Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Montana

December 2012

Approved by

Noreen Walsh, Regional Director Date

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

Prepared by

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex

922 Bootlegger Trail

Great Falls, Montana 59404

406 / 727 7400

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6, Mountain–Prairie Region

Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

303 / 236 8145

CITATION for this document:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Comprehensive conservation plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Montana. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 305 p.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Montana

Submitted by

Kathleen A. Burchett Date

Project Leader

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Great Falls, Montana

Concurred with by

W. Dean Rundle Date

Refuge Supervisor, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, Colorado

Matt Hogan Date

Assistant Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

National Wildlife Refuge System

Lakewood, Colorado

Contents

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

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV

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

1 .1 The Comprehensive Conservation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Final Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Plan Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1 .2 Purpose and Need for the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1 .3 The U .S . Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

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

1 .4 National and Regional Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1 .5 Contributions to Regional and National Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

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

Partners in Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

North American Waterfowl Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

State Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

The Nature Conservancy–Northern Great Plains Steppe Ecoregional Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The Nature Conservancy–Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregional Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Strategic Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Recovery Plans for Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Climate Change Strategic Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1 .6 Strategic Habitat Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1 .7 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1 .8 The Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Coordination with the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

State Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Tribal Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2 .1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Benton Lake Wetland Management District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Swan Valley Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
VI Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

2 .2 Purposes of the Refuge Complex Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Benton Lake Wetland Management District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Swan Valley Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2 .3 Vision for the Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2 .4 Goals for the Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Landscape Conservation Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Habitat Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Wildlife Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Cultural Resources Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Visitor Services Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Administration Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2 .5 Special Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Part of a National System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Intact Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Conservation Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Intact Native Prairie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Species Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Diversity of Water Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Rare Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Migratory Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Cultural History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Rural Economies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

2 .6 Planning Issues for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Agricultural Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Invasive Plants, Nonnative Plants, and Noxious Weeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Loss of Ecological Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Wildlife Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Fisheries Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

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

Nonwildlife-dependent Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

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

Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2 .7 Planning Issues for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Adjacent Landowners and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Loss of Ecological Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Declining Wetland Ecological Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Water Quantity, Delivery, and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Water Quality and Selenium Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
CONTENTS VII

Invasive Plants, Nonnative Plants, and Noxious Weeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Wildlife Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wildlife Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

 

42

42

42

CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3 .1 Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

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

Geology and Physiography . . .

Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 . 

 . 

46

47

50

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . .

Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . .

Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 . 

 . 

54

58

65

3 .2 Biological Resources . . . .

Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 66

66

Wetlands and Riparian Areas . 

Forests and Woodlands . . . . .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 . 

 . 

69

76

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

Invasive and Nonnative Plants

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 . 

77

78

Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Wildlife Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Habitat Management Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

3 .3 Species of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Candidate Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

3 .4 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Prehistoric Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Historic Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

History and Archaeology of the Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

3 .5 Special Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wilderness Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

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

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

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

3 .6 Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

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

Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Trapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

3 .7 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
VIII Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

3 .8 Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 .9 Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

CHAPTER 4–Management Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 .1 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Habitat Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wildlife Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Administration Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Goal

4 .2 Stepdown Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 .3 Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendixes

Appendix A, Environmental Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix B, Compatibility Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix C, Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation .

Appendix D, Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix E, Key Legislation and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix F, Preparers and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix G, Species List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix H, Fire Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 . 

 . 

 .

 .

 . 

 . 

 . 

 .

 . 

 . 

 . 

 .

 . 

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

 106

 106

107

110

 117

 117

119

124

136

 139

139

145

147

 150

 .150

 151

 159

 165

 179

 203 

 259

 265

 267

 283

 287

FIGURES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 Map of saline seeps in the region of Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 Map of public use at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

 . .

 . .

 . .

 . .

 . .

 . .

 . .

 . .

 . .

 . .

 . .

 . .

 . .

 . .

 3

 12

 13

 15

 23

 25

 26

 28

 30

 32

 33

 55

 98

 99
CONTENTS IX

FIGURES (CONTINUED)

15 The adaptive resource management process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

TABLES

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

Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2 Land acquisition history for units of the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3 Waterfowl production areas in the Benton Lake Wetland Management District, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4 Weather information for units of the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5 Annual amounts of pumped water, natural runoff, and selenium entering Benton Lake, 1970-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6 Water rights and use on Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

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

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

8 Actual Annual Performance Plan for 2011 for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . 100

9 Staff funded in fiscal year 2011 at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

10 Regional population estimates and characteristics for Montana, 2000-2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

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

Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

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

Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

13 Hunting opportunity throughout the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

14 Seasonal closures at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

15 Current and proposed staff at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Summary

Walling Reef at Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area .

USFWS

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service manages the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex—encompassing 163,304 acres in northwestern and north-central Montana. To address 

long-term management needs there, a comprehensive conservation plan was developed.

The Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex is part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Spanning both sides of the Continental Divide, it 

is a collection of diverse landscapes, from wetlands 

and mixed-grass prairie in the east to forests, intermountain grasslands, rivers, and lakes in the west. 

Likewise, animal species that inhabit these lands are 

diverse and reflect a variety of habitats. Large numbers of waterfowl and shorebirds inhabit wetlands in 

the east, while large predators such as grizzly bears 

live in the mountains and forests to the west.

The refuge complex oversees management of 2 

refuges, 1 wetland management district containing 

23 waterfowl production areas, and 3 conservation 

areas and administers 216 easements within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System:

■ Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1929 and consists of 12,383 fee-title 

acres and 76.88 acres of right-of-way easement. It 

is located on the northern Great Plains, 50 miles 

east of the Rocky Mountains and 12 miles north 

of Great Falls, Montana.

■ Benton Lake Wetland Management District was 

established in 1975. It includes 10 counties (Cascade, Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Lewis and Clark, 

Liberty, Pondera, Powell, Teton, Toole), 23 waterfowl production areas, and 4 distinct easement programs. This district covers the largest 

geographical area of any in the United States. 

Habitat protection in the district continues to 
XII Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

grow with the acquisition of more easements and 

waterfowl production areas.

■■ Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area was established in 1995 and expanded in 2011. The potential exists here to protect up to 103,500 acres 

in the Blackfoot Valley by buying conservation 

easements on private land within the 824,024-

acre project area.

■■ Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area was 

established in 2005 and expanded in 2011. The 

potential exists here to protect up to 295,000 

acres in the Rocky Mountain Front by buying 

conservation easements on private land within 

the 918,000-acre project area.

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

located in the Swan Valley, 38 miles southeast of 

Creston, Montana.

■■ Swan Valley Conservation Area was established 

in 2011. The potential exists here to protect up to 

10,000 acres in the Swan Valley by buying conservation easements on private land, and up to 1,000 

acres in fee-title land next to the Swan River 

Refuge within the 187,400-acre project area.

This document contains the comprehensive conservation plan for all areas that make up the Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

The Future of the 

Refuge Complex

A vision is a concept, including desired conditions 

for the future, which describes the essence of what 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service is trying 

to accomplish. Goals direct efforts toward achieving 

the vision and purposes of the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex and outline approaches for 

managing refuge resources. 

VISION

The following vision for the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex is a future-oriented statement designed to be achieved throughout the life of 

this comprehensive conservation plan and beyond.

The spirit of the American West resonates 

on both sides of the Continental Divide 

in the prairies, mountains, rivers, and 

wetlands of the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Here, migratory birds fill the sky, bull 

trout thrive, and grizzlies and wolves still 

roam. Visitors experience many of the 

same landscapes that Lewis and Clark 

explored on their journey through the 

“Crown of the Continent.” 

Conservation efforts in the refuge complex 

protect intact landscapes, manage 

productive habitats, and offer people 

opportunities to connect with wildlife in 

solitude under Montana’s big sky.

These efforts rely on innovative public and 

private partnerships, are supported by the 

region’s people, and harmonize with the 

historic rural economy.

Yellow-bellied Marmot

© Neal Mishler
SUMMARY XIII

Goals

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service developed a set of goals for the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex based on the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 

the purposes of the Benton Lake National Wildlife 

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. 

Seven goals were established.

Landscape Conservation Goal

Actively pursue and continue to foster relationships 

within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

other agencies, organizations, and private partners 

to protect, preserve, manage, and restore the functionality of the diverse ecosystems within the working landscape of the Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex.

Habitat Goal

Actively conserve, restore, and manage upland and 

wetland habitats across the northern prairies and 

intermountain valleys of the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, through management 

strategies that perpetuate the integrity of ecological 

communities.

Wildlife Goal

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

of the northern prairies and intermountain valleys of 

northern Montana.

Cultural Resources Goal

Find and evaluate the cultural resources of the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex and 

protect those that are found to be significant.

Visitor Services Goal

Provide opportunities to enjoy wildlife-dependent 

recreation on United States Fish and Wildlife Service-owned lands and increase knowledge and appreciation for the Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex’s ecological communities and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Administration Goal

Provide facilities, strategically allocate staff, and 

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

the long-term integrity of habitats and wildlife resources of the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex.

Visitor and Employee Safety and 

Resource Protection Goal

Provide for the safety, security, and protection of 

visitors, employees, natural and cultural resources, 

and facilities throughout the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Management of the Refuge 

Complex

The comprehensive conservation plan directs the 

management of the Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex to meet the purposes of the refuge 

complex and address issues. 

The plan is intended to be a broad umbrella of 

general concepts and specific objectives for the refuge complex over the next 15 years. As the plan is 

implemented, the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service will develop stepdown plans with details for 

carrying out actions needed to achieve objectives.

Concepts and Objectives for the 

Refuge Complex

Emphasis will be placed on achieving self-sustaining 

systems with long-term productivity. Management 

efforts will focus on supporting and restoring ecological processes, including natural communities 

and the dynamics of the ecosystems of the northern 

Great Plains and northern Rocky Mountains in relationship to their geomorphic landscape positioning. 

The conservation of native landscapes will be a high 

priority accomplished by protecting habitats from 

conversion using a combination of partnerships, 

easements, and fee-title lands, and through the active management and proactive enforcement of easements. Management actions, such as prescribed fire, 

grazing, and invasive species control, will be used to 

support the resiliency and sustainability of Serviceowned lands throughout the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex.
XIV Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Whenever possible, habitat conditions will be 

allowed to fluctuate with climatically driven wet and 

dry cycles, which are essential for long-term productivity. The success of these efforts and programs 

will depend on added staff, research, and monitoring 

programs, operations money, infrastructure, and 

new and expanded partnerships.

Additional Concepts and 

Objectives for the Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge

Management for the Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge wetland units will focus on restoring the 

health and long-term sustainability of the wetland 

basin and include specific efforts within the Lake 

Creek and Muddy Creek watersheds. Flexible water management will affect the amount, duration, 

and location of artificially provided (pumped) water 

within the wetland basin. Management will strive to 

provide some waterfowl hunting and fall and spring 

migration habitat in at least 11 out of 15 years and 

basin-wide drying in no more than 4 out of 15 years. 

An adaptive resource management approach will be 

applied that may modify these wet and dry cycles 

to ensure progress towards achieving habitat objectives. Wetland basin infrastructure may be modified to enhance the efficient delivery of water and 

its conservation. The pump house will remain in 

regular use and all water rights will be exercised 

and maintained. The management of grasslands and 

wildlife-dependent public uses (wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, interpretation, and upland gamebird hunting) on the refuge 

will depend on available resources.

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area

© Dave Carr
Abbreviations

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

Administration Act National Wildlife Administration Act of 1966

amsl above mean sea level

ARM adaptive resource management

AUM animal unit month

B .C . before Christ

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CA conservation area

CCP comprehensive conservation plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

CO2 carbon dioxide

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

CKST Confederated Kootenai and Salish Tribes

CPR cardiopulmonary resuscitation

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

district Benton Lake Wetland Management District

DNC dense nesting cover

EA environmental assessment

EDRR early detection, rapid response

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

°F degrees Fahrenheit

Front Rocky Mountain Front

FTE full-time equivalent position

FY fiscal year

GFPS Great Falls Public Schools

GIS Geographic Information System

GNLCC Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative

gpm gallons per minute

GS general schedule (pay)

HAPET Habitat and Population Evaluation Team

HGM hydrogeomorphic method

HCPC historical climax plant community

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
XVI Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

IPM integrated pest management

LCC landscape conservation cooperative

LIDAR light detection and ranging

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

MFIS Montana Fisheries Information System

MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks

MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality

MNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program

NCDE Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NISC National Invasive Species Council

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRIS Natural Resource Information System 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NWR national wildlife refuge

PIF Partners in Flight

PPPLCC Plains and Prairie Potholes Landscape Conservation Cooperative

refuge refuge within the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex

refuge complex Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

RLGIS Refuge Lands Geographic Information System

RONS Refuge Operations Needs System

RRS Refuge Revenue Sharing Act

SDM structured decisionmaking

Se selenium

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SHC strategic habitat conservation

STEM Expo Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Exposition

TMDL total maximum daily load

TNC The Nature Conservancy

μg/g micrograms per gram

μg/gDW micrograms per gram dry weight

μg/L micrograms per liter

U .S . United States

U .S .C . United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

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

WG wage grade (pay schedule)

WPA waterfowl production area

Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary, located after chapter 4 .
CHAPTER 1–Introduction

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge

erner ©Mitch W

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

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

Montana. To address the long-term management 

of the refuge complex, the Service has developed a 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP).

This chapter introduces the process for the development of the refuge complex’s CCP, including 

descriptions of the involvement of the Service, the 

State of Montana, the public, and others. It also describes the conservation issues and plans that affect 

the refuge complex. The chapters that follow contain 

information the Service used and results of the Service’s analysis that are the foundation of this final 

plan:

■ Chapter 2 describes the refuge complex and planning issues.

■ Chapter 3 describes the physical, biological, and 

social environments of the refuge complex.

■ Chapter 4 describes objectives and strategies for 

all aspects of management of the refuge complex.

The remainder of the document contains a glossary 

of terms, several appendixes, and a bibliography.
2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

The refuge complex is part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). Spanning both 

sides of the Continental Divide, it holds a collection 

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

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

the animal species of these lands are diverse and 

reflective of a variety of habitats. Large numbers of 

waterfowl and shorebirds inhabit eastern wetlands 

while large predators such as grizzly bears make 

their home in the mountains and forests to the west. 

Figure 1 shows the location of the refuge complex 

within the overall planning area. 

The refuge complex oversees the management of 

2 refuges, 1 wetland management district containing 23 waterfowl production areas (WPAs), and 3 

conservation areas (CAs) and administers 216 easements within the Refuge System:

■ Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1929 and consists of 12,383 fee-title 

acres and 76.88 acres of right-of-way easement. It 

is located on the northern Great Plains, 50 miles 

east of the Rocky Mountains and 12 miles north 

of Great Falls, Montana.

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

Clark, Liberty, Pondera, Powell, Teton, Toole), 23 

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

geographical area of any in the nation. The protection of habitat here continues to grow with 

the acquisition of more easements and waterfowl 

production areas.

■ Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area was established in 1995 and expanded in 2011. This conservation easement program has the potential to 

protect up to 103,500 acres in the Blackfoot Valley by buying conservation easements on private 

land within the 824,024-acre project area.

■ Rocky Mountain Front CA was established in 

2005 and expanded in 2011. This conservation 

easement program has the potential to protect 

up to 295,000 acres in the Rocky Mountain Front 

(Front) by buying conservation easements on 

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

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

located in the Swan Valley, 38 miles southeast of 

Creston, Montana.

■ Swan Valley CA was established in 2011. It has 

the potential to protect up to 10,000 acres in the 

Swan Valley by buying conservation easements 

on private land and up to 1,000 acres in fee-title 

land next to the Swan River Refuge within the 

187,400-acre project area.

The Service has developed this CCP to provide a 

foundation for managing the refuge complex. It 

specifies the necessary actions to achieve the vision and purposes of the refuge complex. Wildlife is 

the first priority and public use (including wildlifedependent recreation) is allowed and encouraged as 

long as it is compatible with the purposes of each 

management unit, in accordance with the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(Improvement Act). This CCP will be used as a 

working guide for programs and activities throughout the refuge complex over the next 15 years. To 

assist in implementing the CCP, stepdown plans 

will be developed to provide further detail to guide 

management (see section 4.2).

When the CCP process began in 2008, the Lost 

Trail Refuge and the Northwest Montana Flathead 

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

In 2012, the refuge complex was reorganized and 

Lost Trail Refuge and Northwest Montana Flathead 

County District were transferred to the National 

Bison Range Complex in Moiese, Montana. Although 

Lost Trail Refuge has a CCP that was completed in 

2005 and remains in effect, several issues that affect 

this unit were identified during the scoping process 

for this CCP. To address these issues, an amendment 

to the Lost Trail CCP will be prepared. A few issues about the management of waterfowl production 

areas in the Flathead County Wetland Management 

District were also identified during scoping. These 

will be forwarded to National Bison Range Complex 

staff for consideration during their CCP efforts, 

which are currently in a preplanning phase.

1.1 The Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan

The CCP specifies the goals and objectives necessary to achieve the vision and purposes of Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Final Decision

The Regional Director of the Mountain–Prairie Region of the Service selected a slightly modified al-
Chapter 1—Introduction 3

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

CHAPTER 1–Introduction 5

ternative C for overall refuge complex management 

and a hybridization of alternatives C1 and B1 for 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge management 

from the draft CCP and environmental assessment 

(EA) as the preferred alternatives for the final CCP 

for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Appendix A documents the Regional Director’s decision in the environmental action statement and the 

finding of no significant impact. The specifics of the 

final CCP can be found in “Chapter 4–Management 

Direction.” Appendix B contains the final compatibility determinations for public uses described in 

this document. The section 7 biological evaluation 

(appendix C) documents the effects of CCP actions 

on threatened and endangered species—a determination of no effect or may affect but not adversely, 

depending on the species.

The CCP is a broad umbrella plan that provides 

general concepts and specific wildlife, habitat, visitor 

services, and partnership objectives over the next 

15 years. Implementation begins with publication 

of the final CCP. The Service will carry out the plan 

with help from partner agencies, organizations, and 

the public. As the CCP is implemented, stepdown 

management plans will be developed to provide 

greater detail to managers and employees for carrying out specific actions and strategies authorized by 

the CCP. Section 4.2 in chapter 4 lists the stepdown 

plans needed for the refuge. 

The CCP details program planning levels that 

are sometimes substantially above current budget 

allocations and thus are primarily for Service strategic planning purposes. The CCP does not constitute a commitment for staff increases, operation and 

maintenance increases, or funding for future land 

acquisition.

Plan Development

The CCP was developed in compliance with the 

Improvement Act and Service policy. The actions 

described in the CCP meet the requirements of the 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations that 

implement the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA). Staff from several Montana State 

agencies, other Federal agencies, and tribes provided critical support in developing the CCP. The 

Service’s involvement of the public was another important aspect of planning and part of compliance 

with NEPA. In addition to the initial scoping with 

the public, there was a public review of the draft 

CCP and EA before the final CCP was completed.

The planning process is described in detail in 

section 1.8, and the public involvement process is 

described in appendix D, including the Service’s 

response to substantive public comments.

Plan Amendment and Revision

The Service will review the final CCP every year to 

see if it needs to be amended. An amendment would 

be necessary if significant new information became 

available, such as a change in ecological conditions. 

The Service will evaluate the plan every 5 years and 

revise it after 15 years, as necessary.

1.2 Purpose and Need 

for the Plan

The purpose of this CCP is to show the role that the 

refuge complex will play in support of the mission of 

the 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

■ understanding among neighbors, visitors, and 

government officials of the Service’s management 

actions on, and around, the refuge complex

■ management consistency with the mandates of 

the Improvement Act

■ management consistency with Federal, State, 

and county plans

■ a basis for the development of budget requests 

for the refuge complex’s operation, maintenance, 

and capital improvement needs

1.3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System

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

Federal agency responsible for fish, wildlife, and 

plant conservation. The Refuge System is one of the 

Service’s major programs.
6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Mission

The mission of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, working with others, 

is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish 

and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the 

American people.

National Wildlife 

Refuge System Mission

The mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System is to administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife 

and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for 

the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Sandhill Crane

Donna A. Dewhurst / USFWS

History of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System

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

alarming rate, largely due to unrestricted market 

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

political will for the first significant conservation 

measures taken by the Federal Government. These 

actions included the establishment of the Bureau of 

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

first Federal wildlife law—the Lacey Act—which 

prohibited the interstate transportation of wildlife 

taken in violation of State laws. In 1892, Benjamin 

Harrison’s order to protect Afognak Island, Alaska, 

as a forest and fish culture reservation was the first 

presidential proclamation to withdraw land from 

the public domain for wildlife conservation (Proclamation No. 39). Although the reservation was not 

deliberately established for the protection of sea 

lions and sea otters, its motivation was to sustain 

commercial harvest and to recognize the need to 

regulate harvest and test the presidential power to 

rein in commercial excess (Fischman 2003).

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

had long expressed concern for the viability of birds 

targeted by plume hunters for fashion. In Florida’s 

Indian River drainage, plume hunters were decimating egrets, ibises, roseate spoonbills, and other birds 

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

1903, President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed Pelican Island as a “preservation and breeding ground 

for native birds.” Between 1903 and 1909, Roosevelt 

decreed 52 bird and 4 big game reserves. In 1906, 

The U.S. Congress endorsed Roosevelt’s Executive 

reservations. Roosevelt inspired the U.S. Congress 

to reserve land that would become wildlife refuges 

beginning with Wichita Mountain Forest and Game 

Preserve in 1905, the National Bison Range in 1908, 
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 7

and the National Elk Refuge in 1912 (Fischman 

2003).

Growth of the Refuge System focused on particular geographic regions and broad national needs 

with the enactment of the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act of 1918. It established the first significant 

preemptive, Federal restrictions on hunting and 

implemented new treaty obligations to sustain the 

populations of certain birds, especially waterfowl 

populations. Refuge purchases were made to help 

accommodate multistate north-south migrations 

(Fischman 2003).

In 1929, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

was authorized to acquire lands to serve as avian 

refuges or “inviolate sanctuaries” for migratory 

birds. After a precipitous decline in waterfowl populations in the early 1930s, the U.S. Congress enacted 

the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934, 

which dedicated money for acquiring waterfowl conservation refuges from the sale of Federal Duck 

Stamps that all waterfowl hunters are required to 

affix to their State hunting licenses. With an assured 

source of money, the growth of the Refuge System 

accelerated. Money for refuge acquisition increased 

with the passage of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964 (LWCF), which provides 

money from a motorboat fuel tax and payments for 

Federal offshore oil and gas leases.

In 1940, as part of his New Deal innovations, 

President Franklin Roosevelt established the U. S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and placed it within the 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and existing 

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

wildlife refuge management were, for the first time, 

combined into a single organization.

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

branch the authority to acquire refuges not just for 

migratory birds but also for any wildlife through the 

Fish and Wildlife Act. Under this act, 166 refuges 

were established (Fischman 2003).

In 1962, the passage of the Refuge Recreation 

Act marked the beginning of the modern trend to 

provide the Service with systematic management 

guidance. The Refuge Recreation Act mandated that 

public recreation use be permitted in a refuge “only 

to the extent that is practicable and not inconsistent 

with the primary objectives for which the particular 

area is established.” In 1966, the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act (Administration 

Act) consolidated the land units managed by the 

Service, provided a comprehensive management 

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

selected species of native fish and wildlife threatened with extinction.” This was the first established 

connection between refuges and endangered species, 

which remains strong today. More than 260 listed 

species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

occur on refuges and 56 refuges have been added to 

the system specifically by ESA acquisition authority 

(Fischman 2003).

From 1903–1997, the U.S. Congress provided 

little guidance to the Service on how to consolidate 

refuges into a system. Conservation has always been 

the common theme for refuge mandates, however, 

conservation encompasses a range of concerns from 

ecosystem preservation, to endangered species recovery, to sustaining game populations for hunting. 

Without guidance, coordinating and ensuring the 

alignment of individual refuges toward a larger goal 

was difficult. In 1997, the Improvement Act was 

passed, which provided the Refuge System with an 

overall mission.

As conservation challenges have changed, the 

Service has adapted and responded. This has been 

shown repeatedly through such circumstances as 

the Service’s response to marketing hunting in late 

1880s, plume hunters of the 1900s, falling waterfowl 

populations in the 1930s, protection of endangered 

species in the 1960s and 1970s, loss of wetland and 

prairie habitat from 1920 through the 1980s, challenges facing forest landbirds and grassland bird 

species, and, more recently, effects from climate 

change. As conservation issues are identified, the 

Service has responded with shifts in management 

agendas and priorities in keeping with the original 

purpose or purposes for which each refuge unit was 

established.

The Nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to the quality of American lives and is an integral part of the country’s greatness. Wildlife and 

wild places have always given people special opportunities to have fun, relax, and appreciate the 

natural world. Currently, the Refuge System has 

become the largest collection of lands in the world 

specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more 

than 150 million acres within 550 refuges and more 

than 3,000 waterfowl production areas. Today, there 

is at least one refuge in every State and in Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Today, the Service enforces Federal wildlife laws, 

conserves lands and resources, conducts landscape 

conservation, conserves and manages migratory bird 

populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores vital wildlife habitat, 

protects and recovers endangered species, and helps 

other governments with conservation efforts. In addition, the Service administers a Wildlife and Sport 

Fish Restoration program that distributes hundreds 

of millions of dollars to States for fish and wildlife 

restoration, boating access, hunter education, and 

related programs across the country.
8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

1.4 National and Regional 

Mandates

Refuge System units are managed to achieve the 

mission and goals of the Refuge System along with 

their own, specific, designated purposes (as described in establishing legislation, Executive orders, 

or other establishing documents). The key concepts 

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

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

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

national wildlife refuge (meaning every unit of the 

Refuge System, which includes wetland management districts) shall be managed to do the following:

■ Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System.

■ Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge and 

district.

■ Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first.

■ Support the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System.

■ Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation 

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

and interpretation are legitimate and priority 

public uses.

■ Keep the authority of refuge managers to decide 

compatible public uses.

■ Fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP for 

each unit of the Refuge System and fully involve 

the public in preparation of these plans.

In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, 

the wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the 

Refuge System supports the following principles:

■ Wildlife comes first.

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

■ Habitats must be healthy.

■ Growth of refuges and districts must be strategic.

■ The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others.

Following the passage of the Improvement Act, the 

Service immediately began to carry out the direction 

of the new legislation, including preparing CCPs for 

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

prepares CCPs in conjunction with public involvement. Each national wildlife refuge and each wetland management district is required to complete its 

CCP within a 15-year schedule (by 2012).

The Improvement Act amends the Administration Act by providing (1) a unifying mission for the 

Refuge System; (2) a new process for determining 

compatible public uses on refuges and districts; and 

(3) a requirement that each refuge and district be 

managed under a CCP. The Improvement Act states 

that wildlife conservation is the priority of Refuge 

System lands and that the Secretary of the Interior 

will make sure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands are 

supported. Each refuge and district must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System’s mission and the 

specific purposes for which the unit was established. 

The Improvement Act requires the Service to 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 this CCP or 

the Service’s implementation of it is in “Appendix 

E–Key Legislation and Policy.” Service policies for 

the planning and day-to-day management of national 

wildlife refuges and wetland management districts 

are in the “Refuge Manual” and the “Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.”

1.5 Contributions to Regional 

and National Plans

The refuge complex contributes to the conservation 

efforts outlined in the various regional and national 

plans described here.

Fulfilling the Promise

A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System” (USFWS 1999a), is the 

culmination of a year-long process by teams of Service employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. The report contains 42 recommendations 
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 9

to support vision statements for 3 topics: wildlife 

and habitat, people, and leadership. This CCP deals 

with all three of these topics, and the planning team 

looked to the recommendations in the document for 

guidance during CCP planning.

The Service has recently embarked on an effort 

to update the overall vision found in “Fulfilling the 

Promise” through a new initiative called “Conserving the Future.” A landmark conference was held in 

2011 to solidify the direction of this effort. Updated 

guidance and documents will be developed in the 

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

be incorporated into the management of the refuge 

complex.

A male sharp-tailed grouse performs a courtship display at a lek.

USFWS

Partners in Flight

The Partners in Flight (PIF) program began in 1990 

with the recognition that population levels of many 

migratory bird species were declining (Ruth 2006). 

The central premise of PIF has been that the resources of public and private organizations in North 

and South America must be combined, coordinated, 

and increased to achieve success in conserving bird 

populations in this hemisphere.

Montana PIF identified the highest priority 

habitats in need of assistance in Montana as mixed 

grassland, sagebrush-steppe, dry forest (ponderosa 

pine and Douglas-fir), riparian deciduous forest, and 

prairie pothole wetland (Casey 2000). All of these 

key habitats occur within the refuge complex. The 

primary objectives in each priority habitat are to 

restore the ecological processes necessary to provide suitable habitat for priority (target) species, 

find and protect those remaining blocks of habitats 

that have undergone drastic declines, and develop 

management prescriptions that can be applied at all 

geographic scales.

North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan

The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

provides a contiguous framework for conserving 

and managing colonial-nesting waterbirds, seabirds, 

coastal waterbirds, wading birds, and marshbirds. 

The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

includes a goal to establish conservation action and 

exchange information and expertise with other bird 

conservation initiatives. The plan also calls for the 
10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

establishment of practical units for planning for terrestrial habitats (Kushlan et al. 2002). The refuge 

complex is located within the Northern Prairie and 

Parklands Region.

The challenge for the Northern Prairie and Parklands Regional Plan is to operate where conservation issues are significantly affected by agriculture, 

oil, gas, and other human development activities. 

Wetland loss and deterioration are top concerns and 

are further influenced by the region’s natural wet 

and dry cycles as well as the widespread and uncertain ramifications of climate change. Reliable, comprehensive population information that incorporates 

wetland availability and landscape context is needed 

in this area (Beyersbergen et al. 2004).

North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan

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

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

strategy to restore waterfowl populations through 

habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. 

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

its international scope and its implementation at the 

regional level. Its success depends on the strength 

of partnerships called joint ventures, which involve 

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

individual citizens (USFWS and Canadian Wildlife 

Service 1986).

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

through a wide array of community participation 

activities. Joint ventures develop implementation 

plans that focus on areas of concern that are identified in the plan. The refuge complex lies within the 

Intermountain West and Prairie Pothole Joint Ventures. The North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan and the supporting efforts of the Intermountain 

West and Prairie Pothole Joint Ventures have been 

considered throughout the planning process and are 

supported and promoted in this CCP.

U.S. Shorebird Conservation 

Plan

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

States committed to the conservation of shorebirds. 

The organizations and individuals working on the 

Plan have developed conservation goals for each 

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

an awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face 

(Brown et al. 2001).

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

the Northern Plains Prairie Pothole Region, which 

include the refuge complex. Managing for shorebirds 

in the prairies is challenging due to the dynamic 

nature of wetland conditions. Major issues for shorebirds in this area include the conservation of declining species, habitat loss, and filling in information 

gaps on threats (Skagen and Thompson 2003). The 

most important issue facing shorebird conservation 

in the Intermountain West is the availability of quality water. The shorebird plan for this area focuses 

on habitat management, monitoring, research, outreach, and planning (Oring et al. 2000).

State Comprehensive Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy

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

species known to exist in Montana, including both 

game and nongame species. The plan recognizes that 

managing fish and wildlife more comprehensively 

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

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

of Montana’s fish and wildlife and related habitats 

that are have the greatest need for conservation; 

identify management strategies to conserve the fish 

and wildlife and related habitats with greatest need; 

work independently and in partnership to conserve, 

enhance, and protect Montana’s diverse fish and 

wildlife resources and address each species equitably regardless of classification as game or nongame, 

rare or at risk; improve the Montana Fish, Wildlife 

& Parks (MFWP) ability to address present and 

future money challenges and opportunities; and integrate the monitoring and management of game and 

nongame fish and wildlife species.

Several Tier I (greatest conservation need) focus areas and community types were identified that 

overlap geographically with the refuge complex. 

These are the Rocky Mountain Front foothills, Mission and Swan Valleys and Mountains, grassland 

complexes, riparian areas and wetlands, and mountain and prairie streams. In addition, there are at 

least 15 Tier I wildlife species identified in this plan 
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 11

that are also trust responsibilities of the Service. 

The 15-year management direction for the refuge 

complex that is outlined in this CCP has significant 

potential to complement and advance the conservation needs MFWP outlined in their comprehensive 

conservation strategy.

The Nature Conservancy—

Northern Great Plains Steppe 

Ecoregional Assessment

The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) Northern Great 

Plains Steppe Ecoregional Assessment encompasses 

approximately 250,000 square miles (an area about 

one and a half the size of California) and includes 

parts of five States and two Canadian provinces: 

Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Wyoming, Alberta, and Saskatchewan (TNC 1999). 

Historical and current land use practices have 

significantly affected many native species in the 

ecoregion. Grassland species have begun to show 

widespread declines—most notable are endemic 

Great Plains birds, which have shown steeper and 

more consistent declines than any other group of 

North American species. The Northern Great Plains 

Steppe Ecoregional Plan identified 42 primary species, 18 secondary species, 323 natural communities, and 2 general aquatic communities to target for 

conservation. Portfolio sites that are also priorities 

for the refuge complex include the Rocky Mountain Front and the Sweet Grass Hills. Existing land 

management practices support many of the portfolio 

sites, however, significant threats persist that could 

either destroy or significantly degrade sites and 

their conservation targets. The TNC identified the 

need to strengthen existing partnerships and more 

effectively reach out to stakeholders in the ecoregion. The Service considered how to support this 

effort in this CCP and through future management.

The Nature Conservancy— 

Canadian Rocky Mountains 

Ecoregional Assessment

The TNC’s Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregional 

Assessment covers approximately 66.9 million acres 

across a large part of the Rocky Mountains from 

southeastern British Columbia and southwestern 

Alberta to northern Idaho, northwestern Montana, 

and a small part of northeastern Washington (Rumsey et al. 2004). This ecoregion is best recognized 

for its full complement of large mammals. Elk, 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, mountain goats, 

mule deer, white-tailed deer, moose, and woodland 

caribou are among the large ungulate species. Some 

of the most threatened species are carnivores, and 

this ecoregion supports populations of grizzly bears, 

gray wolves, wolverines, fishers, and Canada lynx. 

The ecoregional assessment represents the first 

step in developing a network of conservation areas that, with proper management, would ensure 

the long-term persistence of species, communities, 

and ecological systems. The refuge complex is a key 

stakeholder in several of these conservation areas, 

including the Crown of the Continent. The goal is to 

conserve the entire portfolio of conservation areas, 

which will need a combination of strategies, including on-the-ground action at specific conservation 

areas, and multiple-area strategies to address pervasive threats to targets across the ecoregion.

Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program Strategic Plan

In 2004, Service directors instructed the Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife Program to develop a national strategic plan. The plan included regional 

geographic areas in which to focus local projects to 

realize the greatest help to those fish and wildlife 

resources most in need. The guidance directed the 

preparation of regional and State stepdown plans. 

The 2007 Montana Step-down Strategic Plan identifies geographic focus areas, provides focus area 

habitat accomplishment targets, and describes benefits to Federal trust species. Focus areas within the 

refuge complex include the Rocky Mountain Front, 

Blackfoot River watershed, and the Swan Valley 

(USFWS 2007a). The Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program was updated in 2011, and the results of that 

effort will be considered in the management direction for the refuge complex.

Recovery Plans for Threatened 

and Endangered Species

There are 11 threatened, endangered, or candidate 

species that occur, or have historically occurred, 

within the refuge complex (USFWS 2012). Recovery 

plans have been completed for the pallid sturgeon, 

black-footed ferret, grizzly bear, and piping plover. 

Draft recovery plans are available for the bull trout 

and water howellia. The recovery needs of all listed 

species within the refuge complex were considered 
12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

in the development of this CCP. Those species that 

have large numbers living within the refuge complex 

and are likely to be most affected by this CCP, either 

through the direct management of fee-title lands 

or through partnership in conservation easements, 

include the grizzly bear (threatened), Sprague’s pipit 

(candidate), and bull trout (threatened).

Climate Change Strategic Plan

The Service expects accelerating climate change to 

affect the Nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

in profound ways. While many species will continue 

to thrive, some may decline and, in some instances, 

go extinct. In 2010, the Service completed a strategic plan to address climate change for the next 50 

years entitled Rising to the Urgent Challenge—

Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change (USFWS 2010d). The strategic plan 

employs three key strategies: adaptation, mitigation, 

and engagement. In addition, the plan acknowledges 

that no single organization or agency can address 

climate change without allying itself with others in 

partnership across the Nation and around the world. 

This plan is an integral part of the DOI’s strategy 

for addressing climate change as expressed in Secretarial Order 3289 (September 14, 2009).

The Service will follow five guiding principles in 

responding to climate change:

■ Continually evaluate priorities and approaches, 

make difficult choices, take calculated risks, and 

adapt to climate change.

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

■ Reflect scientific excellence, professionalism, and 

integrity in all work.

■ Emphasize the conservation of habitats within 

sustainable landscapes, applying the Strategic 

Habitat Conservation (SHC) framework.

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

Figure 2. The strategic habitat conservation process.

1.6 Strategic Habitat 

Conservation

SHC is a means of applying adaptive management 

across large landscapes. SHC involves an ongoing 

cycle of biological planning, conservation design, 

conservation delivery, outcome-based monitoring, 

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

science to focus conservation in the right places 

(USGS, USFWS 2008).

In 2010, the Service started to expand its conservation easement programs in the Blackfoot 

Valley and along the Rocky Mountain Front and 

established a new conservation easement program in the Swan Valley. Input from the public 

was solicited in May 2010 and used to complete an 

EA and land protection plan for each conservation area. The land protection plans (USFWS 

2011c,d,e) outline how the refuge complex will use 

SHC to focus the purchase of conservation easements to meet objectives for focal species such as 

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

information on population objectives, habitat 

needs, and threats becomes available, the land 
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 13

protection plans will be updated. Efforts by key 

partners such as TNC, Trout Unlimited, MFWP, 

the Service’s Ecological Services branch, the 

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture, and the Great 

Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative

(GNLCC) are essential for completing the monitoring and feedback parts of SHC and for keeping conservation efforts focused on the highest priorities.

1.7 Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives

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

SHC across large landscapes. These cooperatives 

are conservation–science partnerships between the 

Service and other Federal agencies, States, tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, universities, and 

others. Designed as fundamental units for planning 

and science, the cooperatives have the capacity to 

help the Service carry out the elements of SHC—biological planning, conservation design and delivery, 

and monitoring and research. Coordinated planning and scientific information will strengthen the 

Service’s strategic response to accelerating climate 

change.

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

Conservation Cooperative (PPPLCC) (figure 3). 

The GNLCC has identified priority species, including bull trout, grizzly bear, Lewis’s woodpecker, 

trumpeter swan, westslope cutthroat trout, Arctic grayling, wolverine, willow flycatcher, greater 

sage-grouse, burrowing owl, and Columbia spotted 

frog. Eight of these priority species exist within the 

refuge complex. The PPPLCC includes three main 

subunits, the Prairie Pothole Region, northern Great 

Plains, and the riparian corridors of several major 

river systems, including the Missouri River, the Yellowstone River, and the Red River of the North. The 

refuge complex lies primarily within the PPPLCC’s 

Prairie Pothole Region, which includes millions of 

wetlands that constitute one of the richest wetland 

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

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

and grassland systems in the world. The area provides habitat for both breeding and migrating birds, 

as well as for a host of other wetland and native 

grassland-dependent species, including waterfowl, 

shorebirds, grassland birds, native stream fishes, 

and big river fishes such as the pallid sturgeon, and 

paddlefish.

As LCCs continue to develop, an overarching 

priority for them will be to serve as convening bodies that bring together partners to address existing and future issues related to climate change and 

landscape-scale conservation. LCCs will continue to:

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

decisions;

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

and habitats that are most susceptible to the effects of climate change;

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

landscapes;

■ identify conservation delivery strategies;

■ jointly find and address research needs for priority species and priority habitat conservation;

■ provide decision support systems and tools that 

are accessible to partners and help define the 

conservation actions needed, including how much 

and where;

■ support proper data sharing;

■ develop monitoring and evaluation protocols;

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

and monitoring.

The refuge complex intends to continue to be an active participant in LCCs and to continue to consider 

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

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

1.8 The Planning Process

The Improvement Act requires the Service to develop a CCP by 2012 for each national wildlife refuge. This is the final plan for the refuge complex, and 

it will guide the management of the refuge complex 

for the next 15 years.

The Service prepared this CCP for Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex in compliance 

with the Improvement Act and Part 602 (National 

Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the “Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described 

herein meet the requirements of the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations that carry out 

NEPA. More requirements and guidance are contained in the Refuge System’s planning policy, issued in 2000. This policy established requirements 

and guidance for refuge and wetland management 

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

follow the Improvement Act. The planning policy 

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

The Service began the preplanning process in 

February 2008 with the establishment of a planning team comprised primarily of Service staff from 

the refuge complex and from the Service’s Region 

6 Division of Refuge Planning. A broader advisory 

planning team was also established to meet the 

great interest held by other refuge divisions. During 

workshops and other critical stages in the planning 

process, the broader team was part of the decisionmaking process. Contributors included other Service divisions stationed in the Region 6 office, U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), and Greenbrier Wetland 

Services, (see “Appendix F–Preparers and Contributors”). During preplanning, the team developed 

a mailing list, identified internal issues, and wrote 

down the unique qualities of the refuge complex (see 

section 2.5 in chapter 2). The planning team identified and reviewed current programs, compiled and 

analyzed relevant data, and defined the purposes of 

the units within the refuge complex.

Public scoping started with a Notice of Intent to 

prepare the draft CCP and EA that was published 

in the Federal Register on August 18, 2008. Information was distributed through news releases, the 

issuance of the first planning update, and by holding 

a series of public scoping meetings:

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

Montana, 4–7 p.m.

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

Montana, 4–7 p.m.

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

■ September 4, 2008, Red Lion Inn, Kalispell, Montana, 4–7 p.m.
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 15

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

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

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

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

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

Falls, Montana, 8 a.m.–3 p.m.

In addition to these hosted meetings, there were 

several other opportunities to meet with a variety of 

interest groups. Service employees shared the CCP 

planning process, solicited issues and concerns from 

individuals attending meetings, and answered questions. These opportunities provided staff a greater 

understanding of the issues, concerns, and effects 

expressed by the public. Refuge staff attended 

meetings or met with the following: Ducks Unlimited, Great Falls Audubon, Montana Audubon, Russell Country Sportsmen’s Association, Muddy Creek 

Watershed Group, Sun River Watershed Group, 

Montana Bird Conservation Partnership, Great 

Falls Public School, and Rocky Mountain Front 

Land Manager’s Forum.

Over the course of the planning process, the planning team collected information about the resources 

of the refuge complex units and the surrounding 

areas. This information is summarized in Chapter 

3—Affected Environment. The planning team also 

encouraged public comment during the planning 

process throughout the development and release 

of the draft CCP and EA—in compliance with the 

public involvement requirements of NEPA—and 

analyzed and incorporated public input on the draft 

into the final CCP. After the Regional Director decided which alternatives to implement, the planning 

team prepared the final CCP.

Table 1 lists the specific steps in the planning 

process to date for the preparation of this final CCP.
16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Wetland gathering on the refuge complex.

USFWS

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

Refuge Complex, Montana.

Date Event Outcome or purpose

February 7, 2008 Preplanning

 meeting

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

discussed the planning schedule, and discussed the biological data needs.

April 30, 2008 Planning team

invitation letters

mailed

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

the planning team.

May 12–14, 2008 CCP kickoff and

vision statement

meeting

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

for the refuge complex.

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

August 18, 2008 Notice of Intent The Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP was published in the Federal Register (volume 73, number 160, pages 48237–38).

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

mailing list. The update described the planning process and announced 

the upcoming public scoping meetings.

September 2, 2008 Public scoping

meeting

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

to learn about the CCP process and provide comments.

September 3, 2008 Public scoping 

meeting

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

learn about the CCP process and provide comments.

September 3, 2008 Public scoping 

meeting

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

learn about the CCP process and provide comments.

September 4, 2008 Public scoping 

meeting

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

learn about the CCP process and provide comments.

October 15, 2008 Public scoping 

meeting

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

The public had an opportunity to learn about the CCP process and provide comments.
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 17

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

Refuge Complex, Montana.

Date Event Outcome or purpose

November 20, 2008–

January 13, 2009

Six planning 

team conference 

calls

The process for developing goal statements for the refuge complex was 

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

April 28–30, 2009 Biological review 

planning meeting

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

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

Restoration and Management Options for Benton Lake National Wildlife 

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

discussed management alternatives for the refuge.

July 29, 2009 Alternatives 

development 

planning meeting

The planning team met at the refuge to discuss management alternatives 

and environmental consequences for the refuge.

September 9, 2009–

January 20, 2010

Ten planning 

team conference 

calls 

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

February 16–18, 2010 Environmental 

consequences and 

selection of 

proposed action

workshop

The planning team met in Great Falls to review the environmental consequences for the alternatives, and select a proposed action alternative.

November 2–30, 2010 Four planning 

team conference 

calls

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

November 16, 2010 Public scoping 

meeting

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

The public had an opportunity to learn about the CCP process and provide comments.

December 7–9, 2010 Objectives and 

strategies work

session

The planning team met in Great Falls to review and complete objectives 

and strategies for the proposed action alternative.

January 11, 2011 Public scoping

meeting

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

The public had an opportunity to learn about the CCP process and provide comments.

June 9, 2011 Options 

Workshop

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

options related to water management, selenium contamination, and public 

use at the Benton Lake Refuge.

January–November 

2011

Draft plan

preparation

The planning team prepared the draft CCP and EA.

January 2012 Draft plan 

internal review

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

EA and provided comments to help clarify the analyses and provide 

consistency.

March 2012 Draft plan 

public review

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

for review.

April 17, 2012 Public scoping

meeting

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

to learn about the CCP process and provide comments.

April 18, 2012 Public scoping

meeting

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

learn about the CCP process and provide comments.

April 19, 2012 Public scoping

meeting

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

learn about the CCP process and provide comments.

April 19, 2012 Public scoping

meeting

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

learn about the CCP process and provide comments.

October 1, 2012 Public meeting

on structured

decisionmaking

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

to learn about the structured decisionmaking process which was used in 

alternative development.
18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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

Refuge Complex, Montana.

Date Event Outcome or purpose

October 2–5, 2012 Structured

decisionmaking

workshop

Refuge and MFWP staff met in Great Falls and applied the structured 

decisionmaking process to develop alternatives.

May–November 2012 Public comments

 review

The planning team reviewed the public comments and determined needed 

changes for the final CCP.

December 2012 Decesion on 

preferred 

alternatives

The Regional Director selected the preferred alternatives and signed the 

finding of no significant impact. 

January–May 2013 Final plan

preparation

The planning team finished revising and editing the final CCP for printing 

and distribution.

Coordination With the Public

A mailing list of more than 450 names was prepared 

during preplanning. The mailing list includes private 

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

and interested organizations (see “Appendix D—

Public Involvement”).

The first planning update was sent in August 

2008 to everyone on the mailing list. Information 

was provided on the history of the refuge and the 

CCP process and included an invitation to attend 

any of the five public scoping meetings being held 

in early September. The planning update included 

a mailing list consent form that was used by interested parties to get on the CCP mailing list. The 

update also provided opportunities for submitting 

comments, including emails.

The Service held five public scoping meetings 

from September 2 to October 15, 2008. Turnout 

was relatively low, with 5–10 people attending each 

meeting, and included 28 attendees, primarily local citizens including surrounding ranchers. The 

public meetings were conducted as open houses, 

where attendees could individually view a PowerPoint presentation about the refuge complex and an 

overview of the CCP and NEPA processes, as well 

as other supplemental information on the extent of 

the refuge complex, the purpose for each unit and 

the vision for the refuge complex. Attendees were 

encouraged to ask questions and offer comments. 

Verbal comments were recorded and each attendee 

was given a comment form to submit other thoughts 

or questions in writing.

Written comments for the initial scoping effort 

were due September 15, 2008. Sixty written comments were received orally and in writing throughout this scoping process. The Service received 

letters from five nongovernmental organizations 

(Sun River Watershed Group, Montana Audubon, 

Born Free USA, Friends of the Wild Swan, Flathead Wildlife) and two agencies (MFWP, Region 

One and Montana Salinity Control Association). All 

comments were shared with the planning team and 

considered throughout the planning process.

One of the most significant issues identified for 

the refuge complex, by both the public and the 

planning team, was the declining condition of the 

Benton Lake Refuge wetlands. To fully understand 

what was causing this decline, the Service met with 

consultants from Greenbrier Wetland Service, recognized experts in the field of wetland ecology, on 

April 28 and July 29, 2009, to develop a hydrogeomorphic method (HGM) assessment of Benton Lake. 

They worked with Service staff to understand what 

changes had occurred in the Benton Lake wetlands over time and how this might relate to the 

observed declines in productivity, increases in invasive species, and increasing selenium contamination 

(Heitmeyer et al. 2009). These findings and other 

information were used to analyze the management 

alternatives and to select a proposed action alternative for the refuge.

After choosing a proposed action alternative at 

a meeting in February 2010, refuge staff began another scoping effort to share the results with the 

public in late 2010 and early 2011. Refuge staff focused on groups and individuals who had expressed 

interest or concern about Benton Lake during the 

first scoping effort. They organized and led presentations for local interest groups (Russell County 

Sportsmen’s Association, Upper Missouri Breaks 

Audubon, Sun River Watershed Group), MFWP, 

congressional representatives, and the public. Many 

people attended the meetings and provided comments that the Service recorded. Additional scoping 

meetings were then held in April 2012. Comments 

collected from all of the scoping meetings were considered by the planning team in preparation of the 

draft CCP and EA. An additional meeting was held 

in October 2012 to discuss the structured decision-
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 19

making process that was applied to alternative development.

The public commented on the draft CCP and EA 

during a review period. The Service recorded all 

comments, oral and written. The planning team then 

reviewed them. Some modifications were made to 

this final CCP based on the public review. Appendix 

D has more detail about the Service’s involvement 

with the public, including responses to substantive 

public comments on the draft CCP and EA.

State Coordination

At the start of the planning process, April 2008, the 

Regional Director (Region 6 of the Service) sent 

a letter to MFWP, inviting them to take part in 

the planning process. MFWP did not designate a 

representative to take part on the planning team, 

however, several MFWP staff members have been 

involved in the planning process to date. Service 

staff met periodically with MFWP local, regional, 

and headquarters staff to discuss various planning 

issues and to conduct an onsite tour of the Benton 

Lake Refuge. In June 2011, MFWP staff members 

took part in a workshop to discuss water management options at Benton Lake Refuge. In October 

2012, they also took park in a workshop to apply the 

structured decisionmaking process in making recommendations for future management direction of the 

refuge.

In MFWP Region 2, engagement with State 

employees began during the initial planning process with attendance at open houses and requests 

to address particular issues including the River to 

Lakes Initiative, expanding conservation protection 

around the Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, and 

enhancement of elk hunting at the refuge. Due to an 

administrative reorganization of the refuge complex 

in 2011, issues raised by MFWP about the Lost Trail 

Refuge will be incorporated in an amendment to that 

unit’s CCP.

At the start of the planning process, the offices of 

each of the three State Congressmen (then Senator 

John Tester, Senator Max Baucus, and Representative Dennis Rehburg) were sent letters telling them 

about the planning process and inviting them to 

comment on the plan. The refuge complex manager 

met with each local office representative informing 

them of the planning process and opportunity to 

comment. Seven other Montana State senators and 

representatives and Governor Brian Schweitzer 

were sent similar letters.

The State participated in the public review of 

the draft plan. Numerous changes were made to the 

final CCP based on their comments.

Tribal Coordination

Early in the planning process, on April 2008, the Regional Director (Region 6 of the Service) sent a letter to tribes identified as possibly having a cultural 

and historical connection to the area in which the 

refuge complex is located. Those contacted were the 

Confederated Salish Kootenai, Blood, Fort Belknap 

Assiniboine and Gros Ventre, Blackfeet, and Peigan 

tribal councils. The tribal councils did not submit 

responses to the letter. Nevertheless, they were 

provided subsequent opportunities to comment.

During the release of the draft CCP and EA for 

public review, the Service made additional contacts 

with the identified tribes. 

Wilson’s Phalarope

USFWS

CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area.

©Dave Hanna

The refuge complex consists of 163,304 acres of lands 

and waters encompassing the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge, Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area, Rocky 

Mountain Front Conservation Area, Swan River 

National Wildlife Refuge, and Swan Valley Conservation Area. 

The Service is responsible for the protection of 

7,098 acres of wetland easements, 4,294 acres of 

grassland easements, 628 acres of Farmer’s Home 

Administration conservation easements, 120,838 

acres of conservation easements, 16,617 acres of 

waterfowl production areas (16,337 fee title and 280 

leased from the State), and 14,028 acres of refuge 

lands.

The refuge complex spreads across a 12-county 

area in northwestern Montana: Cascade, Chouteau, 

Glacier, Hill, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Missoula, 

Lake, Pondera, Powell, Teton, and Toole. The refuge 

complex headquarters is located at the Benton Lake 

Refuge, 12 miles north of Great Falls.

2.1 Establishment, 

Acquisition, and 

Management History

The following section describes the establishment, 

acquisition, and management history of the national 

wildlife refuges, wetland management district, and 

conservation areas within the refuge complex. Table 

2 summarizes the land acquisition history for the 

refuge complex.
22 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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

Complex unit County Date acquired 

or established

Acres Means of 

acquisition

Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge

Cascade, Chouteau, Teton 1929 12,234.92 Primary withdrawal

1958–62 147.64 Fee title

1958–62 76.88 Right-of-way easement

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District

Cascade, Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Lewis and Clark, 

Liberty, Pondera, Powell, 

Teton, Toole

1975 16,337 Fee title

280 State lease land

7,098 Wetland easement

4,294 Grassland easement

628 Farmers Home Administration 

easement

Blackfoot Valley 

Conservation Area

Lewis and Clark, Missoula, 

Powell

1994 23,845 Migratory Bird Conservation 

Funds

19,361 Land Water Conservation Funds

311 Donation

474 North American Wetlands Conservation Act grant

Rocky Mountain 

Front Conservation 

Area

Teton, Lewis and Clark 2005 31,479 Migratory Bird Conservation 

Funds

45,368 Land Water Conservation Funds Pondera

Swan River National 

Wildlife Refuge

Lake 1973 1,568.81 Fee title

Swan Valley 

Conservation Area

Lake, Missoula 2011 0 None to date

Total 12 counties 1929–present 163,304.25 Various

Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge

Originally owned and managed by the Bureau of 

Reclamation as part of the Sun River Reclamation 

Project, the Benton Lake Refuge (figure 5) was 

withdrawn from the public domain and became part 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System by Executive order of President Herbert Hoover in 1929. The 

original area of the refuge was 12,235 acres, of which 

about 3,000 was flooded wetland in 1928 (Great Falls 

Tribune 1929a).

The refuge was not staffed, with infrequent visits 

from refuge managers at the National Bison Range, 

until 1961, when local support from the Cascade 

County Wildlife Association prompted a major effort to increase the water supply and management 

capabilities of the refuge. A pump station, a pipeline, 

and water control structures were constructed from 

1958–1962 to bring irrigation return water from 

Muddy Creek, about 15 miles to the west, to the 

Benton Lake Refuge. Acquisition of the pumping 

station near Power, Montana, brought the refuge 

to its current fee-title acreage of 12,383 acres. In 

addition, 76.88 acres of right-of-way easement were 

bought to accommodate the pipeline.

In 1962, the first water was pumped from Muddy 

Creek and managed by the new, permanent staff 

on the refuge. The historical Benton Lake bed was 

divided into six wetland management units (Unit 4 

was later subdivided into three subunits) by dikes, 

ditches, and water control structures to facilitate the 

management of water.

Water management at Benton Lake Refuge, 

since the Muddy Creek pumping system was developed, has typically sought to consistently flood some 

wetland pools each year to provide breeding and migration habitat for waterfowl. In the uplands, management of the early 1960s included the breaking of 

more than 600 acres of native prairie for agricultural 

production, the planting of many shelterbelts, and a 

reduction in haying and grazing activities that had 

dominated the refuge’s first 30 years.
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 23Figure 5. Map of Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.
24 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District

The district, established in 1975, is spread over a 

10-county area consisting of Cascade, Chouteau, 

Glacier, Hill, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Pondera, 

Powell, Teton, and Toole in north-central Montana 

(figures 6 and 7). The district also manages conservation easement programs in Missoula and Lake 

Counties. There are several types of Refuge System 

lands within the wetland management district:

■ waterfowl production areas, which are acquired 

in fee title

■ perpetual wetland easements, which protect privately owned wetlands from being drained, filled, 

or leveled, while the landowner keeps all other 

rights

■ perpetual grassland easements, which protect 

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

other rights

■ perpetual Farmers Home Administration conservation easements, which help farmers reduce 

their debt load on farmland and protect wetlands 

and grasslands

■ perpetual conservation easements, which primarily protect wetland and grassland habitats and 

prevent property from being subdivided for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes

■ a grassland and wetland parcel leased from the 

State and managed similarly as a waterfowl production fee-title unit

Waterfowl production areas and wetland and grassland easements are bought from, or donated by, willing sellers through the Small Wetlands Acquisition 

Program authorized by the U.S. Congress in 1958 

as an amendment to the Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934. This program 

is funded by the sale of Federal Duck Stamps and 

loans against future duck stamp sales. The purpose of this important program is to make sure the 

long-term protection of breeding habitat, primarily 

within the PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region of the 

United States, for waterfowl and other migratory 

bird species.

The Service owns waterfowl production areas 

in fee title and manages them to provide breeding 

waterfowl with quality wetlands for courtship and 

brood rearing, as well as suitable grasslands for 

nesting. Habitats are managed using techniques 

such as prescribed grazing and fire, haying, and the 

farming and reseeding of former croplands to herbaceous cover. Most of the wetlands on waterfowl 

production areas within the refuge complex are subject to natural flooding and drying cycles and are not 

intensively managed or manipulated. These areas 

are open to migratory gamebird hunting, upland 

gamebird hunting, big game hunting, fishing, and 

trapping according to State seasons. Hunting opportunities attract people from across the United States 

and Canada. The Sands WPA and the H2–O WPA 

are closed to hunting in accordance with property 

deed restrictions.

Wetland easements are perpetual and prohibit 

the filling, leveling, draining, and burning of wetlands under easement. Wetland easements are real 

property interests that the Service buys from willing landowners and are permanent fixtures to land 

titles. The land remains in private ownership, and 

the landowner decides on public access. Since 1958 

when the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program began, the Service has acquired a perpetual, real property interest in more than 2 million wetland acres 

for waterfowl production in the Great Plains States, 

which include Montana. The district currently manages 7,098 acres of perpetual wetland easements.

Conversion of grassland to cropland has generated a need for the protection of upland habitat next 

to wetlands. The loss of upland nesting cover has 

reduced the value and productivity of wetlands for 

nesting waterfowl and their broods, other migratory 

birds, and other wildlife. Grassland easements, like 

wetland easements, are perpetual and protect both 

existing and restored habitat. The purposes of the 

perpetual, grassland easement program are (1) to 

improve and protect the water quality of wetlands; 

(2) support upland nesting habitat for ground-nesting birds; (3) protect highly erodible soils; and (4) 

provide an alternative to buying uplands in fee title, 

leaving land in private ownership. Grassland easements are real property interests that the Service 

buys from willing landowners to ward against a loss 

of grassland cover to cropland conversion and development. Grassland easements also protect nesting 

birds by prohibiting haying or mowing until after 

July 15. Typically, haying and mowing is only conducted on tame grasslands. Grazing is not prohibited 

or regulated under the grassland easement. Money 

for grassland easements comes primarily from the 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act and North American Wetland Conservation Act 

grants. The district currently manages 4,294 acres of 

perpetual grassland easements.

Farmers Home Administration conservation 

easements were developed by the U.S. Congress un-
Chapter 2—The Refuge Complex 25

Figure 6. Map of easements and waterfowl production areas in the Benton Lake Wetland Management District (north), Montana.
26 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Figure 7. Map of easements and waterfowl production areas in the Benton Lake Wetland Management District (south), Montana.
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 27

der the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 

Act of 1985 to establish easements for conservation, 

recreation, and wildlife purposes on properties that 

were foreclosed on by the Federal Government (inventory properties). The Service was designated as 

the easement manager on those easements worthy 

of inclusion into the Refuge System. The district 

currently manages 628 acres of perpetual Farmers 

Home Administration conservation easements.

As of 2012, the district has 23 waterfowl production areas totaling 16,617 acres (16,337 acres in fee 

title and 280 acres leased from the State), which are 

described in table 3.

More wetland and grassland easements may be 

acquired based on the availability of money from the 

North American Wetland Conservation Act grants, 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, and the 

availability of willing landowners.

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

Waterfowl 

production 

area

Purchase year Location Total 

size 

(acres)

Habitat

Tame 

grassland 

(acres)

Native 

grassland 

(acres)

Wetland 

(acres)

Arod Lakes 1992 8.5 miles southwest of Brady 797 628 0 169

Big Sag 1980 3 miles northeast of Highwood 350 181 0 169

Blackfoot 1978, 1988, 

2004, 2010

7 miles southeast of Ovando 1,713 0 1,548 165

Blackhurst 1979 4 miles north of Ferdig 320 277 0 43

Brown 1980 3.5 northeast of Sunburst 260 215 0 45

Brumwell 1976 4 miles north of Power 252 73 0 179

Cemetary 1982 3 miles east of Sunburst 109 37 0 72

Danbrook 1979 6 miles east of Sweetgrass 327 220 0 107

Dunk 1980 5 miles northeast of Sunburst 80 52 0 28

Ehli 1978 8 miles east of Sweetgrass 475 171 154 150

Furnell 1976 2.5 miles south of Whitlash 1,995 0 1,871 124

H2–O Donated in 2000 3 miles northwest of Helmville 1,803 863 705 235

Hartelius 1979 5 miles north of Vaughn 307 173 0 134

Hingham Lake Leased from 

the State

2 miles northeast of Rudyard 280 0 167 113

Jarina 1986 12.5 miles west of Dupuyer 640 0 555 85

Kingsbury Lake 1980 4 miles southwest of Geraldine 3,734 248 2,054 1,432

Kleinschmidt Lake 1992 6 miles southeast of Ovando 1,120 0 1,062 58

Long Lake 1980 3.5 miles northeast of Sunburst 646 349 0 297

Peterson 1977 10 miles northeast of Santa Rita 94 51 15 28

Sands Donated in 1983 3 miles west of Havre 379 84 129 166

Savik 1982 1.5 miles southwest of Bynum 397 0 143 254

Schrammeck Lake 1980 8 miles southeast of Cascade 420 122 0 298

Upsata Lake 2012 5 miles northwest of Ovando 119 0 61 58

aH ystack Butte in the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area.

inean T © Jeff V
28 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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

Blackfoot Valley Conservation 

Area

The Blackfoot Valley CA (figure 8)—originally the 

Blackfoot Valley Wildlife Management Area—was 

established on February 3, 1997, under the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 

742a–j) and Emergency Wetlands Resources Act 

of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583). The 

Blackfoot Valley CA overlaps the district in Powell 

County. By establishing the conservation area, the 

Service expanded its authorization to protect habitat 

in Powell County beyond the district’s Small Wetlands Acquisition Program to include the authority 

to buy easements with LWCF money within the 

conservation area boundary. This was important 

because some high-priority conservation areas that 

could not qualify under the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program were eligible for easements under the 

LWCF.

From 2009 to 2010, efforts were made to expand 

the project area for LWCF acquisition authority 

after overwhelming support for the expansion was 

received during CCP scoping meetings. Refuge staff 

completed a preliminary project proposal in November 2009, which was approved on April 8, 2010. 

Detailed planning began in May 2010, including a 

public scoping meeting in Ovando, Montana, on May 

19, 2010. A draft EA and land protection plan was 

released for a 30-day public review from July 25 

to August 25, 2010. The expansion of the existing 

conservation area from 23,500 acres to 103,500 acres 

and the subsequent LWCF acquisition authority was 

authorized, and the name of the project area was 

changed from Blackfoot Valley Wildlife Management Area to Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area 

on January 5, 2011. This expanded the project area 

from Powell County to include parts of Missoula and 

Lewis and Clark Counties.

The project area encompasses an 824,024-acre 

ecosystem that includes parts of Missoula, Powell, 

and Lewis and Clark Counties. Parts of these counties also make up the Blackfoot River watershed in 

western Montana and include the Ovando Valley and 

the Helmville Valley. The watershed is bordered on 

the east by the Continental Divide, on the south by 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 29

the Garnet Range, on the north by the Bob Marshall 

Wilderness Complex, and on the west by the Rattlesnake Wilderness. The center of the project area lies 

about 55 miles east of Missoula.

Because the project area contains acquisition 

authority for both the Small Wetlands Acquisition 

Program and the LWCF, these options allow for 

purchases of fee-title waterfowl production areas 

and grassland, wetland, and conservation easements. 

Each individual easement has a variety of rights 

secured in the purchase, including the protection of 

grasslands from being plowed under; the draining, 

burning, or filling of wetlands; and the protection 

of habitats from being subdivided and developed. 

This integration of acquisition authorities provides 

a variety of choices for conservation in the Blackfoot 

Valley.

The Blackfoot, Kleinschmidt Lake, and H2–O 

WPAs form the anchor of the conservation area. 

The conservation easement program and waterfowl 

production areas located within the project area are 

administratively managed by the refuge complex 

office and from the maintenance facilities located on 

the H2–O WPA in Helmville by a permanent fulltime position cofunded by the refuge complex and 

the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.

To date, 43,991 acres of wetland, grassland, and 

conservation easements have been obtained within 

the project area. The LWCF accounts for 19,361 

acres of conservation easements and the remaining 

acreage includes 23,845 acres obtained with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds, 474 acres with North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act money, and 

311 acres from donation.

The Blackfoot Valley CA is part of a conservation 

strategy to protect one of the last undeveloped, lowelevation river valley ecosystems in western Montana. It complements other components of a broad 

partnership known as the Blackfoot Challenge. 

These efforts include the Service’s Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program work with private landowners 

to restore and enhance habitat on private lands and 

coordinated management activities on public lands 

throughout the entire Blackfoot Valley.

Rocky Mountain Front 

Conservation Area

The Rocky Mountain Front CA (figure 9) was established on August 10, 2005, under the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a–j) for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources. 

The conservation area is nested within the district 

and includes parts of Lewis and Clark, Teton, and 

Pondera Counties. As with the Blackfoot Valley CA, 

the project area contains acquisition authority for 

both the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program and 

the LWCF. These options allow for purchases of 

grassland, wetland, and conservation easements. 

Each individual purchase has a variety of rights 

secured, including the protection of grasslands from 

being plowed under; the draining, burning, or filling 

of wetlands; and the protection of habitats from being subdivided and developed. This integration of 

acquisition authorities provides a variety of choices 

for conservation along the Front.

From 2009 to 2010, efforts were made to expand 

the conservation area for LWCF acquisition authority after overwhelming support for the expansion 

was received during CCP scoping meetings. Refuge 

staff completed a preliminary project proposal in 

November 2009, which was approved on April 8, 

2010. Detailed planning began in May 2010, including 

a public scoping meeting in Choteau, Montana, on 

May 17, 2010. A draft EA and land protection plan 

was released for a 30-day public review from July 

25 to August 25, 2010. The expansion of the existing conservation area from 170,000 acres to 295,000 

acres and the subsequent LWCF acquisition authority was authorized on January 5, 2011.

The expanded project area skirts along the eastern edge of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem 

and is centered 65 miles northwest of Great Falls, 

Montana. Lying in the shadow of the rugged Continental Divide, the Bob Marshall Wilderness and 

Lewis and Clark National Forest mark its western 

boundary. The 1.5 million-acre Blackfeet Indian Reservation borders the project area on the north. The 

eastern boundary generally follows Highways 89 

and 287 and is marked by a distribution of fescue 

grasslands. The southern boundary falls approximately along the watershed of the south fork of the 

Dearborn River.

To date, a total of 76,847 acres have been protected by the Service through conservation easements. The Service bought 31,479 acres with 

Migratory Bird Conservation Funds and 45,368 

acres with the LWCF. Current activities include 

cooperation and partnerships with a variety of nongovernmental organizations to significantly leverage 

available Federal money to complete approved acquisitions within the project area. The conservation 

easement program is administratively managed by 

two permanent full-time positions located at the refuge complex headquarters facilities north of Great 

Falls.

The Rocky Mountain Front CA has been a successful model for partnerships with, and for connecting to lands already owned by, the State of Montana, 

TNC, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Forest Service, the Montana Land Reliance, the 
30 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Figure 9. Map of the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area, Montana.
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 31

Boone and Crockett Club, and the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). In addition, local ranchers, 

business owners, and representatives of local governments have formed a landowner advisory council 

to find options and strategies for supporting ranching and rural lifestyles in the area. Conservation 

easements are a tool that they strongly support to 

conserve the ranching lifestyle along the Front.

Swan River National Wildlife 

Refuge

The Swan River Refuge is located in northwest 

Montana (figure 10), 38 miles southeast of the town 

of Creston, Montana, in the Swan Valley. The refuge 

was established on May 14, 1973, at the request of 

Montana Senator Lee Metcalf, who often hunted 

the area and who wanted to see it preserved. The 

refuge was established under the authority of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The 1,568.81-acre 

refuge lies within the flood plain of the Swan River 

above Swan Lake and between the Swan Mountain 

Range to the east and the Mission Mountain Range 

to the west. The Swan River Valley was formed 

when glacial water poured down the steep slopes of 

the Mission Range into Flathead Lake. The valley 

floor is generally flat, but rises steeply to adjacent 

forested mountain sides. Approximately 80 percent 

of the refuge lies within this valley flood plain. Deciduous and coniferous forests compose the remaining 20 percent. Swan River, which once meandered 

through the flood plain, has been forced to the west 

side of the refuge by past earthquakes and deposits 

of silt. These geologic events have created a series of 

oxbow sloughs within the refuge flood plain.

The refuge’s objectives include providing waterfowl habitat and production and habitat for other 

migratory birds. It also provides nesting for bald 

eagles and a variety of other avian species. In addition, deer, elk, moose, beaver, otter, bobcat, black 

bear, and threatened species including grizzly bear, 

bull trout, and water howellia are known to inhabit 

the area. There are no significant human developments here aside from a small parking area from 

which one can access a kiosk and an overlook with 

interpretive panels.

When the refuge was under private ownership, 

it served as a cattle operation and, later, as a fur 

farm. Old ditches and dikes constructed during its 

private ownership have altered the hydrology of 

flooding events across the refuge. The degree of 

this alteration has yet to be decided but is being 

explored through new light detection and ranging 

(LIDAR) technology. Haying and grazing for habitat management have not been conducted in recent 

years. Finding willing cooperators is hampered by 

the distances farmers and ranchers need to travel 

to get to the refuge. Prescribed fire is still used as 

an alternate habitat management tool, however, 

concerns about the effects of burning on bull trout 

habitat, smoke management, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service inholding suggest the need for interagency planning, which 

may result in more challenging burns in the future.

Swan Valley Conservation Area

The Swan Valley is located on the western edge of 

the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem, approximately 30 miles southeast of Kalispell, Montana. The 

Bob Marshall Wilderness and Glacier National Park 

mark the eastern boundary, the Mission Mountains 

Wilderness and Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

tribal lands mark the western boundary, and the 

Blackfoot Valley flanks the southern side of the watershed. The project area encompasses an 187,400-

acre landscape on the valley floor of the 469,000-acre 

Swan River watershed. The watershed contains 

about 332,000 acres in protected public ownership.

The Swan Valley CA (figure 11) was designated 

to help protect one of the last undeveloped, lowelevation coniferous forest ecosystems in western 

Montana. The Swan Valley is situated between the 

roadless areas of the Glacier National Park–Bob 

Marshall Wilderness Complex, the Mission Mountains Wilderness, and the Selway–Bitterroot Wilderness to the southwest. As such, it provides an 

avenue of connectivity between the Canadian Rockies and the central Rockies of Idaho and Wyoming.

From 2009 to 10, efforts were made to establish 

the conservation area after support for the establishment was received during CCP scoping meetings. Refuge staff completed a Preliminary Project 

Proposal in November 2009, which was approved on 

April 8, 2010. Detailed planning began in May 2010, 

including two public scoping meetings in Condon, 

Montana, on May 18 and June 2, 2010. A draft EA 

and land protection plan were released for a 30-day 

public review from July 26 to August 26, 2010. A 

finding of no significant impact was signed by the 

Service’s Regional Director (Region 6) on September 24, 2010. The establishment of the conservation area and LWCF acquisition authority for up to 

10,000 acres of conservation easements and up to 

1,000 acres in fee title immediately next to the Swan 

River Refuge was authorized on May 18, 2011.

Due to its recent establishment, no easements 

or fee-title lands have yet been purchased within 

the Swan Valley CA. The conservation easement 

program is administratively managed by the refuge 

complex headquarters near Great Falls. If money 
32 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Figure 10. Map of Swan River National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 33

Figure 11. Map of the Swan Valley Conservation Area, Montana.
34 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

becomes available, the refuge complex will consider 

placing a full-time, permanent position within the 

valley to manage and administer the CA.

2.2 Purposes of the 

Refuge Complex Units

Every national wildlife refuge, wetland management 

district, and conservation area has a purpose for 

which it was established. This purpose is the foundation on which to build all refuge, district, and conservation area programs—from biology and public use 

to maintenance and facilities. No action undertaken 

by the Service or the public may conflict with this 

purpose. The refuge, district, and conservation area 

purposes are found in the legislative acts or Executive actions that provide the authorities to either 

transfer or acquire a piece of land for one of these 

units. Over time, an individual refuge or district may 

contain lands that have been acquired under various transfer and acquisition authorities, giving the 

unit more than one purpose. The goals, objectives, 

and strategies proposed in this CCP (chapter 4) are 

intended to support the purposes for which each refuge, district, and conservation area was established.

Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge

The purposes of the Benton Lake Refuge are:

■ As a refuge and breeding ground for birds (Executive Order 5228, dated November 21, 1929).

■ For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory birds 

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act).

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District

The purposes of the district are:

■ As “Waterfowl Production Areas subject to all 

of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] except the inviolate sanctuary 

provisions” (Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp).

■ For “any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).

■ For “conservation purposes” (Consolidated Farm 

and Rural Development Act).

Blackfoot Valley Conservation 

Area

The purposes of the Blackfoot Valley CA are:

■ For “conservation of the wetlands of the Nation 

to support the public benefits they provide and to 

help fulfill international obligations contained in 

various migratory bird treaties and conventions” 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986).

■ For “the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956).

Rocky Mountain Front 

Conservation Area

The purpose of the Rocky Mountain Front CA is:

■ For “the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956).

Swan River National Wildlife 

Refuge

The purpose of the Swan River Refuge is:

■ For “use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory birds” 

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act).

Swan Valley Conservation Area

The purpose of the Swan Valley CA is:

■ For “the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956).
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 35

2.3 Vision for the 

Refuge Complex

A vision is a concept, including desired conditions for 

the future, which describes the essence of what the 

Service is trying to accomplish. The following vision 

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

the life of this CCP and beyond.

The spirit of the American West 

resonates on both sides of the 

Continental Divide in the prairies, 

mountains, rivers, and wetlands of the 

Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. 

Here, migratory birds fill the sky, 

bull trout thrive, and grizzlies and wolves 

still roam. Visitors experience many of 

the same landscapes that Lewis and Clark 

explored on their journey through the 

“Crown of the Continent.” 

Conservation efforts in the 

refuge complex protect 

intact landscapes, manage 

productive habitats, and offer people 

opportunities to connect with wildlife 

in solitude under Montana’s big sky. 

These efforts rely on innovative 

public and private partnerships, 

are supported by the region’s people, 

and harmonize with the 

historic rural economy.

2.4 Goals for the 

Refuge Complex

The Service developed a set of goals for the refuge 

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

broad statement of desired future conditions that 

conveys a purpose, but does not define measurable 

units. The goals direct efforts toward achieving the 

vision and purposes of the refuge complex and outline approaches for managing refuge resources. The 

Service established seven goals for the entire refuge 

complex.

Landscape Conservation Goal

Actively pursue and continue to foster relationships 

within the Service, other agencies, organizations, 

and private partners to protect, preserve, manage, 

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

complex.

Habitat Goal

Actively conserve, restore, and manage upland and 

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

management strategies that perpetuate the integrity of ecological communities.

Wildlife Goal

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

wildlife of the northern prairies and intermountain 

valleys of northern Montana.

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area

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

Cultural Resources Goal

Identify and evaluate the cultural resources of the 

refuge complex and protect those that are found to 

be significant.

Visitor Services Goal

Provide opportunities for visitors of all abilities to 

enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation on Serviceowned lands and increase knowledge and appreciation for the refuge complex’s ecological communities 

and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Administration Goal

Provide facilities, strategically allocate staff, and 

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

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

Visitor And Employee Safety 

And Resource Protection Goal

Provide for the safety, security, and protection of 

visitors, employees, natural and cultural resources, 

and facilities throughout the refuge complex.

2.5 Special Values

Early in the planning process, the planning team and 

public identified the outstanding qualities, or special 

values, of the refuge complex. These special values 

are characteristics and features that make it special 

and valuable for wildlife. Identifying the special values of the refuge complex emphasizes its worth and 

makes sure that it is conserved, protected, and enhanced through the planning process. These special 

values can be unique biological resources, as well as 

something as simple as a quiet place to see a variety 

of birds and to enjoy nature.

Part Of A National System

The refuge complex is part of a national system of 

lands. In the 1920s, public agencies and private organizations attempted to elevate the public’s awareness of wetland loss and to take positive steps to 

slow it. The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 

1929 authorized the Federal Government to acquire 

wetlands and associated uplands to conserve them 

as migratory bird habitat and thus to create a chain 

of stepping stones along major migration routes. The 

law also established a commission of Federal and 

State officials to evaluate lands for possible acquisition, and, in so doing, it established the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (Adair 2003).

Intact Landscapes

Some areas have the same composition of habitat 

and wildlife as they did 100 years ago. Refuge complex lands and waters are important corridors for 

birds, fish, and other wildlife.

Conservation Easements

The refuge complex’s conservation easement programs protect existing native prairie areas and 

wetlands in perpetuity through the acquisition of 

grassland, wetland, and conservation easements 

on private lands. The Service, with willing private 

landowners, has protected more than 132,858 acres 

of grassland and wetland habitats throughout the 

refuge complex.

Intact Native Prairie

Large, intact native prairie communities can still 

be found throughout the refuge complex. Since approximately 50 percent of native grasslands have 

been lost in the PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region 

of Montana, the preservation of native prairie is 

extremely important (Ducks Unlimited 2003). Visitors to the refuge complex can experience the vastness and “big sky” of relatively undisturbed prairie 

landscapes. Native prairie areas are important to 

grassland-dependent species such as northern pintail, burrowing owl, chestnut-collared longspur, and 

Sprague’s pipit as well as other species of concern. 

These wildlife species favor large expanses of native 

prairie and are sensitive to its development and conversion to agricultural uses. 

Species Diversity

There is a high level of species diversity across the 

refuge complex, including migratory waterfowl, 

grassland birds, native trout, and “charismatic 

megafauna”’ such as elk, gray wolf, and grizzly bear.
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 37

Diversity Of Water Features

A variety of waterbodies occurs within the refuge 

complex boundaries, including depressional wetlands, semipermanent wetlands, riparian corridors, 

and wild rivers. These wetland habitats serve many 

ecological functions as well as agricultural purposes.

Rare Species

Refuge complex lands harbor Federal and State species of concern. Threatened and endangered species 

include bull trout, grizzly bear, gray wolf, Canada 

lynx, and water howellia.

Migratory Birds

The lands of the refuge complex were established to 

protect and provide habitat for migratory birds that 

cross State lines and international borders, which 

are, by law, Federal trust responsibilities.

The refuge complex is of great value to waterfowl and shorebirds, as well as to other migrating, 

water-dependent bird species, because of the wide 

range of wetland and upland habitats that provide 

for the diverse life cycle needs of these species. Furthermore, the refuge complex has large, intact areas 

of native prairie that provide habitat for grassland 

birds, which is one of the most imperiled groups of 

migratory birds nationwide. In addition, the refuge 

complex serves as a valuable research site for the 

study of migratory birds, plant communities, and 

grassland and wetland management.

Cultural History

The refuge complex has a rich cultural history of Native American inhabitants, explorers, frontiersmen, 

outlaws, and early settlers. Evidence of early human 

occupation in the State of Montana dates back 11,000 

years (Brumley 2006).

The Lewis and Clark expedition traveled extensively in the refuge complex on the Missouri River 

and in parts of the district and the Blackfoot Valley, 

Swan Valley, and Rocky Mountain Front CAs.

Public Use

The refuge complex is valued by hunters for its variety of hunting opportunities and by other visitors 

for its opportunities to view and photograph wildlife 

and their habitats.

The refuge complex attracts many visitors and 

tourist dollars to the communities surrounding the 

refuges and waterfowl production areas.

Rural Economies

The Service works closely with agricultural landowners in the surrounding communities and has an 

interest in preserving these working landscapes.

2.6 Planning Issues for Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex

Several key issues were identified following the 

analysis of comments collected from refuge complex staff and the public and through a review of the 

requirements of the Improvement Act and NEPA. 

Eight public meetings, news releases in the local 

and regional press, presentations to local agencies 

and organizations, an announcement in the Federal 

Register, and planning updates were used to solicit 

public input on which issues the CCP should address. Substantive comments (those that could be 

addressed within the authority and management capabilities of the Service) were considered during the 

formulation of the alternatives for future management. Key issues pertaining to the refuge complex 

are summarized below.

Climate Change

Climate change is anticipated, but there are many 

unknowns. The Service does not fully understand 

the effects that climate change will have on precipitation or temperatures, or the corresponding effects 

to habitat and wildlife species. The refuge complex’s 

unique attributes—intact landscapes and diversity 

in terms of habitat and elevation gradient changes—

put the refuge complex in a unique situation. The intact landscapes with functioning ecological processes 

are characterized by ecosystem resiliency and resistance and may be better suited for adapting to the 

extreme effects predicted by global climate change. 

For example, these relatively intact landscapes (the 

Rocky Mountain Front, Swan Valley, and Blackfoot 

Valley CAs) provide corridors for wide-roaming species and gradients for elevation migrations.

In areas of the refuge complex that are not as 

intact, such as the landscape around Benton Lake 

Refuge, managing to maximize resiliency and long-
38 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

term sustainability will become more critical with 

climate change.

Agricultural Conversion

Native prairies are being lost to agricultural tilling 

and plowing. These habitats are especially important for nesting migratory birds, including many 

shorebirds, waterfowl, and grassland bird species. 

Current and evolving Farm Bill Policy continues to 

make it profitable to convert native prairie into tillable land. This affects the Service’s ability to protect 

these landscapes through easement programs.

The geographic area immediately east of the 

Rocky Mountain Front CA has been mostly converted to small grain production. However, within 

the CA, the presence of large cattle ranches, depressed grain prices, frequent high winds, and fragile soils has largely prevented grassland conversion 

in this area. Changes in global commodity prices or 

Federal farm policies, however, could quickly alter 

this situation.

Development

Due to increasing development pressure, many opportunities to protect habitat for wildlife may be 

permanently lost as these areas are used for residential, commercial, agricultural, and other purposes. 

Increased habitat fragmentation due to housing 

and associated road development is a threat to the 

refuge complex. The latest published statistics by 

the U.S. Census Bureau report that the State of 

Montana experienced a 9.7-percent increase in population from 2000 to 2010. Population change within 

the refuge complex varied, with Lake, Liberty, Missoula, and Lewis and Clark County experiencing 

the largest population growth rates of 5–15 percent. 

Cascade, Glacier, Pondera, and Toole Counties experienced moderate growth rates of 0–5 percent within 

the same period (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b).

In the Blackfoot and Swan Valley CAs, many new 

homes and resorts are “view properties” situated 

in low-elevation and midelevation forests, native 

grassland–sagebrush communities, and riparian habitats along major rivers such as the Blackfoot and 

Swan Rivers and their associated tributary streams. 

Along the Rocky Mountain Front, the demand for 

recreational property and the development of vacation home “ranchettes” has begun to spill over from 

western Montana and constitutes the single greatest 

threat to this ecosystem. In particular, the canyon 

mouths of the Dearborn, Sun, and Teton Rivers have 

become targets for several small recreational subdivisions.

Extractive industries such as coal mining and 

wind, oil, and gas development pose immediate 

threats to portions of the complex. In most instances, the Service does not own the subsurface 

mineral rights of the units in the refuge complex. In 

the district, renewed oil and gas exploration, in combination with new interests in wind development, 

has heightened the threat of accelerated fragmentation.

Invasive Plants, Nonnative 

Plants, and Noxious Weeds

The management of invasive plants, nonnative plants, and noxious weeds has been an issue 

throughout the refuge complex for many years.

Priority noxious weeds include spotted knapweed, leafy spurge, yellow and Dalmatian toadflax, common tansy, and tansy ragwort. Other 

nonnative grasses such as crested wheatgrass, reed 

canarygrass, Garrison creeping foxtail, Kentucky 

bluegrass, Japanese brome, and cheatgrass are 

also expanding rapidly on refuge lands. Nonnative 

grasses, forbs, and woody species are of concern 

because they can diminish the quality and suitability 

of habitat and reduce its potential to support many 

native wildlife species. Nonnative grasses often develop into a monoculture. Invasive species spread 

easily, replace native habitat, reduce diversity, and 

take a lot of time and money to control.

A large percentage of the Service’s fee-title lands 

is comprised of nonnative grasses that should be 

replanted or restored to native species to provide 

optimal habitat conditions for wildlife. Shelterbelts 

of nonnative tree and shrub species were planted in 

Benton Lake Refuge and in several waterfowl production areas throughout the district where woody 

vegetation did not naturally occur. Whether or not 

these shelterbelts should be removed or supported 

needs to be evaluated.

The Blackfoot Valley has experienced the spread 

of nonnative plant species due to development and 

land use conversion. The Rocky Mountain Front 

has largely avoided the explosive spread of noxious 

weeds that has plagued much of western Montana 

over the past few decades. However, spotted knapweed and leafy spurge infestations have become 

established in the lower reaches of several riparian 

corridors. With plentiful sources in the region and 

limited government or private resources for control, 

the spread of noxious weeds into the area is a serious concern.
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 39

Loss of Ecological Processes

Natural fluctuations in water levels (seasonal flooding and drying), which are integral to a healthy functioning wetland system, have been altered at the 

Swan River Refuge. This is likely having a negative 

effect on health and long-term sustainability of the 

refuge complex’s wetland habitat.

In addition, wetlands on and off of Service lands 

are susceptible to key stressors such as draining, 

sedimentation, alteration, pollution, and invasive 

species. 

The use of fire and grazing to support native 

grasslands has declined. Grazing by cattle and prescribed fire mimic historical disturbance regimes 

once caused by the herbivory of bison and by lightning storms. Cattle grazing is used on approximately 

half of the waterfowl production areas within the 

refuge complex, however, livestock grazing does not 

occur on all units of the refuge complex.

The presence of USDA Forest Service lands 

within the refuge boundary complicates the Service’s ability to conduct prescribed fires at the Swan 

River Refuge. Prescribed fires are critical for management to rejuvenate vegetation as well as to reduce litter and its associated fire hazard. Similarly, 

there is resistance to burning in populated areas due 

to safety concerns.

Water Quality

Elevated levels of selenium and salinity (as measured by high salinity concentrations) are present in 

the refuge complex and pose a threat to water quality. Many seepage areas exist in the refuge complex, 

especially surrounding the Benton Lake Refuge and 

across the district where native grasslands have 

been converted to agriculture. Both selenium and salinity, if their levels are high enough, can negatively 

affect wildlife, particularly their reproduction.

Wildlife Management

The refuge complex provides habitat for several 

wide-ranging carnivores of concern including the 

grizzly bear, Canada lynx, and gray wolf. Supporting 

the large landscapes that these species need is an 

issue for the refuge complex.

Protecting habitat and managing for a wide variety of migratory birds is a priority for the refuge 

complex. Waterfowl and other waterbirds, grassland 

songbirds, and riparian area-dependent birds are 

some of the highest priority groups. Grassland birds 

Sharp-tailed Grouse

© Randy Lakes

have experienced the most severe declines of any 

group of birds across the country.

Several wildlife diseases, such as botulism, West 

Nile virus, and chronic wasting disease, among 

others, are of concern within the refuge complex 

because of how they might affect human health, because there is a history of some disease occurrence 

in the refuge complex, or because new diseases may 

occur in the refuge complex.

Fisheries Management

Bull trout are known to occur within the part of 

the Swan River that flows through the Swan River 

Refuge. Northern pike (a nonnative fish species) 

migrates up Spring Creek and may be negatively 

affecting bull trout and waterfowl on the refuge. 

The refuge is closed to reduce the disturbance to 

nesting migratory birds during the pike spawning 

period, which prevents anglers from removing some 

of these fish.

Visitor Services

Visitor service programs and facilities to support the 

wildlife-dependent uses of hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation are lacking throughout the refuge 

complex.

Some of the public are interested in more hunting opportunities on Service-owned lands. Others 

commented that there were too many hunters on 

some units, which has lowered the quality of their 

hunting experience. At Benton Lake Refuge, excessive vegetation, limited open water, and low-water 

levels were mentioned specifically as lowering the 

quality of hunting. Several comments suggested that 

significant management actions would be needed 

to improve conditions. Opening other parts of the 
40 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

refuge to hunting that are normally closed while 

management actions were implemented on the current hunt units was also suggested.

One request was received from a commercial outfitter to conduct guided hunting on the Swan River 

Refuge. A formal evaluation was conducted, and it 

was found that this is not an appropriate refuge use. 

See chapter 4, “Section 4.6 Appropriateness and 

Compatibility,” for more details. 

Some people have expressed interest in fishing 

Spring Creek during the pike spawning run, but this 

would conflict with the Swan River Refuge closure 

intended to reduce disturbances to nesting migratory birds.

The public enjoys viewing wildlife on the refuges and waterfowl production areas. Opportunities 

throughout the refuge complex to expand the birdwatching experience for a wide variety of species 

has been requested.

The refuge complex is not meeting public demand 

for environmental education and interpretation programs. Expanding and updating these could enhance 

the public’s knowledge of wildlife management issues and encourage support of the refuge complex, 

which would help wildlife populations in the future. 

There is some public confusion about which areas 

are open or closed and which uses are authorized or 

prohibited. Updated brochures, signs, and interpretive panels have been suggested to improve this 

situation.

Black-necked Stilt

© Neal and MJ Mishler

Nonwildlife-Dependent Uses

On the Swan River Refuge, Bog Road was once believed to be county road. This four-wheel drive road 

has a history of being used for motorized recreation. 

The future administration of this road needs to be 

evaluated.

Another concern at the Swan River Refuge is 

noncompliance with a designated no-wake zone 

(boating) on the Swan River. The designation needs 

to be verified and enforcement efforts may need to 

be redirected to increase compliance and reduce 

wildlife disturbance.

Cultural Resources

Many of the cultural resource sites on the refuge 

complex are not adequately identified or protected, 

and it is likely there are many undiscovered sites.

Operations

Money and staff are not sufficient to fulfill the purposes and meet the goals of the refuge complex. The 

number of full-time equivalent positions (FTEs), a 

measure indicating the amount of available workforce, averaged 9.1 FTEs through the 1990s, and 

increased to an average of 10.80 during the last 10 

years. Currently the refuge complex has 9.5 permanent FTEs, and 2 seasonal FTEs as money permits.

The refuge complex has grown from a single refuge with a moderately sized wetland management 

district in 1988, to two refuges, one wetland management district, and three conservation areas. This, 

coupled with the fact that several units are up to 5 

hours away from the refuge complex headquarters, 

makes daily management and operations difficult to 

coordinate.

The refuge complex’s organizational structure 

has also changed. It has come to house the following 

Service programs: Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program, regional invasive species program, zone 

law enforcement program, Refuge Inventory and 

Monitoring program, Montana Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET), and Montana realty 

program. Sharing across programs promotes the 

effective use of facilities and other resources, but it 

also creates administrative challenges.

Refuge complex staff need to identify, describe, 

and set priorities for unfunded needs in order to 

be able to compete effectively for money from the 

Service and from partners and other sources. Using 

creative partnerships and volunteers to supplement 

needs, although helpful, is not a complete, or always 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 41

reliable, solution. Visitor numbers and associated 

demands will increase in coming years. Given more 

resources, the Service could accomplish more of the 

goals and objectives described in this CCP.

Nomenclature

Naming the refuge complex after one refuge is confusing to the public. It was suggested that the Service change the name so that it better captures all of 

the lands of the refuge complex.

The name for Benton Lake Refuge also adds to 

confusion. “Lake” in the name implies a deep, permanent water source. Many visitors comment that 

(1) the refuge is not managed properly because the 

“lake” is dry; or (2) that certain lake-dependent recreational activities should be provided.

2.7 Planning Issues for Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge

In addition to the planning issues identified for the 

refuge complex, several key issues were identified 

specifically for Benton Lake Refuge.

Adjacent Landowners and Land 

Uses

When private landowners keep their fields in grass 

through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), 

it helps to prevent the accumulation of salinity and 

selenium in seepage areas. This help may be lost if 

large areas currently in the CRP are converted to 

crops. It has been suggested by Refuge staff, the 

public, and interest groups that staff should consider 

working more with private landowners, particularly 

those surrounding the refuge, to build partnerships 

that improve water quality and reduce saline seeps.

Loss of Ecological Processes

Natural fluctuations in water levels, like seasonal 

flooding and drying, which is an integral part of a 

healthy, functioning, and self-sustaining wetland system, have been lost at the refuge. The most striking 

manifestations of the loss of fluctuating water levels 

and flooding intervals include: the domination of nonnative species such as Garrison creeping foxtail, the 

spread of monotypic stands of native and nonnative 

species that depend on stable water conditions (for 

example, cattail, alkali bulrush), lack of sediment 

solidification, increasing loss of open-water habitat, 

and the diversity of plant and wildlife species that 

result from dynamic water levels. However, there is 

uncertainty around whether or not dry periods need 

to be as long as occurred naturally or historically to 

restore and support wetland ecological health. 

The functionality and productivity of wetlands 

are also related to the way water moves across the 

wetland and floods the basin. This water movement 

has been severely disrupted at the refuge. Instead 

of shallow sheet flow from Lake Creek across the 

wetland basin, the water is diverted into a distribution canal and flows first into deep ditches along 

the dikes, rather than spreading quickly across the 

basin, resulting in negative effects on sedimentation, 

selenium distribution, microtopography, vegetation, 

and invertebrate and seed availability for wildlife.

Declining Wetland Ecological 

Health

An absence of historical dry periods at the refuge 

to sustain wetland health is a concern. The altered 

source, depth, timing and duration of flooding affects 

contaminant and sediment loading and distribution 

and nutrient cycling. These changes are likely altering the type, distribution and biomass production 

of vegetation and invertebrates, which provide resources (for example, food, breeding habitat) required for wildlife to meet their life cycle needs.

In the years following the initial pump house construction and subsequent flooding of Benton Lake, 

the wetland basin was very productive, with tens of 

thousands of waterfowl, shorebirds and other waterbirds using the refuge. In recent years, however, 

refuge staff and the public have noticed significant 

declines in the number of waterbirds. Current estimates of waterfowl during the migration peak are 

at 10,000–30,000 birds, as compared to that 50,000–

100,000 that was noted in the early years of refuge 

water management. Despite its designation as a 

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network 

Site, the refuge rarely sees peak numbers of more 

than 500 shorebirds, according to refuge staff.

Water Quantity, Delivery, and 

Cost

Water management at the Benton Lake Refuge is 

a key issue for the refuge complex. The refuge’s 

impoundments are intensively managed, with 

supplemental water transported across significant 
42 Draft CCP and EA, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

distances at great financial cost. In recent years, the 

delivery and management of this water has cost as 

much as $135,000 annually. As costs for electricity 

have risen, so, too, have pumping costs. This has 

required reallocating money that would have been 

used for land management.

How best to use the water budget to maximize 

wetland health and migratory bird productivity needs to be addressed. How the refuge’s water 

rights in Muddy Creek may be affected by changes 

in water management also needs to be defined.

Water Quality and Selenium 

Contamination

Selenium concentrations in the water, sediment, and 

biota of portions of the Benton Lake Refuge are currently at levels that can affect the reproduction of 

species that are particularly sensitive to it, such as 

waterfowl species. These levels have been increasing over the last 50 years, and, if they continue to 

increase, selenium could reach levels that cause reproductive failure in waterfowl and other waterbirds 

in some parts of the refuge in as little as 10 years. 

The Sun River Watershed Group has been working to improve water quality in Muddy Creek, particularly by reducing sediment loading into the Sun 

River. They would like the refuge to continue withdrawing water, either through the pump house or a 

siphon, to help reduce flows in Muddy Creek.

Some interest groups identified a need for the 

refuge to continue to pump or siphon water from the 

Greenfields Irrigation District to dilute concentrations of contaminants like salinity and selenium that 

enter the refuge. The Service received several suggestions about the need to address selenium inputs 

from the Lake Creek watershed by working with 

landowners and partner organizations and to consider establishing a conservation easement program 

that includes the refuge, Muddy Creek, and Lake 

Creek watersheds. It was also suggested that working in the watershed should be a higher priority, and 

would be more effective, for improving water quality 

on the refuge than changes to management.

There may be more impairments to water quality 

from sediments, pesticides, and nutrient loading on 

the refuge that have not been studied.

Invasive Plants, Nonnative 

Plants, and Noxious Weeds

Nonnative grasses such as crested wheatgrass, Garrison creeping foxtail, Kentucky bluegrass, Japanese 

brome and cheatgrass are concerns on refuge lands. 

Several fields on the refuge are planted with nonnative grasses, which should be evaluated for replanting to native species to provide optimal habitat 

conditions for wildlife.

Shelterbelts of planted, nonnative trees and 

shrubs occur on the refuge where woody vegetation 

did not naturally occur. Shelterbelts were originally 

planted to increase wildlife diversity, but current 

research suggests that they increase predation and 

negatively affect imperiled grassland birds. Whether 

or not these shelterbelts should be removed or supported needs to be evaluated.

Wildlife Management

Managing the refuge to help a wide variety of migratory birds is a high priority. The public is also 

concerned about waterbirds such as white-faced ibis, 

black-crowned night-herons, and Franklin’s gulls 

that use the refuge and depend on relatively deep, 

permanent water.

There is concern that the refuge wetlands should 

be flooded every year to provide wetland habitat for 

wildlife that compensates for other wetland habitat 

that has been drained or altered in Montana.

Botulism has been a problem in some of the refuge units in the past. Flooding Units 3–6 during 

late summer in hot, dry years has historically led to 

botulism outbreaks killing thousands of birds. Botulism needs to be considered in future management 

scenarios. 

Hunting

In addition to hunters’ concerns that the quality of 

waterfowl hunting at the refuge has declined significantly over the last several years, comments were 

received stating that the access for hunters with 

disabilities needs to be improved.

Wildlife Observation

The Benton Lake Refuge, because of its close location to the city of Great Falls, is especially valued 

by birdwatchers. The public has requested more 

opportunities to observe sharp-tailed grouse on their 

dancing leks, a very popular activity. Expanding 

birdwatching opportunities for a wide diversity of 

birds should be evaluated.
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources

and Description

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area

inean T © Jeff V

This chapter describes the characteristics and resources of the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex and how existing or past management 

or other influences have affected these resources. 

The affected environment addresses the physical, 

biological, and social aspects that could be affected 

by management under this CCP. The Service used 

published and unpublished data, as noted in the bibliography, to quantify what is known about it.

3.1 Physical Environment

The following sections describe the physical characteristics of the refuge complex. Physical characteristics include climate, climate change, geography and 

physiography, soils, water resources, water quality, 

water rights, and air quality.

Climate

The refuge complex covers more than 2,700 square 

miles and spans the Continental Divide in northwestern and north-central Montana. The Continental Divide exerts a marked influence on the climate 

of adjacent areas. West of the Divide, the climate 

might be termed a modified, north Pacific Coast 

type, while to the east, climatic characteristics are 

decidedly continental. On the west of the mountain 

barrier, winters are milder, precipitation is more 
44 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

evenly distributed throughout the year, summers 

are cooler in general, and winds are lighter than on 

the eastern side. According to the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there is 

more cloudiness in the west in all seasons, humidity 

runs a bit higher, and the growing season is shorter 

than in the eastern plains areas (NOAA 2011b).

Cold waves, which cover parts of Montana on the 

average of 6–12 times a winter, are confined mostly 

to the eastern part of the refuge complex. The coldest temperature ever observed in this area was −70 

°F at Rogers Pass, 40 miles northwest of Helena, 

on January 20, 1954. Between cold waves, there are 

periods, sometimes longer than 10 days, of mild, but 

often windy, weather along the eastern slopes of 

the Divide. These warm, windy winter periods are 

popularly known as “Chinook” weather. Chinook 

winds frequently reach speeds of 25–50 miles per 

hour or more and can persist, with little interruption, for several days. Most refuge complex lakes 

and wetlands freeze over every winter. All rivers 

carry floating ice during the late winter or early 

spring. Few streams freeze solid; water generally 

continues to flow beneath the ice. During the coldest 

winters, anchor ice that builds from the bottom of 

shallow streams on rare occasions causes some flooding (NOAA 2011b).

During the summer months, hot weather occurs 

often in the eastern parts of the refuge complex. 

Temperatures higher than 100 °F sometimes occur 

in the lower elevation areas west of the Continental 

Divide during the summer, but hot spells are less 

frequent and of shorter duration than in some sections of the Great Plains. Summer nights are almost 

invariably cool and pleasant. In the areas with elevations above 4,000 feet, extremely hot weather 

is almost unknown. Much of the State has average 

freeze-free periods longer than 130 days, allowing 

plenty of time for growing a wide variety of crops. 

There is no freeze-free period in many higher valleys 

of the western mountains, but hardy and nourishing grasses thrive in such places, producing large 

amounts of quality grazing for stock (NOAA 2011b).

Precipitation varies widely across the refuge 

complex and depends largely on topographic influences. Generally, nearly half the annual long-term 

average total falls from May through June (NOAA 

2011a). The western part of the refuge complex is 

the wettest, and the east side is the driest. Average 

annual precipitation in the intermountain valleys 

west of the Continental Divide is 16–22 inches, while 

most of the eastern part of the refuge complex only 

receives an average of 8–14 inches (NRIS 2011a).

Drought in its most severe form is practically 

unknown, but dry years do occur in some areas. All 

parts of the State rarely suffer from dryness at the 

same time. The only exceptions on record occurred 

during the 1930 decade (NOAA 2011a). In eastern 

parts of the refuge complex, the last 100 years of 

weather data show a long-term “boom and bust” 

cycle of 10–20 years of alternating wet and dry periods (NOAA 2009).

Annual snowfall varies from quite heavy—300 

inches in some parts of the mountains in the western 

half of the refuge complex—to around 20 inches east 

of the Continental Divide. Most of the larger cities have annual snowfall within the 30- to 50-inch 

range. Most snow falls during the November–March 

period, but heavy snowstorms can occur as early as 

mid-September or as late as May 1. Mountain snowpacks in the wetter areas often exceed 100 inches 

in depth as the annual snow season approaches its 

end, around April 1–15. The greatest volume of flow 

in Montana’s rivers occurs during the spring and 

early summer months with the melting of the winter 

snowpack (NOAA 2011b). Table 4 summarizes precipitation and temperature throughout the refuge 

complex.

Table 4. Weather information for units of the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Unit

Average 

annual precipitation 

(inches)

Highest 

precipitation 

months

Average 

snowfall 

(inches)

Average 

annual 

temperature (°F)

Average 

low temperature 

(°F)

Average 

high temperature 

(°F)

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Great Falls)

15 May, June 61 45 33 57

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District

6–22 May, June 41–80 39–44 24–33 54–55

Blackfoot Valley Conservation 

Area (Ovando)

17 May, June 79 39 25 54

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area (Augusta)

14 May, June 41 43 29 57

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge and Swan Valley Conservation 

Area (Seeley Lake)

21 December, 

January

120 41 27 55
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 45

Trumpeter swans are released in the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area.

USFWS

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

and Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District

The climate of the district to the east of the Blackfoot Valley and the Rocky Mountain Front is semiarid continental, which is characterized by cold, dry 

winters and warm, dry summers. Subzero weather 

normally occurs several times during a winter, but 

the duration of cold spells typically lasts only several days to a week, after which it can be abruptly 

terminated by strong southwesterly Chinook winds. 

The sudden warming associated with these winds 

can produce temperature rises of nearly 40 °F in 

less than a day. Conversely, strong intrusions of bitterly cold arctic air move south from Canada several 

times each winter and can drop temperatures 30–40 

°F within 24 hours. The dynamic Chinook winds 

prohibit the large accumulation of snow over winter 

and reduce large spring runoffs, because snow melts 

in small increments throughout winter and is mostly 

absorbed into the ground.

Average annual precipitation across the district 

varies from a high of 22 inches near the foothills of 

the Rocky Mountains and Sweet Grass Hills to a low 

of 6 inches in the center of the district, around the 

towns of Shelby and Chester. At Benton Lake Refuge, the average annual precipitation is 14.98 inches. 

During the period of record at Great Falls, yearly 

precipitation extremes have ranged from 6.68 inches 

in 1904 to 25.24 inches in 1975. Precipitation generally falls as snow during the winter, late fall, and 

early spring, whereas, the highest rainfall months 

are May and June.

Long-term temperature and precipitation data 

show dynamic patterns of recurring peaks and lows 

on a 10–20 year cycle. Regional precipitation decreased and temperatures rose from the late 1910s 

to the late 1930s (NOAA 2009). A steady rise in precipitation and declining temperatures occurred from 

the early 1940s to the mid-1950s followed by another 

decline in precipitation and local runoff in the 1960s. 

Precipitation rose again during the late 1970s and 

early 1990s, and remained about average during the 

1980s and late 1990s to early 2000s. Currently, precipitation appears to be gradually increasing.
46 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area

In the Blackfoot Valley, the climate is generally cool 

and dry, but there is considerable variability. July 

and August are the warmest months with an average high around 81 oF and a low near 40 oF. On 

average, the warmest month is July. The highest 

recorded temperature was 99 °F in 2003. January 

is the average coldest month. The lowest recorded 

temperature was −48 °F in 1982.

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area

Along the Rocky Mountain Front, the climate is generally cool and dry, but there is considerable variability corresponding to the east–west elevational 

gradient that greatly influences vegetation and habitat. July and August are the warmest months, with 

an average high around 77 oF and a low near 45 oF. 

The Augusta climatic station at the eastern boundary of the Front has similar above-freezing winter 

average highs, but is colder at night, with January 

having average lows of 10 oF. Average summer temperatures are also warmer in Augusta, with July and 

August having highs slightly greater than 80 oF and 

lows around 47 oF. Gibson Dam receives almost 18 

inches of precipitation annually. May and June are 

the wettest months, with about 3 inches per month, 

and the winter months receive less than 1 inch of 

precipitation per month. Augusta has a similar pattern with relatively wet springs and dry winters 

although the total precipitation annually averages 

only about 14 inches. This precipitation gradient 

(along with soils) is vital in structuring vegetation 

communities across the Front (Kudray and Cooper 

2006).

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge and 

Swan Valley Conservation Area

The upper Swan Valley is at the eastern limit of 

the Pacific maritime climatic influence, common to 

northern Idaho and northwestern Montana. The 

Mission Range experiences more of the maritime 

influence than the Swan Range. The climate is generally cool and dry, with precipitation increasing 

from south to north in the valley. Precipitation in the 

form of snow and rain varies between an average of 

30 inches on the valley floor to more than 100 inches 

along the Swan and Mission divides. The highest 

precipitation usually comes from late October to 

mid-February and again from mid-May to early July. 

The highest precipitation intensity occurs when a 

moist weather front from the Pacific collides with 

cool continental weather.

Occasionally, cold arctic air from a continental 

weather system slips over the Continental Divide 

from the northeast and down the valley, bringing extreme subzero temperatures. Summer temperatures 

average in the 80s at lower elevations. Extremes of 

90–100 °F are reached during drought years. The 

relatively short growing season (2–3 months) limits 

widespread agricultural development. Frosts can 

occur any month of the year. Therefore, conversion 

of forest types to cultivated crops has been limited 

relative to other western Montana valleys.

Climate Change

Warming of the global climate is considered by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) 

to be unequivocal. Over the last 100 years, the average global temperature has risen 1.3 °F. In the 

Northern Hemisphere, the temperature rise over 

the last 50 years is very likely higher than any other 

50-year period in the last 500 years. In Montana, 

average spring temperatures have risen by almost 

4 °F over the last 55 years and winter temperatures 

have increased 3 °F (TNC 2009).

Increases in temperature have been associated 

with decreases in mountain glacier and snow cover, 

earlier spring melt, higher runoff, and warmer lakes 

and rivers. In Montana, precipitation changes have 

varied across the State. In general, the northern 

Rockies are now seeing less winter snow while the 

southeastern plains are receiving slightly more 

spring and fall rain. However, that added rain is 

coming in fewer, more severe, storms (TNC 2009).

Climate change adaptation is the emerging discipline that focuses on helping people and natural 

systems prepare for, and cope with, the effects. Adaptation refers to measures designed to reduce the 

vulnerability of systems to the effects of climate 

change (Glick et al. 2011). Efforts generally include 

(1) building resistance, which is the ability of an ecosystem, species, or population to withstand change 

without significant ecological loss; (2) building resilience, which is the ability of a system to recover 

from a disturbance or change without significant 

loss and return to a given ecological state; and (3) 

facilitation of ecological transitions. Promoting and 

supporting resilience is the most commonly recommended approach, but related to the success of this 

is the ability to reduce existing stressors that would 

be magnified with climate change, protect refugia 

and habitat connectivity and implementing proactive 

management and restoration (Glick et al. 2011).

The refuge complex is part of the GNLCC and 

the PPPLCC. The LCCs work with a variety of science partners to address existing and future issues 

related to climate change and landscape-scale conservation. These partnerships have the potential 

to be major conduits for stepping down global and 
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 47

regional climate change models and helping to target 

this work to the highest priority needs for land managers and conservation within the refuge complex.

Geology And Physiography

The landscape of the refuge complex is extremely 

diverse. Elevations across the refuge complex range 

from as little as 3,000 to more than 10,000 feet above 

mean sea level (amsl). Changes in elevation are especially significant along the Rocky Mountain Front 

CA, which encompasses up to 4,000 feet of topographic relief over a few miles. The landscape feaRocky Mountain Front Conservation Area

USFWS

tures vary from large rivers to intermittent prairie 

streams, small temporary wetlands to large lakes, 

intermountain valleys to alpine peaks, and prairie 

grasslands to conifer forests.

The geology that underlies the visible topography within the refuge complex is also diverse. 

Up until approximately 175 million years ago, the 

landscape of the modern day complex was fairly 

uniform. Most of Montana was below sea level and 

vast areas were shallowly flooded. This changed 

with the shifting of the tectonic plates that form 

the earth’s crust that led to the collision of the continental plate bearing North America with the floor 

of the Pacific Ocean. That collision led to the literal 

crumpling of the continent along deep fault 

lines. As the earth’s 

surface continued to 

bulge, it eventually became unstable and the 

top sedimentary layers 

peeled off and came to 

rest to the east, piling 

on top of each other to 

form the eastern front 

of the Rocky Mountains. The mountains in 

northwest Montana are 

comprised of the older 

formations that were 

exposed when the veneer slipped off.

Around 65 million 

years ago, the crust 

beneath central Montana rose sufficiently 

so that the inland sea 

retreated. Subsequent 

to this, volcanic activity 

led to igneous intrusions into the older, surrounding sedimentary 

rocks and the formation 

of the island mountain 

chains in north-central 

Montana, including the 

Sweet Grass Hills. This 

was followed by a relatively calm geologic period in Montana where 

crustal movements 

subsided. Alternating 

dry and warm, tropical 

periods from the Oligocene to the Pliocene (35 

to 2.5 million years ago) 

led to the deposition of 
48 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

sedimentary layers, including gravel, sand, mud, 

volcanic ash, limestone, coal, and laterite.

Today, these earlier sedimentary layers are buried throughout most of the refuge complex by glacial 

till and debris left by the enormous glaciers that 

covered northern Montana during the last ice ages. 

The glaciers had a profound effect on the landscape 

within the refuge complex by sculpting mountains, 

changing riverflows and leaving behind many wetlands. The first, and largest, of these recent ice 

ages was the Bull Lake Ice Age, approximately 

70,000–130,000 years ago. This was followed by a 

less extensive ice age, the Pinedale, approximately 

10,000–15,000 years ago (Alt and Hyndman 1986).

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

The Benton Lake basin is characterized by gently 

dipping sedimentary bedrock formed during the 

Cretaceous Period (145–65 million years ago) overlain in many places by glacial and alluvial deposits 

from the last ice ages (Maughan 1961). Bedrock in 

most of the Benton Lake basin is seleniferous marine shale of the Cretaceous Colorado Group, often 

referred to as Colorado Shale (Maughan 1961). The 

ancient sedimentary bedrock that lies beneath the 

Benton Lake basin is important because of the effect 

it has on water quality today as a source of selenium.

During the last Pleistocene ice sheet, Glacial 

Lake Great Falls covered low-lying parts of the Benton Lake region. Glacial lake deposits near Benton 

Lake are primarily clay and silty clay and are up to 

100 feet thick (Lemke 1977). Glacial drift associated 

with the last ice sheet was deposited northeast of 

Benton Lake and east of Priest Butte Lakes and 

formed the closed Benton Lake basin. Glacial drift 

deposits are primarily glacial till consisting of unsorted and unstratified clay, silt, sand, and some 

coarser material. Locally, glacial drift may include 

stratified sand and gravel alluvial deposits (Mudge 

et al. 1982, Lemke 1977).

The topography of the refuge reflects the dominant geological surfaces and features of the region. 

Within Benton Lake proper, elevation gradients are 

relatively subtle, ranging from about 3,614 feet amsl 

in the lowest depressions in the middle of the historical lakebed to about 3,622 feet amsl on the edge 

of the lake that defines its full-pool water level.

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District

The glaciers that covered the Plains of the district 

originated in the northeast near Hudson Bay and 

reached central Montana at the end of the ice ages. 

Consequently, the glacial imprint on this area is relatively light as glaciers were thinner and present for 

a relatively brief time. The inland mountain ranges, 

such as the Sweet Grass Hills, were surrounded, but 

not covered, by these glaciers. Nevertheless, as the 

glaciers retreated they left a layer of glacial till and 

debris covering northern Montana. The classic hummocky landscape left behind by this debris can be 

seen on the Furnell WPA at the base of the Sweet 

Grass Hills.

The southern edge of the glaciers approximated 

the modern-day Missouri River. The edges of the 

glaciers dammed rivers and created lakes in central 

Montana. The largest was Glacial Lake Great Falls, 

which was 600 feet deep in Great Falls and extended 

all the way to Cut Bank. As Glacial Lake Great Falls 

rose, it formed a spillway north of the Highwood 

Mountains washing out a large valley known today 

as the Shonkin Sag. The repeated flooding and spilling by Glacial Lake Great Falls through the Shonkin 

Sag left behind several depressions that are now 

shallow, brackish lakes including those found on the 

Kingsbury Lake and Big Sag WPAs. Similarly, the 

Milk River may have been diverted during the last 

ice age, forming the Sweetgrass Sag and leaving 

behind depressions that created wetlands on the waterfowl production areas in northern Toole County.

Most of the district lies within the Great Plains, a 

relatively flat landscape sloping slightly to the east. 

The area is punctuated by large rivers including the 

Missouri and Milk and their associated tributaries as 

well as isolated mountain groups such as the Highwood Mountains and Sweet Grass Hills. The Sweet 

Grass Hills consist of three distinct buttes with 

scattered hills connecting them. The three buttes 

are West Butte (elevation of 6,983 feet), Gold Butte 

(elevation of 6,512 feet), and East Butte (elevation of 

6,958 feet). The three buttes, and the hills between 

them, run for about 50 miles east to west and are 

about 10 miles in distance from north to south.

The sedimentary rocks of north-central Montana 

are also of particular interest because some harbor 

oil and gas or coal. A large structural warp in the 

bedrock between Shelby and Cut Bank, known as 

the Sweetgrass arch, has trapped several oil and gas 

fields. Crude oil production peaked in 1960 in central 

Montana but has declined since then, as new discoveries did not keep up with depletion. The Cut Bank 

Field, Pondera Field west of Conrad, and a large 

reservoir near Kevin and Sunburst are some of the 

largest resources, but many of these wells produce 

only a few barrels per day (Alt and Hyndman 1986).

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area

The Blackfoot Valley was strongly influenced by 

large continuous ice sheets that extended from the 

mountains southward into the Blackfoot and Clearwater River Valleys (Witkind and Weber 1982) dur-
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 49

ing the Bull Lake and Pinedale ice ages. When the 

glaciers receded, large deposits of glacial till, glacial 

outwash, and glacial lakebed sediments were left 

behind. These deposits cover much of the Blackfoot 

Valley floor, shaping the topography of the valley 

and the geomorphology of the Blackfoot River and 

the lower reaches of most tributaries. Glacial features evident on the landscape today include moraines, outwash plains, kame terraces, and glacial 

potholes (Whipple et al. 1987, Cox et al. 1998). The 

Blackfoot and Kleinschmidt Lake WPAs, in particular, reflect this glacial influence in the pothole 

wetlands present on these parcels. The landscape 

between Clearwater Junction and Lincoln is characterized by alternating areas of glacial moraines 

and their associated outwash plains. In this area, 

ice pouring down from the mountains to the north 

spread out to form large ponds of ice several miles 

across, known as piedmont glaciers. Muddy meltwater draining from these piedmont glaciers spread 

sand and gravel across the ice-free parts of the valley floor to create large outwash plains. The town of 

Ovando sits on one of these smooth outwash plains 

(Alt and Hyndman 1986). In addition, during the latter part of the Pleistocene Era, the Blackfoot Valley 

was further shaped by the repeated filling and catastrophic draining of Glacial Lake Missoula, which 

extended upstream as far as Clearwater Junction 

(Alt and Hyndman 1986).

The Blackfoot River watershed totals nearly 1.5 

million acres. The 132-mile-long Blackfoot River 

drains 2,320 square miles and hosts a 3,700-mile 

stream network. The headwaters of the Blackfoot 

begin atop Roger’s Pass at the Continental Divide 

and flow west to its confluence with the Clark Fork 

River near Missoula. The Blackfoot Valley floodplain 

varies in width from several hundred feet to several 

miles and has many tributaries. Historically, the 

river meandered back and forth across the valley 

floor. The remnants of these old oxbows formed the 

wetland basins managed today on the H2–O WPA.

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area

The highest-elevation landforms are located in the 

most western section of the Front and are Paleozoic Era sedimentary rock composed of sandstone, 

shale, and limestone (including dolomite). These 

relatively hard materials kept their shape during 

formation and are not as prone to erosion. The Kootenai Formation from the Mesozoic Era is found 

adjacent at lower elevations and is also sedimentary 

rock but is composed of conglomerate, sandstone, 

shale, and mudstone. These materials formed tight 

folds and are prone to erosion, resulting in low hills 

that look more like the Plains to the east than the 

craggy mountains to the west. The Colorado Shale 

Formation of shale and siltstone is typically found 

at the next lowest topographic level. At lower elevations, alluvial deposits are common, with layers 

of gravel, sand, and silt. There are also significant 

low-elevation glacial deposits from the Pleistocene 

Age that have variable, mostly coarse, textures. 

These have left behind hummocky pothole wetlands 

in some areas. The Two Medicine Formation from 

the Cretaceous Era is one of the most common lower 

elevation types and is sedimentary, with clay, limestone, and sandstone. There is also a prominent area 

of Cretaceous volcanic rock in the far southern part 

of the Front (Kudray and Cooper 2006).

The Rocky Mountain Front in Montana transitions from eastern foothill grasslands, between 3,500 

and 5,500 feet in elevation, to mountain peaks at 

nearly 9,000 feet in elevation. The area is drained by 

several rivers, including the Sun, Teton, and Marias, 

which eventually drain into the Missouri River.

Although, geologically speaking, the Front has 

the potential for oil and gas reserves, the complexity 

of the formation suggests that any fields are likely to 

be small (Alt and Hyndman 1986).

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

and Swan Valley Conservation Area

During the shifting of tectonic plates that led to the 

formation of the Rocky Mountains, the Swan Valley 

was created along a fault when a large block of rock 

was pushed up on the east side of the valley, forming the Swan Range, and the west side of the fault 

dipped down, forming the Mission Range. The general direction of the faulting was northwest to southeast, with the mountain ranges tilted in an easterly 

direction. This faulting history generally left steeper 

and more rugged mountains in the Swan Range. 

Both the Mission Range and the Swan Range are 

Precambrian sedimentary formations.

Further alteration of the geological landscape 

in the Swan Valley resulted from the Bull Lake Ice 

Age when the northern end of the Mission Range 

split a glacier, which flowed south from British Columbia. One lobe of the glacier went through the 

Swan Valley south to the Blackfoot River, forming a 

continuous sheet over the mountains, especially the 

northern part of the Mission Range. Only the highest peaks and ridges remained uncovered.

Ice again advanced through the valley to the 

lower end of Salmon Lake during the Pinedale Ice 

Age. Additionally, long tongues of ice thrust out of 

the mountains into the valley, depositing moraines 

at their edges. The last fingers of ice formed the 

high ridges or high moraines that now enclose glacial lakes such as Holland and Lindbergh Lakes, as 

well as others at the mouths of canyons in the Mission Range and Swan Range. As the valley glacier 
50 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

melted, dirt and debris were left behind. Large piles 

of these sediments remained as humps on the valley 

floor or were pushed into ridges or eskers as the 

glaciers moved. In other areas, pockets of ice were 

left behind. When they melted, they left depressions 

that became lakes, ponds, potholes, or wetlands. 

This complex of wetlands intermingled with upland 

terrain is unique (Swan Ecosystem Center 2004).

The Swan River basin, a tributary to Flathead 

Lake and the Flathead River in the headwaters of 

the Columbia River, is around 1,286 square miles 

in area. A wide diversity of lakes, riparian areas, 

rivers, creeks, alpine and subalpine glacial lakes, 

and springs feed the basin (Friessell et al. 1995). 

The Swan and Mission Ranges reach peak elevations higher than 9,000 feet. The Swan River flows 

through these mountains, winds across the morainal 

foothills and through valleys forming braided delta 

areas. The river travels over a dense forest floor 

comprised of variously graded, porous glacial till and 

alluvium, averaging 6.2 miles wide at an elevational 

range of 2,500–9,000 feet. (Friessell et al. 1995). 

Several large lakes (250 to 2,700 acres) lie along the 

course of the river and its main tributaries. Hundreds of kettle lakes, fens, bogs, and other lake-like 

systems and small, shallow and vegetated wetlands, 

many with perched aquifers not directly connected 

to surface streams, lie scattered across the glacial 

and alluvial valley floors and foothills (Frissell et 

al. 1995). Forested riverine and small, shallow and 

vegetated wetlands fringe the river channel and 

dominate its extensive floodplains and relict paleochannels (an ancient inactive stream channel filled 

by the sediments of younger overlying rock).

The Swan River Refuge lies within the floodplain 

of the Swan River on the southern edge of Swan 

Lake between the Swan Mountain Range to the east 

and the Mission Mountain Range to the west. The 

valley floor is generally flat but rises steeply to adjacent forested mountain sides. Eighty percent of the 

floodplain is comprised of wetlands and the other 20 

percent consists of forests of old growth fir, spruce, 

cedar, and larch. The Swan River, which once meandered through the floodplain, has been forced to the 

west side of the refuge by deposits of silt, leaving a 

series of oxbow sloughs within the refuge floodplain.

Swan River

USFWS

Soils

Soils in the refuge complex are extremely variable 

due to the diverse influences of climate, topography, 

and geology. In general, the soils are strongly related to the geologic substrates and landforms. The 

State soil geographic database provides a consistent 

method of assessing generalized soil characteristics on a regional scale (NRCS 2006). This has been 

used in conjunction with the Ecoregions of Montana 

(Woods et al. 2002) to provide a generalized description of the common soil characteristics within the 

refuge complex. More detailed soils data are available from the county soil survey geographic databases that will be used as stepdown management 

plans are developed for individual units. Information 

on the soil geographic databases is available from 

the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) (NRCS 2011c).

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Surface soils are predominantly clays and silty clays 

(Vertisols) deposited in the lake-system environ-
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 51

ments of Glacial Lake Great Falls and Benton Lake. 

The Benton Lake bed and surrounding lower elevations are mostly plastic clays and exceed 100 

feet deep under parts of Benton Lake. These are 

Pendroy, Thebo Vanda, and Marvan clays (NRCS 

2011c). Where Lake Creek enters Benton Lake, soils 

are mostly silt and sand with minor clay and gravel 

present in soil stratigraphy. These soils range from 

10 to 40 feet thick where they become intermixed 

with underlying lake-system-type deposits. Higher 

elevation terrace-type soils along the western and 

southern edges of Benton Lake are mostly 10 to 

30-feet-thick silty clay loam types overlying reddishbrown, poorly sorted sand and gravel dominated 

by subangular-to-slabby sandstone and subrounded 

quartzite, shale, granite, and argillite (Maughan and 

Lemke 1991). Some of these surfaces have interesting, stratified soils indicating various depositions 

from historical marine environments, Lake Great 

Falls, and underlying Colorado Shale (Condon 2000).

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District

The materials left by the glaciers during the last ice 

ages are the most widely distributed parent material 

of soils in the district today. The thickness of these 

deposits varies widely from more than 100 feet deep 

in preglacial valleys and depressions to very thin on 

higher divides and benches. Mollisols—dark, baserich mineral soils typically formed under perennial 

grasses—cover much of the area (NRCS 2011a). 

Common mollisol soils series include Scobey, Telstad, 

Vida, Joplin, Bearpaw, and Kevin, which are very 

deep, well drained soils formed in glacial till across 

the Plains, and in the case of Kevin soils, are typical 

of glacial moraines and hummocky areas (Woods et 

al. 2002, NRCS 2011b). Native vegetation on these 

soils is typically western wheatgrass–needlegrass 

(Woods et al. 2002). In areas where there are steep, 

actively eroding slopes, floodplains, or glacial outwash plains, Entisols are common (Woods et al. 

2002). Entisols show little or no soil horizons as deposition or erosion rates are often faster than soil 

development (NRCS 2011a). The Hillon soil series 

is found on several waterfowl production areas and 

is a common Entisol across the district (Woods et al. 

2002, NRCS 2011b). The third common soil order in 

the northern glaciated plains is vertisols. Vertisols 

are clayey soils that have deep, wide cracks for some 

time during the year. Vertisols generally have gentle 

slopes and are associated with grass cover (NRCS 

2011a). The Pendroy series are common vertisols in 

the district (Woods et al. 2002). The Pendroy series 

consists of deep, well drained soils formed in clayey 

glacial river or lake material or in alluvium from 

shale uplands (NRCS 2011b). These soils are on alluvial fans, floodplains, stream terraces, and lake 

plains. Because the permeability of these soils is 

slow, irrigation can result in the buildup of salinity 

and nearly all mature soils in the area carry a constituent of alkali salts (Gieseker et al. 1933).

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area

The floor of the Blackfoot Valley was shaped by 

the glaciers and is characterized by hummocky 

moraines, outwash plains, terraces, fans, poorly 

developed drainage networks, and many wetlands 

(Woods et al. 2002). Most soil types present in the 

watershed have similar surface textures, are moderately well to well drained, and have a depth to water 

table between 3 and 6 feet. These dominant soils are 

neither prime farmland nor hydric soils supporting wetlands. Fescue grasslands within the valley 

are commonly underlain by Mollisols soils including 

Quigley, Perma, Raynesford, Leavitt, Burnette, and 

Winspect (Woods et al. 2002). These soils are very 

deep, well drained and were formed by alluvium, 

colluvium, alpine till, or slide deposits derived from 

limestone, shale, sandstone, limestone and calcareous sedimentary rock. They are typically found on 

alluvial fans, stream terraces, hills, outwash plains, 

and moraines (NRCS 2011b). In areas that support 

timber, such as ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, 

Inceptisol series such as Totelake and Winfall are 

common (Woods et al. 2002). These soils are very 

deep, well drained and formed either by glacial outwash (Totelake) or loamy till (Winfall). The Totelake 

soils are found on alluvial fans and stream terraces 

whereas the Winfall soils are found on moraines and 

mountains (NRCS 2011b).

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area

At the foot slopes of the Rocky Mountains and the 

smaller mountain chains, such as the Sweet Grass 

Hills, Mollisols, and Entisols are the prevalent soil 

orders. Within these, there is a wide variety of common soils series. Mollisols soil types that support 

western wheatgrass–needlegrass prairies include 

Farnuf, Fairfield, Delpoint, Marmarth, Reeder, and 

Regent (Woods et al. 2002). These are very-deep to 

moderately deep, well-drained soils formed from 

either glacial deposits (Farnuf, Fairfield, Delpoint) 

or weathered sedimentary materials like sandstone, 

siltstone, mudstone or shale (Marmarth, Reeder, 

Regent) (NRCS 2011b). Fescue grasslands are commonly found on Mollisols series such as Castner, 

Work, Absarokee, Michelson, and Redchief. These 

are shallow to very-deep, well-drained soils formed 

from alluvium or colluvium over bedrock, or, in case 

of Redchief soils, from glacial deposits. Redchief 

soils can also support scattered lodgepole, aspen 
52 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

and alpine fir as elevations increase (NRCS 2011b). 

Entisols soil series common to the Front include 

Cabbart and Cabba (Woods et al. 2002). Both are 

shallow, well-drained soils from semiconsolidated, 

loamy sedimentary beds. Found on escarpments, 

hills, and sedimentary plains, they typically support 

wheatgrass–needlegrass prairies (NRCS 2011b).

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

and Swan Valley Conservation Area

Soils in the Swan Valley range from steep mountain 

formations that are minimally developed and consist 

mainly of bedrock of various belt supergroup formations to the deep fertile soils of the valley floor 

consisting of recent alluvium along the floodplains.

Valley soils consist of glacial moraine, outwash, 

lakebeds, or other sediments associated with the 

last glacial activity and its associated lake and flood 

sediments. Parent materials are sands, silts, and 

gravels underlain by siltstones or glacial deposits. 

The valley floor is generally flat with slopes from 2 

to 20 percent. Steep slopes occur at the front edge 

of some terraces. Soils in the valley bottom consist 

of two broad types. One is rocky and poorly drained 

and is underlain by unsorted glacial till. These soils 

generally support timber production. The second 

consists of deep, well-drained, and well-structured 

silty substrate with thick, dark nutrient-rich surface 

horizons up to 1 foot thick.

The soils of the Swan River Refuge were largely 

formed by the Swan River moving back and forth 

across the floodplain over time. Nearly 30 percent 

are Aquepts formed by alluvium deposited in the 

floodplain. The soils in the valley bottom are gravelly or silty loams that typically support shrub and 

forest vegetation. The edges of the refuge that transition from the floodplain to the forested uplands are 

Andeptic Cryoboralfs formed by glacial till and also 

typically support forested vegetation (NRCS 2011c).

Water Resources

Water resources for the refuge complex consist 

of precipitation, runoff, ground water flows, and 

established water rights. On fee-title lands within 

the refuge complex, just more than half of the approximately 12,000 acres of wetlands are subject 

to natural flooding and drying cycles. In Montana, 

precipitation is cyclical, causing a series of wet and 

dry years, often in 10–20 year cycles (Hansen et al. 

1995, Heitmeyer et al. 2009). Therefore, whether or 

not most of those wetlands are flooded or dry in any 

given year depends on natural climatic cycles. For 

the remaining wetlands, water resources may be 

augmented by water rights tied to diversions from 

streams, irrigation return flows and impoundments.

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Benton Lake lies within a closed basin where natural 

water inputs to the lake come primarily—an average 

of 65–70 percent—from the 137-square mile Lake 

Creek watershed. Lake Creek, the largest tributary to Benton Lake, is an intermittent, ephemeral 

stream with greatest flows during spring and early 

summer due to snowmelt and increased spring rains. 

Although ground water discharge maintains a small 

base flow in Lake Creek and some of its tributaries 

during spring and fall and, sometimes, in wet summers, most ground water discharged to seeps and 

tributaries does not reach Benton Lake (Nimick 

1997).

Natural runoff from Lake Creek into Benton 

Lake is strongly correlated with seasonal and annual precipitation in the region. During periods of 

greater regional precipitation and snowmelt runoff, 

water flowing from Lake Creek can create very high 

water levels. Typically, regional precipitation and 

runoff decline for several years following precipitation peaks, and annual water levels in Benton Lake 

gradually decline to lower levels due to evapotranspiration, which averages about 40-41 inches per year 

(Soil Conservation Service 1970). Consequently, water levels in the Benton Lake basin can be highly 

dynamic, and inputs from natural sources exhibit 

a strong seasonal pattern of increased inputs and 

rising water levels in spring and early summer followed by gradual declines during summer and fall.

Other natural water inputs are derived from 

onsite precipitation and runoff from several small 

local drainages and surrounding uplands. Outflows 

are minimal due to the thick lacustrine-type clay 

surfaces in Benton Lake that prohibit water movement, or recharge, from the lake into ground water 

(Nimick et al. 1996, Nimick 1997). Other ground water in the Benton Lake basin appears to move slowly 

to the east and discharges to some shallow wetland 

depressions between Benton Lake and the Missouri 

River (Nimick 1997).

In 1957 the Cascade County Wildlife Association 

prompted a major effort to construct pumping and 

water delivery structures from Muddy Creek to 

the refuge. A pump station and pipeline were constructed from 1958 to 1962 to send irrigation return 

flow in Muddy Creek from the central and northeast parts of the Greenfields Bench to the refuge. In 

1961, full-time Service staff were assigned to, and 

housed on, the refuge. The first water pumped to 

Benton Lake from Muddy Creek occurred in 1962. 

Water from the Muddy Creek pump station is moved 

4 miles through an underground pipeline over a low-
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 53

drainage divide and then is discharged into the natural Lake Creek channel where it flows for about 12 

miles to its mouth in Benton Lake. Pumping from 

Muddy Creek corresponds to times of irrigation return flow in the Greenfields irrigation system, which 

is generally from May until mid-October. The refuge 

has rights for up to 14,600 acre-feet of water from 

Muddy Creek each year depending on adequate 

flows in the creek (Palawski and Martin 1991). Water 

from Muddy Creek is free, but the refuge must pay 

electrical costs for the two 350-horsepower pumps 

and one 250-horsepower pump.

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District, Blackfoot Valley Conservation 

Area, and Rocky Mountain Front 

Conservation Area

Within the 10-county district, there are approximately 500,000 acres of wetlands (MNHP 2010b). 

Areas with particularly high densities include the 

Rocky Mountain Front, the Sweet Grass Hills, and 

the Blackfoot Valley. In the Blackfoot Valley, wetland densities exceed 100 basins per square mile.

The Service currently holds conservation, grassland, and wetland easements on 132,858 acres of land 

in the district. Wetlands associated with lands in all 

of these easement programs are protected. The Service is currently conducting landscape-level analysis 

to rank wetland resources based on their importance 

to breeding waterfowl, which may be expanded to 

other priority wetland-dependent birds in the future. This prioritization will help identify the highest 

priority wetland resources in the district.

Currently, there are approximately 4,300 acres 

of wetlands protected and managed on waterfowl 

production areas within the district (MNHP 2010b). 

Roughly one-third of these wetland acres are permanent or semipermanent, one-third are seasonal and 

the remaining third are temporary (MNHP 2010b). 

Most of these wetlands receive water primarily 

through precipitation and runoff from snow or rain 

events. The catchment area for most waterfowl production area wetlands is generally small and limited 

to the area immediately surrounding the basin. One 

exception is Kingsbury Lake WPA, where the main 

wetland basin receives runoff from the nearby Highwood Mountains via Alder Creek.

On approximately 400 acres of waterfowl production area wetlands, the basins have been impounded 

to hold precipitation and runoff higher or longer 

than would otherwise occur, thus extending the 

period of flooding. These include some or all of the 

wetlands on the Blackfoot, Hartelius, Arod Lakes, 

Kingsbury Lake, and Sands and Furnell WPAs. On 

the H2–O WPA in the Blackfoot Valley, water is 

diverted from the Blackfoot River to flood oxbow 

wetlands on the waterfowl production area.

H2–O WPA

The H2–O WPA is located next to the Blackfoot 

River and near the mouth of Nevada Creek. The 

630-acre parcel south of the Blackfoot River supports 35 wetlands totaling approximately 229 acres 

within and immediately next to the property. The 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation described the hydrology of the H2–O 

in 2005 based on 2 years of monitoring on the waterfowl production area (Roberts and Levens 2005). 

Inflows into the H2–O are supplied by surface water 

(McCormick ditch), shallow ground water, and precipitation. Outflows were made up of evapotranspiration, and surface and ground water returns to the 

Blackfoot River and Nevada Creek.

Water is delivered to the wetlands by an irrigation ditch that conveys water from a head gate 

located 1.1 miles below the Highway 141 crossing on 

the Blackfoot River, through four neighboring properties, to the H2–O WPA. The ditch, referred to as 

the McCormick ditch, enters the waterfowl production area in two locations. After traveling 3.24 miles 

in a southwestern direction the ditch splits, sending 

water 0.95 miles west to the H2–O WPA near Pond 

#4. The other branch of McCormick ditch flows 1.95 

miles south before entering the eastern edge of the 

waterfowl production area near Alkali Lake. The 

total water right in the ditch for all users is 122.5 cubic feet per second (cfs). The H2–O WPA part of this 

is 75 cfs. The Service currently supports the ditch. 

The percent of water diverted from the Blackfoot 

River that actually reaches the H2–O ranges from 

6 percent to more than 200 percent. The wide range 

in values is due to adjacent irrigation. For example, 

when the McCormick turnout is pulling water from 

the ditch, the deliverable part is much lower. Conversely, on those days when the McCormick turnout 

is not pulling water, and there is substantial tail water runoff from adjacent flood irrigation, the deliverable part exceeds 100 percent (ditch is gaining).

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

and Swan Valley Conservation Area

Within the refuge, wetlands are mostly meandered 

loops of the Swan River that have been cut off from 

the main channel. Under natural conditions, floodwater and ground water would be the dominant inputs. 

Currently, the hydrology of the refuge is not well 

understood. It is possible that there have been significant modifications to the water resources that 

are hidden by thick vegetation. A detailed hydrogeomorphic analysis of the refuge would help to understand and manage the hydrology more effectively.
54 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

White-tailed Jackrabbit

© Neal and MJ Mishler

Water Quality

A comprehensive evaluation of water quality across 

the refuge complex has not been conducted. Given 

the significant land use changes in parts of the refuge complex (for example, conversion of grasslands 

to agriculture in the district) water quality problems 

may be undiscovered.

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

In the late 1980s, it was discovered that the refuge had concentrations of selenium in water, bottom sediment, and biota that were moderately 

to considerably higher than regional background 

values or reference concentrations associated with 

biological risk (Knapton et al. 1988). Since that time, 

much work has been undertaken to understand and 

characterize the selenium contamination issues at 

Benton Lake Refuge (Nimick et al. 1996; USFWS 

1991; Zhang and Moore 1997; Henney et al. 2000; unpublished data on file at Benton Lake Refuge 2006, 

2008, 2011). Concerns have focused on reducing the 

selenium levels on the refuge and in the Lake Creek 

watershed to prevent concentrations that would 

cause reproductive failure in sensitive birds.

Selenium (Se) is a semimetallic trace element 

that is an essential nutrient for animals. However, 

there is a very narrow margin between nutritionally 

optimal and potentially toxic dietary exposure for 

vertebrates. Based on the known margins of safety 

between normal and toxic dietary exposures, selenium is more poisonous than either arsenic or mercury (DOI 1998). Relatively small increases in the 

dietary exposure of animals is potentially harmful. A 

general rule of thumb for selenium is that thresholds 

for adverse effects in vertebrate animals begin at 

concentrations less than ten times above normal, although immunotoxic effects have been documented 

at concentrations less than 5 times above normal 

levels. Reproduction in vertebrates is particularly 

sensitive to selenium toxicity, especially in egg-laying vertebrates such as birds (DOI 1998). Birds are 

also vulnerable because selenium bioaccumulates 

through the food chain (Lemly 1995, 2002).

The underlying geology, land use changes in the 

landscape surrounding the refuge, and alterations to 

natural hydrology (water source, timing, and duration of flooding) have all contributed to the increased 

selenium levels on the refuge (Lemly and Smith 

1987, Lambing et al. 1994, Nimick et al. 1996). Bedrock in most of the Benton Lake basin is seleniferous 

marine shale of the Cretaceous Colorado Group, 

often referred to as Colorado Shale (Maughan 1961). 

Selenium in these formations is highly mobile and biologically available in arid regions with alkaline soils, 

as is the case in much of north-central Montana. 

The crop–fallow method of wheat farming occurring around the refuge is the primary contributor to 

saline seep development in the Lake Creek watershed. Seeps are formed during fallow periods when 

precipitation exceeds the storage capacity of the soil. 

Excess water percolates through salt-laden soil layers, dissolving salts and eventually forming a saline 

water table above a deeper, impermeable layer, such 

as shale. The saline water then moves horizontally 

downslope until it discharges at the surface, where it 

evaporates and concentrates salts, including selenite 

(Se4+) and selenate (Se+6), in the immediate area 

(Brown et al. 1982). Runoff that flows through these 

areas in the watershed washes selenium and other 

concentrated salts into Benton Lake at the bottom of 

the watershed, where it accumulates (figure 12).

Construction of the multiple units and the introduction of Muddy Creek water via pumping has also 

increased total selenium accumulation on the refuge (Zhang and Moore 1997, Heitmeyer et al. 2009). 

Before 1961, Benton Lake was one large wetland 

and no water was pumped into the basin. In most 

years, pooled water from spring runoff was lost to 

evaporation during the following summer. Selenium 

concentration in pre-1961 sediment collected in cores 

from the Unit 3 inlet area was approximately 0.2–0.3 
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 55

micrograms per gram. This low concentration of selenium in older sediment suggests that equilibrium 

concentrations were very low before the construction of the unit system.

After the unit system was constructed in 1961 

and Muddy Creek water was pumped into the 

refuge, inputs of selenium increased and outputs 

decreased. The pounds of selenium that enter the 

refuge annually in natural runoff and pumped water is highly variable among years (table 5). From 

1970–2010, the total selenium load in the refuge from 

natural runoff was around 3,785 pounds. Pumping 

from Muddy Creek added another 2,417 pounds.

Although selenium is transported to the refuge in 

the surface and ground water that flows to the refuge, almost all of the selenium that enters the refuge 

accumulates in wetland sediment. Selenium is not 

evenly distributed among or within the units, but 

rather accumulates more rapidly near the locations 

of primary selenium inputs and more permanently 

flooded units (Zhang and Moore 1997). In general, 

selenium concentrations in sediments are highest 

where Lake Creek enters Unit 1 and 2 and in Unit 

4c near a large seep. The remaining units in the refuge receive less selenium inputs, because they are 

further from the mouth of Lake Creek (Knapton et 

al. 1988, Nimick et al. 1996, Zhang and Moore 1997). 

The natural dry cycle, which is important for removing selenium from the system, also has been significantly reduced since pumping began. Selenium is 

removed from the refuge primarily by transferring 

directly to the air from water or sediment (volatilization). The rate of selenium volatilization depends on 

the form of selenium, microbial activity, and various environmental conditions, but is much higher 

from exposed sediment than open water (Zhang and 

Moore 1997). Selenium now enters the refuge in Unit 

1, which is rarely dried. Consequently, the average selenium concentration in sediment there is 2.7 

micrograms per gram, with some values reaching 

above the toxic threshold of 4 micrograms per gram.

High salinity was once a concern. However, a 

review of long-term salinity data on the refuge found 

that, while salinity may increase within a season as 

wetlands dry, there were no detectable increasing 

trends over a 10-year period (Nimick 1997).

Figure 12. Map of saline seeps in the region of Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Montana.
56 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 5. Annual amounts of pumped water, natural runoff, and selenium entering Benton Lake, 1970–2012.

Year

Pumped water 

(acre-feet)

Runoff 

(acre-feet)

Estimated 

pumped selenium 

(pounds) 

Estimated 

natural selenium 

(pounds) 

Total 

estimated 

selenium 

(pounds) 

1970 3,670 3,000 50 122 172

1971 6,371 0 87 0 87

1972 9,079 990 123 40 164

1973 6,643 0 90 0 90

1974 5,897 334 80 14 94

1975 0 13,933 0 568 568

1976 2,978 400 40 16 57

1977 4,167 0 57 0 57

1978 0 19,200 0 783 783

1979 68 12,100 1 493 494

1980 2,000 1,100 27 45 72

1981 3,650 500 50 20 70

1982 3,037 4,132 41 168 210

1983 2,822 1,763 38 72 110

1984 4,790 1,947 65 79 144

1985 6,380 1,157 87 47 134

1986 3,376 4,759 46 194 240

1987 7,987 350 109 14 123

1988 7,517 208 102 8 111

1989 212 9,710 3 396 399

1990 4,797 1,056 65 43 108

1991 8,028 943 109 38 148

1992 7,276 21 99 1 100

1993 1,932 3,049 26 124 151

1994 5,800 227 79 9 88

1995 5,555 344 76 14 90

1996 3,969 846 54 34 88

1997 4,430 2,245 60 92 152

1998 5,693 622 77 25 103

1999 5,033 122 68 5 73

2000 5,385 54 73 2 75

2001 5,082 51 69 2 71

2002 3,975 610 54 25 79

2003 3,868 4 53 0 53

2004 3,985 73 54 3 57

2005 2,730 422 37 17 54

2006 3,951 827 54 34 87

2007 3,542 486 48 20 68

2008 4,204 673 57 27 85

2009 4,866 1,730 66 71 137
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 57

Table 5. Annual amounts of pumped water, natural runoff, and selenium entering Benton Lake, 1970–2012.

Total 

Estimated Estimated estimated 

Pumped water Runoff pumped selenium natural selenium selenium 

Year (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) 

2010 3,069 3,433 42 140 182

2011 1,554 10,282 21 419 440

2012 2,550 83 35 3 38

Mean 4,231 2,414 58 98 156

Median 4,076 750 57 31 100

Total 179,368 103,703 2,438 4,228 6,666

Source: unpublished records on file at Benton Lake Refuge; Nimick et al. 1996.

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District

In 1995, a survey of contaminants from 10 sites 

within the district was conducted to find out if trace 

elements were accumulating in either sediment or 

the aquatic food chain of wetlands (Gilbert et al. 

1995). Elevated levels of lead, boron, and selenium 

were detected in several locations. The concentrations did not appear to pose an immediate threat 

to wildlife resources but continued monitoring was 

recommended. Given the alkaline nature of many of 

the soils in the district and the fact that evaporation 

rates can exceed precipitation, the potential for accumulation of toxins in wetland basins, particularly 

impoundments that do not dry out, deserves further 

attention.

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area

The Blackfoot River, from the headwaters downstream to Landers Fork, shows varying levels of 

metals-related impairment. Water quality data show 

that the upstream part of this stream segment routinely exceeds numeric water quality criteria for the 

metals cadmium, copper, iron, lead, and zinc. Metals 

concentrations decrease in the downstream direction 

to the point where exceedences of metals-related 

numeric water quality criteria typically occur only 

during high flows. Water quality data from Blackfoot 

River, from Landers Fork to Nevada Creek, occasionally exceed numeric water quality criteria during high flows for cadmium, iron, aluminum, and zinc. 

Sources of metals-related impairment and acidity 

from the upper river segments are associated with 

the Upper Blackfoot Mining Complex. Reclamation 

activities, including restoration strategies for metals-listed segments of the Blackfoot River, rely on 

the completion of water quality restoration commitments from the Upper Blackfoot Mining Complex.

In 2005, a basin-wide restoration action plan for 

the Blackfoot River watershed was completed. This 

action plan serves as a guiding document to identify, 

rank, and plan for the implementation of restoration 

projects in the Blackfoot River watershed.

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area

Watersheds in the Rocky Mountain Front include 

the Sun River, Teton River, and Dearborn River. 

The Sun River watershed is connected to the Teton 

River watershed via human-built canals and irrigation works.

Sun River Watershed

The Sun River watershed spans several land types, 

from the forested headwaters in the Rocky Mountain wilderness to the prairies at its confluence with 

the Missouri River near the city of Great Falls, Montana. Agricultural land use dominates the watershed. The links between water quality, land use, and 

the natural variability of land types in the watershed 

are complex. Potentially impaired waters identified 

by the State of Montana in the Sun River watershed 

are Ford Creek, Gibson Reservoir, Willow Creek 

Reservoir, upper Sun River, lower Sun River, Freezeout Lake, and Muddy Creek.

The upper Sun River was identified as impaired 

on Montana’s 2000 and 2002 lists of impaired waterbodies because of excess nutrients. This segment is 

approximately 80 miles long and runs from Gibson 

Dam to Muddy Creek. Landowners, local watershed organizations, and many Federal, State, and 

local government agencies collaborated to carry out 

agricultural best management practices in the upper Sun River and its tributaries. Water quality 

improved as a result, allowing the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to remove the upper 

Sun River from the list for nutrients in 2006. The 

Sun River watershed project is a classic example of 

using the watershed approach to address nonpoint 

source pollution (EPA 2012).
58 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Teton River Watershed

The Teton River watershed is located on the eastern side of the Rocky Mountain Front in westcentral Montana. Recorded conditions in the Teton 

basin begin with the Lewis and Clark expedition of 

1804–1806. The expedition journals, as translated by 

Moulton (1999), documented several points of interest that can be used today to gain an understanding 

of the historical landscape and riparian vegetation. 

On June 3, 1805, the Fields brothers noted the 

Teton’s riparian areas as “containing much timber in 

its bottom, consisting of the narrow and wide leafed 

cottonwood with some birch and box alder undergrowth, willows, rosebushes, and currents.”

White settlers soon followed, using the expansive lands to raise large herds of cattle and horses. 

Where possible, rich, river bottoms were cleared to 

increase forage production. Irrigation soon followed 

to increase the amount of hay that could be produced 

and stored for winter. Land use along the river bottoms and floodplain has changed significantly. Some 

reaches of the river were channelized (straightened), 

permanent bridges for transportation were installed, 

and riparian areas were heavily used, which reduced 

bank-stabilizing vegetation.

The Teton River flows into the Marias River near 

Loma, in west-central Montana, and then into the 

Missouri River. In 1996, 13 stream segments or waterbodies in the Teton River watershed were listed 

with threatened or impaired beneficial use. In 2002, 

9 stream segments or waterbodies have impaired 

status, and 5 have been found to fully support all 

beneficial uses. The type and magnitude of water 

quality impairments vary across the watershed. 

Primary causes of water quality impairments include salinity, total dissolved solids and chlorides or 

sulfides, selenium, organic enrichment (dissolved 

oxygen), siltation (suspended solids), temperature, 

and nutrients. Other listed causes include stream 

flow alteration (dewatering), bank erosion, riparian 

degradation, fish habitat alteration, and other habitat alteration. Sources are varied, but predominantly 

result from the effects of a 1964 flood or relate to 

agricultural land uses and associated practices. Agricultural activities dominate the watershed, with 

84 percent of the land cover and land use identified 

as cropland, rangeland, or pasture. Irrigated and 

dryland agriculture practices have a cumulative effect on the river system and resultant water quality 

either by altering stream flows or by raising ground 

water levels and augmenting flows that contribute 

to saline seeps. Riparian grazing activities also have 

an effect on the health of the riparian zones, stability of stream banks, and ultimately, water quality 

(MDEQ 2003).

Dearborn River Watershed

In 1996, 2002, and 2004 the State of Montana reported that several stream segments in the Dearborn River watershed in west-central Montana have 

impaired beneficial uses. The segments of concern 

are the Dearborn River, middle fork Dearborn 

River, south fork Dearborn River, and Flat Creek. 

Causes of impairment in these stream segments 

include flow alteration, thermal modifications, other 

habitat alterations, and siltation (MDEQ 2005).

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

and Swan Valley Conservation Area 

Clear, cold waters emerge from the Mission Range 

and Swan Range and flow through the 410,000-acre 

Swan River watershed joining the Flathead River 

and eventually reaching the Pacific Ocean by way 

of the Columbia River. The Swan Valley holds more 

surface water than any other Montana watershed; 

16 percent of the land is wet. Water collects in 

more than 4,000 potholes, ponds, lakes, marshes, 

and wetlands, and a 1,300-mile network of streams 

transports water throughout the valley. Two key 

water quality problems facing the Swan Lake watershed include (1) sediment from past activities; 

and (2) converted forest land for residential use. 

The development of roads and homesites has created water quality problems in the Swan Valley. 

Water quality in Swan Lake is generally excellent, 

however, dissolved oxygen levels in two deep basins 

reach unexpected low levels in the fall of each year. 

Low dissolved oxygen levels are of concern due to 

their potential harm to aquatic life and as an indication that basin-wide increases in pollutants may be 

reaching Swan Lake (Swan Ecosystem Center 2011).

Water Rights

Montana waters, in all their varied forms and locations, belong to the State. The Montana constitution states that all surface, underground, flood, and 

atmospheric waters within the boundaries of the 

State are the property of the State for the use of 

its people. (Article IX, section 3[3]). Since water 

belongs to the State, anyone who holds a water right 

does not own the water itself, instead, they possess a 

right to use the water within State guidelines.

Water rights in Montana are guided by the prior 

appropriation doctrine, that is, first in time is first in 

right. A person’s right to use a specific quantity of 

water depends on when the use of water began. The 

first person to use water from a source established 

the first right; the second person could establish a 

right to the water that was left, and so on. During 
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 59

Table 6. Water rights and use on Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Claim, 

permit, Priority Allowed vol- Source, Diversion Flow certificate date, ume per year use means rate* number, or use period (acre-feet)

compact

Other 

information

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

41K–W–

188174 

4/28/1958, 

January 1– 

December 31

Muddy Creek, 

USFWS

Pumps 50 cfs 14,600 Associated with 

UFWS and Bureau 

of Reclamation Sun 

River Irrigation 

Project

Compact 11/21/1929, 

January 1– 

December 31

Ground water 

and natural 

flow, groundwater is to be 

used at refuge 

headquarters 

and natural flow 

is for Wildlife 

Habitat Maintenance and 

Enhancement

Wells and 

Lake Creek 

drainage 

including 

unnamed 

tributaries to 

Benton Lake

2 at a rate 

of 45 gpm 

for ground 

water, and no 

volume associated with 

natural flow

Natural flow when it 

enters the refuge is 

subordinate to other 

rights as indicated 

in Compact Article 

II, Section 2.b. Not 

subject to change

United States Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar visits the refuge complex.

USFWS

dry years, the person with the first right has the 

first chance to use the available water to fulfill that 

right. The holder of the second right has the next 

chance. Water users are limited to the amount of 

water that can be beneficially used. In Montana, 

the term “beneficial use” means, generally, a use of 

the water for the benefit of the appropriator, other 

persons, or the public, including, but not limited to, 

agricultural (including stock water), domestic, fish 

and wildlife, industrial, irrigation, mining, municipal, 

power, and recreational uses.

Water rights are appurtenant to the land on 

which they are used and may, but do not have to, 

transfer with sale of the land. Water rights are summarized in table 6 and described in this section for 

the units of the refuge complex.
60 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 6. Water rights and use on Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Claim, 

permit, Priority Allowed vol- Source, Diversion Flow certificate date, ume per year use means rate* number, or use period (acre-feet)

compact

Other 

information

Blackfoot Waterfowl Production Area

76F–W–

33714

7/2/1888, 

April 15– 

October 15

Spring, 

irrigation

Headgate 6.1 cfs 479 Combined with 

76F–P–78265

76F–P–

78265

6/6/1991, 

January 1– 

December 31

Unnamed 

tributary of the 

Blackfoot River, 

wildlife and 

waterfowl

Dams and 

headgates

479 Combined with 

76F–W–33714. Not 

subject to change

76F–P–

3472

8/29/1974, 

April 1– 

October 15

Blackfoot River, 

irrigation

Pump 700 

gpm

370 Not subject to 

change

76F–W–

116248

6/3/1946, 

June 1– 

October 15

Unnamed tributary of Interior 

Drainage, stock

Direct from 

source

30 gallons 

per day per 

animal unit

Ehli Waterfowl Production Area

40F–W–

159045

12/31/1900, 

April 1– 

October 1

Willshaw Coulee, stockDirect from 

source

30 gallons 

per day per 

animal unit

40F–W–

214983

6/30/1973, 

January 1– 

December 31

Willshaw Coulee, USFWSEhli Dam 770.6

Furnell Waterfowl Production Area

41N–W–

183215

7/10/1902, 

January 1– 

December 31

Trail Creek, 

USFWS

Headgate 2 cfs 480.80

H2–O Ranch Waterfowl Production Area

76F–W–

98036

6/25/1896, 

April 14– 

October 31

Blackfoot River, 

irrigation

Headgate 

(McCormick/

Coughlin 

Ditch)

11.55 

gpm

Acquired a portion of 

water right claim 

76F–W–

98046

6/4/1889, 

April 14– 

October 31

Blackfoot River, 

irrigation

Headgate 

(McCormick/

Coughlin 

Ditch)

15 

gpm

Acquired a portion of 

water right claim 

76F–W–

98034

6/8/1892, 

April 14– 

October 31

Blackfoot River, 

irrigation

Headgate 

(McCormick/

Coughlin 

Ditch)

12.5 

gpm

Acquired a portion of 

water right claim 

76F–W–

98041

4/15/1910, 

April 15– 

October 31

Blackfoot River, 

stock

Direct from 

source and 

headgate 

(McCormick/

Coughlin 

Ditch)

30 gallons 

per day per 

animal unit

Acquired a portion of 

water right claim 
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 61

Table 6. Water rights and use on Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Claim, 

permit, Priority Allowed vol- Source, Diversion Flow certificate date, ume per year use means rate* number, or use period (acre-feet)

compact

Other 

information

76F–W–

98033

4/15/1910, 

April 14– 

October 31

Blackfoot River, 

irrigation

Headgate 

(McCormick/

Coughlin 

Ditch)

15.23 

cfs

Acquired a portion of 

water right claim 

76F–W–

117702

12/31/1938, 

January 1– 

December 31

Ground water, 

domestic and 

lawn irrigation

Well 35 

gpm

4

76F–W–

117703

12/31/1938, 

January 1– 

December 31

Ground water, 

stock

Well 35 

gpm

30 gallons 

per day per 

animal unit

76F–W–

117704

2/3/1960, 

May 1– 

December 1

Ground water, 

stock

Well 20 

gpm

30 gallons 

per day per 

animal unit

76F–W–

117705

12/31/1950, 

January 1– 

December 31

Ground water, 

stock

Well 35 

gpm

30 gallons 

per day per 

animal unit

76F–W–

117707

8/7/1962, 

January 1– 

December 31

Ground water, 

stock

Well 35 

gpm

30 gallons 

per day per 

animal unit

76F–W–

117710

6/26/1888, 

April 1– 

November 1

Blackfoot River, 

irrigation

Headgate 

(McCormick 

Ditch)

19.51 

cfs

76F–W–

117711

6/15/1889, 

April 1– 

November 1

Blackfoot River, 

irrigation

Headgate 

(McCormick 

Ditch)

19.51 

cfs

76F–C–

69182

9/14/1988, 

January 1– 

December 31

Ground water, 

stock

Well 25 

gpm

5.95 Not subject to 

change

76F–P–

17006

1/18/1978, 

April 15– 

October 15

Blackfoot River, 

irrigation

Pump 1500 

gpm

375 Not subject to 

change

76F–W–

214346

12/31/1938, 

January 1– 

December 31

Groundwater, 

USFWS

Well 66 

gpm

106 Claim was filed late

76F–W–

214347

6/26/1888, 

January 1– 

December 31

Blackfoot River, 

USFWS

Headgate 

(McCormick 

Ditch)

25 cfs 88 Claim was filed late

76F–W–

214348

5/27/1892, 

April 1– 

November 1

Waste and seepage unnamed 

tributary of 

Blackfoot River, 

irrigation

McCormick 

Ditch

12.5 

cfs

Associated with 

76F-W-117710 and 

117711 and claim was 

filed late

76F–W–

214349

12/31/1950, 

January 1– 

December 31

Ground water, 

USFWS

Well 75 

gpm

120 Claim was filed late
62 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 6. Water rights and use on Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Claim, 

permit, Priority Allowed vol- Source, Diversion Flow certificate date, ume per year use means rate* number, or use period (acre-feet)

compact

Other 

information

76F–W–

214350

12/31/1963, 

January 1– 

December 31

Waste and seepage unnamed 

tributary of 

Blackfoot River, 

USFWS

McCormick 

Ditch

12.5 

cfs

88 Claim was filed late

Kingsbury Lake Waterfowl Production Area

41R–W–

188250

9/20/1911, 

January 1– 

December 31

Unnamed 

tributary to 

Kingsbury Lake, 

USFWS

Dam 1 gpm

41R–W–

188251

9/20/1911, 

January 1– 

December 31

Kingsbury Lake, 

USFWS

Dam 2.5

41R–W–

188252

9/20/1911, 

January 1– 

December 31

Kingsbury Lake, 

USFWS

Dam 2.5

41R–P–

98648

1/8/1997, 

January 1– 

December 31

Alder Creek, 

stock

Dam 0.4

41R–W–

211490

12/31/1945, 

January 1– 

December 31

Alder Creek, 

USFWS

Dam 6

41R–W–

011806

5/31/1947, 

April 1– 

November 1

Kingsbury Lake, 

stock

Dam 2

41R–W–

011807

4/30/1947, 

April 1– 

November 1

Kingsbury Lake, 

stock

Dam 2

41R–W–

011808

4/30/1947, 

April 1– 

November 1

Kingsbury Lake, 

stock

Dam 2

41R–W–

011809

4/30/1947, 

April 1– 

November 1

Kingsbury Lake, 

stock

Pit 2

41R–W–

011810

6/30/1930, 

June 1– 

February 1

Alder Creek, 

stock

Direct from 

source

30 gallons 

per day per 

animal unit

41R–W–

011811

4/1/1947, 

April 1– 

November 1

Kingsbury Lake, 

stock

Pit 2

41R–W–

011812

9/30/1948, 

April 1– 

November 1

Ground water, 

stock

Well 0.5 

gpm

30 gallons 

per day per 

animal unit
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 63

Table 6. Water rights and use on Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Claim, 

permit, Priority Allowed vol- Source, Diversion Flow certificate date, ume per year use means rate* number, or use period (acre-feet)

compact

Other 

information

Kleinschmidt Waterfowl Production Area

76F–W–

97791

4/1/1919, 

April 1–

December 31

Kleinschmidt 

Lake, stock

Direct from 

source

30 gallons 

per day per 

animal unit

Powell County Waterfowl Production Area

76F–W–

150350

12/31/1900, 

January 1– 

December 31

Upsata Lake, 

domestic

Surface water 1.25 

cfs

5 Ownership pending

76F–W–

150351

12/31/1900, 

April 1– 

October 31

Upsata Lake, 

irrigation

Headgate 2.5 cfs Ownership pending

76F–W–

150352

12/31/1900, 

January 1– 

December 31

Unnamed tributary of Interior 

Drainage, stock

Direct from 

source

30 gallons 

per day per 

animal unit

Ownership pending

76F–W–

150353

12/31/1900, 

January 1– 

December 31

Unnamed tributary of Interior 

Drainage, stock

Direct from 

source

30 gallons 

per day per 

animal unit

Ownership pending

76F–W–

150354

12/31/1900, 

January 1– 

December 31

Unnamed tributary of Interior 

Drainage, stock

Direct from 

source

30 gallons 

per day per 

animal unit

Ownership pending

76F–W–

150356

12/31/1900, 

January 1– 

December 31

Upsata Lake, 

stock

Direct from 

source

30 gallons 

per day per 

animal unit

Ownership pending

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area

USFWS
64 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 6. Water rights and use on Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Claim, 

permit, Priority Allowed vol- Source, Diversion Flow certificate date, ume per year use means rate* number, or use period (acre-feet)

compact

Other 

information

Sands Waterfowl Production Area

40J–W–

118716

12/31/1945, 

April 1– 

November 1

Indian Woman 

Coulee, stock

Dam 0.66 Transferred incorrectly, acquired a 

portion of the water 

right claim

40J–W–

118717

4/30/1953, 

April 1– 

October 31

Indian Woman 

Coulee, 

irrigation

Headgate 2.92 

cfs

Transferred incorrectly, acquired a 

portion of the water 

right claim

40J–P–

11694

3/14/1977, 

January 1– 

December 31

Halfway Lake, 

stock

Pit 0.95 Not subject to 

change

40J–P–

30042409

6/12/2008, 

May 15– 

September 30

Indian Woman 

Coulee, stock

Pit 0.25 Not subject to 

change

Savik Waterfowl Production Area

41O–P–

30022505

5/26/2006, 

May 1– 

October 31

Foster Creek, 

stock

Pit 0.14 Not subject to 

change

41O–P–

30025677

11/20/2006, 

May 1– 

October 31

Foster Creek, 

stock

Pit 0.14 Not subject to 

change

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge

76K–W–

188247

2/10/1925, 

January 1– 

December 31

Swan River, 

USFWS

Dike 3395

76K–W–

188248

4/21/1927, 

January 1– 

December 31

Spring Creek, 

USFWS

Dike 135 

cfs

8,260 7,240 acre-feet is for 

nonconsumptive use

76K–W–

188249

4/21/1927, 

January 1– 

December 31

Bond Creek, 

USFWS

Dike 268

76K–W–

190563

2/10/1925, 

April 15– 

October 19

Swan River, 

irrigation

Dike 52.95 

cfs

3,395

76K–W–

190564

5/3/1923, 

January 1– 

December 31

Lime Creek, 

USFWS

Pipeline 1,793

76K–W–

190565

10/22/1919, 

January 1– 

December 31

Stopher Creek, 

USFWS

Pipeline 1,900

76K–W–

190566

9/20/1926, 

January 1– 

December 31

Lime Creek, 

USFWS

Pipeline 1,807

Note: permits, certificates, and compacts are subject to change due to Montana Statewide Adjudication except where 

noted as not subject to change. *Flow rate measures: cfs=cubic feet per second, gpm=gallons per minute.
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 65

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

The “Montana House bill 717–Bill to Ratify Water 

Rights Compact” (compact) is a water rights compact between the State of Montana and the Service 

signed July 17, 1997. The parties to this agreement 

recognize that the water rights described in the 

compact are junior to any tribal water rights with 

a priority date before the effective date of the compact, including aboriginal rights, if any, in the basins 

affected.

The refuge has two primary water rights. One 

is for 14,600 acre-feet of surface water from Muddy 

Creek (41K–W–188174) with a priority date of April 

28, 1958. The other is for the natural flow in the 

Lake Creek drainage, including the unnamed tributaries to Benton Lake, where the drainage enters 

the refuge in the amount of natural flow remaining 

after the satisfaction of the following rights:

■ all rights recognized under State law with a priority date before the effective date of the compact

■ any rights for stock watering ponds with a priority date after the effective date of the compact 

and a maximum capacity of the impoundment or 

pit of less than 15 acre-feet and an appropriation 

of less than 30 acre-feet per year from a source 

other than a perennial flowing stream

■ any right to appropriate ground water with a priority date after the effective date of the compact 

by means of a well or developed spring with a 

maximum appropriation of 35 gallons per minute 

(gpm) or less that does not exceed a total appropriation of 10 acre-feet per year

The refuge also has a ground water right to 2 acrefeet per year diverted at a maximum rate of 45 gpm 

from ground water beneath the Benton Lake Refuge.

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District

Water rights in the district exist for eight waterfowl 

production areas and include stock water, irrigation, 

domestic use, fish, and wildlife. The rights cover 

natural runoff, instream flows, artesian wells, and 

springs. Table 6 includes all district water rights.

The Blackfoot River watershed is currently going through the adjudication process.

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas

All water rights associated with the conservation areas in the refuge complex remain under the control 

of the landowner.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge

The refuge has seven water rights for irrigation and 

fish and wildlife purposes and all are associated with 

instream flows (table 6).

Air Quality

Air quality is a global concern. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has lead responsibility for the quality of air in the United States. 

Through the 1990 Clean Air Act, the agency sets 

limits on the amount of pollutants that can be discharged into the air. More than 170 million tons 

of pollution is emitted annually within the United 

States, through either stationary sources (such as 

industrial and power plants) or mobile sources (such 

as automobiles, airplanes, trucks, buses, and trains). 

There are also natural sources of air pollution such 

as fires, dust storms, volcanic activity, and other natural processes. The EPA has identified six principal 

pollutants that are the focus of its national regulatory program: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Air quality problems in Montana are usually 

found in more urban areas and in mountains or river 

valleys that are sensitive to temperature inversions. 

Carbon monoxide and particulate matter are the air 

pollutants that have the greatest adverse effect on 

Montana’s air quality. Particulate matter is tiny liquid or solid particles in the air that can be breathed 

in through the lungs.

Most of the refuge complex is located in rural 

settings where soot from slash burning, forest fires, 

wood burning fireplaces and stoves and dust associated with windblown sand and dirt from roadways, 

fields and construction sites are the main factors 

that contribute to particulate matter. The major 

sources of carbon monoxide in Montana are motor 

vehicles and residential wood burning.

Air quality for the refuge complex is considered 

to be good with few manufacturing sites or major air 

pollution sources.

The Federal Clean Air Act requirements provided the framework for Montana’s air quality pro-
66 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

gram. However, the State has exceeded the Federal 

requirements in many areas by:

■ adopting tougher ambient air quality standards 

for certain pollutants;

■ requiring a permitting program for smaller 

sources of pollution;

■ providing emission control analyses to the regulated public to make sure that smaller sources 

of air pollution have the best emission control 

technology available;

■ developing local air quality programs to regulate 

residential wood burning and road dust (the primary sources of particulate air pollution in Montana), as well as smaller sources of air pollution;

■ developing the Montana Smoke Management 

Plan and Open Burning Program to control the 

amount of harmful particulate matter that is released with smoke from prescribed fires.

The State of Montana, through the Department 

of Environmental Quality and local governments, 

continues to actively address air quality problems 

throughout the State. At present, urban development is more of a threat to Montana’s air quality 

than industrial activities (MDEQ 2011).

Areas that violate Federal air quality standards 

are designated nonattainment areas. The EPA declares each area nonattainment for a specific pollutant such as carbon monoxide or particulate matter. 

The only area designated to have attainment problems in the refuge complex was Great Falls (carbon 

monoxide). Great Falls met attainment standards 

for carbon monoxide in 2002.

3.2 Biological Resources

The following sections describe the biological resources and habitat management activities that may 

be affected by the implementation of the CCP. The 

biological features detailed below are vegetative 

habitat types and associated species of concern, 

birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fishes and 

insects. The quality of these habitats varies throughout the refuge complex due to water quality and 

quantity, the presence of invasive and nonnative 

species, effects from surrounding land uses, and the 

Service’s ability to properly manage and protect 

particular areas.

The major habitat types that occur on the refuge 

complex are as follows:

■ grasslands—comprised primarily of mixed-grass 

prairie with limited tame grasslands consisting of 

dense nesting cover (DNC) scattered throughout 

the refuge complex on fee-title land

■ wetlands and riparian areas—natural and enhanced freshwater and saline wetlands including 

lakes, rivers, and ponds

■ forests and woodlands

■ sagebrush-steppe

Habitat management activities include cooperative 

farming, prescribed fire and haying, and prescriptive 

grazing.

lB ue Grama Prairie Grass

Larry Allain / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Grasslands

Each unit of the refuge complex has its own, varied 

grassland habitat.

Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge and Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District

The district is the largest geographical district 

in the country encompassing ten counties, with 
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 67

nine counties on the east side of the Continental 

Divide and one on the west side. Historically, the 

northern mixed-grass prairie system stretched 

from northern Nebraska into southern Canada 

and westward through the Dakotas to the Rocky 

Mountain Front in Montana, now it covers only approximately 104,000 square miles. Dominant grass 

species include rough fescue, Idaho fescue, western 

wheatgrass, and green needlegrasses. Other common species include blue grama, needle and thread 

grass, and threadleaf sedge. Shrub species such as 

snowberry and prairie sagewort also occur. Fire and 

grazing, along with drought, constitute the primary 

dynamics affecting this system.

The northern mixed-grass prairie is one of the 

most disturbed grassland systems. An estimated 

75 percent of the region has been heavily altered. 

Agricultural crops are common in the central part 

of the district, also known as the Golden Triangle. 

This agricultural designation includes Great Falls 

as its apex and then roughly runs northeast through 

Havre, west to Cut Bank, and back to Great Falls. 

The area produces approximately half of Montana’s 

wheat, primarily winter and spring wheat, and is 

the most productive of the State’s farming areas 

that are not irrigated. Only a few remaining areas 

have escaped conversion to agriculture (NatureServe 2008). These grasslands are prominently represented in the district along the Rocky Mountain 

Front, surrounding the Sweet Grass Hills and in 

Glacier County on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation.

Benton Lake Refuge also has nearly 6,000 

acres of intact, northern mixed-grass prairie. The 

dominant plant community is represented by green 

needlegrass, western wheatgrass, thickspike wheatgrass, prairie Junegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass. 

Other grasses and sedges include plains reedgrass, 

threadleaf sedge and needleleaf sedge. Blue grama is 

the only common warm-season grass. Grasses represent about 80 percent of the total annual production 

in this community (NRCS 2005).

Common forbs on Benton Lake’s clayey soils include dotted gayfeather, American vetch, white prairie clover and purple prairie clover. American vetch 

and the prairie clover are nitrogen-fixing species 

and are valuable forage-producing plants. Groundplum milkvetch, scurfpea and prairie thermopsis 

are lower successional forbs that have the ability 

to fix nitrogen. White milkwort, biscuitroot, wild 

onion and western yarrow may be present as minor 

components of the plant community. Forbs represent about 15 percent of the total annual production 

(NRCS 2005).

Winterfat and Nuttall’s saltbush are common 

warm and cool-season shrubs, respectively, on 

Benton Lake Refuge. They are valuable forage for 

wildlife and livestock. Silver sagebrush, fringed 

sagewort, broom snakeweed and prickly pear cactus 

may also represent minor shrub components. Overall, shrubs account for about 5 percent of the annual 

plant production (NRCS 2005).

There are approximately 4,516 acres of tame 

grasslands existing on fee-title lands scattered 

throughout the refuge complex. Most of the tame 

grasslands were inherited as former farmland 

when the waterfowl production areas or refuges 

were bought. However, there were some limited 

areas of native prairie on Benton Lake Refuge that 

were broken and seeded to tame grass in the 1960s 

and early 1970s. The predominant herbaceous coolseason species used were varying combinations of 

intermediate wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, slender 

wheatgrass, pubescent wheatgrass, western wheatgrass, and crested wheatgrass; the legumes were alfalfa and sweetclover. The basic seeding rates were 

comprised of 75 percent wheatgrass and 25 percent 

legumes. These species, commonly referred to as 

DNC, were chosen based on research that showed 

they are highly attractive and beneficial to waterfowl (Duebbert 1969). DNC fields throughout the 

refuge complex vary from excellent to poor condition. Most stands are in some type of rotational 

management scheme to rejuvenate and extend the 

longevity of the planting.

Associated Wildlife

Grassland bird species on refuge complex lands are 

priority species due to the loss of grasslands in the 

surrounding areas and because their population 

trend is declining. During the past quarter-century, 

grassland birds have experienced steeper, more consistent, and more widespread population declines 

than any other avian guild in North America (Vickery et al. 2000). A 6-year study done in northwest 

Montana showed that grasslands in the northern 

Great Plains represent unique characteristics that 

support all of the species that are endemic to the 

landscape (Hendricks et al. 2007). On the refuge 

complex, priority grassland bird species include the 

Federal candidate species, Sprague’s pipit. Other 

grassland priority species include ferruginous hawk, 

upland sandpiper, long-billed curlew, marbled godwit, burrowing owl, short-eared owl, grasshopper 

sparrow, chestnut-collared longspur, Baird’s sparrow, and bobolink.

Grassland bird point counts were conducted for 4 

years (1994–1997) consecutively at the Benton Lake 

Refuge. More than 800 individuals and 41 species 

of grassland birds were detected. Over the course 

of these surveys, there was a steady decline of the 

chestnut-collared longspurs, grasshopper sparrows, 

and horned larks.

Grassland-bird point counts were also conducted 

for 3 years (1995–1997) at the Kingsbury Lake and 
68 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Furnell WPAs. There was high species richness, and 

grasshopper sparrow, Baird’s sparrow and Sprague’s 

pipits were the most abundant species (Benton Lake 

Refuge Non-game Monitoring Program, Piercy 

1997).

Grassland bird conservation and management 

recognizes the historical dynamics under which 

these habitats have evolved and, where feasible, 

incorporate the ecological processes that have generated and supported these distinctive grassland 

biotas (Vickery et al. 2000). Further management 

and conservation of these lands by refuge managers 

will support a diversity in grassland bird species.

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area

Sweeping expanses of native bunchgrass prairie 

are one of the most striking visual elements of the 

Blackfoot River watershed. Grassland areas here 

were targeted by early European settlers for grazing and farm lands. Today, most of the grassland 

areas are located on private land. Some have been 

converted to irrigated and dryland pastures or used 

for hay production. Nonnative species include creeping foxtail, orchard grass, timothy, tall wheatgrass, 

meadow brome, smooth brome, alfalfa and sainfoin. 

Large bunchgrass prairies occur throughout the 

valley bottoms. The dominant bunchgrass is rough 

fescue; other common native grasses include bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, prairie Junegrass, 

and several species of needlegrass. Native grassland 

often occurs in a matrix throughout the watershed.

Associated Wildlife

Grasslands support a variety of wildlife, including 

reptiles such as eastern racer, northern alligator 

lizard, rubber boa, and terrestrial garter snake 

(MNHP 2009). A variety of small mammals use 

grasslands in the Blackfoot Valley including shrews, 

voles, gophers, squirrels and rabbits. Large mammals include grizzly bears, white-tailed and mule 

deer, and elk.

In addition to grassland birds such as vesper 

sparrows and western meadowlarks, the Blackfoot 

Valley is perhaps also the best breeding and nesting 

area for the long-billed curlew in western Montana. 

This species is declining nationally and has been 

identified as a priority in both the shorebird and PIF 

conservation plans. Local surveys on Kleinschmidt 

Flat in 1997 found 31 pairs on 3,840 acres or more 

than 8 pairs per 1,000 acres. Production was not 

monitored, but many broods were noted. This species is highly reliant on grassland-nesting habitat, 

but will also nest in sagebrush-steppe, and relies 

more heavily on wetlands during migration.

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area

The Front contains the largest intact expanse of 

fescue grasslands left in the northern Great Plains 

(Lesica 1994). Higher elevations include fescue 

grasslands and a large acreage recently changed 

by a wildfire that is now a mix of mostly Douglasfir regeneration among burned tree trunks over 

relatively lush fescue grasslands. The fescue is often 

mixed with shrubs. Creeping juniper and kinnikinnick occur on somewhat drier sites, and shrubby 

cinquefoil is common in more mesic areas. Shrubby 

cinquefoil is particularly common in the northern 

extreme of the Front, but also follows the greater 

eastward expansion of the fescue-type habitat in 

the southern end, where it is more closely associated with stream terraces. The fescue grasslands at 

higher elevation (and with correspondingly greater 

precipitation) transition at lower elevations to 

grasslands dominated by various grass species in response to soil and topography. Western wheatgrass 

is the dominant species in swales (lower elevation 

land that remains moist) with heavier soils. Needle 

and thread is the most common species on sandier 

soils, which tend to occur somewhat higher in the 

local landscape. Bluebunch wheatgrass is associated 

with steeper slopes; mixtures of any or all these 

grasses can occur with the variable conditions found 

in this diverse landscape. Blue grama can become 

very common with sustained heavy grazing. The 

absence of sagebrush is notable and currently unexplained.

Associated Wildlife

Lying next to Bob Marshall Wilderness, the diverse 

habitats of the Rocky Mountain Front play a critical 

role in sustaining the Northern Continental Divide 

Ecosystem’s (NCDE) free-ranging wildlife populations. It is one of the last remaining areas in the 

lower 48 United States with an intact assemblage of 

large mammalian carnivores, and it is the only place 

in the world where grizzly bears still roam from the 

mountains onto the prairies as they did nearly 200 

years ago. An estimated 100–150 bears frequent 

the project area, which is included in much of the 

recovery plan for the NCDE grizzly bear population. There are estimated to be 835 individual gray 

wolves making up approximately 110 packs in the 

Montana portion of the NCDE. The Front once supported a large concentration of swift fox, which were 

nearly extirpated from the State. Swift fox are now 

being reintroduced just north of the project area 

through a partnership between Defenders of Wildlife and the Blackfeet Indian Nation and may eventually move back into the project area.

The Rocky Mountain Front provides essential habitat for many grassland birds, many, of 
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 69

which, are experiencing significant population declines. These include chestnut-collared longspurs, 

Sprague’s pipits, ferruginous hawks, long-billed curlews, and McCown’s longspur. In addition, the most 

common birds found on grasslands along the Front 

during an inventory in 2004 include vesper sparrows, western meadowlarks, horned larks, Brewer’s 

blackbirds, Savannah sparrows, and upland sandpipers (Lenard and Hendricks 2005).

The grasslands provide critical winter range for 

all large ungulates found within the eastern Bob 

Marshall Wilderness. Thousands of elk and mule 

deer winter primarily on State wildlife management 

areas along the Front. Shiras moose, a subspecies 

found in the central Rocky Mountains, occasionally 

frequent the project area. The grasslands along the 

eastern part of the project boundary also sustain 

small populations of pronghorn.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

and Swan Valley Conservation Area

The current grasslands of the Swan Valley and the 

Swan River Refuge are the result of conversions 

of other habitat types. Settlers to the valley often 

converted forested areas and wet meadows and seasonal wetland habitats to haying and grazing areas. 

Trees were removed and fields destumped and attempts were made to drain wetlands and plant timothy and reed canarygrass for forage. These areas 

remain today as grasslands awaiting restoration to 

forested habitat or wetlands (personal communication, Mike Pallidinie, October 2011).

Wetlands And Riparian Areas

The diversity of wetland and riparian types within 

the refuge complex is exceptional. They include 

major riparian areas (including the Missouri River, 

Blackfoot River, and the Swan River), smaller riparian tributaries, glacial prairie potholes, depressional 

wetlands, emergent marshes, lakes, bogs, fens, and 

swamps. Many systems have been developed to 

classify and describe wetland types. The Service 

has adopted as its national standard the “Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the 

United States” (Cowardin et al. 1979). Added hydrologic and vegetation characteristics for the refuge 

complex wetlands that are also specific to Montana 

are described here by crossing the Cowardin classification system with the Ecological Systems described by Comer and others (2003) and produced 

by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) 

(MNHP 2011b).

Wet–dry climatic cycles in Montana, often in 10- 

to 20-year periods, exert a strong influence on the 

wetlands and riparian systems in the refuge complex 

(Hansen et al. 1995). During this climatic cycle, wetlands go through a dry marsh, regenerating marsh, 

degenerating marsh, and a lake phase that is regulated by periodic drought and deluge (van der Valk 

1981, Mitsch and Gosselink 2000, Euliss et al. 2004). 

During drought periods, seeds from annuals and 

perennials germinate and cover exposed mudflats. 

When precipitation floods the depressions, the annuals drown and the perennials survive, regenerating the marsh. Over a series of years, perennials 

dominate and submersed and floating-leaved hydrophytes return. After a few years of the regenerating phase, emergent vegetation begins to decline 

and eventually the marsh reverts to an open-water 

system. Muskrats may play an important role in 

the decline of emergent vegetation in some of these 

systems. During drought, the drawdown to mudflats is necessary so that emergent vegetation can 

become reestablished. Flooding, drawdown, and the 

eventual exposure of mudflats drive the water-level 

vegetation cycle.

Wet–dry cycles are important for supporting 

water quality for vegetation and wildlife in wetlands. During wet cycles, contaminants such as salts, 

metals, and nutrients are washed into wetlands. 

Agriculture and forestry operations, when adjacent, 

may cause nutrient and herbicide runoff. In saline 

soil marshes, an increase in precipitation during 

exceptionally wet years can dilute the salt concentration in the soils, allowing less salt-tolerant species to occur. The dry cycles create periods where 

these toxins can be neutralized by wind, the sun, 

and chemical transformation to remove them from 

wetlands (Zhang and Moore 1997, Smith et al. 2008, 

Heitmeyer et al. 2009).

Similar to wetlands, healthy, productive riparian 

areas are supported by dynamic processes (MNHP 

2011b). Random and variable flood events scour and 

redistribute sediments which create new locations 

for vegetation to become established, which can 

further trap sediments, elevate gravel bars, and 

create backwater channels. This variability creates 

a variety of vegetation communities at different successional stages. 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Benton Lake historically was a large, seasonally 

flooded marsh that likely supported emergent vegetation during some years. Currently, portions of 

the wetland are permanently flooded and are more 

like a lake with relatively large areas of open water. The wetland is completely isolated from the regional ground water system by the presence of an 

impermeable layer of clay. Subsurface soil layers 

restrict water movement and root penetration. The 
70 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

water can have increased salinity and be somewhat 

brackish. The historical gradation of vegetation 

zones within Benton Lake, from robust emergents 

in deeper depressions to grasslands on uplands, has 

been altered. Most historical vegetation communities are still present on the refuge, but their distribution and extent have changed. Developments 

for water management and a subsequent alteration 

in hydrology and water chemistry in Benton Lake 

pools are responsible for most changes. Generally, 

communities have shifted from drier wetland vegetation, such as western wheatgrass, foxtail barley 

and sedges, to a more extensive distribution of wetter and more alkaline-tolerant species (for example, 

alkali bulrush and cattails). Increasing amounts of 

exotic and invasive species also occur on the refuge 

(Heitmeyer et al. 2009).

Broadleaf cattail is an emergent plant species in wetland 

habitat.

Jeff McMillian / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Associated Wildlife

A rich diversity of wildlife species use the Benton 

Lake basin (see Appendix G–Species Lists). Aquatic 

invertebrates include a variety of Crustacea, such as 

Daphnia sp., Gammarus sp., and Hyalella azteca, 

and insects such as Corixid beetles, damselflies and 

dragonflies, Notonectid backswimmers, and Chironomids (Heitmeyer et al. 2009).

Several amphibian and reptile species also use 

Benton Lake, including tiger salamanders, boreal 

chorus frogs, painted turtles, and common, western 

and plains garter snakes. There is one historical record of northern leopard frog on the refuge, but no 

recent occurrences. Fathead minnows are the only 

fish species occasionally present on the refuge.

Mammal species diversity and abundance in the 

Benton Lake wetland basin is relatively low, except 

for many small rodents such as mice and voles. Several species of bats likely use wetlands as foraging 

areas, but no formal surveys have been conducted. 

Muskrat often create openings in wetland vegetation 

with den building, but shallow water that freezes 

completely every year may be limiting their numbers. Additionally, many mammal species found 

mostly in the uplands, such as coyote, white-tailed 

deer, mule deer, and pronghorn, use dry parts of the 

wetlands to forage and breed.

Many waterbirds breed in the Benton Lake area. 

The most common breeding species include eared 

grebe, mallard, northern pintail, gadwall, bluewinged teal, cinnamon teal, American wigeon, northern shoveler, redhead, lesser scaup, ruddy duck, 

Canada goose, American coot, American avocet, 

Wilson’s phalarope, marbled godwit, willet, Franklin’s gull, white-faced ibis, black-necked stilt, and 

black-crowned night-heron.

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District

Wetlands within the district, both on Service lands 

and throughout the landscape, are typically located 

in shallow depressions created by glacial activity 

during the last ice age. They are often found in 

complexes. In Montana, depressional wetlands are 

most concentrated to the north of Montana State 

Highway 2, from Glacier National Park to the North 

Dakota border. Individual depressions can also be 

found across the Northwestern Glaciated Plains 

north of the Missouri River. 

Small, Shallow And Vegetated Wetlands

Most wetlands within the district are relatively 

small, shallow, and vegetated and are typically 

known as marshes, swamps, bogs, fens and wet 

meadows (Cowardin et al. 1979). The underlying 

soils, hydrology, and water chemistry strongly influence the vegetation found in these wetlands in any 

given year. 

Some of these small, shallow, and vegetated wetlands are isolated from both ground water and other 

wetlands by an impermeable layer such as dense 

clay. The major sources of inputs are precipitation 

and snowmelt, and water loss occurs through evapotranspiration. These wetlands are temporarily or 

seasonally flooded, with most filling with water only 

occasionally and drying quickly, which affects the 

plant communities that are present. The drawdown 

zone is typically dominated by western wheatgrass, 

foxtail barley, povertyweed, common spikerush, 

hardstem bulrush or willow dock. Species richness 

can vary considerably among individual wetlands, 

and it is especially influenced by adjacent land use 

such as agriculture and grazing (MNHP 2011b).
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 71

Wetlands like these with more consistent water 

(for example, seasonal, semipermanent, and permanent wetlands) usually have a larger watershed and 

a significant connection to ground water. Species 

diversity can often be high. These wetlands usually contain emergent vegetation, such as cattails, 

sedges, spikerushes, rushes and bulrushes, as well as 

floating vegetation such as pondweeds, arrowhead, 

or common hornwort. When water recedes along 

the edges or during drought years, annuals and perennials, such as sedges, will germinate in exposed 

mudflats (MNHP 2011b).

Some of the small, shallow, and vegetated wetlands within the district have increased soil salinity 

due to high evaporation and the accumulation of 

minerals dissolved in the water. Salt-tolerant plants 

such as alkali bulrush, common three square, inland 

saltgrass, Nuttall’s alkali grass, foxtail barley, red 

swampfire and freshwater cordgrass, and shrubs 

such as black greasewood are typical of these wetlands. Less salt-tolerate plants may occur in wet 

years when the salts are diluted (MNHP 2011b).

Prairie potholes occur in shallow depressions 

scraped out by glaciers in the northern Great Plains 

of Montana. The concentration of dissolved solids 

can vary considerably, even within the same year, 

although most prairie potholes contain alkaline water. Vegetation within these wetlands is highly influenced by hydrology and salinity. If water persists 

through the summer, monotypic stands of hardstem 

bulrush may occur with minor components of softstem bulrush or common threesquare along slightly 

drier margins. In permanently flooded sites, aquatic 

buttercups, aquatic smartweeds, pondweeds, or 

duckweeds are common. In seasonal and temporary 

wetlands, vegetation generally occurs in bands from 

a wetter middle dominated by spikerush through 

a drier ring of foxtail barley and an outer margin 

of western wheatgrass or thickspike wheatgrass 

(MNHP 2011b). Potholes are most common in the 

district around the Sweet Grass Hills and the northern end of the Front.

Wetlands with mineral soils that are subjected to 

long periods of anaerobic conditions can be found in 

the district as fringes around lakes or oxbows, and 

along slow-flowing streams and rivers as riparian 

marshes. The wetlands are typically seasonal or 

semipermanent. Seasonal wetlands typically have 

a central shallow marsh zone dominated by graminoids and sedges, while the deeper central marsh 

zone of semipermanent wetlands are dominated by 

cattails and bulrushes. Dominant vegetation often 

includes western wheatgrass, Northwest Territory 

sedge, Nebraska sedge, broadleaf cattail, and hardstem bulrush. Alkaline communities include western 

wheatgrass, freshwater cordgrass, and seashore 

saltgrass (MNHP 2011b).

More than 30 wetland basins of this type now 

exist on the H2–O WPA. These wetlands are primarily the remnants of natural oxbow basins that were 

created as the Blackfoot River meandered back and 

forth across the valley. Many of these wetlands were 

drained under earlier ownership, but have since 

been restored. With the recent restoration of many 

of these wetlands, some of the wetter areas are beginning to revert to sedge and rush communities. 

However, quackgrass continues to dominate in many 

areas, and it will take active management practices 

to convert these areas back to a more native composition.

Lake-System Wetlands

Lake systems are less common on fee-title lands 

across the district. These wetlands typically have 

deeper, more permanent water with less than 30 

percent emergent vegetation (typically restricted 

to the edges) (Cowardin et al. 1979). Species associated with lake-system wetlands include sedges, 

creeping spikerush, broadleaf cattail and bulrush. 

Floating-leaved hydrophytes may be present in 

shallower areas of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs or in 

river backwaters. These include water lilies, yellow 

pondlily, buttercup, pondweed, and duckweed. Submergents such as common hornwort, horned pondweed, mare’s tail, and water milfoil are also found in 

warm, shallow areas of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs 

(MNHP 2011b). Examples of this type can be found 

on Arod Lakes WPA.

Riparian Areas

Riparian areas are associated with perennial to intermittent or ephemeral streams throughout the 

northwestern Great Plains. Flooding is important 

in riparian areas for seed dispersal, vegetation establishment, and creating a diversity of vegetation 

communities, such as forest, shrubland, and wet 

meadows, as well as gravel and sand flats. In the 

western part of Montana, the overstory is often 

dominated by species such as black cottonwood, with 

narrowleaf cottonwood and Plains cottonwood occurring as codominants. Further east, narrowleaf 

cottonwood and Plains cottonwood become dominant. In wetter systems, the understory is typically 

willow and redosier dogwood with graminoids like 

western wheatgrass and forbs like American licorice. Sagebrush may dominate in areas where the 

channel is incised. Overgrazing or agriculture can 

degrade riparian systems causing saltcedar and 

Russian olive to replace native woody vegetation 

(MNHP 2011b).

Riparian areas along the foothills and valleys 

of the mountains are generally comprised of a mosaic of trees and shrubs. Black cottonwood is the 

key indicator species. Other dominant trees may 
72 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

include boxelder maple, narrowleaf cottonwood, 

eastern cottonwood, Douglas-fir, peachleaf willow, 

or Rocky Mountain juniper. Dominant shrubs include Rocky Mountain maple, thinleaf alder, river 

birch, redosier dogwood, hawthorn, chokecherry, 

skunkbush sumac, willows, rose, silver buffaloberry, 

or snowberry. These riparian areas may be next to 

sagebrush-steppe in moderately high intermountain 

basins (MNHP 2011b).

Mallard Pair

Gene Nieminen / USFWS

Redheads feed in large, open areas.

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS

Associated Wildlife

A rich diversity of animal species use the wetlands 

and riparian habitats of the district. The relative 

abundance of species and specific food and cover 

resources used by animals vary with the long-term 

dynamics of flooding and drying in the systems 

(Frederickson and Reed 1988, Batzer et al. 1999, 

Wrubleski 2005). Aquatic invertebrates reach high 

abundance and biomass during wet periods of longterm water cycles in Great Plains wetlands and include a rich diversity of Crustacea, such as Daphnia

sp., Gammarus sp., and Hyalella azteca, and insects 

such as Corixid beetles, damselflies and dragonflies, 

Notonectid backswimmers, and Chironomids (Heitmeyer et al. 2009).

Several amphibian and reptile species use the 

district wetlands and riparian areas on the Plains. 

Amphibians include three species of frogs (boreal 

chorus, northern leopard, and Columbia spotted), 

four species of toads (plains spadefoot, Great Plains, 

Woodhouse’s, and western) and tiger salamanders. 

Reptiles include the common garter snake, plains 

garter snake, terrestrial garter snake, painted turtle, and spiny softshell turtles (MNHP 2011b). In the 

Blackfoot Valley, the Rocky Mountain tailed frog and 

long-toed salamander have also been documented 

(MNHP 2011b). The presence and abundance of 

some common species like tiger salamanders, gartersnakes, and boreal chorus frogs varies among years 

as flooding and drying changes resource availability 

and these species’ susceptibility to being prey for 

other species groups (Heitmeyer et al. 2009).

Smaller prairie streams support native fish 

such as fathead minnows, white suckers, and lake 

chubs (Holton and Johnson 1996). Several streams 

and rivers along the Front support pure strains of 

westslope cutthroat trout and are considered highly 

significant for the east slope population. The Sun 

River was historically a stronghold for fluvial Arctic 

grayling, which vanished from the system because of 

habitat degradation. In the spring of 1999, grayling 

were reintroduced above Gibson Dam into upper 

Sun River tributaries. A rare hybrid of the northern 

redbelly dace also occurs along the Front. There are 

currently 12 native fish species and 13 nonnative fish 

species in the Blackfoot River watershed, as well as 

several hybrid salmonids (MFWP 2010).

Mammal species diversity and abundance in the 

district wetlands is relatively low, except for many 

small rodents such as mice and voles. The relative 

abundance and productivity of wetland-dependent 

species like muskrat and mink track long-term hydrological and vegetation dynamics. Several species of bats may use wetlands as foraging areas, 

especially when flooded. Additionally, many mammal 

species that mostly use the uplands surrounding 

wetlands, such as coyote, white-tailed deer, mule 

deer, pronghorn, and elk may move into wetlands 

during dry seasons and years to forage and breed.

Many waterbirds use the district wetlands, but 

species richness, abundance, and production vary 

with the extent and duration of flooding in the basins. The most common breeding species include 

eared grebe, mallard, northern pintail, gadwall, 

blue-winged teal, cinnamon teal, American wigeon, 

northern shoveler, redhead, lesser scaup, ruddy 

duck, Canada goose, American coot, American avocet, Wilson’s phalarope, marbled godwit, willet, and 

black tern. During wetter periods of the long-term 

precipitation and flooding cycle, many waterfowl, 
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 73

shorebirds, wading birds, gulls, and terns,and other 

wetland-dependent species are present, and productivity is high. Breeding waterbird productivity 

here follows the long-term dynamics of production in 

other northern prairie systems as vegetation, invertebrate, and nutrient cycling changes when wetlands 

dry, reflood, reach peak flooding extent, and then 

begin drying again (Murkin et al. 2000).

Waterbird use across the district is high during 

the fall and spring migration periods, both in wet 

and dry periods. During drier periods, extensive 

mudflat areas can attract shorebirds that use rich 

benthic and terrestrial invertebrate resources, and 

drying wetlands concentrate aquatic prey that is 

used by wading birds, some terrestrial birds, and 

mammals. As water in the district rises during wetter periods, more of the basins are flooded in both 

the spring and fall and provide critical migration 

stopover areas for waterfowl, shorebirds, wading 

birds, and other species such as birds of prey, songbirds, rails, and blackbirds. Bald eagle and peregrine 

falcon, raptor species of concern, are attracted to the 

region when large numbers of waterfowl and waterbirds are present (Heitmeyer et al. 2009).

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area

As with other areas of the refuge complex, the 

Blackfoot Valley CA includes a rich diversity of wetland and riparian systems. Approximately 5 percent 

of the area is made up of wetland and riparian areas. 

The dominant riparian feature is the Blackfoot River 

and its associated tributaries. This is a cool to coldwater system with strong seasonal variability due 

to melting snow pack from higher-elevation mountainous areas. The Blackfoot is a classic freestone 

trout river with boulder and cobble riffles, cobble 

and gravel runs and pools, and silt on the margins 

or in the deepest pools. Deep runs and pools with 

undercut banks and large woody debris provide the 

best fish habitats, while the riffles harbor diverse 

macroinvertebrate communities. The Blackfoot is a 

clear-running river, except during spring runoff or 

where heavy livestock use, bank erosion, or stream 

incisement has occurred (MNHP 2011b). 

As with other parts of the district, the Blackfoot 

Valley contains small, shallow, and vegetated wetlands and lake-system wetlands that have already 

been described, however, it is more likely in these 

higher-elevation areas that wetlands may be dominated by woodland and forest vegetation.

In northwestern Montana, wooded small and 

shallow wetlands, or vernal pools, occur on valley 

bottoms, lower benches, toe slopes, and flat sites 

from elevations of 2,840–5,200 feet. Wooded vernal pools are glacially created small, shallow, freshwater wetlands that partially or totally dry up by 

fall. Wooded vernal pools are often surrounded by 

grand fir, subalpine fir, western larch, Engelmann 

spruce, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, black cottonwood, and, to a lesser extent, quaking aspen and 

paper birch. Other common species include water 

starwort, inflated sedge, common spikerush, and 

reed canarygrass (MNHP 2011b).

In northwestern Montana, small, shallow, and 

vegetated wetlands dominated by conifers with 

permanent or seasonal flooding are also known as 

conifer swamps. This is an uncommon wetland type 

often next to lakes, fens, or wet meadows with areas 

of moving and stagnant water. Vegetation includes 

western red cedar, western hemlock, subalpine fir, 

and Engelmann spruce forests. Some of the most 

typical understory species include American ladyfern, woodfern, skunk cabbage, field horsetail, arrowleaf groundsel, and bluejoint reedgrass. This 

system frequently borders fens and wet to mesic 

coniferous forests (MNHP 2011b).

Associated Wildlife

Five amphibians have been documented in the 

Blackfoot Valley: Columbia spotted frog, long-toed 

salamander, Pacific tree frog, Rocky Mountain tailed 

frog, and western toad.

There are 12 native fish species and 13 nonnative 

fish species in the Blackfoot River watershed, as 

well as several hybrid salmonids (MFWP 2010).

The Blackfoot River watershed also provides 

quality breeding, nesting, migratory, and wintering 

habitat for a diversity of wetland-dependent bird 

species. Wetland complexes here provide important 

breeding habitat for 22 species of waterfowl: 

■ northern pintail

■ mallard

■ lesser scaup

■ wood duck

■ redhead

■ ring-necked duck

■ canvasback

■ American wigeon

■ Canada goose

■ green-winged teal

■ blue-winged teal

■ cinnamon teal

■ northern shoveler

■ gadwall

■ common goldeneye

■ Barrow’s goldeneye

■ harlequin duck

■ bufflehead

■ hooded merganser

■ common merganser

■ red-breasted merganser

■ ruddy duck
74 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

During the nesting season in 1995, 1996, and 1997, 

the University of Montana Wildlife Cooperative 

Unit and the Service conducted breeding bird productivity studies in three separate properties within 

the Blackfoot River watershed, including the Blackfoot WPA. Nest success for upland nesting waterfowl (measured by the Mayfield method), including 

pintail, mallard, and lesser scaup, was found to be 

49, 30, and 45 percent, respectively (Fondell and 

Ball 1997). These nest success estimates are some 

of the highest in North America for upland nesting 

ducks. Fondell and Ball (1997) stated that “Because 

the [Ovando] Valley is relatively undisturbed these 

estimates may reflect nest success over large areas 

of the watershed.”

Brood surveys of northern shoveler, gadwall, 

American wigeon, cinnamon and blue-winged teal, 

canvasback, redhead, ring-necked, ruddy, and Barrow’s goldeneye ducks in 1995 and 1996 on the 

WPAs in the Blackfoot Valley averaged 63 broods 

on 5 wetlands totaling 104 acres, or 0.62 broods per 

acre, with prefledge brood sizes of 5.2 in 1995 and 5.9 

in 1996, which were higher than brood sizes reported 

in studies conducted at Freezeout Lake Wildlife 

Management Area and at Benton Lake Refuge on 

the east side of the Continental Divide (Fondell and 

Ball 1997). This high productivity is due to the large 

expanses of relatively undisturbed native grassland 

in association with wetland habitat, a coyote-dominated predator base, and a high concentration of 

glaciated wetlands. Breeding waterfowl pair counts 

have shown relatively high pair densities per square 

section for redhead and canvasback ducks. Redhead 

duck numbers over the past 15 years have averaged 

12 pairs per section and canvasback ducks have averaged 9 pairs per section.

The Blackfoot Valley CA has also had a successful trumpeter swan reintroduction project for the 

last several years. Please see the Species of Concern 

section in this chapter for more details.

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area

This CA lies within the district and has a similar 

diversity of wetlands and riparian types as already 

described for the district. The Dearborn, Sun, and 

Teton Rivers form major riparian corridors running 

from the mountains eastward onto the prairies. Approximately 30 percent of the 700-plus plant species 

documented on the Front are associated exclusively 

with wetland or riparian habitats, including some of 

the largest remaining fens in the Pacific Northwest.

Fens are confined to specific environments defined by ground water discharge, soil chemistry, and 

peat accumulation. Fens form at low points in the 

landscape where ground water supports a constant 

water level at, or near, the surface most of the time. 

Constant high-water levels typically lead to a relatively deep accumulation of organic material. Fens 

can be very diverse, with a large number of rare and 

uncommon bryophytes and vascular plant species, 

and provide habitat for uncommon mammals, mollusks, and insects.

Fens usually occur as a mosaic of herbaceous 

communities dominated by sedges, spikerushes, and 

rushes and woody plant communities of willow and 

birch carr shrubland. Forb diversity is especially 

high in fens. Fens are often found in association with 

other wetlands such as marshes, wet meadows, riparian shrublands, conifer swamps, or wet to mesic 

coniferous forests (MNHP 2011b).

Associated Wildlife

Several amphibians occur along the Front, including three species of frogs (boreal chorus, northern 

leopard, and Columbia spotted), two species of toads 

(plains spadefoot and western), and two species of 

salamanders (tiger and long-toed). The common garter snake, plains garter snake, terrestrial garter 

snake, and painted turtle are reptiles known to occur 

along the Front (Maxell et al. 2003).

Several streams and rivers along the Front support pure strains of westslope cutthroat trout and 

are considered highly significant for the east slope 

population. The Sun River was historically a stronghold for fluvial Arctic grayling, which vanished from 

the system because of habitat degradation. In the 

spring of 1999, grayling were reintroduced above 

Gibson Dam into the upper Sun River tributaries. A 

rare hybrid of the northern redbelly dace also occurs 

within the project area.

Lying at the western end of the PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region within the refuge complex, the 

Front provides habitat for a significant diversity 

of wetland-dependent bird species. Seventeen species of waterfowl breed within the project area, including the harlequin duck, which is found along 

several mountain streams. Three nesting pairs of 

rare trumpeter swans have been documented in the 

Bean Lake–Nylan Reservoir complex, one of the few 

breeding occurrences outside of the Centennial Valley in southwest Montana. Hundreds of thousands 

of snow geese migrate along the Front, including 

40,000 Wrangel Island snow geese, representing 50 

percent of the entire known population. Peak flights 

of waterfowl along the Front during the spring and 

fall migrations often exceed several million birds. 

Six species of grebes are known to nest, including 

the red-necked grebe, a species in serious decline in 

many other areas. Eleven different species of shorebirds breed in the wetlands and adjacent grasslands 

scattered throughout the area. Several thousand 

sandhill cranes from the Rocky Mountain population 

use the river corridors during their spring and fall 
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 75

migrations, and some of the cranes breed in these 

areas as well.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

and Swan Valley Conservation Area

Most wetlands on the Swan River refuge are seasonal or semipermanent emergent or scrub–shrub 

wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1979, MNHP 2011b) that 

occur around Swan Lake or in oxbows of the Swan 

River. Historically, dominant vegetation in the Swan 

River wetlands may have included western wheatgrass, Northwest Territory sedge, Nebraska sedge, 

broadleaf cattail, and hardstem bulrush, however, 

today reed canarygrass is common (MNHP 2011b). 

The federally threatened wetland plant, water howellia, can be found on TNC Preserve that borders 

the southern edge of the refuge, but the plant has 

not been confirmed to exist on the refuge to date. 

The Swan River also flows through the refuge. Historically, the river corridor would have been prone 

to annual to episodic flooding, which would create a 

mosaic of multiple communities that are tree-dominated with a diverse shrub component. However, the 

extent to which modifications to the hydrology may 

be disrupting these processes is unknown.

The Swan Valley is unique among Montana’s 

spectacular valleys in that it contains more than 

4,000 glacially derived wetlands. In fact, approximately 16 percent of the land in Swan Valley is 

considered wetland habitat (lakes, rivers, ponds, 

marshes, wet meadows, peatlands, and riparian 

areas). By comparison, the remainder of Montana 

averages 1-percent wetland habitat. As with other 

parts of the district and the Blackfoot Valley, the 

Swan Valley contains small, shallow, and vegetated 

wetlands, fens, and foothill and valley riparian areas 

and conifer swamps. In addition, Rocky Mountain 

wooded vernal pools are particularly well represented in the Swan Valley (MNHP 2011b).

Associated Wildlife

Seventeen species of waterfowl breed on the refuge including common waterfowl species such as 

Canada geese, mallards, cinnamon teal, and common goldeneye. Red-necked grebes, horned grebes, 

eared grebes, sora, Virginia rails, and marsh wrens 

are also common breeders. In addition, the refuge 

provides nesting sites for bald eagles. Yellow-headed 

blackbirds nest and forage on the refuge. Whitetailed deer are the most common large mammal 

seen. Elk, moose, beaver, bobcat, and grizzly and 

black bear are known to inhabit the area. Other resident wildlife include coyote, muskrat and raccoon. 

Game fish include yellow perch, bull trout, northern 

pike, kokanee salmon, largemouth bass, cutthroat 

trout, brook trout, and mountain whitefish.

Sixteen species of amphibians and reptiles 

are known to inhabit the diverse habitats within 

the Swan Valley. Many of the documented species include S4 Status Species (apparently secure, 

though it may be quite rare in parts of its range 

or is suspected to be declining) such as common 

garter snake, painted turtle, rubber boa, Columbia spotted frog, long-toed salamander, and Rocky 

Mountain tailed frog (MNHP 2011b). The western 

toad is listed as an S2 Status Species (species at 

risk because of very limited or potentially declining population numbers, range, or habitat, making 

it vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in 

Montana). The northern leopard frog is listed as an 

S1 Status Species (at high risk because of extremely 

limited or rapidly declining population numbers, 

range, or habitat, making it highly vulnerable to 

global extinction or extirpation in Montana). Species 

not listed in the Natural Heritage Database, but 

known to occur in the Swan Valley are Pacific tree 

frog, western skink, eastern racer, gopher snake, 

terrestrial garter snake, and western rattlesnake 

(Werner et al. 2004). 

Common fish species in the Swan Valley include 

longnose sucker, largescale sucker, and slimy sculpin. In addition, potential species of concern within 

the project area include the brook stickleback and 

pygmy whitefish. Westslope cutthroat trout are currently a species of special concern and use clear, cold 

lakes and streams found here. Swan Valley CA is 

within the designated recovery area for the federally threatened bull trout. Critical habitat has been 

designated for bull trout within the CA.

Wetland complexes here provide important 

breeding habitat for 21 species of waterfowl: 

■ mallard

■ lesser scaup

■ wood duck

■ redhead

■ ring-necked duck

■ canvasback

■ American wigeon

■ Canada goose

■ green-winged teal

■ blue-winged teal

■ cinnamon teal

■ northern shoveler

■ gadwall

■ common goldeneye

■ Barrow’s goldeneye

■ harlequin duck

■ bufflehead

■ hooded merganser

■ common merganser

■ red-breasted merganser

■ ruddy duck
76 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

The Swan Valley is one of the only watersheds in 

the western continental United States that supports 

breeding common loons. Currently, there are six 

breeding pairs in the Swan Valley on the Van, Loon, 

Summit, Lindbergh, Swan, and Holland Lakes. Historical records show that Shey and Peck Lakes were 

also once occupied by common loons.

Restoration in the Swan Valley Conservation Area.

USFWS

Forests and Woodlands

Large parts of the Blackfoot Valley and Swan Valley CAs include forested lands. Healthy forests and 

wetland systems provide a host of watershed services, including water purification, ground water and 

surface flow regulation, erosion control, and stream 

bank stabilization. Carbon sequestration is the process by which atmospheric carbon dioxide is taken 

up by trees, grasses, and other plants through photosynthesis and stored as carbon in biomass (trunks, 

branches, foliage, and roots) and soils. The sink of 

carbon sequestration into forests and wood products 

helps to offset that sources of carbon dioxide that 

add to the atmosphere and mitigate climate change.

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area and 

Blackfoot Waterfowl Production Area

There are approximately 260 acres of fee-title forest 

lands on the Blackfoot WPA. Management of the 

forest has consisted mainly of invasive plant control; there has been no logging or burning since the 

waterfowl production area was added to the Refuge 

System in the 1970s.

Stands of large ponderosa pine historically dominated most dry forest sites in western Montana. 

These are also comprised of a mix of ponderosa pine 

and Douglas-fir. Logging and fire suppression have 

altered age-class structure, physical structure, tree 

density, and tree species composition (Barrett 1979, 

Sheppard et al. 1983). Large, old-growth trees in 

more open settings have been replaced with dense 

stands of younger trees.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge 

and Swan Valley Conservation Area

There are approximately 300 acres of fee-title forest 

lands on the Swan River Refuge. Management has 

consisted mainly of invasive plant control; there 

has been no logging or burning since the refuge was 

added to the Refuge System.

The Swan Valley lies at the border of the maritime and continental climates and thus has a mixture 

of Pacific coastal forest and intermountain tree species. Western red cedar, grand fir, western hemlock, 

and western larch grow in the valleys along with 

more familiar species such as Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine.

Cottonwood and spruce also dominate much of 

the Swan River’s floodplain. Most of the lower elevation uplands consist of mixed conifers dominated 

by Douglas-fir, western larch, ponderosa pine, and 

lodgepole pine. Other common species include grand 

fir and subalpine fir. Stand types at most of the low-
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 77

elevation lands range from regenerated seedling and 

pole stands, to mixed-aged stands of mature timber. 

For the lower elevations, typical forest rotations for 

saw timber range from 50–75 years. Forest types 

on the higher lands consist primarily of subalpine 

fir and lodgepole pine, with components of western 

larch, Douglas-fir, whitebark pine, and other species.

Associated Wildlife

Many priority bird species are closely associated 

with old forest stages and snags, such as the Lewis’s 

woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, flammulated owl, white-breasted nuthatch, 

and Williamson’s sapsucker. Regional populations of 

these species have decreased due to the reduction 

of old forest stages. Olive-sided flycatchers, flammulated owls, and black-backed woodpeckers are 

all level one priority species for the Montana PIF 

program. They are found in open canopy woodlands, 

open-canopy ponderosa pine, and closed-canopy 

lodgepole pine, respectively.

Sixty-nine species of mammals are known to inhabit the diverse habitats within the Swan Valley. 

Many of the species documented include S2 Status 

Species such as the grizzly bear and Townsend’s bat. 

Other species include S3 Status Species such as the 

wolverine, fisher, hoary bat, fringed myotis, hoary 

marmot, and Canada lynx, a federally threatened 

species. The refuge complex does not have enough 

fee-title forested habitat to provide all life needs 

for species such as lynx, gray wolf, and grizzly bear. 

However, complex fee-title and easement lands secure important linkages and connectivity between 

critical habitats on adjacent forested lands.

Game species known to occur in the valley are 

moose, elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, bighorn 

sheep, gray wolf, and mountain goat (Foresman 

2001). The forest units are located in areas with robust deer and elk populations. A diverse forest with 

varying age classes and stand types is important for 

ungulate survival. Early successional forests provide 

abundant shrubs and forbs that are forage for species of elk and deer. Older forests with dense canopy 

cover offer thermal regulation. Forests also provide 

important hiding and escape cover.

Other species documented to occur within the 

valley follow (Foresman 2001):

■ northern pocket gopher

■ southern red-backed vole

■ long-tailed vole

■ montane vole

■ heather vole

■ northern grasshopper mouse

■ house mouse

■ Norway rat

■ northern bog lemming

■ yellow-bellied marmot

■ northern flying squirrel

■ coyote

■ red fox

■ striped skunk

■ long-tailed weasel

■ mink

■ badger

■ raccoon

■ white-tailed jackrabbit

■ mountain cottontail

■ porcupine

Sagebrush-Steppe

In the refuge complex, most of this system is 

dominated by mountain big sagebrush. Three-tip 

sagebrush is found where it functions primarily as 

a seral component, increasing in frequency following fire. Antelope bitterbrush may codominate, but, 

as a codominant, its occurrence is limited, being 

found primarily on intrusive volcanics in western 

and west-central Montana. Other shrubs may be 

present, but usually at low cover values (5–10 percent). Species include rubber rabbitbrush, and green 

rabbitbrush, wax currant, Woods’ rose, deerbrush 

ceanothus, snowberry and serviceberry (MNHP 

2010a).

The herbaceous layer is usually well represented. Graminoids that can be abundant include 

rough fescue, Idaho fescue, bottlebrush squirreltail, 

pinegrass, needlegrass, spike fescue, poverty oatgrass, western wheatgrass, mountain brome, slender 

wheatgrass, prairie Junegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg’s bluegrass, and are variety of dry, 

upland sedges such as threadleaf sedge and Geyer’s 

sedge (MNHP 2010a).

Forb diversity is moderate to high, commonly exceeding 30 species in a 400-square meter macroplot. 

Species may include arrowleaf balsamroot, Indian 

paintbrush, cinquefoil, fleabane, phlox, milkvetch, 

prairie smoke, lupine, buckwheat, yarrow, rosy 

pussytoes, wild strawberry, and western sagewort 

(MNHP 2010a).

Fire is critical to supporting native grassland–

sagebrush communities. The historical fire regime 

in rough fescue communities, for example, was characterized by frequent return-interval (5–10 years), 

low-severity fires. The historical fire regime in 

sagebrush communities was characterized by longer 

return-interval (more than 25 years), stand-replacement fires.

Sagebrush-steppe areas in the refuge complex 

were targeted by early European settlers for grazing and farm lands. Today, most of the native grassland–sagebrush communities are located on private 
78 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

land. The big sagebrush-dominated plant community 

type is most prevalent in the middle Blackfoot Valley south of the Blackfoot River. The big sagebrush–

rough fescue plant association, endemic to west and 

north-central Montana, is common in the Kleinschmidt Flat area. The three-tip sagebrush–rough 

fescue plant association is common in the Ovando 

area, yet found nowhere else in the world.

Sagebrush-steppe habitat occurs in the Blackfoot 

River watershed on approximately 56,000 acres (4 

percent of total watershed acres). The Service owns 

2,585 acres of sagebrush–steppe in fee title and has 

12,750 acres of sagebrush-steppe under Western 

Montana conservation easements.

Associated Wildlife

High-priority species such as the Brewer’s sparrow and loggerhead shrike build nests aboveground 

in shrubs or rely specifically on shrubs for cover. 

Brewer’s sparrows, in particular, have experienced 

significant declines in the last 10–20 years and are 

good habitat indicator species because they appear 

to be sensitive to habitat changes at multiple scales 

(Knick et al. 2003). Brewer’s sparrow is strongly 

associated with sagebrush, preferring sites with 

more than 13-percent sagebrush cover, with an average canopy height less than 5 feet and more than 25 

percent of cover in native climax species (Bock and 

Bock 1987, Rotenberry et al. 1999). This sagebrush 

obligate was the most abundant breeding species 

found at sagebrush sites on the Blackfoot and Kleinschmidt Lake WPAs during Service productivity 

surveys in 1996 (Fondell and Ball 1997). The longterm viability of Brewer’s sparrows in Montana 

depends on keeping large stands of sagebrush in 

robust condition (PIF 2000).

Invasive And Nonnative Plants

Invasive and nonnative plants occur on the refuge 

complex to varying degrees.

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

The refuge is generally free from highly invasive, 

noxious weeds. Through early detection, rapid response (EDRR), early colonizing plants of spotted 

knapweed and leafy spurge, in particular, have been 

eradicated every year and prevented from spreading. Canada thistle has been present for many years 

on the refuge; thistle patches are found near many 

roads, dikes, wetland edges and other disturbed 

areas. Some dense stands have been treated with 

success, but most areas go untreated.

Across the wetland and grassland habitats on 

the refuge, however, several nonnative species are 

of concern for their effect in changing the native 

habitat, even if they are not on the State’s noxious 

weed list.

Crested Wheatgrass

Crested wheatgrass has been the most commonly 

planted exotic grass in western North America since 

the early 1900s. Invasion of this species into native 

rangeland can have a negative effect on plant and 

wildlife diversity (Reynolds and Trost 1981, Christian and Wilson 1999, Davis and Duncan 1999). 

Crested wheatgrass was used to landscape areas 

around the refuge headquarters area in the 1960s 

and to revegetate roadsides and other areas of disturbance. Since then, it has spread throughout the 

refuge to varying degrees and covers approximately 

400 acres. The refuge has begun a pilot program 

to find the most effective methods for controlling 

crested wheatgrass and restoring native vegetation.

Crested wheatgrass is a nonnative species that can have a 

negative effect on plant and wildlife diversity.

Cassondra Skinner / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Russian Olive

This species is adaptable in semiarid and saline environments and has been promoted as a source of food 

and cover for some wildlife species (NRCS 2002), 

particularly ring-necked pheasant. With this in 

mind, refuge staff planted Russian olive trees on the 
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 79

refuge until the 1970s. Since that time, research has 

shown that Russian olive and other nonnative trees 

fragment native prairie by causing some nesting 

grassland birds to avoid these areas and by increasing the predation of adult and juvenile grasslanddependent birds and their nests (Delisle and Savidge 

1996, Gazda et al. 2002, Helzer 1996, Johnson and 

Temple 1990). Fortunately at Benton Lake Refuge, 

Russian olive trees have not spread and are generally confined to the shelterbelts where they were 

planted or to single, scattered individuals.

Japanese Brome

This grass has been present on the refuge for many 

years with almost no attention given to its treatment. Efforts are currently underway to map and 

estimate the extent and density of the infestation on 

the refuge. The degree to which this species affects 

wildlife use of native prairie is unknown. It is possible that Japanese brome decreases naturally during wetter periods (NRCS 2005), making aggressive 

control unnecessary.

Kentucky Bluegrass

This grass has been present in the refuge for many 

years with almost no attention given to its treatment. Efforts are underway to map and estimate the 

extent and density of the infestation. Recent inventories in the Dakotas have shown that many areas 

of native sod on fee-title lands in the northern Great 

Plains have become heavily invaded with Kentucky 

bluegrass, which is associated with the loss of floristic and avian diversity as well as negatively affected 

nutrient pools, energy flows, soil invertebrate and 

mycorrhizal relationships, and water cycles (Murphy 

and Grant 2005, Grant et al. 2009).

Garrison Creeping Foxtail

Creeping foxtail is an introduced rhizomatous perennial species. It has a regenerative advantage on sites 

where the conditions are transitional between the 

more regularly flooded alkaline communities, such 

as alkali bulrush, and areas formerly dominated by 

foxtail barley at higher elevations. Its distribution 

has expanded significantly through the Benton Lake 

Refuge in recent years and generally occurs in bands 

lying immediately above areas occupied by cattail.

Cheatgrass

This grass has been present in the refuge complex 

for many years with almost no attention given to 

its treatment. It is mostly restricted to the southeast part of the refuge east of the Bootlegger Road. 

It is of concern because of its interaction with fire. 

Prescribed fire is the primary management tool at 

Benton Lake Refuge, however, cheatgrass can readily spread after burning. Work to map the infestations and to develop a preburn treatment plan is in 

progress.

Other nonnative species that occur in low numbers, or to a limited extent but could become an 

invasive problem, include smooth brome, reed canarygrass, salsify, alfalfa, and yellow sweetclover.

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District

All 23 waterfowl production areas have been surveyed for noxious weeds at least once over the past 

5 years by the Invasive Species Strike Team. Most 

of the waterfowl production areas have relatively 

small and annually variable infestations of Canada 

thistle, houndstongue, and a few other noxious 

weeds. Known infestations are treated on an annual 

basis as time allows. High priority noxious weed 

infestations are described below:

■ Jarina WPA has one known patch of leafy spurge 

approximately 0.1 acre in size and scattered 

patches of spotted knapweed that collectively 

amount to approximately 2 acres.

■ Arod Lakes WPA has scattered patches of Russian knapweed over approximately 5 acres.

■ Schrammeck Lake WPA has scattered patches 

of Dalmatian toadflax which collectively cover 

approximately 1 acre.

On WPAs in the Blackfoot Valley, the local manager 

and Invasive Species Strike Team have mapped infestations and are actively managing them through 

biocontrol, chemical control, and monitoring. The 

species of most concern are leafy spurge, yellow 

toadflax, Russian and spotted knapweed, common 

tansy, houndstongue, oxeye daisy, and Canada thistle. 

Cool-season exotic invasive grasses in the district 

are primarily Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, 

and crested wheatgrass. Prescribed grazing and fire 

are the management tools currently used to combat 

these species on native prairie. The district is part of 

the collaborative Native Prairie Adaptive Management Project within the Service’s Region 6 designed 

to find management scenarios to reverse Kentucky 

bluegrass and smooth brome infestations.

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area

Since 1994, the Blackfoot Challenge Weeds Committee, of which the Service is a participant, has 

coordinated and implemented a holistic strategy for 

managing undesirable invasive and noxious weeds 

in the watershed. Combining action with education, 
80 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

the core of the program is the locally led Vegetation Management Areas program, where neighbors 

work across property boundaries to manage weeds. 

Almost 475,000 acres are under active weed management, with 380 private landowners participating in 

the project. Integrated weed management strategies include herbicides, biocontrol, revegetation, 

multispecies grazing, hand pulling, plowing, mowing, 

prevention, and EDRR (Blackfoot Challenge et al. 

2005).

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area

The Service recognizes the Front as one of the Nation’s most significant wildlife areas and identifies 

invasive weeds as one of three primary threats to 

the Front’s ecological integrity. Of the 2 million acres 

on the Front, noxious weeds infest an estimated 

32,000 acres. Weeds have negative economic effects 

by reducing the productivity of farms and ranches; 

degrading water quality; reducing the quality and 

quantity of forage for elk, deer, pronghorn, and other 

wildlife; and adversely affecting outdoor recreation.

Concerned private landowners, nongovernmental organizations, State agencies, Federal agencies 

and the Service have active partnerships along the 

Front to address noxious weed issues. In general, 

these groups have organized along major watersheds to map and treat weeds as well as to educate 

others on prevention and control. Spotted knapweed 

and leafy spurge are currently the primary noxious 

weed infestations along the Front.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge

Much of the native vegetation in the wetlands of the 

refuge has been replaced with reed canarygrass. A 

complete inventory of this and other invasives has 

not been done on the refuge.

Swan Valley Conservation Area

The most common noxious weeds in the Swan Valley 

are spotted knapweed and oxeye daisy. The noxious orange and yellow hawkweeds are relatively 

new but are rapidly spreading. The possibility that 

purple loosestrife, tansy ragwort, and yellow flag iris 

could become new invaders is also of concern in the 

Swan Valley.

Threats

Primary threats to native habitats and wildlife 

within the complex include energy development, 

housing development, and agricultural conversion. Oil, gas, and wind development activity has 

increased recently in the district. Loss and fragmentation of habitat are among the significant ecological impacts from access roads, drill pads, pipelines, 

waste pits, and other components of oil and gas 

project infrastructure. These impacts extend beyond the physical structures. Studies show that the 

actual ecological footprint of oil and gas extraction 

stretches across rangelands and forested lands for a 

considerable distance (Weller et al. 2002).

During strong markets for scenic western properties, especially when cattle prices are low, there is 

concern that ranches, particularly in the Blackfoot 

Valley and the Rocky Mountain Front, will be vulnerable to sale and subdivision for residential and 

commercial development. Housing development, 

and its associated infrastructure, can disrupt wildlife 

migration patterns. Nesting raptors and grassland 

bird species may be especially vulnerable to habitat 

fragmentation in the Blackfoot Valley. Riparian habitat loss due to development is also a key concern. 

Riparian habitat is a key component to grizzly bear 

movement between the mountains, valleys, and prairies. Livestock grazing and ranching practices tend 

to be compatible with grizzly bears, which move 

unimpeded up and down riparian corridors. Riparian areas also provide nest sites for many species of 

migratory birds that may be negatively impacted by 

development. In addition, housing developments can 

add sewage-derived nutrients to streams and lakes, 

increase wetland drainage and water diversion, and 

introduce invasive species that can affect threatened 

species, such as the bull trout.

Historically, the northern mixed-grass prairie 

system stretched from northern Nebraska into 

southern Canada and westward through the Dakotas to the Rocky Mountain Front in Montana. Now 

it covers only about 104,000 square miles. This is one 

of the most disturbed grassland systems, where an 

estimated 75 percent of the region has been heavily altered. Much of the conversion, and continued 

threat, within the complex is in the central part of 

the district, also known as the “Golden Triangle.” 

This agricultural designation includes Great Falls 

at its apex and then roughly runs northeast through 

Havre, west to Cut Bank, and back to Great Falls. 

The area produces approximately half of Montana’s 

wheat, primarily winter and spring wheat, and is 

the most productive of the State’s farming areas 

that are not irrigated. Only a few remaining areas 

of mixed-grass prairie in the complex have escaped 

conversion to agriculture (NatureServe 2008). These 

grasslands are prominently represented in the district along the Rocky Mountain Front, surrounding 

the Sweet Grass Hills, and in Glacier County on the 

Blackfeet Indian Reservation.
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 81

Wildlife Disease

Regular surveillance and response preparedness for 

wildlife diseases are ongoing within the refuge complex. Currently, the high-priority wildlife diseases 

are botulism, West Nile virus, and chronic wasting 

disease.

Botulism

Avian botulism outbreaks, caused by the ingestion 

of a toxin produced by the bacterium, Clostridium 

botulinum, have occurred at Benton Lake at least 

since the mid-1960s (USFWS 1961–99). Occurrence 

of botulism at Benton Lake Refuge before the 1960s 

is unknown (no records or monitoring data are available), but documentation of historical outbreaks 

in other large wetland basins in the western U.S. 

suggest it probably occurred at least in some years 

(Wetmore 1915, Giltner and Couch 1930, Kalmbach 

and Gunderson 1934). Arod Lakes WPA also has a 

history of botulism outbreaks. District staff conduct 

periodic checks during late summer in this area.

West Nile Virus

A surveillance program for West Nile virus is ongoing at the Benton Lake Refuge. Cascade County 

conducts annual mosquito trapping in conjunction 

with weekly surveillance routes for avian mortality 

conducted by refuge staff.

Chronic Wasting Disease

Weekly surveillance and opportunistic sampling for 

chronic wasting disease has occurred on the refuge complex since 2004. To date, no occurrences of 

chronic wasting disease have been detected in wild 

ungulates in Montana.

Highway 200 near Ovando, Montana, in the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area.

© J. Salisbury

Habitat Management Activities

The Service manages habitats through several 

refuge management activities under specific, prescribed conditions to meet habitat demands for a 

diverse suite of species—cooperative farming, prescribed fire and haying, and prescriptive grazing.

Cooperative Farming

When lands are included into the Refuge System 

as WPAs they often contain croplands or degraded 

stands of tame grasses instead of native habitat. In 

these cases, the cropland is usually seeded back to 

native cover or DNC for waterfowl. Native grass 

seed is generally more expensive, and native grass 

stands are often more difficult to establish.

If tame grass stands are in poor condition or have 

serious weed problems, farming to create a clean 

seedbed may be required for 2–4 years. Farming 

and seeding is used only to reestablish grassland or 

nesting cover and to return an altered landscape to 

a more native condition. The interim crops, such as 

grain, can provide some short-term, immediate benefits to local and migrating wildlife and be an erosion 
82 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

control measure. In the long term, the real benefit 

from this activity is an increase in nesting habitat.

Often the Service conducts farming and seeding operations in cooperation with local farmers. 

Benefits to the local economy are limited, but the 

farming permittee should experience some economic 

gain. However, finding a cooperator willing to farm 

can be a limiting factor.

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fires have been used in the northern 

Great Plains and Rocky Mountains for native species 

management by both the public and private agencies. Fire is used to remove litter and ladder fuel, 

control noxious weeds, reduce woody vegetation, or 

to improve the height and density of planted cover. 

Prescribed fire has been used as a tool to manage 

grasslands in the refuge complex since 1975.

Fire can be very important to the natural health 

and vigor of grasslands and shrublands. Fire releases nutrients tied up in vegetative matter, and 

removes dead vegetation that inhibits new growth. 

Fire can suppress exotic plant species and prevent 

the invasion of woody species, such as juniper, into 

native grasslands. However, fire may also allow the 

invasion of fire-tolerant species such as cheatgrass 

and spotted knapweed.

Burning grasslands that have evolved with fire 

can enhance vegetative growth, improve plant 

reproduction, and attract or concentrate wildlife. 

Regrowth following fire can be especially attractive to wildlife because of increased nutrition and 

palatability, and plants are often larger and more 

vigorous after a short recovery period. Blackened 

soil warms more quickly in the spring, resulting in 

more rapid plant growth and seed germination and 

can make soil invertebrates more available for wildlife. Nutrients are released from dead vegetation 

and are more readily available for new plant growth. 

Prescribed fires, when done properly, can increase 

habitat diversity by creating edges between habitat 

associations, which makes the area more attractive 

to wildlife. However, the burning of upland vegetation results in the intense removal of cover and 

the temporary loss of fire-sensitive species such as 

sagebrush.

Haying and Mowing 

Haying and mowing management strategies are 

generally used to enhance tame grass or tame grass–

legume stands and to control the spread of invasive weeds. Haying temporarily removes residual, 

dead, and matted vegetation, and stimulates new 

growth, which improves habitat structure and diversity. Seed production, seed germination, and the 

growth of desirable plants can result from properly 

timed haying. The duration of the treatment period 

is relatively short and manageable. Haying is very 

selective relative to the location of treatment. The 

removal of vegetation allows for the early warming 

of soils in the spring, which stimulates and earlier 

green up and invertebrate production.

Proper management of DNC may provide quality habitat up to 8 years without disturbance, it is 

the periodic vegetation treatments such as haying 

that capitalize on the relationship between young, 

vigorous stands of vegetation and higher wildlife 

production (Duebbert et al. 1981). With a rotational 

management plan that periodically rejuvenates the 

tame grass stand, productivity can be greatly increased.

The Service uses prescribed fire to rejuvenate grasses and 

reduce vegetative litter.

USFWS

Prescriptive Grazing

Grazing effects on grassland communities and woody 

riparian habitats have also been the subject of many 

studies. The effects of grazing on plant diversity depend on grazing intensity, the evolutionary history 

of the site, and climatic regimes. Hoof impact by 

grazing animals can break up capped soils, improve 

the water cycle, stimulate vegetative reproduction 

of stoloniferous grasses, and enhance the decomposition of old plant material by breaking up plant 

litter. Hoof action can also distribute and trample 

seeds into soils, increasing the chances of successful 

germination (Laylock 1967). Nutrients are returned 

to the soil in the form of urine and feces. Cattle may 

return 80–85 percent of the nitrogen ingested in 

plant tissue.

Grazing intensity and frequency can be regulated to enhance the species diversity of both plants 

and animals. For example, summer grazing can create fresh fall and winter regrowth as forage for elk 

and mule deer. Certain levels of grazing can pro-
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 83

vide habitat diversity and patchiness, particularly 

in areas of higher precipitation. Cattle dung hosts 

invertebrate production, undigested plant parts, and 

newly germinated seedlings, which in turn can be 

used by wildlife as food. Grazing can be much more 

species selective than mowing, burning, or chemical 

treatments. For example, grazing in uplands can 

stimulate the germination and production of grasses 

without affecting the sagebrush and other species 

that are important elements of the habitat, while fire 

removes all flammable material in which it comes in 

contact.

Grazing is a tool that, when used properly, removes old vegetation, stimulates new plant growth, 

restructures vegetation, affects plant species composition, and enhances animal diversity. The development of proper grazing strategies is essential for 

using this tool properly. The objectives of grazing 

are to help wildlife species first and foremost, as the 

needs of wildlife and their habitats are the primary 

determining factors of any habitat management 

strategy. Economic benefits are a secondary consideration. Determining the proper number of animals 

to be placed on an area is the principal factor affecting the relative success of any grazing management 

strategy (Heitschmidt and Sluth 1991). The timing, 

frequency, and intensity of grazing are the three 

main variables available to managers when designing a grazing plan:

■ Timing refers to the period when livestock will be 

placed on a parcel of land. It is generally related 

to the plant phenology. Spring is a growth period, 

summer is an active growth and reproduction 

period, fall sees reproduction and carbohydrate 

storage, and with winter comes dormancy.

■ Frequency is the time interval between applications of active treatment strategies. These can 

range from more than one treatment per year 

to annual, alternate year, or greater than 1 year 

(periodic).

■ Intensity has been defined as the proportion 

of a year’s forage production that is consumed 

or destroyed by grazing animals. This classical definition refers to the amount of palatable 

plant matter physically removed by cattle from 

a parcel of land, and this is generally expressed 

in animal unit months (AUMs). AUMs are determined by multiplying the number of animals 

by the number of days spent on the grazed area, 

divided by 30.4 (the average number of days in 

a month). The amount of forage in an AUM is 

approximately 794 pounds. For example, when 

55 cows graze an area for 21 days, that would be 

(55×21)/30.4) 38 AUMs. This is approximately 

30,172 pounds of forage, or 15 tons (38×94=30,172 

pounds).

Grazing intensity as it relates to wildlife habitat and 

cover may be more accurately defined as the amount 

of standing residual and current vegetation (cover) 

that is removed or destroyed by grazing animals in 

relation to the pretreatment standing cover. This 

definition is different because it addresses the factor 

of cover in the management of uplands and other areas where the objective is to provide nesting cover. 

In areas where grazing is to be used to reinvigorate 

and restore cover, the measure of cover removal will 

be more meaningful. This can be expressed in a percentage figure of removal of aboveground biomass 

for planning purposes, and then, after monitoring, 

it can be converted into an AUM figure for the ease 

of developing future grazing prescriptions for that 

specific field.

Specific management plans can be prepared for 

each unit (where grazing is used) to address the 

timing, frequency and intensity of treatment and 

to make sure that wildlife objectives are being met. 

Short-duration, high-intensity grazing will be the 

most commonly used form of grazing. A sufficient 

number of animals will be placed on a given parcel of 

land to remove the desired amount of standing vegetation within a short period. Under this system, the 

animals are forced to consume available vegetation 

instead of being allowed to be so selective that they 

repeatedly graze only the more palatable plants. 

Ideally, the plants should be grazed only once during the growing period, and even longer periods of 

rest will be used to make sure that there is enough 

vegetation regrowth and accumulation for proper 

wildlife cover.

3.3 Species of Concern

For the purposes of this planning document, species 

of concern are defined as follows:

■ those species listed under the ESA as endangered, threatened, or candidate species

■ bald and golden eagles as protected under the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

■ native species that are considered to be at risk 

in Montana due to declining population trends, 

threats to their habitat, or restricted distribution 

as defined by the MNHP (2009)
84 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Federally Listed Species

The ESA requires Federal agencies to carry out 

conservation (recovery) programs for listed species and to make sure that agency actions are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed 

species or adversely change or destroy their critical habitat. Section 7(a) of the act requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to 

any species that is listed as endangered or threatened and, with respect to its critical habitat, if any is 

being designated. Further, regulations implementing the interagency cooperation provision of the act 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) requires 

Federal agencies to make sure that activities they 

authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed 

as endangered or threatened, or to destroy or adversely change its critical habitat.

Key federally listed species that occur in the refuge complex include the threatened bull trout, grizzly bear, water howellia, and Canada lynx (table 7). 

Candidate species that occur on the refuge complex 

include greater sage-grouse, Sprague’s pipit, and 

wolverine. The piping plover, pallid sturgeon, blackfooted ferret, and arctic grayling are all listed under 

the ESA but are either no longer present on refuge 

complex lands or the Service’s management strategies are not expected to affect them.

Bull Trout

Bull trout are a cold-water fish of relatively pristine 

stream and lake habitat in the Pacific Northwest. 

Bull trout need the coldest water temperatures of 

any northwest salmonid, and they need the cleanest 

stream substrates for spawning and rearing. These 

trout need complex habitats: streams with riffles and 

deep pools, undercut banks, and lots of large logs. 

In addition, bull trout need connections from main 

river, lake, and even ocean habitats to headwater 

streams for annual spawning and feeding migrations.

For listing purposes, the Service divided the 

range of bull trout into distinct population segments 

consisting of 27 recovery units. The Blackfoot River 

and Swan River watersheds lie within the Clark 

Fork River Recovery Unit and the Upper Clark 

Fork Recovery Subunit. Within this subunit, both 

the Swan River and Blackfoot River watersheds 

have been identified as core recovery areas (USFWS 2002a). The watersheds also have multiple 

stream reaches identified as critical habitat within 

the Clark Fork River Basin (USFWS 2010c).

Within the Blackfoot River watershed, bull trout 

densities are low in the upper Blackfoot River but 

increase downstream of the North Fork. Streams 

that appear to be particularly important for the 

spawning of migratory bull trout include Monture 

Creek, the north fork Blackfoot River, Copper 

Creek, Gold Creek, Dunham Creek, Morrell Creek, 

the west fork Clearwater River, and the east fork 

Clearwater River. Bull trout spawner abundance is 

indexed by the number of identifiable female bull 

trout nesting areas (redds). Data show that Monture 

Creek has an upward trend from 10 redds in 1989 to 

an average of 51 redds in subsequent years (Pierce 

et al. 2008). The North Fork also shows an upward 

trend from 8 redds in 1989 to an average of 58 redds 

between 1989 and 2008. The Copper Creek drainage 

(including Snowbank Creek) has experienced a resurgence of bull trout redds—from 18 in 2003 to 117 

in 2008—since the 2003 Snow Talon Fire. The total 

number of redds counted in these three streams 

(Monture Creek, North Fork, and Copper Creek) 

increased from 39 in 1989 to 217 in 2000. With the 

onset of drought, bull trout redd counts then declined to 147 in 2008. These changes are attributed 

to protective regulations first enacted in 1990, restoration actions in spawning streams during the 1990s, 

and a period of sustained drought between 2000 and 

the present (Pierce et al. 2008).

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area

USFWS
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 85

Table 7. Federally listed endangered, threatened, and candidate animal species within the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Status

National wildlife 

refuges

Wetland 

management 

district

Conservation areas

Benton Lake Swan River Benton Lake Blackfoot 

Valley

Rocky Mountain Front Swan Valley

Pallid sturgeon LE x

Black-footed ferret LE x x

Bull trout LT, CH x x x x

Arctic grayling C x x x x

Grizzly bear LT x x x x x

Canada lynx LT, CH x x x x x

Piping plover LT x

Water howellia LT x

Sprague’s pipit C x x x

Greater sage-grouse C x

Wolverine C x x x x x

(C = Candidate species, LE = Listed endangered, LT = Listed threatened, CH =Critical habitat identified)

Note: The gray wolf was delisted in May, 2011. Management of the species has been turned over to individual states 

with oversight by the Service. On June 30, 2011, the Service found that listing the fisher in the U.S. northern Rocky 

Mountains as threatened or endangered is not warranted at this time.

Within the Swan watershed, the bull trout population has remained strong. The Swan Lake population is stable because fish can access about 150 

miles of quality tributary spawning habitat. Most 

other bull trout populations are declining because of 

habitat degradation, but many of the Swan Valley’s 

tributary streams are in good-to-excellent condition.

Continuous, identifiable female bull trout nesting 

area (redd) count history dating to 1982 is available 

for bull trout for four index streams in the Swan 

River watershed (MFWP 2009). Bull trout may have 

reached equilibrium in this system at a population 

level of about 2,000 adults, and the current trend 

appears stable. The total redd count was 598 in 2008, 

representing roughly 2,000 adults in the spawning 

run. Given that some adults do not spawn every 

year, the total adult population is likely more than 

2,500 adult bull trout.

One of the biggest threats to bull trout survival is 

increased development, which exacerbates temperature problems, increases nutrient loads, decreases 

bank stability, alters instream and riparian habitat, 

and changes the hydrologic response of affected watersheds.

Canada Lynx

The Canada Lynx Recovery Outline categorized 

lynx habitat and occurrence within the contiguous 

United States as (1) core areas; (2) secondary areas; 

and (3) peripheral areas. Core areas are defined as 

those with the strongest long-term evidence of the 

persistence of lynx populations. Core areas have 

both persistent verified records of lynx occurrence 

over time and recent evidence of reproduction. Six 

core areas and one provisional core area are identified within the contiguous United States (Nordstrom 

et al. 2005). The Blackfoot and Swan watersheds 

contain lands designated in the Northern Rocky 

Mountain–Northeastern Idaho Core Area, which 

supports the highest density lynx population in the 

northern Rocky Mountain region of the lynx’s range. 

It acts as a source for lynx and provides connectivity to other parts of the lynx’s range in the Rocky 

Mountains, particularly in the Yellowstone area (USFWS 2009a).

The Swan River and Blackfoot River watersheds 

are a stronghold for the Canada lynx in the northern 

Rocky Mountains. Based on ongoing research in 

these watersheds, lynx populations appear stable, 

although low reproductive rates are characteristic of 

this population. Since 1998, more than 80 lynx have 

been monitored in this area, providing information 

on habitat use, reproduction, mortality, and movement. This research has shown that these watersheds contain some of the best remaining habitat 

for lynx in the continental United States. Large, 

intact spruce–subalpine fir forests above 4,000 feet 

in this area provide quality habitat for lynx and for 

snowshoe hares, the primary lynx food source. Re-
86 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

generating forest stands are often used as foraging 

habitat during the snow-free months while older, 

multistoried stands serve as denning and year-round 

habitat (Blackfoot Challenge et al. 2005).

Grizzly Bear

Grizzly bears are currently listed as a federally 

threatened species in the NCDE (USFWS 2011a). 

This ecosystem is an area of the northern Rocky 

Mountains with large blocks of protected public land 

containing some of the most pristine and intact environments found in the contiguous United States. 

Despite dramatic losses of habitat throughout North 

America, the grizzly bear has persisted in Montana 

and occurs in the Blackfoot and Swan watersheds 

and along the Front.

The NCDE supports the largest population (900 

individuals) of grizzly bears in the lower 48 States. 

In 2003 and 2004, 29 individual grizzly bears were 

confirmed in the Blackfoot River watershed, 45 

grizzly bears were confirmed in the Swan Valley 

watershed, and 100–150 on the Front. The USGS estimates that at least 40 bears are present during all 

or part of the year in the Blackfoot River watershed 

(USGS 2004) with 61 present in the Swan Valley.

Lakes, ponds, fens, and spring-fed creeks, common in parts of the Swan River and Blackfoot River 

valley floors, provide excellent bear habitat. Additionally, the vegetation found along certain reaches 

of both rivers and their tributaries provide bears 

with cover, food, and natural movement corridors. 

Riparian corridors along the Front are also important to grizzly bears.

Supporting linkage areas is important to the 

continued survival of the grizzly bear. It has an increased risk of extinction because the population 

consists of a limited number of individuals that live 

in several distinct populations geographically isolated from one another. Small populations are less 

able to absorb losses caused by random environmental, genetic, and demographic changes (Servheen 

et al. 2001). Linkage zones are areas between separated populations that provide adequate habitat for 

low densities of individuals to exist and move between isolated populations. The resulting exchange 

of genetic material helps support demographic vigor 

and diversity, increasing the viability of individual 

populations. For the grizzly bear, preserving the 

linkage between populations is as critical to the longterm conservation of the species as managing the 

individual populations.

The Blackfoot River watershed contains important habitat links for grizzly bears that are recolonizing historical ranges to the south. Grizzly bears 

breed, forage, and migrate throughout the watershed and den above 6,500 feet. They move from high 

mountain elevations to lower valley bottoms to forage seasonally for available food.

The Swan Valley area has been identified as an 

important habitat link for grizzlies moving between 

the Glacier National Park–Bob Marshall Wilderness 

Complex and the Mission Mountains Wilderness. 

It is also believed to be the key linkage zone to the 

large and important Selway–Bitterroot Wilderness 

to the southwest. As such, it provides an avenue of 

connectivity between the Canadian Rockies and the 

central Rockies of Idaho and Wyoming.

Water Howellia

Water howellia is a federally listed threatened plant 

restricted in Montana to depressional wetlands in 

the Swan Valley, typically occupying small basins 

where the water level recedes partially or completely by the fall. Montana contains the largest 

number of occupied ponds and wetlands, though 

population numbers are generally small and the occupied habitat is clustered in a very small part of the 

State. Reed canarygrass has invaded some wetlands 

in the Swan Valley, and it has the potential to form 

dense monocultures, thereby decreasing the amount 

of available habitat. Additionally, water howellia 

is an annual species that is solely dependent on recruitment from seed, it has very narrow habitat and 

moisture requirements, which leaves it vulnerable 

to extirpation as a result of consecutive years of unfavorable growing conditions (MFWP 2012). Water 

howellia is on land owned by TNC next to the Swan 

River Refuge and on other sites in the Swan Valley. 

Similar habitat is found on the Swan River Refuge, 

but it has not been documented on the refuge.

Candidate Species

Candidate species are plants and animals for which 

the Service has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the ESA, but for which 

development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. A 

candidate species status is reviewed annually.

Candidate species receive no statutory protection 

under the ESA. However, the Service encourages 

the formation of partnerships to conserve these species because they are, by definition, species that 

may warrant future protection under the act. Since 

they do not receive regulatory protection under the 

ESA, the definition of “take,” as identified in the act, 

does not apply to these species. However, Service 

policy requires that candidate species be treated as 

“proposed for listing” for purposes of intra-Service 

section 7 conference procedures (USFWS 1998).
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 87

Sprague’s Pipit

Sprague’s pipit is a candidate for listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA (USFWS 2008b) 

Sprague’s pipits have been documented on the Benton Lake Refuge and in the district.

Sprague’s Pipits breed in the northern Great 

Plains, with the highest density occurring in northcentral and eastern Montana to North Dakota. 

(Stewart 1975, American Ornithologists’ Union 1998, 

Robbins and Dale 1999, Tallman et al. 2002 as cited 

in Jones 2010).

Sprague’s Pipits are closely associated with native grassland throughout their range (Sutter 1996, 

1997; Sutter and Brigham 1998; Madden et al. 2000; 

Grant et al. 2004 as cited in Jones 2010) and are less 

abundant (or absent) in areas of introduced grasses 

than in areas of native prairie (Kantrud 1981, Johnson and Schwartz 1993, Dale et al. 1997, Madden et 

al. 2000, Grant et al. 2004 as cited in Jones 2010). 

Generally, pipits prefer to breed in well-drained native grasslands with high plant species richness and 

diversity. They prefer higher grass and sedge cover, 

less bare ground, and an intermediate average grass 

height when compared to the surrounding landscape, less than 5- to 20-percent shrub and brush 

cover, no trees at the territory scale, and litter cover 

less than 4.7 inches (Sutter 1996, Madden et al. 2000, 

Dechant et al. 2003, Dieni and Jones 2003, Grant 

et al. 2004 as cited in Jones 2010). The amount of 

residual vegetation remaining from the prior years’ 

growth also appears to be a strong positive predictor 

of Sprague’s Pipit occurrence (Madden 1996, Sutter 

1996, Prescott and Davis 1998, Sutter and Brigham 

1998 as cited in Jones 2010) and where they put their 

nests (Dieni and Jones 2003, Davis 2005).

Sprague’s Pipits rarely occur in cultivated lands 

and are uncommon on nonnative planted pastures 

(Owens and Myres 1973, Sutter 1996, Davis et al. 

1999, McMaster and Davis 2001 as cited in Jones 

2010). They have not been documented to nest in 

cropland (Owens and Myres 1973, Koper et al. 2009), 

in land in the CRP (Higgins et al. 2002) or in DNC 

planted for waterfowl habitat (Prescott 1997).

Projects that alter grassland habitat with permanent structures, such as wind towers, oil wells, 

roads, and buildings, can make an area unsuitable 

for Sprague’s pipit use. The effective impact of a 

disturbance is much greater than its actual footprint 

because the birds avoid not only the structure but 

an area around it. While the grassland habitat on 

which Sprague’s pipits breed can be disturbance dependent, negative effects on the pipit can largely be 

avoided by doing habitat manipulation, such as mowing or prescribed fire, outside of the breeding season. These actions may make an area unsuitable for 

several years until the grassland plant association 

has partially returned. However, adverse effects can 

be avoided by performing management actions on a 

subunit of the grassland area in any given year, so 

that some suitable habitat is available at all times.

Wolverine

Suitable wolverine habitat in the contiguous United 

States is limited to high-elevation, alpine areas that 

occur in an island-like fashion. One of the last strongholds for wolverines here is the northern Continental Divide region of Montana.

On December 13, 2010, the Service found that 

the North American wolverine in the contiguous 

United States is a distinct population segment that 

warrants protection under the ESA, but that listing 

the distinct population segment under the act is precluded by the need to address other listing actions of 

higher priority. The wolverine was listed as a candidate species under the act (USFWS 2010b).

Wolverines are indigenous to high mountain 

habitats that are separated from like habitats, thus 

isolated populations have formed. Since wolverines 

naturally occur at low densities and reproduce infrequently, protected linkage areas are crucial for 

dispersal, genetic flow, and the survival of the species. While most core wolverine habitat is in public 

ownership, many areas inbetween these islands are 

subject to rapidly increasing pressure from urban 

development and roads.

Sprague’s Pipit

© Bob Gress
88 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Arctic Grayling, Black-Footed 

Ferret, Greater Sage-Grouse, 

Pallid Sturgeon, and Piping 

Plover

These species have historical records of occurrence 

on the refuge complex but are either no longer present on the refuge complex or the Service’s management strategies are not expected to affect them.

Arctic Grayling

On September 8, 2010, the upper Missouri River 

basin’s “distinct population segment” of Arctic 

grayling was listed as a candidate species under the 

ESA. Fluvial Arctic grayling currently occupy only 

a fraction (about 5 percent) of their historical range 

within the Missouri River watershed upstream of 

the Great Falls. Kaya (1992) concluded that the major factors causing the range-wide decline of fluvial 

Arctic grayling in the upper Missouri River system 

include habitat degradation, angling exploitation and 

overfishing, and interactions with introduced nonnative salmonid fishes. Fluvial Arctic grayling in Montana are presently restricted to an approximately 

80-mile-long segment of the upper Big Hole River.

Reintroduction efforts began in 1997 in the upper 

Ruby River and expanded to the north and south 

forks of the Sun River in 1999, the lower Beaverhead River in 1999, and the Missouri River headwaters near Three Forks, Montana, in 2000. Due 

to drought conditions and limited resources, the 

Montana Arctic Grayling Workgroup in 2002 recommended focusing reintroduction efforts on the 

upper Ruby River, and to continue with other sites 

as money, workload, and resources allow. Reintroduction efforts in 2008 took place in the upper Ruby 

River and the north fork of the Sun River. At both 

of these locations, remote site incubators were used 

to introduce grayling fry into the restoration reach 

(Magee and McCullough 2008).

Black-Footed Ferret

Black-footed ferrets are listed in several counties 

in the district and likely occurred here historically. 

However, no known populations currently exist 

within the district.

Greater Sage-Grouse

On March 5, 2010, the Service found that the greater 

sage-grouse warrants protection under the ESA, 

but that listing the species under the act is precluded by the need to address other listing actions 

of a higher priority. Evidence suggests that habitat 

fragmentation and destruction across much of the 

species’ range has contributed to significant population declines over the past century. If current trends 

persist, many local populations may disappear in 

the next several decades, with the remaining fragmented population vulnerable to extinction. Greater 

sage-grouse may be present in Chouteau, Hill, and 

Liberty Counties in the district.

Pallid Sturgeon

Records show that pallid sturgeon have been documented in the district in the Missouri River in Chouteau County, however, management actions within 

the refuge complex are not expected to have any 

effects on the Missouri River or the pallid sturgeon.

Piping Plover

A 5-year review of the piping plover’s ESA listing 

was completed in September 2009. The current recovery plan was completed in 1988. The northern 

Great Plains population of piping plovers nest on the 

shorelines and islands of alkali (salty) lakes in North 

Dakota and Montana. They nest on sandbar islands 

and reservoir shorelines along the Missouri River 

and reservoirs in Montana, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, and Nebraska.

The only records of piping plover on the refuge 

complex are in Pondera county in the district where 

one to four pair of were observed at Alkali Lake 

from 1990 until 2007.

Other Species of Concern

The MNHP serves as the State’s information source 

for animals and plants with a focus on species and 

communities that are rare, threatened, or have 

declining trends and, as a result, are at risk of extinction in Montana. The MNHP assesses species’ 

status based on methods developed by NatureServe 

(Regan et al. 2004). These criteria include population 

size, area of occupancy in Montana, short- and longterm trends, threats, inherent vulnerability, and 

specificity to environment. Based on these factors, 

a preliminary rank is calculated and is reviewed by 

key experts.

According to the MNHP database (MNHP 

2011a), there are 126 animal species of concern that 

could occur on lands administered by the refuge 

complex. These include 15 mammal, 55 birds, 19 fish, 

9 amphibian and 28 invertebrate species (see appendix G).
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 89

Trumpeter swans were endemic to the Blackfoot 

Valley but have been absent for 200 years. Meriwether Lewis first documented trumpeter swans 

in the Blackfoot Valley in 1806. A pair of trumpeter 

swan naturally returned to the valley in 2000. This 

pair eventually bred but the female was killed. The 

male raised the 3 cygnets through the fall but none 

of the swans returned the following spring. A partnership of private landowners, foundations, conservation groups, and State and Federal agencies 

was formed to restore the swan to the Blackfoot 

Valley. Eggs from trumpeter swans in Canada were 

collected and transported to a facility in Jackson, 

Wyoming, where they were raised to a suitable age 

for release. The cygnets were then trucked to the 

Blackfoot Valley and released on suitable habitat. 

Since 2005, 83 trumpeter swans have been released. 

In 2011, swans that were part of the reintroduction 

effort successfully bred, producing seven cygnets.

Black terns are considered a species of special 

concern by the Service in Region 6. They are listed 

at a Level II on the Montana Priority Bird Species 

List, which dictates that Montana has a high responsibility to watch the status of this species and design 

conservation actions. Black terns are found throughout the district, and the Blackfoot River watershed 

hosts the largest black tern colony documented in 

Montana.

The Blackfoot Valley supports western Montana’s 

largest population of Brewer’s sparrow, one of the 

highest priority songbirds in Montana (Casey 2000). 

This sagebrush obligate was the most abundant 

breeding species found at sagebrush sites on the 

Blackfoot and Kleinschmidt Lake WPAs during Service productivity surveys in 1996 (Fondell and Ball 

1997). The long-term viability of Brewer’s sparrows 

in Montana depends on keeping large stands of sagebrush in robust condition (PIF 2000).

The Blackfoot Valley is perhaps also the best 

breeding and nesting area for the long-billed curlew 

in western Montana. This species is declining nationally and has been identified as a priority in both the 

shorebird and PIF conservation plans. Local surveys on Kleinschmidt Flat in 1997 found 31 pairs on 

3,840 acres, or greater than 8 pairs per 1,000 acres. 

Production was not monitored, but many broods 

were noted. This species is highly reliant on grassland-nesting habitat, also nests in sagebrush-steppe, 

and relies more heavily on wetlands during migration. Small population size and negative population 

trends, combined with threats of habitat degradation on both breeding and wintering grounds, make 

the long-billed curlew a high conservation priority 

(National Audubon Society 2007).

One of the Nation’s densest populations of golden 

eagles and prairie falcons lives in the rock escarpments along the Rocky Mountain Front. The Front 

also hosts relatively robust populations of bald 

eagles, peregrine falcons, ferruginous hawks, and 

goshawks.

Montana supports the largest breeding population of common loons in the western United States, 

with a 10-year average summer count of 216 individuals. This population consists of an average of 62 

A long-billed curlew finds a wide-prairie view. The Blackfoot Valley in Montana is a favorite breeding and nesting spot.

inean T © Jeff V
90 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

territorial pairs, 52 nonbreeding single adults, and 

41 chicks. Since surveys began in the late 1980s, the 

population has remained remarkably stable. Fecundity in Montana appears to be above average in comparison to many other States, ranging between 0.66 

and 0.70 chicks fledged per territorial pair. Most loon 

observations range from the Rocky Mountain Front 

west to the Idaho–Montana border, with breeding 

limited to the northwest corner. As of 2009, there 

were 12 breeding pairs in the Swan Valley and 5 in 

the Blackfoot Valley (Hammond 2009).

The refuge complex includes one of the largest remaining expanses of native prairie left in the 

northern Great Plains. This sea of grass provides 

essential habitat for many grassland birds, many of 

which are experiencing significant population declines. These include chestnut-collared longspurs, 

bobolinks, Sprague’s pipit, burrowing owls, marbled 

godwits, long-billed curlews, and lark buntings.

3.4 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources for the refuge complex are described in terms of the area’s prehistoric occupation 

and historic period and the refuge complex-specific 

history and archaeology.

Prehistoric Occupation

The cultural sequence for prehistoric occupation in 

this area is often split into three major subdivisions 

based on these phases—early, middle, and late prehistoric.

Early Prehistoric

The Early Prehistoric Period dates from 12,000 

years before Christ (B.C.) to 6,500 B.C. in the region 

surrounding Benton Lake Refuge. Paleo-Indian people had an economy based primarily on communal 

big game hunting with distinctive Clovis and Folsum 

fluted projectile points (spear points). The period 

is associated with the end of glaciation in North 

America. The climate was cooler and drier than today, supporting several now-extinct large mammal 

species. Based on archaeological bones excavated 

in sites of this period, these hunters subsisted primarily on giant bison, mastodon, camel, horse, and 

mammoth.

Middle Prehistoric

The Middle Prehistoric Period ranges from 6,500 

B.C. to Anno Domini (A.D.) 200, depending on location. Archaeologically it appears that these people 

were largely focused on exploiting bison, but the tool 

kit expanded from paleo-Indian times suggesting 

a dependence on a broader spectrum of plant and 

animal resources in more varied habitats. Climatologically it was becoming drier and Plains Archaic 

populations tended to inhabit areas with protected 

water sources. Sites typically occur in basin and 

foothill regions, river valleys, and in open prairie. 

There is a wide variation of projectile point (spear 

or atlatl) types associated with this period, no doubt 

due to the varied species, environments, and hunting techniques used to get game in this fluctuating climatic regime. The atlatl, or spear thrower, 

was introduced, allowing greater range than spear 

throwing and necessitating smaller projectile points. 

Communal hunting continued, but researchers have 

suggested that smaller hunting groups were used 

at various times of the year. There is also more evidence of processing of vegetal resources suggesting 

a reliance on a broader spectrum of resources.

Late Prehistoric

Late Prehistoric Period ranges from A.D. 200–1750. 

During this phase prehistoric people moved out onto 

the prairies, and new technologies were introduced, 

including the bow and arrow and pottery. Complexes 

included in this tradition include Besant, Avalonea, 

Benson’s, Butte–Beehive, and Old Women’s. The 

Besant complex represents the earliest adoption of 

pottery and bow and arrow use in this area of the 

northern Great Plains.

Horses were not in widespread use in the northern plains until A.D. 1725–1750. Bison continued 

to be the primary resource exploited by Protohistoric groups, but the addition of the horse to hunting 

techniques drastically affected social organization, 

settlement patterns, and the effectiveness of bison 

hunting. Protohistoric people were able to react 

more quickly to the movements of the bison herds, 

were able to hunt further away from base camps, 

and began to leave women and children in camps 

while hunting.

Historic Period

During this period, trade goods and interaction between European settlers and tribal people began 

to directly affect aboriginal lifeways. This process 

started well before European settlers arrived. 

Trade goods and the desire for them changed Native 

American lifeways by shifting hunting activities for 

household consumption to a means to obtain trade 

goods. As more aboriginal people were being pushed 

into the northern Great Plains, conflict between 
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 91

tribes in search of bison became more frequent. Taking control of territories for hunting grounds and 

high mobility became increasingly important.

Native American History

The origin of aboriginal groups in Montana before 

1500 is debated by archaeologists and linguists. In 

eastern Montana, by the 1600s, it is generally accepted that the River Crow were situated on the 

Missouri River and the Mountain Crow along the 

Yellowstone. The Blackfeet were situated northwest 

of the River Crow into Canada and the Assiniboine 

to the northeast of the River Crow into Canada. 

Western and northwestern Montana were inhabited 

by the Bitterroot Salish, upper Pend d’Oreilles, and 

Kootenai, who are now known as the Confederated 

Kootenai and Salish Tribes (CKST).

In the late 18th century, increased movement 

of European settlers in the northern plains caused 

the first outbreaks of smallpox among Montana’s 

native people (Fandrich and Peterson 2005). By 1781 

reports in Saskatchewan, Canada, relate that 30–60 

percent of the native population was lost. Diseases 

introduced by European settlers would greatly affect tribal politics and warfare because the loss of 

population forced certain tribes to create partnerships that would allow them to defend themselves 

against native enemies. Anglo contacts grew more 

frequent with the ongoing movement of riverboats 

associated with the fur trade and the discovery of 

gold in western Montana. This increased opportunities for diseases to spread through the native populations. With the introduction of the steam-powered 

riverboats using the Missouri River to ship supplies, 

diseases were able to move faster across the region. 

In 1837 the riverboat St. Peter carried smallpox to 

Fort Union (Fandrich and Peterson 2005). The Captain, Alexander Culbertson, wanted to halt the progress of the riverboat until the outbreak of smallpox 

had ended. However, the Piegan and Bloods were 

awaiting supplies and the boat continued to Fort 

McKenzie, spreading smallpox. The Gros Ventre, 

Sioux, and Plains Cree did not experience radical 

population losses from the outbreak.

In the 1880s the climate and conditions for native 

people in Montana were at their worst. The bison 

were gone from the area and a series of harsh winters left most tribal populations without adequate 

food. Government supplies were not sufficient to 

feed the tribal populations and, without bison hunting for supplemental nutrition, starvation ensued.

Lewis and Clark

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson organized the Corps of 

Discovery after the Louisiana Purchase from the 

French ended any European claim to the land. At 

this time, this part of the western United States was 

largely undocumented. Jefferson realized the need 

to survey the area in preparation for settlement and 

was in search of a Northwest Passage to the Orient. At that time there was no navigable route that 

connected Eastern and Western North America, 

requiring ships to sail around South America and 

Africa. Ultimately this goal of the Corps was not 

realized because the route was difficult to navigate 

and required several portages, making movement 

of large watercraft unpractical. When the Corps of 

Discovery returned to Saint Louis, they brought 

with them field maps documenting the locations of 

waterways and resources they had encountered. The 

Corps found that large numbers of wildlife inhabited 

the region, which would later spur the fur trade. 

Several Lewis and Clark campsites are known along 

the upper Missouri River, and Meriwether Lewis 

is known to have camped in Lincoln Gulch in the 

Blackfoot Valley.

Although the Lewis and Clark expeditions of the 

region are generally thought of as the first Anglo 

visitors to the Upper Missouri, they were predated 

by French Canadian trappers and traders in the 

18th century working with the Hudson’s Bay Company. Historians believe that one major reason for 

the Corps of Discovery expedition was to thwart the 

Hudson’s Bay Company’s interest in the area. This 

is suggested by the 1816 amendments to trade laws 

preventing foreign agents from doing business on 

American soil without obtaining a license.

Historic Euro-Americans

The post-Lewis and Clark historic period in central 

and northern Montana can be divided into three generalized periods based on major types of economic 

activity—fur trade, ranching, and railroad.

Fur Trade Era

With the rise of beaverpelt prices in the 19th century, more European settlers came to the upper Missouri River to trap and trade furs. Once the beaver 

were trapped out of the region, the fur trade shifted 

to the bison robe. Fort Benton was constructed to 

support these industries as the furthest inland port 

in the continental United States. Fort Lewis was 

constructed in 1831 and was abandoned after the 

Blackfeet requested that the fort be moved to the 

north side of the river in 1846. Several smaller forts 

were established downstream on the Missouri River 

from Fort Benton to the North Dakota border for 

two reasons: (1) forts allowed the tribes easy access 

to traders for their furs; and (2) the riverboats coming from Saint Louis often could not get further up 

river from Fort Benton because it became shallower 
92 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

upstream. Fort Benton served as a hub of transport 

for supplies and people because the town was connected by a road network leading to gold mining 

communities, which were becoming established in 

the mountainous areas of western Montana.

By the 1820s, the American Fur Company began 

to sponsor small forts along the river to secure a 

share of the trade in animal products from native 

and white trappers. This company was owned by 

John Jacob Aster who was later to become one of 

the wealthiest men in the country by taking the 

money made in this enterprise and buying real estate. Several forts were established to compete with 

the American Fur Company, but most failed due 

to the fierce competition with the company or to 

frequent attacks by native people. One reason so 

many forts, trading posts, and riverboat landings 

were constructed was due to the difficulty of getting 

up river from the area of modern-day Fred Robinson bridge (at the boundary of Phillips and Fergus 

Counties) to Fort Benton. The stretch of river from 

Cow Island to Fort Benton was known as Rocky 

River, marking the point where elevation increased 

approximately 2 foot per mile as one went upstream 

(Davy 1992). From the area downstream of Rocky 

River, riverboats could be unloaded and freight put 

on wagons to be hauled to Helena, Fort Benton, or 

the Judith Mountains. In sum, 31 trading posts were 

built on the Missouri River between the North Dakota boundary and Fort Benton between 1828 and 

1885 (Davy 1992).

Throughout the 19th century, the fur trade in 

Montana depended on riverboats to move the goods 

to and from the region. The tribes, as well as Anglo trappers, were involved in the trade, and there 

were frequent conflicts between the two groups. 

Some of the aboriginal groups opposed trading with 

European settlers altogether. The Assiniboine supported the establishment of Fort Union while the 

Blackfeet and Gros Ventre did not. Originally the 

trade consisted of beaverpelts, but, in the 1840s, 

the animals had been overexploited and fur prices 

dropped, changing the focus of trade to bison robes. 

Growth of this industry was rapid, as 2,600 bison 

robes were sent east annually in the early 1800s, 

whereas approximately 90,000 or more would be 

shipped annually from Saint Louis by the 1850s. By 

1850, the tribes depended on trade goods, which 

they obtained through the bison robe trade. Tribal 

involvement increased conflict between aboriginal 

groups because the tribal hunting grounds were the 

key to supporting trade.

With the discovery of gold in western Montana 

in the 1860s and the development of the fur trade, 

steamboat travel was a vital supply line to towns 

such as Fort Benton and Helena that had few other 

choices for travel because of the lack of well-established roads or railways. Food, supplies, and trade 

goods required for miners and trappers would be 

hauled up from St. Louis, and goods such as furs, 

bison robes, and gold, would be sent downstream to 

the markets. Steamboat traffic was common on the 

river from 1859 until 1888, averaging about 20 boats 

a year. In the years between 1860 and 1869, the river 

averaged 34 boats per year, making this the highlight of riverboat use on the Upper Missouri.

A pronghorn roams on the grasslands of Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

© Neal Mishler
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 93

Mullan Road was constructed from 1858 to 1862 

by the Federal Government to connect Fort Walla 

Walla in Washington State to Fort Benton. It was 

designed to bring settlers into the region and make 

military expeditions possible due to the rising conflicts between European settlers and native people. 

The road also provided a route to carry supplies 

into western Montana for the early mining operations and link the west coast to the Missouri River. 

Before the introduction of railways to Montana, this 

route was the first established passageway from the 

Rocky Mountains to the inland Northwest. During 

its active life, the road is estimated to have brought 

20,000 civilians to the region. Mullan Road was listed 

on the National Register of Historic places in 1975. 

A section of the road is thought to occur on the Benton Lake Refuge, however, documentation confirming this is currently lacking.

Ranching Era

Because of the difficulty in transporting locally produced products from Montana, ranching began as 

small operations that provided beef to miners mostly 

in the western part of the State. Early mining was 

focused on deposits of placer gold. This work began 

in 1862–1864 and was situated at Bannack, Virginia 

City, Helena, and Confederate Gulch. Because the 

railroads had not been constructed, goods were 

transported between Saint Louis and Fort Benton 

by keel boat, which added cost to food (as well as 

other products) and allowed small, local ranching 

outfits to make profits on these developing local markets. Because agriculture was difficult, ranching was 

the preferred mode of food production at this time. 

Eventually steam-powered riverboats were used 

to move the goods. In 1866 the first cattle drive 

from Texas took place, which started open-range 

ranching in the grasslands that were vacant after 

the destruction of the bison herds. Mid-nineteenth 

century ranching operations in Montana were fairly 

unorganized and consisted of both corporate interests and small ranches. Cattle depended on open 

range for grazing because there was little hay production due to the cost of irrigation. The management styles of the different operations and the lack 

of fencing caused difficulties from many sources, 

including overstocking, loss of cattle from mavericking, and outright theft. Mavericking was the process 

of branding unbranded calves (calves that lacked a 

branded mother by which to identify the owner). 

Because cattle were left on the open range, there 

were two roundups held in the fall and spring used 

to manage the cattle. By the early 1880s, 17 districts 

statewide had been established to make rules for 

the roundups. These districts were based on natural boundaries. In each of the districts, the ranches 

worked communally during the roundup to gather 

the free-ranging cattle in their district. The cattle 

were sorted by brand and rules were established 

among the districts to encourage fairness in branding. For instance, the use of branding irons was 

prohibited at any time except during the roundups 

(Malone et al. 1976). Decisions were also made about 

unbranded calves at the roundup. In some cases, the 

calves would be branded with the brand in the area 

managed by the ranch in which they were found. 

Some districts considered unbranded calves as district property and sold them to help the district. 

Mavericking was common and was a way to quickly 

increase the size of the owner’s herd at no cost. 

Also during the 1880s, railways had been constructed across the State linking it more directly 

with large cattle markets in the east and west, making the business of ranching cattle more profitable. 

The long drives, used before the railroad, reduced 

the value of the herd and were more expensive than 

loading the cattle onto a train.

This system of ranching was successful until 

the winter of 1886–1887 when particularly severe 

weather and overstocking caused the loss of a great 

deal of the State’s cattle. Overgrazing on the ranges 

and a very hot, dry summer left the forage in poor 

condition that fall. Low temperatures and precipitation kept the forage covered for most of the winter, which resulted in a massive die-off because the 

storage of hay had not become common practice 

and there was no reserves of food for the cattle in 

winter. Although losses varied in different parts of 

the State, overall about 60 percent of the cattle were 

lost (Davy 1992). Of the 220 cattle operations statewide before that winter, only 120 survived.

The winter of 1886–1887 significantly changed 

cattle ranching in Montana. Open range grazing was 

decreased during the following decades because 

of the risk of a similar catastrophe. Large operators, who were financed with money from the east, 

lost support from their investors and downsized or 

ceased operations completely. Many of the small 

operators fared the winter better because they 

were more prone to store up hay to feed their cattle. 

Between 1887 and 1889 the number of ranches increased significantly, and, by 1890, the ranges carried more cattle than before the 1886–1887 winter. 

The amount of land devoted to hay cropping tripled 

during this period. Sheep, which are more able to 

withstand the severe weather, were less affected by 

the 1886–1887 winter, and many ranchers converted 

to sheep ranching in the 1890s. This change was so 

profound that, by 1900, Montana was the Nation’s 

largest wool producer, with 6 million head.

Railroad Era

During the 1880s, railroads were established, linking 

eastern Montana to large cities and markets for the 
94 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

natural resources that were available for exploitation at the time. With the establishment of the 

railways, movement of goods was faster, more predictable, and cheaper than riverboat travel along the 

Missouri. The addition of the railroad to the State’s 

transportation system ensured the reliable movement of cattle to large markets in the east.

By 1900, a homestead boom began that would 

last until 1918. Initial settlement of the region occurred in river bottoms that were readily cultivated. 

Settlement was spurred by the cheap transportation 

offered by railways, the profitable shipment of grain 

to market, and advertisement campaigns devised 

by the railroad companies to sell their free land. 

The Federal Government had given the railways 

land along tracks to pay them for the construction 

costs. When an area was settled, the railroads would 

not only be able to sell the land, but would also create more traffic for freight as the settlers would 

need to move their products to market. The homestead boom was so intense that Montana had more 

homestead entries than any other State. The boom 

continued successfully, as high moisture during the 

period of 1909–1916 allowed for the dry farming of 

cereal grains. Shipping grain by rail made moving 

it to large eastern markets financially profitable and 

reliable. When conditions became drier, however, the 

farming boom ended as farmers began to understand 

that there was a lack of predictable moisture in the 

eastern part of the State, limiting dryland farming. 

This, in combination with the Great Depression, 

caused a mass exodus from Montana, in which half 

of the State’s farmers lost their farms between 1921 

and 1925. Predictable water for farming in most of 

Montana would be addressed at this time by largescale, Federal Government-supported irrigation.

History and Archaeology of the 

Refuge Complex

The refuge complex has a rich history, including 

several cultural resource sites.

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Originally Benton Lake was known as Alkali pond. 

In 1887, local farmers attempted to use the lake’s 

water for irrigation and constructed Benton Lake 

Canal. Promoters of the project believed it would 

open a million acres for settlement by farmers. Unfortunately the promoters did not anticipate the 

shallow nature of the lake and its vulnerability to 

drought. At the urging of local sportsman in 1929, 

Montana Congressman Scott Leavitt proposed having several thousand acres of the project set aside 

for a refuge. The county commissioners did not initially support the idea because they believed the 

land would be best used for settlement by farmers. 

In the fall of 1929, President Hoover established 

the refuge by Executive order. In 1931, the lake 

dried up and a canal project was started by sportsmen and women to bring water back into the lake. 

The proposed canal would have to be 30 miles long, 

connecting the lake to the Sun River. This project 

was cancelled, and the issue was not revisited until 

1957 when the U.S. Congress appropriated $90,000 

for a pump station and ditches to divert water from 

Muddy Creek.

The main county road bisecting the refuge to the 

north, called Bootlegger Trail, received its name 

during the Prohibition Era (1916–1933). The road 

existed in the 19th century as a thoroughfare connecting farms to Great Falls. During Prohibition, 

it became the major route in the area for obtaining 

legally produced alcohol from Canada. This alcohol 

would be resold illegally to northwestern Montana 

residents.

Archaeology

Limited archaeological surveys have taken place on 

the refuge and were associated with the construction of dikes, a prescribed fire survey, and several 

canal segment constructions. The refuge supports a 

section of both Mullan Road and Benton Lake Canal. 

The section of Mullan Road on the refuge was listed 

on the National Register in 1975. It is located in native prairie, and the refuge has no immediate plans 

for disturbing the area.

The most substantial cultural resources survey conducted on the refuge is a 560-acre survey 

of Bootlegger Trail for a Montana Department of 

Transportation road improvement. During this 

project, three sites were identified on Service land, 

including Benton Lake Canal 24CA974, Bootlegger 

Ponds 24CA975, and Slate Pit 24CA976. The Benton Lake Canal was found eligible for the National 

Register, while Bootlegger Ponds and Slate Pit were 

found not eligible (Frontier Historical Consultants 

2004). Benton Lake Canal was conceived in 1887 

when local farmers cut a 1.25-mile-long canal 26-

feet deep to obtain Benton Lake’s water for irrigation. Slate pit was a historic and modern mining 

operation, which was mostly removed at the time 

of recording in 2004. Bootlegger Ponds consist of 

two erosion check dams and one stock water pond 

presumed to have been built during the 1931 road 

construction project.

Recently, miscellaneous small surveys have 

been conducted for refuge projects. Loflin (2006) 

conducted a survey on 180 acres for a control burn 

next to Benton Lake. No cultural resources were 

observed. In 2005 Loflin surveyed 6.5 acres near the 
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 95

Lake Creek ditch next to Benton Lake in preparation for an upgrade of the ditch. Although no sites 

were found, the researcher observed an isolated 

lithic flake suggesting that there was some prehistoric occupation of the lake margin, but, because the 

lake size has been altered, it is likely that the sites 

may have been inundated (Loflin 2005b).

In 2008, Alberta Tie, LTD, contracted with the 

University of Arizona to conduct a traditional use 

study along a corridor just east of the refuge with 

the Blackfeet and Piegan tribes (Zedeno and Murray 

2008). This study was in preparation for a 120-milelong electrical transmission line connecting Great 

Falls to Canada. Four traditional use areas, including locations of burials, plant gathering areas, and 

ceremonial locations, were identified, suggesting 

that the Blackfeet have traditional use and ongoing 

interest in the area.

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District

Beginning in the early 1900s, efforts to increase opportunities for small grain farming in the region 

began with the initiation of the Sun River Reclamation Project, later known as the Sun River Irrigation 

Project. This project was authorized by the Secretary of the Interior in 1906 and contains more than 

100,000 acres of potentially irrigated land along the 

Sun River and its tributaries west of Benton Lake 

(Knapton et al. 1988). The Sun River project contains two major divisions. The Fort Shaw Irrigation 

Division that borders the Sun River contains about 

10,000 acres and the Greenfields Irrigation Division 

contains about 83,000 acres.

Construction of the Fort Shaw Division began in 

1907, and the first water was delivered to Division 

farmlands in 1909 (Knapton et al. 1988). Construction of facilities within the Greenfields Irrigation 

Division began in 1913, and the first water was delivered to area grain farmers in 1920. The main storage 

structure, Gibson Reservoir, was constructed on the 

upper Sun River from 1922 to 1929. Approximately 

300 miles of canals and lateral distribution ditches 

send water across the Greenfields Bench.

The development of the Greenfields Irrigation 

Division dramatically changed the landscape within 

large parts of the district and influenced land use 

near Benton Lake Refuge. Native grassland was 

converted to irrigated cropland, mostly wheat and 

barley, and pasture–hayland. The advent of increased small grain production in the region and 

accompanying storage, transportation, and milling 

facilities also encouraged grain production outside of 

the irrigation division. Much of the native grassland 

in the district was converted to dry cropland. The 

predominant crops grown in this area until the 1980s 

were wheat, barley, oats, and flax using crop–fallow 

rotations where alternating linear fields were either 

cropped or kept fallow (free of vegetation using tillage or chemical treatments) for 1–2 years. Since the 

mid-1980s, more than 60 percent of the cropland in 

the Greenfields Division has been contracted for 

growing malting barley, which has improved the 

financial sustainability of croplands in the area and 

has provided a more than $20 million annual return.

Archaeology

Three of the district’s waterfowl production areas 

have documented prehistoric and historic sites.

Blackfoot WPA

Based on the limited amount of field inventory conducted on Service land, seven cultural resource sites 

have been recorded: six are prehistoric and one is 

historic. The prehistoric sites consist of lithic scatters, and their ages are unknown. The historic site 

consists of an old road that was the main road to the 

area. None of the sites have been formally evaluated 

for eligibility to the National Register of Historic 

Places. A cultural resource survey on timbered parts 

of the Blackfoot WPA is planned.

Three areas on lands next to the Blackfoot WPA 

have been identified as containing culturally significant ponderosa pine peeled trees and vegetatively 

significant ponderosa pine trees (BLM 2010).

Pine peeled trees have also been documented in 

Colorado and Utah, and are referred to as culturally 

modified trees. It is believed the peeled trees were 

used occasionally by native people as a sealant, glue, 

medicine, or sweetener (Loosle 2003). The bark was 

usually collected in the spring when the sugary sap 

ran. Bark sheets were cut from trees using wooden 

sticks or rib bones from elk. The inner and outer 

bark were separated and could either be eaten fresh 

or rolled into balls that could be stored for later use. 

Harvesting methods did not kill the tree (Ostlund et 

al. 2005). Surviving trees exhibit distinctive peeling 

scars. These trees are found throughout northwestern Montana and can now be used to interpret native peoples’ land use and movements.

Ehli WPA

A single, historic, late-nineteenth to mid-twentieth 

century farmstead has been recorded at Ehli WPA 

(Loflin 2007). This work was done to prepare for the 

debris removal for a farmstead on the WPA, and no 

other survey was conducted. At the time of recordation, all of the buildings except a recycled rail car 

had collapsed. The site was found not to be eligible 

for the National Register and the debris associated 

with the farmstead has been removed. The Montana 

State Historic Preservation Office concurred with 

the findings.
96 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

H2–O WPA

About 470 acres of archaeological survey have been 

conducted at H2–O WPA (Schwab 1994). During 

this survey for wetland repairs, four prehistoric 

lithic scatters and two historic sites were found. 

The two historic sites (McCormick ditch 24PW623 

and McCormick farmstead 24PW618) were found 

potentially eligible for the National Register and 

need further investigation if work is proposed near 

them. The McCormick farmstead (24PW618) was 

found not eligible by the contractor, but the Montana State Historic Preservation Office did not concur. The unresolved National Register eligibility of 

24PW618 is an ongoing issue for the WPA. In 2005, 

the Service proposed building a new office at the 

H2–O headquarters. Service staff again found that 

24PW618 was not eligible for the National Register 

due to the loss of integrity of the farmstead (Loflin 

2005a). The Montana State Historic Preservation 

Office disagreed, stating that not enough historic research had been conducted. The Service forwarded 

the project to the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation who has requested more information. 

This issue will be revisited when the refuge decides 

to pursue the project again.

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas

These lands remain in private ownership. Therefore, 

Federal laws on the protection and management of 

cultural resources do not apply to these units.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge

Although no formal survey has been conducted, 

refuge cultural resources staff recorded a historic 

muskrat farm on the refuge in 2009 (Loflin 2010a). 

This work was done to prepare for the disposal of 

a small log building known as Trapper’s Cabin. The 

cabin is on the river’s edge, and staff were concerned 

that it would fall into the river. The residence associated with this building has completely collapsed, and 

Service cultural resources staff documented that the 

building had lost too much integrity to be considered eligible for the National Register. The Montana 

State Historic Preservation Office concurred (Brown 

2011), and the cabin is being transferred.

3.5 Special 

Management Areas

Management of these areas takes into consideration 

the special features that led to their designation.

Wilderness Review

A wilderness review is the process used for deciding 

whether to recommend Service lands or waters to 

the U.S. Congress for designation as wilderness. 

The Service is required to conduct a wilderness review for each refuge as part of the CCP process. 

Lands or waters that meet the minimum criteria 

for wilderness would be identified in a CCP and further evaluated to decide whether or not they merit 

recommendation for inclusion in the Wilderness System. To be designated a wilderness, lands must meet 

the criteria outlined in the Wilderness Act of 1964:

■ Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

human work substantially unnoticeable.

■ Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation.

■ Has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient 

size to make practicable its preservation and use 

in an unimpaired condition.

■ May also contain ecological, geological, or other 

features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

The Benton Lake Refuge meets the wilderness criteria for size and for scientific, scenic, and ecological 

value, but is affected by roads, fences, and extensive 

human effects from livestock grazing and wetland 

modifications, which preclude it from being designated as a wilderness.

Important Bird Areas

The Benton Lake Refuge and approximately 13,284 

acres of the Blackfoot Valley have been designated 

as an important bird area through a program administered by the National Audubon Society. Important 

bird areas provide essential habitat for one or more 

species of birds. They include sites for breeding, 

wintering, or migrating birds and may be a few 

acres or thousands of acres. Usually they are discrete sites that stand out from the surrounding landscape. They may include public or private lands, and 

may be protected or unprotected (National Audubon 

Society 2010). To qualify as important bird areas, 

sites must satisfy at least one of the following criteria to support the following types of bird species:

■ species of conservation concern (for example, 

threatened and endangered species)
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 97

■ 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

■ global concern species—ferruginous hawk, piping plover, long-billed curlew, Sprague’s pipit, 

Brewer’s sparrow, chestnut-collared longspur

■ continental concern species—northern harrier, 

Swainson’s hawk, upland sandpiper, marbled godwit, Wilson’s phalarope, common tern, burrowing 

owl, short-eared owl, loggerhead shrike, Baird’s 

sparrow, McCown’s longspur

Of the more than 240 species of birds documented 

on the Benton Lake Refuge, 17 species of global and 

continental concern breed on the refuge.

Baird’s Sparrow

© Bob Gress

Western Hemisphere Shorebird 

Reserve Network

Because of the concentrations of migrating shorebirds that have been observed in some years, the 

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network 

recognizes the Benton Lake Refuge as a site of regional importance.

3.6 Visitor Services

Visitors to the refuge complex enjoy a variety of 

wildlife-dependent public use activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Figures 

13 and 14 highlight public use areas on the Benton 

Lake and Swan River Refuges. Brochures containing area maps, public use regulations, bird species, 

and general information are available for the units 

in the refuge complex. Table 8 shows the number of 

visitors participating in various wildlife-dependent 

activities and volunteer hours for each unit of the 

refuge complex.

Appropriateness and 

Compatibility

In general, national wildlife refuges are closed to 

all public use until specifically opened. WPAs are 

inherently open to migratory gamebird hunting, 

upland gamebird hunting, big game hunting, fishing, 

and trapping and are closed to all other uses unless 

specifically opened.

Existing and proposed uses of national wildlife 

refuges where the Service has jurisdiction over the 

use need to be screened for appropriateness before 

compatibility. For a use on a refuge to be found appropriate, it must meet one of the following criteria: (1) be a priority public use; (2) be described in 

a refuge management plan approved after October 

9, 1997; (3) is take of fish and wildlife under State 

regulations; and (4) be found appropriate as specified 

in 603 FW 1 Sec 1.11. Uses that are not appropriate 

are to be denied without determining compatibility. 

One use deemed not appropriate came up during 

public scoping. A commercial outfitter requested to 

conduct guided hunting on the Swan River Refuge. 

A formal evaluation was conducted using the criteria 

noted above, and guided waterfowl hunting was 

found to be “Not Appropriate” on the Swan River 

Refuge for the following reasons. To be permitted 

on a national wildlife refuge, an economic use must 

contribute to “the achievement of the national wildlife refuge purposes or the National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission” (50 CFR 29.1). Guided waterfowl 

hunting would not contribute to the purpose of the 

Swan River Refuge, which is “for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary...for migratory birds.” Additionally, this 

use was found to be “not appropriate” because it 

would not further enhance public understanding 

or be beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources. 
98 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana Figure 13. Map of public use at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 99

Figure 14. Map of public use at Swan River National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.
100 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 8. Actual Annual Performance Plan for 2011 for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Refuge 

complex 

total

Benton 

Lake 

Refuge

Benton Lake 

Wetland Management District

Swan 

River 

Refuge

Total number of visitors 13,280 10,000 2,780 500

Number of Special Events hosted on- and off-site 10 3 7 0

Number of participants in special events onsite 525 75 450 0

Visitors to Visitor Center or Contact Station 1,000 1,000 n/a 0

Waterfowl hunt visits 555 300 155 100

Other migratory bird hunt visits 12 0 12 0

Upland game hunt visits 825 75 750 0

Big game hunt visits 455 0 455 0

Total hunting visits 1,847 375 1,372 100

Fishing visits 425 50 350 25

Number of foot trail and pedestrian visits 1,420 750 270 400

Number of Auto Tour visits 6,810 6,500 310 n/a

Number of boat trail and launch visits 0 0 0 0

Total wildlife observation visits 8,230 7,250 580 400

Number of photography participants 490 400 50 40

Number of education participants involved in on- and 

off-site environmental education programs 1,765 1,700 55 10

Number of interpretation participants in on- and offsite talks andprograms 120 75 45 0

Total other recreational participants 205 75 30 100

Number of volunteers 4 1 0 3

The hunting program on the refuge provides relatively easy access to a quality recreational hunting 

experience, and the refuge complex has not received 

any public comments or requests from hunters indicating the need for a guided hunt. There is also concern that competition from a commercial operation 

for the “best” hunting locations could impair quality 

hunts for nonguided hunters. 

Uses that are found appropriate must still have 

a compatibility determination. A compatible use is 

one that will not materially interfere with, or detract 

from, the fulfillment of the Refuge System mission 

or the purposes of the refuge. A compatibility determination is written documentation by the refuge 

manager of a proposed, or existing, use of a refuge to 

decide if it is, or is not, compatible with the purpose 

the refuge was established. Refuge management activities are not subject to compatibility, unless that 

activity produces a commodity (for example, haying, 

grazing, timber harvest, and trapping).

A use that is found compatible does not necessarily mean that it is approved. For administrative 

reasons, the refuge manager may deny a compatible 

use. This process includes a public comment period, 

and concurrence is required from the refuge’s regional chief. The policy has no administrative mechanism to appeal a compatibility determination.

All existing and proposed uses will go through 

this screening process. These policies make sure that 

each approved use will be conducted in accordance 

with the legal mandates and policies for which each 

refuge was established and that each use complies 

with station budget and staff levels.

Economic uses are only allowed on national wildlife refuges as described in 50 CFR 29.1 in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 715s. A use must contribute 

to the achievement of the national wildlife refuge 

purposes or the Refuge System mission. Uses must 

be compatible and can only be authorized with the 

proper permit. 50 CFR 29.1 states, “Economic use 

in this section includes but is not limited to grazing 

livestock, or engaging in operations that facilitate 

approved programs on national wildlife refuges.”

See appendix B for approved compatibility determinations.

Hunting

Hunting is one of six priority recreational uses 

identified in the Improvement Act. All recreational 
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 101

activities are secondary to the primary purpose 

for which a refuge unit was established and must 

be compatible. Hunting provides traditional recreational activities throughout the refuge complex 

and local areas with no definable adverse effects on 

the biological integrity or habitat sustainability of 

the refuge complex resources, as defined in the act. 

Service policy states that no more than 40 percent of 

a national wildlife refuge may be open to migratory 

bird hunting. This restriction makes sure that habitat without disturbance is available for migrating 

birds, including waterfowl.

In FY 2011, hunting accounted for 1,847 recreational visits to the refuge complex, which is 14 percent of total visitor use. Most hunting occurs on the 

district.

In addition to the site-specific regulations mentioned below, all State hunting regulations apply 

to Service lands in the refuge complex. Shotgun 

hunters may only possess and use nontoxic shot on 

fee-title lands within the refuge complex, and vehicle 

travel and parking is restricted to roads, pullouts, 

and parking areas.

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Hunting on the refuge begins with the opening of 

the State waterfowl season and runs through November 30. Benton Lake Refuge is open for the 

youth waterfowl season, which typically occurs the 

weekend before the opening of the general waterfowl season. Ducks, geese, coots, swans (by permit), 

sharp-tailed grouse, gray partridge, and ring-necked 

pheasants can be hunted on the refuge. Hunting of 

all other species is prohibited. State seasons apply 

within the refuge framework. Hunting is on a firstcome, first-served basis. One disability accessible 

hunting blind is available in Unit 5.

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District

All WPAs in the district, except the Sands and H2–O 

WPAs, are open to migratory gamebird hunting, 

upland gamebird hunting, big game hunting, fishing, 

and trapping in accordance with Montana State law. 

The Sands and H2-O WPAs were donated to the 

Service with deed restrictions that prohibit hunting. Travel on the WPAs is by foot or nonmotorized 

boats. No camping, overnight parking, or fires are 

permitted on WPAs. One exception is at Arod Lakes 

WPA, which is cooperatively managed with MFWP. 

State-provided facilities there include a boat ramp 

for motorized boats, a small, designated camping 

area, and limited motorized vehicle access for ice 

fishing three months of the year.

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas

Hunting is popular throughout the project areas. 

Hunted wildlife include waterfowl, upland gamebirds, elk, moose, deer, black bear, bighorn sheep, 

mountain lion, and furbearers. Public access to conservation easement lands is under the control of the 

landowner.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge

On the refuge, approximately 100 annual hunter visits occur. The area of the refuge north of Bog Road is 

open for waterfowl hunting and closed for all other 

species. Big game and upland game hunting is not 

authorized on the refuge. Guided hunting opportunities are not authorized on the refuge.

Fishing

National wildlife refuges may be opened to sportfishing only after a determination is made that this 

activity is compatible with the purposes for which 

the refuge was established. In addition, the sportfishing program must be consistent with principles 

of sound fishery management and otherwise be in 

the public interest. Lands acquired as WPAs are 

open to sportfishing, subject to State laws and regulations. Fishing or entry on all, or any part of, individual areas may be temporarily suspended by the 

posting, on occasion, of unusual or critical conditions 

affecting, land, water, vegetation, or fish and wildlife 

populations. In fiscal year 2011, fishing accounted for 

425 recreational visits to the refuge complex, which 

is 3 percent of the total visitor use.

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

The refuge offers no fishing opportunities due to 

a lack of sport fish on the refuge. The Pumphouse 

Unit (147 acres) is open for walk-in access to Muddy 

Creek, which provides trout-fishing opportunities.

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District

The Arod Lakes and Blackfoot WPAs are open to 

fishing. Arod Lakes WPA, where yellow perch and 

northern pike are plentiful, receives the bulk of fishing visits in the refuge complex.
102 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas

Public access to conservation easement lands is under the control of the landowner and subject to State 

stream access laws.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge

The refuge is open to fishing in accordance with 

State regulations on Swan Lake and Swan River.

Trapping

There are limited trapping opportunities on the refuge complex. 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Recreational trapping is prohibited on the refuge. 

Trapping by special use permit occurs for wildlife 

and infrastructure management purposes only.

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District

With the exception of Sands and H2-O WPAs, recreational trapping is permitted on WPAs according to 

State regulations.

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas

Public access to conservation easement lands is under the control of the landowner.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge

Recreational trapping is prohibited on the refuge. 

Trapping by special use permit occurs for wildlife 

and infrastructure management purposes only.

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography

These are popular wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities at the refuge complex. A variety of habitats and many species of wildlife provide many 

observation and photography opportunities year 

round. In FY 2011, wildlife observation and photography accounted for 8,230 and 490 recreational visits, respectively, which is 62 percent and 4 percent 

of the total visitor use to the refuge complex. The 

Benton Lake Refuge received most of the visitation.

To protect nesting birds and other wildlife, pets 

are required to be leashed and remain on designated 

roads and trails, except during the hunting season in 

hunt areas. Vehicles (both motorized and nonmotorized) must stay on designated roads. Off-road vehicle 

travel is strictly prohibited due to negative impacts 

to biological resources and disturbance to wildlife.

Commercial filmmakers and still photographers 

must acquire a special use permit to work on Service 

lands. The permit specifies regulations and conditions that the permittee must follow to protect the 

wildlife and habitats they have come to capture on 

film and to prevent the unreasonable disruption of 

other visitors’ enjoyment of the refuge complex. 

Commercial filming and photography on Service 

lands must also show a means (1) to generate the 

public’s appreciation and understanding of the refuge’s wildlife and their habitats and the value and 

mission of the Refuge System; or (2) to facilitate the 

outreach and education goals of the refuge complex.

Swan Valley Conservation Area

USFWS

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

The refuge offers the Prairie Marsh Wildlife Drive, a 

9-mile, self-guided auto tour route, as well as a Visitor Center, informational kiosk, the Prairie Marsh 

Boardwalk with a spotting scope, a sharp-tailed 

grouse observation blind, and a photography blind 

that is available on a first-come, first-served basis. 

The observation blind is available by reservation 

in April and May for viewing the courting rituals of 
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 103

sharp-tailed grouse. The refuge also permits visitors to use their own temporary photography blinds 

along Prairie Marsh Wildlife Drive. Most visitors 

view wildlife from the auto tour route. Lower Marsh 

Road is also a popular observation area.

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District

Currently, noncommercial wildlife observation and 

photography have been determined to be compatible, and WPAs are open to these uses. Commercial 

filmmakers and photographers still must acquire a 

special use permit.

WPAs are open to foot traffic: hiking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing. Bicycle use is 

permitted only on roads open to vehicular traffic. 

Equestrian use is prohibited. Impacts to biological 

resources, such as the introduction of invasive species and disturbances to wildlife during periods of 

nesting and migration, are of concern.

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas

Public access to conservation easement lands is under the control of the landowner.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge

Bog Road provides wildlife-viewing and photography opportunities and access to the interior of the 

refuge. The existing observation platform, kiosk, 

and interpretive panel and associated parking area 

also provide opportunity for wildlife observation and 

photography and are popular destination point while 

traveling through the Swan Valley.

Foot traffic, including hiking, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing is permitted on Bog Road year 

round and in the hunt area during waterfowl hunting 

season. Bog Road is not maintained and is typically 

covered with several feet of snow. Parking is very 

limited on the refuge, therefore access is primarily 

from Swan Lake. Visitors cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing are few, likely less than ten visitors per 

year. 

Equestrian use is prohibited on Swan River Refuge to limit impacts to biological resources, such as 

the introduction of invasive species and disturbances 

to wildlife during periods of nesting and migration. 

Bicycles are permitted on Bog Road and on roads 

open to motorized vehicles.

Boating is permitted on the Swan River in accordance with State regulations. Many visitors to the 

refuge use canoes or kayaks to travel the river and 

enjoy the sights and sounds. Use of motor boats is 

controlled by the State “no wake” regulation, which 

has reduced impacts to the river shoreline.

“No-wake” is a State regulation that was adopted 

to curb motorboaters, and personal water craft users from running at top speed up the Swan River. 

The regulation is followed by most visitors and has 

increased use of the river by canoeists and kayakers. 

The “no-wake” regulation has reduced signs of erosion along the riverbanks, which should help native 

bull trout.

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation

Opportunities for environmental education and interpretation are abundant within the refuge complex. In FY 2011, for programs on and off of the 

refuge complex, environmental education accounted 

for 1,765 visits and interpretation accounted for 120 

visits, which is 13 percent and 1 percent, respectively, of the total visitor use. In addition, 525 participants attended 10 special events on and off the 

refuge complex.

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

The Benton Lake Refuge has the potential to provide an extraordinary environmental education and 

interpretation program. The refuge is located 12 

miles from Great Falls, a city of 60,000 people. The 

population of Cascade County, where the refuge 

is located, is 82,000. The refuge staff has never included an environmental education position. Management staff has given occasional tours to school 

groups and nongovernmental organizations. The 

environmental science department of the Great 

Falls Public Schools (GFPS) brings all third graders (800–900 students) to the refuge each year in 

May and June for a basic introduction to prairie 

grasslands and wetlands. Refuge staff greet the 

buses and give a very brief overview of the Refuge 

System and provide refuge-specific information. Occasional youth hunting clinics are held at the refuge 

with help from MFWP staff. Becoming an Outdoor 

Woman workshops have also been occasionally held 

on the refuge. Refuge staff also take part in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Exposition (STEM Expo) to help foster community-based 

participation by youth in the career fields of science 

and mathematics. The program includes both a community expo and a mentoring program.

Interpretive panels have been updated and are 

displayed in the visitor kiosk located on the office 

entrance road. More panels are being developed for 

display on the Prairie Marsh Boardwalk.
104 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District

WPAs are open for environmental education and 

interpretation if they are found to be compatible. All 

WPAs in the district have the potential to be part of 

a structured environmental education and interpretation program. Currently, no such program exists 

due to the lack of environmental education staff in 

the refuge complex. Occasional environmental education events are held at the H2–O WPA. These usually involve wetland education themes with grade 

school children from around the Blackfoot Valley.

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley Conservation Areas

Public access to conservation easement lands is under the control of the landowner and no active interpretive or educational programming occurs on them.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge

Currently, no formal environmental education or 

interpretation program exists at the refuge due to 

the lack of environmental education staff. The kiosk panels at the refuge, which are regulatory and 

informational, have been revised. Concrete work 

that provided a parking area, trail, and observation 

deck—all, of which, are accessible to people with 

disabilities—was completed in 2009 and construction 

of a new kiosk was completed in 2011. Interpretive 

panels on the viewing platform discuss the biology of 

the marsh. There is currently very limited potential 

for staff-led environmental education at the refuge 

due to the difficult access conditions on Bog Road 

and the lack of parking space. Bog Road provides 

access to the interior of the refuge. It is a two track 

road that is impassable in high water conditions or 

wet weather.

3.7 Operations

Operations consist of the staff, facilities, equipment, 

and supplies needed to administer resource management and public use programs throughout the 

refuge complex, which is located across a 12-county 

area covering more than 2,700 square miles. Within 

this area, the Service is responsible for the protection of 163,304 acres of lands and waters.

Staff

Currently, the refuge complex staff is comprised of 

9.5 permanent full-time employees (table 9). Since 

1998, the refuge complex has lost three positions—

one full-time law enforcement position, one permanent biological science technician and a permanent 

maintenance worker. The current staff level remains 

well below the minimum prescribed in the June 2008 

Final Report—Staffing Model for Field Stations 

(USFWS 2008e), which recommended adding 8 staff 

members, including a general schedule (GS)–13 refuge manager, GS–12 wildlife refuge specialist, GS–9 

park ranger (visitor services specialist), GS–9 park 

ranger (law enforcement), GS–12 wildlife biologist, 

wage grade (WG)–8 maintenance worker, and GS–6 

biological science technician (0.5 full-time equivalent 

employee).

Table 9. Staff funded in fiscal year 2011 at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Official title Working title Series and FTE Assignment Station

grade

Permanent staff

Wildlife refuge Complex manager GS-0485–14 1 Refuge complex Benton Lake Refuge

manager

Wildlife refuge Deputy refuge GS-0485–12 1 Refuge complex Benton Lake Refuge

manager manager

Wildlife biologist Refuge complex GS-0486–12 1 Refuge complex Benton Lake Refuge

biologist

Supervisory Wetland district GS-0485–12 1 District—all Benton Lake Refuge

wildlife refuge manager

specialist

Wildlife refuge Wildlife refuge GS-0485–11 0.5 District—Blackfoot H2-O WPA

specialist specialist

Wildlife refuge Wildlife refuge GS-0485–09 1 District—Rocky Benton Lake Refuge

specialist specialist Mountain Front
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 105

Table 9. Staff funded in fiscal year 2011 at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Official title Working title Series and 

grade

FTE Assignment Station

Maintenance 

worker

Maintenance 

worker

WG-4749–08 1 Benton Lake Refuge Benton Lake Refuge

Administrative 

officer

Budget specialist GS-0341–11 1 Refuge complex Benton Lake Refuge

Budget analyst Regional PCS and 

travel coordinator

GS-0560–09 1 Refuge complex Benton Lake Refuge

Temporary, term, and seasonal staff (as money allows)

Biological science 

technologist 

(term)

Biological science 

technologist 

(term)

GS-0404–06 0.8 Benton Lake Refuge Benton Lake Refuge

Biological Science 

technologist (temporary)

Biological science 

technologist (temporary)

GS-0404–06 0.5 Benton Lake Refuge Benton Lake Refuge

Administrative 

office assistant

Generalist GS-0303–04 0.5 Refuge complex Benton Lake Refuge

Facilities

Facilities are used to support habitat and wildlife 

management programs and wildlife-dependent public use activities. Facilities and real property assets 

are generally well supported throughout the refuge complex. The condition of real property assets 

affects the efficiency of staff to manage biological 

and visitor resources. The refuge complex has one 

full-time maintenance worker to support buildings, 

fences, and roads.

Poorly functioning facilities and infrastructure 

(for example, pump house, water delivery ditches, 

levees, and water control structures) can affect 

wetland, grassland, and forest management activities throughout the refuge complex. Water delivery, 

storage, and release are fundamental for accomplishing some management objectives. Poorly functioning 

levees, water control structures, pump house, and 

delivery ditches would significantly reduce management effectiveness. Interior and exterior fencing 

and boundary signing within the refuge complex 

are in need of further maintenance because they can 

reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of grassland 

and wetland management and resource protection.

The condition of real property assets affects the 

efficiency of staff to manage visitor services. Visitors to the refuge complex expect facilities and real 

property assets such as offices, comfort stations, 

roadways, boardwalks, and kiosks to be in good condition, accessible, and to contain correct information. 

Accessible facilities exist, but may not be strategically located to meet the needs of the users.

Visitor And Employee Safety 

And Resource Protection

Until the end of FY 2011, the Benton Lake Refuge 

had at least one dual-function, law enforcementcommissioned officer position. A full-time law 

enforcement officer is critical to protect fish and 

wildlife resources and provide staff and visitor 

safety. Within the last 4 years, the refuge complex 

has had a permanent, full-time law enforcement position and up to 2 collateral duty positions. Now, only 

1 collateral duty officer serves the refuge complex.

Past violations on fee-title lands have primarily 

involved hunting. Vandalism, trespassing, dumping, and general littering exist, but violators are not 

often apprehended by law enforcement. Seasonal 

closures are implemented throughout the refuge 

complex to protect sensitive wildlife resources. Minimizing disturbances to nesting migratory birds is of 

particular concern. Law enforcement officers on the 

refuge complex are also responsible for monitoring 

and enforcing easement contracts, which is a critical 

aspect of protecting wetland and grassland habitats.

Current management routinely emphasizes analyses of safe work habits, use of personal protective 

equipment, and job hazards in all work situations, 

including those that seem relatively free of hazards. 

In FY 2009, the Regional Safety Office conducted an 

inspection at Benton Lake Refuge headquarters and 

compound that resulted in the correction of a small 

number of minor unsafe situations (for example, 

handrails need to connect to walls). In 2009, there 

was only one employee on-the-job injury. Overall 

employee and visitor safety is at acceptable levels.
106 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

3.8 Partnerships

The primary objectives of partnerships for conservation between the Service, private partners, nongovernmental organizations and others are to:

■ support wildlife biological diversity;

■ link together existing protected areas;

■ preserve existing wildlife corridors;

■ protect large, intact, functioning ecosystems;

■ support the rural character and agricultural lifestyle of western Montana.

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program continues to develop strong partnerships with private 

landowners along the Front and within the Blackfoot and Swan Valleys through of habitat restoration 

and management projects on private lands. Strong 

partnerships have also developed among a variety of 

agencies and organizations, such as Trout Unlimited, 

TNC, The Conservation Fund, Ducks Unlimited, 

Natural Resource Conservation Service, MFWP, 

and the Montana Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation, to accomplish similar objectives 

through restoration and protection projects.

Habitat restoration efforts focus on invasive 

weed treatment, wetlands, streams, native grasslands, and riparian areas. Typical projects include 

wetland restoration, riparian corridor enhancement 

(revegetation), instream restoration, invasive weed 

treatment programs, and the development of grazing systems to rejuvenate native grasslands.

The Blackfoot River watershed has a history of 

pioneering innovative land management strategies 

to support working landscapes and fish and wildlife. Recognizing the strong tie between land and 

livelihood, private landowners have played a key 

role in conservation projects for more than three 

decades. One of the earliest efforts involved developing Montana’s enabling legislation for conservation 

easements, with the first conservation easement in 

Montana signed in the Blackfoot Valley in 1976.

The mission of the Blackfoot Challenge, a private 

nonprofit organization that came out of this rich tradition, is to coordinate efforts that conserve and enhance the natural resources and rural way of life in 

the Blackfoot Valley for present and future generations. Their contributions are a cornerstone for the 

successes within the valley. In 2006, the Blackfoot 

Challenge won the Innovations in American Government Award sponsored by the Ash Institute for 

Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard 

University’s Kennedy School of Government.

Innovative partnerships continue to develop 

within northwest Montana. As part of the Blackfoot Community Project, for example, partners 

developed the 41,000-acre Blackfoot Community 

Conservation Area that involves community forest 

ownership of 5,609 acres and cooperative ecosystem 

management across public and private lands. As a 

multiple-use demonstration area, this project shows 

innovative access, land stewardship, and restoration practices and is management by a 15-member 

community-based council.

TNC has been a leading influence on the acquisition of conservation easements along the Front, 

protecting more than 79,000 acres at a cost of $15.8 

million over the past 30 years. In the past 5 years, 

TNC has provided $2.1 million in private money to 

the Service’s easement program within the project 

area. In addition, this partnership recently expanded 

to include the Conservation Fund and Richard King 

Mellon Foundation, both of whom have committed 

an added $15 million dollars in private money to buy 

conservation easements along the Front.

In addition there are several grant programs administered by the Division of Ecological Services, 

available to tribes, States, and private landowners 

for projects that help federally listed, proposed, or 

candidate species along the Rocky Mountain Front, 

Blackfoot Valley, and Swan Valley CAs.

3.9 Socioeconomic 

Environment

Most of the complex is open to public use, including 

the compatible, wildlife-dependent uses of hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation. These recreational opportunities attract outside visitors and 

bring 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 refuge complex visitation and, thus, affect 

the amount of visitor spending in the local economy.

For this CCP, the Service had a contractor prepare a socioeconomic study for the complex (USGS 

2011), which is the basis for the following sections: 

population and employment, public use of the refuge 

complex, and baseline economic activity.
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 107

Regional Economic Setting

For economic impact analysis, a region (and its economy) is typically defined as all counties within a 30–

60 mile radius of the impact area. Only spending that 

takes place within this regional area is considered to 

stimulate economic activity. The size of the region 

influences both the amount of spending captured 

and multiplier effects. Most of the economic activity 

related to the refuge complex is located within a 

12-county region in northwestern Montana: Cascade, 

Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Missoula, Pondera, Powell, Teton, and Toole. 

These counties compose the local economic region.

During the last century, ranching, farming, mining, oil and natural gas development, and the railroad have been important factors in the social and 

economic history of the area. More recently, outdoor 

recreation and tourism have been increasingly important contributors to the local economies. The 

next sections describe the socioeconomic characteristics and trends in the 12-county region.

Conducting vegetation sampling on the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

USFWS

Population and Density

Table 10 summarizes the population characteristics 

of Montana and the local economic region. In 2009, 

the U.S. Census Bureau estimated the total population for the 12 counties to be 342,587 residents, or 

35.1 percent of Montana’s total population. Three 

counties (Cascade, Lewis and Clark, and Missoula) 

accounted for 252,743 residents, or 74 percent of the 

region. Missoula was the most heavily populated 

with 108,623 residents, while Liberty was the least 

populated with 1,748 residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). Three counties had populations greater 

than 60,000 and 6 had populations less than 8,000. 

Montana’s population experienced an in-migration 

of residents from 2000–2009 (nearly 8 percent) (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2011a). Counties with larger populations grew more quickly than less-populated counties. Cascade, Glacier, Hill, Lake, Lewis and Clark, 

and Missoula counties recorded population gains 

over the past decade, while Chouteau, Liberty, Pondera, Powell, Toole, and Teton counties recorded 

population losses (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). Missoula County experienced the largest gain (13 percent) while Liberty County experienced the largest 

loss (19 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a).
108 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

To better understand the demographic profiles of 

these counties, it is useful to examine their population densities and compare these to the same figures 

for the major communities in the region. Generally, 

counties with larger populations tend to be more 

densely populated. Missoula County, the most populated county in the region, has a population density 

of 42 persons per square mile. Cascade, Lake, and 

Lewis and Clark Counties (all heavily populated) 

follow similar patterns. Liberty County, the least 

populated in the 12-county region, has a population 

density of only 1 person per square mile. Chouteau, 

Pondera, Powell, Teton and Toole Counties (all 

sparsely populated) follow similar patterns.

The 2010 census reports the population of the city 

of Missoula to be 66,788, which is over 60 percent 

of the population of Missoula County. Similarly, the 

city of Great Falls has approximately 72 percent of 

Cascade County’s population (U.S. Census Bureau 

2011a). Higher local densities in these large communities show that rural areas may be more sparsely 

populated than what is shown in table 10.

Population projections may help show the expected economic conditions and demand for recreation near the complex. Montana’s population is 

projected to increase 24 percent from 2009 to 2030, 

with a steady increase of approximately 11 percent 

each decade. The 12-county region is also predicted 

to grow, with the population increasing by 18 percent from 2009 to 2030 (NPA Data Services, Inc. 

2011). Toole County, the second smallest county in 

the region, and Cascade County, the second largest, 

are predicted to lose the highest proportion of residents (-8.37 percent and -7.69 percent, respectively) 

while Lake County, currently the fourth largest in 

the complex, is predicted to gain the largest proportion (47 percent) (NPA Data Services, Inc. 2011).

Communities Near the Refuge Complex

The following narrative describes the communities 

near each of the units.

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Benton Lake Refuge is mostly located in northcentral Cascade County, with portions located in 

Chouteau and Teton. Visitors come to the refuge 

for wildlife observation, photography, and waterfowl and upland game hunting. Great Falls, located 

about 12 miles to the south, is the closest city to the 

refuge. Despite a history of boom-and-bust mining 

cycles, Great Falls is a well-planned city. By the 

late 1800s, connections to the railroad allowed for a 

growing number of businesses and a vibrant agricultural sector. Throughout the 1900s, the city experienced steady growth due to the diversity of the 

local economy. By 1939, when Malmstrom Air Force 

Base was established here, the city had several welldeveloped sectors in the local economy, including 

manufacturing, agriculture, military, and retail (Big 

Sky Fishing 2011). Great Falls is a growing tourist 

destination, as it provides access to a wide variety 

of outdoor recreation opportunities. Visitors come 

for its rich Western history and impressive parks 

and open spaces (Great Falls Visitor Information 

Center 2011). Great Falls is also one of the many 

gateways to Glacier, Yellowstone, and Grand Teton 

National Parks, as well as to Showdown, Teton Pass, 

and Great Divide ski resorts (Great Falls Visitor 

Information Center 2011).

Table 10. Regional population estimates and characteristics for Montana, 2000–2030.

Resident population 

in 2009

Persons per 

square mile

Percent population 

change 2000–2009

Projected percent population change 2009–2030

Montana 974,989 7 7.9 24

Cascade County 82,178 30 2.5 –8

Chouteau County 5,167 1 –13.5 –3

Glacier County 13,550 5 2.7 7

Hill County 16,632 6 0.02 -7

Lake County 28,605 19 7.5 47

Lewis and Clark County 61,942 18 10.9 38

Liberty County 1,748 1 –18.8 –2

Missoula County 108,623 42 13 30

Pondera County 5,814 4 –8.8 –4

Powell County 7,089 3 –1.2 15

Teton County 6,088 3 –5.4 –2

Toole County 5,151 3 -2.1 -8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2011a) and NPA Data Services, Inc. (2011). 
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 109

Benton Lake Wetland Management District

The district is the largest in the country, covering 

ten counties. The Service has acquired 23 waterfowl production areas within the district, most of 

which lie in north-central Montana’s Glacier and 

Toole Counties. More than 7,000 acres of wetland 

easements and 4,294 acres of grassland easements 

in northern Montana have been purchased for waterfowl production. Although these easements are 

spread throughout the district, the small town of 

Shelby is near to a cluster of wetland easements. 

Shelby is dependent on agriculture and tourism. 

The agricultural industry accounts for 10 percent of 

the 3,525 jobs in Toole County (Bureau of Economic 

Analysis 2011). Wildlife living on the conservation 

easements and waterfowl production areas also attract visitors to the area. Opportunities for viewing 

wildlife are abundant, and hunting, trapping, and 

fishing are available in many of the WPAs.

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area

The Blackfoot Valley CA includes parts of Missoula, 

Powell, and Lewis and Clark Counties. The town 

of Ovando, which was home to only 81 residents in 

2010, is located near the center of the conservation 

area (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). This sleepy town 

is located along Highway 200 between Helena and 

Missoula. Historically, it has played several significant roles including, for example, a thoroughfare for 

the Blackfoot Indian Tribe, a camp for the Lewis and 

Clark party, a forerunner in the establishment of a 

United States Post Office system in Montana, and 

a regional hub for cattle and sheep ranching in late 

19th century (Ovando, Montana 2011). The Blackfoot River Valley is a 1.5-million-acre watershed 

that is the central focus of the Blackfoot Community Project, a partnership with TNC, the Blackfoot 

Challenge, seven local communities, and private 

landowners (Blackfoot Challenge et al. 2005).

The Blackfoot Valley CA encompasses an 

824,024-acre ecosystem. To date, a total of 43,991 

acres of wetland, grassland, and conservation easements have been obtained within the project area. 

The Blackfoot River watershed includes the Ovando 

Valley and Helmville Valley. The watershed is bordered on the east by the Continental Divide, on the 

south by the Garnet Mountains, on the north by the 

Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, and on the west 

by the Rattlesnake Wilderness. The center of the 

project area lies about 55 miles east of Missoula. The 

Blackfoot Valley CA is part of a conservation strategy to protect one of the last undeveloped, low-elevation river valley ecosystems in western Montana. 

The area compliments other components of a broad 

partnership known as the Blackfoot Challenge. The 

Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

also works with private landowners to restore and 

enhance habitat on private lands and coordinate 

management activities on public lands throughout 

the entire Blackfoot Valley.

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area

The Rocky Mountain Front CA stretches from Pondera County south through Teton County and into 

Lewis and Clark County. The town of Choteau is 

located near the center of the CA in Teton County, 

53 miles northwest of Great Falls. In 2010, Choteau, 

the county seat of Teton County, was home to 1,684 

people. Located on regional trucking routes as well 

as on Burlington Northern Railroad routes, the city 

serves as an important commercial hub (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b; Choteau Chamber of Commerce 

date unknown). The town is also a home base from 

which tourists and recreationists enjoy the Rocky 

Mountain Front, located just 20 miles to the east. 

This area, which is known for its many wide open 

spaces and pristine wildlife habitats, allows visitors to enjoy the “...culture and traditions [that] are 

steeped in the fertile soil and in the wheat, barley 

and livestock” (Choteau Chamber of Commerce date 

unknown). Tourists also enjoy the Old Trail Museum, 

which takes visitors back to prehistoric times. Hiking through the mountains, viewing wildlife, and 

fishing the streams and lakes are some of the major 

recreational highlights of the area surrounding the 

Rocky Mountain Front CA (Teton County History 

2011). Nearly 80,000 acres of conservation easements have been acquired to date.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge

Swan River Refuge covers 1,569 acres in northern 

Lake County. Visitors are attracted to the refuge for 

opportunities to fish, hunt waterfowl, and view wildlife. The refuge is near the city of Kalispell, which 

is the 7th largest city in Montana and the Flathead 

County seat. Colorado College recently named Kalispell the “most diverse, balanced economy in the 

Rocky Mountain West” in its State of the Rockies 

report (Kalispell Chamber of Commerce 2011). Kalispell has a small business-oriented economy that is 

growing fast due to train traffic and increasing interest in outdoor recreation. The city provides easy 

access to the Canadian border as well as to public 

lands, which makes up 94 percent of the county’s total land area (Kalispell Chamber of Commerce 2011).

Swan Valley Conservation Area

Swan Valley CA, which is part of the Interior Columbia River Basin, is located in Lake and northern Missoula Counties on the western side of the 

12-county region. The establishment of the Swan 

Valley CA authorized the purchase of up to 10,000 

acres of conservation easements and up to 1,000 

acres of fee-title land next to the Swan River Ref-
110 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

uge. The conservation area lies about 30 miles southeast of Kalispell, near the small town of Seeley Lake, 

which was home to 1,436 residents in 2000 and relies 

on tourist traffic to and from Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks to sustain its local economy.

Gender, Age and Racial Composition

In the 2009 Census estimate, Montana had about an 

equal proportion of males (49.9 percent) and females 

(50.1 percent). This is also true of most of the counties in the refuge complex. The largest disparity, 

however, is in Powell County, where 61.4 percent of 

the population is male (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). 

Median ages of the 12 counties ranged between 

31 years (Glacier County) and 48.8 years (Liberty 

County). Only 4 of the 12 counties reported median 

ages below the State median (39.0 years). In general, 

the age distribution of the 12-county region mimics 

the distribution of the State as a whole (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2011a). Counties with higher populations 

tend to follow the State pattern more closely, and 

there is more variation in the median age in counties 

with considerably lower populations.

In 2009, Montana’s population was mostly Caucasian (90.3 percent of all residents). American Indian 

and Alaska Natives had the second largest representation with 6.5 percent of residents. Generally, 

this distribution is also representative of the racial 

demographics in the 12-county region (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). The demographics of the region, 

however, do differ slightly from statewide trends in 

the following ways: 

■ The regional Caucasian population represents 

2.7-percent less of the total population than indicated by statewide demographics.

■ The regional American Indian and Alaska Native 

population represents 2-percent more of the total 

population than indicated by statewide demographics.

The latter of these differences is due in large part 

to the American Indian and Alaska Native population of Glacier County, which represents the highest 

proportion of American Indian and Alaska Natives 

(60.9 percent) in both the region and the state. All 

counties are within 2 percentage points of the state 

proportion of residents of Hispanic or Latino origin 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2011a).

Prescribed fire is a managment tool used at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

USFWS

Economic Conditions and 

Trends

This section discusses conditions and trends in unemployment and social welfare. Many of the counties 

responded to the recent recession with below-average increases in unemployment, oftentimes reporting unemployment figures lower than the state and 

national rates. In contrast, many of the counties 

reported poverty figures much higher than the state 

and national averages (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a; 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). This section also 

discusses income and employment by industry.
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 111

Unemployment and Poverty

Table 11 summarizes unemployment rates, poverty 

levels, and household incomes. From 2007–2010, 

many of the counties in the refuge complex proved 

to have job markets that were less impacted by the 

recent recession than the rest of the country. The 

largest increase in nationwide unemployment occurred between 2008 and 2009, during which time 

unemployment increased by 3.5 percent (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2011a). By contrast, the average 

increase in unemployment for the 12-county region 

during the same period was 0.9 percent. Glacier 

County had the smallest change in its unemployment rate from 2008–2009, an increase of 0.4 percent 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2011a).

In 2009, most of the counties in the region reported median household incomes below the national median ($50,221). The exception was Lewis 

and Clark County ($52,317), which had the highest median household income in the 12-county region. Lewis and Clark was the only county in the 

region to report a figure greater than the state median ($42,222). After Lewis and Clark County, Hill 

($40,778), Cascade ($40,434), and Missoula ($40,130) 

were the only other counties to report a median 

household income greater than $40,000. Glacier 

County ($29,941) reported the lowest median income 

in the region (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a).

Poverty levels in the region tended to be higher 

than state (15 percent) and national (14.3 percent) 

averages in 2009. Glacier, Lake, and Powell Counties 

reported the highest poverty rates among individuals at 30.5 percent, 20.9 percent, and 20.3 percent, 

respectively. Lewis and Clark, Cascade, and Teton 

Counties reported the lowest poverty rates among 

individuals at 10.1 percent, 15.1 percent, and 15.3 

percent, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a).

In 2010, all of the counties in the 12-county region 

had median household incomes below the national 

median ($51,425), and many of the counties had 

median incomes below the State median ($43,089). 

The largest median household income, $50,245, was 

reported in Lewis and Clark County. The lowest 

median household income, $32,790, was reported in 

Pondera County (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). Only 

Hill ($44,833), Flathead ($45,258), and Lewis and 

Clark ($50,245) Counties reported median household 

incomes above the state median.

Although unemployment seemed to show 

a rather strong economy, poverty levels in the 

12-county region tended to be higher than the state 

(14.7 percent) and national (13.5 percent) averages. 

Glacier, Pondera, Liberty, and Lake Counties reported the highest poverty rates among individuals, 

with 24, 23.6, 22.8, and 21.3 percent, respectively. 

Lewis and Clark, Flathead, Powell, and Teton 

Counties reported the lowest poverty rates among 

individuals, with 10.4, 11.6, 12.8, and 13 percent, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a).

Table 11. Unemployment, poverty and household income in the counties surrounding the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Median house- Unemploy- Net change in unem- Percent of persons 

hold income in ment percent- ployment percentage below poverty in 

dollars in 2009 age in 2010 from 2007–1010 2009

United States 50,221 9.6 5 14.3

Montana 42,222 7.2 3.9 15

Cascade County 40,434 6.1 2.8 15.1

Chouteau County 37,945 4.4 1.5 18.1

Glacier County 29,941 10.1 2.2 30.5

Hill County 40,778 5.6 1.7 19.1

Lake County 35,888 10.1 5 20.9

Lewis and Clark County 52,317 5.5 2.7 10.1

Liberty County 36,106 5 2.2 18.3

Missoula County 40,130 7.3 4.1 16.9

Pondera County 34,813 6.6 2.9 19.1

Powell County 35,848 8.9 3.9 20.3

Teton County 36,834 5.9 3 15.3

Toole County 37,238 4.7 2.4 16.5

Source: (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a,b).
112 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Employment and Income by Industry

Table 12 summarizes employment by industry for 

the entire region. In 2009, about half of the regional 

employment (49 percent) fell into four main sectors 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011):

■ public administration

■ educational, health, and social services

■ retail trade

■ arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, 

and food services

The Census data show that there is a tradeoff between population levels and employment in certain 

sectors. Namely, counties in the region with smaller 

populations tend to have both high employment in 

the agriculture and mining sectors and low employment in the retail trade industry. The opposite is 

true of regional counties with relative large populations. For example, Liberty County, the least 

populous in the 12-county region, reported that the 

agriculture industry alone accounted for 23 percent 

of its total employment in 2009, while retail trade accounted for 9 percent. By contrast, Missoula County, 

the most populous county, reported that the retail 

trade industry accounted for 13 percent of its total 

employment in the same year, while agriculture and 

mining accounted for only 1 percent of total employment (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011).

Liberty County had the highest dependence on 

farm earnings, which accounted for more than 45 

percent of its total earnings for 2009. Chouteau, 

Pondera, and Teton Counties also showed a high 

dependence on their farming industries, which accounted for 29 percent, 21 percent and 20 percent 

of total county earnings, respectively (Bureau of 

Economic Analysis 2011). These counties have an 

average population of around 4,700 residents, and an 

average population density of 2.3 persons per square 

mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a).

Table 12. Employment by industry for the 12-county region surrounding Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Montana.

Industry Percent employment by industry for 

the 12-county region 

Educational, health and social services 13

Retail trade 12

Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services 10

Construction 6

Public administration 14

Professional, scientific, management, administration, and waste services 9

Manufacturing 2

Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 8

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 5

Other services (except public administration) 6

Transportation and warehousing 2

Wholesale trade 2

Information services 2

Total employment (jobs) = 221,513

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2011a).

Key Activities that Affect 

the Local Economy

The ability of the complex to affect local economic 

activity and desired economic conditions is related to 

Service land use decisions and associated land uses. 

Recreation and tourism are the prominent resourcebased industries with ties to the refuge complex.

Tourism and Outdoor Recreation in Montana

Montana residents and visitors to the state take 

part in a variety of outdoor recreation activities. 

According to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, 

Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, approximately 950,000 residents and nonresidents took 

part in wildlife-associated activities in Montana (USFWS 2008a). Of all participants,31 percent took part 

in fishing for a total of 2.9 million fishing days, 21 

percent took part in hunting for a total of 2.1 million 

hunting days, and 79 percent took part in wildlifewatching for a total of 3.1 million activity days. 
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 113

Montana residents had the highest per capita hunting participation in the country at 20 percent, and 

fishing participation was also high at 23 percent. 

Most of all anglers (59 percent) and hunters (74 percent) in Montana were state residents, while most of 

the away-from-home wildlife watching participants 

in Montana were nonresidents (67 percent). The 

in-state spending associated with these activities 

totaled $1.1 billion in 2006, with $585 million spent 

on trip-related expenditures, $472 million on equipment purchases, and $72 million on licenses (USFWS 2008a).

Hunting and Fishing

Much of the Service’s fee-owned land in the refuge 

complex is open to hunting. In 2006, the number of 

people who reported participating in fishing, hunting, or both as a primary form of recreation in Montana totaled 378,000 (USFWS 2008a). The spending 

associated with fishing and hunting in Montana totaled $753 million, of which 55 percent ($417 million) 

was spent on equipment, 38 percent ($283 million) 

was spent on trip-related expenditures, and 7 percent ($53 million) was spent on other expenses such 

as magazines, membership dues, and land leasing 

(USFWS 2008a). Waterfowl hunting is a popular recreation activity in the area surrounding the refuge 

complex. Although popular, the number of waterfowl 

hunters have declined in recent years. In 2001, there 

were 23,675 waterfowl stamps sold to in-state residents. Fewer stamps were sold in 2005 (17,474) and 

fewer still in 2010 (16,428) (MFWP 2011). During 

the same period, upland game hunting, comprised of 

turkey and bird hunting, has seen an increase from 

44,000 licenses in 2001 to 52,000 in 2010. In 2006, 

migratory bird hunters made up only 8 percent of all 

hunters in Montana (MFWP 2011).

Wildlife Viewing

Wildlife viewing opportunities are abundant 

throughout the State of Montana. Wildlife viewing 

can include the activities of observing, identifying, 

or photographing wildlife. In 2006, the number of 

people that reported participating in wildlife viewing as a primary form of recreation totaled 755,000 in 

Montana (USFWS 2008a). The spending associated 

with wildlife viewing in Montana totaled $376 million, of which 80 percent ($303 million) was spent on 

trip-related expenditures, 15 percent ($55 million) 

was spent on equipment, and 5 percent ($19 million) 

was spent on other expenses such as magazines, 

membership dues, and land leasing (USFWS 2008a). 

According to a Service report on the national and 

state economic impacts of wildlife watching, spending by resident and nonresident wildlife watchers in 

Montana in 2006 generated economic impacts of $376 

million in retail sales, $213 million in wages, 9,772 

jobs, and $50 million in state and local sales tax revenue, totaling $639 million in total economic effects 

(USFWS 2008c).

Land Use and Ownership Changes 

Surrounding Refuge Complex Lands

Divided by the Rocky Mountains, the 12-county area 

surrounding the refuge complex contains a diverse 

variety of land uses and vegetative covers. Lake, 

Missoula, and Powell Counties lie to the west of the 

Continental Divide, and Cascade, Chouteau, Glacier, 

Hill, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Pondera, Teton, and 

Toole lie to the east. The western region is largely 

forested and includes some of the best water, wildlife and working forests in the country (TNC 2011). 

Land cover in the western counties is comprised 

of 58 percent forestland, 19.7 percent grassland, 

9.3 percent shrubland, 7.0 percent mixed cropland, 

0.3 percent urban, and 3.3 percent other lands and 

water. Refuge complex units lying to the west of the 

Divide include Swan River Refuge, the Blackfoot 

Valley CA, and the Swan Valley CA. The eastern region is more arid and is largely comprised of planted 

grasslands and native prairie. The area also includes 

croplands, primarily located in the northeastern 

counties of Chouteau, Hill, Liberty, Pondera, Teton, 

and Toole. Land cover in the eastern counties is 

comprised of 9.9 percent forestland, 74.8 percent 

grassland, 6.6 percent shrubland, 6.2 percent mixed 

cropland, 0.1 percent urban, and 0.8 percent other 

lands and water (Headwaters Economics 2011a). 

Refuge complex units lying to the east of the divide 

include Benton Lake Refuge, the district, and the 

Rocky Mountain Front CA.

Land ownership within the 12-county area is 

comprised of 63.5 percent private ownership, 20.7 

percent Federal ownership, 6.9 percent State ownership, and 7.6 percent tribal ownership (Headwaters 

Economics 2011a). Of the federally owned land, 77 

percent is owned by the USDA Forest Service , 9 

percent by the National Park Service, 10 percent 

by the BLM, and 4 percent by other Federal agencies including the Service (Headwaters Economics 

2011a).

Changes in Land Use

The lands and waters of the refuge complex are 

unique landscapes with high conservation values. 

Some of the largest tracts of pristine wildlife habitat 

remaining in the U.S. are located within the Rocky 

Mountain Front, Blackfoot Valley, and Swan Valley 

CAs. These areas include large expanses of intact 

habitat and historic wildlife corridors that help federal trust species, such as grizzly bear, gray wolf, 

wolverine, pine martin, and Canada lynx, as well as 

migratory bird species, fish species, and rare plant 
114 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

species. The conservation areas in the refuge complex are primarily comprised of a mix of public lands 

and large tracts of privately owned ranchlands and 

forestlands. Private ranchlands and forestlands provide dual benefits by supplying wildlife habitat on 

working landscapes. These valuable landscapes are 

threatened by residential development. In 2000, the 

American Farmland Trust identified 5.1 million acres 

of prime ranchlands in Montana as being vulnerable to low-density residential development by the 

year 2020, with ranchlands located in high mountain valleys and mixed grassland areas surrounding 

the Rocky Mountains at highest risk of conversion. 

Among the counties in the Rocky Mountain Region 

(which includes 263 counties in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico) 

Lewis and Clark and Missoula ranked in the top ten 

for acres of strategic ranchland at risk (American 

Farmland Trust 2000).

Development risk for ranchlands is largely 

driven by population growth and housing demand. 

Northwestern Montana has seen a boom in population and residential development in recent years. 

Within the 12-county area, Missoula County has 

seen the fastest growth in population, with an increase of 12.95 percent between 2000 and 2009. 

Lewis and Clark and Lake Counties have also seen 

large increases in population of 10.85 percent and 

7.45 percent, respectively, during the same time 

period (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). In addition to 

increases in population, second homes have become 

very popular in the state. As of 2011, there were 

more than 38,000 vacation homes in Montana, up 

59 percent from those reported in the 2000 Census 

(Great Falls Tribune, 2011). Increases in population 

and second homes have led to increases in residential development in the region. Within the 12-county 

area, acres of private land developed for residential 

use increased by 29.9 percent from 1980 to 2000. As 

of 2000, residential development accounted for 2.8 

percent of private lands in the 12-county area, up 

from 2.1 percent in 1980 (Headwaters Economics 

2011a). Among the 12 counties, residential development accounted for the largest percent of private 

acreage in Lake and Missoula. Between 1980 and 

2000, residential development in Lake County increased by 101.1 percent from 9.2 percent to 18.4 

percent, and residential development in Missoula 

County increased by 10.1 percent from 11.4 percent 

to 12.5 percent (Headwaters Economics 2011a).

Residential development is not the only threat to 

wildlife in the region. The conversion of grasslands 

and wetlands to croplands can degrade water quality and diminish valuable habitat. Wetlands cover a 

relatively small area of Montana, but they have high 

ecological value as stopovers and breeding grounds 

for migratory birds and waterfowl. Montana wetlands are at risk of cropland conversion. About 27 

percent of the wetlands present before 1800 have 

been converted to other land uses, primarily cropland (Dahl 1990). In addition to the filling, leveling, 

and draining of wetlands, the conversion of grassland to cropland has threatened upland habitat next 

to wetlands. Upland habitats provide nesting cover 

for migratory birds and for waterfowl and their 

broods. The district play a key role in protecting 

Montana’s wetland and grassland resources.

CRP lands also affect wildlife habitat and water 

quality near the refuge complex. The CRP program 

pays landowners to take highly erodible croplands 

out of production and plant them to native grasses. 

CRP grasslands reduce erosion and help keep contaminates, sediments, and nutrients out of streams 

and lakes (USDA FSA 2008). CRP lands also help 

wildlife and have been found to increase nest abundance and population growth for waterfowl and migratory birds (Ryan et al. 1998). As of 2011, CRP 

lands in Montana make up more than 2.8 million 

acres, or about 3 percent, of the Montana land base 

(USDA FSA 2011). The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency enters into 10- or 

15-year CRP contracts with farmers. More than 59 

percent of these contracts are scheduled to expire 

in the next 3 years: 497,194 acres in 2011, 694,004 

acres in 2012, and 365,537 acres in 2013 (USDA FSA 

2011). Depending on market conditions, commodity 

prices, and farm policy, these expirations could result in a large conversion of grasslands to croplands 

(Smith 2010), however, it is not likely that all of the 

expiring contracts will be converted (Roberts and 

Lybowski 2007).

A spotting scope is on hand for educational use and wildlife 

observation at the visitor center at Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge.

USFWS
CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description 115

Conservation Easements

The Service has identified conservation easements 

as a key strategy for conserving important wildlife 

habitat in Northwestern Montana. Conservation 

easements leave land in private ownership, protecting private property rights while providing the 

Service with a cost-effective conservation strategy 

for large blocks of habitat. Within the Rocky Mountain Front, Blackfoot Valley, and Swan Valley CAs, 

the Service proposes to conserve a total of 408,500 

acres of wildlife habitat through the acquisition of 

conservation easements from willing sellers. To date, 

the Service has protected 76,847 acres in Lewis and 

Clark, Pondera, and Teton Counties through conservation easements within the Rocky Mountain 

Front CA, and 43,991 acres in Lewis and Clark and 

Powell counties through wetland, grassland, and 

conservation easements within the Blackfoot Valley 

CA. The Service has protected an added 11,392 acres 

in wetland and grassland easements in the district.

A conservation easement is a voluntary, legal 

agreement entered into between a landowner and 

a conservation entity. Conservation easements are 

binding in perpetuity. The landowner reserves the 

right to sell or bequeath the property, but the easement and its associated restrictions remain with 

the property. Under a conservation easement, a 

landowner supports ownership of their property, 

but transfers some of their ownership rights to the 

conservation entity. Landowners have a set of rights 

associated with their land. For example, they have 

the right to run cattle, grow crops, harvest trees, 

build structures, and subdivide and sell portions 

of their land. Under a conservation easement, the 

landowner transfers several of these rights to a conservation entity. The most common right transferred 

is the right to develop or subdivide the land. Some 

conservation easements include more land use restrictions. The terms of a conservation easement 

must be mutually agreed upon by the landowner and 

the easement holder. There are three primary types 

of conservation easements offered in the refuge 

complex: perpetual wetland easements, perpetual 

grassland easements, and perpetual conservation 

easements. Perpetual wetland easements protect 

privately owned wetlands from being drained, filled, 

or leveled. Perpetual grassland easements protect 

privately owned rangeland and hayland from conversion to cropland. Perpetual conservation easements include the wetland and grassland restrictions 

and also protect land from being subdivided for 

residential development. For all refuge complex 

easements, landowners support the right to allow 

or disallow public access to their land. Hunting on 

many private lands is available for a fee through outfitters and guides. Although conservation easements 

do prohibit game farms, refuge complex easements 

do not preclude commercial hunting on private 

lands. Private landowners can also grant permission 

for hunters to hunt on their land at no cost. Montana 

facilitates private land hunting through their Block 

Management program, which helps landowners manage hunting activities and provides the public with 

free hunting access to private land (Personal conversation with Neal Whitney, MFWP, on June 14, 2011.).

Social and Economic Impacts of Conservation 

Easements

Conservation easements are public goods that generate many benefits for local residents, communities, and governments. Unlike goods derived from 

natural resources that are traded in a market, many 

of the benefits from conservation, such as ecosystem services and intrinsic worth, can be difficult 

to monetarily quantify. Conservation easements 

can protect values associated with biodiversity and 

wildlife abundance, support aesthetic beauty, and 

protect socially and culturally significant features 

of landscapes and livelihoods (Holdren and Ehrlich 

1974, Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1992, Daily 1997, MEA 

2005). Ecosystem services, such as water purification, oxygen production, pollination, and waste 

breakdown, are also supported for local residents 

through conservation easements (MEA 2005). A 

primary public benefit of Service conservation easements is enhanced and preserved wildlife habitat. 

As development stressors increase over time, many 

key habitat areas off of the refuge complex may become less available due to their conversion to nonwildlife habitat uses. Habitat preservation has been 

shown to stabilize and increase wildlife populations, 

especially for migratory bird species (Reynolds et 

al. 2001). Conservation easements on private lands 

strengthen the resiliency of species habitats and 

provide opportunities for wildlife movement and 

adaptation for years to come. Although the public 

may not be able to explicitly use or access land that 

is protected by conservation easements, these lands 

do help residents by increasing biodiversity, recreational quality, and hunting opportunities on publicly accessible national wildlife refuges and on some 

private lands (Rissman et al. 2007). In addition to 

preserving wildlife habitat and ecosystem services, 

conservation easements can protect traditional and 

historic ways of life that are associated with the 

working landscape. Land with historic commercial 

use, such as ranching, forestry, and farming, is often 

compatible with, or beneficial to, national wildlife 

refuge objectives (Jordan et al. 2007, Rissman et al. 

2007). Conservation easements can also provide financial benefits for landowners that can enable them 

to preserve the natural and historic value of their 

farm, ranch, and open space lands, and to pass this 

legacy on to their children and grandchildren.
116 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

The Service proposes to buy conservation easements from willing sellers at fair market value, as 

determined by an appraisal process. An appraiser 

estimates for how much the land would sell unencumbered by the conservation easement (the before 

value) and for how much the land would sell with 

the conservation easement in place (the after value). 

The value of the conservation easement is equal 

to the before value minus the after value, or the 

difference in the fair market value of the property 

with and without the easement. Landowners may 

also choose to donate conservation easements to the 

Service. The donation of a conservation easement 

may qualify as a tax-deductible, charitable donation, 

which may result in federal income tax benefits. The 

sale of a conservation easement for less than its fair 

market value (called a bargain sale) may also qualify 

for tax deductions. Landowners may be able to claim 

a charitable income tax donation equal to the difference between the fair market value and the bargain 

sale price of their easement. Income from the sale 

of a conservation easement may be taxable. Please 

note that the Service does not give tax advice. Landowners considering entering into a conservation 

agreement should consult a tax advisor or attorney 

for advice on how a conservation easement would 

affect their taxes and estate.

Conservation easements affect the value of the 

encumbered property, and may affect the value of 

neighboring properties. They reduce the fair market 

value of an estate, because the easement permanently removes some of it’s development potential. 

The reduction in value depends on the potential development value of the land and the level of restriction agreed-upon in the easement. In general, an 

easement on land located in an area with high development pressure will have a greater effect on value 

than an easement on land located in an area with low 

pressure, and an easement that is more restrictive 

will have a greater effect on the value of the land 

than an easement that is less restrictive. Changing 

the status of a parcel of land from developable pastureland to privately owned conservation land can 

increase the residential value of adjacent properties 

because they would be in proximity to permanently 

preserved open spaces (Irwin 2002). Evidence suggests that increases in residential property values as 

a result of open space proximity is most significantly 

due to the preclusion of development and not necessarily the type of open space preserved. In other 

words, preserved farm and ranchland could increase 

residential property values in a similar way that 

preserved forestland could (Irwin 2002).

The conservation easements acquired by the 

refuge complex are expected to have minimal impacts to local government revenue. Local governments collect revenue through intergovernmental 

transfers, property taxes, sales taxes, personal income taxes, and other charges such as permitting. 

Property taxes constitute the largest source of local 

governments’ own revenue (Urban Institute and 

Brookings Institution 2008) and are expected to remain unchanged. Property taxes are assessed based 

on the value of property. For most types of property, 

county assessors use fair market value to determine 

property tax liabilities, however, agricultural and 

forest lands are often assessed differently. In many 

states, the assessed value of agricultural land and 

forestland are decided based on the productive value 

of the land rather than on the fair market value of 

the property. The fair market value of land is the 

amount for which a property is estimated to sell. 

This value includes both the productive value of 

the land and any speculative value associated with 

the possibility of developing the land. Conservation 

easements reduce the fair market value of property by removing the speculative value associated 

with possible development, however, conservation 

easements generally do not affect the productive 

value of agricultural land or forestland. In Montana, 

agricultural lands and forestlands are valued on the 

basis of land productivity, and are not influenced by 

the pressures of urban influences or land speculation 

(Montana Department of Revenue 2011). Most of 

the properties that enter into conservation easement agreements with the Service are classified as 

agricultural land or forestland, thus there will be 

little to no impact to the current property tax base 

for the 12-county area. Local government revenue 

associated with personal income is also expected to 

remain relatively constant. The proposed easements 

would affect the location and distribution of development, but are not expected to change the rate or 

density of human population growth. Redistribution 

of population growth could affect personal incomerelated revenues, but is expected to have little effect 

on total revenues within the 12-county area. Land 

protection through conservation easements could 

result in a reduction in future expenditures for local 

governments and municipalities. New residential 

developments require local governments to provide 

services such as fire protection, police services, and 

schools, and to construct new infrastructure such as 

roads, parks, and water and electrical delivery systems. A 2009 study to assess the effect of the Montana Legacy Project on net government revenues 

in Lake and Mineral Counties found that the costs 

of residential development of Legacy Project lands 

outweighed expected new revenues (Headwaters 

Economics 2011b, 2011c). The effect of conservation 

easements on local government revenues is complex 

and speculative, but evidence suggests that the effects of the refuge complex conservation easement 

programs on net revenues will be marginal.
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction

Swan Valley Conservation Area

erner © Mitch W

This chapter contains the management direction 

for the Benton Lake Refuge Complex. Achieving 

sustainable systems with long-term productivity 

will be emphasized. Management efforts will focus 

on supporting and restoring ecological processes, 

including natural communities and the dynamics 

of the ecosystems of the northern Great Plains and 

northern Rocky Mountains. At Benton Lake Refuge 

wetland units will be managed to focus on restoring 

the health and long-term sustainability of the wetland basin. Adaptive resource management will be 

used throughout the complex to ensure progress is 

made toward achieving objectives and, as needed, to 

modify management actions.

The conservation of native landscapes is a high 

priority and will be accomplished by protecting habitats from conversion using a combination of partnerships, easements, and fee-title lands and through 

the active management and proactive enforcement 

of easements. Partnerships in the Muddy Creek and 

Lake Creek watersheds are important for improving 

the health of the Benton Lake Refuge wetlands. 

Management actions, such as prescribed fire, grazing, and invasive species control, will be used to 

support the resiliency and sustainability of Serviceowned lands throughout the refuge complex.

Appendix B contains the required compatibility 

determinations for public uses and management 

actions associated with this CCP, and appendix H 

describes the fire management program for the refuge complex.

4.1 Goals, Objectives, and 

Strategies

This section discusses goals, objectives, and strategies that serve as the steps needed to achieve the 
118 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

CCP vision. While a goal is a broad statement, an 

objective is a concise statement that describes what 

is to be achieved, the extent of the achievement, who 

is responsible, and when and where the objective 

should be achieved—all to address the goal. The 

strategies are the actions needed to achieve each objective. Unless otherwise stated, the refuge complex 

staff will carry out the actions in the objectives and 

strategies. The rationale for each objective provides 

context such as background information, assumptions, and technical details.

A major objective of this CCP is to establish 

partnerships with landowners, volunteers, private 

organizations, and county, State, and Federal natural resource agencies. This has been woven into the 

objectives and strategies that follow across all goals. 

In particular, landowners will be informed of opportunities to take part in compensated habitat protection programs (such as conservation easements). 

Opportunities exist to enhance or establish new 

partnerships with nonprofit organizations, sporting 

clubs, community organizations, and educational 

institutes.

Another process that will be applied across all 

goals is adaptive resource management (ARM) to 

help in inventory, monitoring and research. The 

Service proposed that the uncertainty surrounding 

habitat management could be dealt with most efficiently within this paradigm (figure 15) (Holling 

1978, Kendall 2001, Lancia et al. 1996, Walters and 

Holling 1990). This approach provides a framework 

within which objective decisions can be made and 

the uncertainty surrounding those decisions reduced. Briefly, the key components of an ARM plan 

follow:

■ Clearly defined management goals and objectives.

■ A set of management actions with associated uncertainty as to their outcome.

■ A suite of priority models representing various 

alternative working hypotheses describing the 

response of species or communities of interest.

■ Monitoring and assessment of the response of 

target organisms.

■ Use of monitoring and assessment information to 

direct future decisionmaking through choosing a 

best model.

The first three components (goals, actions, and models) are largely defined before initiation of an ARM 

plan, while the latter two (monitoring and directed 

decisionmaking) constitute an iterative process, 

whereby each year the predictive ability of models 

Figure 15. The adaptive resource management process.
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 119

are tested against what was observed during monitoring. This may result in a new best model, greater 

support for the existing best model, or new models constructed from emerging hypotheses. In this 

way, management can evolve as more information is 

gained and uncertainty is reduced.

The development of ARM plans for habitat management, for example, will allow the refuge complex to learn by doing, while supporting a focus on 

management objectives. Knowledge gained from 

assessing management actions is considered as integral to the process as the management actions themselves. This emphasis on gaining knowledge about 

the refuge complex creates a situation whereby the 

refuge complex can refine its habitat management 

in a feedback between management and assessment. 

Reducing the uncertainty of habitat management 

via ARM plans will greatly help the refuge complex 

in development of long-term habitat management 

plans.

Landscape Conservation Goal

Actively pursue and continue to foster 

relationships within the Service, other agencies, 

organizations, and private partners to protect, 

preserve, manage, and restore the functionality 

of the diverse ecosystems within the working 

landscape of the refuge complex.

Background Information

The refuge complex is located in an area that is designated as a high priority for landscape conservation 

and linkage protection by many conservation partners including MFWP, National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, TNC, The Conservation Fund, Ducks 

Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, 

American Wildlands, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative and the Blackfoot Challenge. Many 

of these organizations are involved in transboundary 

conservation, protecting and connecting habitat in 

the United States and Canada. Strong partnerships 

have already been developed to meet the challenges 

of climate change and wildlife management and conservation.

Climate Change Objective 1

Carry out at least five management actions in the 

next 15 years that improve resiliency of wildlife and 

habitats to adapt to the effects of climate change.

Strategies

■■ Address climate change stressors through preservation of large blocks of functional land that 

have natural processes, which maximizes resiliency.

■■ Work cooperatively with partners to improve 

condition of landscape to increase resiliency and 

seek more opportunities to work with partners to 

address climate change issues including restoration projects on Service-interest lands. 

■■ Participate in all aspects of the Great Northern 

LCC and the Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC to 

understand climate change impacts locally and 

improve the condition of the landscape and increase resiliency at the local level.

■■ Conduct baseline monitoring of habitat conditions 

to measure effects of climate change.

■■ Support existing weather station and river 

gauges throughout complex. 

■■ Collaborate with USGS and others to obtain information on climate change and its applicability 

to management of the complex.

■■ Restore grasslands, forests and wetlands to enhance carbon sequestration throughout the refuge complex.

■■ Work cooperatively with NRCS conservation 

programs, such as CRP, in refuge complex watersheds such as Lake Creek and Muddy Creek.

■■ Address climate change stressors through management that emulates natural processes.

Rationale. Climate change is contributing to the loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation of current habitats 

and will likely create unique new habitats as species 

redistribute themselves across the landscape. In addition, climate change is interacting with nonclimate 

stressors—such as land use change, wildfire, urban 

and suburban development, and agriculture—to 

fragment habitats at ever-increasing rates. Protecting and restoring contiguous blocks of habitat, and 

using linkages and corridors to enhance connectivity between habitat blocks, will likely facilitate the 

movement of fish and wildlife species responding to 

climate change.

The refuge complex is located in two LCCs—the 

Great Northern and the Plains and Prairie Potholes. 

These LCCs are a conservation alliance of science 

and management with other bureaus in the DOI, 
120 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

other Federal agencies, the State natural and wildlife resource offices, Canadian Provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, and academic and other 

nongovernmental organizations. LCC products may 

include resource assessments, climate model applications to proper scale, vulnerability assessments, inventory and monitoring protocols, and conservation 

plans and designs. Many of these products will be 

developed collaboratively with DOI Climate Science 

Centers and other science providers (for example, 

USGS Science Centers, USDA Forest Service Research Stations, and universities). In the face of 

accelerating climate change and other twenty-firstcentury conservation challenges, LCCs will continually seek out new scientific information, assess 

the effectiveness of conservation actions and make 

necessary adjustments as new information becomes 

available. With active participation by complex staff, 

this recurring feedback process will help staff address uncertainties on the landscape and transform 

new knowledge into more effective conservation 

plans and actions on the ground.

To understand the effect of climate change on 

refuge complex habitats and resources, baseline 

inventories and longer term monitoring of key indicators need to be developed. Temperature, precipitation and runoff are likely to be sensitive to climate 

change and by maintaining these monitoring stations 

within the refuge complex, staff will have a better 

understanding of how global changes are translating 

to local effects. Collaborating with others such as 

the USGS, LCCs, and the Service’s Inventory and 

Monitoring Program will strengthen this effort by 

bringing more technical expertise, scientific credibility and a connection to climate changes outside of 

the refuge complex.

Managing complex lands in a healthy vigorous 

state dominated by native species can increase carbon sequestration. Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is taken up by plants and stored as carbon 

in biomass (for example, tree trunks, leaves and 

roots) or stored as organic carbon in soils. Plants 

and soil have extraordinary capacity to remove and 

store atmospheric carbon, thus diminishing greenhouse gases. Recent work by the USGS and Ducks 

Unlimited has shown that restoration of previously 

farmed wetlands results in rapid replenishment of 

soil organic carbon (Gleason et al. 2005).

CRP is among the most important land use strategies for sequestering stored organic carbon and, 

in addition, contributes significantly to controlling 

soil erosion losses, restoring soil quality, providing 

wildlife habitat, and protecting air and water quality 

(Rice and Owensby 2001). The CRP program also 

illustrates the potential to sequester carbon in soil 

by converting cropland to grass cover. Gebhart et al. 

(1994) reported for the Great Plains that 21 percent 

of carbon lost by decades of intensive tillage was 

recovered within 5 years under CRP, with carbon 

sequestration rates of 4,357–5,990 pounds per acre 

each year.

Restoration to native grasses is more expensive 

to establish but has a higher carbon storing potential than exotic grass mixtures. Further, it has been 

found that in natural ecosystems of perennial plants, 

annual biomass production below ground generally 

exceeds that aboveground. (Milchunas and Lauenroth 1993).

Climate Change Objective 2

To decrease greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 

that lead to accelerated climate change, aggressively 

sequester carbon and use best management practices to meet stewardship responsibilities; manage 

lands, facilities, travel, vehicles, and vessels; and 

become carbon-neutral by 2020.

Strategies

■ Throughout the complex, conduct an energy audit on all buildings and continue to carry out energy saving strategies.

■ Designate a staff member to carry out and share 

energy saving strategies that staff can use to reduce energy consumption on the refuge complex.

■ Reduce energy use in buildings by implementing 

energy efficient projects—upgrade insulation, 

heating systems, windows and doors.

■ Expand the photovoltaic system at the complex 

headquarters.

■ Employ energy saving practices such as, unplug 

office equipment when not in use, buy energy 

star products, recycle, buy recycled products, 

install high-efficiency lighting, unplug chargers 

when not in use, lower thermostats, set water 

heaters to 120–130 °F, enable the “sleep mode” 

feature on computers, configure computers to 

“hibernate” automatically after 30 minutes of 

inactivity, and shut down computers at the end of 

the day.

■ Incorporate “green” building principals and construction practices in construction projects. New 

buildings and additions should be designed to 

maximize efficiency and should be equipped with 

the most energy efficient heating and cooling systems, and appliances.
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 121

■■ Use renewable energy sources for infrastructure—wind power, solar power, and geothermal 

energy technologies.

■■ Replace current vehicles with energy efficient 

models, and consider alternative fuel vehicles 

when possible.

■■ Reduce fuel consumption in existing vehicles 

by implementing conservation strategies (such 

as, check tires to make sure that there is proper 

inflation, change oil as directed by the manufacturer, and by checking air filters monthly and 

changing when needed).

■■ Reduce travel by using teleconferencing, video 

conferencing, Webinars, and WebEx.

■■ Manage habitats to maximize carbon sequestration.

Rationale. This objective is identified in the Service’s 

climate change strategy. Methods for accomplishing 

carbon neutrality include reducing the carbon footprint of the refuge complex and increasing carbon 

sequestration on refuge complex lands. The refuge 

complex is continuing to expand. As more infrastructure is added, it should be evaluated for energy efficiency and upgraded to reduce energy consumption.

The Service’s land management activities for 

wildlife have an associated carbon footprint. To 

achieve carbon neutrality, the Service must assess 

and reduce this footprint to the greatest extent possible, while still achieving the Service’s mission. The 

Service should consider how to reduce emissions 

while achieving the Service’s highest land management priorities, a process that involves evaluating 

green energy alternatives, considering trade-offs, 

and making difficult choices.

Refuge managers have a variety of management 

tools to help them support healthy, vigorous grasslands. The condition of habitat and the tools selected 

to achieve habitat goals affect sequestration of carbon. For example, the amount of soil organic carbon 

is greater under a grazing regime than under a haying regime. This is a result of a greater amount of 

carbon being returned to the pasture as excreta and 

greater stubble remaining with grazing (Schnabel 

2001). 

Restoration of eroded and degraded soils provides a large potential to sequester soil organic 

carbon. DNC that has been planted on some of the 

waterfowl production areas is often similar in composition and structure to CRP, which has been found 

to increase sequestration of soil organic carbon.

Preserving Intact Landscapes 

Objective 1

Over the next 15 years, protect 170,000 acres of 

wildlife habitat (grassland, wetland, riparian areas, 

sagebrush-steppe, and forest) that support intact, 

functional landscapes, protect high-priority habitat 

and linkage zones for Service trust species, increase 

resiliency for climate change and other stressors and 

support working landscapes within refuge complex 

conservation areas.

Strategies

■ Work with other Service programs such as realty 

and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife to engage 

and meet with interested landowners, to set priorities, and to buy conservation easements.

■ Regularly meet with county commissioners, 

State and Federal agencies, nongovernmental 

conservation organizations and other participating partners to provide updates and coordination 

on conservation easement purchases and program progress.

■ In the Swan Valley, actively work to strengthen 

existing partnerships and develop new partnerships with landowners, county commissioners, 

State and Federal agencies, nongovernmental 

conservation organizations and others to develop 

the newly established Conservation Area.

■ Pursue funding to buy easements in established 

conservation areas from congressional appropriations, private donations, partnerships with nongovernmental organizations and securing other 

non-Federal sources of funding.

■ Host informational tours to share examples of 

successful conservation collaboration between 

the Service and partners.

■ Fully carry out the Service’s SHC initiative, 

which will refine and update priorities within 

conservation area boundaries for buying conservation easements.

■ Develop, take part in, and collaborate on monitoring that informs landscape protection, SHC and 

ARM, such as the Annual Breeding Waterfowl 

Surveys in the PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region 

in Montana and in the Swan Valley CA.

■ Establish a complex representative to regularly 

engage with the Great Northern LCC and the 

Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC.
122 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■■ Evaluate and explore new areas and partnership 

opportunities within the refuge complex to establish conservation areas and increase the opportunities for landowners to take part in conservation 

easement programs.

■■ Hire 1.5 FTE wildlife refuge specialists to support land acquisition and work with the realty 

program.

■■ Hire 0.5 and 1.0 FTE wildlife refuge specialists 

to manage conservation easement programs in 

Swan Valley and Blackfoot Valley CAs.

■■ During the first 5 years of the plan, staff will 

work closely with local communities and partners 

to develop a strategic approach to acquisition 

within the Swan Valley Conservation Area.

Rationale. Within the refuge complex, the Rocky 

Mountain Front, the Blackfoot Valley and the Swan 

Valley have been identified as priority areas where 

protecting intact, functional landscapes will have 

significant benefits for Service trust species including grizzly bears, bull trout, trumpeter swans, lynx, 

waterfowl and other priority migratory birds. Conservation areas have been established in each of 

these landscapes that enable the Service to work 

with willing landowners to buy perpetual conservation easements.

The Service has had a successful history of buying conservation easements and protecting intact, 

functional landscapes in the Blackfoot Valley since 

1994 and the Rocky Mountain Front since 2005. One 

key to this success is building partnerships internally and externally. In the newly established Swan 

Valley CA, building these partnerships will be a 

very high priority, especially during the first 3–5 

years of the plan. Service staff will be working with 

landowners, county commissioners, State and Federal agencies, nongovernmental conservation organizations, and other interested groups to develop a 

successful conservation easement program in the 

Swan Valley CA.

Within the Service, having staff from the refuge 

complex, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

and the realty program engaged in each landscape 

has been a formula for success. In the newly estabOne of many wetlands in the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area.

USFWS
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 123

lished Swan Valley CA and any future conservation 

areas, this level of internal partnership and commitment is likely to be necessary to be successful. In addition, 1.5 FTE are necessary to establish a full-time 

position in the Blackfoot Valley and Swan Valley 

CAs for the successful implementation of conservation easement objectives.

Based on the history of funding and staff availability for buying easements within the refuge 

complex, a total of 170,000 acres over the next 15 

years is considered a reasonable objective. This will 

include 120,000 acres for the Rocky Mountain Front 

CA, 45,000 acres for the Blackfoot Valley CA and 

5,000 acres for the Swan Valley CA over the life of 

the plan. These acre estimates are based on several 

variables within each CA: acquisition averages over 

the last five years, high variability in annual sources 

of funding such as LWCF, average parcel size, land 

values, and the availability of willing sellers. Historically, the number of landowners interested in 

easements exceeded the available money. Decisions 

among conservation areas will be made through consensus based on biological values, willing sellers, 

sources of funding and opportunity.

Priorities within projects have been identified 

in land protection plans published by the Service 

in 2011 for each conservation area (USFWS 2011f). 

These priorities will need to continue to be evaluated and revised using SHC. SHC is a way of thinking and doing business that requires the Service to 

set biological goals for priority species populations, 

helps the Service make strategic decisions about 

conservation efforts, and encourages the Service to 

constantly reassess and improve its actions. These 

are critical steps in dealing with a range of landscape-scale resource threats such as development, 

invasive species, and water scarcity—all magnified by accelerating climate change. SHC incorporates five key principles in an ongoing process that 

changes and evolves. These include biological planning (setting targets), conservation design (developing a plan to meet the goals), conservation delivery 

(implementing the plan), monitoring and adaptive 

management (measuring success and improving 

results) and research (increasing understanding). 

LCCs are fundamental units of planning and science 

capacity to help the Service and its partners carry 

out SHC. Having a staff member engaged with the 

LCCs will improve the refuge complex’s efforts to 

carry out SHC.

In addition to established conservation areas, 

the Service has the authority to buy wetland and 

grassland easements throughout most of the refuge 

complex through the Federal Duck Stamp Program. 

Federal Duck Stamp funding targets important migratory bird habitat. To use this money strategically 

(SHC), the Service is currently working on updating 

models of wetland use by breeding waterfowl in 

the PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region in Montana. 

These priorities will be consistent with priorities 

in the eastern part of the Prairie Pothole Region 

that target unprotected wetlands with more than 25 

breeding duck pairs per square mile and are at high 

risk of degradation. In addition, the Intermountain 

West Joint Venture is developing similar models 

of wetland use by breeding waterfowl in the Swan 

Valley to refine wetland protection priorities in this 

landscape.

During the course of the development of the 

CCP, the Montana Legacy Project was completed in 

Western Montana. The project is the culmination of 

an unprecedented partnership between private and 

public entities to conserve 310,000 acres of western 

Montana forest land owned by Plum Creek Timber 

Company. The Legacy project included portions 

of private land within the Swan Valley. In order to 

strategically address the concerns of the Swan Valley, Service staff recognized the need to proceed 

slowly with the inclusion of local communities and 

partners within the Swan Valley to ensure targeted 

conservation on private lands

Preserving Intact Landscapes 

Objective 2

Protect Service interests throughout the refuge 

complex by annually coordinating, monitoring, and 

collaborating with entities engaged in activities such 

as industrial or commercial development and agricultural land conversion.

Strategies

■■ Actively engage in planning efforts by industrial and commercial interests where it influences 

complex interests by providing relevant Service 

data and input during the development and siting 

phases, reviewing and responding to planning 

documents—such as an EA or environmental 

impact statement (EIS)—and where proper, participating in postimplementation monitoring.

■■ Attend training on the regulations, effects, and 

mitigation techniques for industrial, commercial, and agricultural developments that affect 

resources.

■■ Proactively collaborate with partners and LCCs 

in landscape-wide regional threat assessments.

Rationale. In addition to those activities that directly 

harm the natural resources located on fee-title and 

easement lands, the Service is concerned with any 

potential effect on other parts of the refuge complex. 
124 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Certain activities, such as development and land 

conversion, have the potential to have far-reaching 

and cumulative effects on resources throughout the 

refuge complex.

Habitat Goal

Actively conserve, restore, and manage upland 

and wetland habitats across the northern prairies 

and intermountain valleys of the refuge complex, 

through management strategies that perpetuate 

the integrity of ecological communities.

Grasslands Objective 1

Within the first 5 years of the plan, complete rangeland assessments on fee-title native grassland tracts 

greater than 80 acres in size (10 tracts totaling 

12,420 acres).

Strategies

■■ Evaluate existing native plant communities in 

comparison to the historical climax plant community (HCPC) described in the corresponding 

NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions.

■■ Summarize the degree to which current vegetation indicates a decline in integrity of native 

vegetation in a report. Use these results to rank 

grasslands for future management action.

■■ Hire one seasonal technician [for 2 seasons] to 

conduct native grassland assessments.

Rationale. Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland 

Health Technical Reference 1734–6 Version 4 (Pellant et al. 2005), is recognized by range professionals as the basis for inventory and assessment of 

rangeland health. This publication was a collaborative effort between the BLM, NRCS, the Agricultural Research Service and the USGS’s Forest and 

Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center. The publication promotes the concept of rangeland heath 

as an alternative to range condition and assessing 

rangelands through ecological status concepts. 

These principles combined with NRCS Ecological 

Site Descriptions, provide the best available science 

for assessing the refuge complex’s prairie tracts.

Native grassland tracts greater than 80 acres in 

size were found to be a reasonable break point for 

conducting rangeland assessments within the refuge 

complex. Remaining native grassland tracts in the 

refuge complex are made up of smaller fragmented 

areas (less than 80 acres) typically represented by 

rocky hill tops, wetland edges and fence line corners 

making them difficult to manage separately from 

their tame grass dominated surrounding.

Ten tracts were identified for rangeland assessments: Benton Lake Refuge and nine waterfowl 

production areas—Blackfoot, Ehli, Furnell, H2–O, 

Jarina, Kingsbury Lake, Kleinschmidt Lake, Sands, 

and Savik.

Grasslands Objective 2

Within 15 years, manage 10 high-priority, fee-title, 

native grassland tracts to support plant communities 

at greater than 80 percent of their HCPC or within 

their ecological site-specific reference state.

Strategies

■■ Manage grasslands using fire, grazing, rest, and 

if necessary, haying cycles. Timing and combinations of treatments may be altered to support 

native plant communities or trend toward restoration of their HCPCs. Attention will be given 

to diversity of vegetative structure within each 

management unit.

■■ Priority will be given to invasive species management within native grasslands using IPM and 

EDRR.

■■ Monitor species composition and vegetative 

trends to evaluate the success of current management regimes.

■■ Identify and monitor key wildlife species as 

added indicators of grassland health and management success.

■■ Hire one seasonal biological technician for native 

grassland management throughout the refuge 

complex.

Rationale. Grasslands within the refuge complex 

were formed as the result of climatic conditions, 

geological parent materials, fire, biotic factors, and 

the influences of natural herbivory (NRCS 2005) The 

HCPCs for each of these unique combinations can 

be described by evaluating relict areas, and other 

areas protected from excessive disturbance. Within 

the refuge complex, the HCPCs are generally dominated by cool-season grasses, with a minor component of warm-season grasses, native forbs, native 

shrubs and an absence of nonnatives.

Traditional theories of plant succession leading 

to a single HCPC, however, are inadequate for understanding the refuge complex succession of plant 
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 125

communities in grasslands (Briske et al. 2005). 

Grasslands are more aptly described using stateand-transition vegetation dynamics in a nonlinear 

framework. A “state” is an alternative, persistent 

vegetation community that is not simply reversible in the linear successional framework. States 

are seral stages, while pathways between states 

are “transitions.” Transitions are triggered by climatic events such as wildland fire or by management 

such as grazing, farming, and prescribed fire. The 

HCPCs, and their associated states and transitions, 

have been described by NRCS for most of the grassland types on the refuge complex (NRCS 2005).

Historically, HCPCs transitioned to other seral 

states due to drought, grazing, precipitation, and 

fire regimes. These transitions did not compromise 

the long-term resiliency or health of the grasslands. 

In addition, these different states were preferred 

by different wildlife species providing a variety of 

grassland habitats and resources over time. Departure from this historical range of variation can occur 

under continued adverse effects such as colonization 

and recruitment of noxious weeds, improper management actions, extended drought and changes 

in the natural fire regime. The HCPC species are 

gradually outcompeted by lower successional species. This shift in species composition disrupts ecological processes, impairs the biotic integrity of the 

site and restricts the system’s ability to recover to 

higher seral states. Thus, the site loses much of its 

resiliency (NRCS 2005).

The objective is to manage grasslands within the 

refuge complex so that they do not cross a threshold 

where resiliency is lost and the system is no longer able to recover to higher seral stages, yet still 

allowing for departures from the HCPC that are 

part of the historical states and transitions of that 

grassland type. NRCS grassland descriptions do not 

specifically state 80 percent as a threshold, however, 

this seems to be a reasonable starting point and as 

management and evaluation progresses this can be 

reevaluated. Although research consistently shows 

that precipitation is the principle factor altering productivity on ecological sites in the northern Great 

Plains (Heitschmidt et al. 2005), rotational management prescriptions for grazing, fire and rest emulate 

historical transitions, contribute to HCPC resiliency 

and provide a diversity of habitats that appeals to a 

wide variety of grassland-dependent species.

Across the fee-title grasslands, nonnative, invasive species are one of the largest threats to supporting HCPC resiliency and function. Preventing 

the introduction of invasive species is the first line 

of defense against invasions. However, even the best 

prevention efforts will not stop all invasive species 

introductions. EDRR efforts increase the likelihood that invasions will be addressed successfully 

while populations are still localized and population 

levels are not beyond that which can be contained 

and eradicated (NISC 2003). Once populations are 

widely established, all that might be possible is the 

partial mitigation of negative effects. In addition, 

the costs associated with EDRR efforts are typically 

far less than those of long-term invasive species 

management programs.

Burrowing Owl

USFWS

Grasslands Objective 3

Within 15 years of the approved plan, convert up to 

600 acres of tame grass stands, on five high-priority 

fee-title tracts, to native-dominant perennial herbaceous cover including several species of native forbs.

Strategies

■ Converting up to 600 acres of tame grass to native plantings on the complex will include targeting 207 acres on Benton Lake Refuge.

■ Identify cooperators and negotiate farming 

agreements and budget seeding and chemical 

costs for planned planting years.

■ Use cooperative farming agreements for 2–4 

years to prepare the seedbed before planting native species.

■ Hire 0.5 FTE maintenance worker to convert 

tame grass stands to native cover and monitor 

results.
126 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Rationale. Replanting tame grass to native grasslands, with subsequent treatments of prescribed fire 

and grazing, will emulate historical processes and 

gradually recover soil mycorrhizae, invertebrate 

diversity and symbiotic relationships. Once they 

are reestablished, soil erosion should be negligible. 

Carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling will be 

significantly greater in the more floristically diverse 

community expected with native plantings.

Tame grass stands that were traditionally hayed 

are more likely to be burned or grazed once they are 

planted to native species. These types of management should replenish and improve the nutrient 

cycles rather than mining the soil nutrients through 

rotational haying systems.

Priority for planting native species is given to 

tracts with tame grass stands that have become 

decadent or overrun with undesirable introduced 

cool-season grasses—especially fields that are next 

to, or within, high-priority prairie tracts—and that 

are compatible with grazing and fire treatments. 

Factors taken into consideration to assure establishment and long-term management include, (1) surrounding adjacent vegetation and (2) availability and 

suitability of management tools (prescribed grazing 

and fire). Tame grass tracts where the surrounding 

adjacent landscapes are dominated by agricultural 

crops and tame grass stands were identified as a 

lower priority for native planting. In these areas, 

resource costs associated with protecting native 

plantings from invasion of cool-season exotic grasses 

and noxious weed infestations are prohibitive.

There are approximately five priority tracts 

within the refuge complex (Benton Lake Refuge; 

Big Sag, H2–O, Kingsbury Lake, and Sands WPAs) 

that have about 1,651 acres of tame grass that could 

be planted to native grass species using the criteria 

described above. Planting native grass species requires higher input costs ($156 per acre), traditionally takes longer (3–4 years) and is more difficult 

to establish than tame grass ($106 per acre and 1–2 

years to establish). Given the higher input costs and 

difficulty establishing, planting up to 600 acres of the 

priority tame grass stands to native species is considered reasonable over the next 15 years. The 207 

acres specifically targeted for Benton Lake Refuge 

will depend on available resources and consider the 

demands required for the ecological recovery of the 

wetland basin on the refuge. Monitoring these plantings will be important to assess the success and to 

identify improvements in techniques and efficiencies 

that could reduce costs over time.

Grasslands Objective 4

Over the life of the plan, support 1,905 acres 

of low-priority, fee-title, tame grass and DNC in 

good-to-fair condition based on species composition 

(25-percent legume, 75-percent wheatgrass mix), 

vigor (seedhead production greater than 25 percent), 

and litter accumulation of less than 6 inches in the 

duff layer.

Strategies

■■ Manage 1,055 acres of DNC (currently in good 

to fair condition) using cooperative rotational 

systems (primarily haying).

■■ Replant 850 acres of DNC (currently in poor condition and not suitable for native plantings) back 

to DNC using cooperative farming agreements 

for 2 to 4 years to prepare the seedbed before 

replanting DNC.

■■ Treat invasive species within tame grasslands 

using IPM and EDRR.

■■ Identify cooperators, negotiate farming agreements, and budget seed and chemical costs for 

planned planting years.

■■ Hire 0.5 FTE maintenance worker to support 

DNC grassland management.

Rationale. Tame grass stands established for wildlife cover should ideally be comprised of 75-percent 

grasses and 25-percent alfalfa (Duebbert et al. 1981). 

Grasses planted with legumes are taller and the 

overall stand productivity is higher. Taller, dense 

vegetation, in turn, has been related to higher waterfowl nest densities and success (Higgins and 

Barker 1982, Arnold et al. 2007).

Tame grass stands that have been successfully 

established on good sites can be expected to provide 

desirable vegetative structure for at least the first 

6 growing seasons and to keep the composition for 

at least the first 10 growing seasons, and probably 

longer for most stands (Higgins and Barker 1982, 

Devries and Armstrong 2011). Decreasing vigor 

can be identified by deviations from the optimal 

75:25 percent mix, as well as reduced vigor measured by seedhead production. In drier parts of the 

PPPLCC’s Prairie Pothole Region, such as the refuge complex, an approximate guideline of less than 

25-percent seedhead production is recommended 

(personal communication, Ducks Unlimited). Declining stand quality often also coincides with a buildup 

of litter (Duebbert at al 1981, Higgins and Barker 

1982, Devries and Armstrong 2011). The threshold 

of 6 inches is based on staff observations and experience managing tame grass stands within the refuge 

complex. Because tame grass stands are generally a 

lower priority than native grasslands on the refuge 
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 127

complex, indicators have been chosen that can be 

rapidly assessed with informal monitoring.

Management of low-priority fee-title tame grass 

and DNC within the refuge complex was divided 

into two categories, (1) Maintenance of 1,055 acres 

of DNC in good to fair condition and (2) replanting 

850 acres of DNC currently in poor condition. These 

figures do not include the 1,651 acres of degraded 

tame grass stands identified and grouped as highpriority areas for native grass plantings (Grasslands 

Objective 3).

The 1,055 acres of DNC in good to fair condition 

may be managed primarily using rotational haying 

systems to sustain longevity, species composition, 

vigor and reduce litter accumulation. Rotations provide a diversity of structural habitats within the 

management units, which appeals to a wide variety 

of grassland-dependent species. Occasional prescribed grazing or fire may be implemented within 

specific tract rotations.

The 850 acres of tame grass currently in poor 

condition should be prioritized for cooperative farming and planting back to DNC. As tame grass stands 

continue to degrade over time into poor habitat conditions the initial resources to address these habitat 

needs grows substantially.

Regardless of tame grass condition, treating invasive species infestations in these units will still 

be a priority. Emphasis will be given to species that 

have been identified by the State of Montana as 

noxious. EDRR efforts increase the likelihood that 

invasions will be addressed successfully while populations are still localized and population levels are 

not beyond that which can be contained and eradicated (NISC 2003). Once populations are widely 

established, all that might be possible is the partial 

mitigation of negative effects.

Grasslands Objective 5

Within 15 years, begin removal of 3.5 miles of tree 

shrub plantings, starting with high-priority large 

native prairie tracts.

Strategies

■ Remove up to 3.5 miles of interior tree plantings 

on Benton Lake Refuge that cause fragmentation 

of otherwise contiguous grassland blocks.

■ Use forestry cutters for tree removal. Apply herbicide treatment for two growing seasons following tree removal.

■ Evaluate areas for grass seeding after trees have 

been successfully removed.

Rationale. The refuge complex has approximately 

25 miles of nonnative tree plantings. Most of these 

plantings occur on the Benton Lake Refuge. The 

3.5-mile figure represents nonnative tree plantings 

within blocks of native prairie grasslands. Nonnative 

tree plantings contribute to fragmentation, depredation and parasitism, which negatively affect 

grassland-dependent migratory birds (Bakker 2003). 

Some of these species include species of concern, 

such as marbled godwits and chestnut-collared longspurs.

Forestry cutters are available within the region 

and may be reserved for specific projects. The tree 

removal may be accomplished using existing Service staff in the fall and winter months, which will 

result in cost savings. Based on past operations, it 

takes approximately 8 hours to remove 1 mile of tree 

planting.

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Objective 1

Over the next 15 years, manage and protect water 

quality for wetlands and riparian habitats on feetitle lands within the refuge complex such that there 

is minimal hazard to wildlife from contaminants.

Minimal hazard is defined as conditions where 

“hazardous constituents may be elevated in one or 

more ecosystem components, but no imminent toxic 

threat is identified” (Lemly 1995, DOI 1998). The exact numerical value will vary with the contaminant 

and the constituent (such as water or soil).

Strategies

■ Develop a baseline assessment of water quality 

in relation to high-priority contaminants on feetitle wetlands and riparian areas throughout the 

refuge complex.

■ For wetlands and riparian areas above the minimum hazard threshold, conduct proper onsite 

remediation to reduce contaminants and monitor 

results.

■ For refuge complex wetlands and riparian areas 

above the minimum hazard threshold for contaminants, work with neighboring landowners, 

watershed groups, nongovernmental organizations and other government agencies to reduce 

offsite contributions to contaminants whenever 

possible.

■ On Benton Lake Refuge, dry Units 1 and 2 as 

needed to reduce selenium below the minimal 

hazard threshold. During dry cycles, use prescribed fire to increase selenium volatilization 

from vegetation and expose sediments.
128 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■■ On Benton Lake Refuge, reduce selenium inputs 

by not pumping in 4 out of the next 15 years and 

manage the pumped water in the remaining 11 

out of 15 years to prevent long-term selenium 

accumulation.

■■ On Benton Lake Refuge, modify existing infrastructure and restore wetland topography as 

needed to reduce and keep selenium below the 

minimum hazard threshold.

■■ On Benton Lake Refuge, monitor selenium levels 

closely to determine if management actions to 

reduce and keep selenium below the minimum 

hazard threshold are effective.

■■ For Benton Lake Refuge, meet annually with 

MFWP, other partners, and the public to share 

the previous year’s progress on selenium reduction and the plans for selenium reduction and 

management for the next year.

Rationale. There are hundreds of substances known 

to affect wetlands and waterbodies, however, there 

are nine that are common in the western United 

States and of particular concern. These include salinity, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and 

the trace elements arsenic, boron, copper, mercury, 

molybdenum, selenium and zinc (DOI 1998). In addition, lead can be a concern when birds feed in hunted 

areas and ingest lead pellets.

For wetlands on fee-title land managed by the 

Service, any contaminant at levels shown to cause 

reproductive impairment in wildlife are unacceptable. Information from sources like the Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality and the EPA 

is available on the biological effects of these contaminants that can be used to define what level, and in 

what constituent (such as water, soil, or wildlife), is 

appropriate for defining the minimum threshold for 

a given wetland.

In 1995, a survey of contaminants from 10 sites 

within the district was conducted to determine if 

trace elements were accumulating in either sediment or the aquatic food chain of wetlands (Gilbert 

et al. 1995). Elevated levels of lead, boron, and selenium were detected in several locations. The concentrations did not appear to pose an immediate threat 

to wildlife resources, but continued monitoring was 

recommended. Other fee-title wetlands within the 

refuge complex that have not been tested before 

should have at least an initial baseline survey completed, especially those with potential sources of 

contaminants nearby.

In 1998, the DOI initiated a program to study 

the quality of irrigation drainage, both surface and 

subsurface water, and its potential effects on humans, fish, and wildlife in the western United States 

(Knapton et al. 1988). This program included a study 

of the Sun River Irrigation Project, from which Benton Lake Refuge receives its pumped water. The 

study found contaminant concentrations in water, 

sediment, and biota at Benton Lake that were moderately to considerably higher than established standards, with selenium having the greatest potential 

for toxicity (Lambing et al. 1994, Nimick et al. 1996). 

Selenium is of particular concern in Units 1 and 2, 

where moderate-to-high hazard levels have been 

documented (Nimick et al. 1996; Zhang and Moore 

1997; unpublished data on file at the refuge from 

2006, 2008, and 2011).

The toxic threat to wildlife from selenium is 

based on the degree of contamination present and 

the extent of exposure. The “minimum hazard” level 

is defined as the concentration of selenium in various 

ecosystem components for which “no imminent toxic 

threat is identified” (Lemly 1995, 2002). For water 

this is less than 2 micrograms per liter, for sediment 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area

USFWS
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 129

Seeps like this can release selenium into Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge wetlands.

USFWS

it is less than 2 micrograms per gram, for macroinvertebrates it is less than 3 micrograms per gram, 

and for aquatic bird eggs it is less than 5 micrograms 

per gram. These values can be combined to create 

an overall hazard assessment for a given area, such 

as the wetland units on the refuge (Lemly 1995, 

2002). Recent monitoring data, combined with predictive models, show that Units 1 and 2 could reach 

selenium levels that are associated with complete, 

or nearly complete, reproductive failure in sensitive wildlife species in as little as 9 and 17 years, 

respectively (Zhang and Moore 1997, Lemly 2002, 

unpublished data on file at the refuge from 2006, 

2008, 2011).

Selenium enters the refuge in natural runoff from 

the surrounding Lake Creek watershed and from 

water pumped from the Muddy Creek watershed. 

While natural runoff has contributed most of the selenium loading on the refuge over the last 40 years, 

the pumped water has contributed approximately 

39 percent of the total selenium load (Nimick et al. 

1996). Furthermore, the addition of pumped water 

has reduced drying of wetland sediments, which is 

the primary way for selenium to leave the refuge 

via volatilization directly into the air. Not pumping 

for up to 4 years (but no more than for 3 consecutive years) will reduce the total selenium load by an 

estimated 100–200 pounds over the next 15 years. 

In years when water is pumped from Muddy Creek, 

selenium accumulation can be minimized by rotating 

flooding among units and flooding to depths that 

promote sufficient volatilization through drying. Dry 

periods also create opportunities to use prescribed 

fire, which will expose sediments and may volatilize 

more selenium from wetland vegetation (Zhang and 

Moore 1997). Wetland infrastructure such as dikes, 

ditches, and water control structures may be modified to facilitate the management of selenium. For 

example, in order to dry Unit 1 sufficiently, the Lake 

Creek channel may need to be restored—or a bypass channel may need to be built—to allow natural 

runoff or pumped water to pass through, or around, 

Unit 1. Flooding and drying rotations, water control 

structure modifications, and other management tools 

will continually be assessed and adjusted through an 

adaptive management process.

For some fee-title wetlands, streams, and rivers on the refuge complex, contaminants may be 

coming from offsite sources that are not directly 

under Service management. In these situations, 

partnerships with neighboring landowners, watershed groups, and other government agencies may be 

necessary. This is particularly important for Benton 

Lake Refuge where the source of the selenium is off 

of the refuge in the Lake Creek and Muddy Creek 

watersheds. Average concentrations of selenium 

for pumped water from the Muddy Creek watershed are 3 micrograms per liter, and they are 14 

micrograms per liter for natural runoff from the 

Lake Creek watershed (Nimick et al. 1996, unpublished data on file at the refuge for 2007–11). Based 

on previous research, a reduction of selenium inputs 

by 64 percent, with a average concentration of 5 

micrograms per liter, in conjunction with seasonal 

drying, could prevent Units 1 and 2 from reaching 

toxic thresholds (Zhang and Moore 1997). However, 

year-long drying, which is planned for Units 1 and 2, 

may mean that smaller reductions in selenium inputs 

are necessary.

Since most of the selenium load comes from 

natural runoff in the Lake Creek watershed, active 

engagement by refuge staff with partner organizations and landowners in this watershed will be 

particularly important to reduce the selenium load 

into the refuge. Most of the seeps in the Lake Creek 

watershed have been mapped, and major contributors to the selenium load may be located in relatively 

few places as seeps vary in size, the amount of discharge, and their proximity to Lake Creek and its 

tributaries (personal communication with S. Brown; 

Nimick et al. 1996). To achieve permanent reductions 

in selenium inputs, the source areas will need to be 

planted to perennial cover and protected with a perpetual conservation easement or bought in fee title 

by the Service or by its partners and managed as 

perennial cover. USDA programs, such as CRP, the 

Conservation Security Program, EQIP, and more, 

have the potential to establish perennial cover in the 

watershed. The number of acres in the watershed 

that will need to be planted to perpetual, perennial 

cover to achieve sufficient reductions in selenium 

inputs is currently unknown. Increased coordination 

with NRCS staff, local watershed groups, and contaminants programs may also lead to other innovative solutions to reduce some of the selenium sources 

impacting the refuge.
130 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Objective 2

Over the next 15 years, insure that there is no net 

increase in selenium contamination throughout the 

Benton Lake Refuge wetland.

Strategies

■■ Reduce selenium inputs by not pumping in 4 out 

of the next 15 years and manage the pumped water in the remaining 11 out of 15 years to prevent 

long-term selenium accumulation.

■■ Rotate flooding in Units 3–6 to allow for sufficient 

dry periods for selenium volatilization to offset 

selenium accumulation. During dry cycles, use 

prescribed fire to increase selenium volatilization 

from vegetation and expose sediments.

■■ On Benton Lake Refuge, modify wetland infrastructure such as dikes, ditches, and water control structures and restore wetland topography 

as needed to prevent a net increase in selenium.

■■ On Benton Lake Refuge, conduct a detailed baseline assessment of current selenium levels and 

monitor selenium closely over the life of the plan.

■■ For Benton Lake Refuge, meet annually with 

MFWP, other partners, and the public to share 

the previous year’s progress on selenium management and plans for the next year.

Rationale. Selenium levels in Units 3–6 on the refuge 

have previously been found to be elevated above 

background levels, but are not currently above the 

minimum threshold (see Wetlands and Riparian 

Areas Objective 1) (Nimick et al 1996, Zhang and 

Moore 1997, unpublished data on file at the refuge 

for 2006). As refuge management is applied to reduce and maintain selenium levels in Units 1 and 

2 to below the minimal hazard threshold, it is important that selenium does not begin to accumulate 

significantly in other units. Selenium levels may rise 

for a short period of time as a unit is flooded, but 

sufficient drying and other management techniques, 

such as prescribed burning, will be used to insure 

that any accumulation is offset. Restoring wetland 

topography or modifying infrastructure may be also 

be used to enhance selenium volatilization and prevent accumulation. The amount of drying needed to 

off-set selenium accumulation from flooding in the 

lower units is not currently precisely known, but selenium modeling suggests that there may need to be 

2–3 years of drying for each year of flooding (Zhang 

and Moore 1997).

In addition, no unit will be allowed to accumulate 

selenium beyond the minimum hazard threshold 

that could cause reproductive harm in birds (see 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Objective 1). To insure 

that the threshold is not crossed, triggers will be set 

at values below the threshold. For example, setting 

a trigger for selenium concentrations in sediment of 

1.5 micrograms per gram will help insure that there 

is sufficient time to act before selenium reaches the 

2.0 micrograms per gram threshold.

Under this objective, selenium levels in Units 

3–6 should be at, or below, current levels in 15 years. 

During the first few years of the plan, a detailed 

baseline of current selenium levels in water, sediment, macroinvertebrates and aquatic bird eggs will 

be conducted in all units. Monitoring will continue 

throughout the life of the plan to determine when 

management should be adjusted.

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Objective 3

Where possible, over the next 15 years restore natural hydrologic processes—wet–dry cycles—for the 

site-specific hydrogeomorphic condition of wetlands 

and riparian areas within the refuge complex.

Strategies

■■ Conduct a hydrogeomorphic assessment of the 

Swan River Refuge and evaluate other fee-title 

areas for this type of intensive assessment.

■■ Work with the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program, other partners, and private landowners 

to restore fee-title lands or private land within 

the refuge complex.

■■ Monitor water inputs on fee-title lands as necessary to protect water rights.

■■ Monitor restoration to determine if systems are 

recovering.

Rationale. Each wetland and riparian system lies 

within a specific hydrogeomorphic context, which 

is based on the underlying geology, soils, topography, elevation, hydrology, plant and animal communities and physical anthropogenic features of the 

surrounding landscape. While hydrology is widely 

considered by wetland experts to be the most significant of these factors for driving wetland health 

and function, it cannot be considered outside of a 

hydrogeomorphic context.

Throughout the refuge complex, most of the 

wetlands on fee-title lands have not been altered, 

and any changes to the original hydrogeomorphic 

condition are due to the surrounding landscape. 
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 131

However, for some of the wetlands and riparian areas within the refuge complex, the hydrology has 

been altered. To understand the extent to which 

alterations are affecting wetland health and integrity, a process known as HGM can be applied. An 

HGM study assembles known information about 

the hydrogeomorphic features of a waterbody before alteration, develops an understanding of what 

the alterations have been and their effect, and then 

describes possible management actions for improving the health and sustainability of the wetland or 

riparian area. By continuing to monitor and support 

water rights—both natural and supplemental—the 

refuge complex can keep the greatest flexibility for 

possible management actions to maintain or improve 

the health of wetlands or riparian areas once the 

hydrogeomorphic context is understood.

An HGM analysis has been completed for the 

Benton Lake Refuge (Heitmeyer et al 2009). However, the hydrogeomorphology of Swan River 

Refuge is not well understood. For example, it is 

possible that there have been significant modifications to the hydrology that are hidden by thick vegetation. A detailed HGM analysis of the refuge would 

help staff to understand and manage the hydrology more effectively. Whether or not other fee-title 

lands could benefit from an HGM analysis would also 

be evaluated.

Throughout the refuge complex, wetlands may 

be created, enhanced, or restored. Among these, 

wetland restoration is the highest priority over enhancement or creation, which will rarely occur. Wetland restoration will occur where a wetland basin 

was present historically, but has been drained or 

altered. Restoration returns a wetland to as-closeto-functional historical condition as possible. When 

wetland restoration projects occur on the refuge 

complex, monitoring will be conducted to determine 

if wetland systems are recovering and the restoration is successful.

Most riparian areas in the refuge complex are on 

private land. Efforts will focus on working with private landowners to better manage and improve the 

health and vigor of these important and biologically 

diverse areas through conservation easements and 

partnerships. The riparian areas on fee-title lands 

will mostly be treated with rest and protection.

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Objective 4

Where it is not currently feasible to restore full hydrologic function within the refuge complex, annually manage wetlands and riparian areas to emulate 

the natural hydrologic processes—wet–dry cycles—

as for the site-specific hydrogeomorphic condition.

Strategies

■ On Benton Lake Refuge, manage natural runoff 

and pumped water to support the recovery of 

wetland systems for the long-term sustainability 

of migratory bird populations and for public enjoyment.

■ On Benton Lake Refuge, emulate basin-wide dry 

cycles by not pumping supplemental water in 4 

out of 15 years, but in no more than 3 consecutive 

years.

■ On Benton Lake Refuge, emulate dry cycles of 3 

to more than 7 years within individual wetland 

units by rotating pumped water among units.

■ On Benton Lake Refuge, restore wetland topography as needed to emulate hydrologic processes 

and support wetland recovery.

■ On Benton Lake Refuge, modify wetland infrastructure such as dikes, ditches, and water 

control structures as needed to improve water 

conservation and the efficiency of delivering water to a specific unit.

■ For Benton Lake Refuge, keep the pump house, 

4 miles of underground pipeline, and several 

structures on Lake Creek in working condition.

■ On Benton Lake Refuge, develop an Adaptive 

Resource Management approach over the next 15 

years to determine if water management is supporting wetland system recovery.

■ For Benton Lake Refuge, meet annually with 

MFWP, other partners, and the public to share 

the previous year’s progress on wetland recovery 

and water management plans for the next year.

■ At H2–O WPA, natural flow and runoff will be 

captured, and Blackfoot River flows will occasionally be diverted from April to September to 

prolong the spring, summer, and fall hydroperiod. 

If less than historical amounts of water are used, 

the residual right may be leased to the State.

■ At Blackfoot WPA, management of natural wetland basins will emulate natural processes. The 

drying cycle will be emulated in all wetland basins including mitigation wetland basins. Mitigation wetland basins may be held at lower water 

levels to emulate natural flows and runoff.
132 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■■ Monitor water inputs on fee-title lands as necessary across the refuge complex to protect water 

rights.

■■ Hire a supervisory refuge biologist to carry out 

ARM, as the restoration proceeds, and other duties at the refuge complex as needed.

■■ On Benton Lake Refuge, hire a seasonal biological technician to help carry out ARM.

Rationale. The Benton Lake Refuge will be managed 

to improve wetland health and sustainability. An 

HGM assessment was completed for Benton Lake 

Refuge in 2009 (Heitmeyer et al. 2009). This analysis identified several significant alterations to the 

hydrologic cycles at the refuge. During the first 30 

years of the refuge’s history, the refuge experienced 

10- to 20-year wet and dry cycles that sustained 

wetland health, plant diversity and wildlife diversity. During dry years, contaminants were volatized, 

sediments were solidified, robust emergent vegetation such as cattails and bulrush died back, and wetland-dependent wildlife used migration, hibernation, 

burrowing, or other strategies to survive. Benton 

Lake experienced a boom of wetland productivity 

with the return of the wet cycle, and invertebrates 

and wetland-dependent wildlife took advantage of 

the newly available resources.

Over the last 50 years, this boom-and-bust cycle 

has been altered by using pumped water to flood 

some portion of almost all wetland units every year. 

This has reduced, or prevented, dry cycles, and, as 

a result, wet years are less productive because the 

rejuvenating effects of these dry periods have not 

occurred. Over the next 15 years, natural runoff and 

pumped water will be managed on Benton Lake to 

more closely emulate natural hydrologic processes, 

including reintroducing dry cycles to the wetlands. 

Units 1 and 2 may need long dry periods of 7 or more 

years to volatilize selenium. The remaining units 

will likely need shorter dry periods of 3–5 years to 

restore wetland function. Flooding the lower units 

during summer will continue be avoided to prevent 

botulism outbreaks. In years when pumping occurs, 

up to 4,000 acre-feet may be pumped, but it may 

be less depending on the progress made toward 

wetland recovery objectives and on the amount of 

money available to the refuge. 

In addition, in 4 out of the next 15 years, the 

refuge will emulate basin-wide dry cycles by not 

pumping water in naturally dry years. Synchronizing basin-wide dry cycles on the refuge with the 

surrounding landscape is expected to increase the 

beneficial effects of dry years. This will be done to 

stimulate changes in invertebrate communities, 

plant communities, and mammalian predators that 

are not likely to be possible by implementing dry 

cycles only at the individual impoundment level 

(Schneider 1999, Murkin and Ross 1999, Krapu et al 

2004). 

Emulating the natural hydrologic processes on 

Benton Lake Refuge may require the improvement of water delivery infrastructure and restoring 

topography within wetland units. For example, in 

order to move water to the lower units while Unit 

1 is dry, the Lake Creek channel may need to be 

restored, or a bypass channel may need to be built. 

In addition, the ditches and canals on the refuge 

have disrupted the original flooding patterns that 

form the microtopography of the wetland basin. Recontouring wetland units to remove these ditches 

is expected to support wetland system recovery 

and ultimately increase wetland productivity (Heitmeyer et al. 2009; personal communication with L. 

Frederickson, Euliss et al. 2008).

Flooding and drying rotations, water control 

structures, and other management tools will continually be assessed and modified through an adaptive management process. This will be supported by 

Greater Short-horned Lizard

USFWS
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 133

intensive monitoring. The management decision to 

flood or dry each unit will be determined annually. 

If necessary, more dry time may be conducted in 

individual units until wetland objectives are met. 

As needed, units will receive intensive management 

such as prescribed fire, discing, and herbicide applications. Annual water management plans for the 

refuge will be developed and shared with MFWP, 

other partners, and the public.

Moving forward, refuge staff will be using ARM 

and monitoring feedback loops to inform the decisionmaking process. An added full-time supervisory 

biologist and seasonal biological technician will be 

necessary to achieve this objective. A part of the 

supervisory biologist’s time will be focused on developing, adjusting, and providing oversight—through 

ARM—of the restoration process. The daily restoration monitoring will be conducted by the existing 

FTE refuge biologist and two seasonal biological 

technicians, as well as by added technician.

For other units within the refuge complex, some 

wetland and riparian areas have been altered, but 

the ability to restore the hydrologic function is 

limited by legal obligations, such as wetlands created under mitigation agreements, constraints in 

the surrounding landscape beyond the Service’s 

management controls or by the lack of money. In 

these cases, the Service will manage these areas by 

emulating the natural flooding and drying cycles to 

the extent possible. Across all units of the refuge 

complex, “emulation” means managing water as 

closely to the natural hydrology as possible while 

recognizing that limitations do exist.

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Objective 5

Within 5 years, complete condition assessments on 

fee-title wetlands and riparian areas throughout the 

refuge complex.

Strategies

■■ Evaluate existing wetlands and riparian areas with Level 1 Assessments designed by the 

MNHP.

■■ Create a report that summarizes the degree to 

which current vegetation indicates a decline in integrity of native vegetation and value to wetlanddependent wildlife. Use these results to rank 

wetlands for future management action.

■■ Hire one seasonal technician for two seasons to 

conduct wetland assessments.

Rationale. Wetlands and riparian systems are very 

dynamic. Flooding and drying cycles have a significant effect on the plant and animal communities that 

may be present at any given point in time. Because 

of this variability, vegetation is often the preferred 

indicator of wetland condition because at least some 

plants are usually present in a wetland basin making 

it possible to do surveys in wet and dry years. Many 

guides have been developed to account for the range 

of variability for wetland vegetation and what it 

indicates for wetland condition, including several 

specifically for Montana (MNHP 2010b, Hansen et 

al. 1995, NatureServe 2010). The MNHP, in particular, has developed a rapid assessment that can be 

tailored to the needs of the user. Using these guides 

that describe the full range of natural variability for 

a particular wetland type or site, in addition to current vegetation, the Service will assess the degree 

to which the integrity of the native wetland vegetation community has been compromised.

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Objective 6

Within 15 years, begin or continue management of 

fee-title wetland vegetation so that at least 80 percent of wetlands are in good vegetative condition 

across the refuge complex, as defined by the MNHP 

Wetland Condition Assessment method.

Strategies

■ For wetlands without water management capabilities, manage wetland vegetation by using 

grazing, haying, or fire to emulate historical 

disturbances when natural flooding and drying 

cycles allow.

■ On Benton Lake Refuge, manage wetland vegetation using grazing, haying, or fire to emulate 

historical disturbances in conjunction with flooding and drying cycles to improve native vegetation composition.

■ Reduce the competition and cover of nonnative 

vegetation by using discing, prescribed fire, grazing, haying, or herbicides. Priority will be given 

to invasive species management within wetlands 

using IPM and EDRR.

■ Where proper and feasible, native plantings and 

seeding may be used to restore native vegetation.

■ Monitor vegetation to determine if wetland vegetation is improving or declining.

■ Identify and monitor key wildlife species as 

added indicators of wetland health and management success.
134 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Rationale. Vegetation is a common indicator of wetland health (Fennessy et al. 2007). Many methods 

have been developed to try to capture this, but the 

methods of DeKeyser et al. (2003, 2009), Hargiss 

et al. (2008), and the MNHP (2010b) have been 

developed on similar wetland basins and capture 

the range of variation within the refuge complex. 

The method is also flexible, allowing for rapid assessments in areas where change is expected to be 

minimal or the Service’s ability to affect the wetland 

with management is minimal, but can be scaled up to 

a more intensive method where active restoration, 

changes in management, or significant effects from 

the surrounding landscape would be expected.

Objectively determining the breakpoints, or 

thresholds, for condition classes, such as defining 

what is a “good” wetland is difficult. The MNHP is 

currently working on a wetland reference network 

in Montana that will help clarify this definition. Until 

this is finished, the Service will use the vegetation 

metrics identified by the MNHP and strive to have 

wetlands in the top condition classes for each metric. 

At a minimum, the Service will conduct the rapid 

assessment and strive for at least 80-percent cover 

by native plants, less than 5-percent noxious weeds, 

less than 25-percent other nonnative or highly tolerant native species, moderate litter accumulation that 

does not prevent plant recruitment, and no single 

dominant plant type across entire wetland. In wetlands with naturally occurring woody vegetation, all 

age classes of native woody vegetation are present 

and less than 50 percent of available second-yearand-older stems are browsed. Reference conditions 

and cutoff values for “good” conditions classes may 

be reassessed after the initial evaluation.

For wetlands with active restoration or management such as Benton Lake Refuge, a more intensive assessment can be conducted that collects more 

details on the diversity of native plant species and 

their Coefficient of Conservatism and Overall Floristic Quality Index (Northern Great Plains Floristic 

Quality Assessment Panel 2001; MNHP unpublished 

data on file at the refuge). This information will be 

fed into the overall ARM approach for the refuge to 

provide feedback on management successes. Wildlife response to changes in wetland vegetation will 

also be considered in the ARM framework for Benton Lake Refuge. For example, understanding the 

impact of changes in native wetland vegetation to 

sustainable populations of wetland-dependent migratory birds will be important for defining a “good” 

wetland. 

Wetland vegetation will be managed to mimic 

historical disturbances and support sustainability 

and resiliency in concert with flooding and drying. 

For example, prescribed fire; mowing; or certain 

herbicide applications to consume litter, rejuvenate 

vegetation, or control exotic species may only be 

possible when wetland basins are sufficiently dry. 

Reducing or eliminating nonnative invasive wetland 

vegetation using IPM and EDRR will be done to 

improve habitat for wetland-dependent wildlife. Native wildlife has evolved to use native vegetation for 

feeding, nesting and hiding cover. Nonnative vegetation is often a poor substitute, potentially reducing 

the ability of wildlife to successfully breed and build 

up energy reserves for migration. Herbicide treatments for wetland vegetation carry inherent risks 

for potential contamination and nontarget effects. 

These need to be carefully weighed against the potential benefits.

Forests and Woodlands Objective 1

In collaboration with the BLM’s Marcum Mountain 

Resource Management Projects (BLM 2010), the 

Service will develop site-specific prescriptions to 

reduce average conifer canopy coverage by 50–75 

percent through emulation of a mixed severity fire 

in natural patterns, consistent with Douglas-fir habitat types within Fire Groups 4 and 6 (Fischer and 

Brady 1987).

Strategies

■■ Treat 260 acres of warm Douglas-fir forest habitat on the Blackfoot WPA using timber harvest, 

mastication, and prescribed fire, or a combination 

of these treatments.

■■ Restore historical wildlife habitat attributes, 

such as snags, large down logs, and quantity and 

quality of forage and browse species, while keeping open, large-tree (more than 18 inches diameter at breast height) habitat with edge sinuosity 

and feathered density transitions.

■■ Support visual resources within the various forest types.

■■ Increase the landscape’s resilience to future wildfire events, root disease and mountain pine beetle 

outbreaks by supporting and increasing (depending on location), the widely adapted seral species present (such as ponderosa pine and quaking 

aspen).

■■ Reduce invasive plant species within these forest 

types.

Rationale. Harvest, mastication, and prescribed fire 

treatments will be designed to decrease conifer encroachment into open parks and meadows, increase 

aspen groves by decreasing conifer encroachment 
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 135

and stocking density to more historical levels, decrease ladder fuel on ponderosa pine-dominant sites, 

and reduce any remaining hazardous fuel.

Treatment activities are intended to support and 

restore forest and rangeland health by improving 

vegetation distribution (spatial and temporal) and 

species composition and structure to resemble the 

historical range of natural variability.

The quaking aspen and shrub–grass parks have 

tended to decrease in extent and habitat quality because of long-term fire suppression, conifer competition, timber management activities, browse damage 

by wild ungulates and livestock, and past livestock 

management practices.

Some proposed vegetation treatment units are 

located within sight of Highway 200. Treatments in 

these units will be implemented in such a way as to 

not dominate the visual landscape.

■ Fire Group Four: Warm, dry Douglas-fir habitat 

types. Under natural conditions, these sites support fire supported ponderosa pine stands. In the 

absence of fire, Douglas-fir regenerates beneath 

the pine and eventually dominates the overstory.

■ Fire Group Six: Moist Douglas-fir habitat types. 

Douglas-fir often dominates all stages of succession on these sites, even when subjected to periodic fire.

Forests and Woodlands Objective 2

Within 2 years of plan approval, determine if forestland treatments are needed on the remainder of 

the refuge complex. If needed, develop management 

plans with site specific prescriptions.

Strategies

■■ Use natural fire regimes according to “Fire Ecology of Western Montana Forest Habitat Types” 

(Fischer, 1987) to support the health and vigor of 

forested resources. Natural fire regimes will be 

emulated with prescribed fire, which may require 

some thinning or fuel reduction before prescribed 

fire.

Rationale. In general, complex forest lands are in 

good condition and do not need extensive management at this time. Since forest comprise only 3 

percent of refuge complex lands and are naturally 

self-sustaining for decades, complex resources have 

been directed to other habitats. All complex forest 

lands are surrounded by vast acres of forest managed by the USDA Forest Service, Montana Department of State lands and Plum Creek Timberlands. 

Timber management of these mid-elevation forests 

is primarily for sustainable harvest and multiple 

uses. Managing refuge lands for mature forests will 

complement adjacent forest types.

Sagebrush-Steppe Objective

Manage 2,500 acres of healthy, vigorous sagebrushsteppe habitats dominated (more than 50-percent 

cover) by mid-height, native cool-season grasses, 

at least 13-percent mountain big sagebrush cover 

with an average canopy height less than 5 feet, and 

Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and Rocky Mountain 

Juniper at less-than-5-percent cover. Annually, these 

conditions should be supported on at least 50 percent 

of grassland and steppe habitats as nesting cover for 

upland nesting waterfowl and sagebrush-dependent 

species.

Strategies

■■ When conditions are conducive, prescribed fire 

may be applied to the native sagebrush uplands 

emulating the historical mean fire interval for big 

sagebrush communities in southwestern Montana, which is estimated to be 25 years (Lesica et 

al. 2005).

■■ If prescribed fire is not fully successful in reducing the woody vegetation cover to less than 5 

percent, mechanical removal of trees may be 

needed to meet objective.

■■ Units of sagebrush-steppe will be grazed at a 

high intensity (50–60 percent removal of standing 

cover), with a heavy stocking rate, for a short 

duration, as needed to reduce litter and increase 

vigor of the grassland understory.

■■ Priority will be given to invasive species management within sagebrush-steppe using IPM and 

EDRR.

■■ Monitor species composition and vegetative 

trends to evaluate the success of current management regimes. 

Rationale. Native sagebrush-steppe is an imperiled 

ecosystem, with as much as 60 percent of the sagebrush communities in North America considered 

to be significantly altered or degraded (Knick et al. 

2003). There is a priority to protect this vital habitat 

type through conservation easements and work with 

private landowners through the Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program to improve management on 

these lands. The Service also wants to manage its 

fee-title sagebrush-steppe to best complement the 

native species that rely on this habitat type.
136 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Woody species such as Ponderosa pine and Rocky 

Mountain juniper are encroaching into the native 

sagebrush uplands and significant ecological changes 

are occurring. This invasion is taking place because 

fire has been excluded from the valley floor and it 

will continue until fire is reentered into the natural equation or until mechanical and chemical techniques are used (Miller and Rose 1999, Miller et al. 

2001). Historical mean fire intervals for big sage 

communities were estimated at 25 years for southwestern Montana (Lesica et al. 2005).

Prescribed fire can be logistically and socially 

difficult to complete. When certain situations present themselves, such as landowner interest, partner 

availability, and the ability to safely complete burns, 

prescribed fire will be considered to meet various 

habitat objectives. However, no more than 50 percent of the native uplands in a single unit will be 

burned during the breeding season each year. If it 

is not fully successful in reducing the woody vegetation cover to less than 5 percent, mechanical removal 

of trees may be needed to meet the objective.

The understory of the sagebrush-steppe is typically dominated by rough fescue, ranging in canopy 

cover from 10 percent to as much as 70 to 80 percent 

on the least disturbed, most mesic sites. Other important understory (more than 75 percent) grasses 

are Idaho fescue, prairie Junegrass, and bluebunch 

wheatgrass (Cooper 2004). Rough fescue plants appear to be well adapted to periodic burning, however, succession to a near-climax state takes more 

than 20 years following heavy grazing, and complete 

recovery following light grazing can take up to 14 

years (Tirmenstein 2000). Conversely, Idaho fescue 

can increase with grazing and can become dominant 

when rough fescue is overgrazed. If prescribed fire 

is not possible on sagebrush-steppe habitats, litter 

may build up and decrease the vigor of the understory grasses. In such cases, limited grazing may 

be helpful, but no more than 25 percent of the total 

native upland acreage will be grazed in any one year. 

Grazing prescriptions will need to be carefully monitored to avoid adverse effects.

Plants such as spotted knapweed, yellow toadflax, common tansy, and Canada thistle have the 

genetic propensity to invade native vegetation and 

become a dominant element of the landscape, often 

with only minimal disturbance or through natural 

disturbance events. These species degrade wildlife 

habitat, increase soil erosion, diminish water quality, 

degrade native grasslands, and require the expenditure of significant resources in attempts to control 

their spread. None of these species are native to 

Montana, and most of the natural agents (insects 

and diseases) that keep these species under control 

in their native areas of Europe of Asia are not present in Montana and there is no other natural agent 

to prevent the unchecked spread of these species 

across the State.

On the Service’s fee-title lands, the local refuge 

manager and the Invasive Species Strike Team 

have mapped infestations and are actively managing 

these infestations through biocontrol, chemical control and monitoring. Integrated weed management 

strategies include herbicides, biocontrol, revegetation, multispecies grazing, hand pulling, plowing, 

mowing, prevention, and EDRR.

High-priority species such as the Brewer’s sparrow, and loggerhead shrike build nests aboveground 

in shrubs or rely specifically on shrubs for cover. 

Brewer’s sparrows, in particular, have experienced 

significant declines in the last 10–20 years and are 

good habitat indicator species because they appear 

to be sensitive to habitat changes at multiple scales 

(Knick et al. 2003). Brewer’s sparrow is strongly 

associated with sagebrush, preferring sites with 

more than 13-percent sagebrush cover with an average canopy height less than 5 feet and more than 25 

percent of cover in native, climax species (Bock and 

Bock 1987, Rotenberry et al. 1999).

Wildlife Goal

Support diverse and sustainable continental, 

regional, and local populations of migratory 

birds, native fish, species of concern, and other 

indigenous wildlife of the northern prairies and 

intermountain valleys of northern Montana.

Species of Concern Objective

Over the next 15 years, develop protocols to protect 

and enhance federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species on refuge fee-title lands 

for the continued health and viability of populations 

and reduce any possible negative effects from management actions on other State and Federal species 

of concern. 

Strategies

■ Develop protocols to evaluate the effects of new 

or changed management actions on species of 

concern.

■ Develop a monitoring protocol to establish abundance, population trends and habitat associations 

of high-priority species of concern.

■ Work with conservation organizations, MFWP, 

and private organizations to help with inventory 

and monitoring.
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 137

Grizzly bear spotted in Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area.

USFWS

■■ Coordinate with the MNHP to survey the Swan 

River Refuge yearly for water howellia.

■■ Survey suitable habitat on waterfowl production areas in the Blackfoot Valley for Spalding’s 

catchfly.

■■ Continue to support Blackfoot Trumpeter Swan 

reintroduction by coordinating cygnet releases, 

release sites, and monitoring until seven breeding pairs are established or until evaluation by 

the working group under the guidance of the 

Blackfoot Trumpeter Swan Program Implementation and Evaluation Plan suggests that the 

project should be terminated.

■■ Consider reintroduction of trumpeter swans 

within the Swan Valley Conservation Area.

■■ Evaluate and potentially begin grizzly bear conflict reduction measures, as implemented in the 

Blackfoot River Conservation Area, in communities within the Rocky Mountain Front and Swan 

Valley Conservation Areas. Grizzly bear conflict 

reduction measures will only be implemented in 

concert with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

and with support from local communities.

■■ Evaluate the effects of public use on species of 

concern and carry out seasonal public-use restrictions in areas where species of concern occur 

within 5 years of plan approval.

Rationale. The ESA requires Federal agencies to 

carry out conservation (recovery) programs for 

listed species and to make sure that agency actions 

are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

of listed species or adversely change or destroy their 

critical habitat. Section 7(a) of the act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect 

to any species that is listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is 

being designated.

Conservation planners often develop a list of species of concern specific to their goals and objectives. 

The refuge complex has decided to use the MNHP’s 

list of species of concern because they are specific to 

areas managed by the refuge complex, and the criteria used to make up their list was based on population size, area of occupancy in Montana, short- and 

long-term trends, threats, inherent vulnerability, 

and specificity to environment. Species designated 

as State species of concern by the MNHP that may 

occur within the refuge complex are located in appendix G. Refuge biologists will look at the MNHP 

list, compare it to other programs’ lists, and evaluate 

population trends and habitat needs to establish a 

hierarchy of species to consider in management decisions for the complex. Any management action that 

would result in long-term or substantial changes to 

habitat (including changes from historical management techniques) will be reviewed by refuge staff 

for effects on species of concern before implementation. In addition, staff will conduct pre- and postmonitoring of selected species in conjunction with 

habitat management efforts, including restoration, 

and regeneration efforts. Supporting an up-to-date 

list of species of concern, providing feedback on refuge complex occurrences to MNHP, and monitoring 

the effects of management actions will help support 

the conservation of species of concern on the refuge 

complex.

Spalding’s catchfly is a federally listed threatened 

species that is easy to miss in traditional surveys 

and monitoring. Waterfowl production areas in the 

Blackfoot Valley contain habitats (rough fescue-dominated grasslands and fescue–sage grasslands) that 

support Spalding’s catchfly in other locations. Although vegetation surveys have been conducted on 

these waterfowl production areas, intensive surveys 

for Spalding’s catchfly also need to be conducted.

Water howellia is restricted in Montana to depressional wetlands in the Swan Valley, typically occupying small basins where the water level recedes 

partially or completely by the fall. Water howellia 

is located on land owned by TNC next to the Swan 

River Refuge. Similar habitat is found on the Swan 

River Refuge. Surveys need to be conducted in suitable habitat yearly because water howellia production is highly dynamic depending on yearly climatic 

conditions.

The NCDE grizzly bear population is increasing at an annual rate of 3 percent and the overall 

population is estimated at approximately 900 bears 

(Servheen et al. 2001). There were 232 mortalities 
138 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

documented 

between 2000 

and 2010 with 

49 percent of 

those deaths 

occurring on 

private lands. 

Research 

shows that 

these mortalities are a direct result of 

human–grizzly bear conflicts (Servheen et al. 2001). 

Successful, cooperative, conservation delivery activities that have been implemented in the Blackfoot 

Valley Conservation Area to reduce human–grizzly 

bear conflicts include the removal of dead livestock 

carcasses, protecting spring calving areas, and installing power fencing around apiaries (USFWS 

2011f). Initiating similar cooperative efforts in the 

Rocky Mountain Front and Swan Valley CAs could 

result in further reductions in human–grizzly bear 

conflicts for the NCDE grizzly bear population.

Disturbance caused by recreational pursuits may 

elicit behavioral or physiological responses in wildlife. Behavior responses occur when individuals are 

displaced from prime foraging habitats. This may 

result in decreased body condition going into winter, 

which has been linked to lower reproductive performance and even death. Other behavior responses 

include flight and interference with foraging. Physiological responses are less obvious and harder to 

measure. They include adrenaline-induced increases 

in heart rate, blood flow to skeletal muscle, increased 

body temperature, and elevated blood sugar (Gabrielsen and Smith 1995), all of which exert an energy 

cost to the animal. By reviewing and summarizing 

known effects from disturbance on species of concern within the refuge complex, staff will be better 

able to manage and reduce possible negative effects.

Badger

USFWS

Migratory Birds Objective 

Throughout the life of the plan, the refuge complex 

will annually review national and regional migratory 

bird population trends and then address monitoring 

and management strategies as needed.

Strategies

■ Increase communication and coordination with 

Division of Migratory Bird Management within 

the Service to identify species of conservation 

concern.

■ Once a species of conservation concern is identified, seek Division of Migratory Bird Management input to provide potential management and 

research direction and opportunities for helping 

with long-term sustainability.

■■ Use adaptive management, such as implementation of seasonal closures on fee-title lands to 

protect nesting birds, limited predator removal, 

nest success monitoring and artificial nesting 

structure implementation to support habitat augmentation efforts for species of conservation concern, and cooperate with research efforts done by 

partner agencies.

■■ Annually take part in population level or landscape-level monitoring of migratory birds such 

as the North American Breeding Bird Survey, 

Annual Midwinter Waterfowl Survey, Prairie 

Pothole Breeding Waterfowl Survey (Foursquare Mile Survey), Mourning Dove Survey, 

and preseason waterfowl banding for the refuge 

complex.

Rationale. Due to an ever-increasing habitat loss, migratory birds have become dependent on land managers for habitat creation, maintenance and health 

(Vickery et al. 2000). Landscape-level habitat and 

species management is the impetus as natural resource management moves into the future (USFWS 

2009c). Contributions to this landscape-level effort 

done by the refuge complex will include the continuation of annual reviews for national and regional 

migratory bird trends through the following efforts:

■■ Partners in Flight

■■ U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan

■■ North American Bird Conservation Initiative

■■ U.S. Conservation Joint Ventures Bird Habitat Joint Ventures—Prairie Habitat Joint Venture (Canada) and Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 

(United States)

Consultations with the Division of Migratory Bird 

Management within the Service may identify potentially imperiled species. When species are identified 

as being a species of conservation concern, management actions could be modified accordingly to support migratory bird objectives. 

Population and landscape-level studies require 

an investment of staff time and money, though this 

varies greatly among studies. The most intensive 

studies currently are the Prairie Pothole Breeding 

Waterfowl Survey (Four-square Mile Survey) and 

preseason waterfowl banding. In general, population 

and landscape-level studies provide a good return on 
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 139

investment because they do not need station-level 

staff to analyze data and interpret results, but the 

Service receives substantial management information from the resulting large datasets. However, 

broader studies may not provide site-specific information for managing a refuge or WPA.

Wildlife Disease Objective 

Annually review national and regional disease 

trends and carry out monitoring and management 

strategies as needed.

Strategies

■■ Annually review and update the 2006 Disease 

Contingency Plan as needed.

■■ Conduct regular surveillance for key wildlife 

diseases such as highly pathogenic, botulism, 

chronic wasting disease, and West Nile virus.

■■ Consult with the regional Wildlife Health Program to carry on existing, or to adopt new, monitoring protocols.

■■ Support a supply of protective equipment for 

emergency cleanup and specimen collection operations.

Rationale. Because refuges are concentration spots 

for migratory birds and other wildlife, there is 

greater potential for disease outbreaks and mortality events. A Disease Contingency Plan specific to 

the Benton Lake Refuge was developed in 2006 and 

contains protocols for disease monitoring and management. Working with State and Federal agencies 

will be important in identifying disease concerns.

Cultural Resources Goal

Identify and evaluate the cultural resources of 

the refuge complex and protect those that are 

determined to be significant.

Cultural Resources Objective

Protect and preserve cultural resources throughout 

the refuge complex through coordination with the 

Region 6 Cultural Resources Branch, who help refuge staff with meeting the requirements of Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and 

other cultural resources-related legislation.

Strategies

■■ Inform the R6 cultural resources staff of refuge 

complex projects early in the planning process 

by using the Cultural Resources Review Form.

■■ Known cultural resources will be documented 

by the cultural resources staff to figure out their 

proper, long-term management. 

■■ Documented National Register eligible, or potentially eligible, resources and undocumented 

cultural resources, regardless if they have been 

evaluated for the National Register, will be protected from alteration or neglect.

■■ Conduct further investigation into the eligibility 

of two sites on the H2–O WPA for the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

Rationale. The refuge complex has several documented cultural resources, however, much of its 

property has not been inventoried for these resources. Archaeological and historic sites are important to the Service and the public, and compliance 

with cultural resources-related legislation will serve 

to protect them. Federal laws and policies mandate 

the identification and evaluation of archaeological 

and historic sites on Federal lands. Specifically, section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

requires all Federal agencies to consider cultural 

resources before project implementation and specifies the process required to meet this goal. Under 

the National Historic Preservation Act, cultural 

resources are treated as eligible for the National 

Register until they have been evaluated.

Archaeological surveys have covered about 470 

acres at the H2–O WPA (Schwab 1994)revealing 

four prehistoric lithic scatters and two historic sites 

(McCormick ditch 24PW623 and McCormick farmstead 24PW618) that were found to be potentially 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

and would need further investigation if work is proposed near them. The McCormick farmstead was 

found not eligible by the contractor, but the Montana 

State Historic Preservation Office did not concur. 

This unresolved eligibility is an ongoing issue. 

Visitor Services Goal

Provide opportunities for visitors of all abilities 

to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation on Serviceowned lands and increase knowledge and 

appreciation for the refuge complex’s ecological 

communities and the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.
140 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Hunting Objective

Throughout the life of the plan, provide a variety of 

hunting opportunities for approximately 1,500 visits 

per year that support sustainable resources and provide participants with an opportunity to appreciate 

the natural environment across the complex.

Strategies

■ Provide a variety of hunting opportunities across 

the refuge complex as shown in table 13.

■ On the district, (excluding Sands and H2–O 

WPAs), evaluate conducting a hunting season 

for State-defined predators and nongame species 

from August 15 through March 1.

■ Work with partners to develop programs to introduce young people to safe, effective, and ethical hunting techniques and methods.

■ Coordinate with State and other interested 

groups to host a hunter education class at the 

refuge complex headquarters, which will include 

a mentored gamebird hunt.

■ Encourage landowners of conservation easements to take part in the State block management program to increase hunter access.

■ On Benton Lake Refuge, provide upland gamebird hunting according to State seasons from the 

opening of the waterfowl season (usually the first 

weekend of October) to November 30.

■ On Benton Lake Refuge, provide waterfowl 

hunting as conditions allow from the start of the 

State season until November 30.

■■ On Benton Lake Refuge, provide youth waterfowl and upland gamebird hunting opportunities 

within State season.

■■ On Benton Lake Refuge, annually evaluate and, 

if needed, revise hunt location and seasonal availability to synchronize opportunity with water 

availability and to provide an inviolate sanctuary 

for migrating waterfowl.

■■ On Benton Lake Refuge, staff will strive to provide waterfowl hunting opportunity in 11 out of 

15 years.

■■ For Benton Lake Refuge, conduct an annual 

open-house to inform the public about upcoming 

water management plans, restoration efforts, and 

monitoring results.

Rationale. In FY 2011, an estimated 1,847 visits for 

hunting occurred on the refuge complex representing 14 percent of recreational visits to the refuge 

complex. A variety of hunting opportunity exists 

throughout the refuge complex. Population goals for 

harvest are set by MFWP and flyway councils. All 

waterfowl production areas (except the Sands and 

H2–O WPAs, which were donated to the Service 

with the caveat of remaining nonhunting areas) are 

open to migratory bird, upland gamebird, and big 

game hunting in accordance with all State seasons. 

The Benton Lake and Swan River Refuges offer 

bird hunting only.

Hunting predators and nongame wildlife is currently prohibited on the refuge complex, however, 

on the district (excluding the Sands and H2–O 

WPAs), the potential for implementing a hunting 

season for State-defined predators and nongame 

species will be evaluated. Montana defines predators 

as coyotes, weasels, striped skunks, and civet cats

Table 13. Hunting opportunity throughout the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Animal group Benton Lake Refuge1 Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District2 Swan River Refuge

Big game No Yes (mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, mountain 

goat, mountain lion, and black bear)

No

Upland gamebird Yes (pheasant, gray partridge, 

and sharp-tailed grouse)

Yes (pheasant, gray partridge, sharptailed grouse, spruce grouse, ruffed 

grouse, Franklin’s grouse, and turkey)

No

Migratory gamebird Yes (ducks, geese, swans, and 

coots)

Yes (ducks, geese, swans, coots, common 

snipe, mourning dove, and sandhill crane)

Yes (ducks, geese, 

swans, and coots)

Predator No No3 No

Furbearer No No3 No

Nongame wildlife No No3 No

1Refuge hunting seasons vary from State regulations, see refuge specific regulations.

2Excludes Sands WPA and H2–O WPA, which were donated with condition of being a nonhunting unit.

3Trapping in accordance with State regulations is permitted on the district (with exception of Sands and H2–O WPAs).
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 141

Cutthroat Trout

USFWS

(spotted skunks). Nongame species are defined as 

badgers, raccoons, red foxes, hares, rabbits, ground 

squirrels, marmots, tree squirrels, porcupines, and 

prairie dogs. Allowing a predator and nongame 

hunting season from August 15 to March 1 will provide increased recreational opportunities to hunters 

while minimizing disturbance to migratory birds.

During years with adequate water from natural 

runoff or pumping on Benton Lake Refuge, the location of open and closed areas for waterfowl hunting 

and upland game bird hunting could change from 

year to year based on flooding and drying rotation of 

the management units. 

Fishing Objective

Offer opportunities for fishing within the refuge 

complex while supporting sustainable resources.

Strategies

■ On Swan River Refuge, allow fishing per State 

regulations on Swan Lake and Swan River. Boating access points are available on Swan Lake.

■ On the Arod Lakes WPA, allow walk-in access 

year round and vehicle access to Middle and 

Round Lakes from January 2 to April 1.

■ Prohibit minnow seining throughout the refuge 

complex.

■ On the Benton Lake Pumphouse Unit, allow 

walk-in access to Muddy Creek for trout-fishing 

opportunities.

Rationale. As one of the six priority recreational uses 

identified in the Improvement Act, fishing provides 

traditional recreational activities on refuges and 

WPAs with no definable adverse effects on biological resources. Fishing is authorized throughout the 

refuge complex within designated times and areas, 

but only a few areas support recreational fisheries.

WPAs open to fishing include Arod Lakes and 

Blackfoot. In FY 2011, 425 fishing visits were reported for the refuge complex. Arod Lakes, with its 

plentiful yellow perch and northern pike, receives 

most of the fishing pressure in the refuge complex.

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Objective

Provide opportunities for people of all abilities to 

observe wildlife (over 8,200 visits yearly) and for 

photography (over 500 visits yearly).

Strategies

■ Make the public aware of opportunities throughout the refuge complex and identify open observation areas via signage, publications, and maps.

■ Support and improve associated infrastructure 

associated across the refuge complex.

■ Add associated infrastructure. Support seasonal 

closures (table 14) in some areas to protect sensitive wildlife values.

■ Allow limited commercial photography through 

special use permit on a case-by-case basis.
142 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Provide year-round opportunities on waterfowl 

production areas throughout the district.

■ Evaluate adding more walking trails throughout the refuge complex such as Bog Road on the 

Swan River Refuge.

■ Collaborate with nongovernmental organizations 

to conduct birding tours and other opportunities 

for wildlife observation.

■ Install a spotting scope to enhance viewing opportunities at the Swan River Refuge information kiosk and observation platform.

■ Hire a park ranger (0.50 FTE, or one assigned 

half time to the refuge complex, half time to Benton Lake Refuge exclusively) to provide more 

opportunities and guided interpretive tours.

■ On Benton Lake Refuge, continue to support 

observation and photography blinds.

■ On Benton Lake Refuge, install another grouse 

observation and photography blind.

■ On Benton Lake Refuge, continue to support an 

information kiosk and the Prairie Marsh boardwalk trail with a spotting scope.

■ On Benton Lake Refuge, change or reroute the 

existing auto tour routes if habitat restoration 

efforts require it.

■ On Benton Lake Refuge, restrict foot traffic, like 

hiking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing, to 

designated trails, roads open to motorized vehicles, and refuge hunt area during hunting season.

■■ For Benton Lake Refuge, provide a video in the 

visitor center that shows grouse dancing as an accessible alternative to the grouse blind and make 

visitors are aware that it is available. Explore 

putting the video on the refuge Web site.

Rationale. Wildlife observation and photography 

are among the six wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities listed in the Improvement Act. As such, 

they are considered priority public uses, although all 

recreational activities are secondary to, and must be 

compatible with, the primary purpose for which each 

refuge was established. Wildlife observation and 

photography provide recreational activities throughout the refuge complex with no definable adverse 

effects on the biological integrity or habitat sustainability of resources as defined in the act. In 2011, 

wildlife observation and photography accounted 

for 8,230 and 490 annual visits, respectively, to the 

refuge complex. A park ranger position will guide 

the resource complex to untapped resources, such 

as Great Falls, which could dramatically increase 

wildlife observation and photography visitation.

The opportunity to view and photograph a variety of species in their native habitats can be an 

exciting and rewarding experience. These encounters can enrich visitors’ personal lives while garnering support for conserving the unique qualities and 

natural resources of the refuge complex for future 

generations.

In 2011, wildlife observation and photography 

at Benton Lake Refuge accounted for 7,650 visits. 

The Benton Lake Visitor Center, the Prairie Marsh 

Drive, Lower Marsh Road, an informational kiosk, 

the Prairie Marsh Boardwalk with a spotting scope, 

a photography blind, and a sharp-tailed grouse observation blind facilitate wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities on the refuge.

Table 14. Seasonal closures at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Activity type Benton Lake Refuge Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District

Swan River Refuge

General Rotating area closures due to changes in wetland 

and water management.

Arod Lakes WPA Road 

to Middle and Round 

Lakes closed to 

motorized vehicles April 

1 to January 2.).

Closed to all public 

access except wildlife 

observation platform, 

kiosk, and non-motorized use of Bog Road. 

Hiking Permitted on roads that are open to motorized 

vehicles and designated trails.

Permitted on roads open 

to motorized vehicles.

Permitted on Bog Road 

year round.

Skiing and 

snowshoeing

Permitted from December 15 until 

the end of February.

Permitted as weather 

allows.

Permitted on Bog Road. 

Equestrian use By special use permit only. Prohibited. Prohibited.

Bicycling Permitted on roads open to motorized 

vehicles and designated trails.

Permitted on roads open 

to motorized vehicles.

Permitted on Bog Road 

year round. 

Boating Nonmotorized boats permitted in the 

hunting area during hunting season only.

According to State regulations.

According to State regulations (no-wake zone).
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 143

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 1

During the life of the plan, expand environmental 

education programs for adults and children on and 

off the refuge complex, focusing on the wetland habitat and native prairie habitats and the natural, cultural, and historical resources of the refuge complex. 

Programs and activities will promote awareness of 

and advocacy for refuge resources and management 

activities for the more than 19,500 visitors and students annually.

Strategies

■ Hire permanent 0.5 FTE park ranger to focus on 

environmental education, community outreach, 

public use, information dissemination, maintenance of public use infrastructure, programming 

and special events for the refuge complex.

■ Develop more education kits specific to refuge 

programs and resources including field exploration kits (for example, backpacks with field equipment), a lending library and field activity pages.

■ Develop a series of environmental outreach programs with specific themes as they relate to the 

particular complex unit, such as riparian restoration program for the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area.

■ Annually take part in at least two community 

events (such as the Envirothon) where the opportunity is available to educate the public about the 

refuge complex, its resources and the management activities.

■ Provide onsite programs for school groups on the 

refuge complex.

■ Conduct visits to local schools within the refuge 

complex to present information on the history, 

purposes, natural resources, management and 

the restoration project.

■ Host events for the International Migratory Bird 

Day, National Wildlife Refuge Week, and National Trails Day.

■ Pursue opportunities to expose middle school, 

high school, and college students to the field of 

natural resource management through job shadowing, internships, and other activities.

■ Develop programs for introducing young people 

to the enjoyment of the outdoors and instilling 

ethical, safe, and effective skills for observation, 

identification, and photography of wildlife.

■ Work with schools and teachers within the refuge 

complex to develop programs that support their 

curriculum objectives and facilitate a workshop 

for local teachers.

■ Pursue grants and other money sources to support environmental education programs.

■ Explore the possibility of a partnership with 

community colleges and universities to expand 

educational opportunity, volunteer activities, and 

internships.

■ Use social networking tools to reach a greater 

part of the public including supporting and updating an accurate complex Web site, creating a 

Facebook page and Twitter account.

■ Work with other organizations to place refuge information and directional maps at locations with 

high public traffic.

■ Develop a refuge-specific traveling display that 

can be used for programs and events.

■ Develop and install interpretive panels for the 

facilities throughout the refuge complex.

■ Engage partners and challenge cost-share opportunities to develop a short refuge complex film 

accessible from the refuge complex Web site and 

used during outreach and educational activities.

■ Utilize volunteers and the expertise of citizen 

scientists, such as members of local Audubon 

chapters, to assist with variety of monitoring, 

interpretive programming, brochure updates, 

and trail rerouting.

■ Tailor interpretive and educational programming 

for Benton Lake Refuge to highlight grassland 

birds.

■ Within 5 years, update existing literature, brochures, fliers, auto tour route brochure, Web 

sites, and other social media to adequately reflect 

the restoration and management efforts being 

conducted at Benton Lake Refuge.

■ Develop a series of environmental outreach 

programs for Benton Lake Refuge with specific 

themes (such as prairie and wetland conservation) as it relates to the restoration process for 

the refuge.
144 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■■ Design and install interpretive panels for Benton 

Lake Refuge that focus specifically on the restoration efforts and explain the restoration process 

and the progress.

■■ Adapt an environmental education curriculum 

for Benton Lake Refuge in coordination with the 

Great Falls Public Schools to reflect the changes 

throughout the habitat restoration process.

■■ When safety permits, allow visitors access to areas on Benton Lake Refuge undergoing restoration to highlight activities and restoration effects 

and resulting benefits to natural resources.

■■ Consider producing tear sheets on birdlife histories for Benton Lake Refuge.

■■ Develop a unified, professionally designed exhibit 

for Benton Lake Refuge with a central theme for 

the entire visitor center area.

■■ Provide outreach materials for people with disabilities visiting Benton Lake Refuge (large 

print, audio), and make sure that all refuge environmental education programs are accessible.

Rationale. Environmental education and interpretation are two of the six priority public-use activities 

listed in the Improvement Act. These are accommodated when compatible with the original purpose 

of the refuge unit. Environmental education within 

the Refuge System incorporates onsite, offsite, and 

distance-learning materials, activities, programs, 

and products that address the audience’s course of 

study, refuge purposes, physical attributes, ecosystem dynamics, conservation strategies, and the 

Refuge System mission.

Environmental education is a process designed to 

teach citizens and visitors—children and adults—the 

history and importance of conservation and scientific 

knowledge about the Nation’s natural resources. 

Through this process, the Service can help develop 

awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, motivation, and commitment to work cooperatively toward 

the conservation of environmental resources. The 

refuge complex has been conducting minimal environmental education and interpretation activities 

due to limited staff. In FY 2011, the refuge complex 

staff reached 1,765 participants during on and offsite 

environmental education programs. Most of which, 

approximately 850, are third graders in the Great 

Falls Public School System who visit the Benton 

Lake Refuge as part of their education curriculum. 

In addition, refuge complex-wide, 525 participants 

attended 10 special events and 120 participants attended interpretation programs on- and offsite.

As restoration efforts proceed on Benton Lake 

Refuge, information will be readily shared with the 

public to articulate management expectations and 

results. Tailoring such interpretive messaging will 

increase the understanding of the Service’s efforts to 

improve wetland health.

Deep Creek

inean T © Jeff V

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 2

During the life of the plan, increase environmental 

and interpretive programs within the Blackfoot Valley and Swan Valley CAs. 

Strategies

■ Use a refuge wildlife specialist (1 FTE) at Upsata 

Lake to help the refuge park ranger provide and 

expand opportunities in the district, the Blackfoot Valley CA, the Swan Valley CA, and the 

Swan River Refuge.
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 145

■■ Use the facilities at Upsata Lake.

■■ Establish a cooperative program with the University of Montana at Missoula.

■■ Offer environmental education programs for 

youth groups, schools and the public within the 

Missoula area and the Swan Valley CA.

Rationale. More potential exists in the Blackfoot Valley and Swan Valley CAs to expand the Service’s 

educational and interpretive efforts. Upsata Lake 

WPA, which is proposed for acquisition, offers an opportunity for more onsite environmental education 

and interpretive experiences with its proximity to 

Missoula and the University of Montana.

Administration Goal

Provide facilities, strategically allocate staff, 

and effectively use and develop funding sources, 

partnerships, and volunteer opportunities to 

maintain the long-term integrity of habitats and 

wildlife resources of the refuge complex.

Staff and Funding Objective

Strive to fill positions identified in the CCP as critical to accomplishing goals and objectives (table 15).

Strategies

■ Conduct site visits and prepare briefing packages 

for Service and other Federal officials (for example, congressional staff) to showcase complex 

achievements and potential acquisition growth.

■■ Continue to accurately document funding and 

staff needs through memos and reports.

■■ Use local media throughout the refuge complex 

to promote habitat improvements, outreach activities, and other accomplishments.

■■ Continue to cultivate good working relationships 

with the refuge complex’s neighbors, other State 

and Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations and other user groups to promote grassroot support and advocacy for refuge complex 

initiatives.

■■ Cooperate with organizations like TNC and the 

Conservation Fund to leverage resources for conservation easement programs.

■■ Prove to neighbors, partners, and local communities the potential benefits of increased funding 

and staff in the refuge complex.

■■ Establish a Friends group to help support and 

advocate for the refuge complex.

■■ Coordinate and take part in multi-agency youth 

and volunteer programs and initiatives.

■■ Refine and increase participation in the refuge 

complex volunteer program.

Rationale. Increases in the size and complexity of 

lands within the refuge complex require added staff 

and money. Several new or expanded easement initiatives (Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, 

and Swan Valley CAs) will need more staff for 

monitoring and administering easements and more 

money to acquire easements.

Table 15. Current and proposed staff at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Refuge complex unit Current positions (FTE) Proposed added positions

Benton Lake and Swan River 

Refuges’ headquarters

5.5 1 FTE full-time law enforcement officer, 1 FTE 

refuge complex park ranger, 1 FTE supervisory 

biologist refuge complex, 0.5 FTE generalist 

Benton Lake Refuge 2 0.8 career-seasonal biological technician, 0.8 seasonal biological technician

Swan River Refuge 0 Supported by wildlife refuge specialist assigned 

to Swan Valley CA

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District

1 1.0 maintenance worker

Blackfoot Valley CA 0.5 0.5 FTE wildlife refuge specialist

Rocky Mountain Front CA 1 0

Swan Valley CA 0 1 FTE wildlife refuge specialist 
146 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Current staff within the refuge complex consists 

of 9.5 permanent FTEs, and approximately 3 seasonal FTEs. Table 15 shows the current staff and 

proposed added staff required to fully carry out the 

CCP. Due to the area of responsibility and added 

complexities of this plan, all grade levels for current 

staff will be evaluated. If all positions are funded, 

the refuge complex staff will be able to carry out 

all aspects of this CCP, providing the greatest longterm help to wildlife, habitat, and ecosystems while 

improving facilities and providing visitor services. 

Projects that have adequate money and staff will receive priority for accomplishment. Staff and funding 

are requested for the 15-year life of this CCP. 

Current staff and budget levels are not sufficient 

to complete required administrative functions. In 

FY 2009, the Refuge System received an increase of 

$250 million (National Wildlife Refuge Association 

2009 Annual Report). Projections show that, due to 

the current state of the economy and increasing national debt and recession, operations funding levels 

should remain stable or decrease. With annual inflation, base allocations should erode with the inability to keep up with cost of living adjustments. The 

Service conservatively estimates a need for annual 

increases between $18 million and $35.5 million to 

meet conservation expectations of partners and the 

U.S. Congress (National Wildlife Refuge Association 

2009 Annual Report). Increased operation funding is 

not expected.

However, a significant increase in LWCF appropriations for the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area has occurred in recent years. This money 

is highly variable and directly affects the refuge 

complex’s ability to preserve intact landscapes.

To accomplish the goals and objectives identified 

in this plan, the refuge complex staff will need to 

maximize opportunities for in-kind help, both fiscal 

and human resources, in addition to experiencing 

increases in base (operations money) allocations. The 

refuge complex has a rich tradition of maximizing 

partnerships to meet established goals and objectives. The Service will need to continue these efforts 

and look for more opportunities to leverage dollars 

and human capital through partnerships. Creative 

work force planning, partnerships, and using supplemental money opportunities are mechanisms to successfully carry out recommendations. Other options 

are to use maintenance action teams, contracting, 

seasonal and temporary hires, volunteers, and youth 

initiatives.

Interest and concern for Benton Lake Refuge 

was expressed throughout the planning process. 

An opportunity to foster the Service’s relationship 

with the local community of Great Falls will be possible with the formation of a refuge friends group. 

Friends groups serve as advocates and sounding 

boards for the local community. The friends group 

can be a conduit to share information and solicit support for the refuge regarding management actions, 

plans, and restoration efforts.

Facilities and Infrastructure Objective

Strive to support facilities and real property in good 

to excellent condition and meet Service standards 

and Refuge System goals.

Strategies

■ Update the Refuge Lands Geographic Information System (RLGIS) database and assess 

condition assessment of existing infrastructure. 

Complete a rotational assessment every 5 years 

throughout the refuge complex.

■ Support and improve facilities at Upsata Lake 

WPA.

■ Remove any assets that are no longer contributing to the mission and goals of the refuge complex.

■ Use annual maintenance funding for maintenance 

of real property assets.

■ Use grazing cooperators for routine fence maintenance and pursue opportunities to use cooperators and volunteers for sign installation and 

replacement.

■ Set priorities for replacement of water control 

structures based on age, availability of money, 

management needs, and condition assessments.

■ Set priorities for road maintenance based on 

available funding and public use.

■ Provide adequate facilities for employees and 

equipment.

■ Improve and support existing accessible infrastructure and establish new facilities as needed.

■ Increase staff by 1 FTE to address seasonal 

maintenance needs on the district.

■ Replace faded logos on entrance signs and anywhere else they appear.

■ Repair or replace damaged or faded boundary 

and informational signs, as needed, to meet Service sign standards.
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 147

■■ Develop a trapping plan for Swan River Refuge. 

Trapping will only occur by special use permit 

and for wildlife and infrastructure management 

purposes.

Rationale. Visitor services infrastructure including 

information kiosks, entrance, directional and boundary signing, trails, roads (public use and staff use 

only), water control structures, fences, dikes and 

buildings need routine annual and long-term maintenance to support resources in good to excellent 

condition.

Due to the extensive maintenance backlog in the 

Service and the lack of maintenance staff in the refuge complex (there is currently one full-time maintenance worker for the entire complex), infrastructure 

throughout the refuge complex varies from poor to 

excellent condition. Roads and dikes need gravel. 

In some areas, significant repair due to muskrat 

burrowing is needed. Some water control structures 

are failing due to advanced age and some sections of 

boundary fence no longer function effectively due to 

broken posts and wire. Signs are missing, unreadable and, in many cases, have been shot by vandals.

Recently, energy conservation modifications have 

been made at several facilities. There are more facilities in the refuge complex that need insulation, 

windows and roofs, and in some cases, siding.

Accessible facilities (such as restrooms and entrance ramps) exist primarily in refuge office buildings. Limited accessible facilities in the field include 

the Benton Lake boardwalk and hunt blind, and the 

Swan River observation platform and kiosk.

Students from Centerville, Montana, identify birds at the 

visitor center at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

USFWS

Visitor and Employee Safety 

and Resource Protection Goal

Provide for the safety, security, and protection 

of visitors, employees, natural and cultural 

resources, and facilities throughout the refuge 

complex.

Visitor and Employee Safety Objective 1

Keep employee accidents and injuries (as reported 

to the Office of Workers Compensation Program) 

below the regional average of 6.2 hours of lost time 

per year.

Strategies

■■ Provide employees with proper personal protective equipment.

■■ Make sure all required safety and operator training is completed before engaging in tasks or work 

situations. Make sure other training, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and first aid, 

is available to employees as needed or requested.

■■ Make sure employees review job hazard analyses 

before engaging in at-risk tasks.

■■ Practice sound risk management “the state in 

which risks are acceptable.”

■■ Continue safety talks at weekly staff meetings.

Rationale. Injuries in the Service accounted for 21.1 

days of lost time in FY 2010, second quarter (DOI 

2010). Reducing the potential for accidents and injuries is cost efficient, provides better job satisfaction, 

and is the right way to conduct business. The Service requires job hazard analysis write-ups before 

all at-risk tasks, such as operating an all-terrain vehicle or pounding fence posts. A library of job hazard 

analyses is on the Regional Safety Office Web site.

Visitor and Employee Safety Objective 2

Over the life of the plan, strive to support the refuge 

complex as 100-percent visitor accident free.

Strategies

■ Educate and inform visitors of their responsibilities while visiting national wildlife refuges 

and the ways to mitigate potential dangers and 

hazards.
148 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■■ Use directional and informative signage, visitor 

information kiosks, and posted warnings to help 

reduce preventable accidents and mishaps.

■■ Close roads deemed unsafe for travel due to 

weather conditions or poor visibility.

■■ Law enforcement officers will help to protect visitors and report serious incidents to the proper 

authorities (per guidance found in 054 FW 1).

Rationale. Visiting a national wildlife refuge can be 

inherently dangerous. Snake bites, stinging and biting insects and their associated diseases, extreme 

hot and cold temperatures, wind, lightning, standing or turbulent water, uneven terrain, and steep 

edges can potentially turn a pleasant day out into 

a life-altering experience. The Service’s role is to 

help identify these dangers, inform the public about 

them, and mitigate these dangers to the greatest 

extent possible.

Visitor and Employee Safety Objective 3

In the first 5 years, improve communication systems 

within the refuge complex.

Strategies

■■ During weekly program manager’s meeting, 

share key safety issues between the multiple programs of the refuge complex.

■■ Provide staff with the best available communication tools (cell phones, satellite phones, radios) 

and upgrade them regularly.

■■ Routinely update the refuge complex’s Web site 

to provide current conditions, information, safety 

hazards, and sightings of interest.

■■ Continue to coordinate with USDA Forest Service in the usage of their radio system including 

repeaters.

Rationale. Historically, vast areas of the refuge 

complex have been in communication dead zones, a 

situation that is complicated by the topography of 

the landscape. As cell and satellite usage increases, 

coverage has improved, however, many areas of the 

refuge complex continue to experience no service. 

Radios provide an essential means of communicating 

out in the field and to a base station, however, getting the proper authorizations to buy and program 

the best devices for the Service’s needs has proven 

problematic over the last decade. A Memorandum of 

Understanding is in place with the Lewis and Clark 

National Forest office in Great Falls. Use of USDA 

Forest Service frequencies and repeaters has to 

some extent decreased the problem of communication dead zones, however, more efforts are needed.

Resource Protection Objective 1

Strive to support 100-percent compliance with easement contracts.

Strategies

■■ Follow the guidelines contained in the refuge 

easement manuals for enforcement procedures, 

conduct annual surveillance flights to detect 

or prevent potential easement violations and 

promptly follow up with needed enforcement actions.

■■ Make sure that there is conservation easement 

compliance by conducting annual meetings with 

individual landowners to review and discuss potential activities on their land as related to easement administration.

■■ Annually send letters and meet with new landowners to inform them of existing easements on 

their property, including associated easement 

provisions.

■■ Annually review Farmers Home Administration 

easements to make sure that all easement provisions are enforced.

■■ Review and update easement administrative 

manuals as needed.

Rationale. Monitoring and enforcing easement contracts is a critical aspect of protecting wetland and 

grassland habitats. Efforts to protect the habitat 

resources on easements will also be focused on preventative law enforcement. Proactively contacting landowners and operators may serve to remind 

them of easement provisions and hopefully prevent 

future violations.

Resource Protection Objective 2

Strive to limit illegal activity to at, or below, levels 

to be figured out within 5 years of plan approval.

Strategies

■ Conduct regular law enforcement patrol of refuges and waterfowl production areas to make 

sure that there is compliance with regulations.
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 149

■ Continue to foster good relationships with local, 

State and Federal law enforcement agencies.

■ Make sure that there is adequate law enforcement coverage during peak activity by working 

cooperatively with officers from other refuges.

■ Edit hunting regulations and general activities 

brochures to improve clarity and understanding 

of refuge specific regulations.

■ Support proper signage to reduce visitor confusion and improve clarity of boundaries and restricted areas.

■ Make sure that refuge regulation pamphlets are 

available for the public visiting outside of normal 

office hours.

■ Develop baseline data using known current violations and set a measurable goal to reduce future 

violations.

■ Hire a (1 FTE) full-time law enforcement officer 

assigned to the refuge complex and support at 

least one dual-function law enforcement officer (1 

FTE) on the district.

■ At the Swan River Refuge, close Bog Road to 

motorized vehicles west of the kiosk parking lot.

■ Carry out seasonal closures throughout the refuge complex to protect sensitive wildlife values.

■ At Benton Lake Refuge, increase patrol and preventative law enforcement efforts through the 

full-time law enforcement officer hired for the 

refuge complex.

■ At Benton Lake Refuge, organize and distribute 

information about the changing routes of travel, 

access areas, designated closures, and changes 

in refuge-specific regulations that will improve 

preventative law enforcement efforts.

■ At Benton Lake Refuge, submit news releases 

to local newspapers and radio stations and post 

on the refuge Web site to increase the public’s 

awareness about annual recreational opportunities, refuge-specific regulations, and shifts in 

open and closed areas to hunting and other wildlife-dependent recreational uses.

■ At Benton Lake Refuge, host an annual hunter 

orientation “open house” before the hunting 

season to share refuge-specific regulations and 

changes to the open and closed areas.

Rationale. Resources to be protected throughout the 

refuge complex include natural (wildlife and habitat) 

resources, cultural resources, facilities, and other 

government property. Law enforcement efforts will 

be focused on preventative enforcement. It is expected that, initially, the number of documented 

violations will increase due to increased law enforcement presence. As visitors become more aware of 

refuge complex regulations or have contact with 

law enforcement officers, the number of violations 

should decrease.

There is currently one dual-function Refuge 

Officer at the refuge complex. This officer spends 

between 25 and 50 percent of their duty hours conducting law enforcement activities including regular 

patrols and investigations to make sure that there is 

resource protection. The Montana–Wyoming Zone 

Officer, is stationed at the Benton Lake Refuge, and 

may provide more law enforcement support as time 

allows. Staff will continue to provide visitor, employee and resource protection at current levels 

even though LE presence has diminished from three 

dual-function law enforcement officers in 2004 to one 

dual-function officer in 2011.

Past violations on fee title lands, enforced with 

Violation Notices, have primarily been hunting 

violations. Problems of vandalism, trespass issues, 

dumping, and general littering exist, but violators 

are often not apprehended by law enforcement. 

At this time, there is insufficient data to determine a measurable goal for reducing violations on 

fee title lands. It is expected that as law enforcement effort increases, the amount of documented 

incidents should increase because as officers spend 

more time and effort in the field, they become more 

aware of incidents and issue more violation notices. 

In time, the initial increase in the number of documented incidents should level off and decline as the 

local community and visiting public becomes more 

aware and compliant with regulations.

On the Swan River Refuge, Bog Road was once 

believed to be a county road; this four-wheel drive 

road has a history of being used for motorized recreation. The Service’s recent investigation into this 

issue revealed that this is not a county road. On conclusion of this issue, the road will be gated to prevent unauthorized vehicle travel and may be opened 

as an interpretive trail.

Seasonal closures (table 14) will be implemented 

throughout the refuge complex to protect sensitive 

wildlife resources. Minimizing disturbance to nesting 

migratory birds is of particular concern.

At Benton Lake Refuge, law enforcement support on the refuge will consist of help from the 

collateral duty officer assigned to the wetland management district or the Montana–Wyoming Zone 

Officer stationed at the complex headquarters. 
150 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Restoration efforts within the wetland basin may 

require shifts in open and closed areas, auto tour 

routes, walking trails and other wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities. Preventative law enforcement efforts will help end or reduce the occurrence 

of refuge-specific violations. Open houses, news releases, posting of regulatory information will improve visitor compliance.

4.2 Stepdown 

Management Plans

The CCP is intended as a broad umbrella plan that 

provides general concepts and specific wildlife, 

habitat, visitor services, and partnership objectives 

over the next 15 years. The purpose of the stepdown 

management plans is to provide detail to managers 

and employees for implementing specific actions and 

strategies authorized by the CCP. Planned stepdown 

plans include the following:

■ habitat management plan

■ inventory and monitoring plan

■ integrated pest management plan

■ fire management plan

■ visitor services plan

■ law enforcement plan

4.3 Plan Amendment 

and Revision

This CCP will be reviewed annually to decide if it 

needs revision. A revision will occur when significant 

information becomes available, such as a change 

in ecological conditions. The final CCP will be augmented by detailed stepdown management plans to 

address the completion of specific strategies in support of the CCP goals and objectives. Revisions to 

the CCP and the stepdown management plans will 

be subject to public review and NEPA compliance. 

At a minimum, this plan will be evaluated every 5 

years and revised after 15 years.

This boardwalk is part of the infrastructure available for visitor use at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

USFWS
Glossary

accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas 

and activities for people of different abilities, especially those with physical impairments.

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

adaptive resource management (ARM)—The rigorous 

application of management, research, and monitoring to gain information and experience necessary to assess and change management activities. 

It is a process that uses feedback from research, 

monitoring, and evaluation of management actions to support or change objectives and strategies at all planning levels. It is also a process in 

which the Service carries out policy decisions 

within a framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and assumptions 

inherent in management plans. Analysis of results helps managers decide whether current 

management should continue as is or whether it 

should be modified to achieve desired conditions.

alternative—Reasonable way to solve an identified problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 

1500.2); one of several different means of accomplishing refuge and district purposes and goals 

and contributing to the National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual” 602 FW 1.5).

amphibian—Class of cold-blooded vertebrates that 

includes frogs, toads, and salamanders.

annual—Plant that flowers and dies within 1 year of 

germination.

baseline—Set of critical observations, data, or information used for comparison or a control.

bioaccumulation—The accumulation within living 

organisms of toxic substances occurring in the 

environment.

biological control—Organisms or viruses used to 

control invasive plants or other pests.

biological diversity, biodiversity—Variety of life and 

its processes including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, 

and the communities and ecosystems in which 

they occur (“Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 

052 FW 1.12B). The National Wildlife Refuge 

System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic 

communities, and ecological processes.

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms; 

caused, produced by, or comprising living organisms.

breeding habitat—Environment used by migratory 

birds or other animals during the breeding season.

canopy—Layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; mid-level or understory vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy 

closure (also canopy cover) is an estimate of the 

amount of overhead vegetative cover.

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan.

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations.

CO2—Carbon dioxide.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—Codification of 

the general and permanent rules published in the 

Federal Register by the Executive departments 

and agencies of the Federal Government. Each 

volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar 

year.

compact—Montana House bill 717–Bill to Ratify 

Water Rights Compact.

compatibility determination—See compatible use.

compatible use—Wildlife-dependent recreational 

use or any other use of a refuge or district that, 

in the sound professional judgment of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will 

not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge or 

district (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility determination 

supports the selection of compatible uses and 

identified stipulations or limits necessary to make 

sure there is compatibility.

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—Document 

that describes the desired future conditions of 

the refuge or district and provides long-range 

guidance and management direction for the refuge manager to accomplish the purposes of the 

refuge or district, contribute to the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, and meet other 

relevant mandates (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5).

concern—See issue.

cool-season grasses—Grasses that begin growth 

earlier in the season and often become dormant 

in summer; grasses that germinate at lower temperatures. Examples of cool-season grasses in the 

refuge complex are western wheatgrass, needle 

and thread, and green needlegrass.
152 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

conservation—Management of natural resources to 

prevent loss or waste; actions may include preservation, restoration, and enhancement.

conservation easement—Perpetual agreement entered into by a landowner and the Service by 

which a landowner gives up or sells one or more 

of the rights on their property for conservation purposes, with terms set by the Service. 

In return for a single lump-sum payment, the 

landowner agrees not to drain, burn, level, or fill 

habitats covered by the easement. Conservation 

easements generally prohibit the cultivation of 

grassland and wetland habitats while still permitting the landowner traditional grazing uses. A 

single-habitat conservation easement is often 

referred to as either a wetland easement or a 

grassland easement.

coordination area—Wildlife management area made 

available to a State by a “cooperative agreement 

between the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the State fish and game agency pursuant 

to section 4 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 U.S.C. 664); or (B) by long-term leases 

or agreements pursuant to the Bankhead–Jones 

Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525; 7 U.S.C. 1010 et 

seq.).” States manage coordination areas, but 

they are part of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. CCPs are not required for coordination 

areas.

cover, cover type, canopy cover—Present vegetation 

of an area; also see canopy.

cultural resources—Remains of sites, structures, or 

objects used by people in the past.

dense nesting cover (DNC)—Composition of grasses 

and forbs that allows for a dense stand of vegetation that protects nesting birds from the view of 

predators, usually consisting of one to two species of wheatgrass, alfalfa, and sweetclover.

district—See wetland management district.

district purpose—See purpose of the refuge.

disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition from natural causes such as 

wildfire or human-caused activities and development such as timber harvest and road building.

DNC—See dense nesting cover.

drawdown—A manipulated water level in an impoundment that allows for the natural drying-out 

cycle of a wetland.

duck, dabbling—Duck that mainly feeds on vegetable matter by upending on the water surface 

or by grazing and only rarely dives.

duck, diving—Duck that mainly feeds by diving 

through the water.

EA—See environmental assessment.

ecosystem—Dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated nonliving environment; a biological community, together with its environment, functioning 

as a unit. For administrative purposes, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service has designated 53 ecosystems covering the United States and its possessions. These ecosystems generally correspond 

with watershed boundaries and their sizes and 

ecological complexity vary.

ecotype—Subspecies or race that is especially 

adapted to a particular set of environmental conditions.

emergent—Plant rooted in shallow water and having 

most of the vegetative growth above water such 

as cattail and hardstem bulrush.

endangered species, Federal—Plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended, that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant part of its range.

endangered species, State—Plant or animal species 

in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in a 

particular State within the near future if factors 

contributing to its decline continue; species with 

a population at a critically low level or having 

habitat that has been degraded or depleted to a 

significant degree.

environmental assessment (EA)—Concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses 

the purpose and need for an action and alternatives to such action and that provides sufficient 

evidence and analysis of effects to determine 

whether to prepare an environmental impact 

statement or finding of no significant impact (40 

CFR 1508.9).

evapoconcentration—Concentration of chemical constituents in a liquid due to evaporative processes.

extinction—Complete disappearance of a species 

from the earth; no longer existing.

extirpation—Extinction of a population; eradication 

of a species within a specified area.

°F—Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit.

fauna—Vertebrate and invertebrate animals in an 

area.

Federal trust resource—Resource managed by one 

entity for another who holds the ownership. The 

Service holds in trust many natural resources for 

the people of the United States of America because of Federal acts and treaties; examples are 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act, 

migratory birds protected by international treaties, and native plant or wildlife species found on 

a national wildlife refuge.

Federal trust species—Species where the Federal 

Government has primary jurisdiction including 

federally endangered or threatened species, migratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals.
GLOSSARY 153

fee title—Acquisition of most or all of the rights to a 

tract of land.

Federal land—Public land owned by the Federal 

Government including lands such as national 

wildlife refuges, national forests, and national 

parks.

flora—Plant species in an area.

forb—Broad-leaved herbaceous plant; seed-producing annual, biennial, or perennial plant that 

does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies 

down at the end of the growing season.

fragmentation—Alteration of a large block of habitat 

that creates isolated patches of the original habitat interspersed with a variety of other habitat 

types; process of reducing the size and connectivity of habitat patches, making movement of individuals or genetic information between parcels 

difficult or impossible.

ft—Feet, length measure.

full-time equivalent (FTE)—One or more job positions 

with tours of duty that, when combined, equate 

to one person employed for the standard Government work-year.

Geographic Information System (GIS)—Computer system capable of storing and manipulating spatial 

data; set of computer hardware and software for 

analyzing and displaying spatially referenced 

features (such as points, lines and polygons) with 

nongeographic attributes such as species and age.

GIS—See Geographic Information System.

glyphosate—Glyphosate N–(phosphonomethyl) glycine; broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to 

kill invasive plants, especially perennials. Glyphosate inhibits an enzyme involved in the synthesis 

of the amino acids tyrosine, tryptophan, and phenylalanine; absorbed through foliage and translocated to growing points, it is only effective on 

actively growing plants and is not effective as a 

preemergence herbicide.

goal—Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable 

units (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 

620 FW 1.5).

gpm—Gallons per minute, waterflow.

grassland tract—Contiguous area of grassland that 

is not fragmented.

GS—General schedule pay rate schedule for certain 

Federal positions.

habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and reproduction; place where an organism typically lives 

and grows.

habitat type, vegetation type, cover type—Land classification system based on the concept of distinct 

plant associations.

hemimarsh—Emergent phase of a seasonal or semipermanent wetland where the ratio of open-water area to emergent vegetation cover is about 

50:50 and vegetation and open-water areas are 

highly interspersed.

hydroperiod—Period during which soils, waterbodies, and sites are wet.

impoundment—Body of water created by collection and confinement within a series of levees 

or dikes, creating separate management units 

although not always independent of one another.

Improvement Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997.

in—Inch.

indigenous—Originating or occurring naturally in a 

particular place.

integrated pest management (IPM)—Methods of managing undesirable species such as invasive plants; 

education, prevention, physical or mechanical 

methods of control, biological control, responsible 

chemical use, and cultural methods.

“interseed”—Mechanical seeding of one or several 

plant species into existing stands of established 

vegetation.

introduced species—Species present in an area due 

to intentional or unintentional escape, release, 

dissemination, or placement into an ecosystem 

because of human activity.

invasive species—Species that is nonnative to the 

ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health.

inviolate sanctuary—Place of refuge or protection 

where animals and birds may not be hunted.

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision; for example, a Service initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, 

a threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in 

uses, public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition (“Draft Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5).

lek—An elevated patch of grassland used by male 

grouse to display and challenge one another to 

attract females; the elevation not only provides a 

clear view to interested female grouse, but it also 

enables the males to spot predators at a distance.

management alternative—See alternative.

management plan—Plan that guides future land 

management practices on a tract of land.

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of animals between their breeding regions and 

wintering regions; to pass periodically from one 

region or climate to another for feeding or breeding.

migratory bird—Bird species that follows a seasonal 

movement from its breeding grounds to its win-
154 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

tering grounds; includes waterfowl, shorebirds, 

raptors, and songbirds.

mission—Succinct statement of purpose or reason 

for being.

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an environmental effect or to make an effect less severe.

mixed-grass prairie—Transition zone between tallgrass prairie and shortgrass prairie dominated 

by grasses of medium height that are about 2–4 

feet tall; soils are not as rich as in the tallgrass 

prairie and moisture levels are less.

monitoring—Collecting information to track changes 

of selected parameters over time.

national wildlife refuge (NWR)—Designated area of 

land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the National Wildlife Refuge System but does 

not include coordination areas; listing of all units 

of the Refuge System is in the current Annual 

Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service.

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)—

Various categories of areas administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior for the conservation 

of fish and wildlife including species threatened 

with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests 

therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife 

refuges; areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with 

extinction; wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife 

management areas, and waterfowl production 

areas.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Improvement Act)—Set administrative 

policy for all refuges and units in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System; defined a unifying mission for the Refuge System; established the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority 

public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation); established a formal process for 

determining appropriateness and compatibility; 

established the responsibilities of the Secretary 

of the Interior for managing and protecting the 

Refuge System; required a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit by the year 2012; 

amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act 

and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

native species—Species that, other than as a result 

of an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in a specific ecosystem.

neotropical migrant, migratory bird—Bird species that 

breeds north of the United States and Mexican 

border and winters primarily south of this border.

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act.

nest success—Chance that a nest will hatch at least 

one egg.

nongovernmental organization—Group that is not 

comprised of Federal, State, tribal, county, city, 

town, local, or other governmental entities.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan—Recognized that the recovery and perpetuation of 

waterfowl populations depends on restoring 

wetlands and associated ecosystems throughout 

the United States and Canada; established cooperative international efforts and joint ventures 

comprised of individuals, corporations, conservation organizations, and local, State, Provincial, 

and Federal agencies drawn together by common 

conservation objectives.

noxious weed—Plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to 

crops (including nursery stock or plant products), 

livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, natural resources of 

the United States, public health, or the environment.

NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Service.

NWR—See national wildlife refuge.

objective—Concise target statement of what will be 

achieved, how much will be achieved, when and 

where it will be achieved, and who is responsible 

for the work; derived from goals and provides the 

basis for determining management strategies; 

should be attainable, time specific, and stated 

quantitatively to the extent possible (if cannot 

be stated quantitatively, may be stated qualitatively) (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 

602 FW 1.5).

palustrine—Relating to a system of inland, nontidal 

wetlands characterized by the presence of trees, 

shrubs, and emergent vegetation (vegetation 

that is rooted below water but grows above the 

surface); palustrine wetlands range from permanently saturated or flooded land to land that is 

wet only seasonally.

Partners in Flight Program—Western Hemisphere 

program designed to conserve neotropical migratory birds and officially endorsed by many 

Federal and State agencies and nongovernmental 

organizations; also known as the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Program.

partnership—Contract or agreement entered into 

by two or more individuals, groups of individuals, 

organizations, or agencies in which each agrees 

to furnish a part of the capital or some in-kind 

service such as labor for a mutually beneficial 

enterprise.

patch—Area distinct from that around it; distinguished from its surroundings by environmental 

conditions.
GLOSSARY 155

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; waterbody that holds water 

year-round; plant species that has a lifespan of 

more than 2 years.

planning team—Group of individuals that prepares 

the comprehensive conservation plan; interdisciplinary in membership and function; generally 

consists of a team leader, refuge manager, biologist, staff specialists or other representatives of 

Service programs, ecosystems or regional offices, 

and State partner wildlife agencies as needed.

planning team leader—Professional planner or natural resource specialist knowledgeable of the requirements of National Environmental Policy 

Act and who has planning experience; manages 

the refuge planning process and makes sure that 

there is compliance with applicable regulatory 

and policy requirements.

planning unit—National wildlife refuge or wetland 

management district, or an ecologically or administratively related refuge complex, or a distinct 

unit of a refuge; may include lands outside refuge 

or district boundaries.

plant community—Assemblage of plant species 

unique in its composition that occurs in particular 

locations under particular influences; reflection 

or integration of the environmental influences on 

the site such as soil, temperature, elevation, solar 

radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes a 

general kind of climax plant community such as 

ponderosa pine or bunchgrass.

preferred alternative—Alternative selected to 

becomes the final plan; it can be the proposed 

action, the no-action alternative, another alternative, or a combination of actions and alternatives 

described in the draft CCP and environmental 

analysis document.

prescribed fire—Skillful application of fire to natural 

fuel under specified conditions such as weather, 

fuel moisture, and soil moisture that allows confinement of the fire to a predetermined area and 

produces the intensity of heat and rate of spread 

to accomplish planned benefits to one or more 

objectives of habitat management, wildlife management, or hazard reduction.

pristine—Typical of original conditions.

private land—Land owned by a private individual, a 

group of individuals, or a nongovernmental organization.

private landowner—Individual, group of individuals, 

or nongovernmental organization that owns land.

private organization—Nongovernmental organization.

priority public use—One of six uses authorized by 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 to have priority if found to be 

compatible with a refuge or district’s purposes; 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation; 

also see wildlife-dependent recreational use.

proposed action—Alternative proposed to best 

achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge 

or district (contributes to the Refuge System 

mission, addresses the significant issues, and is 

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management).

protohistoric—Pertaining to the transition period 

between prehistory and the earliest recorded 

history.

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, State, and local government 

agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations (may 

include anyone outside the core planning team); 

anyone who may or may not have shown an interest in Service issues and those who do or do not 

realize that Service decisions may affect them.

public domain, reserved from—See reserved from 

public domain.

public involvement or scoping—Process that offers 

affected and interested individuals and organizations an opportunity to become informed about 

and to express their opinions on Service actions 

and policies; in the process, these views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful consideration is 

given to public views when shaping decisions for 

refuge and district management.

purpose of the refuge, district—Reason for establishment and management of a national wildlife 

refuge or wetland management district that is 

specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, Executive order, agreement, public land 

order, donation document, or administrative 

memorandum establishing authorization or expansion of a refuge, refuge unit, refuge subunit, 

or district (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5).

raptor—Carnivorous bird such as a hawk, falcon, 

or vulture that feeds wholly or chiefly on meat 

taken by hunting or on carrion (dead carcasses).

Reclamation—Bureau of Reclamation.

redd—The spawning area or nest of trout or salmon.

refuge—See national wildlife refuge.

Refuge Operations Needs System—National database 

that contains the unfunded operational needs of 

each refuge and district; projects included are 

those required to carry out approved plans and 

meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates.

refuge purpose—See purpose of the refuge.

Refuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge System.

refuge use—Activity on a refuge, except administrative or law enforcement activity, carried out by 

or under the direction of an authorized Service 

employee.
156 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

reserved from public domain—Public land placed into 

permanent reserved status, such as a national 

wildlife refuge, that is not held in private ownership.

resident species or wildlife—Species inhabiting a 

given locality throughout the year; nonmigratory 

species.

resilience—the ability of system to recover from 

a disturbance or change without significant loss 

and return to a given ecological state 

rest—Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation in reference to Service lands.

restoration—Management emphasis designed to 

move ecosystems to desired conditions and 

processes such as healthy upland habitats and 

aquatic systems.

riparian area, habitat, corridor—Area that transitions 

from a terrestrial to aquatic ecosystem including streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent plant 

communities and their associated soils that have 

free water at or near the surface; land and its 

vegetation immediately adjoining and directly 

influenced by a stream.

RLGIS—Refuge Lands Geographic Information System.

RONS—See Refuge Operations Needs System.

“round-outs”—Odd shapes and holes of non-Federal 

land within the boundary of Refuge System units 

that are straightened, or made whole, by the purchase of land tracts.

runoff—Water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural or landscape irrigation that flows over the 

land surface into a waterbody.

SAMMS—See Service Asset Maintenance Management System.

scoping—Process of obtaining information from the 

public for input into the planning process.

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers.

senior water rights—Rights to water that were legally filed earlier than junior (more recent) water 

rights, having precedence.

Service—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Service Asset Maintenance Management System—

National database that contains the unfunded 

maintenance needs of each refuge and district; 

projects include those required to support existing equipment and buildings and to correct safety 

deficiencies for the implementation of approved 

plans and to meet goals, objectives, and legal 

mandates.

sheet flow—The overland flow of water, typically 

from precipitation to lower elevation areas.

shelterbelt—Single to multiple rows of trees and 

shrubs planted around cropland or buildings to 

block or slow down the wind.

shorebird—Suborder of birds (Charadrii) such as 

a plover or snipe that frequents the seashore or 

mudflat areas.

spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the character of space.

special use permit—Special authorization from the 

refuge manager for any service, facility, privilege, 

or product of the soil provided at the Service’s 

expense and not usually available to the public 

through authorizations in Title 50 CFR or other 

public regulations (“Refuge Manual” 5 RM 17.6).

species of concern—Species, while not falling under 

the definition of special status species, that is of 

management interest by virtue of being Federal 

trust species such as migratory birds, important 

game species, or significant keystone species; 

species that has a documented or clear population decline, a small or restricted population, or 

dependence on restricted or vulnerable habitats.

stand—Homogenous area of vegetation with more 

or less uniform soils, landform, and vegetation. 

stepdown management plan—Specific plan that provides the details necessary to carry out management strategies identified in the comprehensive 

conservation plan (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5).

strategy—Specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (“Draft Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5).

submergent—Vascular or nonvascular plant adapted 

to grow in water, either rooted or nonrooted, that 

lies entirely beneath the water surface except for 

flowering parts in some species.

System—See National Wildlife Refuge System.

threatened species, Federal—Species listed under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 

that is likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 

part of its range.

threatened species, State—Species likely to become 

endangered in a particular State within the near 

future if factors contributing to population decline or habitat degradation or loss continue.

trust resource—See Federal trust resource.

trust species—See Federal trust species.

U.S.C.—United States Code.

USDA—United States Department of Agriculture.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS)—

Part of U.S. Department of the Interior; principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and 

their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people. The Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of national wildlife refuges and waterfowl production 

areas. The Service runs national fish hatcher-
GLOSSARY 157

ies and ecological service field stations, enforces 

Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird 

populations, restores national significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such 

as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, oversees the Federal aid program that 

distributes millions of dollars in excise taxes on 

fishing and hunting equipment to State wildlife 

agencies, and helps foreign governments with 

their conservation efforts.

USFWS—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—Federal agency in 

the U.S. Department of the Interior whose mission is to provide reliable scientific information to 

describe and understand the earth; reduce loss of 

life and property from natural disasters; manage 

water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; 

and enhance and protect our quality of life.

ungulate—Hoofed mammal.

vision statement—Concise statement of the desired 

future condition of a planning unit, based primarily on the Refuge System mission, specific refuge 

or district purposes, and other relevant mandates 

(“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 

FW 1.5).

volatilize—To cause a solid or liquid to be changed 

into a vapor. This is the means by which selenium 

is transferred from sediment to the air, thereby 

reducing levels in the wetland

wading birds—Birds having long legs that enable 

them to wade in shallow water such as egret, 

great blue heron, black-crowned night-heron, and 

bittern.

waterbird—Birds that depend on aquatic habitats to 

complete portions of their life cycles.

waterfowl—Category of birds that groups ducks, 

geese, and swans.

watershed—Geographic area within which water 

drains into a particular river, stream, or waterbody.

wetland—Land transitional between terrestrial and 

aquatic systems where the water table is usually 

at or near the surface or the land is covered by 

shallow water.

wetland management district—Land that the Refuge System acquires with Federal Duck Stamp 

money for restoration and management, primarily as prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl 

and other wetland birds.

WG—Wage grade schedule, pay rate schedule for 

certain Federal positions.

wildfire—Free-burning fire requiring a suppression 

response; all fire other than prescribed fire that 

occurs on wildlands.

wildland fire—Wildfire or prescribed fire that occurs 

in undeveloped land.

wildlife-dependent recreational use—Use of a refuge 

or district involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, 

or interpretation; also see priority public use.

wildlife management—Practice of manipulating wildlife populations either directly through 

regulating the numbers, ages, and sex ratios 

harvested or indirectly by providing favorable 

habitat conditions and alleviating limiting factors.

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not 

usually touching, generally forming 25–60 percent cover.

WPA—Waterfowl production area.

Appendix A

Environmental Compliance

Environmental Action Statement

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act and other 

statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and 

wildlife resources, I have established the following 

administrative record.

I have determined that the action of implementing 

the “Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex” is found not to 

have significant environmental effects, as determined 

by the attached “finding of no significant impact” and 

the environmental assessment as found with the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan.

Noreen Walsh Date

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado

Matt Hogan Date

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6

National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, Colorado

W. Dean Rundle Date

Refuge Supervisor, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, Colorado

Kathleen A. Burchett Date 

Project Leader 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Great Falls, Montana
160 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Finding of No Significant Impact

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

INTRODUCTION

This finding of no significant impact provides the basis 

for management decisions for the final comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment for 

the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Montana. The comprehensive conservation plan was 

prepared along with an environmental assessment in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act and relevant planning policies. We worked closely 

with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Other Federal, 

State and local agencies, tribal governments, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals contributed 

input to the plan.

ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES

During scoping, the Service and our conservation partners identified declining wetland health and selenium 

contamination at the Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge as one of the most critical issues needing to 

be addressed in the comprehensive conservation plan. 

As a result of these scoping efforts, it was determined 

that a separate analysis would be conducted, and a 

broader range of alternatives would be developed, 

for Benton Lake Refuge due to the complexity of the 

issues. Two separate alternative analyses were completed for the refuge complex to determine their effectiveness in achieving the refuge complex purposes 

and their impacts on the human environment. The two 

analyses include:

1. overall management of the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex

2. overall management of Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge

Overall Refuge Complex Management

Alternative A, the “no-action” alternative, would continue current management.

Alternative B focuses on supporting the resiliency 

and sustainability of native grasslands, forests, shrublands, and unaltered wetlands throughout the refuge 

complex by emulating natural processes. Prescribed fire, 

grazing, and other management techniques would be 

used to replicate historical disturbance factors. Where 

feasible, restoration of native uplands would occur. For 

altered wetlands where water management capability 

exists, management efforts would focus on minimizing 

the effects of drought periods of the northern Great 

Plains and Rocky Mountains. Management would be 

active and intensive to keep these wetland conditions 

in a consistent state for wildlife using artificial flooding 

and drawdowns. Management would be active and intensive to support consistency for wildlife using tools 

such as artificial flooding, drawdowns, fire, rest, and 

grazing. Changes in the refuge complex’s research 

and monitoring, staff, operations, and infrastructure 

would likely be required to achieve this alternative’s 

goals and objectives. The success of these efforts and 

programs would depend on added staff, research, and 

monitoring programs, operations money, infrastructure, and new and expanded partnerships.

Alternative C places emphasis on achieving self-sustaining systems with long-term productivity. Management efforts would focus on supporting and restoring 

ecological processes, including natural communities and 

the dynamics of the ecosystems of the northern Great 

Plains and northern Rocky Mountains in relationship to 

their geomorphic landscape positioning. Conservation 

of native landscapes would be a high priority accomplished by protecting habitats from conversion using 

a combination of partnerships, easements and fee-title 

lands, and through active management and proactive 

enforcement of easements. Management actions such 

as prescribed fire, grazing, and invasive species control 

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

complex. Whenever possible, habitat conditions would 

be allowed to fluctuate with climatically driven wet 

and dry cycles, which are essential for long-term productivity. The success of these efforts and programs 

would depend on added staff, research, and monitoring programs, operations money, infrastructure, and 

new and expanded partnerships

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

The Service developed and analyzed five alternatives 

to address the management of Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge to improve health and sustainability. 

Alternatives A, B1, B2, C1 and C2 describe different 

processes for achieving desired conditions found in 

the refuge management objectives.

Alternative A, the “no-action” alternative, would 

continue current management.

Alternative B1 proposes to intensively manage 

wetland impoundments to improve health over current conditions, yet provide for wetland-dependent 

wildlife habitat and recreation (waterfowl hunting) 

every year at consistent levels. Efforts would be 

made to improve wetland health and sustainability for 

individual wetland units through short-term drying 
APPENDIX A—Environmental Compliance 161

rotations, prescriptive management treatments, and 

working in the Lake Creek and Muddy Creek watersheds to reduce selenium inputs to the refuge. Drying rotations may be extended if necessary to achieve 

wetland health objectives. Managing grasslands and 

other wildlife-dependent public uses (upland gamebird hunting, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography) would 

be a secondary focus.

Alternative B2 proposes to intensively manage 

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

habitat and recreation more often than would occur 

naturally. Efforts would be made to improve wetland 

health and sustainability through an initial, basin-wide 

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

Muddy Creek watersheds to reduce selenium inputs 

to the refuge. When wetland health has improved sufficiently, pumping may be incrementally reintroduced 

and reevaluated annually. Managing grasslands and 

other wildlife-dependent public uses (upland gamebird hunting, environmental education, interpretation, 

wildlife observation, and photography) on the refuge 

would occur as resources allow, primarily during the 

initial, basin-wide dry period.

Alternative C1 would focus on the refuge as a 

whole, with emphasis on restoring the health and longterm sustainability of the wetland basin, to support 

a wide diversity of migratory birds and a variety of 

wildlife-dependent recreation. This would be accomplished by reintroducing the full extent and variability 

of the natural wet-dry cycles, prescriptive management treatments and working in the Lake Creek watershed to reduce selenium inputs to the refuge. The 

wetland basin would receive only natural runoff and 

wetland basin infrastructure (for example, ditches, 

dikes, and water control structures) could be modified or removed only if necessary to achieve wetland 

health objectives. The pumphouse and all water rights 

would be supported. As the wetland basin is restored 

and becomes self-sustaining, more resources would 

be directed toward managing and restoring upland 

grasslands, providing other wildlife-dependent public uses (upland game-bird hunting, environmental 

education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and 

photography), and providing support for conservation 

easement acquisition in the complex.

In alternative C2, management would focus on the 

refuge as a whole, with particular emphasis on restoring the long-term sustainability of the wetland basin, 

to support a wide diversity of migratory birds and 

wildlife-dependent recreation. This would be accomplished by reintroducing the full extent and variability 

of the natural wet–dry cycle, removing water management infrastructure (for example, ditches, dikes, and 

water control structures), prescriptive management 

treatments, working in the Lake Creek watershed 

to reduce selenium inputs to the refuge, and decommissioning the pumphouse. As the wetland basin is 

restored and becomes self-sustaining, more resources 

would be directed toward managing and restoring upland grasslands, providing other wildlife-dependent 

public uses (upland game-bird hunting, environmental 

education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and 

photography), and providing support for conservation 

easement acquisition in the refuge complex.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND OUTREACH

The scoping period began on August 18, 2008, with the 

publication of a notice of intent in the Federal Register (FR73 (160): 48237–38). Before this, and early 

in the preplanning phase, we outlined a process that 

would be inclusive of diverse stakeholder interests 

and would involve a range of activities for keeping the 

public informed and ensuring meaningful public input. 

Information was distributed through news releases, 

planning updates, and a series of public meetings. During the initial scoping period, we received 60 written 

responses, including letters from five nongovernmental organizations and two agencies.

Comments on the Draft Plan and EA

A notice of availability for the draft CCP and EA was 

published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2012 

(FR77 (62): 19309–11) announcing the availability of 

the draft CCP and EA, our intention to hold public 

meetings, and a request for comments. During the 

public review the Service held four public meetings 

April 17-19, 2012, in Great Falls, Choteau, Ovando and 

Condon, Montana. Public participation in these meetings, and in the CCP review process, was strong with 

meetings attended by more than 57 participants. In addition to the oral comments recorded at the meetings, 

51 emails and letters were received. The majority of 

comments indicated support for the overall direction 

of the refuge complex, but comments specific to the 

management of the Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge varied widely.

Structured Decisionmaking Process

In response to public input during review the draft 

CCP and EA, and pursuant to the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Service 

collaborated with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks in 

a structured decisionmaking (SDM) process to develop a consensus alternative for the Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge that achieves refuge goals 

and objectives, and addresses key management issues such as water management, watershed concerns, 

selenium treatments, invasive species management, 

and public use.

SDM is a process used by natural resource management agencies to address complex issues and involves a facilitated discussion among, and between, 
162 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

agency representatives to consider science, management, and policy questions in an effort to develop a 

consensus-based solution to an issue. Key concepts 

of SDM include making decisions based on clearly 

articulated fundamental objectives, dealing explicitly with uncertainty, and responding transparently 

to legal mandates and public preferences or values in 

decisionmaking.

DECISION

Based on this assessment and comments received, I 

have selected the following preferred alternatives:

■ a slightly modified alternative C for overall refuge 

complex management

■ a selected management direction for Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge which is a hybridization 

of alternatives C1 and B1

These preferred alternatives were selected because 

they best meet the purposes for which the Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex units were 

established and are preferable to the “no-action” alternatives in light of physical, biological, economic, 

and social factors. These preferred alternatives will 

achieve a reasonable balance between significant 

resource management issues, the refuge complex 

purposes, National Wildlife Refuge System mission, 

management policies of the Service, and the interests 

and perspectives of all stakeholders.

Alternative C for the refuge complex was revised 

from the proposed action after our consideration of 

many comments received from agencies, other stakeholder organizations, the public during the comment 

period, and the selection of the management direction 

for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Revisions to the key management actions of alternative C for overall refuge complex management include:

■ climate change actions revised to the same actions 

as alternative B

■ tame grass conversion and tree removal reduced 

from 850 acres and 25 miles, respectively, to 400 

acres and 3.5 miles over the life of the plan

The proposed action alternative C1 for Benton Lake 

Refuge was revised after our consideration of many 

comments received from agencies, other stakeholder 

organizations, and the general public during the comment period. Revisions to the proposed action were 

completed following the SDM process with Montana 

Fish, Wildlife & Parks.

Benton Lake Refuge wetland units will be managed to focus on the importance of restoring the health 

and long-term sustainability of the wetland basin and 

will include efforts within the Lake Creek and Muddy 

Creek watersheds to reduce selenium inputs to the 

refuge. Some health and sustainability improvements 

may occur slower than in the proposed alternative to 

accommodate wildlife-dependent recreation, such as 

waterfowl hunting. Flexible water management will 

occur, which will affect the amount, duration, and location of artificially provided water (pumped water) 

within the wetland basin. Management will strive to 

provide some waterfowl hunting and fall and spring 

migration habitat in at least 11 out of 15 years and 

basin-wide drawdowns in no more than 4 out of 15 

years (with no more than 3 consecutive years of basin-wide drying). An adaptive resource management 

approach will be applied that may modify these wet 

and dry cycles to ensure progress toward achieving 

habitat objectives. Wetland basin infrastructure may 

be modified to enhance water conservation and efficient delivery. The pumphouse and all water rights 

will be regularly exercised and maintained. Managing 

grasslands and other wildlife-dependent public uses 

(upland game-bird hunting, environmental education, 

interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography) 

on the refuge will occur as resources allow.

Key actions of the selected management direction 

are the same as for the refuge complex for climate 

change; preserving intact landscapes; invasive species; 

partnerships for conservation; landscape threats and 

conflicts; forests and woodlands; sagebrush-steppe; 

species of concern; migratory birds; wildlife disease; 

inventory, monitoring and research; archaeological 

and historic sites; fishing; trapping; and visitor and 

employee safety.

Revisions to key management actions from the 

proposed action include:

■ Tame grass conversion and tree removal will be 

reduced from 728 acres and 19 miles, respectively, 

to up to 207 acres and up to 3.5 miles over the life 

of the plan.

■ Pumping will occur more often in order to strive 

to provide waterfowl hunting and fall and spring 

migration habitat 11 out of 15 years. 

■ The timing, duration, location, and quantity of 

pumped water will be flexible; and the refuge will 

strive to provide at least two units flooded in 11 

out of 15 years in the fall. 

■ Wetland units will be subject to a rotational treatment.

■ Complete basin wide drawdowns may occur in 4 

out of 15 years—but in no more than 3 consecutive 

years—and may be extended under consultation 

with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks.

■ Annual water management plans for the refuge 

will be developed and shared with the public that 

outline the previous year’s accomplishments and 

the goals and objectives of the current year.
APPENDIX A—Environmental Compliance 163

■ Wetland and upland management will be focused 

on an adaptive approach which includes a monitoring component to aid in decisionmaking.

■ The upland game bird hunting season will not be 

extended beyond the waterfowl seasonal closure 

of November 30, and the State youth pheasant 

hunting season will be implemented.

■ Additional wildlife viewing opportunities will be 

implemented, including the establishment of grassland bird observation and interpretive trails.

■ Personnel, water management efforts, electricity 

expenses, and monitoring efforts will increase.

■ Over the life of the plan, total costs for water level 

management, pumping, operations, maintenance, 

prescriptive habitat treatment, grassland restoration, and monitoring are estimated at $2 million.

FINDING AND BASIS FOR DECISION

I find that the preferred alternatives are not major 

Federal actions that would significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment within the meaning 

of Section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, the preparation of 

an environmental impact statement on the proposed 

actions is not required.

The following is a summary of anticipated environmental effects. The implementation of the preferred 

alternatives will:

■ not adversely impact endangered or threatened 

species or their habitat while also enhancing or 

protecting many corridors and linkage areas;

■ increase the sustainability and resiliency of each 

refuge unit and improve the ability to adjust to the 

uncertainty of climate change;

■ improve the coordination of the complex with the 

GNLCC and PPPLCC to improve our understanding of the local impacts from climate change;

■ reduce threats from development and subsequent 

fragmentation by protecting wetland and grassland 

habitat through the acquisition of conservation 

easements and, depending upon resource allocation 

to the management of Benton Lake Refuge, strive 

to protect up to 170,000 acres within the Crown of 

the Continent project area;

■ preserve working landscapes in private ownership while simultaneously protecting grassland 

and wetland habitats;

■ not adversely impact archaeological or historical 

resources;

■ improve wetland health, productivity, and sustainability throughout the refuge complex and especially at Benton Lake Refuge, where selenium 

accumulation and the threat to breeding birds will 

be reduced;

■ improve grassland habitat throughout the refuge 

complex with special emphasis on the protection 

of native grassland, management of native prairie 

(12,420 acres), removal of nonnative tree plantings 

(up to 3.5 acres), and the management of degrading tame grasslands (up to 400 acres);

■ improve the resiliency and sustainability of forest and woodland habitats in the refuge complex;

■ protect or improve sagebrush-steppe habitat (2,500 

acres) within the refuge complex;

■ preserve all refuge complex water rights;

■ provide a balance between resource protection 

and wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities 

without negatively impacting natural resources;

■ maintain or increase the opportunity for fishing 

(no net change), wildlife observation (increase 25 

percent), photography (increase 25 percent), environmental education (increase 25 percent), and 

interpretation (increase 25 percent) over the life 

of the plan;

■ slightly decrease the amount of hunting ( decrease 

15 percent) opportunities over the life of the plan in 

order to significantly improve the wetland health 

of Benton Lake, address selenium toxicity, and 

improve productivity;

■ potentially increase staffing by 7.8 FTEs including: 

a full-time law enforcement officer, a full-time maintenance worker, a 1.5 full-time refuge operations 

specialist, a 0.5 full-time generalist, a full-time park 

ranger (visitor services), a full-time supervisory 

biologist, a 0.8 full-time seasonal biological technician, and two 0.5 permanent biological technicians;

■ not have a disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effect on minority or 

low-income populations.

The State of Montana has been notified and given the 

opportunity to review the comprehensive conservation plan and associated environmental assessment.

Noreen Walsh Date 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

B.1 Refuge Complex Name 

and Dates Established

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex:

■ Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge—

November 21, 1929

■ Benton Lake Wetland Management District—

1975

■ Swan River National Wildlife Refuge—

May 14, 1973

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

16 U.S.C. § 715(d), 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act 1929

16 U.S.C. § 718(c), 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

of 1934

16 U.S.C. § 661–667e, 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934

16 U.S.C. § 742(a–j), 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956

16 U.S.C. § 718d(b), 

Small Wetlands Acquisition Program 1958

25 U.S.C. § 488, 

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 

of 1985

B.2 Refuge Complex Purposes

The establishing and acquisition authorities set out 

the purposes for each unit of the refuge complex, as 

described below.

Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds.”

■ Executive Order 5228, November 21, 1929

■ For “use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory birds.”

■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act

Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District

■ As “Waterfowl Production Areas subject to [...] 

all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] [...] except the inviolate sanctuary provisions.”

■ Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

■ For “any other management purpose, for migratory birds.”

■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act

■ For “conservation purposes.”

■ Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

Swan River National 

Wildlife Refuge

■ For “use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory birds”

■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Mission

The mission of the Refuge System is to 

administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, 

and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.

B.3 Description of Uses

The following uses are evaluated for compatibility 

within the refuge complex:

■ Hunting
166 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Fishing

■ Wildlife observation and photography

■ Environmental education and interpretation

■ Cooperative farming, haying, and grazing

■ Commercial filming, audio recordings, and still 

photography

■ Research and monitoring

■ Special one-time events

■ Virtual geocaching

■ Dry lot for up to 4 horses

Hunting

The refuge complex’s hunting program will be 

driven by its compatibility with wildlife population 

objectives and the availability of water during the 

hunting season. In addition to the site-specific regulations mentioned below, the State hunting regulations apply to all Service-owned lands in the refuge 

complex. Hunters may only possess and use Serviceapproved, nontoxic shot loads on Service-owned 

lands, and vehicle travel and parking is restricted to 

public roads, pullouts, and parking areas. The refuge 

complex Web site and public use brochures provide 

guidance onsite-specific regulations. The general 

hunting regulations are available from MFWP.

The CCP proposes to continue the hunting uses 

described for each unit below. In addition, the Service will increase regulatory hunting signage (for 

example, closed to hunting area signs, nontoxic shot 

required signs) and interpretive materials (for ex

ample, an updated and more comprehensive refuge 

complex hunting leaflet, hunting factsheets) to reduce unintentional hunting violations throughout the 

refuge complex.

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Public hunting of migratory gamebirds including 

ducks, geese, coot, swan (by permit only) and upland 

gamebirds including pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, 

and gray partridge is permitted in designated areas 

of the refuge.

Big game hunting and hunting rabbits or any 

other wildlife species, including furbearers is not be 

permitted on Benton Lake Refuge.

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District

Except for the Sands WPA in Hill County and H2-O 

WPA in Powell County, all waterfowl production 

areas within the district are open to hunting of migratory gamebirds, upland game, and big game. 

Approximately 14,127 acres of upland and wetland 

habitat are available for hunting. Unless otherwise 

noted, all Service lands open to hunting are subject 

to State hunting regulations and seasons.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge

Hunting of migratory gamebirds including ducks, 

geese, and coots is permitted in designated areas of 

the refuge.

Upland gamebird hunting, big game hunting, and 

guided hunting is not permitted on the refuge.

Availability of Resources

Existing programs such as current refuge directional signs and brochures are occasionally updated 

with available resources. Maintenance of access 

roads, parking, hunting and information kiosks, 

and public use signs is closely tied to Service As

set Maintenance Management System funding. The 

refuge complex’s base money will fund the update 

and printing of existing and new brochures.

More law enforcement staff and resources will 

be required (1) to manage significant changes to the 

hunting program to reduce disturbance to wildlife 

and habitat, (2) carry out and encourage preventative law enforcement efforts, and (3) to check compliance with public use and hunting regulations.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

The hunting program on Service lands in the refuge complex will continue to provide hunters ample 

quality hunting opportunities without materially 

detracting from the mission of the Refuge System 

or the establishing purposes of the refuge complex 

lands. Public use brochures and the refuge complex’s 

Web site will be kept up to date and made readily 

available to hunters. Hunter success and satisfaction will continue to be monitored through random 

contacts with hunters in the field and in the refuge 

complex office.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 

1966, other laws, and the Service’s policy permit 

hunting on a national wildlife refuge when it is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was 

established and acquired. As practiced on the refuge complex, hunting does not pose a threat to the 

wildlife populations. By its very nature, hunting 

creates a disturbance to wildlife and directly affects 

the individual animals being hunted. Hunting will be 

designed and monitored to offer a safe and quality 

program and to keep adverse effects within acceptable limits.

Although hunting directly affects the hunted species and may indirectly disturb other species, limits 

on harvest and access for recreational hunting will 

make sure that populations do not fall to unsustain-
APPENDIX B–Compatibility Determinations 167

able levels. Closed areas on the refuge complex 

provide sanctuary to migratory birds during the 

hunting season.

Other effects from hunting activity include 

conflicts with individuals participating in wildlifedependent, priority public uses such as wildlife observation and photography. This could decrease the 

visitors’ satisfaction during the hunting season.

Public Review and Comment

This Compatibility Determination was presented for 

public review as part of the 30-day public comment 

period for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Determination

Hunting is a compatible use on the refuge complex.

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility

■ Hunters will be required to use approved nontoxic shot for migratory bird and upland gamebird hunting on Service-owned lands.

■ Vehicles will be restricted to county and public 

roads and parking areas in the refuge complex.

■ Signage, news releases, open-houses, and brochures will be used to provide hunters information on where and how to hunt on the refuge 

complex to make sure there is compliance with 

public use regulations.

Justification

Hunting is a form of wildlife-dependent recreation 

and is identified as a priority public use in the Improvement Act. Based on anticipated biological effects described above and in the EA, the Service has 

found that hunting within the refuge complex will 

not interfere with the purposes for which the refuges and district were established. Limiting access 

and monitoring the use could help limit any adverse 

effects. Except for the H2–O and Sands WPAs, all 

lands and waters within the wetland management 

district will be open to hunting in accordance with 

the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Act, under which they were acquired.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2027

Fishing

This use will be a continuation of the historic activity 

of noncommercial fishing. Public use areas such as 

parking and fishing areas, as well as interpretive 

panels, signs, kiosks, and other structures may be 

installed and supported to facilitate this program. 

Areas on the refuge complex that are seasonally 

sensitive to migratory birds will remain closed to 

public entry and use. Only selected areas of the refuge complex will be open to fishing. Special refuge 

regulations governing fishing will be available in 

refuge brochures.

The CCP proposes the fishing uses described for 

each unit below in accordance with State regulations. The CCP does not call for the implementation 

of any new fishing programs, however, opportunities 

may be expanded with more purchases of waterfowl 

production areas within the district.

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

The main part of the refuge offers no fishing opportunities due to a lack of sport fish. The Pump House 

Unit of the refuge is open for fishing. 

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District

Lands acquired as waterfowl production areas are 

open to fishing subject to the provisions of State 

laws and regulations. Fishing or entry on all or any 

part of individual areas may be temporarily suspended by posting on occasions of unusual or critical 

conditions of, or affecting, land, water, vegetation or 

fish and wildlife populations.

Fishing on waterfowl production areas through

out the district is permitted. Known game fish populations exist at the Arod Lakes, H2–O, Upsata Lake, 

and Blackfoot WPAs. At the Arod Lakes and Upsata Lake WPAs, walk-in access will be permitted 

year-round. On Arod Lakes WPA, vehicle access 

to Middle and Round Lakes is permitted January 2 

until April 1.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge

Fishing is permitted on portions of the Swan River 

that flow through the refuge year-round. 

Availability of Resources

The refuge complex has the administrative and management staff to support its fishing program.
168 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Temporary disturbance of wildlife may occur near 

fishing activity. Fishing will temporarily decrease 

the fish population until natural reproduction or 

stocking replenishes the population. Frequency of 

use is directly dependent upon fish populations and 

their feeding activity. When fish populations are 

high and active, public use will increase. Minimal 

disturbance to ground nesting birds may occur from 

anglers walking along rivers and streams. Littering 

can also become a problem. No long-term negative 

impacts to resources are anticipated.

Public Review and Comment

This Compatibility Determination was presented 

for public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Determination

Fishing is a compatible use on the Benton Lake and 

Swan River Refuges and waterfowl production areas in the district in accordance with State regulations.

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility

■ Vehicles will be restricted to county and public 

roads and parking areas on the waterfowl production areas.

■ Use of motorized boats is prohibited on the Benton Lake Refuge, except the Swan River where 

no-wake regulations are in effect.

■ Boats, fishing equipment, and all other personal 

property must be removed at the end of each day.

Justification

Fishing is a form of wildlife-dependent recreations 

and is identified as a priority public use in the Improvement Act. Based on the biological effects ad

dressed above and in the EA, the Service has found 

that fishing will not interfere with the purposes for 

establishment of the refuges and waterfowl production areas within the refuge complex. Current 

staffing levels and monetary resources are adequate. 

Special refuge regulations are in place to reduce 

negative impacts to refuge habitat and wildlife.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2027

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography

A variety of habitats and many species of wildlife 

throughout the refuge complex provide observation and photography opportunities year-round. The 

Benton Lake Refuge received most of the visitation.

Wildlife observation and photography opportunities will continue to be provided throughout the refuge complex, and will be supported by providing 

observation blinds, supporting an up-to-date bird 

species list for the refuges in the refuge complex, 

and allowing the public the opportunity to use portable viewing and photography blinds through the 

issuance of special use permits. These activities may 

take place on foot, bicycle, automobile, horse, crosscountry skis and snowshoes.

Facilities exist on the Benton Lake and Swan 

River Refuges that support these activities by 

bringing visitors closer to wildlife: Boardwalk 

Nature Trail, Swan River Overlook, Sharp-tailed 

Grouse Observation Blind, Benton Lake Refuge 

photography blind, and Prairie Marsh Wildlife 

Drive. Modifications and relocations may occur to 

the existing facilities and auto tour routes to accommodate restoration activities to the wetland basin at 

the Benton Lake Refuge. New facilities for observing and photographing wildlife (such as observation decks, trails, auto tour routes, and photography 

blinds) may be developed.

The CCP proposes to continue wildlife observation and photography on the following units of the 

refuge complex as described below.

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

The Prairie Marsh Wildlife Drive will provide 

year-round wildlife-viewing and photography opportunities via auto, foot, cycling, snowshoes, or 

cross-country skis. Hazardous road conditions will 

occasionally require periodic closures.

Lower Marsh Road will continue to be avail able 

to vehicles, hiking, and bicycling for wildlife- viewing and photography opportunities from July 15 

until the opening day of waterfowl-hunting season. 

Rough road conditions prevent the use of recreational vehicles, vehicles towing trailers, and large 

vehicles.

Facilities providing more opportunities for wildlife observation and photography include the Unit 1 

Photographic Blind and the Boardwalk Nature Trail 

with spotting scope and interpretive panels. More 

opportunities for wildlife observation and photography by means of temporary blinds year-round 

on Prairie Marsh Wildlife Drive will be provided. 
APPENDIX B–Compatibility Determinations 169

Blinds in other selected areas may be provided as 

well through SUP.

The Sharp-Tailed Grouse Blind will continue to 

be available to the public by reservation on weekends during April and May. The grouse blind provides a highly sought-after opportunity for visitors 

to observe and photograph the courting rituals of 

sharp-tailed grouse. Another blind may be installed 

at another lek location due to extreme interest in 

this opportunity exceeding current availability.

Foot traffic, including hiking, cross country skiing, and snowshoeing, for wildlife observation and 

photography is also permitted throughout the hunt 

area during hunting season. At other times of the 

year, public use is limited to the designated roads 

and trails described above.

All facilities and infrastructure may be altered 

in location or experience periodic closures to accommodate modifications to existing infrastructure in 

support of basin wide restoration efforts.

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District

Wildlife observation and photography opportunities 

are available year-round on 23 waterfowl production 

areas. Most visitors view wildlife from public roads.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge

Swan River Refuge is a popular destination point 

for visitors traveling through the Swan Valley. The 

existing observation platform, kiosk, and interpretive panels will continue to be supported and provide 

opportunity for wildlife observation and photography. Bog Road, which provides access to the interior 

of the refuge, will be supported as a walking trail 

which will allow foot traffic, including hiking, cross 

country skiing, and snowshoeing.

Availability of Resources

Sufficient resources are available to administer, 

manage and check the use. Infrastructure exists on 

the refuge complex to support these activities. Observation areas are placed in areas that provide consistent wildlife viewing opportunity with minimum 

disturbance to wildlife. The construction and maintenance of roadways, kiosks, observation platforms, 

and trails, as well as law enforcement activities to 

make sure that visitors comply with refuge regulations while conducting these activities, are the principle expenses associated with wildlife observation 

and photography. Resources are available within the 

existing staffing and budget allocations of the refuge 

complex. An extra park ranger, law enforcement 

officer, and maintenance worker, as proposed in the 

comprehensive conservation plan, will enhance public opportunities for these uses and improve quality 

and quantity of opportunities.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Short-term effects may include the temporary dis

placement of birds and other wildlife to adjacent 

habitats during the initial positioning and removal 

of portable blinds, cameras, and other equipment. 

Some birds will be flushed from foraging or resting 

habitats by the approach of people on trails. However, the area impacted by these disturbances is 

small compared to the overall habitat area available. 

Disturbance caused by these uses is not anticipated 

to cause wildlife to leave or abandon the refuge, and 

all areas are available to wildlife for undisturbed use 

during closed hours.

Winter activities, such as cross-country skiing, 

and snowshoeing, will have no effect on nesting 

birds and little effect on vegetation. Winter disturbance to resident wildlife is temporary and minor. 

Hiking during the breeding season, when confined 

to open trails and roads will have little or no effect 

on wildlife. Equestrian use on the Benton Lake 

Refuge is restricted to roadways to prevent spread 

of weeds, erosion from hoof action, and trampling 

disturbance to wildlife. Bicycling is restricted to 

roadways open to vehicular traffic to reduce disturbance to wildlife.

Disturbance resulting from wildlife observation 

and photography programs is deemed to be biologically in- significant. No long-term effects are expected if recommended stipulations are followed. 

The proposed uses, including development of facilities to support those uses, will foster public appreciation and understanding of the prairie ecosystem 

and the importance of refuge and district habitats 

for wildlife conservation.

Public Review and Comment

This Compatibility Determination was presented 

for public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Determination

Wildlife observation and noncommercial photography are compatible uses on the Benton Lake and 

Swan River Refuges and waterfowl production areas in the district.
170 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility

■ A special use permit will be issued to all individuals using blinds for photography and observation within the complex.. A total of five 

special use permits will be issued in any given 

year on any unit of the refuge complex for the 

use of small observation blinds on a first-comefirst-served basis. If the number of requests for 

blinds exceeds five, the permitting process will 

be revisited and modified as necessary. Visitors using permanent or portable observation 

and photography blinds will be provided with 

information on proper use and etiquette of these 

structures to reduce disturbance to wildlife and 

their natural environments and other refuge 

complex visitors.

■ Blinds will be erected and removed daily.

■ Blind location will be decided by complex staff 

and may be limited to areas next to public access 

roads.

■ Refuge complex staff must be notified before 

arrival at the refuge for observation and photography.

■ Refuge complex staff will decide if, when, where 

and for how long access may be allowed to photograph at individual areas.

■ Seasonal closures to protect sensitive wildlife 

areas and reduce disturbance to fish and wildlife 

will be supported.

■ Non-Service vehicles will be restricted to county 

and public access roads in the refuge complex.

■ Viewing areas will be designed to reduce disturbance effects on wildlife and all refuge resources 

while providing a good opportunity to view wild

life in their natural environments.

■ On the Benton Lake and Swan River Refuges, 

foot traffic (hiking, cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing) will be permitted only on designated trails, roads open to motorized vehicles, 

and in the refuge hunt area during the refuge 

hunting season.

■ On the Benton Lake Refuge, equestrian use will 

be restricted to roadways open to motorized 

vehicles year-round and prohibited on all other 

units of the refuge complex.

■ On the Benton Lake Refuge and the district, bicycling will be restricted to designated trails and 

roadways open to motorized vehicles.

Justification

Wildlife observation and photography are a form of 

wildlife-dependent recreation and are identified as 

priority public uses in the Improvement Act. These 

uses, including existing and future enhanced pro

grams as prescribed in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex are compatible with the purposes, 

and with the mission of the Refuge System. These 

uses are not only justified but are encouraged by the 

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. 

Wildlife observation and photography can instill, in 

citizens of all ages, a greater appreciation for wildlife 

and its habitat. This appreciation may extend to the 

Refuge System and other conservation agencies.

Disturbance from wildlife observation and photography is not expected to adversely impact wild

life populations. Most wildlife observation is confined 

to within a set distance from existing roadways, and 

in some locations, the infrastructure helps to concentrate public use in areas that can allow wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities at safe 

distances that reduce disturbance to wildlife.

Based on anticipated biological effects described 

above and in the environmental assessment produced for the refuge complex, the Service has 

found that wildlife observation and noncommercial 

photography within the refuge complex will not interfere with the purposes for which the refuges and 

district were established. Limiting access and monitoring the uses could help limit any adverse effects.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2027

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation

The refuge complex provides opportunity for student field trips on an “as-arranged” basis. Temporary and impromptu outdoor classrooms may be 

established or used in wetland and riparian habitats, 

however, seasonal closures may occur to avoid impacts to threatened and endangered species or sensitive habitats.

Interpretive panels and auto tour brochures pro

vide users on Benton Lake and Swan River Refuges 

information about habitat, wildlife, management 

actions, and activities along the Boardwalk Nature 

Trail, the Swan River Overlook, and other inter-
APPENDIX B–Compatibility Determinations 171

pretive kiosks is passive in nature from self-guided 

opportunities, interpretive panels, brochures, Web 

sites, and tear-sheets.

The CCP proposes to continue environmental 

education and interpretation and add the following 

to improve these programs:

■ The Service will expand the opportunities for environmental education and interpretation to foster appreciation and understanding of the Refuge 

System and the resources of the refuge complex.

■ More interpretive panels may be developed for 

the refuge complex.

■ More accessible observation sites will be developed in the refuge complex.

■ The mammal, reptile and amphibian lists will be 

updated for the refuge complex and a brochure 

will be developed.

■ Refuge complex staff may take part in offsite 

special events and activities to bring the refuge 

complex message to large numbers of people as 

time and staff allow.

■ Interpretive panels, brochures, tear-sheets, Web 

sites, and maps will be updated.

■ Many of the proposed actions are contingent on 

hiring a visitor services park ranger to develop 

and carry out these programs

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

The refuge offers joint-sponsored outdoor education 

courses with the MFWP, including a Youth Water

fowl Hunting Clinic and the Becoming an Outdoor 

Woman series.

Partnership with the Great Falls Public School 

provides the opportunity for all third graders in the 

Great Falls Public School system to come to the refuge and learn about natural resources. This highly 

popular activity includes more than 850 students 

annually. Refuge staff provides information about 

the refuge and education specialists from the GFPS 

perform onsite activities and learning modules.

Refuge staff takes part in the annual Montana Envirothon Event in Lewistown, Montana, 

The event attracts student teams from all across 

Montana while they compete for the opportunity to 

represent Montana at the National Envirothon Competition. Refuge staff helps students learn about fish 

and wildlife resources and the habitat they depend 

on. More than 200 students and teachers take part 

in the annual event. As time allows, the refuge will 

continue to collaborate with other school groups to 

provide tours, teach science, and work together on 

monitoring projects.

Refuge staff recently took part in the STEM 

Expo hosted in Great Falls, Montana. This annual 

event invigorates the community and students in the 

areas of science, technology, engineering, and math. 

Staff have the opportunity to reach more than 550 

children, teachers, and parents.

Greater emphasis will occur with interpretive 

panels and maps to explain (1) the purpose and importance of conserving, managing, and restoring 

healthy functioning ecosystems, (2) the importance 

of natural hydroperiods in wetlands, and (3) changes 

to public use regulations and access areas to accommodate changes in wetland and water management. 

In addition, environmental education curriculum 

may be adapted to reflect changes in habitat from 

restoration efforts as well.

Benton Lake Wetland Management 

District

The waterfowl production areas will remain open for 

environmental education and interpretation. Staff 

will provide occasional onsite educational visits on 

the waterfowl production areas. A facility exists on 

the H2–O WPA to provide onsite education within 

the Blackfoot Valley. Interpretive displays will continue to be available on the north and south parking 

areas of the Blackfoot WPA.

The Upsata Lake WPA may offer more onsite 

interpretive and environmental education opportunities. In addition, cooperative efforts with University 

of Montana in Missoula may further develop opportunities.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge

An interpretive kiosk is located on the refuge.

Availability of Resources

Environmental education and interpretation activities, directional signs, and brochures will be 

mainly supported by annual operations money and 

other sources such as grants, regional project proposals, and challenge cost-share agreements to enhance programming.

New facilities and the maintenance of existing 

facilities will occur as visitor facility enhancement 

projects.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

The use of the refuge complex for onsite activities 

for environmental education or interpretation may 
172 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

impose a short-term, low-level effect on the immediate and surrounding area. Effects may include trampling of vegetation and temporary disturbance to 

nearby wildlife species during the activities. Development and implementation of interpretive and education programs will have minimal and biologically 

insignificant impacts on refuge complex resources.

Refuge complex brochures, interpretive panels, 

and other educational materials will continue to be 

updated as needed. Features such as the auto tour 

route and accessible observation sites will continue 

to provide access to the many sights and sounds of 

the refuge complex.

The Service will continue to promote a greater 

public understanding and appreciation of the refuge 

complex resources, programs, and issues through 

interpretive, outreach, and environmental educational programs. Establishing and engaging with a 

Friends group and other local groups, the Service 

will continue to provide environmental education 

and interpretation both on and off Service lands. 

Presentations, both on and off Service lands, will be 

provided to refuge visitors, school groups, and organizations, allowing the Service to reach a broader 

audience. Onsite presentations will be managed to 

reduce disturbance to wildlife, habitat, and cultural 

resources.

Public Review and Comment

This Compatibility Determination was presented 

for public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Determination

Environmental education and interpretation are 

compatible uses on the Benton Lake and Swan River 

Refuges and waterfowl production areas in the district.

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility

■ Onsite activities will be held where minimal effect on wildlife and habitats will occur.

■ The Service will review new environmental education and interpretation activities to make sure 

these activities meet program objectives and are 

compatible.

■ All motor vehicles associated with these uses will 

remain on designated roads open to vehicular 

traffic.

■ Staff will check use patterns and will make adjustments in timing, location, and duration of activities as needed to limit disturbance to wildlife 

and habitat.

Justification

Environmental education and interpretation are 

forms of wildlife-dependent recreation and are priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Environmental Education and interpretation will increase public awareness and appreciation 

of the significant wildlife and habitat values of the 

refuge complex, and the Refuge System. It is anticipated that such appreciation and understanding 

will foster increased public support for the Refuge 

System and conservation of America’s wildlife re

sources.

Based on anticipated biological effects described 

above and in the environmental assessment produced for the refuge complex, the Service has found 

that environmental education and interpretation 

on the refuge complex will not interfere with the 

purposes for which the refuges and district were 

established. Limiting access and monitoring the uses 

could help limit any adverse effects.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2027

Cooperative Farming, Haying, 

and Grazing

The Service will continue to use cooperative farming 

and prescriptive livestock grazing and haying as 

management tools throughout the refuge complex. 

These tools will 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.

The district currently uses cooperative farming and haying as tools to manage upland habitats, 

including control of invasive plant species and cat

tails. In the past, these techniques were also used 

on Benton Lake Refuge. The CCP approves use of 

cooperative farming and haying to manage habitats. 

Furthermore, the CCP establishes goals and objectives for specific habitat types where cooperative 

farming and haying may be used. The refuge complex will improve the monitoring and research programs for vegetation and wildlife to assess habitat 

and wildlife population responses to cooperative 

farming and haying.
APPENDIX B–Compatibility Determinations 173

The refuge complex currently uses prescriptive 

livestock grazing as a tool to manage a variety of 

uplands and seasonal wetlands. Fencing and control

ling livestock is the responsibility of the cooperating 

rancher. The Service provides instruction and guidance within the special use permit for placement of 

fences, water tanks, and livestock supplements to 

make sure that sensitive habitats or refuge complex 

assets are protected. Temporary electric fencing 

is used. Current forage conditions, habitat objectives, and available water will decide stocking rates 

in each grazing unit. The CCP allows prescriptive 

livestock grazing to meet habitat objectives. Furthermore, the CCP establishes goals and objectives 

for specific habitat types where prescriptive livestock grazing may be used. The refuge complex will 

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 will be investigated to figure out the best 

methods for meeting habitat goals and objectives.

Availability of Resources

Existing resources will be sufficient to administer 

the farming, haying, and grazing programs at cur

rent levels. These programs will continue to be conducted through special use permits or cooperative 

farming agreements, which reduce the need for staff 

time and Service assets to complete work.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

The cooperative farming and haying program and 

prescriptive livestock-grazing program will be used 

to meet habitat- and species-specific goals and objectives identified in the CCP. These programs are 

intended to support and enhance habitat conditions 

to help a wide variety of migratory birds and other 

wildlife that use the refuge complex. Minimal negative effects are expected. Control of invasive plant 

species through these programs will be a long-term 

benefit.

Some wildlife disturbance may occur during 

farming operations and some animals may be temporarily displaced. Wildlife will 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 will prevent soil erosion, improve 

water quality, and the need for chemical use.

Some trampling of areas by livestock may occur 

around watering areas or mineral licks. If fences are 

not supported, it may be difficult to meet habitat 

objectives. It is anticipated that grazing will be in 

a mosaic pattern with some areas more intensively 

grazed than others in certain years. Grazing, as well 

as fire, is known to increase the nutrient cycling of 

nitrogen and phosphorous (Hauer and Spencer 1998, 

McEachern et al. 2000). Hoof action may break up 

mats of clubmoss and allow native plant seeds to be

come established. Cattle grazing may also increase 

the risk of invasive plants getting established. In 

addition, the presence of livestock may be disturbing 

to some wildlife species and some public users. The 

long-term benefits of this habitat management tool 

should outweigh the short-term negative effects.

Public Review and Comment

This Compatibility Determination was presented 

for public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Determination

Cooperative farming, haying, and grazing as a habitat management tools will be compatible uses on the 

Benton Lake and Swan River Refuges and waterfowl production areas in the district.

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility

■ To make sure there is consistency with management objectives, the Service will require general 

and specific conditions for each farming, haying, 

or grazing permit.

■ Only areas that have a prior crop history, an invasive plant problem, or decadent DNC will be 

included in the farming and haying program. To 

reduce effects on nesting birds and other wild

life, the staff will determine and incorporate any 

needed timing constraints on the permitted activity into the cooperative farming agreement or 

special use permit. For example, haying will not 

be permitted on Service lands until after July 

15 to avoid destroying bird nests on the management unit unless the complex staff deems it 

necessary to hay earlier to control invasive plants 

or restore grasslands.

■ The cooperative farming agreement or special 

use permit will specify the type of crop to be 

planted. Farming permittees will be required 

to use Service-approved chemicals that are less 

detrimental to wildlife and the environment.
174 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Control and confinement of livestock are the responsibility of the permittee, but the Service will 

decide where fences, water tanks, and livestock 

supplements will be placed within the management unit. Temporary electric fence may be 

used to keep livestock within grazing cells as well 

as to protect sensitive habitat areas and refuge 

complex assets such as water control structures. 

Cooperators will be required to remove fences at 

the end of the grazing season.

Justification

Some habitat management needs to occur to support 

and enhance habitat for migratory birds and other 

wildlife. When properly managed and monitored, 

prescriptive farming and haying are options that 

can be used to improve wildlife cover and restore 

disturbed habitats to desirable grassland cover. Prescriptive livestock grazing can rejuvenate native 

grasses and help control the spread of some invasive 

plant species. Each of these tools can be controlled 

and the results will be monitored (for example, 

vegetation monitoring) so that adjustments in the 

programs can be made to meet habitat goals and 

objectives.

Using the assistance of local cooperators is a costeffective method for accomplishing habitat objectives. The long-term benefits of habitat restoration 

and management far outweigh the short-term effects caused by cooperative farming, haying, and 

grazing.

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2022

Commercial Filming, Audio 

Recording, and Still 

Photography

Commercial motion pictures and audio recordings 

are defined as the digital or film recording of a visual 

image or sound recording by a person, business, or 

other entity for a market audience, such as for a documentary, television, feature film, advertisement, or 

similar project. It does not include news coverage or 

amateur or visitor use. Commercial photography is 

de fined a visual recording (motion or still) by firms 

or individuals (other than news media representatives) who intend to distribute their photographic 

content for money or other consideration. This includes the creation of educational, entertainment, or 

commercial enterprises as well as advertising audiovisuals for the purpose of paid product or services, 

publicity, and commercially oriented photo contests.

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

provides tremendous opportunities for commercial filming and photography of migratory birds and 

other wildlife. Each year, the refuge complex staff 

receives an average of two requests to conduct commercial filming or photography on Service lands. 

Refuge complex staff review requests for commercial photography, motion pictures, and audio recordings, and issue a special use permit if the request is 

approved. Each request is evaluated on an individual 

basis, using several DOI, USFWS, and National 

Wildlife Refuge System policies (for example, 43 

CFR Part 5, 50 CFR 27.71, 8 RM 16).

Evaluation criteria will include, but not be limited to, the following:

■ Commercial photography, motion pictures, and 

audio recordings must (1) show a means to in

crease public appreciation and understanding of 

wildlife or natural habitats, (2) enhance public 

knowledge, appreciation, and understanding of 

the Refuge System, or (3) facilitate outreach and 

education goals of the refuge complex. Failure to 

show any of these criteria results in a special use 

permit being denied.

■ Activities that cause undue disturbance to wild

life or their habitat are not approved. The degree 

and type of disturbance are carefully weighed 

when evaluating a request.

■ Requests that will conflict with other management programs or will impair existing wildlifedependent recreational uses are not approved.

■ If staffing or logistics make it impossible for the 

refuge complex to check the activity, this may 

cause the request to be denied, depending on the 

specific circumstances.

Availability of Resources

The commercial filming, audio recording, and still 

photography uses are administered with current re

sources. Administrative costs for review of applications, issuance of special use permits, and staff time 

to conduct compliance checks may be offset by a fee 

system designated for the agencies within the DOI.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Wildlife filmmakers and photographers tend to create the greatest disturbance of all wildlife observers 

(Dobb 1998, Klein 1993, Morton 1995). While observers frequently stop to view wildlife, photographers 
APPENDIX B–Compatibility Determinations 175

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 guide

lines and follow-up by refuge complex staff for 

compliance help to reduce or avoid these effects. 

Permittees who do not follow the stipulations of 

their special use permits could have their permits 

revoked, and further applications for filming or photographing on refuge complex lands will be denied.

Public Review and Comment

This Compatibility Determination was presented 

for public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Determination

Commercial filming, audio recording, and still photography will be compatible uses on the Benton 

Lake and Swan River Refuges and waterfowl production areas in the district.

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility

■ Commercial filming or still photography must (1) 

show a means to extend public appreciation and 

understanding of wildlife or natural habitats, (2) 

enhance education, appreciation, and understanding of the Refuge System, or (3) facilitate out

reach and education goals of the refuge complex. 

Failure to show any of these criteria will result in 

a special use permit being denied.

■ All commercial filming requires a special use permit that will (1) describe conditions that protect 

the refuge complex’s values, purposes, resources, 

and public health and safety, and (2) prevent 

unreasonable disruption of the public’s use and 

enjoyment of the refuge complex. Such conditions 

may be, but are not limited to: specifying road 

conditions when access will not be allowed, establishing time limitations, and identifying routes of 

access. These conditions are identified to prevent 

excessive disturbance to wildlife, damage to habitat or refuge complex infrastructure, or conflicts 

with other visitor services or management activities.

■ The special use permit stipulates that imagery 

produced on refuge complex lands will be made 

available for use in environmental education and 

interpretation, outreach, internal documents, or 

other suitable uses. In addition, any commercial 

products must include proper credits to the refuge complex, the Refuge System, and the Service.

■ Still photography requires a special use permit 

(with specific conditions as outlined above) if one 

or more of the following occurs:

❏ it takes place at locations where or when members of the public are not allowed

❏ it uses models, sets, or prop that are not part 

of the location’s natural or cultural resources or 

administrative facilities

❏ the Service incurs added administrative costs 

to check the activity 

❏ the Service needs to provide management and 

oversight to avoid impairment of the resources 

and values of the site, limit resource damage, or 

decrease health and safety risks to the visiting 

public

❏ the photographer intends to intentionally manipulate vegetation to create a shot, for example, cutting vegetation to create a blind

■ To reduce the impact on Service lands and re

sources, the refuge complex staff will make sure 

that all commercial filmmakers and commercial 

still photographers (regardless of whether a special use permit is issued) comply with policies, 

rules, and regulations. The staff will watch and 

assess the activities of all filmmakers, audio re

corders, and still photographers.

Justification

Commercial filming, audio recording, and still photography are economic uses that must contribute 

to the achievement of the refuge complex purposes, 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 

or the mission of the Service. Providing opportunities for these uses should result in an increased 

public awareness of the refuge complex’s ecological 

importance as well as advancing the public’s knowl-
176 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

edge 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 will make sure that these wildlifedependent activities occur with minimal adverse 

effects to resources or visitors.

Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date: 2022

Research and Monitoring

The refuge complex allows research and monitoring 

on a variety of biological, physical, and social issues 

and concerns to address management information 

needs or other issues. Studies are conducted by Federal, State, and private entities, including the USGS, 

State and private universities such as the University of Montana, and independent researchers and 

contractors.

Each year, the refuge complex issues special use 

permits for biological and physical research studies. Five to ten requests are received each year. 

Priority is given to studies that contribute to the 

enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of the refuge complex’s native plant, fish, and 

wildlife populations and their habitats. Research 

applicants must submit a proposal that outlines the 

objectives of the study; justification for the study; 

detailed study methods and schedule; and potential 

impacts on wildlife and habitat, including short and 

long-term disturbance, injury, or mortality. This includes a description of measures the researcher will 

take to reduce disturbances or impacts; a personnel 

required and their qualifications and experience; 

status of necessary permits (scientific collecting 

permits, endangered species permits, etc.); costs to 

the refuge complex and refuge complex staff time 

requested, if any; and anticipated progress reports 

and end products, such as reports or publications. 

Refuge staff will review research permit applications and issue special use permits if approved.

Evaluation criteria for the issuance of special 

use permits will include, but not be limited to, the 

following:

■ Research that will contribute to specific management issues, the purposes of the refuge complex, 

or the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System will be given higher priority over other 

requests.

■ Research that will conflict with other ongoing 

research, monitoring, or management programs 

will not be approved.

■ Research projects that can be conducted off-complex lands are less likely to be approved.

■ Research that causes undue disturbance or is intrusive are likely not to be approved. The degree 

and type of disturbance will be carefully weighed 

when evaluating a research request.

■ Research evaluation will determine if any effort 

has been made to reduce disturbance through 

study design, including adjusting location, timing, 

number of permittees, study methods, and number of study sites.

■ If staffing or logistics make it impossible for staff 

to check researcher activity in a sensitive area, 

the request will likely be denied.

■ Length of the project will be considered and 

agreed-upon before approval. Projects will be 

reviewed annually and an annual progress report 

will be required.

■ To reduce disturbance to wildlife, researchers 

will not be permitted in closed areas, unless specifically authorized. Vehicular access will only be 

permitted on roads and trails normally open to 

the public.

Availability of Resources

The refuge complex uses existing staff to issue special use permits for research projects that occur on 

the complex. Currently, staff resources are deemed 

adequate to manage this use at anticipated levels. 

Review of the permit application, drafting and issuing the special use permit, and compliance assessments use an average of 3 hours of staff time per 

permit. Access points, vehicles, miscellaneous equipment, and limited logistical support may be avail

able at the refuge complex at the refuge complex 

manager’s discretion. Temporary housing located on 

the refuge complex may be available for use by re

searchers while studying refuge complex resources, 

at the refuge complex manager’s discretion.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Some degree of disturbance is expected with all re

search activities, since researchers may use Service 

roads or enter areas that are closed to the public, 

in addition, some research may require collection 

of samples or handling of wildlife. Research activities may disturb fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

For example, the presence of researchers can cause 

waterfowl to flush from resting and feeding areas, 

cause disruption of birds and other wildlife on nests 
APPENDIX B–Compatibility Determinations 177

or breeding areas, or increase predation on individual nests and individual animals as predators follow human scent or trails. Efforts to capture animals 

can cause disturbance, injury, or death to groups 

of wildlife or to individuals. To wildlife, the energy 

cost of disturbance may be appreciable in terms of 

disruption of feeding, displacement from preferred 

habitat, and the added energy expenditure to avoid 

disturbance. Sampling activities can cause compaction of soils and the trampling of vegetation, the 

establishment of temporary foot trails through vegetation beds, and disruption of bottom sediments in 

wetlands. The removal of vegetation or sediments 

by core sampling methods can cause increased localized turbidity and disrupt nontarget plants and 

animals. Installation of posts, equipment platforms, 

collection devices, and other research equipment 

may present a hazard to heavy equipment opera

tors if these items are not adequately marked and 

removed at the right times or upon completion of the 

project. Minimal impact on refuge wildlife and habitats is expected with research studies on the refuge 

complex because special use permits will include 

conditions to make sure that impacts to wildlife and 

habitats are kept to a minimum.

Public Review and Comment

This Compatibility Determination was presented 

for public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Determination

Research and monitoring will be compatible uses 

on the Benton Lake and Swan River Refuges and 

waterfowl production areas in the district.

Stipulations Necessary for Compatibility

■ Extremely sensitive wildlife habitats and species 

will be sufficiently protected from disturbance 

by limiting research activities in these areas. 

All refuge complex rules and regulations will be 

followed unless otherwise exempted by refuge 

complex management. Projects will be reviewed 

annually and annual progress reports will be submitted.

■ Refuge complex staff will use the above criteria 

for evaluating and determining whether to approve a proposed study. If research methods are 

found to have potential effects on habitat or wild

life, it must be shown that the research was necessary for conservation management of resources 

on the refuge complex. Measures to reduce potential effects will be developed and included as 

part of the study design, these will be conditions 

on the special use permit.

■ Refuge complex staff will check research activities for compliance with conditions of the special 

use permit. At any time, refuge complex staff 

may accompany the researchers to determine potential effects. Staff may decide that approved re

search and special use permits be terminated due 

to observed effects. The refuge manager will also 

have the ability to cancel a special use permit if 

the researcher was out of compliance or to make 

sure there is wildlife and habitat protection.

■ Before conducting investigations, researchers 

will obtain a special use permit from the refuge 

complex that contains specific stipulations related 

to when, where, and how the research will be 

conducted. The refuge complex manager keeps 

the choice to prohibit research which causes undo 

harm or disturbance or which does not contribute 

to the purposes of the refuge complex or the mission of the Refuge System.

■ Refuge staff will use the criteria for evaluating 

a special use permit application for research, as 

outlined above under “Description of Use”, when 

determining whether to approve a proposed 

study on the refuge. If proposed research methods are determined to have potential impacts 

on refuge complex resources, it must be shown 

that the research is necessary for refuge complex 

resource conservation management. Measures to 

reduce potential impacts will need to be developed and included as part of the study design. In 

addition these measures will be listed as conditions on the special use permit.

■ Specific stipulations in the special use permit will 

vary by research project, but will be designed to 

reduce impacts to wildlife and their habitats and 

to make sure visitors, researchers, and refuge 

complex staff are safe.

■ Refuge complex staff will check research activities for compliance with conditions of the special 

use permit. At any time, refuge complex staff 

may accompany the researchers. The refuge complex manager may decide that the approved re

search and special use permit be terminated due 

to noncompliance with permit conditions or due 

to observed disturbance to wildlife or habitat.
178 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Researchers must possess all applicable State 

and Federal permits for the capture and possession of protected species, for conducting regulated activities in wetlands, and for any other 

regulated activities.

■ Researchers will promptly submit findings, such 

as annual status reports and a final report, to 

the refuge complex manager for inclusion in the 

decision-making and management process.

■ To reduce potential safety hazards, researchers 

must clearly mark posts, equipment platforms, 

fencing materials, and other equipment left unattended. Such items shall be promptly removed 

upon completion of the research.

■ Research involving collections will be extremely 

restricted. Collections will be limited to type or 

voucher specimens only and require preapproval 

by the refuge manager and include verification of 

compliance with all State and Federal collection 

permits and requirements.

Justification

Research and monitoring activities will not materially interfere with, or detract from, the purposes 

of the refuge complex or from the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Research by third 

parties plays an integral role in refuge complex management by providing the information needed to 

manage the refuge complex on a sound scientific 

basis and provides scientific evidence as to whether 

the refuge complex is functioning as intended. Investigations into the biological, physical, archeological, 

and social components of the refuge complex provide 

a means to analyze the effects of management actions, impacts from internal and external forces, and 

ongoing natural processes. The results of research 

projects contribute to the understanding, enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of 

the refuge complex’s wildlife populations and their 

habitats. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2022

B.4 Signatures

Submitted by:

Kathleen A. Burchett, Project Leader Date

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Great Falls, Montana

Reviewed by:

W. Dean Rundle, Refuge Supervisor Date

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Mountain–Prairie Region

National Wildlife Refuge System

Lakewood, Colorado

Approved by:

Matt Hogan Date

Assistant Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Mountain–Prairie Region

National Wildlife Refuge System

Lakewood, Colorado
Appendix C

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation

Originating Person: Kathleen A. Burchett Date Submitted: December 6, 2012 

Telephone Number: 406-727-7400 Ext. 222 

1. Service Program and Geographic Area or Station Name: 

Benton Lake NWR Complex

2. Flexible Funding Program (e.g. Joint Venture, etc) if applicable: N/A

3. Location: Location of the project including County, State and TSR (township, section & range):

The refuge complex oversees management of 28 units (2 refuges, 1 wetland management district containing 23 waterfowl production areas, and 3 conservation areas) and administers 216 easements 

within the Refuge System:

❏ Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was established in 1929 and consists of 12,383 feetitle acres and 76.88 acres of right-of-way easement. It is located in Cascade County on the northern Great Plains, 50 miles east of the Rocky Mountains and 12 miles north of Great Falls, Montana.

❏ Benton Lake Wetland Management District (district) was established in 1975. It includes 12 counties: Cascade, Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Pondera, Powell, Teton, Toole, 

Lake and Missoula. The district includes 23 waterfowl production areas, and 4 distinct easement 

programs. This district covers the largest geographical area of any in the United States. 

❏ Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area (CA) was established in 1995 and expanded in 2011. This conservation easement program has the potential to protect up to 103,500 acres in the Blackfoot Valley by buying conservation easements on private land within the 824,024-acre project area located 

in Lewis and Clark, Powell, Teton, and Missoula counties.

❏ Rocky Mountain Front CA was established in 2005 and expanded in 2011. This conservation easement program has the potential to protect up to 295,000 acres in the Rocky Mountain Front

❏ (Front) by buying conservation easements on private land within the 918,000-acre project area in 

Teton, Pondera, and Lewis and Clark counties.

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

Located in the Swan Valley. The refuge is in Lake County, 38 miles southeast of Creston, Montana.

❏ Swan Valley CA was established in 2011. This conservation area has the potential to protect up to 

10,000 acres in the Swan Valley by buying conservation easements on private land, and up to 1,000 

acres in fee-title land next to the Swan River Refuge. The 187,400-acre project area includes Lake 

and Missoula counties.
180 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

4. Species/Critical Habitat: List federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species or designated or proposed critical habitat that may occur within the action area. 

Key federally listed species that occur in the refuge complex include the threatened bull trout, grizzly 

bear, water howellia and Canada lynx (Table 1). Candidate species that occur on the refuge complex 

include greater sage-grouse, Sprague’s pipit and wolverine. The piping plover, pallid sturgeon, blackfooted ferret and arctic grayling are all species that are listed under the ESA, but they are either no 

longer present on refuge complex lands or the Service’s management strategies are not expected to 

affect them.

Federally listed endangered, threatened, and candidate animal species within the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Species Status Benton Swan Benton Lake Blackfoot Rocky Swan Valley 

Lake River Waterfowl Valley Mountain Conservation 

National National Management Conservation Front Area

Wildlife Wildlife District Area Conservation 

Refuge Refuge Area

Pallid 

Sturgeon* 

(Scaphirhynchus albus)

Listed 

Endangered X

Black-footed 

Ferret* (Mustela nigripes)

Listed 

EndangeredX X

Bull trout 

(Salvelinus 

confluentus)

Listed 

Threatened, 

Critical 

Habitat

X X X X

Arctic 

grayling* 

(Thymallus 

arcticus)

Candidate 

Species X X X X

Grizzly Bear 

(Ursus 

arctos)

Listed 

ThreatenedX X X X X

Canada 

Lynx (Lynx 

Canadensis)

Listed 

Threatened, 

Critical 

Habitat

X X X X X

Piping 

Plover* 

(Charadrius 

melodus)

Listed 

Threatened X

Water 

howellia 

(Howellia 

aquatilis)

Listed 

Threatened X X

Sprague’s 

Pipit (Anthus 

spragueii)

Candidate 

Species X X X

Greater 

sage-grouse* 

(Centrocercus 

urophasianus)

Candidate 

Species

X
Appendix C—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 181 

Federally listed endangered, threatened, and candidate animal species within the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Species Status Benton 

Lake 

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge

Swan 

River 

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge

Benton Lake 

Waterfowl 

Management 

District

Blackfoot 

Valley 

Conservation 

Area

Rocky 

Mountain 

Front 

Conservation 

Area

Swan Valley 

Conservation 

Area

Wolverine 

(Gulo gulo)

Candidate

Species X X X X X

*historically occurred within the complex

Bull Trout

Bull trout are a cold-water fish of relatively pristine stream and lake habitat in the Pacific Northwest of 

the United States. Bull trout need the coldest water temperatures of any northwest salmonid, and they 

need the cleanest stream substrates for spawning and rearing. These trout need complex habitats: 

streams with riffles and deep pools, undercut banks, and lots of large logs. In addition, bull trout need 

connections from main river, lake, and even ocean habitats to headwater streams for annual spawning 

and feeding migrations.

For listing purposes, the Service divided the range of bull trout into distinct population segments consisting of 27 recovery units. The Blackfoot River and Swan River watersheds lie within the Clark Fork 

River Recovery Unit and the Upper Clark Fork Recovery Subunit. Within this subunit, both the Swan 

River and Blackfoot River watersheds have been identified as core recovery areas (USFWS 2002a). 

The watersheds also have multiple stream reaches identified as critical habitat within the Clark Fork 

River Basin (USFWS 2010b).

Within the Blackfoot River watershed, bull trout densities are very low in the upper Blackfoot River, 

but increase downstream of the North Fork. Streams that appear to be particularly important for the 

spawning of migratory bull trout include Monture Creek, the north fork Blackfoot River, Copper 

Creek, Gold Creek, Dunham Creek, Morrell Creek, the west fork Clearwater River, and the east fork 

Clearwater River. Bull trout spawner abundance is indexed by the number of identifiable female bull 

trout nesting areas (redds). Data show that Monture Creek has an upward trend from 10 redds in 1989 

to an average of 51 redds in subsequent years (Pierce et al. 2008). The North Fork also shows an 

upward trend from 8 redds in 1989 to an average of 58 redds between 1989 and 2008. The Copper 

Creek drainage (including Snowbank Creek) has experienced a resurgence of bull trout redds from 18 

in 2003 to 117 in 2008, since the 2003 Snow Talon Fire. The total number of redds counted in these 

three streams (Monture Creek, North Fork, and Copper Creek) increased from 39 in 1989 to 217 in 

2000. With the onset of drought, bull trout redd counts then declined to 147 in 2008. These changes are 

attributed to protective regulations first enacted in 1990, restoration actions in spawning streams during the 1990s, and a period of sustained drought between 2000 and the present (Pierce et al. 2008).

Within the Swan watershed, the bull trout population has remained strong. The Swan Lake population 

is stable, because fish can access about 150 miles of quality tributary spawning habitat. Most other bull 

trout populations are declining, because of habitat degradation, but many of the Swan Valley’s tributary streams are in good to excellent condition. Continuous, identifiable female bull trout nesting areas 

(redd) count history dating to 1982 is available for bull trout for four index streams in the Swan River 

watershed (MFWP 2009). Bull trout may have reached equilibrium in this system at a population level 

of about 2,000 adults and the current trend appears stable. The total redd count was 598 in 2008, representing roughly 2,000 adults in the spawning run. Given that some adults do not spawn every year, the 

total adult population is likely more than 2,500 adult bull trout.

One of the biggest threats to bull trout survival is increased development, which exacerbates temperature problems, increases nutrient loads, decreases bank stability, alters in-stream and riparian habitat, 

and changes hydrologic response of affected watersheds.
182 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Canada Lynx

The Canada Lynx Recovery Outline categorized lynx habitat and occurrence within the contiguous 

United States as (1) core areas, (2) secondary areas, and (3) peripheral areas. Core areas are defined as 

the areas with the strongest long-term evidence of the persistence of lynx populations. Core areas have 

both persistent verified records of lynx occurrence over time and recent evidence of reproduction. Six 

core areas and one provisional core area are identified within the contiguous United States (Nordstrom 

et al. 2005). The Blackfoot and Swan watersheds contain lands designated in the Northern Rocky 

Mountain–Northeastern Idaho Core Area, which supports the highest density lynx population in the 

northern Rocky Mountain region of the lynx’s range. It acts as a source for lynx and provides connectivity to other parts of the lynx’s range in the Rocky Mountains, particularly in the Yellowstone area 

(Federal Register 2009).

The Swan River and Blackfoot River watersheds are a stronghold for the Canada lynx in the northern 

Rocky Mountains. Based on ongoing research in these watersheds, lynx populations appear stable, 

although low reproductive rates are characteristic of this population. Since 1998, more than 80 lynx 

have been monitored in this area, providing information on habitat use, reproduction, mortality, and 

movement. This research has shown that these watersheds contain some of the best remaining habitat 

for lynx in the continental United States. Large, intact spruce–subalpine fir forests above 4,000 feet in 

this area provide quality habitat for lynx and for snowshoe hares, the primary lynx food source. Regenerating forest stands are often used as foraging habitat during the snow-free months while older, multistoried stands serve as denning and year-round habitat (Blackfoot Challenge 2005).

Grizzly Bear

Grizzly bears are currently listed as a federally threatened species in the Northern Continental Divide 

Ecosystem (USFWS 2011a). This ecosystem is an area of the northern Rocky Mountains with large 

blocks of protected public land containing some of the most pristine and intact environments found in 

the contiguous United States. Despite dramatic losses of habitat throughout North America, the grizzly bear has supported a presence in Montana and occurs in parts of the Blackfoot and Swan watersheds and along the Rocky Mountain Front.

The Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem supports the largest population (765 individuals) of grizzly bears in the lower 48 States. In 2003 and 2004, 29 individual grizzly bears were confirmed in the 

Blackfoot River watershed and 45 grizzly bears were confirmed in the Swan Valley watershed. The 

USGS estimates that at least 40 bears are present during all or part of the year in the Blackfoot River 

watershed (USGS 2004) with 61 present in the Swan Valley.

Lakes, ponds, fens and spring-fed creeks, common in parts of the Swan River and Blackfoot River valley floors, provide excellent bear habitat. Additionally, the vegetation found along certain reaches of 

both rivers and their tributaries provide bears with cover, food, and natural movement corridors.

Supporting linkage areas is important to the continued survival of the grizzly bear. The grizzly bear 

has an increased risk of extinction, because the population consists of a limited number of individuals 

that live in several distinct populations geographically isolated from one another. Small populations are 

less able to absorb losses caused by random environmental, genetic and demographic changes 

(Servheen et al. 2001). 

Linkage zones are areas between separated populations that provide adequate habitat for low densities 

of individuals to exist and move between isolated populations. The resulting exchange of genetic material helps support demographic vigor and diversity, increasing the viability of individual populations. 

For the grizzly bear, preserving the linkage between populations is as critical to long-term conservation of the species as managing the individual populations.

The Blackfoot River watershed contains important habitat links for grizzly bears that are recolonizing 

historical ranges to the south. Grizzly bears breed, forage, and migrate throughout the watershed and 

den above 6,500 feet. They move from high mountain elevations to lower valley bottoms to forage seasonally for available food.
Appendix C—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 183 

The Swan Valley area has been identified as an important habitat link for grizzlies moving between the 

Glacier National Park–Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex and the Mission Mountains Wilderness. The 

Swan Valley is also believed to be the key linkage zone to the large and important Selway–Bitterroot 

Wilderness to the southwest. As such, it provides an avenue of connectivity between the Canadian 

Rockies and the central Rockies of Idaho and Wyoming.

An estimated 100–150 bears frequent the Rocky Mountain Front project area, which is included in 

much of the recovery plan for the northern Continental Divide grizzly bear population. Some of the 

units in the district are located along the Rocky Mountain Front and have documented grizzly bear 

use.

Water Howellia 

Water howellia is a federally listed threatened plant restricted in Montana to depressional wetlands in 

the Swan Valley, typically occupying small basins where the water level recedes partially or completely 

by the fall. Montana contains the largest number of occupied ponds and wetlands though population 

numbers are generally small and the occupied habitat is clustered in a very small part of the State. 

Reed canarygrass has invaded some wetlands in the Swan Valley and it has the potential to form dense 

monocultures, thereby decreasing the amount of available habitat. Additionally, water howellia is an 

annual species that is solely dependent on recruitment from seed; it has very narrow habitat and moisture requirements, which leaves it vulnerable to extirpation as a result of consecutive years of unfavorable growing conditions (MNHP 2012). Water howellia is on land owned by TNC next to the Swan 

River Refuge and on other sites in the Swan Valley. Similar habitat is found on Swan River Refuge.

CANDIDATE SPECIES

Candidate species are plants and animals for which the Service has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the ESA, but for which 

development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. A 

candidate species status is reviewed annually.

Candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA. However, the Service encourages 

the formation of partnerships to conserve these species because they are by definition species that may 

warrant future protection under the act. Since candidate species do not receive regulatory protection 

under the ESA, the definition of “take” as identified in the act does not apply to these species. However, 

Service policy requires that candidate species be treated as “proposed for listing” for purposes of 

Intra-Service section 7 conference procedures (USFWS 1998).

Sprague’s Pipit

Sprague’s pipit is a candidate for listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.; USFWS 2008b, 2010) Sprague’s pipits have been documented on the Benton Lake Refuge and in 

the district.

Sprague’s Pipits breed in the northern Great Plains, with the highest density occurring in north- central and eastern Montana to North Dakota. (Stewart 1975, American Ornithologists’ Union 1998, Robbins and Dale 1999, Tallman et al. 2002 as cited in Jones 2010). 

Sprague’s Pipits are closely associated with native grassland throughout their range (Sutter 1996, 

1997; Sutter and Brigham 1998; Madden et al. 2000; Grant et al. 2004 as cited in Jones 2010) and are 

less abundant (or absent) in areas of introduced grasses than in areas of native prairie (Kantrud 1981, 

Johnson and Schwartz 1993, Dale et al. 1997, Madden et al. 2000, Grant et al. 2004 as cited in Jones 

2010). Generally, pipits prefer to breed in well-drained native grasslands with high plant species richness and diversity. They prefer higher grass and sedge cover, less bare ground, and an intermediate 

average grass height when compared to the surrounding landscape, less than 5–20 percent shrub and 

brush cover, no trees at the territory scale, and litter cover less than 4.7 inches (Sutter 1996, Madden et 

al. 2000, Dechant et al. 2003, Dieni and Jones 2003, Grant et al. 2004 as cited in Jones 2010). The amount 

of residual vegetation remaining from the prior years’ growth also appears to be a strong positive predictor of Sprague’s Pipits occurrence (Madden 1996, Sutter 1996, Prescott and Davis 1998, Sutter and 
184 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Brigham 1998 as cited in Jones 2010) and where they put their nests (Dieni and Jones 2003 and Davis 

2005).

Sprague’s Pipits rarely occur in cultivated lands, and are uncommon on nonnative planted pasturelands 

(Owens and Myres 1973, Sutter 1996, Davis et al. 1999, McMaster and Davis 2001 as cited in Jones 

2010). They have not been documented to nest in cropland (Owens and Myres 1973, Koper et al. 2009), 

in land in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) (Higgins et al. 2002) or in DNC planted for waterfowl habitat (Prescott 1997).

Projects that alter grassland habitat with permanent structures, such as wind towers, oil wells, roads 

and buildings, can make the areas unsuitable for Sprague’s pipit use. Because Sprague’s pipits avoid 

not only the structure but also an area around the structure, the effective impact of the disturbance is 

much greater than its actual footprint. While the grassland habitat on which Sprague’s pipits breed can 

be disturbance dependent, negative effects on the pipit can largely be avoided by doing habitat manipulation such as mowing or prescribed fire outside of the breeding season. These actions may make an 

area unsuitable for several years until the grassland plant association has partially returned. However, 

adverse effects can be avoided by performing management actions on a subunit of the grassland area in 

any given year, so that some suitable grassland habitat is available at all times.

Wolverine

Suitable wolverine habitat in the conterminous U.S. is limited to high-elevation, alpine areas that occur 

in island-like fashion. One of the last strongholds for wolverines in the contiguous U.S. is the northern 

Continental Divide region of Montana.

On December 13, 2010, the Service found that the North American wolverine in the contiguous United 

States is a distinct population segment that warrants protection under the ESA, but that listing the 

distinct population segment under the act is precluded by the need to address other listing actions of a 

higher priority. The wolverine was listed as a candidate species under the act (78032 Federal Register. 

2010).

Wolverines are indigenous to high mountain habitats that are separated from like habitats forming isolated populations. Since wolverines naturally occur at low densities and reproduce infrequently, protected linkage areas are crucial for dispersal, genetic flow and survival of the species. While most core 

wolverine habitat is in public ownership, many areas in between these islands are subject to rapidly 

increasing pressure from urban development and roads.

ARCTIC GRAYLING, BLACK- FOOTED FERRET, GREATER SAGE-GROUSE, PALLID STURGEON, AND PIPING 

PLOVER

Arctic grayling, black-footed ferret, greater sage- grouse, pallid sturgeon, and piping plover, are species that have historical records of occurrence on the refuge complex but are either no longer present 

on the refuge complex or the Service’s management strategies are not expected to affect these species.

Arctic Grayling

On September 8, 2010, the upper Missouri River basin’s “distinct population segment” of Arctic grayling was listed as a candidate species under the ESA. Fluvial Arctic grayling currently occupy only a 

fraction (about 5 percent) of their historical range within the Missouri River watershed upstream of 

the Great Falls. Kaya (1992) concluded that the major factors causing the range-wide decline of fluvial 

Arctic grayling in the upper Missouri River system include habitat degradation, angling exploitation 

and over fishing, and competition with introduced nonnative salmonid fishes. Fluvial Arctic grayling in 

Montana are presently restricted to an approximately 80-mile long segment of the upper Big Hole 

River.

Reintroduction efforts began in 1997 in the upper Ruby River and expanded to the north and south 

forks of the Sun River in 1999, the lower Beaverhead River in 1999, and the Missouri River headwaters 

near Three Forks, Montana, in 2000. Due to drought conditions and limited resources, the Montana 

Arctic Grayling Workgroup in 2002 recommended focusing reintroduction efforts on the upper Ruby 
Appendix C—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 185 

River, and to continue with other sites as money, workload, and resources allow. Reintroduction efforts 

in 2008 took place in the upper Ruby River and the north fork of the Sun River. At both of these locations, remote site incubators were used to introduce grayling fry into the restoration reach (Magee and 

McCullough 2008).

Black-Footed Ferret 

Black-footed ferrets are listed in several counties in the district and likely occurred here historically; 

however, no known populations currently exist within the district.

Greater Sage-Grouse

On March 5, 2010, the Service found that the greater sage-grouse warrants protection under the ESA, 

but that listing the species under the act is precluded by the need to address other listing actions of a 

higher priority. Evidence suggests that habitat fragmentation and destruction across much of the species’ range has contributed to significant population declines over the past century. If current trends 

persist, many local populations may disappear in the next several decades, with the remaining fragmented population vulnerable to extinction. Greater sage-grouse may be present in Chouteau, Hill, and 

Liberty Counties in the district.

Pallid Sturgeon

Records show that pallid sturgeon has been documented in the district in the Missouri River in Chouteau County; however, management actions within the refuge complex would not be expected to have 

any effects on the Missouri River or the pallid sturgeon.

Piping Plover 

A 5-year review of the piping plovers’ ESA listing was completed in September 2009. The current 

recovery plan was completed in 1988. The northern Great Plains population of piping plovers nest on 

the shorelines and islands of alkali (salty) lakes in North Dakota and Montana. They nest on sandbar 

islands and reservoir shorelines along the Missouri River and reservoirs in Montana, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, and Nebraska. The only records of piping plover on the refuge complex are in Pondera 

County in the district where one to four pair of piping plover were observed at Alkali Lake from 1990 

until 2007.

5. Project Description: Describe proposed project or action or, if referencing other documents, prepare an 

executive summary (attach additional pages as needed):

The Service proposes to implement the objectives and strategies associated with the Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Management Plan. Two analysis were conducted 

one for the Refuge Complex as a whole and one for Benton Lake NWR.

Benton Lake NWR Complex Summary and Actions for the Selected Management Direction: 

Summary

Emphasis will be placed on achieving self-sustaining systems with long-term productivity. Management efforts focus on supporting and restoring ecological processes, including natural communities and 

the dynamics of the ecosystems of the northern Great Plains and northern Rocky Mountains in relationship to their geomorphic landscape positioning. Conservation of native landscapes is a high priority 

accomplished by protecting habitats from conversion using a combination of partnerships, easements, 

and fee-title lands, and through active management and proactive enforcement of easements. Management actions, such as prescribed fire, grazing, and invasive species control, are used to support the 

resiliency and sustainability of Service-owned lands throughout the refuge complex. Whenever possible, habitat conditions are allowed to fluctuate with climatically driven wet and dry cycles, which are 

essential for long-term productivity. The success of these efforts and programs depend on added staff, 

research, and monitoring programs, operations money, infrastructure, and new and expanded partnerships.
186 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Climate Change

Baseline monitoring of habitat conditions that could potentially be related to the effects of climate 

change occurs. Existing weather stations and stream gauges are supported. Staff collaborates with the 

USGS to obtain climate-related information. 

Climate change stressors are addressed primarily through preservation of large blocks of functional 

land that have natural processes that maximize resiliency. The refuge complex works cooperatively 

with partners to improve condition of landscapes to increase resiliency, and seek other opportunities to 

work with partners to address climate change issues including restoration projects on Service-interest 

lands. Efforts are made throughout the refuge complex to restore grasslands, forests, and wetlands 

and prevent conversion to enhance carbon sequestration.

Attempts occur to reduce the carbon footprint of existing facilities. Activities include weatherproofing 

facilities, upgrading furnaces, doors, and windows. Modest improvements to facilities and increased 

use of Webinars and other virtual meeting devices to reduce the carbon footprint from traveling occur. 

Staff participates with the GNLCC and PPPLCC to understand climate change impacts locally and 

improve the condition of the landscape and increase resiliency at the local level. 

Increasing resiliency on Service lands and addressing climate change stressors are accomplished 

through active monitoring, adaptive management and, where feasible, using management practices 

that emulate natural processes. Data acquired from other sources is used to analyze or identify climate 

change effects.

Preserving Intact Landscapes 

Conservation of intact, native landscapes is a high priority. The mechanisms to conserve valuable lands 

for wildlife include, but are not be limited to, purchasing easements, land exchanges, donations, and 

limited fee-title purchases of wetland, riparian, forest, sagebrush-steppe, and grassland habitats.

Refuge complex staff build relationships and work with private landowners that are interested in easements, annually inspect easements and follow up with easement holders when questions or concerns 

arise.

Refuge complex staff engages in activities (such as educational tours and outreach) that build support 

for meeting acreage goals for habitat protection.

In 2011, the ability to preserve intact landscapes increased significantly within the refuge complex. The 

project area for the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area was expanded to 918,000 acres from 

560,000 acres and the total easement acquisition goals were increased from 170,000 acres to 295,000 

acres. The Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area was also expanded from 165,000 acres to a new boundary encompassing 824,024 acres with a new easement acquisition goal of 103,500 acres. In addition, a 

new conservation area was established in the Swan Valley with a goal of protecting 10,000 acres with 

easements and up to 1,000 acres in fee-title.

The refuge complex actively applies the principles of SHC to continually refine and focus landscapelevel conservation priorities. This includes actively pursuing opportunities for cooperative landscape 

level monitoring of new and expanded conservation areas. In addition, new areas and partnership 

opportunities are explored within the refuge complex to consider establishing more conservation areas 

and increase the opportunities for landowners to take part in conservation easement programs.

Invasive Species

Invasive species are managed through an integrated pest management (IPM) approach that includes 

biological, chemical, and mechanical treatment methods.

Partnerships for Conservation

Strong and diverse partnerships are promoted to meet objectives and achieve complex goals. These 

partnerships, link protected areas, leverage financial resources, and increase community support, and 
Appendix C—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 187 

preserve the rural way of life.

Landscape Threats and Conflicts

Coordination of activities, monitoring, and collaboration with industrial, commercial, or agricultural 

development interests occur to protect existing and potential Service interests.

Grasslands 

A high priority is placed on the preservation and management of native grasslands. Within currently 

authorized areas, conservation easements are regularly used to protect native grasslands from conversion. The refuge complex actively applies the principles of SHC to continually refine and focus landscape-level priorities for grassland protection. Easements are proactively monitored and enforced. 

Easement acquisition to protect grasslands will depend annually on funding, science and opportunities.

Fee-title native grasslands are managed to sustain grassland health, composition, and native plant 

diversity. This is done by emulating historical disturbance regimes such as fire, grazing, treatment of 

invasive species using IPM, “early detection, rapid response” (EDRR), and proper periods of rest.

Tame grasslands are managed to support stands in a productive condition using a rotational management system to sustain the longevity of the grass stand. Grassland health is assessed using species 

composition, vigor, and litter accumulation. When tame grass stands degrade to the point when reseeding is the only viable choice, careful consideration will be given to replanting native instead of tame 

grass species. Degraded tame grass stands surrounded by native prairie would be the highest priority 

for replanting native species. Throughout the life of the plan, up to 400 acres are expected to be 

replanted to native species. The remaining degraded stands will be replanted to tame grass species.

Nonnative tree plantings in grasslands (shelterbelts) are present throughout the complex, but not 

actively managed. Shelterbelts that have the greatest negative affect on grasslands, for example those 

surrounded by native prairie, are a high priority for removal. All of the highest priority shelterbelts (up 

to 3.5 miles) occur on Benton Lake refuge. The remaining shelterbelts may be removed as staff and 

funding allows. 

Monitoring of grasslands occurs across the refuge complex in varying degrees of intensity, with a focus 

on adaptive management. Formal monitoring of grasslands is focused on native prairie with an emphasis on adaptive management. Restoration of habitats (native grass planting and tree removal) is formally monitored to evaluate success. Opportunities for cooperative landscape-level monitoring are 

actively pursued in new and expanded conservation areas. Monitoring of tame grasslands is minimal 

and informal.

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Wetlands on private land are protected through the acquisition of conservation easements. The Service 

is currently conducting landscape-level analysis to rank wetland resources in the Prairie Pothole 

region of the complex based on their importance to breeding waterfowl. This will be expanded to other 

priority wetland-dependent birds and portions of the complex in the future. This prioritization will 

identify the highest priority wetland resources in the district for future protection. Easements are proactively monitored and enforced. Easement contacts, evaluations, and preliminary acquisition work, 

are completed by wetland district manager. Easement acquisition to protect wetlands will depend 

annually on funding, science and opportunities. 

Many of the wetlands on fee-title lands in the refuge complex are subject to natural flooding and drying 

cycles. However, where the capability exists, natural runoff is impounded or supplemental water is 

pumped into wetlands. In these wetlands, water is managed to extend the natural flooding cycle in the 

spring, summer, and fall, to provide consistent wetland habitat from year-to-year and flood wetlands 

more deeply than the original basin. Water-level management is accomplished with existing water control structures.

Where feasible, wetland vegetation is managed using prescribed fire, grazing, and haying to mimic historical disturbances and support sustainability and resiliency when natural flooding and drying cycles 

allow. Wetland vegetation is also managed to reduce or eliminate invasive species. Treatment of inva-
188 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

sive species using IPM and EDRR reduces the negative effects such as monotypic stands, reduced 

native plant diversity, and lower productivity.

Throughout the refuge complex, wetlands may be created, enhanced, or restored. Among these, wetland restoration is the highest priority over enhancement or creation, which will occur rarely. Wetland 

creation occurs when a wetland is created where it did not occur before. Wetland restoration occurs 

when a wetland basin was present historically, but has been drained or altered. Restoration returns 

the wetland to as close to functional, historical condition as possible. Enhancement means a wetland 

has been modified to hold water longer or more deeply than the natural basin. Enhancements may 

occur in combination with restoration. Creation may occur on private land with conservation easements to support other grassland habitat management objectives.

Most riparian areas in the refuge complex are on private land. Efforts are focused on working with private landowners to better manage and improve the health and vigor of these important and biologically 

diverse areas through conservation easements and partnerships. The riparian areas on fee-title lands 

are mostly treated with rest and protection.

Formal monitoring of wetlands focuses on wetland health and sustainability through adaptive management. Monitoring tracks long-term trends in wetland cycles, health, and wildlife use. For restoration 

efforts, monitoring is especially important to determine if systems are recovering.

Forests and Woodlands

Forest and woodland habitat occurs on the Swan River Refuge and the Blackfoot WPA. Active forest 

management occurs to support resiliency and sustainability by emulating natural processes. Natural 

fire regimes are emulated with the use of prescribed fire, which may require some thinning or fuel 

reduction before burning. Silvicultural practices are used to decrease the spread of insects or disease 

and support or increase carbon sequestration.

A timber harvest plan is required and must be approved by the Service before commercial timber harvest is permitted on private lands protected with conservation easements.

Sagebrush-steppe

Sagebrush-steppe habitat (2,500 acres) is protected through conservation easements, fee-title acquisition, and land exchanges or donations. On fee-title lands, mechanical methods for tree removal, fire, and 

grazing are used to rejuvenate sagebrush-steppe habitat. Staff coordinates efforts with landowners 

through Partners for Fish and Wildlife to support and manage sagebrush-steppe habitat.

Water Resources

Water rights throughout the refuge complex are supported and maintained.

Species of Concern

Staff informally monitors and documents federally listed species on refuge complex fee-title lands, such 

as grizzly bear and bull trout. Refuge complex staff consults with the Ecological Services before implementing any management action that may affect listed species. 

Staff monitors and documents other species of concern as needed. Recent examples include black tern 

breeding and foraging monitoring that has been conducted on parts of the district. Re-introduction 

efforts for trumpeter swans have been conducted for several years in the Blackfoot Valley and may be 

expanded into the Swan Valley as well. The effects of proposed management actions on other species of 

concern that are not threatened or endangered are assessed before implementation management 

action.

Conservation easements are used as a strategy to protect habitat for listed species and other species of 

concern at the landscape scale. The complex will identify surrogate species, including listed species and 

species of concern, to prioritize management actions and easement acquisition according to the SHC 

model.
Appendix C—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 189 

Migratory Birds 

Most of the support for migratory birds is accomplished through habitat management that provides 

nesting, resting, brood-rearing, and migration habitat.

Staff annually take part in population level or landscape-level monitoring of migratory birds such as 

the North American breeding bird survey, prairie pothole breeding waterfowl survey, mourning dove 

survey, and pre-season waterfowl banding.

Additional measures to support migratory birds include the implementation of seasonal closures on 

Service-owned lands to reduce disturbance to migratory birds during nesting season, limited predator 

removal, and supporting a limited number of artificial nesting structures for species of conservation 

concern.

Expansion of migratory bird monitoring program include using indicator species to provide feedback 

for evaluating the success of management actions and to help achieve National and State migratory 

bird goals. The migratory bird program and its objectives are periodically reviewed to determine 

whether efforts are still a priority for the refuge complex; if not, efforts are discontinued. Monitoring 

efforts within conservation area boundaries as part of SHC are expanded.

Wildlife Disease

Surveillance for key wildlife diseases such as botulism, chronic wasting disease, and West Nile virus 

occur as needed.

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research

Research efforts are conducted internally, or generated externally, to achieve management objectives. 

Wildlife and habitat inventory, monitoring, and research are regularly conducted.

Archaeological and Historical Sites

Cultural resources are provided equal protection and management. New cultural resources are documented and protected as they are discovered. 

There have been limited cultural resource surveys performed on the complex. Additional surveys will 

be required before any new construction or excavation to fully satisfy provisions of the Archeological 

Resources Protection Act and other applicable acts and policies related to historical and archaeological 

resources.

Potentially negative effects from construction of trails or facilities require review by the Region 6 

archaeologist and consultation with the Montana State Historic Preservation Office.

Visitor Services

Visitor service programs throughout the refuge complex are administered based on the type of unit 

(such as a national wildlife refuge or waterfowl production area) and the policies and regulations that 

establish the guidelines for the appropriate use of each unit type.

National wildlife refuges are encouraged to provide wildlife-dependent recreation where feasible and 

compatible with the purpose of the refuge. Wildlife-dependent recreation is defined as a use of a Refuge System unit involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation. Other activities, such as boating, may be allowed to facilitate compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreation.

Waterfowl production areas are open to migratory bird hunting, upland gamebird hunting, big game 

hunting, fishing, and trapping subject to the provisions of State laws and regulations. All forms of hunting or entry on all or any part of individual areas may be temporarily suspended by posting on occasions of unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, or wildlife populations. The 

Sands WPA in Hill County and the H2–O WPA in Powell County will remain closed to hunting in 

accordance with property deed restrictions.
190 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Hunting 

Only approved non-toxic shot can be used or possessed while hunting upland and migratory gamebirds 

on refuges and waterfowl production areas within the refuge complex. The Benton Lake and Swan 

River Refuges limit migratory bird hunting to no more than 40 percent of the refuge. These restrictions make sure that habitat without disturbance is available for migrating birds. Commercial outfitting in support of hunting is prohibited throughout the complex.

BENTON LAKE WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: Approximately 14,170 acres of upland 

and wetland habitat are available for migratory and upland gamebird as well as big game hunting on 

waterfowl production areas throughout the district. The Sands WPA in Hill County and the H2–O 

WPA in Powell County is closed to hunting in accordance with property deed restrictions.

BLACKFOOT VALLEY, ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT AND SWAN VALLEY CONSERVATION 

AREAS: Hunting access on lands under easement is controlled by the private landowner. Some landowners may choose to enroll in the block management program administered by the State.

SWAN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE: Hunting of migratory gamebirds including 

ducks, geese, and coots is available in designated areas of the refuge with approximately 40 percent of 

refuge lands open to hunting. Upland game, big game, and guided hunting will continue to be prohibited on the refuge. 

The Service will increase regulatory hunting signage (for example, closed to hunting area signs, nontoxic shot required signs) and interpretive materials (for example, an updated and more comprehensive 

complex hunting leaflet, hunting factsheets) in an effort to reduce unintentional hunting violations 

throughout the refuge complex.

Fishing

Fishing occurs at Swan River NWR, Benton Lake NWR (Pumphouse Unit), Arod Lakes WPA, Upsata 

Lake WPA, and Blackfoot WPA in accordance with State regulations. On Swan River Refuge, navigable waters are open to fishing year-round with off-refuge access points available on Swan River. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Wildlife observation and photography opportunities are provided throughout the refuge complex, and 

are supported by providing observation blinds, up-to-date wildlife species list for the refuges, and 

allowing the public the opportunity to use portable viewing and photography blinds through the issuance of special use permits. Seasonal closures to protect sensitive wildlife areas and reduce disturbance to fish and wildlife are implemented. Dogs are required to be leashed and remain on designated 

roads and trails, except in the hunt area during hunting season. Commercial photography requests are 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis and authorized through special use permit. Virtual geocaching is 

authorized. Limited new facilities for observing and photographing wildlife (such as observation decks, 

trails, auto tour routes, and photography blinds) may be developed or modified, and existing facilities 

will be maintained. Additional walking trails throughout the refuge complex may be provided and a 

park ranger may be hired to help support and expand wildlife observation and photography infrastructure and opportunities.

BENTON LAKE WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: Waterfowl production areas are open to 

wildlife observation and photography year-round. No conflicts are currently occurring to suggest seasonal closures will be necessary. Foot traffic, including hiking, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing, 

are permitted throughout the waterfowl production areas. Equestrian use is prohibited, and bicycle 

use is restricted to roads open to vehicular traffic. Boating is permitted in accordance with state regulations.

SWAN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE: Bog Road provides wildlife viewing opportunities and access to the interior of the refuge. The existing observation platform, informational kiosk, and 

interpretive panel provide opportunity for wildlife observation and photography. The information 

kiosk, parking lot, wildlife viewing platform, and Bog Road are open to public access year-round. In 

addition, public access to the area north of Bog Road is authorized during waterfowl hunting season. 
Appendix C—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 191 

Access south of Bog Road is prohibited year-round. No motorized vehicle access is authorized on Bog 

Road, only foot-traffic, including hiking, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, are authorized on the 

Refuge on designated roads and trails including Bog Road. Equestrian use is prohibited. On portions of 

Swan River that run through the refuge, the State “no wake” regulations are enforced. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Environmental education and interpretation programming will be increased and expanded to enhance 

public knowledge and understanding of restoration efforts, unique habitat and wildlife values, and 

attributes, and landscape-scale conservation programs. Efforts are made to promote and educate the 

public about the new and expanded easement programs and to reach out and tap into available 

resources, especially in Great Falls.

Staff participates in off-site special events and activities to bring the refuge complex message to large 

numbers of people, and participation in these events occurs as time and staff allow. Tasks are currently 

performed as collateral assignments and no specific specialists are assigned to environmental education or interpretation programs on the refuge complex; however, the hiring of a park ranger will help 

focus and grow these programs. Interpretive panels, brochures, factsheets, Web sites, and maps are 

updated as funding becomes available. 

BENTON LAKE WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: Waterfowl production areas are available for environmental education and interpretation. Area schools visit waterfowl production areas to 

study birds, wetland wildlife, and water quality. Staff host several on and offsite events attracting 

more than 250 attendees annually.

A facility at the H2–O WPA and Upsata Lake WPA provide on-site education within the Blackfoot Valley, and an interpretive display is available at the north parking area of the Blackfoot WPA.

SWAN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE: An interpretive kiosk, updated in 2011, provides 

interpretive information to the visiting public. Currently, limited outreach and environmental educational programming occurs and minimal resources exist to update signs and brochures.

Trapping

Recreational trapping occurs on waterfowl production areas in the district, with the exception of the 

H2–O and Sands WPAs, in accordance with State seasons and regulations. No recreational trapping at 

Swan River Refuge or Benton Lake Refuge is authorized; however, trapping by special use permit may 

occur for wildlife and infrastructure management purposes only.

Staff and Funding 

Current staff consists of 9.0 full-time employees. Temporary, term, and seasonal employees are used to 

supplement staff as money allows. Capacity for active management is constrained by limited staff and 

funding. Current staff levels are insufficient to meet program mandates, resulting in limited management on some units. Additional staff will be acquired as funding becomes available. To accomplish full 

performance of the goals and objectives of the Plan, a total of 6.0 additional positions will be needed. 

This includes: 1 law enforcement officer, 1.0 maintenance worker, 1.5 wildlife refuge specialist, 0.5 

administrative support generalist, 1 park ranger (working half time on the refuge complex and half 

time at Benton Lake Refuge exclusively), and 1 supervisory biologist.

Facilities and Infrastructure

Facilities, infrastructure, vehicles, and other equipment are supported in good working condition to 

achieve management goals. Fences in the refuge complex that serve no management purpose are 

removed as funding and staff resources allow.

Visitor and Employee Safety 

Employee and visitor safety is emphasized in all operations throughout the refuge complex. Currently, 

only one dual-function officer exists within the refuge complex. Efforts will be made to replace a 

recently vacated (2011) full-time law enforcement position to promote visitor and employee safety.
192 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Potential for employees and visiting public to encounter insects, venomous snakes, mosquitoes (West 

Nile virus), extreme heat, cold, wind, contribute to possible injury or illness. More signage warning 

visitors of these potential hazards may be considered.

Efforts will be expanded to provide dependable and improved communication throughout the complex.

Resource Protection

One dual-function law enforcement officer provides quality public use experiences, and protects habitat 

resources on fee-title and easement lands. Efforts to replace recently vacated (2011) full-time law 

enforcement officer will occur. Special emphasis is placed on preventative law enforcement efforts to 

improve compliance with regulations. In addition, cooperative law enforcement efforts are pursued to 

improve relationships with other law enforcement entities. The recently expanded Rocky Mountain 

Front and Blackfoot Valley Conservation Areas and the newly established Swan Valley Conservation 

Area will require more inspection and enforcement efforts. In addition, more opportunities for easement protection may be established during the life of the plan.

Benton Lake NWR Refuge Summary and Actions for the Selected Management Direction: 

Management actions for climate change, preserving intact landscapes, invasive species, partnerships 

for conservation, landscape threats and conflicts, forests and woodlands, sagebrush-steppe, species of 

concern, migratory birds, wildlife disease, inventory, monitoring and research, archaeological and historic sites, fishing, trapping, and visitor and employee safety are the same as the selected management 

direction for the complex. 

Summary

Benton Lake Refuge wetland units will be managed to focus on the importance of restoring the health 

and long-term sustainability of the wetland basin and include efforts within the Lake Creek and Muddy 

Creek watersheds. Some health and sustainability improvements may occur slower than in the proposed alternative to accommodate wildlife-dependent recreation, such as waterfowl hunting. Flexible 

water management will occur which will affect the amount, duration, and location of artificially provided water (pumped water) within the wetland basin. Management will strive to provide some waterfowl hunting and fall/spring migration habitat at least 11 out of 15 years and basin-wide drawdowns no 

more than 4 out of 15 years (with no more than 3 consecutive years of basin-wide drying). An adaptive 

resource management approach will be applied that may modify these wet and dry cycles to ensure 

progress towards achieving habitat objectives. Wetland basin infrastructure may be modified to 

enhance water conservation and efficient delivery. The Pumphouse and all water rights will be regularly exercised and maintained. Managing grasslands and other wildlife dependent public uses (wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation, and upland game bird hunting) on the refuge will occur as resources allow. 

Grasslands 

Same as refuge complex preferred alternative and up to 3.5 miles of nonnative tree plantings in grasslands (shelterbelts) will be removed. Shelterbelts that have the greatest negative effect on grasslands 

will be the highest priority for removal. Degraded tame grass stands (up to 207 acres) will be planted 

back to native grass species where proper and feasible. Prescriptive grazing may occur to improve habitat conditions. Formal monitoring of grasslands will focus on native prairie with an emphasis on linking management actions to grassland condition (adaptive management). Restoration of habitats (native 

grass plantings and tree removal) will be formally monitored with the assistance of volunteer citizen 

science organizations (such as Audubon) to evaluate success. Monitoring of tame grasslands will be 

minimal and informal.

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

The refuge is managed to improve wetland health and sustainability. Pumping is used to supplement 

the refuge’s natural runoff and artificially flood wetland habitat to extend the natural flooding cycle in 

the spring, summer, and fall. The Pumphouse, underground pipeline (4 miles), and several structures 

on Lake Creek will be supported to accomplish this objective. During years that the refuge artificially 

supplements runoff, the refuge may pump up to 4,000 acre-feet per year. The maximum amount of 
Appendix C—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 193 

pumped water may decline over time if electricity costs increase. Water is pumped from Muddy Creek 

primarily in the fall and occasionally in early summer. Flooding the lower units during summer will be 

avoided to prevent botulism outbreaks unless it becomes necessary to dry Units 1 and 2 simultaneously 

for selenium control. In this case, one of the lower units (possibly Unit 4b) may be flooded through summer to provide brood habitat. 

Short-term dry periods (7+ years in Units 1 and 2 and 3-5+ years in Units 3-6) are rotated among units 

to volatilize selenium, reduce invasive vegetation and improve wetland health. When Units 1 and 2 are 

dry for prolonged period of time, Lake Creek channel may be restored creating wet meadow conditions, with water entering the refuge through the old Lake Creek channel and providing natural diffuse runoff. Basin wide drawdowns may occur up to 4 years of the next 15 years (with no more than 3 

consecutive years of basin-wide drying). The basin wide drawdown may be extended after consultation 

with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to meet habitat objectives.

The management decision to flood or dry each unit will be determined annually. If necessary, more dry 

time may be implemented in individual units until wetland objectives are met. As needed, units will 

receive intensive management (prescribed fire, discing, and herbicide application). Wetland infrastructure (dikes, ditches, water control structures) may be modified to improve water conservation and efficiency of delivering water to a specific unit. The flooding and drying rotation, water control structures 

and other management tools will continually be assessed and modified through an adaptive management process. 

Staff will work with our partners in the Lake Creek and Muddy Creek watersheds to carry out conservation actions that improve water quality and wetland health on the refuge. Efforts will be made to 

improve coordination of wetland management with MFWP at other State management units including 

Freezeout Lake WMA.

Wetland cycles, health, and wildlife response at the refuge will be tracked with intensive monitoring to 

provide feedback on management successes. Formal monitoring of wetlands will focus on wetland 

health and sustainability through adaptive management. Monitoring will track long-term trends in 

wetland cycles, health and wildlife use. For restoration efforts, monitoring will be especially important 

to decide if systems are recovering.

Annual water management plans for the refuge will be developed and shared with the general public 

that outline the previous year’s accomplishments towards goals and objectives and the current year’s 

goals and objectives. 

Water Resources

Natural runoff from the Lake Creek will be captured annually. Pumping water from Muddy Creek may 

occur 11 years out of 15 years; however, the amount, duration, and location of stored pumped water will 

vary annually within the basin. 

Visitor Services

Hunting 

Hunting of waterfowl (duck, goose, swan (by permit only), and coot) and upland gamebirds (pheasant, 

sharp-tailed grouse, and gray partridge) are provided in designated areas of the refuge on approximately 4,600 acres of upland and wetland habitat. Big game hunting is prohibited. Hunting rabbits or 

any other wildlife species, including furbearers is also prohibited.

Waterfowl and upland gamebird hunting on the refuge begins with the opening of the State waterfowl 

season and ends on November 30. Benton Lake Refuge is open for the youth waterfowl and pheasant 

season, which typically occurs the weekend before the opening of the general waterfowl season. Hunting is on a first-come, first served basis. One disabled accessible hunting blind is available in Unit 5 

through special use permit.
194 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

During years with adequate water (runoff or pumped), the location of open and closed areas for waterfowl and upland gamebird hunting could change from year to year based on the flooding and drying 

rotation of the units. Staff will strive to provide waterfowl hunting opportunity 11 years out of 15 

years. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

The Prairie Marsh Wildlife Drive provides year-round wildlife-viewing and photography opportunities 

via auto, bicycle, equestrian, or foot-traffic, including hiking, snowshoeing, or cross-country skiing. The 

Prairie Marsh Wildlife Drive may be adjusted to accommodate changes to water management or associated infrastructure.

Lower Marsh Road is available to vehicles, foot-traffic, bicycling, and equestrian use for wildlife-viewing and photography opportunities from July 15 until the opening day of waterfowl hunting season. 

Rough road conditions prevent the use of RVs, vehicles towing trailers, and large vehicles. Modifications to the opening and availability of Lower Marsh Road may occur depending on the sequence of 

implementing the dry cycle in various units. This could affect access by bicycle or foot. These modifications will be implemented if unacceptable disturbance is occurring that needs to be reduced or if management actions require the adjustment.

Facilities providing additional opportunities for wildlife observation and photography include the Unit 

1 photographic blind and the Prairie Marsh Boardwalk with spotting scope and interpretive panels. 

Additional, year-round opportunities for wildlife observation and photography by means of temporary 

blinds on Prairie Marsh Wildlife Drive are available. “Mobile” temporary blinds in other selected areas 

may be authorized as well through special use permit.

Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing for wildlife-viewing and photography is permitted refuge-wide 

from December 15 until the end of February. Equestrian and bicycle use are limited to roads open to 

motorized vehicles.

The Sharp-Tailed Grouse Blind is available to refuge visitors by reservation on weekends during April 

and May. The grouse blind provides a highly sought-after opportunity to observe and photograph the 

courting rituals of sharp-tailed grouse.

Additional, birding trails that access the upland habitat will be explored as a way to enhance wildlife 

viewing opportunities of grassland birds.

Environmental Education and Interpretation

The refuge offers joint-sponsored outdoor education courses with the MFWP, including Youth Waterfowl Safety Clinic and the Becoming an Outdoor Woman series. Our partnership with the Great Falls 

Public School provides the opportunity for all third graders in the Great Falls Public School system to 

come to the refuge and learn about natural resources. This highly popular activity includes more than 

850 students annually. Refuge staff provides information about the refuge and education specialists 

from the GFPS present onsite activities and learning modules.

Refuge staff participates in the annual Montana Envirothon in Lewistown, Montana. The event 

attracts student teams from all across Montana while they compete for the opportunity to represent 

Montana and compete at the National Envirothon Competition. Refuge staff helps students learn about 

fish and wildlife resources and their associated habitat. More than 200 students and teachers take part 

in the annual event. As time allows, the refuge collaborates with other school groups to provide tours, 

teach science, and work together on monitoring projects.

Refuge staff participates in the STEM Expo hosted in Great Falls, Montana. This exposition has 

recently developed into an annual event promoting math and science within the community. The event 

offers staff the opportunity to reach more than 700 children, teachers, and parents. 

With current staffing and funding, greater emphasis will occur with environmental education, outreach, and interpretative maps and panels that explain 1) the purpose and importance of conserving, 
Appendix C—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 195 

managing, and restoring healthy functioning ecosystems, 2) the importance of natural hydroperiods in 

wetlands, 3) the unique resource of grassland birds that utilize the refuge and their plight on a national 

scale, and 4) changes to public use regulations and access areas to accommodate changes in wetland 

and water management. Environmental curriculum may be adapted to reflect changes in habitat from 

restoration efforts.

Future implementation of an expanded environmental education and interpretation program is 

expected with the acquisition of a full-time park ranger (interpretation/environmental education) position for the refuge complex. This position will help expand the refuge’s influence in the local community 

of Great Falls and the complex as a whole. 

Staff and Funding 

Staff increases needed to carry out this alternative include: a part (50 percent) of the 1.0 FTE park 

ranger assigned to the complex, a part (25 percent) of the 1.0 FTE law enforcement officer assigned to 

the complex, a part (70 percent) of the 1.0 FTE supervisory biologist assigned to the complex, 0.8 FTE 

biological technician, two permanent seasonal biological technicians 0.5 FTE each, and 1.0 maintenance 

worker. 

Funding and resources are expected to be reallocated throughout the refuge complex to deal directly 

with management constraints for the selected management direction. Additional effort in monitoring 

and water level management will require resource reallocation from other programs in the complex if 

additional funding and staffing for implementation is not received.

Expenses in pumping (electricity), the associated water management (operations and maintenance), 

and implementation of water conservation and efficiency modifications contribute to this alternative 

being more expensive to implement.

Monitoring efforts include assessing results to make sure that the objectives for selenium, vegetation, 

and wetland health are being met while applying an adaptive resource approach to infrastructure modification.

Prescriptive habitat treatment (discing, mowing, herbicide treatment, etc.) is expected to be relatively 

intensive. The ability to apply treatments basin-wide simultaneously will be limited to 4 out of 15 years 

(with no more than 3 consecutive years of basin-wide drying). Most treatment actions are expected to 

occur in a unit-by-unit approach.

Over the life of the plan, total costs for water level management, pumping, operations, maintenance, 

prescriptive habitat treatment, grassland restoration, and monitoring are estimated at $2.0 million.

Facilities and Infrastructure

Wetland infrastructure (dikes, ditches, water control structures) may be modified to improve water 

conservation and efficiency of delivering water to a specific unit. The Prairie Marsh Wildlife Drive and 

Lower Marsh Drive may be adjusted to accommodate changes to water management or associated 

infrastructure. Additional birding trails in the upland habitat may be established to increase opportunity for wildlife observation, photography, education, and interpretation of unique grassland bird 

resources.

Resource Protection

Changes to opening and closing of hunting areas and modifications to auto tour routes will require 

additional outreach for preventative law enforcement efforts. Activities will include: timely news 

releases, posting of boundaries, regular updates to websites, and posting of regulations. In addition, 

increase in the number and frequency of compliance patrols will be necessary. These activities will be 

accomplished by the full-time law enforcement officer proposed for the complex or current dual function law enforcement officer. 
196 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

4. Determination of Effects: 

(A) Description of Effects: Describe the action(s) that may affect the species and critical habitats listed 

in item 4. Your rationale for the Section 7 determinations made below (B) should be fully described 

here.

The following is a summary of anticipated environmental effects. The implementation of the selected 

management direction will:

❏ not adversely impact endangered or threatened species or their habitat. Many corridors and linkage areas will be enhanced or protected for grizzly bears, bull trout, Canada lynx, and wolverine. 

❏ increase the sustainability and resiliency of each refuge unit and improve ability to adjust to the 

uncertainty of climate change which will benefit all Federally listed species. 

❏ improve the coordination of the complex with the GNLCC and PPPLCC to improve our understanding of the local impacts from climate change which can improve the protection of all Federally 

listed species.

❏ reduce threats from development and subsequent fragmentation by protecting wetland and grassland habitat through the acquisition of conservation easements, and depending upon resource allocation to the management of Benton Lake Refuge, strive to protect up to 170,000 acres within the 

Crown of the Continent Project Area. Easement acquisition in the Crown of the Continent Project 

Area can improve habitat conditions for bull trout, grizzly bears, Canada lynx, water howellia, 

Sprague’s pipit, and wolverine. Historic occurrences of piping plover have occurred along the 

Rocky Mountain Front CA. Further protection of the wetland habitat may improve protection for 

piping plovers.

❏ preserve working landscapes in private ownership while simultaneously protecting grassland and 

wetland habitats. The working landscapes include the Crown of the Continent Project Area which 

has the potential to benefit bull trout, grizzly bears, Canada lynx, water howellia, Sprague’s pipit, 

and wolverine.

❏ not adversely impact archaeological or historical resources. Not expected to have any effect to 

Federally listed species. 

❏ improve wetland health and sustainability throughout the complex and especially for Benton Lake 

Refuge. Selenium accumulation and the threat to breeding birds on Benton Lake Refuge will be 

reduced. Productivity of complex wetlands shall significantly improve. During dry years, additional 

upland habitat for breeding may be available for Sprague’s pipits on the refuge. Water howellia may 

benefit from wetland restoration efforts conducted on Swan River NWR.

❏ improve grassland habitat throughout the complex with special emphasis on the protection of 

native grassland, management of native prairie (12,420 acres), removal of non-native tree plantings 

(up to 3.5 acres), and the management of degraded tame grasslands (up to 400 acres). Improving 

grassland habitat can benefit Sprague’s Pipit which currently breed within the refuge and the 

district.

❏ improve resiliency and sustainability of the forest and woodland habitat of the complex which may 

improve habitat utilized by grizzly bear, Canada lynx, and wolverine.

❏ protect and/or improve sagebrush-steppe habitat (2,500 acres) within the complex which may contribute to protection of grizzly bear that utilize these areas within the Blackfoot Valley.

❏ preserve all complex water rights. Not expected to have any effect on Federally listed species.
Appendix C—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 197 

❏ provide a balance between resource protection and providing wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunity without negatively impacting natural resources which is expected to benefit all Federally listed species. 

❏ maintain or increase the opportunity for wildlife observation (+25%), wildlife photography (+25%), 

environmental education (+25%), interpretation (+25%), and fishing (no net change) over the life of 

the plan. Actions are not expected to have a direct effect on Federally listed species; however, the 

possibility of improving public awareness about the challenges facing listed species may occur.

❏ slightly decrease the amount of hunting (-15%) opportunity over the life of the plan in order to significantly improve the wetland health of Benton Lake and address selenium toxicity and improve 

productivity. Not expected to have any effect on Federally listed species.

❏ potentially increase staffing by 7.8 FTEs including: full-time law enforcement officer, full-time 

maintenance worker, 1.5 full-time refuge operations specialist, 0.5 full-time generalist, full-time 

park ranger (visitor services), full-time supervisory biologist, 0.8 full-time seasonal biological technician, and two 0.5 permanent biological technicians. Not expected to have any effect on Federally 

listed species.

❏ not have a disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effect on minority or 

low-income populations. Not expected to have any effect on Federally listed species.

(B) Determination: Determine the anticipated effects of the proposed project on species and critical habitats listed in item 4. Check all applicable boxes and list the species (or attach a list) associated with 

each determination. 

 Determination

No Effect: This determination is appropriate when the proposed project 

will not directly or indirectly affect (neither negatively nor beneficially)

individuals of listed/proposed/candidate species or designated/proposed 

critical habitat of such species. No concurrence from ESFO required.

May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect: This determination is X

appropriate when the proposed project is likely to cause insignificant, 

discountable, or wholly beneficial effects to individuals of listed species

and/or designated critical habitat. Concurrence from ESFO required.

May Affect and Likely to Adversely Affect: This determination is 

appropriate when the proposed project is likely to adversely 

impact individuals of listed species and/or designated critical habitat. 

Formal consultation with ESFO required.

May affect but Not Likely to Jeopardize candidate or proposed species/critical habitat: 

This determination is appropriate when the proposed project may affect, but is not 

expected to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for 

listing or a candidate species, or adversely modify an area proposed for 

designation as critical habitat. Concurrence from ESFO optional.

Likely to Jeopardize candidate or proposed species/critical habitat: 

This determination is appropriate when the proposed project is reasonably 

expected to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for 

listing or a candidate species, or adversely modify an area proposed for 

designation as critical habitat. Conferencing with ESFO required.

Signature Date 

[Supervisor at originating station] 
198 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation (check all that apply): 

A. Concurrence X Nonconcurrence 

Explanation for nonconcurrence:

B. Formal consultation required 

List species or critical habitat unit

C. Conference required 

List species or critical habitat unit

Name of Reviewing ES Office Montana Ecological Services Office, Helena, Montana 

Signature Date 

 

 Revised 3/2010
Appendix C—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 199 

REFERENCE CITED

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of North American birds. 7th edition. Washington, DC: 

American Ornithologists’ Union. [Number of pages unknown].

Blackfoot Challenge, Big Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Hydrometrics Inc. 2005. A basin-wide restoration action plan for the Blackfoot watershed. Ovando, MT: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

Dale, B.C.; Martin, P.A.; Taylor, P.S. 1997. Effects of hay management on grassland songbirds in Saskatchewan.[Place of publication unknown]:Wildlife Society. Bulletin 25:616–626.

Davis, S.K. 2005. Nest-site selection patterns and the influence of vegetation on nest survival of mixedgrass prairie passerines. [Place of publication unknown]: Condor. 107:605–16.

Davis, S.K.; Duncan, D.C.; Skeel, M. 1999. Distribution and habitat associations of three endemic grassland songbirds in southern Saskatchewan. Wilson Bulletin 111: 389–396.

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, L.D.; Goldade, C.M; Nenneman, M.P; Euliss, B.R. 2003. 

Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Sprague’s pipit. Jamestown, North Dakota: U. S. 

Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. [Internet] <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/ literatr/grasbird/sppi/sppi

.htm> accessed May 13, 2009.

Dieni,J.S.; Jones, S.L. 2003. Grassland songbird nest site selection patterns in North-central Montana. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Wilson. Bulletin 115:32–40.

Grant, T.S.; Madden, E.; Berkey, G.B. 2004. Tree and shrub invasion in northern mixed-grass prairie: 

implications for breeding grassland birds. [Place of publication unknown]: Wildlife Society. Bulletin 

32:807–18.

Higgins, K.F.; Naugle, D.E.; Forman, K.J. 2002. A case study of changing land use practices in the northern Great Plains, U.S.A.: an uncertain future for waterbird conservation. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. Waterbirds 25: special publication. 2:45–50.

Johnson, D.H.; Schwartz, M.D. 1993. The conservation reserve program: habitat for grassland birds. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Great Plains Research. 3:273–295.

Jones, S. L. 2010. Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) conservation plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [Number of pages unknown].

Kantrud, H.A. 1981. Grazing intensity effects on the breeding avifauna of North Dakota native grasslands. [Place of publication unknown]: Canadian Field-Naturalist. 95:404–17.

Kaya, C. M. 1992. Review of the decline and status of fluvial Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), in 

Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. Proceedings of Montana Academy of 

Sciences. 52:43–70.

Koper, N.; Walker, D.J.; Champagne, J. 2009. Non-linear effects of distance to habitat edge on Sprague’s 

pipits in southern Alberta, Canada.[Place of publication unknown]: Landscape Ecology. 24:1287–1297.

Madden, E.M.; Murphy, R.K.; Hansen, A.J.; Murray, L. 2000. Models for guiding management of prairie 

bird habitat in northwestern North Dakota.[Place of publication unknown]: American Midland Naturalist. 144:377–392.
200 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana 

Magee, James; McCullough, A. 2008. Montana arctic grayling monitoring report. Dillon, MT: Montana 

Fish, Wildlife & Parks. [Internet]. <http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=48510> [Date 

accessed unknown].

McMaster, D.G.; Davis, S.K. 2001. An evaluation of Canada’s permanent cover program: habitat for grassland birds? [Place of publication unknown]: Journal of Field Ornithology. [Number of pages unknown].

MFWP. Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. 2009. Bull trout red counts completed in the Flathead system: 

North Fork, Middle Fork, about average; Swan and South Fork below average. [Internet]. Revised 

November 5, 2009.<http://fwpiis.mt.gov/news/article_8625.aspx> [Date accessed unknown].

 

MNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2012. Water howellia (howellia aquatilis). Montana Field 

Guide. Montana Natural Heritage Program. [Internet]. <http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_

PDCAM0A010.aspx> accessed February 2012.

Nordstrom, L.; Hecht, A.; McCollough, M.; Naney, B.; Trick, J.; Warren, N.; Zwartjes, M. 2005. Recovery 

outline; contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx. [Place of publication 

unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 12 p.

Owens, R.A.; Myers, M.T. 1973. Effects of agriculture upon populations of native passerine birds of an 

Alberta fescue grassland. [Place of publication unknown]: Canadian Journal of Zoology. 51:697–713.

Pierce R.; Davidson, M.; Knotek, L.; Podner, C.; Thabes, J. 2008. The Big Blackfoot River fisheries and 

restoration investigations for 2006 and 2007. Missoula, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and 

Parks. [Number of pages unknown].

Prescott, D.R.C. 1997. Status of Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental 

Protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 10, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 

[Internet]. <http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/library/egovdocs/alen/1997/42208.pdf> accessed November 

2009.

Prescott, D.R.C.; Davis, S.K. 1998. Status report on the Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii in Canada. 

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. [Number of 

pages unknown].

Robbins, M.B.; Dale, B.C. 1999. Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii). In: Poole, A.; Gill , F., editors. The 

birds of North America, no. 439. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Washington, DC: American Ornithologists’ Union. [Number of pages unknown].

Serveen, C.; Waller, J.S.; Sandstrom, P. 2001. Identification and management of linkage zones for grizzly 

bears between the large blocks of public land in the northern Rocky Mountains. Missoula, MT: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; University of Montana. 87 p.

Stewart, R.E. 1975. Breeding birds of North Dakota. Fargo, ND: Tri-college Center for Environmental 

Studies. [Number of pages unknown]. Stynes, D. 1998. Guidelines for measuring visitor spending: 

Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University.[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

Sutter, G.C. 1996. Habitat selection and prairie drought in relation to grassland bird community structure 

and the nesting ecology of Sprague’s pipit, Anthus spragueii. [Ph.D. dissertation]. Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada: University of Regina. [Number of pages unknown].

Sutter, G.C. 1997. Nest-site selection and nest-entrance orientation in Sprague’s pipit. [Place of publication unknown]: Wilson Bulletin. 109:462–9.
Appendix C—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 201 

Sutter, G.C.; Brigham, R.M. 1998. Avifaunal and habitat changes resulting from conversion of native prairie to crested wheat grass: patterns at songbird community and species levels. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Canadian Journal of Zoology. 76:869–75.

Tallman, D.A.; Swanson, D.L.; Palmer, J. S. 2002. Birds of South Dakota. Aberdeen, SD: South Dakota 

Ornithologists’ Union. [Number of pages unknown].

USFWS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting consultation and conference activities under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

———. 2002a. Chapter 3, Clark Fork River recovery unit, Montana, Idaho, and Washington. In: Bull 

Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 285 

p.

———. 2008b. Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service [Internet]. <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html> accessed December 2008.

———. 2010b. Revised designation of critical habitat for bull trout in the conterminous United States: 

final rule. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. Federal Register Docket No. FWS–R1–

ES–2009-0085. [Number of pages unknown].

———. 2011a. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. August 

2011. [Internet]. <http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five year_review/doc3847.review_August%202011. pdf> 

accessed February 2012. 205 p.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2004. Northern Divide grizzly bear project. [Internet]. Revised June 2010. 

<http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/ ncdebeardna_detail.htm> [Date accessed unknown].

Appendix D

Public Involvement

This appendix describes how the Service conducted 

public involvement and considered the resulting 

information for developing the CCP for the Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

D.1 Public Involvement 

Activities

A notice of intent to prepare the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and EA was published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2008. The Service began 

public involvement activities by compiling a mailing 

list of more than 700 names during preplanning. The 

list includes private citizens; local, regional, and 

State government representatives and legislators; 

other Federal agencies; and interested 

organizations. 

Public Scoping

Public scoping began immediately after publication of 

the notice of intent and was announced in news 

releases and through issuance of the first planning 

update to the mailing list in August 2008. Information was provided on the history of the refuge and 

the CCP process and included an invitation to attend 

any of the public scoping meetings being held in early 

September. The planning update included a mailing 

list consent form to be placed on the CCP mailing 

list. The update also provided opportunities for submitting comments.

Five public scoping meetings were held from September 2 to October 15, 2008:

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

Montana, 4–7 p.m.

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

Montana, 4–7 p.m.

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

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

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

The public meetings were conducted as open houses, 

where attendees could individually view a PowerPoint presentation about the refuge complex and an 

overview of the CCP and NEPA processes, as well as 

other supplemental information on the extent and 

vision of the refuge complex and the purpose for each 

unit. 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.

Written comments for the initial scoping effort 

were due on September 15, 2008. Sixty written comments were received orally and in writing. The Service received letters from five nongovernmental 

organizations (Sun River Watershed Group, Montana 

Audubon, Born Free USA, Friends of the Wild Swan, 

Flathead Wildlife) and two agencies (Montana Fish, 

Wildlife & Parks, Region One and Montana Salinity 

Control Association). All comments were shared with 

the planning team and considered throughout the 

planning process.

One of the most significant issues identified for 

the refuge complex, by both the public and the planning team, was the declining condition of the Benton 

Lake Refuge wetlands. In order to fully understand 

what was causing this decline, the Service met with 

consultants from Greenbrier Wetland Service on 

April 28 and July 29, 2009, to develop an HGM 

assessment of Benton Lake. The scientists from 

Greenbrier Wetland Services are recognized experts 

in the field of wetland ecology. They worked with 

Service staff to understand what changes had 

occurred in the Benton Lake wetlands over time and 

how this might relate to the observed declines in productivity, increases in invasive species, and increasing selenium contamination (Heitemeyer et al 2009). 

These findings were used to analyze management 

alternatives and to select a proposed action alternative for the refuge.

After the selection of the proposed action alternative during a planning team meeting in February 

2010, refuge staff initiated another scoping effort to 
204 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

share the results of the HGM study with the public. 

Refuge staff focused on groups and individuals who 

had expressed interest in, or concerns about, Benton 

Lake Refuge during the first scoping effort.

Three additional scoping meetings were held:

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

■ January 11, 2011, Benton Lake Refuge Headquarters, Great Falls, Montana, 5–7 p.m.

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

Falls, Montana, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Many people attended the meetings and provided 

additional comments, which the Service recorded. 

These comments were considered by the planning 

team in preparation of the draft CCP and EA and are 

addressed in Chapter 7 of that document, which 

describes the issues at Benton Lake Refuge in detail.

In addition to hosted meetings, there were several 

opportunities to meet with a variety of interest 

groups. Service employees shared the CCP planning 

process, solicited issues and concerns from attendees, 

and answered questions. These opportunities provided staff greater understanding of issues, concerns, and effects shared by the public. Refuge staff 

attended meetings with, or met, the following: Ducks 

Unlimited, Great Falls Audubon, Montana Audubon, 

Russell Country Sportsmen’s Association, Muddy 

Creek Watershed Group, Sun River Watershed 

Group, Montana Bird Conservation Partnership, 

Great Falls Public Schools, and Rocky Mountain 

Front Land Manager’s Forum.

Review of the Draft Plan

The draft CCP and EA was released to the public on 

March 30, 2012, through a notice of availability published in the Federal Register. Copies of either the 

draft CCP and EA or a planning update were mailed 

to individuals on the mailing list. The document was 

also made available online through the Service’s 

Region 6 planning Web site and the refuge complex’s 

Web site. The public was offered 60 days to review 

this document and provide comments.

During the public review period the Service held 

4 public meetings April 17–19, 2012, in Great Falls, 

Choteau, Ovando, and Condon, Montana. Turnout 

was good, with meetings attended by more than 57 

participants. A news release was issued, and planning updates were mailed providing details on where 

and when the meetings would be held. A short presentation was given on the draft plan, followed by an 

opportunity for participants to ask questions and 

offer comments. In addition to the oral comments 

recorded at the meetings, 51 emails and letters were 

received. All comments were to be received or postmarked by June 1, 2012.

D.2 Public Mailing List

The Service sent planning updates to all individuals 

and organizations on the mailing list. In addition, 

many hard copies of the draft CCP and EA were distributed to the mailing list and to honor additional 

requests for copies.

Federal Officials

U.S. Senator Max Baucus, Washington, DC

U.S. Senator Max Baucus, Bozeman, MT

U.S. Senator Jon Tester, Washington, DC

U.S. Senator Jon Tester, Great Falls, MT

U.S. Senator Jon Tester, Kalispell, MT

U.S. Congressman Dennis Rehberg, Washington, DC

U.S. Congressman Dennis Rehberg, Helena, MT

Federal Agencies

Bureau of Land Management, Billings, MT

Bureau of Land Management, Lewistown, MT

Bureau of Reclamation, Billings, MT

U.S.D.A., Farm Service Agency, Bozeman, MT

U.S.D.A., National Resources Conservation Service, Bozeman, MT

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Air Quality Branch, 

Lakewood, CO

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Creston Fish and 

Wildlife Center, Creston, MT

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 

Helena, MT

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Education and Visitor Services, Helena, MT

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kalispell, MT

U.S. Forest Service, Choteau, MT

U.S. Forest Service, Great Falls, MT

U.S. Forest Service, Libby, MT

U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Missoula, MT

U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, MT

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Missoula, MT

U.S. Geological Survey, Glacier Field Station, West 

Glacier, MT
Appendix D—Public Involvement 205 

D.3 Tribal Officials

Blackfeet Tribal Business Council, Browning, MT

Blood Tribes, Cardston, Alberta, Canada

Confederated Salish Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT

Fort Belknap Community Council, Harlem, MT

Peigan Tribe, Brocket, Alberta, Canada

State Officials

Governor Brian D. Schweitzer, Helena, MT

Representative Shannon Augare, Browning, MT

Representative Gregory Barkus, Kalispell, MT

Representative Bill Beck, Whitefish, MT

Representative Bob Bergren, Havre, MT

Representative Jerry Black, Shelby, MT

Representative Mark Blasdel, Somers, MT

Representative John Brueggeman, Polson, MT

Representative Edith Clark, Sweetgrass, MT

Representative John Cobb, Augusta, MT

Representative Douglas Cordier, Columbia Falls, MT

Representative George Everett, Kalispell, MT

Representative Ken Hansen, Harlem, MT

Representative Ralph Heinert, Libby, MT

Representative Robin Hamilton, Missoula, MT

Representative Verdell Jackson, Kalispell, MT

Representative Joey Jayne, Arlee, MT

Representative Mike Jopek, Whitefish, MT

Representative Llew Jones, Conrad, MT

Representative William Jones, Bigfork, MT

Representative Carol Juneau, Browning, MT

Representative Mike Milburn, Cascade, MT

Representative Jerry O’Neil, Columbia Falls, MT

Representative Rick Ripley, Wolf Creek, MT

Representative Don Ryan, Great Falls, MT

Representative Jon Sonju, Kalispell, MT

Representative Janna Taylor, Dayton, MT

Representative Dan Weinberg, Whitefish, MT

Representative Craig Witte, Kalispell, MT

State Agencies

Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 

Helena, MT

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena, MT

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Billings, MT

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Kalispell, MT

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Conrad, MT

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Helena, MT

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Kalispell, MT

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Missoula, MT

Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT

Montana Salinity Control Association, Conrad, MT

Montana State Historic Preservation Office, Helena, MT

Montana State Lands, Helena, MT

Sun River Watershed Group, Great Falls, MT

Local Government

Bigfork County Water and Sewer, Bigfork, MT

Cascade County Mosquito Management District, 

Great Falls, MT

City of Bigfork, Roadside Vegetation Program, 

Bigfork, MT

City of Havre, Havre, MT

Flathead County Commission, Kalispell, MT

Flathead County Road and Bridge, Kalispell, MT

Flathead County Weed Department, Kalispell, MT

Hill County Government, Havre, MT

Hill County, Mosquito Management District, 

Havre, MT

Teton County Commission, Choteau, MT

Pondera County Commission, Conrad, MT

Local Fire Departments

Marion Volunteer Fire Department, Marion, MT

Local Businesses

4M Farms Incorporated, Highwood, MT

AAA Weed and Pasture, Columbia Falls, MT

American Public Lands Exchange, Missoula, MT

Benton Lake Land Company, Great Falls, MT

Bignell Ranch Company, Helmville, MT

Brown and Brown of Montana, Great Falls, MT

Buffalo Mountain LLC, Kalispell, MT

Glacier Colony, Cut Bank, MT

Glacier Fur Dressing, Kalispell, MT

Golden Acres Farm, Brady, MT

Gollaher Ranch Company, Cascade, MT

Gumbo Incorporated, Choteau, MT

Harmon Properties LLC, Havre, MT

Heavirland Enterprises, Choteau, MT

Historical Research Associates Incorporated, Missoula, MT

Ish Incorporated, Chester, MT
206 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Juedeman Grain Company, Geraldine, MT

Klabzuba Oil and Gas Incorporated, Fort Worth, 

TX

Klondike Ridge Farms, Sunburst, MT

KRA Corporation, Bethesda, MD

LBO Properties LP, Kalispell, MT

Location Montana Incorporated, Bigfork, MT

Mannix Brothers Incorporated, Helmville, MT

McGregor Lake Resort, Marion, MT

Montana Power Company, Butte, MT

Moose Mountain Properties LLC, Kalispell, MT

Neuman Land and Livestock, Great Falls, MT

Nevada Spring Creek Partners, Helena, MT

NR Recording and Communications, Great Falls, 

MT

Pernell Partners LP, Kalispell, MT

Plum Creek Land Company, Seattle, WA

Plum Creek Timber Company, Columbia Falls, MT

Plum Creek Timber Company, Kalispell, MT

PPL Montana, Hydro Licensing, Butte, MT

RLK Hydro Incorporated, Kalispell, MT

R&R Development Company, Kalispell, MT

Sheep Mountain Cattle Company, Geraldine, MT

Simmes Ranch Incorporated, Sunburst, MT

Sliters Incorporated, Somers, MT

Spring Coulee Ranch Incorporated, Highwood, MT

Springdale Colony Incorporated, Power, MT

Starshine, Great Falls, MT

Sveum Brothers Incorporated, Sunburst, MT

Swan Mountain Outfitters, LLC, Swan Lake, MT

Talent Properties Incorporated, Clayton, CA

Tapper Lite LLC, Bigfork, MT

Top Notch Land Company, Kalispell, MT

Tungsten Holdings Incorporated, Libby, MT

Twin Springs Incorporated, Kevin, MT

White Swan Properties LLC, Bigfork, MT

Universities, Schools and 

Libraries

Columbia Falls Library, Columbia Falls, MT

Flathead County Library, Kalispell, MT

Helmville Elementary School, Helmville, MT

Kila School District, Kila, MT

Lincoln County Library, Libby, MT

Montana Academy, Marion, MT

Montana State University, Extension Office, 

Kalispell, MT

Montana State University, Research Center, Bozeman, MT

Pleasant Valley School Superintendent, Marion, MT

School District No. 26, Kalispell, MT

Skyline Education Center, Great Falls, MT

University of Alaska, Biology and Wildlife Department, Fairbanks, AK

University of Great Falls, Great Falls, MT

University of Illinois, Department of Geology, 

Urbana, IL

University of Montana, Cooperative Wildlife 

Research, Missoula, MT

University of Montana, Department of Biological 

Sciences, Missoula, MT

University of Montana, Flathead Lake Biological 

Station, Polson, MT

University of Montana, Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Office, Missoula, MT

University of Montana, Wildlife Biology Program, 

Missoula, MT

University of Washington, Department of Zoology, 

Seattle, WA

Whitefish City Library, Whitefish, MT

Organizations

American Wildlands, Bozeman, MT

Bethel Cemetary Association, Somers, MT

Big Meadows Grazing Association, Hot Springs, 

MT

Born Free, Scaramento, CA

Chain of Lakes Homeowner’s Association, Libby, 

MT

Citizens for a Better Flathead, Kalispell, MT

Defenders of Wildlife, Missoula, MT

East Haven Baptist Church, Kalispell, MT

Eagle Bend Homeowners Association, Bigfork, MT

Five Valley Audubon Society, Missoula, MT

Flathead Valley Chapter Ducks Unlimited, 

Kalispell, MT

Flathead Wildlife, Kalispell, MT

Friends of the Rocky Mountain Front, Choteau, MT

Friends of the Wild Swan, Swan Lake, MT

Glacier Natural History Association, West Glacier, 

MT

Kalispell Chamber of Commerce, Kalispell, MT

Mission Mountain Audubon, Polson, MT

Montana Audubon, Helena, MT

Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Bozeman, 

MT

Montana Conservation Corps, Kalispell, MT

Montana Land Reliance, Bigfork, MT

Montana Stockgrowers Association, Helena, MT

Montana Wilderness Association, Great Falls, MT

Montana Wildlife Federation, Helena, MT

National Wildlife Federation, Missoula, MT

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Colorado 

Springs, CO

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Missoula, MT
Appendix D—Public Involvement 207 

Russell Country Sportsmen’s Association, Great 

Falls, MT

Sonoran Institute, Choteau, MT

Swan River Wildlife Protection Association, Great 

Falls, MT

The Nature Conservancy, Helena, MT

Newspapers

Choteau Acantha, Choteau, MT

Daily Interlake, Kalispell, MT

Hungry Horse News, Columbia Falls, MT

Individuals

558 private individuals

D.4 Public Comments on the 

Draft Plan

The public provided many comments during the public review period for the draft CCP and EA. The 

Service reviewed all comments and found the following to be substantive. As defined by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance guidelines, 

comments are considered substantive if they:

■ question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of 

the information in the document;

■ question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of 

the environmental analysis;

■ present reasonable alternatives other than those 

presented in the environmental assessment;

■ cause changes or revisions in the proposal.

In compliance with the spirit of the Privacy Act of 

1974, it is the policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region, to not publish the 

names, addresses, or other personal information of 

individuals. Agencies, business, and organizations 

are excluded. Rather than print every letter from 

individuals and redact (black out) all personal information, the Service has summarized the general 

nature of the comments received and responded to 

each substantive comment. Some of the comments do 

not meet the definition of “substantive” (as defined 

previously), and those are shown as “comment 

noted.” In some instances, the Service has opted to 

respond to specific nonsubstantive comments where 

the public displayed a strong interest.

A summary of the individual comments is presented below, followed by specific comments and 

responses. The Service developed responses to each 

of these comments after grouping them in the following topics:

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex

■ wildlife (comments 1–2)

■ energy development (comment 3)

■ prescribed fire (comment 4)

■ public use—wildlife observation, hunting, trapping (comments 5–7)

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge

■ climate change (comments 8–9)

■ selenium contamination (comments 10–19)

■ pumping water from Muddy Creek (comments 

20–23)

■ Lake Creek watershed (comments 24–25)

■ effect of dry period on wildlife (comment 26)

■ invasive species (comment 27)

■ botulism (comments 28–29)

■ infrastructure (comments 30–31)

■ economic cost (comment 32)

■ public use (comments 33–36)

■ alternative B (comments 37–43)

■ alternative C1—proposed action (comments 

44–50)

■ grazing (comment 51)

■ shelter belts (comment 52)

■ planning process (comments 53–56)

■ general (comments 57–58)

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge

■ guided hunting (comment 59)

Swan Valley Conservation Area

■ conservation easement program (comments 

60–67)

Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex

The following are comments and responses pertaining to the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex.
208 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Wildlife

Comment 1. Is anyone tracking the grizzly bears—do 

they know where they are going?

Response 1. Grizzly bears are monitored as part of 

the ongoing recovery effort for the species. A 

summary of monitoring efforts can be found in the 

recently published 5-year review for the grizzly 

bear (USFWS 2011a). The grizzly bears in the 

refuge complex are part of the NCDE population. 

This population is monitored through a cooperative effort among MFWP, the Service, the 

National Park Service, USDA Forest Service, the 

Blackfeet Tribe, and the Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes. Details about the monitoring 

effort for the NCDE population can be found on 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Web site (http://

fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife

/management/grizzlyBear/monitoring.html).

Comment 2. The species list for reptiles does not 

include the Bull Snake (Pituophis catenifer sayi). 

I’ve seen only one; it was at my house (1.5m). I 

have pictures. I was hoping it would hang 

around for a few years.

Response 2. Thank you for your comment. We have 

added bull snake to the species list in appendix G.

Energy Development

Comment 3. Your staff has done a good job 

presenting the history, mission, objectives, goals 

and visions for the refuge complex. I support the 

Proposed Action (Alt C) and feel the BLNWR 

Complex must play a critical role in sustaining 

watershed health and wildlife habitats in the face 

of increasing pressure from human development 

of the surrounding landscapes. Toward that end, 

nurturing and expanding conservation 

easements with willing landowners will be an 

essential tool to long term ecosystem 

sustainability and connectivity for the diverse 

wildlife community that depends on it. I 

commend the Service’s efforts to develop sound 

partnerships and am pleased to see an emphasis 

on that approach in the Proposed Action. 

I am, however, deeply concerned that the Draft 

CCP does not adequately assess the many threats 

to the Complex posed by the potential for rapid 

expansion of gas and oil development with 

fracking technology within or adjacent to the 

Complex. It’s become clear that a fracking boom 

could have widespread impacts on watershed 

health, especially considering the tremendous 

quantities of water needed for well development 

and operation. Furthermore, the infrastructure 

development (roads, housing, sewage) that 

accompanies such a boom will have significant 

effects on wildlife and their habitats, especially 

for the Benton Lake Refuge/Wetland 

Management District and the Rocky Mountain 

Front CA. Additionally, impacts to air quality 

could be felt across the Complex from diesel truck 

traffic, well venting and other production-related 

emissions currently being proposed for 

regulation by the EPA. While I realize that 

predicting and quantifying these impacts may be 

beyond the scope of the CCP, I feel that it’s 

essential to acknowledge and adequately describe 

the potential for this unprecedented level of 

development to affect the goals and resources of 

the BLNWR Complex. The public deserves to 

know that a fracking boom on private, state or 

federal lands could have serious consequences to 

the watersheds, wildlife and ecosystems of the 

Complex. I believe that this CCP should include a 

discussion of what the Service and its partners 

could do to protect the resources of the Complex 

from these impacts and offset any unavoidable 

consequences.

Response 3. The refuge complex staff agrees with, 

and shares, concerns regarding threats due to 

energy development, which was identified as the 

primary threat to native habitats and wildlife 

within the refuge complex in the CCP. With the 

rapid development of new energy technologies 

within the refuge complex (wind industries and 

fracking for oil production) over the past four 

years, the Benton Lake Refuge has been 

immersed in energy-related activities. Refuge 

staff has participated in public meetings, oil and 

gas leasing workshops, and environmental compliance and enforcement conferences. In addition, 

the staff shares leasing and surface use agreement information with local landowners, organizes meetings with tribal, State, and Federal oil 

and gas regulatory agencies, and have developed 

best management guidelines with State and Federal biologists, nongovernment organizations, and 

land management agencies, to help direct and 

reduce impacts. The staff also worked with 

energy industry representatives to make recommendations for, and sight, wind farm turbine locations.

The Service agrees that it is daunting to predict 

and quantify the potential environmental impacts 

throughout the refuge complex from current and 

future energy development activities. Vigilant, 

well-informed, and proactive communications 

between partnering agencies, nongovernment 

organizations, landowners, local communities and 
Appendix D—Public Involvement 209 

the energy industry, while recognizing environmental regulatory mandates and respecting personal property rights is the best approach for 

responsible land stewardship.

Prescribed Fire

Comment 4. Prescribed fire pollutes the air people 

need to breathe. Burning releases fine particulate 

matter and mercury, which cause lung cancer, 

heart attacks, strokes, pneumonia, allergies and 

asthma. You send people to the hospital or mortuary. This is no help to America to burn. Fire 

does not control invasive species, it spreads them. 

Regrowth after burning takes 5 to l0 years during 

which the site is impossible for any birds or wildlife to live there. Grazing is NOT GOOD for the 

environment. It harms the environment totally.

Response 4. Grasslands in the northern Great Plains 

evolved under the influence of fire and herbivory 

from wild ungulates which reduces plant litter, 

recycles nutrients, and stimulates plant growth. 

Regrowth of grasslands after a fire takes one 

growing season. Lightning-caused fires are common on Benton Lake Refuge and on WPAs in the 

wetland management district. We use prescribed 

fire and short-duration, high-intensity grazing on 

a rotational basis to mimic natural processes and 

maintain grasslands in a robust and productive 

state that provides excellent wildlife habitat. 

Invasive species are a problem in some areas of 

the refuge and wetland management district and 

are managed using chemical, mechanical and biological controls in accordance with Service policy 

and State statutes.

Public Use (wildlife observation, hunting, 

trapping)

Comment 5. More open areas for viewing wildlife—

whether on foot or car are needed. There are other 

prairie refuges (public or NGO) that have foot 

trails that might serve as a model.

Response 5. The refuge complex recognizes an interest in increased wildlife viewing opportunities. As 

such, the selected management direction for the 

refuge complex and Benton Lake Refuge includes 

a number of objectives and strategies directed at 

increasing wildlife viewing opportunity.

Comment 6. I appreciate the plan’s attention to the 

wildlife viewing experience. I have one concern 

here. There is frequent reference to closures that 

could cause disturbance to the birds. I urge the 

refuge staff to set these limits at what’s needed 

and no more. How much area needs to be closed 

to wildlife viewing, and how for just how long? 

Maybe not as much or as long as the rules 

appoint. The contrast with Freezout Lake Wildlife Management Area – a nearby area with 

many similarities – is stark. Freezout is a productive wildlife management area which doesn’t 

restrict visitor presence at all, except to provide a 

limited sanctuary for waterfowl during the hunting season. Maybe Benton Lake could be managed a little more liberally in this regard, more 

carefully balancing the desire for wildlife viewing and the welfare of the birds. These remarks 

also apply to Swan River National Wildlife Refuge (what a great spot for bitterns!) as well.

Response 6. Swan River Refuge and Benton Lake 

Refuge were established specifically under the 

authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act. Benton Lake Refuge’s purpose is as “a refuge 

and breeding ground for migratory birds” and for 

“use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other 

management purpose, for migratory birds.” Swan 

River Refuge’s purpose is for “use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, 

for migratory birds.” The Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District purposes are for “waterfowl 

production area subject to all of the provision of 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Act except the 

inviolate sanctuary provisions, for “any other 

management purpose for migratory birds”, and 

for “conservation purposes.” The purpose of these 

areas dictates the type, location, and timing of 

recreational use. Because breeding migratory 

birds rely on wetland and upland habitats (grasslands) to complete their life cycles, portions of the 

refuges and waterfowl production areas are closed 

during the breeding season when they are most 

sensitive to disturbance. This period is generally 

between March 1 and July 15. Many species using 

these areas nest within the grasslands, along 

roadsides, and, in some cases, in less-developed 

roadways, making these species at high risk for 

nest failure. To ensure the protection of breeding 

birds and that the refuge units meet their designated purposes, seasonal closures are implemented. The staff balance recreational 

opportunity and the protection of resources to 

optimize the availability of both, however, the protection of natural resources receives the highest 

priority if conflicts exist. The refuge complex has 

reached an affective balance to meet migratory 

bird management objectives, but we may consider 

expanding opportunity if conditions change.

Comment 7. No increased hunting. In fact ban all 

hunting in this site. Wildlife watchers outspend 
210 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

hunters 5 to l so why consign this area to economic depravity to invite in wildlife killers. 

Hunting is not a compatible activity with any 

other peaceful activity. I oppose hunt season for 

state defined predators and non-game species 

from August l5 through March 1. Ban all trapping, brutal horror that it is.

Response 7. Hunting is a compatible, traditional public use of the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, excluding Sands and H2–O WPAs. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, other laws, and Service policy 

permit hunting on a national wildlife refuge when 

it is compatible with (does not materially detract 

from) the purposes for which the refuge was 

established and acquired. National wildlife refuges exist primarily to safeguard wildlife populations through habitat management and 

conservation. 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 Refuge System. However, habitat that supports healthy wildlife populations produces harvestable animal surpluses, with wildlife being a 

renewable resource in these situations. Hunting, 

trapping, and fishing as practiced on refuges do 

not pose a threat to wildlife populations and, in 

some instances, are actually necessary for sound 

wildlife management.

Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge

The following are comments and responses pertaining to the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

Climate Change

Comment 8. A word on global warming, the granddaddy of refuge issues. Returning fluctuating 

water levels to Benton Lake, and even allowing 

dry years, will provide the conditions that will 

maximize the full range of native plants and 

invertebrates in the wetland, the foundation on 

which the other wildlife rests. Whatever lies 

ahead, a healthy ecosystem will be more able to 

withstand it, rather than one that tilts towards 

invasive species and monocultures more and 

more as the years pass. I hope refuge staff will 

also be able to add many conservation easements 

to the refuge complex in coming years, providing 

the wildlife corridors that must be available if 

wildlife is to survive.

Response 8. We completely agree with your assessment. The selected management direction provides a full range of native plants and 

invertebrates in the wetland and improves the 

health of the ecosystem so that it will be better 

able to withstanding unforeseen climate changes. 

The refuge complex will continue to place high 

priority on acquiring conservation easements 

which can provide wildlife corridors to enhance 

adaptability of species.

Comment 9. With the growing awareness and acceptance of the long term and serious impacts of 

climate change, it is all the more important to 

protect existing and developed valuable wetlands 

area’s such as Benton Lake. To do otherwise is 

misguided, shortsighted and counterproductive. 

In that regard, I am in full support of alternative 

B-1 and the comments as submitted by the Russell country Sportsmen’s Association, and am 

convinced it is the most appropriate and effective 

option available. This option will require considerable effort, creativity and strong leadership on 

the part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but 

I am confident you and your staff are capable of 

accomplishing this difficult task. My father was 

one of the far sighted individuals that lead the 

effort to develop this valuable resource. We 

MUST protect and perpetuate that vision.

Response 9. Restoring a refuge’s health and sustainability in both the uplands and wetlands is the 

most powerful tool to combat impacts of climate 

change and counteracting the impacts of wetland 

loss across the landscape on migratory birds. By 

shifting the management of Benton Lake Refuge 

from intensively managed semipermanent water 

body, to a wetland driven by more natural hydrology, will improve the sustainability and health of 

the system and increase the system’s resiliency 

and resistance to changes. The Service’s HAPET 

office has identified temporary and seasonal wetland, often less than 1 acre in size, and totally or 

partially embedded in cropland, as the highest 

risk for conversion. The pressure to drain and fill 

these wetlands for tillage agriculture puts these 

basins at higher risk of conversion than those with 

more permanent water or embedded in grassland. 

At the same time, the value of these small temporary and seasonal wetlands to the waterfowl 

resource is great. According to HAPET, for every 

ten 1-acre wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region, 

there would predictably be 20 breeding pairs of 

ducks, whereas, one 10-acre wetland would likely 

support only seven duck pairs. Managing Benton 

Lake Refuge as a semipermanent wetland does 

not provide the same resources as would managing most of the lost wetlands across the landscape. 
Appendix D—Public Involvement 211 

Protecting and restoring the vulnerable small 

temporary and seasonal wetlands and restoring 

the sustainability and health of Benton Lake Refuge (includes greater occurrence of temporary 

and seasonal wetland habitat within the basin) 

would be of greater benefit to migratory birds and 

adaptation to climate change.

Selenium Contamination

Comment 10. The study has brought to light a serious 

problem with policies of the past causing a concentration of chemicals. It seems the chemicals 

may be occurring naturally, but the influence of 

man’s behavior has greatly concentrated the 

chemicals to the point of being unnatural and 

harmful to the wildlife of the area. To me, the best 

solution would seem to be to allow a return of the 

refuge to a more natural cycle; for man to stop 

remaking it into something unhealthy for generations to come. This may also have an additional 

benefit of saving federal dollars, not enough to 

“save the nation” but it would be one area that we 

could add our savings to the bigger picture. From 

time to time this solution may seem to change the 

desirability of particular visits, hunting in particular, but it would still be more along the natural occurrence of hunting opportunities rather 

than creating a government funded hunting preserve/farm for sick animals to be taken by people 

not willing to actually go hunt for them. I’m NOT 

against hunting, but I think we need to also try to 

provide a healthy environment for healthy wildlife for all to enjoy.

Response 10. Thank you for your comment.

Comment 11. I thought you did a good job on your 

assessment of the selenium problem at the Benton Lake Refuge though I think the vegetation 

and raptors need testing for selenium levels. I 

have been too ill to attend the public hearing 

Tuesday. Please keep me advised to the future 

management of the selenium problem at Benton 

Lake. I also appreciate your diligence in wisely 

spending tax dollars while managing our valuable refuge.

Response 11. Thank you for your comment. We will 

consider your suggestion to test selenium in vegetation and raptors as part of the stepdown plans 

(Habitat Management and Inventory and Monitoring) that will be developed. 

Comment 12. I would like to comment on my concern 

about the decline in conditions at the Benton 

Lake Wildlife Refuge. I live on a plateau south of 

Benton Lake Refuge. I am in sight of the refuge 

and have large numbers of waterfowl and birds 

moving to and fro to the refuge across my land. I 

am totally endorsing alternative C1 (Proposed 

Action). I am concerned the refuge will be permanently harmed by the buildup of selenium 

because of the unnatural addition of purchased 

water to the refuge. I also object to this waste of 

tax payer money. I have a B.S. in avian science 

and am a federally and State of Montana permitted raptor propagator. I mention these qualifications because I am concerned these heavy metals 

specifically, toxic increased levels of selenium, 

are harming the raptors preying on sickened 

waterfowl. There is a study on selenium toxicity 

in the peregrine falcons in the Big Bend area of 

Texas. I know peregrines and recently snowy 

owls are visitors to the refuge. I am for allowing 

the refuge to return to a more natural state which 

should lower the levels of heavy metals such as 

lead, mercury, and selenium.

Response 12. Thank you for your comment.

Comment 13. As a birder, I’ve enjoyed many a pleasant hour at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge over the past 30 years. Sharp-tailed grouse 

dancing, ruddy ducks bubbling, eared grebes carrying chicks on their backs, chestnut-collared 

longspurs climbing skyward to sing—all come to 

mind when I think of this refuge. Not to mention 

those one-time-only sights such as a gyrfalcon 

taking a mallard. Underpinning all this enjoyment is the health of Benton Lake’s habitats, 

which brings us to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. As the plan notes, selenium concentrations threaten, bird numbers languish, the 

open water decreases. Factor in national concerns like global warming and the decline of 

grassland birds, and the management of these 

lands takes on even more importance. What to 

do?

I support option C-1, with B-2 as a second choice. 

As in so many cases of trying to halt a natural 

cycle at one place, keeping water levels stable and 

deep at Benton Lake has come with a hefty price 

that becomes more and more evident as time goes 

on. Just as using dams to eliminate flooding has 

kept new cottonwoods from growing in our watersheds, eliminating water fluctuations from Benton Lake has harmed the habitat. Why have 

shorebird migrants – which I helped to count in 

support of the Western Shorebird Hemisphere 

Reserve designation years ago – fallen so much? 

What about our waterbirds? Unfortunately, refuge staffing hasn’t allowed the kind of monitoring that would let us know precisely how bad the 

situation is. Even so, a plan must be made. 
212 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Although species needing deep water may be 

harmed, (white-fronted ibis, black-crowned 

night-heron, and Franklin’s gull, this last of 

which will likely return when wet years allow), 

the benefits to the myriad remaining species outweigh this. Option C-1 emphasizes grassland 

birds, as it should. This is the group of birds in 

most serious decline in our nation. But Benton’s 

wetland birds are not to be overlooked – there’s 

nothing like the concentration of birds you find in 

a wetland surrounded by dry country to deliver 

spectacular birdwatching. And like grasslands, 

wetlands have also been disappearing. Still, letting natural processes reign may well bring 

higher productivity back to the wetlands. It’s 

hard to keep doing the same thing in the face of 

results that get worse and worse, even as selenium concentrations approach levels where it 

will impact bird reproduction. I can’t support 

option C-2. Wildlife management is an inexact 

undertaking, and keeping the pumping equipment in place allows flexibility as the future 

unfolds.

Response 13. Thank you for your comment.

Comment 14. Many studies have been done about the 

dangers of eating chemically tainted fish. What 

about the effects on the hunter of eating chemically tainted waterfowl? Though I’m not a 

hunter, I believe they hold themselves to a moral 

standard of not taking more than they can use. I 

would hope they are not throwing away any animals they take.

Response 14. In other locations, such as California, 

human health advisories have been issued based 

on selenium levels in edible fish tissues (DOI 

1998). The potential effect on hunters who consume waterfowl that have been harvested at Benton Lake Refuge, particularly in reference to 

selenium contamination, has not been studied. 

Previous studies of selenium contamination in 

waterfowl on the refuge have sampled eggs or livers during the breeding season (for example, 

Knapton et al. 1988; Nimick et al. 1996). In order 

to assess the possibility of a human health hazard 

due to selenium contamination in waterfowl, 

either muscle tissue or whole-body sampling 

would need to be done during the fall hunting 

season.

Comment 15. Agricultural waste water is the primary cause of your refuge’s problems. You have 

the same problem which occurred during the 

early 1980s at the Kesterson National Wildlife 

Refuge in Central California. I covered the Kesterson story as a reporter for United Press International and later for the Fresno Bee. Birds 

nesting at the Kesterson evaporation ponds had a 

two/thirds reproductive failure rate as selenium 

bioconcentrated while moving up the Kesterson 

food chain. The U.S. Geological Survey has an 

internet website with many, many peer-reviewed 

articles about selenium impacts on wildlife.

Response 15. Thank you for your comment.

Comment 16. Today I attended a meeting at the Holiday Inn Great Falls regarding the CCP alternatives for the Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge. At the end of the meeting several comments were made and the facilitator’s summary 

concerned me. He summarized that it sound like 

we were all in agreement that some form of drying was needed to address the selenium problem. 

He inferred that the group was in agreement that 

the lake being dry for all but four years in a 

twenty year period was unacceptable. However 

what period of drying time was acceptable was 

undecided. I want to clarify that the consensus 

from the group, that having the lake completely 

dry for any given year was unacceptable. The 

group was in favor in a B alternative that would 

keep water in the lake through the hunting season, but agreed that selective drying of ponds on 

a rotating basis was preferred compared to 

allowing the entire lake to go dry in any given 

year. It was discussed that the B alternative 

could address the selenium problem and for that 

reason the group was unanimous in supporting 

this alternative.

Response 16. We agree that determining the appropriate period of drying for the refuge is a key 

issue in developing the management direction for 

Benton Lake. We have modified the proposed 

action to reduce the number of years the lake may 

be completely dry to no more than 4 out of 15 

years (and no more than 3 consecutive years). This 

change was made to balance the need to address 

selenium contamination and the health of the wetland with concerns by the public about extended 

drying on the refuge.

Comment 17. I’m a taxidermist. I know nothing 

about selenium. It would seem that there is something to do about it (flooding, drying, plowing). 

We can’t just dry up the refuge because of selenium. Benton Lake seems too important in the 

flyway just to dry up. I have always said WATER 

IS LIFE IN MONTANA.

Response 17. Thank you for your comment. Management direction for Benton Lake includes prescriptive management actions such as flooding, drying 

and plowing. The proposed action has also been 

modified to reduce the number of years that the 
Appendix D—Public Involvement 213 

lake may be completely dry to no more than 4 out 

of 15 (and no more than 3 consecutive).

Comment 18. Aggressively go after the selenium problem in Units 1 and 2 and start paying particular 

attention to improving the grassland for prairie 

birds.

Response 18. Thank you for your comment. The management direction for Benton Lake will make 

treating the selenium problem in Units 1 and 2, as 

well as improving wetland health, a top priority. 

We agree that improving grassland habitat for 

prairie birds is also important. As wetland health 

improves, more refuge resources (staff time and 

money) will be available for managing grassland 

habitat.

Comment 19. Pond 1 shows the highest level and the 

levels reduce as you go from pond to pond. Suggested that pond 1 could be emptied for 7 years 

and this would kill of the selenium and botulism 

in the area. Rotation of the ponds would allow for 

survival of brood and waterfowl.

Response 19. The management direction for Benton 

Lake will include drying in Unit 1 until selenium 

levels have been reduced to where they are no 

longer hazardous to wildlife. We also plan to 

rotate flooding in the remaining ponds in years of 

sufficient natural runoff or pumping.

Pumping Water from Muddy Creek

Comment 20. I agree with Action C, letting the refuge 

return to natural without buying [pumping] 

supplemental water on dry years. I agree with 

your opinion that this would alleviate the toxic 

selenium build up problem.

Response 20. The Service agrees that one of the easiest solutions to reducing selenium accumulation in 

the wetland basin is to not pump the 40-percent 

supplemental water that has become typical and 

to provide greater opportunity for wetland basins 

to dry. After receipt of all public input and comments, the Service has selected a management 

direction that will address selenium accumulation 

while providing a more modest reduction in recreational opportunity. The selected management 

direction has set selenium objectives which 

include a trigger for action at 50-percent minimal 

hazard level for all trophic levels (water, sediment, 

invertebrates, and eggs) and a no-net-increase in 

selenium for the entire basin over the life of the 

plan. To accomplish this, extended periods of drying (7 or more years) in targeted units with the 

highest selenium toxicity such as Unit 1 and 2 and 

shorter-duration drying (3–5 or more years in 

other units) will be implemented which will significantly reduce selenium toxicity. In addition, 

the location, duration, and quantity of pumped 

water may be reduced to meet selenium objectives. Efforts will also be made to improve water 

quality in the Lake Creek and Muddy Creek 

watersheds, which should reduce the inputs of 

selenium into the wetland basin.

Comment 21. Most importantly the refuge should be 

maintained as a wetland habitat by pumping 

water every year. Special water species need this 

isolated marsh. The largest populations of 

Franklin’s Gulls in Montana (the “good” gulls) 

and Ibis nest there. I am a member of 6 Montana 

wildlife organizations. It amazes me FWS would 

even consider no longer pumping water to this 

special habitat.

Response 21. Refuge staff reviewed the current continental population estimate, population status, 

and the importance of Benton Lake for common 

and uncommon breeding waterbirds on the refuge 

that are also identified as a species of concern at 

the national or regional level by the Service or its 

partners. Wetland-dependent birds tend to be 

long lived, most have stable-to-increasing populations, and, for species on which the Service has 

received specific comments (black-crowned nightherons, Franklin’s gulls, and black-necked stilts), 

the refuge is either disjunctive or peripheral to 

their populations. Continental population levels of 

migratory bird species of concern will not be 

significantly affected by the management 

direction of the refuge (Region 6 Migratory 

Bird Office). With the Refuge System, the 

Service has a mandate to consider species on a 

population-wide, rather than only local, scale.

The selected management direction of the refuge 

seeks to improve waterfowl and other wetlanddependent bird (for example, Franklin’s gulls, 

white-faced ibis) productivity on the refuge over 

the next 15 years. We do know that when wetlands reflood after a dry period, there is a pulse of 

nutrients that stimulates productivity in invertebrates and some plants, which provides important 

food resources for waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

other wetland-dependent wildlife (Magee 1995, 

Anteau 2012). Under the selected management 

direction for Benton Lake Refuge, there will be 

more frequent annual flooding than what was 

originally proposed. Whether or not shorter-term 

dry cycles are effective in addressing serious wetland health issues will be continually monitored 

and evaluated in an adaptive management framework. Based on this monitoring feedback, adjustments will be made as needed.
214 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Comment 22. I am opposed to any changes that eliminate pumping from Muddy Creek once a year.

Response 22. Comment noted. Under the selected 

management direction, some amount of pumping 

is likely to occur in 11 out of the 15 years of the 

plan with no more than 3 consecutive years getting no pumping. The decision to not pump is 

based on achieving the wetland health and sustainability objectives addressing selenium toxicity 

(preventing reproductive harm from selenium in 

wildlife, especially birds), invasive species management, botulism, and wetland productivity.

Comment 23. An easement was signed with [neighboring landowner] in 1959. Their water was cut 

off and diverted to Benton Lake. In return for 

this, they were promised their ponds would be 

stocked 2 times per year. Without fulfillment of 

the agreement, the family farm would be gone. 

Response 23. The 1959 easement does not guarantee 

to provide water annually. The easement says that 

when the refuge pumps water, stock ponds would 

be filled. Under the selected management direction, some amount of pumping is likely to occur in 

11 out of 15 years of the plan with no more than 3 

consecutive years without pumping. When the 

refuge pumps water, it will do so to fill up the 

stock ponds. In addition, the refuge will work with 

impacted landowners to try to develop alternative 

mechanisms to provide water during years the 

refuge does not pump water.

Lake Creek Watershed

Comment 24. The description of the action plan 

“Calming Troubled Waters” focuses almost 

entirely on the actions dealing with volunteer 

conservation efforts with landowners in the 

watershed. Missing is the action item that called 

for the acquisition of 10,000 acres to the west of 

the existing refuge. This action alone, if started 

20 years ago, would have eliminated some of the 

prime sources of saline seeps on the refuge. I’m 

also puzzled why acquisition is not one of the 

actions in the plan?

Response 24. The proposed action had extremely limited pumping (once out of 8 years) and effects from 

selenium would have been adequately addressed 

by providing extended drying through the natural 

hydroperiod. The selected management alternative reduced basin-wide drying to 4 years out of 

15 years of the plan, not exceeding 3 consecutive 

years. With the increase in pumping, the importance of water quality in the Lake Creek and 

Muddy Creek watersheds is heightened. In the 

past, the Service has implemented short-duration 

agreements that placed fallow fields into permanent cover with some level of success, however, 

after the loss of funds, the areas were converted 

back to row crops. As such, Service staff has 

added an additional strategy to the plan to help 

improve water quality within the watersheds. 

This strategy would evaluate placing permanent 

cover on prime sources of saline seeps by purchasing fee-title tracts or perpetual easements on land 

from willing sellers. Only perpetual easements 

will be considered to ensure the long-term 

improvement and protection of water quality.

Comment 25. I would like to comment on the virtual 

absence of a discussion regarding the landowner 

that is the major contributor to the selenium contamination in the lake. This study is not complete without properly addressing this issue, and 

I’m surprised at the glaring omission! Benton 

Lake must be kept viable. If I had to choose 

among the alternatives in the study, I would support Plan B, but an abatement plan with the 

offending landowner HAS TO BE A PART OF 

ANY SOLUTION.

Response 25. Comment noted. The selected management alternative will strive to provide some 

waterfowl hunting and fall and spring migration 

habitat in at least 11 out of 15 years. This will 

require some pumping, which heightens the 

importance of water quality in the Lake Creek 

and Muddy Creek watersheds. The refuge will 

coordinate with the Montana Salinity Control to 

identify prime areas for abatement and the means 

to improve water quality within the watersheds.

Effect of Dry Periods on Wildlife

Comment 26. We the public are concerned about the 

long dry periods in the preferred plan. What are 

going to happen to the birds when there is no 

water on the refuge and none off the refuge?? 

Where will they go? Some evidence of what can 

happen when there is poor or no water we don’t 

have to go far. In 2000 (I was told and later read 

about) a mallard study in Blain and Phillips 

County. 25 mallards were radioed and only 7 

nested. There were some that left and the rest 

didn’t even try to nest. This just shows that any 

water wherever it is important to waterfowl and 

wildlife. That’s what scares me, when in drought 

(which it seems we are always in) all other nonpumped waterfowl production areas are dry but 

BLNWR has water in it giving wildlife and 

waterfowl a place to live and strive.

Response 26. The proposed action has been modified 

to reduce the length of basin-wide dry periods to 
Appendix D—Public Involvement 215 

no more than 4 out of 15 years (and no more than 3 

consecutive years). During these shorter dry periods, breeding of wetland-dependent species such 

as waterfowl will be low at the refuge, but wetland-dependent birds have adapted to long-term 

flooding and drying cycles. Although some species 

of waterfowl tend to return to the same breeding 

area used the year before, most species of 

waterfowl exhibit some degree of flexibility 

in settling patterns in response to local 

wetland conditions (Johnson and Grier 1988).

When the refuge wetland units are reflooded after 

a dry period, there will be a pulse of nutrients 

that stimulates productivity in invertebrates and 

some plants, which provides important food 

resources for waterfowl, shorebirds, and other 

wetland-dependent wildlife (Magee 1995, Anteau 

2012). Restoring annual and long-term variability 

in the wetland basin will increase plant and animal diversity over the long term,while providing 

optimal conditions for different suites of species at 

different times. Examples of this occur regularly 

on the waterfowl production areas within the district where significant bird use occurs in basins 

under natural hydrological regimes that are 

flooded following a relatively long dry cycle.

Invasive Species

Comment 27. The foxtail was killed off last year when 

the area flooded and water levels remained high. 

Proposed killing the foxtail with continued flooding and chemicals.

Response 27. Thank you for your comment. All management tools, including flooding, drying, and 

chemical treatments will be considered to control 

Garrison creeping foxtail.

Botulism

Comment 28. Where is botulism addressed in the 

proposal?

Response 28. Botulism is discussed in numerous 

places in the Draft CCP and EA for the Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, including 

in the discussion of the establishment, acquisition, 

and management history of Benton Lake Refuge 

on pages 201 and 204 in section 7.2. From 1962 

through the late 1980s some water was pumped 

during the summer to support water levels. In the 

last 20 years summer pumping has not been used, 

which let Units 3–6 dry out and prevented botulism outbreaks. Pumping generally resumes in 

late August or early September, depending on 

when the Greenfields Irrigation District ceases 

water distribution.

Comment 29. Botulism was found in the ponds in 

1970 and the pond was dried out. This action 

killed the Botulism.

Response 29. Although we still do not completely 

understand the causes of a botulism outbreak, 

drying out any units with botulism is the only way 

to stop outbreaks there.

Infrastructure

Comment 30. If there is no water in the area for 15–20 

years there would be a breakdown of the areas 

infrastructure due to lack of public use and 

maintenance.

Response 30. The infrastructure would not break 

down if the refuge was dry for 15 or 20 years. 

Actually the lack of muskrat burrowing activity 

in dry years would reduce the need for dike maintenance. The refuge auto tour would still be kept 

up and remain open for public use. Natural runoff 

would still occur in Lake Creek and all water control structures, culverts, and other structures in 

the creek would be maintained as needed to allow 

normal water flow in the creek. Very little maintenance activity beyond cleaning vegetation from 

culverts and stopping log structures takes place 

in Lake Creek during the year. The Muddy Creek 

Pumphouse requires little annual maintenance. 

The water control structures in Muddy Creek 

remain open during nonpumping periods to allow 

natural flows to pass through. The pumps, themselves, are in a secure, locked building, and, when 

the Pumphouse sump is drained, the entire pump 

remains out of the water. Oil levels inside the 

pump are maintained and there should be few 

problems with long-term inactivity.

Comment 31. The intended purpose in the development if the refuge was, and still is, for wet lands 

and habitat for thousands of migrating and nesting birds (a paradise for water birds, so stated in 

one of your special leaflets found at the information kiosk at the entrance road). The cost of development of the refuge in the 1950’s, the new asphalt 

road, many improvement to the infrastructure 

would all be lost if alternative C was implemented. A rough estimate between three to six 

million dollars to reclaim the refuge to prairie 

land could well be used to buy and install a 

reverse siphon at Muddy Creek Pump Station to 

supply water to the refuge. The elimination of the 

existing pump would result in huge savings of 

tax dollars by not using electrical power. Money 
216 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

saved could then be used for maintenance, noxious weed control, and up keep of the refuge. A 

clean supply of water using the siphon would 

help reduce the contamination of selenium and 

salinity. My endorsement of Alternative B is not 

only supportive for the above reason, but also 

because members of the Cascade County Wildlife 

Association secured congressional funding to 

transform the marsh into a more consistently wet 

environment. Four years later a pump house and 

pipeline were built to bring water to the refuge 

from Muddy Creek. Because of their effort and 

citizen involvement, the refuge has worked just 

fine for over 53 years. I highly suggest, encourage, 

and recommend that you as the decision maker 

listen to the present day sportsmen, the sportsmen organizations (Ducks Unlimited; MFW&P; 

Public Land, Public Water Association, Russell 

Country Sportsmen Association) and concerned 

citizens and adopt Alternative B to conserve and 

continue the sole intention of Benton Lake for the 

next 53 years and beyond.

Response 31. Benton Lake Refuge was established as 

“a refuge and breeding ground for birds” (Executive Order No.5228, November 21, 1929). The 

Improvement Act requires that “each refuge shall 

be managed to fulfill the mission of the Refuge 

System, as well as the specific purpose for which 

that refuge was established” (section 4 (a)(1)(3)

(A)). There is a strong and singular wildlife conservation mission for the Refuge System and, 

when found to be compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses such as hunting are legitimate 

and proper uses but secondary to the primary 

purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Management actions to improve the health and 

vitality of the refuge supersede any recreational 

use. The refuge has experienced significant wetland health declines since the installation of the 

infrastructure and Pumphouse in 1961 as well as 

consistent flooding on an annual basis. Wetland 

health and sustainability declines with their implications for the species that depend on the wetlands have prompted a change in management of 

the wetland basin. The selected management 

direction does not include major infrastructure 

development, but does suggest that minor retrofitting and modification may occur. The use of a 

siphon was considered and evaluated through the 

planning process and found to be cost prohibitive 

(a 2006 estimate by the Bureau of Reclamation of 

$5 million) and not a viable option due to the 

uncertainty of water quantity, the timing of water 

availability, and the quality of water. A more 

descriptive analysis of the siphon is available in 

section 7.10 in the Draft CCP and EA for the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

There is no intention by the refuge to not use or 

keep the existing entrance road that was resurfaced in 2010.

Economic Cost

Comment 32. In spending money (tax payers’ 

money), with the exception of proposition C, it 

would appear that most of the money would be 

ill-spent. To quote a mutual acquaintance of 

ours, “The long term cost of keeping the water 

levels up goes beyond the annual purchases of 

water and is affecting the viability of the lake 

beds themselves. It appears that by creating the 

wetlands when they would otherwise be dry has 

created additional cost and is actually affecting 

the natural life-cycle in the area. I would prefer 

to see the area allowed to revert to a normal 

cycle, to find its own balance. Under the current 

economic circumstances, I would prefer that the 

funds be reallocated to projects that are restoring 

refuges, or to simply reduce the budget overall.

Response 32. The proposed action (alternative C1) 

was one of the most fiscally responsible options. 

The selected management direction, which is a 

modification from the proposed action, is more 

expensive. Under the selected management direction, the refuge will strive to provide some waterfowl hunting and fall and spring migration habitat 

in at least 11 out of 15 years. This will require 

some pumping and additional expenses in water 

management. The refuge units will go through 

dry cycles to emulate the natural hydroperiods 

and a basin-wide drawdown may occur in 4 out of 

15 years though it will not exceed 3 consecutive 

years. The selected management direction is 

expected to cost more than current management 

action (alternative A1) and the proposed action 

(alternative C1), less than alternatives B1 and C2, 

and similar to alternative B2. Any savings will be 

used for management objectives on the refuge or 

on other high-priority activities in the refuge complex such as the management and acquisition of 

conservation easements within the Crown of the 

Continent Ecosystem.

Public Use

Comment 33. Under alternative C recreational use 

would increase 45% but waterfowl hunting would 

decrease. If there is no water in Benton there are 

no ducks, shorebirds, and wildlife. How would 

recreational use increase then? The alternative 

says the refuge would be dry 7–8 years out of ten. 
Appendix D—Public Involvement 217 

I presume that recreation would decrease 45% 

rather increase.

Response 33. The Improvement Act identifies six priority uses including: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Waterfowl hunting 

(approximately 300 visits per year) is not the only 

recreation use considered by the refuge. In fact, 

the most abundant recreation use on the refuge is 

wildlife observation (over 9,000 visits per year). 

The selected management direction and proposed 

action alternative C1 include a park ranger position that will enhance the public use program, 

including an emphasis on nonconsumptive user 

groups (wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation). This 

focused and concentrated effort is expected to 

increase visitation to the refuge and participation 

in refuge programming. The proposed action 

(alternative C1) estimated public use from all user 

groups, over the life of the plan, to increase by 25 

percent over current usage. Hunting was estimated to be reduced by 41 percent over the life of 

the plan. The selected management direction is 

striving to provide some waterfowl hunting and 

fall and spring migration habitat in at least 11 out 

of 15 years. This should increase the amount of 

waterfowl hunting use from the proposed action 

alternative C1. Under a natural hydrologic 

regime, water captured from natural runoff is 

expected to be available on the refuge until June 

73 percent of the time providing valuable spring 

and early summer habitat for many bird species 

including waterbirds, ducks, shorebirds, and 

grassland birds.

Comment 34. If enacted, your proposed alternative 

C1 will significantly reduce wildlife viewing and 

essentially eliminate the hunting opportunities 

that are currently being enjoyed by the citizens of 

central Montana. The claims of increased usage 

under this proposal are false and cannot be 

substantiated.

Response 34. The Improvement Act identifies six priority uses including: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Waterfowl hunting 

(approximately 300 visits per year) is not the only 

recreation use considered during the analysis by 

the refuge. In fact, the most abundant recreation 

use on the refuge is wildlife observation (over 

9,000 visits per year). The selected management 

direction and proposed action alternative C1 

include a park ranger position that will enhance 

the public use program, including an emphasis on 

nonconsumptive user groups (wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education and interpretation). This focused and concentrated effort is 

expected to increase visitation to the refuge and 

participation in refuge programing by 25 percent 

over the life of the plan. The selected management 

direction balances the health and sustainability of 

the wetland while providing additional waterfowl 

hunting opportunity than the proposed action 

alternative C1. Under the selected management 

direction, the refuge is striving to provide some 

waterfowl hunting and fall and spring migration 

habitat in at least 11 out of 15 years, which should 

increase hunting over the proposed action (alternative C1).

Comment 35. I have been hunting the area since 1971. 

Hunting was cut in half when the Service closed 

hunting to half the area. If the Service continues 

to close areas then the area will miss out on a 

generation of new hunters.

Response 35. Benton Lake Refuge was established as 

“a refuge and breeding ground for birds” (Executive Order No.5228, November 21, 1929). The 

Improvement Act requires that “each refuge shall 

be managed to fulfill the mission of the Refuge 

System, as well as the specific purpose for which 

that refuge was established” (section 4 (a)(1)(3)

(A)). There is a strong and singular wildlife conservation mission for the Refuge System and, 

when found to be compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses such as hunting are legitimate 

and proper uses but secondary to the primary 

purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Management actions to improve the health and 

vitality of the refuge supersede any recreational 

use resulting in seasonal closures and other 

restrictions.

Comment 36. If the refuge goes dry then generations 

of hunters will not be able to use the land. If the 

birds go then they will never return. They will 

modify their migration and the area would be a 

loss to the community.

Response 36. This comment suggests that waterdependent birds have not adapted to long-term 

flooding and drying cycles. Although some species 

of waterfowl tend to return to the same breeding 

area used the year before (such as homing), most 

species of waterfowl exhibit some degree of flexibility in settling patterns in response to local wetland conditions (Johnson and Grier 1988). 

Examples of this occur regularly on the waterfowl 

production areas within the wetland management 

district where basins under natural hydrological 

regimes are flooded following a relatively long dry 

cycle with significant associated bird use. Drying 

periods are not expected to eliminate bird usage 

over long periods of time as suggested by the com-
218 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

menter. The proposed action has been revised to 

imitate the natural wet–dry cycles in various 

units and across the basin to improve wetland 

health, while providing flooded wetland habitat in 

more years than would have occurred under the 

proposed action. The refuge will strive to provide 

flooded wetland habitat available for wetlanddependent wildlife and recreational use in the fall 

in at least 11 out of 15 years. We believe that the 

selected management direction recognizes the 

public’s interest in maintaining healthy habitat 

and abundant wildlife populations at Benton Lake 

Refuge.

Alternative B

Comment 37. For Benton Lake Refuge, alternative B1 

is the best choice of the options offered. However, 

adaptive management is needed to address taking care of changing condition.

Response 37. The selected management direction 

includes an adaptive management approach that 

takes into consideration changing conditions and 

flexibility to meet management objectives.

Comment 38. We prefer alternative B1, feeling it is the 

best alternative to maintain hunting and bird 

watching. We are hoping to enjoy it for years to 

come and for other generations.

Response 38. Thank you for your comment. The 

selected management direction provides hunting 

and bird watching opportunities as well as opportunities to improve wetland health and sustainability which will provide wildlife resources and 

wildlife-dependent recreation for future

generations.

Comment 39. A modification of B1 would be the most 

beneficial to the public and the area. If the water 

was drained, it would have an effect on the 

upland birds and loss of millions in roadways, 

trail ways, hunting and recreation. I have great 

concern over the loss of wetland bird species 

viewing and loss of all waterfowl bird hunting.

Response 39. The revised management direction does 

not implicate the removal of roadways or trails. 

Slight modifications to some water control infrastructure may occur to enhance the ability to 

achieve management objectives. Under the 

selected management direction, the refuge will 

strive to provide flooded wetland habitat for wetland-dependent wildlife and recreational use in 

the fall in at least 11 out of 15 years. We believe 

that the selected management direction recognizes the public’s interest in maintaining healthy 

habitat and abundant wildlife populations at Benton Lake Refuge.

Comment 40. Request a modification of proposal B1. 

The request is to rotate water from pond to pond. 

This would allow sections to be closed but not the 

whole area, thus maintaining public access and 

hunting and recreational use.

Response 40. The revised management direction provides the ability to rotate water from unit to unit 

and to provide areas for inviolate sanctuary and 

hunting. The refuge will strive to provide flooded 

wetland habitat available for wetland-dependent 

wildlife and recreational use in the fall in at least 

11 out of 15 years. We believe that the selected 

management direction recognizes the public’s 

interest in maintaining healthy habitat and abundant wildlife populations at Benton Lake Refuge.

Comment 41. I support the future management of the 

refuge under alternative B1. The rotational 

aspects of this alternative will restore diversity 

throughout the refuge, enhance the user experience, and improve selenium levels before they 

become an issue. Most importantly, I believe this 

plan fulfills the vision and promise that caused it 

to be built decades ago.

Response 41. In 1929, the Benton Lake Refuge was 

established as “a refuge and breeding ground for 

birds” (Executive Order No.5228, November 21, 

1929). In 1960, infrastructure was developed to 

provided water on a regular basis to the wetland 

basin. The management of the wetland basin since 

that time was to provide the relatively same 

amount of water every year, replacing a springdominated flooding cycle with a fall-dominated 

flooding cycle. This had profound effects on the 

health and sustainability of the wetland basin. To 

fulfill the vision of the refuge, a healthy wetland is 

a necessity. The selected management direction 

provides for improved wetland health by addressing selenium contamination, providing flexibility 

in water management, utilizing habitat management tools (examples include discing, grazing, and 

burning) and providing for recreational opportunities. Healthy habitats improve breeding bird 

productivity and enhance recreational 

experiences.

Comment 42. Would like to see emptying of ponds 

rotated instead of closed and drained all at once. 

Speaker would like to see a modification of B1. 

Propose building new ponds and drain the old 

ones. New ponds would keep the area open and 

would not allow a breakdown of infrastructure 

due to lack of use.
Appendix D—Public Involvement 219 

Response 42. The selected management direction 

includes a rotational component. The rotation 

includes implementing extended periods of drying 

(7 or more years) in targeted units with the highest selenium toxicity such as Units 1 and 2 and 

shorter-duration drying (3–5 or more years in 

other units). In the proposed action (alternative 

C1) and the selected management direction, all 

infrastructure would be maintained and serviced 

and would not “breakdown due to lack of use.” 

The Service is not proposing to build any additional units, however, slight modifications to existing infrastructure may occur to enhance water 

delivery and the achievement of wetland health 

objectives.

Comment 43. I support alternative B because alternative B is the only alternative that references 

hunting on the refuge.

Response 43. All alternatives reference hunting and 

the cause and effect from implementing a specific 

management action.

Alternative C1—Proposed Action

Comment 44. Having read the results of the study 

and considering the goals of the FWS it seems the 

only real option would be “Action C.” I therefore 

urge that “Action C” be implemented.

Response 44. Thank you for your comment.

Comment 45. I do not support Alternative C. I believe 

that the preferred alternative is against your service mission to provide for wildlife and 

waterfowl.

Response 45. Thank you for your comment.

Comment 46. I am writing this to let you know that I 

am for Action C. I have read the material and 

feel it is necessary to let Benton Lake Refuge 

return to what’s natural.

Response 46. Thank you for your comment.

Comment 47. I have studied the Draft Plan for the 

Benton Lake Complex. Not really being familiar 

with that wetland, I would have total faith in the 

Service’s proposal. Whenever we mess with 

Mother Nature we will sometimes have to pay the 

piper and this seems to be the case with the manmade wetlands. Again, I support the Service’s 

proposal. You folks are the most on top of government agency I have been around. Thank you for 

your good work.

Response 47. Thank you for your comment.

Comment 48. The proposed action to let “nature take 

its course” with Benton Lake’s wetlands is laudable in theory, but a disaster in practice. In 

Alternative Cl, the Service will be turning its 

back on decades of productivity for a variety of 

wetland-dependent wildlife in favor of a natural 

system at any cost, even though the refuge no longer sits in a natural basin or natural north central Montana landscape. Our national habitat 

base has been reduced to a point where we must 

rely on refuges and other dedicated wildlife lands 

to produce a larger portion of public wildlife benefits. Hence, manipulating habitats will be imperative for most areas to meet their purposes and 

approved objectives. The vision I see painted for 

Benton Lake in Alternative C1 is this:

■ A desolate dry marsh probably 9 out of 10 

years.

■ Complaints from refuge neighbors as salts 

blow onto private lands (real or perceived, 

still a nightmare).

■ No gang broods of lesser scaup (a declining 

species), no Franklin’s gull colony, and no 

amazing sights of swans on a sparkling 

blue canvas with mountains in the 

distance.

■ Removal from the lists for Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Sites and Important Bird Areas.

■ Declining visitation as there will be little 

wetland wildlife to view most years.

■ Reduced hunting and other wildlife-dependent uses in direct conflict with national 

guidance to increase opportunities when 

feasible and compatible.

■ Declining environmental education as 

Great Falls schools go elsewhere for wetland field days.

■ A large complex office looking like a white 

elephant on a refuge that in practice 

appears abandoned.

■ A poor WPA, not a National Wildlife 

Refuge.

I urge you to select another alternative that 

safeguards the wildlife legacy of this refuge 

while allowing a change to more natural management. With the variety of wetland cells in 
220 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

place or modified, you could imitate the natural 

wet–dry cycle on various pools in a given year or 

series of years without sacrificing the wildlife 

productivity of the whole. At the very least, a 

great deal more honesty in the biological and 

socio-economic consequences should be included 

in the environmental assessment if the decision 

is to stay with Alternative C1.

Response 48. The proposed action has been modified 

to supplement natural runoff with artificial pumping in at least 11 out of 15 years. This management direction will allow refuge staff to imitate 

the natural wet–dry cycles in various pools and 

across the basin, while providing flooded wetland 

habitat in more years than would have occurred 

under the proposed action. We anticipate that this 

management direction will also improve wetland 

productivity for wetland-dependent wildlife such 

as waterfowl and shorebirds over the life of the 

plan. Recreational uses that depend on flooded 

wetland habitat will be available on the refuge in 

at least one unit in 11 out of 15 years. We also plan 

to explore expanded opportunities for the public 

to use and enjoy refuge resources associated with 

grasslands.

Comment 49. Change is needed in management 

methods and techniques but the proposed action 

is not in the interest of the refuge, its wildlife or 

the public. On May 10, the Great Falls Tribune 

published my comment on the proposal. Numerous other comments made by other interested 

agencies, organizations and individuals have 

expressed views in opposition to the Alternative 

C-1 favored by the Service. Although it needs 

some additional development, I believe alternative B-1 would be a better path for management. I 

encourage the Service to listen to the public 

input, revise its draft plan and provide a recommendation that recognizes the public’s interest in 

maintaining healthy habitat and abundant wildlife populations at Benton Lake.

Response 49. Thank you for your comment. The proposed action has been revised to imitate the natural wet–dry cycles in various pools and across the 

basin to improve wetland health while providing 

flooded wetland habitat in more years than would 

have occurred under the proposed action. Flooded 

wetland habitat will be available for wetlanddependent wildlife and recreational use in at least 

11 out of 15 years. We believe that the selected 

management direction recognizes the public’s 

interest in maintaining healthy habitat and abundant wildlife populations at Benton Lake.

Comment 50. Your preferred alternative C1 will 

essentially dry out Benton Lake NWR, negate 

improvements instrumental in providing diverse 

habitat, and ultimately alienate its current 

users. In the numerous meetings I have attended, 

the refuge’s various users along with conservation and sportsman’s groups have all voiced their 

concerns on the negative impacts of your proposed alternative.

Response 50. Thank you for your comment. The proposed action has been revised to imitate the natural wet–dry cycles in various pools and across the 

basin to improve wetland health, while providing 

flooded wetland habitat in more years than would 

have occurred under the proposed action. Flooded 

wetland habitat will be available for wetlanddependent wildlife and recreational use in the fall 

in at least 11 out of 15 years. We believe that the 

selected management direction recognizes the 

public’s interest in maintaining healthy habitat 

and abundant wildlife populations at Benton Lake.

Grazing

Comment 51. Chapter 5.4 talks about grazing grasslands described as a tool to positively manipulate 

habitats. Later in the book, Chapter 7.6 Grasslands Alternative Bl Grassland Management 

says grazing wouldn’t be used to manage on the 

refuge.

Response 51. Prescribed grazing will be considered 

an important tool for managing the refuge grasslands under the selected management direction.

Shelter Belts

Comment 52. Increase the shelter belts and this 

would increase bird productivity and safety.

Response 52. Endemic grassland bird species on the 

refuge complex are considered priority species. 

The northern mixed-grass prairie, which these 

bird species depend on for survival, is one of the 

most disturbed grassland systems with an estimated 75 percent of the region having been heavily altered. During the past quarter century, 

these endemic grassland birds have experienced 

steeper, more consistent, and more widespread 

population declines than any other avian guild in 

North America. It is well documented that shelter 

belts in grassland ecosystems contribute to fragmentation, depredation, and parasitism, which 

negatively affect grassland-dependent migratory 

birds.
Appendix D—Public Involvement 221 

Planning Process

Comment 53. Thank you for the information regarding the Refuge, it’s condition and the study of how 

to best preserve and promote the area and all it 

has to offer Montanans and the wild animal life 

that depend on it. Thank you for your hard work 

in preparing this plan, presenting it, and working for a better healthier environment for us to 

live in and enjoy.

Response 53. Thank you for your comment.

Comment 54. The draft plan has left out public input 

and does not show good wildlife management.

Response 54. The draft CCP and EA was released to 

the public on March 30, 2012, through a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register. 

Copies of either the draft CCP and EA or a planning update were mailed to individuals on the 

planning mailing list. The document was also 

available online through the Service’s Region 6 

planning Web site and the refuge complex’s Web 

site. The public was offered 60 days to review this 

document and provide comments. During the public review the Service held four public meetings 

April 17–19, 2012 in Great Falls, Choteau, Ovando, 

and Condon, Montana. Turnout was good with 

meetings attended by more than 57 participants. 

In addition to the oral comments recorded at the 

meetings, 51 emails and letters were received.

In response to public input during the review of 

the draft CCP and EA, the Service collaborated 

with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks in a structured decisionmaking process to develop a consensus alternative for the Benton Lake Refuge that 

achieves refuge goals and objectives, and 

addresses key management issues such as water 

management, watershed concerns, selenium treatments, invasive species management, and public 

use. We believe that the selected management 

direction is in alignment with the Service’s core 

mission and the purpose for which the refuge was 

established. Management direction for the refuge 

will include adaptive and prescriptive approaches.

Comment 55. I have attended several meetings and it 

seems that you have already made up your 

minds. It seems that throughout the public meetings you seemed to ignore our comments.

Response 55. The proposed action in the Draft CCP 

and EA was revised based on input from our partners and the public during the review period. We 

believe that the selected management direction is 

in alignment with the Service’s core mission and 

the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

The management direction for the refuge will 

include adaptive and prescriptive approaches.

Comment 56. Post meeting notices at the local post 

offices in the future to reach more people.

Response 56. Thank you for your comment.

General

Comment 57. There seems to be a conscious downplaying of the importance of Benton Lake to 

waterfowl and waterbird production. Why is 

there no mention of the tremendous waterfowl 

production that Benton Lake has been famous 

for? In 1991 I wrote: “The refuge is one of the premiere waterfowl production refuges in the country, producing to flight stage an average of 20,000 

ducks yearly.” Also, why no details on other 

waterbird production, such as the Franklin’s 

gulls? I find it ironic that the section on cultural 

resources is about equal in length to the section 

on wildlife for a national wildlife refuge! Are the 

authors downplaying the amazing resources of 

Benton Lake to mask the impacts of the proposed 

action?

Response 57. Certain data show increasing numbers 

and production of waterbirds, especially dabbling 

ducks, on the refuge in the late 1960s to late 

1970s, when the refuge was initially flooded and 

units were managed for more prolonged water 

regimes (USFWS 1961–99). During this period, 

annual duck production was reported to be high 

(several thousand ducklings) and included primarily northern shoveler, blue-winged teal, gadwall, 

cinnamon teal, northern pintail, and mallard. An 

increasing number of Canada geese also began 

using Benton Lake at this time and produced several hundred goslings in some years.

Although there is little quantitative data to determine changes in presence, abundance, and productivity of bird populations at the refuge over time, 

staff observations show that the number of breeding waterbirds have declined on Benton Lake in 

the last 2 decades. This may be due to the reduction in the amount of permanent and prolonged 

flooding of units in summer to manage botulism, 

below normal precipitation and runoff from 1998–

2008, reduced productivity from the static hydroperiod created with annual pumping, or 

may be an artifact of changes in staff and survey 

methods (USFWS 1961–99). The management 

direction of the refuge seeks to improve 

waterfowl and other wetland-dependent 

bird productivity over the next 15 years.
222 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Refuge staff reviewed the current continental 

population estimate, population status, and importance of Benton Lake for common and uncommon 

breeding waterbirds on the refuge that have been 

identified as species of concern at the national or 

regional level by the Service or its partners. The 

wetland-dependent birds tend to be long lived, 

most have stable-to-increasing populations, and 

for species that the Service has received specific 

comments (black-crowned night-herons, Franklin’s gulls, and black-necked stilts), the refuge is 

either disjunct or peripheral to their populations. 

Continental population levels of migratory bird 

species of concern will not be significantly 

affected by the management direction for the refuge according to the Region 6 Migratory Bird 

Office.

Comment 58. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

have a problem managing the refuge you should 

remove the refuge from the complex and turn it 

over to the Montana Fish and Wildlife to manage 

for the intended purpose and enjoyment of the 

citizens.

Response 58. The Service does not consider divestiture unless a unit no longer meets the purposes 

for which it was established. The refuge provides 

significant natural resource benefits and continues 

to meet its purpose as a refuge and breeding 

ground for birds. Furthermore, preserving and 

protecting wetland health would be a concern 

regardless of ownership.

Swan River National Wildlife 

Refuge

The following are comments and responses pertaining to the Swan River National Wildlife Refuge.

Guided Hunting

Comment 59. I am a hunting guide who wants limited commercial hunting on the Swan River Refuge. Guiding brings in money to the local 

economy. Some people are handicapped and 

could benefit from a guide to take them out hunting. Some people are non-residents and don’t 

have the resources needed to hunt on their own. I 

provide equipment and decoys – things that they 

can’t bring in a plane – things that help them to 

have a quality hunt. Expecting them to bring 

their own equipment would be like expecting 

someone to bring their horse on a plane so that 

they could go on a trail ride in Montana. That’s 

why guiding is so beneficial. The Refuge is supposed to be for the benefit of all citizens. I would 

like to know the source of 100-use days on the 

Swan River. There’s no way the Refuge has been 

hunted by 100 different hunters in a year. I would 

like to question the accuracy and source of that 

data. Your plan should not so narrowly dismiss 

the idea to bring in guided hunting. The Service 

is supposed to bring in and address recreation, 

especially the six uses you’ve identified as your 

priorities. Guiding could also be an opportunity 

for the refuge to bring in money. It wouldn’t have 

to just be hunting; it could be bird watching too. 

Given the fiscal climate, the Service needs to look 

for more creative ways to bring in funding. The 

plan should revisit guided hunting.

Response 59. While hunting is one of the priority 

public uses of the Refuge System, the purpose of 

Swan River Refuge is to serve as an “inviolate 

sanctuary and other management purpose, for 

migratory birds.” Hunting and other authorized 

public uses are not purposes of the refuge and 

granting hunter guiding special use permits 

would not further the purposes of the refuge. 

Appropriate use policy directs that any new use 

considered should “accommodate without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the 

future.” Since waterfowl hunting is already an 

authorized use, it is the refuge’s experience that 

current hunters would view guided waterfowl 

hunting as commercial competition that would 

detract from the quality of the existing hunting 

experience. Under regulations 50 CFR 29.1, the 

Service may only authorize public or private economic use of the natural resources of any refuge 

where the Service determines that the use contributes to the achievement of the refuge’s purpose or of the Refuge System mission. Once again, 

since waterfowl hunting is already an authorized 

public use on both of the refuges within 

the refuge complex, permitted guided 

hunting would not contribute to the purpose 

of the refuge or the Service’s mission.

“Use days” is defined as the number of days a particular use occurred. It does not reflect different 

hunters but the number of days hunting occurred 

on the refuge. For example, on the opening day of 

waterfowl season this year (September 29, 2012), 

law enforcement officers contacted 11 waterfowl 

hunters on Swan River Refuge. This would represent 11 hunter use days. The Pacific flyway hunting season for 2012–2013 is open for 104 days. The 

100 waterfowl use days for Swan River Refuge is 
Appendix D—Public Involvement 223 

an estimate based on periodic law enforcement 

contact over many years and represents an average number of use days per any given year.

Swan Valley Conservation Area

Comment 60. Page 84. “These areas remain today as 

grasslands awaiting restoration of forested habitat or wetlands.” Why do wetlands need to be 

restored—there are a lot already.

Response 60. Wetlands provide a multitude of ecological, economic and social benefits. In addition to 

providing habitat for a variety of fish, wildlife, and 

plants, they are important landscape features 

because they hold and slowly release

flood water and snow melt, recharge

groundwater, recycle nutrients, and provide 

recreation and wildlife viewing opportunities.

You are correct; the Swan Valley is unique in that 

it contains over 4,000 glacially derived wetlands. 

Approximately 16 percent of the land in the Swan 

Valley is considered wetland habitat (lakes, rivers, 

ponds, marshes, wet meadows, peatlands, and 

riparian areas). By comparison, the remainder of 

Montana averages 1 percent of wetland habitat. 

Despite these numerous wetlands, there are many 

more in the Swan Valley that have been drained, 

filled, modified, or mismanaged to the point 

that they have lost their ecological value.

The Swan Ecosystem Center has published a 

document which provides an excellent summary of 

the status of wetlands in the Swan Valley and discusses the need for restoration. This document, 

entitled “Swan Basin Restoration: Coordinated 

Approaches to Water, Wildlife, Forests, Wetlands, 

and Native Fish,” is available on their Web site: 

www.swanecosystemcenter.org.

Comment 61. You say you want to acquire 5,000 acres 

in easements, but your plan says 10,000 acres–

why is that? There are 25,000 acres of private 

land in conservation easement. That’s 20 percent 

in conservation easement already. An overwhelming majority is in easement already. 

10,000 and 5,000 acres seem like unrealistic goals 

because TNC and other NGOs are out there trying to acquire easements too.

Response 61. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Land Protection Plan states that 10,000 acres are 

the total-acre goal for easement acquisition in the 

Swan Valley. Five thousand acres is the acquisition goal in the Swan Valley for the next 15 years 

according to the CCP. Based on the history of 

money and staff availability for buying easements 

within the refuge complex, a total of 5,000 acres 

over the life of the plan is considered a reasonable 

objective. These acre estimates are based on several variables within our Conservation Areas: 

acquisition averages over the last five years, high 

variability in annual money sources such as 

LWCF, average parcel size, land values, and the 

availability of willing sellers. Historically, 

the number of landowners interested in easements exceeded the available money.

The Service’s easement program is a voluntary 

program with willing sellers only. If there is no 

funding or no interest the Service will not do conservation easements in the Swan Valley. There 

was public support for the establishment of the 

Swan Valley Conservation Area. The Service’s 

program would bring additional resources to private land conservation efforts.

Comment 62. Are these easements perpetual? We 

have 1 trillion in debt and it seems like to go out 

on this type of program with no funding seems 

like it’s wasting all of our tax dollars.

Response 62. Yes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conservation easements are perpetual. The Federal 

money used to acquire conservation easements 

will come from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund, which is derived primarily from oil and gas 

leases on the outer continental shelf, motorboat 

fuel tax revenues, and the sale of surplus Federal 

property. Additional money may also be available 

through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, 

North American Waterfowl Conservation Act 

money, and donations from nonprofit 

organizations.

Comment 63. The biggest thing that’s happened in 

recent years is the Legacy Project. It’s good and 

bad. Bad things happen because of a small group 

of people that support something, but communities aren’t able to provide information and feedback as a community. This community is dying. 

We’re losing schools, we’re losing businesses. 

Regulation upon regulation has been imposed 

from state, federal, county legislative, agencies, 

etc. We already have at least 13 agencies or 

agency-related people here. If you live on the lake 

or creek you have to get permits for everything. 

All of these agencies are fighting over the same 

land, and no one knows what the other is doing. 

A better plan is to put a 3 or 5 year moratorium 

on doing anything here until the people in community can get together and decide what and how 

they want to do it and then come to you and say 
224 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

what they want to do. We don’t need more corridors. They devalue land and not much science 

supports them. They’re a contributing factor to 

the state that this community and valley is in. We 

shouldn’t rush into this. We should take more 

time for the community to make a collective good 

decision.

Response 63. Thank you for your comments. We are 

aware of the changes that The Montana Legacy 

Project has brought to the community, and while 

the Service is a strong advocate of conserving 

habitat for wildlife, we are also sensitive 

to your concerns regarding the future 

of economic growth in the Swan Valley.

Although Service conservation easements include 

the purchase of development and subdivision 

rights, we do not prohibit all further development 

of the easement property. In addition to maintaining existing residences, the Service typically 

allows a reserved house site and permits the construction of agricultural buildings. The Service 

also grants written permits for certain other 

activities on our easements. For example, the Service permits the commercial harvest of timber 

upon completion and approval of a timber management plan. The easements of other agencies or 

nongovernmental organizations may allow multiple reserved house sites or exclude areas 

from the easement for future development.

As stated in the CCP, the Service is committed to 

regularly meeting with other agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and community groups 

to provide updates and coordination on conservation easement purchases. After receiving feedback during the public scoping meeting in 

mid-2012, the Service has increased its communication with the Swan Valley Community Council 

and become involved with the growth planning 

process. Other groups with which the Service 

works include the Swan Lands Coordination 

Council, Swan Ecosystem Center, Northwest 

Connections, The Nature Conservancy, Montana 

Land Reliance, the Trust for Public Land, Vital 

Ground, MFWP, Montana Department of Natural 

Resources and Conservation, the USDA Forest 

Service, and the Southwest Crown Collaborative.

The Service received several other comments during the scoping period asking us to “slow down” 

and, as a result, we do not foresee making any 

new easement acquisitions within the next 2 

years. With that being said, the Service’s conservation easement program is entirely voluntary; 

we only purchases easements from willing sellers. 

If there is no interest in the easement program in 

the Swan Valley, then the Service will not purchase any easements there.

Comment 64. I own acres in the Swan Valley. Conservation actions in the Swan Valley (Condon, Mt) 

area from the various federal government agencies-Montana State -and conservation easements 

is a matter of extreme concern. My in-depth 

study on lands currently in private hands without easements (Aug. 2010) was 17000 acres. We 

are surrounded by over 3.5 million acres of protected lands (wilderness & multiple use types) 

and do not need more added to them The economy of the valley is so low that our school has 27 

to 29 students, grades 1 thru 8. Industry uses 

other than wood related types are needed. People 

used to come to the area to work and raise a family -now -they are mostly high end ($) retired 

types. This valley is concerned about when and if 

there can be economic development, especially if 

we lose even more land to any of the above mentioned types we will strangle any possibility of 

this. This also affects most all of the rural areas 

of Montana from the eastern border to the western border. Please be ultra-careful when converting lands from public use to include, all thou few, 

the citizens that will be effected. These lands will 

be constricted to the point of useless. I would refer 

to President Clinton and Secretary Babbitt’s conversion of lands in the southern United States.

Response 64. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

committed to maintaining open communication 

with the Swan Valley community. While the Service places high value on conserving habitat for 

the benefit of wildlife, it is also sensitive 

to the concerns of the community with regard 

to future economic growth and development.

Ultimately, our conservation easement program 

relies on voluntary participation from private 

landowners, but even after a landowner expresses 

his or her desire to sell an easement to the Service, we may deny the request if we determine 

that our program is not a good fit. For example, 

the land may have little biological value or the 

purchase of an easement may be in direct 

conflict with community development plans.

Although Service conservation easements include 

the purchase of development and subdivision 

rights, we do not prohibit all further development 

of the easement property. In addition to maintaining existing residences, we typically allow a 

reserved house site and permit the construction of 

agricultural buildings. We also grant written permits for certain other activities on our easements. 

For example, we permit the commercial harvest 
Appendix D—Public Involvement 225 

of timber upon completion and approval of a timber management plan. The easements of other 

agencies or nongovernmental organizations may 

allow multiple reserved house sites or exclude 

areas from the easement for future development.

After receiving feedback during our public scoping meeting in mid-2012, we have increased our 

communication with the Swan Valley Community 

Council and become involved with the growth 

planning process. As we continue our conservation easement program, we will also promote better communication and coordination with other 

agencies and community groups within the Swan 

Valley.

Comment 65. I am opposed to The Swan Valley Conservation Area Expansion (AT THE PRESENT 

TIME) for the following reasons. The Montana 

Legacy Project has shifted more than 66,000 

acres of private (Plum Creek) timber land into 

federal and state (protected) ownership. Only 

25,000 acres of private land remain in the Upper 

Swan Valley (Missoula County north of the Summit Divide). Approximately 25% of this private 

land is currently restricted from residential 

development via conservation easements. There 

are not less than 23 government agencies and 

non-governmental organizations actively

engaged in the “Swan Lands Coordinating Committee” conservation initiatives. The wildlife 

continues to thrive. It is the Upper Swan Valley’s 

cultural, social and economic future that is 

threatened. A community-driven comprehensive 

growth/land use planning effort is currently 

underway. The Upper Swan Valley Community 

needs more time to do the job of sorting out 

growth, development, and conservation priorities. We would invite your active participation in 

this process, rather than impose yet another land 

use designation (Swan Valley CA) on our community at this time. We need a process that more 

effectively balances all of our cultural, social, 

economic and conservation values. Please do not 

burden those of us who make the Swan Valley 

home with yet another layer of governmentimposed land use designation (and corresponding government spending) that continues to 

threaten our economic freedoms. Please help us 

work out this more comprehensive plan for the 

Swan Valley. Then, together, we can pursue the 

Swan Valley CA in that perspective.

Response 65. Thank you for your comment, however, 

the Service’s Swan Valley Conservation Area designation was already approved in 2011 with public 

support (see the Final Land Protection Plan and 

Environmental Assessment). This Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan does not propose an 

expansion of the Swan Valley Conservation Area. 

We are aware of the changes that The Montana 

Legacy Project has brought to the community, 

and while we are strong advocates of conserving 

habitat for wildlife, we are also sensitive 

to your concerns regarding the future 

of economic growth in the Swan Valley.

Since the approval of the Swan Valley Conservation Area, we have committed to participating in 

the community driven comprehensive growth/

land use planning effort that is currently underway. As expressed in our planning document, 

we support and promote community-based, 

grass-roots efforts, and we would

like to continue to participate and provide 

assistance wherever wanted and needed.

Ultimately, the Service’s easement program is 

strictly voluntary. We respect private property 

rights and, as such, will acquire conservation 

easements only from willing sellers. The fact that 

landowners may choose whether or not to participate in the project is a tangible example of our 

respect for personal property rights.

Comment 66. Thank you for attending the meeting at 

the Swan valley Community Hall last month. I 

would like to comment on your Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and hopefully share some 

concerns that I have regarding the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service placing more conservation easements on land in the Swan Valley. While reading 

some of the old comments presented I see that 

most of the published comments were from several years ago and before the Montana Legacy 

Project took thousands of acres out of production 

for any possible growth by the citizens that live 

here now. I am not sure if you are aware of the 

fact that we presently have approximately 7% of 

our land base for any future growth and approximately 25% of that land already has conservation 

easements on it. I am co-chair of our Comprehensive Growth Plan mandated by Missoula County. 

I have heard from many people the comment 

“when is enough—enough” and don’t really know 

what the answer is. One of the unintended consequences of CE’s is the fact that the county is 

using neighboring property with conservation 

easements as a reason to deny attempts to 

develop economic opportunities for land owners 

that are trying to help generate jobs and provide 

meaningful employment. I keep thinking that my 

kids and grandkids will have limited opportunities after I am gone and honestly think that with 
226 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

such a small percentage of private property left, 

the future of the valley looks very bleak. We will 

be here long after all the land trusts have completed their job and left the valley, while we 

struggle to make a living and exist in an area 

that we have devoted our lives to. I would respectfully like to ask that we be spared from any further erosion of our land base and let the people of 

the valley determine the future of our area The 

private land held in fee simple ownership, in my 

opinion, for the most part is managed much better than government, fractionated ownership or 

NGO controlled land. I strongly feel there are no 

better stewards of the land than the Montana 

people that give their heart and soul to making 

this a great place to live. Fractional ownership is 

contrary to what our founding fathers envisioned 

for this great country, so please consider my 

request to let the people of the Swan determine 

the future of the Swan.

Response 66. Thank you for your comments; you 

bring up some good points. The question of “When 

is enough, enough?” is one that we too are trying 

to answer. We are aware of the changes that the 

Montana Legacy Project has brought to the community, and, while we are strong advocates of 

conserving habitat for wildlife, we are also sensitive to your concerns regarding the future 

of economic growth in the Swan Valley.

The Service is a strong proponent of communitybased and community-driven conservation. We 

agree that Montana’s private landowners are also 

wonderful land stewards. Our conservation easement lands remain in private ownership under the 

control and management of the landowner.

Although Service conservation easements include 

the purchase of development and subdivision 

rights, we do not prohibit all further development 

of the easement property. In addition to maintaining existing residences, we typically allow a 

reserved house site and permit the construction of 

agricultural buildings. We also grant written permits for certain other activities on our easements. 

For example, we permit the commercial harvest 

of timber upon completion and approval of a timber management plan. The easements of other 

agencies or nongovernmental organizations may 

allow multiple reserved house sites or exclude 

areas from the easement for future development.

As stated in our CCP, we are committed to regularly meeting with other agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and community groups to 

provide updates and coordination on conservation 

easement purchases. After receiving feedback 

during our public scoping meeting in mid-2012, we 

have increased our communication with the Swan 

Valley Community Council and become involved 

with the growth planning process. We will continue to be involved in the Swan Valley community, particularly with regard to plans for growth. 

With that being said, our conservation easement 

program is entirely voluntary, we only purchase 

easements from willing sellers. If there is no 

interest in our easement program in the Swan 

Valley, then we will not purchase any easements 

there.

Comment 67. We would like decent communication of 

where your plans are so that we can communicate with our planning committee. We want to be 

as transparent as possible. We voted to create a 

community council to represent the community. 

We want to get to a place where the agencies can 

work with council and maybe there can be a better relationship and a better understanding. 

When the Legacy Project went down we didn’t 

know it had happened. Millions of dollars were 

spent on supposed representation and I wasn’t 

the only person in the Swan Valley that happened 

to, but by the time I found out it was already a 

done deal. That’s why we’re trying to represent 

the council and have a better working relationship with the agencies. The Community Council 

is part of Missoula County. Lake County has 

some sort of a planning department but I think 

Missoula is the only county with a Community 

Council. If people here felt like maybe they didn’t 

want to jump into this as fast as your plan outlines, is there a way we can slow that down and 

get to know each other better?

Response 67. Since taking comments at the public 

meetings in the Swan Valley, the Service has collaborated with the Swan Valley Ecosystem Center to create a shared position to work with private land owners. This person’s responsibilities 

include participating in discussions with the local 

community on resource issues and various other 

community issues regarding growth and conservation. We agree with you that our plans should 

be as transparent as possible. We want to foster 

better relationships with people and organizations 

in the Swan Valley, and we are committed to 

building trust and credibility. We realize that this 

does not happen overnight, but, with the establishment of a person working in the Valley, we 

hope to show our commitment to the community 

and to our collaborative partnerships.
Appendix D—Public Involvement 227 

D.5 Comments from Agencies 

and Organizations

The Service received formal comments for the following Federal, State, and local government agencies 

and organizations:

1. America Outdoors Association

2. California Save Our Streams Council, Clovis, CA

3. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC

4. Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Elliston, MT

5. Friends of the Rocky Mountain Front, 

Choteau, MT

6. Missouri River Citizens, Inc., Great Falls, 

MT

7. Montana Audubon, Helena, MT

8. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena, 

MT

9. National Wildlife Federation, Missoula, MT

10. Russell County Sportmen’s Association, 

Great Falls, MT

11. Safari Club International, Great Falls, MT

12. Upper Missouri Breaks Audubon, Great 

Falls, MT

13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Helena, MT

14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological 

Services, Helena, MT

Letters 1–13 from agencies and organizations follow 

after this page. Beside each reproduced letter is the 

Service’s response, numbered to correspond to specific comments in the letter. The Service reviewed all 

supporting attachments, however, such attachments 

are not included in this appendix. The Service’s 

response to letter 14 is in appendix C.
LETTER #1—America Outdoors Association

From: Apache To: toni_griffin@fws.gov Subject: Comment Form - Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex Date: 04/25/2012 11:42 AM Comment form sent from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Name: David Brown, Executive Director Organization: America Outdoors Association Comment: I am writing to comment on the draft CCP and EA for the Benton Lake Wildlife Refuge Complex and to specifically comment on your "Proposed Action". We urge you to amend the plan to consider the issuance of commercial use permits as a tool to achieve the stated recreational and hunting objectives and provide visiting US citizens the opportunity to access the Swan River Refuge using licensed outfitter. Hunting is an appropriate and priority purpose for recreational use of Refuges. "wildlife- dependent recreation on service-owned land" is one of your priorities along with "Explore opportunities to increase hunting at â€¦ Swan River refuge(s)". Therefore, the prohibition of guided hunting seems inconsistent with your goals especially since guided hunts extend the constituency and that portion of the taxpaying public which can utilize the resource. It appears that the plan is without any significant action to increase hunting in the Refuge which is currently underutilized. Without support from recreational hunters the Refuge system is at risk as the federal government sinks deeper into a debt crisis. The Service should facilitate access for a broad cross-section of the public to preserve wildlife conservation and recreation in Refuges. Please authorize guided hunting as one of the activities in a revised final decision. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed action.

RESPONSE

While hunting is one of the priority public u

the purpose of Swan River Refuge is to serary....and other management purpose, for mand other authorized public uses are not pugranting hunter guiding special use permitpurposes of the refuge. Appropriate use pouse being considered should “accommodate wildlife-dependent recreational uses or redvide quality compatible, wildlife-dependent Since waterfowl hunting is already an authexperience that current hunters would view as commercial competition that would detrexisting hunting experience. Furthermore29.1, the Service may only authorize public the natural resources of any refuge where contributes to the achievement of the refugSystem mission. Once again, since waterfowauthorized public use on both Benton Lake Wildlife Refuges, permitted guided huntinthe purposes of the refuge or to the Refuge 
LETTER #2—California Save Our Streams Council

From: Deb ParkerTo: Toni GriffinSubject: Comment Form - Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge ComplexDate: 04/03/2012 02:59 PM

----- Forwarded by Deb Parker/R6/FWS/DOI on 04/03/2012 02:59 PM -----

Apache<apache@localhost.localdomain>04/03/2012 12:26 PM

To deb_parker@fws.gov

cc

Subject Comment Form - Comprehensive

Conservation Plan for Benton LakeNational Wildlife Refuge Complex

Comment form sent from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceName: Lloyd G. CarterOrganization: California Save Our Streams Council

 Comment: Agricultural waste water is the primary cause of

your refuge's problems. You have the same problem which occurred during theearly 1980s at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge in CentralCalifornia. I covered the Kesterson story as a reporter for United PressInternational and later for the Fresno Bee. Birds nesting at the Kestersonevaporation pounds had a two/thirds reproductive failure rate as seleniumbioconcentrated while moving up the Kesterson food chain. The U.S. Geological Survey has an internet website with many, many peerreviewed articles about selenium impacts on wildlife. You need to contactUSGS scientist Theresa Presser in Menlo Park, CA. for more information.

 I hope to provide more extensive comments before your May 18 deadline. 

Clean water MUST be provided your refuge.

 Lloyd G. Carter 2863 Everglade Ave. Clovis, CA 93619

www.lloydgcarter.com(559) 322-4664 home559) 304-5412 cell

RESPONSE

Thank you for sending us references for ad

tion. We used information from the USGS aducted on Benton Lake Refuge and contactformulating and finalizing our selected manappreciate your interest and your first-hanwith selenium impacts to wildlife from agr
LETTER

 #3—Defenders of Wildlife

From: Julie KatesTo: toni_griffin@fws.govCc: Kathleen_Burchett@fws.govSubject: Benton Lake Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EADate: 05/29/2012 10:00 AMAttachments: ccp_climate_change_fact_sheet.pdf

Dear Ms. Griffin,While Defenders of Wildlife was unable to submit detailed comments on the Draft CCP for Benton LakeNational Wildlife Refuge Complex, I'd like to alert you to a resource that may be helpful in finalizing theplan. Defenders recently developed a set of criteria to evaluate how well climate change is incorporated intoCCPs. In addition to summarizing our evaluation of several recent final CCPs, the attached documentprovides the criteria we used. (This fact sheet is also available on our website athttp://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/gw/ccp_climate_change_fact_sheet.pdf.) As you finalize the plan for Benton Lake NWR Complex, I hope you'll refer to these criteria to ensure thatclimate change is comprehensively considered and addressed.Thank you for all your work. Sincerely,Julie KatesRefuge Associate, Federal Lands ProgramDefenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20036-4604 Tel: 202.772.3271 | Fax: 202.682.1331

JKates@defenders.org | www.defenders.org

 I blog on dotWild: www.experts.defendersblog.org

RESPONSE

Thank you for your comments and suggestclimate change within the CCP process. As the Service recognizes the significant challprotecting wildlife and their habitats into tclimate change throughout the CCP and EA Wildlife Refuge Complex, including the arecriteria: background, assessment, action anadaptive management. Climate change was in the purpose and need for the plan in the in the final CCP. 
LETTER #4—Ducks Unlimited, Inc., page 1 of 3 RESPONSE

We appreciate and acknowledge the partneNational Wildlife Refuge Complex has had agree that proper use of wetland infrastrucscience-based wetland management techniin wetland management for a variety of pur

The Service has considered input from a

public in revising the proposed action. We bmanagement direction is in alignment with and the purpose for which the refuge was ement direction for the refuge will include aapproach to managing the refuge. This diretive B-1 in that supplemental water (pumpiyears and intensive management actions sudiscing, burning, or herbicides may be usedindividual units within the wetland basin wflooding and drying cycles using a strategic tal water. The timing of these cycles will be ing within an adaptive management framewmanagement direction differs from alternatal water may be less than in previous yearyears of basin-wide drying over the next 15 be no more than 3 consecutive years).

The selected management direction wil

inputs of selenium to the refuge by working in the surrounding watershed. We will worexisting water delivery infrastructure. Thicanal for Units 1 and 2, however, we will firCreek channel in Units 1 and 2 before buildAlthough there will be slightly less than anthe selected management direction will prorecreational opportunities in most years whcycles that are very important to waterfowtivity over the long term. This selected marequire, as noted, increased resources whicage of declining Federal budgets. Howevermaintain many viable management options term challenges such as climate change and ing decades. 
LETTER

 #4—Ducks Unlimited, Inc., page 2 of 3
LETTER #4—Ducks Unlimited, Inc., page 3 of 3
LETTER

 #5—Friends of the Rocky Mountain Front

April 18, 2012

To: cc:

Toni Griffin, Planning Team Leader Kathleen A. BurchettU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Benton Lake NWR Complex PO Box 25486 922 Bootlegger TrailDenver, CO 80225-0486 Great Falls, MT 59404Email: bentonlake@fws.govWe received a copy of the USFWS draft CCP for the Benton Lake Complex, and have studied it some. We’re not directly familiar with all the areas, so we are mainly focused on the items in Chapter 6 (Management Direction) that directly affect the Rocky Mountain Front. As far as the Front is concerned, it looks like the most important thing the agency can do is Objective 1, pp 173-175, to ‘preserve intact landscapes’ with the purchase of conservation easements, and Objective 2, p 175, to try your best to guide industry away from development on the special lands along the Front. Many of us are concerned about oil & gas exploration, and we know that conservation easements do not necessarily preclude that, but the FWS should at least give input to encourage the strongest possible mitigation guidelines. We also are concerned about the proper siting of big industrial-size wind farms. 

The CCP may not specifically mention oil & gas and wind farms, but the implication is there throughout Chapter 6 (pp 169-198), under the goals and objectives of Landscape Conservation, Habitat, Wildlife, Cultural Resources, and Resource Protection.We encourage the USFWS to work closely with the BLM to try and avoid any surface occupancy for leases of federal minerals where the surface is protected with a conservation easement held by the same Department of Interior.We continue our strong support for acquiring easements and working with private landowners along the Rocky Mountain Front.Respectfully,Gene SentzFriends of the Rocky Mountain FrontPO Box 763Choteau, Montana 59422-0763friends@3rivers.net

RESPONSE

The Service agrees that one of our highest serving intact landscapes like the Rocky Mtion Area through conservation easementsidentified as the primary threat to native hthe refuge complex in the CCP. The success programs involves the careful balance of enproperty rights in order to protect trust spwhile respectfully leaving other property rlandowners so that they may best provide fThe Service will continue to coordinate witBoard of Oil and Gas, the Montana Departmand Conservation, industry representativerecommendations to avoid sensitive areas arefuge is currently involved with a team of gists, nongovernment organizations, and Stagement agencies to develop best managemused to make recommendations for sighting ects to minimize impacts to habitats and whas been involved in several negotiations wrepresentatives, and the BLM when FederSo far, surface occupancy has been avoided important to understand that these decisioagreed upon and may not always result in n
LETTER #6—Missouri River Citizens, Inc., page 1 of 2 RESPONSE

Regarding wet–dry cycles, the proposed acreduce the length of basin-wide dry periodyears (and no more than 3 consecutive yeardry periods, the breeding of wetland-depenfowl will be low at the refuge, but wetland-adapted to long-term flooding and drying ccies of waterfowl tend to return to the samyear before, most species of waterfowl exhiity in settling patterns in response to local and Grier 1988). 

When the refuge wetland units are reflo

there will be a pulse of nutrients that stimutebrates and some plants, which will providfor waterfowl, shorebirds and other wetlan(Magee 1995, Anteau 2012). Restoring annuity in the wetland basin will increase plant the long term, while providing optimal condspecies at different times. Examples of this waterfowl production areas within the wetwhere significant bird use occurs in basins regimes that are flooded following a relativ

As for mitigating for lost habitat, the Se

identified temporary and seasonal wetlandsize and totally, or partially, embedded in chighest risk for conversion. The pressure to lands for tillage agriculture puts these basision than those with more permanent wateembedded in grassland. At the same time, temporary and seasonal wetlands to waterHAPET, for every ten 1-acre wetlands in tthere would predictably be 20 breeding pai10-acre wetland would likely support only 7 Benton Lake Refuge as a semipermanent wsame resources as would managing most of the landscape. Protecting and restoring the rary and seasonal wetlands and restoring tof Benton Lake Refuge—including support
LETTER #6—Missouri River Citizens, Inc., page 2 of 2 RESPONSE

of temporary and seasonal wetland habitat would be of greater benefit to migratory bi

On hunting and viewing opportunities, t

direction balances the health and sustainabproviding additional waterfowl hunting oppproposed action, alternative C1. Under the direction, the refuge is striving to provide and fall and spring migration habitat in at lwhich should increase hunting over the prothat the selected management direction recest in maintaining healthy habitat and abunBenton Lake Refuge.
LETTER #7—Montana Audubon, page 1 of 3 RESPONSE

We appreciate Montana Audubon’s involvemthe Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge effort that Audubon staff has put forward thas been very beneficial. The Service valueignation of the Benton Lake Refuge as an Ithe refuge’s role in supporting migratory agrassland birds.

The original proposed action (alternativ

contain some aspects of alternatives B1 and be continued use of wetland infrastructure through the fall in 11 out of 15 years. This stion will be implemented using science-bastechniques in an adaptive management frammimic dynamic flooding and drying cycles, 

The selected management direction for 

implemented under the umbrella of managecomplex. According to analysis conducted bPothole Region, the most vulnerable wetlanare small, temporary wetlands. The most ethe refuge complex has to address the loss habitat throughout the region surrounding tection and restoration of habitat, such as wment program. The selected management dwill improve the health and productivity of gle, large, semipermanent wetland which dresources to migratory birds as would a muwetlands across the landscape. In addition, needed to achieve refuge objectives may recomplex staff to protect additional wetlandlandscape.

As we move forward with refuge and re

we will continue to adapt to the challenges change and habitat loss and adjust managethe framework of the selected management your suggestions for further energy self-su

We also value our role as an accessible w

Great Falls. It is our intention with the sele
LETTER #7—Montana Audubon, page 2 of 3 RESPONSE

to manage the refuge in a way that adds vapeople who cherish it 
LETTER #7—Montana Audubon, page 3 of 3
LETTER

 #8—Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, page 1 of 5 RESPONSE

We agree that the current management of changed to address selenium contaminationdeclining wetland health and productivity. input from all of our partners and the publiaction. We believe that the selected managment with the Service’s core mission and threfuge was established. The management dinclude an adaptive and prescriptive approaThis direction differs from alternative B-1 will not be consistent, and, as suggested in be dewatered for extended periods of time. basin-wide drying may occur over the next 

The high-water conditions in 2011 did de

ing can reduce Garrison creeping foxtail. Twill continue to be monitored on the refuge and duration of reductions to Garrison creeflooding is a tool that may be used prescripmanage this invasive species and to improv

It may not have been clear that the Serv

between the restoration, creation, and enhaWithin the refuge complex, the highest prioWetland restoration occurs when a wetland cally, but has been drained or altered. Restto as close to functional, historical condition differs from creation and enhancement. A wdid not occur before. Creation may occur on vation easements to support other grasslanobjectives. Enhancement means a wetland water longer or more deeply than the naturmay occur in combination with restoration. ments will occur less frequently to avoid thland health that can be associated with thehydrology.

Prescribed grazing will be considered a

ing the refuge’s grasslands under the selec

The impacts of different management ap

the refuge complex alternatives B and C shthe species of concern section as well. As no
LETTER #8—Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, page 2 of 5 RESPONSE

head shrikes and Swainson’s hawks would refuge if all of the shelterbelts were removetive C. Under the selected management dirnot expect to remove all of the shelterbeltsthe highest priority shelterbelts that have tnegatively impact grassland nesting birds. will have minimal impact on these species obelts on the refuge and in the surrounding for nesting.

The impacts to Franklin’s gulls, white-f

night-herons were not discussed in detail in the refuge complex, these species occur onluge. The impacts of the five management athese birds was discussed in the Benton La7). At the refuge complex level, protection aon waterfowl production areas or through owould potentially benefit these species. We the refuge complex level to be greater in albecause more resources would be available restoration across the refuge complex. Howlimited for these species since these particurequire larger, more permanently flooded wcommon throughout the refuge complex.

The impact analysis at the refuge compl

this letter notes, spend little time discussintionships of trust species. It was assumed, expanses of native habitats through easembe a positive effect on endemic wildlife and agement of fee-title lands in contiguous blofactors at proper levels that shaped the praley ecosystems—fire and grazing—would itrust species such as grassland birds, wetlasage obligates such as Brewer’s sparrows. actions on Benton Lake Refuge to wildlife the draft CCP and EA.

We agree that there would be declines i

waterbird breeding during extended dry cyuge under the management direction propo
LETTER

 #8—Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, page 3 of 5 RESPONSE

ever, wet–dry cycles are very important to waterfowl production over the long term. Wafter a dry period, there is a pulse of nutrietivity in invertebrates and some plants whiresources for waterfowl, shorebirds and othwildlife (Magee 1995, Anteau 2012). We diswould significantly impact the ability of waquickly find wetlands once they have refloothe waterfowl production areas on the refuextended dry cycles with associated reductever, over the last few years of wet conditioimmediately increased and many broods haWPAs. These “boom” and “bust” cycles are productivity of wetlands and wildlife that dprimary reasons the Service suspects that declined at Benton Lake is because extendeliminated within the wetland basin.

It is not clear where the draft CCP and 

be a 45-percent increase in recreational use the refuge complex level, modest increases if a park ranger is hired to increase opportuses. For Benton Lake Refuge, we agree thwaterfowl hunters and nonconsumptive useobserve or photograph wetland-dependent alternative C1 (Benton Lake Refuge only) ia 60-percent reduction in waterfowl huntinin all hunting of 41 percent over current maThe 2–3 “wet years” that were expected, byears of the refuge, specifically included thsisted through the fall. In these years wetlwould be possible. Under the selected manaimpact to waterfowl hunting will be much lthe original proposed action (alternative C1approximately 8 years of no waterfowl hunService will strive to provide water in the fBenton Lake, with no more than 3 consecut

Benton Lake Refuge has been designate

and a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Rese
LETTER #8—Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, page 4 of 5 RESPONSE

birds will benefit from increased drying cydue to the increase in overall productivity tlong-term, but drying creates mudflats thahabitat for shorebirds that has been reducerent management. Benton Lake Refuge watant Bird Area for both its significance to wgrassland-dependent birds. Individual specdesignation include black-necked stilts, Fracollared longspurs. The selected managemeof these species by increasing both wetland ductivity for breeding birds.

Refuge staff will actively engage partne

owners in the Lake Creek watershed to rednatural runoff into the refuge. Most of the sbeen mapped, and major contributors to thlocated in a relatively few places (personal Nimick et al. 1996). In addition, all cropped the potential to contribute to the seeps (perBrown). Although not all of the area has beacres contribute to seep formation in the wtions of monitoring wells and mapped rechamunication, S. Brown). However, not all of tcontribute equally to the selenium problemsize, amount of discharge, and proximity to taries. The number of acres that would neeual, perennial cover to achieve these reductunknown. This will be a continually changitions in land use (such as breaking new crothrough the USDA’s Conservation Reserve tion affect seep formation.

To achieve a permanent reduction in sel

would need to be planted to perennial covepetual conservation easement or bought in its partners and managed as perennial covethe Conservation Reserve Program, the Cogram, the Environmental Quality IncentiveReserve Program, and more have the potencover in the watershed. As of 2011, an acre 
LETTER

 #8—Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, page 5 of 5 RESPONSE

Creek watershed was valued at approximaapproximately 25–30 percent of the full valfor Fish and Wildlife program has recently state-wide planning effort to identify high-assist in working with private landowners. shed is not one of the program’s priorities. nation between the refuge and the NRCS, contaminants programs may lead to innovasome of the selenium sources.

Reducing selenium inputs is important f

wetlands on Benton Lake. Average concentpumped water from the Muddy Creek wateper liter and 14 micrograms per liter for naCreek watershed (Nimick et al. 1996, Refuprevious research, a reduction of selenium age concentration of 5 micrograms per litersonal drying could prevent the refuge from in Units 1 and 2 (Zhang and Moore 1997). Snium inputs may be needed due to the exte2 planned in the selected management dire

Under the selected management directi

tem to the refuge would be used in at least maintenance of these structures will continmanagement. Infrastructure on the refuge increase water delivery efficiencies or to imment. Decisions regarding pumping and infannually based on adaptive management antoward management objectives for the wetselected management direction is expected the original proposed action (alternative C1
LETTER #9—National Wildlife Federation, page 1 of 2 RESPONSE

The Service has considered input from all olic in developing a revised management dirRefuge. After all public comments were relowing the release of the draft CCP and EAtwo additional public meetings as well as a workshop with MFWP. This additional pubmodification to the original proposed action tains some aspects of alternatives B1 and C

Alternatives B1 and C1, as well as the s

tion, all contain prescriptive management aagement direction will employ intensive magrazing, mowing, discing, burning, or herbiflooding and drying cycles. These flooding arotated among units within the wetland baout of 15 years of basin-wide drying (althoutive years). The likelihood for success of theincrease when they are used in concert witemulates the natural hydrology of the wetl

An evaluation of the impacts of the revi

be found in appendix A. This Finding of No Regional Director indicates that an environnot necessary.

The Service does not consider divestitur

agency such as MFWP unless a unit no lonwhich it was established. The refuge providresource benefits and continues to meet its breeding ground for birds.

The Service disagrees with the allegatio

been effectively adopted several years ago. pumped between 1,932 acre-feet and 5,800 2005–2010, the refuge pumped an average year, which is well within the long-term avreceived over 10,000 acre-feet in natural ruhighest amounts in recorded refuge historyhigh runoff, the refuge still pumped 1,554 awhen the delivery pipe was damaged by an construction work. Other water managemeflooding and drying of units and prescribed 
LETTER

 #9—National Wildlife Federation, page 2 of 2 RESPONSE

consistently over the last 20 years. There hin management prior to this final CCP decihas closely followed the National Wildlife RNEPA and the Administrative Procedures 

We have also very seriously considered 

received throughout this process and highlporters and Service partners. The Service agement direction for Benton Lake Refugeit was developed, to be an exemplary CCP across the Service. 
LETTER #10—Russell Country Sportsmen’s Association, page 1 of 2 RESPONSE

We appreciate and acknowledge the supporSportsmen’s Association has provided to thits history. We also agree that the refuge is ment challenges that need to be addressedaction (alternative C1) has been modified to cerns that the Russell Country Sportsmen’The Service will dewater Unit 1 for a perionium accumulation problems. Grazing, flooding, and prescribed fire will all be used as maddress unwanted wetland vegetation such tail and cattails. Under this selected managvice will strive to provide water on the refuwith basin-wide dry periods limited to no myears. The effectiveness of these intensive and shorter-term dry cycles in addressing issues will be continually monitored and evagement framework. Based on monitoring be made as needed. We agree that changes the hunting units may be needed to accommmanagement direction. The selected managrequire, as noted, increased flexibility by rresources. We would greatly appreciate anthe Russell Country Sportsmen’s Associatimanagement direction on the refuge. 
LETTER

 #10—Russell Country Sportsmen’s Association, page 2 of 2
LETTER #11—Safari Club International, page 1 of 2 RESPONSE

Thank you for your letter. The Service shartional’s goals of using sound biology in habiment and providing for hunting opportunit

We also agree that the management dir

Refuge needs to include changes from the ctive, specifically, increased drying within wbasin. Active management of the wetland uyears has been limited to prescribed burnithe lower units. The selected management includes additional management tools such ing, burning, discing, grazing, mowing, and 

It is not clear where the draft CCP and 

be a 45-percent increase in recreational use the refuge complex level, modest increases if a park ranger is hired to increase opportuses. For Benton Lake Refuge, we agree thwaterfowl hunters and nonconsumptive useobserve or photograph wetland-dependent alternative C1 (Benton Lake Refuge only) ia 60 percent reduction in waterfowl hunting all hunting of 41 percent over current manaThe 2–3 “wet years” that were expected wous years of the refuge, specifically includinpersisted through the fall. In these years, wation would be possible. Under the selected impact to waterfowl hunting will be much lthe original proposed action (alternative C1approximately 8 years of no waterfowl hunService will strive to provide water in the fBenton Lake, with no more than 3 consecut

The Service has considered input from a

public in revising the proposed action. The direction will include an adaptive managemsound science to improve the health and suLake Refuge wetlands. 
LETTER

 #11—Safari Club International, page 2 of 2
LETTER #12—Upper Missouri Breaks Audubon, page 1 of 2 RESPONSE

Thank you for your comments. The CCP foWildlife Refuge Complex does cover a wide and flora and seeks to create a managementhe associated challenges.

Refuges do serve as a system of lands th

resources to support migrating and nesting enced habitat loss elsewhere. However, it is such as Benton Lake Refuge, to replace acritat across the landscape. The Service has tservation easements to cost effectively protgrassland and wetland habitat. The selectethe Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge make this a high priority, however, an increto meet objectives at Benton Lake may imp

Our analysis of the impacts of the origin

tive C1) on species such as white-faced ibisand Franklin’s gulls is based on continentations. As a national wildlife refuge system, to consider species on a population-wide scamore scientific understanding of ducks and cycles than lesser studied wetland-dependethat when wetlands reflood after a dry perients that stimulates productivity in invertewhich provides important food resources foand other wetland-dependent wildlife (Magalso have results from recent research on Fincluded those using Benton Lake Refuge scant genetic mixing among colonies. This suhigh degree of flexibility in where they nespotich 2012). Under the selected managemeLake Refuge, there will be more frequent anally proposed. Whether or not shorter-terin addressing the serious wetland health ismonitored and evaluated in an adaptive maBased on this monitoring feedback, adjustmneeded. We agree that wetland ecology is crequested additional biological staffing to sthe refuge.
LETTER

 #12—Upper Missouri Breaks Audubon, page 2 of 2 RESPONSE

In addition, birding trails that access th

explored as a way to enhance the wildlife vgrassland birds. In addition, we will also mas needed, based on changes in water manatate wildlife observation and other recreati

For an activity to be permitted on a nat

meet the standards of both appropriateneslined in Service policy. Hunting is a wildlifeactivity that is identified as a priority publiAct. We permit dogs in the hunt area durinwe recognize that they are invaluable tools quality of a hunt and reduce wanton waste. dogs is not, in itself, a wildlife-dependent redoes it contribute to the purpose of the Benuge and breeding ground for migratory birRefuge System (“to administer a national nfor the conservation, management, and wheof the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and United States for the benefit of present and Americans). In fact, conducting field trials refuges is expressly prohibited by federal lrent regulation of requiring dogs to be leasopen to motorized vehicles (except in the huseason) is intended to limit unnecessary diBased on your request, we conducted a formposed activity and have determined that thon Benton Lake Refuge is neither approprifore, we deny this request.

We appreciate your support for managin

species such as long-billed curlew and chestUnder the selected management direction, directed toward wetland management than alternative C1, especially in the beginning. prairie is also a high priority and will be admoney allow.

The proposed management action (alter

fied to address many of the concerns identiBreaks Audubon and others. The Service w
LETTER #12—Upper Missouri Breaks Audubon RESPONSE

period of time to address selenium accumuflooding, drying, mowing, discing, and presas management tools to address unwanted Garrison creeping foxtail and cattails. Undment direction, the Service will strive to pin 11 out of 15 years, with basin-wide dry pthan 3 consecutive years. Whether or not ttechniques and shorter-term dry cycles arserious wetland health issues will be continated in an adaptive management frameworfeedback, adjustments will be made as neement direction will require increased resoulenge in this age of declining federal budgemanagement direction will also maintain moptions and tools to address long-term chachange and habitat loss over the coming de

The selected management direction con

B1 and C1. There will be more frequent annally proposed, but management will be adwetland health indicators are not improvinbe a high priority, but management actions sive species, removing nonnative shelterbegrasses may happen more slowly, or to a leoriginally proposed in C1. 
L 

Comment LEETTTTERER # #1133——EEnnvviirrononLmEmTeeTnnERttaall # P P—rrootNa tececmttiione o on A Af oggeregan ncyi,,zppati agagon, e 3 o e 1 opf 4agf 4e 1 of 2 number RESPONRESSEPO

The current crop or fallow farming methodshed provide ideal conditions for the creatquent movement of selenium out of the soithat enters Lake Creek and eventually endwetlands. Our efforts in working with the focus on changing the current farming mettem to one that focuses on continuous croppermanent cover in order to more effectiveseep recharge areas, to prevent the establieliminate those seeps that already exist. Tability of alternative crops that would proreturn with no significant change in inputs. ers may be necessary to provide them wcrops. The Service may also consider a new tiative in the watershed to convert croplacover in an effort to eliminate seeps. Signifimade by working with those landowners wseeps in the watershed on their property. The vast majority of agriculture in the Ldryland, small-grain farming using a crop ouse in wet years is very inefficient and resuity due to excess unused water moving throlow areas and entering the seep discharge focus on the use of alternative crops and coto more effectively utilize available water aeliminate seeps. 

The average amount of selenium enterin

pumped water during the period of 1970–2total amount of selenium received from Muthat 30-year period was 2,417 pounds. Reduwater that enters the refuge will also reducselenium. We are unable to provide absolutthe amount of selenium that will enter the After participating in a structured decisionfrom MFWP, the selected management dirdeveloped. Flexible water management wilamount, duration and location of pumped wbasin. Management will strive to provide s
Comment LETTER #13—EnvironLEmTeTntaERl # Pr—otNaecti mone o Af ogregan ncyi, zpati agon, e 2 opagf 4e 1 of 2 number

fall and spring migration habitat in at least basin-wide drawdowns in no more than 4 outhan 3 consecutive years of basin-wide drymanagement approach will be applied that dry cycles to ensure progress towards achiUnit 1 will be drawn down and will remain levels in the top 0.8 inch of basin sediment fgram. We anticipate that this drawdown peto allow for the sufficient volatilization of ac

Current drying of the lower units (1–2 m

effective in managing salts. Selenium concements are slightly above 1 microgram per ghazard level. The development of a habitat approval of the final CCP will identify the rthat will be used to manage the lower refuging of the selenium concentrations in sedimdrying periods will be an integral part of tplan.

The paragraph at the bottom of page 22

discusses conditions next to the seep in Unof the water concentrations that you list (33liter) were found at that seep. Figure 21 on centrations of selenium but does not specifisamples came from the 4C seep, but the tex

Any new selenium water quality standa

the Montana Department of Environmentaconsidered in the development and refinemplans as we proceed through the next 15 yeproductivity and health on the Benton Lak

RESPONSE RESPO
L 

Comment LEETTTTERER # #1133——EEnnvviirrononLmEmTeeTnnERttaall # P P—rrootNa tececmttiione o on A Af oggeregan ncyi,,zppati agagon, e 3 o e 1 opf 4agf 4e 1 of 2 number

— ppU er Missouri Breaks 

Audubon, page 2 of 2
Comment LETTER #13—EnvironLEmTeTntaERl # Pr—otNaecti mone o Af ogregan ncyi, zpati agon, e 2 opagf 4e 1 of 2 numberLETTER #13—Environmental Protection Agency, page 4 of 4

Appendix E

Key Legislation and Policy

This appendix briefly describes the guidance for 

the National Wildlife Refuge System and other key 

legislation and policies that guide management of 

the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

The mission of the Refuge System is to 

administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, 

and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.

(National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997)

E.1 Goals of the National 

Refuge System

■ Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats, including species that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

■ Develop and support a network of habitats for 

migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that 

is strategically distributed and carefully managed 

to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges. 

■ Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, 

wetlands of national or international significance, 

and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, 

rare, declining, or underrepresented in existing 

protection efforts. 

■ Provide and enhance opportunities to take part 

in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation).

■ Foster understanding and instill appreciation 

of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

E.2 Guiding Principles

There are four guiding principles for management 

and general public use of the Refuge System established by Executive Order 12996 (1996):

■ Public Use—The Refuge System provides important opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities involving hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation.

■ Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper without quality habitat and without fish and wildlife, 

traditional uses of refuges cannot be sustained. 

The Refuge System will continue to conserve 

and enhance the quality and diversity of fish and 

wildlife habitat within refuges.

■ Partnerships—America’s sportsmen and women 

were the first partners who insisted on protecting valuable wildlife habitat within wildlife 

refuges. Conservation partnerships with other 

Federal agencies, State agencies, tribes, organizations, industry, and the general public can 

make significant contributions to the growth and 

management of the Refuge System.

■ Public Involvement—The public should be given 

a full and open opportunity to participate in decisions regarding acquisition and management of 

our national wildlife refuges.

E.3 Legal and Policy Guidance

Management actions on national wildlife refuges and 

wetland management districts are circumscribed 

by many mandates including laws and Executive 

orders. Regulations that affect refuge and district 

management the most are listed below.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)—Directed agencies to consult with native traditional 

religious leaders to determine proper policy changes 
260 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

necessary to protect and preserve Native American 

religious cultural rights and practices.

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992)—Prohibited 

discrimination in public accommodations and services.

Antiquities Act (1906)—Authorized the scientific investigation of antiquities on Federal land and provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects 

taken or collected without a permit.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974)—

Directed the preservation of historic and archaeological data in Federal construction projects.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as 

amended—Protected materials of archaeological 

interest from unauthorized removal or destruction, 

and requires Federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)—Required federally 

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to 

be accessible to persons with disabilities.

Clean Water Act (1977)—Required consultation with 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permits) 

for major wetland modifications. Section 404—Authorized the Secretary of the Army, acting through 

the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits, after notice 

and opportunity for public hearing, for discharge 

of dredged or fill material into navigable waters of 

the United States, including wetlands, at specified 

disposal sites. Required selection of disposal sites 

be in accordance with guidelines developed by the 

Administrator of the EPA in conjunction with the 

Secretary of the Army. Stated that the Administrator can prohibit or restrict use of any defined area 

as a disposal site whenever she or he determines, 

after notice and opportunity for public hearings, that 

discharge of such materials into such areas will have 

an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water 

supplies, shellfish beds, fishery areas, wildlife, or 

recreational areas.

Dingell–Johnson Act (1950)—Authorized the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial help for 

State fish restoration and management plans and 

projects. Financed by excise taxes paid by manufacturers of rods, reels, and other fishing tackle. Known 

as the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986)—Promoted wetland conservation for the public benefit to 

help fulfill international obligations in various migratory bird treaties and conventions. Authorized the 

purchase of wetlands with LWCF monies.

Endangered Species Act (1973), as amended—Required all Federal agencies to carry out programs 

for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

species.

Environmental Education Act of 1990—Established 

the Office of Environmental Education within EPA 

to develop and administer a Federal environmental 

education program. Responsibilities of the office 

include developing and supporting programs to improve understanding of the natural and developed 

environment and the relationships between humans 

and their environment, supporting the dissemination 

of educational materials, developing and supporting training programs and environmental education 

seminars, managing a Federal grant program, and 

administering an environmental internship and fellowship program. Required the office to develop and 

support environmental programs in consultation 

with other Federal natural resource management 

agencies including the Service.

Executive Order 5228 (1929)—Established Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge and 

breeding ground for birds.” 

Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on 

Public Lands (1972)—Provided policy and procedures 

for regulating off-road vehicles.

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management 

(1977)—Required Federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood 

loss, reduce the effect of floods on human safety, and 

preserve the natural and beneficial values served by 

the floodplains. Prevented Federal agencies from 

contributing to the “adverse impacts associated with 

occupancy and modification of floodplains” and the 

“direct or indirect support of floodplain development.” In the course of fulfilling their respective 

authorities, Federal agencies “shall take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss, to reduce the effect of 

floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.”

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (1977)—

Directed Federal agencies to (1) reduce destruction, 

loss, or degradation of wetlands, and (2) preserve 

and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alternative exists.

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1996)—
APPENDIX E–Key Legislation and Policy 261

Defined the mission, purpose, and priority public 

uses of the Refuge System; presented four principles 

to guide management of the Refuge System.

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996)—

Directed Federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial uses of Indian 

sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid 

adversely affecting the physical integrity of such 

sacred sites, and where appropriate, support the 

confidentiality of sacred sites.

Executive Order 13443, Facilitation of Hunting Heritage 

and Wildlife Conservation (2007)—Directed Federal 

agencies that have programs and activities that have 

a measurable effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including 

the Department of the Interior and the Department 

of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990)—Required the use 

of integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other Federal 

and State agencies.

Federal Records Act (1950)—Required the preservation of evidence of the Government’s organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other information.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972—Required 

any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge into 

navigable waters to obtain a certification from the 

State in which the discharge originates or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water 

pollution control agency having jurisdiction over 

navigable waters at the point where the discharge 

originates or will originate, that the discharge will 

comply with applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. Required that a certification 

obtained for construction of any facility must also 

pertain to subsequent operation of the facility.

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)—Directed the Secretary 

of the Interior to develop the policies and procedures necessary for carrying out fish and wildlife 

laws and to research and report on fish and wildlife 

matters. Established the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the Interior, as well 

as the positions of Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Director of the Service.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958)—Allowed 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into 

agreements with private landowners for wildlife 

management purposes.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978—Improved 

the administration of fish and wildlife programs and 

amends several earlier laws including the Refuge 

Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. Authorized the Secretary to accept 

gifts and bequests of real and personal property on 

behalf of the United States. Authorized the use of 

volunteers for Service projects and appropriations 

to carry out volunteer programs.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (1935), 

known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended 

(1965)—Declared a national policy to preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located at refuges and districts. Provided 

procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites and for designation 

of national historic and natural landmarks.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965—Provided money from leasing bonuses, production royalties, and rental revenues for offshore oil, gas, and 

sulphur extraction to the Bureau of Land Management, the USDA Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and State and local agencies for 

purchase of lands for parks, open space, and outdoor 

recreation.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)—Established 

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or 

gifts of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

(1934)—Authorized the opening of part of a refuge 

to waterfowl hunting.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)—Designated the 

protection of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility and enabled the setting of seasons and other 

regulations including the closing of areas, Federal or 

non-Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds.

Mineral Leasing Act (1920), as amended—Authorized 

and governed leasing of public lands for development of deposits of coal, oil, gas and other hydrocarbons, sulphur, phosphate, potassium and sodium. 

Section 185 provided for granting of rights-of-way 

over Federal lands for pipelines.
262 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)—Required 

all agencies including the Service to examine the 

environmental effects of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. Required Federal agencies to integrate this 

act with other planning requirements and prepare 

appropriate documents to facilitate better environmental decisionmaking (40 CFR 1500).

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as 

amended—Established policy that the Federal Government is to provide leadership in the preservation 

of the Nation’s prehistoric and historical resources.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act

(1966)—Defined the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorized the Secretary of the Interior to 

allow any use of a refuge, provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for which the refuge 

was established.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997—Set the mission and administrative policy for 

all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandated comprehensive conservation planning for 

all units of the Refuge System.

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998—Encouraged the use of volunteers to help the Service in 

the management of refuges within the Refuge System. Facilitated partnerships between the Refuge 

System and non-Federal entities to promote public 

awareness of the resources of the Refuge System 

and public participation in the conservation of those 

resources. Encouraged donations and other contributions by persons and organizations to the Refuge 

System.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (1990)—Required Federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and 

repatriate cultural items under their control or possession.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (1989)—

Provided for the conservation of North American 

wetland ecosystems, waterfowl and other migratory 

birds, fish, and wildlife that depend on such habitats.

Pittman–Robertson Act (1937)—Taxed the purchase of 

ammunition and firearms and earmarks the proceeds 

to be distributed to the States for wildlife restoration. Known as the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act or P–R Act.

Refuge Recreation Act (1962)—Allowed the use of 

refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and when 

sufficient money is available to manage the uses.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, section 401 (1935)—Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes using 

revenues derived from the sale of products from 

refuges.

Refuge Trespass Act of June 28, 1906—Provided the 

first Federal protection for wildlife at national wildlife refuges. Made it unlawful to hunt, trap, capture, 

willfully disturb, or kill any bird or wild animal, or 

take or destroy the eggs of any such birds, on any 

lands of the United States set apart or reserved as 

refuges or breeding grounds for such birds or animals by any law, proclamation, or Executive order, 

except under rules and regulations of the Secretary. 

Protected Government property on such lands.

Rehabilitation Act (1973)—Required programmatic 

accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for 

all facilities and programs funded by the Federal 

Government to make sure that any person could 

take part in any program.

Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration 

Act (2006)—Furthered the purposes of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act 

of 1992 by directing the Secretary of the Interior, 

acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to 

carry out an assessment and demonstration program 

to control saltcedar and Russian olive and for other 

purposes.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948—Provided that, on determination by the Administrator of the General 

Services Administration, real property no longer 

needed by a Federal agency can be transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of the Interior 

if the land has particular value for migratory birds 

or to a State agency for other wildlife conservation 

purposes.

U.S. Department of the Interior Order Number 3226

(2001)—Directed bureaus and offices of the Department to analyze the potential effects on climate 

change when undertaking long-range planning, setting priorities for scientific research, and making 

major decisions about use of resources.

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

Act (1998)—Encouraged the use of volunteers to 

help in the management of refuges within the Refuge System. Facilitated partnerships between the 
APPENDIX E–Key Legislation and Policy 263

Refuge System and non-Federal entities to promote 

public awareness of the resources of the Refuge 

System and public participation in the conservation 

of the resources and encouraged donations and other 

contributions.

Wilderness Act of 1964—Directed the Secretary of 

the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless 

island (regardless of size) within the Refuge System 

and National Park Service for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Appendix F

Preparers and Contributors

This document is the result of extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by the members of the planning team shown below.

Team member Position Work unit

Mike Artmann Wildlife biologist and Geographic 

Information System (GIS) specialist

USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Steve Assmus Maintenance worker USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana

Kevin Beck Fire management specialist USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana

Kathy Burchett Project leader USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Amy Coffman Wildlife refuge specialist USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana

Mark Ely GIS specialist USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Kevin Ertl Refuge operations specialist USFWS, H2–O WPA, Helmville, Montana

Vanessa Fields Wildlife biologist USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana

Amy Graham Wildlife refuge specialist USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana

Toni Griffin Planning team leader USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Robert F. Johnson Deputy refuge manager USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana

Patricia Johnston Administrative support assistant USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana

Susan Lakes Administrative officer USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana

Jim Lange Wetland district manager USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana

John Takala Former refuge manager USFWS, Lost Trail Refuge, Marion, Montana

Lynn Verlanic Wildlife biologist USFWS, Lost Trail Refuge, Marion, Montana

Mitch Werner Writer–editor USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, Colorado
266 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Many organizations, agencies, and individuals provided invaluable help with the preparation of this CCP. The 

Service acknowledges the efforts of the following individuals and groups toward the completion of the plan. 

The diversity, talent, and knowledge contributed dramatically improved the vision and completeness of this 

document.

Team member Position Work unit

John Chaffin Attorney DOI, Office of the Solicitor, Billings, Montana

Richard Coleman Assistant regional director, Refuge 

System

USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado

Megan Estep Chief, Division of Water Resources USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado

Sheri Fetherman Chief, Division of Education and 

Visitor Services

USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado

Leigh Fredrickson Wetlands ecologist Wetland Management and Education Services, Puxico, 

Missouri

Shannon Heath Outdoor recreation planner USFWS, Helena, Montana

Mickey E. 

Heitmeyer

Wetland ecologist Greenbrier Wetland Services, Advance, Missouri

Wayne King Wildlife biologist USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado

Lynne Koontz Economist USGS, Fort Collins Science Center, Colorado

Lindy Garner Montana strike team coordinator, 

noxious weeds

USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana

Brant Loflin Zone archaeologist USFWS, Spearfish, South Dakota

Murray Laubhan Inventory and monitoring zone 

biologist

USFWS, Quivira Refuge, Stafford, Kansas

David C. Lucas Chief, Division of Refuge Planning USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado

David A. Nimick Hydrologist, Geo. Chem. USGS, Water Science Center, Helena, Montana

Emily Pattersen Meeting facilitation Belt Collins, Inc., Boulder, Colorado

Clay Ronish Refuge law enforcement zone officer USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana

Dean Rundle Refuge supervisor USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado

Jim Stutzman Montana State coordinator, Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife Program

USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana

Gary Sullivan Montana State coordinator, realty 

program

USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Great Falls, Montana

Meg Van Ness Regional archaeologist USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado

Jeff Warren Inventory and monitoring zone biologist

USFWS, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, 

Montana
Appendix G 

Species Lists

Common name Scientific name Designation

MAMMALS

American mink Mustela vison

badger Taxidea taxus

beaver Castor canadensis

big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus

bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis

bison Bison bison

black bear Ursus americanus

black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus Species of concern

bobcat Lynx rufus

bushy-tailed woodrat Neotoma cinerea

California myotis Myotis californicus

Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened

Columbian ground squirrel Spermophilus columbianus

coyote Canis latrans

deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

dusky or montane shrew Sorex monticolus

dwarf shrew Sorex nanus Species of concern

eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis Species of concern

elk or wapiti Cervus canadensis

fisher Martes pennanti Species of concern

fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Species of concern

golden-mantled 

ground squirrel Spermophilus lateralis

gray wolf Canis lupus

grizzly bear Ursus arctos Threatened

ground squirrel Spermophilus elegans

heather vole Phenacomys intermedius

hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Species of concern

hoary marmot Marmota caligata Potential species of concern

little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus

long-eared myotis Myotis evotis

long-legged myotis Myotis volans

long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus

long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata

marten Martes americana

masked shrew Sorex cinereus
268 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common name Scientific name Designation

meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Merriam’s shrew Sorex merriami Species of concern

mice

Onychomys spp.

Peromyscus spp.

Reithrodontomys spp.

mink Mustela vison

montane vole Microtus montanus

moose Alces americanus

mountain cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii

mountain lion Puma concolor

mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

northern bog lemming Synaptomys borealis Species of concern

northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus

northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides

northern river otter Lontra canadensis

pika Ochotona princeps 

porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

Preble's shrew Sorex preblei Species of concern

pronghorn Antilocapra americana

pygmy shrew Sorex hoyi

raccoon Procyon lotor

red fox Vulpes vulpes

red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

red-tailed chipmunk Tamias ruficaudus

river otter Lutra canadensis

short-tailed weasel Mustela erminea

silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Potential species of concern

snowshoe hare Lepus americanus

spotted bat Euderma maculatum Species of concern

southern red-backed vole Myodes gapperi

striped skunk Mephitis mephitis

swift fox Vulpes velox

Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Species of concern

vagrant shrew Sorex vagrans

water shrew Sorex palustris

water vole Microtus richardsoni 

western jumping mouse Zapus princeps

western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum

white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus

white-tailed jackrabbit Lepus townsendii

wolverine Gulo gulo Species of concern

yellow-bellied marmot Marmota flaviventris
APPENDIX G–Species Lists 269

Common name Scientific name Designation

yellow-pine chipmunk Tamias amoenus

Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis Potential species of concern

BIRDS

alder flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Species of concern

American avocet Recurvirostra americana

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Species of concern

American coot Fulica americana

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

American dipper Cinclus mexicanus

American goldfinch Spinus tristus

American kestrel Falco sparverius

American pipit Anthus rubescens

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla

American robin Turdus migratorius

American three-toed 

woodpecker Picoides dorsalis

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Species of concern

American wigeon Anas americana

Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna

Audubon's warbler Dendroica coronata auduboni

Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii

bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Species of concern

band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata

bank swallow Riparia riparia

barn swallow Hirundo rustica

barred owl Strix varia

Barrow's goldeneye Bucephala islandica Potential species of concern

belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon

black rosy-finch Leucosticte atrata Species of concern

black swift Cypseloides niger Species of concern

black tern Chlidonias niger Species of concern

black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus Species of concern

black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Species of concern

black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia

black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus

black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri

black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax Species of concern

black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus

black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus Species of concern

black-throated blue warbler Dendroica caerulescens

black-throated sparrow Amphispiza bilineata

blue jay Cyanocitta cristata

blue-winged teal Anas discors
270 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common name Scientific name Designation

bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Species of concern

bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus

boreal chickadee Poecile hudsonicus Species of concern

boreal owl Aegolius funereus

brambling Fringilla montifringilla

Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus

Brewer's sparrow Spizella breweri Species of concern

brown creeper Certhia americana Species of concern

brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum

brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater

bufflehead Bucephala albeola

Bullock's oriole Icterus bullockii

burrowing owl Athene cunicularia

california gull Larus californicus

calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope

canada goose Branta canadensis

canvasback Aythya valisineria

canyon wren Catherpes mexicanus

caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia Species of concern

Cassin's finch Carpodacus cassinii Species of concern

Cassin's vireo Vireo cassinii

cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum

chestnut-backed chickadee Poecile rufescens

chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus

chipping sparrow Spizella passerina

cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera

Clark's grebe Aechmophorus clarkii Species of concern

Clark's nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana Species of concern

clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida

cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

common goldeneye Bucephala clangula

common grackle Quiscalus quiscula

common loon Gavia immer Species of concern

common merganser Mergus merganser

common moorhen Gallinula chloropus

common nighthawk Chordeiles minor

common raven Corvus corax

common redpoll Acanthis flammea

common tern Sterna hirundo Species of concern

common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii

Cordilleran flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis

dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis

dark-eyed junco (gray-headed) Junco hyemalis caniceps
APPENDIX G–Species Lists 271

Common name Scientific name Designation

Dark-eyed junco 

(Montana junco) Junco hyemalis montanus

dark-eyed junco (pink-sided) Junco hyemalis mearnsi

dark-eyed junco (slate-colored) Junco hyemalis cismontanus

double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus

downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens

dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri

dusky grouse Dendragapus obscurus

eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis

eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe

eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

Eurasian wigeon Anas penelope

European starling Sturnus vulgaris Exotic species (not native to Montana)

evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Species of concern

field sparrow Spizella pusilla

flammulated owl Otus flammeolus Species of concern

Forster's tern Sterna forsteri Species of concern

fox sparrow Passerella iliaca

Franklin's gull Leucophaeus pipixcan Species of concern

gadwall Anas strepera

golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Species of concern

golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa

grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Species of concern

gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis

gray jay Perisoreus canadensis

gray partridge Perdix perdix Exotic species (not native to Montana)

gray-crowned rosy-finch Leucosticte tephrocotis Species of concern

great blue heron Ardea herodias Species of concern

great egret Ardea alba

great gray owl Strix nebulosa Species of concern

great horned owl Bubo virginianus

greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Species of concern

greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus

green-winged teal Anas crecca

hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus

Hammond's flycatcher Empidonax hammondii

harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus Species of concern

Harris's sparrow Zonotrichia querula

hermit thrush Catharus guttatus

hoary redpoll Acanthis hornemanni

hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Potential species of concern

horned grebe Podiceps auritus Species of concern
272 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common name Scientific name Designation

horned lark Eremophila alpestris

house finch Carpodacus mexicanus

house sparrow Passer domesticus

house wren Troglodytes aedon

killdeer Charadrius vociferus

lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys

lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus

lazuli bunting Passerina amoena

least flycatcher Empidonax minimus

least sandpiper Calidris minutilla

Le Conte’s sparrow Ammodramus leconteii

lesser scaup Aythya affinis

lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes

Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Species of concern

Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza lincolnii

loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Species of concern

long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Species of concern

long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

long-eared owl Asio otus

MacGillivray's warbler Oporornis tolmiei

magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia

mallard Anas platyrhynchos

marbled godwit Limosa fedoa

marsh wren Cistothorus palustris

McCown’s longspur Rhynchophanes mccownii Species of concern

merlin Falco columbarius

mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides

mountain chickadee Poecile gambeli

mountain plover Charadrius montanus Species of concern

mourning dove Zenaida macroura

myrtle warbler Dendroica coronata coronata

Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla

northern flicker Colaptes auratus

northern flicker (red-shafted) Colaptes auratus cafer

northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Species of concern

northern harrier Circus cyaneus

northern hawk owl Surnia ulula Potential species of concern

northern oriole Icterus galbula

northern pintail Anas acuta

northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma

northern rough-winged 

swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis

northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus

northern shoveler Anas clypeata
APPENDIX G–Species Lists 273

Common name Scientific name Designation

northern shrike Lanius excubitor

northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis

olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi

orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata

osprey Pandion haliaetus

ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla Potential species of concern

Pacific loon Gavia pacifica

Pacific wren Troglodytes pacificus Species of concern

painted redstart Myioborus pictus

peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Species of concern

pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps

pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Species of concern

pine grosbeak Pinicola enucleator

pine siskin Spinus pinus

pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Species of concern

piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened

prairie falcon Falco mexicanus

pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea

red crossbill Loxia curvirostra

red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator

red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis

red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus

red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis

red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena

red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus

red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis

red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

redhead Aythya americana

ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis

ring-necked duck Aythya collaris

ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchius Exotic species (not native to Montana)

rock pigeon Columba livia Exotic species (not native to Montana)

rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus

rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus

Ross's goose Chen rossii

rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus

ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula

ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis

ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus

rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Potential species of concern

Sabine's gull Xema sabini

sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Species of concern

sandhill crane Grus canadensis
274 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common name Scientific name Designation

Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis

scissor-tailed flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus

semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus

sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus

sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus Species of concern

short-eared owl Asio flammeus Potential species of concern

snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis

snow goose Chen caerulescens

snowy owl Bubo scandiacus

solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria

solitary vireo Vireo solitarius

song sparrow Melospiza melodia

sora Porzana carolina

spotted sandpiper Actitis macularius

spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus

Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii

spruce grouse Falcipennis canadensis

Steller's jay Cyanocitta stelleri

surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata

Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni Potential species of concern

Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus

Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina Potential species of concern

Townsend's solitaire Myadestes townsendi

Townsend's warbler Dendroica townsendi

tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor

trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator Species of concern

tundra swan Cygnus columbianus

turkey vulture Cathartes aura

varied thrush Ixoreus naevius

Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi

veery Catharus fuscescens Species of concern

vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina

Virginia rail Rallus limicola

warbling vireo Vireo gilvus

western bluebird Sialia mexicana

western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis

western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta

western screech-owl Megascops kennicottii Potential species of concern

western tanager Piranga ludoviciana

western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus

white-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis
APPENDIX G–Species Lists 275

Common name Scientific name Designation

white-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys

white-faced ibis Plegadis chihi Species of concern

white-tailed ptarmigan Lagopus leucura Species of concern

white-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis

white-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis

white-winged crossbill Loxia leucoptera

white-winged scoter Melanitta fusca

wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo Exotic species (not native to Montana)

willet Tringa semipalmata

Williamson's sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus

willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Wilson's phalarope Phalaropus tricolor

Wilson's snipe Gallinago delicata

Wilson's warbler Wilsonia pusilla

winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes Species of concern

wood duck Aix sponsa

yellow warbler Dendroica petechia

yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens

yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata

FISH

Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus

blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus Species of concern

brook stickleback Culaea inconstans Potential species of concern

bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened

Columbia River redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri Species of concern

deepwater sculpin Myoxocephalus thompsonii Species of concern

Iowa darter Etheostoma exile Species of concern

longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus

mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi

northern pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis

northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos

northern redbelly x 

finescale dace Phoxinus eos x phoxinus neogaeus Species of concern

paddlefish Polyodon spathula Species of concern

pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Species of concern

pearl dace Margariscus margarita Species of concern

pygmy whitefish Prosopium coulteri Species of concern

sauger Sander canadensis Species of concern

slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus

spoonhead scalpin Cottus ricei Species of concern

sturgeon chub Macrhybopsis gelida Species of concern

torrent sculpin Cottus rhotheus Species of concern

trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus Species of concern
276 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common name Scientific name Designation

westslope cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi Species of concern

Yellowstone cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri Species of concern

REPTILES

bull snake Pituophis catenifer sayi

common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis

common sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus Species of concern

eastern racer Coluber constrictor

greater short-horned lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi Species of concern

northern alligator lizard Elgaria coerulea Species of concern

painted turtle Chrysemys picta

plains garter snake Thamnophis radix

rubber boa Charina bottae

spiny softshell Apalone spinifera Species of concern

terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans

western hog-nosed snake Heterodon nasicus Species of concern

western rattlesnake Crotalus viridus

AMPHIBIANS

boreal chorus frog Pseudacris maculata

Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris

Great Plains toad Bufo cognatus Species of concern

long-toed salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum

northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Species of concern

Pacific treefrog Pseudacris regilla

plains spadefoot Spea bombifrons

Rocky Mountain tailed frog Ascaphus montanus

tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum

western toad Bufo boreas Species of concern

INVERTEBRATES

caddisfly Anagapetus debilis

caddisfly Arctopsyche grandis

caddisfly Brachycentrus americanus

caddisfly Brachycentrus occidentalis

caddisfly Chyrandra centralis

caddisfly Dicosmoecus atripes

caddisfly Dicosmoecus gilvipes

caddisfly Helicopsyche borealis

caddisfly Hesperophylax designatus

caddisfly Hydropsyche confusa

caddisfly Lepidostoma cascadense

caddisfly Lepidostoma unicolor

caddisfly Micrasema bactro

caddisfly Neophylax rickeri

caddisfly Neophylax splendens
APPENDIX G–Species Lists 277

Common name Scientific name Designation

caddisfly Neothremma alicia

caddisfly Onocosmoecus unicolor

caddisfly Rhyacophila betteni

cave-obligate isopod Salmasellus steganothrix Species of concern

eukiefferiellan chironomid Eukiefferiella brehmi

eukiefferiellan chironomid Eukiefferiella devonica

eukiefferiellan chironomid Eukiefferiella gracei

freshwater sponge Ephydatia cooperensis Species of concern

leech Helobdella stagnalis

limnephilid caddisfly Nemotaulius hostilis

mayfly Acentrella turbida

mayfly Attenella margarita

mayfly Baetis bicaudatus

mayfly Baetis tricaudatus

mayfly Caenis youngi Species of concern

mayfly Caudatella hystrix

mayfly Drunella coloradensis

mayfly Drunella doddsi

mayfly Drunella grandis

mayfly Drunella spinifera

mayfly Epeorus longimanus

mayfly Ephemerella excrucians

mayfly Parameletus columbiae Species of concern

mayfly Plauditus punctiventris

mayfly Serratella tibialis

mayfly Timpanoga hecuba

millipede Endopus parvipes Species of concern

millipede Ergodesmus compactus

millipede Lophomus laxus Species of concern

millipede Orophe cabinetus Species of concern

rhyacophilan caddisfly Rhyacophila alberta

rhyacophilan caddisfly Rhyacophila brunnea

rhyacophilan caddisfly Rhyacophila ebria Species of concern

rhyacophilan caddisfly Rhyacophila glaciera Species of concern

rhyacophilan caddisfly Rhyacophila narvae

rhyacophilan caddisfly Rhyacophila potteri Species of concern

rhyacophilan caddisfly Rhyacophila verrula

riffle beetle Cleptelmis addenda

riffle beetle Heterlimnius corpulentus

riffle beetle Lara avara

riffle beetle Narpus concolor

riffle beetle Optioservus quadrimaculatus

riffle beetle Ordobrevia nubifera
278 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common name Scientific name Designation

riffle beetle Zaitzevia parvula

sand-dwelling mayfly Lachlania saskatchewanensis Species of concern

stonefly Amphinemura banksi

stonefly Claassenia sabulosa Claassenia sabulosa

stonefly Despaxia augusta

stonefly Doroneuria theodora

stonefly Hesperoperla pacifica

stonefly Isocapnia crinita Species of concern

stonefly Isoperla petersoni Species of concern

stonefly Kogotus modestus

stonefly Prostoia besametsa

stonefly Setvena bradleyi

stonefly Yoraperla brevis

stonefly Zapada cinctipes

stonefly Zapada columbiana

stonefly Zapada cordillera Species of concern

stonefly Zapada oregonensis

true fly Atherix pachypus

tvetenian chironomid Tvetenia bavarica

afranius duskywing Erynnis alfranius

Alexander’s rhyacophilan 

caddisfly Rhyacophila alexanderi Species of concern

alpine mountainsnail Oreohelix alpina Species of concern

amber glass Nesovitrea electrina

American emerald Cordulia shurtleffii

American salmonfly Pteronarcys dorsata

agapetus caddisfly Agapetus montanus Potential species of concern

amphipod Hyalella azteca Exotic species (not native to Montana)

anicia checkerspot Euphydryas anicia

anise swallowtail Papilio zelicaon

Arctic blue Plebejus glandon

banded tigersnail Anguispira kochi

band-winged meadowhawk Sympetrum semicinctum

belted whiteface Leucorrhinia proxima

black meadowhawk Sympetrum danae

blue-eyed darner Rhionaeschna multicolor Potential species of concern

blue glass Nesovitrea binneyana

boreal whiteface Leucorrhinia borealis Species of concern

brown hive Euconulus fulvus

brush-tipped emerald Somatochlora walshii Species of concern

California darner Rhionaeschna californica Potential species of concern

California tortoiseshell Nymphalis californica

callippe fritillary Speyeria callippe

Canada darner Aeshna canadensis
APPENDIX G–Species Lists 279

Common name Scientific name Designation

carinate mountainsnail Oreohelixelrod Species of concern

chalk-fronted corporal Ladona julia Potential species of concern

checkered white Pontia protodice

cherry-faced meadowhawk Sympetrum internum

chocolate arion Arion rufus

common green darner Anax junius

common whitetail Plathemis lydia

Coeur d’Alene Oregonian Crytomastix mullani

crimson-ringed whiteface Leucorrhinia glacialis Potential species of concern

cross vertigo Vertigo modesta

cuneate arches Lacinipolia cuneata

depressed rocky mountainsnail Oreohelix stringosa depressa

dot-tailed whiteface Leucorrhinia intacta

eight-spotted skimmer Libellula forensis

emerald spreadwing Lestes dryas

ethologist fairy shrimp Eubranchipus serratus

fir pinwheel Radiodiscus abietum Potential species of concern

forest disc Discus whitneyi

four-spotted skimmer Libellula quadrimaculata

Gillette's checkerspot Euphydryas gillettii Species of concern

glacier amphipod Stygobromus glacialis Species of concern

green comma Polygonia faunus

grooved fingernailclam Sphaerium simile

Hagen’s small minnow mayfly Diphetor hageni

Herrington fingernailclam Sphaerium occidentale

Hudsonian whiteface Leucorrhinia hudsonica

Idaho forestsnail Allogona ptychophora

keeled mountainsnail Oreohelix carinifera Species of concern

lake darner Aeshna eremita Potential species of concern

lake disc Discus brunsoni Species of concern

lance-tipped darner Aeshna constricta Potential species of concern

large-mantle physa Physa megalochlamys Species of concern

Lorquin’s admiral Limenitis lorquini

lustrous copper Lycaena cupreus

lyre mantleslug Udosarx lyrata Species of concern

magnum mantleslug Magnipelta mycophaga Species of concern

meadow slug Deroceras laeve Exotic species (not native to Montana)

meltwater lednian stonefly Lednia tumana Species of concern

Milbert's tortoiseshell Aglais milberti

mountain emerald Somatochlora semicircularis Potential species of concern

mourning cloak Nymphalis antiopa

northern bluet Enallagma annexum

northern checkerspot Chlosyne palla
280 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common name Scientific name Designation

northern Rocky Mountains 

refugium caddisfly Goereilla baumanni Species of concern

northern Rocky Mountains 

refugium mayfly Caudatella edmundsi Potential species of concern

northern spreadwing Lestes disjunctus

orange-banded arion Arion fasciatus

Pacific forktail Ischnura cervula

Pacific spiketail Cordulegaster dorsalis

paddle-tailed darner Aeshna palmata

pale snaketail Ophiogomphus severus

pale swallowtail Papilio eurymedon

police car moth Gnophaela vermiculata

quick gloss Zonitoides arboreus

ranchman’s tiger moth Platyprepia virginalis

red-veined meadowhawk Sympetrum madidum Potential species of concern

red-winged wave Dasyfidonia avuncularia

reticulate taildropper Prophysaon andersoni Species of concern

ribbed spot Punctum californicum

river jewelwing Calopteryx aequabilis

Rocky Mountain capshell Acroloxus coloradensis Species of concern

Rocky Mountain duskysnail Colligyrus greggi Species of concern

rocky mountainsnail Oreohelix strigosa

saffron-winged meadowhawk Sympetrum costiferum

salmonfly Pteronarcys californica

sandhill skipper Polites sabuleti

sedge darner Aeshna juncea Potential species of concern

shadow darner Aeshna umbrosa

sheathed slug Zacoleus idahoensis Species of concern

shiny tightcoil Pristiloma wascoense Species of concern

signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus

silky vallonia Vallonia cyclophorella

sinuous snaketail Ophiogomphus occidentis Potential species of concern

smoky taildropper Prophysaon humile Species of concern

spiny baskettail Epitheca spinigera Potential species of concern

spotted spreadwing Lestes congener

spruce snail Microphysula ingersolli

spurge hawkmoth Hyles euphorbiae Exotic species (not native to Montana)

striate disc Discus shimekii Species of concern

striped meadowhawk Sympetrum pallipes

subalpine mountainsnail Oreohelix subrudis

subarctic bluet Coenagrion interrogatum Species of concern

taiga bluet Coenagrion resolutum

tapered vertigo Vertigo elatior

twelve-spotted skimmer Libellula pulchella
APPENDIX G–Species Lists 281

Common name Scientific name Designation

two-ridge rams-horn Helisoma anceps

variable darner Aeshna interrupta

variegated meadowhawk Sympetrum corruptum

western glacier stonefly Zapada glacier Species of concern

western glass-snail Vitrina pellucida

western pearlshell Margaritifera falcata Species of concern

western red damsel Amphiagrion abbreviatum

western tailed blue Cupido (Everes) amyntula

white-faced meadowhawk Sympetrum obtrusum

wrinkled marshsnail Stagnicola caperata

zigzag darner Aeshna sitchensis Potential species of concern

VASCULAR PLANTS

adder's tongue Ophioglossum pusillum Species of concern

aspen Populous tremuloides

Austin's knotweed Polygonum austiniae Species of concern

beaked spikerush Eleocharis rostellata Species of concern

beck water-marigold Bidens beckii Species of concern

blunt-leaved pondweed Potamogeton obtusifolius Species of concern

chaffweed Centunculus minimus Species of concern

cliff toothwort Cardamine rupicola Species of concern

clustered lady's-slipper Cypripedium fasciculatum Species of concern

Crawe's sedge Carex crawei Species of concern

creeping sedge Carex chordorrhiza Species of concern

crested shieldfern Dryopteris cristata Species of concern

deer Indian paintbrush Castilleja cervina Species of concern

Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii

English sundew Drosera anglica Species of concern

flexible collomia Collomia debilis var. camporum Species of concern

giant helleborine Epipactis gigantea Species of concern

glaucus beaked sedge Carex rostrata Species of concern

Hall's rush Juncus hallii Species of concern

Howell's gumweed Grindelia howellii Species of concern

hutchinsia Hutchinsia procumbens Species of concern

Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis

keeled bladderpod Physaria carinata Species of concern

lake-bank sedge Carex lacustris Species of concern

limber pine Pinus flexilis

linearleaf moonwort Botrychium lineare Species of concern

linear-leaved sundew Drosera linearis Species of concern

loesel's twayblade Liparis loeselii Species of concern

lyall phacelia Phacelia lyallii

Mingan Island moonwort Botrychium minganense Potential species of concern

Mission Mountain kittentails Synthyris canbyi Species of concern

Missoula phlox Phlox kelseyi var. missoulensis Species of concern
282 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common name Scientific name Designation

moonwort grape-fern Botrychium lunaria Potential species of concern

mountain moonwort Botrychium montanum Species of concern

northern bog clubmoss Lycopodium inundatum Species of concern

northern moonwort Botrychium pinnatum Status under review

pale sedge Carex livida Potential species of concern

pod grass Scheuchzeria palustris Species of concern

ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa

pygmy water-lily Nymphaea leibergii Species of concern

round-leaved orchis Amerorchis rotundifolia Species of concern

short-flowered monkeyflower Mimulus breviflorus Species of concern

slender cottongrass Eriophorum gracile Species of concern

small yellow lady's-slipper Cypripedium parviflorum Potential species of concern

sparrow's-egg lady's-slipper Cypripedium passerinum Species of concern

spoon-leaf moonwort Botrychium spathulatum Species of concern

stalk-leaved monkeyflower Mimulus ampliatus Species of concern

stalked moonwort Botrychium pedunculosum Species of concern

thinsepal monkeyflower Mimulus hymenophyllus Status under review

tufted club-rush Trichophorum cespitosum Species of concern

upward-lobed moonwort Botrychium ascendens Species of concern

water bulrush Schoenoplectus subterminalis Species of concern

watershield Brasenia schreberi Species of concern

water howellia Howellia aquatilis Threatened

wavy moonwort Botrychium crenulatum Species of concern

western moonwort Botrychium hesperium Species of concern

NONVASCULAR PLANTS

Barnes' eurhynchium moss Eurhynchium pulchellum 

var. barnesii

Status under review

brick-spored firedot lichen Brigantiaea praetermissa Potential species of concern

bryum moss Bryum calobryoides

chocolate chip lichen Solorina bispora Species of concern

Douglas' neckera moss Neckera douglasii Species of concern

gray lungwort lichen Lobaria hallii Species of concern

hooded ramalina lichen Ramalina obtusata Species of concern

jelly lichen Collema curtisporum Species of concern

lead lichen Parmeliella triptophylla Species of concern

Magellan's peatmoss Sphagnum magellanicum Species of concern

mountain oakmoss lichen Evernia divaricata Potential species of concern

netted specklebelly lichen Pseudocyphellaria anomala Species of concern

powdery twig lichen Ramalina pollinaria Species of concern

speck lichen Verrucaria kootenaica Species of concern

.
Appendix H

Fire Management Program

The Service has administrative responsibility for fire 

management at the Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex: Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Benton Lake Wetland Management District, and the Swan River National Wildlife Refuge.

H.1 The Role of Fire

In ecosystems of the Great Plains, vegetation has 

evolved under periodic disturbance and defoliation 

from grazing, fire, drought, and floods. This periodic 

disturbance is what kept the ecosystem diverse and 

healthy while supporting significant biodiversity for 

thousands of years.

Historically, natural fire and Native American 

ignitions have played an important disturbance role 

in many ecosystems by removing fuel accumulations, 

decreasing the effect of insects and diseases, stimulating regeneration, cycling nutrients, and providing 

a diversity of habitats for plants and wildlife.

When fire or grazing are excluded from prairie 

landscapes, fuel loads increase due to the buildup of 

thatch and the invasion of woody vegetation. This 

increase leads to an increase in a fire’s resistance to 

control, which threatens firefighter and public safety 

as well as Federal and private facilities. However, 

fire, when properly used, can do the following:

■ Reduce hazardous fuel buildup in both wildland–

urban interface areas and outside those areas.

■ Improve wildlife habitats by reducing the density 

of vegetation or changing the plant species composition, or both.

■ Sustain or increase biological diversity.

■ Improve woodland and shrubland by reducing 

plant density.

■ Reduce susceptibility of plants to insect and disease outbreaks.

■ Improve the quality and quantity of livestock 

forage.

■ Improve the quantity of water available for municipalities and activities that depend on wildlands for their water supply.

H.2 Wildland Fire 

Management Policy and 

Guidance

Based on Federal interagency policy (Fire Executive Council 2009), wildland fire is defined as any 

nonstructure fire that occurs in the wildland including wildfire and prescribed fire. Response to wildland fire is based on consideration of a full range 

of fire management actions—allowing the fire to 

help the resource where possible or taking suppression action when those benefits are not attainable 

or there is a likely risk to important resources or 

adjacent lands.

Considerations, guidance, and direction for wildland fire management should be addressed in the 

land use resource plans (for example, this CCP). 

Fire management plans are stepdown processes 

from the land use plans and habitat plans and provide details about fire suppression, fire use, and fire 

management activities.

The 1995 Federal Fire Policy Wildland Fire Management Policy was updated in 2001. This revised 

policy directs Federal agencies to achieve a balance 

between fire suppression to protect life, property, 

and resources and fire use to regulate fuel and support healthy ecosystems. The following guiding principles and policy statements are excerpted from 

this document titled Review and Update of the 1995 

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy; these 

are the foundational principles for Federal wildland 

fire management policy.

Guiding Principles

1. Firefighter and public safety is the first priority 

in every fire management activity.
284 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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.

H.3 Management Direction

The refuge complex will protect life, property, and 

other resources by safely suppressing all wildfires.

Prescribed fire, as well as manual and mechanical 

fuel treatments, would be used in an ecosystem context to protect both Federal and private property 

and for habitat management purposes. Fuel reduction activities would be applied in collaboration with 

Federal, State, private, and nongovernmental partners. In addition, the Service would set priorities for 

fuel treatment based on guidance for prioritization 

established in the goals and strategies outlined in 

the following documents: (1) “U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service National Wildlife Refuge System Wildland 

Fire Management Program Strategic Plan 2003–

2010”; and (2) “Region 6 Refuges Regional Priorities 

FY07–11.” For wildland-urban interface treatments, 

areas with community wildfire protection plans and 

designated “communities at risk” would be the primary focus. All aspects of the fire management program would be conducted consistent with applicable 

laws, policies, and regulations. The refuge complex 

would support a fire management plan to accomplish 

the fire management goals described below. Prescribed fire and manual and mechanical fuel treatments would be applied in a scientific way under 

selected weather and environmental conditions.

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 Wild-
APPENDIX H–Fire Management Program 285

land Fire Management Program Strategic Plan” are 

consistent with the following guidance:

■ Department of the Interior and Service policies

■ National Fire Plan direction

■ The President’s Healthy Forest Initiative

■ The 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan

■ National Wildfire Coordinating Group guidelines

■ Wildland Fire Leadership Council initiatives

■ Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations

Regional Fire Management Goals

The “Region 6 Refuges Regional Priorities FY07–

11” are consistent with the refuges’ vision statement 

for the Mountain–Prairie Region, “to maintain and 

improve the biological integrity of the region, ensure 

the ecological condition of the region’s public and 

private lands are better understood, and endorse 

sustainable use of habitats that support native wildlife and people’s livelihoods.”

Refuge Complex Fire Management Goals

The fire management goal for the refuge complex 

is to use prescribed fire and manual and mechanical 

treatments to (1) reduce the threat to life and property through hazardous-fuel reduction treatments, 

and (2) meet the habitat goals and objectives identified in this CCP.

Fire Management Objective

Fire is an important natural component in the maintenance and restoration of native prairie ecosystems. The primary objective of the prescribed fire 

management program is to reduce fuel loads while 

restoring and supporting native prairie habitats. 

Prescribed fire would be used to recycle nutrients, 

reduce or end invasive plants, increase the growth 

and production of native plants, improve wildlife 

habitat and nesting cover for migratory birds, and 

reduce the risk of wildfire.

Achieving this objective would require 500 acres 

to 2000 acres of upland, and wetland habitat annually, until every upland acre has been burned at 

least once. Thereafter, the Service would attempt to 

mimic a natural cycle of prescribed fire by retreating 

the same piece of native prairie every 6–8 years, or 

on whatever cycle is necessary for restoration.

Strategies

Strategies and tactics that consider public and firefighter safety and resource values at risk would be 

used. Wildfire suppression, prescribed fire methods, 

manual and mechanical means, timing, and monitoring would be described in detail within the stepdown 

fire management plans for the refuge complex.

All fire management actions would use prescribed fire and manual or mechanical means to reduce hazardous fuel, restore and support desired 

habitat conditions, control nonnative vegetation, 

and control the spread of woody vegetation within 

the diverse ecosystem habitats. The fuel treatment 

program would be site specific and follow the most 

recent interagency template for burn plans.

A prescribed fire would temporarily decrease 

air quality by reducing visibility and releasing components through combustion. The refuge complex 

would meet the Clean Air Act emission standards 

by adhering to the Montana requirements during all 

prescribed fire activities.

H.4 Fire Management 

Organization, Contacts, 

and Cooperation

Using the fire management district approach, Region 6 of the Service would establish qualified technical oversight of fire management for the refuge 

complex. Under this approach, the level of fire management staff would be determined by established 

modeling systems and be based on the fire management workload of a group of refuges and possibly 

that of interagency partners. Workload is based on 

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 be 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. These may be (1) plans that cover each 

individual refuge and wetland management district; 

(2) a plan that covers the area identified within this 

CCP; (3) a plan that covers the fire management 

district; or (4) an interagency fire management plan.

Bibliography

Adair, S.E. 2003. America’s vanishing wetlands. In: 

Butcher, Russell; editor. America’s national wildlife refuges, a complete guide. Lahnam, Maryland: Roberts Rinehart. 1–11.

Alt, D.; Hyndman, D.W. 1986. Roadside geology of 

Montana. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 427 p.

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of 

North American birds. 7th edition. Washington, 

DC: American Ornithologists’ Union. [Number of 

pages unknown].

American Farmland Trust. 2000. Strategic ranchland in the Rocky Mountain West: mapping the 

threats to prime ranchland in seven western 

states. [Internet]. <http://www.farmland.org

/resources/rockymtn/default.asp.> [Date accessed 

unknown].

American Wildlands. 2009. American Wildlands 

priority linkage assessment. [Internet] <www

.wildlands.org/programs/> [Date accessed unknown].

Anderson, J.T.; Smith, L.M. 2000. Invertebrate response to moist-soil management of playa wetlands. Ecological Applications 10(2):550–8.

Anteau, M.J.; Afton, A.D. 2011. Lipid catabolism of 

invertebrate predator indicates widespread wetland ecosystem degradation. PLoS One 6:e16029.

Archibald, W.R.; Ellis, R.; Hamilton, A.N. 1987. Responses of grizzly bears to logging truck traffic 

in the Kimsquit River Valley, British Columbia. 

International Conference on Bear Research and 

Management. 7: 251–7.

Arnold, T. W.; Craig-Moore, L. M.; Armstrong, L. 

M.; Howerter, D. W.; Devries, J. H.; Joynt, B. L.; 

R. Emery, B.; Anderson, M. G. 2007. Waterfowl 

use of dense nesting cover in the Canadian parklands. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2542–

49.

Audubon. 2011. Montana Important Bird Areas. [Internet] <http://iba.audubon.org/iba/stateIndex.

do?state=US-MT> [Date accessed unknown].

Austin, K. 2006. The intersection of land use history 

and exurban development: implications for carbon storage in the Northeast.[Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher name unknown]. [Number 

of pages unknown]

Bacon, C.R. 1983. Eruptive history of Mount 

Mazama and Crater Lake Caldera, Cascade 

Range, USA. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 18:57–115.

Bakker, K. 2003. A synthesis of the effect of woody 

vegetation on grassland nesting birds. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science. 

82:119–41.

Bangsund, Dean A.; Leistritz, F. Larry; de Silva, 

Lynette L.; Steadman, Edward N.; Harju, John 

A. 2005. Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Potential in Southwest North Dakota. [Internet] 

<www.undeerc.org/PCOR/newsandpubs/pdf

/TerrestrialCarbonSequestration.pdf> [Date accessed unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Banko, W.E. 1960. The trumpeter swan—its history, habits, and population in the United States. 

North American Fauna. 63:1–214.

Barrett, J.W. 1979. Silviculture of ponderosa pine in 

the Pacific Northwest—the state of our knowledge, GTP PNW–GTR–97. Portland, Or: U.S. 

Dept. of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. 106p. As cited 

in: Casey, D. 2000. Partners in Flight–Draft Bird 

Conservation Plan, Montana. Kalispell, MT: Montana Partners in Flight, Montana Fish, Wildlife, 

& Parks.

Batzer, D.P.; Rader, R.B.; Wissinger, S.A. 1999. 

Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North 

America: ecology and management. New York: 

Wiley and Sons. 1100 p.

Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas 

and habitat corridors for cougars. Conservation 

Biology. 7:94–108.

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 2011. Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge. [Internet] 

<www.fws.gov/bentonlake/benton.htm> [Date 

accessed unknown].

Beyersbergen, G.W.; Niemuth, N.D.; Norton, M.R., 

coordinators. 2004. Northern prairie and parkland waterbird conservation plan. A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the 

Americas initiative. Denver, CO: Prairie Pothole 

Joint Venture. 183 p.

Bick, Patricia. 1985. Letter from the Montana Historical Society to Ray Washtak, refuge manager 

concerning the National Register eligibility of 

the Fleshman Place. On file at U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.
288 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Big Sky Fishing. 2011. The history of Great Falls, 

Montana. [Internet] <www.bigskyfishing.com

/Montana-Info/great-falls-history.shtm> [Date 

accessed unknown].

Blackfoot Challenge; Big Blackfoot Chapter of Trout 

Unlimited; Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks; Hydrometrics Inc. 2005. A basin-wide restoration 

action plan for the Blackfoot watershed. Ovando, 

MT: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

Bock, C.E.; Bock J.E. 1987. Avian habitat occupancy following fire in a Montana shrubsteppe. 

Prairie Naturalist. 19:153–8.

Briske, D.D.; Fuhlendorf S.D.; Smeins, F.E. 2005. 

State-and-transition models, thresholds, and 

rangeland health: a synthesis of ecological concepts and perspectives. Rangeland Ecological 

Management 58:1–10. 

Brix, H. 1993. Wastewater treatment in constructed 

wetlands: system design, removal processes, and 

treatment performance. In: Moshiri, G.A., editor. 

Constructed wetlands for water quality improvement. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. 14 p. 

(9–22).

Brown, Pete. 2011. Concurrence letter from the 

Montana State Historic Preservation Office regarding the National Register eligibility of a log 

cabin to be disposed of at Swan River NWR. [On 

file at unknown location].

Brown, P.L. 1972. Water use and soil water depletion by alfalfa on upland recharge and downslope 

saline seep areas. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher name unknown]. Bozeman, Montana, 

Annual Research Report, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 

[Number of pages unknown].

Brown, P.L.; Halvorson, A.D.; Siddoway, F.H.; mayland, H.F.; Miller, M.R. 1982. Saline-seep diagnosis, control and reclamation. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Conservation Research Report No. 

30. 22 p.

Brown, S.; Hickey, C.; Harrington, B.; Gill, R.; editors. 2001. The U.S. shorebird conservation plan, 

2nd ed. Manomet, MA: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. [Number of pages unknown].

Brumley, John. 2006. Nemont Telephone Cooperatives 2006 Dagmar, Glentanna and Larslan Exchanges: cultural resources inventory. Prepared 

for Nemont Telephone Cooperative. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Ethos Consultants. On file 

at the Montana Archaeological Society, Helena, 

MT.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2011. Regional 

economic accounts. [Internet] <www.bea.gov

/regional/reis/action.cfm> [Date accessed unknown].

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. U.S. Department 

of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics. [Internet] 

<www.bls.gov/lau/#tables> [Date accessed unknown].

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Marcum 

Mountain resource management projects. Environmental assessment DOI–BLM–MT_B010–

2009–0013EA. Missoula, MT; BLM Missoula 

Field Office. [Number of pages unknown].

Carver, E.; Caudill, J. 2007. Banking on nature 2006: 

the economic benefits to local communities of 

National Wildlife Refuge visitation. Washington, 

DC: Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [Number of pages unknown].

Cascade County Historical Society. 1999. The Cascade County album. Great Falls, MT: [Publisher 

name unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

Casey; Wood, M. 1987. Effects of water on productivity of canada geese in the northern Flathead 

Valley, final report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. 1984BII6687, Project No. 

198349800, (BPA Report IOE/BP–16687–3). Helena, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks. [Internet] [Web site address and date 

accessed unknown] 208 p.

Casey, D. 2000. Partner’s in Flight bird conservation plan, Montana. Version 1.1. Kalispell, MT: 

American Bird Conservancy. [Number of pages 

unknown].

Chapman, R.C. 1977. The effects of human disturbance on wolves [thesis, type unknown]. Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska. [Number of 

pages unknown].

Choteau Chamber of Commerce. [Date unknown]. 

[Name of publication unknown]. [Publisher name 

unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

Chouteau County, Montana. 2011. Welcome to 

Chouteau County, Montana. [Internet] <www

.co.chouteau.mt.us/index.htm> [Date accessed 

unknown].

Christensen, J.H.; Hewitson, B.; Busuioc, A.; Chen, 

A.; Gao, X.; Held, I.; Jones, R.; Kolli, R.K.; Kwon, 

W.T.; Laprise, R.; Rueda, V. Magaña; Mearns, 

L.; Menéndez, C.G.; Räisänen, J.; Rinke, A.; 

Sarr, A.; Whetton, P. 2007. Regional climate 

projections. In: Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Cambridge, UK; New York, 

NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. [Internet] <www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data

/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report

_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm> 

[Date accessed unknown]. (Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; 

Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; 

Tignor, M.; Miller, H.L. editors. Contribution of 

working group 1 to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate 

change).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 289

Christian, J.M.; Wilson, S.D. 1999. Long term ecosystem impacts of an introduced grass in the 

northern Great Plains. Ecology. 80(7):2397–407.

City of Helena. 2011. City of Helena, MT. [Internet] <www.ci.helena.mt.us/home.html> [Date 

accessed unknown].

Claar, J.J.; Anderson, N.; Boyd, D. [et al.] 1999. Carnivores. In: Joslin, G.; Youmans, H.; coordinators. 

Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: 

a review for Montana. Committee on Effects of 

Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The 

Wildlife Society: 7.1–7.63.

Collinson, N.H.; Biggs, J.; Corfield, A.; Hodson, M. 

J.; Walker, D.; Whitfield, M.; Williams, P.J. 1995. 

Temporary and permanent ponds: an assessment 

of the effects of drying out on the conservation 

value of aquatic macroinvertebrate communities. 

Biological Conservation 74:125–133.

Comer, P.; Faber-Langendoen, D.; Evans, R.; 

Gawler, S.; Josse, C.; Kittel, G.; Menard, S.; Pyne, 

M.; Reid, M.; Schulz, K.; Snow, K.; Teague, J. 

2003. Ecological systems of the United States: a 

working classification of U.S. terrestrial systems. 

Arlington, VA: NatureServe. [Number of pages 

unknown].

Condon, S.M. 2000. Stratigraphic framework of 

Lower and Upper Cretaceous rocks in central 

and eastern Montana. U.S. Geological Survey 

Digital Data Series DDS–57.[Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher name unknown]. [Number 

of pages unknown]

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes; Montana 

Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 2004. Flathead subbasin 

plan: executive summary. A report prepared for 

the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 

Portland, OR: [Publisher name unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]

Cooper, S.V. 2004. Mountain big sagebrush/prairie 

fescue shrub herbaceous vegetation, ecological 

systems description. [Internet]. Arlington,VA: 

NatureServe. <www.natureserve.org> [Date accessed unknown].

Cordell, H. Ken; Overdevest, Christine. 2001. Footprints on the land: an assessment of demographic 

trends and the future of natural lands in the 

United States. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing. 314 p.

Cowardin, L.M.; Carter, V.; Golet, F.C.; LaRoe, E.T. 

1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater 

habitats of the United States. Washington DC : 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS–79/31. 

131 p.

Cowardin, L.M.; Gilmer, D.S.; Shaiffer, C.W. 1985. 

Mallard recruitment in the agricultural environment of North Dakota. Wildlife Monographs 

92.[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher 

name unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

Cox, B.; Gignoux, T.; McCulloch, R. 1998. Economic 

geology in the western Montana portion of the 

Blackfoot River region: discussion and field trip 

guide. Abstract. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Northwest Geology. Volume 28:101–109.

Crabtree, R.L.; Sheldon, J.W. 1999. Coyotes and 

canid co-existence in Yellowstone. In: Clark, T.W.; 

Curlee, A.P.; Minta, S.C.; Kareiva, P.M.; editors. 

Carnivores in ecosystems: the Yellowstone experience. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press: 

127–64.

Craft, C.B.; Richardson, C.J. 1993a. Peat accretion 

and phosphorus accumulation along a eutrophication gradient in the northern Everglades. Biogeochemistry 22:133–56. 

———. 1993b. Peat accretion and N, P, and organic 

C accumulation in nutrient-enriched and unenriched Everglades peatlands. Ecological Applications 3:446–58.

Cutright, P.R. 1985. Theodore Roosevelt, the making of a conservationist. Urbana, IL: University 

of Illinois Press. [Number of pages unknown].

Dahl, T.E. 2011. Status and trends of wetlands in 

the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 108 p.

Dahl, Thomas E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United 

States 1780’s to 1980’s. Version 16JUL97. [Internet] Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Jamestown, 

ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. <www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands

/wetloss/index.htm> [Date accessed unknown]. 

Daily, G. 1997. Nature’s services. Covelo, CA: Island 

Press. [Nunber of pages unknown].

Dale, B.C.; Martin, P.A.; Taylor, P.S. 1997. Effects 

of hay management on grassland songbirds in 

Saskatchewan.[Place of publication unknown]: 

Wildlife Society. Bulletin 25:616–626.

Davis, S.K. 2005. Nest-site selection patterns and 

the influence of vegetation on nest survival of 

mixed-grass prairie passerines. [Place of publication unknown]: Condor. 107:605–16.

Davis, S.K.; Duncan, D.C. 1999. Grassland songbird 

occurrence in native and crested wheatgrass pastures of southern Saskatchewan. Studies in Avian 

Biology 19:211–8.

Davis, S.K.; Duncan, D.C.; Skeel, M.. 1999. Distribution and habitat associations of three endemic 

grassland songbirds in southern Saskatchewan. 

Wilson Bulletin 111: 389–396.

Davy, Douglas 1992. Historic properties survey 

of selected areas at Fort Peck Lake, Montana. 

Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. Sacramento, California: EBASCO 

Environmental. On file at U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Omaha, NE.
290 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M; Nenneman, M.P.; Euliss, 

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Sprague’s pipit. Jamestown, 

North Dakota: U. S. Department of the Interior, 

Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. [Internet] <www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr

/grasbird/sppi/sppi.htm> accessed May 13, 2009.

Decker, G. 2010a. McGregor Meadows waterfowl 

production area stream and wetland restoration 

plan conceptual restoration alternatives. Report 

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Whitefish, 

MT: River Design Group, Inc. 8 p.

———. 2010b. Memo to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [On file at unknown location].

Defenders of Wildlife. 2009. Petition for a rule to 

designate fishers (Martes pennanti) in the U.S. 

Northern Rocky Mountains a distinct population segment and add them to the list of endangered or threatened wildlife protected by the 

Federal Endangered Species Act. [Internet] 

<www.defenders.org/resources/publications

/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation

/imperiled_species/fisher/northern_rockies

_fisher_esa_petition.pdf> [Date accessed unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

DeKeyser, E.S.; Kirby, D.R.; Ell, M.J. 2003. An index of plant community integrity: development 

of the methodology for assessing prairie wetland plant communities. [Place of publication unknown]: Ecological Indicators. 3:119–33.

DeKeyser, E.S.; Biondini, M.; Kriby, D.; Hargiss, C. 

2009. Low prairie plant communities of wetlands 

as a function of disturbance: physical parameters. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Ecological Indicators. 9:296–306.

Delisle, J.M.; Savidge, J.A. 1996. Reproductive success of grasshopper sparrows in relation to edge. 

Prairie Naturalist 28:107–13.

Devries, J.H. and Armstrong, L.M. 2011. Impact 

of management treatments on waterfowl use of 

dense nesting cover in the Canadian parklands. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Journal of Wildlife Management. 75(6):1340–9.

Dieni, J.S.; Jones, S.L. 2003. Grassland songbird 

nest site selection patterns in North-central Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: Wilson. Bulletin 115:32–40.

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: the debate behind the 

lens. Audubon: January–February. [Number of 

pages unknown].

DuBois, K. 1989. Impacts of predator control on 

duck production at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge. On file at Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge, Great Falls, MT. 10 p.

Ducks Unlimited. 2003. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 2003. [Place of publication unknown]: Ducks 

Unlimited. 30 p.

Ducks Unlimited Canada. 1993. Letter from Brent 

Wark, Ducks Unlimited Habitat Biologist, to 

Karen Smith, refuge manager Lostwood NWR. 

On file at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 

Great Falls, MT.

Duebbert, H.F. 1969. High nest density and hatching success of ducks on South Dakota CAP lands. 

Transactions of the North American wildlife 

natural resource conference. [date of conference 

unknown]. [Location of conference unknown]. 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 34:18–228.

Duebbert, H.F.; Lokemoen, J.T. 1976. Duck nesting in fields of undisturbed grass-legume cover. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Journal of Wildlife Management. 40:39–49.

Duebbert, H.F.; Lokemoen, J.T. 1980. High duck 

nesting success in a predator-reduced environment. [Place of publication unknown]: Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 44:428–37.

Duebbert, H.F.; Jacobson, E.T.; Higgins, K.F.; Podoll, E.B. 1981. Establishment of seeded grasslands for wildlife habitat in the prairie pothole 

region. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Special Scientific Report–Wildlife No. 

234. 

Endangered Species Coalition. 2009. America’s Hottest Species. [Internet] <www.stopextinction

.org/images/hottestspecies.pdf> [Date accessed 

unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. 

Montana: Upper Sun River. [Internet]. <http://

water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/mt_sun.

cfm> [Date accessed unknown].

Euliss, N.H.; LaBaugh, J.W.; Frederickson, L.H.; 

Mushet, D.M.; Laubhan, M.K.; Swanson, G.A.; 

Winter, T.C.; Rosenberry, D.O.; Nelson, R.D. 

2004. The wetland continuum: a conceptual 

framework for interpreting biological studies. [Place of publication unknown]: Wetlands. 

24(2):448–458. 

Euliss, N.H., Jr.; Mushet, D.M. 2004. Impacts of water development on aquatic macroinvertebrates, 

amphibians, and plants in wetlands of a semi-arid 

landscape. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 7:73–84.

Euliss, N.H.; LaBaugh, J.W.; Frederickson, L.H.; 

Mushet, D.M.; Laubhan, M.K.; Swanson, G.A. 

Winter, T.C.; Rosenberry, D.O.; Nelson, R.D. 

2004. The wetland continuum: a conceptual 

framework for interpreting biological studies. 

Wetlands 24(2):448–458.

Euliss, N.H.; Smith, L.M.; Wilcox, D.A.; Browne, 

B.A. 2008. Linking ecosystem processes with 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 291

wetland management goals: charting a course 

for a sustainable future. [Place of publication unknown]: Wetlands. 28(3):553–562.

Fandrich, Blain; Lynelle Peterson 2005. A Traditional Cultural Property Study Fort Peck Lake, 

Montana. Report produced for the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Omaha. Billings MT: Ethnoscience, Incorporated. [Number of pages unknown].

Fennessy, M.S.; Jacobs, A.D.; Kentula, M.E. 2007. 

An evaluation of rapid methods for assessing the 

ecological condition of wetlands. [Place of publication unknown]: Wetlands 27(3):543–60.

Ferrasci-O’Malley, Brian. 2006. The Blackfoot Valley trumpeter swan reintroduction: a chronology 

and case study. [Professional paper presented 

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the 

degree of Master of Science in Environmental 

Studies]. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana. [Number of pages unknown].

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/policies_documents/guidance/GIFWFMP.pdf> [Date accessed 

unknown].

Fischer, W.G.; Brady, A.F. 1987. Fire ecology of 

Western Montana forest habitat types. Ogden, 

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Gen. Tech. 

Rep., INT–GTR–223.

Fischman, Robert L. 2003. The National Wildlife 

Refuges: coordinating a conservation system 

through law. Washington, DC: Island Press. 277 

p.

Follet, R.F.; Kimble, J.M.; Lal, R. 2001. The potential of U.S. grazing lands to sequester soil carbon, 

chapter 16. In Follett, R.F.; Kimble, J.M.; Lal, 

R.; editors. The potential of U.S. grazing lands 

to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse 

effect. Washington, DC: Lewis Publishers. [Number of pages unknown].

Fondell, T.; Ball, I.J. 1997. Avian species composition and productivity in non-forest habitats of the 

Blackfoot Valley, Montana. Project report Montana cooperative wildlife research unit. Missoula, 

MT: University of Montana. 16 p.

Fondell, T.F.; Ball, I.J. 1997. Breeding bird productivity in the Blackfoot Valley, Montana. On file 

at Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, MT. 

[Number of pages unknown].

Foresman, K.R. 2001. The wild mammals of Montana. Special Publication No. 12. The American 

Society of Mammalogists. Lawrence, KS: Allen 

Press, Inc. 278 p.

Frederick, P.K.; Ogden, J,C. 2001. Pulsed breeding 

of long-legged wading birds and the importance 

of infrequent severe drought conditions in the 

Florida Everglades. [Place of publication unknown]: Wetlands 21(4):484–91.

Fredrickson, L.H.; Reid, F.A. 1988. Invertebrate 

response to wetland management. Waterfowl 

Management Handbook. Washington DC: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13. [Number of pages unknown].

Frissell, C.A.; Doskocil, J.; Gnagemi, J.T.; Stanford, 

J.A. 1995. Identifying priority areas for protection and restoration of aquatic biodiversity: a 

case study in the Swan River Basin, Montana, 

USA. Polson, MT: Flathead Biological Station, 

The University of Montana. FLBS Report 136–

95. 28 p.

Frontier Historical Consultants. 2004. 2 km north 

of Great Falls north cultural resources survey 

and assessment. Report produced for the Montana Department of Transportation. Grand View, 

Idaho: Frontier Historical Consultants. On file 

with the Montana Historical Society, Helena, MT 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.

Gabrielsen, G.W.; Smith, E.N. 1995. Physiological 

responses of wildlife to disturbance. In: Knight; 

Gutzwiller; editors. Wildlife and recreationists: 

coexistence through management and research. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 372p. (95–107).

Gazda, R.J.; Meidinger, R.R.; Ball, I.J.; Connelly, 

J.W. 2002. Relationships between Russian olive and duck nest success in southeastern Idaho. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(2):337–44.

Gebhart, D.L.; Johnson, H.B.; Mayeux, H.S.; Polley, 

H.W. 1994. The CRP increases oil organic carbon. 

J. Soil Water Cons. 49:488–492.

General Land Office. 1920. GLO maps and notes for 

the Benton Lake, Montana region.

Gieseker, L.F.; Morris, E.R,; Strahorn, A.T.; Manifold, C.B. 1933. Soil survey (reconnaissance) of 

the northern plains of Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S.Department of Agriculture, 

Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, in cooperation 

with the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station. Series 1929, Number 21. 73 p.

Gilbert, E.D.; Heath, S.B.; Palawski, D.U.; Malloy, 

J.C. 1995. Trace element concentrations in sediment and biota from the Benton Lake Wetland 

Management District, north-central Montana. 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

Giltner, L.T.; Couch, J.F. 1930. Western duck sickness and botulism. Science 72:660.

Girvetz, E.H.; Zganjar, C.; Raber, G.T.; Maurer, E.P.; 

Kareiva, P.; Lawler, J.J. 2009. Applied climate 

change analysis: the climate wizard tool. [Inter-
292 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

net] <www.climatewizard.org/> [Date accessed 

unknown].

Glacier County Government. 2011. Glacier County. 

[Internet] <www.glaciercountygov.com/> [Date 

accessed unknown].

Gleason, R.A.; Euliss, N.H., Jr.; Hubbard, D.E.; 

Duffy, W.G. 2003. Effects of sediment load on 

emergence of aquatic invertebrates and plants 

from wetland soil egg and seed banks. Wetlands 

23:26–34.

Gleason, R.A.; Euliss, Ned H., Jr.; McDougal, 

Rhonda L.; Kermes, Kevin E.; Steadman, Edward N.; Harju, John A. 2005. Potential of restored prairie wetlands in the glaciated North 

American prairie to sequester atmospheric carbon. [Place of publication unknown]: University 

of North Dakota. [Number of pages unknown].

Glick, P.; Stein, B.A.; Edelson, N.A.; editors. 2011. 

Scanning the conservation horizon: a guide to 

climate change vulnerability assessment. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation. 168 p.

Gosselink, J.G.;Turner, R.E. 1978. The role of hydrology in freshwater wetland ecosystems. In: 

Good, R.E.; Whigham, D.F.; Simpson, R.L.; editors. Freshwater wetlands. New York: Academic 

Press, Inc. 16 p. (63–78).

Grant, T.A.; Flanders-Wanner, B.; Shaffer, T.L.; 

Murphy, R.K.; Knutsen, G.A. 2009. An emerging 

crisis across northern prairie refuges: prevalence 

of invasive plants and a plan for adaptive management. Ecological Restoration 27(1): 58–65.

Grant, T.S.; Madden, E.; Berkey, G.B. 2004. Tree and 

shrub invasion in northern mixed-grass prairie: 

implications for breeding grassland birds. [Place 

of publication unknown]: Wildlife Society. Bulletin 32:807–18.

Great Falls [Montana] Tribune.1929a. Hoover approves proposal for Benton Lake Preserve. 

[Date, section, page and column unknown].

———. 1929b. Water supply big problem of Benton 

Lake Bird Preserve. [Date, section, page and 

column unknown].

———. 2011. Number of second homes in state has 

skyrocketed. June 21. [Section, page and column 

unknown].

Great Falls Visitor Information Center. 2011. 

Recreational Activities. [Internet] <www

.visitgreatfalls.net/recreate.php> [Date accessed 

unknown].

Greer, A.K.; Dugger, B.D.; Graber, D.A.; Petrie, 

M.J. 2006. The effects of seasonal flooding on seed 

availability for spring migrating waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(5):1561–6.

Greer, J.; Greer, M. 1996. Site form for 24FH873. 

On file at the Montana State Site Files, Missoula, 

MT.

Grzimek, B. editor. 1974. Fishes and amphibians. 

Volume 5 of Grzimek’s animal life encyclopedia. 

New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold. [Number of 

pages unknown].

Hammond, C. A. H. 2009. Conservation plan for the 

common loon in Montana. Kalispell, MT: Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. [Number of pages unknown].

Hanchett, L.J. 2008. Montana’s Benton Road. Wolf 

Creek, MT: Pine Rim Publishing. 217 p.

Hanna, D.; Bay, L.; Bergman, E. 2009. Proposed 

climate change case statement for The Nature 

Conservancy in Montana. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of 

pages unknown].

Hauer, F.R.; Spencer, C.N. 1998. Phosphorus and 

nitrogen dynamics in streams associated with 

wildfire—a study of immediate and long-term 

effects. International Journal of Wildland Fire 

8:183–98.

Hansen, P.L.; Pfister, R.D.; Boggs, K.; Cook, B.J.; 

Joy, J.; Hinckley, D.K. 1995. Classification and 

management of Montana’s riparian and wetland 

sites. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, 

School of Forestry. Miscellaneous publication. 

54:1–646. 

Hargiss, C.L.M.; DeKeyser, E.S.; Kirby, D.R.; Ell, 

M.J. 2008. Regional assessment of wetland plant 

communities using the index of plant community 

integrity. [Place of publication unknown]: Ecological Indicators. 8:303–7.

Headwaters Economics. 2011a. Economic profile 

system-human dimensions toolkit (EPS–HDT). 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

Headwaters Economics. 2011b. Fiscal impact of the 

Montana legacy project on Mineral County, Montana. [Internet]. <http://headwaterseconomics

.org/land/reports/fiscal-impact-montana-legacy

-project/.> [Date accessed unknown].

Headwaters Economics. 2011c. Fiscal impact of the 

Montana legacy project on Lake County, Montana. [Internet]. <http://headwaterseconomics.

org/land/reports/fiscal-impact-montana-legacyproject/.> [Date accessed unknown].

Heitmeyer, M.E.; Fields, V.L.; Artmann, M.J.; Frederickson, L.H. 2009. An evaluation of ecosystem 

restoration and management options for Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Advance, MO: 

Greenbrier Wetland Services. 62 p.

———. 2010. An evaluation of ecosystem restoration and management options for Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge. Advance, MO: Greenbrier Wetland Services. 59 p.

Heitschmidt, R. K.; Sluth, J.W. 1991. Grazing management. An ecological perspective. [Place of 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 293

publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 259 

p.

Heitschmidt, R.K.; Klement, K.D.; Halferkamp, 

M.R..2005. Interactive effects of drought and 

grazing on northern Great Plains rangelands. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Rangelands Ecology Management. 58: 11–19.

Helzer, C.J. 1996. The effects of wet meadow fragmentation on grassland birds [master’s thesis]. 

Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska. 65 p.

Hendricks, P.; Lenard, S.; Currier, C.; Carlson, J. 

2007. Grassland bird surveys in North Valley 

County, Montana: 2001–2006. Report to the Bureau of Land Management, Glasgow Field Office. 

Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 19 p. (plus appendices).

Henny, C.J.; Grove, R.A.; Bentley, V.R. 2000. Effects of selenium, mercury and boron on water 

bird egg hatchability at Stillwater, Malheur, 

Seedskadee, Ouray and Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuges and surrounding vicinities. 

[Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Geological 

Survey. National irrigation water quality program information report. 5:79.

Higgins, K.F.; Barker, W.T. 1982. Changes in vegetation structure in seeded nesting cover in the prairie pothole region. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Special Scientific Report–

Wildlife. 242: [Number of pages unknown].

Higgins, K.F.; Naugle, D.E.; Forman, K.J. 2002. 

A case study of changing land use practices in 

the northern Great Plains, U.S.A.: an uncertain 

future for waterbird conservation. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. Waterbirds 25: special publication. 2:45–50.

Higashi, R.M.; Cassel, T.A.; Skorupa, J.P.; Fan, 

T.W.M. 2005. Remediation and bioremediation 

of selenium-contaminated waters. In: Lehr, J.H.; 

Keeley, J.; editors. Water encyclopedia: water 

quality and resource development. Hoboken, NJ: 

Wiley. 717 p.

History of Deer Lodge. 2011. Powell County, Montana. [Internet] <www.powellcountymontana

.com/history.html> [Date accessed unknown].

Hoekman, S.T.; Mills, L.S.; Howerter, D.W.; Devries, 

J.H.; Ball, I.J. 2002. Sensitivity analyses of the 

life cycle of midcontinent mallards. The Journal 

of Wildlife Management, Vol. 66, No. 3. 883–900. 

17 p.

Holdren, J.; Ehrlich, P. 1974. Human population and 

the global environment. American Scientist 62: 

282–92.

Holling, C.S., editor. 1978. Adaptive environmental 

assessment and management. London: John Wiley and Sons. [Number of pages unknown].

Holton, G.D.; Johnson, H.E. 1996. A field guide to 

Montana fishes, second edition. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 104 p.

Hossack, B.; Wahl, R.; Corn, S. 2009. Boreal toad 

capture-recapture study at Lost Trail National 

Wildlife Refuge. Annual Report. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number 

of pages unknown].

Inman, R.M.; Packila, M.L.; Inman, K. H.; Aber, 

B.; Spence, R.; McCauley, D. 2009. Greater 

Yellowstone wolverine program, progress report–December 2009. Bozeman, MT: Wildlife 

Conservation Society. North America Program, 

General Report. [Number of pages unknown].

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. 

Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Valencia, Spain: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. 73 p.

Irwin, E. 2002. The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Economics 78(4): 

465–480.

Jarworski, E.; Raphael, C.N. 1978. Historical 

changes in natural diversity of fresh water wetlands, glaciated region of northern United States. 

In: Greeson, P. E.; Clark, J. R.; Clark, J. E.; editors. Wetland functions and values: the state of 

our understanding. Minneapolis, MN: American 

Water Resources Association. 12 p. (545–56).

Johnson, D.H.; Grier, J.W. 1988. Determinants of 

breeding distribution of ducks. Wildlife Monographs No. 100:3–37. 

Johnson, D.H.; Schwartz, M.D. 1993. The conservation reserve program: habitat for grassland birds. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Great Plains Research. 3:273–295.

Johnson, D.H.; Igl, L.D. 2001. Area requirements of 

grassland birds: a regional perspective. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Auk. 118:24–34.

Johnson, R.G.; Temple, S.A. 1990. Assessing habitat 

quality for birds nesting in fragmented tallgrass 

prairies. In: Verner, J; Morrison, M.L.; Ralph, 

C.J.; editors. Wildlife 2000—modeling habitat 

relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. Madison, 

WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 244–9.

Johnson, W.C.; Millett, B.V.; Gilmanov, T.; Voldseth, 

R.A.; Guntenspergen, G.R.; Naugle, D.E. 2005. 

Vulnerability of northern prairie wetlands to climate change. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 55(10):863–872.

Johnson, W.C.; Werner, B; Guntenspergen, G.R.; 

Voldseth, R.A.; Millett, B.; Naugle, D.E.; Tulbure, M.; Carroll, R.W.H.; Tracy, J.; Olawsky, C. 

2010. Prairie wetland complexes as landscape 

functional units in a changing climate. [Place of 

publication unknown]: BioScience. 60(2): 128–140.

Jones, S. L. 2010. Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) 

conservation plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
294 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

ment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[Number of pages unknown].

Jordan, N.; Boody, G.; Broussard, W.; Glover, J.; 

Keeney, D.; McCown, B.; et al. 2007. Sustainable 

development of the agricultural bio-economy. Science 316: 1570–1571.

Joslin, G.; Youmans, H., coordinators. 1999. Effects 

of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife. A 

review for Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: Committee on Effects of Recreation on 

Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 

307pp.

Junk, W.J.; Bayley, P.B.; Sparks, R.E. 1989. The 

flood-pulse concept in river floodplain systems. 

In: Dodge, D. P., editor. Canadian special publication of fisheries and aquatic Sciences 106: 

Proceedings of the international large river symposium. 18 p. (110–27).

Kaiser, P.H.; Berlinger, S.S.; Fredrickson, L.H. 

1979. Response of blue-winged teal to range 

management on waterfowl production areas in 

southeastern South Dakota. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Journal of Range Management (32)4: 

[Number of pages unknown].

Kalispell Chamber of Commerce. 2011. [Internet]. 

<http://www.kalispellchamber.com/kalispell

-montana/> [Date accessed unknown].

Kalmbach, E.R.; Gunderson, M.F. 1934. Western 

duck sickness–a form of botulism. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Technical 

Bulletin No. 411.

Kantrud, H.A. 1981. Grazing intensity effects on the 

breeding avifauna of North Dakota native grasslands. [Place of publication unknown]: Canadian 

Field-Naturalist. 95:404–17.

Kaya, C. M. 1992. Review of the decline and status 

of fluvial Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), in 

Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. Proceedings of Montana Academy of Sciences. 52:43–70.

Kendall, Craig. 2010. In: Curtis, Lori. 2010. 

Flathead watershed sourcebook: a guide to 

an extraordinary plance. [Internet] <www

.flatheadwatershed.org/watershed/hydrology

.shtml> [Date accessed unknown].

Kendall, K.C.; Arno, S.F. 1989. Whitebark pine—

an important but endangered wildlife species. 

In: Schmidt, W.C.; McDonald, K.J., compilers. 

Proceedings of symposium on whitebark pine 

ecosystems: ecology and management of a highmountain resource. U.S. Forest Service Technical 

Report INT–270: Proceedings, Symposium on 

whitebark pine ecosystems; 1989 March 29–31; 

[Place of proceedings unknown]. Bozeman, MT: 

U.S. Forest Service. 10 p. (264–273).

Kendall, W.L. 2001. Using models to facilitate complex decisions. In: Shenk, T.M.; Franklin, A.B.; 

editors. Modeling in natural resource management: development, interpretation, and application. Washington, DC: Island Press. [Number of 

pages unknown].

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses 

to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31–9.

Knapton, J.R.; Jones, W.E.; Sutphin, J.W. 1988. 

Reconnaissance investigation of water quality, 

bottom sediment, and biota associated with irrigation drainage in the Sun River. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number 

of pages unknown]. 

Knick, S.T.; Dobkin, D.S.; Rotenberry, J.T.; Schroeder, M.A.; Vander Haegen, W.M.; van Riper 

III, C. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late? 

Conservation and research issues for avifauna 

of sagebrush habitats. [Place of publication unknown]: Condor. 105:611–34.

Knight, R.R.; Blanchard, B.M.; Mattson, D.J. 1985. 

Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations— an annual report of the interagency team, 1983 and 

1984. Bozeman, MT: U.S. Department of the Interior, Interagency Grizzly Bear Team. 41 p. (as 

cited in: LeFranc, M. Jr.; Moss, M.; Patnode, K. 

[et al.]; editors. 1987. Grizzly bear compendium. 

Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation; 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service).

Knopf, F.L. 1996. Prairie legacies—birds. In: 

Samson, F.B.; Knopf, F.L.; editors. Prairie conservation: preserving North America’s most endangered ecosystem. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. [Number of pages unknown].

Koehler, G.M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north-central Washington. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:845–51.

Koper, N.; Walker, D.J.; Champagne, J. 2009. Nonlinear effects of distance to habitat edge on 

Sprague’s pipits in southern Alberta, Canada. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Landscape Ecology. 24:1287–1297.

Korschgen, C.E.; Dahlgren, R.B. 1992. Human 

disturbances of waterfowl: causes, effects and 

management. Waterfowl management handbook. 

[Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Leaflet. 13(2):15.

Krapu, G.L.; Pietz, P.J.; Brandt, D.A.; Cox, R.R. 

2004. Does presence of permanent fresh water 

affect recruitment in prairie-nesting dabbling 

ducks? [Place of publication unknown]: Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 68(2):332–41.

Krigbaum, Dagny. 1989. National register registration form. [Place of publication unknown]: Historical Discoveries. On file with the U.S. Fish and 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 295

Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. [Number of pages 

unknown].

Krmpotich, A. 2012. Phylogeography and habitat 

associations of Franklin’s gulls in their United 

States breeding range. [master’s thesis]. Grand 

Forks, ND: University of North Dakota. 104 p.

Kudray, Gregory, M.; Cooper, Stephen V. 2006. Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front: vegetation map 

and type descriptions. Report to the U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 26 p. (plus appendices. Ii).

Kushlan, J. A.; Steinkamp, M. J.; Parsons, K.C.; 

Capp, J.; Acosta Cruz, M.; Coulter, M.; Davidson, I.; Dickson, L.; Edelson, N.; Elliot, R.; Erwin, R. M.; Hatch, S.; Kress, S.; Milko, R.; Miller, 

S.; Mills, K.; Paul, R.; Phillips, R.; Saliva, J.E.; 

Sydeman, B.; Trapp, J.; Wheeler, J.; Wohl, K. 

2002. Waterbird conservation for the Americas: 

the North American waterbird conservation 

plan, version 1. Washington, DC: Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. 78 p.

Lajeunesse, S. 1999. Dalmation and yellow toadflax. 

In: Sheley, R.L.; Petroff, J.K.; editors. Biology 

and management of noxious rangeland weeds. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

202–216. 14 p.

Lake County Direct. 2011. Lake County Montana 

directory. [Internet] <www.lakecodirect.com

/activities.html>[Date accessed unknown].

Lake, P.S. 2011. Drought and aquatic ecosystems, 

effects and responses. Hoboken, NJ: WileyBlackwell. 379 p.

Lambing, J.H.; Nimick, D.A.; Knapton, J.R.; Palawski, D.U. 1994. Physical, chemical and biological 

data for detailed study of the Sun River irrigation project, Freezeout Lake Wildlife Management Area and Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, west-central Montana, 1990–92 with 

selected data for 1987–89. Helena, MT: U.S. Geological Survey. Open file report 94–120. 171 p.

Lancia, R.A.; Braun, C.E.; Collopy, M.W.; Dueser, 

R.D.; Kie, J.G.; Martinka, C.J.; Nichols, J.D.; 

Nudds, T.D.; Porath, W.R.; Tilghman, N.G. 1996. 

ARM! For the future: adaptive resource management in the wildlife profession. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Wildlife Society. Bulletin. 

24:436–42. 

Laylock, W.A. 1967. How heavy grazing and protection affect sagebrush-grass ranges. Journal of 

Range Management 20:206–213.

Lemke, R.W. 1977. Geologic map of the Great Falls 

quadrangle, Montana. [Place of publication unknown]. [Scale unknown]. U.S. Geological Survey 

Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ–1414. 

Lemly, A.D. 1995. A protocol for aquatic hazard 

assessment of selenium. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 32: 280–288.

———. 2002. Protocol for aquatic hazard assessment. In: Alexander, D.E., editor. Selenium 

assessment in aquatic acosystems: a guide for 

hazard evaluation and water quality criteria (61–

88). New York: Springer-Verlag. 176 p. 

Lemly, A.D.; Smith, G.J. 1987. Aquatic cycling of 

selenium–implications for fish and wildlife. [Place 

of publication unknown]: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 12. [Number of 

pages unknown].

Lenard, S.; Hendricks, P. 2005. Birds of selected 

grassland and riparian plots along the Rocky 

Mountain Front: inventory 2004. Helena, MT: 

Montana Natural Heritage Program. [Number of 

pages unknown].

Lesica, P. 1994.The distribution of plant community 

diversity associated with glacial wetlands in the 

Ovando Valley, Montana. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. On file at The 

Nature Conservancy, Helena, Montana. 26 p.

Lesica, P.; Cooper, S.V.; Kudray, G. 2005. Big sagebrush shrub-steppe postfire succession in southwestern Montana. Helena, MT: Montana Natural 

Heritage Program. 29 p.

Lewis and Clark County Happenings. 2011. 

Lewis and Clark County. [Internet] <www.co

.lewis-clark.mt.us/happenings/parks-open-space

.html> [Date accessed unknown].

Lewis, Rhoda. 2001. Site forms for historic sites 

24FH0964 and 24FH0965. On file with the Montana Historical Society, Helena, MT, and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.

Liberty County. 2011. About Liberty County. [Internet] <http://co.liberty.mt.us/html/about_liberty_county.html> [Date accessed unknown].

Lloyd, J.D.; Martin, T.E. 2005. Reproductive success of chestnut-collared longspurs in native and 

exotic grassland. [Place of publication unknown]: 

The Condor. 107:363–374.

Loflin, Brant. 2005a. H2–O Ranch evaluation, Powell County Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. On file 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, 

CO. Report. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———.2005b. Lake Creek ditch, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Cascade County Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher 

unknown]. On file with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. [Number of pages unknown].

———. 2006. Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Unit 2 RX, Cascade County, Montana. [Place 

of publication unknown]: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. On file with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver, CO. Report. [Number of pages 

unknown].
296 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

———. 2007. Site form for the Ehli Homestead, 

Toole County Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. On file with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

———. 2010a. Cultural Resources Staff field notes 

for 2009. On file at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office, Spearfish, SD. 

———. 2010b. Letter report to the Montana State 

Historic Preservation Office regarding the replacement of siding on 24FH0964. On file with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.

Lolo National Forest. 2003. Biological assessment 

for grizzly bears: Clearwater roads project. On 

file at U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Lolo National Forest, Seeley Lake 

Ranger District, Seeley Lake, MT. 

Loosle, Byron. 2003. So delicious they 

ate the bark off the trees–Ashley National Forest, December 2003. [Internet]. <www.fs.fed.us/r4/ashley/heritage

/ethnography/so-delicious.pdf> [Date accessed 

unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

Lorang, M. 2008. Proposed scope of work and preliminary cost estimates to complete WPA north 

shore erosion control/restoration project. [Place 

of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

Report to PPL—Montana and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 20 p.

Mackie, R.J.; Pac, D.F.; Hamlin, K.L. et al. 1998. 

Ecology and management of mule deer and 

white-tailed deer in Montana. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Federal aid to wildlife restoration report, project W–120–R. 180 p.

Madden, E.M. 1996. Passerine communities and 

bird–habitat relationships on prescribe-burned, 

mixed-grass prairie in North Dakota. [master’s 

thesis], Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 

[Number of pages unknown].

Madden, E.M.; Murphy, R.K.; Hansen, A.J.; Murray, 

L. 2000. Models for guiding management of prairie bird habitat in northwestern North Dakota. 

[Place of publication unknown]: American Midland Naturalist. 144:377–392.

Magee, James; McCullough, A. 2008. Montana arctic 

grayling monitoring report. Dillon, MT: Montana 

Fish, Wildlife & Parks. [Internet]. <http://fwpiis.

mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=48510> [Date 

accessed unknown].

Magoun, A.J. 1987. Summer and winter diets of 

wolverines, Gulo gulo, in arctic Alaska. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Canadian Field Naturalist. 

101:392–397.

Malone, M.; Roeder, R.; Lang, W. 1976. Montana a 

history of two centuries. Seattle: University of 

Washington Press. 466 p. 

Malson, K.; Backeus, I.; Rydin, H. 2008. Long-term 

effects of drainage and initial effects of hydrological restoration on rich fen vegetation. Applied 

Vegetation Science 11:99–106.

Manning, Robert E. 1999. Studies in outdoor recreation. 2nd edition. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University Press. 374 p.

Maughan, E.K. 1961. Geologic map of the Vaughn 

quadrangle, Montana. [Place of publication unknown]. [Scale unknown]. U.S. Geological Survey 

Quadrangle Map GQ–135.

Maughan, E.K. and R.W. Lemke. 1991. Geologic 

map of the Portage quadrangle, Cascade and 

Chouteau Counties, Montana. [Place of publication unknown]. [Scale unknown]. U.S. Geological 

Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I–2196.

Maxell, B.A.; Werner, J.K.; Hendricks, P.; Flauth, 

D.L. 2003. Herpetology in Montana. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Society for Northwestern 

Vertebrate Biology. [Number of pages unknown].

May, R. 2007. Spatial ecology of wolverines in Scandinavia. [dissertation, type unknown]. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Science 

and Technology. [Number of pages unknown].

McEachern P.; Prepas, E.E.; Gibson, J.J.; Dinsmore, 

P. 2000. The forest fire induced impacts on phosphorus, nitrogen and chlorophyll a concentrations 

in boreal sub-arctic lakes of northern Alberta. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57(Supplement 2):73–81.

McKay, Kathy; Hamilton, Ginger. 1996. Cultural 

resource inventory and evaluation Batavia Waterfowl Production Area. Columbia Falls, MT: 

Tracks of the Past. Report produced for the Montana Department of Transportation. On file with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

[Number of pages unknown].

McMaster, D.G.; Davis, S.K. 2001. An evaluation of 

Canada’s permanent cover program: habitat for 

grassland birds? [Place of publication unknown]: 

Journal of Field Ornithology. [Number of pages 

unknown].

Mech, L.D. 1970. The wolf; ecology and behavior 

of an endangered species. New York: Natural 

History Press, Doubleday. [Number of pages unknown].

Mech, L.D.; Meier, T.J.; Burch, J.W. 1991. Denali 

Park wolf studies: implications for Yellowstone. 

In: Transactions of the North American Wildlife 

and Natural Resources Conference; [Date and 

location of conference unknown]. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 56:86–90. 

Milchunas, D.G.; Lauenroth, W.K. 1993. Quantitative effects of grazing on vegetation and soils 

over a global range of environments. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Ecological Monographs. 

63:327–66. 

[MEA] Millennium Ecosystem Service Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 297

Synthesis report. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

[Number of pages unknown].

Miller, R.; Baisan, C.; Rose, J.; Pacioretty, D. 2001. 

Pre and post settlement fire regimes in mountain 

big sagebrush steppe and aspen: the northwestern Great Basin. Final Report to the National 

Interagency Fire Center. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 18 p. 

Miller, R.F.; Rose, J.A. 1999. Fire history and western juniper encroachment in sage-brush steppe. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Journal of Range 

Management. 52:550–59. 

Mitchell, C.D. 1994. Trumpeter swan. In: Poole, 

A.; Stettenheim, P.; Gill, F.; editors. The birds of 

North America. Philadelphia: The Academy of 

Natural Sciences. Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists’ Union. No. 105. 24 p. 

Mitsch, W.J.; Gosselink, J.G. 2000. Freshwater 

marshes. Wetlands 3rd edition. [Place of publication unknown]: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 40 p. 

(377–417).

———. 2007. Wetlands, 4th edition. New York: John 

Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Number of pages unknown]. 

[MDEQ] Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality. 2003. Water quality management plan 

and TMDLs for the Teton River watershed. 

[Internet]. <www.deq.mt.gov/wqinfo /TMDL

/TPAmap.mcpx> [Date accessed unknown].

———. 2005. Search results of Teton and Dearborn River watersheds. [Internet]. Helena, MT: 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality. <www.deq.mt.gov/wqinfo.TMDL/TPAmap

.mcpx> accessed November 2011.

———. 2011. [Title of data unknown] [Internet]. 

<http://deq.mt.gov/Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)-Understanding Air 

Quality.mht> [Date accessed unknown].

Montana Department of Revenue. 2011. Property 

reappraisal FAQs. Agricultural and forestland 

reappraisal. [Internet]. <http://revenue.mt.gov

/forindividuals/taxes_licenses_fees_permits

/Property_Taxes/Property_Valuations_for

_Individuals_and_Businesses/faqs_agricultural

_and_forest_land_reappraisal.mcpx> accessed 

July 18, 2011.

[MFWP] Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 2005. 

Montana’s comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation strategy. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, 

Wildlife & Parks. [Number of pages unknown].

———. 2009. Bull trout red counts completed in 

the Flathead system: North Fork, Middle Fork, 

about average; Swan and South Fork below average. [Internet]. Revised November 5, 2009. 

<http://fwpiis.mt.gov/news/article_8625.aspx> . 

[Date accessed unknown].

———. 2010. Private land hunting opportunities. [Internet]. <http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting

/hunterAccess/privateLand/> accessed July 18, 

2011.

———. 2011. Montana Fisheries Information System. On-line database. [Internet]. <http://fwp.

mt.gov/fishing/mFish/> accessed November 2011. 

———. 2012. Water howellia—howellia aquatilis. 

Montana Field Guide. Montana Natural Heritage 

Program. [Internet]. <http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/

detail_PDCAM0A010.aspx> accessed February 

2012.

[MNHP] Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2009. 

Natural resource information system search 

results for the Blackfoot subbasin. Helena, MT: 

Montana Natural Heritage Program. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

———. 2010a. Montana ecological integrity assessment, field manual. [Internet]. <http://mtnhp.

org/wetlands/docs/Protocol.pdf> [Date accessed 

unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

———. 2010b. National wetlands inventory for 

Montana. [Internet]. <http://nris.mt.gov/nsdi/

nris/shape/nwi_poly.zip> [Date accessed unknown].

———. 2010c. Wetland and riparian ecological systems. Montana field guide. [Internet]. <http://

fieldguide.mt.gov/displayES.aspx?id=8> [Date 

accessed unknown].

———. 2011a. Amphibians and reptiles. Montana 

field guide. [Internet]. <http://fieldguide.mt.gov/

displayClasses.aspx?Kingdom=Animalia> [Date 

accessed unknown]. 

———. 2011b. Wetland and riparian ecological systems. Montana field guide. [Internet]. 

<http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/displayES_Detail.

aspx?ES=9252> accessed March 31, 2011.

[MNHP] Montana Natural Heritage Program and 

[MFWP] Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2009. 

Montana animal species of concern. Helena, MT: 

Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 17 p.

Monthey, R.W. 1986. Responses of snowshoe hares, 

Lepus americanus, to timber harvest in northern 

Maine. [Place of publication unknown]: Canadian 

Field Naturalist. 100:568–70.

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. In: Whitman, 

W.R.; Strange, T.; Widjeskog, L.; Whittemore, R.; 

Kehoe, P.; Roberts, L.; editors. Waterfowl habitat 

restoration, enhancement and management in the 

Atlantic flyway. 3rd edition. Dover, Delaware: 

Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway Council Technical Section; Delaware 

Division of Fish and Wildlife. F59–F86.

Moulton, Gary. 1999. The journals of Lewis and 

Clark expedition; 12 volumes 1983–1999. Lincoln, 

NB: University of Nebraska Press. [Number of 

pages unknown].
298 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Mudge, M.R.; Earhart, R.L.; Whipple, J.W.; Harrison, J.E. 1982. Geologic and structure map of the 

Choteau 1o and 2o quadrangle, western Montana. 

[Place of publication unknown]. [Scale unknown]. 

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Montana 

Atlas Series MA 3–A.

Murkin, H.R.; Ross, L.C. 1999. Macroinvertebrate 

responses to a simulated wet/dry cycle. In: 

Batzer, D.P.; Rader, R.B; Wissinger, S.A.; editors. 

Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands. [Place of 

publication unknown]: John Wiley and Sons. 27 p. 

(543–70).

Murkin, H.R.; Murkin, E.J.; Ball, J.P. 1997. Avian 

habitat selection and prairie wetland dynamics: 

a 10-year experiment. [Place of publication unknown]: Ecological Applications. 7(4):1144–59.

Murkin, H.R.; van der Valk, A.G.; Clark, W.R. 2000. 

Prairie wetland ecology: the contribution of the 

Marsh Ecology Research Program. Ames, IA: 

Iowa State University Press. [Number of pages 

unknown].

Murphy, R.K.; Grant, T.A. 2005. Land management history and floristics in mixed-grass prairie, North Dakota, USA. Natural Areas Journal 

25:351–358.

Muths, E.; Corn, P.S.; Pessier, A.P.; Green, D.E. 

2003. Evidence for disease-related amphibian decline in Colorado. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Biological Conservation. 110:357–65.

National Audubon Society. 2007. Audubon watch 

list. [Internet]. [Revision date unknown]. <http://

web1.audubon.org/science/species/watchlist/> 

[Date accessed unknown].

———. 2010. Important bird areas. [Internet]. Updated November 2010. <http://web4.audubon.

org/bird/iba/iba_intro.html> [Date accessed unknown].

———. 2012. Important bird areas in the U.S. 

Benton Lake NWR. [Internet]. [Revision date 

unknown]. <http://iba.audubon.org/iba/profileReport.do?siteId=2929&navSite=search&pagerOffs

et=0&page=1> [Date accessed unknown].

[NISC] National Invasive Species Council. 2003. 

General guidelines for the establishment and 

evaluation of invasive species early detection 

and rapid response systems. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. Version 1. 16 p.

[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2009. Archival climatic records–Great 

Falls, MT. [Internet] <http://noaa.gov> [Date 

accessed unknown].

———. 2011a. Archival climatic records–Great 

Falls, MT. [Internet] <http://noaa.gov> [Date accessed unknown].

———. 2011b. Montana statewide climate summary, 

Western Regional Climate Center. [Internet]. 

<www.wrcc.dri.edu/> [Date accessed unknown].

National Wildlife Refuge Association. 2009. Restoring America’s wildlife refuges 2009—a plan to 

solve the refuge system funding crisis. Washington, DC: Cooperative Alliance For Refuge 

Enhancement. [Number of pages unknown].

[NRIS] Natural Resource Information System. 

2011a. Montana Average Annual Precipitation 

Map, 1971–2000. Helena, MT. [Internet]. <http://

nris.mt.gov/nsdi/nris/precip71_00.gif. [Date accessed unknown].

———. 2011b. Montana Average Daily Maximum 

Temperature, 1971–2000. Helena, MT. [Internet]. 

<http://nris.mt.gov/nsdi/nris/shape/tmax71_00.

zip> [Date accessed unknown].

[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

2002. History, biology, ecology, suppression, and 

revegetation of Russian-olive sites (Elaeagnus 

angustifolia, L.). NRCS Technical Note No. 

MT–43. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———. 2005. Ecological site description, Clayey 

10–14” p.z. Northern Glaciated Plains (52XN) 

1–15.

———. 2006. Digital general soil map of Montana 

(STATSGO2). Fort Worth, TX: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation 

Service.[Internet]. <http://nris.mt.gov/nsdi/nris/

shape/statsgo2.zip> [Date accessed unknown].

———. 2007. Creeping foxtail plant guide. [Place of 

publication unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture Plant Material Program. [Number of 

pages unknown].

———. 2011a. The twelve orders of soil taxonomy. 

USDA–NRCS poster. [Internet]. <http://soils.

usda.gov/technical/soil_orders/> [Date accessed 

unknown].

———. 2011b. Official soil descriptions. USDA–

NRCS Soil Survey Division. [Internet]. <https://

soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdnamequery.asp> 

[Date accessed unknown].

———. 2011c. United States Department of Agriculture. Web soil survey. [Internet]. <http://

websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/> accessed March 

and April 2011. 

NatureServe. 2008. International ecological classification standard; terrestrial ecological systems 

of the United States, NatureServe central databases. Arlington, VA: NatureServe. [Number of 

pages unknown].

———. 2010. Ecological Systems descriptions. [Internet]. <www.natureserve.org> [Date accessed 

unknown]. 

Neimuth, N.D.; Wangler, B.; Reynolds, R.E. 2010. 

Spatial and temporal variation in wet area of 

wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region of North 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 299

Dakota and South Dakota. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Wetlands. 30:1053–64.

Nelson, K.A.; Reiten, J.C. 2006. Saline seep impacts 

on Hailstone and Halfbreed National Wildlife 

Refuges. Denver, CO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 Contaminants Program. DEC ID: 

2001600001, FFS: 61130–6N47.

Neudecker, G.; Hinz, T. 2005. Blackfoot trumpeter 

swan program implementation & evaluation plan. 

Blackfoot trumpeter swan working group. August 30, 2005. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

Nimick, D.A. 1997. Hydrology and water chemistry 

of the Benton Lake basin with emphasis on the 

fate of dissolved solids at Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge, west-central Montana. Helena, 

MT: U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources 

Investigations Report 97–4100. 79 p.

Nimick, D.A.; Fields, V.L.; McCarthy, P.M. 2010. 

Water management model for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, west central Montana.

Helena, MT: U.S. Geological Survey. 35 p.

Nimick, D.A.; Fields, V.L.; McCarthy, P.M. 2011, 

A planning tool for water management at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, West-central 

Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5133. 28 p.

Nimick, D.A.; Lambing, J.H.; Palawski, D.U.; Malloy, J.C. 1996. Detailed study of selenium in soil, 

water, bottom sediment, and biota in the Sun 

River Irrigation Project, Freezeout Lake Wildlife Management Area and Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge, west-central Montana, 1990–92. 

Helena, MT: U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigation Report 95–4170. 120 p.

Nordstrom, L.; Hecht, A.; McCollough, M.; Naney, 

B.; Trick, J.; Warren, N.; Zwartjes, M. 2005. Recovery outline; contiguous United States distinct 

population segment of the Canada lynx. [Place of 

publication unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 12 p.

Northern Great Plains Floristic Quality Assessment Panel. 2001. Floristic quality assessment 

for plant communities of North Dakota, South 

Dakota (excluding the Black Hills), and adjacent 

grasslands. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center Online. [Internet]. 

Version January 26, 2001. <www.npwrc.usgs.gov

/resource/plants/fqa/index.htm> [Date accessed 

unknown].

NPA Data Services, Inc. 2011. 2011 regional economic projections series. Census and Economic 

Information Center, Montana Department 

of Commerce. [Internet]. <http://ceic.mt.gov

/Demog/project/NPActy_total_and_65+_1107

_web.pdf> [Date accessed unknown]. [Number of 

pages unknown].

Olson, D.; Lindall, S. 1999. IMPLAN professional 

software, analysis and data guide: Minnesota 

IMPLAN Group, Inc. . [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages 

unknown].

Oring, L.W.; Neel, L; Oring, K.E. 2000. Intermountain West regional shorebird plan. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 55 p.

Ostlund, L.; Keane, B.; Arno, S.; Anderson, R. 2005. 

Culturally scarred trees in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, Montana, USA—interpreting Native 

American historical forest use in a wilderness 

area. [Place of publication unknown]: Natural 

Areas Journal. 25(4): 315–25.

Ovando, Montana. 2011. Ovando Montana Home. 

[Internet]. <www.ovandomontana.net/> [Date 

accessed unknown].

Owens, R.A.; Myers, M.T. 1973. Effects of agriculture upon populations of native passerine birds 

of an Alberta fescue grassland. [Place of publication unknown]: Canadian Journal of Zoology. 

51:697–713.

Palawski, D.U.; Martin, S.J. 1991. Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge contaminant biomonitoring 

strategy. Denver, CO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [Number of pages unknown].

[PIF] Partners In Flight. 2000. Partners in flight 

bird conservation plan Montana. Version 1.1 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

Pellant, M.; Shaver, P.; Herrick, J.E. 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health, version 

4. Technical reference 1734–6. Denver, CO: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center. BLM/WO/ST–00/001+1734/REV05. 122 p.

Peterson, G.; Allen, C.R.; Holling, C.S. 1998. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1:6–18.

Pierce R.; Davidson, M.; Knotek, L.; Podner, C.; 

Thabes, J. 2008. The Big Blackfoot River fisheries and restoration investigations for 2006 and 

2007. Missoula, MT: Montana Department of 

Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. [Number of pages unknown].

Piercy, M. 1997. Benton Lake NWR non-game monitoring program. USFWS. Great Falls, Montana 

1997 progress report. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages 

unknown].

Pondera County. 2011. About Pondera County. 

[Internet]. <www.ponderacountymontana.org

/about-pondera/> [Date accessed unknown].
300 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Post, Buckley, Schuh, Jernigan. 2007. Montana Department of Transportation wetland mitigation 

monitoring report: year 2007. Kalispell, MT: Batavia. PBS&J Project No: B43088.00–0102. 58 p. 

Prescott, D.R.C. 1997. Status of Sprague’s Pipit 

(Anthus spragueii) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 10, Edmonton, 

Alberta, Canada. [Internet]. <www.assembly

.ab.ca/lao/library/egovdocs/alen/1997/42208.pdf> 

accessed November 2009.

Prescott, D.R.C.; Davis, S.K. 1998. Status report on 

the Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii in Canada. 

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. [Number 

of pages unknown].

Regan, T.J.; Master, L.L.; Hammerson, G.A. 2004. 

Capturing expert knowledge for threatened 

species assessments: a case study using NatureServe conservation status ranks. [Place of publication unknown]: Acta Oecologica. 26:95–107.

Reynolds, R.; Shaffer, T.; Newton, W.; Batt, B. 2001. 

Impact of the conservation reserve program on 

duck recruitment in the U.S. Prairie Pothole 

region. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(4): 

765–780. 

Reynolds, T.; Trost C. 1981. Grazing, crested wheatgrass, and bird populations in southeastern 

Idaho. Northwest Science. 55(3):225–34.

Rice, C.W.; Owensby, C.E. 2001. The effects of fire 

and grazing on soil carbon in rangelands. In: Follett, R.F.; Kimble, J.M.; Lal, R.; editors. The potential of U.S. grazing lands to sequester carbon 

and mitigate the greenhouse Effect (chapter 13). 

Washington, DC: Lewis Publishers. [Number of 

pages unknown].

Rissman, A.; Lozier, L.; Comendant, T.; Kareiva, P.; 

Kiesecker, J.; Shaw, M.; et al. 2007. Conservation 

easements: biodiversity protection and private 

use. Conservation Biology 21(3): 709–718. 

River’s Edge Trail. 2011. Trail description. [Internet] <http://thetrail.org/reports/TrailDispt.html> 

[Date accessed unknown].

Robbins, M.B.; Dale, B.C. 1999. Sprague’s pipit 

(Anthus spragueii). In: Poole, A.; Gill,F.; editors. 

The birds of North America, no. 439. Academy 

of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Washington, DC: American Ornithologists’ 

Union. [Number of pages unknown].

Roberts, M.; Levens, R. 2005. H2–O Ranch hydrologic report. Helena, MT: Montana Department 

of Natural Resources and Conservation. Report 

WR–3.C.2.HHR. 20 p.

Roberts, M.; Lybowski, R. 2007. Enduring impacts 

of land retirement policies: evidence from the 

conservation reserve program. Land Economics 

83(4): 516-538. 

Rotenberry, J.T.; Patten, M.A.; Preston, K.L. 1999. 

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri). In: : Poole, 

A.; Gill,F.; editors. The birds of North America, 

no. 463. Philadelphia, PA: The Birds of North 

America, Inc. [Number of pages unknown].

Rumsey, C.; Wood, M.; Butterfield, B.; Jean, C.; 

Torgerson, K.J.; Mullen, R.; Carroll, C.; Kittel, G.; 

Hillary, D.; Iachetti, P.; Bryer, M.; Lewis, J. 2004. 

Canadian Rocky Mountains ecoregional assessment volume one: report version 2.0. [Internet]. 

<http://waconservation.org/projects/ecoregions/> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 88 p.

Ruth, J.M. 2006. Partners in Flight–US website. 

[Internet]. <www.partnersinflight.org> [Date accessed unknown].

Ryan, M.; Burger, L.; Kurzejeski, E. 1998. The impact of CRP on avian wildlife: a review. Journal 

of Production Agriculture. [Volume and issue 

unknown]: 61-66.

Schmidt, W.C.; McDonald, K.J., compilers. Proceedings, symposium on whitebark pine ecosystem: 

ecology and management of a high-mountain resource. Bozeman, MT. March 29–31, 1989. [Place 

of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 10 

p. (264–73).

Schnabel, R.R.; Franzluebbers, A.J.; Stout, W.L.; 

Sanderson, M.A.; Stuedemann, J.A. 2001. The 

effects of pasture management practices. In: Follett, R.F.; Kimble, J.M.; Lal, R. editors. The potential of U.S. grazing lands to sequester carbon 

and mitigate the greenhouse effect (chapter 12). 

Washington, DC: Lewis Publishers. 291–322. 31 p.

Schneider, D.W. 1999. Influence of hydroperiod on 

invertebrate community structure. In: Batzer, 

D.P.; Rader, R.B.; Wissinger, S.A.; editors. Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands. [Place of 

publication unknown]: John Wiley and Sons. 19 p. 

(299–318).

Schroeder, R.L. 1986. Habitat suitability index models: wildlife species richness in shelterbelts. USFWS Bio Report 82(10.128). 17 p.

Schwab, David 1994. Results of cultural resource 

survey of the lower Nevada Creek wetland improvement project, Powell County, Montana. 

Report produced for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver CO. [Place of publication unknown]: Schwab Cultural Consulting. On file with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

[Number of pages unknown].

Seiler, R.L.; Skorupa, J.P.; Peltz, L.A. 1999. Areas 

susceptible to irrigation-induced selenium contamination of water and biota in the western 

United States. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1180. [Number of pages unknown].

Servheen, C.; Waller, J.S.; Sandstrom, P. 2001. Identification and management of linkage zones for 

grizzly bears between the large blocks of public 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 301

land in the northern Rocky Mountains. Missoula, 

MT: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service; University of Montana. 87 p.

Sheley, R.L.; Jacobs, J.S.; Carpinelli, M.L. 1999. 

Spotted knapweed. In: Sheley, R.L.; Petroff, 

J.K.; editors. Biology and management of noxious 

rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University Press, 350–361. 11 p.

Sheppard, W.D.; Alexander, R.R.; Ronco, F., Jr. 

1983. Silviculture of ponderosa pine in the central 

and southern Rocky Mountains. Research Paper 

RM–TT–4. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Exp. Station. As cited in: Casey, D. 

2000. Partners in Flight–draft bird conservation 

plan, Montana. Kalispell, MT: Montana Partners 

in Flight, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. [Number of pages unknown].

Sime, Carolyn A.; Asher, V.; Bradley, L.; Lance, N.; 

Laudon, K.; Ross, M.; Nelson A.; Steuber, J. 2011. 

Montana gray wolf conservation and management 2010 annual report. Helena, MT: Montana 

Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 168 p.

Skagen, S.K.; Thompson, G. 2003. Northern plains/

prairie potholes regional shorebird conservation 

plan. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. v1.0. 36 p.

Skorupa, J.P.; Ohlendorf, H.M. 1991. Contaminants 

in drainage water and avian risk thresholds. In: 

Dinar, D.; Zilberman, D.; editors. The economics 

and management of water and drainage in agriculture. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 23 p. (345–368).

Smith, D. 2010. Goodbye CRP? Teton County history. In: Montana Outdoors, Nov.—Dec. 2010.

[Internet]. <http://www.tetoncomt.org/history.

aspx> Date accessed unknown.

Smith, L.M.; Euliss, N.H.; Wilcox, D.A.; Brinson, 

M.M. 2008. Application of a geomorphic and 

temporal perspective to wetland management in 

North America. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Wetlands. 28(3):563–577.

Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1970. A map of evapotranspiration for 

Montana. Missoula, MT. 

Steidl, R.J.; Anthony, R.G. 1996. Responses of bald 

eagles to human activity during the summer in 

interior Alaska. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Ecological Applications. 6(2):482–91.

Stenseth, N. 2004. Snow conditions may create an 

invisible barrier for lynx. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 101(29):10,632–

34.

Stewart, R.E. 1975. Breeding birds of North Dakota. Fargo, ND: Tri-college Center for Environmental Studies. [Number of pages unknown].

Stynes, D. 1998. Guidelines for measuring visitor 

spending: Department of Parks, Recreation and 

Tourism Resources, Michigan State University. 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

Sutter, G.C. 1996. Habitat selection and prairie 

drought in relation to grassland bird community 

structure and the nesting ecology of Sprague’s 

pipit, Anthus spragueii. [Ph.D. dissertation]. 

Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada: University of 

Regina. [Number of pages unknown].

Sutter, G.C. 1997. Nest-site selection and nest-entrance orientation in Sprague’s pipit. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Wilson Bulletin. 109:462–

69.

Sutter, G.C.; Brigham, R.M. 1998. Avifaunal and 

habitat changes resulting from conversion of native prairie to crested wheat grass: patterns at 

songbird community and species levels. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Canadian Journal of Zoology. 76:869–75.

Swan Ecosystem Center. 2004. Upper Swan Valley landscape assessment. Condon, Montana. 

[Internet]. <www.swanecosystemcenter.org

/landscapeassessment.html> [Date accessed unknown].

———. 2011. Swan Ecosystem water quality search 

results. [Internet]. Revised January 1, 2012. 

<http://swanecosystemcenter.org/waterquality.

html>. accessed November 2011.

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge. 2011. Swan 

River National Wildlife Refuge. [Internet] 

<www.fws.gov/bentonlake/swanRiver/> [Date 

accessed unknown].

Tallman, D.A.; Swanson, D.L.; Palmer, J. S. 2002. 

Birds of South Dakota. Aberdeen, SD: South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union. [Number of pages 

unknown].

Teel, T.L.; Dayer, A.A.; Manfredo, M.J.; Bright, A.D. 

2005. Wildlife values in the west (regional results). Project report for the Western Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Fort Collins, CO: 

Colorado State University, Human Dimensions 

in Natural Resources Unit. Project report no. 58. 

[Number of pages unknown].

Teton County History. 2011. Teton County. [Internet]. <www.tetoncomt.org/history.aspx> [Date 

accessed unknown].

[TNC] The Nature Conservancy. 1999. Ecoregional 

planning in the northern Great Plains steppe. 

[Place of publication unknown]: The Nature Conservancy. 189 p.

———. 2009. Climate change in Montana: How 

can we respond? [Internet]. <www.nature.org

/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/montana/howwework/climate_change_
302 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

in_mt_web-2.pdf> [Date accessed unknown]. 

[Number of pages unknown].

———. 2011. The Montana legacy project. [Internet]. <www.nature.org

/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/montana/placesweprotect/montana-legacy

-project.xml> accessed June 18, 2011.

Thier, T.; Sizemore, D. 1981. An evaluation of grizzly 

locations in the BGP area, 1975–1980. As cited 

in: LeFranc, Maurice, Jr.; Moss, Mary; Patnode, 

Kathleen. et al.; editors. 1+987. Grizzly bear 

compendium. Washington, DC: National Wildlife 

Federation; U.S. Department of the Interior. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, Border Grizzly 

Project. Special Report 47. 16 p.

Thompson, I.D. 1988. Habitat needs of furbearers 

in relation to logging in boreal Ontario. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Foresty Chronicle. 64:251–

61.

Thompson, W.H.; Hansen, P.L. 2002. Vegetation 

inventory, mapping, and functional health assessment of wetlands on the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge in Montana. Corvallis, MT: Bitterroot Restoration, Inc. [Number of pages unknown].

Tirmenstein, D. 2000. Festuca altaica, F. campestris, F. hallii. In: Fire effects information system. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences 

Laboratory. [Internet]. <www.fs.fed.us/database

/feis/> accessed October 8, 2011.

Toole County. 2011. Toole County, Montana. [Internet]. <www.toolecountymt.gov/index-3.html> 

[Date accessed unknown].

Torgerson, C. Jean; Mullen, R.; Iachetti, P.; Lewis, 

J. 2003. Canadian Rocky Mountains ecoregional 

assessment, volume two: appendices. Prepared 

for The Nature Conservancy and the Nature 

Conservancy of Canada. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages 

unknown].

Trombulak, S.C.; Frissell, C.A. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic 

communities. Conservation Biology 14:18–30.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011a. American FactFinder. 

[Internet]. <http://factfinder.census.gov/home/

saff/main.html?_lang=en> [Date accessed unknown].

———. 2011b. Department of Commerce. [Internet]. Revised 2011. <http://2010.census.

gov/2010cesus/data/> [Date accessed unknown].

[USDA FSA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Farm Service Agency. 2008. Conservation reserve program (CRP) benefits: water quality, soil productivity and wildlife estimates. 

[Internet]. <http://www.apfo.usda.gov/FSA

/newsReleases?area=newsroom&subject=

landing&topic=pfs&newstype=prfactsheet&

type=detail&item=pf_20080325_consv_en

_crpben.html> accessed July 18, 2011.

———. 2011. Conservation reserve program 

monthly summary—May 2011. [Internet]. 

<http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File

/may11crpstat.pdf> accessed July 18, 2011.

[USDA Forest Service] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000. Wildland fire in 

ecosystems; effects of fire on flora. [Place of publication unknown]: USDA Forest Service. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–42–vol.2. [Number of 

pages unknown].

[DOI] U.S. Department of the Interior. 1998. Guidelines for interpretation of the biological effects 

of selected constituents in biota, water and sediment. [Place of publication unknown]: National 

Irrigation Water Quality Program. Information 

report no. 3. 198 p. (plus appendices).

———. 2010. Safetynet scorecard. [Internet]. 

<www.doi.gov/safetynet/#scorecard> [Date accessed unknown].

 [DOI] U.S. Department of the Interior, [BLM] 

Bureau of Land Management; [USGS] U.S. 

Geological Survey; [NRCS] Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2005. Iterpreting indicators of rangeland health. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. Tech. Ref. 1734–6. 

[Number of pages unknown].

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1961–

1999. Unpublished annual narrative reports. On 

file at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 

Black Eagle, MT.

———. 1970–1990. Unpublished annual disease reports, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 

Black Eagle, MT.

———. 1991. Calming troubled waters: contaminants at Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 

a plan of action. Great Falls, MT: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. [Number of pages unknown].

———. 1998. Consultation Handbook: Procedures 

for Conducting consultation and conference activities under section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher 

unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

———. 1999a. Fulfilling the promise: the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 92 p.

———. 1999b. Interim wolf control plan for northwest Montana and the panhandle of northern 

Idaho. Lakewood, CO: [Publisher unknown]. 23 p.

———. 2002a. Chapter 3, Clark Fork River recovery unit, Montana, Idaho, and Washington. In: 

Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 285 p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 303

———. 2002b. United States. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pacific implementation plan for the Rocky 

Mountain population of trumpeter swans. Pacific flyway Study Committee. [Internet]. <www

.pacificflyway.gov/Documents/Tsip_plan.pdf> accessed July 2002. [Number of pages unknown].

———. 2004. Conservation focus areas of the Great 

Divide: a vast region encompassing the Upper 

Missouri, Yellowstone and Upper Columbia watersheds. Denver, CO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Internal Report. 77 p.

———. 2007a. Partners for fish and wildlife program, Mountain–Prairie Region strategic plan 

2007–2011. Denver, CO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 160 p.

———. 2007b. Recovery plan for Silene spaldingii

(Spalding’s catchfly). Montana field guide. 2011. 

[Internet]. <http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_PDCAM0A010.aspx> [Date accessed unknown].

———. 2008a. 2006 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated recreation. [Place 

of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

[Number of pages unknown].

———. 2008b. Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service [Internet]. <www. ws.gov

/endangered/wildlife.html> accessed December 

2008.

———. 2008c. National and state economic impacts 

of wildlife watching–addendum to the 2006 national survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated recreation. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. Report 2006–1. [Number of 

pages unknown].

———. 2008d. North Shore habitat development 

plan. Great Falls, MT: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 33 p.

———. 2008e. Staffing model for field stations, final report. Unpublished report on file at Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Great Falls, Montana. 22 p.

———. 2009a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition 

to change the final listing of the distinct population segment of the Canada lynx to include New 

Mexico. Federal Register 74(241): 66,937–50.

———. 2009b. Endangered species program, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. [Internet]. <www.fws

.gov/endangered/ > [Date accessed unknown].

———. 2009c. The Great Northern Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative. [Internet]. <www

.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/lcc/greatNorthern

/DoIGreatNorthernLCCNarrative.pdf> [Date 

accessed unknown].

———. 2009d. Montana partners for wildlife–Blackfoot River watershed focus area.[Internet]. 

<www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pfw/montana

/mt5b.htm> [Date accessed unknown].

———. 2009e. Strategic plan for responding to accelerating climate change in the 21st century. 

[Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 41 

p.

———. 2009f. Waterfowl population status, 2009. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. [Number of pages unknown].

———. 2010a. Draft environmental assessment and 

land protection plan–Swan Valley Conservation 

Area. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher 

unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

———. 2010b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To 

List the North American Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Register 75(239): 

78032.

———. 2010c. Revised designation of critical habitat for bull trout in the conterminous United 

States: final rule. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. Federal Register Docket 

No. FWS–R1–ES–2009–0085. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

———. 2010d. Rising to the urgent challenge: strategic plan for responding to accelerating climate 

change. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 36 p.

———. 2011a. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) 

5-year review: summary and evaluation. August 

2011. [Internet]. <http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_

year_review/doc3847.review_August%202011.

pdf> accessed February 2012. 205 p.

———. 2011b. History and evolution of the Blackfoot challenge. [Internet]. <www.fws.gov

/mountain-prairie/pfw/montana/mt5a.htm> [Date 

accessed unknown].

———. 2011c. Land protection plan for the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area. Denver, CO: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. [Number of pages unknown].

———. 2011d. Land protection plan for the Rocky 

Mountain Front Conservation Area. Denver, CO: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 68 p.

———. 2011e. Land protection plan for the Swan 

Valley Conservation Area. Denver, CO: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 81 p.

———. 2011f. Montana Partners for Fish and Wildlife program draft strategic plan, 2012–2017. 

Great Falls, MT: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[Number of pages unknown].

———. [Date unknown]. Draft great northern 

landscape conservation cooperative FY2010 development plan. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].
304 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

———. [Date unknown]. Conservation in Transition Report 2009. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

———. 2012. Species report. [Internet]. <http://

ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/> [Date accessed unknown].

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; [NOAA] 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008. Extrapolated from unpublished historical aerial photographs and NOAA naturalist 

observations and published articles. On file at 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Great 

Falls, Montana.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American 

waterfowl management plan—a strategy for cooperation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of the Interior. Gatineau, Quebec: Environment 

Canada. 26 p.

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2004. Northern 

Divide grizzly bear project. [Internet]. Revised 

June 2010. <www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research

/ncdebeardna_detail.htm> [Date accessed unknown]. 

———. 2011. Regional economic impacts of current and proposed management alternatives for 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 48 p.

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey and [USFWS] U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Strategic habitat conservation, final report of the national ecological assessment team. July 2006. [Internet]. 

<http://training.fws.gov/CSP/Resources/SHC/

shc_finalrpt.pdf> accessed February 2012. 48 p.

Urban Institute and Brookings Instutution. 2008. 

Tax policy Center. State and local tax policy: 

what are the sources of revenue for local governments? [Internet]. <http://www.taxpolicycenter

.org/briefing-book/state-local/revenues/local

_revenue.cfm> accessed July 18, 2011.

van der Valk, A.G. 1981. Succession in wetlands: a 

Gleasonian approach. [Place of publication unknown]: Ecology. 62(3): 688–96.

———. 1989. Editor. Northern prairie wetlands. 

Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. [Number of pages unknown].

van der Valk, A.G.; Davis, C.B. 1978. The role of 

seed banks in the vegetation dynamics of prairie 

glacial marshes. Ecology 59:322–35. 

Vickery, P.D.; Herkert, J.R.; Knopf, F.L.; Ruth, J.; 

Keller, C.E. 2000. Grassland birds: an overview 

of threats and recommended management strategies. In: Bonney, R.; Pashley, D.N.; Cooper, R.J.; 

Niles, L.; editors. Strategies for bird conservation: the partners in flight planning process. 

[Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service. RMRS–P–16. 4 p. 

(74–7).

Vuke, S.M.; Colton, R.B.; Fullerton, D.S. 2002. Geologic map of the Great Falls North 30×60 feet 

quadrangle, Central Montana. [Place of publication unknown]. [Scale unknown]. Montana 

Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-file report 

MBMG 459.

Walker, B.; Salt, D. 2006. Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing 

world. Washington DC: Island Press. 174 p.

Walker-Kuntz 1999. Report of cultural resource inventory and evaluation for the Kerr North Shore 

erosion control project, Flathead Lake, Montana. 

Report prepared for Montana Power Company, 

Butte. Billings, MT: Ethnoscience. [Number of 

pages unknown].

Walters, C.J.; Holling, C.S. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Ecology. 71:2060–

68.

Weller, C.; Tomson, J.; Morton, P.; Aplet, G. 2002. 

Fragmenting our lands: the ecological footprint 

from oil and gas development. A spatial analysis 

of a Wyoming gas field. The Wilderness Society. 

[Inteernet]. <www.sagebrushsea.org/pdf/TWS

_Fragmenting_Our_Lands.pdf> [Date accessed 

unknown].

Werner, K.; Flath, D.L.; Hendricks, P.; Maxwell, 

B.A. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. 

Missoula, MT: Montana Press Publishing Company. 262 p.

Wetmore, A. 1915. The duck sickness in Utah. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Bulletin No. 672. 

[Number of pages unknown].

Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. [Number of pages unknown].

Wienert, A.C. 1997. From forestland to house lot: 

carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas emissions from exurban land. [thesis, type unknown]. 

Providence, RI: Brown University, Center for 

Environmental Studies. [Number of pages unknown].

Whipple, J.W.; Earhart, R.L.; Mudge, M.R. 1987. 

Geologic map of the Rogers Pass area, Lewis 

and Clark County, Montana. [Place of publication 

unknown]: U.S. Geological Survey. USGS Miscellaneous Investigation Series Map I–1642. 

Whitehead, R.; Martin, P.; Powelson, A. Reducing 

stand and landscape susceptibility to mountain 

pine beetle. [Internet]. <www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp

/publications/00170/MPB_SDM.pdf> [Date accessed unknown]. [Number of pages unknown].

Witkind, I.J.; Weber, W.M. 1982. Reconnaissance 

geologic map of the Bigfork–Avon environmental 

study areas, Flathead, Lewis and Clark, Missoula 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 305

and Powell counties, Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I–1380.

WolframAlpha Computational Knowledge Engine. 2011. WolframAlpha. [Internet]. <www

.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=missoula%2C+mt> 

[Date accessed unknown].

Woods, Alan J.; Omernik, James, M.; Nesser, John 

A.; Shelden, J.; Comstock, J.A.; Azevedo, Sandra H. 2002. Ecoregions of Montana, 2nd edition. Color poster with map, descriptive text, 

summary tables, and photographs. Map scale 

1:1,500,000. [Internet]. <www.epa.gov/wed

/pages/ecoregions/mt_eco.htm> [Date accessed 

unknown].

Wrubleski, DA. 2005. Chironomidae (diptera) responses to the experimental flooding of prairie 

marshes. [Place of publication unknown]: Wetlands. 25(1): 200–09.

Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. 

2009. [Internet]. <www.wildlands.org/programs

/corridors/pla> [Date accessed unknown].

Young, B.; Byers, E.; Gravuer, K.; Hall, K.; Hammerson, G.; Redder, A. 2010. Guidelines for 

using the NatureServe climate change vulnerability index. Arlington, VA: NatureServe. [Internet]. <www.natureserve.org/prodServices

/climatechange/ccvi.jsp> [Date accessed unknown].

Yuill, C.D.; Yuill, E.R. 1984. A centennial celebration of Great Falls. Great Falls, MT: Cascade 

County Historical Society. [Number of pages unknown].

Zedeno, M.N.; Murray, J.R. 2008. Blackfeet traditional land use assessment for selected localities and the Montana Alberta tie, LTD proposed 

transmission line. Prepared for Montana Alberta 

Tie, LTD. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. On 

file at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office, 

Spearfish, SD.

Zedeno, M.N.; Carroll, Alex; Miller, Samrat. 2008. 

Blackfeet traditional use study for Yellowstone 

National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and 

National Elk Refuge. Prepared for the Blackfeet 

Tribe, Browning, Montana. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. On file at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office, Spearfish, SD.

Zhang, Q.; Frankenberger, W.T. 2003. Removal of 

selenate in simulated agricultural drainage water 

by a rice straw bioreactor channel system. [Place 

of publication unknown]: Journal of Environmental Quality. 32(5):1650–57.

Zhang, Y.; Moore, J.N. 1997. Final report on biogeochemical cycling of selenium in Benton Lake, 

Montana. Report prepared for U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Missoula, MT: University of 

Montana. 228 p.

Zouhar, K.. 2003. Bromus tectorum. In: Fire effects 

information system. [Internet]. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). <www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/> accessed 

February 9, 2012.