economic contribution of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex to the local economy through 

visitor spending and employee earnings. Current 

visitation levels are expected to remain the same, 
158 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

contributing $594,000 to the local economy. Employment would remain at five full-time employees, 

which would contribute $316,000 in employee spending to the local economy. Combining visitation and 

employment effects, the total direct economic impact 

of alternative A on the study area would remain 

about $910,000 annually.

Socioeconomics in Alternative B 

(Proposed Action)

Increases in employment and visitation to the refuge 

complex would cause an increase in the economic 

activity the Service generated in the local area. Visitation would increase due to enhanced outreach efforts and increased wildlife production as a result 

of habitat improvements. Visitation is expected to 

increase to 28,750 visitor days, 25,875 of which would 

be from nonlocal visitors. Assuming nonlocal hunters 

spent an average of $55 per day and wildlife observers spent an average of $18 per day, visitation to the 

refuge complex would generate roughly $683,000 in 

annual local spending.

The addition of 7.5 employees would increase 

employment from 5 full-time equivalents to 12.5. The 

new employment would increase the salary of all refuge complex employees to about $866,500. Assuming 

79 percent of employee earnings were spent locally, 

employee spending would contribute about $684,500 

to the local economy, which represents an increase 

of $368,500. Combining visitation and employment 

effects, the total direct economic impact would be 

nearly $1,367,500 annually. This represents an increase of $457,500 over current levels.

Socioeconomics in Alternative C

Increases in visitation and employment would cause 

a slightly more significant increase in economic activity generated by the refuge complex compared 

with alternative B. Visitation would increase due 

to enhanced outreach efforts, programming, and 

other offerings at the refuge complex. Visitation is 

expected to increase to 30,000 visitor days per year 

under this alternative, where 27,000 are from nonlocal visitors. Assuming nonlocal hunters spent an 

average of $55 per day and wildlife observers spent 

an average of $18 per day, visitation to the refuge 

complex would generate roughly $713,000 in annual 

local spending.

The addition of seven and one-half, full-timeequivalent employees would match the increased 

employment in alternative B, also contributing 

about $684,500 to the local economy due to employee 

spending. Combining visitation and employment 

effects, the total direct economic impact would be 

nearly $1,397,500 annually. This represents an increase of $487,500 over current levels.

5.4 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 implement the National Environmental 

Policy Act 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 are 

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 determine goal achievement levels and possible 

unforeseen impacts to resources and for application of adaptive resource management to ensure 

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.
CHAPTER 6–Analysis of Salinity 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the public 

have identified salinity and blowing salts at the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge as one of the most 

critical situations needing to be addressed in this 

CCP planning process. Because of the complexity of 

the salinity analysis, all aspects of NEPA evaluation 

are presented together in this chapter in the following sections:

■ 6.1 Issues

■ 6.2 Background

■ 6.3 Salt and Water Management

■ 6.4 Planning Process

■ 6.5 Alternatives Analysis

■ 6.6 Implementation of the Proposed Action

This chapter begins with a summary of the issues 

including extensive background to explain what 

caused the elevated salinity levels, what the effects 

are, and why it was important to address it in this 

planning effort. To develop this information and determine the best methods for resolving the issues, 

the Service assembled from various Federal and 

State agencies a team—hydrologists, biologists, engineers, managers, planners, and contaminant specialist—to develop and evaluate different options, 

known as alternatives. The team developed and 

analyzed four 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:

■ Salinity alternative 1—current management (no 

action)

■ Salinity alternative 2—evaporation ponds and 

removal of saline residue

■ Salinity alternative 3—flushing by Beaver Creek

■ Salinity alternative 4—underground injection 

well and flushing by Beaver Creek (proposed 

action)

■ Salinity alternative 5—pumping to the Milk 

River

Alkali salt blows off Dry Lake at Bowdoin Refuge, Phillips County, Montana (1988).

USFWS
160 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

The Service has identified salinity alternative 4 as 

the best option, or proposed action, for addressing 

salinity and blowing salts based on the effectiveness of treatment, environmental and socioeconomic 

consequences, and cost. In addition, this alternative 

has been identified as the best option to achieve the 

long-term, desired future conditions described in 

this proposed goal statement:

Goal for Salinity and Blowing Salts

Develop a water management system on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge that would 

protect the environment and mitigate current 

and future blowing salt concerns for neighboring properties, while providing quality 

water and wildlife habitat for migratory birds 

and other wetland dependent wildlife.

Section 6.6 describes how the Service would carry 

out the proposed action, alternative 4, if the Regional Director for Region 6 (Mountain–Prairie 

Region) of the Service selected it as the preferred 

alternative for the final CCP.

6.1 Issues

Two issues are the focus of this separate analysis:

■ Salinity for Lake Bowdoin and blowing salts

■ Water quantity, delivery, and cost

Salinity for Lake Bowdoin 

and Blowing Salts

The salinity and blowing salts issue at Bowdoin Refuge is a direct result of the “salt balance,” which 

is the relationship between the salt entering the 

refuge compared to the salt leaving the refuge. For 

many years, the amount of salt entering the refuge 

has been, and continues to be, far more than the 

amount of salt leaving the refuge. Thus, the overall concentration of salts in Lake Bowdoin and surrounding areas such as Dry Lake continues to rise.

Increasing salinity has the potential to shift Lake 

Bowdoin from one that supports a diverse plant and 

animal community that thrives in a brackish-type 

system to one that thrives in a saline-type system. 

Such a shift could negatively affect the ability of the 

lake and surrounding wetlands to fully support and 

meet the life cycle needs of migratory birds, including waterfowl.

The out-of-balance salt situation is due to a variety of reasons—many from modifications to the 

landscape, but others are natural. Understanding 

the relationship of the salt balance is fundamental 

to devising a solution that not only protects and sustains refuge habitats and resources for wildlife, but 

also protects the interests of local farmers, ranchers, 

and refuge visitors.

Water Quantity, Delivery, 

and Cost

Water quantity has a direct relationship to the effect 

of salts carried in the water—quantity, evaporation, 

inflow, and outflow all contribute to the salt balance. 

The principle sources of water for Bowdoin Refuge 

are precipitation, floodwater from Beaver Creek, 

ground water seepage, Milk river water rights, and 

irrigation return flows. Even with the current MOA 

with Reclamation for 3,500 acre-feet and with natural sources of water, the water quantity has been insufficient for supplying necessary water for wildlife 

habitat management and improving water quality.

6.2 Background

This section contains basic information about salts, 

quantification and classification of salinity, and principal salts at Bowdoin Refuge. Background about 

the salt balance covers the historical and current 

situations.

Salt Basics

The salt balance concept refers to the balance between the amount of salt entering a waterbody, in 

this case, Lake Bowdoin, and the amount of salt exiting. Over time, this salt inflow and outflow should 

be roughly equal to ensure the stability and resiliency of the lake system. A stable system increases 

the probability that plant and animal communities, 

which have adapted to this localized and sometimes 

highly variable system, remain within tolerable 

ranges and, thus, remain healthy and productive. 

If the system is not in balance, the concentration of 

salts is either increasing or decreasing depending on 

the direction of the imbalance. The magnitude of the 

salt imbalance is ultimately reflected in the diversity 

of (or lack of) plant and animal communities that are 

supported, as well as the number of viable management options to restore balance to the system.

Except for pure distilled water, all water has dissolved minerals or trace elements present in varying 

concentrations. These minerals (or salts) and trace 
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 161

elements are present within all landscapes in the 

underlying geology and soils as well as in precipitation that falls over an area. In many areas where 

precipitation does not exceed evaporation—which 

includes the arid climate of eastern Montana—the 

process of evaporation is a leading natural cause of 

concentrating salts in a system.

 Evapoconcentration is the process of concentrating salts or trace elements (solids) in a liquid due to 

evaporation. When water evaporates during the hot, 

dry summer months, the solids remain in the water. 

As the volume of water is reduced by evaporation, 

the concentrations of these solids increase. In general, salinity concentrations are at their lowest during the spring after snowmelt and at their highest at 

summer’s end. Salts that precipitate 

out of water during the evaporative 

process are often seen on the soil 

surface as white salt residues or 

crystals. When these salts fully dry 

and are exposed to strong winds, 

some particles become airborne and 

are transported out of the system 

by the wind. At Bowdoin Refuge, 

these conditions create the blowing 

salts events. The process of salts 

blowing out of a system is natural 

and is one way that a salt balance 

was maintained historically, especially during times of significant 

drought. Salts that do not blow 

away are re-dissolved when precipitation returns and water levels rise.

In wetland systems that are 

“closed basins”—which means 

there is no natural outflow due to 

topographic features or some other 

barrier—the evapoconcentration 

process greatly affects the overall water chemistry and resulting 

water quality. For example, the 

Great Salt Lake, located in an arid 

landscape in northern Utah, is the 

largest natural lake west of the 

Mississippi River and is a closed 

basin. It is naturally salty due to 

evapoconcentration. There is no 

outflow, thus salts are only removed 

from the system through wind or 

through artificial removal activities. 

As a result, salt concentrations are 

two to eight times greater than the 

world’s oceans.

In comparison, a “flow-through 

system” is not closed—the water 

moves through the system before 

evaporation can accumulate the 

salts carried in the water to elevated concentrations. 

The Milk River, like all streams and rivers, is a flowthrough system. Although salts do not accumulate 

like those in a closed system, salt concentrations 

vary depending on where the stream sits in relation 

to its overall watershed. Typically, salt concentrations are higher farther down in the watershed. In 

the case of the Milk River, concentrations are considerably higher where the Milk River empties into 

the Missouri River east of Nassau, Montana, compared with the headwaters area north of Browning, 

Montana. This is from the continual addition of salts 

and other minerals to the river as the water moves 

downstream in the watershed.

Open water in the southern bay of Lake Bowdoin in spring (May 2007). 

Mike Artmann / USFWS

The (same) southern bay of Lake Bowdoin in fall (October 2007). 

Concentrated salt crystallized on top of very shallow water and was 

susceptible to blowing.

Mike Artmann / USFWS
162 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Quantification of Salinity

The concentration of salts present in the water and 

the underlying soils of Lake Bowdoin can be measured, quantified, and described. Typically, the concentration of salt in water is expressed as a measure 

of “total dissolved solids,” which comprise inorganic 

salts—principally calcium, magnesium, potassium, 

sodium, bicarbonates, chlorides, and sulfates—and 

small amounts of organic matter present in water. 

The measure of total dissolved solids, or TDS, is 

often reported as ppt (parts per thousand), percent, 

mg/L (milligrams per liter), or total mass in grams. 

One way to measure the TDS is to take a water 

sample, evaporate the water, and weigh the remaining solids. This is the most accurate method to obtain TDS, but it is very time-consuming, expensive, 

and requires laboratory-type equipment; thus, this 

method’s utility for field testing and monitoring is 

limited.

Another way to measure TDS, which is quicker 

and less expensive and currently used by refuge 

staff, is to find out the electrical conductivity (or 

specific conductance) of water. The EC (electrical 

conductivity) is directly related to the concentration 

of dissolved ionized solids in the water. Ions from the 

dissolved solids enable water to conduct an electrical 

current, which can be measured with a conductivity meter. EC is reported in μS/cm (microSiemens 

per centimeter), mS (milliSiemens), or mmhos (millimhos). The relationship between EC and TDS is 

largely linear, thus conversion factors between EC 

and TDS are well understood. The following equation makes the conversion between EC and TDS 

(Tchobanoglous and Burton 1991):

μS/cm×0.64 of EC=mg/L of TDS

Salts in a waterbody are described by total weight, 

typically in tons. The total weight of salts is calculated by multiplying the concentration of salts in the 

water by the weight of the water. Weight of 1 acrefoot of water is approximately 1,360 tons.

(mg/L)×(weight of water)/1,000,000=tons of salts

Therefore, the water delivered by the Malta Irrigation District to Bowdoin Refuge averages about 500 

mg/L TDS. Subsequently, for every 1,000 acre-feet 

of water delivered at that concentration, approximately 680 tons of salts are added to Lake Bowdoin.

(500 mg/L×1,360,000 tons)/1,000,000=680 tons of salts

Describing the salts by weight is useful, because 

the concentration of salts can vary considerably 

since concentrations depend on both the total 

amount of salts and the total amount of water. The 

total amount of water can fluctuate widely in a single 

year due to evaporation and water deliveries, which 

causes the salt concentrations to fluctuate. By evaluating only the total weight of salts, the seasonal 

variations shown in concentrations are removed, 

and general trends such as the salt removal rate are 

easier to evaluate.

Throughout this chapter, mg/L is used in reference to TDS to represent the salinity concentration. However, for the modeling work conducted to 

analyze which alternative would be most effective at 

balancing salt, the total weight in tons was used as 

the measure to describe the amount of salts entering 

and exiting the refuge.

Salinity can decrease the diversity of the wetland 

vegetation and the invertebrates that ducks like 

mallards rely on.

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS

Classification of Salinity

Lake Bowdoin, like all of the wetlands on the refuge, 

can be described and classified in terms of its average salinity concentration. It is helpful to classify 

wetlands based on their salinity, because there has 

been considerable research describing the effect of 

varying salinity concentrations in terms of plant and 

animal communities and their tolerances to changing 

salinity. Entirely different plant and invertebrate 

communities thrive at varying salinity concentrations. In general, the higher the salinity concentration, the less diverse the communities tend to be 

(Gleason et al. 2009).

Refuge staff and others have been monitoring 

water quality in the wetlands since the late 1970s. 

A lot of information has been collected on salinity 

and how concentrations change with varying climatic conditions at the refuge. In 2009, Lake Bowdoin had an average salinity concentration of 10,500 

mg/L. Following the salinity classification scheme 

displayed in table 9 (Stewart and Kantrud 1972), 

this concentration places the lake in the subsaline 

(second most concentrated) class.
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 163

Interestingly, monitoring data shows that even 

within Lake Bowdoin, considerable variation in salinity concentrations exists. For example, the east 

side of the lake is typically more salty (1,000–2,000 

mg/L more concentrated) than the west side. This is 

due almost entirely to the inflows of fresher water 

from the Black Coulee drainage and the Dodson 

South Canal on the west side of the lake.

Figure 29 shows the locations of the monitoring sites on and off the refuge, along with the infrastructure for water management in and between 

the refuge wetlands. Flow-through wetlands like 

Black Coulee Pond on the west side of the refuge 

and Lakeside and the Farm Ponds on the east side, 

rarely exceed 1,250 mg/L as water and salt pass 

through to Lake Bowdoin or Dry Lake, respectively. 

In addition, monitoring data shows that salinity 

concentrations tend to be lowest in the spring and 

highest in the late summer due to the evapoconcentration process.

Most of the refuge wetlands are less saline than 

Lake Bowdoin and fall into other salinity classes 

according to Stewart and Kantrud (1972), as follows:

■ Slightly Brackish—Black Coulee Pond, Display 

Pond, Farm Ponds, and Lakeside

■ Moderately Brackish—Goose Island Pond, Patrol Road Pond, Teal Pond Complex, and Strater 

Pond

■ Brackish—Dry Lake Pond, Piping Plover Pond, 

and Drumbo Pond

■ Subsaline—Lake Bowdoin

Principal Salts at Bowdoin 

Refuge

The principal salts at Bowdoin Refuge are sodium 

sulfate, sodium bicarbonate, calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, and magnesium sulfate; minor amounts 

of chloride and fluoride salts are also present 

(Bauder et al. 2007, Gleason et al. 2009). These salts 

are largely derived from the soils and underlying 

geology that compose this area of Montana. Geologic 

history indicates that Lake Bowdoin is an old oxbow 

of the Missouri River channel that was pushed far 

to the south during the advancement of the last glaciers, about 15,000 years ago (Alden 1932).

The predominant soils on the refuge are clays 

and clay-loams. The most common clay-loam associations are Phillips-Elloam, Phillips-Kevin, ArvadaBone, Scobey-Phillips, and Kevin-Sunburst. These 

soils range from mildly to strongly alkaline; soluble 

calcium and sodium salts are dispersed in much of 

the soil profile. The presence of these soluble salts 

contributes to the alkaline nature of refuge wetlands, in particular Lake Bowdoin. Delivered water 

from the Milk River via the Dodson South Canal 

also contains these primary salts. Although these 

salts occur in relatively low concentrations in the 

delivered water (typically less than 500 mg/L), the 

total volume of water is high; therefore, the total 

tons of salts is high. In addition, saline seeps occur as 

water moves through the soil profile and exits at the 

surface near and along the west and north shoreline 

of Lake Bowdoin.

Table 9. Salinity categories and the corresponding ranges of specific conductance values.

Conductance1 Concentrations of dissolved solids—salts 2

Salinity category (μS/cm-1) (mg/L-1) (ppt)

Fresh 0–500 0–320 0–0.3

Slightly brackish 500–2,000 320–1,280 0.3–1.3

Moderately brackish 2,000–5,000 1,280–3,200 1.3–3.2

Brackish 5,000–15,000 3,200–9,600 3.2–9.6

Subsaline 15,000–45,000 9,600–28,800 9.6–28.8

Saline >45,000 >28,800 >28.8

Source: Stewart and Kantrud (1972).

1

 μS/cm-1=microSiemens per centimeter. 2

 mg/L-1=milligrams per liter; ppt=parts per thousand.
164 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Presettlement Salt Balance

To understand how the salt balance has been lost 

or altered over time, it is important to look at how 

it was maintained in the past. For the salt load to 

balance over time, incoming salts must be removed 

(or moved through the lake system) in roughly equal 

proportions, either by flushing or by the wind when 

water levels are low and salts precipitate out. There 

is little doubt that Lake Bowdoin functioned as a 

flow-through system during spring runoff and highprecipitation events. The flow-through nature of the 

system was essential to maintaining the lake’s salt 

balance, as was the removal of salts by the wind during times of drought.

Historical evidence, in the form of a GLO (General Land Office) survey, helps shed light on how the 

system functioned in the past (figure 30). The GLO 

survey, which divided the landscape into 1-squaremile sections, was completed in 1892 and approved 

in 1893 for the area near Malta including the refuge. 

This survey included the Great Northern Railway, 

which was constructed just a couple years prior 

in 1887. In addition, the survey shows that Lake 

Bowdoin was originally called “Alkali Lake” (figure 

30), undoubtedly in direct reference to the alkaline 

characteristics of the water and soils of the lake. 

Interestingly, there is no mention or depiction of 

marsh or lake habitat in the current locations of Dry 

Lake or Drumbo Pond.

The GLO survey shows a stream Alkali Lake 

(Lake Bowdoin) on the west side in the general location where the Black Coulee drainage enters today. 

It is drawn on the map as a dashed line, suggesting the stream was intermittent. This would make 

sense given the arid climate of the area (less than 

12.5 inches in precipitation per year). The volume 

of water entering the lake through this stream is, 

of course, unknown. However, the drainage area 

does span to a low divide near the Milk River to the 

west and includes many smaller coulees coming from 

the hills to the south. It is likely that, during heavy 

rainstorms or deep snow years, this stream carried a 

considerable flow into the lake. Likewise, a stream is 

depicted exiting the lake in the southeast side near 

the present-day southeast arm of the lake. Based on 

local topography downstream of this outflow point, 

any outflow would have flowed into Beaver Creek 

following a relatively similar path as occurs today.

As mapped in 1892, the overall size of Lake Bowdoin was about 40 percent smaller than it is today; 

surface acres were approximately 2,885 acres. At 

a smaller surface area, and with a smaller volume, 

historically the lake would have exited at a lower 

elevation than it does today. In addition to spilling 

at a lower elevation, even small floods from Beaver 

Creek would have likely entered and exited the lake 

(from the east) and, in doing so, removed salts with 

it as a flood moved downstream. During very large 

flood events, like the one in 1986, water would have 

entered the lake from several directions and extensively flushed salts downstream. Following large 

floods, the lake may have remained in a fresher state 

longer than normal, because the large influx of fresh 

water would have removed large quantities of salts.

 Historically, the inputs of water and salts would 

have come from precipitation, local runoff, Black 

Coulee drainage inflows, and Beaver Creek floods 

(likely the largest water inputs). The flow-through 

nature of Lake Bowdoin was critical to maintaining 

the salt balance. Wind also likely played an important role in removing salts when water levels were 

very low during droughts. Over time, this cyclical 

input and removal of water and salts from Lake 

Bowdoin maintained a brackish lake system, which 

supported a greater diversity of plant and animal 

communities than exists today.

Postsettlement Salt Balance

Why are salts “out-of-balance” at Lake Bowdoin? 

Simply put, significant development and changes in 

the last 100 years have altered the inputs and outputs of water and salts that maintain the lake’s salt 

balance. Many of these changes occurred decades 

before the Milk River Project (described below) 

and subsequent establishment of Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge in 1936. The combination of a modified landscape and reduced flooding continues to 

contribute to increased salinity levels. Below is a 

summary of the major changes that affected the processes controlling the salt balance in Lake Bowdoin:

■ Hydrologic Barriers: The Great Northern Railway (1887) and early roads and dikes (1900) altered water flow into and out of the lakes.

■ Irrigation Inputs: Starting in 1915, increased 

water from the Milk River Project (described 

below) west and south of the refuge added more 

water and salts to the lake. Without a consistent 

outflow mechanism, salts continue to increase.

■ Refuge Management: Following refuge establishment, there was an emphasis on water conservation for wildlife during the 1930s. The Service 

built higher dikes, retained water longer to benefit wildlife, and developed new sources of water.

■ Beaver Creek Development: Also during the 

1930s, increased water development in the Beaver Creek watershed lowered the frequency 
CHAPTER 6–Analysis of Salinity 165

Figure 29. Map of wetlands, water management infrastructure, and monitoring sites on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 167

Figure 30. Map of a historical survey showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge on the topographic features of the 

landscape. Source: General Land Office, 1892.
168 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

of flooding, which greatly reduced the primary 

mechanism for removing salts.

Railroad and Early Settlers

This area of northeastern Montana is commonly 

referred to as the “Hi-Line” of Montana, which includes the northern tier of counties. The Milk River 

watershed was largely unsettled by Europeans settlers before completion of the Great Northern Railway in the late 1880s and early 1890s. The railroad 

passed through Malta around 1887, reaching Havre 

in 1890 and its final destination, the west coast of the 

United States, in 1893. Regional industry and trade 

centers quickly grew around the railroad as goods, 

services, and people could now be moved quickly 

between locations. A post office was established in 

Malta in 1890. The 1892 GLO survey helped in the 

distribution of lands to homesteaders.

The railroad was a tremendously successful tool 

that propelled the area into full homesteading and 

economic development in the 1890s. However, the 

railroad effectively functioned as a hydrologic barrier to the natural movement of surface water between Lake Bowdoin and Beaver Creek. Instead 

of water flowing unimpeded during floods as it had 

previously, water now funneled through a series of 

railroad trestles, bridges, and culverts to flow in and 

out of the lake. It is very likely that smaller floods, 

which would have entered Lake Bowdoin unimpeded 

from the east, were deflected downstream by the 

railroad, thereby reducing the volume of water entering the lake.

In addition to the railroad, the Brady–Bateman–

Switzer Company previously owned the lands within 

Bowdoin Refuge. The company was a partnership 

between three men from Helena and Great Falls, 

Montana, who started a cattle and hay ranch on 

Beaver Creek near the town of Ashfield. The company took up 19 desert and homestead entries along 

Beaver Creek and attempted to irrigate the land 

by diverting water from Beaver Creek and Lake 

Bowdoin. As early as 1900, the company constructed 

levees and ditches between Lake Bowdoin and Dry 

Lake and at the outflow of Dry Lake. These structures helped to increase water storage capacity and 

increase capabilities for water movement between 

Lake Bowdoin and Dry Lake (Anderson 1901). The 

Brady ditch and structure increased the storage 

capacity of Dry Lake and Lake Bowdoin by effectively halting the natural flow-through nature of 

the system; it could also capture floodwaters from 

Beaver Creek for later irrigation use. GLO surveys 

conducted in 1904 east of the refuge delineate extensive irrigation ditches and levees built to improve 

water distribution along Beaver Creek for pasture 

and grazing lands. It is clear that Lake Bowdoin and 

Dry Lake were part of an active irrigation system as 

early as 1900, more than a decade before construction of the main infrastructure associated with the 

Milk River Project.

The Brady ditch and structure changed the flow-through 

lake system to increase the water storage for irrigation 

uses.

USFWS

Milk River Project

With the completion of the railroad, farmers and 

ranchers continued to arrive and settle throughout 

the Milk River watershed. Early settlers of the Milk 

River watershed soon realized that, in this arid climate, water was limited and often came in sporadic 

deluges that were not conducive to growing crops 

and raising livestock consistently. Dryland farming 

was the only means available in the absence of irrigation sources, which at the time were only available 

near streams and rivers. It soon became evident 

that a supplemental, stable supply of water was necessary if these settlers were to produce agricultural 

products and make a living on the landscape.

At the turn of the century, new Federal laws 

such as the Reclamation Act in 1902 committed the 

Federal Government to fund the construction and 

management of irrigation projects for arid lands of 

20 States in the American West. To fund the construction and maintenance of irrigation projects, 

the act set aside money from the sale of semiarid 

public lands. In addition, the act established the U.S. 

Reclamation Service, the predecessor to the Bureau 

of Reclamation, to oversee the development of all 

irrigation projects in the West.

On March 4, 1903, the Secretary of the Interior 

conditionally authorized the Milk River Project, one 

of the first irrigation projects initiated under the 

Reclamation Act. The Milk River Project was one of 

many projects initiated during in the early 1900s to 

secure stable and reliable sources of water in Montana. The Milk River Project is a federally owned 

project that today supplies irrigation water to more 
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 169

than 110,300 acres in eight irrigation districts and to 

approximately 200 irrigation pump contracts along 

the Milk River (figure 31). The authorized purpose 

for the Milk River Project is for irrigation; all other 

uses are secondary. Most of the Milk River flows 

used by irrigators and municipalities and for recreational and wildlife benefits comes from the Milk 

River Project.

Completion of the Milk River Project meant 

supplemental water from St. Mary River would 

be available to irrigators in the Milk River watershed, which otherwise would have flowed north into 

Canada, and ultimately into Hudson Bay. The idea 

behind the Milk River Project was relatively simple: 

move water east across a low divide separating 

the St. Mary River and the Milk River watersheds 

(USRS 1920). A 29-mile-long facility diverts water 

from the St. Mary River watershed near Glacier 

National Park into the North Fork of the Milk River. 

From there, the river flows into Canada for 216 

miles before returning to the United States. After 

reentering the United States, the water flows into 

two primary reservoirs for storage until needed 

by downstream irrigators: (1) Fresno Reservoir is 

104 miles west of Bowdoin Refuge; and (2) Nelson 

Reservoir is 4.5 miles northeast of the refuge. The 

St. Mary facilities are located on the Blackfeet Reservation in Glacier County; Reclamation owns and 

operates the diversion facilities.

Although authorized in 1903, it took another 40 

years to complete the primary infrastructure of the 

Milk River Project. The construction of facilities began in earnest in July 1906 with the St. Mary Storage Unit along the St. Mary River. Because both 

the Milk River and the St. Mary River flow from the 

United States into Canada, a treaty was needed for 

water issues related to the Milk River Project. A 

treaty with Great Britain (for Canada) was signed 

in January 1909 and proclaimed in May 1910. It took 

several years to complete the canal and St. Mary 

Storage Unit, but in 1916 water from the St. Mary 

River was finally diverted into the North Fork of 

the Milk River; however, water for irrigation became available as early as 1911 in areas along the 

Milk River (USBR 1920). Other early infrastructure 

and facilities included the following:

■ Dodson Diversion Dam (January 1910)

■ Dodson North Canal (1914), built on the north 

side of the river

■ Dodson South Canal (1915), supplied by the Dodson Diversion Dam, provided water to fill Nelson 

Reservoir and irrigate areas south of the river 

and east of Dodson

■ Nelson dikes (1915), enlarged starting in 1921

■ Swift Current dikes (1915)

■ Vandalia Diversion Dam (1917)

■ Bowdoin Canal (1917)

■ Lake Sherburne Dam (1921)

■ Fresno Dam (1939)

Nelson Reservoir’s current storage capacity is 

approximately 79,200 acre-feet, and Fresno Reservoir’s is approximately 103,000 acre-feet. While 

Reclamation manages the water storage facilities, 

eight irrigation districts manage distribution of 

the water to irrigators (farmers and ranchers); the 

Malta, Glasgow, and Dodson districts are closest to 

the refuge.

At one time during the early construction history of the Milk River Project, Reclamation considered Lake Bowdoin as a potential reservoir for 

downstream irrigation. An early project document 

(1902–11) by Reclamation states:

“The use of Bowdoin Lake as a reservoir site 

in connection with the Milk River project was 

considered by the employees of the Geological Survey before the Reclamation Act was 

passed. During the fall of 1902 a survey of 

the lake and adjacent territory was made and 

for several years thereafter the plans contemplated the construction of a reservoir that 

would utilize the lake for storage.”

Two items had to be considered before going forward with the reservoir plan for Lake Bowdoin: (1) 

moving the Great Northern Railway from south of 

Lake Bowdoin to north of the lake, from a point near 

Ashfield to a point near Strater; and (2) acquiring 

more than 5,000 acres of land “occupied and controlled by the Brady-Bateman-Switzer Company 

of Great Falls.” The cost of these items made the 

development a reservoir prohibitive. Eventually, 

Reclamation acquired most of the lands and the 

lake, and plans for using the lake as a reservoir were 

abandoned. Instead, plans were considered to use 

Lake Bowdoin “as some plan for the control of the 

waters of Beaver Creek.” Reclamation also abandoned this plan, and instead the lake was primarily 

used as a sump for irrigation return flows and excess 

runoff from the Milk River Project.

The Milk River Project was very successful in 

bringing additional water, and with it economic viability and stability to lands all along the Milk River. 

Additional structures have been constructed, en-
170 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

larged, and repaired over the last 80–90 years to 

improve the distribution of irrigation water and expand capabilities within the project.

In 1936, the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

was established as an overlay on lands owned and 

operated by Reclamation, with both agencies having 

jurisdiction. It was not until 1972 that the Service 

received primary jurisdiction over these lands. Bowdoin Refuge receives Milk River water through both 

the Dodson South Canal and the Bowdoin Canal. 

The Dodson South Canal provides water to lands 

immediately west of the refuge and is the feeder 

canal to Nelson Reservoir. This canal delivers water to Lake Bowdoin through the terms of a 1937 

agreement between the Service and Reclamation. 

A sluice-type structure on the west side of the lake 

delivers the water; the structure was built more 

than two decades before the establishment of the 

refuge to divert irrigation return flows and excessive runoff in the canal into the lake. Unfortunately, 

construction of this canal intercepted the natural 

flow of surface water from the hills north of Lake 

Bowdoin. Additionally, seepage from the canal likely 

expanded saline seeps on the north and west shores 

of the lake.

The Black Coulee drainage, which drains into 

Lake Bowdoin, provides spring runoff and receives 

Milk River water as irrigation return flow supplied 

by the Dodson South Canal. Irrigation return flow 

comprises about 2,500 acre-feet annually to the refuge. The salt concentration of irrigation return flows 

is relatively fresh, about 500–700 mg/L. As such, 

the Black Coulee drainage is an important source 

of water for refuge habitats, especially wetlands on 

the west end of the refuge. However, the increased 

flow of water from increased irrigation capabilities 

brings in more salts than would likely have naturally 

occurred. Similarly, the Bowdoin Canal is an offshoot 

of the Dodson South Canal and provides irrigation 

water to lands south and east of the refuge, before 

emptying into Beaver Creek. The refuge can also 

receive water directly from the Bowdoin Canal into 

Drumbo and Goose Island Ponds. In addition, the 

refuge receives irrigation return flows from lands 

immediately adjacent to the refuge on the south 

side. These sources of irrigation return flow are 

important for the refuge. However, absent a flowthrough system, they add more salts than otherwise 

would have been added to Lake Bowdoin, contributing to the salinity problem.

Refuge Establishment

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1936 to help restore declining waterfowl 

populations, which had been devastated by the loss 

of grassland and wetland habitats during the 1930s’ 

Dust Bowl. It was one of many national wildlife refuges established throughout the northern Great 

Plains during the 1930s for migratory birds.

The Bureau of Biological Survey (a precursor to 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) correctly recognized the significance of Lake Bowdoin to protecting and restoring waterfowl populations in eastern 

Montana. The Bureau of Biological Survey began 

studying ways to increase the lake’s water-holding 

capacity to provide valuable wetland habitat along 

with looking for ways to secure a more stable source 

of water for the newly formed refuge. To this end, 

the Secretary of the Interior (for Reclamation) and 

the Secretary of Agriculture (for the Bureau of Biological Survey) signed an MOA on March 9, 1937, to 

provide a refuge water supply from the Milk River 

of up to 3,500 acre-feet per year.

However, the 3,500 acre-feet was never enough 

water to manage Lake Bowdoin as a flow-through 

system. Based on the combination of the arid climate, the unpredictable water supply year to year, 

and the need to keep Lake Bowdoin from going dry, 

the Service needed to retain as much delivered water and floodwater as possible. This additional water 

needed to last through the summer and into the fall 

to provide wetland habitat for waterfowl and to prevent an outbreak of avian botulism. Except during 

flood years on the refuge, which allowed the flushing 

of salts from the lakes, Lake Bowdoin and Dry Lake 

were converted from a flow-through wetland system 

to a closed-wetland system.

During the 1930s and 1940s, the refuge received 

help from work crews employed through the Works 

Progress Administration, a Depression Era program that provided jobs on public works projects. 

These crews were instrumental in constructing refuge buildings and enhancing existing dikes, levees, 

roads, and water control structures to impound more 

water. The result was improved capabilities for water storage and management on Lake Bowdoin and 

Dry Lake.

While there is no question that changes to increase water storage capacity and manage water 

levels have provided tremendous benefits to waterfowl and wetland-dependent wildlife, these changes 

also have been some of the many factors contributing to salt accumulation in Lake Bowdoin.

Beaver Creek Watershed

Beaver Creek has its origin in the Little Rocky 

Mountains south of Malta, between Zortman and 

Lodgepole, Montana. The watershed is 195 miles 

long and has a drainage area of 2,060 square miles. 

Floods along Beaver Creek played a significant role 

in flushing salts from Lake Bowdoin and, over time, 

helped maintain the salt balance; however, water-
CHAPTER 6–Analysis of Salinity 171

Figure 31. Map of the Milk River Project, Montana. Source: Bureau of Reclamation, 1983.

CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 173

related developments in the watershed have significantly reduced the frequency of natural floods.

Refuge data, starting in 1937, indicates that the 

historical, average, flood frequency was once every 

3–4 years. However, observations by refuge staff 

suggest that the frequency of floods since 1970 has 

decreased to once every 7–10 years. Only four floods 

have been recorded entering the refuge since 1970, 

the last being in 1996. It is likely that the establishment of numerous small impoundments and irrigation diversions in the Beaver Creek watershed 

has reduced the flood frequency on the refuge. The 

irrigation diversions and reservoir retention have 

reduced, by an estimated 45 percent, the average 

annual runoff in the Beaver Creek watershed upstream of Lake Bowdoin (Rodney and Mohrman 

2006). Furthermore, the gradual but significant improvements in land management practices within 

the watershed might have contributed to the diminished magnitude and frequency of floods. Improved 

grazing, minimum-tillage farming, conversion of 

dry cropland to grass, and other innovations designed to retain rain and snowfall and use it more 

efficiently have reduced the runoff to Beaver Creek. 

The combined effect of these evolving land management practices is to reduce flood frequency, thereby 

inhibiting the primary mechanism for removing salts 

from the refuge.

Current Salt Balance

Inputs and outputs of salt affect and create the current salt balance.

Bowdoin Refuge

Sources of Salts

(tons per year)

Figure 32. Chart of sources of salts into Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

RAINFALL

66 tons/year

GROUND WATER SEEPAGE

1,279 tons/year

CANAL DELIVERIES

2,335 tons/year

IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW

3,178 tons/year

BEAVER CREEK FLOODS

99 tons/year

Inputs of Salts

The sources of salts into Bowdoin Refuge are primarily from irrigation return flow, canal deliveries, 

ground water seepage, Beaver Creek floods, and 

rainfall. Figure 32 shows the sources of salts into 

the refuge and the average weight in tons per year; 

nearly half of the salts are from irrigation return 

flow. These input amounts have been developed from 

historical monitoring data as well as modeling to recreate the salt and water balance at the refuge.

Figure 33 shows the results from the model that 

estimated the total weight of salt on the refuge as 

a whole (Lake Bowdoin, Dry Lake, Dry Lake Pond, 

Drumbo Pond, and Lakeside) and Lake Bowdoin 

 
174 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

individually. There was a general increase of salts on 

the refuge, with Dry Lake seeing the most dramatic 

increase in salts. This was due to the 1990s’ management practice of placing saline water on Dry Lake, 

which helped keep Lake Bowdoin in relative balance 

(figure 33). This management practice stopped in 

1999, and Dry Lake has remained dry from 2000 to 

present except for spring runoff and rain events. 

Salts on the refuge decreased in the early 2000s due 

to the gradual loss of accumulated salts in Dry Lake 

from blowing away and from the onset of a drought 

that reduced the salt inputs. However, the salts began increasing once again since refuge managers no 

longer used this method to remove salts, with most 

concentrating in Lake Bowdoin. Under the current 

management plan of preventing releases into Dry 

Lake, the salts in Lake Bowdoin will continue to 

increase.

Figure 33. Graph of tons of salt in the lakes and wetlands at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1990–2007).

180

160

140

120

ons of Salt 100 1,000 T

80

60

40

20

0

TONS OF SALT in ALL REFUGE WETLANDS TONS OF SALT in LAKE BOWDOIN Only

199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007

Outputs of Salts

Management actions as well as natural processes 

remove salts from the refuge.

Managed Removal of Salts. Past managers understood the salt imbalance and dealt with it in various 

ways. As shown in figure 34, various water sources 

add approximately 7,000 tons of salts to Lake Bowdoin in a typical year. Refuge managers have used 

two primary management methods to improve Lake 

Bowdoin’s water quality and to reduce salinity concentrations:

■ Discharge water into Beaver Creek (flowthrough system)

■ Manage Dry Lake as an evaporation basin for 

Lake Bowdoin (salts carried away by wind)

When water was plentiful and there were high 

spring flows in the Milk River and Beaver Creek 

drainages, past refuge managers occasionally managed Lake Bowdoin and Dry Lake as flow-through 

basins, flushing salts into Beaver Creek to improve 

water quality on the refuge. Managers made controlled releases to Beaver Creek in cooperation with 

downstream landowners. The releases, although 

rare, would generally occur before the start of the 

irrigation season to coincide with high stream flows 

in Beaver Creek during the spring. These high flows 

increased the dilution effect and discharges were 
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 175

within allowable limits, which minimized impacts to 

downstream irrigators.

However, in 1976, an accidental spill from the refuge into Beaver Creek due to failure of a water control structure occurred during the irrigation season. 

The Service settled the resulting lawsuit from downstream landowners claiming salts from the refuge 

impacted their lands. Consequently, this incident 

effectively stopped the Service from making future 

water releases into Beaver Creek; refuge staff has 

not intentionally released surface water from Lake 

Bowdoin into Beaver Creek since the late 1970s. As 

a result, managers needed to find another solution to 

deal with the increasing salinity concentrations on 

the refuge.

Droughts and floods in the 1980s provided a natural means of removing salts from the refuge. However, by the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Service 

needed to find other solutions. The solution at that 

time was to move salt-laden water from Lake Bowdoin to Dry Lake under the ice during the winter. 

This method was effective because, in the winter, 

the highly concentrated saltwater stays in solution 

(salt lowers the freezing point of water), while the 

fresher water separates and forms an ice layer on 

top. As water freezes, salts precipitate out into the 

water and the remaining ice contains very little salt. 

Refuge and State staffs recorded recent measurements of salt concentrations exceeding 30,000 mg/L 

under the ice. After transferring this salty water 

to Dry Lake, the water would remain throughout 

the spring and summer until it finally evaporated 

and left behind the salt residue. High winds transported the salt particles, which eventually settled 

downwind on the refuge uplands or the neighboring 

lands to the east and southeast of the refuge. During periods of high winds, the large salt “clouds” 

were very visible as the salts blew away from Dry 

Lake. Several factors created ideal conditions for 

the transport of salts from Dry Lake: (1) the lake’s 

west–east geographic orientation; (2) the length of 

the lake; and (3) the surrounding topography (hilly 

on the east side) in relation to the prevailing westerly winds. The transfer of water into Dry Lake 

removed salts from Lake Bowdoin—approximately 

5,000 tons of salt per year, or enough to roughly balance the annual salt inputs.

Although monitoring data clearly shows that 

this combination of moving water to Dry Lake and 

blowing salts was effective in maintaining relative 

Figure 34. Chart of sources of water into Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

Bowdoin Refuge GROUND WATER SEEPAGE

Sources of Water 236 acre-feet/year

(acre-feet per year)

IRRIGATION 

BEAVER CREEK FLOODS RETURN FLOW

331 acre-feet/year 2,527 acre-feet/year

RAINFALL

6,126 acre-feet/year

CANAL DELIVERIES

6,389 acre-feet/year
176 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

salt loads in Lake Bowdoin, Service managers no 

longer find it a viable option due to the effects on 

neighboring landowners and the effects on habitat in 

Dry Lake. Continually placing highly concentrated 

saltwater in Dry Lake for many years changed the 

value of the area’s vegetation and habitat for wildlife. Where once sedges, rushes, and wetland grasses 

grew, today there are mostly weedy species such 

as kochia and large areas of bare soil. These effects 

occur across the 1,200-acre Dry Lake basin even 

though salty water has not been placed there since 

1999.

However, it would be inaccurate to say Dry Lake 

currently has no wildlife value, because a variety of 

invertebrates and birds are adapted to saline environments. For example, when the Service managed 

Dry Lake as a wetland unit, or transported water 

to the lake, and food was available, large numbers 

of migrating and breeding waterfowl and shorebirds 

used Dry Lake. Even today, a variety of wetland-dependent birds and other wildlife use Dry Lake when 

there is water in the lake from runoff or precipitation. During years of abundant water supply, refuge 

staff manages Dry Lake as a separate wetland unit 

without the transfer of water from Lake Bowdoin. 

While water transfer may be a means to provide 

valuable wetland habitat, managers are not willing 

to accept the negative effects of transferring water 

to Dry Lake and the resulting blowing salts.

Natural Removal of Salts. The removal of salts due 

to natural climatic variables such as major drought 

and flooding still occurs on occasion, with the most 

recent in the mid-1980s. These natural events are 

important to keeping salinity concentrations from 

becoming even more extreme.

For example, a significant drought from 1983 

through 1985 reduced Lake Bowdoin’s water level 

nearly in half (figure 35). Salt concentrations in the 

lake eventually exceeded 30,000 mg/L, some of the 

highest concentrations ever recorded. Because of 

the smaller lake size, large areas of exposed shoreline were subject to drying and the forces of the 

wind; there was considerable wind removal of salts 

during the summers of 1984 and 1985. In fall 1985, 

the rains returned and Lake Bowdoin began to fill 

up again. This combination of concentrating the salts 

and transporting them away by wind, followed by 

an influx of water, created a dramatic decrease in 

salt concentrations from 30,000 mg/L to approximately 2,500 mg/L in spring 1986. This natural process continued into the next year starting in spring 

1986, which saw above-normal precipitation, and 

having high water levels all summer. In late September, a massive, widespread rainstorm led to a 

200-year flood episode in the Beaver Creek drainage, subsequently flooding the refuge and surrounding landscape (figure 35). This historic flood moved 

downstream a large amount of the salts stored in the 

lake and effectively lowered the salinity concentration for several years thereafter.

The natural processes of drought and flooding have a role in moving salt out of the system; 

however, their occurrences are unpredictable (in 

the case of major floods) and likely do not occur at 

frequencies to sustain the salt balance in the lake 

system.

Water Supply

The sources of water into the Bowdoin Refuge are 

primarily from irrigation return flow, canal deliveries, ground water seepage, Beaver Creek floods, 

and rainfall. As shown previously, figure 34 shows 

these sources and the average quantity in acre-feet 

by year. These input amounts have been developed 

from historical monitoring data as well as modeling 

to re-create the salt and water balance at the refuge.

Currently, the primary water right for the refuge 

is a right for “flood flows” from Beaver Creek. The 

Service can exercise this water right only during 

periods of high flows, which typically occur during 

spring runoff or after the irrigation season is over. 

In addition, the refuge is entitled to continue receiving all surface flows that originate in the Beaver 

Creek watershed and drain naturally into the refSalt residue covers Dry Lake’s northern bay, which 

supports salt-tolerant plants like bulrush and the lowgrowing saltgrass.

Mike Artmann / USFWS
CHAPTER 6–Analysis of Salinity 177

Figure 35. Map of water levels and salinity for Lake Bowdoin, Montana (1975–2007).

JULY 1985

Significant Drought 1984–85

SEPTEMBER 28, 1986

200-year Flood Flushing Event

JULY 1959—Historical Reference JULY 2009—Current Reference

CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 179

uge. However, these Beaver Creek water rights 

are ineffective in supplying adequate water to the 

refuge and in maintaining acceptable water quality because of the following: (1) senior water users 

downstream have priority over the refuge; and (2) 

there is increased development, primarily exempt 

stock ponds, in the upstream portion of the watershed. Consequently, the refuge is highly dependent 

on deliveries from the Milk River Project to meet its 

water needs for achieving the refuge purposes.

In addition to the Beaver Creek floodwater 

right, the Service’s 1937 MOA with Reclamation 

provides for delivery of up to 3,500 acre-feet per 

year from the Milk River Project. In exchange for 

the water supply, the Service (then the Bureau of 

Biological Survey) agreed to contribute $40,000 toward the construction of Fresno Reservoir, which 

was completed in 1939. The MOA is still in effect 

and specifies that, during years of normal runoff, 

Reclamation would provide up to 3,500 acre-feet of 

water to the refuge each calendar year for improvement and maintenance of the refuge. If runoff is 

below normal, the refuge is to receive that portion of 

the 3,500 acre-feet that natural conditions and Federal reclamation laws permit, because the primary 

purpose of the Milk River Project is for irrigation. 

Therefore, the primary source of water for the refuge under normal conditions is Milk River water 

delivered to the refuge via the Dodson South Canal.

In the past, the refuge has obtained water in excess of 3,500 acre-feet through deliveries using the 

Malta Irrigation District facilities; the Service pays 

a fee to the irrigation district for all delivered water. 

Recorded deliveries have averaged 4,877 acre-feet 

of water. Figure 36 shows the historical deliveries 

of water supplied to the refuge—with the greatest 

quantities coming from canal deliveries and rainfall. Still, the current water supply does not meet 

resource needs at Bowdoin Refuge; consequently, 

the Service entered negotiations with the State of 

Montana for a reserved water rights compact.

ater Delivered Acre-feet of W

Figure 36. Graph of water deliveries to Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1938–2008).

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

384042444648505254565860626466687072747678808284868890929496980002040608

191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919192020202020

Water Rights Compact

To address water supply issues at Bowdoin Refuge, the Service chose to negotiate a reserved water 

rights compact with the State of Montana. The following sections summarize the pertinent Montana 

water history and water rights issues, as they relate 

to the refuge, along with a description of the water 

rights compact for Bowdoin Refuge.

Acre - Feet

Historic Water Supply to Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge
180 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Montana Water History and Water Rights. The Montana Water Use Act of 1973 changed water rights 

administration in the State significantly. The act 

required that all water rights existing before July 

1, 1973, be finalized through a statewide adjudication process in State courts. Furthermore, the act 

provided for the following: (1) the establishment 

of a permit system for all new water rights; (2) an 

authorization system for changing water rights; (3) 

a centralized records system; and (4) a system to 

reserve water for future consumptive uses and to 

maintain minimum instream flows for water quality, 

fish, and wildlife.

In 1979, the Montana legislature passed a bill 

amending the adjudication procedures for water 

rights. Rather than adjudicating water rights one 

watershed (“basin” in State terminology) at a time, 

all water rights existing before July 1, 1973, would 

be adjudicated statewide in all 85 basins. The State 

established the Compact Commission (Montana 

Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission) for 

negotiating compacts with Federal agencies and Indian tribes to quantify their reserved water rights. 

Thereafter, these compacts are included in adjudications.

The Montana Supreme Court issued an order 

requiring everyone who believed they had existing 

water rights to file statements of claim with DNRC 

(Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation) by January 1, 1982. DNRC provides 

technical assistance to the Montana Water Court by 

examining each claim for completeness, accuracy, 

and reasonableness. These examinations frequently 

result in the development of “issue remarks” if there 

are problems identified with the claim. A claimant 

must deal with these issue remarks before the court 

will develop a decree for the basin. Following resolution of the issue remarks and development of a 

report by DNRC, the Montana Water Court will 

issue temporary preliminary decrees or preliminary 

decrees. An objective period follows issuance of the 

decrees, during which parties can request up to two 

90-day extensions. At the close of the objection period, anyone whose claims have objections must be 

notified, which triggers a 60-day counter-objection 

period. After all objections are resolved for a claim, 

the water judge issues a final decree. Subsequently, 

DNRC issues each water right holder a “certificate 

of water right” based on that decree.

The DNRC designated the Beaver Creek watershed as “basin 40M” and the Milk River watershed 

as “basin 40J.” The water rights for Bowdoin Refuge 

consist of two major components: (1) water rights 

for water supplied within the Beaver Creek watershed; and (2) water from the Milk River watershed.

Water Rights Compact. Since 1995, the Service and 

the Compact Commission have been in negotiations 

about the Service’s assertion of Federal reserved 

water rights in the Beaver Creek watershed for 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. The two parties reached a settlement in January 2007, and the 

Compact Commission’s attorney developed a draft 

compact with input from the Solicitor’s Office (Department of the Interior) and Service staff. This 

compact was presented to the Montana legislature 

twice and was passed in House bill 717, “Bill to 

Ratify Water Rights Compact between the State of 

Montana and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 

the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge.”

The compact recognizes water rights from two 

sources: surface flows from the Beaver Creek watershed and ground water from existing wells within 

the refuge boundary. In addition, the Service has 

the right to develop up to 5,300 acre-feet of deep 

ground water. In negotiating the compact, the Service agreed to subordinate all of the water rights 

on Beaver Creek to valid, existing junior uses. In 

other words, the Service will not attempt to assert 

seniority in placing a “call” on any junior user after 

the date that the compact is finalized. A “call” is a 

request by an appropriator for water that a user is 

entitled to under its decree; such a call would force 

users with junior decrees to cease or diminish their 

diversions and pass the requested amount of water 

to the downstream senior making the call.

The Beaver Creek watershed is closed to all, 

large, future development as a result of the water 

right compact negotiated with the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, which is in the same watershed as 

the refuge. Excluded from the closure are as follows: 

(1) exempt wells of 35 gpm (gallons per minute) that 

pump less than 10 acre-feet of water per year; and 

(2) stock ponds of 15 acre-feet or less that can fill and 

refill once each year. In return for agreeing to subordinate to existing valid junior uses, Bowdoin Refuge 

received a water right for 24,714 acre-feet per year 

from Beaver Creek and can continue to use 223 acrefeet of ground water from any source within the 

refuge boundary. The refuge can also develop 5,300 

acre-feet of deep ground water from geologic formations dating at least back to the Jurassic Period.

The water rights compact is conditioned on the 

Service executing an MOU (memorandum of understanding) with the State (DNRC) within 5 years of 

passage of the previously mentioned House bill 717 

that ensures the Service’s use of these water rights 

will not continue or increase the issues associated 

with salinity and blowing salts. If the Service and 

DNRC cannot agree on an MOU, the water rights 

compact will be nullified; the Service would have to 

litigate its water rights in the Montana Water Court. 

The preferred alternative of the final CCP will be 

the basis for negotiating the MOU with the State.
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 181

6.3 Salt and Water 

Management

Management of salts at Bowdoin Refuge is tied to 

water management. An understanding of the salt 

balance and the water supply at the refuge would 

guide management actions in the short term and 

over time for a functioning lake system that benefits 

plant and animal communities and does not negatively affect nearby landowners and water users.

Salt Management

The long-term target for salt management is to have 

enough water, at an acceptable quality, to reestablish a flow-through system from Lake Bowdoin into 

Beaver Creek. This flow-through system would allow salts to pass through the refuge rather than 

accumulating in Lake Bowdoin. With the current 

salt concentrations, a flow-through system is not 

possible due to the potential environmental impacts 

to primarily downstream water users along Beaver 

Creek. If the refuge was able to maintain acceptable 

salt concentrations in Lake Bowdoin as defined by 

State regulations, a flow-through system could be 

restored if a sufficient water supply was secured.

The short-term target is to use management actions to remove sufficient salts so the Service can 

release water to Beaver Creek without significantly 

increasing the salinity of the creek water or negatively affecting downstream users. This management would also prevent the salts in Lake Bowdoin 

from becoming extremely concentrated, which 

would negatively affect wetland habitat and wildlife. The salt concentration objective for this type of 

management removal would average around 7,000 

mg/L at a lake elevation of 2,209 feet (figure 37). 

However, the salt concentration of Lake Bowdoin 

would vary depending on water levels. With increased deliveries of water, it is estimated that at a 

lake elevation of 2,212 feet, salt concentration may 

decrease to approximately 5,000 mg/L. Conversely, 

if the water level were to drop to 2,207 feet, primarily as a result of drought, salt concentrations may 

again increase to over 25,000 mg/L.

The objective of maintaining a TDS concentration of 7,000 mg/L assumes the future input of 

water would match the historical delivery rates 

(1990–2007). The modeling effort to predict future 

salinity concentrations assumes that in some years 

there would be floods and in other years there would 

be droughts. In addition, modeling for the shortterm target assumed that additional water supplies 

would not be received. As a result of maintaining 

a TDS concentration of 7,000 mg/L, approximately 

80,000 tons of salt would remain on the refuge, primarily stored in the water in Lake Bowdoin.

The Service does not wish to completely remove 

all salts from refuge waters; in fact, these wetlands 

are naturally brackish. The 7,000 mg/L objective 

was selected based on the relatively high number of 

plant (both emergent and submergent) and invertebrate communities that can be supported (Gleason 

et al. 2009). These communities in turn support a 

wide range of migratory birds that visit the Bowdoin 

Refuge every year. However, the overriding target 

(long- and short-term) for any salt management program is to improve the water quality on the refuge 

over time so that releases of water to Beaver Creek 

or the Milk River would either: (1) not require an 

“authorization to degrade” permit from the State; or 

(2) if an “authorization to degrade” were required, 

the restrictions would be such that the approved 

release rate out of Bowdoin Refuge would provide a 

reliable method to maintain the salt balance.

The marbled godwit is a target shorebird for management 

at the refuge complex.

Greg Thomson / USFWS

Water Management

The desired long-term water management plan 

would be a flow-through system where the refuge 

receives a sufficient quantity of water that could 

eventually spill into Beaver Creek, carrying with 

it a quantity of salts equal to what has entered the 

refuge. By reestablishing a flow-through system, 

blowing salt events would be minimized and wildlife 

habitat would be improved.

To reach as quickly as possible the target salinity 

level needed for a flow-through system, there may 

need to be a reduced amount of water delivered to 

Lake Bowdoin. This would not only minimize the 
182 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

amount of salts entering the refuge but concentrate 

the salts that are already in the water, allowing 

them to be more easily removed. Additionally, where 

practical, the inflow of salts could be reduced at the 

source by lining portions of irrigation canals and 

managing saline seeps and irrigation return flows.

Obstacles to Implementing 

a Flow-Through System

The Service would need to address several obstacles 

in developing an effective flow-through system: the 

lack of needed water supply, the potential need for 

State permits, and the removal of structures.

Additional Water Supply. Modeling efforts by Service hydrologists (using models developed in large 

part by State hydrologists), show the amount of 

water currently delivered to the refuge under the 

MOA with Reclamation—up to 3,500 acre-feet under 

normal water years—is not sufficient to implement 

a flow-through system for Lake Bowdoin even if 

water quality issues were resolved.

To address this shortfall, the Service has filed for 

an additional 8,000 acre-feet of water, based on the 

maximum delivery from the Milk River on record of 

11,540 acre-feet. This historical use right is not part 

of the ongoing Federal water rights compact and 

will be litigated as part of the adjudication process 

for basin 40J (Milk River watershed). The Service 

understands this water right would likely be junior 

to most of the other water rights on the canal and 

would only be taken during periods when water is 

available.

Additional water would provide the following 

benefits to the refuge:

■ Provide flushing opportunities after water quality issues are addressed.

■ Help offset evaporation, which can exceed 3 feet 

per year.

■ Provide the opportunity to manage Dry Lake and 

Drumbo Pond as a flow-through system.

■ Allow all units to fill periodically (whereas many 

are dry now).

■ Allow additional management options including 

more flexibility in filling Piping Plover Pond, developed to provide nesting habitat for the threatened piping plover.

Permits. Before discharging water into Beaver 

Creek or the Milk River, the discharge of refuge waters into State waterways must first meet the DEQ’s 

water quality standards (DEQ–7). Currently, the 

Lake Bowdoin water does not meet these standards. 

The DEQ water quality standards program has two 

levels of protection: (1) protection of designated uses 

of water; and (2) prevention of significant degradation of high-quality waters.

Salinity standards have not been established 

for the Beaver Creek or the Milk River. The water 

discharged from Lake Bowdoin, when mixed with 

water from Beaver Creek or the Milk River, must 

not exceed the threshold determined by DEQ. As an 

example, in other rivers, a TDS concentration range 

from 960–1,600 mg/L during the irrigation season 

has been established (Bauder et al. 2007). To prevent 

impairment of aquatic life in Beaver Creek or the 

Milk River, the TDS concentration would have to be 

maintained below a threshold of 1,000 mg/L.

In addition to the salinity, elevated levels of sulfates, arsenic, and uranium are obstacles to releasing 

water. For example, to safely release water into 

Beaver Creek or the Milk River without harming 

aquatic life, a low calculated release rate (estimate 

of 200:1) from Lake Bowdoin would be permitted to 

avoid causing harm from sulfates. Therefore, if 200 

cfs (cubic feet per second) were the rate of flow of 

the receiving water, only 1 cfs would be permitted 

from Lake Bowdoin. This mixing ratio could decrease under scenarios where sulfates are reduced.

The pollutants arsenic and uranium are both carcinogens, as defined in DEQ–7. Any release from 

Lake Bowdoin where the concentrations of either 

arsenic or uranium were greater than the receiving 

water concentration would require an “authorization 

to degrade” permit from the State. It is probable, 

with the addition of ground water inputs and the history of evapoconcentration, that an “authorization to 

degrade” permit would be necessary for any surface 

water release from Lake Bowdoin.

Current Structures and Dikes. To obtain the most 

effective flow-through system, the Service ideally 

would need to remove the stoplogs (logs or beams 

that prevent water flow) in the water control structures to allow water to flow between Lake Bowdoin 

and Beaver Creek during flood events. However, 

removing stoplogs would only be possible if salinity 

issues were resolved sufficiently or extreme flooding conditions were such that releases from Lake 

Bowdoin and Dry Lake were necessary to protect 

infrastructure. These flood water releases would 

be be conducted safely in coordination with downstream irrigators and in accordance with State guidance from DEQ. The quality of the discharged water 

would be monitored. Until that time, the refuge staff 

would maintain the stoplogs, dikes, and spillways 

primarily to prevent accidental releases. In addition, 

the refuge would manage water levels to reduce the 

chance of a breach in the dike.
CHAPTER 6–Analysis of Salinity 183

Figure 37. Map of the extent of Lake Bowdoin at various water elevations.

CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 185

Salt and Water Objectives

The objectives for the salt and water management 

program follow:

■ Achieve and maintain an average salt concentration of 7,000 mg/L at a lake elevation of 2,209 feet 

in Lake Bowdoin.

■ Limit blowing salts.

■ Obtain an additional 8,000 acre-feet of canal deliveries to allow for a flow-through system, while 

meeting all DEQ standards.

■ Use the additional 8,000 acre-feet of canal deliveries for more management options.

6.4 Planning Process

When the Service started the preparation of a CCP 

in October 2006, the first step in the process was 

pre-planning. A planning team was established, internal issues and qualities of the area were identified, public involvement was planned including 

development of a mailing list, and available refuge 

data and relevant research were compiled. Public 

involvement was initiated on May 15, 2007, when the 

notice of intent to prepare the CCP was published 

in the Federal Register. More than 170 individuals 

and organizations were provided information on the 

planning process and invited to participate in a public meeting held in Malta, Montana, on May 22, 2007.

During pre-planning, it became very evident that 

the most pressing issue for the CCP and environmental analysis process would be the salinity and 

blowing salts on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. 

The biological implications were evident. Furthermore, this was an environmental issue for the State 

and neighboring landowners, primarily because of 

past experiences and the future potential for blowing salts or a spill due to a flood, which could cause 

structure failure.

Refer to table 1 in chapter 1 for the detailed 

steps and timeline in the planning process for this 

CCP and environmental analysis. A summary follows of the process for developing alternatives, involving the public, and completing the CCP.

Development of Alternatives

On May 22, 2007, the Service formed a salinity team 

comprising hydrologists, biologists, toxicologists, 

and researchers from State and Federal agencies. 

This team discussed options for effectively managing the refuge’s wetland resources while addressing 

the salinity issue. A smaller salinity group had staff 

from the refuge, the Compact Commission, DEQ, 

DNRC, U.S. Geological Survey, and Region 6’s Division of Water Resources and Division of Refuge 

Planning. This group was tasked with developing 

alternatives to address the salinity situation.

The salinity group evaluated data and existing 

models. The group initially modeled and analyzed 

nine scenarios, including combinations of other scenarios, to determine their effectiveness in reducing 

salinity, improving water quality, and reducing blowing salts while still providing habitat for migratory 

birds. The group had five additional meetings while 

developing these models.

In addition to this effort, researchers from the 

U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center completed a separate analysis on 

the salinity ranges of water and soil for common 

plants and invertebrates found on Bowdoin Refuge. 

U.S. Geological Survey conducted a search of the 

literature on occurrences of plants and invertebrates 

in relation to salinity and pH of the water and soil. 

The resulting literature review was used to compile 

the latest information, develop databases, and write 

a report with the following:

■ A general overview of salinity concepts

■ Published tolerances and adaptations of plants, 

invertebrates, and animals to salinity

■ Databases that the Service could use to summarize the range of reported salinity values associated with plants and invertebrates

■ Database summaries of reported salinity ranges 

associated with plants and invertebrates at Bowdoin Refuge.

The resulting report was titled, “Literature Review 

and Database of Relations between Salinity and 

Aquatic Biota—Applications to Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge, Montana” (Gleason et al. 2009).

Salinity Alternatives

On April 22, 2008, 17 individuals (biologists, hydrologists, managers, toxicologists, researchers, 

engineers, and planners), many from the original 

salinity team, assembled from five State and Federal 

agencies. The salinity group presented their findings 

and proposed alternatives. Two proposals early in 

the process were determined to be either ineffective or cost prohibitive; these are described below. 
186 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

After meeting for 2 days, the team determined that 

four of the alternatives would be most effective and 

warranted further analysis, particularly of the cost, 

effectiveness, and environmental consequences.

The Service acquired the money to complete further analysis and entered into a contract with an 

engineering firm in Denver, Colorado—URS Group, 

Inc. The contract began in July 2008. URS provided 

information for three of the four alternatives that 

the Service decided to analyze:

■ Evaporation ponds and removal of saline residue

■ Flushing by Beaver Creek

■ Underground injection of saline solution

Concurrently, the refuge staff and a team of biologists and hydrologists from the Service and the 

State conducted a separate analysis for the fourth 

alternative. This effort analyzed the cost, effectiveness, and consequences of pumping saline water to 

the Milk River through a pipeline.

Analysis of the four alternatives took more than 

a year to complete. Section 6.5 details the resulting 

evaluations of these four “action” alternatives along 

with an evaluation of the current situation, or “noaction” alternative.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

Two options that the Service did not find viable for 

addressing the salinity and blowing salts situation 

were eliminated from further analysis as described 

below.

Desalinization. The Service considered desalinization—for example, with reverse osmosis—but eliminated this option due not only to the costs (capital, 

operating, and maintenance costs) but also due to 

a lack of available disposal locations for the wastewater generated from this process. Desalinization 

would not remove salts from the site, because the 

salt would remain in the concentrated waste outflow. 

Subsequently, this waste outflow would need removal—placed on railcars, injected into the ground, 

or discharged into the Milk River.

Pumping Water into Dry Lake. Pumping saline water into Dry Lake and allowing the lake to serve as 

an evaporative basin to blow away salt residues was 

determined an unacceptable alternative and was 

dismissed from further consideration.

Public Involvement

Before completing the draft CCP and EA, the Service invited the public to a meeting on October 22, 

2009, in Malta, Montana, for a review of the salinity 

alternatives and an opportunity to offer comment. 

A planning update was sent to each individual and 

group on the mailing list, and local media was contacted. More than 30 people attended this meeting 

including local landowners, media, private organizations, and other State and Federal agencies. Members of the salinity group presented the merits and 

challenges of each alternative and recorded the comments of meeting participants. Afterward, the CCP 

planning team evaluated the salinity comments from 

the public. The team incorporated the substantive 

comments into this final analysis and recommendation for a proposed action for the salinity and blowing salts on Bowdoin Refuge.

Plan Completion

Following public review of this draft CCP and EA, 

the planning team will give a briefing to the Regional Director (Region 6 of the Service) about the 

alternatives for the CCP for the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. This will include the salinity alternatives and proposed action (salinity alternative 4) described in this chapter. The Regional 

Director will make the decision on whether to accept 

this proposed action as the preferred alternative 

for salinity and blowing salts or to request further 

analysis or modifications.

Once approved, the preferred alternative for salinity and blowing salts, along with the preferred 

alternative for all the other management aspects 

of the refuge complex (refer to chapters 3 and 7), 

will become the final plan. The Service will 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.

Three-square bulrush grows on the salt-covered shoreline 

along the southwestern edge of Lake Bowdoin.

Mike Artmann / USFWS
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 187

6.5 Salinity Alternatives 

Analysis

This section describes the five salinity alternatives 

and the results of the analysis for each one.

■ Salinity alternative 1—current management (no 

action)

■ Salinity alternative 2—evaporation ponds and 

removal of saline residue

■ Salinity alternative 3—flushing by Beaver Creek

■ Salinity alternative 4—underground injection 

well and flushing by Beaver Creek (proposed 

action)

■ Salinity alternative 5—pumping to the Milk 

River

There are several elements common to all alternatives. Following, a description of each alternative 

details the actions and expected consequences of 

carrying out those actions. At the end of this section, 

table 11 summarizes the actions and consequences.

Elements Common to All 

Alternatives

The elements described below apply to the five salinity alternatives, including the no-action alternative.

Salt and Water Inputs

For all modeling scenarios, it was assumed that historical conditions would continue into the future. 

Water inputs, water quality data, and climate data 

were taken for the period from 1990 through 2007, 

because data for this period is relatively complete.

In addition, modeling scenarios used the assumption that water would be supplied to each wetland 

unit similarly to previous management and water 

could flow between all units. From 1990 through 

2007, approximately 80 percent of canal water was 

supplied to Lake Bowdoin, 17 percent to Lakeside, 

and 3 percent to Drumbo Pond.

Water Rights Compact

The Service would use the preferred salinity alternative, as selected by the Regional Director (Region 

6), as the basis for negotiating the MOU with the 

State related to the water rights compact.

Sources of Salts

Regardless of which alternative the Regional Director selects, the Service would evaluate and take 

measures to reduce the delivery of salt to the refuge. 

Furthermore, the Service would encourage surrounding landowners to use the methods for reducing the size and contributions of salt from saline 

seeps near the refuge, as suggested by the Montana 

Salinity Control Association (Jane Holzer, agronomist, Montana Salinity Control Association, personal 

communication, October 2009):

■ Establish a 5- to 10-year rotation from crops to 

perennial forage for haying and grazing in the recharge area. Most commonly use the deep-rooted 

crop, alfalfa, but also use other legumes and 

grasses, reducing the amount of water percolating through the root zone.

■ Plant perennial vegetation in the recharge area 

through the Conservation Reserve Program to 

mimic the water use by alfalfa hay.

■ Switch from the crop-fallow system to a flexible 

but more intensive annual cropping system. Follow the forage rotation, which can include cereal 

grain, with the flex-crop system.

■ Line irrigation canals that leak water into the 

ground water.

■ Encourage irrigation practices that use water 

more efficiently to minimize water table rise.

Baseline for Socioeconomic Analysis

The proposed salinity alternatives would have 

various effects on visitation to Bowdoin Refuge 

Complex for hunting and wildlife observation. Currently, there are 25,000 annual visitors to the refuge. 

Ninety percent, or 22,500 visitors, do not live close 

to the refuge and contribute a direct economic impact of $415,750 for visitation throughout the refuge 

complex.

Only nonresident visitor spending can be considered when calculating the socioeconomic impact 

of refuges on the local economy in the four-county 

region in north-central Montana. The money spent 

by local residents on visitation to the Bowdoin Refuge Complex would likely be spent on other local 

recreational activities if the refuge complex did not 

exist, so it cannot be considered a new expenditure 

in the local economy. Socioeconomic analyses of 
188 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

visitor spending are compared for each alternative 

against this baseline data. The analysis assumes that 

nonresident hunters spend an average of $55 per 

day and wildlife observers spend an average of $18 

per day. The economic impacts of salinity reduction 

are one-time construction spending, ongoing direct 

operational spending, and visitation-related effects.

Salinity Alternative 1–Current 

Management (No Action)

Salinity alternative 1 is the no-action alternative, 

meaning current management would continue. Under current management, water deliveries would 

remain near 3,500 acre-feet and no water would be 

released from Lake Bowdoin. There would not be 

any active removal of salts from Lake Bowdoin except by wind or during a flood event. Salts would 

continue to accumulate and the salinity situation 

would become increasingly difficult to manage.

The following describes the alternative’s specific 

actions and expected environmental consequences if 

implemented.

Figure 38. Graph of tons of salt in Lake Bowdoin with salinity alternative 1, no action.

280

260

240

220

200

180

ons of Salt 160

140

1,000 T

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028

Actions

These actions reflect the current management for 

addressing salinity and blowing salts.

Tons of Salt Removed. No salt would be removed 

unless there was a major flood event or the salts 

dried up and blew away when the level of Lake Bowdoin was dropped. The total weight of salt would 

increase to more than 250,000 tons in less than 20 

years (figure 38).

Salinity Concentration. Lake Bowdoin would continue to receive about 7,000 tons of salt per year, 

causing salinity levels to increase steadily. The increase in salt and lack of outflow would cause salinity to reach extremely high levels during dry 

years—more than 30,000–40,000 mg/L. With elimination of the practice of allowing salt residue to concentrate in Dry Lake and be carried away by wind, 

the concentration of salts in Lake Bowdoin would 

reach even higher levels than what has been documented in the past.

Time to Achieve Salinity Objective. The objective 

of sustaining a brackish water quality level (7,000 

mg/L) would never be reached without an accidental 

spill or major flood event. If one of these two events 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

220,000

240,000

260,000

280,000
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 189

occurred, the salinity objective would likely be met 

for a short period; however, the salinity level would 

not be sustained as salts continued to accumulate.

Elevation of Lake Bowdoin. There would be no 

management of the size of Lake Bowdoin. The lake’s 

elevation would likely fluctuate between 2,208 feet 

and 2,211 feet throughout the year if water deliveries remained near 3,500 acre-feet. If the historical 

average of 4,900 acre-feet of canal water were delivered, Lake Bowdoin would fluctuate between 2,210 

feet and 2,213 feet in elevation. Elevation of the lake 

would continue to depend on inflow and evaporation. 

Except under coordinated efforts with downstream 

users during floods, water would not be released 

even during wet years due to the high salinity and 

the threat of impacting downstream landowners, 

wildlife, vegetation, and invertebrates.

Amount of Water Removed. There would be no active removal of saline water from Lake Bowdoin 

under the current management.

Modifications and Facilities. There would be no 

changes or modifications to the current water management infrastructure. All water-level management structures would be maintained and stoplogs 

would remain in place to prevent accidental releases 

of water.

Capital Cost. There would be no capital cost associated with the current management practices. 

There could be indirect costs for tort claims related 

to an accidental spill of waters down Beaver Creek.

Monitoring and Research. The Service would continue to monitor water delivery, water quality, lake 

elevation level, wildlife disease outbreaks, migratory 

bird use, and sites for colonial-nesting birds.

Environmental and Socioeconomic 

Consequences

The actions of salinity alternative 1 would likely 

have the consequences described below.

Plant Diversity. Under the no-action alternative, 

plant species diversity in Lake Bowdoin would likely 

continue to decline as salinity concentrations increased to the upper ranges of the subsaline class 

(20,000–25,000 mg/L), with only a few of the most 

salt-tolerant species thriving (Gleason et al. 2009). 

Expansion of plant species requiring fresher sources 

of water for establishment, such as cattail and hardstem bulrush, would not occur. If the lake were kept 

at full-pool level, expansion of any emergent vegetation would likely not occur. Conversely, if the lake 

were kept lower for several years at a time, some 

expansion and colonization would be expected to occur. Submerged aquatic vegetation, which provides 

important food for waterfowl and habitat structure 

for invertebrates, would likely continue to decline. 

Plants such as sago pondweed and widgeongrass 

are important for migrating waterfowl and other 

waterbirds.

The strong west-to-east salinity gradient in Lake 

Bowdoin would remain. Wetland vegetation along 

the eastern and southeastern shorelines, where salinity concentrations are the highest, would remain 

dominated by salt-tolerant species such as alkaline 

bulrush, common three-square, and pickleweed, with 

little expansion into the lake over time. Emergent 

vegetation on the west side of the lake would likely 

remain dominated by cattail and hardstem bulrush.

Flow-through wetlands such as Patrol Road 

Pond, Black Coulee Pond, and Lakeside would remain in the slightly to moderately brackish wetland 

classes (less than 3,000 mg/L) as salts were passed 

into Lake Bowdoin and Dry Lake.

With the fresher water it receives, Black Coulee Pond 

supports a greater amount of cattail than in more saline 

wetlands.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Invertebrates. Like plants, invertebrate diversity in Lake Bowdoin would decline with increased 

salinity. Fresh wetland systems contain diverse invertebrate communities, whereas wetland systems 

exceeding a brackish state (greater than 9,600 mg/L) 

tend to be dominated by relatively few groups of 

invertebrates (Gleason et al. 2009). Given the variable inflows of fresh water to Lake Bowdoin, such as 

the irrigation return flows in Black Coulee and the 

delivered water via the Dodson South Canal, there 

would likely be areas within the lake where a higher 

diversity of species still occurs. However, as the lake 

moved to a consistently salty state, these areas of 

invertebrate diversity would decline. Although diversity of invertebrates would likely decline, the total productivity of the lake may remain high because 

salt-tolerant species, which can be prolific, dominate.

Waterfowl and Other Waterbirds. Waterfowl use 

and productivity would likely further decline from 
190 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

already low levels, as salt accumulations in Lake 

Bowdoin continued to increase. The salinity concentration for the lake in September 2009 averaged 

more than 10,500 mg/L. This concentration exceeds 

the level that affects the growth rates and survival 

of waterfowl broods, especially for ducklings less 

than 6 days old. At salinity concentrations higher 

than 15,000 mg/L, duckling mortality can exceed 90 

percent (Mitcham and Wobeser 1988, Moorman et al. 

1991). Furthermore, duckling growth rates are reduced when salinity concentrations are higher than 

3,000 mg/L (Mitcham and Wobeser 1988).

At current salinity concentrations and with no 

available fresh water, Lake Bowdoin would be a 

“sink” to waterfowl populations—birds would be attracted to the lake for nesting, but conditions would 

not be conducive for young ducklings to survive. 

Fortunately, fresher sources of water are located 

within the lake near input channels and seeps and 

in nearby freshwater wetlands such as Patrol Road 

Pond, Drumbo Pond, Teal Ponds, Farm Ponds, 

Goose Island Pond, and the Lakeside units. These 

fresh sources would continue to be available even as 

the overall average salinity continued to rise in the 

lake.

Lake Bowdoin has a history of avian botulism 

outbreaks. Bird losses, mostly ducks, have averaged 

about 1,500 per year since 1979. Research has shown 

that, in general, the risk of botulism outbreaks declines when salinity concentrations increase (higher 

than 6,000 mg/L) (figure 39) and pH readings in the 

water exceed 8.5 (Rocke and Friend 1999, Rocke 

and Samuel 1999). Recent refuge data suggests this 

pattern may hold at Lake Bowdoin. Losses since 

2003 averaged 190 birds while average salinity was 

higher than 10,000 mg/L. As salinity concentrations 

continued to rise, the risk of large outbreaks would 

likely remain low.

If Lake Bowdoin were kept at an elevation of 

2,211 feet, an estimated 125 acres within the lake 

would be less than 3 inches deep; however, most of 

this is located in densely vegetated areas. Shorebird use would only increase during drought periods 

when the lake level lowered and expansive mudflats 

were available. This would be especially true if a 

drawdown occurred during the migration period 

(Fredrickson and Reid 1988b).

Colonial-nesting birds, such as American white 

pelicans, would likely not be greatly affected by 

steadily increasing salinity concentrations. Lake 

levels would likely remain consistent as in the past, 

and all nesting islands would remain surrounded by 

water.

Downstream Users. There potentially could be 

hazards to downstream water users if no action 

were taken. Increasing salinity would raise the potential severity if an accidental spill were to occur. 

However, this threat could be lessened substantially by keeping the lake at a lower operating level. 

But by operating the lake at a lower level with no 

mechanism to remove salts, the concentration would 

increase further. Furthermore, if salinity concentration reached critical levels, refuge managers may be 

forced to reconsider using the past practice of moving water from Lake Bowdoin to Dry Lake, which 

would allow the saline water to evaporate over the 

summer and be blown away by high winds.

Public Use. There would be no discharge of water, 

so the water level in most years, given historical 

deliveries of water, would provide access to existing 

boat ramps and the accessible pier on Lake Bowdoin. Since water quality would continue to decline, 

the production and diversity of food sources for wildlife would decline and, over time, there would be less 

wildlife for the enjoyment of the public.

Socioeconomics. Declining health of wetland 

habitats and a reduction in bird use of Bowdoin 

Refuge would decrease the opportunity for wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities including 

birdwatching and hunting visits. Visitation to the 

refuge is expected to decline by 4,850 visitors, decreasing the total to 12,650 (including hunters and 

wildlife observers). Based solely on nonresident visitation (11,380), the direct economic impacts would be 

$310,700 annually, a decrease of $105,050 from the 

baseline.

Cumulative Impacts. As salinity would continue 

to increase and likely reach critical levels, plant and 

invertebrate diversity and habitat quality would 

decline. This would be particularly true in dry years 

when lake levels dropped, salts were further concentrated, and there were no means other than by wind 

to remove the salt. Over time, this would result in 

reduced food resources and habitats for migratory 

birds and other wetland-dependent wildlife.

As the total amount of salt in the lake increased, 

the amount of salt available for removal by wind 

would also increase. If drought conditions were more 

frequent in the future or if the refuge was unable 

to acquire sufficient water from the Malta Irrigation District, lower lake levels would become more 

frequent. Increasing the potential opportunity for 

windblown salt could negatively affect public use 

opportunities if salt clouds were significant enough 

to reduce viewing or hunting opportunities. In addition, neighbors to the refuge and the local community would not view large salt clouds favorably, thus 

further stressing relationships between the refuge 

staff and community members. Failure to act on the 

salinity issues facing Lake Bowdoin would make it 

more difficult to establish long-term partnerships 

with State and local interests that have invested 

much time and effort in this planning process.
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 191

Figure 39. Graphs of the relationship of pH and salinity to avian 

botulism outbreaks (Rocke and Friend 1999).

If blowing salts contain high levels of particulate 

matter and exposure is sustained, human health can 

be affected. The EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) has established standards for 24-hour 

time periods and annual averaging timeframes (EPA 

1997). Respiratory diseases such as asthma and 

chronic bronchitis can be aggravated by breathing 

air high in particulate matter. Bauder and others 

(2007) estimated that climatic conditions such as 

wind speed and precipitation near the refuge are 

conducive for windblown events to occur between 

two and eight times each year. While much of the 

windblown salt would likely settle back in the lake 

or within the refuge boundary, some may travel as 

far as 10–20 miles (Bauder et al. 2007). However, 

the configuration of Lake Bowdoin and Dry Lake 

differ considerably: Dry Lake is long and narrow 

and subjected to prevailing winds; Lake Bowdoin 

is relatively circular and somewhat protected by 

topographic features. Given the differences in topography, it is unlikely that the magnitude of salt blowing from Lake Bowdoin would equal 

past episodes of salt blowing from Dry 

Lake.

Salinity Alternative 2– 

Evaporation Ponds and 

Removal of Saline 

Residue

Salts would be removed from Lake 

Bowdoin during the winter by pumping highly concentrated saline water 

via underground pipelines to evaporation ponds located in Dry Lake. These 

evaporation ponds would cover approximately 300 acres. The water in 

these ponds would evaporate during 

the summer to the consistency of a concentrated sludge material. The material would then be moved to a drying 

building located near the railroad line. 

After further drying, the sludge material would be loaded onto railcars and 

properly disposed of in an approved 

landfill site.

The following describes the alternative’s specific actions and expected 

environmental consequences if implemented.

Actions

These actions reflect the theme of this 

alternative for addressing salinity.

Tons of Salt Removed. Modeling showed that a water withdrawal rate of 800 acre-feet per year would 

be required to reach the salinity objective of 7,000 

mg/L concentration, removing about 7,000 tons of 

salt per year. About 80,000 tons of salt would remain 

in the system. Figure 40 shows the initial decrease 

in salts, which eventually would level off at approximately 80,000 tons.

Salinity Concentration. Modeling by the Service 

calculated that a removal rate of 800 acre-feet—assuming historical water inputs—would be needed to 

reach the salinity objective of 7,000 mg/L.

Time to Achieve Salinity Objective. With a water 

withdrawal rate of 800 acre-feet and acceptance of 

all sources of water and salt to match historical management, the time to achieve the salinity objective 

of 7,000 mg/L would be 10–20 years. The exact time 

period would be dependent upon the quantity of 

salts received over this time.
192 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Elevation of Lake Bowdoin. The amount of lake 

water withdrawn and pumped to the evaporation 

ponds would have only a small effect on the lake’s 

water level. Maintaining a lower lake elevation 

would concentrate the salts, allowing for more effective removal, and decreasing the time required to 

reach the salinity objective.

Amount of Water Removed. An average withdrawal of 800 acre-feet of water each winter would 

be required to maintain the salt balance, assuming 

all water and salt inputs remained consistent with 

past inputs.

Modifications and Facilities. The Service would 

develop 300 acres in evaporation ponds to concentrate salts for removal. A pump station, power 

source, and 5 miles of pipeline would be needed to 

pump water to the evaporation ponds. The concentrated salt sludge would be stored in a newly constructed salt storage building. After a drying period, 

the sludge would be loaded onto railcars and disposed of at a landfill or sent to a salt mill. This would 

require construction of a new railroad spur, which 

would be located near the old town site of Bowdoin 

and connected with the existing rail line. Heavy 

equipment and personnel would be acquired to load 

salts for transport.

Capital Cost. An initial cost estimate for the evaporation ponds design was $44 million, with an annual 

operating cost of $2 million. However, the Service 

has determined that more water needs removal to 

reach the salinity objective. Therefore, the capital 

and operating costs are expected to be higher than 

the initial estimate.

Monitoring and Research. Monitoring and research 

activities would be the same as described in salinity 

alternative 1, plus additional monitoring wells would 

be drilled in the Black Coulee drainage to monitor 

water quality and quantity coming into Bowdoin 

Refuge. Baseline information would be collected on 

current species of wetland vegetation, waterbirds, 

and invertebrates before construction activities and 

the changes would be monitored.

180

160

140

120

ons of Salt100

80

1,000 T 60

40

20

0

201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028

Figure 40. Graph of tons of salt in Lake Bowdoin with salinity alternative 2.

Environmental and Socioeconomic 

Consequences

The actions of salinity alternative 2 would likely 

have the consequences described below.

Plant Diversity. Over time, plant diversity and 

expansion of plant populations would increase as a 

result of a lower salt concentration in Lake Bowdoin 

and extended lower water levels. Emergent wetland 

plants such as cattail and hardstem bulrush on the 

west end of the lake would likely expand into the 

lake as lower water levels were consistently held 

due to winter removal of water. This expansion of 

plants in the west arm of the lake would be facilitated by the continued flow of relatively fresh irrigation return water from the Black Coulee drainage.

Reduced salinity on the western side of the 

lake would support reestablishment of submerged 

aquatic vegetation such as sago pondweed and wid-
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 193

geongrass. On the east side of the lake, however, 

extended periods of higher salt concentrations during the active salt removal process could lead to 

further reductions of these species. The footprint of 

the salt evaporation ponds would likely remain bare 

soil or sparsely vegetated due to high salt concentrations throughout much of the year. Heavy machinery 

work to clear the salt sludge would hinder plant 

establishment.

Increased disturbance to the soil from construction of the underground pipeline and the evaporation 

ponds in Dry Lake would increase the likelihood of 

infestations of invasive plant species such as Canada 

thistle.

Invertebrates. During the period of salt removal 

and lower water levels, elevated salinity concentrations throughout much of Lake Bowdoin would 

be expected and would cause some reduction in invertebrate diversity, especially on the eastern side. 

Salt-tolerant invertebrates such as the water boatman would become more abundant. A decrease in 

diversity would not necessarily equate to a decrease 

in the productivity and availability of resources for 

migratory birds. However, fewer species of migratory birds may be able to fully use these resources, 

depending on where they occurred in the lake. Even 

with a lower water level, there would remain areas 

of high invertebrate diversity especially near significant inputs of fresh water such as from the Black 

Coulee drainage and the Dodson South Canal. These 

areas would likely have a higher diversity of invertebrates and would serve as a source of invertebrate 

recolonization when salinity concentrations declined.

Waterfowl and Other Waterbirds. Waterfowl use 

would increase over time due to fresher conditions 

in Lake Bowdoin and the increased abundance of 

preferred invertebrates and plant resources. The 

Piping plovers, which have nested near Piping Plover 

Pond, could be negatively affected by the operation of 

heavy equipment at the nearby evaporation ponds. 

ilson / USFWS Mark W

shallower lake areas would provide optimal feeding opportunities to many species of waterfowl and 

shorebirds. The area of the evaporative ponds would 

be potentially available to migrating waterfowl during the spring and summer unless methods were 

used to exclude them (nets or disturbance guns). 

Bird use of these evaporative ponds would be closely 

monitored to determine if exclusion techniques were 

needed to prevent mortality.

Concerns over direct mortality of waterfowl 

broods would be lessened with lower salinity concentrations. However, at the target objective for 

salinity of 7,000 mg/L, ducklings would have reduced 

growth rates if access to fresher water were not 

available. Extremely high salt concentrations in 

evaporation ponds might result in bird mortality if 

birds were unable to locate fresh sources of water, 

especially during fall migration (Windingstad et al. 

1987).

Although not their preferred habitat, shorebirds 

and other waterbirds might use the evaporation 

ponds if they provided shallow-water habitat or 

mudflats and invertebrates during migration. Disturbance from removal of the salt sludge could be 

significant to birds using adjacent wetlands and upland; however, much of this disturbance would occur 

in late summer or fall after the nesting seasons. At 

the lower lake elevation of 2,208 feet, an estimated 

240 acres of open water less than 5 inches deep 

would provide increased feeding opportunities for 

shorebirds. If lower water levels corresponded with 

spring or fall migration periods, increased use of the 

lake by shorebirds would be likely.

Colonial-nesting birds that traditionally use 

Woody Island, such as American white pelicans, 

cormorants, great blue herons, and Franklin’s gulls, 

would be subject to a higher risk of predation if the 

lake were consistently held at a lower elevation. At 

2,208 feet, Woody Island would cease to be an island, 

because its closeness to the mainland would allow 

easier access to mammalian predators. Some predation by coyotes presently occurs.

Downstream Users. Potentially, the hazards for 

downstream water users would be great if an accidental or flood-induced spill were to occur, given 

the highly concentrated sludge material that would 

be within the evaporation ponds. Because of the 

intended location of the evaporation ponds within 

Dry Lake, a large flood could pose a threat to the 

integrity of the ponds.

Public Use. There would be an increase in infrastructure on Bowdoin Refuge: pump station, power 

source (any power lines would be buried), evaporation ponds, underground pipeline, salt storage building, and rail spur. Operation of this system would 

lead to increased disturbance to not only wildlife but 

also to refuge visitors. To ensure visitor safety, part 
194 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

of the refuge surrounding the evaporation ponds 

and pump would need closure during times of operation and salt removal. The increased noise and area 

closure could lead to a decrease in visitor satisfaction 

and might cause a decrease in public use.

Lower water levels would be anticipated as water is transported from Lake Bowdoin to Dry Lake, 

with the focus on a smaller lake size during active 

salt removal. The exposed mudflats and improved 

habitats would attract shorebirds and waterfowl, 

which would increase wildlife-viewing opportunities 

from the auto tour route.

With lower water levels, the area surrounding 

the western boat launch and accessible pier on Lake 

Bowdoin would be dry. Hunters could still use the 

north boat ramp, but the water would be shallow 

and may require hunters to push their boats further 

to access the lake. Larger, v-hull boats and motors 

would not be usable much of the time. The acreage 

accessible by waterfowl hunters on Lake Bowdoin 

would decline, and crowding might become an issue on other wetland units within the hunting area. 

Hunter satisfaction may decline.

In the long term, reduction in salinity concentrations and improvements to habitat on Lake 

Bowdoin, including increased plant diversity, would 

increase waterfowl numbers and diversity. These 

conditions would increase the opportunities for quality wildlife observation and waterfowl hunting.

Socioeconomics. Design and construction work 

necessary to build the infrastructure would provide 

an economic boost to the local community of Malta 

and to Phillips County. To construct the evaporation 

ponds and associated infrastructure, the capital cost 

could exceed $44 million, with an annual operating 

cost of $2 million. Money spent on lodging, food, and 

other necessities would increase dramatically during this phase. The annual budget provided to the 

refuge would be expanded for successful implementation. Hiring additional staff to help manage operations of the evaporation ponds would add permanent 

resources to the community as well.

Wildlife habitats would have increased wetland 

vegetation, invertebrates, and wetland-dependent 

migratory birds. Pumping water out of Lake Bowdoin would likely result in consistently lower water 

levels; however, the increased number and diversity 

of waterfowl would offset the effects on waterfowl 

hunters. Visitation to Bowdoin Refuge is expected 

have a net increase of 2,000 visitors, increasing 

the total to 19,500 (including hunters and wildlife 

observers). Based solely on nonresident visitation 

(17,580), the direct economic impacts would be 

$448,600 annually, an increase of $32,850 from the 

baseline.

Cumulative Impacts. As salinity concentrations 

decreased over time, plant diversity and wildlife use 

would increase. As the lake water level was lowered, 

up to two colonial-nesting islands would become peninsulas, which might lead to increased nest abandonment and increased risk of predation. There would 

be more disturbances to waterbirds due to the salt 

removal process.

The area and buffer designated for the evaporation ponds would be permanently affected by the 

salt removal operation and would become degraded 

habitat. Because the evaporation ponds would be 

located in Dry Lake, there would be a real threat of 

floods damaging the ponds. Given that floodwaters 

enter the refuge from the east through Dry Lake, 

the evaporation ponds could be affected and possibly 

breached even by small floods. This could result in 

an unacceptable discharge of saline waters down 

Beaver Creek.

The new railroad spur would increase fragmentation of existing habitats. Beyond the direct impact of 

the trains and noise, the new railroad spur would be 

an additional avenue for the spread of invasive plant 

species.

Salinity Alternative 3–Flushing 

by Beaver Creek

Flooding historically played a major role in removing salts from the lake system and maintaining the 

salt balance. Many factors have changed, however, 

which has altered the flood frequency of Beaver 

Creek. This alternative evaluated the effectiveness 

of flooding as the primary means to remove salts 

from Bowdoin Refuge. Six management options 

were evaluated for the effectiveness of flooding on 

removal of salts for modeled flood-return frequencies of 10, 25, 50, and 100 years:

■ Option 1—Manage Lake Bowdoin similar to management in the 1990s with the outlet structures 

set at an elevation of 2,211.93 feet.

■ Option 2—Manage Lake Bowdoin with the outlet 

structures completely blocked.

■ Option 3—Manage Lake Bowdoin with the outlet 

structures completely open.

■ Option 4—Remove all dikes, water control structures, and spillways that connect Lake Bowdoin 

to the outside ponding area.

■ Option 5—Lower Bowdoin Road (county road).

■ Option 6—Divert flood flows to Drumbo Pond, 

and then into Lake Bowdoin.
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 195

The following describes the alternative’s specific 

actions and expected environmental consequences if 

implemented.

Actions

These actions reflect the theme of this alternative 

for addressing salinity and blowing salts.

Tons of Salt Removed. Of the six options modeled, 

the most effective method of salt removal would be 

option 4—removing all dikes, water control structures, and spillways. It is estimated that 3,300 tons 

of salt would be flushed in a 10-year flood and 43,000 

tons would be flushed in a 100-year flood.

The other option with significant salt-flushing 

capabilities would be option 3—managing Lake 

Bowdoin with the outlet structures completely open. 

With this option, no salt would be flushed in a 10-

year flood; however, 22,200 tons of salt would be 

flushed in a 100-year flood.

The only other action where any salt flushing 

would occur is option 6—diverting water through 

Drumbo Pond. This would result in 28,000 tons of 

salt flushed in a 100-year flood, the minimal flood 

event where any substantial salt flushing could occur.

Salinity Concentration. For all options, there 

would be a temporary reduction in salinity due to 

water entering Lake Bowdoin during a flood. However, if no water were flushed out of the lake, the 

long-term salinity concentrations would increase 

once the water level returned to normal.

Time to Achieve Salinity Objective. The time to 

flush the salt for each of these options would likely 

be more than 100 years, because the quantity of salt 

flushed for the most effective option (4) in a 100-

year flood would be 43,000 tons. However, floods are 

unpredictable and two 100-year flood events could 

occur in any timeframe.

Elevation of Lake Bowdoin. The water elevation of 

Lake Bowdoin would vary from 2,208 feet to 2,212 

feet if the structures were blocked (option 2) and 

inputs of water remained similar to past deliveries. The elevation of the lake would decrease to the 

lower end of the range if the outlet structures were 

removed (option 4) or if the outlet structures were 

open (option 3).

Amount of Water Removed. There would be no active removal of water from Lake Bowdoin. However, 

there would be varying amounts of water removed 

depending on the flood event; some of this water 

might enter and leave.

Modifications and Facilities. To maximize salt removal, all water-level management structures would 

be removed including dikes, roads, and water control structures (option 4). The railroad bridge would 

need to be lengthened, expanding the constriction 

point, to allow larger volumes of water into the west 

arm of Lake Bowdoin via a conveyance channel. 

A large conveyance channel would be constructed 

from Drumbo Pond to Lake Bowdoin to facilitate 

increased water flow under option 6.

Capital Cost. The capital costs would be the same 

as salinity alternative 1 for the no-cost options 

of managing the structures at historical settings 

(option 1), completely blocking the outlet structures (option 2), or completely opening the outlet 

structures (option 3). Additionally, there would be 

substantial infrastructure costs for the following 

options: removing all dikes, water control structures, and spillways (option 4); lowering Bowdoin 

Road (option 5); and diverting water through 

Drumbo Pond (option 6).

Monitoring and Research. Monitoring and research 

activities would be the same as alternative 2.

Refuge staff use this outflow dropboard structure to 

release water from Drumbo Pond to control the pond’s 

water level.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

This railroad trestle over a wetland south of Lake 

Bowdoin creates a constricted waterway.

Mike Artmann / USFWS
196 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Environmental and Socioeconomic 

Consequences

The actions of salinity alternative 3 would likely 

have the consequences described below.

Plant Diversity. Consequences to plant diversity 

would be the same as salinity alternative 1 except, 

if one of the modeled flood events occurred and the 

maximum amount of salt were flushed for a given 

scenario, there would be a short-term decrease in 

salinity concentrations following the flood. However, 

only the largest floods (100-year) would likely remove enough salt to freshen the system for several 

years following the event. Some improvement in 

plant diversity could occur if the reduced salinity 

concentrations were maintained for several years; 

however, absent another flood, salinity concentrations would return to unacceptable levels.

Invertebrates. Consequences to invertebrates 

would be the same as salinity alternative 1 until a 

flood occurred. In the case of a large flood, a shortterm response by invertebrates to fresher conditions, which could last several years, would likely 

be beneficial in terms of abundance and diversity. 

However, diversity would continue to decline over 

the long term.

Waterfowl and Other Waterbirds. Consequences to 

waterfowl and other waterbirds would be the same 

as salinity alternative 1, except that a sudden drop 

in salinity and increase in water level during a flood 

event could increase the chance of a botulism outbreak during the year of the flood. Maintaining Lake 

Bowdoin at a lower water level would make access 

with any type of boat more difficult and could potentially affect disease monitoring, colonial-nesting 

surveys, and water quality monitoring throughout 

the lake.

Downstream Users. The potential hazards for 

downstream water users would depend on the salinity concentration of Lake Bowdoin and the time of 

year of flooding. If a flood occurred when Lake Bowdoin was highly saline, salt would be transported 

downstream. Depending on the magnitude of the 

flood event (the amount of water available for mixing), the negative effects on water quality and agricultural interests would range from negligible to 

severe. If lake levels were consistently low, smaller 

floods would likely enter the lake, but flooding volumes would be small enough that water would likely 

not exit the refuge.

Public Use. Consequences to public use would 

be the same as salinity alternative 2, except there 

would not be any added infrastructure; in fact, some 

would be removed under option 4. Removing or lowering the outlet structures would reduce the area 

available for waterfowl hunting on the lake and require hunters to drag their lightweight boats farther 

to access water.

Socioeconomics. An accidental spill or unintentional discharge to Beaver Creek during flood events 

could pose risks and burdens to private landowners 

downstream of Bowdoin Refuge. Large, windborne 

dust storms such as occurred in the past could cause 

salt accumulation on adjacent private lands, reducing productivity for hay and livestock operations.

In the short term, the removal of water control 

structures (option 4) would result in more shallowwater areas in Lake Bowdoin and fewer opportunities for hunting. Depending on what water control 

measures were implemented, the capital cost could 

be quite high. Contracting for construction services 

to remove the structures might bring some shortterm economic benefits to the local community. Over 

the long term, the lowered salinity within the refuge 

would attract more waterbirds including waterfowl 

and shorebirds. This would provide additional opportunities for birdwatchers and hunters.

A 20-percent decrease in hunters would be expected due to a loss of access for hunting caused 

by low water levels. An equal or greater increase 

in wildlife observers would be expected due to an 

increase in species diversity. Since hunters spend an 

average of $55 per visit versus $18 per visit for wildlife observers, the overall direct impact would be 

$418,000 annually, a gain of only $2,250 over baseline 

impacts. Although visitation would be expected to 

increase by 950 visitors overall, the loss of hunters 

would result in this moderate increase.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts would 

be the same as salinity alternative 1, except the infrastructure surrounding Lake Bowdoin would be 

modified to allow for enhanced flood flushing. Water 

quality and habitats for wetland-dependent wildlife 

would continue to degrade as salinity concentrations 

rose. Beaver Creek floods so infrequently that managing Lake Bowdoin while waiting for the next flood 

to occur would pose significant challenges to the 

refuge and downstream users. Some of these challenges would include correctly setting the stoplogs 

and maintaining the appropriate amount of water 

in the lake to optimize salt removal in the case of a 

large flood.

With the modified infrastructure, the Service 

would need to manage Lake Bowdoin at a sustained 

low level to have adequate safeguards between the 

lake elevation and the elevation at which water 

would move downstream under normal conditions. 

If the difference between the normal elevation and 

structure elevation were not great enough, frequent 

releases would be more likely. Because of possible 

extended lower lake levels, blown salts could became an issue. During a very large flood like that in 

1986, a large amount of salts would likely be carried 
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 197

downstream and sufficiently diluted by the volume 

of water, thereby removing the risk of direct losses 

to downstream users.

Salinity Alternative 4– 

Underground Injection Well and 

Flushing by Beaver Creek 

(Proposed Action)

An underground injection well would be used to 

force saline water deep into the ground. Once the 

salinity objective was met and water in Lake Bowdoin met all applicable water quality standards, 

modifications to the lake’s infrastructure would be 

evaluated to determine the best way to re-create a 

flow-through system that maximized the effects of 

natural flooding. If natural flooding did not occur or 

more water to be supplied from the Milk River was 

not granted, the injection well could be used periodically to maintain salinity at an acceptable level.

Two different options for the injection well were 

analyzed: (1) use a holding pond; and (2) inject saline 

water directly from Lake Bowdoin, without a holding pond, into the ground.

For the holding pond option, water from Lake 

Bowdoin would be pumped to the holding pond only 

in the winter, when the water under the ice is most 

concentrated. Without a holding pond, water would 

be injected year-round directly from Lake Bowdoin. 

In both options, the water would be injected to a 

depth of 3,500–6,000 feet throughout the entire year.

The option of injecting directly from Lake Bowdoin into the ground was selected after considering 

the following consequences:

■ The capital cost of construction with a holding 

pond would be about two times greater than construction of an injection well without a holding 

pond.

■ A large footprint (area) would be required to construct a holding pond.

■ There would be higher annual costs to pump water from Lake Bowdoin to a holding pond.

■ A holding pond might be subject to flooding impacts from Beaver Creek.

The disadvantage of injecting into the ground directly from Lake Bowdoin is that the time to reach 

the salinity objective of 7,000 mg/L would be about 

twice as long. However, the short-term benefit 

would not justify the additional cost and impact to 

the landscape. The injection well might need periodic operation once the objective was met, as with a 

holding pond, if flooding did not naturally flush salts 

from the system or if more water was not granted.

Actions

The actions below relate only to the option of injecting directly from Lake Bowdoin without a holding 

pond.

Tons of Salt Removed. Lake Bowdoin would reach 

a steady state of 7,000 mg/L, at which point there 

would be 7,000 tons of salt per year removed, with a 

year-round injection rate of 500 gallons of water per 

minute directly from Lake Bowdoin and assuming 

historical water inputs. A total of 800 acre-feet of 

water per year would be removed, and 80,000 tons 

of salt would remain on the refuge. Figure 41 shows 

the decrease of salts in Lake Bowdoin, which eventually levels off at the 80,000 tons.

Salinity Concentration. Modeling by the Service 

calculated that a rate of 800 acre-feet (an injection 

rate of 500 gallons per minute), assuming historical 

water inputs, would be needed to reach and maintain 

the salinity objective of 7,000 mg/L.

Time to Achieve Salinity Objective. The time to 

reach the 7,000 mg/L salinity objective would be 

10–20 years with a water withdrawal rate of 800 

acre-feet and accepting all sources of water and 

salt to match historical management. The removal 

rate of 800 acre-feet would be continued if no other 

method to discharge salt were identified. Operating 

Lake Bowdoin in a more saline state would allow for 

faster disposal of salts.

Elevation of Lake Bowdoin. The amount of water 

withdrawn from the lake to the injection well would 

only have a small effect on Lake Bowdoin’s water 

level. Maintaining a lower lake elevation would concentrate the salts, resulting in a more saline state. 

Because more salt would be injected, it would take 

less time to reach the salinity objective.

Amount of Water Removed. An average withdrawal of 800 acre-feet of water would be required 

to maintain the salt balance, assuming all water and 

salt inputs remained consistent with past inputs.

Modifications and Facilities. The Service would 

install an underground injection well (possibly more 

than 6,000 feet deep) along with the associated intake structures. A power source would need to be 

installed to operate the pump, and a small pump 

house would be constructed. Once the salinity objective was reached and maintained, Lake Bowdoin 

infrastructure (dikes, spillways, and water control 

structures) would be evaluated for removal or modification to facilitate more complete flushing by Beaver Creek during a flood event or with more water 

supplied from the Milk River.
198 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Capital Cost. An initial cost estimate for the injection well was $6.7 million, with an estimated annual 

operating cost of $100,000. However, the Service 

determined that more water must be removed to 

meet the salinity objective. Therefore, the capital 

and operating costs would likely be larger than the 

initial estimate.

The estimate for equipment-operating costs was 

$35,000 per year, primarily due to the electrical 

costs. Additionally, there would be a Service employee assigned to maintaining and operating the 

injection well and to working with the necessary 

contractors. The proposed maintenance position is 

shown in table 18 under section 7.9 in chapter 7.

Monitoring and Research. Monitoring and research 

activities would be the same as salinity alternative 2.

180

160

140

ons of Salt120

100

1,000 T 80

60

40

20

0

201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028

Figure 41. Graph of tons of salt in Lake Bowdoin with salinity alternative 3.

Environmental and Socioeconomic 

Consequences

The consequences below relate only to the option 

of injecting directly from Lake Bowdoin without a 

holding pond.

Plant Diversity. Consequences to plant diversity 

would be the same as salinity alternative 2 excluding the effects of the evaporation ponds. In general, 

plant species diversity would increase as salinity 

concentrations decreased; however, in the short 

term, there would be periods where low lake levels would increase salinity to levels detrimental to 

desirable plant diversity and abundance. In addition, a shift toward more salt-tolerant, less desirable 

plants would occur as salts were concentrated and 

removed. If Lake Bowdoin was held at a sustained 

low water level (less than 2,208 feet) during the active salt removal phase (all year), plants such as cattail and hardstem bulrush may spread from west to 

east on the western side of the lake to colonize newly 

exposed, bare shoreline.

Invertebrates. Consequences to invertebrates 

would be the same as salinity alternative 2 excluding 

the effects of the evaporation ponds. Some direct 

invertebrate losses from pumping activities would 

be expected, but these losses would be minimal.

Waterfowl and Other Waterbirds. Consequences to 

waterfowl and other waterbirds would be the same 

as salinity alternative 2 excluding the effects of the 

evaporation ponds. Some waterfowl would continue 

to use Lake Bowdoin for resting, feeding, loafing, 

and nesting. Intake pipes used for year-round injection could require frequent maintenance, subjecting 

birds to increased disturbance. Use by shorebirds 

would likely increase if the lake was consistently 

held lower during migration periods. More shallowly 

flooded habitat would be available to migrating birds 

and resident nesters during spring and fall.

For colonial-nesting birds such as American 

white pelicans, there could be higher rates of predation and nest abandonment if the lake was consistently lower during the salt-reduction phase. This 

is especially true for species using Woody Island, 

the largest and closest island to the mainland. The 

three other primary islands used for nesting are far 

enough from land, are surrounded by deeper waters, 
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 199

and would remain as nesting islands. Lower lake 

levels would reduce the amount of flooded emergent vegetation for overwater-nesting birds such as 

Franklin’s gulls.

Although the botulism bacterium is present in 

Lake Bowdoin, reducing the lake’s water level and 

concentrating the salts during the active salt removal phase would likely decrease the risk of a large 

outbreak. An outbreak would be easier to detect 

along the discrete shorelines resulting from a lower 

water level. However, a low water level would make 

it harder to remove sick and dead birds due to more 

difficult boat access.

Downstream Users. The Service is required to 

adhere to EPA’s rules and regulations for the installation, operation, and maintenance of a class 1 

injection well. The EPA definition for a class 1 well 

is a well that injects hazardous and non-hazardous 

wastes into deep, isolated rock formations that are 

thousands of feet below the lowermost underground 

source of drinking water (EPA 2010). Strict adherence to these rules and regulations would reduce 

the threat to ground water users downstream from 

the refuge. An injection well would ideally be drilled 

into a geologic formation with a background concentration of TDS higher than 10,000 mg/L. If a suitable 

geologic formation was not found meeting this criteria, the Service could apply for a waiver if it were 

determined that (1) the receiving formation could 

not be used as an underground source of drinking 

water, and (2) there is no economic benefit of the 

formation.

Additionally, the risk to surface water users 

downstream would be lessened as the project eliminated salts from the refuge. Consistently keeping 

Lake Bowdoin at a lower level during the salt removal phase would significantly lessen the threat of 

accidental spills into Beaver Creek, minimizing any 

effects on downstream users. Exposed shorelines 

from the lower lake levels would increase the probability of windblown salts. However, Bauder et al. 

(2007) suggests that conditions conducive for windblown removal of salts occur on average 2–8 times 

per year.

Public Use. Consequences to public use are the 

same as salinity alternative 2 including the following. During the periods when Lake Bowdoin was 

operated at a lower water level to facilitate salt removal, there would be less open water available to 

waterfowl hunting. However, there would be opportunities to hunt waterfowl in Strater, Patrol Road, 

Drumbo, and Goose Island Ponds.

The area around the intake pipes in the lake and 

around the pump house would likely be closed to 

public access. There would be minimal disturbance 

to the visiting public once an injection well was 

placed and properly operating.

Socioeconomics. The design and construction 

costs to build the infrastructure—injection well, 

pump house, power source, and roads—would likely 

generate economic revenue for the local community. To construct the injection well and associated 

infrastructure, the estimated capital cost would be 

at least $6.7 million, and estimated annual operating 

costs would be $100,000. The relatively short-term 

nature of construction activities would likely result 

in temporary lodging or housing, with negligible economic impacts, as opposed to a permanent influx of 

people to the community. The hiring of more staff to 

help maintain, service, and operate the pump facility 

would translate into permanent revenue increases 

for the local community.

Although meeting the salinity objective would 

improve wildlife habitats, the water level would be 

much lower than with past management and might 

initially have a negative effect on waterfowl hunting. 

As habitat improved, however, the numbers and species of waterfowl attracted to Lake Bowdoin should 

increase, providing additional opportunities for 

hunting if access were available during low-water 

periods. Improvements in salinity concentrations 

from injecting water and from other water management activities might attract more birdwatchers and 

hunters in the fall as habitat conditions improved. 

Visitation to Bowdoin Refuge is expected have a 

net increase of 2,300 visitors, increasing the total to 

19,800 (including hunters and wildlife observers). 

Based solely on nonresident visitation (17,830), the 

direct economic impacts would be $439,900 annually, 

an increase of $24,150 from the baseline.

A low lake level during the pumping phase may 

lead to salts blowing from the exposed flats. While 

much of this salt may be redeposited within the refuge, public perception may not be favorable at times 

especially with adjacent landowners. This could be 

alleviated if landowners were kept fully informed on 

the proposed plans to manage the water level.

Cumulative Impacts. Reduced salt load over time 

and lower salinity would be beneficial to plant and 

animal resources in Lake Bowdoin. Furthermore, 

the increased diversity of plants and invertebrates 

would benefit migratory birds and other wetlanddependent wildlife. The lower water level would 

increase foraging habitat for migrating waterfowl 

and shorebirds. Short-term, indirect effects on 

waterbirds would be expected during construction of 

the injection well and infrastructure if done during 

nonwinter months. This would likely be minimal, 

because birds would quickly find the surrounding 

wetlands. However, some birds might be disturbed 

to the point of leaving the refuge entirely in search 

of wetland habitats off-refuge. If primary construction activities (well drilling and infrastructure place-
200 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

ment) occurred during the winter, negative effects 

on migratory birds would be negligible.

The process to design, construct, and operate an 

injection well would follow all applicable EPA regulations as well as any permits required by the State 

of Montana. If the water in the receiving formation 

had salinity concentrations higher than 10,000 mg/L 

during construction of the injection well, it would 

not considered an underground source of drinking 

water and, thus, a waiver from EPA would not be 

required. If the water had salinity concentrations 

lower than 10,000 mg/L, the EPA could grant a 

waiver to the Service. Wells for drinking water are 

rarely 6,000 feet deep. A detailed analysis of existing 

wells and other uses of water in the area, such as 

Sleeping Buffalo Hot Springs, would be addressed 

during the permit process.

The footprint of the injection well would be relatively small (less than 0.25 acre), minimizing the risk 

of excessive disturbance to native vegetation and reducing the threat of invasive species. Effects on Dry 

Lake from an injection well would be nonexistent, 

and options to restore Dry Lake would be available. A flood entering the refuge from Beaver Creek 

would not affect the pump house because it would 

likely be built outside of the floodplain.

Salinity Alternative 5–Pumping 

to Milk River

A pipeline would carry saline water pumped from 

Lake Bowdoin to the Milk River. There are two locations for possible water discharge points, one west 

of Bowdoin Refuge and one east of the refuge. The 

distance to the Milk River at the western location 

would be considerably less than at the eastern location (4 miles compared with 14 miles); however, the 

western location would require easements across 

private property.

The quantity of water pumped to the Milk River 

would depend on the quantity of water flowing in 

the river. During high flows, more water could be 

pumped to the Milk River because there is more water to mix with the lake water. Similarly, during low 

flows, less water could be pumped to the Milk River 

to meet water quality guidelines.

To discharge into the Milk River, an “authorization to degrade” permit would be required due to 

water quality issues. While possible to request such 

a permit, the State has never granted one; moreover, 

the Service would not want to degrade any water 

system. Without this permit, the Service would not 

be able to carry out this alternative and could not 

achieve the salinity objective.

The following describes the alternative’s specific 

actions and expected environmental consequences if 

implemented.

Actions

These actions reflect the theme of this alternative 

for addressing salinity and blowing salts.

Tons of Salt Removed. With varying water pumping rates (5–10 cfs), increased during high flows and 

lowered during low flows, it would be possible to remove 7,000 tons of salt per year and maintain Lake 

Bowdoin at a salinity concentration of 7,000 mg/L.

Salinity Concentration. A salinity concentration 

of 7,000 mg/L (salinity objective) in Lake Bowdoin 

could be maintained if regular discharges occurred. 

Lake Bowdoin could be operated in a less saline 

state and at a higher water level, with the assumption that discharge rates could be increased when 

the water had lower salinity concentrations. Discharge rates would be determined for variable flows 

in the Milk River and be approved by DEQ.

Time to Achieve Salinity Objective. The time to 

reach the salinity objective would vary depending 

on flow rates and water quality in the Milk River. A 

10- to 20-year period could be expected.

Elevation of Lake Bowdoin. The amount of water 

withdrawn from the lake would result in only a small 

drop in the water level.

Amount of Water Removed. An average water 

withdrawal of 900 acre-feet could be expected if the 

releases were limited to 1/100th of the flow in the 

Milk River.

Modifications and Facilities. The Service would 

construct a pump station, intake structure, and pipeline from Lake Bowdoin to the Milk River. A power 

source would be installed to operate the pump. If 

the western discharge point were selected, a 4-mile 

pipeline would be constructed and would require at 

least six easements on private lands. If the eastern 

discharge point were selected, a 14-mile pipeline 

would be constructed across public land.

Capital Cost. The capital costs would vary depending on the location of the discharge point and resulting length and flow size of the pipeline (table 10). 

The direction chosen would affect the cost, particularly the western route, which would require easements across private lands. The eastern route would 

primarily cross public land, but would be considerably longer. The operating costs, mostly for electrical pump needs and for staff to operate the pump, 

are anticipated to be $100,000 per year.
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 201

Table 10. Pipeline size and cost estimates for western 

and eastern pipeline options for pumping to the Milk 

River.

Discharge rate Estimated cost ($ million)

Western Eastern 

4-mile 14-mile

pipeline pipeline

5 cubic feet per second 3 7.5

10 cubic feet per second 4 9

Monitoring and Research. Monitoring and research 

activities would be the same as salinity alternative 2.

Environmental and Socioeconomic 

Consequences

The actions of salinity alternative 5 would likely 

have the consequences described below.

Plant Diversity. Consequences to plant diversity in 

Lake Bowdoin would be the same as salinity alternative 2. Following State-approved dilution rates (mixing ratio) for releases to the Milk River, there would 

be little effect on aquatic plant vegetation within the 

Milk River based on the amounts of saline water to 

be discharged.

Invertebrates. Consequences to invertebrates 

would be the same as salinity alternative 2 except 

for the following. If approved mixing ratios were 

followed, increased salinity in the Milk River would 

not be expected to cause harm to aquatic species 

including fish and invertebrates. Tables of mixing ratios would be developed to show allowable discharge 

based on flow and concentration of TDS (salts). As 

an example, Bauder et al. (2007) found no effects on 

sensitive invertebrate species at a discharge rate of 

5 cfs at a salinity concentration of 5,000 mg/L outside 

of the irrigation season.

Waterfowl and Other Waterbirds. The relatively 

high water level of Lake Bowdoin would help minimize effects on colonial-nesting birds. Over time, reduced salinity concentrations would result in greater 

waterfowl use of the lake as preferred invertebrates 

and plant species increased.

Downstream Users. Consequences to downstream 

water users would be the same as salinity alternative 4 except these users would see a small increase 

in salinity concentrations in the Milk River due to 

the pumping of salty refuge water into the river. 

However, State-approved mixing ratios would be 

followed, and effects from the extra salts added to 

the Milk River would be minimal. As the project 

reached the salinity objective, there would be reduced risks to downstream users in the case of an 

accidental spill.

Public Use. Consequences to public use would be 

the same as salinity alternative 4 except the acreage 

available to waterfowl hunters in most years would 

be the same as salinity alternative 1.

Socioeconomics. The projected reduction in salinity would produce a beneficial environment for 

wetland habitats and wetland-dependent migratory birds. This could increase visitation to Bowdoin 

Refuge for birdwatching and hunting opportunities. 

Visitation to the refuge is expected have a net increase of 2,500 visitors, increasing the total to 20,000 

(including hunters and wildlife observers). Based 

solely on nonresident visitation (18,000), the direct 

economic impacts would be $449,750 annually, an 

increase of $34,000 from the baseline.

Building a pipeline to the Milk River following 

the shorter western route would require easements 

to cross private land. These easements would provide a short-term economic benefit to landowners 

who agreed to participate. The cost to construct the 

infrastructure including a pipeline capable of 10 cfs, 

a pump house, and electrical power sources would 

be an estimated $9 million. The annual operating 

costs would be $35,000 plus the cost of a full-time 

employee to oversee the maintenance and pumping.

Cumulative Impacts. State-approved discharge 

rates from Lake Bowdoin would be calculated for 

minimal effects from increased salt levels on sensitive species in the Milk River. If approved 

discharges were followed, no negative effects on sensitive species would be expected. However, based on 

recent water quality testing, refuge water shows the 

presence of certain trace heavy metals (for example, uranium) and other pollutants. Although these 

trace heavy metals occur naturally in the landscape, 

extensive discussions with DEQ staff indicate the 

Service would need to apply for an “authorization 

to degrade” permit to release refuge water into the 

Milk River (D. Yashan, wetland management section supervisor, DEQ, personal communication, July 

2009). While it would be possible to request such a 

permit, the State has never granted one; moreover, 

the Service would not want to degrade any water 

system. Without this permit, the Service would not 

be able to carry out this alternative and could not 

achieve the salinity goal and objective.
202 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Summary of Alternatives Actions and Consequences

Table 11 summarizes the actions for each alternative and the likely consequences of those actions. To compare 

the alternatives equally, it was assumed that historical deliveries of water and salt would continue. The results of the alternatives would be significantly different if the quantity and quality of the water entering the 

system were altered.

Table 11. Summary of alternatives and consequences considered to address the elevated salinity and blowing 

salts issue at Lake Bowdoin, Montana.

Alternative 4

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (underground Alternative 3 Alternative 5 (current (evaporation ponds injection and (flushing by (pumping to management and removal flushing by Beaver Beaver Creek) Milk River) —no action) of salt residue) Creek—proposed 

action)

Tons of salt removed—actions

Remove minimal Remove the Remove 3,300– Remove the Possibly remove 

salts incidentally necessary 7,000 tons 43,000 tons of salt necessary 7,000 tons the necessary 7,000 

from wind action, of salt per year using only incidentally of salt per year using tons of salt per year 

allowing 7,000 tons a withdrawal rate through large floods. a withdrawal rate by varying the rate 

of salt per year to be of 800 acre-feet of of 800 acre-feet of of pumped water.

added to the closed water per year. water per year.

basin.

Salinity level—actions

Continue with no Remove salts Same as alternative 1, Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2, 

outflow, allowing to allow salinity except: except:

salinity levels up to levels to eventually Allow salinity Varying the salin40,000 mg/L in dry average the salinity levels to increase ity levels in Lake 

years. objective of 7,000 except when salts Bowdoin during the 

mg/L. could be flushed by a removal process 

large flood. would not affect the 

time to reach the 

objective (lower 

salinities in Lake 

Bowdoin would not 

affect removal rate 

of salts).

Time to achieve salinity objective (7,000 mg/L)—actions

Could never be 10–20 years, de- More than 100 Same as alternative 2. 10–20 years, deachieved without an pending on the water years, with a 100- pending on runoff.

accidental spill or a withdrawal rate, year flood to achieve 

flood. water supply, and the objective and 

lake elevation. reoccurring 100-year 

floods to maintain it.

Elevation of Lake Bowdoin—actions

Maintain between Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 1 

2,208 feet and 2,213 in the long term. if water inputs were in the long term. 

feet, depending on Lower elevations not reduced, plus:

the amount of water (2,208 feet) would Reduce water 

received. reduce salt levels inputs to maintain 

faster. average elevation at 

or below 2,209 feet.
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 203

Table 11. Summary of alternatives and consequences considered to address the elevated salinity and blowing 

salts issue at Lake Bowdoin, Montana.

Alternative 1

(current 

management

—no action)

Alternative 2

(evaporation ponds 

and removal 

of salt residue)

Alternative 3

(flushing by 

Beaver Creek)

Alternative 4

(underground 

injection and 

flushing by Beaver 

Creek—proposed 

action)

Alternative 5

(pumping to 

Milk River)

Amount of water removed—actions

Withdraw no 

water.

Withdraw an average of 800 acre-feet 

of water each winter.

Same as alternative 1. Withdraw an average of 800 acre-feet 

of water each winter.

Withdraw an average of 900 acre-feet 

of water each winter.

Modifications and facilities—actions

Maintain all 

water-level management structures.

Keep stoplogs in 

place year-round.

Construct at least 

160 acres in evaporation ponds.

Install a pump 

house and 5 miles of 

pipeline.

Construct a building to dry and store 

salts.

Install a railroad 

spur for transporting 

salts to an accepted 

disposal site.

Acquire heavy 

equipment to load 

salts for transport.

Remove all waterlevel management 

structures including 

dikes, roads, and 

water control structures.

Expand the 

railroad truss to 

allow water flows 

into the west arm of 

Lake Bowdoin via a 

conveyance channel 

constructed from 

Drumbo Pond.

Drill a well as 

deep as 6,000 feet 

into a formation that 

is not a source of 

drinking water.

Install an underground injection 

well and intake 

structures.

Install a power 

source to operate the 

pump and construct 

a pump house.

Evaluate the 

need for removal 

or modification of 

water-level management structures to 

allow flood flushing 

by Beaver Creek.

Install a power 

source to operate the 

pump and construct 

a pump station and 

intake structure.

If the western 

option were selected, 

construct 4 miles of 

pipeline, requiring 

numerous easements 

on private lands.

If the eastern 

option were selected, 

construct 14 miles of 

pipeline across public 

land. 

Capital cost—actions

Continue to pay 

for delivery of water 

from the Milk River 

Project, averaging 

$21,500 per year for 

3,500 acre-feet of 

water.

Same as alternative 1, 

plus:

$44 million to 

construct the evaporation pond.

$2 million annual 

operating costs. 

Same as alternative 1 

(options 1–3).

Significant costs to 

remove water-level 

management structures (options 4–6).

Same as alternative 1, 

except:

Additional costs 

to modify or remove 

water-level management structures.

$6.7 million to 

build the injection 

well. Up to an additional $6.2 million 

if a holding pond is 

required.

$35,000 annual 

operating costs.

Same as alternative 1, 

plus:

$3–9 million 

depending on the 

pipeline length and 

easement costs.

$35,000 annual 

operating costs. 
204 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 11. Summary of alternatives and consequences considered to address the elevated salinity and blowing 

salts issue at Lake Bowdoin, Montana.

Alternative 1

(current 

management

—no action)

Alternative 2

(evaporation ponds 

and removal 

of salt residue)

Alternative 3

(flushing by 

Beaver Creek)

Alternative 4

(underground 

injection and 

flushing by Beaver 

Creek—proposed 

action)

Alternative 5

(pumping to 

Milk River)

Monitoring and research—actions

Continue to 

monitor water quality, lake elevation, 

disease outbreaks, 

and sites for colonialnesting birds. 

Same as alternative 1,

plus:

Drill additional 

monitoring wells 

within the Black 

Coulee drainage to 

monitor water quality and quantity coming into the refuge.

Collect baseline 

information on 

current species of 

wetland vegetation, 

waterbirds, and 

invertebrates, before 

construction activities and monitor 

changes.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.

Plant diversity—environmental consequences

With only salttolerant species 

remaining, plant 

diversity would 

decrease as salinity 

increased. 

Plant diversity 

would increase with 

the addition of brackish species.

Emergent wetland 

plants would expand 

into areas that were 

previously open 

water.

The evaporation 

ponds and canals 

would remain mostly 

devoid of vegetation.

Same as alternative 2,

excluding the evaporation ponds and 

canals. 

Same as alternative 3. Same as alternative 3.

Invertebrates—environmental consequences

Invertebrate 

diversity would 

decrease as salinity 

increased.

Invertebrate 

diversity would 

decrease, especially 

on the eastern side 

of the lake. The 

salt-tolerant water 

boatman and other 

insects could become 

more abundant.

Brine shrimp 

could become established in evaporation 

ponds and conveyance channels and be 

available for waterfowl and shorebirds.

Same as alternative 1

until flooding, which 

could result in a 

short-term (severalyear) increase in 

invertebrates.

Same as alternative 2,

excluding the evaporation ponds, plus:

There would be 

minimal losses of 

invertebrates due to 

pumping activities. 

Same as alternative 2,

excluding the evaporation ponds, plus:

Increased salinity 

in Milk River would 

not harm invertebrates.
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 205

Table 11. Summary of alternatives and consequences considered to address the elevated salinity and blowing 

salts issue at Lake Bowdoin, Montana.

Alternative 1

(current 

management

—no action)

Alternative 2

(evaporation ponds 

and removal 

of salt residue)

Alternative 3

(flushing by 

Beaver Creek)

Alternative 4

(underground 

injection and 

flushing by Beaver 

Creek—proposed 

action)

Alternative 5

(pumping to 

Milk River)

Waterfowl and Other Waterbirds—environmental consequences

As salinity increased, use by waterfowl broods would 

decrease, broods 

could have impeded 

development, or 

brood mortality 

could occur.

As salinity increased, the risk of 

botulism outbreaks 

might decrease. 

Waterfowl use 

would increase due 

to more plant diversity and invertebrate 

diversity. Annual 

production and 

survival of waterfowl 

broods would improve.

More shallow 

areas and mudflats 

would be exposed 

for use by dabbling 

ducks and shorebirds. Reaching the 

salinity objective 

might not increase 

the risk of a botulism 

outbreak.

The evaporation 

ponds would attract 

waterfowl, which 

could become encrusted in salt.

Same as alternative 1,

except:

During a flood, 

sudden changes in 

salinity and water 

levels might increase 

the chance of a botulism outbreak. 

Same as alternative 2,

excluding the evaporation ponds. 

Same as alternative 4.

Downstream users—environmental consequences

There would continue to be the possibility of an accidental 

spill of highly saline 

water if a structure 

failed.

If the lake level 

drops, there would 

be an increased salt 

concentration that 

might be carried by 

wind.

Water quality 

would continue to 

worsen.

As the lake 

level decreased, 

water quality would 

improve over time. 

Initially there would 

be some blowing 

salts (most deposited 

on the refuge) until 

the salinity level was 

reduced.

Same as alternative 2,

except:

Water quality 

would improve during flooding.

Same as alternative 2. Water quality 

would continue to 

worsen if pumping 

water to the Milk 

River were not permitted (“Authorization to Degrade”) by 

the State because of 

heavy metals.

If pumping water 

were permitted, the 

heavy metals would 

impact the Milk 

River.
206 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 11. Summary of alternatives and consequences considered to address the elevated salinity and blowing 

salts issue at Lake Bowdoin, Montana.

Alternative 1

(current 

management

—no action)

Alternative 2

(evaporation ponds 

and removal 

of salt residue)

Alternative 3

(flushing by 

Beaver Creek)

Alternative 4

(underground 

injection and 

flushing by Beaver 

Creek—proposed 

action)

Alternative 5

(pumping to 

Milk River)

Public use—environmental consequences

Waterfowl hunters 

would continue to 

have access to hunting areas in most 

years, depending on 

available water.

Visitors would be 

able to easily view 

waterbirds from the 

auto tour route. 

The exposed mudflats and improved 

habitat would attract 

shorebirds and 

waterfowl, providing 

additional viewing 

opportunities. Some 

birds might move 

further from the 

shoreline as water 

receded. Hunters 

would need to carry 

their watercraft 

further to access the 

lake.

The west boat 

launch would not be 

accessible to boats 

with motors.

There would be 

fewer huntable acres 

for waterfowl hunters.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2

if the Service 

received a permit 

to pump water to 

the Milk River; 

otherwise, same as 

alternative 1. 

Socioeconomics—environmental consequences

Declining wetlands and waterbird 

use would result in 

an annual reduction 

of 4,850 wildlife 

observers and hunters, causing a loss of 

$105,050 in visitor 

spending.

Design and construction work might 

provide an economic 

boost to local communities.

Improved wetlands would attract 

more wildlife for 

viewing and hunting for an annual 

increase of 2,000 

visitors, generating 

an additional $32,850 

in visitor spending.

Removing some 

of the water-level 

management structures might result 

in some short-term 

economic benefits to 

the local community. 

Improved wetlands 

would attract more 

wildlife for viewing 

but lower water 

levels would reduce 

hunting access. More 

viewer expenditures, 

but a loss of hunter 

expenditures, would 

result in an overall 

increase of only 

$2,250 in visitor 

spending.

Same as alternative 2,

except:

The construction 

of evaporation ponds 

may not be necessary, eliminating that 

economic cost and 

benefit.

Visitation would 

increase by 2,300 

visitors, generating 

an additional $24,150 

in visitor spending.

The quality of 

pumped water might 

cause impacts to 

downstream users.

Where easements 

were required, there 

would an economic 

benefit to landowners willing to accept 

an easement across 

their lands.

Improved wetlands would attract 

more wildlife for 

viewing and hunting for an annual 

increase of 2,500 

visitors, generating 

an additional $34,000 

in visitor spending.
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 207

Table 11. Summary of alternatives and consequences considered to address the elevated salinity and blowing 

salts issue at Lake Bowdoin, Montana.

Alternative 1

(current 

management

—no action)

Alternative 2

(evaporation ponds 

and removal 

of salt residue)

Alternative 3

(flushing by 

Beaver Creek)

Alternative 4

(underground 

injection and 

flushing by Beaver 

Creek—proposed 

action)

Alternative 5

(pumping to 

Milk River)

Cumulative impacts

As plant and invertebrate diversity 

decreased, wildlife 

use might decrease 

along with associated 

public use.

The cost to deal 

with increasing 

salt loads would be 

greater over time.

There might be 

increased probability 

of a more severe 

accidental spill. 

As salinity levels 

decreased, plant 

diversity and wildlife 

use would increase 

along with associated 

public use.

As lake levels 

were lowered, 

islands used by 

colonial-nesting 

birds would become 

peninsulas, which 

may cause the birds 

to abandon them.

Disturbance to 

waterbirds would 

increase due to the 

salt removal process.

The ability to 

manage the lake at 

higher levels would 

be lost, resulting in 

fewer acres of wetland habitat.

Salinity levels 

would continue to 

increase until a 100-

year or greater flood. 

Same as alternative 2,

except:

There would be 

minimal disturbance 

to wildlife while the 

injection well was 

constructed.

Same as alternative 4,

plus:

There would be 

monitoring of heavy 

metals and other 

pollutants before any 

water were pumped 

into the Milk River.

Due to the presence of heavy metals 

and other pollutants, 

the State might not 

approve a permit for 

the Service to pump 

water, which would 

preclude meeting the 

salinity objective. 

6.6 Implementation of the 

Proposed Action (Salinity 

Alternative 4)

The salinity and blowing salts issue at Lake Bowdoin is a result of a complex series of factors that 

have changed the fundamental flow of water into 

and out of the lake for more than a century. Montana 

water quality laws protect receiving waters from 

point and nonpoint sources of pollution. In this case, 

salts and trace heavy metals are the concern at Lake 

Bowdoin. As a result, the lake, which once was a 

flow-through system, must be managed today as a 

closed basin.

Random droughts and historical floods can and 

have functioned to remove salts from the lake system. However, relying on these periodic events 

is not a viable long-term solution. The Service’s 

proposed action to address the salinity situation 

(salinity alternative 4) has the short-term solution 

of injecting the salts and heavy metals deeply and 

safely into the ground. However, in the long term, 

the Service’s goal is to acquire enough water to institute a flow-through system.

Salinity Alternative 4– 

Underground Injection Well and 

Flushing by Beaver Creek

The Service is proposing salinity alternative 4 as the 

most effective and safest way to address salinity and 

blowing salts at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. 

After the public’s review and comment on this draft 

plan, the Regional Director will determine if this or 

another alternative is the preferred alternative for 

the final CCP.

Salinity alternative 4 would use a deep well to 

inject saline water into the ground. If this process 

could remove enough salt, the long-term goal for 

the refuge would be to operate the infrastructure to 

facilitate a flow-through lake system. The injection 

well would provide an effective method to remove 

salts from Lake Bowdoin, thereby reversing the 

upward trend of salt accumulation and, over time, 

reaching the salinity objective of 7,000 mg/L. To 

maximize the removal of salts, the Service would 

manage the lake at a lower level for certain periods. Once salinity concentrations were consistently 

at or below the objective level, the Service would 

evaluate lowering or removing the stoplogs at the 
208 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

outlet to Beaver Creek to allow the largest quantity of water during floods to enter and exit Lake 

Bowdoin. Decisions by refuge managers to alter this 

infrastructure would be made in cooperation and coordination with State and local agencies, interested 

landowners, and members of the public.

The next section restates the goal for salinity and 

blowing salts, followed by the proposed action’s specific objectives and strategies (and their rationale) 

that the Service would carry out to meet the goal.

Goal and Objectives for Salinity 

and Blowing Salts

Develop a water management system on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge that would 

protect the environment and mitigate current 

and future blowing salt concerns for neighboring properties, while providing quality 

water and wildlife habitat for migratory birds 

and other wetland dependent wildlife.

Objective for Interim Management 

of Lake Bowdoin

Before drilling the injection well, provide at least 

2,000 acres of subsaline (more than 9,600 mg/L), permanent, wetland habitat for migratory birds and 

associated wetland-dependent wildlife on Lake Bowdoin.

Strategies

■ Continue to receive water supplies and pursue 

available excess water from the Milk River Project to provide habitat for migratory birds.

■ Continue to work with the State of Montana during the adjudication process for the Milk River 

watershed to claim an additional 8,000 acre-feet 

historical use right.

■ Continue to monitor existing surface sites, 

ground water–monitoring wells, and the lake’s 

water level elevation.

■ In the spring, transport available water to Lake 

Bowdoin in early March and end by May 15 to reduce the chance of disease outbreaks and flooding 

of overwater nesters.

■ In the fall, start transporting available water 

after September 1 to provide migratory bird 

habitat.

■ Continue to monitor for avian disease outbreaks 

and the use of islands by colonial-nesting birds.

Rationale. Until the injection well project starts, the 

refuge would continue to manage for quality habitat 

under the current subsaline wetland conditions. In 

the absence of a large flood event, conditions in Lake 

Bowdoin would remain in the subsaline category, 

because there is no means to remove salts from the 

lake.

Wetland habitat is highly dependent on the available water delivered by the Malta Irrigation District; the lake has historically provided habitat for 

a variety of waterfowl and other waterbirds. Water 

deliveries in early spring would continue to provide 

wetland habitat throughout summer and fall. The 

refuge would continue monitoring salinity and wildlife use. In addition, collection of baseline data would 

be needed to effectively monitor the results of the 

injection well project.

Objective for Public Outreach 

and Education

While implementing the objectives to reduce salinity 

on Lake Bowdoin, provide valuable information on 

the process, benefits, and results of this salt reduction program to the public; local, State, and Federal 

governments; other agencies; and partners.

The canvasback duck is one of many waterfowl species 

that uses Lake Bowdoin.

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 209

Strategies

■ Inform people about the salinity situation and options with news releases to the media.

■ Provide salinity information and monitoring results to the public in several ways including: presentations to community groups, distribution of 

brochures, and up-to-date Web pages.

■ Conduct tours of the saline treatment site (injection well).

Rationale. It is likely that the injection well would 

not be operational for at least 5 years. During this 

time, the Service would continue to provide information on the progress for getting money and starting 

construction. This would be accomplished through 

news articles and presentations provided at Bowdoin Refuge and to community groups. When the 

Service started implementing the proposed action, 

the refuge staff would develop a fact sheet and other 

outreach methods to describe the installation and 

operation plan for the injection well, including where 

the injection well would be drilled. Once the project 

was fully implemented, the Service would provide 

updates on how the project was proceeding and 

meeting the objectives.

Table 12. Partner agencies and expertise for the injection well project at Lake Bowdoin, Montana.

Agency Expertise and coordination

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Geological Survey

Milk River Basin Joint Board of Control (irrigation districts)

Oil and gas companies

Nongovernmental organizations

Contaminants

Water quality standards

Regulatory standards

Hydrology and technical assistance

Water quality monitoring

Water rights

Well permit

Well operation

Well monitoring

Water delivery

Negotiations with irrigation districts

Wetland ecology

Salinity and hydrological monitoring

Geologic formations

Water quantity

Water delivery

Injection well drilling

Geologic formations 

Grants

Other funding sources

Objective for Salinity Concentration

Within 15 years after construction of the injection 

well, reduce salt concentrations in Lake Bowdoin 

to an average TDS (salts) of 7,000 mg/L at a lake 

elevation of 2209.0 feet while accepting all salt and 

water inputs, to provide the water quality needed to 

improve the diversity and quantity of wetland plants 

and invertebrates that can support healthy populations of waterbirds and other wetland-dependent 

species.

Strategies

■ Develop a stepdown plan and required environmental analysis for the design, placement, 

installation, operation, and maintenance of the 

injection well in coordination with DEQ, DNRC, 

EPA, Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey, irrigation districts, and other partners (table 12).

■ Acquire project funding: (1) minimum of $6.7 

million to design and construct the project; and 

(2) $100,000 to operate and maintain the system 

annually.

■ Coordinate with local oil and gas companies and 

other consultants to determine the most cost-
210 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

effective methods to drill and operate the injection well.

■ Collect baseline information on plant and wildlife 

diversity and water quality as a basis for monitoring the effects of reducing salinity concentrations and the effectiveness of the method.

■ Within 5 years, install the infrastructure necessary to achieve the objective including an injection well, intake pipes, power source, and pump 

house.

■ Allow the water level of Lake Bowdoin to naturally recede to achieve maximum concentrations 

of salts for efficient injection. Limit fall water 

deliveries to maximize winter salt concentration 

levels.

■ Until the salinity objective is achieved, operate 

the pump year-round to remove the maximum 

amount of salts annually. Use the pump to maintain the salinity objective as needed.

■ Using additional maintenance staff and contractors, maintain or replace the pump and associated 

infrastructure as needed.

■ Once the salinity objective is reached, determine 

the feasibility of modifying the wetland management structures to help maintain the objective’s 

conditions by allowing Beaver Creek flooding to 

flush Lake Bowdoin. If additional water supply is 

granted, use this water to create a flow-through 

system.

Rationale. Salinity concentrations in Lake Bowdoin 

have steadily increased since 2000 due to drought 

conditions and a management decision not to place 

saline water into Dry Lake during the winter. Levels currently exceed 10,500 mg/L with higher average levels on the east side of the lake. Currently, 

there is no acceptable way to remove salts from the 

lake, thus this upward trend would continue in the 

future until a major flood or accidental spill occurred 

that would lower the salt load, at least temporarily.

Salinity concentrations are a function of water 

volume and salt loads. Nearly 7,000 tons of salt are 

added to the lake every year through various input 

sources (Kendy 1999; Stan Jones, personal communication, 2009). Extended droughts, which tend to 

occur on decadal patterns (that is, they reoccur every decade or once every few decades) in this area 

(Gleason et al. 2009), result in lower lake levels and 

elevated salt concentrations. It is estimated that, 

under relatively normal precipitation and an average 

water level of 2,210 feet in Lake Bowdoin, salinity 

would surpass 15,000 mg/L in the near future.

The salinity objective of 7,000 mg/L with normal 

water input is an aggressive target. This level was 

selected for the following reasons:

❏ It is well within the tolerances of several key 

invertebrate and plant communities including 

sago pondweed (Gleason et al. 2009).

❏ It is below levels considered harmful to waterfowl and other wetland-dependent birds.

❏ It provides managers with flexibility in operating the lake at higher water levels and reduced 

salinities.

Plant and invertebrate diversity is significantly 

lower in wetlands with high salinity concentrations 

(Euliss et al. 1999, Gleason et al. 2009, Swanson et al. 

1984). Plant communities in highly saline wetlands 

favor a few species (Gleason et al. 2009). While salttolerant plants provide habitat for a suite of birds, 

a larger diversity of plant communities is more capable of providing for the needs of many species 

of wetland-dependent wildlife. Most invertebrates 

do not have the capacity to survive in water with 

salinity concentrations exceeding about 9,000 mg/L 

(Gleason et al. 2009). The importance of invertebrates is substantial for a variety of bird groups; 

invertebrates are critical for shorebirds (Helmers 

1992, Skagen and Oman 1996), ducks (Krapu and 

Swanson 1975, Swanson et al. 1984), swans, cranes, 

grebes, and many others. Differences in how and 

where birds feed, as well as differing bill lengths and 

body size, allow birds to use invertebrates in different locations within a wetland, thereby reducing 

competition for resources. A lack of invertebrate diversity could result in food resources available for a 

narrower range of migratory birds that use the lake.

From 1990 to 2003, the refuge produced an average of 3,600 ducklings per year. Undoubtedly, many 

of these broods spent part of their development on 

Lake Bowdoin. Waterfowl broods, especially those 

less than 4 days old, are most at risk by elevated 

salinity concentrations. At salinity concentrations as 

low as 3,000 mg/L, reduced growth rates throughout 

development can occur (Mitcham and Wobeser 1988). 

If no fresh water is available, lethargy in ducklings 

can occur at 9,000 mg/L, 10-percent mortality at 

12,000 mg/L, and near 100-percent mortality at levels higher than 18,000 mg/L (Moorman et al. 1991, 

Swanson et al. 1984). The influx of water into Lake 

Bowdoin—via the Black Coulee drainage and the 

Dodson South Canal—provides a source of fresher 

water for ducklings, thereby minimizing the threat 

of direct mortality.
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 211

At a water elevation of 2,208 feet, Lake Bowdoin 

is about 2,800 acres, contains nearly 5,500 acre-feet 

of water, and has an average depth of about 2 feet. 

In contrast, at an elevation of 2,210 feet, which is 

the average operating level, the lake is about 3,500 

acres, contains 11,750 acre-feet of water, and has an 

average depth of 3.3 feet. If the salinity objective 

was met and maintained, the resulting salt concentrations of the lake with more water (higher lake 

level) would be considerably less.

This objective and the strategies for operation 

of the injection well would address the EPA regulations for a class 1 injection well, as summarized 

below:

❏ Inject below the lowermost geologic formation 

containing an underground source of drinking 

water.

❏ Identify and correct any penetrations within 

the surrounding area that would allow fluid to 

move out of the injection well.

❏ Obtain approval of the construction plan.

❏ Operate the well to ensure saline water is fully 

contained in the formation.

❏ Continuously monitor the injected water, movement of fluid in the formation, and mechanical 

operations.

❏ Plug and abandon the well correctly when complete.

Working with local groups, irrigation districts, partners, and congressional members would be essential 

to garner the support to develop, implement, and operate the injection well. The small staff at the refuge 

would require expertise and support from numerous 

partners to successfully carry out the project. The 

Service would seek expertise from public as well as 

private entities (oil and gas companies) to help guide 

the implementation of this proposed action.

Salt residue accumulates at the southeastern outflow area of Lake Bowdoin. 

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Objective for Monitoring

Monitor, document, and evaluate the effects of fluctuating lake elevations and salinity concentrations 

on wetland plants, invertebrates, and associated 

wildlife to measure the effectiveness and impacts of 

the salt reduction project.

Strategies

■ Before project construction, work with partners 

to collect baseline inventory information on current species of wetland plants, associated migratory birds and other wildlife, and invertebrates.

■ Drill monitoring wells along Black Coulee drainage to monitor ground water flow and quality.

■ Install a gauging station to monitor the rate of 

surface flow at Patrol Road Pond and Black Coulee culvert.

■ Following requirements of the EPA relating to a 

class 1 injection well, monitor the containment of 

fluid in the injection zone.
212 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Continue to monitor salinity at the established 

monitoring sites across Lake Bowdoin to determine the changes in salinity from the injection 

well project. Add additional monitoring sites as 

needed.

■ Design and implement a study to determine the 

effects of the injection well project on wetland 

plants, associated migratory birds and other 

wildlife, and invertebrates.

■ Continue to monitor for disease outbreaks and 

for effects on colonial-nesting areas in response 

to changes in lake elevation and salinity.

■ Monitor heavy metal concentrations during active salt removal and before releasing water into 

Beaver Creek.

Rationale. Refuge staff has collected a variety of 

water quality data, including salinity, for Lake Bowdoin and the surrounding wetlands for more than 30 

years. This information has been critical in understanding the water and salt balance for the lake, and 

it is important to continue this data collection. The 

Black Coulee drainage is least understood in terms 

of water quality and water quantity. Additional monitoring wells are needed in this area to document the 

characteristics of source flows.

Additional biological information is needed to 

understand plant and animal responses to fluctuating salinity concentrations. To establish pre-injection 

well conditions, baseline information on plant and 

animal occurrences and their distribution throughout the lake would be needed.

Several islands in Lake Bowdoin provide 

colonial-nesting areas for several species of birds 

including American white pelican. An estimated 

1,350 nests were present on two islands during 2009. 

Woody Island contained the largest number of nests 

and would be subject to the most disturbance if the 

lake level were consistently in the 2,208-foot range 

for extended periods during salt removal. Expanded 

surveys and monitoring would help document any 

effects on these birds. Additional coordination would 

be needed with individuals and groups conducting 

surveys if it was documented that local breeding 

populations had shifted their geographical locations.

Fluctuating water levels, both planned and unplanned, would be a part of managing salt levels in 

Lake Bowdoin. There would be times when the lake 

level would need to be low to facilitate more salt 

being removed from the system. Adaptive management would be used extensively throughout this 

process.

Objective for Research

Pursue and develop research projects that would 

provide information on how to better manage and 

monitor the injection well project and improve the 

diversity and productivity of managed subsaline and 

brackish wetlands.

Strategies

■ Work with partners to identify research and data 

needs.

■ Develop partnerships with universities to provide opportunities for graduate study projects.

■ Pursue partnerships with individuals and organizations with the required expertise to conduct 

this research.

■ Evaluate the results of research projects to determine the need and feasibility of modifying the 

management direction.

An American white pelican on the Bowdoin Refuge 

Complex feeds its nestling.

USFWS
CHAPTER 6 –Analysis of Salinity 213

Rationale. Implementing this project would provide 

opportunities for researchers to study the effects of 

not only drilling and operating the injection well but 

also the subsequent changes to habitat and wetlandassociated wildlife.

The Service would develop partnerships with 

universities to provide potential projects for graduate students and would work with other agencies 

that have the expertise and interest in evaluating 

the effectiveness of the injection well. Studying the 

area before and after installing the injection well 

could provide valuable information for addressing 

salinity on other public lands and on private lands.

The results of these analyses would assist the 

refuge in determining how successful the project 

was in achieving the salinity objective and expected 

habitat improvement. These results would also help 

to determine if modifications were needed in the 

stepdown plan for installation and operation.

CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the 

Proposed Action, the Draft CCP

The American avocet is a target waterbird for the Bowdoin 

Refuge Complex.

© Michael Forsberg

This chapter contains the specific objectives and 

strategies that would be used to carry out the Service’s proposed action (alternative B), which reflects 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex in northcentral 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 B) would apply 

to all units of the refuge complex excepting Lake 

Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge (refer to section 7.1). If the Regional Director selected alternative B 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, alternative B would be augmented by the objectives and strategies in salinity 

alternative 4, which are fully described in chapter 6 

and are not included here (refer to section 7.2).

The stepdown management plans listed in table 

19 (section 7.10) would provide implementation details for specific refuge programs.

7.1 Divestiture of Lake 

Thibadeau National Wildlife 

Refuge

The Service used the Mountain–Prairie Region’s 

divestiture model as a tool to objectively determine 

the appropriateness of divestiture (refer to appendix 

E for the application of the model). Subsequently, 

the planning team prepared a separate environmental analysis for retention or divestiture of Lake 

Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, which is documented in section 3.1 in chapter 3). These combined 

analyses determined that the refuge cannot achieve 

its purposes nor does it meet any of the goals of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

Based on the analyses in chapter 3 and appendix 

E, the Service’s proposed action is Lake Thibadeau 

alternative 2. The Service would divest its interest 

in Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, removing it from the National Wildlife Refuge System. To 
216 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

carry out this alternative, the Service would do the 

following:

■ Prepare the final divestiture proposal, through 

coordination of the refuge staff with the Mountain–Prairie Region’s Division of Realty, Division 

of Refuge Planning, and regional archaeologist.

■ Voluntarily relinquish all refuge easements and 

return all rights to the landowner.

■ Transfer to the landowner the dams, spillways, 

and water control structures, or remove them.

■ Voluntarily relinquish the refuge water rights to 

the State of Montana.

■ Complete the divestiture within 5 years of CCP 

approval.

The divestiture of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife 

Refuge would require an act of Congress.

Refuge staff record data about vegetation to measure conditions and response to management actions.

USFWS

7.2 Salinity and Blowing Salts

Chapter 6 contains a separate environmental analysis that addresses the salinity and blowing salts 

problem at Bowdoin Refuge.

Lake Bowdoin is a subsaline waterbody with a 

rising salinity level. At certain salinity concentrations, desirable plants and animals cannot survive 

and are excluded from the ecosystem. Another problematic aspect is the dissolved salts in Dry Lake, 

which are carried by wind and deposited on private 

lands, with potentially negative effects on soils, 

crops, livestock, and human health.

To accomplish refuge objectives, the Service 

needs to reduce salinity levels and restore fresher 

conditions in Lake Bowdoin. Based on the analysis in 

chapter 6, the Service has identified salinity alternative 4 as the proposed action, comprising the following major actions:

■ Develop an injection well to force saline water 

from Lake Bowdoin deep into the ground.
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 217

■ Operate Lake Bowdoin to maximize the effects of 

natural flooding by allowing Beaver Creek floodwaters to flush the lake.

■ Manage operations to meet the salinity objective 

of 7,000 mg/L of salts in Lake Bowdoin.

■ Evaluate the lake’s infrastructure to determine 

the best way to re-create a flow-through water 

system that would maximize the flushing effects 

of natural flooding.

7.3 Summary of the Draft CCP

The rest of this chapter contains the draft CCP—

the objectives and strategies for the remaining 

resources and programs in the refuge complex as 

identified in alternative B, the proposed action (refer 

to section 3.3 in chapter 3).

The focus of the draft CCP, as described in alternative B, is to carry out science-based management 

of native mixed-grass prairie and associated wildlife 

along with complementary visitor services:

■ The Service would use the best available science 

and research to determine the most effective 

methods for protecting, restoring, and enhancing native mixed-grass prairie to provide quality 

nesting habitat for targeted grassland-dependent 

birds. Invasive and nonnative plants, particularly Russian olive trees that fragment grassland habitat, would be controlled, reduced, or 

eliminated and areas restored to native plants. 

Enhanced wetlands would be managed to mimic 

natural conditions for target species of wetlanddependent migratory birds during spring and fall 

migrations and during the breeding and nesting 

season.

■ The Service would provide more waterfowl sanctuary area on the eastern half of the refuge by 

closing a portion of the refuge to all foot traffic until migrating waterfowl depart, no sooner 

than December 1. This would not affect current 

waterfowl-hunting areas. The remaining wildlifedependent public uses would be maintained or 

improved including the environmental education 

and interpretation programs. The Service would 

work with the State to determine the feasibility 

of offering a compatible, big game archery hunt 

on Bowdoin Refuge. The current visitor contact 

area would be expanded and a visitor services 

specialist would be added to the staff.

■ All programs would provide visitors with information on the purposes of the refuge complex 

including the protection of migratory birds, the 

importance of protecting the remaining native 

mixed-grass prairie, and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

■ Increased research and monitoring, staff, funding, infrastructure, and partnerships would be 

required to accomplish the goals, objectives, and 

strategies outlined in this chapter.

Sections 7.4–7.9 set out the objectives and strategies that serve as the steps needed to achieve the 

CCP goals for the remaining four refuges (not including Lake Thibadeau Refuge) and Bowdoin Wetland Management District. While a goal is a broad 

statement, an objective is a concise statement that 

indicates 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.

Appendix D contains the required compatibility 

determinations (draft) for public and management 

uses associated with this draft CCP.

7.4 Goal for Upland Habitat 

and Associated Wildlife

Protect, enhance, and restore grassland 

habitat for breeding and migratory birds and 

other wildlife while maintaining the biological diversity and integrity of native prairie 

grasslands.

Native Grassland

Prairie ecosystems thrive on the intermittent disturbance brought by frequent fire and the irregular mosaic of vegetation carved out by insects and 

native grazers, especially the periodic passage of 

bison. These disturbances and subsequent renewal 

have shaped the life cycle of every native prairie 

organism. More than 150 years ago, bison were replaced with cattle, which grazed differently and did 

not migrate. Historically, continuous cattle grazing 
218 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

was allowed on the refuge complex until the mid1970s. This, combined with a lack of fire for at least 

70 years, has resulted in a loss of plant structure 

and species diversity, both of which are necessary 

for a healthy and productive grassland ecosystem. 

The more palatable, tall, cool-season grasses such as 

green needlegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass have 

been replaced by increasers such as blue grama, 

fringed sagewort, and clubmoss. While these plants 

are an important part of native prairie, they should 

be components of a more diverse community (Lacey 

et al. 2005). The loss of variety in plant species and 

structure can be detrimental to grassland-dependent 

birds, which require a variety of habitats for nesting 

and foraging.

Today, cattle grazing can be a valuable tool in the 

absence of bison. If applied or used properly, grazing 

of native prairie by cattle can be used to stimulate 

vegetative and reproductive growth of plants. However, it is important that it be closely monitored and 

follow a prescription to achieve a habitat objective.

Grassland-nesting birds are one of the most rapidly declining groups of wildlife in North America, 

primarily due to habitat loss (Peterjohn et al. 1999). 

The Service has selected six target species of upland 

birds; these species depend on native prairie habitat and are listed as species of concern by Federal, 

State, and private entities (table 13). The upland 

habitat objectives, for both native and disturbed 

grasslands, focus on providing quality habitats (table 

14) for these target species. The resulting habitats 

should benefit a much broader group of secondary 

bird species as well as a variety of other wildlife, 

both migratory and resident. This includes several 

of the target species of waterbirds (refer to section 

7.5).

Table 13. Conservation status of target species of upland birds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

U.S. Fish and National Montana species Partners in Bureau of Land Species Wildlife Service Audubon 1 3 4 of concern Flight priority Management 2 focal species Watch List 5

Baird’s sparrow

Sprague’s pipit

Chestnut-collared longspur

Greater sage-grouse

Long-billed curlew

Marbled godwit

S2

S2

S3

S3

S2

—

√

Candidate

√

Candidate

√

√

1

1

2

1

2

2

Sensitive

Sensitive

Sensitive

Sensitive

Sensitive

Sensitive

Red

Yellow

Yellow

Yellow

Yellow

Yellow

1 S2=At risk because of very limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, or habitat, making it vulnerable to 

global extinction or extirpation in the State. S3=Potentially at risk because of limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas. (Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks; Montana 

Natural Heritage Program)

2 Candidate=A species under consideration for official listing, for which there is sufficient information to support listing. 3 1=Needs conservation action. 2=Needs monitoring. 4 Sensitive=Proven to be imperiled in at least part of its range and documented to occur on Bureau of Land Management lands.

5 Red=Declining rapidly or having very small populations or limited ranges and facing major conservation threats; 

typically of global conservation concern. Yellow=Declining or rare; typically of national conservation concern.

Native Grassland Objective 1

Over the next 50 years or more, manage for native 

grassland plant species composition that approximates the historical plant community consisting of 

(1) 80–90 percent grasses and grass-like plants including green needlegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, 

and western wheatgrass, (2) 8–12 percent forbs such 

as American vetch, dotted gayfeather, purple prairie 

clover, and other native forbs, and (3) 4–6 percent 

shrubs such as winterfat, silver sagebrush, and rubber rabbitbrush.

Strategies

■ Complete a baseline inventory of native grasslands in the refuge complex to determine abundance and overall health of grasses, forbs, and 

shrubs including whether remnants of the historical climax plant community exist and can serve 

as a seed source for restoration efforts.

■ Determine if native ungulates are overbrowsing 

forbs and shrubs.

■ Determine priority areas for restoration using 

the baseline inventory.
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 219

■ Develop a grassland habitat management plan 

that incorporates tested methods for preserving 

and enhancing native grassland.

■ Use a variety of management techniques such as 

prescribed burning, prescriptive grazing, and “interseeding.” Use care with prescribed fire in this 

arid climate—to determine if and when an area 

should be burned, consider weather patterns (for 

example, annual rainfall since an area was last 

burned), vegetation, plant diversity, and current 

use by target bird species.

■ Plant silver sagebrush on the Korsbeck and Beaver Creek WPAs to provide additional breeding, 

nesting, and feeding habitat for greater sagegrouse.

■ To determine the effectiveness of management 

techniques, use a scientifically credible and 

conservative adaptive management monitoring scheme including evaluating the response 

of target upland bird species. Use this adaptive 

management approach to determine if the most 

effective methods and technologies are being 

used to achieve this objective.

■ Collaborate with the Bureau of Land Management to monitor the prairie dog town on Hewitt 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge to ensure that 

it is maintained. Possibly pursue an agreement 

to close the entire prairie dog town to shooting 

year-round.

■ Use habitat evaluations on Bowdoin Refuge to 

determine potential effects (and their degree) of 

native big game grazers such as white-tailed deer 

and pronghorn overbrowsing desirable native 

plant species, which would affect both species 

diversity and structure.

Table 14. Nesting habitat requirements for target species of upland birds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Montana.

Species Vegetation height

(inches)

Litter depth1

(inches)

Shrub cover

(percent)

Area

sensitive 2

Use of nonnative 

vegetation

Baird’s sparrow 8.3–13.4 1.6–8.3 <25 Yes Low

Sprague’s pipit 10–12.5 0.8–4.3 5–20 Yes Low

Chestnut-collared longspur

5.9–11.8 <2.5 <25 Yes Low

Greater sage-grouse >5.9 — 15–31 Yes —

Long-billed curlew 2.5–11 — 0 Yes Some

Marbled godwit 5.9–11.8 0.8–3.5 — Yes Low

1 (—)=No data found.

2 Area sensitive=Species are more abundant or occur more frequently in larger patches of mixed-grass prairie; size of 

the area varies with the species.

Sources: Davis (2004), Dechant et al. (2003), Dieni and Jones (2003), Green et al. (2002), Jones (2010), MSGWG (2005).

Silver Sagebrush

Gary A. Monroe / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Rationale. Restoration of the historical plant community in the uplands would be a long-term project that goes well beyond the 15-year scope of the 

CCP. Ideally, upland habitats in the refuge complex 

would consist, over time, of grassland that provides 

a diversity of native vegetation and a mosaic of vegetative structure across a broad landscape. This 

mosaic of vegetation communities supports a greater 

diversity of grassland birds (Fuhlendorf et al. 2006, 

Madden et al. 2000) and other wildlife; however, 

whatever treatments are used for restoration must 

take into account the dry climate and the needs of 

the target bird species. The fact that many of the 
220 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

target birds are present and nesting on uplands in 

the refuge complex indicates that these areas are 

already providing some habitat for these species. 

Using both monitoring and adaptive management 

would be important before choosing where, how, 

and when to enhance the vegetative and structural 

diversity of an area.

The Society for Ecological Restoration defines 

ecological restoration as “the process of assisting the 

recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, 

damaged or destroyed” (Society for Ecological 

Restoration International 2004). As stated in their 

International Primer on Ecological Restoration, 

ecosystems may be altered “to the point at which 

the ecosystem cannot recover its predisturbance 

state or its historical developmental trajectory. Restoration attempts to return an ecosystem to its historic trajectory.” It is not known how far the refuge 

complex would get along the restoration trajectory 

over the 15 years of the CCP; but once there was a 

baseline inventory, the Service could at least track 

that uplands were moving toward the ideal plant 

community and structure described in this objective.

A reference ecosystem that serves as a model 

is necessary to design restoration. Historical conditions are a good starting point for restoration 

design. The conditions described in this objective 

are based on the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture)–Natural Resource Conservation Service’s 

ecological site description for the silty 10- to 14-inch 

precipitation zone (Lacey et al. 2005). Ecological site 

descriptions are based on “relic areas and other areas protected from excessive disturbance,” illustrating the historical climax plant community as further 

described below (Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 2003):

The historic climax plant community for a 

site in North America is the plant community 

that existed at the time of European immigration and settlement. It is the plant community that was best adapted to the unique 

combination of environmental factors associated with the site [...] Natural disturbances, 

such as drought, fire, grazing of native fauna, 

and insects, were inherent in the development 

and maintenance of these plant communities 

[...] Plant communities that are subjected to 

abnormal disturbances and physical site deterioration or that are protected from natural 

influences, such as fire, for long periods, seldom typify the historic climax vegetation and 

may exist in a steady state that is different 

from the historic climax plant community. 

The historic climax plant community of an 

ecological site is not a precise assemblage of 

species for which the proportions are the same 

from place to place or from year to year.

The ecological site description describes the grass, 

forb, and shrub species that compose the historical 

climax plant community and how the site may be 

affected by management actions such as lack of fire 

and overgrazing and environmental conditions such 

as prolonged drought. According to the ecological 

site description, most of the native uplands in the 

refuge complex are classified as “Plant Community 

C,” which is characterized by a loss of tall bunchgrasses (green needlegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, 

and porcupine grass) and an overabundance of clubmoss, blue grama, and prairie Junegrass.

Bowdoin Refuge may support as many as 300 

white-tailed deer and pronghorn. Pronghorn graze 

some portions of the refuge year-round. While the 

full effect of this constant grazing is unknown, observations of sentinel forbs and shrub species on 

portions of the refuge show signs of severe overgrazing (Bob Skinner, wildlife biologist, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Lewistown, Montana; personal 

communication, March 2007). Sentinel species are 

those species of desirable native plants that are often overbrowsed. These grazers, although native, 

can have detrimental effects on species diversity and 

structure due to their plant preferences. The Service 

would need to determine the severity of the grazing 

and, if necessary, determine how to better distribute 

and reduce herd sizes.

Clubmoss

M.C. Stensvold / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Native Grassland Objective 2

Within 3 years, use various treatment methods to 

determine the most effective technique for treating 

and restoring refuge uplands that have become unnaturally dominated (greater than 30-percent cover) 

by clubmoss.
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 221

Strategies

■ Thoroughly research clubmoss effects and other 

studies dealing with clubmoss.

■ Network with other agencies and universities 

that are dealing with clubmoss such as Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, The Nature 

Conservancy, and Montana State University.

■ Recruit graduate students to carry out clubmoss 

studies on the refuge complex.

■ Initially, establish small research plots of approximately 0.5 acre (=148 feet×148 feet) within 

a designated 5-acre, native-grassland study area 

that contains at least 30-percent clubmoss cover. 

Locate plots in areas with no nearby infestations 

of invasive plants.

■ Investigate the effectiveness of using methods 

for treating and removing clubmoss: prescribed 

fire, grazing, “interseeding” of historical climax 

plant community species, fertilizing, herbicides, 

and other mechanical techniques.

■ Map and monitor all treatment and control plots 

and document the clubmoss response.

Rationale. While clubmoss is a natural component 

of native uplands, overgrazing, drought, and lack of 

fire have allowed it to increase as herbaceous cover 

decreased. Clubmoss spreads slowly but tolerates 

drought better than most native grasses and forbs. 

According to the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service ecological site description, clubmoss cover 

in the historical plant community varied from none 

to trace amounts. Vegetation measurements taken 

in native prairie (four study plots, 445 acres total) on 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge from 1998 to 2001 

show clubmoss cover to average 21 percent with a 

standard deviation of 15 percent (Dieni and Jones 

2003).

The role of clubmoss in plant communities is not 

well understood. It has been theorized that clubmoss 

outcompetes other vegetation by forming dense 

mats that intercept water and prevent seed germination (Heady 1952, Majorowicz 1963). Other studies 

have rejected this hypothesis and have suggested 

that (1) clubmoss does not affect water use by other 

plants (Colberg and Romo 2003) and (2) that seed 

germination is more affected by the species of seeds 

in the seedbanks (Romo and Bai 2004). Clubmoss 

may also reduce runoff, increase water infiltration in 

heavy rain events ,and prevent invasive plants from 

becoming established in native grasslands that have 

been stressed by past overgrazing or drought (Van 

Dyne and Vogel 1967).

Furthermore, little is known about the value of 

clubmoss to wildlife. Dieni and Jones (2003) found 

that some grassland-nesting songbirds such as 

Baird’s sparrows and western meadowlarks select 

nest patches (1.64 foot–radius plots around nests) 

with little or no clubmoss cover, while chestnutcollared longspurs favor sites with more cover. 

Sprague’s pipits, did not indicate a preference.

While not seeking to eliminate clubmoss, reducing its abundance in some areas would help in the 

restoration of the uplands to the historical climax 

plant community. Small research plots and a combination of treatments would be used to simultaneously reduce clubmoss and reintroduce decreaser 

species such as green needlegrass and bluebunch 

wheatgrass. Successful methods would be used for 

future management of clubmoss to create a diversity of native vegetation and a mosaic of vegetative 

structure across uplands in the refuge complex.

Refuge staff apply bands to grassland-nesting birds such 

as Baird’s sparrow to gather scientific information.

D.M. Prellwitz / USFWS

Disturbed Grassland

Of the 4,477 acres of disturbed grasslands in the 

refuge complex, 4,008 acres are on the wetland management district and 469 acres on Bowdoin Refuge. 

These disturbed grasslands are areas where the 

soil has been disrupted either by Service activities 

or by former landowners for agricultural purposes. 

These lands have been seeded to DNC (dense nesting cover), a mixture of several tame wheatgrasses 

and legumes that is particularly attractive to nesting 

waterfowl. The predominant grass species in the 

DNC mix were intermediate wheatgrass, tall wheat-
222 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

grass, slender wheatgrass, pubescent wheatgrass, 

and western wheatgrass; the legumes were alfalfa 

and sweetclover.

Many of the DNC fields in the refuge complex 

are in poor condition with respect to plant diversity. 

These fields have only two to three of the originally 

planted species remaining and in many cases are 

dominated by exotic cool-season grasses (for example, crested wheatgrass and cheatgrass). Proper 

management of DNC is very intensive. A successful 

planting may provide quality habitat up to 8 years 

without disturbance; however, it is the periodic 

vegetation treatments such as burning and 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 

stand, the lifespan of a DNC seeding is about 15 

years (Higgins and Barker 1982, Lokemoen 1984). 

Most of the refuge complex’s DNC fields are well 

past this 15-year period.

Due to the intensive management requirements 

and the limited lifespan of DNC plantings—combined with recent studies indicating minimal benefits 

to grassland-nesting birds in DNC plantings in areas 

with an abundance of perennial cover (Arnold et al. 

2007)—the refuge complex would gradually work to 

reseed the disturbed grasslands to native vegetation.

Disturbed Grassland Objective 1

Over the next 15 years, reseed at least 500 acres 

to native herbaceous mixtures on areas that have 

become decadent and overrun by nonnative, coolseason grasses to comprise more than 60-percent native grasses and forbs within 10 years after seeding.

Strategies

■ Use the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s ecological site descriptions, based on soil 

type, to determine characteristic vegetation composition for each site.

■ Use locally collected seeds for planting to maintain the genetic strain of native plants found in 

the area, based on availability and cost.

■ Use appropriate techniques for site preparation 

to ensure weed-free seedbeds.

■ Use farming activities to prepare appropriate 

seedbeds.

■ Manage habitat using tools such as prescribed 

fire and prescriptive grazing, haying, and resting.

■ Use integrated pest management strategies to 

reduce invasive plants including noxious weeds.

■ Use the best available science and updated techniques for restoration and monitoring response.

■ Work with universities and other partners to 

pursue graduate student and research projects 

that would address specific management challenges for restoring and managing disturbed 

grasslands including controlling clubmoss and 

crested wheatgrass.

■ Monitor the response of target species of upland 

birds before and after treatment to determine 

the success of management techniques, and use 

adaptive management to ensure the refuge complex is using the most effective methods and new 

technologies.

■ In restored areas, continue to trap mammalian 

predators such as raccoons and skunks (1) to decrease predation on ground-nesting migratory 

birds and their nests and (2) to protect birds that 

have been live-trapped for banding or disease 

detection. Continue to use only live traps in these 

situations to ensure that only targeted predator 

species are removed from the area (use no leg 

hold traps).

Rationale. Using appropriate management techniques to emulate the natural disturbances under 

which native prairie plants evolved, the native plant 

seeding should persist in perpetuity. The native 

plantings would reduce habitat fragmentation and 

attract grassland birds that have adapted to the 

diverse structure of native prairie; whereas DNC 

would limit the structural diversity of the vegetation 

and likely attract those bird species that key into tall 

dense cover. Native grass, although more difficult to 

establish and usually more expensive, can be maintained in a vigorous condition longer without the 

need for constant rejuvenation.

Disturbed Grassland Objective 2

Over the next 15 years, continue to use and maintain 

DNC on disturbed grasslands for wildlife habitat; 

maintain DNC every 4–7 years to promote the optimal vigor of present plant species.
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 223

Strategies

■ Use appropriate techniques for site preparation 

to ensure weed-free seedbeds.

■ Use farming activities to prepare appropriate 

seedbeds.

■ Seed DNC on highly erodible lands in Bowdoin 

Wetland Management District.

■ Manage habitat using tools such as prescribed 

fire and prescriptive cattle grazing and haying to 

establish and maintain DNC.

■ Use integrated pest management strategies to 

reduce noxious weeds and other invasive plants.

Rationale. Disturbed grasslands that have not been 

targeted for native plantings would be maintained in 

their current state of cover, and periodic treatment 

would remove accumulated duff and rejuvenate 

plants. Vegetative cover including DNC plantings 

older than 15 years would be managed to maintain 

their vigor, so these areas could continue to provide 

value to wildlife and increased soil stabilization for 

reduced sedimentation into wetlands.

Some areas might be reseeded to DNC if needed 

to maintain structure and productivity. Fields dominated by exotic cool-season grasses such as crested 

wheatgrass and cheatgrass might become source 

sites from which these exotic grasses could invade 

adjoining grasslands. In these situations, it might 

be more appropriate due to funding availability to 

plant DNC rather than a native grass mixture. In 

those seed mixes, viable grasses would be western 

wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass, and tall wheatgrass, and alfalfa would be a compatible legume. On 

highly erodible land that has lost its topsoil layer 

due to years of farming, planted DNC could reduce 

erosion and initiate the redevelopment of a topsoil 

layer for future native seed establishment.

The sora is a small marsh bird that uses ponds in the 

Bowdoin Refuge Complex.

Dave Menke / USFWS

7.5 Goal for Wetland Habitat 

and Associated Wildlife

Provide wetland habitat for breeding and 

migratory birds and other wildlife that maintains biological diversity and integrity of 

prairie pothole wetlands.

Wetlands in the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex are a mixture of managed and natural wetlands of different types, sizes, and water quality. 

Managed wetlands are areas created or restored 

through water management, such as using water 

control structures to manually flood areas and to 

conduct water drawdowns. The focus for managed 

wetlands is to mimic natural wetland conditions 

whenever possible.

Temporary, seasonal, and semipermanent 

wetlands are by far the most important types of 

wetlands for most species of waterfowl that breed 

throughout the Prairie Pothole Region (Kantrud et 

al. 1989). Waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds depend on this complex of wetland types to 

fulfill various needs throughout their life history, 

particularly during the breeding season (Baldasarre 

and Bolen 2006). For example, during a radio-telemetry study of mallards nesting North Dakota, 

eight females used 7–22 different wetlands during 

the breeding period; the birds preferred temporary, 

seasonal, and, to a lesser extent, semipermanent 

wetlands (Dwyer et al. 1979).

By understanding how waterfowl and other 

waterbirds use resources, managers are able to attract and hold these species on managed wetlands. 

Manipulation of soil and water to produce essential 

habitat structure or foods may be necessary. The 

sharp increase in invertebrate populations when 

wetlands flood following a dry phase is an important 

reason for artificially flooding and draining wetlands 

to enhance waterfowl habitat (Cook and Powers 

1958, Kadlec and Smith 1992), and it is the basis for 

the modern-day practice of moist-soil management 

(Fredrickson and Taylor 1982).

To promote seed-producing wetland plants for 

fall migrants like waterfowl, it is important to know 

the regional growing seasons. Managers can use this 

information to schedule gradual drawdowns of managed wetlands to achieve the most productive plant 

response. Plant promotion is also good structure 

for production and diversity of invertebrates. The 
224 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

average length of the growing season in Phillips 

County, Montana, is 130 days (PhillCo Economic 

Growth Council, Inc. 2001). Where the growing season is shorter than 140 days, wetland drawdowns 

are described as early or late drawdowns. Early 

drawdowns are those that occur during the first 

45 days of the growing season, whereas late drawdowns occur in the latter 90 days of the growing 

season (Fredrickson 1991). In areas characterized 

by summer droughts, early drawdowns often result 

in good germination and newly established plants 

have time to establish adequate root systems before 

dry summer weather predominates. For example, 

smartweed tends to respond best to early drawdowns, whereas sprangletop responds best to late 

drawdowns. Drawdowns can be natural or mechanical (by means of water control structures).

Drawdowns attract a diversity of foraging birds 

such as shorebirds and white-faced ibis to wetlands 

with abundant food resources, 

concentrated in smaller areas and 

at different water depths (Fredrickson 1991). Slow drawdowns 

(2–3 weeks) are usually more 

desirable for plant establishment 

and wildlife use. Slow release of 

water concentrates and traps invertebrates, making them readily 

available to foraging birds. Furthermore, drawdowns scheduled 

to match the spring migration are 

beneficial to migratory waterbirds.

Managed Wetlands

Lake Bowdoin attracts thousands of ducks, swans, 

and geese during the spring and fall migrations. The 

lake is a 5,459-acre natural, subsaline, permanent 

wetland that, during the early history of Bowdoin 

Refuge, was modified to create additional wetland 

habitat for migratory birds. Modifications to the lake 

included water control structures and a dike system 

for holding delivered water and capturing floodwaters and runoff.

Additionally, the Service manipulates water in 

several ponds in the refuge complex that attract a 

tremendous diversity of waterfowl and shorebirds, 

including the threatened piping plover. The deepwater impoundments have emergent vegetation such 

as bulrush and cattails and are important nesting, 

brood-rearing, and feeding sites for diving ducks 

such as the canvasback, as well as for the marsh 

wren, sora, and others.

Some of the managed semipermanent wetlands 

in the refuge complex lack full-management capabilities from off-refuge irrigation return flows, 

subirrigation, and seepage from Nelson Reservoir. 

Examples of these are Ducks Unlimited Pond, Patrol Road Pond, and Strater Pond.

Target Waterbird Species

The Service has selected a diverse group of target 

waterbird species, including ducks and shorebirds 

(table 15). Table 16 displays the habitat needs that 

the Service identified for these target species. 

Managing for the life history needs of these species 

would provide the natural wetland diversity and 

conditions needed not only for these targeted species but also for an even greater variety of wetlandassociated wildlife. Monitoring would focus on these 

targeted species to determine their response to wetland management.

Shorebird Habitat Target 

Species

Nearly 40 species of shorebirds 

migrate through the interior 

region of North America and 

13 species breed in this region 

(Helmers 1992). Shorebirds exploit upland habitats associated 

with wetlands by foraging in 

shallowly flooded pastures or irrigated agricultural fields with 

short, sparse, residual vegetation 

left from mowing, haying, grazing, or burning practices. Migratory shorebirds consume large 

numbers of invertebrates. Invertebrate availability in wetlands is a function of the 

hydrologic regime. Many shorebirds feed predominantly on chironomid larvae (blood worms), which 

occur in open shallow habitats with a silt substrate 

relatively free of vegetation.

Most shorebird use occurs where vegetation 

cover is less than 25 percent. Shorebirds prefer 

short vegetation, generally less than half the height 

of the bird. Nest sites for the target shorebirds 

range from sand or gravel substrate with no vegetation (piping plover) to midgrass prairie (marbled 

godwit, willet). Managing for a range of wetland 

habitat conditions, from sparsely vegetated mudflats 

to moderately vegetated open shallows, would provide shorebirds with required habitats throughout 

their migratory and breeding periods.

Eleven species of shorebirds have been documented breeding on the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex: piping plover, killdeer, long-billed 

curlew, common snipe, upland sandpiper, marbled 
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 225

godwit, willet, spotted sandpiper, American avocet, 

Wilson’s phalarope, and mountain plover. Shorebird 

habitat management in the refuge complex would 

emphasize provision of breeding habitat for three 

target species: piping plover, marbled godwit, and 

willet (table 17). These species represent different 

guilds (groups of species all members of which use 

similar resources in a similar way). Meeting the diverse habitat requirements for these species would 

likely provide quality habitat for all shorebirds.

Spring migration habitat should be available on 

the refuge complex by mid-April that provides foraging water depths of 0 (dry mud) to 0.6 feet (18 

centimeters), which would meet the needs of these 

species, as specified below and in figure 42:

■ Piping plover: 0–0.1 feet (0–3 centimeters)

■ Marbled godwit: 0.1–0.5 feet (4–16 centimeters)

■ Willet: 0–0.5 feet (0–16 centimeters)

Table 15. Conservation status of target species of waterbirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Montana.

Species Montana species 

of concern1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service focal species

Partners in 

Flight priority 2

Bureau of Land 

Management 3

National Audubon 

Watch List 4

Northern pintail — √ — — —

Mallard — √ — — —

Redhead — — — — —

Tundra swan — — — — —

Piping plover S2 Threatened 1 Special status Red

White-faced ibis S1 — 2 Sensitive —

Willet — — 3 — —

Franklin’s gull S3 — 2 Sensitive —

Wilson’s phalarope — √ 3 Sensitive Yellow

1 S1=At high risk because of extremely limited or rapidly declining numbers, range, or habitat, making it highly 

vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the State. S2=At risk because of very limited and potentially declining 

numbers, extent, or habitat, making it vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the State. S3=Potentially at 

risk because of limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some 

areas. (Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks; Montana Natural Heritage Program)

2 1=Needs conservation action. 2=Needs monitoring. 3=Local concern. 3 Special status or Sensitive=Proven to be imperiled in at least part of its range and documented to occur on Bureau of 

Land Management lands.

4Red=Declining rapidly or having very small populations or limited ranges and facing major conservation threats; 

typically of global conservation concern. Yellow=Declining or rare.

Wetland Habitat Objectives

The following objectives address management of the 

temporary, seasonal, and semipermanent wetlands 

within the Bowdoin Refuge Complex.

Wetland Habitat Objective 1

Depending on the availability of delivered water and 

environmental conditions, fill at least 70 percent of 

the temporary wetlands to a maximum of 1.5 feet 

in spring (by April 15) for 3 out of every 5 years to 

provide breeding, nesting, feeding, and migration 

habitat for target waterbirds and feeding and breeding habitat for resident waterfowl and shorebirds.

Strategies

■ Coordinate with Malta Irrigation District for 

timely water delivery to ensure water is available for peak migration periods for waterbirds.

■ Develop new ground-water wells to supplement 

wetland management needs in the refuge complex.

■ Develop water-pumping sites on Beaver Creek 

WPA and McNeil Slough WPA to create wetland 

habitat for migratory birds.

■ Manipulate water levels with flooding and drawdowns (natural and physical releases).

■ Monitor the response of target waterbirds to 

habitat management.
226 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 16. Life history needs of target species of waterbirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Montana.

Species Arrival date Forage depth

(feet)

Peak nesting monthNesting site 

(distance above water line) Departure date

Northern pintail Mid-March to 

early April ≤1.5 Mid-May Shortgrass uplands November

Mallard Mid-March ≤1.5 May Uplands, 2 feet Freeze-up to 

November

Emergent vegetation 

Redhead April1 3.3–9.8 Late May (cattails and hardstem Early October 1

bulrush), 0.2–0.8 feet

Tundra swan Late March and 

late September 0–3.3 — — Early April andNovember

Marbled godwit Late April 2 3 0.2–0.4 May Midgrass uplands, 4 <0.5 feet September

White-faced ibis May2 0–1 May Cattails and bulrushes, 

3 feet September

Franklin’s gull Mid-April 5 0–0.5 May Cattail or bulrush mats Mid-October

Wilson’s phalarope Early May 0–0.25 June Uplands and wet meadows Mid-August to

early September

1

Frank Belrose (1980).

2

Ryan and Renken (1987).

3

Melcher et al. (2006).

4

Eldridge (1992).

5

Refuge staff observations.

Sources: Unless otherwise the noted, this information came from Birds of North America Online (Poole 2005) and 

Montana Field Guide (2010).

Table 17. Nest site and habitat characteristics of target, interior-nesting shorebirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, Montana.

Species Nest site Substrate Wetland type Vegetation

height

Vegetation

density

Nesting

behavior

Piping plover Beach or Open, salt flats, Alkaline or saline None Sparse Semicolonial

peninsula or gravel

Marbled godwit Upland Open or vegetated Freshwater or Medium Moderate Solitary

saline

Willet Upland Open or vegetated Freshwater or Medium Moderate Solitary

prairie saline

Source: Helmers (1992).

■ Monitor the response of plants and invertebrates 

to the timing of flooding and drawdowns.

■ Monitor for undesirable plants such as cattail 

and bulrush. To maintain no more vegetation 

than a ratio of 70:30 for vegetation to open water, 

conduct management actions necessary to set 

back monocultures of these plants through flooding, prescribed burning, prescriptive grazing, or 

chemical use.

■ Time flooding and drawdowns to mimic natural 

hydroperiods (wet cycles).

■ Conduct all water manipulations slowly, so invertebrates can adjust to the changes in water level 

and temperature.

■ Use mid- to late-summer water deliveries as part 

of managing large monocultures of cattails that 

reduce the availability of open-water habitat for 

waterbirds.
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 227

■ Allow wetlands to go dry by late spring or early 

summer through evaporation or water level management.

■ Identify and map potential areas to create or enhance wetlands.

Figure 42. Graph of water depth and substrate preferences of shorebird foraging guilds (Helmers 1992).

Rationale. Wetland vegetation is important to waterbirds such as waterfowl because they produce seeds, 

tubers, browse, and nesting sites and serve as litter 

or food for invertebrate populations. Temporary, 

seasonal, and semipermanent potholes are by far 

the most important wetland areas for breeding waterfowl (Kantrud and Stewart 1977, Stewart and 

Kantrud 1973). They provide migratory bird habitat 

for spring migration, feeding, and resting. In addition, potholes provide breeding habitat for the 

target species that depend on temporary wetlands. 

These wetlands are particularly important breeding 

habitat for early nesting species such as northern 

pintail and mallard and also serve as habitat for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds (Baldasarre and 

Bolen 2006). Temporary wetlands hold water for 

only a few weeks after snowmelt and occasionally for 

a few days following heavy rainstorms in late spring, 

summer, and fall. They are especially important, because they provide isolation and spacing for pairs of 

breeding waterfowl. Temporary wetlands are shallow basins; therefore, waters warm rapidly and are 

the first to become ice-free in late winter and early 

spring and provide the first sources of invertebrates 

(Baldasarre and Bolen 2006, Swanson et al. 1974).

Timing, speed, and duration of water deliveries 

and of wetland drawdowns all have important effects on the composition and production of wetland 

plants, invertebrate production and accessibility, and 

use by waterbirds. Fall flooding provides waterfowl 

and other waterbirds access to invertebrates and 

to seeds produced by wetland plants. Edges of wetlands with mudflats or shallow areas create feeding 

habitat for shorebirds and resting areas for other 

waterbirds. As the wetland deepens toward the center it creates different feeding depths for various 

species of waterbirds.
228 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

White-faced ibis congregate in a wetland at Bowdoin Refuge Complex.

USFWS

Wetland Habitat Objective 2

Depending on the availability of delivered water and 

environmental conditions, fill at least 70 percent of 

the seasonal wetlands to a maximum of 1.5 feet in 

the spring or fall, or both, for 4 out of every 5 years 

to provide feeding, breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, 

and migration habitat for target waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds.

Strategies

■ Coordinate with Malta Irrigation District for 

timely water delivery to ensure water is available for peak migration periods for waterbirds.

■ Acquire funding to buy additional delivered water from Malta Irrigation District (when available) for Lake Bowdoin during the spring or fall, 

or both.

■ Manipulate water levels with flooding and drawdowns (natural and physical releases).

■ Time flooding and drawdowns to mimic natural 

hydroperiods.

■ Conduct all water manipulations slowly, so invertebrates can adjust to the changes in water level 

and temperature.

■ Monitor the response of plants and invertebrates 

to the timing of flooding and drawdowns.

■ Monitor for undesirable plants such as cattail 

and bulrush. To maintain no more vegetation 

than a ratio of 70:30 for vegetation to open water, 

conduct management actions necessary to set 

back monocultures of these plants through flooding, prescribed burning, prescriptive grazing, or 

chemical use.

■ Gradually fill temporary wetlands in late summer (September) over a 2- to 3-week period to 

provide feeding habitat for fall-migrating shorebirds. Continue filling to a maximum of 1.5 feet 

by October 30 for use by fall-migrating waterfowl 

and other waterbirds and in preparation for the 

following spring migration.

■ Gradually begin filling wetlands by the beginning of April over a 2- to 3-week period for spring 

migrants. Continue filling to a maximum of 1.5 

feet by April 15 for use by spring-migrating waterfowl and other waterbirds.

■ Provide a 70:30 ratio of emergent vegetation to 

water over 7–8 years, with cattails not occupying more than 70 percent of a wetland. Remove 

80–100 percent of cattails by using disking, burning, or chemical treatment when cattails exceed 

70 percent of the wetland surface.

■ Use chemicals approved by the Service for aerial 

spraying to kill undesirable plants in wetlands.

Rationale. Seasonal wetlands maintain water in 

spring and early summer but normally are dry by 
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 229

late summer and early fall. They provide migrating, feeding, and resting habitat for migratory 

waterbirds. In addition, seasonal wetlands provide 

habitat for breeding and brood rearing for species 

such as northern pintail, mallard, and marbled godwit. These wetlands provide abundant invertebrate 

foods and other components of breeding habitat, 

including nesting cover for those species of ducks 

that nest over water (Baldasarre and Bolen 2006, 

Kantrud et al. 1989).

Waterfowl have various tolerances for the height 

and density of vegetation. Mallards and blue-winged 

teal readily use habitats with dense vegetation; 

northern pintails prefer shallow, open habitats 

where visibility is good and vegetation sparse. Shallow water is essential for dabbling ducks such as 

northern pintails and mallards whose optimum foraging depth is 0.2–0.8 feet. Wetland vegetation is important, because it provides seeds, tubers, browse, 

and nesting sites for waterfowl; this vegetation 

serves as litter or food for invertebrate populations.

Timing, speed, and duration of water deliveries 

and of wetland drawdowns all have important effects on the composition and production of wetland 

plants, invertebrate production and accessibility, and 

use by waterbirds. The key to managing habitat for 

migrating shorebirds is to encourage invertebrate 

production, and then make the invertebrates available to the birds. The proper regime of drawdown 

and flooding can stimulate plant growth and decomposition and create a detrital food source for invertebrates. When the water is drawn down slowly 

(0.8–1.6 inches per week) during the appropriate 

times of the year, shorebirds are attracted to the 

available invertebrates. Shorebirds feed primarily 

on midge larvae during migration. Several studies 

revealed that, irrespective of wetland type, midge 

larvae are often the most abundant invertebrate. 

Midges are often most abundant in areas of shallow, 

open water that is not shaded by submergent and 

emergent vegetation. Because many waterfowl hens 

and broods also consume midge larvae, management of habitat for shorebirds is also beneficial for 

waterfowl (Eldridge 1992). Fall flooding provides 

waterfowl and other waterbirds access to invertebrates and to any seeds produced by wetland plants 

and prepares the wetland for the following spring 

migrants.

Wetland Habitat Objective 3

Depending on the availability of delivered water 

and environmental conditions, fill at least 70 percent 

of the semipermanent wetlands to provide shallow 

areas of a maximum of 1.5 feet (for dabbling ducks 

such as northern pintail and mallard and for wading 

birds such as white-faced ibis and willet) and deep 

areas of 3–4 feet (for deep-water species such as 

lesser scaup). Allow emergent vegetation to establish as nesting habitat for overwater nesters, but 

allow no more vegetation than a ratio of 70:30 of 

emergent vegetation to open water.

Strategies

■ Time the delivery of the Malta Irrigation District 

water to achieve this objective.

■ Manipulate water levels with flooding and drawdowns (natural and physical releases).

■ Time flooding and drawdowns to coincide with 

the migration periods.

■ Conduct all water manipulations slowly, so invertebrates can adjust to the changes in water level 

and temperature.

■ Monitor the response of target waterbirds to 

these manipulations.

■ Monitor the response of plants and invertebrates 

to the timing of flooding and drawdowns.

■ Monitor for undesirable plants such as cattail and 

bulrush. To maintain no more vegetation than a 

ratio of 70:30 for vegetation to open water, conduct management actions necessary to set back 

monocultures of these plants through prescribed 

burning, prescriptive grazing, flooding, mechanical treatment, or chemical use.

■ Flood the uplands surrounding the emergent 

vegetation zone in early spring to kill wet 

meadow plants, allowing midges to rapidly colonize the detritus. Maintain the high water level, 

and then slowly lower it to expose the decomposing vegetation during the peak shorebird migration.

■ Through the nesting period, maintain 2–3 feet 

of water in areas with emergent vegetation for 

birds that nest over water.

■ Fill 50 percent of the semipermanent wetlands 

to full capacity (at least 2–3 feet of water below 

the emergent vegetation) by May 15 to provide 

migration habitat for waterbirds, to serve as 

brood-rearing habitat for waterfowl, and to provide nesting habitat for overwater nesters such 

as white-faced ibis, Franklin’s gull, and grebes. 

Annually rotate the wetlands that are flooded, 

allowing some to remain dry.
230 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Use drawdown structures or allow natural 

evaporation on these semipermanent wetlands 

to encourage nutrient recycling and increase 

production of invertebrates and desirable wetland plants and seeds. Determine the timing of 

these drawdowns depending on weather conditions (particularly increasing temperatures to aid 

evaporation) and management objectives.

■ Use chemicals approved by the Service for aerial 

spraying to kill undesirable plants.

Rationale. Semipermanent wetlands ordinarily retain 

water through spring and summer and frequently 

into fall and winter. They are highly important to 

diving ducks and especially important for dabbling 

ducks in years when drought limits the availability 

of temporary and seasonal wetlands. During drought 

conditions in North Dakota, mallard broods occurred 

only on semipermanent wetlands (Baldasarre and 

Bolen 2006, Talent et al. 1982), and 58-percent more 

duck broods were recorded using semipermanent 

potholes in comparison with other types of wetlands 

in North Dakota and South Dakota (Baldasarre and 

Bolen 2006, Duebbert and Frank 1984). Semipermanent wetlands provide migration habitat for migratory waterbirds such as diving ducks (redhead and 

lesser scaup) both in the spring and fall (if they still 

have water) but, more significantly, habitat for brood 

rearing and overwater nesting for waterbirds such 

as white-faced ibis. These wetlands also provide 

escape cover.

The structure created by emergent vegetation 

is an essential feature of wetland habitats. Weller 

and Spatcher (1965) recorded maximum diversity 

and abundance of birds on marshes in Iowa where 

the ratio of emergent vegetation to water was 50:50 

and referred to this form of wetland physiognomy 

as hemimarsh (Baldasarre and Bolen 2006). Bulrushes and especially cattails are among the most 

common plants in emergent communities. These 

plants are primarily important as cover, although 

alkali bulrushes are key food producers (Baldasarre 

and Bolen 2006). When conditions allow these plants 

to become a monoculture and overtake a wetland, 

animal and plant diversity declines. Wetland vegetation is important to waterbirds such as waterfowl 

because they produce seeds, tubers, browse, and 

nesting sites and serve as litter or food for invertebrate populations. Timing, speed, and duration of 

water deliveries and of wetland drawdowns all have 

important effects on the composition and production 

of wetland plants, invertebrate production and accessibility, and use by waterbirds. Filling wetlands 

in the fall would make seeds from wetland plants 

more readily available to migrating waterbirds.

Alkali bulrush is a common emergent plant in the refuge 

complex. 

S Database TNALP SCRN–AD R.H. Mohlenbrock / US

Wetland Habitat Objective 4

On semipermanent wetlands having limited management capabilities, manage emergent vegetation as 

a hemimarsh to provide open water and cover for 

migratory birds.

Strategies

■ Monitor for undesirable emergents such as cattail and bulrush. To maintain no more vegetation 

than a ratio of 70:30 for vegetation to open water, 

conduct management actions necessary to set 

back monocultures of these plants through the 

use of a glyphosate or, where possible, through 

flooding, prescribed burning, prescriptive grazing, mechanical treatment, or chemical use.

■ Restore the natural vertical structure in riparian 

corridors using native species such as cottonwood, willows, and native shrubs to provide habitat for migratory birds and other native wildlife. 

Continue to fence riparian areas to protect them 

from trespass cattle grazing.

■ Use chemicals approved by the Service for aerial 

spraying to kill undesirable plants.

■ Monitor the response of waterbirds to management actions.

Rationale. Cattails are of little value as duck food but 

are more important as escape, loafing, and nesting 

cover for some species of waterfowl, other waterbirds, and red-winged and yellow-headed blackbirds. 

However, when unchecked, cattail stands often expand rapidly to the exclusion of other vegetation 

and open water; such conditions severely restrict 
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 231

waterfowl and shorebird use (Baldasarre and Bolen 

2006, Kaminski et al. 1985).

The desired optimal wetland condition that provides the greatest diversity and number of birds 

is hemimarsh. In hemimarsh conditions, wetland 

vegetation cover and water in a semipermanent wetland is at a 50:50 ratio (Weller and Spatcher 1965). 

Wetland birds that find hemimarsh conditions favorable include various waterfowl and shorebird species 

such as herons, gulls, terns, blackbirds, and grebes. 

All of the target species regularly use these particular semipermanent managed wetlands at various 

times of the year. In addition, they provide ideal 

nesting cover for birds that nest over water. It is 

important to avoid undesirable plants and monocultures of plants in hemimarsh wetlands. Undesirable 

plants are plants that quickly shift diverse floral systems toward monocultures, are difficult to reduce in 

abundance, have minimal values for wetland wildlife, 

or outcompete plants with greater value (Fredrickson and Reid 1988b).

Through limited water level management or 

chemical use, or both, the Service anticipates being 

able to achieve emergent vegetation to open water 

ratios close to the 50:50 ratio (such as 30:70 and 70:30 

ratios) recommended by Weller and Spatcher (1965) 

in most years (approximately 11 out of 15). Because 

of the dynamics involved with these particular wetland conditions over time, the coverage of emergent 

vegetation may fall well outside the target range 

(30- to 70-percent coverage) in some years and, during years of extreme drought, cover of emergents 

such as cattail and bulrush may exceed the upper 

target of 70 percent.

The Drumbo, Goose Island, Patrol Road, Strater, 

and Black Coulee Ponds are considered semipermanent and the Service does not have complete management capabilities in these wetlands because of 

subirrigation and irrigation return flows entering 

the refuge. Consequently, cattails have overgrown 

these wetlands.

Avian Disease

The refuge complex staff completed a Disease Contingency Plan in 2006 for the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. The Bowdoin Refuge has 

a history of botulism outbreaks, which generally 

begin in July and last into September. The numbers 

of waterfowl affected has varied greatly from year 

to year, while the location of disease hotspots—areas 

with the highest mortalities—has changed little: the 

southwestern and southeastern bays of Lake Bowdoin, the northeast shore of Big Island in Lake Bowdoin, and the northwest portion of Drumbo Pond.

A sudden die-off of pelicans on Lake Bowdoin 

in 2003 was the result of West Nile virus, and the 

disease has been documented in the area every year 

since this time. Outbreaks begin as early as July and 

can last into fall.

While not documented at the refuge complex, 

new disease threats continue to emerge such as 

highly pathogenic avian influenza and Newcastle 

disease. The Service can no longer afford to rely on 

past informal protocols for avian diseases.

Avian Disease Objective

Manage wetlands to minimize or avoid outbreaks of 

avian botulism on the Bowdoin Refuge throughout 

the 15-year CCP. Continue to monitor for existing 

and new avian diseases throughout the refuge complex, particularly for those that might transfer to 

other wildlife and humans.

Strategies

■ Follow the monitoring and response protocols 

outlined in the disease contingency plan.

■ Annually review and update the disease contingency plan and continue to monitor for disease 

outbreaks within the refuge complex.

■ Maintain a supply of personal protective equipment for emergency cleanup operations.

■ Cooperate with partners who are responsible 

for detecting and monitoring existing and new 

wildlife diseases.

■ Continue to submit tissue samples to the National Wildlife Health Center for disease diagnosis.

■ Avoid fluctuating water levels in botulism 

hotspots between early July and early September when outbreaks are likely to occur; plan water deliveries during early spring (through May 

15) and late summer (early September).

■ As temperatures rise in the summer, monitor 

wetlands weekly for disease outbreaks. Send 

sample carcasses to the National Wildlife Health 

Center for analysis. Remove birds in areas with 

high visitor use.

■ Continue to educate staff and visitors on how to 

avoid contact with wildlife diseases that have the 

potential to be transferred to humans.
232 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Continue to allow the U.S. Interagency Working 

Group to monitor the refuge complex for avian 

influenza outbreaks.

■ When approved, implement the Mountain–Prairie Region policy for a mosquito control plan to 

address potential outbreaks of West Nile virus or 

avian influenza.

Rationale. America’s global economy and the ability for individuals to easily travel around the world 

have escalated the transfer of new diseases, harmful to both animals and humans, to North America. 

Most recently, concerns have been raised over the 

potential migration to North America of highly 

pathogenic avian influenza. The Service’s response 

to this outbreak could rapidly change management 

of Service lands. Unlike avian botulism, highly 

pathogenic avian influenza and West Nile virus pose 

serious human health risks (USFWS 1999a). Service 

employees and visitors are made aware of disease 

symptoms and avoiding the risks of contracting 

these diseases before going into the field. Unfortunately the symptoms of these diseases make it impossible to detect their presence and spread among 

wildlife until mortality occurs (Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention 2010).

Avian botulism is a paralytic disease caused by 

ingestion of the Clostridium botulinum bacteria. 

The bacteria can exist as a dormant spore in soil for 

many years until a combination of warm temperatures, a protein source, and an anaerobic (no oxygen) 

environment allows the bacteria to become active 

and release its toxin. Decaying vegetation attracts 

a large number of aquatic invertebrates that pick 

up the toxin and are then ingested by waterfowl and 

shorebirds. A cycle develops when the affected birds 

die and the fly larvae that feed on the carcasses are, 

in turn, ingested by other birds. Sudden water drawdowns during this period could expand the spread 

of the botulism toxin by causing significant die-offs 

of aquatic invertebrates (Davis et al. 1971, USFWS 

1999a). By avoiding the flooding of botulism hotspots 

during July through September, an outbreak would 

be avoided or at least reduced in severity.

Piping Plover

The northern Great Plains population of piping plover consists of about half of the world population 

of this plover. This population is expected to go extinct in 50–100 years unless significant conservation 

activities are started. Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge has more than 1,300 acres of critical habitat 

designated for the piping plover. The Service has 

collaborated with Reclamation and Ducks Unlimited 

to restore and create habitat for this threatened 

species.

Piping Plover Objective 1

Over 15 years, annually monitor and protect piping 

plover nests found within the refuge complex and 

monitor the success of protected nests and hatched 

young. Strive for fledging rates of more than 1.36 

fledglings per breeding pair of plovers (USFWS 

2003).

Strategies

■ Continue to participate in the International 

Piping Plover Census and annually monitor for 

the presence of piping plovers on Bowdoin and 

Hewitt Lake refuges.

■ Survey wetlands for piping plovers by the most 

appropriate means (for example, by boat, walking 

the shoreline, or viewing from a vehicle with a 

spotting scope). Conduct surveys between late 

May and mid-June.

■ Erect wire mesh cages with netted tops over 

piping plover nests that are in danger of being 

trampled or subjected to predation by birds.

■ Move or elevate active nests that are in danger 

from rising water (Prellwitz et al. 1995).

■ Monitor the success of protected nests by searching for “pip chips” (small pieces of egg shell left in 

the nest bowl during the hatching process) in or 

near the nest bowl or by timing nest visits based 

on known (or suspected) nest initiation date, laying rate, and average incubation period.

■ Monitor hatched young to when they fledge.

Rationale. The northern Great Plains population of 

piping plovers is listed as threatened in the United 

States (USFWS 1985) due to a poorly understood 

decline in abundance. Mabee and Estelle (2000) suggested that nest predation is a major problem limiting the nest success of piping plovers throughout 

their range. However, according to Murphy et al. 

(2003), predators can successfully be deterred from 

depredating eggs of piping plovers by placing large 

(10-foot diameter) mesh exclosures (cages) over individual nests. Recruitment has improved with the use 

of these cages in the northern Great Plains (Murphy 
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 233

et al. 2003). Exclosures placed after one or more 

eggs have been laid in the nest bowl have resulted in 

less than 2-percent nest abandonment (Atkinson and 

Dood 2006).

Beginning in 1991, biologists throughout North 

America collaborated in a monumental effort known 

as the International Piping Plover Census (Haig and 

Plissner 1993). Breeding and wintering habitats are 

censused at 5-year intervals to (1) establish benchmark population levels for all known piping plover 

sites, (2) survey potential breeding and wintering 

sites, and (3) assess the current status of the species 

relative to past population estimates.

Piping Plover Chick

USFWS

Piping Plover Objective 2

Over 15 years, improve and protect breeding, nesting, and feeding habitat on Piping Plover Pond at 

Bowdoin Refuge. Manage for gravel or alkaline 

beaches with no vegetation or vegetation that is 

short (less than 0.3 feet) and sparse (less than 10 

percent cover), that are at least 65.6 feet wide, and 

that provide water for foraging throughout the 

breeding and brood-rearing season.

Strategies

■ Monitor Piping Plover pond for encroachment of 

invasive plants, trees, and other tall vegetation. 

Maintain at least 90-percent bare gravel on nesting beaches.

■ Apply herbicides, mechanical disturbance, or 

other means to remove upland vegetation before 

the breeding season or after plovers have left 

the area. Restrict control activities between May 

15 and August 7 (Stewart 1975) or any time that 

piping plovers are present on the beaches.

■ Acquire money to buy the water resources necessary to properly manage piping plover habitat at 

Bowdoin Refuge.

■ Continue to work with Reclamation and other 

agencies to acquire additional knowledge and 

resources to improve and protect piping plover 

habitat on Piping Plover Pond at Bowdoin Refuge.

■ Deliver water to Piping Plover Pond during the 

fall or spring, before the breeding season (refer 

to above Managed Wetlands section).

Rationale. In Montana, spring arrival of piping plovers usually occurs from late April through early 

May and departure is by late August (Lenard et al. 

2003, Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee 

1997). Soon after spring arrival, male piping plovers 

begin establishing and defending territories that 

include a section of shoreline and an area of open 

ground (Whyte 1985).

Studies and observations of nesting habitat used 

by piping plovers indicate that the birds prefer a 

combination of suitable nesting substrate, lack of 

vegetative cover, existence of favorable water conditions, and availability of suitable forage habitat 

(Corn and Armbruster 1993, Licht 2001, Prindiville-Gaines and Ryan 1988, Root and Ryan 2004, 

Schwalbach 1988, Ziewitz et al. 1992). Sites with 

gravel substrate appear to provide the most suitable 

habitat and eggs there are more likely to hatch than 

those on alkali substrate (Prindiville-Gaines and 

Ryan 1988, Whyte 1985). Espie et al. (1996) found 

that, in Saskatchewan, depredated piping plover 

nests were generally closer to vegetation than successful nests. Prindiville-Gaines and Ryan (1988) 

found that breeding piping plovers chose territories 

with an average beach width of 82 feet, with optimal habitat characteristics of greater than 65.6 feet. 

Nesting sites studied by Schwalbach (1988) were 

found to be characteristically barren or with short 

(less than 0.3 feet) and sparse (less than 10-percent) 

vegetative cover.
234 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

7.6 Objectives that Support 

the Goals for Upland and 

Wetland Habitats

To meet the goals for both upland and wetland habitats, the Service would treat invasive and nonnative 

species, suppress wildfires, and carry out habitat 

protection and acquisition. All of these activities 

would directly affect the ability of the Bowdoin Refuge Complex to meet the goals for upland and wetland habitats.

Invasive and Nonnative Species

Invasive species, nonnative species, and noxious 

weeds are major threats to native upland and wetland ecosystems in the United States. Infestations 

of invasive species have a direct effect on the ability 

of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

to fulfill its wildlife conservation mission including 

species recovery, biological diversity, biological integrity, and natural functions.

Montana’s noxious weed list contains 32 species 

and the Montana Department of Agriculture has categorized noxious weeds into four categories based 

on the invasion stage of each species:

■ Priority 1A—weeds that are not yet found in 

Montana

■ Priority 1B—weeds that have a limited presence 

in the State

■ Priority 2A—weeds that are common in isolated 

areas of Montana

■ Priority 2B—weeds that are abundant and widespread

The refuge complex does not have any priority 1A or 

1B species. At Bowdoin Refuge, there is an infestation of perennial pepperweed, which is a priority 

2A species. Most of the refuge complex’s noxious 

weeds are in the priority 2B category: leafy spurge, 

spotted knapweed, Canada thistle, yellow toadflax, 

and saltcedar. In addition, the refuge complex has infestations of other nonnative, invasive species that, 

although they are not listed as noxious weeds by the 

State, may have negative effects on desirable refuge 

habitats: Russian olive, crested wheatgrass, reed 

canarygrass, Japanese brome, and Phragmites.

Some of the undesirable, nonnative species are 

within shelterbelts in the refuge complex. These 

shelterbelts were probably planted in the 1930s or 

1940s for wildlife and around existing homesteads 

before the land was purchased by the Service; the 

shelterbelts consist mostly of Russian olive trees 

and caragana and cover about 8 acres.

Invasive and Nonnative Species 

Objective 1

Over 15 years, eradicate at least 25 acres of Russian 

olive trees and other nonnative trees and shrubs. 

Restore the sites to native herbaceous species that 

in 10 years postestablishment would comprise more 

than 60-percent native grasses and forbs throughout 

the refuge complex.

Strategies

■ Map all treatment sites.

■ Cut all standing trees and treat stumps with appropriate herbicide.

■ As appropriate, use chemicals approved by the 

Service for aerial spraying to kill Russian olive 

trees.

■ To remove woody material, use machinery to cut 

and shred the trees and bushes or pile and burn 

them.

■ Remove vegetation that is impeding water delivery systems and boundary fences.

■ Begin removing all shelterbelts to create more 

contiguous blocks of grassland habitat, and 

restore it to prevent invasive species from encroaching. Allow no additional shelterbelts.

■ Monitor and diligently re-treat areas to prevent 

reinfestation.

■ Restore bare areas resulting from the removal 

of Russian olive trees to native grass cover and 

monitor the results.

■ Develop a program that provides information to 

the local community, partners, media, and other 

interested individuals or groups about the need 

to remove Russian olive trees to reduce the fragmentation of grassland habitat and to maintain 

the refuge canals used for managing wetlands.

■ Collaborate with the Malta Irrigation District 

and Reclamation to treat Russian olive trees that 

occur along the Dodson South Canal, which is the 

major water delivery canal for Bowdoin Refuge.
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 235

■ Network with other agencies and refuges to stay 

current on effective treatment methods and to 

share equipment and resources.

■ Map current infestations and actively monitor (at 

least every 3 years) these sites for new invasions. 

Immediately treat any new invasion to prevent 

expansion.

Rationale. Research indicates that native grassland 

birds need large, uninterrupted tracts of treeless 

grasslands (Bakker et al. 2002, Herkert 1994, Winter 

et al. 1999). Preventing the encroachment of woody 

vegetation into grassland systems contributes significantly to the recovery of grassland bird populations (Herkert 1994). The literature overwhelmingly 

indicates that planted and exotic trees in prairie 

landscapes often negatively affect a variety of birds 

(Bakker 2003). Specifically, trees on the prairie are 

correlated with negative consequences to ducks 

(Rumble and Flake 1983), other wetland birds (Naugle et al. 1999), prairie grouse (Hanowski et al. 2000, 

Niemuth 2000), grassland passerines (Grant et al. 

2004, Winter et al. 2000), and ring-necked pheasants (Schmitz and Clark 1999, Snyder 1984). The 

effect of trees on the prairie landscape is greater 

than their “footprint,” because they also affect the 

surrounding habitat. Many grassland birds avoid 

areas near trees, and bird abundance and nest success increases as distance to trees increases (Delisle 

and Savidge 1996, Gazda et al. 2002, Helzer 1996, 

Johnson and Temple 1990). For example, at one time 

there were nine active lek sites on Bowdoin Refuge. 

Today there are none. The Service speculates that 

this may be directly tied to the invasion of Russian 

olive trees and other nonnative woody vegetation 

into what was once contiguous grassland habitat. 

Research supports this theory, including numerous 

studies that determined sharp-tailed grouse leks 

were abandoned as tree cover increased, even as far 

away as 2 miles (Hanowski 2000). A study of active 

and inactive leks in Minnesota concluded that active sharp-tailed grouse leks had significantly lower 

proportions of upland forest and brush cover types 

and higher percentages of native grasses than inactive leks (Hanowski 2000). Gregg (1987) and Prose 

(1987) showed preferred lek sites by sharp-tailed 

grouse are characterized by low, sparse vegetation 

and that an excess of woody cover, within 2,625 feet 

of the lek site (well over half a mile), has a negative 

effect on the number of dancing males. Although 

Russian olive trees and other woody vegetation are 

often planted to benefit birds like grouse and pheasants, Kelsey et al. (2006) found that the detrimental 

effects of fragmenting grassland habitat, which reduces nesting success and increases predation, far 

outweighed any benefits to these species.

Nonnative Russian olive along Lakeside Canal in the Teal Pond area.

Mike Artmann / USFWS
236 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

The Russian olive infestation on Bowdoin Refuge is so extensive that it can seem overwhelming 

(figure 43). After more than 30 years of unchecked 

growth and expansion, some areas such as the northwest corner of Big Island, Dry Lake Canal, and 

around Dry Lake Pond have become virtual Russian olive forests. The Russian olive stand on Big 

Island was chosen as the first target area because it 

is mostly native prairie, the infestation is relatively 

small (12 acres), and it is an “island” isolated from 

other areas making it unlikely to be reinvaded. A 

second target area is about 7 acres of trees around 

Piping Plover Pond. This wetland was enhanced to 

provide nesting habitat for piping plovers, and removing trees would benefit this threatened species. 

In addition to the two target areas, about 8 acres 

of shelterbelts in the refuge complex would be removed, and additional Russian olive removal would 

take place as needed.

By removing Russian olive trees, the positive effects on grassland-nesting birds in the native prairie 

can be substantial. For example, using a 328-foot 

(100-meter) buffer around groups of trees, the Service estimates that removing 12 acres of Russian 

olive trees on Big Island may actually improve at 

least 50 acres of prairie habitat for some grassland 

birds (figure 44). Improving nesting habitat for migratory birds through removal of Russian olive trees 

is necessary and required, by policy, to support and 

achieve the establishing purposes of the units within 

the refuge complex.

Combining treatments—such as mowing saplings, cutting trees, girdling, burning, grinding and 

chipping stands of small and possibly large trees, 

and chemical use—is the most effective means of 

controlling Russian olive because the effects are cumulative and would act on the plant at all life stages 

(Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002). 

Treatment would require funding, equipment, and 

staff for effective control and possible eradication of 

small infestations. Complete eradication of Russian 

olive is often impractical; however, it is practical for 

small isolated stands where the cost of control and 

time investment is small (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002).

The proposed removal of 75 acres of Russian 

olive trees over 15 years may seem like a small 

amount given the timeframe. However, the refuge 

staff believes anything more would be unrealistic for 

the following reasons:

■ Removal of Russian olive trees on this scale is 

time- and labor-intensive. In the past, the lack 

of funding and staff has meant that removal has 

been sporadic and slow.

■ Current treatment methods and available herbicides are inefficient. For example, trees on Bowdoin Refuge that the Service has cut and treated 

often resprout from the roots, so the same areas 

must be re-treated for up to 5 years in some cases 

for good control. Plants are generally produced 

from stratified seed, but plants can grow from 

stump sprouts, stem cuttings, and root pieces 

(Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002). 

(Note: Because the embryos of many tree and 

shrub seeds are immature when the seeds fall, 

the embryos require time in a moist, cool environment to develop to the point where they can 

germinate—a process called stratification.)

■ Cutting, grinding, and treating the trees is only 

the first step. If the Service is unable to use machinery to grind up the trees, the debris must be 

removed or gathered into piles and burned. This 

often involves heavy equipment that can disturb 

the surrounding grassland. To prevent invasive 

plant infestation, the entire area would have to 

be reseeded to native herbaceous vegetation. 

Revegetation should be done with the objective 

of providing plants that are well adapted and that 

can suppress the spread and growth of Russian 

olive (Natural Resources Conservation Service 

2002). Continued monitoring and treatment of 

these areas would take many years.

■ Russian olive trees on private land surround 

Bowdoin Refuge (figure 43). The Dodson South 

Canal (owned by Reclamation and maintained by 

the Malta Irrigation District), which delivers water to the refuge, is lined with Russian olive trees 

for miles. Even if every Russian olive tree on the 

refuge were removed, there would be a constant 

source of seeds from across the boundary fence 

and coming into the refuge with delivered water.

However, increased funding or staff, or improved 

treatment methods, could increase the amount of 

acres treated and restored over the life of the CCP. 

Russian olive is not listed as a noxious weed in Montana but is listed in several other western States; 

subsequently, the Federal, State, and local agencies 

in these States are becoming more active in controlling Russian olive. The Salt Cedar and Russian Olive 

Control Demonstration Act, passed in 2006, directed 

the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Defense to establish a Federal program aimed at finding and carrying out the best means of controlling 

and eradicating Russian olive and saltcedar.
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 237Figure 43. Map of Russian olive tree infestations in and around Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 
238 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Invasive and Nonnative Species 

Objective 2

Within 2 years, establish a baseline inventory of all 

invasive plants including noxious weeds for Service lands. Eliminate small infestations of saltcedar, 

spotted knapweed, and yellow toadflax on Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Reduce leafy 

spurge, perennial pepperweed, reed canarygrass, 

Japanese brome, and Phragmites on the refuge complex by at least 50 percent (measured by canopy 

cover) over 15 years.

Figure 44. Map of Russian olive evaluation areas (Big Island) for grassland restoration at Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

Strategies

■ Write an integrated pest management plan 

within 2 years.

■ Complete the baseline inventory with help from 

the Service’s Invasive Species Strike Team.

■ Using the Invasive Species Strike Team, Montana Conservation Corps, or refuge staff, repeat 

the inventory of all invasive plants including noxious weeds on Service lands every 5 years.

■ Store all inventory data in the RLGIS (Refuge 

Lands Geographic Information System) database.

■ Use integrated pest management to control invasive plants, and review literature for updated 

information on control techniques. Allow use of 

aerial applications of chemicals as outlined by the 

chemical label and Service policy for the use of 

aerial applicants.

■ Coordinate the control of invasive plants by 

meeting and cooperating with county weed 

boards, irrigation districts, and other partners to 

share information and discuss control strategies.

■ Map sites of invasive plant treatment each year 

in RLGIS.

■ Monitor infestation rates and effectiveness of 

control efforts.

■ Increase the Service’s ability to control and monitor invasive plants by pursuing additional money 

through partnerships, grants, and invasive species’ programs.
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 239

■ Familiarize all staff with State-listed noxious 

weeds including staying current on potential new 

threats to Service lands.

■ Map and store in RLGIS the invasive plant infestations noted by Service staff while conducting 

other work activities.

■ Deploy early detection and rapid response strategies to attack newly found infestations before 

they become larger, causing harm and becoming 

more costly to treat.

Rationale. These problem plants can displace native 

vegetation over large areas, have the ability to form 

nearly monotypic stands in the absence of management, and, therefore, threaten native biodiversity 

(Bedunah 1992, Hutchison 1992, Svedarsky and Van 

Amburg 1996, Trammel and Butler 1995, Watson 

1985). The control or elimination of invasive plants 

on Service lands would comply with State and Federal laws for invasive and noxious species.

Trying to manage an invasive plant infestation 

without any idea of the size, canopy cover, or rate of 

spread would jeopardize the efficiency of the control 

efforts and waste precious time and resources. An 

inventory would help prioritize the strategies for 

elimination of new and isolated infestations and containment or reduction of larger infestations.

Invasive and Nonnative Species 

Objective 3

Within 5 years, treat 20 acres of native grassland 

with varying degrees of crested wheatgrass infestation using a mix of treatments to determine 

effectiveness. Based on the results, add crested 

wheatgrass management to the integrated pest 

management plan.

Strategies

■ Work with local universities to recruit graduate 

students to conduct research projects on controlling crested wheatgrass on the refuge complex.

■ Within 2 years, ground-truth the vegetation map 

to verify the extent of the crested wheatgrass 

infestation on Bowdoin Refuge.

■ Identify four 5-acre plots on Bowdoin Refuge 

that are in various stages of crested wheatgrass 

infestation, from initial invasion with individual plants making up less than 5 percent of the 

cover to where the cover is more than 50-percent 

crested wheatgrass. Using the best available science, apply to the plots and monitor effectiveness 

of a combination of treatments (such as wicking 

or spot spraying with herbicides, haying, prescriptive grazing, prescribed burning, and seeding of native grasses and forbs).

■ Use the results of the plot treatments to develop 

a plan for management and reduction of crested 

wheatgrass across the entire refuge complex.

■ Continue to work with other refuges, Grasslands 

National Park (Saskatchewan), University of 

Regina, and other agencies and organizations to 

apply adaptive management to control of crested 

wheatgrass as new data and treatment methods 

become available.

Rationale. Planted to stabilize soil on abandoned 

cropland during the drought of the 1920s and 1930s 

and as a hay and forage crop for cattle ever since, 

there are 15–26 million acres of crested wheatgrass 

on this continent today (Lesica and DeLuca 1996). 

Although it may be useful for agricultural purposes, 

rangeland dominated by crested wheatgrass has 

reduced value to wildlife, especially migratory birds, 

compared to native rangeland. Lloyd and Martin 

(2005) found that reproductive success of chestnutcollared longspurs was significantly lower in crested 

wheatgrass stands than in native prairie.

In addition to its negative effects on plant and 

wildlife diversity, crested wheatgrass can be detrimental to soil conditions by making it harder to get 

native seeds established, which can cause erosion 

and increase the chances of invasion by invasive 

plants (Ambrose and Wilson 2003, Jordan et al. 2008, 

Reed Canarygrass McWilliams and Van Cleave 1960).

Sheri Hagwood / Bureau of Land Management
240 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Researchers from the University of Regina and 

Grasslands National Park, both in Saskatchewan, 

Canada, have been conducting extensive research 

on crested wheatgrass infestations. They have also 

started studies of this species at Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge, east of Bowdoin Refuge Complex. Grasslands National Park is about 200 miles 

northeast of Bowdoin Refuge. The work of these 

Canadian researchers and that of other researchers 

suggests that a combination of treatments is necessary to control crested wheatgrass. Depending on 

whether the crested wheatgrass is invasive, planted, 

or a new infestation versus an old infestation, one 

site may need a different combination of treatments 

than another (Johnson 2004, Wilson 2000, Wilson and 

Gerry 1995, Wilson and Pärtel 2003). The Bowdoin 

Refuge staff has formed an informal working group 

with other refuges in Montana, Grasslands National 

Park, and the University of Regina to share resources and ideas for controlling crested wheatgrass.

Wildfire Management

The use of prescribed fire is a potential strategy 

for meeting several of the previous objectives for 

upland and wetland habitats. The following objective 

primarily addresses wildfire.

Wildfire Management Objective

Over the next 15 years, suppress all wildfires occurring within the refuge complex, maintaining an 

initial attack success rate of 95 percent or higher.

Strategies

■ Conduct hazardous fuel treatments to reduce the threat of 

catastrophic wildfire to values at 

risk.

■ Use BAER (Burned Area 

Emergency Response) or BAR 

(Burned Area Rehabilitation) 

monies as needed following wildfires.

■ Within 1 year, complete the draft 

fire management plan and ensure 

it reflects the goals and objectives in the CCP.

■ Have several refuge staff members maintain the necessary qualifications to conduct prescribed 

burns and to respond to wildfires.

■ Require the fire management program for the 

refuge complex to continue following applicable 

laws, Department of the Interior and Service 

policies, and guidance established at national, 

regional, and local levels.

Rationale. The refuge complex is within the Service’s 

Eastern Montana Fire Management District. Fire 

management staff and equipment may be used to 

respond to wildfire anywhere within the fire management district, using local refuge staff as well as 

other Federal and non-Federal partners to assist in 

wildfire suppression.

Treatment of hazardous fuel, thereby reducing 

the threat of catastrophic wildfire, is important 

to protect sensitive habitats and species, cultural 

resources, Federal and private infrastructure and 

facilities, and nearby local residences. Historically, 

wildfires had the ability to burn vast areas; with 

settlement, there is a high probability that wildfires 

on refuge complex lands would damage neighboring 

properties.

The community of Malta is identified as a “Community at Risk.” Due to the small size of Service 

lands, the rapid rates of spread from grass fuel, 

and the potential for wildfire to cross onto adjacent 

lands, the Service has chosen to suppress all wildfires to reduce potential threats to neighboring private land.

Following a wildfire, BAER treatments are 

intended to protect public safety, to stabilize resources, and to prevent further degradation of natural and cultural resources. These treatments are 

considered emergencies and are done within 1 year 

of wildfire containment.

Prescribed fire can be an effective tool to manage grassland vegetation.

Mike Granger / USFWS
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 241

The BAR treatments are nonemergency efforts done within 3 years of wildfire containment. 

The treatments (1) would improve fire-damaged 

lands that are unlikely to recover to managementapproved conditions and (2) would repair or replace 

minor facilities damaged by wildfire.

The use of BAER and BAR monies would follow 

national and regional policy and guidance. It is likely 

BAR money would be used the most within the refuge complex, including repairing or replacing fences 

damaged by wildfire and treating burned areas to 

prevent the spread of invasive plants.

Service policy requires that every Refuge System unit with burnable vegetation must have a fire 

management plan. The fire management plan is a 

stepdown plan from the CCP and provides specific 

guidance for how the fire management program will 

be carried out to meet national, regional, and refuge complex goals and objectives. An approved fire 

management plan allows the manager to consider a 

wide range of suppression alternatives and to conduct prescribed burns. Intended to be dynamic and 

reflect current policies and situations, the fire management plan is periodically reviewed or revised; 

required updates and revisions will follow national 

and regional policy and guidance.

To maintain the high initial attack success rate, it 

is important that refuge staff maintain and develop 

their qualifications to safely and effectively respond 

to wildfires and to use prescribed fire. In addition, 

local agreements between Federal and non-Federal 

partners would be maintained or pursued.

Appendix G further describes the fire management program for the refuge complex.

Habitat Protection and 

Acquisition

Habitat protection and acquisition would ensure the 

long-term protection of upland and wetland breeding 

habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

Conversion of grasslands to cropland has generated a need for upland habitat protection adjacent to 

wetlands. The Prairie Pothole Region probably once 

produced 15 million ducks each year but now produces about one-third that number, with drainage of 

wetlands the main reason for the difference (Belrose 

1976). In addition, agriculture activities associated 

with annual crop production is the predominant factor affecting the landscape in the Prairie Pothole 

Region (Kantrud et al. 1989).

Native prairie grassland (upland) and wetland 

are the most productive habitat types in Montana, 

particularly in the Prairie Pothole Region. Although 

some laws protect these areas, which mostly occur 

on private lands, these vital habitats continue to be 

lost. The Service has committed to work with willing 

landowners in Montana to compensate them for protecting these habitats, primarily through perpetual 

grassland or wetland conservation easements. As of 

2009, willing landowners have been compensated for 

protecting more than 50,000 acres of grassland and 

wetland habitat in the refuge complex.

Habitat protection needs evaluation through a 

priority system to identify critical areas and the 

most effective means of protection—through either fee title or easement. Conservation easements 

have several advantages over outright purchase 

of lands by the Service. First, easements are more 

cost-effective both in terms of initial purchase and 

in long-term management responsibilities. While 

easement contracts require attentive enforcement 

to ensure habitat protection, they do not carry the 

other burdens of ownership such as maintenance of 

facilities, fences, and signs; control of noxious weeds; 

and mowing of roadside ditches. Second, the landowner still owns and manages the land that has a 

conservation easement. The Service developed the 

conservation easement program to protect natural 

resources on the landscape while minimally affecting 

normal farm and ranch operations.

Upland Habitat

Livestock grazing is the primary land use in the 

Prairie Pothole Region of north-central Montana, 

where large tracts of contiguous grassland (more 

than 4,940 acres) remain, and where populations 

of nest predators such as red fox and raccoon are 

sparse and the coyote is the dominant predator (Ball 

1995). The loss of upland-nesting cover and plant 

foods has reduced the value and productivity of associated wetlands for nesting waterfowl and their 

broods and other migratory birds and wildlife. This 

makes the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex uniquely important for the continued conservation of habitat that remains intact and valuable for 

migrating and breeding waterfowl and other migratory birds.

Grassland conservation easements are perpetual 

and protect both existing and restored grasslands 

from being cultivated. Additional purposes of the 

grassland easement program are (1) to improve and 

protect the water quality of wetlands, (2) to maintain upland-nesting habitat for ground-nesting birds, 

(3) to protect highly erodible soils, and (4) to provide 

an alternative to the purchase of uplands in fee title 

by leaving land in private ownership. Grassland conservation easements are real property interests that 

the Service buys from willing landowners. These 

easements prohibit any alteration of permanent 

grassland cover including cropland conversion or 
242 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

development and haying or mowing until after July 

15 (when most upland nesting by ducks is over). 

Provisions under grassland conservation easements 

do not prohibit or regulate livestock grazing.

Funding for grassland conservation easements 

comes from a variety of sources including Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

(with Governor approval), North American Wetland 

Conservation Act grants, and Land and Water Conservation Funds. Thirty-three grassland easements 

have been purchased in the Bowdoin Refuge Complex, covering 39,767 acres. Through effective enforcement, these easement lands continue to provide 

important waterfowl breeding habitat in Montana.

In addition, the refuge complex administers four 

perpetual FmHA conservation easements. The 

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 

1985 authorized the establishment of easements for 

conservation, recreation, and wildlife purposes on 

properties that were foreclosed on by the Federal 

Government (“inventories” properties), and the Service was designated manager of those easements 

worthy of inclusion into the National Wildlife Refuge 

System.

The sharp-tailed grouse is a year-round resident on the 

Bowdoin Refuge.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Wetland Habitat

Glacially created wetlands in the Prairie Pothole 

Region, in combination with the surrounding grasslands, provide breeding habitat that supports half 

of the continent’s waterfowl production (Kantrud 

1983). More than a million acres of potholes in the 

prairie States were drained between 1943 and 1961 

(Briggs 1964). By the late 1950s, the loss of important waterfowl habitat was apparent. These two 

significant factors led to conservation movements by 

citizens and pressure from waterfowl hunting interests to reverse the loss of wetland habitat.

In response to this pressure, the Service sold 

Duck Stamps to fund a program of wetland acquisition and for purchase of wetland conservation easements (van der Valk 1989), waterfowl production 

areas, and national wildlife refuges. The Migratory 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, passed 

in 1934 and commonly known as the Duck Stamp 

Act, requires the purchase of a Federal hunting 

stamp by all waterfowl hunters ages 16 and over. 

Receipts from the sale of the stamps are used for the 

acquisition of migratory bird refuges under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Waterfowl 

production areas and wetland conservation easements are purchased from willing sellers through 

the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program (authorized 

by Congress in 1958 by an amendment to the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act) to 

ensure long-term protection of breeding habitat for 
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 243

migratory birds, primarily within the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States.

The Bowdoin Wetland Management District—

comprised of waterfowl production areas and conservation easements—was established in 1973 under 

the authority of the Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act to reduce waterfowl habitat loss in north-central Montana.

■ The district’s first waterfowl production area was 

purchased on April 19, 1977, in Blaine County. 

The Service manages these fee-title areas to provide breeding waterfowl with quality wetlands 

for courtship and brood rearing, as well as suitable grasslands for nesting. The Bowdoin Wetland Management District has nine waterfowl 

production areas totaling 9,504 acres.

■ The first wetland conservation easement was 

purchased on April 14, 1977, in Phillips County. 

To date, 125 wetland easements have been 

purchased within the refuge complex, covering 10,635 wetland acres. Wetland conservation 

easements are perpetual and prohibit the filling, 

leveling, draining, or burning of wetlands under 

easement. These 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 controls public access. Through effective enforcement of easement provisions, the 

lands under easement provide important waterfowl breeding habitat.

Habitat Protection and Acquisition 

Objective 1

Over the next 15 years, protect at least 900 acres of 

depressional wetlands and 16,000 acres of grasslands 

on private land within the refuge complex through 

the purchase of perpetual conservation easements or 

fee title from willing sellers.

Strategies

■ Work with HAPET to develop a waterfowl-pair 

density map for the counties within the wetland 

management district.

■ Implement the conceptual waterfowl habitat 

model developed by HAPET to identify and prioritize areas for protection with conservation 

easements.

■ Focus the protection of wetlands with conservation easements in areas where the Service is also 

protecting priority grasslands.

■ Use mass mailings and public meetings to provide prospective sellers with information about 

the conservation easement program.

■ Continue to piggyback on the Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program as a way to inform prospective sellers of the conservation easement 

program.

■ Buy additional waterfowl production areas including “round-outs” and inholdings from willing 

sellers.

■ Use the Service’s strong partnership with Ducks 

Unlimited and other conservation organizations 

to generate other funding sources to buy easements or receive transferred lands.

■ Use funding from the North American Wetland 

Conservation Act and other grants to buy easements.

The northern shoveler is one of the duck species that nests 

in upland habitats.

Dave Menke / USFWS

Rationale. If the Service has a constant acquisition budget over the next 15 years, at least 16,000 

acres of grassland and 900 acres of wetland can 

be protected through acquisition of conservation 

easements (Danielle Kepford, realty specialist, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Lewistown, Montana; 

personal communication, 2008). The amount of additional acres protected in fee title would be negligible. Priorities for acquisitions would be set based 

on HAPET’s conceptual waterfowl habitat model, as 

described below (USFWS 2007):

“The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFW) in Montana completed 

a strategic planning process to identify con-
244 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

servation focus areas in 2007 ... The process 

identifies priority species and guilds for conservation and uses available data and models 

to focus conservation in the best habitat on the 

landscape. Waterfowl were identified as a priority group for the glaciated plains portion or 

prairie pothole region of Montana. A conceptual waterfowl habitat model was developed 

by the FWS Region 6 Habitat [Assessment]

and Population [Evaluation] Team office 

(HAPET) to identify and prioritize waterfowl habitat within the glaciated plains of 

Montana. Currently, an empirical model for 

waterfowl in the state does not exist. The conceptual model is based on the two primary 

components of waterfowl habitat, upland 

nesting cover, and wetlands.

Extensive research has focused on how 

ducks settle on the breeding grounds. A correlation between the number of wetlands and 

number of breeding ducks at different scales 

is well known (Crissey 1969, Dzubin 1969, 

Stewart and Kantrud 1974, Johnson and 

Grier 1988, Batt et al. 1989, Cowardin and 

Blohm 1992). The PFW waterfowl habitat 

model used FWS National Wetland Inventory 

delineated wetlands and the public land section survey geographical information system 

(GIS) layers to identify areas with the highest wetland densities per square mile [figure 

45]. Wetland densities were categorized using 

levels identified by the HAPET office and 

allow the landscape to be divided into discrete 

groups for conservation prioritization. The 

categories include wetland densities of 1–3, 

4–10, 11–25 and more than 25 per mi2.

Landscape characteristics surrounding 

wetland basins may also influence how 

breeding ducks use those basins. Krapu et al. 

(1997) found a negative effect of cropland on 

number of breeding pairs when temporary 

and seasonal pond area increased in 50.8 

km2 [12,553-acre] plots. Reynolds et al. (2007) 

found that duck pairs selected wetlands differently when embedded in cropland, grazed 

land, and undisturbed grass cover. Reynolds 

et al. (2001) found that nest survival was 

positively related to grassland cover within a 

10.4 km2 [2,570-acre] area site. The PFW conceptual waterfowl model used GIS modeling 

techniques with the statewide landcover layer 

developed by the Montana Gap Analysis Program to identify areas on the landscape with 

the highest density of undisturbed nesting 

cover (e.g., grassland). The upland nesting 

GIS layer consisted of 90m × 90m pixels and 

used a moving window analysis to identify 

areas on the landscape with the highest density of grassland [figure 46]. A moving window incorporating an area of 4 square miles 

was used to approximate the home range size 

of a breeding mallard hen. Grassland density 

categories include 0–10%, 10–40%, 40–80% 

and 80–100% grassland cover within the four 

square mile window. The final model combined the priority wetland density layer and 

the grassland density layer to identify areas 

on the landscape with high wetland and grassland densities [figure 47]. Future revision of 

the model will include updated landcover and 

wetland layers until an empirical model can 

be developed.”

Habitat Protection and Acquisition 

Objective 2

Over 15 years, use active monitoring and law enforcement to protect all refuge, flowage, FmHA, 

wetland, and grassland areas under Service easement, according to the provisions of the easement 

contracts and agreements.

Strategies

■ Following the guidelines contained in the “Administrative and Enforcement Procedures for 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Easements within 

the Prairie Pothole States” (known as the easement manual) and other enforcement procedures, 

conduct annual surveillance flights to detect 

potential conservation easement violations and 

promptly follow up with needed enforcement action.

■ Send letters to new landowners informing them 

of existing conservation easements on their property and associated easement provisions.

■ Review FmHA easements to ensure all wetland 

provisions are enforced.

Rationale. With an annual precipitation of less than 

13 inches, the retention of water on the land to support the primary land use of grazing is more desirable to landowners than drainage. Counties within 

Bowdoin Wetland Management District have between 20 percent and 30 percent of the land base 

designated as cropland (cereal grains or hay) or 

prior cropland, for example, as part of the Conservation Reserve Program. Annual surveillance of 

wetland conservation easements is necessary not 

only in croplands where water is drained from fields 
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 245Figure 45. Map of wetland density per square mile in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. (Fish and Wildlife Service)
246 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Figure 46. Map of grassland density in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

(Fish and Wildlife Service)
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 247 orities in Bowdoin Figure 47. Map of areas with high densities of wetlands and grasslands for use as a decision matrix to determine protection pri National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. (Fish and Wildlife Service)
248 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

for greater crop production, but in rangelands where 

wetlands are drained to consolidate water into 

larger basins for livestock watering.

Since most of the grassland conservation easements protect native prairie, the major enforcement 

concern is conversion to cropland. While violations 

involving the conversion of native prairie to cropland are extremely rare, full restoration of native 

prairie in these situations is impossible. Nevertheless, landowners could plant grass in areas they had 

plowed, which would help them regain compliance 

with the easement provisions. Enforcement that 

ensures compliance would be essential to the protection of these habitats. Any haying, mowing, or harvesting seed before July 15 would be in violation of 

easement provisions and could cause direct losses to 

waterfowl and other grassland-nesting birds. While 

the cutting of hay on native prairie is not common, it 

is more likely to occur on grassland easements with 

tamegrass seeding such as those in the Conservation 

Reserve Program. Enforcement of haying restrictions would afford another opportunity to meet and 

visit with landowners and operators. These contacts 

may serve to remind landowners and operators of 

the easement provisions and hopefully prevent more 

serious violations in the future, which would achieve 

the goal of voluntary compliance.

7.7 Goal for Visitor Services 

and Cultural Resources

Provide visitors of all abilities with wildlifedependent recreation, interpretation, and 

education opportunities that fosters an appreciation and understanding of the unique 

wildlife, plant communities, and cultural 

resources of the Montana Prairie Pothole 

Region.

Visitor Services

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

manages nearly 85,000 acres of lands and waters, 

some of which are open for wildlife-dependent and 

compatible public use (appendix D contains draft 

compatibility determinations for public uses associated with this draft CCP). Because the refuge complex is spread over four counties, it is impossible for 

Service staff to meet and interact with each visitor 

that comes to enjoy the habitats, fish, and wildlife 

found on the refuge complex. There are brochures, 

signage, and interpretive panels that visitors can use 

to independently explore and learn about the refuge 

complex; nevertheless, there are still visitors who 

are even unaware that they are on a national wildlife 

refuge.

Additional programs, staff, and funding would 

be needed for a broad-based program that reached 

the maximum number of visitors to achieve the proposed goal. Current staff might be able to provide 

some of the additional opportunities proposed in 

these objectives and strategies but not without sacrificing the ability to conduct other visitor, biological, 

or maintenance programs. Meeting the visitor services objectives would be contingent on hiring one 

permanent full-time visitor services specialist, one 

permanent full-time maintenance worker, and one 

permanent full-time law enforcement officer.

Hunting Objective

Continue to provide hunters with safe, reasonable 

harvest opportunities with uncrowded conditions, 

minimal conflicts with other users, and satisfaction 

with their overall experiences.

Strategies

■ Continue to provide compatible hunting opportunities for waterfowl and upland game birds on 

40 percent (western portion) of Bowdoin Refuge 

(figure 28 in chapter 4), according to State and 

Federal regulations.

■ Continue to require hunters to use approved nontoxic shot for hunting of migratory and upland 

game birds on Service lands.

■ Continue to permit compatible hunting opportunities for upland game birds in the waterfowl 

sanctuary portion of Bowdoin Refuge (figure 28 

in chapter 4) as late-season hunting (no sooner 

than December 1), contingent on waterfowl migrating off the refuge when the wetlands freeze. 

Restrict the first 2 days of this hunt to hunting 

only by young people.

■ Continue the hunter registry at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge and expand the form to 

include extra columns that would allow hunters 

to describe their hunting experience and satisfaction.

■ Consider conducting limited-draw hunts to address overcrowding if hunter satisfaction decreases.

■ Conduct random surveys on the wetland management district to determine hunter satisfaction.
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 249

■ Evaluate future acquisitions for new hunting opportunities.

■ Create a public use brochure for Bowdoin Wetland Management District.

■ Continue to maintain the accessible boardwalk 

and hunting blind at the Pearce WPA for hunters 

with disabilities.

■ Post changes in hunting regulations, seasons, and 

bag limits at the hunter kiosk and Bowdoin Refuge headquarters, on the refuge complex’s Web 

site, and through news releases.

■ Update the hunting regulation sections of the 

public use brochures as needed.

■ Use the refuge signage and brochures to provide 

hunters with information on hunting regulations 

and where to hunt on the refuge complex to ensure compliance with public use regulations.

■ Recruit one permanent, full-time, law enforcement officer.

■ Continue to allow the public, including hunters, 

to park in designated parking areas on the north 

end and southeast boundaries of Bowdoin Refuge 

and to walk through the refuge to access Pearce 

WPA to the north and Beaver Creek WPA to the 

east (figure 28 in chapter 4).

■ Improve public access to compatible, wildlifedependent activities on Black Coulee National 

Wildlife Refuge by developing the entrance road 

and parking for the reservoir.

■ Close the eastern portion of Bowdoin Refuge to 

all foot traffic from the beginning of the waterfowl hunting season through at least November 

30, or until waterfowl have left the refuge, to provide continued sanctuary. Although the auto tour 

route would remain open through this portion of 

the refuge, require visitors to remain on the tour 

route outside of the hunting areas.

■ Work with the State to determine the feasibility 

of providing a limited big game archery hunt on 

portions of Bowdoin Refuge that are currently 

open to public use. Address the compatibility 

of the hunt and the safety of hunters and other 

refuge visitors.

Black Coulee Pond is one of several ponds that are 

overgrown with cattail.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Rationale. Many people consider hunting to be a 

legitimate, traditional, recreational use of renewable natural resources. The National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966, other laws, and Fish and 

Wildlife Service policy permit hunting on a national 

wildlife refuge when it is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and acquired. National wildlife refuges exist primarily 

to safeguard wildlife populations through habitat 

preservation. The word “refuge” includes the idea 

of providing a haven of safety for wildlife, and as 

such, hunting might seem an inconsistent use of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. However, habitat 

that normally supports healthy wildlife populations 

produces harvestable surpluses that are a renewable 

resource.

As practiced on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, hunting does not pose a threat to the 

wildlife populations, and in some instances, is necessary for sound wildlife management. Harvesting 

wildlife on the refuge complex is carefully regulated 

to ensure equilibrium between population levels 

and wildlife habitat. All lands within the Bowdoin 

Wetland Management District are open to some 

form of hunting with the exception of Holm WPA. 

Closing the eastern half of Bowdoin Refuge to foot 

traffic during the waterfowl season would provide 

additional protection and rest for waterbirds and 

may actually improve hunting on other portions of 

the refuge. The western portion (40 percent of the 

refuge) is open to compatible hunting of waterfowl 

and upland game birds in accordance with State and 

Federal hunting regulations. The waterfowl sanctuary portion of the refuge (60 percent) is only open 

to late-season hunting (December 1–31) of upland 

game birds, contingent on when waterfowl migrate 
250 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

off the refuge due to the freezing of refuge wetlands. 

These hunting seasons are monitored and enforced 

to ensure regulations are followed and the provide 

hunters with a safe, quality experience.

The refuge complex currently has one wildlife 

refuge specialist with a minimum of 25 percent of 

their duties committed to collateral law enforcement patrols and enforcement. The wildlife refuge 

specialist’s remaining responsibility is managing 

the wetland management district: 158 grassland and 

wetland conservation easements, 1 flowage easement, 4 FmHA easements, 9 waterfowl production 

areas, and 4 satellite refuges with 29 associated refuge and flowage easements. This individual is also 

responsible for conducting law enforcement activities across the refuge complex. Expansion of hunting and other visitor services programs would be 

contingent on the ability to recruit one, permanent, 

full-time law enforcement officer to protect refuge 

resources and provide the public with a safe experience.

Fishing Objective

Following State and Federal regulations, continue 

to allow compatible recreational fishing on Beaver 

Creek and McNeil Slough WPAs.

Strategies

■ Continue to require visitors to follow State and 

Federal regulations for fishing on designated areas within the refuge complex.

■ Include information on fishing locations and regulations in the new brochure for the waterfowl 

production areas.

■ Continue to provide anglers information about 

other fishing opportunities on areas surrounding 

the refuge complex.

Rationale. Fishing is considered by many to be a 

legitimate, traditional, recreational use of renewable 

natural resources. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Act of 1966, other laws, and Fish and Wildlife Service policy permit fishing when it is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge or 

district was established and acquired. Compatible 

recreational fishing opportunities are available at 

McNeil Slough WPA (primarily on the Milk River) 

and Beaver Creek WPA (primarily on Beaver 

Creek). The remainder of the wetlands within the 

district have minimal habitat or do not support harvestable game fisheries or populations.

Anglers have many exceptional fishing opportunities within 100 miles of Bowdoin Wetland Management District including fishing at the Nelson 

Reservoir, Cole Ponds, Milk River, Missouri River, 

Fort Peck Lake, and stocked ponds and reservoirs 

on public and private lands (Montana’s Missouri 

River Country 2007).

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 1

Continue and expand environmental education programs and activities for adults and students on and 

off the refuge complex, focusing on the native prairie 

and wetland habitats and the natural, cultural, and 

historical resources of the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. Design these programs and activities to develop awareness of and promote advocacy 

for refuge resources and management activities for 

more than 500 visitors and students annually.

Strategies

■ Recruit one permanent, full-time, visitor services 

specialist.

■ Develop additional education kits specific to refuge programs and resources including field exploration kits (for example, backpacks with field 

equipment) and field activity pages.

■ Develop a series of environmental outreach programs with specific themes (such as prairie and 

wetland conservation and grassland birds) that 

can be used for on- and off-refuge programs.

■ Maintain and update a list of available environmental education kits and lending library materials for teachers.

■ Every 5 years, facilitate a workshop for local 

teachers.

■ Participate annually in at least two community 

events where the opportunity is available to educate the public about the refuge complex and its 

resources.

■ Provide onsite programs for at least six school 

groups, or 300 students, on the refuge complex 

per year.

■ Provide at least three onsite staff-led group programs on the refuge complex per year.

■ Conduct at least 10 offsite visits to local schools 

within the wetland management district or with 

other groups or organizations to present infor-
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 251

mation on the history, purposes, and natural resources of the refuge complex.

■ Host events for International Migratory Bird 

Day and National Wildlife Refuge Week.

■ Pursue opportunities to expose middle school, 

high school, and college students to the field of 

natural resource management.

■ Work with partners to develop programs to introduce young people to safe, effective, and ethical hunting techniques and methods.

■ 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 wetland management district to develop programs 

that support their curriculum objectives.

■ Pursue grants and other funding sources to support environmental education programs.

Rationale. 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 the awareness, 

knowledge, attitudes, skills, motivation, and commitment to work cooperatively toward the conservation 

of environmental resources. 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.

Highly structured programs do not have the 

same effect as allowing students to explore on their 

own. Programs must not be so rigid so that children 

cannot learn by using their own imaginations and 

senses and yet achieve a balance that ensures the 

student learns something new and exciting about 

the resources they encounter.

Environmental education is among the six 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

identified in the Improvement Act. Due to limited 

staff and resources, the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex has been conducting minimal environmental education activities, typically only by 

invitation from local schoolteachers. Since today’s 

children are tomorrow’s land stewards, it is essential 

to help them become aware of the natural world 

around them and what they can do to help protect 

and restore it.

Lake Bowdoin in the distance.

© Michael Forsberg

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 2

Provide additional interpretive opportunities for 

the public that focus on native prairie and wetland 

habitats, the refuge complex’s purposes, and natural, 

cultural, and historical resources. Design these opportunities to promote awareness of and advocacy 
252 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

for the National Wildlife Refuge System and the 

refuge complex’s resources, management challenges, 

and programs.

Strategies

■ Recruit one permanent, full-time, visitor services 

specialist.

■ Design and install interpretive panels at the 

accessible wildlife observation stop (number 5) 

along the auto tour route.

■ Work with the city of Malta to install an informational kiosk in town that provides refuge information and directional maps.

■ Develop a display at the Phillips County museum 

highlighting the history of the refuge complex.

■ Expand the visitor contact area at refuge headquarters into the conference room and add additional interpretive literature and activities.

■ Develop a portable refuge-specific display that 

can be used for programs and events.

■ Engage partners and challenge cost-share opportunities (such as the local film school) to develop 

a short refuge film for the refuge Web site and 

other outreach activities.

■ Install interpretive panels describing the uses of 

prescribed fire, grazing, and haying.

■ Install informational kiosks at the Beaver Creek 

and McNeil Slough WPAs to interpret wetland 

management in these areas.

■ Expand the visitor contact area, providing access to visitors of all abilities. Use this additional 

space for improved interpretive displays and 

more materials.

Rationale. Interpretation is the identification and 

communication of important messages about natural and cultural resources to diverse audiences. 

Interpretation is designed to reveal relationships 

about the nature, origin, and purpose of a resource, 

landscape, or site in a way that forges connections 

between the interests of the audience and meanings 

inherent in the resource (National Association for 

Interpretation (no date). As a resource management 

tool, interpretation is designed to develop understanding—through understanding, appreciation—

and through appreciation, protection (National Park 

Service 2009).

Interpretation is one of the six compatible, 

wildlife-dependent, recreational uses identified in 

the Improvement Act. Due to limited staff and resources, the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex has been conducting minimal interpretation 

activities. 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.

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Objective

Provide increased opportunities for wildlife observation and photography that enhance the visitor 

experience and encourages an appreciation and connection to the northern prairie.

Strategies

■ Recruit one permanent, full-time, visitor services 

specialist.

■ Maintain year-round opportunities for wildlife 

observation and photography along the existing 

auto tour route on Bowdoin Refuge including the 

accessible nature trails. Develop an accessible 

wildlife observation site with spotting scopes and 

an expanded parking area at stop number 5 along 

the auto tour route (figure 28 in chapter 4).

■ Maintain the refuge complex’s two accessible 

photography blinds at Bowdoin Refuge and 

Pearce WPA.

■ Install a remote camera for observing grouse lek 

activities.

■ Provide regularly scheduled wildlife observation 

tours.

■ Update the Bowdoin Refuge brochures for 

known mammal, reptile, and amphibian species.

■ Notify the local media of opportunities to view 

migrating birds, particularly unique species.

■ Close the east end of Bowdoin Refuge to all foot 

traffic at the start of the waterfowl-hunting season (at least through November 30) or until waterfowl depart the refuge, to provide sanctuary 

areas for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds 

(figure 28 in chapter 4). Keep the auto tour route 

open but require visitors to remain on the auto 

tour route in designated sanctuary areas.

■ Encourage visitors to provide their observations 

and experiences at the end of a visit through 
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 253

contacts in the visitor contact area and during 

random field encounters, requesting they provide 

feedback in the brochures and through the refuge 

complex’s Web site.

Rationale. Most visitors that come to the Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex are here to view 

and photograph wildlife and scenery—more than 

25,000 visitors each year. Wildlife observation and 

photography are among the six, wildlife-dependent, 

recreational uses that have been found compatible 

on the refuge complex. Wildlife observation often 

serves as the foundation for an individual’s environmental ethics. This happens when people begin to 

appreciate and care about the wildlife they are able 

to enjoy and experience firsthand; they take this 

appreciation and awareness back to their own communities and backyards.

The proposed enhancements to the photography 

and wildlife-viewing areas within the refuge complex would not only enhance the visitor’s experience 

and opportunity to view and photograph wildlife but 

also provide a connection to the area’s unique habitat 

and wildlife. This connection may result in a greater 

understanding and appreciation of the refuge complex and the important grassland and wetland habitat protected within its boundaries.

These uses have the potential to negatively affect 

resources, particularly use by visitors who are permitted to explore the refuge complex on foot. Studies have shown that individuals or groups walking 

disturb wildlife, particularly waterfowl, even more 

than vehicles. To minimize some of these effects at 

the most popular area for wildlife viewing—Bowdoin 

Refuge—the east end of the refuge would be closed 

to foot traffic during the waterfowl-hunting season. 

This would provide an undisturbed resting area for 

waterfowl and other waterbirds until hunting season 

ends around November 30. Visitors could still view 

these birds from the auto tour route but would need 

to remain in their vehicles in designated sanctuary 

areas.

Cultural Resources

The refuge complex has some historical structures, 

including a few dams and spillways. In addition, 

there are remnants of prehistoric use—tipi rings 

have been found throughout the refuge complex.

Cultural Resources Objective 1

Through partnerships, continue to develop a comprehensive cultural resource inventory of the refuge 

complex and preserve and protect all known cultural 

resources while ensuring future activities comply 

with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Petroglyph

Carmen Luna / USFWS

Strategies

■ Work with the Service’s zone archaeologist and 

contractors, local tribes, and universities to continue developing the cultural resources inventory.

■ Document all cultural resource sites found during 

refuge activities.

■ Work with archaeological staffs of the Service 

and the State Historic Preservation Office to 

ensure refuge complex activities comply with 

section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act.

Rationale

Ideally, a comprehensive inventory would help ensure the protection of cultural resources. Throughout the life of this 15-year plan, the refuge complex 

staff would work with partners and the regional archaeologist and staff to begin documenting cultural 

sites.

Federal laws and policies mandate the identification and protection of cultural resources on Federal 

lands. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to consider 

the effects on cultural resources before conducting 

any Federal action. Without a complete inventory, 

the refuge complex’s identification of all cultural 

resources is likely incomplete. Nevertheless, the law 

requires all Federal activities that have the potential to impact cultural resources be evaluated. Until 

the inventory is completed, the staff would continue 

to work with the regional archaeologist to evaluate 

projects with the potential to have impacts, on a 

case-by-case basis.
254 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Cultural Resources Objective 2

Improve public awareness and appreciation for the 

cultural resources and history of the refuge complex 

and the northern prairies while creating a greater 

understanding of this history’s connection to the 

natural resources of the area.

Strategies

■ Work with the city of Malta to install an informational kiosk in the community that provides 

information on the cultural resources of the area 

and the history of the refuge complex.

■ Include cultural resource interpretation in the 

expanded visitor contact area.

Rationale. Cultural resources interpretation communicates important messages about the area’s history, context, and resources to diverse audiences. 

Refuge complex lands have a rich history of Native 

American and Euro-American presence. Historical 

structures include the stone pillars at the entrance 

into Bowdoin Refuge, which were built by workers 

in the Works Progress Administration.

As a resource management tool, interpretation 

is designed to develop understanding; through understanding, appreciation; and through appreciation, 

protection (National Park Service 2009). Working 

with the city of Malta to interpret these resources 

and create a display in the city would generate additional interest and understanding of these resources 

while encouraging people to visit the refuge to learn 

more.

7.8 Goal for Partnerships

Maintain and expand partnerships that 

preserve, restore, and enhance healthy and 

productive prairie/wetland complexes on 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge and the 

wetland management district.

Public, Government, and 

Industry Partners

Partnerships are vital to achieving the Service’s mission. Present and future conservation activities conducted on Service lands and conservation easements 

have the potential to positively influence adjoining 

landowners and surrounding communities.

Partnership Objective 1

Continue to participate in and expand partnerships 

that contribute to the understanding and conservation, restoration, and enhancement of diverse, 

healthy, productive grassland and wetland systems 

and the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Strategies

■ Develop a Friends group to support the refuge 

complex’s goals and programs.

■ Continue to support the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program work on private lands.

■ Continue working with Montana Fish, Wildlife & 

Parks to conduct habitat improvement projects 

in areas open to hunting.

■ Work with other Federal land managers to determine if their infrastructure and management 

actions could be used to enhance the refuge complex’s wetland system.

■ Cooperate with the weed boards within the four 

counties covering the refuge complex.

■ Continue to cooperate with neighboring communities, counties, landowners, and nongovernmental organizations to accomplish projects of mutual 

interest.

■ Coordinate with universities to develop an ongoing program of graduate projects that could be 

used to research and resolve refuge management 

issues.

■ Continue expanding partnerships with the counties to improve roads that provide public access 

to the refuge complex.

Rationale. Regular communication with partners, 

various groups, communities, and individuals 

through meetings, local events, and activities would 

not only help garner support for refuge management 

activities and the National Wildlife Refuge System, 

but also allow managers to hear and understand 

their concerns. This open dialog and involvement 

with partners would help build and maintain support 

for the refuge complex’s programs. Furthermore, 

many of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex’s wildlife, habitat, and public use programs and 

habitat projects could not continue without the funding and support from partners.
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 255

Partnership Objective 2

Following current and future Service policy, work 

with energy developers—who are exploring and 

extracting reserved and excepted mineral rights 

on conservation easements and fee-title lands—to 

reduce impacts by ensuring that disturbance and 

physical occupancy is kept at the minimum space 

compatible with efficient mineral operations.

Strategies

■ Work with energy developers who hold mineral 

leases below Service lands to encourage on- and 

offsite habitat improvements in exchange for disturbances caused by their exploration and development activities.

■ Evaluate future land acquisitions to determine 

the status of reserved and excepted oil, gas, and 

mineral rights to evaluate the potential impacts 

of energy development on wetland habitat.

■ Use time, place, and manner stipulations to minimize impacts to habitats and associated wildlife 

(FWS Oil and Gas handbook and 50 CFR 29.32).

■ Ensure compliance of permitted mineral exploration and extraction activities with section 106 of 

the National Historic Protection Act of 1966, as 

amended.

■ According to the Endangered Species Act, complete a section 7 evaluation for permitted mineral 

and extraction activities on lands that have the 

potential to support threatened and endangered 

species.

■ Where appropriate, use 43 CFR 3101.5 (Issuance of Leases, National Wildlife Refuge System Lands) to manage Federal minerals below 

Service-owned land. Work with Bureau of Land 

Management resource specialists to include stipulations on Federal permits to protect wildlife 

and habitat.

Glasswort plants are scattered on the salt-covered edge of southeastern Lake Bowdoin.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Rationale. Energy exploration and development on 

Service lands can occur when the minerals rights 

have been either severed from the surface title or 

retained by the United States Government. In the 

case of severed minerals on Service land, a prior 

owner of both surface and mineral rights, sold or 

granted by deed the mineral rights underlying his or 

her property. The landowner may have reserved or 

retained all or a portion of the mineral rights as part 

of the sale of the property to the Service. One of the 

rights included in the mineral estate is the implied 

right of the mineral estate owner (Alspach 1989) 

to use as much of the surface as reasonably necessary to explore for and produce minerals (Placid Oil 

Co. v. Lee, 243 S.W.2d 860; Tex. App. 1951). These 

activities are deemed reasonable if consistent with 

current practices of the industry. Without this right, 
256 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

the reservation of minerals would be worthless to 

the grantee or reserver.

State laws overseeing the activities of exploration and production of minerals give some protection to the surface owner, because both parties must 

agree on compensation for surface damages (State 

of Montana 2009). Federal law for mineral rights 

reserved and excepted on Service land requires persons holding mineral rights to the greatest extent 

practicable conduct operations in such a manner as 

to prevent damage, erosion, pollution or contamination to the lands, water, facilities and vegetation of 

the area (50 CFR 29.32). In addition, physical occupancy of the area must be kept to the minimum 

space compatible with the conduct of efficient mineral operations. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 is 

the Federal law that authorizes the leasing of mineral rights owned by the United States Government. 

These Federal minerals are leased under the authority of the Bureau of Land Management. Regulations 

pertaining to the leasing and extraction of Federal 

minerals are found in 43 CFR.

Conservation easement contracts and waterfowl 

production areas are purchased subject to all valid 

existing mineral rights. In these situations, mineral rights are the dominant estate, and the rights 

of the surface owner or easement contract are the 

servient estate. There are several instances in the 

refuge complex where the Service owns surface title 

over Federal minerals. In most of these cases, the 

Federal minerals were leased before the 

Service obtaining ownership of the 

surface estate. The mineral lessee 

as afforded in the lease has the 

authority to occupy Service 

land and extract the minerals. 

When the Federal minerals 

have not been leased, section 

3101.5–1 of 43 CFR states that 

there shall be no oil and gas 

mineral leasing on lands within a 

national wildlife refuge to give complete 

protection to the wildlife populations and 

habitats for which these lands were 

established. The exception to this rule 

is when drainage of the Federal 

minerals can be documented. To 

protect Federal minerals 

from drainage the 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

requests leasing 

recommendations 

from the Service. As 

a rule, the Service 

recommends a 

stipulation of no 

surface occupancy be added to the lease. This protects the Service’s surface rights but allows for the 

Federal mineral extraction from surfaces outside the 

boundaries of a refuge or waterfowl production area.

Regardless of the circumstances, the Service 

would work closely with the mineral producer and 

Bureau of Land Management specialists to impose 

reasonable restrictions or conditions required to 

minimize adverse effects to wildlife and habitat 

resources (42 CFR 3101.1–2). Stipulations used to 

protect the resource would address time, place, and 

manner of activities. Guidance for handling mineral 

exploration and development is found in the Mountain–Prairie Region’s “Fish and Wildlife Service 

Handbook on Management of Oil and Gas Activities 

on Fish and Wildlife Service Lands” (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2009a).

7.9 Goal for Operations

Prioritize for wildlife first and emphasize the 

protection of trust resources in the utilization 

of staff, funding, partnerships, and volunteer 

programs.

Staff

The staff of the Bowdoin Refuge Complex has a 

huge challenge in managing almost 85,000 acres of 

Service lands scattered throughout a four-county, 

17,183-square-mile area. Current staff at the 

refuge consists of five permanent fulltime employees. Table 18 shows the 

current staff and proposed additional 

staff required to fully implement the 

CCP. If all positions were funded, refuge 

staff would be able to carry out all 

aspects of this CCP, which would provide 

maximum benefit to wildlife, improve facilities, 

and provide for public use. Projects that have adequate funding and staffing would receive priority for 

accomplishment. Staffing and funding are requested 

for the 15-year life of this CCP.

Staff Objective

In addition to current employees, recruit additional 

staff and volunteers needed to fully carry out the 

proposed actions in this draft CCP including monitoring, inventory, and research.

Prairie Coneflower

© Cindie Brunner
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 257

Table 18. Current and proposed staff for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Program Current positions Proposed changes

Management GS–485–12 refuge manager GS–485–13 refuge manager 1

GS–485–09 wildlife refuge specialist GS–485–12 supervisory wildlife refuge specialist 2

Biology GS–486–11 wildlife biologist GS–486–12 wildlife biologist 3

GS–404–8 biological science technician1

Administration GS–303–07 administrative support assistant GS–341–9 administrative officer 3

GS–326–5 office automation clerk1

Maintenance WG–4749–08 maintenance worker WG–4749–8 maintenance worker 1

WG–3502–5 laborer1 (career seasonal)

Visitor services None GS–025–9 visitor service specialist 1

GS–025–9 law enforcement officer 1

1 Added position.

2 Reclassification of current GS–12 refuge manager position.

3 Position upgrade.

Strategies

■ Retain the current refuge complex positions 

(permanent, full time): one GS–486–11 wildlife 

biologist, one GS–485–9 wildlife refuge specialist (wetland district manager and collateral law 

enforcement officer), and one WG–4749–08 maintenance worker.

■ Recruit a permanent, full-time, GS–485–13 wildlife refuge manager to oversee implementation 

of the CCP and direct the actions of the proposed 

expanded staff.

■ Convert the current GS–485–12 refuge manager 

position to a supervisory wildlife refuge specialist 

to function as the deputy refuge manager.

■ Upgrade the current administrative support assistant to a GS–341–9 administrative officer.

■ Recruit a permanent, full-time, GS–326–5 office 

automation clerk.

■ Recruit a permanent, full-time, GS–025–9 visitor 

services specialist to design and carry out the 

proposed expanded public use programs.

■ Upgrade the current GS–486–11 wildlife biologist 

position to a GS–486–12.

■ Recruit a permanent, full-time, GS–404–8 biological science technician.

■ Recruit a permanent, full-time, GS–025–9 law 

enforcement officer.

■ Recruit an additional permanent, full-time WG–

4749–8 maintenance worker.

■ Recruit a permanent, seasonal, WG–3502–5 maintenance laborer to maintain and rehabilitate current and future refuge facilities and equipment.

■ Increase outreach to recruit additional volunteers needed to carry out the proposed actions 

for the public use, maintenance, and biological 

programs.

■ Recruit at least four temporary biological technicians annually.

■ Retain at the refuge complex a biologist assigned 

to the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.

■ Reinstate the Youth Conservation Corps program by hiring four youths and one GS–186–5 

social services aid (temporary seasonal) to lead 

the program.

■ Work with Montana universities to develop a 

volunteer program by providing college credits in 

exchange for volunteer work experience.

Rationale. The current staff of five, permanent, 

full-time employees lacks the time and expertise 

needed to fully implement the proposed habitat 

management and monitoring projects, facilities 

maintenance, and expanded public use programs. 

In addition, the current staffing level remains well 

below that prescribed by the minimum staffing 

model developed by the Service for all refuges (USFWS 2008c). The model recommends adding the 
258 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

equivalent of 6.5 full-time positions—a maintenance 

worker, wildlife biologist, deputy refuge manager, 

visitor services specialist, law enforcement officer, 

wildlife refuge specialist, and a seasonal biological 

science technician.

Facilities and Equipment

The refuge complex staff is responsible for maintaining a vast system of lands, roads, trails, fences, 

signs, buildings, equipment, and other infrastructure 

necessary to manage habitat and public use programs.

The success of management operations throughout the refuge complex is dependent on having 

adequate facilities including offices, housing, and 

storage buildings. Additionally, the staff needs vehicles and various heavy equipment machines to 

conduct the work specified in the objectives and 

strategies.

Facilities and Equipment Objective 1

Maintain, expand, or enhance facilities, equipment, 

and supplies to support all biological, visitor services, and maintenance programs including accommodation of additional staff and volunteers and 

protection and storage of all needed equipment and 

vehicles.

Strategies

■ Maintain equipment for operations and replace as 

money becomes available.

■ Maintain the current buildings and refuge housing as needed, as well as other refuge complex 

facilities and infrastructure to achieve management objectives.

■ Acquire five additional field vehicles and necessary field equipment for proposed staff.

■ Replace outdated heavy equipment such as the 

road grader, scraper, farm tractor, and front-end 

loader.

■ Acquire attachments for the farm tractor (for 

example, a farm disc, grapple fork, and mowers) 

for habitat management.

■ Expand or enhance the refuge office facilities to 

accommodate the proposed additional staff.

■ Construct a 10-bay parking storage facility for 

existing and future vehicles.

■ Construct a four-bay cold-storage building to 

house additional heavy equipment.

■ Expand the visitor contact area, making areas accessible to visitors with disabilities, and improve 

the interpretive displays and materials.

■ Expand the bunkhouse to accommodate up to 8 

individuals.

■ Develop one campsite with a concrete pad, septic system, water, and electricity for a volunteer 

with a recreational vehicle.

■ Maintain a separate ground water well for the 

two refuge complex residences.

■ Convert the office, apartment, two houses, and 

shop buildings to a solar energy system.

■ Acquire a mower and marsh master to manage 

vegetation in wet areas for control of undesirable 

plant species and to create open-water habitat.

Rationale. The current storage facilities are insufficient to store existing vehicles; most remain outside exposed to the harsh climates of this area. The 

refuge headquarters is sufficient for existing staff 

including seasonal employees but would need to 

be expanded when additional permanent staff was 

added. Although recently remodeled, the bunkhouse 

would still not be adequate to provide housing for 

all seasonal and volunteer staff. Availability of this 

housing would be critical to recruitment of seasonal 

staff, because rental housing is very limited in the 

surrounding rural communities.

Facilities and Equipment Objective 2

Identify the boundaries of all refuge complex units 

and fence the boundaries, as needed, using wildlifefriendly fence designs to prevent trespass cattle 

grazing. Adequately sign unit boundaries to identify 

Service lands and permissible public use and to better orient visitors.

Strategies

■ Evaluate fences to determine the need to replace, 

remove, add, or repair the fences needed to prevent cattle trespass and provide wildlife friendly 

fencing.

■ Work with the State to determine the important 

migratory paths for pronghorn through Bowdoin 

Refuge. Evaluate the need for fences in these 

areas and remove, modify, or replace them using 
CHAPTER 7–Implementation of the Proposed Action, the Draft CCP 259

fencing standards that allow for wildlife passage 

while supporting the refuge’s prescriptive grazing program.

■ Acquire funding to replace dilapidated boundary 

fence, gates, and parking areas.

■ Continue to work with the landowner on Hewitt 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge to exchange the 

fee-title lands needed to create a more manageable and enforceable boundary and bring awareness of the refuge boundary.

■ Continue to maintain entrance signs on refuges 

with more than 40 percent of land within their 

boundaries in fee title.

■ Continue to maintain entrance signs on all waterfowl production areas.

■ Continue to work with the regional Division of 

Realty to acquire or exchange lands with willing 

sellers that would resolve issues related to trespass, boundary “round-outs,” and boundaries that 

are difficult to post and maintain due to their odd 

shape or location.

■ Appropriately identify waterfowl production 

areas within refuge boundaries.

Rationale. Most of Montana is considered open 

range, so according to State law the Service and 

other landowners must build a fence to keep cattle 

from grazing their lands. The existing fences are in 

good condition but need to be replaced with wildlifefriendly designs, including replacement of the bottom strand with smooth wire at least 18 inches off 

the ground. This would take considerable staff and 

resources to accomplish but is important to ensure 

refuge complex fences do not impede or harm migrating wildlife, particularly on Bowdoin Refuge, 

which is part of a migratory corridor for pronghorn. 

The refuge would work with the State to identify 

these corridors and evaluate the existing fences to 

determine whether they are needed for the prescriptive grazing program and how best to modify or 

replace them, as appropriate.

Overall, the refuge complex boundaries are well 

signed and visitors are oriented. Maintaining and 

replacing these signs is time-consuming but critical for protecting refuge habitats and preventing 

trespass. Bowdoin Refuge and Hewitt Lake Refuge 

have irregular boundaries that are difficult to sign or 

boundaries that are located across bodies of water. 

The refuge complex staff would continue to work 

with the regional Division of Realty and willing landowners to address these issues.

7.10 Stepdown Management 

Plans

The CCP is a broad umbrella plan that provides 

general concepts and specific objectives for habitat, 

wildlife, public use, cultural resources, partnerships, 

and operations over the next 15 years. The purpose 

of the stepdown management plans is to provide details to Service staff for carrying out specific actions 

and strategies authorized by the CCP. Table 19 lists 

the stepdown plans needed for the refuge complex, 

status, and next revision date.

Table 19. Stepdown management plans for Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Plan Completed 

(year approved)

New or revision 

(completion year)

Disease 

management 

2006 2013

Fire management 2002 2012

Habitat 

management 

— 2018

Hazard 

communication 

2007 2012

Integrated pest 

management 

2003 2014

Occupant 

emergency 

2008 Annual

Refuge safety 2007 Annual

Sign 1984 —

Spill prevention 2007 2012

Upland 

management 

1992 2018

Visitor services 2008 2018

Wetland 

management 

— 2018

Wildlife 

management 

— 2018
260 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

7.11 Research, Monitoring, 

and Evaluation

Appendix D contains the draft compatibility determination for research and monitoring. Furthermore, the Service proposes to most efficiently deal 

with the uncertainty surrounding habitat management with adaptive resource management (figure 

48) (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. The key components of an adaptive 

resource management plan, such as this draft CCP 

and proposed stepdown plans, follow:

■ Clearly defined management goals and objectives

■ A set of management actions with associated uncertainty as to their outcomes

■ A suite of models representing various alternative working hypotheses describing the response 

of species or communities of interest

■ Monitoring and assessment of the response of 

target organisms

■ Use of monitoring and assessment information to 

direct future decisionmaking through the selection of a best model

The first three components—goals, actions, and 

models—are largely defined before initiation of an 

adaptive resource management plan. The latter two 

components, monitoring and directed decisionmaking, compose a repetitive 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 about the refuge complex is gained and uncertainty is reduced.

Development of adaptive resource management 

plans for habitat management would allow the refuge complex staff to “learn by doing,” while focusing 

on management objectives. Knowledge gained from 

assessing management actions is as integral to the 

process as the management actions themselves. This 

emphasis on gaining knowledge about the refuge 

complex creates a situation whereby the staff can refine its habitat management with feedback between 

management and assessment.

Figure 48. Adaptive management process.

7.12 Plan Amendment and 

Revision

The Service will annually review the final CCP to 

determine the need for revision. A revision would 

occur if and when significant information became 

available such as a change in ecological conditions. 

Revisions to the CCP and the stepdown management plans would be subject to public review and 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act. At a minimum, the Service would evaluate the 

plan every 5 years and revise it after 15 years. 
Glossary

ac—Acre. breeding habitat—Environment used by migratory 

accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas birds or other animals during the breeding seaand activities for people of different abilities, es- son.

pecially those with physical impairments. canopy—Layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

A.D.—Anno Domini, “in the year of the Lord.” layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or underadaptive resource management—The rigorous appli- story vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy 

cation of management, research, and monitoring closure (also canopy cover) is an estimate of the 

to gain information and experience necessary to amount of overhead vegetative cover.

assess and modify management activities. It is a CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan.

process that uses feedback from research, moni- CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations.

toring, and evaluation of management actions to cfs—Cubic feet per second.

support or modify objectives and strategies at cm—Centimeter.

all planning levels. It is also a process in which CO2—Carbon dioxide.

the Service carries out policy decisions within a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—Codification of 

framework of scientifically driven experiments the general and permanent rules published in the 

to test predictions and assumptions inherent Federal Register by the Executive departments 

in management plans. Analysis of results helps and agencies of the Federal Government. Each 

managers determine whether current manage- volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar 

ment should continue as is or whether it should year.

be modified to achieve desired conditions. Compact—Montana House Bill Number 717–Bill to 

alternative—Reasonable way to solve an identi- Ratify Water Rights Compact.

fied problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR Compact Commission—Montana Reserved Water 

1500.2); one of several different means of accom- Rights Compact Commission.

plishing refuge and district purposes and goals compatibility determination—See compatible use.

and contributing to the Refuge System mission compatible use—Wildlife-dependent recreational 

(“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 use or any other use of a refuge or district that, 

FW 1.5). in the sound professional judgment of the Direcamphibian—Class of cold-blooded vertebrates that tor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will 

includes frogs, toads, and salamanders. not materially interfere with or detract from the 

annual—Plant that flowers and dies within 1 year of fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System 

germination. or the purposes of the refuge or district (“Draft 

BAER—Burned Area Emergency Response. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 603 FW 3.6). 

BAR—Burned Area Rehabilitation. A compatibility determination supports the selecbaseline—Set of critical observations, data, or infor- tion of compatible uses and identified stipulations 

mation used for comparison or a control. or limits necessary to ensure compatibility.

biological control—Organisms or viruses used to comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—Document 

control invasive plants or other pests. that describes the desired future conditions of 

biological diversity, biodiversity—Variety of life and the refuge or district and provides long-range 

its processes including the variety of living or- guidance and management direction for the refganisms, the genetic differences among them, uge manager to accomplish the purposes of the 

and the communities and ecosystems in which refuge or district, contribute to the mission of the 

they occur (“Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” Refuge System, and meet other relevant man052 FW 1.12B). The National Wildlife Refuge dates (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 

System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic 602 FW 1.5).

communities, and ecological processes. concern—See issue.

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms; cool-season grass—Grass that begins growth earcaused, produced by, or comprising living organ- lier in the season and often becomes dormant in 

isms. summer; grasses that germinate at lower tem-
262 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

peratures. Examples of cool-season grasses in the duck, diving—Duck that mainly feeds by diving 

refuge complex are western wheatgrass, needle through the water.

and thread, and green needlegrass. EA—See environmental assessment.

conservation—Management of natural resources to easement, flowage—Easement signed by the landprevent loss or waste; actions may include pres- owner granting the Service the right to maintain 

ervation, restoration, and enhancement. and operate an artificial lake or raise the water 

conservation easement—Perpetual agreement en- of a natural lake or stream—by means of dams, 

tered into by a landowner and the Service by dikes, fills, ditches, spillways, and other strucwhich a landowner gives up or sells one or more tures—for water conservation, drought relief, 

of the rights on their property for conserva- migratory birds, and other wildlife conservation 

tion purposes, with terms set by the Service. purposes.

In return for a single lump-sum payment, the easement, refuge—Easement signed by the landlandowner agrees not to drain, burn, level, or fill owner granting the Service the right to control 

habitats covered by the easement. Conservation hunting and trapping, to maintain a wildlife coneasements generally prohibit the cultivation of servation demonstration unit, and to maintain a 

grassland and wetland habitats while still permit- closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds 

ting the landowner traditional grazing uses. A and other wildlife.

single-habitat conservation easement is often EC—Electrical conductivity.

referred to as either a wetland easement or a ecosystem—Dynamic and interrelating complex of 

grassland easement. plant and animal communities and their associcoordination area—Wildlife management area made ated nonliving environment; a biological commuavailable to a State by a “cooperative agreement nity, together with its environment, functioning 

between the United States Fish and Wildlife Ser- as a unit. For administrative purposes, the U.S. 

vice and the State fish and game agency pursuant Fish and Wildlife Service has designated 53 ecoto section 4 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination systems covering the United States and its posAct (16 U.S.C. 664); or (B) by long-term leases sessions. These ecosystems generally correspond 

or agreements pursuant to the Bankhead–Jones with watershed boundaries and their sizes and 

Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525; 7 U.S.C. 1010 et ecological complexity vary.

seq.).” States manage coordination areas, but ecotype—Subspecies or race that is especially 

they are part of the Refuge System. CCPs are adapted to a particular set of environmental connot required for coordination areas. ditions.

cover, cover type, canopy cover—Present vegetation emergent—Plant rooted in shallow water and having 

of an area; also see canopy. most of the vegetative growth above water such 

cultural resources—Remains of sites, structures, or as cattail and hardstem bulrush.

objects used by people in the past. endangered species, Federal—Plant or animal spedense nesting cover (DNC)—Composition of grasses cies listed under the Endangered Species Act of 

and forbs that allows for a dense stand of vegeta- 1973, as amended, that is in danger of extinction 

tion that protects nesting birds from the view of throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

predators, usually consisting of one to two spe- endangered species, State—Plant or animal species 

cies of wheatgrass, alfalfa, and sweetclover. in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in a 

DEQ—Montana Department of Environmental Qual- particular State within the near future if factors 

ity. contributing to its decline continue; species with 

district—See wetland management district a population at a critically low level or having 

district purpose—See purpose of the refuge. habitat that has been degraded or depleted to a 

disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat struc- significant degree.

ture or composition from natural causes such as environmental assessment (EA)—Concise public docuwildfire or human-caused activities and develop- ment, prepared in compliance with the National 

ment such as timber harvest and road building. Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses 

DNC—See dense nesting cover. the purpose and need for an action and alternaDNRC—Montana Department of Natural Resources tives to such action and that provides sufficient 

and Conservation. evidence and analysis of impacts to determine 

drawdown—Manipulating the water level in an im- whether to prepare an environmental impact 

poundment to allow for the natural drying-out statement or finding of no significant impact (40 

cycle of a wetland. CFR 1508.9).

duck, dabbling—Duck that mainly feeds on veg- EPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

etable matter by upending on the water surface evapoconcentration—Concentration of chemical conor by grazing and only rarely dives. stituents in a liquid due to evaporative processes.
GLOSSARY 263

extinction—Complete disappearance of a species sate inhibits an enzyme involved in the synthesis 

from the earth; no longer existing. of the amino acids tyrosine, tryptophan, and pheextirpation—Extinction of a population; eradication nylalanine; absorbed through foliage and transof a species within a specified area. located to growing points, it is only effective on 

 ̊F—Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit. actively growing plants and is not effective as a 

fauna—Vertebrate and invertebrate animals in an pre-emergence herbicide.

area. goal—Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

Federal trust resource—Resource managed by one statement of desired future conditions that conentity for another who holds the ownership. The veys a purpose but does not define measurable 

Service holds in trust many natural resources for units (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 

the people of the United States of America as a 620 FW 1.5).

result of Federal acts and treaties; examples are gpm—Gallons per minute, water flow.

species listed under the Endangered Species Act, grassland tract—Contiguous area of grassland that 

migratory birds protected by international trea- is unfragmented.

ties, and native plant or wildlife species found on GPS—Global Positioning System.

a national wildlife refuge. GS—General schedule pay rate schedule for certain 

Federal trust species—Species where the Federal Federal positions.

Government has primary jurisdiction including habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

federally endangered or threatened species, mi- required by an organism for survival and reprogratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain ma- duction; place where an organism typically lives 

rine mammals. and grows.

fee title—Acquisition of most or all of the rights to a habitat type, vegetation type, cover type—Land clastract of land. sification system based on the concept of distinct 

Federal land—Public land owned by the Federal plant associations.

Government including lands such as national HAPET—Habitat Assessment and Population Evaluwildlife refuges, national forests, and national ation Team.

parks. hemimarsh—Emergent phase of a seasonal or semiflora—Plant species in an area. permanent wetland where the ratio of open-waFmHA—Farmers Home Administration. ter area to emergent vegetation cover is about 

forb—Broad-leaved herbaceous plant; seed-pro- 50:50 and vegetation and open-water areas are 

ducing annual, biennial, or perennial plant that highly interspersed.

does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies hydroperiod—Period of time during which soils, wadown at the end of the growing season. terbodies, and sites are wet.

fragmentation—Alteration of a large block of habitat impoundment—Body of water created by collecthat creates isolated patches of the original habi- tion and confinement within a series of levees 

tat interspersed with a variety of other habitat or dikes, creating separate management units 

types; process of reducing the size and connectiv- although not always independent of one another.

ity of habitat patches, making movement of indi- Improvement Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

viduals or genetic information between parcels Improvement Act of 1997.

difficult or impossible. in—Inch.

ft—Feet, length measure. indigenous—Originating or occurring naturally in a 

full-time equivalent—One or more job positions with particular place.

tours of duty that, when combined, equate to one integrated pest management—Methods of managperson employed for the standard Government ing undesirable species such as invasive plants; 

work-year. education, prevention, physical or mechanical 

FWS—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. methods of control, biological control, responsible 

Geographic Information System (GIS)—Computer sys- chemical use, and cultural methods.

tem capable of storing and manipulating spatial “interseed”—Mechanical seeding of one or several 

data; set of computer hardware and software for plant species into existing stands of established 

analyzing and displaying spatially referenced vegetation.

features (such as points, lines and polygons) with introduced species—Species present in an area due 

nongeographic attributes such as species and age. to intentional or unintentional escape, release, 

GIS—See Geographic Information System. dissemination, or placement into an ecosystem as 

GLO—General Land Office. a result of human activity.

glyphosate—Glyphosate N–(phosphonomethyl) gly- invasive species—Species that is nonnative to the 

cine; broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to ecosystem under consideration and whose introkill invasive plants, especially perennials. Glypho-
264 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

duction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or mS—MilliSiemens.

environmental harm or harm to human health. MSGWG—Montana Sage Grouse Working Group.

inviolate sanctuary—Place of refuge or protection national wildlife refuge (NWR)—Designated area of 

where animals and birds may not be hunted. land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a man- the National Wildlife Refuge System but does 

agement decision; for example, a Service initia- not include coordination areas; listing of all units 

tive, opportunity, resource management problem, of the Refuge System is in the current Annual 

a threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish 

uses, public concern, or the presence of an un- and Wildlife Service.

desirable resource condition (“Draft Fish and National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)—

Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). Various categories of areas administered by the 

issue remark—An industry term in the State of Secretary of the Interior for the conservation 

Montana denoting official documentation of a of fish and wildlife including species threatened 

problem with a water rights claim, such as an in- with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests 

correct identification of the place of water diver- therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife 

sion or use, an incorrect priority date, or a claim refuges; areas for the protection and conservain excess of the amount of water historically put tion of fish and wildlife that are threatened with 

to beneficial use. extinction; wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife 

lek—An elevated patch of grassland used by male management areas, and waterfowl production 

grouse to display and challenge one another to areas.

attract females; the elevation not only provides a National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

clear view to interested female grouse, but it also of 1997 (Improvement Act)—Set administrative 

enables the males to spot predators at a distance. policy for all refuges and units in the National 

management alternative—See alternative. Wildlife Refuge System; defined a unifying mismanagement plan—Plan that guides future land sion for the Refuge System; established the lemanagement practices on a tract of land. gitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority 

MBOGC—Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conserva- public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

tion. photography, environmental education, and inmg/L—Milligrams per liter; measure of weight per terpretation); established a formal process for 

volume, in this case, salts in water. determining appropriateness and compatibility; 

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements established the responsibilities of the Secretary 

of animals between their breeding regions and of the Interior for managing and protecting the 

wintering regions; to pass periodically from one Refuge System; required a comprehensive conregion or climate to another for feeding or breed- servation plan for each unit by the year 2012; 

ing. amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act 

migratory bird—Bird species that follows a seasonal and National Wildlife Refuge System Adminismovement from its breeding grounds to its win- tration Act of 1966.

tering grounds; includes waterfowl, shorebirds, native species—Species that, other than as a result 

raptors, and songbirds. of an introduction, historically occurred or curmission—Succinct statement of purpose or reason rently occurs in a specific ecosystem.

for being. neotropical migrant, migratory bird—Bird species that 

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an en- breeds north of the United States and Mexican 

vironmental impact or to make an impact less border and winters primarily south of this border.

severe. NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act.

mixed-grass prairie—Transition zone between tall- nest success—Chance that a nest will hatch at least 

grass prairie and shortgrass prairie dominated one egg.

by grasses of medium height that are about 2–4 nongovernmental organization—Group that is not 

feet tall; soils are not as rich as in the tallgrass comprised of Federal, State, tribal, county, city, 

prairie and moisture levels are less. town, local, or other governmental entities.

mmhos/cm—Millimhos per centimeter; measure of North American Waterfowl Management Plan—Reca solution’s ability to conduct electricity, in this ognized that the recovery and perpetuation of 

case, for salinity. waterfowl populations depends on restoring 

MOA—Memorandum of agreement. wetlands and associated ecosystems throughout 

monitoring—Collecting information to track changes the United States and Canada; established coopof selected parameters over time. erative international efforts and joint ventures 

MOU—Memorandum of understanding. comprised of individuals, corporations, conserva-
GLOSSARY 265

tion organizations, and local, State, Provincial, planning team leader—Professional planner or natuand Federal agencies drawn together by common ral resource specialist knowledgeable of the reconservation objectives. quirements of National Environmental Policy 

noxious weed—Plant or plant product that can di- Act and who has planning experience; manages 

rectly or indirectly injure or cause damage to the refuge planning process and ensures complicrops (including nursery stock or plant products), ance with applicable regulatory and policy relivestock, poultry, or other interests of agricul- quirements.

ture, irrigation, navigation, natural resources of planning unit—National wildlife refuge or wetland 

the United States, public health, or the environ- management district, or an ecologically or adminment. istratively related refuge complex, or a distinct 

NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Service. unit of a refuge; may include lands outside refuge 

NWR—See national wildlife refuge. or district boundaries.

objective—Concise target statement of what will be plant community—Assemblage of plant species 

achieved, how much will be achieved, when and unique in its composition that occurs in particular 

where it will be achieved, and who is responsible locations under particular influences; reflection 

for the work; derived from goals and provides the or integration of the environmental influences on 

basis for determining management strategies; the site such as soil, temperature, elevation, solar 

should be attainable, time-specific, and stated radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes a 

quantitatively to the extent possible (if cannot general kind of climax plant community such as 

be stated quantitatively, may be stated qualita- ponderosa pine or bunchgrass.

tively) (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” ppt—Parts per thousand.

602 FW 1.5). preferred alternative—Alternative selected to 

palustrine—Relating to a system of inland, nontidal becomes the final plan; it can be the proposed 

wetlands characterized by the presence of trees, action, the no action alternative, another alternashrubs, and emergent vegetation (vegetation tive, or a combination of actions and alternatives 

that is rooted below water but grows above the described in the draft CCP and environmental 

surface); palustrine wetlands range from perma- analysis document.

nently saturated or flooded land to land that is prescribed fire—Skillful application of fire to natural 

wet only seasonally. fuels under specified conditions such as weather, 

Partners in Flight program—Western Hemisphere fuel moisture, and soil moisture that allows conprogram designed to conserve neotropical migra- finement of the fire to a predetermined area and 

tory birds and officially endorsed by numerous produces the intensity of heat and rate of spread 

Federal and State agencies and nongovernmental to accomplish planned benefits to one or more 

organizations; also known as the Neotropical Mi- objectives of habitat management, wildlife mangratory Bird Conservation Program. agement, or hazard reduction.

partnership—Contract or agreement entered into pristine—Typical of original conditions.

by two or more individuals, groups of individuals, private land—Land owned by a private individual, a 

organizations, or agencies in which each agrees group of individuals, or a nongovernmental orgato furnish a part of the capital or some in-kind nization.

service such as labor for a mutually beneficial private landowner—Individual, group of individuals, 

enterprise. or nongovernmental organization that owns land.

patch—Area distinct from that around it; distin- private organization—Nongovernmental organizaguished from its surroundings by environmental tion.

conditions. priority public use—One of six uses authorized by 

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvethrough many years; waterbody that retains wa- ment Act of 1997 to have priority if found to be 

ter year-round; plant species that has a lifespan compatible with a refuge or district’s purposes; 

of more than 2 years. hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photograplanning team—Group of individuals that prepares phy, environmental education, and interpretation; 

the comprehensive conservation plan; interdis- also see wildlife-dependent recreational use.

ciplinary in membership and function; generally proposed action—Alternative proposed to best 

consists of a team leader, refuge manager, biolo- achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge 

gist, staff specialists or other representatives of or district (contributes to the Refuge System 

Service programs, ecosystems or regional offices, mission, addresses the significant issues, and is 

and State or tribal partners’ wildlife agencies as consistent with principles of sound fish and wildappropriate. life management).
266 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; of- riparian area, habitat, corridor—Area that transitions 

ficials of Federal, State, and local government from a terrestrial to aquatic ecosystem includagencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations (may ing streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent plant 

include anyone outside the core planning team); communities and their associated soils that have 

anyone who may or may not have indicated an free water at or near the surface; land and its 

interest in Service issues and those who do or vegetation immediately adjoining and directly 

do not realize that Service decisions may affect influenced by a stream.

them. RLGIS—Refuge Lands Geographic Information Syspublic domain, reserved from—See reserved from tem.

public domain. “round-outs”—Odd shapes and holes of non-Federal 

public involvement—Process that offers affected land within the boundary of Refuge System units 

and interested individuals and organizations an that are straightened, or made whole, by the puropportunity to become informed about and to chase of land tracts.

express their opinions on Service actions and runoff—Water from rain, melted snow, or agriculpolicies; in the process, these views are studied tural or landscape irrigation that flows over the 

thoroughly and thoughtful consideration is given land surface into a waterbody.

to public views when shaping decisions for refuge scoping—Process of obtaining information from the 

and district management. public for input into the planning process.

purpose of the refuge, district—Reason for estab- sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

lishment and management of a national wildlife glaciers.

refuge or wetland management district that is senior water rights—Rights to water that were lespecified in or derived from the law, proclama- gally filed earlier than junior (more recent) water 

tion, Executive order, agreement, public land rights, having precedence.

order, donation document, or administrative Service—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

memorandum establishing authorization or ex- Service Asset Maintenance Management System—

pansion of a refuge, refuge unit, refuge subunit, National database that contains the unfunded 

or district (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Man- maintenance needs of each refuge and district; 

ual” 602 FW 1.5). projects include those required to maintain existraptor—Carnivorous bird such as a hawk, falcon, ing equipment and buildings and to correct safety 

or vulture that feeds wholly or chiefly on meat deficiencies for the implementation of approved 

taken by hunting or on carrion (dead carcasses). plans and to meet goals, objectives, and legal 

Reclamation—Bureau of Reclamation. mandates.

refuge—See national wildlife refuge. shelterbelt—Single to multiple rows of trees and 

Refuge Operations Needs System—National database shrubs planted around cropland or buildings to 

that contains the unfunded operational needs of block or slow down the wind.

each refuge and district; projects included are shorebird—Suborder of birds (Charadrii) such as a 

those required to implement approved plans and plover or snipe that frequents the seashore or 

meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates. mudflat areas.

refuge purpose—See purpose of the refuge. spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the charRefuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge Sys- acter of space.

tem. special use permit—Special authorization from the 

refuge use—Activity on a refuge, except administra- refuge manager for any service, facility, privilege, 

tive or law enforcement activity, carried out by or product of the soil provided at the Service’s 

or under the direction of an authorized Service expense and not usually available to the general 

employee. public through authorizations in Title 50 CFR or 

reserved from public domain—Public land placed into other public regulations (“Refuge Manual” 5 RM 

permanent reserved status, such as a national 17.6).

wildlife refuge, that is not held in private owner- species of concern—Species, while not falling under 

ship. the definition of special status species, that is of 

resident species—Species inhabiting a given locality management interest by virtue of being Federal 

throughout the year; nonmigratory species. trust species such as migratory birds, important 

rest—Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical game species, or significant keystone species; 

manipulation in reference to Service lands. species that has a documented or apparent popurestoration—Management emphasis designed to lation decline, a small or restricted population, or 

move ecosystems to desired conditions and dependence on restricted or vulnerable habitats.

processes such as healthy upland habitats and stand—Homogenous area of vegetation with more 

aquatic systems. or less uniform soils, landform, and vegetation.
GLOSSARY 267

stepdown management plan—Specific plan that pro- USFWS—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

vides the details necessary to carry out manage- U.S. Geological Survey—Federal agency in the U.S. 

ment strategies identified in the comprehensive Department of the Interior whose mission is to 

conservation plan (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Ser- provide reliable scientific information to describe 

vice Manual” 602 FW 1.5). and understand the earth; minimize loss of life 

strategy—Specific action, tool, or technique or com- and property from natural disasters; manage wabination of actions, tools, and techniques used to ter, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and 

meet unit objectives (“Draft Fish and Wildlife enhance and protect our quality of life.

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5). ungulate—Hoofed mammal.

submergent—Vascular or nonvascular plant adapted vision statement—Concise statement of the desired 

to grow in water, either rooted or nonrooted, that future condition of a planning unit, based primarlies entirely beneath the water surface except for ily on the Refuge System mission, specific refuge 

flowering parts in some species. or district purposes, and other relevant mandates 

TDS—Total dissolved solids (salts). (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 

threatened species, Federal—Species listed under FW 1.5).

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, wading birds—Birds having long legs that enable 

that is likely to become endangered within the them to wade in shallow water such as egret, 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant great blue heron, black-crowned night-heron, and 

portion of its range. bittern.

threatened species, State—Species likely to become waterbird—Birds dependent on aquatic habitats to 

endangered in a particular State within the near complete portions of their life cycles.

future if factors contributing to population de- waterfowl—Category of birds that groups ducks, 

cline or habitat degradation or loss continue. geese, and swans.

trust resource—See Federal trust resource. watershed—Geographic area within which water 

trust species—See Federal trust species. drains into a particular river, stream, or waterμmhos/cm—Micromhos per centimeter; measure of body.

a solution’s ability to conduct electricity, in this wetland—Land transitional between terrestrial and 

case, for salinity. aquatic systems where the water table is usually 

μmhos/cm—Micromhos per centimeter; measure of at or near the surface or the land is covered by 

a solution’s ability to conduct electricity, in this shallow water.

case, for salinity. wetland management district—Land that the Refungulate—Hoofed mammal. uge System acquires with Federal Duck Stamp 

U.S.—United States. money for restoration and management, primarμS/cm—MicroSiemens per centimeter; measure of ily as prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl 

a solution’s ability to conduct electricity, in this and other wetland birds.

case, for salinity. WG—Wage Grade schedule, pay rate schedule for 

U.S.C.—United States Code. certain Federal positions.

USDA—United States Department of Agriculture. wildfire—Free-burning fire requiring a suppression 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, FWS)—Part response; all fire other than prescribed fire that 

of U.S. Department of the Interior; principal occurs on wildlands.

Federal agency responsible for conserving, pro- wildland fire—Wildfire or prescribed fire that occurs 

tecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their in undeveloped land.

habitats for the continuing benefit of the Ameri- wildlife-dependent recreational use—Use of a refuge 

can people. The Service manages the National or district involving hunting, fishing, wildlife obWildlife Refuge System comprised of national servation, photography, environmental education, 

wildlife refuges and waterfowl production ar- or interpretation; also see priority public use.

eas. The Service operates national fish hatcher- wildlife management—Practice of manipulaties and ecological service field stations, enforces ing wildlife populations either directly through 

Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird regulating the numbers, ages, and sex ratios 

populations, restores national significant fisher- harvested or indirectly by providing favorable 

ies, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such habitat conditions and alleviating limiting factors.

as wetlands, administers the Endangered Spe- woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not 

cies Act, oversees the Federal aid program that usually touching, generally forming 25- to 60-perdistributes millions of dollars in excise taxes on cent cover.

fishing and hunting equipment to State wildlife WPA—Waterfowl production area.

agencies, and helps foreign Governments with 

their conservation efforts.

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 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

A.1 National Wildlife Refuge 

System

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)

Goals

■ To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge 

purpose(s) and further the Refuge System mission.

■ Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that 

are endangered or threatened with becoming 

endangered.

■ Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional 

fish, and marine mammal populations.

■ Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants.

■ Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the United States including the ecological processes characteristic of 

those ecosystems.

■ To foster understanding and instill appreciation 

of fish, wildlife, and plants and their conservation, 

by providing the public with safe, quality, and 

compatible wildlife-dependent public use. Such 

use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation.

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.2 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.
270 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)—Di- Responsibilities of the office include developing and 

rected agencies to consult with native traditional supporting programs to improve understanding of 

religious leaders to determine appropriate policy the natural and developed environment and the rechanges necessary to protect and preserve Native lationships between humans and their environment, 

American religious cultural rights and practices. supporting the dissemination of educational materials, developing and supporting training programs 

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992)—Prohibited and environmental education seminars, managing 

discrimination in public accommodations and ser- a Federal grant program, and administering an 

vices. environmental internship and fellowship program. 

Required the office to develop and support environAntiquities Act (1906)—Authorized the scientific in- mental programs in consultation with other Federal 

vestigation of antiquities on Federal land and pro- natural resource management agencies including the 

vides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects Service.

taken or collected without a permit.

Executive Order 7295 (1936)—Established Bowdoin 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974)— National Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge and breeding 

Directed the preservation of historic and archaeo- ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.”

logical data in Federal construction projects.

Executive Order 7713 (1937)—Established Lake 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge 

amended—Protected materials of archaeological and breeding ground for migratory birds and other 

interest from unauthorized removal or destruction, wildlife.”

and requires Federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources. Executive Order 7801 (1938)—Established Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge and breedArchitectural Barriers Act (1968)—Required federally ing ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.”

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to 

be accessible to persons with disabilities. Executive Order 7833 (1938)—Established Hewitt 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge and 

Clean Water Act (1977)—Required consultation with breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildthe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for life.”

major wetland modifications.

Executive Order 8924 (1941)—Established CreedDingell–Johnson Act (1950)—Authorized the Secre- man Coulee National Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge 

tary of the Interior to provide financial assistance and breeding ground for migratory birds and other 

for State fish restoration and management plans and wildlife.”

projects. Financed by excise taxes paid by manufacturers of rods, reels, and other fishing tackle. Known Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on 

as the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. Public Lands (1972)—Provided policy and procedures 

for regulating off-road vehicles.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986)—Promoted wetland conservation for the public benefit Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management 

to help fulfill international obligations in various (1977)—Required Federal agencies to provide 

migratory bird treaties and conventions. Authorized leadership and take action to reduce the risk of 

the purchase of wetlands with Land and Water Con- flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human 

servation Fund monies. safety, and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by the floodplains. Prevented Federal 

Endangered Species Act (1973), as amended—Re- agencies from contributing to the “adverse impacts 

quired all Federal agencies to carry out programs associated with occupancy and modification of floodfor the conservation of threatened and endangered plains” and the “direct or indirect support of floodspecies. plain development.” In the course of fulfilling their 

respective authorities, Federal agencies “shall take 

Environmental Education Act of 1990—Established the action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize 

Office of Environmental Education within the Envi- the impact of floods on human safety, health, and 

ronmental Protection Agency to develop and admin- welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and 

ister a Federal environmental education program. beneficial values served by floodplains.”
APPENDIX A–Key Legislation and Policy 271

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands hearing, for discharge of dredged or fill material 

(1977)—Directed Federal agencies to (1) minimize into navigable waters of the United States, includdestruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and (2) ing wetlands, at specified disposal sites. Required 

preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial val- selection of disposal sites be in accordance with 

ues of wetlands when a practical alternative exists. guidelines developed by the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Pub- with the Secretary of the Army. Stated that the 

lic Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1996)— Administrator can prohibit or restrict use of any 

Defined the mission, purpose, and priority public defined area as a disposal site whenever she or he 

uses of the Refuge System; presented four principles determines, after notice and opportunity for public 

to guide management of the Refuge System. hearings, that discharge of such materials into such 

areas will have an unacceptable adverse effect on 

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996)— municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, fishery arDirected Federal land management agencies to ac- eas, wildlife, or recreational areas.

commodate access to and ceremonial uses of Indian 

sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)—Directed the Secretary 

adversely affecting the physical integrity of such of the Interior to develop the policies and procesacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain the dures necessary for carrying out fish and wildlife 

confidentiality of sacred sites. laws and to research and report on fish and wildlife 

matters. Established the U.S. Fish and Wildlife SerExecutive Order 13443, Facilitation of Hunting Heritage vice within the Department of the Interior, as well 

and Wildlife Conservation (2007)—Directed Federal as the positions of Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

agencies that have programs and activities that have Wildlife and Director of the Service.

a measurable effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958)—Allowed 

the Department of the Interior and the Department the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into 

of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and en- agreements with private landowners for wildlife 

hancement of hunting opportunities and the manage- management purposes.

ment of game species and their habitat.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978—Improved 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990)—Required the use the administration of fish and wildlife programs and 

of integrated management systems to control or con- amends several earlier laws including the Refuge 

tain undesirable plant species and an interdisciplin- Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge Sysary approach with the cooperation of other Federal tem Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildand State agencies. life Act of 1956. Authorized the Secretary to accept 

gifts and bequests of real and personal property on 

Federal Records Act (1950)—Required the preserva- behalf of the United States. Authorized the use of 

tion of evidence of the Government’s organization, volunteers for Service projects and appropriations 

functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activi- to carry out volunteer programs.

ties, as well as basic historical and other information.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (1935), 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972—Required known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended 

any applicant for a Federal license or permit to con- (1965)—Declared a national policy to preserve hisduct any activity that may result in a discharge into toric sites and objects of national significance, includnavigable waters to obtain a certification from the ing those located at refuges and districts. Provided 

State in which the discharge originates or will origi- procedures for designation, acquisition, administranate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water tion, and protection of such sites and for designation 

pollution control agency having jurisdiction over of national historic and natural landmarks.

navigable waters at the point where the discharge 

originates or will originate, that the discharge will Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965—Procomply with applicable effluent limitations and wa- vided money from leasing bonuses, production royalter quality standards. Required that a certification ties, and rental revenues for offshore oil, gas, and 

obtained for construction of any facility must also sulphur extraction to the Bureau of Land Managepertain to subsequent operation of the facility. ment, the USDA Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and 

Section 404: Authorized the Secretary of the Wildlife Service, and State and local agencies for 

Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to is- purchase of lands for parks, open space, and outdoor 

sue permits, after notice and opportunity for public recreation.
272 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)—Established and public participation in the conservation of those 

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or resources. Encouraged donations and other contrigifts of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Con- butions by persons and organizations to the Refuge 

servation Commission. System.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

(1934)—Authorized the opening of part of a refuge Act (1990)—Required Federal agencies and muto waterfowl hunting. seums to inventory, determine ownership of, and 

repatriate cultural items under their control or posMigratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)—Designated the session.

protection of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility and enabled the setting of seasons and other North American Wetlands Conservation Act (1989)—

regulations including the closing of areas, Federal or Provided for the conservation of North American 

non-Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds. wetland ecosystems, waterfowl and other migratory 

birds, fish, and wildlife that depend on such habitats.

Mineral Leasing Act (1920), as amended—Authorized 

and governed leasing of public lands for develop- Pittman–Robertson Act (1937)—Taxed the purchase of 

ment of deposits of coal, oil, gas and other hydro- ammunition and firearms and earmarks the proceeds 

carbons, sulphur, phosphate, potassium and sodium. to be distributed to the States for wildlife restoraSection 185 provided for granting of rights-of-way tion. Known as the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoraover Federal lands for pipelines. tion Act or P–R Act.

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)—Required Refuge Recreation Act (1962)—Allowed the use of 

all agencies including the Service to examine the refuges for recreation when such uses are compatenvironmental impacts of their actions, incorporate ible with the refuge’s primary purposes and when 

environmental information, and use public participa- sufficient money are available to manage the uses.

tion in the planning and implementation of all actions. Required Federal agencies to integrate this Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, section 401 (1935)—Proact with other planning requirements and prepare vided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes using 

appropriate documents to facilitate better environ- revenues derived from the sale of products from 

mental decisionmaking (40 CFR 1500). refuges.

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as Refuge Trespass Act of June 28, 1906—Provided the 

amended—Established policy that the Federal Gov- first Federal protection for wildlife at national wildernment is to provide leadership in the preservation life refuges. Made it unlawful to hunt, trap, capture, 

of the Nation’s prehistoric and historical resources. willfully disturb, or kill any bird or wild animal, or 

take or destroy the eggs of any such birds, on any 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act lands of the United States set apart or reserved as 

(1966)—Defined the National Wildlife Refuge Sys- refuges or breeding grounds for such birds or anitem and authorized the Secretary of the Interior mals by any law, proclamation, or Executive order, 

to permit any use of a refuge, provided such use is except under rules and regulations of the Secretary. 

compatible with the major purposes for which the Protected Government property on such lands.

refuge was established.

Rehabilitation Act (1973)—Required programmatic 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for 

1997—Set the mission and administrative policy for all facilities and programs funded by the Federal 

all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Government to ensure that any person can particiMandated comprehensive conservation planning for pate in any program.

all units of the Refuge System.

Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration 

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Com- Act (2006)—Furthered the purposes of the Reclamamunity Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998—Encour- tion Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act 

aged the use of volunteers to help the Service in of 1992 by directing the Secretary of the Interior, 

the management of refuges within the Refuge Sys- acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to 

tem. Facilitated partnerships between the Refuge carry out an assessment and demonstration program 

System and non-Federal entities to promote public to control saltcedar and Russian olive, and for other 

awareness of the resources of the Refuge System purposes.
APPENDIX A–Key Legislation and Policy 273

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conser- Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

vation Purposes Act of 1948—Provided that, on de- Act (1998)—Encouraged the use of volunteers to 

termination by the Administrator of the General help in the management of refuges within the RefServices Administration, real property no longer uge System. Facilitated partnerships between the 

needed by a Federal agency can be transferred with- Refuge System and non-Federal entities to promote 

out reimbursement to the Secretary of the Interior public awareness of the resources of the Refuge 

if the land has particular value for migratory birds System and public participation in the conservation 

or to a State agency for other wildlife conservation of the resources and encouraged donations and other 

purposes. contributions.

U.S. Department of the Interior Order Number 3226 Wilderness Act of 1964—Directed the Secretary of 

(2001)—Directed bureaus and offices of the Depart- the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadment to analyze the potential effects on climate less area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless 

change when undertaking long-range planning, set- island (regardless of size) within the Refuge System 

ting priorities for scientific research, and making and National Park Service for inclusion in the Namajor decisions about use of resources. tional Wilderness Preservation System.

Appendix B

List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination

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 GIS specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region, 

Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, Colorado

Mike Dailey Hydrologist, planner Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Glasgow, Montana

Paula Gouse Wildlife refuge specialist Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Fort Peck, Montana

James Graham Former wetland district manager

(Current supervisory wildlife 

refuge specialist)

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Malta, 

Montana

(Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge, Middle River, 

Minnesota)

Stan Jones Hydrologist Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Helena, Montana

Laura King Planning team leader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region, 

Division of Refuge Planning, Moiese, Montana

Carmen Luna Refuge manager Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Malta, 

Montana

Jana Mohrman Hydrologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region, 

Division of Water Resources, Lakewood, Colorado

Deb Parker Writer-editor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region, 

Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, Colorado

John Simpson Hydrologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region, 

Division of Water Resources, Lakewood, Colorado

Kathy Tribby Former refuge operations specialist

(Current outdoor recreation 

planner)

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Malta, 

Montana

(Bureau of Land Management, Malta, Montana)

Dean Yashan Watershed management section 

supervisor

Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Helena, 

Montana

Many organizations, agencies, and individuals provided invaluable assistance 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.
276 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Team member Position Work unit

Bruce Barbour Former private lands biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Malta, Montana

Rick Coleman Assistant regional director, 

National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Jack Cunningham Hydraulic engineer Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado

John Esperance Former branch chief of Comprehensive and Land Protection PlanningU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Ned Euliss Research biologist U.S. Geological Survey, Jamestown, North Dakota

Sheri Fetherman Chief, Division of Education and 

Visitor Services

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Vanessa Fields Wildlife biologist Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Great Falls, 

Montana

Robert Gleason Director U.S. Geological Survey, Jamestown, North Dakota

Bill Greiman Agricultural engineer Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Helena, Montana

Ann Harrie Fish standards specialist Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Helena, 

Montana

Shannon Heath Outdoor recreation planner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, Montana

Jeff King Project leader National Bison Range, Moiese, Montana

Wayne King Wildlife biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Lisa Kusnierz Water quality planner Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Helena, 

Montana

Rachel Laubhan Wildlife biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Stafford, Kansas

Brant Loflin Zone archaeologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Spearfish, South Dakota

David Lucas Chief, Division of Refuge Planning U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Rod McNeil Environmental science specialist, 

aquatic ecologist

Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Helena, 

Montana

Karen Nelson Toxicologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Helena, Montana

David Redhorse Former Native American liaison U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Mark Rodney Hydrologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood, Colorado

Richard Roy Wildlife biologist Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Princeton, Oregon

Dean Rundle Refuge supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Rick Schroeder Former wildlife biologist U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, Colorado

Bob Skinner Wildlife biologist Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, 

Montana

Michael Spratt Former chief, Division of Refuge 

Planning

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region, 

Lakewood, Colorado
APPENDIX B–Lists of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination 277

Team member Position Work unit

Mark Sullivan Wildlife management biologist Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Glasgow, Montana 

Brian Tangen Research biologist U.S. Geological Survey, Jamestown, North Dakota

Kate Thompson Former biological science technician 

(wildlife)

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Malta, 

Montana

Meg Van Ness Regional archaeologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Matthew Walker Area biologist Natural Resources Conservation Service, Great Falls, 

Montana 

Jay Weiner Legal counsel Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission, 

Helena, Montana

Harold Wentland Wildlife biologist Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks; Glasgow, Montana

Appendix C

Public Involvement

A notice of intent to prepare the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment was published in the Federal Register on May 

14, 2007. The Service compiled a mailing list of more 

than 170 names during pre-planning. 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. Information was provided 

on the history of the refuge complex and the CCP 

process, along with an invitation to a public scoping 

meeting. 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: bowdoin@fws.gov.

One public scoping meeting was held in Malta, 

Montana, on May 22, 2007. There were more than 

25 attendees, primarily local citizens and surrounding ranchers. Following a presentation about the 

refuge complex and an overview of the CCP and 

the National Environmental Policy Act processes, 

attendees were encouraged to ask questions and offer comments. Verbal comments were recorded and 

each attendee was given a comment form to submit 

additional thoughts or questions in writing.

All written comments were due June 30, 2007; 

15 emails and letters were received in addition to 

the verbal comments recorded at the public scoping 

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

process.

As part of the CCP process, the planning team 

set up a salinity team to address the most critical 

issue to both the refuge complex and the public—increased salinity and blowing salts on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. The salinity team worked 

for almost 2 years on the issue, which included a 

yearlong study by a contractor to develop alternatives for addressing this problem. On October 22, 

2009, the planning team held a public meeting to 

provide information about the results of this effort 

and resulting alternatives. The public had an opportunity to ask questions and offer suggestions 

about the various aspects of the alternatives. To 

notify the public about this meeting, more than 170 

meeting announcements were mailed out to the 

planning mailing list on September 24, 2009. Media 

outlets were sent a news release, and staff provided 

interviews to statewide newspapers. Several people 

helped prepare for the meeting and were there to 

answer questions: (1) Service staff from the Bowdoin 

Refuge, the regional Division of Refuge Planning, 

and the regional Division of Water Resources; and 

(2) the Montana Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation and Department of Environmental Quality, including members of the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission. Thirty 

individuals attended this meeting and provided comments, which were recorded. These comments were 

considered by the planning team in the preparation 

of this draft CCP and EA, particularly chapter 6, 

which addresses the salinity and blowing salts problem.

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

Bureau of Land Management, Malta, Montana

Bureau of Reclamation, Billings, Montana

National Park Service, Omaha, Nebraska

Natural Resource Conservation Service, Malta, 

Montana

U.S. Geological Service, Fort Collins Science Center, 

Fort Collins, Colorado

U.S. Geological Service, Jamestown, North Dakota

C.3 Tribal Officials

Blackfeet Nation, Browning, Montana

Chippewa Cree Tribe, Box Elder, Montana

Crow Tribe of Indians, Crow Agency, Montana

Fort Belknap Tribal Council, Harlem, Montana

Fort Peck Tribal Council, Poplar, Montana
280 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

C.4 State Officials

Attorney General’s Office, Helena, Montana

Governor Brian Schweitzer, Helena, Montana

Representative Tony Belcourt, Box Elder, Montana

Representative Kristin Hansen, Havre, Montana

Representative John Musgrove, Havre, Montana

Representative Wayne Stahl, Saco, Montana

Representative Wendy Warburton, Havre, Montana

Senator John Brenden, Scobey, Montana

Senator Rowlie Hutton, Havre, Montana

Senator Jonathan Windy Boy, Box Elder, Montana

C.5 State Agencies

Farm Services Agency, Malta, Montana

Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 

Helena, Montana

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Glasgow, Montana

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Great Falls, Montana 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Havre, Montana

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Helena, Montana

Montana Department of Tourism, Helena, Montana

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commissioner, District 4, Scobey, Montana

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Director, Helena, 

Montana

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Glasgow, Montana

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Malta, Montana

Montana Historical Society and Preservation Office, 

Helena, Montana

C.6 Local Government

Blaine County Commissioners, Chinook, Montana 

Glasgow Irrigation District, Glasgow, Montana

Hill County Commissioners, Havre, Montana

Malta Irrigation District, Malta, Montana

Mayor of Malta, Malta, Montana

Phillips County Commissioners, Malta, Montana

Valley County Commissioners, Glasgow, Montana

C.7 Organizations

American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia

American Prairie Foundation, Malta, Montana

American Rivers, Washington, DC

American Wildlands, Bozeman, Montana

Audubon Society, Helena, Montana

Audubon Society, New York, New York

Audubon Society, Washington, DC

Beyond Pesticides, Washington, DC

Blue Goose Alliance, Tallahassee, Florida

Burlington Northern Railway, Havre, Montana

CARE Group, Washington, DC

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC

Ducks Unlimited, Clancy, Lewistown, Montana

Ducks Unlimited, Memphis, Tennessee

Fund for Animals, New York, New York

Gallatin Valley Pheasants Forever, Bozeman, Montana

The Humane Society, Washington, DC

Isaac Walton League, Gaithersburg, Maryland

Malta Area Chamber of Commerce, Malta, Montana

Montana Department of Tourism, Helena, Montana

Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana

Montana National Wildlife Federation, Helena, 

Montana

Montana Salinity Control Association, Conrad, Montana

National Trappers Association, New Martinsville, 

West Virginia

National Wildlife Federation, Reston, Virginia 

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington, 

DC

The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado

The Nature Conservancy, Helena, Montana

North American Nature Photography Association, 

Wheat Ridge, Colorado

Phillips County Historical Society, Malta, Montana

St. Mary Rehabilitation Working Group, Glasgow, 

Montana

Sierra Club, San Francisco, California

The Wilderness Society, Washington, DC

Wildlife Management Institute, Bend, Oregon

Wildlife Management Institute, Fort Collins, Colorado

Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC

The Wildlife Society, Townsend, Montana

World Wildlife Fund, Bozeman, Montana
APPENDIX C–Public Involvement 281

C.8 Universities and Schools

Colorado State University Libraries, Fort Collins, 

Colorado

Malta Elementary School, Malta, Montana

Malta High School, Malta, Montana

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

C.9 Media

Billings Gazette Online, Billings, Montana

The Billings Outpost, Billings, Montana

Fort Belknap News, Harlem, Montana

The Glasgow Courier, Glasgow, Montana

Great Falls Tribune, Great Falls, Montana

Havre Daily News, Havre, Montana

KLAN Radio, Glasgow, Montana

KLTZ Radio, Glasgow, Montana

KMMR Radio, Malta, Montana

Montana Public Radio, Missoula, Montana

News Media Broadcasters, Havre, Montana

Phillips County News, Malta, Montana

Yellowstone Public Radio, Billings, Montana

C.10 Individuals

81 private individuals

Appendix D

Draft Compatibility Determinations

D.1 Refuge Complex Name

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex:

■ Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge

■ Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge

■ Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge

■ Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge

■ Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge

■ Bowdoin Wetland Management District

D.2 Dates Established

February 14, 1936

August 1, 1958

January 28, 1938

October 25, 1941

March 7, 1938

September 23, 1937

D.3 Establishing and 

Acquisition Authorities

7 U.S.C. § 1000, 1006, 1010–13, July 22, 1937 (Bankhead–Jones Farm Act)

16 U.S.C. § 715(d), Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act

16 U.S.C. § 718(c), Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp

Executive Order 7295, February 14, 1936

Executive Order 7713, September 23, 1937

Executive Order 7801, January 28, 1938

Executive Order 7833, March 7, 1938

Executive Order 8592, November 12, 1940

Executive Order 8924, October 25, 1941

Public Law 85–585, August 1, 1958

Secretarial Order 2843, November 17, 1959

D.4 Refuge Complex Purposes

The establishing and acquisition authorities set out 

the purposes for each unit of the refuge complex, as 

described below.

Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge

■ “As a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife; “[...] and that such part 

of said lands as the Secretary of Agriculture may 

deem proper be reserved for use as a shooting 

area to be operated under a cooperative agreement or lease with the Montana State Game 

Commission or such other operating agency 

as may be approved. The reservation of these 

lands as a migratory waterfowl refuge is subject to the use thereof by [the Department of 

the Interior] for irrigation and other incidental 

purposes.”Executive Order 7295, February 14, 

1936

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife [...] subject to their use 

pursuant to the reclamation laws, and for the 

purpose of oil and gas development [...] and for 

purposes incidental thereto.” Executive Order 

8592, November 12, 1940

■ For “any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” Migratory Bird Conservation Act

Black Coulee National Wildlife 

Refuge

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes [...] wildlife conservation demonstration 

unit and closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds and other wildlife.” Three refuge and 

flowage easements, 1937–38
284 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.” Executive Order 7801, 

January 28, 1938

Creedman Coulee National 

Wildlife Refuge

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes [...] wildlife conservation demonstration 

unit and closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds and other wildlife.” Eight refuge and 

flowage easements, 1937–39

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.” Executive Order 8924, 

October 25, 1941

Hewitt Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, flood 

control, stock water, migratory waterfowl and 

wildlife conservation purposes [...] and operate 

and maintain a closed refuge for migratory birds 

and other wildlife.” Section 16 land; revocable 

easement signed August 30, 1938

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes [...] wildlife conservation demonstration 

unit and closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds and other wildlife.” Two refuge and 

flowage easements, 1937–38

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife [...] nothing herein shall 

affect the disposition of the oil and gas deposits 

therein.” Executive Order 7833. March 7, 1938

■ For “purposes of a land conservation and land 

utilization program.” Bankhead–Jones Farm 

Tenant Act

■ For “use and administration under applicable 

laws as refuges for migratory birds and other 

wildlife.” Secretarial Order 2843, November 17, 

1959

Lake Thibadeau National 

Wildlife refuge

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes [...] wildlife conservation demonstration 

unit and closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds and other wildlife.” Thirteen refuge 

and flowage easements, 1937–38

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.” Executive Order 7713, 

September 23, 1937

Bowdoin 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

D.6 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.

D.7 Description of Uses

The following uses are evaluated for compatibility 

within the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex:

■ Recreational hunting

■ Recreational fishing

■ Wildlife observation and noncommercial photography

■ Environmental education and interpretation
APPENDIX D–Draft Compatibility Determinations 285

■ Cooperative farming, haying, and grazing

■ Commercial filming, audio recording, and still 

photography

■ Research and monitoring

Recreational Hunting

Recreational hunting is identified as a wildlife-dependent recreational use under the Improvement 

Act. In addition to the site-specific regulations mentioned below, the State hunting regulations would 

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 

would provide guidance on site-specific regulations. 

The general hunting regulations are available from 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks.

The CCP proposes to continue the hunting uses 

described for each unit below. In addition, the Service would add the following to improve recreational 

hunting opportunities within the refuge complex:

■ The eastern portion of Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge would be closed to all foot traffic from 

the beginning of the waterfowl hunting season 

through November 30 to provide continued sanctuary for waterfowl and shorebirds. Although 

the auto tour route would remain open through 

this portion of the refuge, visitors would have to 

remain inside their vehicles outside of the hunting areas.

■ On Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge, the 

Service would improve public access to compatible wildlife-dependent activities, including hunting, by developing the entrance road and parking 

for the reservoir.

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. Public hunting 

of migratory birds (ducks, geese, coot, swan, sandhill crane, and mourning dove) and upland game 

birds (ring-necked pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, 

greater sage-grouse, and gray partridge) would be 

permitted on the western portion (approximately 

40 percent) of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

excluding the railroad right-of-way and around the 

residences, shop, and maintenance areas, or where 

otherwise posted. Upland game bird hunters must 

wear at least one item of blaze orange clothing above 

the waist.

Limited hunting of fox and coyote would be permitted through issuance of a special use permit from 

the refuge manager on Bowdoin Refuge. Only centerfire rifles, rimfire rifles, or shotguns with Serviceapproved nontoxic shot would be permitted.

Big game hunting would not be permitted on 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. Bowdoin Refuge may not be used to access adjoining land for big 

game hunting except the Pearce and Beaver Creek 

WPAs. Using the refuge to access adjoining land to 

retrieve a big game animal would not be allowed unless approved and the hunter was accompanied by a 

refuge employee or State game warden.

Shooting from roads would be prohibited. If a 

hunter must retrieve a dead or injured game bird 

from a closed area, they may not carry their firearm 

with them.

An accessible boat dock, a pier, and a parking 

area would be available at the west boat launch on 

Lake Bowdoin. Hunters on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge would be required to sign in and out at 

the hunter registration kiosk. Brochures with current public use regulations would be available at the 

registration kiosk and from the refuge’s Web site.

Since 2002, the portion of the refuge normally 

closed to hunting (along the eastern boundary) has 

been opened to upland game bird hunting throughout the month of December with the first 2 days of 

the special opening being limited to youth hunters 

only. Since waterfowl generally remain at Bowdoin 

Refuge until the wetlands freeze up, the opening 

of the late-season, upland game bird hunt would be 

contingent on waterfowl being gone by November 

30 to avoid further disturbance to these migratory 

birds.

Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge. A portion 

of the land within the refuge boundary is private 

land and hunters wishing to gain access to this inholding must get permission from the landowner. 

The refuge would be otherwise open to hunting of 

migratory birds (duck, goose, coot, swan, sandhill 

crane, and mourning dove), upland game (ringnecked pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, greater sagegrouse, gray partridge, red fox, and coyote), and big 

game according to State regulations.

Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge. Most of 

the land within the refuge boundary is private land 

encumbered by a refuge or flowage easement. Hunters wishing to gain access must get permission from 

the landowner. The refuge would be otherwise open 

to hunting of migratory birds (duck, goose, coot, 

swan, sandhill crane, and mourning dove), upland 

game (pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, greater sagegrouse, gray partridge, red fox, and coyote), and big 

game according to State regulations.

Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge. A portion of 

the land within the refuge boundary is private land 

encumbered by refuge and flowage easement. Hunters wishing to gain access to these areas must get 

permission from the landowner. The refuge would be 
286 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

otherwise open to hunting of migratory birds (duck, 

goose, coot, swan, sandhill crane, and mourning 

dove), upland game (pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, 

greater sage-grouse, gray partridge, red fox, and 

coyote), and big game according to State regulations.

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge. Most 

of the land within the refuge boundary is private 

land encumbered by refuge and flowage easements. 

Hunters wishing to gain access must get permission 

from the landowner. The refuge would be otherwise 

open to hunting of migratory birds (duck, goose, 

coot, swan, sandhill crane, and mourning dove), 

upland game (ring-necked pheasant, sharp-tailed 

grouse, greater sage-grouse, gray partridge, red fox, 

and coyote), and big game according to State regulations.

Bowdoin Wetland Management District. Except 

for the Holm WPA, all waterfowl production areas 

within the Bowdoin Wetland Management District 

would be open to hunting of migratory birds, upland 

game, furbearers, and big game. Big game hunting 

at the McNeil Slough WPA would be restricted to 

archery, muzzleloader, and shotgun only. An accessible hunting and photography blind and parking 

area would be provided at the Pearce WPA. Unless 

otherwise noted, all Service lands open to hunting 

would be subject to State hunting regulations and 

seasons.

Availability of Resources

Existing programs such as current refuge directional signs and brochures could be 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 funding would fund the update and 

printing of existing and new brochures.

Additional law enforcement staff and resources 

would be required (1) to manage significant changes 

to the hunting program to minimize disturbance to 

wildlife and habitat, and (2) to monitor compliance 

with public use and hunting regulations.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

The hunting program on Service lands in the refuge 

complex would continue to provide hunters ample 

quality hunting opportunities without materially detracting from the mission of the Refuge System and 

goals or establishing purposes of the refuge complex 

lands. Public use brochures and the refuge Web site 

would be kept up-to-date and made readily available 

to hunters. Hunter success and satisfaction would 

continue to be monitored using the hunter registration kiosk sign-in sheet along with random contacts 

with hunters in the field and in the refuge complex 

office.

Hunting is considered by many to be a legitimate, 

traditional, recreational use of renewable natural resources. The National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 

1966, other laws, and the Fish and Wildlife 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. National 

wildlife refuges exist primarily to safeguard wildlife 

populations through habitat preservation. The word 

“refuge” includes the idea of providing a haven of 

safety for wildlife, and as such, hunting might seem 

an inconsistent use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. However, habitat that normally supports 

healthy wildlife populations produces harvestable 

surpluses that are a renewable resource. As practiced on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

hunting does not pose a threat to the wildlife populations and, in some instances, is actually necessary 

for sound wildlife management. By its very nature, 

hunting creates a disturbance to wildlife and directly 

impacts the individual animals being hunted. However, it is well recognized that this activity has given 

many people a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a 

better understanding of the importance of conserving their habitat, which has ultimately contributed 

to the Refuge System mission. Furthermore, despite 

the potential impacts of hunting, a goal of the refuge complex is to provide opportunities for quality 

wildlife-dependent recreation. Hunting would be 

designed and monitored to offer a safe and quality 

program and to keep adverse effects within acceptable limits.

Although hunting directly impacts the hunted 

species and may indirectly disturb other species, 

limits on harvest and access for recreational hunting 

would ensure that populations do not fall to unsustainable levels. Closed areas on the refuge complex 

provide sanctuary to migratory birds during the 

hunting season. In some cases, hunting can be used 

as a management tool to control elevated populations that are having a negative effect on wildlife 

habitat.

Additional impacts from hunting activity include 

conflicts with individuals participating in wildlife-dependent, priority public uses such as wildlife observation and photography. Closing the eastern portion 

of Bowdoin Refuge to foot traffic during the migratory bird hunting season could lead to more crowding and conflicts between hunters and nonhunters. 

This could decrease the visitors’ satisfaction during 

the hunting season if different users are restricted 

to the same portions of the refuge. Additional staff 

time and resources would be required to manage 

this program.
APPENDIX D–Draft Compatibility Determinations 287

Determination

Recreational hunting would be a compatible use on 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility

■ Visitors participating in recreational hunting 

would follow the Service’s public use regulations, 

including site-specific regulations, and the State’s 

hunting regulations.

■ Hunters would continue to use approved nontoxic shot for migratory and upland game bird 

hunting on Service-owned lands.

■ Vehicles would be restricted to county and public 

roads and parking areas in the refuge complex.

■ Signage and brochures would be used to provide 

hunters information on where and how to hunt 

on the refuge complex to ensure compliance with 

public use regulations.

Justification

One of the secondary goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System is to provide opportunities, when 

found compatible, for the public to develop an understanding and appreciation for wildlife. Hunting 

is identified as a priority public use in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

and would help meet the above secondary goal with 

only minimal conflicts. Recreational hunting 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.

Based on anticipated biological impacts described 

above and in the environmental assessment, the Service has determined that recreational hunting within 

the refuge complex would not interfere with the 

Service’s habitat goals and objectives or purposes 

for which the refuges and district were established. 

Limiting access and monitoring the use could help 

limit any adverse effects. Except for the Holm WPA, 

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

(Based on date of final plan)

Recreational Fishing

Recreational fishing is defined as a wildlife-dependent recreational use under the Improvement Act. 

The Service does not actively manage sport fisheries 

within the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, but recreational fishing opportunities would 

be available at the McNeil Slough WPA (primarily 

in the Milk River) and the Beaver Creek WPA (primarily in Beaver Creek). The remaining wetlands 

within Bowdoin Wetland Management District have 

only minimal habitat or high salinity levels, or both, 

and do not support a game fishery. The Bowdoin, 

Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt Lake, and 

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuges would be 

closed to all fishing to provide refuge for migratory 

birds. Regardless, wetlands on these refuges do not 

support game fish due to high salinity levels or minimal or no permanent deepwater habitat.

Anglers have plenty of fishing opportunities 

within 10–100 miles of the refuge complex including the nearby Nelson Reservoir, Cole Ponds, Milk 

River, Missouri River, Fort Peck Lake, and stocked 

ponds on public and private lands.

The draft CCP does not call for the implementation of any new fishing programs.

Availability of Resources

The fishing program could be administered using 

current resources.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Fishing and other human activities cause disturbance to wildlife and trampling of vegetation along 

the bank of rivers and streams. Littering can also 

become a problem.

Determination

Recreational fishing would not be a compatible use 

at the Bowdoin, Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, 

Hewitt Lake, and Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife 

Refuges.

Recreational fishing would be a compatible use at 

waterfowl production areas throughout the Bowdoin 

Wetland Management District in accordance with 

State regulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility

■ Visitors participating in recreational fishing 

would follow the Service’s public use regulations 

and State fishing regulations and limits.
288 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Vehicles would be restricted to county and public 

roads and parking areas on the waterfowl production areas.

■ Use of motorized boats would be prohibited.

■ Boats, fishing equipment, and all other personal 

property must be removed at the end of each day.

Justification

Fishing is listed as a priority public use in the Improvement Act. Based on the biological effects addressed above and in the environmental assessment, 

the Service has determined that recreational fishing 

would not interfere with the habitat goals and objectives or purposes for establishment of the waterfowl 

production areas within the refuge complex.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date

(Based on date of final plan)

Wildlife Observation and 

Noncommercial Photography

Wildlife observation and photography are both defined as wildlife-dependent recreational uses under 

the Improvement Act. All lands within the Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex would be open to 

these activities although portions of the Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt Lake, and Thibadeau 

National Wildlife Refuges are private land, and visitors must get permission from the landowners to access those areas. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

would continue to provide a 15-mile auto tour route 

with accompanying interpretive brochure and observation pullouts as well as an accessible photo 

blind and observation deck on the Display Pond 

Trail. Pearce WPA would continue to provide an 

accessible blind with parking and a boardwalk. The 

refuge complex would continue to provide interpretive brochures and panels, which allow self-guided 

access to the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, 

and a bird list that could be used throughout the 

refuge complex. Public roads, trails, and photography blinds would be maintained as needed. Walkin access would be allowed anywhere on Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge and the wetland management district except on the railroad right-of-way and 

around the residences, shop, and maintenance areas, 

or where otherwise posted.

Access to the privately owned portions of the 

Lake Thibadeau, Creedman Coulee, Black Coulee 

and Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuges is by 

landowner permission only.

The CCP proposes to continue the above wildlife 

observation and noncommercial photography uses 

and add the following to improve opportunities for 

these uses:

❏ An accessible wildlife observation site and 

expanded parking area would be added at 

stop number 5 along the auto tour route. Two 

permanent spotting scopes and interpretive 

panels would also be added. At least one spotting scope would be set at a level accessible to 

visitors in wheelchairs and small children. The 

panel would describe the natural history of the 

birds and the area.

❏ The Service would close the east end of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge to all foot traffic 

at the start of the waterfowl-hunting season 

at least through November 30, or until waterfowl depart the refuge, to provide sanctuary 

areas for primarily migratory waterfowl and 

shorebirds. The auto tour route would remain 

open but visitors would remain on the auto tour 

route in designated sanctuary areas.

Availability of Resources

Implementing new facilities outlined in the CCP is 

closely tied to funding requests submitted as visitor 

facility enhancement projects through the Service 

Asset Maintenance Management System. Existing 

programs such as current directional signs and brochures could be updated with available resources.

Additional staff and resources would be required 

to manage the increased use to minimize disturbance 

to wildlife and habitat and to educate photographers 

and wildlife observers about the local resources and 

proper wildlife-viewing and photography etiquette.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Guided tours of the refuge complex could potentially 

increase wildlife disturbance, but the presence of 

Service employees would keep this impact to a minimum, and the opportunity could be used to educate 

all attendees on proper wildlife-viewing and photography etiquette. Increased visitation could also lead 

to other short-term impacts such as increased litter 

and trampled vegetation.

The additional wildlife observation area along the 

auto tour would provide more opportunities to see 

birds and other wildlife but from longer distances, 

causing minimal disturbance. A small concrete pad 

and spotting scope would be added to an expanded 
APPENDIX D–Draft Compatibility Determinations 289

pulloff to accommodate additional vehicles. The expansion and additions would be minimal and should 

not cause any impacts.

Sanctuary would be provided for migrating 

waterfowl and other waterbirds during the waterfowl-hunting season at Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge. Conflicts between hunters and nonhunters may increase during the hunting season due to 

closure of the eastern portion of the refuge to foot 

traffic. Nonhunter satisfaction may decrease due to 

a reduction in access opportunities. Hunter satisfaction may decrease due to an increase in wildlife 

disturbance within the hunting zone.

Determination

Wildlife observation and noncommercial photography would be compatible uses on the Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility

■ Visitors participating in wildlife observation and 

photography would follow all public use regulations. Guided tours would be held where minimal 

impact to habitat and wildlife would occur.

■ Non-Service vehicles would be restricted to 

county and public access roads in the refuge complex.

■ Viewing areas would be designed to minimize 

disturbance impacts to wildlife and all refuge 

resources while providing a good opportunity 

to view wildlife in their natural environments. 

Visitors using permanent or portable observation 

and photography blinds would be provided with 

information on proper use and etiquette of these 

structures to minimize disturbance to wildlife 

and their natural environments and other refuge 

complex visitors.

Justification

One of the secondary goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System is to provide opportunities, when 

found compatible, for the public to develop an understanding and appreciation for wildlife. Wildlife observation and photography are identified as priority 

public uses in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 and would help meet the 

above secondary goal with only minimal conflicts. 

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.

Based on anticipated biological impacts described 

above and in the environmental assessment, the 

Service has determined that wildlife observation and 

noncommercial photography within the refuge complex would not interfere with the Service’s habitat 

goals and objectives or 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

(Based on date of final plan)

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation

Environmental education and interpretation are 

both identified as wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses under the Improvement Act. All lands within 

the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

would remain open to these activities. These programs have been opportunistic as time and staff 

allow. Interpretive panels and brochures would be 

maintained and updated to reflect changes in information or policy and to meet the Service’s graphic 

standards. Portions of the Black Coulee, Creedman 

Coulee, Hewitt Lake, and Lake Thibadeau National 

Wildlife Refuges are private land, and visitors must 

get permission from the landowners to access these 

areas.

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 National Wildlife Refuge System and 

the resources of the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. Additional interpretive panels would be developed for the refuge complex 

and an accessible observation site with spotting 

scopes would be developed along the auto tour 

route at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. The 

mammal, reptile and amphibian lists would be 

updated for the refuge complex and a brochure 

would be developed.

❏ The Service would develop a Friends group 

and work with the Malta Chamber of Commerce and Phillips County Historical Society to 

develop informational kiosks and interpretive 

displays for the refuge complex that would be 

placed in the town of Malta.
290 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Many of the proposed actions would be contingent on recruiting a visitor services specialist to 

develop and carry out these additional programs.

Availability of Resources

Funding for environmental education and interpretation activities, directional signs, and brochures 

would be mainly supported by annual operation and 

maintenance money. Funding from other sources 

such as grants, regional project proposals, challenge 

cost-share agreements, and other temporary funding sources would also be sought and used as they 

became available.

Funding requests for new facilities would be 

submitted as visitor facility enhancement projects 

through the Service Asset Maintenance Management System.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

The use of the refuge complex for onsite activities 

by groups of teachers and students for environmental education or interpretation may impose a 

short-term, low-level impact on the immediate and 

surrounding area. Impacts may include trampling 

of vegetation and temporary disturbance to nearby 

wildlife species during the activities.

Refuge complex brochures, interpretive panels, 

and other educational materials would continue to 

be updated as needed to meet Service requirements. 

Features such as the auto tour route and accessible 

observation sites would continue to provide access 

to the many sights and sounds of the refuge complex.

The Service would continue to promote a greater 

public understanding and appreciation of the refuge 

complex resources, programs, and issues through interpretive, outreach, and environmental educational 

programs. Working with the Friends group and 

other local groups, the Service would continue to 

provide environmental education and interpretation 

both on and off Service lands. Presentations, both on 

and off Service lands, would be provided to refuge 

visitors, school groups, and organizations, allowing the Service to reach a broader audience. Onsite 

presentations would be managed to minimize disturbance to wildlife, habitat, and cultural resources.

Determination

Environmental education and interpretation would 

be compatible uses on Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility

■ Visitors participating in environmental education 

and interpretation programs would follow all Service regulations. Onsite activities would be held 

where minimal impact to wildlife and habitats 

would occur.

■ The Service would review new environmental 

education and interpretation activities to ensure 

these activities meet program objectives and are 

compatible.

Justification

One of the secondary goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System is to provide opportunities, when 

found compatible, for the public to develop an understanding and appreciation for wildlife. Environmental education and interpretation are identified as 

priority public uses in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 and would help 

meet the above secondary goal with only minimal 

conflicts. Environmental education and interpretation would be used to encourage an understanding 

in citizens of all ages to act responsibly in protecting 

wildlife and its habitat. These are tools used in building a land ethic, developing support of the refuge 

complex, and decreasing wildlife violations.

Environmental education is an important tool 

for the refuge complex to provide visitors with an 

awareness of its purposes, values, and specific issues 

such as wetland ecology, water quality, impacts of 

nonnative species, and migratory bird management. 

This tool would also provide visitors and students 

a greater understanding of the mission and importance of the National Wildlife Refuge System to the 

American people.

Based on anticipated biological impacts described 

above and in the environmental assessment, the Service has determined that environmental education 

and interpretation on the refuge complex would not 

interfere with the Service’s habitat goals and objectives or 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

(Based on date of final plan)
APPENDIX D–Draft Compatibility Determinations 291

Cooperative Farming, Haying, 

and Grazing

The Service would continue to use cooperative farming, haying, and prescriptive livestock grazing 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 invasive plant species, and help convert disturbed grasslands back to native plant species.

Farming and Haying. The Bowdoin Refuge and 

Bowdoin District currently use cooperative farming 

and haying as tools to manage upland habitats, including control of invasive plant species and cattails. 

The Service would enter into an agreement with 

a local landowner to (1) help restore cropland and 

poor quality habitat to quality grassland habitat for 

wildlife, or (2) cut and remove DNC to rejuvenate 

vegetation growth. A farming cooperator would be 

issued a cooperative farming agreement or special 

use permit by the refuge manager and allowed to till 

seed, harvest small grain, control invasive plants, or 

harvest hay on Service-owned lands. The agreement 

generally would be issued for a 2- to 4-year management prescription.

Cooperative farming of Service lands is usually 

done on a share basis where the Service and the 

cooperator each receive a share of the crop. The 

Service would retain its share as standing cover for 

wildlife forage or in exchange for additional work 

from the cooperator such as invasive plant control, 

grass seeding, or provision of supplies such as herbicides and fence materials for habitat protection and 

improvement on the management unit. Any fees or 

cash income received by the Service would be deposited in the Refuge Revenue Sharing Account.

The draft CCP proposes to continue using 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. In addition, 

the Service has identified target wildlife species 

(for example, northern pintail and Sprague’s pipit) 

and their habitat requirements. This has resulted in 

objectives that would guide management to achieve 

the habitat needs of these target species. 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.

Grazing. The refuge complex currently uses prescriptive livestock grazing as a tool to manage a 

variety of uplands and seasonal wetlands. Grazing 

by livestock has been a preferred management tool 

because the effect on habitat is controllable and measurable. Livestock grazing has been used in a variety of ways including high intensity–short duration, 

rest rotation, and complete rest. Grazing may occur 

throughout the year as management needs dictate. 

Where applicable, a rotation schedule using multiple 

grazing units is used to manage grazing intensity.

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 ensure that sensitive 

habitats or refuge complex assets are protected. A 

temporary electric fence is used where there isn’t an 

existing fence. Current forage conditions, habitat objectives, and available water would determine stocking rates in each grazing unit. Two stock water wells 

exist on the eastern portion of Bowdoin Refuge but 

are in need of rehabilitation before they can be used 

again by livestock.

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. In addition, 

the Service has identified target wildlife species (for 

example, northern pintail and Sprague’s pipit) and 

their habitat requirements, which has resulted in 

objectives that would guide the prescriptive grazing 

program to achieve the habitat needs of these target species. 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 determine 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 minimize the need 

for staff time and Service assets to complete work. 

A refuge complex biologist would be needed to plan 

and oversee monitoring and research of to assess the 

impacts and effectiveness of these management programs. One temporary biological technician would 

be necessary to carry out the on-the-ground monitoring.

Rehabilitation of existing stock water wells and 

drilling of additional wells in strategic locations 

would increase the effectiveness of the grazing pro-
292 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

gram and reduce the impacts caused by livestock 

watering in wetlands and canals and by cooperators 

hauling water to grazing cells on a daily basis.

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 maintain and enhance habitat 

conditions for the benefit of a wide variety of migratory birds and other wildlife that use the refuge 

complex. Minimal negative effects are expected 

through the use of these tools. Control of invasive 

plant species through these programs would be a 

long-term benefit.

Some wildlife disturbance would occur during 

operation of noisy farming equipment 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 maintained, 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, Burke et al. 2005). Hoof 

action may break up mats of clubmoss and allow 

native plant seeds to become established. However, 

cattle grazing would also increase the risk of invasive plants getting established. Grazing in the spring 

could have adverse effects to grassland-bird nests 

due to trampling and loss of vegetation. In addition, 

the presence of livestock would 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.

Determination

Cooperative farming, haying, and grazing as a habitat management tools would be compatible uses on 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility

■ To ensure consistency with management objectives, the Service would 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 would 

be included in the farming and haying program. 

To minimize impacts to nesting birds and other 

wildlife, the refuge manager would determine 

and incorporate any needed timing constraints 

on the permitted activity into the cooperative 

farming agreement or special use permit. For 

example, haying would not permitted on Service 

lands until after August 1 to avoid destroying 

bird nests on the management unit unless the 

refuge manager deems it necessary to hay earlier 

to control invasive plants or restore grasslands.

■ The cooperative farming agreement or special 

use permit would specify the type of crop to be 

planted. Farming permittees would 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 

would determine where fences, water tanks, and 

livestock supplements would be placed within 

the management unit. Temporary electric fence 

would be used to retain livestock within grazing 

cells as well as to protect sensitive habitat areas 

and refuge complex assets such as water control 

structures or water quality-monitoring wells. 

Cooperators would be required to remove fences 

at the end of the grazing season.

■ Grazing fees would be based on the current-year 

USDA Statistics Board publication for Grazing 

Fee Rates for Cattle by Selected States and Regions, as provided annually by the regional office. 

Standard deductions for labor associated with the 

grazing permit would be included on the special 

use permit.

■ The refuge complex would carry out a vegetation-monitoring program to assess if habitat requirements of target species are being met. A 

minimum of one temporary biological technician 

would be necessary to monitor and document 

these activities. A biologist would be necessary 

to plan and oversee the monitoring program and 

assess the impacts and effectiveness of these 

management programs.
APPENDIX D–Draft Compatibility Determinations 293

Justification

Some habitat management needs to occur to maintain 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 

impacts caused by cooperative farming, haying, and 

grazing.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date

(Based on date of final plan)

Commercial Filming, 

Audio Recording, and Still 

Photography

Commercial filming is the digital or film recording 

of a visual image or sound (audio) recording, and 

commercial still photography is the capture of a still 

image on film or in a digital format—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 visitor use.

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex provides tremendous opportunities for commercial filming and still photography of migratory birds and 

other wildlife. Each year, the refuge complex staff 

receives one to three requests to conduct commercial filming or photography on Service lands. The 

staff would continue to evaluate each request on an 

individual basis, and if the use were allowed, the 

requesting individual or group would be issued a 

special use permit. The permit would designate what 

areas may be accessed and what activities are and 

are not allowed, to minimize the possibility of damage to cultural or natural resources or interference 

with other visitors (refer to “Stipulations Necessary 

to Ensure Compatibility”).

Permittees would be able to access all areas of 

the refuge complex that are open to the public and 

must abide by all public use regulations. In rare 

cases and through the special use permit process, 

the Service may permit access to areas closed to the 

public.

Availability of Resources

The commercial filming, audio recording, and still 

photography uses could be 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 in a proposed rule 

that would modify the commercial filming and still 

photography policy for the agencies within the 

Department of the Interior. This proposed rule is 

currently in the public review process (Federal Register, Volume 72, Number 160, August 20, 2007).

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 followup by refuge complex staff for compliance could help minimize or avoid these impacts. 

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.

Determination

Commercial filming, audio recording, and still photography would be compatible uses on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
294 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility

■ Commercial filming or still photography must 

(1) demonstrate a means to extend public appreciation and understanding of wildlife or natural 

habitats, (2) enhance education, appreciation, and 

understanding of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, or (3) facilitate outreach and education 

goals of the refuge complex. Failure to demonstrate any of these criteria would result in a special use permit being denied.

■ All commercial filming would require a special 

use permit that would (1) identify 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 would 

be 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 would stipulate that imagery produced on refuge complex lands would be 

made available for use in environmental education and interpretation, outreach, internal documents, or other suitable uses. In addition, any 

commercial products must include appropriate 

credits to the Bowdoin National Wildlife 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 would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity.

❏ The Service would need to provide management and oversight to avoid impairment of the 

resources and values of the site, limit resource 

damage, or minimize health and safety risks to 

the visiting public.

■ To minimize the impact on Service lands and resources, the refuge complex staff would ensure 

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 would monitor 

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 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 ensure that 

these wildlife-dependent activities occur with minimal adverse effects to resources or visitors.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date

(Based on date of final plan)

Research and Monitoring

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

receives one to three requests each year to conduct 

scientific research or monitoring on Service lands. 

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. Non-Service 

applicants must submit a proposal that outlines the 

following:

❏ Objectives of the study

❏ Justification for the study

❏ Detailed methodology and schedule

❏ Potential impacts on wildlife and habitat including disturbance (short- and long-term), injury, 

or mortality

❏ Description of measures the researcher would 

take to reduce disturbances or impacts
APPENDIX D–Draft Compatibility Determinations 295

❏ Staff required and their qualifications and experience

❏ Status of necessary permits such as scientific 

collection permits and endangered species permits

❏ Costs to the Service including staff time requested, if any

❏ Anticipated progress reports and end products 

such as reports or publications

❏ Refuge complex staff or others, as appropriate, 

would review research proposals case-by-case 

and issue special use permits if approved. Criteria for evaluation would include, but not be 

limited to, the following:

❏ Research that would contribute to specific 

refuge complex management issues would be 

given higher priority over other requests.

❏ Research that would conflict with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management programs would not be approved.

❏ Research that would cause undue disturbance 

or would be intrusive would likely not be approved. The degree and type of disturbance 

would be carefully weighed when evaluating a 

research request.

❏ Proposals would be evaluated to determine if 

any effort was made to minimize disturbance 

through study design including adjusting location, timing, number of permittees, study methods, and number of study sites.

❏ The length of the project would be considered 

and agreed on before approval.

Availability of Resources

Current resources would be adequate to administer 

the research and monitoring on a very limited basis. A refuge complex biologist would be necessary 

to administer large and long-term projects, which 

generally require more indepth evaluation of applications, management of permits, and oversight 

of research projects. The biologist would identify 

research and monitoring needs and work with other 

Service staff, universities, and scientists to develop 

studies that would benefit the refuge complex and 

address the goals and objectives in the draft CCP.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Some degree of disturbance would be 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. However, 

minimal impact on wildlife and habitats would be 

expected with research studies, because special use 

permits would include conditions to ensure that impact to wildlife and habitats are kept to a minimum.

Determination

Research and monitoring would be compatible uses 

on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility

■ Extremely sensitive wildlife habitats and species 

would be sufficiently protected from disturbance 

by limiting research activities in these areas. All 

refuge complex rules and regulations would be 

followed unless otherwise exempted by refuge 

complex management. Projects would be reviewed annually.

■ Refuge complex staff would use the above criteria for evaluating and determining whether 

to approve a proposed study. If research methods were determined to have potential impacts 

on habitat or wildlife, it must be demonstrated 

that the research was necessary for conservation 

management of resources on the refuge complex. 

Measures to minimize potential impacts would 

need to be developed and included as part of the 

study design; these measures would be conditions 

on the special use permit.

■ Refuge complex staff would monitor research 

activities for compliance with conditions of the 

special use permit. At any time, refuge complex 

staff may accompany the researchers to determine potential impacts. Staff may determine that 

previously approved research and special use 

permits be terminated due to observed impacts. 

The refuge manager would also have the ability 

to cancel a special use permit if the researcher 

was out of compliance or to ensure wildlife and 

habitat protection.

Justification

Potential impacts of research activities on refuge 

complex resources would be minimized through re-
296 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

strictions included as part of the study design, and 

research activities would be monitored by the refuge 

complex staff. Results of research projects would 

contribute to the understanding, enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of the refuge 

complex’s wildlife populations and their habitats.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date

(Based on date of final plan)

D.8 Signatures

Submitted by:

Carmen Luna, Project Leader Date

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Malta, 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 E

Divestiture Model Results for 

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge

During the CCP process, the Service identified Lake 

Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge as a candidate 

for removal from the National Wildlife Refuge System through divestiture (the selling or release of 

Service interests). The refuge was evaluated by the 

planning team, regional office, and the refuge manager to determine whether it warranted continued 

status as a national wildlife refuge. Based on the 

analysis, the Service is recommending that Lake 

Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge be considered 

for divestiture.

This 3,840-acre limited-interest refuge is primarily private land encumbered by flowage and refuge 

easements acquired by the Government in the 1930s. 

The Service has the right to impound water, control 

uses that occur on that water, and control hunting 

and trapping. The Service does not have rights to 

control uses of the uplands or natural wetland basins; these rights would require additional easements or purchase of the land from a willing seller. 

The 19.4-acre fee-title area is land reserved from 

public domain by the Bureau of Land Management.

The analysis of Lake Thibadeau Refuge used the 

Service’s Mountain–Prairie Region evaluation model 

to determine whether to recommend the refuge for 

divestiture. The divestiture model is a set of criteria 

for measuring the value of a refuge based primarily 

on its purposes and the goals of the Refuge System. 

Designed as a pre-planning tool, the model allows 

planners and refuge managers to determine whether 

a refuge or easement refuge should be considered 

for divestiture. Since use of the model indicated that 

Lake Thibadeau Refuge should be considered for 

divestiture, the process and consequences of divestiture were analyzed further during the CCP process 

and documented under section 3.1 in chapter 3 of the 

draft CCP.

E.1 The Divestiture Model

Mountain–Prairie Region staff developed the divestiture model during a 2-day workshop held December 14–15, 2004, at the regional office in Lakewood, 

Colorado. The model standardizes policy in the 

Mountain–Prairie Region for identifying which refuges to consider for divestiture.

The divestiture model comprises primary criteria 

(five questions), secondary criteria (three questions), 

additional considerations, and five rules (to organize 

answers to criteria questions for determination of 

whether to consider divestiture). For each criteria 

question, the answer related to Lake Thibadeau 

National Wildlife Refuge is stated and followed by a 

justification.

Primary Criteria

The following five questions compose the primary 

criteria for evaluating a national wildlife refuge for 

divestiture.

1. Does the refuge achieve one or more 

of the goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System?

Answer: No. According to the rules of this model, 

if the refuge does not achieve one or more goals of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System, it should automatically be recommended for divestiture.

Justification: Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge does not meet the goals of the Refuge System 

as set by Service policy—National Wildlife Refuge 

System Mission and Goals and Refuge Purposes 

(June 20, 2006):

A. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats, including species that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.

B. Develop and maintain 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.

C. 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.

D. Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation 
298 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation).

E. Foster understanding and instill appreciation 

of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

The refuge is a reservoir created by a dam in the 

middle of an arid landscape. It provides little migratory bird habitat, because the watersheds up stream 

of the reservoir have been heavily developed since 

its establishment, capturing most of the water. With 

the absence of permanent vegetative cover around 

the wetlands, erosion occurs and sediment continues 

to be added to the wetland basins.

The refuge’s ability to function as a water source 

and habitat for migrating waterbirds is almost gone. 

In the last 10 years, there has only been one occasion when there was sufficient water collected in the 

spring to provide habitat; this event provided about 

30 acres of water for about 3 months. The historical 

lakebeds of the refuge would provide this seasonal 

habitat any time moisture is made available and 

would function in this capacity even if the area was 

not a refuge. In addition, the lakebeds are natural 

sumps, being the lowest points for the surrounding 

area. Runoff from surrounding farm land finds its 

way to these locations. Draining or removing this 

water from these locations is highly unlikely.

The impoundment Lake Thibadeau Refuge is 

functioning as any other livestock pond in the area 

(figure 49). Within 10 miles of the refuge are more 

than 6,500 acres of wetlands including more than 

3,000 acres of seasonal or temporarily flooded wetlands in more than 1,300 basins. The impoundment 

on the refuge does provide some loafing areas for 

waterfowl, but not of any quality. The mere presence 

of seasonal water does not make it a refuge.

Conservation implies action, and the Service has 

no authority to do anything other than impound water when it is available. Hunting is allowed by landowner permission. There are no other opportunities 

to provide wildlife-dependent recreation or to foster 

an understanding or appreciation of the diversity 

and interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats.

2. Does the refuge meet its purpose 

(fulfill the refuge’s intent and statutory 

purpose)?

Answer: No.

Justification: The refuge was established in 1937 “as 

a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds 

and other wildlife” (Executive Order 7713). The 

lands and waters of this area cannot provide the 

habitat necessary to provide a refuge and breeding 

ground as found on other Refuge System lands. As 

described previously, there is a lack of water due 

to upstream development. The uplands, over which 

the Service has no authority to manage, are used 

for agriculture. Only about 8 percent of the upland 

habitat (about 340 acres) is unbroken ground with 

the potential to retain some native prairie species. 

However, 95 percent of this area is in one block and 

is heavily grazed. The Service has no authority or 

ability within the easement to control the uses and 

management of this upland habitat. The remaining 

uplands of the refuge are intensively farmed.

3. Does the refuge provide substantial 

support for migratory bird species, important sheltering habitat for threatened and 

endangered species, or support for species 

identified in authorizing legislation?

Answer: No.

Justification: The past 30 years of wildlife observations show there has never been substantial use of 

this refuge by migratory birds.

4a. Does the refuge have biological 

integrity; if it does not, is it feasible to 

restore the biological integrity of the 

converted or degraded habitat?

Answer: No.

Justification: Due to alteration of the natural hydrologic processes in the watershed and the conversion 

of native grasslands to cropland, the refuge has lost 

most of the historical biotic composition, structure, 

and function that define its biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. Certainly, migratory birds will make use of open-water habitat, and 

the refuge will at times provide a remnant amount 

of what historically was present, but this amount of 

use alone will not bring the biological diversity of 

the refuge to a level that would meet the purpose of 

a migratory bird refuge.

Since the refuge has no authority over the uplands, it is unrealistic to expect that this area would 

be restored to grassland cover by the current landowners. Further, acquisition of this land in either fee 

title or conservation easement is unlikely given the 

limited money for these activities and the fact that 

this location is not a high priority for either type of 

acquisition.
APPENDIX E–Divestiture Model Results for Lake Thibadeau NWR 299

Figure 49. Map of wetlands within 10 miles of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service)
300 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

4b. Does the Service have or can it reasonably acquire the right to restore the 

habitat?

Answer: No.

Justification: The upland habitat is more than 

90-percent cropland. Acquiring this land for restoration would not only be expensive, but biological 

restoration of native prairie in a mixed-grass prairie 

ecosystem is very difficult. The moisture regime 

that defines the prairie is arid, so establishing a full 

complement of prairie species is not likely. Native 

vegetation exists, but the value has been reduced 

due to the introduction of invasive plants and the 

loss of ecological functions.

The Service’s water right for the refuge may be 

enough to provide open-water habitat for migratory 

birds, given several consecutive good water years. 

The process to exercise these rights would require 

an evaluation to determine the extent of retained 

Service water by dams or diversions in the upstream 

watersheds. Water rights in north-central Montana 

are not only very valuable but a necessity for the 

ranching lifestyle. If the Service were to spend the 

time and resources trying to pursue this water right, 

the results would not be worth the effort and would 

most likely create a legal water rights debate with 

the upstream landowners. Moreover, restoration of 

the wetland habitat alone will not raise the level of 

the biological diversity to achieve the purpose of this 

refuge.

Expenditure of money to restore biological diversity of critical migratory bird habitat would not 

be a priority in this location of the refuge complex. 

There are other areas of higher priority that still 

have some elements of biological diversity.

5. Does the refuge contribute to landscape conservation, provide a stepping 

stone for migratory birds, or serve as a 

unique habitat patch important to the 

conservation of a trust species?

Answer: No.

Justification: Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife 

Refuge is not the only water source in the area 

(see figure 14 in chapter 2). It does not contribute 

to landscape conservation and is not important for 

trust species, because it is identical to the surrounding landscape. If the refuge did not exist, migratory 

birds would not be affected. Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge and other wetlands and stock 

ponds in the vicinity provide for migrating birds.

Secondary Criteria

These last three questions, although secondary criteria, are also part of the divestiture evaluation.

6. Politics/Community—Is there such 

significant community interest in and 

support for the refuge that divestiture 

would result in unacceptable long-term 

public relations?

Answer: No.

Justification: All of the landowners holding title to 

land within the refuge boundary are active ranchers 

or farmers. It is unlikely that they would be willing 

to sell the land to the Service as they rely on it to 

make their living.

7. Jurisdiction—Does the Service have 

or can it acquire the jurisdiction to meet 

the refuge’s purpose and Refuge System 

mission and goals and also prevent incompatible uses?

Answer: No.

Justification: Refer to the above justifications for 

answers to 4a and 4b.

8. Other Land Manager—Could some 

other party achieve most or all of the purposes of the refuge without the Service 

having to incur costs?

Answer: No.

Justification: Refer to the above justifications for 

answers to 4a and 4b.

Additional Considerations

Justification: The dam and water control devises 

were last inspected in 2007. The diversion dam, 

which has been designated as a low-hazard dam, 

received a good evaluation with minor deficiencies. 

The remaining dams and water control structures 

would require extensive repair and replacement to 

bring the system to a functioning level. This repair 

would be costly to the Service for minimal benefit.
APPENDIX E–Divestiture Model Results for Lake Thibadeau NWR 301

Rules

Five rules organize the answers to the criteria questions and are for determining whether to consider a 

national wildlife refuge for divestiture.

Rule 1: IF the refuge cannot meet one or 

more Refuge System goals, the refuge 

should be considered for divestiture.

This is the rule that applies to Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge. 

Since rule 1 is definitive for Lake Thibadeau 

Refuge, there is no need to apply the other 

four rules. If rule 1 did not apply, a refuge 

would be further evaluated using rules 2–5, 

which address how well a refuge meets the 

Refuge System goals and refuge purposes, 

how well a refuge supports trust species, if a 

refuge possesses biological integrity and connectivity, and if the Service has jurisdiction.

E.2 Justification

Based on the Service’s evaluation using the Mountain–Prairie Region’s divestiture model, Lake 

Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge should be considered for divestiture. Specifically, under rule 1, the 

refuge did not meet one or more of the Refuge System goals and, therefore, should be considered for 

divestiture. The refuge does not meet or minimally 

meets the refuge purpose. Furthermore, the refuge 

does not substantially support trust species and does 

not possess biological integrity.

Appendix F 

Species Lists

This appendix contains the common and scientific 

names of animals and plants of the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. The amphibians, reptiles, 

and mammals have ranges that encompass the refuge complex. The bird and plant lists are from actual sightings and surveys at the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge. Species of concern were determined 

from global, Federal, and State of Montana listings 

(Montana Natural Heritage Program 2009a, 2009b).

F.1 List of Amphibian and Reptile Species

The following amphibian and reptile list is based on refuge complex files and listings on the Montana Natural 

Heritage Program Web site for Phillips, Blaine, and Hill counties. The taxonomic order follows Werner et al. 

(2004).

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

SALAMANDERS

Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum —

FROGS and TOADS

Plains spadefoot toad Spea bombifrons Species of concern

Great Plains toad Bufo cognatus Species of concern

Woodhouse’s toad Bufo woodhousii —

Boreal chorus frog Pseudacris maculata —

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Species of concern

TURTLES

Painted turtle Chrysemys picta —

Spiny softshell Apalone spinifera Species of concern

LIZARDS

Greater short-horned lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi Species of concern

Common sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus Species of concern

SNAKES

Eastern racer Coluber constrictor —

Western hognose snake Heterodon nasicus Species of concern

Milk snake Lampropeltis triangulum Species of concern

Gopher snake or bullsnake Pituophis catenifer —

Terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans —

Plains garter snake Thamnophis radix —

Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis —

Western rattlesnake Crotalus viridis —
304 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

F.2 List of Fish Species

The following fish list is based on surveys of Beaver Creek and the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge intake 

canal (2000–2003) and staff observations.

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

Goldeye Hiodon alosoides —

Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni Potential species of concern

Common carp Cyprinus carpio Exotic species (not native to Montana)

Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius Exotic species (not native to Montana)

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas —

River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio —

White sucker Catostomus commersoni —

Black bullhead Ameiurus melas Exotic species (not native to Montana)

Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans Potential species of concern

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Exotic species (not native to Montana)

Iowa darter Etheostoma exile Potential species of concern

Yellow perch Perca flavescens Exotic species (not native to Montana)

Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus —

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Exotic species (not native to Montana)

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu Exotic species (not native to Montana)

Northern pike Esox lucius —
APPENDIX F –Species Lists 305

F.3 List of Bird Species

The following bird list is based on the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge bird list (July 2008); all species have 

been observed on the refuge. Species names are in accordance with the Montana Natural Heritage Program 

Web site (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2009a, 2009b). A “B” indicates local breeders, and focal bird 

species were determined from the focal species strategy of the 2005 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory 

Bird Program.

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

LOONS

Common loon Gavia immer Species of concern

GREBES

Pied-billed grebe Podylimbus podiceps B

Horned grebe Podiceps auritus Species of concern, B

Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena —

Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis B

Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis B

Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii Species of concern, B

PELICANS

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Species of concern, B

CORMORANTS

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Focal species, B

HERONS

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Species of concern, B

Great blue heron Ardea herodias Species of concern, B

Great egret Ardea alba —

Snowy egret Egretta thula —

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis —

Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax Species of concern, B

IBIS

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi Species of concern, B

GEESE

Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons —

Snow goose Chen caerulescens —

Ross’ goose Chen rossii —

Canada goose Branta canadensis B

SWANS

Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus —

DUCKS

Wood duck Aix sponsa Focal species, B

Gadwall Anas strepera B

Eurasian wigeon Anas penelope —

American wigeon Anas americana Focal species, B

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Focal species, B
306 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

Blue-winged teal Anas discors B

Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera B

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata B

Northern pintail Anas acuta Focal species, B

Green-winged teal Anas crecca B

Canvasback Aythya valisineria B

Redhead Aythya americana B

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris —

Greater scaup Aythya marila Focal species

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis Focal species, B

White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca Focal species

Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis —

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola B

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula B

Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica Potential species of concern

Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Potential species of concern

Common merganser Mergus merganser —

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator —

Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis B

NEW WORLD VULTURES

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura —

HAWKS and EAGLES

Osprey Pandion haliaetus —

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Species of concern

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus B

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus —

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii —

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Species of concern

Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus —

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Species of concern, B

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis B

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Species of concern, focal species, B

Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus —

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Species of concern

FALCONS

American kestrel Falco sparverius B

Merlin Falco columbarius —

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Species of concern, focal species

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus —

GALLINACEOUS BIRDS

Gray partridge Perdix perdix Exotic (not native to Montana, introduced) 

species, B

Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus Exotic (not native to Montana, introduced) 

species, B
APPENDIX F –Species Lists 307

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Species of concern, B

Sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus Species of concern, B

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo Exotic (not native to Montana) species

RAILS

Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis Species of concern, focal species

Virginia rail Rallus limicola B

Sora Porzana carolina B

American coot Fulica americana B

CRANES

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis B

PLOVERS

Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola —

American golden-plover Pluvialis dominica —

Snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus Focal species

Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus —

Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened species, species of concern, focal 

species, B

Killdeer Charadrius vociferous B

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus Species of concern. focal species

STILTS and AVOCETS

Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus Species of concern, B

American avocet Recurvirostra americana B

SANDPIPERS

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca —

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes —

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria —

Willet Tringa semipalmatus B

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia B

Upland sandpiper Bartamia longicauda Focal species, B

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus —

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Species of concern. focal species, B

Hudsonian godwit Limosa haemastica Focal species

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa Focal species, B

Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres —

Red knot Calidris canutus —

Sanderling Calidris alba —

Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla —

Western sandpiper Calidris mauri —

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla —

White-rumped sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis —

Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii —

Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos —

Stilt sandpiper Calidris himantopus —
308 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus —

Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus —

Wilson’s snipe Gallinago delicata B

PHALAROPES

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Focal species, B

Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus —

GULLS

Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan Species of concern, B

Bonaparte’s gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia —

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis B

California gull Larus californicus B

Herring gull Larus argentatus —

TERNS

Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia Species of concern. focal species, B

Common tern Sterna hirundo Species of concern, focal species, B

Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea Focal species, B

Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri Species of concern

Black tern Chlidonias niger Species of concern. focal species, B

DOVES

Rock pigeon Columba livia Exotic (not native to Montana, introduced) 

species

Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Exotic (not native to Montana, introduced) 

species, B

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Focal species, B

CUCKOOS

Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Species of concern, focal species, B

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Species of concern, focal species

OWLS

Eastern screech-owl Megascops asio Species of concern, B

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus B

Snowy owl Bubo scandiaca —

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Species of concern. focal species, B

Long-eared owl Asio otus B

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Potential species of concern, focal species, B

Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus Focal species

NIGHTJARS

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor B

HUMMINGBIRDS

Ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris B

KINGFISHERS

Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon —
APPENDIX F –Species Lists 309

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

WOODPECKERS

Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Species of concern, focal species, B

Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Focal species

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens B

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus B

Northern flicker (yellowshafted)Colaptes auratus auratus B

Northern flicker (redshafted)Colaptes auratus cafer B

FLYCATCHERS

Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus B

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii B

Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus B

Say’s phoebe Saynoris saya B

Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis B

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus B

SHRIKES

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Species of concern. focal species, B

Northern shrike Lanius excubitor —

VIREOS

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus —

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus —

JAYS, MAGPIES, and CROWS

Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata —

Black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia B

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos —

Common raven Corvus corax —

LARKS

Horned lark Eremophila alpestris B

SWALLOWS

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor B

Northern rough-winged 

swallow

Stelgidopteryx serripennis B

Bank swallow Riparia riparia B

Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota B

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica B

CHICKADEES

Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus B

Mountain chickadee Poecile gambeli —

NUTHATCHES

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis —
310 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

CREEPERS

Brown creeper Certhia americana Species of concern

WRENS

Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus —

House wren Troglodytes aedon B

Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes Species of concern

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris B

KINGLETS

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa —

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula —

THRUSHES

Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides —

Townsend’s solitaire Myadestes townsendi —

Veery Catharus fuscescens Species of concern

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus —

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus —

American robin Turdus migratorius B

Varied thrush Ixoreus naevius —

THRASHERS

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis —

Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum B

Northern mockingbird Mimus carolinensis —

STARLINGS

European starling Sturnus vulgaris Exotic (not native to Montana) species, B

PIPITS

American (water) pipit Anthus rubescens —

Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii Species of concern. focal species, B

WAXWINGS

Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulous —

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum B

WARBLERS

Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina Potential species of concern

Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata —

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia B

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata —

Townsend’s warbler Dendroica townsendi —

Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata —

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla —

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla Species of concern

Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis —

Mourning warbler Oporornis philadelphia —

MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei —
APPENDIX F –Species Lists 311

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas B

Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla —

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens —

TANAGERS

Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea —

Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana —

SPARROWS

Spotted towhee Pipilo maculates B

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea —

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina B

Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida B

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri Species of concern, B

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus B

Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus B

Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys B

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis B

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Species of concern. focal species, B

Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii Species of concern. focal species, B

Le Conte’s sparrow Ammodramus leconteii Species of concern. focal species

Fox sparrow Passerelia iliaca —

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia B

Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii —

White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis —

Harris’ sparrow Zonotrichia querula —

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys —

Golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla —

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis subspp. —

McCown’s longspur Calcarius mccownii Species of concern, B

Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus —

Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus Species of concern. focal species, B

Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis —

GROSBEAKS and BUNTINGS

Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus —

Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus —

Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena —

BLACKBIRDS and ORIOLES

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Species of concern. focal species

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus B

Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta B

Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus B

Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus Focal species

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus B

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula B
312 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater B

Baltimore oriole Icterus galbula B

Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii B

FINCHES

Pine grosbeak Pinicola enucleator —

Cassin’s finch Carpodacus cassinii Species of concern

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus B

Common redpoll Acanthis flammea —

Hoary redpoll Acanthis hornemanni —

Pine siskin Spinus pinus —

American goldfinch Spinus tristis B

Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus —

OLD WORLD SPARROWS

House sparrow Passer domesticus Exotic (not native to Montana) species, B
APPENDIX F –Species Lists 313

F.4 List of Mammal Species

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

SHREWS

Masked shrew Sorex cinereus —

Merriam’s shrew Sorex merriami Species of concern

Preble’s shrew Sorex preblei Species of concern

BATS

Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus —

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Potential species of concern

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus —

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Species of concern

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Species of concern

Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum —

Western long-eared myotis Myotis evotis —

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum Species of concern

Eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis Species of concern

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Species of concern

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans —

Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis Potential species of concern

HARES and RABBITS

Mountain cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii —

White-tailed jackrabbit Lepus townsendii —

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus —

SQUIRRELS

Richardson’s ground squirrel Spermophilus richardsonii —

POCKET GOPHERS

Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides —

BEAVERS

Beaver Castor canadensis —

MICE, RATS, and VOLES

Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis —

White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus —

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus —

House mouse Mus musculus Exotic species (not native to Montana)

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus —

Prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster —

Western jumping mouse Zapus princeps —

Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius Species of concern

Bushytail woodrat Neotoma cinerea —

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus —
314 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

NEW WORLD PORCUPINES

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum —

CANIDS

Coyote Canis latrans —

Red fox Vulpes vulpes —

Swift fox Vulpes velox Species of concern

FELIDS

Bobcat Lynx rufus —

Mountain lion Felis concolor —

PROCYONIDS

Raccoon Procyon lotor —

MUSTELIDS

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata —

Least weasel Mustela nivalis —

Mink Mustela vison —

Badger Taxidea taxus —

MEPHITIDS

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis —

CERVIDS

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus —

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus —

Elk Cervus canadensis —

Moose Alces alces —

PRONGHORN

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana —
APPENDIX F –Species Lists 315

F.5 List of Plant Species

Common Name Scientific Name

Alfalfa Medicago sativa

Alkali bulrush Scirpus maritimus

Alkali sacaton Sporobolus airoides

American sloughgrass Beckmania syzigachne

American vetch Vicia americana

Arum-leaved arrowhead Sagittaria cuneata

Balkan catchfly Silene csereii 

Barnyard grass Echinochloa crusgalli

Beaked sedge Carex rostrata

Bigbract verbena Verbena bracteata

Birch Betula papyrifera

Black bindweed Polygonum convovulus

Black medick Medicago lupulina

Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata

Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis

Blue lettuce Lactuca pulchella

Bottlebrush grass Elymus hystrix 

Boxelder Acer negundo

Box knotweed Polygonum buxiforme

Broad-leaf arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia

broom snakeweed Gutierrezia serothrae

Buffaloberry Shepherdia argentea 

Buffalograss Buchloe dactyloides

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare

Bushy knotweed Polygonum ramosissimum

Butter and eggs Linaria vulgaris

Canadian waterweed Elodea canadensis

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense

Canada wild rye Elymus canadensis

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana

Clasping pepperweed Lepidium perfoliatum 

Common bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris

Common cattail Typha latifolia

Common mallow Malva neglecta

Common plantain Plantago major

Common ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia

Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum

Curlycup gumweed Grindelia squarrosa

Cutleaf goldenweed Haplopappus spinulosus

Common Name Scientific Name

Dandelion Taraxacum officianale

Dewey sedge Carex deweyana

Dotted blazingstar Liatris punctata

Eaton’s aster Symphyotrichum eatonii

English plantain Plantago lanceolata

European bur-reed Sparganium emersum

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis

Field chickweed Cerastium arvense

Field horsetail Equisetum arvense

Field pennycress Thlaspi arvense

Fireweed Chamerion angustifolium

Flatspine stickseed Lappula occidentalis

Foothill arnica Arnica fulgens

Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum

Fries’ pondweed Potamogeton friesii

Fringed loosestrife Lysimachia ciliata

Fringed sagewort Artemisia frigida

Giant goldenrod Solidago gigantea

Giant red Indian paintbrushCastilleja miniata

Golden currant Ribes odoratum

Golden dock Rumex maritimus

Goosefoot Chenopodium spp.

Greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus

Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Green foxtail Setaria viridis

Green needlegrass Stipa viridula

Green sagewort Artemesia dracunculus

Hairy evening-primrose Oenothera strigosa

Hairy golden-aster Chrysopsis villosa

Hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus

Heliotrope Heliotropium curassavicum

Horsemint Monarda stricta

Horsetail Equisetum fluviatile

Inland saltgrass Distichlis spicata

Jacob’s ladder Polemonium pulcherrimum

Japanese brome Bromus japonicus

Juniper Juniperus communis

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis

Kochia Kochia scoparia

Lambstongue ragwort Senecio integerrimus
316 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common Name Scientific Name

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula

Lupine Lupinus flexuosus

Macoun’s buttercup Ranunculus macounii

Many-flowered aster Symphyotrichum ericoides

Maximilian sunflower Helianthus maximilianii

Missouri goldenrod Solidago missouriensis

Musk mallow Malva moschata

Narrow-leaf water plantain Alisma gramineum

Narrow-leaved collomia Collomia linearis

Narrow-leaved milkvetch Astragalus pectinatus

Needle and thread Stipa comata

Needle spikerush Eleocharis acicularis

Nodding brome Bromus anomalus

Nodding chickweed Cerastium nutans

Nodding smartweed Polygonum lapathifolium

Northern bedstraw Galium boreale

Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata

Pale spikerush Eleocharis macrostachya

Pasqueflower Pulsatilla patens

Perennial sowthistle Sonchus arvensis

Pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus

Plains cottonwood Populus deltoides

Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa

Povertyweed Iva axillaris 

Prairie coneflower Ratibida columnifera

Prairie Junegrass Koeleria macrantha

Prairie rose Rosa arkansana

Prickly pear Opuntia polycantha

Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola

Proso millet Panicum miliaceum

Prostrate knotweed Polygonum aviculare

Purple prairie clover Dalea purpurea

Purplestem aster Symphyotrichum puniceum

Quackgrass Agropyron repens

Redtop Agrostis stolonifera

Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea

Richardson’s pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii

Ridgeseed spurge Chamaesyce glyptosperma

Rocky Mountain beeplant Cleome serrulata

Rubber rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus

Rush skeletonweed Lygodesmia juncea

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia

Russian thistle Salsola iberica

Sago pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus

Common Name Scientific Name

Sandbar willow Salix interior

Sandberg bluegrass Poa secunda

Scarlet gaura Gaura coccinea

Scarlet globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea

Scratchgrass Muhlenbergia asperifolia

Seaside arrowgrass Triglochin maritima

Shortbeak sedge Carex brevior

Showy milkweed Asclepias speciosa

Silver sage Artemisia cana

Silverweed cinquefoil Argentina anserina

Silver cinquefoil Potentilla argentea

Slender lip fern Cheilanthes feei

Slender pondweed Potamogeton filiformis

Silverleaf scurfpea Psoralea argophylla

Small pondweed Potamogeton pusilus

Smartweed Polygonum persicaria

Smooth brome Bromus inermis

Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe

Spreading dogbane Apocynum 

androsaemifolium

Stiff goldenrod Oligoneuron rigidum

Stiff sunflower Helianthus pauciflorus

Stinkgrass Eragrostis cilianensis

Threadleaf crowfoot Ranunculus trichophyllus

Three-square bulrush Schoenoplectus pungens

Timothy Phleum pretense

Tufted phlox Phlox caespitosa

Tumblemustard Sisymbrium altissimum

Watermilfoil Myriophyllum exalbescena

Water plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica

Water starwort Collitriche hermadroditica

Wavyleaf thistle Cirsium undulatum

Western clamy weed Polanisia trachysperma

Western snowberry Symphoricarpos occidentalis

Western waterweed Anacharis occidentalis

Western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii

Western white clematis Clematis ligusticifolia

Western wild rose Rosa woodsii

Western wild-rye Elymus glavcus

Western yarrow Achillea millefolium

White cinquefoil Potentilla arguta

White prairie aster Aster ericoides

White sage Artemesia ludoviciana

Whitetop Cardaria draba
APPENDIX F –Species Lists 317

Common Name Scientific Name

Widgeongrass Ruppia maitima

Wild asparagus Asparagus officianalis

Wild buckwheat Polygonum convolvulus

Wild daisy, fleabane Erigeron glabellus

Wild licorice Glyzerhiza lepidata

Wild mint Nemtha arvensis

Wild mustard Brassica kaber

Wild oats Averia fatua

Common Name Scientific Name

Wild onion Allium textile

Willow Salix spp.

Wire rush Juncus balticus

Wolf berry Symphoricarpos orbiculatus

Woolly plantain Plantago patagonica

Yellow sweetclover Melilotus officinalis

Yellow umbrella plant Eriogonum flavum

Appendix G

Fire Management Program

The Service has administrative responsibility for fire 

management at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

and Bowdoin Wetland Management District, which 

covers 24,915 acres. Additional fire responsibilities 

cover the satellite refuges—Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt Lake, and Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuges—which total 1,458 fee-title 

acres.

G.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 maintaining significant biodiversity 

for thousands of years.

Historically, natural fire and fires started by Native Americans have played an important disturbance role in many ecosystems by removing fuel 

accumulations, decreasing the impact of insects and 

diseases, stimulating regeneration, recycling 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 expansion of woody vegetation. This 

increase in fuel loading leads to an increase in a fire’s 

resistance to control, which threatens firefighter and 

public safety as well as Federal and private lands 

and 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

■ Increase the quantity of water available for municipalities and activities dependent on water 

supplies from wildlands

G.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 

benefit 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 fuels and 

maintain 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.
320 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin 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 incorporated into the planning process.

Federal agency land and resource management 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 management activities must be understood, analyzed, 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 protected, 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 process, investments in fire management activities 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 provides the means to make these tools available 

to all fire managers.

7. Fire management plans and activities incorporate public health and environmental quality considerations.

8. Federal, State, tribal, local, interagency, and international coordination and cooperation are essential.

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.

G.3 Management Direction

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex and 

the Eastern Montana Fire District 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. The only community at risk near the 

refuge complex, as identified in the Federal Register, is the town of Malta. The development of the 

community wildfire-protection plan for Malta is a 

current, ongoing process.

All aspects of the fire management program 

would be conducted consistent with applicable laws, 

policies, and regulations. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex would maintain a fire management plan to accomplish the fire management goals 

described below. Prescribed fire and manual and 
APPENDIX G–Fire Management Program 321

mechanical fuel treatments would be applied in a 

scientific way under selected weather and environmental conditions.

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 Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex is to use prescribed fire 

and manual and mechanical treatments to (1) reduce 

the threat to life and property through hazardousfuel 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 and wetland ecosystems, as well as tamegrasses planted 

for wildlife, such as dense nesting cover. The primary objective of the prescribed fire management 

program is to reduce fuel loads while restoring and 

maintaining native prairie and wetland habitats. 

Prescribed fire would be used to recycle nutrients, 

reduce or eliminate 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 burning 

between 500 and 2,000 acres of upland and wetland 

habitats annually, until every acre has been burned 

at least once. However, according to the literature, 

fire must be used cautiously in this arid climate. It 

is uncertain how often this area historically burned, 

particularly since the arid climate makes it slow to 

recover. To determine the need and frequency of 

using prescribed fire, the Service would review the 

historical weather patterns; the quality, diversity, 

and species of vegetation; the presence of invasive 

species; the habitat needs of target species; and the 

results of monitoring prior-treatment sites. It is 

possible that other habitat manipulations would be 

more appropriate to achieve desired objectives.

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 fuels, restore and maintain 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.
322 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

G.4 Fire Management 

Organization, Contacts, and 

Cooperation

Using the fire management district approach, the 

Mountain–Prairie Region of the Service would establish qualified technical oversight of fire management for the refuge complex. Under this approach, 

the level of fire management staffing 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 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: Batt, B.D.J.; Anderson, M.G.; Anderson, C.D.; 

Butcher, Russell; editor. America’s national wild- Caswell, F.D. 1989. The use of prairie potholes 

life refuges, a complete guide. Lahnam, Mary- by North American ducks. In: van der Valk, A., 

land: Roberts Rinehart. 1–11. editor. Northern Prairie Wetlands. Ames, Iowa: 

Allen, J.N. 1980. The ecology and behavior of the Iowa State University Press. 204–27.

long-billed curlew in southeastern Washington. Bauder, J.W.; Hershberger, K.; Seesoms, H. 2007. 

Wildlife Monographs 73:1–67. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge salt mitigaAlspach C.M. 1989. Surface use by the mineral tion impact review. Open-file report to Montana 

owner: how much accommodation is required Reserve Water Rights Compact Commission, 

under current oil and gas law? In: 55 Oklahoma Technical Advisory Team, April 2007. 81 p.

Law Review. Rev. 89–Bergen Ditch & Reservoir BBC Consulting. 2010. Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Co. v. Barnes. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Refuge Complex socioeconomic impact analyOklahoma College of Law. 683 p. sis. On file at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, 

Ambrose, L.G.; Wilson, S.D. 2003. Emergence of Malta, Montana. 17 p.

the introduced grass Agropyron cristatum and Bedunah, D.J. 1992. The complex ecology of weeds, 

the native grass Boutleoua gracilis in a mixed- grazing, and wildlife. Western Wildlands 18:6–11.

grass prairie restoration. Restoration Ecology Belrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North 

11(1):110–5. America. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole 

Arnold, T.W. [and others]. 2007. Waterfowl use of Books. 540 p.

dense nesting cover in the Canadian Parklands. Belrose, F.C. 1980. Ducks, geese and swans of North 

Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8):2542–9. America. 3rd edition. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: 

Askins, R.A.; Chavez-Ramirez, F.; Dale, B.C.; [and Stackpole Books. 540 p.

others]. 2007. Conservation of grassland birds in Bent, A.C. 1962. Life histories of North American 

North America: understanding ecological pro- shorebirds. Part 1. New York: Dover Publicacesses in different regions. Ornithological Mono- tions, Inc. 602 p.

graphs 64:1–46. Berger, R.P.; Baydack, R.K. 1992. Effects of aspen 

Atkinson, S.J.; Dood, A.R. 2006. Montana piping succession on sharp-tailed grouse, Tympanuchus 

plover management plan. Bozeman, Montana: phasianellus, in the Interlake Region of ManiMontana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. toba. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 106:185–91.

78 p. Bergman, R.D.; Swain, P.; Weller, M.W. 1970. A 

Bakker, K.K. 2003. A synthesis of the effect of comparative study of nesting Forster’s and black 

woody vegetation on grassland-nesting birds. In: terns. Wilson Bulletin 82:435–44.

Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Sci- Bicak, T.K.; Redmond, R.L.; Jenni, D.A. 1982. Efence; [Date of meeting unknown]; [Place of meet- fects of grazing on long-billed curlew (Numenius 

ing unknown]. [Place of publication unknown]: americanus) breeding behavior and ecology in 

[Publisher unknown]. 82:119–41. southwestern Idaho. In: Peek, J.M.; Dalke, P.D.; 

Bakker, K.K.; Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F. 2002. In- editors. Proceedings of the wildlife-livestock recorporating landscape attributes into models for lationships symposium; [Date of symposium unmigratory grassland bird conservation. Conser- known]; [Place of symposium unknown]. Moscow, 

vation Biology 16:1638–46. Idaho: University of Idaho; Forest, Wildlife and 

Baldassarre G.A.; Bolen, E.G. 2006. Waterfowl Range Experiment Station. 74–85.

ecology and management. 2nd edition. Malabar, Bock, C.E.; Saab, V.A.; Rich, T.D.; Dobkin, D.S. 

Florida: Krieger Publishing Company. 576 p. 1993. Effects of livestock grazing on neotropical 

Ball, I.J.; Eng, Robert L.; Ball, Susan Kraft. 1995. migratory landbirds in western North America. 

Population density and productivity of ducks on In: Finch, D.M.; Stangel, P.W.; editors. Status 

large grassland tracts in northcentral Montana. and management of neotropical migratory birds. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(4):767–73. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report 

RM–229:296–309.
324 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Bomberger, M.L. 1984. Quantitative assessment of 

the nesting habitat of Wilson’s phalarope. Wilson 

Bulletin 96:126–8.

Brewer, T.K. 2003. [Dense clubmoss]. University of 

Idaho. <www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range454/2003_pet_

weeds/club_moss.html> Accessed April 5, 2007.

Briggs, F.P. 1964. Waterfowl in a changing continent. In: Linduska, J.P.; editor. Waterfowl tomorrow. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 3–11.

Brown, M.; Dinsmore, J.J. 1986. Implications of 

marsh size and isolation for marsh bird management. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:392–7.

Brumley, J. 2006. Nemont Telephone Cooperative’s 

2006 Dagmar, Glentanna and Larslan exchanges: 

cultural resources inventory. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Ethos Consultants, Inc. 8–47.

Bureau of Land Management. 2008. Bowdoin natural gas development project environmental assessment, MT–92234–07–59, December 2008. 

Great Falls, Montana: U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Bureau of Land Management. <www.

blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/malta_field_office/bowdoin_

ea.html> Accessed February 2009.

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1973. Wilderness study summary, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Malta, Montana. [Place of publication 

unknown]: U.S. Government Printing Office 849–

921. 14 p.

Burger, J.; Gochfeld, M. 1994. Franklin’s gull (Larus 

pipixcan). In: Poole, A; Gill, F.; editors. The 

birds of North America, No. 116. Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania: The Academy of Natural Sciences. 

Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists 

Union. 28 p.

Campbell, R.W.; Dawe, N.K.; McTaggart-Cowan, J.; 

[and others]. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia: Nonpasserines. Volume 2. Victoria, British 

Columbia: Royal British Columbia Museum and 

Canadian Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown].

Carson, S.; Messer, A.; Jakes, A.; Rauscher, R. 2004. 

Milk River Wildlife Management Area 2004 small 

mammal trapping and species inventory report. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Montana Fish, 

Wildlife & Parks. 8 p.

Casey, Daniel. 2000. Partners in Flight Draft Bird 

Conservation Plan Montana. Version 1.0. Kalispell, Montana: Montana Partners in Flight. 288 p.

Caudill, James; Henderson, E. 2005. Banking on 

nature 2004: the economic benefits to local communities of national wildlife refuge visitation. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [No 

date]. Avian influenza (bird flu). Atlanta, Georgia: Department of Health and Human Services. 

<http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/> Accessed April 

2008.

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.

Cochrane, J.F.; Anderson, S.H. 1987. Comparison of 

habitat attributes at sites of stable and declining 

long-billed curlew populations. Great Basin Naturalist 47:459–66.

Cogswell, H.L. 1977. Water birds of California. 

Berkeley, California: University of California 

Press. 399 p.

Colberg, T.J.; Romo, J.T. 2003. Clubmoss effects on 

plant water status and standing crop. Journal of 

Range Management 56(5):489–95.

Colwell, M.A. 1987. Breeding biology, intrasexual 

competition, and philopatry in Wilson’s phalarope 

[Ph.D. dissertation]. Grand Forks, North Dakota: 

University of North Dakota. 123 p.

Colwell, M.A.; Jehl, J.R., Jr. 1994. Wilson’s phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor). From: Poole, A.; editor. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, 

New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://

bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/083> Accessed 

January 2011.

Colwell, M.A.; Oring, L.W. 1988a. Breeding biology 

of Wilson’s phalarope in southcentral Saskatchewan. Wilson Bulletin 100:567–82.

Colwell, M.A.; Oring, L.W. 1988b. Habitat use by 

breeding and migrating shorebirds in southcentral Saskatchewan. Wilson Bulletin 100:554–66.

Colwell, M.A.; Oring, L.W. 1988c. Return rates of 

prairie shorebirds: sex and species differences. 

Wader Study Group Bulletin 55:21–4.

Colwell, M.A.; Oring, L.W. 1990. Nest site characteristics of prairie shorebirds. Canadian Journal 

of Zoology 68:297–302.

Cook, H.H.; Powers, C.F. 1958. Early biochemical 

changes in the soils and waters of artificially created marshes in New York. New York Game and 

Fish Journal 5:9–65.

Cooper, S.V.; Jean, C.; Hendricks, P. 2001. Biological 

survey of a prairie landscape in Montana’s glaciated plains [report to the Bureau of Land Management]. Helena, Montana: Montana Natural 

Heritage Program. 24 p.

Corn, J.G.; Armbruster, M.J. 1993. Prey availability 

for foraging piping plovers along the Platte River 

in Nebraska. In: Higgins, K.F.; Brashier, M.R.; 

editors. Proceedings of the Missouri River and its 

tributaries: piping plover and least tern symposium–workshop; [Date of symposium unknown]; 

[Place of symposium unknown]. Brookings, South 

Dakota: South Dakota State University, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences. 143–9.

Cosens, B. 2006. The role of hydrology in the resolution of water disputes. Journal of Contemporary 

Water Research & Education. 33:17–25.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 325

Cowardin, Lewis M.; Carter, Virginia; Golet, Francis C.; LaRoe, Edward T. 1979. Classification of 

wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United 

States. FWS/OBS–79/31. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 131 p.

Cowardin, L.M.; Blohm, R. 1992. Breeding population inventories and measures of recruitment. 

In: B.D.J.B.; [and others]; editors. Ecology and 

management of breeding waterfowl. Minneapolis, 

Minnesota: University of Minnesota. 423–45.

Crissey, W.F. 1969. Prairie potholes from a continental viewpoint. In: Canadian Wildlife Service 

Report Series 6. Saskatoon Wetlands Seminar; 

[Date of seminar unknown]; [Place of seminar 

unknown]. [Place of publication unknown]: Canadian Wildlife Service. 161–71.

Custer, C.M. 1993. Waterfowl management handbook—life history traits and habitat needs of the 

redhead. Fish and Wildlife leaflet 13.1.11. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 7 p.

Dai, X.; Boutton, T.W.; Hailemichael, M.; [and others]. 2006. Soil carbon and nitrogen storage in 

response to fire in a temperate mixed-grass 

savanna. Journal of Environmental Quality 

35:1620–8.

Davis, J.W.; Anderson, R.C.; Karstad, L.; Trainer, 

D.O. 1971. Infectious and parasitic diseases of 

wild birds. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 344 p.

Davis, S.K. 2004. Area sensitivity in grassland passerines: effects of patch size, patch shape, and 

vegetation structure on bird abundance and 

occurrence in southern Saskatchewan. Auk 

121:1130–45.

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.

Dechant, J.A.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, L.D.; [and others]. 

2003a. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Wilson’s phalarope. From: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. Jamestown, North Dakota: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/

resource/literatr/grasbird/wiph/wiph.htm> (Version 12DEC2003) Accessed February 2011.

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; [and 

others]. 1999 (revised 2002). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: long-billed 

curlew. Jamestown, North Dakota: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 19 p.

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; [and 

others]. 2003b. Effects of management practices 

on grassland birds: chestnut-collared longspur. 

Jamestown, North Dakota: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. <http://www.npwrc

.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/cclo/cclo.

htm> (Version 28MAY2004). Accessed April 2011.

DeGraaf, Richard M.; Scott, Virgil E.; Hamre, R.H. 

[and others]. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds 

of the United States: natural history and habitat 

use. Agriculture Handbook 688. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

625 p.

Delisle J.M.; Savidge, J.A. 1996. Reproductive success of grasshopper sparrows in relation to edge. 

Prairie Naturalist 28:107–13.

DeVoto, B.; editor. 1953. The journals of Lewis and 

Clark. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Riverside 

Press. 504 p.

Dieni, J.S.; Jones, S.L. 2003. Grassland songbird 

nest site selection patterns in northcentral Montana. Wilson Bulletin 115(4):388–96.

Dinsmore, J.J.; Schuster, W. 1997. Wilson’s phalarope nest in Boone County. Iowa Bird Life 67:67.

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: the debate behind 

the lens. Audubon: January–February. [Pages 

unknown].

Dolan, J.J.; Taylor, J.E. 1972. Residual effects of 

range renovation on dense clubmoss and associated vegetation. Journal of Range Management 

25:32–7.

Drilling, N.; Titman, R.; McKinney, F. 2002. Mallard 

(Anas platyrhynchos). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F.; editors. The birds of North America, No. 658. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Academy of Natural 

Sciences.

DuBois, K. 1989. Arising, alighting ibis. Montana 

Outdoors 20(6):30–3.

DuBois, K. 1996. Black tern nest monitoring at 

Freezout Lake WMA. Unpublished report. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 7 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 land. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife Natural Resource Conference; [Date of conference 

unknown]; [Place of conference unknown]. [Place 

of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

34:18–228.

Duebbert, H.F.; Frank, A.M. 1984. Value of prairie 

wetlands to duck broods. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:27–34.

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. Special Scientific Report–Wildlife No. 

234, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 
326 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown].

Duebbert, H.F.; Lokemoen, J.T. 1976. Duck nesting 

in fields of undisturbed grass-legume cover. Journal of Wildlife Management 40:39–49.

Dugger, Bruce D.; Dugger, Katie M. 2002. Longbilled curlew (Numenius americanus). In: Poole, 

A.; editor. The Birds of North America Online. 

Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

<http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/628> 

[Access date unknown].

Dunn, E.H. 1979. Nesting biology and development 

of young in Ontario black terns. Canadian FieldNaturalist 93:276–81.

Dunn, E.H.; Agro, D.J. 1995. Black tern (Chlidonias 

niger). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F.; editors. The Birds of 

North America. No. 147. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences. Washington, DC: The 

American Ornithologists Union. 24 p.

Dunne, T.; Leopold, L.B. 1978. Water in environmental planning. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman 

and Company. 95–121.

Dwyer, T.J.; Krapu, G.L.; Janke, D.M. 1979. Use 

of prairie pothole habitat by breeding mallards. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 43:526–31.

Dzubin, A. 1969. Comments in carrying capacity of 

small ponds for ducks and possible effects of density on mallard production. In: Canadian Wildlife 

Service Report Series 6. Saskatoon Wetlands 

Seminar; [Date of seminar unknown]; [Place 

of seminar unknown]. [Place of publication unknown]: Canadian Wildlife Service. 138–60.

Earnst, S.L. 1994. Tundra swan habitat preferences 

during migration in North Dakota. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58:546–51.

Einemann, L. 1991. A nesting report of a Wilson’s 

phalarope in Lancaster County. Nebraska Bird 

Review 59:59–61.

Eldridge, Jan. 1992. Waterfowl management handbook—management of habitat for breeding and 

migrating shorebirds in the Midwest. Fish and 

Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.14. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 6 p.

Espie, R.H.M.; Brigham, R.M.; James, P.C. 1996. 

Habitat selection and clutch fate of piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus) breeding at Lake Diefenbaker, Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:1069–75.

Euliss, N.H., Jr.; Wrubleski, D.A.; Mushet, D.M. 

1999. Wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region—

invertebrate species composition, ecology, and 

management. In: Batzer, D.; Rader, R.B.; Wissinger, S.A.; editors. Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North America—ecology and 

management. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 

471–514.

Faanes A.; Lingle, G.R. 1995. Breeding birds of the 

Platte River Valley of Nebraska. From: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. Jamestown, North Dakota: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/

resource/distr/birds/platte/platte.htm> (Version 

16JUL97) [Access date unknown].

Fire Executive Council. 2009. Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior. 20 p. 

<http://www.nifc.gov/policies/guidance/GIFWFMP

.pdf> Accessed February 3, 2010.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations. [No date]. Chapter 7–salty soils. In: Irrigation water management. <http://www.fao.org/

docrep/R4082E/r4082e08.htm> Accessed June 8, 

2010.

Fredrickson, L.H. 1991. Waterfowl management 

handbook—strategies for water level manipulations in moist-soil systems. Fish and Wildlife 

Leaflet 13.4.6. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 p.

Fredrickson, L.H.; Reid, F.A. 1988a. Waterfowl 

management handbook—invertebrate response 

to wetland management. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.3.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 6 p.

Fredrickson, L.H.; Reid, F.A. 1988b. Waterfowl 

management handbook—waterfowl use of wetland complexes. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.1. 

6 p.

Fredrickson, L.H.; Taylor, T.S. 1982. Management 

of seasonally flooded impoundments for wildlife. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 

148. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 29 p.

Friend, Milton; Franson, J. Christian; editors. 1999. 

Field manual of wildlife diseases—general field 

procedures and diseases of birds. Biological Resources Division, Information and Technology 

Report 1999–001. Madison, Wisconsin: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Biological Resources Division, National Wildlife 

Health Center. 438 p.

Frost, C.C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States—a first approximation. In: Pruden, T.L.; Brennan, L.A.; editors. 

Fire in ecosystem management—shifting the 

paradigm from suppression to prescription. Tall 

Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, 

No. 20; May 7–10, 1996; Boise, Idaho. Tallahassee, 

Florida: Tall Timbers Research Station. 70–81.

Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Harrell, W.C.; Engle, D.M.; [and 

others]. 2006. Should heterogeneity be the basis 

for conservation? Grassland bird response to fire 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 327

and grazing. Ecological Applications 16(5):1706–

16.

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.

Geist, V.; Mahoney, S.P.; Organ, J.F. 2001. Why 

hunting has defined the North American model 

of wildlife conservation. In: Transactions of the 

North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference; March 20, 2001; Washington, DC. 

Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute. 

66:175–85.

Geist, V.; Organ, J.F. 2004. The public trust foundation of the North American model of wildlife 

conservation. Northeast Wildlife 58:49–56.

Gillihan, S.W.; Hutchings, S.W. 2000. Best management practices for shortgrass prairie birds: 

a landowner’s guide. [Place of publication unknown]: Colorado Bird Observatory. 32 p.

General Accounting Office. 2001. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service—information on oil and gas activities in the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Letter to Representative Edward J. Markey, October 31, 2001. <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/

d0264r.pdf> Accessed January 2010.

Gleason, R.A.; Tangen, B.A.; Laubhan, M.K.; Finocchiaro, R.G.; Stamm, J.F. 2009. Literature review 

and database of relations between salinity and 

aquatic biota—applications to Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5098. Reston, Virginia: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 76 p.

Goodwin, R.E. 1960. A study of the ethology of the 

black tern, Chlidonias niger surinamensis (Gmelin) [Ph.D. dissertation]. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. [Pages unknown].

Grant, T.A.; Madden, E.; Berkey, G.B. 2004. Tree 

and shrub invasion in northern mixed-grass prairie—implications for breeding grassland birds. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:807–18.

Gratto-Trevor, C.L. 2000. Marbled godwit (Limosa 

fedoa). In: Poole, A; Gill, F.; editors. The birds of 

North America, No. 492. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Academy of Natural Sciences. <http://

www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Marbled_Godwit/

lifehistory> Accessed December 14, 2009.

Green, M.T.; Lowther, P.E.; Jones, S.L.; [and others]. 2002. Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus 

bairdii). In: Poole, A.; editor. The Birds of North 

America Online. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab 

of Ornithology. <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/

species/638> [Access date unknown].

Greenwalt, L.A. A brief history of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. In: Butcher, Russell; editor. Lanham, Maryland: Roberts Rinehart. 12–23.

Grinnell, G.B. 1913. Brief history of the Boone and 

Crockett Club. In: Grinnell, G.B.; editor. Hunting 

at high altitudes. New York: Harper & Brothers. 

422–91.

Haig, S.M.; Plissner, J.H. 1993. Distribution and 

abundance of piping plovers—results and implications of the 1991 international census. The 

Condor 95:145–56.

Hamilton, D.B.; Roelle, J.E.; Schafer, W.M. 1989. 

A simulation model of water and salt balance at 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research 

Center Report NERC–89/08. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 69 p.

Hanowski, J.M.; Christina, D.P.; Niemi, G.J. 2000. 

Landscape requirements of prairie sharp-tailed 

grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus campestri in 

Minnesota, USA. Wildlife Biology 6:257–63.

Harmon, K.W. 1970. Prairie potholes. National 

Parks & Conservation Magazine 45:25–8.

Hatch, D.R.M. 1971. Brown-headed cowbird parasitism on spotted sandpiper and Wilson’s phalarope. 

Blue Jay 29:17–8.

Hauer, F.R.; Spencer, C.N. 1998. Phosphorous and 

nitrogen dynamics in streams associated with 

wildfire—a study of immediate and long-term 

effects. International Journal of Wildland Fire 

8:183–98.

Hawkins, A.S. 1984. The U.S. response. In: Flyways—pioneering waterfowl management in 

North America. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2–9.

Heady, H.F. 1952. Reseeding, fertilizing, and renovating in an ungrazed mixed-prairie. Journal of 

Range Management 5:144–9.

Heath, Shane R.; Dunn, Erica H.; Agro, David J. 

2009. Black tern (Chlidonias niger). In: Poole, 

A.; editor. The Birds of North America Online. 

Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

<http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/147> 

[Access date unknown].

Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird management manual. Manomet, Massachusetts: Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network. 58 p.

Helzer, C.J. 1996. The effects of wet meadow fragmentation on grassland birds [master’s thesis]. 

Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska. 65 p.

Henderson, R. 1982. Vegetation—fire ecology of 

tallgrass prairie. Natural Areas Journal 2:17–26.

Herkert, J.R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on midwestern grassland bird communities. Ecological Applications 4:461–71.

Higgins, K.F. 1986. Interpretation and compendium 

of historical fire accounts in the northern Great 

Plains. Resource Publication 161. Washington, 
328 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

DC: Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 41 p.

Higgins, K.F.; Barker, W.T. 1982. Changes in vegetation structure in seeded nesting cover in the 

Prairie Pothole Region. Fish and Wildlife Special 

Science Report–Wildlife 242. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 26 p.

Hill, Dorothy P.; Gould, Lorne K. 1997. Chestnutcollared longspur (Calcarius ornatus). In: 

Poole, A.; editor. The Birds of North America 

Online. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/

species/288doi:10.2173/bna.288> Accessed April 

2011.

Hohn, E.O. 1967. Observations on the breeding biology of Wilson’s phalaropes in central Alberta. 

Auk 84:220–44.

Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. London: John Wiley and 

Sons. 377 p.

Howe, M.A. 1972. Pair bond formation and maintenance in Wilson’s phalarope, Phalaropus tricolor 

[Ph.D. dissertation]. Minneapolis, Minnesota: 

University of Minnesota. 169 p.

Hutchinson, M. 1992. Vegetation management 

guideline—Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense [L.] 

Scop.) Natural Areas Journal 12:160–1.

Jenni, D.A.; Redmond, R.L.; Bicak, T.K. 1981. Behavioral ecology and habitat relationships of 

long-billed curlew in western Idaho. Boise, Idaho: 

Bureau of Land Management. Boise District. 

[Pages unknown].

Johns, J.E. 1969. Field studies of Wilson’s phalarope. 

The Auk 86(4):660–70.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1980. A preliminary list of the birds 

of Nebraska and adjacent plains states. Lincoln, 

Nebraska: University of Nebraska. 156 p.

Johnsgard, Paul A. 1979. A guide to North American waterfowl. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 274 p.

Johnson, D.H.; Grier, J.W. 1988. Determinants of 

breeding distributions of ducks. Wildlife Monographs:1–37.

Johnson, J. 2004. Restoring native species to crested 

wheatgrass dominated rangelands [master’s thesis]. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University. 11 p.

Johnson, K.M. 1990. Aquatic vegetation, salinity, aquatic invertebrates and duck brood use 

at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

[master’s thesis]. Bozeman, Montana: Montana 

State University. [Pages unknown].

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, 

Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. 245–9.

Jones, S.L. 2010. Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) 

conservation plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[Pages unknown].

Jones, Stan. 2005. Review of salt balance model and 

alternative water management practices, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge [Unpublished report]. Montana Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation, Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission. 43 p.

Jordan, N.R.; Larson, D.L.; Huerd, S.C. 2008. Soil 

modification by invasive plants—effects on native 

and invasive species of mixed-grass prairies. In: 

Biological invasions; Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Publication. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

10(2):177–90.

Kadlec, J.A.; Smith, L.M. 1992. Habitat management for breeding areas. In: Batt, B.D.J.; Afton, 

A.D.; Anderson, M.G. [and others]; editors. Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. 

Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota. 

590–610.

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. Journal of Range Management (32)4:[Pages unknown].

Kaminski, R.M.; Murkin, H.R.; Smith, C.E. 1985. 

Control of cattail and bulrush by cutting and 

flooding. In: Prince, H.H.; D’Itri, F.M.; editors. 

Coastal wetlands. Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers. 253–62.

Kantrud, H.A. 1983. An environmental overview of 

North Dakota—past and present. Ver. July 16, 

1997. Jamestown, North Dakota: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. <www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/

habitat/envovrvw/envovrvw.htm> Accessed 

December 2009.

Kantrud, H.A.; Higgins, K.F. 1992. Nest and nest 

site characteristics of some ground-nesting, nonpasserine birds of northern grasslands. Prairie 

Naturalist 24:67–84.

Kantrud, H.A.; Kologiski, R.L. 1982. Effects of soils 

and grazing on breeding birds of uncultivated 

upland grasslands of the northern Great Plains. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Research Report 

No. 15. [Place of publication unknown]: Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[Pages unknown].

Kantrud, H.A.; Krapu, G.L.; Swanson, G.A. 1989. 

Prairie basin wetlands of the Dakotas—a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Biological Report 85 (7.28). Washington, DC: U.S. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 329

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 111 p.

Kantrud, H.A; Stewart, R.E. 1977. Use of natural 

basin-wetlands by breeding waterfowl in North 

Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 41:243–53.

Kantrud, H.A.; Stewart, R.E. 1984. Ecological distribution and crude density of breeding birds on 

prairie wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 

48:426–37.

Kelsey, K.W.; Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F.; Bakker, 

K.K. 2006. Planting trees in prairie landscapes: 

do the ecological costs outweigh the benefits? 

Natural Areas Journal 26(3):254–60.

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. 223 p.

Kendy, E. 1999. Simulation of water and salt budgets and effects of proposed management strategies for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, 

northeastern Montana. Water-Resources Investigations Report 98–4260. [Place of publication 

unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey. 86 p.

King, R. 1978. Habitat use and related behaviors 

of breeding long-billed curlews [master’s thesis]. 

Fort Collins, Colorado: Colorado State University. [Pages unknown].

Krapu, G.L.; Greenwood, R.J.; Dwyer, C.P.; Kraft, 

K.M.; Cowardin, L.M. 1997. Wetland use, settling 

patterns, and recruitment in mallards. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 61:736–46.

Krapu, G.L.; Swanson, G.A. 1975. Some nutritional 

aspects of reproduction in prairie nesting pintails. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 39:156–62.

Kushlan, James A.; Steinkamp, Melanie J.; Parsons, Katharine C.; [and others]. 2002. Waterbird 

conservation for the Americas—the North 

American waterbird conservation plan, version 1. 

Washington, DC: Waterbird Conservation for the 

Americas. 78 p.

LaBough, J.W.; Swanson, G.A. 1993. Spatial and 

temporal variability in chemical characteristics 

and water-column biota in the Cottonwood Lake 

area wetlands, North Dakota. In: Wetland symposium on prairie ecosystems—wetland ecology, 

management and restoration; [Date of symposium unknown]; [Place of symposium unknown]. 

Jamestown, North Dakota: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 25–6.

Lacey, J.; Rasmussen, M.; SiddowayLimpert, J.; 

Bandy, R.; Snell, J.; Snell, G. 2005. Ecological 

site description for silty 10 to 14 inch precipitation zone. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. [Pages unknown].

Lake Access. 1991. Electrical conductivity—measuring salts in water. <http://lakeaccess.org/russ/

conductivity.htm> Accessed June 8, 2010.

Lambing, J.H.; Jones, W.E.; Sutphin, J.W. 1988. 

Reconnaissance investigation of water quality, 

bottom sediment, and biota associated with irrigation drainage in Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge and adjacent areas of the Milk River basin, in northeastern Montana, 1986–87. WaterResources Investigations Report 87–4243. [Place 

of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 71 p.

Lancia, R.A.; Braun, C.E.; Collopy, M.W.; [and others]. 1996. ARM! For the future—adaptive resource management in the wildlife profession. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:436–42.

Langbein, W.B. 1961. Salinity and hydrology of 

closed lakes. U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 412. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 20 p.

Larson, M.A.; Ryan, M.R.; Murphy, R.K. 2002. 

Population viability of piping plovers—effects of 

predator exclusion. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:361–71.

Lenard, S.; Carlson, J.; Ellis, J.; Jones, C.; Tilly, C. 

2003. P.D. Skaar’s Montana bird distribution list. 

6th edition. Helena, Montana: Montana Audubon. 

156 p.

Lesica, P.; DeLuca, T.H. 1996. Long-term harmful 

effects of crested wheatgrass on Great Plains 

grassland ecosystems. Journal of Soil and Water 

Conservation 51(5):408–9.

Licht, D.S. 2001. Relationship of hydrological conditions and populations of breeding piping plovers. 

Prairie Naturalist 33:209–19.

Limpert, R.J.; Earnst, S.L. 1994. Tundra swan 

(Cygnus columbianus). From: Poole, A.; editor. 

The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, New 

York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://bna.

birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/089> Accessed June 

3, 2010.

Lloyd, J.D.; Martin, T.E. 2005. Reproductive success of chestnut-collared longspurs in native and 

exotic grassland. The Condor 107:363–74.

Lokemoen, J.T. 1984. Examining economic efficiency 

of management practices that enhance waterfowl 

production. In: Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference; 

[Date of conference unknown]; [Place of conference unknown]. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 49:584–607.

Mabee, T.J.; Estelle, V.B. 2000. Assessing the effectiveness of predator exclosures for plovers. 

Wilson Bulletin 112:14–20.
330 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Madden, E.M.; Hansen, A.J.; Murphy, R.K. 1999. 

Influence of prescribed fire history on habitat 

and abundance of passerine birds in northern 

mixed-grass prairie. Canadian Field-Naturalist 

113:627–40.

Madden, E.M.; Murphy, R.K.; Hansen, A.J.; Murray, 

S.L. 2000. Models for guiding management of 

prairie bird habitat in northwestern North Dakota. American Midland Naturalist 144(2):377–92.

Madge, Steve; Burn, Hilary. 1988. Waterfowl—an 

identification guide to the ducks, geese and swans 

of the world. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton 

Mifflin Company. 298 p.

Majorowicz, A.K. 1963. Club moss infestation on 

northeastern Montana rangeland. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Society for Range Management; [Date of meeting 

unknown]; [Place of meeting unknown]. [Place 

of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

16:72 doi:bna.89.

Maxson, S. J. 1993. Habitat selection and nesting 

success of black terns at Agassiz NWR. Unpublished report. Bemidji, Minnesota: Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources. [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.

McWilliams, J.L.; Van Cleave, P.E. 1960. A comparison of crested wheatgrass and native grass mixtures seeded on rangeland in eastern Montana. 

Journal of Range Management 13(2):91–4.

Melcher, C.P.; Farmer, A.; Fernández, G. 2006. Conservation plan for the marbled godwit. Version 

1.1. Manomet, Massachusetts: Manomet Center 

for Conservation Science. 117 p.

Michaud, J.P. 1991. A citizen’s guide to understanding and monitoring lakes and streams. Publication Number 94–149. Olympia, Washington: 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Publications Office. [Pages unknown].

Mills, Richard Paul; 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.

Missouri River Country. 2007. Montana’s Missouri 

River country hunting and fishing brochure. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Missouri River 

Country. [Pages unknown].

Mitcham, S.A.; Wobeser, G. 1988. Toxic effects of 

natural saline waters on mallard ducklings. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 24(1):45–50.

Montana Bird Distribution Committee. 1996. P.D. 

Skaar’s Montana bird distribution. 5th edition. 

Montana Natural Heritage Program Special Publication No. 3. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Montana Natural Heritage Program. [Pages unknown].

Montana Bird Distribution Online Database. 2001. 

Helena, Montana. April–September 2003. <http://

nhp.nris.state.mt.us/mbd/> [Access date unknown].

(MBOGC) Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation. 2010. Well surface data. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 

[Internet]. <http://bogc.dnrc.mt.gov> Accessed 

August 2010.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 

2006. Subchapter 6, surface water quality standards and procedures. Subchapter 6, 17.30.601–

70. In: Environmental quality–chapter 30, water 

quality. Administrative rules of Montana. <http://

deq.mt.gov/dir/Legal/Chapters/CH30-06.pdf> Accessed June 3, 2010.

(DNRC) Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 1977. Supplemental 

water for the Milk River. Helena, Montana. 

[Pages unknown].

Montana Field Guide. [No date]a. Franklin’s gull—

Leucophaeus pipixcan. Helena, Montana: Montana Information Technology Services Division. 

<http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABNNM03020

.aspx> Accessed June 3, 2010.

Montana Field Guide. [No date]b. Mallard—Anas 

platyrhynchos. Helena, Montana: Montana Information Technology Services Division. <http://

fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABNJB10060.aspx> Accessed June 3, 2010.

Montana Field Guide. [No date]c. Marbled godwit—

Limosa fedoa. Helena, Montana: Montana Information Technology Services Division. <http://

fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABNNF08040.aspx> 

Accessed June 3, 2010.

Montana Field Guide. [No date]d. Wilson’s phalarope—Phalaropus tricolor. Helena, Montana: 

Montana Information Technology Services 

Division. <http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_

ABNNF20010.aspx> Accessed June 3, 2010.

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 2005. Montana’s 

comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation 

strategy. Helena, Montana. <http://fwp.mt.gov/

wildthings/conservationInAction/fullplan.html> 

Accessed June 3, 2010. 658 p.

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2003. Data 

derived from element occurrences with no other 

known source material; biotics—black tern, 

Chlidonias niger. Montana Field Guide. Helena, 

Montana: Montana Natural Heritage Program 

and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. <http://
BIBLIOGRAPHY 331

FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_ABNNM10020.aspx> 

Accessed March 7, 2011.

———. 2009a. Animal species of concern. [Internet]. 

<http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a> 

Accessed November 2009.

———. 2009b. Plant species of concern. [Internet]. 

<http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p> 

Accessed November 2009.

Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee. 1997. 

1995 Surveys for piping plovers (Charadrius 

melodius) and least terns (Sterna antillarum) in 

Montana. Unpublished report. 114 p.

(MSGWG) Montana Sage Grouse Working Group. 

2005. Management plan and conservation 

strategies for sage grouse in Montana. [Internet]. <http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem

.aspx?id=31187> Accessed April 6, 2010. 200 p.

Moore, M.L. 1989. NALMS management guide for 

lakes and reservoirs. Madison, Wisconsin: North 

American Lake Management Society. [Pages unknown].

Moorman, A.M.; Moorman, T.E.; Baldassarre, G.A.; 

Richard, D.M. 1991. Effects of saline water on 

growth and survival of mottled duck ducklings 

in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife Management 

55(3):471–6.

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.

Murphy, R.K.; Grant T.A.; Madden, E.M. 2005. Prescribed fire for fuel reduction in northern mixed 

grass prairie: influence on habitat and population 

dynamics of indigenous wildlife. Final Report, 

December 2005: Joint Fire Science Program RFP 

2001–3. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Pages unknown].

Murphy, R.K.; Greenwood, R.J.; Ivan, J.S.; Smith, 

K.A. 2003. Predator exclusion methods for managing endangered shorebirds—are two barriers 

better than one. Waterbirds 26:156–9.

Murray, B.G., Jr. 1983. Notes on the breeding biology of Wilson’s phalarope. Wilson Bulletin 

95:472–5.

Musgrove, Jack W.; Musgrove, Mary R. 1943. Waterfowl in Iowa. Des Moines, Iowa: State Conservation Committee. 113 p.

National Association of Counties. 2009. About counties. [Internet]. <http://www.naco.org/Template.

cfm?Section=Find_a_County&Template=/cffiles/

counties/state.cfm&statecode=mt> Accessed 

February 2010.

National Association of Interpretation. [No date]. 

Mission, vision, and core values. Fort Collins, 

Colorado. <http://www.interpnet.com/about_nai/

mission.shtml> Accessed July 2, 2010.

National Audubon Society. 2010. Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge. In: Important bird areas for 

neotropical migrants of conservation concern—

landbirds. [Internet]. <http://iba.audubon.org/iba/

profileReport.do?siteId=2930&navSite=search&

pagerOffset=0&page=1> Accessed June 2010.

National Invasive Species Council. 2008. 2008–2012 

National invasive species management plan. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. 35 p.

National Park Service. 2009. Natural resources 

interpretation. [Internet]. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, National Park Service, Archeology 

Program. <http://www.nps.gov/archeology/ifora/

tools_6.htm> Accessed July 2, 2010.

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. [Pages unknown].

———. 2003. Ecological site information system. 

[Internet]. Fort Worth, Texas: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Central National Technology Support Center. <http://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/About

.aspx> Accessed March 2008.

———. 2008. Official soil series descriptions. 

[Internet]. Lincoln, Nebraska: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. <http://soils.usda.gov/technical/

classification/osd/index.html> Accessed October 

2009.

Naugle, D.E. 1997. Habitat area requirements of 

prairie wetland birds in eastern South Dakota 

[Ph.D. dissertation]. Brookings, South Dakota: 

South Dakota State University. 85 p.

Naugle, D. 2004. Black tern (Childonias niger 

surinamensis): a technical conservation assessment. [Internet]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. <http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/

projects/scp/assessments/blacktern.pdf> [No access date].

Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F.; Bakker, K.K. 2000. A 

synthesis of the effects of upland management 

practices on waterfowl and other birds in the 

northern Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada. 

Wildlife Technical Report 1. Stevens Point, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point, 

College of Natural Resources. [Pages unknown].
332 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F.; Nusser, S.M. 1999. 

Effects of woody vegetation on prairie wetland 

birds. Canadian Field-Naturalist 113:487–92.

Niemuth, N.D. 2000. Land use and vegetation associated with greater prairie chicken leks in an 

agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:278–86.

Niemuth, N.D.; Solberg, J.W. 2003. Response of 

waterbirds to number of wetlands in the Prairie 

Pothole Region of North Dakota, USA. Waterbirds 26(2):233–8.

Old, S.M. 1969. Microclimate, fire, and plant production in an Illinois prairie. Ecological Monographs 

39:355–84.

Pampush, G.J. 1980. Status report on the long-billed 

curlew in the Columbia and Northern Great Basins. Portland, Oregon: Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown].

Pampush, G.J.; Anthony, R.G. 1993. Nest success, 

habitat utilization and nest-site selection of longbilled curlews in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. 

Condor 95:957–67.

Peterjohn, B.G.; Sauer, J.R. 1999. Population status of North American grassland birds from the 

North American breeding bird survey. Studies in 

Avian Biology 19:27–44.

PhillCo Economic Growth Council, Inc. 2001. 

PhillCo Economic Growth Council overview. 

Malta, Montana. <http://www.maltachamber.com/

phillco/overvu.htm> Accessed December 2009.

Plissner, J.H.; Haig, S.M. 2000. Status of a broadly 

distributed endangered species—results and 

implications of the second international piping plover census. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

78:128–39.

Poole, A.; editor. 2005. The Birds of North America 

Online. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/> 

Accessed March 3, 2011.

Prellwitz, D.; Erickson, K.M.; Osborne, L.M. 1995. 

Translocation of piping plover nests to prevent 

nest flooding. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(1):103–6.

Prellwitz, D.M.; Prellwitz, T.A.; Stutzman, K.K.; 

Stutzman, J.W. 1989. Piping plovers nesting at 

Nelson Reservoir, Montana. Prairie Naturalist 

21:84–6.

Prescott, D.R.C.; Arbuckle, R.; Goddard, B.; Murphy, A. 1993. Methods for the monitoring and 

assessment of avian communities on NAWMP 

landscapes in Alberta and 1993 results. 

NAWMP–007. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta 

NAWMP Centre. 48 p.

Prescott, D.R.C.; Murphy, A.J.; Ewaschuk, E. 1995. 

An avian community approach to determining 

biodiversity values of NAWMP habitats in the 

aspen parkland of Alberta. NAWMP–012. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta NAWMP Centre. 58 p.

Prindiville-Gaines, E.M.; Ryan, M.R. 1988. Piping 

plover habitat use and reproductive success in 

North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 

52: 266–73.

Pylypec, B.; Romo, J.T. 2003. Long term effects of 

burning Festuca and Stipa-Agropyron grasslands. Journal of Range Management 56(6):640–5.

Reichel, J.D. 1996. Preliminary colonial nesting bird 

survey of the Bureau of Land Management Lewistown District—1995. Helena, Montana: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 97 p.

Reiss. S.A. 1995. Sport in industrial America, 1850–

1920. The American History Series. Wheeling, 

Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc. 178 p.

Renken, R.B. 1983. Breeding bird communities and 

bird-habitat associations on North Dakota waterfowl production areas of three habitat types 

[master’s thesis]. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University. 90 p.

Renken, R.B.; Dinsmore, J.J. 1987. Nongame bird 

communities on managed grasslands in North 

Dakota. Canadian Field-Naturalist 101:551–7.

Reynolds, J.D.; Colwell, M.A.; Cooke, F. 1986. 

Sexual selection and spring arrival times of rednecked and Wilson’s phalaropes. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 18:303–10.

Reynolds, R.E.; Loesch, C.R.; Wangler, B.; Shaffer, 

T.L. 2007. Waterfowl response to the Conservation Reserve Program and swampbuster provision in the Prairie Pothole Region, 1992–2004. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 90 p.

Reynolds, R.E.; Shaffer, T.L.; Renner, R.W.; [and 

others]. 2001. Impact of the conservation reserve 

program on duck recruitment in the US Prairie 

Pothole Region. Journal of Wildlife Management 

65:765–80.

Reynolds, T.; Trost, C. 1981. Grazing, crested 

wheatgrass, and bird populations in southeastern 

Idaho. Northwest Science 55(3):225–34.

Robbins, Mark B.; Dale, Brenda C. 1999. Sprague’s 

pipit (Anthus spragueii). In: Poole, A.; editor. 

The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, New 

York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://bna.

birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/439> Accessed 

April 2011.

Roberts, T.S. 1932. The birds of Minnesota. Volume 1. 

Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota 

Press. 691 p.

Rocke, T.E.; Friend, M. 1999. Chapter 38, avian 

botulism. In: Friend, Milton; Franson, J. Christian; technical editors. Field manual of wildlife 

diseases—general field procedures and diseases 

of birds. Biological Resources Division, Information and Technology Report 1999–001. Madison, 

Wisconsin: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 333

Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, 

National Wildlife Health Center. 271–82.

Rocke, T.E.; Samuel, M.D. 1999. Water and sediment characteristics associated with avian botulism outbreaks in wetlands. Journal of Wildlife 

Management, 63(4):1249–60.

Rodney, [No first name]; Mohrman, [No first name]. 

2007. Conceptual model for analysis of Beaver 

Creek flood waters entering Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Draft Report. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 26 p.

Romo, J.T.; Bai, Y. 2004. Seed bank and plant community composition, mixed prairie of Saskatchewan. Journal of Range Management 57:300–4.

Root, B.G.; Ryan, M.R. 2004. Changes in piping plover nesting habitat availability at Great Plains 

alkaline wetlands, 1938–1937. Wetlands 24:766.

Rumble, M.A.; Flake, L.D. 1983. Management considerations to enhance use of stock ponds by waterfowl broods. Journal of Range Management. 

36:691–4.

Ryan, M.R.; Renken, R.B. 1987. Habitat use by 

breeding willets in the northern Great Plains. 

Wilson Bulletin 99:175–89.

Ryan, M.R.; Renken, R.B.; Dinsmore, J.J. 1984. 

Marbled godwit habitat selection in the northern 

prairie region. Journal of Wildlife Management 

48:1206–18.

Ryan, M.R.; Root, B.G.; Mayer, P.M. 1993. Status 

of piping plovers in the Great Plains of North 

America—a demographic simulation model. Conservation Biology 7:581–5.

Ryder, R.A.; Manry, D.E. 1994. White-faced ibis 

(Plegadis chihi). In: Poole, A; Gill, F.; editors. The 

birds of North America, No. 130. Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania: The Academy of Natural Sciences. 

Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists 

Union. 24 p.

Safran, R.J.; Colwell, M.A.; Isola, C.R.; Taft, O.E. 

2000. Foraging site selection by nonbreeding 

white-faced ibis. The Condor 102:211–5.

Samson, F.B.; Knofp, F. 1994. Prairie conservation in 

North America. Bioscience 44:418–21.

Saunders, A.A. 1914. The birds of Teton and northern Lewis and Clark counties, Montana. The Condor 16:124–44.

Schmitz, R.A.; Clark, W.R. 1999. Survival of ringnecked pheasant hens during spring in relation to 

landscape features. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:147–54.

Schrader, T.A. 1955. Waterfowl and the potholes of 

the north central states. In: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture—Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

596–604.

Schwalbach, M.J. 1988. Conservation of least terns 

and piping plovers along the Missouri River and 

its major western tributaries in South Dakota 

[master’s thesis]. Brookings, South Dakota: 

South Dakota State University. 104 p.

Sherwood, G.A. 1960. The whistling swan in the 

west with particular reference to Great Salt Lake 

Valley, Utah. The Condor 62:370–7.

Skaar, P.D. 1969. Birds of the Bozeman latilong. 

Bozeman, Montana: P.D. Skaar. 132 p.

Skagen, S.K.; Oman, H.D. 1996. Dietary flexibility of 

shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere. Canadian 

Field-Naturalist 10:419–44.

Snyder, W.D. 1984. Ring-necked pheasant nesting 

ecology and wheat farming on the high plains. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 48:878–88.

Society for Ecological Restoration International 

Science & Policy Working Group. 2004. The SER 

international primer on ecological restoration. 

Tucson, Arizona: Society for Ecological Restoration International. <http://www.ser.org/content/

ecological_restoration_primer.asp> Accessed 

June 7, 2010.

Speulda, L.A.; Lewis, R.O. 2003. Region 6—historical and architectural assessment of the Depression Era work projects. [Place of publication 

unknown]: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 36–7; 

appendix B 1–5.

State of Montana. 2009. 82–10–504: Surface damage and disruption payments; dispute resolution; penalty for late payment. In: Montana 

Code Annotated 2009; Title 82–minerals, oil, and 

gas; chapter 10–oil and gas, general provisions. 

<http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/82/10/82-10-504

.htm> Accessed February 24, 2010.

Stewart, R.E. 1975. Breeding birds of North Dakota. Fargo, North Dakota: Tri-College Center 

for Environmental Studies. 295 p.

Stewart, R.E.; Kantrud, H.A. 1965. Ecological studies of waterfowl populations in the prairie potholes of North Dakota. 1965 Progress Report. 

Washington, DC: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife. 14 p.

Stewart, R.E.; Kantrud, H.A. 1971. Classification of 

natural ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie 

region. Resource Publication 92. Washington, 

DC: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 57 p.

Stewart, R.E.; Kantrud, H.A. 1973. Ecological distribution of breeding waterfowl populations in 

North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 

37(1):39–50.

Stewart, R.E.; Kantrud, H.A. 1974. Breeding waterfowl populations in Prairie Pothole Region of 

North Dakota. The Condor 76:70–9.

Stewart, R.E.; Kantrud, H.A. 1984. Ecological distribution and crude density of breeding birds on 

prairie wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 

48:426–37.
Strong, M.A. 1971. Avian productivity on the shortgrass prairie of northcentral Colorado [master’s 

thesis]. Fort Collins, Colorado: Colorado State 

University. 70 p.

Sullivan, M. 2008. Environmental assessment for 

Cree Crossing fee title proposal. [Place of publication unknown]: Montana Fish, Wildlife & 

Parks, Wildlife Division. 22 p.

Sutter, G.C. 1997. Nest site selection and nest entrance orientation in Sprague’s pipit. Wilson Bulletin 109:462–9.

Svedarsky, W.D.; Van Amburg, G.L. 1996. Integrated management of the greater prairiechicken and livestock on the Sheyenne National 

Grasslands. Crookston, Minnesota: Northwest 

Experiment Station, University of Minnesota. 

243 p.

Swanson, G.A.; Adomaitis, V.A.; Lee, F.B.; Serie, 

J.R.; Shoesmith, J.A. 1984. Limnological conditions influencing duckling use of saline lakes in 

south-central North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 48(2):340–9.

Swanson, G.A.; Euliss, N.H.; Hanson, B.A.; Muset, D.M. 2003. Dynamics of a prairie wetland 

complex—implications for wetland management. In: Winter, T.C. Hydrological, chemical, 

and biological characteristics of a prairie pothole 

wetland complex under highly variable climate 

conditions–the Cottonwood Lake area, eastcentral North Dakota. U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1675. [Place of publication 

unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey. 55–94.

Swanson, G.A.; Meyer, M.I.; Serie, J.R. 1974. Feeding ecology of breeding blue-winged teals. Journal of Wildlife Management 38(3):396–407.

Swanson, G.A.; Winter, T.C.; Adomaitis, V.A.; LaBaugh, J.W. 1988. Chemical characteristics of 

prairie lakes in south-central North Dakota—

their potential for influencing use by fish and 

wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report 

18. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 44 p.

Swenson, J.E. 1985. Seasonal habitat use by sharptailed grouse, Tympanuchus phasianellus, on 

mixed-grass prairie in Montana. Canadian FieldNaturalist 99:40–6.

Talent, L.G.; Krapu, G.L.; Jarvis, R.L. 1982. Habitat use by mallard broods in south-central North 

Dakota. The Condor 85:74–8.

Tchobanoglous, George; Burton, Franklin. 1991. 

Wastewater engineering: treatment, disposal 

and reuse. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing 

Company. [Pages unknown].

Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. New York: A. 

Knopf. 1100 p.

Trammell, M.A.; Butler, J.L. 1995. Effects of exotic 

plants on native ungulate use of habitat. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 59:808–16.

Umbanhowar, C.E., Jr. 1996. Recent fire history of 

the northern Great Plains. American Midland 

Naturalist 135:115–21.

URS Group, Inc. 2009. Lake Bowdoin feasibility 

study. Final report. Denver, Colorado: URS 

Group, Inc. 49 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1965. Review 

report on flood control and allied purposes for 

Beaver Creek, Milk River Basin, Montana. 

Omaha, Nebraska: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. [Pages unknown].

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Local area 

unemployment statistics [database]. <http://

www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment> [Access 

date unknown].

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and the Office of Science. 1999. 

Carbon sequestration research and development. Springfield, Virginia: National Technical Information Service. <www.fossil.energy

.gov/programs/sequestration/publications/1999_

rdreport/> Accessed November 2008.

(EPA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

2010. Industrial and municipal waste disposal 

wells (class 1). [Internet]. <http://water.epa.gov/

type/groundwater/uic/wells_class1.cfm> Accessed May 16, 2011.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Endangered 

and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered and threatened status for the 

piping plover—final rule. Federal Register 50: 

50720–34.

———. 1988. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

report—Milk River water supply study, Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher 

unknown]. [Pages unknown].

———. 1999a. Field manual of wildlife diseases—

general field procedures and diseases of birds. 

DOI/USFWS Resource Publication 167. [Place 

of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 225 p.

———. 1999b. Fulfilling the promise. Arlington, 

Virginia: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 94 p.

———. 2003. Biological opinion on the operation of 

the Missouri River main stem reservoir system, 

operation and maintenance of the Missouri River 

bank stabilization and navigation project and 

operation of the Kansas River reservoir system. 

[Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 296 p.

———. 2007. Montana Partners for Fish and Wildlife strategic habitat conservation plan. Unpublished report. [Pages unknown].
BIBLIOGRAPHY 335

———. 2008a. Birds of conservation concern 2008. 

Arlington, Virginia: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. 85 p. <http://www.fws.

gov/migratorybirds/>

———. 2008b. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie 

Region. <http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/

nawm/ppjv.htm> Accessed September 2008.

———. 2008c. Staffing model for field stations—final 

report. Unpublished report on file at Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Malta, Montana. 22 p.

———. 2009. Management of oil and gas activities 

on Fish and Wildlife Service lands. Draft. Unpublished report. [Pages unknown].

———. 2010. Rising to the urgent challenge—strategic plan for responding to accelerating climate 

change. Unpublished report. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 36 p. <www.fws.

gov/home/climatechange/pdf/CCStrategicPlan

.pdf> Accessed May 6, 2011.

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.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 2001. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service—information on oil and gas 

activities in the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

<www.gao.gov/new.items/d0264r.pdf> Accessed 

January 8, 2010.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Strategic habitat 

conservation—final report of the National Ecological Assessment Team. [Place of publication 

unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey. 45 p.

(USRS) U.S. Reclamation Service. 1920. Nineteenth 

annual report of the U.S. Reclamation Service 

1919–1920. Washington, DC. [Pages unknown].

van der Valk, A.G.; editor. 1989. Northern prairie 

wetlands. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University 

Press. 400 p.

Van Dyne, G.M.; Vogel, W.G. 1967. Relationship of 

Selaginella densa to site, grazing and climate. 

Ecology 48:438–44.

Vrtiska, M.P.; Hansen, J.L.; Sharp, D.E. 1999. Central flyway perspectives on trumpeter swans. 

Plymouth, Minnesota: Trumpeter Swan Society. 5 p.

Walters, C.J.; Holling, C.S. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. 

Ecology 71:2060–8.

Watson, A.K. 1985. Introduction—the leafy spurge 

problem. In: Watson, A.K.; editor. Leafy spurge. 

Weed Science Society of America Monograph 

3:1–6.

Weller, M.W.; Spatcher, C.S. 1965. Role of habitat in 

the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. 

Department of Zoology and Entomology Special Report Number 43. Ames, IA: Iowa State 

University, Agricultural and Home Economics 

Experiment Station. [Pages unknown].

Werner, J.K.; Hendricks, D.P.; Maxell B.A.; Flath, 

D.L. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. 

Missoula, Montana: Mountain Press Publishing 

Company. 262 p.

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. 

2009. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. <http://

www.whsrn.org/site-profile/bowdoin-nationalwildlife-refuge> Accessed February 2010.

Weydemeyer, W.; Marsh, V.L. 1936. The bird life of 

Lake Bowdoin, Montana. The Condor 38(5):185–98.

Whyte, A.J. 1985. Breeding ecology of the piping 

plover (Charadrius melodus) in central Saskatchewan [master’s thesis]. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: University of Saskatchewan. 126 p.

Wikipedia. 2009. Milk River (Alberta–Montana). 

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_River_

(Alberta%E2%80%93Montana)#History> Accessed December 1, 2009.

Wilson, S. 2000. Crested wheatgrass control in 

Grasslands National Park. Unpublished report. 

Regina, Saskatchewan: University of Regina. 3 p.

Wilson, S.D.; Gerry, A.K. 1995. Strategies for 

mixed-grass prairie restoration—herbicide, tilling, and nitrogen manipulation. Restoration Ecology 3(4):290–8.

Wilson, S.D.; Pärtel, M. 2003. Extirpation or coexistence? Management of a persistent introduced 

grass in a prairie restoration. Restoration Ecology 11(4):410–6.

Windingstad, R.M.; Kartch, F.X.; Stroud, R.K.; 

Smith, M.R. 1987. Salt toxicosis in waterfowl 

in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 

23(3):443–6.

Winter, M.; Johnson, D.H.; Faaborg, J. 1999. Patterns of area sensitivity in grassland nesting 

birds. Conservation Biology 13:1424–36.

Winter, M.; Johnson, D.H.; Faaborg, J. 2000. Evidence for edge effects on multiple levels in tallgrass prairie. The Condor 102(2):256–66.

Wolfgram, T.J.; Nemeth, C. 1998. A cultural resources inventory of a buried telephone cable 

from Malta to Sleeping Buffalo, Montana. Ethos 

Consultants, Inc., for Triangle Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Central Montana Communications, Inc. 59 p.

Woodin, Marc C.; Michot, Thomas C. 2002. Redhead 

(Aythya americana). From: Poole, A.; editor. 

The birds of North America Online. Ithaca, New 

York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://bna.

birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/695doi:bna.695> 

[Access date unknown].
336 Draft CCP and EA, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Wright, H.A.; Bailey, A.W. 1980. Fire ecology and 

prescribed burning in the Great Plains–a research review. General Technical Report INT–77. 

Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 62 p.

Ziewitz, J.W.; Sidle, J.G.; Dinan, J.J. 1992. Habitat 

conservation for nesting least terns and piping 

plovers on the Platte River, Nebraska. Prairie 

Naturalist 24(1):1–20.